Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
doma

Maggie Gallagher Decides Obama ‘Unilaterally Declared That Gay Is Like Black’

Because Maggie Gallagher is the nation’s expert on marriage discrimination, she appeared on Fox News this afternoon to take a swipe at Barack Obama’s decision to stop enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act, and Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to stop defending the law in court. “This is an end run on our normal constitutional process,” says Gallagher, “and we’re going to be seeing a lot more of this by President Obama now that he faces a Republican-dominated Congress. He’s not only refusing to defend the law, he has unilaterally declared that gay is like black — that orientation is now subjected to strict scrutiny.” You mean a class of people born with an immutable characteristic get to have their rights protected by one of the law’s most stringent barriers? Amazing! Snaps, of course, to Fox News’ for complaining only when DoJ doesn’t defend the laws it likes.

By:           Max Simon
On:           Feb 23, 2011
Tagged: , , , , , , ,
  • 31 Comments
    • TheRealAdam
      TheRealAdam

      She’s just trying to rile people up with the race comparison.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 3:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      Maggie,

      You say that your goal is to defend traditional marriage…so…

      1. Why do you not wear a wedding ring most of the time?
      2. Why are you and your husband never in the same location?
      3. Why have you had an abortion in the past but no children with your current husband…after all, marriage is to make babies.
      4. Why do you go by your maiden name?

      Feb 23, 2011 at 3:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kernelt
      kernelt

      I’m a very loving and compassionate, but to those ill character and bad influence on society would just diminish and no longer heard of…

      Feb 23, 2011 at 4:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Devon
      Devon

      It’s only been a few hours and Faux News is already losing it’s damn mind.

      Pass the popcorn please, this is gonna be good watchin’.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 4:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      Wow, Maggie and her cabal must be furious that they Did.Not.See.This.Happening.

      Nor did we, or at least I.

      @Devon: Here’s some cyber popcorn with herbed butter (rosemary & garlic): * ** * **. Yummy huh?

      Once I get done at work I plan on visiting NOM’s blog & a few others to rub the popcorn salt over their wòûñds.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 4:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JAW
      JAW

      Foxy and friends has it all wrong…. They are only NOT going to defend section 3 of the law… The law still stands.

      section 3 of the law was ruled unconstitutional by a Federal judge in Mass.

      the fight will go on

      Feb 23, 2011 at 4:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tjr101
      tjr101

      This is classic conservative strategy, pitting minority against minority. It didn’t work in the past and it will not work now. It sucks to be on the wrong side of history!

      Feb 23, 2011 at 5:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WindReader
      WindReader

      the administration unilaterally declared that gay is like human.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 6:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      I’m surprised that no one here pointed out that Maggie could have also said that gays are the new Mormons…because you know what?

      Religious folk (and atheists as well) and laws that would discriminate against them would be subject to strict scrutiny as well.

      Furthermore, Holder’s statement did not say what would be the standard of scrutiny that gays would be covered under.

      During the marriage cases in Iowa and Massachusetts, intermediate scrutiny was used (women are protected under that standard).

      In California, strict scrutiny was used…now what will be the applicable federal standard?

      Feb 23, 2011 at 6:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • like they say in Madison
      like they say in Madison

      FOX LIES! FOX LIES! FOX LIES! FOX LIES! FOX LIES! FOX LIES! FOX LIES!

      Feb 23, 2011 at 6:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ~PR~
      ~PR~

      quick. someone tell me: what is irrational bigotry? Is there such a thing as rational bigotry?

      Feb 23, 2011 at 6:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Codswallop
      Codswallop

      No, Mags, obese is the New Black and for once on your life you are cutting edge, gurl!

      Feb 23, 2011 at 6:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sparky
      Sparky

      @Cam….the answer to all of your questions is because she is fat slop of $hit

      Feb 23, 2011 at 7:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Zack
      Zack

      What a ridiculous thing to say Maggie. You know nothing about being black! biooooch!

      Feb 23, 2011 at 7:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alan brickman
      alan brickman

      she’s so munty…..

      Feb 23, 2011 at 7:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alan brickman
      alan brickman

      now you know people whi hate gays might just also be hateful towards african americans…

      Feb 23, 2011 at 7:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ceaser
      Ceaser

      @alan brickman: Very true..and most of them are. The proof is usually proudly displayed on this site.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 7:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kev C
      Kev C

      This video reminded me of Dr. Zoidberg woopwooping for 11 minutes.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 11:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      @Chitown Kev said, “In California, strict scrutiny was used…now what will be the applicable federal standard?”

      Even the decision by the 9th Federal District in Perry v. Schwarzenegger case was made on the basis of rational basis, not strict scrutiny. The key part of the decision that Walker wrote is, “Proposition 8 fails to possess even a rational basis”.

      Judge Walkers mention of strict scrutiny is dicta, not decision. He did write, “gays and lesbians are the type of minority strict scrutiny was designed to protect”, but he didn’t reach the application of strict scrutiny because prop-8 failed to pass rational basis.

      Feb 24, 2011 at 12:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @Steve:

      I wasn’t talking about Walker’s decision. I was talking about In Re. Marriage Cases,

      The California Supreme Court is, I believe, the only STATE court to have used strict scrutiny.

      Point being, federal courts can choose to use what state court decisions as precedents (just as Justice Kennedy has used a little international law)…whether the courts actually use previous decisions decided in state courts is another matter.

      Feb 24, 2011 at 6:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pip
      Pip

      I can just picture Maggie all sweaty with cheetos smeared around her skins, crying “GAY IS NOT LIKE BLACK! GAY IS NOT LIKE BLACK! NooooOOoo!”

      Feb 24, 2011 at 7:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pip
      Pip

      @Pip: around her chins*

      Feb 24, 2011 at 7:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sceth
      Sceth

      Correction: The DoJ will continue to enforce the law. They’ve just decided to stop defending it.

      Feb 24, 2011 at 10:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Ehrenstein
    • Shannon1981
      Shannon1981

      This woman makes me sick.

      Feb 24, 2011 at 2:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jay_max
      jay_max

      Well I’m going to unilaterally declare that Maggie is like stupid.

      Feb 24, 2011 at 2:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Maggie Gallagher
      Maggie Gallagher

      MOOOO! MOOOO! MOOOOOOOOOOOO!

      I am angry! MOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

      FETCH ME DONUTS! MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

      Feb 24, 2011 at 11:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      Maggie knows that with a string of defeats [e.g. DOMA, MD] her beloved NOM will no longer be getting the big dônatîons from her beloved homophobic spónsõrs.

      She failed at this effort like she did with her own marriage.

      Feb 25, 2011 at 1:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pete
      Pete

      @Steve:

      I bet Maggie’s husband wishes he used strict scrutiny on her before he got stuck in their marriage.

      Feb 26, 2011 at 11:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Thad Jackson
      Thad Jackson

      @Cam:

      I think I love you for that comment. haha

      Mar 2, 2011 at 11:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 2 · Cam wrote, “Maggie, You say that your goal is to defend traditional marriage…so…

      2. Why are you and your husband never in the same location?
      …”

      I can answer Question 2 by telling you a story of Middle Eastern origin. This character named Nasrudin gets married, never having seen his wife’s face before, and realizes that she is very ugly. She says, “tell me to whom I can show my face and to whom I must remain veiled.” Nasrudin replies, “show your face to anyone you like as long as you don’t show it to me.”

      Mar 4, 2011 at 2:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     


    POPULAR ON QUEERTY


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.