Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
correspondence

The Loving Christmas Eve Eve Exchange Between Maggie Gallagher and Jeremy Hooper

maggieemail1

In the red corner: Maggie Gallagher, head of the National Organization for Marriage, and “believer” in the strength of gay marriage. In the blue corner: Jeremy Hooper, the Good As You blogger, and Martha Stewart’s first gay wedding pick. May the Christmas holiday email tete-a-tete now commence, where phrases like “god bless you” and “Merry Christmas” get used as backhanded bitchslaps. It’s a piece of art, really, and you should read the whole thing here.

maggieemail2

By:           editor editor
On:           Dec 28, 2009
Tagged: , , , , ,
  • 69 Comments
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      Jeremey: Good FOR You! (as opposed to AS : P ) Goes to show
      that once you back someone like Maggot Gallagher into a
      corner and she gets involved with an actual dialouge with an
      intelligent informed person instead of her lunatic lemming
      minions she has NOTHING! The fire and brimstone these haters
      predict once the Gays are allowed to marry never seems to
      materialize. All this issue is for her and ill ilk is a
      tremendous fund raising tool……..Hateful pathetic bitch…

      Dec 28, 2009 at 10:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Q
      Q

      does she not have spell check? for not writing a lot back, she sure has a lot of typos.

      Dec 28, 2009 at 10:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"
      Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"

      I completely respect Jeremy Hooper and his modern linguistic version of Gandhi’s campaign of fighting with non-violence. That battle for equality of civil rights for the LGBT community requires multiple approaches.

      But, while there is a certain strength fighting bigotry with non-violence, giving love and respect while being denied that same love and respect, Gandhi’s victory also cost the lives of thousands upon thousands who were beaten to death in the process. So, while Jeremy continues his fight as he moves forward the campaign of equality for all, and VERY effectively considering the exposure gained through the Martha Stewart magazine coverage, other need to continue their battles too.

      Hitler never would have capitulated to non-violent “love and respect” and Maggot Gallagher won’t either. Despite her false claims of coming from love, Jeremy shows how hollow Maggot’s words are. If were up to Maggot and her wingnut minions, all LGBT would be rounded up for concentration camps. And to those who think I am exaggerating way off base, well for those of us who have been HIV+ since the beginning of the HIV/AIDS crisis, we read with horror and fear proposals coming from wingnut legislators to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, ideas about rounding up all those carrying the HIV virus.

      Jeremy continue your fine work; and the rest us of, continue our battles too!

      Dec 28, 2009 at 11:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @ Mike in Asheville, nee “in Brooklyn”

      “Jeremy continue your fine work; and the rest us of, continue our battles too!”

      Er, who says you should only fight one battle with one kind of skill?? Come on! The US are kings of waging battles!

      Use as many different tactics as possible dude come on! If you only
      use one, you want win will ya?

      We need Martin Luther Kings as much as we need the Malcolm X types…

      Dec 28, 2009 at 12:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"
      Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"

      @No. 4 John from England:

      Uhmmm, did you read my post?

      I congratulate Jeremy for his work, and I urge all others to fight this battle in their own ways too. Then, I compare Maggot Gallagher to Hitler; I remind all that Gandhi’s non-violence was one-sided that cost tens-of-thousands of Gandhi’s followers their lives. And then I end by calling all to fight this as their own battle their own ways.

      It wasn’t all that long ago, early-mid 1990’s that I was buying a full table at HRC dinners AND contributing and joining ACT-UP protests, like closing the Golden Gate Bridge. So, yes, everyone, battle on!

      Dec 28, 2009 at 1:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • REBELComx
      REBELComx

      I agree with you both, Mike and John…
      But unfortunately, we have neither an MLK Jr. or a Malcom X.
      I’m concerned that it won’t be long before we need a Guy Fawkes.

      Dec 28, 2009 at 2:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @ REBELComx

      I don’t think it will ever happen because there is no movement per se and it’s too disparate.

      Too many different races, classes, religions and political beliefs.

      Never gonna happen.

      Also, a lot of gays just don’t care and many wish they were straight. They just see being gay as an unfortunate blip but something they get on with but doesn’t mean they have to be proud.

      I think this is what many liberal gays fail to grasp..

      Dec 28, 2009 at 2:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • naghanenu
      naghanenu

      Are u guys kidding me? Maggie was not even bothering herself. Jeremy was the one who was getting worked up.

      Why are you baiting her? Are u trying to expose her as hateful? Dont bother. She did not come off as hateful here. She did not even come off as someone who was concerned. I fail to understand the point of this. Nothing was achieved. But im sure Jeremy was pleased….or not?

      Why is this the level to stoop to? Concentrate on doing more concrete news worthy stuff. Like how to trump the Washington bus ads.

      Dec 28, 2009 at 3:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeremy
      Jeremy

      NaGhanenu: Why is “getting worked up” your standard of judgement here? Yes, I was passionate (though not angry), because I have passion about these issues. And yes, Maggie conveys her views through a remarkably emotionless veil. But that’s not what matters. What matters is that her views are baseless, and when I call her on them, she cannot defend them. To me, bringing this stuff to light is very handy.

      As for her not being “hateful”: Call it what you want, but to me, her suggestion that she’d legally divorce me if given the chance is, both hurtful and revelatory.

      Was I pleased? Was I not? I wasn’t really either. It was what it was: One more step in the continuing conversation that makes up this “culture war.” I will engage anyone, anywhere, anytime, in (most) any forum. This was one more opp. In what way is this a “level to stoop to”?!

      And as for the bus ads quip: Completely baseless, considering both G-A-Y and Queerty covered the bud story this morning. Again, this one Maggie conversation is simply one post: One of the thousands that I wrote in 2009.

      Dec 28, 2009 at 3:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      When you read the full exchange, it looks like this Maggie character was skimming the email and replying to what she imagined, not realizing that she was talking to a writer who probably had a deadline.

      Maggie probably did not realize that email is protected by copyright law and that one of her replies seemed to have given permission to publish it. So, she really shot herself in the foot three times – by not proofreading, by showing poor reading comprehension, and by not having enough sense to tell the writer that he did not have permission to publish her email (Hooper wrote in one message that he considered the exchange “on the record” since she did not explicitly say otherwise and Maggie replied by saying “do what you think is right,” but what one thinks is right is not necessarily what the law allows, so that response essentially gave permission to publish the full thing.)

      Dec 28, 2009 at 3:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • naghanenu
      naghanenu

      Oh hi Jeremy,

      I dont mean to upset you but really what was the point?

      You are married. Congrats btw. My girl friend and i were admiring your place settings. You know well that Maggie is not on your side and will never be soo again what was the point? It was more like “okay, im bored today, why not poke Maggie’s bonnet and wait to see if she plays into my hands”…

      Oh and of course she wants to repeal marriage in Connecticut. Isnt that point of NOM?

      My point is instead of wasting your time and engaging a well known and documented anti gay marriage advocate for whatever reason. Why not do something more engaging and beneficial to the gay cause. Hmm?

      Dec 28, 2009 at 3:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeremy
      Jeremy

      naghanenu: You didn’t upset me. Just like I wasn’t really “getting worked up” in the exchange. Don’t project so much emotion onto e-text ;-)

      I think I answered your criticisms in the previous comment: This was just one of many, many, MANY G-A-Y posts. You may find it a waste, but many others do not. Regardless, it’s just silly to single out one part of a sum and say how fully it engages/benefits the cause. Hopefully it’s the full body of work that matters.

      Engaging these people is a big part of what I do. Fairly but firmly.

      Dec 28, 2009 at 4:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @ naghanenu

      Wow.

      Like what Naghanenu?

      What should we ALL do?

      “Why not do something more engaging and beneficial to the gay cause.”

      Again, please tell us kind sir oh mighty one, what shall we do? I guess you are gracing your wonderful intellectual opinion here because you care about human rights….?

      So come on?

      Dec 28, 2009 at 4:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @ Mike in Asheville, nee “in Brooklyn”

      I did read your post but I just didn’t understand why you went on about Ghandi, who is great but it seemed to me like you possibly felt Jeremy’s methods were not ‘peaceful’ like Ghandi’s…which is why you mentioned him in a sense to ….remind us…that there is a different way to make and get action.

      If I got that wrong, I apologise.

      But your second post, seems like me and what I think. We live in an eco-system and each way of making waves or progress is needed in a campaign.

      But we forget that..on purpose? Prolly. Everything should be done MY WAY. Like @ naghanehu, who’s really totalitarian and absolute in his way of thinking.

      ‘My way is right. You are wrong and stupid. Why do you bother? Do what I do. Or do nothing’

      Dec 28, 2009 at 4:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • naghanenu
      naghanenu

      @ John,

      Honestly i dont know. But baiting a hater is no better than trolling.

      Dec 28, 2009 at 4:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeremy
      Jeremy

      Naganenu:”Baiting a hater”? “trolling”? Seriously?

      I think maybe you’re not aware of what I do. These kinds of conversations are at the center of both my and Maggie’s work. I chat with several members of our opposition on an almost daily basis. There is no “baiting” or “trolling” on either side — all of us signed up for this so-called “culture war.”

      That’s why I’m a little confused about why you’re so focused on the fact that the exchange happened rather than the content. I don’t think Maggie is upset that the exchange happened. In fact, she seems to have welcomed it.

      Dec 28, 2009 at 4:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      What you guys are not seeing is that Maggot usually is spewing her vile poo to adoring masses who cheer her on. She is fawned over by Yawn Hannity, Michael (don’t call my by my real last jewish name) Savage et all. Jeremey called her out and asked her to give valid reasons why she would deny he and his lover nothing more than happiness together they seek . She came up blank and then suddenly became “Maggie Sunshine” wishing them “happy holidays” Those of you who read my posts on these threads know that I usually am pretty stingy on the sugar coating of my rants sometimes towards Maggot and her ilk. Jeremey was civil with her and she proved that there is no legitimate reason to oppose any type of Gay unions. There have been thousands of Gay marriages in this country in recent years and I haven’t seen any little boys pulling their sandbox mates down a chalk drawn aisle trying to force them into a Gay marriage
      nor have I seen any states where the Gays can marry spontaniously implode as soon as two Gays uttered “I do”. Their argument is based only on hate and they avoid debate on it because as the email thread with Jeremey proved she has nothing to argue with, she can only spew empty hatred from her vile mouth………….

      Dec 28, 2009 at 5:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 16, Jeremy wrote, “Naganenu:’Baiting a hater’? ‘trolling’? Seriously?” … Jeremy obviously tricked Maggie to get material for an article: if Maggie had said nothing in response to Jeremy’s statement that he considered the exchange to be “on the record”( http://www.goodasyou.org/.a/6a00d8341c503453ef0120a77775da970b-pi ), then Jeremy would have not been able to publish the email legally. Being “on the record” does not circumvent copyright laws – it simply means you can attribute what was said to a particular individual, typically paraphrasing or describing it.

      I.e., if someone sends you a letter, you can tell people what was in it, but you can’t legally xerox it to make 1000 copies and post those all around town without first getting permission.

      Dec 28, 2009 at 5:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeremy
      Jeremy

      “Jeremy obviously tricked Maggie to get material for an article”

      B: That is simply untrue. I have conversations like this all the time, with various folks on the “other side.” They write me, I write them. This one just happened to be newsworthy, in my estimation, so I made sure that Maggie had no problem with its posting.

      You are right that if she had said no, there would have been no post. I always ask as much of my opposition, with a simple “not for posting” being enough to kill the piece. this does happen from time to time, with some of the juicier posts nixed because of it. But for the most part, that’s not the case.

      I think you’re reading a little too much into the copyright merits here. I honestly don’t think Maggie cares at all about going public with her words, and I suspect that in this day and age, she considers just about anything she says to be on record (as I certainly do).

      Dec 28, 2009 at 5:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @ B

      Do you work in copyright?

      It’s big to my business. Do you have a site of your expertise? Beacuse there has been NO VIOLATION in terms of legality of making “1000 copies” as you claim.

      Hopefully people aren’t dumb enough to listen to you but who knows in Queerty??! You guys make up your own weird rules.

      But FYI, in the UK, we are going through the ‘Digital Bill’ that wants to completely change the laws of copyrighting and laws on the internet.

      Mandelson started this after a meeting with Geffen a few other internation honchos.

      Bottom line is, for now, YOU don’t have a ‘leg to stand on’, as we say in the UK.

      Rule of Copyright.

      If said person printed out the letter/email and sent to themselves before the date it was sent and than sent it to said person with a (C), than laws have have been broken.

      If not, than no laws have been broken.

      B, what is your story?

      Are you a human rights activist? Against slavery? Domestic Violence abuse?

      Dec 28, 2009 at 5:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeremy
      Jeremy

      It’s weird to me that this has even turned into a conversation about copyright. For that to be an issue of concern, one party has to feel they have been wronged. Maggie doesn’t feel this way.

      Dec 28, 2009 at 5:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      No. 21 · Jeremy: There are some posters on these threads whom will argue inane points and make some silly accusations. That is one of the issues one encounters on a site where you are free to post as you see fit. David has created a community where you see some vivid conversations and makes for great theatre because of that. I have taken cyber strolls to many other sites and have not found the active banter such as you find here. I actually posted at your site once upon a time, and saying nothing negative my post was censored so I vowed that would be my first and very last. That being said, I think the majority appreciate your efforts to engage the frightwing-nutbags who it seems main goal is to deny us the same rights they enjoy. I think you made a great point in your banter with Maggot, she has NO valid argument when she is against an intelligent informed foe. I am tempted to use the “emperor has no clothes” analogy, but I tend to not want even conjur an image of her with no clothes : P

      Dec 28, 2009 at 6:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FakeName
      FakeName

      Beacuse there has been NO VIOLATION in terms of legality of making “1000 copies” as you claim.

      Really? So I can publish letters that someone else wrote but never distributed or otherwise published beyond the original recipient and it’s OK under United States copyright law?*

      * This is a trick question.

      Dec 28, 2009 at 6:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeremy
      Jeremy

      “I actually posted at your site once upon a time, and saying nothing negative my post was censored so I vowed that would be my first and very last.”

      Other than on like 3 isolated occasions, G-A-Y has never banned a comment. Never. Every single comment is moderated so that I can have the opp. to read them all (which I do, believe it or not) and then respond. This is because I like to engage (as you can see from this thread). But every comment is approved, regardless of content.

      So if this did happen, it was an accident, not a choice.

      Dec 28, 2009 at 6:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @ 21

      Exactly….

      Dec 28, 2009 at 6:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeremy
      Jeremy

      TerrWill: I show two comments from you, both approved. One on this thread:

      http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2009/11/lessons-from-a-solid-campaign.html

      And one on my wedding thread:

      http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2009/07/61309/comments/page/3/#comments

      Dec 28, 2009 at 6:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @ FakeName

      Yes you can!

      Dec 28, 2009 at 6:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      Jeremy: Kudos on the rapid research…….I didn’t even recall the first post. However on the wedding thread, I am 100% certain that what I typed was not posted in full. I think maybe I took some shots at the haters who were spewing poo towards your marriage. Perhaps you didn’t want to encourage further negative posting towards a thread which clearly meant a lot to you. No matter, bygones………

      You are still aces to me for going mano agan mano (yes in this case that term is appropriate) against the newly minted “Maggie Sunshine” and proving what an empty windbag she is……………

      Dec 28, 2009 at 6:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 20 · John from England(used to be just John but there are other John’s) wrote, “@ B Do you work in copyright? It’s big to my business. Do you have a site of your expertise? Beacuse there has been NO VIOLATION in terms of legality of making ‘1000 copies’ as you claim.” … It was about distributing 1000 copies, but aside from that, try

      http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=jep;view=text;rgn=main;idno=3336451.0005.105

      http://www.netmanners.com/email-etiquette/online-copyright-myths/ :”E-mail is a written work that once created is copyright protected by the author. This means you cannot post publicly an e-mail sent to you privately.”

      http://www.johnbetts-fineminerals.com/jhbnyc/articles/copyrigh.htm

      http://www.griffith.edu.au/ins/copyright/content_email_and_copyright.html

      http://www.businessemailetiquette.com/e-mail-web-copyright/

      Dec 28, 2009 at 7:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 21 · Jeremy wrote, “It’s weird to me that this has even turned into a conversation about copyright. For that to be an issue of concern, one party has to feel they have been wronged. Maggie doesn’t feel this way.”

      Maggie might “feel this way” if she realized how many spelling mistakes there are in that email! It may not be an “issue” in the sense that she’d take you to court over it because, as as I pointed out, her email might be interpreted as giving you permission (grudgingly, given her wording). Whether intentionally or not, you managed to trick her into giving you vaguely worded permission to publish it.

      I pointed it out because the tactics you used in dealing with her were rather amusing, although I wouldn’t do that for ethical reasons (but then, I’m not an author with deadlines or similar constraints involving keeping publishers happy).

      Dec 28, 2009 at 7:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FakeName
      FakeName

      John from England (who knows as much about US copyright law as he does the proper use of apostrophes): @ FakeName

      Yes you can!

      Oh, sorry, no, in fact the contents of the letter is the copyrighted property of the letter-writer and may not be published or redistributed without the permission of the copyright holder. The exception to this is known as “fair use”, which allows for the publication of copyrighted content subject to legal restrictions.

      Dec 28, 2009 at 7:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @ fakename

      You right.

      I’m wrong.

      Prove it.

      I always admit I’m wrong, life is too shrt to be weirdly petty with a bunch of negative strangers.

      So go on…

      Dec 28, 2009 at 7:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      No. 30 · B: Are you just visiting this planet for the Holidays??

      Dec 28, 2009 at 7:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @ B

      I’ve been speaking to you!!

      Answer me if you aint a weird subjective nutter! Please??

      Dec 28, 2009 at 7:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 19 · Jeremy wrote, “This one just happened to be newsworthy, in my estimation, so I made sure that Maggie had no problem with its posting.”

      I was commenting on the email exchange that QUEERTY linked to, which may not contain everything. When you wrote that you considered it to be “on the record”, you set expectations that you were going to publish something. You didn’t ask in the email shown, “Can I put up copies of these emails, spelling mistakes and all, on a web site for everyone to look at.” So, Maggie could have assumed you would describe the conversation, not show her lack of proofreading to the world.

      Not that I have much sympathy for Maggie.

      Dec 28, 2009 at 7:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @ B

      Saw your above post.

      You obv care about this more than Maggie.

      Good luck with your court case. I’ve been there done that but even with more important stuff-it never washed but I’m intrigued in the court case for a stranger you don’t know and what will come of it.

      Get Queerty to at least cover it?

      Because why would you spend you spare time doing what you’re doing without following it through?

      Waiting.

      Dec 28, 2009 at 7:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @ B

      “Not that I have much sympathy for Maggie.”

      But…..let her go on with runining people’s lives??? And stick up for her, like Hitler?

      Nice.

      Dec 28, 2009 at 8:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FakeName
      FakeName

      John from England (a land proud in its refusal to use proper punctuation!) says: @ fakename

      You right.

      I’m wrong.

      Prove it.

      Oh well, let me Google for four seconds and bring you a news story discussing when this was decided: http://partners.nytimes.com/books/98/09/13/specials/salinger-blocked.html

      “In the subsequent decision by the appeals court, Judge Newman noted that ”the author of letters is entitled to a copyright in the letters, as with any other work of literary authorship.””

      Give me a couple of minutes and I’ll get you a case citation.

      Dec 28, 2009 at 8:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @ fakename

      You didn’t google it for 4 secs, don’t be a prick but I’m grateful! I’ve done my MBA and looking to develop a business that is seeped in (c) issues but wow, you guys in the US have it soooooo different to us here…

      Dec 28, 2009 at 8:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FakeName
      FakeName

      The case is Salinger v. Random House, Inc. 811 F.2d 90

      http://www.studentweb.law.ttu.edu/Cochran/Cases%20&%20Readings/Copyright-UNT/salinger.htm

      Dec 28, 2009 at 8:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      John and Fakename, simmer down guys! I am fairly certain “B” returned to his home planet………….

      Dec 28, 2009 at 8:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      Also, fakename, B etc..

      What’s your deal? You are obv really upset about people like Maggie G being wronged despite the fact she despises gays. So Why don’t you go to you IP people in the states? Sorry Jeremy! But really, do it.

      It’ll make you both feel really good and nice about who you are, have helped and support.

      Dec 28, 2009 at 8:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @ Terrwill

      lol.

      Dec 28, 2009 at 8:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FakeName
      FakeName

      John From England (long may she wave) sez: You are obv really upset about people like Maggie G being wronged despite the fact she despises gays.

      Er, I have said nothing that may reasonably be interpreted as being upset about Maggie G’s possible hurt feelings. I was discussing an error made about copyright law and matched snark for snark.

      Dec 28, 2009 at 10:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb
      Caleb

      I don’t see anything wrong with Jeremy engaging her, but I fail to see what is at all interesting about this. She has said absolutely nothing here that she hasn’t said every single time I have ever seen her speak.

      The only thing illuminating here is her inability to spellcheck, as others have pointed out. Otherwise, this fails to be interesting. No argument made by Jeremy is new and has time and again been addressed by Maggie.

      We need to start listening to her and her arguments and finding ways to counter them rather than continue to tell her she’s mean and wrong. That isn’t very effective. I’ve seen her countered in forums and it is only when someone points out many of the gaps in logic that her arguments have that she seems vulnerable. Finger shaking and scolding isn’t effective.

      Dec 28, 2009 at 11:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb
      Caleb

      Though I do congratulate Jeremy on the Martha spread – the wedding looked wonderful. Have faith – CT gay marriage is going nowhere.

      Dec 28, 2009 at 11:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • naghanenu
      naghanenu

      On a final note, this was still a waste of time. I still think it was baiting. You went to her to talk to her about stuff we already know about. Nothing was meant to be achieved which is tiring and inane. You were hoping she would say something thunderous and super hateful and she did not. Just the same stuff, we all know about. Think about it, Maggie will probably never do the same thing to your side.

      Dec 29, 2009 at 12:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 42 · John from England(used to be just John but there are other John’s) wrote, “Also, fakename, B etc.. What’s your deal? You are obv really upset about people like Maggie G being wronged despite the fact she despises gays.”

      Might I suggest that you get some professional help for your emotional problems and hallucinations about what various of us said or think?

      If you would go back and read my comments carefully, I was merely pointing out how Jeremy (whether intentionally or not) had manipulated Maggie into vaguely giving permission to distribute the email, spelling mistakes and all – enough for “plausible deniability” if Maggie squawked and tried to invoke copyright laws.

      How you get someone to give you permission to make one look illiterate is something casual observers just might be interested in learning – its an indication of how activists of any persuasion operate, and that is far more interesting than Maggie’s rantings or exchanges with Jeremy.

      You raised some objections as to the facts, so some of us explained copyright law to you. And none of us threatened to sue anyone (your claim about a “court case” is a complete fabrication on your part, which makes you a liar). And you showed delusions of grandeur by saying, “I’ve been speaking to you!! Answer me if you aint a weird subjective nutter! Please??” Did it ever occur to you that some of us don’t read QUEERTY 24 hours a day? Do you actually think you are important enough for any of us to take you seriously? Get real.

      Dec 29, 2009 at 12:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      Arrrggguuuhhhhhh………

      “The faster we go the rounder we get”- The Grateful Dead

      Here is a summary of this circular logic thread:

      > Maggot Gallagher has proven that she basically has no argument when she is not spewing her vile poo in front of her lemming minions. Jeremey put forth an argument which includes intelligence and reason which almost caused her head to explode.
      > This issue has proven to be one of the frighwing-nutbag lunatics greatest fund raising tools to date. They spew their hatred and paint a picture of little boys marrying each other in the playgrounds and fire and brimstone following each Gay “I do” and the funds keep on rolling in.
      > Our community needs to show the masses what effect the Gays getting married has on other members of the communities and their families: Absolutley nothing. Expose their cause as nothing more than what it is, fear mongering and casting hate.
      > Get ready for round number…(I have lost count) because they are targeting Iowa demanding the issue be put forth on a voter referendum. Fortunately the Iowa constitution states that the issue can only be decided by the legislature, and the same legislature passed the law so hopefully they will not cave to pressure and change course……………
      > “B” your missed the last space ship to your home planet, Jeremey did not in any way “manipulate Maggie” And I will forever hate you for letting an image of Maggie actually being manipulated briefley enter my mind……….

      Dec 29, 2009 at 9:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @ B

      Like you I’m not on here 24 hours…which is why you will see that I missed the post you put above as I was…erm somewhere else.

      Instead of freaking out, why don’t YOU explain why it is so important to you to defend Maggie? Why?

      It’s like me going on a black civil rights website and arguing to defend the rights of, erm, Sean Hannity or another right-wing nut job who is monumental in taking rights away from blacks in a weird obsessive way through money.

      I don’t think Maggie cares for your support but lucky her! She must be laughing at the embarressing state of gay rights in this country because not only could you all not even organise a ‘piss up in a brewery’ as we say in the UK but lol, some of you spend your time supporting and arguing her side on GAY websites!!??

      Wow. Just Wow. And all about good ol copyright. Well, lets hope our sweet ol lady is reading this because I’m sure non of her fellow Conservative wing nut friends even thought of coming up with something as 21st century as copyright issues to use AGAIN against gay people to get them to shut up, put up and back off.

      Stop complaining. Get back to were you belong.

      Indeed.

      @ fakename

      Fair enough. You were being V Queerty and Gawkery with the snark. At least you’re simply an equal opp snark. Everyone gets it. Cool.

      @ Terrwill

      Damn, you shouldn’t even have to explain this!!?

      Wasn’t it The Doors that sang “People are strange…”

      Dec 29, 2009 at 11:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Clark
      Clark

      Countdown to January 11, 2010 (that’s two weeks from yesterday), when Maggie, Brian, and all the rest will begin to see their world crashing around them in the federal courtroom of Chief Judge Walker in San Francisco. Maggie had better get some snacks for her stress eating episodes.

      Dec 29, 2009 at 1:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      I wonder if this idiot Gallagher believes in banning divorce? Maybe Jeremy should ask her and if she says she doesn’t, then maybe that’s something we could use as a weapon against her and her apparent bigotry and hypocrisy. Pin it on her and make it stick so she’ll piss off enough straights to take her on. What else do we have to lose?

      Dec 29, 2009 at 1:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Dear Naghanenu,
      Post #11 did not sound as though it was written by a man. The colloquialism and sentence structure smacks of a female, middle aged, perhaps the head of NOM. This isn’t the first time this subject of your writing and subtle content has come up. We didn’t just fall off of turnip trucks. Gays use both sides of their brains, remember….It’s, you know, one of those “choice” things. Disingenuous is a word that comes up often. Either you have split a personality or you are a somewhat infamous figure, writing under a pseudonym.

      Dec 29, 2009 at 2:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @ 1EqualityUSA

      Lol.

      Although I don’t think it’s HER.

      I have been suspicious but as in so much that it’s a straight (as he’s said) black guy with a girlfriend who is very conservative but posts on a gay website.

      Dec 29, 2009 at 2:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      They’re not so straight if they’re frequenting gay blogsites. No well adjusted, secure straight would even bother. They’re mostly all losers, period. Responding to them directly only provides them with a captive audience, they thrive on it. Just ignore them and you’ll deprive them of enough oxygen to waste any more time here. Of course, the cowards at Queerty could resolve it by banning them but chooses not to, thereby helping enable and abetting them. Kind of sick in a way.

      Dec 29, 2009 at 2:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 50 · John from England(used to be just John but there are other John’s) wrote, “B Instead of freaking out, why don’t YOU explain why it is so important to you to defend Maggie? Why?”

      Talk about being deluded, not to mention a classic case of projection! I never defended Maggie at all. Rather, I pointed out how Jeremy had gotten her to provide vaguely worded permission to display her typo-ridden email, which would have been illegal (copyright infringement) for Jeremy to do without permission from her. It basically showed how he had made a fool out of her (whether intentionally or not).

      Did I say that she was right? Nope. All I said was that she would not have been pleased at having her numerous misspellings in a private email displayed publicly, and that’s true of anyone.

      Imagine her using her computer at home, a three year old is screaming “Mommy, mommy, look at me,” her husband is watching American football with the volume turned up too high, and just maybe she had had one or two too many eggnogs of an alcoholic nature and throw in being a lousy typist for good measure. If you were answering email under those conditions, would you want your typos displayed publicly? Probably not.

      And when you said, “Like you I’m not on here 24 hours…which is why you will see that I missed the post you put above as I was…erm somewhere else,” that was really funny – you had just complained that I wasn’t responding instantly to your musings, as if I had any obligation to do that regardless. You really need some professional help if you think any of us are at your beck and call.

      Dec 29, 2009 at 2:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mark
      mark

      jeremy you are WAY more polite and kind to that SUNT then I could ever be

      Dec 29, 2009 at 3:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @ B

      Imagine I’m the most crazy delude person in the world and yes YOU are so right.

      WHY DO YOU CARE?

      I CARE….because as a gay person I believe in equality and someone not erm, trying to prevent that when I have done nothing to them. Furthermore, as Human Right activist, it upsets that peoples rights are being taken away. Simple. I’m an open book.

      Now YOU.

      Why has this impassioned you soo much that as a gay guy you would rather argue with your fellow gay brothers about a woman who is spending her hard earned cash and energy to stop us simply being married?

      What would you do to help our cause? You obviously care because you answered.

      What would you do?

      We could all learn from you and you could lead us to acceptance and equality in society towards the minority in our world.

      Dec 29, 2009 at 4:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeremy
      Jeremy

      Geez, you all are still having a copyright discussion?

      Okay, hopefully I can nip this in the bud: I have had a separate conversation with Maggie. She 100% grants me permission to use any of her words, typos and all. I grant the same with anyone with whom I correspond. In this new day and age, and in this “culture war,” I have no expectation of privacy. Maggie has expressed the same general feelings.

      B: You seem hellbent on proving that there would be a copyright violation had we not had that one brief exchange. That would be like saying I would be stealing 20 dollars, whether I took the case out of my husband’s wallet or a stranger’s. Meaning: The other party has to care in order for there to be any kind of violation!

      There are some anti-gay personalities who absolutely do care. I chat with one prominent guy who writes “NOT FOR PUBLICATION” at the top of every email. But most do not. Again: We enter this sort of thing because we want our words to be public. I want Maggie and company to use ANY and ALL of my words because I believe in them to the letter (baring typos). And in fact, in my separate conversation with Maggie, she said that she would not have ever requested I refrain from publishing the letters, because that would have implied that she has something to hide. She doesn’t. I don’t.

      So please, stop the silly copyright discussion. I do this kind of thing all the time, and I always follow the proper channels. It’s annoying to have to “defend” a non-situation.

      Dec 29, 2009 at 4:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Dear Jeremy, From what I get out of the posts of B is that he wants to flesh out the picture. To me that’s an empathetic, inquisitive mind, trying to understand, fully, the “culture war”. This is a complex issue which requires all aspects to be open for discussion. It hammers out the flaws. I’m all for all discussion related to communication, representation of our community, and strategy. It might have felt as though it was an attack. Given how raw this story is and that you are instrumental in making this story come to life, perhaps, what’s the word, defensiveness has oozed in. Forget ego, we are all trying to understand; for this, B is helpful.

      Dec 29, 2009 at 5:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Jeremy, you missed the point when you wrote, “B: You seem hellbent on proving that there would be a copyright violation had we not had that one brief exchange. That would be like saying I would be stealing 20 dollars, whether I took the case out of my husband’s wallet or a stranger’s. Meaning: The other party has to care in order for there to be any kind of violation!”

      That argument is like saying you are not speeding by driving 3 mph over the speed limit because the police normally don’t give out tickets for that. The other party doesn’t have to care for there to be a violation. Rather, it’s that other party has to care to take you to court and has to have the ability to do that. It is not necessary to put a copyright notice or “not for publication” on an email for copyright laws to apply (you used to need a notice in the U.S. but that rule was changed to match what every other country does). Lawyers like those notices merely because damages are usually higher if infringement is willful, not accidental, so large organizations use them and others just play follow the leader without thinking about it.

      Now, I wasn’t criticizing you so much as laughing at Maggie, who should have known better (and it was the typos, not the content, that I thought she would want to keep private). Of course, even without vague permission to distribute it, Maggie could not in practice sue for infringement – that would be news and the news would result in many more people rolling their eyes at her lack of proofreading and poor spelling, including her supporters. She’d lose a lot more than she could ever gain, and a court would award only a token amount for that sort of violation anyway.

      If you want to claim that she is happy about it, however, why don’t you get her to post a message here with a link to her web site where she’d say that she was happy with you showing the email, especially all the typos and misspellings (the link is needed because anyone can put any user name they want on a QUEERTY comment, so a link to her own web site makes the statement more credible).

      Dec 29, 2009 at 6:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      She’s an odd ball. I wouldn’t put it past her to piddle away time under the auspices of “research”, participating in the banter via pseudonym. She is paid handsomely to be a figurehead. She might even be a tad bored with her NOM-skull-mission-position. Playing cat-and-mouse with the Queerty-crew is fun and it helps one understand their enemy or empathize with them. What’s more entertaining than a pack of opinionated queers? I could see her responding to attacks, supporting her image, and flattering the unfounded precepts of NOM. Unguarded email banter is risky. I say she was buzzed, alone and buzzed. Is NOM’s notable less resolute than they? She’s likely a horrible poker player. A horrible winner and a horrible loser.

      “When children learn to count they naturally add and multiply. Subtraction and devision are harder to teach them, perhaps because reducing the world is an adult skill.” —Jeanette Winterson, Gut Symmetries

      Dec 29, 2009 at 7:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      “division”, to quote her book exactly.

      Dec 29, 2009 at 7:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @ B

      I’m on your side re story. So what gives?

      Why are you doing this?

      How can you tell Maggie will be happy?

      Dec 29, 2009 at 7:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JeffreyRO5
      JeffreyRO5

      Maggie Gallagher is an amazingly evil person. On the one hand, she is an expert on the benefits of marriage: better health, longer life, greater wealth and more favorable outcomes for the children of married couples, compared to unmarried couples. And yet she is willing to earn a six-figure income advocating that gay couples NOT be allowed to marry! What sort of monster would do this, advocate a public policy position that hurts children?!

      Dec 30, 2009 at 8:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      inclusive-exclusive. binary stars; what an unwelcome companion.

      Dec 30, 2009 at 9:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      JeffreyRO5, that’s the point. Gallagher and her hate organization NOM claim they are pro-family, yet they totally ignore the fact that many gay and lesbian people have children, some from previous straight marriages, some who are adopted. Denying marriage equality is denying the protection to the children too, in fact, it harms them. They would rather have children placed in straight abusive foster homes than allow gay couples to adopt. Foster homes don’t guarantee a child’s safety, in fact there have been incidences in which the child has been physically or sexually abused (by straights of course). How do they respond to straight parents who don’t raise their children to respect others, tomorrow’s criminals perhaps? Our jails are overwhelmingly filled with straight criminals, the products of straight breeders of course, so they’re argument about one mother and one father doesn’t hold any water as it once did.

      Dec 31, 2009 at 8:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      NOM-skulls must consider these children of gays collateral damage. One set of Americans want to exclude another set of Americans. The politicians are too weak-kneed to stand up to it. Blind justice might be peeking out from under her bandana.

      Dec 31, 2009 at 8:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PopSnap
      PopSnap

      We simply cannot “out-logic” or “point out logical gaps” in Maggie’s and the “protect marriage” folks’ arguments. Why? They dont care, and anybody with half a brain either doesn’t give a shit about gay marriage or will support it outright. The anti-gay crowd, however, doesnt care about logic. They are appealing to rural, redneck, and super-religious types who like “durr only 1 man & woman, i dont hate gays i just dont agree with gay marriage, durrr” and such. We should get our message out there because people will listen-and more people ARE listening. It’s 2010, and look at the past decade. Compare the 00’s to the 80’s or even 90’s, and then say that we haven’t been making steady progress. It’s because we’re in the news, on the streets, on TV shows like Modern Family, Brothers & Sisters, and Glee, celebs like Adam Lambert & Ellen D. are very visible, and many liberals have made gay rights their priority. Whatever we’re doing is working, and I hate to say it but we do have to wait and keep doing what we’re doing because the “wait til the elderly die” crowd is 110% correct.

      gay marriage support in ’99: 24-26%
      gay marriage support in ’09: 39-41%

      Jan 2, 2010 at 1:28 am · @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.