If Perry Is Televised, and Then the Supreme Court Overturns Prop 8, Maggie Gallagher Won’t Be Able to Sleep at Night

SOUNDBITES — “The first purpose of a trial is to do justice to the litigants. As much as I would personally love to be able to see the Proposition 8 trial unfold in real time, I cannot contemplate the reasons why a court should subordinate justice to some other interest, whether it is public entertainment or public education. The purpose of a trial is not to educate the public. It is to do justice to the parties the court has permitted in the court room. Where there is a conflict, or a potential conflict, courts must adhere to their primary purpose and eschew any innovations that threaten that purpose. If television is ever to be permitted, it should only be when all parties to the litigation agree. Anything else is a travesty of justice, a subordination of the purpose of a court system to some other goal. Here’s the bottom line: If the Supreme Court should overturn Proposition 8 and find a constitutional right to gay marriage I will never know whether or not that would be a result of the haste to televise the trial.” —NOM chief Maggie Gallagher, in a letter sent yesterday to Judge Phyllis Hamilton (the chair of the Ninth Circuit’s Rules Committee) arguing against broadcasting any part of Perry (via)

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #maggiegallagher #nationalorganizationformarriage(nom) #perryv.schwarzenegger stories and more


  • Brian NJ

    She doesn’t want a record for her descendants to know that she was hated by the gay community for supporting bigotry and harm to gay families. But that is already her dark, evil legacy, for all her descendant’s to see and cry about, century after century after century. Anita Bryant, Maggie Gallagher.

  • hyhybt

    I thought that issue was decided already. Why’s she bringing it up again?

    (I actually agree that, though I’d have loved to watch the trial, it’s probably better that it wasn’t televised. But it’s OVER now.)

  • rf

    Uh, mags, I’ve read the transcript of the first trial. Considering you don’t have a link to it from your site, I’m assuming you’re glad you missed it.

  • rf

    ST. LUCIA:


    Saint Lucia: Situation of homosexuals; availability of support groups and state protection (2006-2009)

    The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA) indicates that homosexual acts are illegal in Saint Lucia (ILGA May 2009, 35; see also GlobalGayz n.d.; Canada 1 June 2009, Sec. 8). According to Section 133 of Saint Lucia’s Criminal Code, No. 9 of 2004 (Effective 1 January 2005):

    1) A person who commits buggery commits an offence and is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for –

    a) life, if committed with force and without the consent of the other person

    b) ten years, in any other case.

    2) Any person who attempts to commit buggery, or commits an assault with intent to commit buggery, commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for five years.

    3) In this section “buggery” means sexual intercourse per anus by a male person with another male person. (ILGA May 2009, 35; Saint Lucia 2004, Sec. 133)

  • REBELComx

    You’re a bit late Maggie, the SCOTUS already stopped any chance to televise the proceedings. Or can the recordings be put on Youtube after the trial ends? Hmmm…
    What Maggie and her ilk tend to forget is that the LAW is a matter of public concern and because this case is in regards to a law that would effect the general public, the public has a right to know how decisions regarding this law came to be made. What happens in the court is still public record, whether it’s on TV or not.
    With that said, I’m confused about the difference here between being televised and not. The Yes on 8 people claim it’s out of concern for the safety of their witnesses. This has to be utter bullshit. Anyone with the internet can gain public access to the transcripts and easily find images/photos or the personal information of their witnesses. So they could easily harass them if they really wanted to. Not that I’m advocating that or anything.

  • terrwill

    Here is reply I got:

    Good morning Mr. Will

    The Saint Lucia Tourist Board is in receipt of your email regarding a ‘pop up’ ad that you’ve described as negative and offensive. However, you did not specify in the said email (below), what website this was. I’d be grateful if you could provide me with the URL so that we can further investigate this as we are not aware of any such activity on any of our endorsed sites.

    Looking forward to hearing from you.

    Kind regards

    Dainea Augier

    Manager, Corporate Communications

    Saint Lucia Tourist Board

    P.O. Box 221, Sureline Building, Vide Boutielle

    Castries, Saint Lucia, West Indies

    Tel: 758 452 4094/5968 Fax: 758 453 1121

    Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.stlucia.org

  • terrwill

    Maggot is nothing but a vile, hateful, disgusting, distrubing looking crunt. It looks her panties (please hold in the vomit thinking of same) are all bunched up real tight because now that there are brilliant legal minds working on the side of good, and they have Mr.Tam the hateful monkey speaking about how everything he “researches” on the internets must be true she is beginning to panic. Obvious they are already laying the groundwork for an appeal………………………..Just go away and have some more kids out of wedlock you hateful witch….

  • rf

    All I did was type lucia and sodomy into google and found out you can get 10 years–reported by ILGA. I went to amnesty international but they didn’t have anything disputing it (they did have recent reports on india and malaysia so they are keeping track) and this page was from mid 2009 (the URL cuts off here but you’ll find it at the http://www.unhcr.org website). If its true, is Queerty liable if I book my trip through the pop up ad and end up in jail?

  • terrwill

    To be honest, I am not so sure that Queerts is gettin a piece of this. Only because st lucia is in the west indies, and we all know how welcome the Gays are there. The ad has a hetro couple and there is no mention of the Gays at all. Don’t know if st lucia would purposly pay to be seen on Gay site……..Queerty any info???

  • 1EqualityUSA

    Maybe Letterman bought the ad time.

  • bystander

    It really is sad how poorly too many people’s brains work. How does televising a trial threaten a litigant’s interest in a trial? By Maggie’s “logic” trials should be closed to the public altogether unless both litigants agree. Unfortunately for Maggie in this country we have open public trials in order to ensure the processes of justice are uniform and fair. Having open public trials doesn’t infringe on fairness it protects it. Televising Trials doesn’t threaten that tradition it is a natural extension to it.

  • terrwill

    @bystander: check #7 Methinks they are ascared they are gonna lose this one, so they are already laying the ground works for continued court battles and will cite a reason for appeal:

    “If the Supreme Court should overturn Proposition 8 and find a constitutional right to gay marriage I will never know whether or not that would be a result of the haste to televise the trial.”

  • 1EqualityUSA

    A diseased eye shuns the light.

  • AlwaysGay

    Does anyone else get the feeling the Prop 8 defenders (heterosexual-only marriage supporters) purposefully threw the trial in California so it can get to the Supreme Court faster and be upheld there?

    The reason the heterosexual-only marriage supporters didn’t want the trial broadcast because they didn’t want a video record of the reason they do what they do: hatred.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    Paramedics-Firefighters have a term for it, “Pants-shitters”. I think that the witnesses were overwhelmed by it all.

  • Wade macMorrighan

    Yeah, right mags!!! You’re probably just terrified that you’re fear-mongering and lie-based tactics will be exposed to the public!!! You cannot vilify someone, while playing the victim at the same time…

  • 1EqualityUSA

    As for Gallagher’s reluctance to have film footage aired, know that the film, “To Kill a Mockingbird” was derived from written words. The words will be available forever.

    “There are just some kind of men who – who’re so busy worrying about the next world they’ve never learned to live in this one, and you can look down the street and see the results.” (To Kill a Mockingbird)

  • Latebrosus

    “If the Supreme Court should overturn Proposition 8 and find a constitutional right to gay marriage I will never know whether or not that would be a result of the haste to televise the trial.”

    If the Supreme Court should support Proposition 8 and find a constitutional right to ban gay marriage, I will never know whether or not that would be a result of the haste not to televise the trial.

    And that’s more fair?

  • Republican

    Oh, Maggie, come on now. That doesn’t make any sense at all. You know very well that the Court’s decision won’t have anything to do with whether the district court case is televised.

    And since I know you read these postings, let me just say that I do think you’re a decently smart woman. Problem is, you are using your brains in support of a hateful cause. Years from now, people will remember you as a bigot. Sure, you think you’re doing the right thing now, but so did George Wallace. I urge you to rethink what you are doing and use what talents you have to support love, fairness, and justice.

  • terrwill

    @Republican: Nice thoughts, however Maggot will never redeem herself and live a happy life. She is destined to be the modern version of Anita Bryant. Another hatefull, vile, crunt who made it her lifes mission to cast hate on the Gay community in the 60’s or 70’s. She was a succesful singer, actress, and pitchwoman. A pie to the face began her slow fade into oblivion…….She lost all her endorsements. Her family pretty much abandoned her and she supposodly now lives a miserable meager existence old and alone………..

    We can only wait til Maggot gets her “Anita” moment when someone gives her a good swift kick to the balls and she begins her slow painful slide into oblivion………….

  • 1EqualityUSA

    Latbrosus, brilliant #18.

  • Wade macMorrighan

    @Brian NJ: Hey, maybe someone poetically inclined could come up with a brilliant gay Rights chant invoking the names of Mags and Anita!

  • Wade macMorrighan

    @terrwill: Hey now, let’s not besmirch the good name of a “witch”; we *real* Witches might take offense at having our Sacred Order compered to the likes of HER!!! Yikes!

  • Wade macMorrighan

    @terrwill: Ugh….how exactly does televising a trial somehow affect the outcome?

  • hyhybt

    @Wade macMorrighan: An overused example, and I don’t know for certain that the actual OUTCOME was changed, but the OJ trial would have at least not stretched out over months without the cameras.

  • Ryan

    Her “argument” that she didn’t state very clearly was that the mere threat of a trial caused some of the Yes on 8 side’s witnesses to drop out, thereby weakening their case. This flies in the face of all logic and reason, of course. The three witnesses who didn’t testify couldve changed their minds after SCOTUS’ ruling, and the three who did were ineffective and helped the plantiffs. Especially Tam, the super-bigot, who was called against his will. She was no argument, really. The trial wasn’t even televised. But her loyal readers won’t do the thinking requird to figure that out. None of this really matters, though. SCOTUS will rule 5-4 against us anyway. They already made that clear when they agreed with Maggie’s lies that “irreparable harm” would come to those who dare testify against the evil gays.

  • Ryan

    I meant “the mere threat of a televised trial”.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    Animus is so present, from the top down. This will serve to prove we are discriminated against from ScaliaThomasAlito to the lowest elements, TamNOMRobertP.George.

  • terrwill

    @Wade macMorrighan: I am sorry I offended the good witches………. : P

    Here is what Maggot said:

    If the Supreme Court should overturn Proposition 8 and find a constitutional right to gay marriage I will never know whether or not that would be a result of the haste to televise the trial.”

    What I was alluding to in my comment is that they seem to be laying the groundwork to claim that the “haste” may have influcenced the outcome…….not the fact that it is televised. We know the reason they do not wish to see this televised is that their side will be actually a portrayal of “The Emperor Has No Clothes”……………….

  • FrancoisTrueFaux

    @Brian NJ: OMG, how hot would a Mags and ‘Nita sex tape be!

  • hyhybt

    @FrancoisTrueFaux: Thanks for that image. Now I’ll probably be kept awake with nightmares and then fall asleep in church.

Comments are closed.