Comments on: Why We’re Totally Intolerant of Maggie Gallagher

By: One of the CA 36,000

One of the CA 36,000 — Tue, 28 Dec 2010 22:58:10 +0000

@Kevin Gotkin: I’m dredging up this thread because of the immense fallacy underlying your post.

Religious officiants DO NOT ISSUE marriage licenses. ONLY THE STATE CAN ISSUE MARRIAGE LICENSES.

Religious officiants CAN EXECUTE marriage licenses.

And they can do so ONLY because they have been granted temporary notary powers BY THE STATE. In the vast majority of the civilized world, marriages ONLY achieve legal standing when the STATE conducts a civil marriage; religious officiants CANNOT execute the marriage license, and a church wedding serves to solemnify the union and to satisfy the families’ wishes.

Marriage is a CIVIL institution that has been usurped by religion– NOT the other way around.

Marriage has ALWAYS been about creating a legal and financial unit out of two consenting parties with legal standing. In the past, that would have been two FAMILIES. Now, it’s two ADULTS.

After all, where do you go to obtain a divorce? Not church, kids. YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE COURTS TO OBTAIN A DIVORCE, BECAUSE YOU’RE DISSOLVING A LEGAL CONTRACT.

By: Attmay

Attmay — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 06:55:25 +0000

Typical goyim. They don’t mind infringing on the rights of pro-gay churches. Just like they don’t mind enforcing a Christian-exclusive view that claims life begins at conception (Judaism and Islam do not).

By: Kevin Gotkin

Kevin Gotkin — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 19:04:07 +0000

I really don’t understand why the HRC has not yet refuted the weak “religious freedoms” argument from the NOW with the REAL religious freedoms argument: the government telling a minister that they may not issue a marriage license to a couple of the same sex (as has been the basis for many court cases challenging the constitutionality of the definition of marriage) is fundamentally a curtailment of the freedom of religion, the free exercise clause. The Catholic Church may deny gay couples the right to marry on their own values, sure. But the government should NEVER be able to tell a minister who they can and cannot marry. Having gay couples being married by a minister is the very basis of a more pluralistic society of religious freedom.

If NOW really wants people to be able to practice their religions openly and freely, then they should realize that more freedom for religions to grant marriage licenses on the behalf of the state is an unequivocal step int he right direction. I believe it’s a lamentable failure that HRC and the No on Prop 8 campaign STILL haven’t started to use this angle!!

By: Frunced

Frunced — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:21:59 +0000

I think I know what’s wrong: every time she’s on a blind date (the only kinda date she gets) the guy takes a look at her and bails with the (false) excuse that he’s gay.

By: nickatynot

nickatynot — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 23:01:33 +0000

God, this woman reminds me of my mother!

By: TikiHead

TikiHead — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:40:35 +0000

@ct: (and others who have mentioned it) Yeah, her wieght or appearance are completely irrelevant, and it’s just grade-school level B.S. to sink to that level. And, it helps her look like a martyr, set upon by meany Liberals! Stop it, please?

By: TikiHead

TikiHead — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:38:34 +0000

Maggie Gallagher argues dishonestly — I had one email exchange with her a couple years back: she claims that studies showing kids don’t do as well in single parent homes proves that same sex couples aren’t ideal either for kids. I asked her if she had any studies that were actually ABOUT same sex couples, and she swore she’d get right back to me…

It’s been four years now.

By: ct

ct — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:51:05 +0000

My complaint with that interview was not Maggie (who we all knew would be a horrible person) but Joe who came across as ineffectual and sterile. Can we not get some dynamic voices at the forefront of our movement?

And despite the fact that I found Maggie a reprehensible human being, all of the comments about her weight are as bigoted as her comments about gays. Take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s (or hateful sister’s) eye.

By: getreal

getreal — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:04:52 +0000

This woman is dangerous. That she hides behind christianity makes her all the more wicked.

By: Bruno

Bruno — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 08:13:05 +0000

She doesn’t have any desire to infringe upon the rights of gays & lesbians, except to have them declared afflicted with a disorder: http://www.uexpress.com/maggie.....e=20010509.

By: Vada

Vada — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 02:05:40 +0000

*effective statement, rather. i think.

By: Vada

Vada — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 02:02:26 +0000

@Alec- #63 there was great to read. It is so important to find these factual FLAWS in these arguments- something substantial to attack, instead of the size of a bigoted woman’s ass. Thank you for your clear and affective statement!

By: Cee

Cee — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 02:00:04 +0000

omg, someone shut her fat ass up please. she needs to be less concerned about gay people who have nothing to do with her and more concerned about her unhealthy weight. fat ass bitch…lol

By: Vada

Vada — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 01:56:22 +0000

At one point, I wished Joe had said something along the lines of, “Not allowing gay people to adopt children ‘for religious reasons’ is just as prejudiced as not allowing black people to adopt children ‘for economic reasons’. Just as being gay does not affect a person’s religious affiliation, being black does not affect a person’s economic status. This argument is blatant bigotry. BLATANT.”

By: Jon from Maine

Jon from Maine — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 01:25:54 +0000

God all I have to do is look at women like her know why I’m gay….

By: tavdy79

tavdy79 — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 00:14:23 +0000

Maggie Gallagher Is An Awful Human Being

I wasn’t aware she qualified as human – she sure as hell ain’t humane!

By: Martha

Martha — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 23:42:57 +0000

Somewhere in her past, there is a gang bang that she is deeply ashamed of.

By: Bertie

Bertie — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 23:41:17 +0000

Maggie ‘The Hag’ Gallagher = Propagandist Sow.

By: Alec

Alec — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 23:32:38 +0000

@Chuck: I’m just picking on your post because it is the latest (and mentions Kathy Bates, a woman I’ve loved since Misery), but I think it is better to engage her toxic ideas than it is to criticize her image. And there’s plenty to criticize about her positions.

By: Chuck

Chuck — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 23:30:00 +0000

what a fat, disgusting cow. Is the Kathy Bates’ much dumber and uglier sister?

By: Alec

Alec — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 23:15:10 +0000

I listened to her on NPR today. Prof. William Eskridge of Yale was on the other side of the debate and made a joke about how the anti-marriage equality advocates had missed their mark when no fault divorce became the law of the land. She joked and said “get back to me” or something similar, if and when he decided to tackle that. But I think it raises a very fair and interesting point. Gallagher and the others who don’t adopt FRC talking points desperately want to pretend that this isn’t about anti-gay animus, but the failure to object to no fault divorce (they’ve provided alternative “covenant marriages” in some jurisdictions, but they’ve never prohibited no fault) simply proves that this current movement is motivated by anti-gay animus. She objects, of course, but I found it interesting that she didn’t offer any opinion when Eskridge pointed out that the state constitutional amendments, a majority in fact, had gone well beyond marriage and prohibited even domestic partner health care benefits (at least here, in MI).

She is a bigot. A bigot with a Yale degree, granted, but as someone said above, if it walks like a bigot….

Also I seem to remember reading something rather nasty she wrote about hate crimes legislation after Matt Shepard was brutally killed in Wyoming. I wish someone would dig that up to show how thorough her anti-gay sentiment runs.

By: Cody

Cody — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 23:06:51 +0000

What a stupid CUNT.

By: getreal

getreal — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 22:24:23 +0000

@geoff: Co-sign

By: dalea

dalea — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 22:12:52 +0000

Has there been any progress in finding out who funds her organization? It popped up out of nowhere and gave millions to the Prop8 campaign. Speculation is that this is how the Mormon Church funneled its money to Prop8: gave it to Gallagher’s organization which then covered up the source.

Maybe we need to greet her with twinkies whenever she debates.

By: geoff

geoff — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 22:02:41 +0000

@getreal: “She is a relic”. From your keyboard to God’s ears. I can’t wait for the day when people look back at all this and wonder why this was such a big deal and can finally relegate hateful bigots like Maggie to the trash bins of history where they truly belong.

By: BrianZ

BrianZ — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 22:02:20 +0000

Yuck. I think it’s safe to say this one could make a dildo go limp.

Anyway, people like this who are so far ‘out there’ as to put shit like this into the mainstream really do more against their cause than for it. Only the most ignorant of sheep are going to buy this shit. Those people would also never likely be gay supporters anyway. Let her get up there and make a fool of herself.

By: getreal

getreal — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:47:26 +0000

@michael not 51. but another Michael: I agree I pity her too anyone’s whose life work is discriminating and disenfranchising a group of people must have some very “dark nights of the soul”.

By: Wayne

Wayne — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:36:48 +0000

That bigot should stop worrying about gays and lesbians so much and start thinking about some DEX-A-TRIM. Fat ugly heffer.

By: michael not 51. but another Michael

michael not 51. but another Michael — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:24:10 +0000

We also need to remember that hate and provoking hate has become big business in the U.S. just ask Anne Coulter or Bill O’Reilly or Rupert Murdoch , on and on. People like Maggie began careers writing angry, cruel things that they may of believed in and discovered that there is an audience of ignorant, angry victim minded people out there they would listen. They have to keep this going and they have to get publicity to sell their books, TV shows and be hired on the hate lecture circuit. There pocket books depend on it. But even if your doing it for money it will eventually get you. You cannot live your life this way without paying the consequences. . I can only imagine how miserable her inner world must really be. I actually pity her.

By: SammySeattle

SammySeattle — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:23:08 +0000

@a: Drown out Maggie? That’s a laugh, did you see the video? In every debate in which she participates Ms. Gallagher talks over the other person throughout and doesn’t let anyone else get a word in. And, perhaps we have different understandings of the word bigot, but someone who devotes their life to the negation of rights for another group is most definitely a bigot. We are not here asking for any of her rights to be restricted or removed, we are responding to her calls to have us relegated to a second class status.

By: getreal

getreal — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:21:05 +0000

This woman is not a christian she is a liar and a bigot. She sounds just like the so called “intelligent” people who supported segregation and miscegenation laws. She is a relic.

By: SammySeattle

SammySeattle — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:11:17 +0000

@Dave: The laws are as robust as they need to be. There has not been one case related to gay marriage of a church being forced to perform or accept anything contradictory to its beliefs or dogma. Churches have been denying marriage and any other other sacrament they perform to those who do not qualify under the rules of a particular religion. They are protected under the U.S. Constitution to do so. My parents were married in 1960 in a Catholic church. My father was not Catholic. His pastor refused to participate in the marriage and would not acknowledge the fact of their marriage because my mother is Catholic. It was and is his right to do so under the U.S. Constitution.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:44:25 +0000

I was at a debate once in NY with Maggie and Evan Wolfson. She said she had a child out of wed lock I am trying to research this to see if it is documented anywhere. Height of hypocrisy

By: Bruno

Bruno — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:35:24 +0000

It’s amazing what a reaction someone like Maggie gets, when people who were even more instrumental in taking away our rights, like Frank Schubert, hardly get a comment these days. Folks, she’s not a bitch because she’s overweight, she’s a bitch because she wants to deny us our rights while pretending to have nothing against gays. She’s Frank Schubert with a few extra pounds, less power, and less finesse.

By: AlanInSLC

AlanInSLC — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:49:16 +0000

QUICK!!! Someone buy this bitch a dildo. She needs a tender touch to relieve some of that pent up bitchiness, and who would be able to give her that other than herself? :)

By: tricky ricky

tricky ricky — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:42:27 +0000

@a: from this interview the only conclusion that can be drawn is that she is a bigot using the bible and stating flat out that she is right, only her view is right, there is no middle gound she is right.

she is right no matter what.

she doesn’t need a real argument for she is right.

and she is using the bible.

she is bigotry 101 of the christian religious right for making religious yet claiming to be secular, arguments.

she is right no matter what anyone else says.

By: tricky ricky

tricky ricky — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:38:18 +0000

gays are the last group the religious have to whom they can pull their going to hell crap and use out right hate religiously.

they are like baptist archie bunkers not being able to use the word nigger any more and lamenting the fact that one day they won’t be able to espouse on why them fag boys is going to hell and using the bible to do it.

By: Hermitage

Hermitage — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:37:46 +0000

I live in Canada where gays can get married. No catastrophe has happened and straights aren’t complaining. I wonder what her explanation for that situation would be. I’m sure she’ll find some lie to scare people.

By: michael

michael — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:22:31 +0000

What concerns me here is the way Joe S. handled this debate. While I much prefer his calm demeanor over Mrs. G’s I am concerned that he comes off dispassionate and kind of corporate. Obama did not win the White by convincing the red necks and trailer trash of America to vote for him, he won over those in the middle who were prone to going either way. Mrs. Gallagher’s ignorant lies and rude, angry tirades will definitely appeal to those whose lives consist of watching wrestling on TV and searching for dates at family reunions, Those people we will never win over. They are generally to uneducated, not well traveled, and ignorant about the world outside their trailer parks to be won over. Forget the confederacy, they are a lost cause. What concerns me is how many in the middle does she sway? Those that will help us the most are the folks who are reasonably educated and intelligent Americans that need to be educated about us because they probably have little experience with gay folks. We have to show them our human face and our intelligent emotional side. I think this is the demographic that Ellen D. reaches with her show but their are so many others still that need to see us for who we really are. Only then will we be able to discredit the lies that are spewed by these carnival acts like Mrs. Gallagher. My question is did Joe S. achieve this? Mrs. G
appeals to the lowest level of human nature, we have to appeal to the highest.

By: scott

scott — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:00:22 +0000

@Voices Heard: LOL. Oh. No. You. Didn’t.