SOUNDBITES — “San Francisco’s city attorney, Therese Stewart, examining Yale Prof. George Chauncey, seems to suggest pretty strongly that Catholics’ (and Baptists’!) views on marriage are illegitimate. Voters influenced by Professor Chauncey’s books have rights, but voters influenced by any of the great faith traditions are . . . haters and bigots. Maybe this is good constitutional law — but could you try any harder to confirm religious people’s fears about where gay marriage is heading? Remember, this is the official attorney for the city government that officially condemned the Catholic church and asked the sitting archbishop to defy church teaching. I don’t know how the state could get any more involved in the church than by telling church leaders to defy their own religion at its behest.” —NOM chief Maggie Gallagher, getting her licks in over Perry (via)
maggie gallagher
‘Could you try any harder to confirm religious people’s fears about where gay marriage is heading?’
Help make sure LGBTQ+ stories are being told...
We can't rely on mainstream media to tell our stories. That's why we don't lock Queerty articles behind a paywall. Will you support our mission with a contribution today?
Cancel anytime · Proudly LGBTQ+ owned and operated
terrwill
What ever happend to separation of church and state???
Fuck off and die you miserable old crunt………….
Michael
Politics has no place telling religions what they can or cannot believe. Conversely, religion has no place in politics. We’re not all bible thumpers. Some of us are buddhist, taoist, hindu, etc. and don’t share the same beliefs. Non one has the right to impose their religious dogma upon others.
a nonny mouse
Maggie can’t even get the facts right. Terry is not the city attorney. Dennis Herrera is.
AlanInSLCutah
@Michael: I agree.
However, there is one thing I find to be a truth in life…politics and religion will both be forced down peoples throats. This shouldn’t be the case, but it is.
Bruno
I still firmly believe that the more Gallagher & Brown repeat the mantra of “we’re falsely being labeled haters and bigots,” the more people realize they’re haters and bigots. If I were them, I’d stay away from that discourse as much as possible, but I won’t complain.
Attmay
@Bruno:
The louder they claim they’re not a bigot, the more likely they are one.
I can’t wait for the Supreme Court to rule on what does and does not constitute justifiable homicide.
bystander
So refusing to yield to maggie’s religious bigots by denying them the power to transfer their religious dogma into statute infringes on their religious freedom. I agree what a cunt.
But moreover, how weak is your faith, god, religion ect if they can’t survive without what is essentially government subsidies……
PopSnap
This is another reason why I love Olson and Boies. We no longer even have to address this nonsense, and instead can just ignore it like many of us have been all along. We have a court case headed to the Supreme Court complete with 2 of the best lawyers in the country for our defense, you bitch. What do you have, a glorified petition?
Steve
The bigots like to claim that they are the victims. They are like a mugger who beats a man to a pulp and kicks him in the face, and then complains that his toe is hurt, and claims it is the victims fault.
The bigots have a right to their own opinion, and to their own religious beliefs. They do not have a right to impose their religious beliefs upon other people. (I use the term “bigot” because it is the correct technical term to describe their efforts to impose their opinions and prejudices upon everyone else.)
And, of course, the claims about “traditional” marriage that Maggie Gallagher likes to recite, actually are wrong. They are factually wrong on the history, and on the sociology and the psychology.
Fortunately, a court of law is not a press conference. An Ivy league professor, who has researched a topic for 30+ years, and who has literally written the book on that subject, is accepted in court as an expert in that subject. A history professor testifies about the history. He has hundreds of articles and thousands of cites to back up his opinion.
And, finally, whatever Ms. Gallagher says in a press conference has absolutely no effect on the legal process, or on the decisions that will eventually come out of the case. The judges literally do not read newspapers or watch/listen to news on subjects that are likely to come before them.
glasshouses
Shocker here: Mags got it wrong.
The attorney was literally just reading the contentions each religious group and asking the good professor if these contentions fit her model of potential negative psychological and political effects. See http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/23817 starting with: C: Asked to read about homosexual relations being a grave sin….
Do shut up, dear Maggie. Your trite tripe is getting old.
FrancoisTrueFaux
WTF, Queerty? What’s with the auto-play video ads at the bottom of every webpage? Sneaky
Lukas P.
Sometimes it’s really best to just let the bigots speak uninterrupted & unfiltered. It goes against ever fibre of my being to do so, but I have learned the hard way that sometimes they dig their own icky grave with their own mumbo jumbo, and expose their true feelings. Ms Maggie and her ilk can only couch their true motivations for so long behind their carefully worded scripts and BAM they go off script for all to see. A good attorney or interviewer knows how to use this to her/his advantage. It requires steady nerves to withstand the urge to redirect or interrupt, but it’s a powerful tool.
That’s why the more overtly religious zealots (e.g. Tam) are kept away from some courtrooms, TV cameras, and audio recorders.
That’s why Olson & Co. have chosen their experts so carefully. They don’t want ulterior motives to come to the foreground, so they’ve been relying on experts whose testimony won’t be tainted by personal agendas and scary backstories. So far, at least.
1EqualityUSA
History will see Maggie Gallagher through a more enlightened lens. What an embarrassment for her that all of these words will still be around, long after she’s dead. We need to never let them forget just how ugly hatred is. Artists need to devote at least three pieces of work to this message, be they films, books, paintings, or poetry. We need to make it clear that legalizing homophobia is unacceptable and never become complacent. It’s disgusting. Robert P. George, of Princeton, needs to be held up too. He’s the brains behind this atrocity. They all make me sick. People get sucked into the wave of discrimination. Lemmings. I have to go to work, so that I can pay taxes to a country that discriminates against me. Thanks, Queerty. Thanks for providing a site that allows us all to communicate.
Robert, NYC
If religious cults persist in interfering in the political process, from donations to advocating their fellow cultists who to support, then why isn’t there a movement to remove their tax exempt status? I’m sure there are a lot of straights out there who would support such a move.
1EqualityUSA
#14, Robert, NYC, It has to be presented as detrimental to the Separation of Church and State. I would vote for this in a hot minute.
Brian NJ
The Catholic Church does not have call gay marriages “marriage,” and gay marriage does not effect their straight marriages in any negative way.
But that was not good enough for them. They have to come into the governmental realm and become political activists, to tell my government how to treat me, even when it does not EFFECT THEM IN ANY WAY. The U.S. Supreme Court will kick their ass out of the civic realm, where it belongs.
Maybe as they are licking their wounds, which never heal, by the way, they will study up on the history of this nation and what it means to be a good American.
Lukas P.
@RBTNYC:
Amen to that! This tax emption has been a longstanding beef of many progressives but there’s not enough muscle, brains, or firepower to defeat this Holy Grail of US tax policy. Even enforcement of the policy to weed out sham fronts for for-profit, non-religious organizations has been spotty at best.
2 examples of many: LDS contributions to Prop 8 and other anti-gay measures. The TV pastors of megachurches live high and mighty and dabble in int’l politics (e.g., Uganda) and their status goes unchallenged.
Lukas P.
Tax emption = exemption.
D’oh is me.
Robert, NYC
1EqualityUSA and Lukas P, we need to make a start somewhere no matter how it may be stacked. Somehow, some of us have to find a way to break the hold they have on politicians and the IRS. We can only do that if we start a movement and get as many straight allies on board as possible. These bastards have never faced any challenge and nobody in politics with any clout has had the courage and the guts to raise the issue. We have to make that happen, long before any election campaign starts. THe same goes for supporting the democratic party and the DNC. They need to be told that from November 2010, don’t expect to take our support for granted any longer, let them earn it by delivering the goods first, or else.
schlukitz
No. 13 · 1EqualityUSA
I have to go to work, so that I can pay taxes to a country that discriminates against me.
It sure sucks, doesn’t it?
That’s what the Boston Tea Party was all about. Taxation.
Without representation!
Robert, NYC
Sure does, Schlukitz. The religious cults get full representation without taxation. Gay people get no full representation with taxation. Unconstitutional and a violation of the 14th amendment. The constitution is the key to our full equality if there are enough decent politicians to go that extra mile and make sure that our fill rights are protected and upheld. Take mob rule for example, look how several states used that tactic to deny or take away our rights. Under the 14th amendment, even if they are the majority, our rights must be protected. In a democracy, you don’t take away rights, you expand them. Taking away rights is a slippery path to fascism which is what these state referenda are all about. Even more sinister is that it singles out one particular minority, no others, for all kinds of discrimination. Its what the nazis did to the jews, total disenfranchisement of an entire group of people, part of the dehumanization process. If the Dems can’t see that, then they don’t deserve our support be it in the voting booth or financial. That message needs to get out loud and clear.
James UK
Poor me, poor me, pour me another.
Or if you prefer (from Shakespeare, Hamlet Act III, scene II)
” The lady doth protest* too much, methinks”
*As in to vow, or to solemnly declare. Not as in to open her mouth, which of course is her inalienable consitutional right, of which we must never seek to deprive her. I mean, have you seen “the Bold and the Beautiful” lately?