Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
frenemies

Will America Find a Way for Supporters and Opponents of Gay Marriage to Love Each Other? Maggie Gallagher Hopes So

In her best effort yet — no, really! read this — to sound like the reasonable party in the gay marriage debate, Maggie Gallagher’s latest missive almost makes you feel sympathetic to her cause. In denying gay families the rights and privileges of what a marriage would provide, Gallagher says she doesn’t want to “score points” with anyone. It’s not about winning, like those obnoxious lawyers Ted Olson David Boies. It’s about being fair and just while continuing to endorse discrimination.

In a debate this week with gay marriage supporter (and civil union compromiser) Jonathan Rauch at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Gallagher told the audience, “I’m against discrimination, I’m against hatred, I’m in favor of marriage equality, but I don’t think same-sex marriage is marriage. Therefore I think it is wrong for the government to insist, through the use of law, that we all believe that same-sex unions are marriages.”

This is the woman who feels bad when you lose your gay marriage rights. Who loses sleep at night thinking about this institution. Who says she got involved in “protecting marriage” because of America’s high divorce rate (but won’t come out in support of banning divorce).

In recounting the lead up to the speech, Gallagher recalls (from another forum?) a question she received.

The kid in the audience — he seems a kid to me, just 20 years old — asks me a question:

“You say gay marriage will lead to the use of the law to repress traditional faiths including Christianity. But I was raised in a Southern Baptist family. When I came out, I lost my sister. What is wrong with the idea that religions will be pressured to be less anti-gay?”

[...] I hunger, as so many of us do, for some way to connect across our differences.

So the question from this gay kid — this clean-cut collegian who I’ll call “Phil” — hits me like a ton of bricks. What can I say to Phil? I just pointed out the ways that “marriage equality” will lead to the repression of traditional religious faiths by government. And here he is asking me: Why is that a bad thing?

Well, Phil, this woman feels for you. She wants everything to be okay. But she’ll be the first to volunteer to stand in the middle of doing what is right.

And the first thing I want to tell him is: I’m sorry for your pain. I’m sorry for your sister’s pain, too. Family to me is the place where love is an obligation. Your family are the people you didn’t choose to love. But you still do.

Can we build a world where people like Phil and people like me will both be OK? Where people who disagree about the meaning and purpose of human sexuality can somehow not only tolerate but love one another?

I don’t know. In Europe and Canada it is becoming increasingly clear that gay rights requires the repression of Christianity and other traditional faith communities. Can we find a better solution?

America usually has. Being honest with one another, being unafraid to say what we think, is the first, fragile step.

And there’s the central point: Gallagher, who insists her group the National Organization for Marriage is a secular entity, continues to believe that gay marriage somehow infringes on religious rights. It does not — at least not more than religion, and the gross misinterpretation of its involvement in the state, infringes on our civil rights.

By:           editor editor
On:           Jan 29, 2010
Tagged: , , , ,
  • 68 Comments
    • dvlaries
      dvlaries

      Have we ever seen a picture of her old man? I get the instinct that he’s glad she has any damn ’cause’ that keeps her the hell out of the house? Wouldn’t you if you were straight?

      Isn’t it possible too that all this is rooted in some spurning she suffered from a gay man she had a crush on back when she was one of the fat unpopular girls in school…?

      Jan 29, 2010 at 11:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ben
      Ben

      Maggie.

      The church in Europe died because of WWII. Not because of gays.

      And when I say WWII, I mean it died because the church did nothing to stop or oppose WWII and has since lost any kind of authority it had as a moral agent.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 11:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ind
      Ind

      Living here, in Europe I don’t really see that gay rights require the repression of Christianity or anything else. European homophobes are saying the same thing about the States. The only thing gay rights require is the repression of your homophobia.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 11:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      @dvlaries: You may be on to something! Possibly that she is such a miserable, vile, hate filled, crunt he wouldn’t even grant her fag hag status!! Now it is all beginning to make sense……….. : P

      Jan 29, 2010 at 11:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Denbeau Alimere
      Denbeau Alimere

      As a Canadian and a Christian, it always enrages me when I read things like
      “In Europe and Canada it is becoming increasingly clear that gay rights requires the repression of Christianity and other traditional faith communities”.
      Christianity is doing just fine in Canada, thank you very much. It may be that the form of Christianity that we practice doesn’t meet Maggie’s approval; we tend to focus on love, and not so much on judging (as well as being LGBT friendly … my current minister is trans).
      Actually, when Maggie opens her mouth, it enrages me … perhaps I just have to get over it.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 11:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      I think she’s trying to sound nicer so I won’t call her fat anymore. LOL

      Jan 29, 2010 at 11:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • LoveMoby
      LoveMoby

      “I’m against discrimination, I’m against hatred, I’m in favor of marriage equality, but I don’t think same-sex marriage is marriage. Therefore I think it is wrong for the government to insist, through the use of law, that we all believe that same-sex unions are marriages.”

      Maggie, how can you be in favor of marriage equality if you dont think gays and lesbians marrying is equal marriage?

      If you want to protect marriage try protesting DIVORCE!

      Jan 29, 2010 at 11:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Ehrenstein
      David Ehrenstein

      “Johnny Guitar” is on TCM right now. Amazing how much Maggie is like Mercedes McCambridge.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 11:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      @romeo: I still will : P

      Jan 29, 2010 at 11:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Mustich, JP
      Joe Mustich, JP

      It’s time America.

      Last summer I officiated for couples coming to CT to wed from all across the country, many of whom have been together for 20, 30, and 40 years!

      And I married my spouse of 30 years in 2008 when CT enacted a marriage equality law.

      It’s time.

      Onward to equality,
      Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
      Washington, Connecticut, USA.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 11:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rf
      rf

      I, and the rest of the world, ask you again Maggie: Why don’t you and protectmarriage have the official trial transcripts of the Prop 8 case on your websites?

      Jan 29, 2010 at 12:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Republican
      Republican

      Maggie, Maggie, Maggie…

      With all due respect, even if Europe and Canada were like that (and I don’t think that they are), that doesn’t mean the USA will be like that, because our laws are actually quite a bit different in the area of free speech. No church will be required to perform same-sex marriages and no one will be forced to attend them. The 1st Amendment pretty much guarantees this. Now, people may say mean things about you for being against such marriages, but as I’m sure you’d agree in other contexts, people saying mean things is not the government’s problem. And in this country, you will still have the right to say pretty much whatever you want. Look at how people still say awful things about women and ethnic minorities without fear of punishment by the government. In short, your fear is unfounded.

      As for loving each other, I’m game, but it’s going to require a change on your part. Quit opposing equality and recognize that making CIVIL marriage available to same-sex couples is the right thing to do. Then we’ll see about that hug.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 12:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"
      Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"

      QUEERTY’S QUESTION: “Will America Find a Way for Supporters and Opponents of Gay Marriage to Love Each Other? Maggie Gallagher Hopes So”

      Absolutely YES!

      I LOVE to HOPE Maggot will be maggot food soon!

      Jan 29, 2010 at 12:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      NEWS UPDATE: NEW SPECIES DISCOVERED

      Scientists today discovered a new huge mammal: Maggotushateorunos. It is being described as a huge hairy beast with a horrific odor. Its primary source of substinice seems to be a healthy diet of bigotry and hate. Scientists are puzzled because it seems to excrete the same thing is sustains itself on……..

      Jan 29, 2010 at 12:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wade macMorrighan
      Wade macMorrighan

      Hey Mags, if you sincerely believe that “the gays” don’t really WANT marriage, and that we are deliberately trying to threaten religion, than answer me this: Why, in CT., and S.F., when marriage equality was allowed in those first bastions did Gay couples from all over the country travel hundreds of miles for a civil marriage in front of a judge or magistrate?!

      Jan 29, 2010 at 1:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CPT_Doom
      CPT_Doom

      In Europe and Canada it is becoming increasingly clear that gay rights requires the repression of Christianity and other traditional faith communities. Can we find a better solution?

      This from a woman who turned her back on her own religion to marry a non-Christian man. How many of her fellow anti-gay haters think her marriage is invalid? And how comfortable would she be if we ran a referendum on the validity of her sexual lifestyle choice? She lives a sin and demands not only tolerance, but acceptance and approval. Why is the goose’s sauce not appropriate for the gander?

      Jan 29, 2010 at 2:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • soul_erosion
      soul_erosion

      I just don’t buy into the theory of the “spurned by a gay man” from Maggie’s youth. He may have stopped to help her pick up the books that fell from her locker, but once he saw her in the tight mini skirt he would have run to the student lounge where the popular kids congregated with the prettier & fashionable girls, the same ones that had always whispered behind her back and told her not to bother to try out for cheerleader but rather perhaps run for class treasurer since no one else wanted the job and if she was lucky, maybe the odd soul that asked for her help in writing a poly sci term paper, as long as it wasn’t at the library where she’d get the wrong idea that she was “included.” It must have been horrific for her, the cruelty of her peers. And in her ongoing feelings of inferiority, the omnipotent internalized REVENGE,i.e., “I’ll show them all. I’ll go on to get a degree from Yale and become famous” (or infamous as the case may be). And then, of course, another major blow to her scholarly ego; the refusal to marry her by the one other nerd that she thought loved her. Bitterness and hatred are great incentives for success in other endeavors. After undisclosed payments from the Bush administration, it was easier for her to think she could run a non profit organization based in discrimination where she could hide the donors and their names & their monies, all the time thinking about that great American value, the two income family, the woman professional along side the “bread winner” husband, raising the other man’s child together, the ideal family. Not blinded by her animosity towards gays and their own loving families, but fueled by it. The lecture circuit and the effortless mass e-mailings “click to donate here” modern world, Maggie’s vision of her rise to the top, that three bedroom/two bath home in the heteronormative neighborhood next door to that same cheerleader from the past that still doesn’t want anything to do with her and her bigotry. It is that very all knowing instant-communication modern world that will be her undoing. And once we have won the battle, either through the courts & legislatures or the shift in rational public opinion and our gallant youth who can see through it all, then who will it be, Maggie? Who will you target next? The atheists or the stem cell researcher? There’s always another minority to oppress and subjugate, always another definition to be redefined.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 2:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mark
      mark

      This vicious sow sat and GLOATED at a post ME rally.
      come here Maggie, I’ll braid your hair….real TIGHT G*d Damn braids, I’ll braid it till your scabby scalp has weeping festering sores.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 2:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      @mark: Maggot is rumored to lumber over to this site to gaze upon the posts, please refrain from such posts…….Maggots getting moist : P

      Jan 29, 2010 at 2:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Latebrosus
      Latebrosus

      I’m still trying to figure out what she means by “I believe in marriage equality.” Marriage equality for whom? If we go by her tenet that marriage is for making families, does she think she’s being magnanimous by allowing infertile couples to marry? Couples who choose the “adoptive” lifestyle? I mean, where does she think marriage inequality exists, then?

      Jan 29, 2010 at 2:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rf
      rf

      She’s just looking for attention. Let’s hope the Maine electoral ethics commission gives her plenty. And maybe California will show her some love too.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 2:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gary
      Gary

      @Latebrosus: It’s called a co-optation. She’s using a word primarily by the other side and twisting it to fit her own. The advantage is to inoculate people who follow her against the other side.

      It’s disingenuous, and it’s little different in the style than their standard reply about how anti-miscegenation laws were bad because they separated men from women.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 3:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      Gay rights has nothing to do with the diminishing of Christianity in Europe. As a European noted, it was World War II that did that. Look at the history. EVERY mainstream denomination, Protestant and Catholic capitulated to the fascist pressure. It completely showed the lie that the religious always fall back on that they are best for society because they can moderate the barbaric impulse. The Lutherans even changed their name in Germany to reflect their Nazi affiliation. After that glaring example, Europeans no longer trust religion in any serious way. The truth of the involvement of churches in that nadir of human civilization has pretty much not been publicized here as a favor to their branches here. But the people in Europe know what the truth was because they had to live it.

      Maggie is as ignorant as she is foolish.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 3:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      Christianity faced its greatest test in Europe in WWII, and it failed. Period. And, with few exceptions, it continues to fail.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 3:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jj
      jj

      Hey Queerty…having an annoying straight woman (and couple) pop on screen and try to sell a trip to st lucia EVERY fucking time I click on a story is bad advertising…WTF you just lost a reader.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 3:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Artist
      The Artist

      Why even give this woman press. Just ignore her, then she’ll just go away. She just needs something to do. Look at her, she’s a mess! Ugh! PEACE

      Jan 29, 2010 at 4:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dan j
      dan j

      The only part we want to repress is the part that says “we will use the law to punish you because you wish to live as you see fit, not as we see fit.” Yes, that part we want to repress. But the part that says: “love and treat others the way you want to be treated” is just fine with us. And as that is your second most important commandment, we wish you would follow it.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 4:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PADude
      PADude

      When pigs fly, Maggie.

      Oh wait…they do, since Mags has obviously been on a plane.

      Or is that insulting the pig? They’re really intelligent creatures, excellent parents, and not known for eating their own or others’ young. Unlike Maggie.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 5:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian NJ
      Brian NJ

      I would like to see gays go after the Catholic Church and start to get aggressive and start to get critical of their activities and beliefs. I used to believe in live and let live, but really, who will be next after us? We, and all progressives, really should look seriously about attacking their ideologies, even after we win this fight. If they want to come out of their church and come into the civic world and tell my politicians what to do and how to vote, we should examine their tax-free status, we should evaluate whether their believes are a harm to our children.

      The think they are drinking blood and eating flesh in that sick church, and they follow the bible where God is a serial killer. They want to come after us, let’s not let them get away with it. A person who comes out of their church and wants to tell the government how to treat everyone is a religious extremist.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 5:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      @soul_erosion: LMAO! I’ve gotta give a standing O for that one.

      Favorite line – “…Maggie’s vision of her rise to the top, that three bedroom/two bath home in the heteronormative neighborhood next door to that same cheerleader from the past that still doesn’t want anything to do with her and her bigotry.”

      LOL! Awesome. I truly hope, as Terrwill suggests, that she lumbers over to read that breakdown.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 6:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FlexSF
      FlexSF

      She is a rediculous douche bag. I can’t wait for prop 8 to come crashing down on her bigot head! According to the last prop 8 witness, he dropped this absurd cunt’s name as a scholar. These religious assholes don’t have a clue about what they’ve done!

      Jan 29, 2010 at 6:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      @Brian NJ:

      I agree Brian. But taking on the greatest force of destruction, genocide, and just pure evil that mankind has ever known is a one helluva job.

      Mostly because it also brings beauty, hope and purpose to the millions of faithful who don’t use it as a sword.

      So, though I agree wholeheartedly, we’d do well to tread carefully when stepping on peoples hopes of heaven and paradise.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 6:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Other Libertarian
      Other Libertarian

      Ever see the movie Inglorious Basterdz? This cunt needs to have a swastika knifed into her forehead so people can know just what they are getting themselves into when they associate with this Holocaust celebrating Hitler youth fascist piece of Confederate flag waving shit out of Rush Limbaugh’s ass!

      Jan 29, 2010 at 7:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Richard R.
      Richard R.

      Maggie said: “I’m in favor of marriage equality, but I don’t think same-sex marriage is marriage.”

      I’m in favor of marriage equality too, but I don’t think a Catholic/Hindu marriage is marriage – especially when the Catholic “wife” keeps her Hindu “married” name hidden from the public so she can be accepted and funded by them in order to conduct a massive campaign of persecution against certain other people who want to marry the person they love.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 8:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • stevenelliot
      stevenelliot

      Oh, why doesnt she go eat a double-decker ham sandwich and leave us all in peace???

      Jan 29, 2010 at 9:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Larry
      Larry

      Mein Gott im Himmel… The depths of sophistry to which this woman is willing to sink are truly astounding.

      She wants to “build a world where … people who disagree about the meaning and purpose of human sexuality can somehow not only tolerate but love one another?”

      I would believe her if she wasn’t showing her “disagreement” by trying to enshrine blatant discrimination against us in the Constitution. I would believe she was sorry for the pain felt by “Phil” if she wasn’t so busy trying to inflict it on him and every other gay person in this country.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 11:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Maggie, My partner and I are legally married, as are 18,000 other couples in California, and thousands more in other states. We already HAVE same-sex marriage. There cannot be two tiers of rights for Americans. If you are so worried about your faith, teach it to others in such a way as to help them understand the words. Politics is not the answer. I appreciate your focusing so strongly on religion, because it helps our side attain our rights. If this is your intention, it is much appreciated. Get a degree in theology and teach until you have no more breath in your body. Politics will be a spiritual defeat, the Word, however, will suffice. I’m not happy at the ugliness directed towards you personally. I’ve been guilty of likening you to a witch-burning Pilgrim a while ago. I regret this and I apologize. I’m sorry for anything you might have read that was unbecoming. The thoughts that angry people think are causing irreparable damage to our community and to our country. The blame will be directed at you and NOM, but the words are out there for the world to read and this is inexcusable brutality. My parents used to say, be careful what you say to your brothers or sisters because once something is said, you can’t get it back. Apologies may be offered and even accepted, but the words are still there bouncing around in the memory banks. They are still there. I disagree with your efforts to harm gay couples. True faith in the Word is more important than mighty political muscle. The Word will suffice.

      Jan 30, 2010 at 1:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dacia
      Dacia

      The point to America is so anyone who comes here can persue anything or anyone they want.If freedom isnt what we’re about anymore than just say that!!If you want to seperate church and state,then do it!!If not,then take that away.You dont have any reason to not let gays marry equally other than the Bible’s objection to it.The Bible is clearly against it!If gay people understand that,and still want to persue that lifestyle,then its their right.Just like most men and women lie or cheat everyday….they realize the Bible is against it,but they still do it,because it is their right!Most people say they are sorry for lying,cheating or stealing,but that cant be true because they do it almost everyday anyway.The Bible says there is no sin above another other than one(look it up if you dont know what it is,being gay isnt it though).All we can do is pray for eachother,ask God to give us strength to say no to our fleshly desires.If its illegal for gays to get married,then it should be illegal to get divorced,lie,cheat,fornicate and all the other thousands of things that are an abomination to God and the Bible!

      Jan 30, 2010 at 1:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Dacia, Go to this queerty article and read Peter J. Gomes’ work posted in #6. You will get a lot out of it. Here’s the site:

      http://www.queerty.com/bernice-king-could-denounce-her-own-anti-gay-bigotry-will-she-20091103/

      Jan 30, 2010 at 2:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ritorna
      Ritorna

      Poor Maggie. It must be a very uncomfortable thing to be the person who prevented all those loving couples from getting married. She seems to be feeling the need to reach out to us. Well, Maggie, reach out to THIS, you hateful cow!

      Jan 30, 2010 at 2:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Yuki
      Yuki

      I know I’m going to probably get some flames for this, but…

      Honestly, I kind of like Gallagher. I mean, I think she’s a total moron for thinking that gay marriage will infringe on religious rights when it’s really gay CIVIL marriage, and for thinking that gay marriage isn’t marriage/should not be allowed… but at the same time, she really honestly doesn’t strike me as a hateful person.

      Some of the other anti-gay people (Tam, the Westboro Baptist Church, that one crazy dude who wants to kill Obama and teh gheyz) are clearly hateful and mean. Gallagher, while I completely disagree with her, seems to actually be doing this out of her beliefs that she will help people with it. She seems like a genuinely nice, if completely misguided, person.

      Jan 30, 2010 at 2:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ryan
      Ryan

      Maggie gave up all rights to be a good faith consciousness objector to gay marriage based on relgious beliefs when she crashed the pro-gay rights rally in DC after the vote in Maine. You have yourself away, dear. A true Christian wouldn’t gloat. Up until then, I vehemently disagred with her, but I thought that she was at least sincere when she said her opposition to marriage was not based on animus. Now I know better. Only a truly despicable human being would go to a rally where people are angry and hurting because they just lost because of you. I also find it hilarious that her anecdote included someone actually acknowledging her absurd and utterly false premise that gay marriage oppresses religion. I doubt very much the story is even true.

      Jan 30, 2010 at 5:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      @Yuki: Even if someone stabs you in the heart with a knife painted all pretty, with flowers hanging off it and scented with the aroma of the morning dew at sunrise, that knife is still going to kill you…………………

      Jan 30, 2010 at 11:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lukas P.
      Lukas P.

      DIVORCE! I’m feeling like a broken record today [make that a corrupt MP3 file in modern parlance] but if the Magdalene wants to protect marriage of “one man, one woman” then she should devote the hours she spends daily to spewing anti-gay poo to getting *divorce* abolished. Mister Jesus [and I don't mean the kind Mexican man who sells burritos on a cart outside my office] had a few words to say ’bout divorce, and not a lot of sermons about sodomites and sapphic women. The primary threat to hetero-normative marriage is divorce, not my ‘twisted sisters’ and brothers.

      And Maggie — if you’re listening in — the weight loss program best supported in the medical literature is Weight Watchers. Get a pedometer, start counting ‘points’ and move away from the keyboard. Start walking! [no commercial endorsement implied.]

      [Legal Disclaimer: Rosie O'Donnell was not harmed during the creation of this post]

      Jan 30, 2010 at 12:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      No. 26 · The Artist

      Just ignore her, then she’ll just go away

      Ah, but that is where you are wrong. People like her do NOT just go way. They interpret our silence and lack of action as tacit approval of their heinous activities that they continue to conduct behind our backs under the cover of darkness and secrecy.

      Like cockroaches, who only come out at night when everyone is asleep, they don’t want anyone to see what they are doing and the best that they can hope for, is that we will just ignore them while they fervently work to deprive us of our equality.

      The graphic proof of this, was their last minute victory to turn off the glare of spotlights and the public scrutiny at the Prop 8 Trial that they knew, all too well, would leave them bereft of any benefit, just like the cockroaches caught eating Aunt Jennies freshly baked Bunt Cake as it cooled on the rack.

      Jan 30, 2010 at 12:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      No. 43 · Lukas P.

      Leave Rosie aloooooone!! ;-) Seriously, cuz I love Rosie to the core. Excellent post though.

      Jan 30, 2010 at 12:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      No. 44 · schlukitz

      You just ruined Bunt Cake for me, maybe forever. ;-) It so used to be my favorite.

      But I agree 100%, we’ve got to watch the Maggie’s of the world like a news chopper following a high speed chase. Keep the spotlight on their hypocrisy and obvious zealotry.

      Jan 30, 2010 at 12:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      No. 38 · 1EqualityUSA

      Peter J. Gomes’ viewpoints are much like that of John Shelby Spong.

      Both men realize that religion has been taken over and perverted by people with selfish interests.

      While not a religious, god-worshipping man myself, I can respect people like Peter J. Gomes and John Shelby Spong who can follow their beliefs without inflicting them on others who are non-believers.

      Both men symbolize the meaning of “Live and Let Live”.

      Jan 30, 2010 at 12:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      No. 46 · Taylor Siluwé

      You just ruined Bunt Cake for me, maybe forever. ;-) It so used to be my favorite.

      Aw. So sorry about that. I should have used Limburger Cheese as an example. There would have been much less chance of ruining anyone’s favorite food. lol

      Happy Saturday. :)

      Jan 30, 2010 at 12:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lukas P.
      Lukas P.

      @schlukitz: Bravo! Not a theist myself, but Gomes’ books and PBS appearances show him to be a very thoughtful man, a true scholar, and able to prove point-by-point where the fundies have gone astray, awry, and asunder. O I wish I could write the way he does.

      @Taylor Siluwé: I’m not a Rosie hater. That was just a tagline. I’m thinking about replacing her with ADAM LAMBERT “not being harmed” because I want to be more googleable [or however that's spelled] and cause more people to visit Qweertyville, read my sage words, click on ads and visit sunny Saint Lucia!

      [Legal Disclaimer: No bunt cake was destroyed during the creation of this message. One slice of said cake equals 4 WeightWatcher points. Your mileage may vary.]

      Jan 30, 2010 at 1:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      No. 49 · Lukas P

      Anyone who uses the word “googleable” immediately takes a warm & fuzzy place in my heart.

      And btw – you and Schlukitz; Before I develop a thing about it (associating it with roaches and Maggies), I’ve decided to make a Bunt Cake today. She’s ruined enough things (temporarily), she can’t have my cake, too. :-)

      Jan 30, 2010 at 1:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      Who really gives a toss if this archbitch Gallagher believes same-sex marriage is marriage or not? The bottom line is, the states that allow us to marry do, that’s all that matters. Her views aren’t relevant, in fact nothing she says really is.

      Some of us have had email exchanges with her. SHe’s incapable of intelligent debate or discussion, she sees things only her way. She asked me if I believed in sex before marriage and I told her that its nobody’s business, least of all hers since she had a child out of wedlock and therefore doesn’t put her in a position to assume any moral superiority or authority. She ignored that one of course and she’ll deliberately ignore anything that backs her into a corner such as supporting discrimination against one’s own children who might happen to be gay. She refused to answer me but turned it around saying that she found it difficult having a discussion with me. I responded right back saying that her refusal to answer my questions clearly displays her bigotry and support of discrimination. She no longer emails me because she knows she’s lost the argument. Forget about asking her if she supports a ban on divorce. She’ll ignore you.

      So, if any of you want to give her a tongue-lashing, you can reach her at maggiegallagher1960@gmail.com and maggie@imapp.org

      Jan 30, 2010 at 2:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam A.
      Sam A.

      Tempting as it may be to (amusingly) attack Ms. Gallagher’s appearance, and deserving as the target may be, isn’t it more credible to be attacking her arguments?

      That said, until someone can produce the straight couple who divorced on the grounds that “society doesn’t respect the institution of marriage,” there is no reason to believe that such a couple exists. And if it doesn’t, what is the basis for their “defense of marriage” argument? (Which would be flimsy even WITH the imaginary couple.) At least a writer for the National Review came out and said it some years back–if we sanction gay marriage, that closet case down the street might feel freer to abandon his loveless marriage and seek fulfillment in the arms of a man. We can’t have that, can we?

      So the question becomes: who bears the brunt of oppression. Ms. Gallagher says: better the closet case than the religioso, and can’t we just be NICER about it? I say: better the religioso than the closet case. They can always limit the oppression by keeping their noses out of the closet case’s sex life.

      Jan 30, 2010 at 2:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dasher
      Dasher

      Maggie’s opinion of what may have happened in Europe or Canada is irrelevant and just one of her distractions.

      The only thing that will ultimately decide the issue is how the Supreme Court of the United States interprets the Constitution.

      Hopefully that will happen after President Obama nominates another Justice to the Supreme Court.

      When the ultimate decision comes down in a couple of years, there is an excellent chance we will be able to say, “Hey Maggie, read it and weep!”

      Jan 30, 2010 at 2:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      @Lukas P.: Excelent post, Damm your getting good!! : P

      No. 44 · schlukitz: Am pretty sure if there was a bundt cake around, Maggot would find a reason to suspend her crusade to end Gay marriage for ’bout 3 minutes………..

      No. 53 · Dasher: I hate to “dash” your hopes (sorry could not prevent my fingers from pushing the keys on that one : P) But the SCOTUS makes me very ascared about Gay marriage. Barring any emergency replacement, the next two most likely to go are John Paul Stevens, who bless his heart is like 200 years old. And Ruth Ginsberg who is suffering from pancreatic cancer. Rest are reportly healthy and changing the two most likely to leave is like going to the store and buying six eggs instead of a half dozen……………….

      Jan 30, 2010 at 4:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lukas P.
      Lukas P.

      @Taylor Siluwé: Damn bunt cake sounds good. Happy cooking! Do share the recipe. Qweertyopolis lacks sufficient cuisinary hints and tips.

      @Sam A.: Yes, Magdalena’s arguments rest on rocky soil—ethically, morally, and even *tada* religiously [cf Gomes, op cit.].

      Ja, oui, si, da, and yes: I apologize for commenting on her bulk. I’m troubled by her obsession with the gays, her compulsion to restrict her focus to less weighty [uh oh] matters than what really should, IMO, be her of greater concern than gay marriage: that the str8s have “easy in and easy out” access to marriage. Fewer gay men than straight men have ever broken up the “till death do us part” vow. If a married man is going to be adulterous, it’s most likely to be with………a woman, rather than a man.

      So, better off that she target the wandering hornytoad straight men than we gaga gayz as the evil spunk that pollutes, defiles and debases the institution of marriage.

      Add to my [ahem] impressive list of good deeds that I have never broken up a straight marriage. Yet.

      [legal disclaimer: Lather, rinse and repeat. Adam Lambert: YES, this includes you.]

      Jan 30, 2010 at 4:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sexy Rexy
      Sexy Rexy

      I’m gonna find out who these two kids extolling the virtures of St. Lucia are, and I’m gonna waterboard them.

      Jan 30, 2010 at 5:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sexy Rexy
      Sexy Rexy

      I’m gonna find out who these two kids extolling the virtures of St. Lucia are whenever I open up a new thread, and I’m gonna waterboard them.

      Jan 30, 2010 at 5:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      @Sexy Rexy: Dude, those two and the creators of that ad deseve a whole lot more hurtin than waterboarding…..! And I have sent emails to David of Queerts asking about if he was getting revenue from those fucking annoying pop ups and he doesn’t bother to reply. I sent emails to st lucia tourist board, expeida, american airlines and all the others in that ad and advised I would never use their services again and pointed out that st lucia has numerous antiGay laws on their books which call for imprisonment of Gays………fucking assholes all of them!!!!!!!!!!!1

      Jan 31, 2010 at 12:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      So Maggie doesn’t think it is really a marriage when the couple is gay? She is welcome to her religious beliefs. But, she is not welcome to force her religious beliefs on other people. Those other people have their own rights to their own religious beliefs. If she wants to have a right, she should respect that other people have that same right.

      The proper, correct thing for her to do is obvious. When she receives a wedding invitation from a same-sex couples, she should just RSVP to tell them that she will not be attending. She should also not send a gift.

      For all those same-sex couples who are planning weddings for this summer, here is the address for Maggie and her husband: Maggie Gallagher and Raman Srivastav, 53 Cedar Lane, Ossining, NY 10562

      Jan 31, 2010 at 3:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AxelDC
      AxelDC

      They cannot win, because we have too much to lose. Even if antigay forces win battle after battle, they will lose because the stakes are too high.

      They are asking us to give up our loves, while we are just asking them to give up their prejudices.

      We have to win because it’s our lives and their opinions.

      Jan 31, 2010 at 8:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      No. 61 AxelDC this post was a joy to read.

      Jan 31, 2010 at 10:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • soul_erosion
      soul_erosion

      @No.61AxelDC: Thank you. Your post was eloquent & elegant and you made a particularly dreary morning a joyful one. Cheers.

      Jan 31, 2010 at 11:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Mustich, JP
      Joe Mustich, JP

      @AxelDC:
      Right on target. Thank you. Joe

      Jan 31, 2010 at 1:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • clark
      clark

      This is also an email account of hers that I’ve used:

      maggieiav@aol.com

      Jan 31, 2010 at 2:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      This is why I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State. It only costs 25 dollars to join and the religious right calls them, “dangerous”, which makes me all the more willing to support the AU:

      Federal Court Strikes Down Sectarian Prayers At Forsyth County, N.C., Commission

      Watchdog Group Hails Decision Curbing Government Intervention In Religion

      January 29, 2010

      A federal court has struck down a North Carolina county’s policy of opening board meetings with sectarian prayers.

      U.S. District Judge James A. Beaty held that the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners’ preference for Christian prayers violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

      Observed Beaty, “[T]he prayers offered in the implementation of the Policy here did not reflect diversity and inclusiveness, and instead were divisive and had the effect of affiliating the Government with one particular belief.”

      Plaintiffs in the Joyner v. Forsyth County lawsuit are Janet Joyner and Constance Lynn Blackmon, two county residents and members of the Winston-Salem Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

      Read the full press release at http://www.au.org

      Jan 31, 2010 at 2:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      Here we go again.

      The Christians pushing their way into other people’s lives, in a foreign country, taking matters into their own hands and doing exactly what they please, not only without regard for the parents, but the laws of Haiti as well.

      “PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti – Ten U.S. Baptists detained trying to take 33 children out of earthquake-shattered Haiti without government permission say they were just trying to do the right thing, applying Christian principles to save Haitian children.”

      http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100131/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_haiti_americans_detained

      Excuse me? Kidnapping peoples children without the consent of either the parents who are still living or the officials, for any reason, is “Doing the right thing”?

      By whose definition? There are laws against kidnapping in every civilized nation of the world. What makes religious zealots believe that they are above the law, let alone changing it if they see fit?

      These ignorant cock-suckers apply “Christina principles to everything they do…including stripping citizens of civil-rights, perpetrating violence on them and even murder.

      They ought to lock everyone of these dumb fucks up for life and throw away the fucking key.

      I can’t wait to see Oabama’s reaction to this…..

      Jan 31, 2010 at 8:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      No 66 1EqualityUSA, if only the good judge would support a ban on prayer and any other form of religious invocation in the political process, starting with BO (Barack Obama) who almost always invokes a deity at the end of a speech as do all presidents. Why is it necessary and why do we need to know what their beliefs are? Its offensive to those of us who aren’t even religious or are atheists. Can you imagine a presidential candidate trying to run for the highest office declaring no religious beliefs? He or she would never get elected, not in this backward society of ours.

      No 65, Clark….how did she respond to you?

      Feb 1, 2010 at 8:43 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.