Dammit, Obama: You’re Helping Maggie Gallagher’s Argument

It was probably better that Lou Dobbs piped in National Organization for Marriage chief Maggie Gallagher via satellite so CNN’s resident racist didn’t have to stink up the room with any more hatred. Joined by UPenn law professor and chair of Obama’s campaign National LGBT Policy Committee, Gallagher was fresh from telling Rhode Island her why her husband ditched her on Marriage & Family Day to debate the Defense of Marriage Act.

We all know where common sense lies: repealing DOMA.

But anti-gay proponents like Gallagher have a fantastic argument: Even President Obama, the beacon of change and equality, doesn’t support marriage equality. Yes, he (in theory) supports the repeal of DOMA, but only so states can decide for themselves whether to recognize same-sex marriage.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #doma(defenseofmarriageact) #maggiegallagher stories and more


  • Anti-MaryG

    Heiffer couldn’t find another outfit to wear on tv after Rhode Island? That wardrobe is almost as tired as her crazy ass arguments which are all over the place. Listen heiffer, you can’t say that keeping marriage as a man and woman will protect children from being taken from their biological parents because it’s not true. Marriage has components of something called diversity. Some people are different than you. Some families are single parent, some married couples choose NOT to have children, some children live with parents that did not biologically create them. This diversity alone negates your wack biological parents argument.

    Tobias Wolff spoke well, whenever Dobbs wasn’t interrupting him.

  • wondermann

    great debate, but quit trying to throw Obama in any and everything

  • schlukitz


    Tobias Wolff spoke well, whenever Dobbs wasn’t interrupting him.

    I caught too.

  • Popsnap

    I find it telling that she cannot coherently speak about her position, she just repeats the same thing over & over. Why? Becuase its becoming less & less acceptable to bash GLBT people in America. She avoided doing that (directly, at least) by saying “man and woman” “mother and father” ect. over again and not once did she address how to treat gays not having equal inheritance, healthcare, social security, inheritence rights ect.
    Why? Because at the very core of her argument is the secret message of: “Gays are gross. gays are an abomination. They’re weird, they talk funny, dress differently, and are sex fiends.”
    She could’ve said the above if she were on air 15-20 years ago with no backlash, but thankfully people cannot spew their hatred nowadays without a significant outcry.

  • ThinkRealHard

    @Popsnap: It’s the same religious message that has hurt gays and lesbians for 2,000 years. We’re still wrong – thanks to religion.

  • Kevin

    I would have more respect for Ms. Gallagher’s position if she could identify some tangible harm that might come to marriage or to children by allowing gays to marry. However, Gallagher never says anything of the sort. Indeed, she says that the current shambled situation that American marriage is in has nothing to do with gays. But for whatever reason she seems to think gays getting married are going to have a deterimental effect on marriage. Her reasons for this remain unheard. Indeed, the only reason she gives is that marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman simply because that’s the best thing for children and it’s the way things have always been.

    I know a lot of professors that have debated this issue over and over. One constant argument made by traditional marriage supporters (and one that really bothers me) is that the fundamental purpose of marriage is to have children. While I think there is some merit to the argument and I don’t think it’s completely out of bounds, I think all people fail to acknowledge the inherent problems in asserting such a thing. Aside from the usual rebuttals, that infertile couples can marry and couples who have no interest in having children marry, that argument completely ignores the other important functions that marriage serves. Companionship, legally viable dual decision-making, having someone legally bound to you that cannot walk off without legal repercussion, and many others, these are all important functions of marriage. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that the whole child-rearing thing is not even a fundamental purpose of modern American marriage. For as much as the American public may not like the idea of children growing up by anything other than two biological parents, it certainly cannot be said that all children of single parent homes or divorced parents always suffer in ways they wouldn’t if they were growing up with biological parents. When it comes down to it, children are products of the parenting they receive. A good single mother or father can parent just as well (sometimes better) than two parents. The argument that marriage must remain as a man and woman for the sake of child-rearing is just not convincing to me. Indeed, I think that assertion that is often used by courts and legislatures when siding with traditional marriage needs to be debunked and shot down.

    I really do see what it is that Ms. Gallagher is trying to preserve. However, what she is trying to preserve is a model of marriage that simple does not conform to our modern society. To cling to some model of marriage that no longer represents modern American people and very well could misserve those people is truly aggravating and narrow-minded.

  • DeAnimator

    Both Obama and Gallagher are bigoted assholes. Difference? At least Gallagher is up front about it and not some sleazeball. Although I am crossing my fingers there’s a hell for her to burn in.

  • schlukitz

    In order to feel superior, there must someone who is assumed to be inferior.

    If religious kooks like Maggie didn’t have a minority group to look down on, hate and discriminate against, then who would they have to make them feel better about themselves?

  • Popsnap


    I think after we win marriage equality, the next big group will be the atheists. Just look at all the fuss they right’s raising about the billboards, and how many atheists are fired in the US for just being openly atheist.
    That, or native americans. They’re still treated pretty crappily in most places and kept on reserves. I wonder how they’ll justify being shitty to them. The good news is, both groups will have our support unlike a certain previously persecuted group that overwhelmingly voted FOR prop 8 *cough*

  • stevenelliot

    too bad there was never popular voting for interracial marriages and desegregation.

    The problem is that when the conservatives have a social hot potato that they derive money and votes from, they beat it to death and use it till its unusable. Logic be damned.

    You can thank Karl Rove who picked up on the loophole. The loophole is that in this country you can mob-vote on civil rights issues. And that may sway an election.

    Maggie Cow-agher and her like are exploiting gays for their personal gain. They are using deeply religious people for their personal gain. Money changers in the temple, is all they are…..

    Ever since the civil rights act, desegregation, and legalized interracial marriage, the right wing sat down secretly and figured out how that was never going to happen again. The very forces aligned against us now are the ones left over from a battle with the “dark skinned races”. Why most straight African Americans, Latinos, middle easterners, Indians etc. cannot see that is beyond me.

    Maybe they just dont care. In this country youve gotta step on a few bodies to get up a couple of rungs on the ladder…..

  • Bakelite

    What happened was this : in high school she fell in love with her gay best friend – who she probably kissed once, uhh, like at the movies when they went one afternoon to see, I dunno, Happy Days…no wait, that movie with Harrison Ford, Yes! American Graffiti…and then they walked home and she smiled that big girl smile we all love, but I guess it wasn’t enough…


    She’s older, married to another man (and still not getting it) and probably wears…whatever dude… Look at her weave/bob, So cute BTW, so cute, but what if during the interview it blew off?

    Would she pick it up?

Comments are closed.