No, Maggie, the 'saddest thing' is your willingness to bastardize reality
This comes verbatim from page 54 of the Iowa marriage ruling:
Promotion of optimal environment to raise children. Another governmental objective proffered by the County is the promotion of “child rearing by a father and a mother in a marital relationship which social scientists say with confidence is the optimal milieu for child rearing.” This objective implicates the broader governmental interest to promote the best interests of children. The “best interests of children” is, undeniably, an important governmental objective. Yet, we first examine the underlying premise proffered by the County that the optimal environment for children is to be raised within a marriage of both a mother and a father.
Plaintiffs presented an abundance of evidence and research, confirmed by our independent research, supporting the proposition that the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents. On the other hand, we acknowledge the existence of reasoned opinions that dual-gender parenting is the optimal environment for children. These opinions, while thoughtful and sincere, were largely unsupported by reliable scientific studies.26
The research appears to strongly support the conclusion that same-sex couples foster the same wholesome environment as opposite-sex couples and suggests that the traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well-adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else. In any event, we do not address whether there is a rational basis for the marriage statute, as the sexual-orientation classification made by the statute is subject to a heightened standard of scrutiny.
The Supreme Court's consideration could not be more logical. They considered what both the plaintiffs and defendants submitted, and conducted their own independent research. And then they turned to reliable science to see which side's arguments have earned credibility. They did EXACTLY was a fair court should do is such a matter.
But leave it Maggie Gallagher, someone who's been earning public ire for misrepresentations for some time now, to boil down this fair and measured point to an unfairly simplified degree so as to misrepresent and besmirch the court's good name. This comes from a recent appearance on Janet Parshall's talk show:
Maggie could have read what the ruling actually says. Maggie could have acknowledged that the court acknowledged her side's claims. Maggie could've taken on the point about "reliable scientific studies." But why should she, when the shun the judicial branch of government/ make marriage all about children/ rely on personal faith views combo is far more advantageous for her team of logic gymnasts? A fair assessment wouldn't allow her to make the court sound like unfair asses.
As gay people, we are obviously offended by Mags and company's constant attacks on our humanity. But even more than that, we are deeply offended on an American-loving intellectual level by the way they continually cruelly undermine any and every educated member of the independent judiciary who fails to buy into their own narrow, faith-based, typically-skewed arguments! How dare they crow on about how they will suffer under marriage equality, when their policy on our nation's justices is "agree with us or we will ruin your career!"?
It is this latter point on which we LGBT activists can build a strong, broad-based coalition. It is up to us to show the American public how, at the end of the day, this fight is not 100% about gay rights. There are sweeping implications for anyone whose brand of fair-minded analysis involves a fair mind.
I think that Maggie is a besmirch-aholic! Kinda like a choc-aholic (which, by the looks of her, she is probably that too). But, I can just see her getting antsy, breathing shallowly, writhing about, on the verge an anxiety attack as she is jonesing for the sadistic pleasure of slinging some shit at the reputation of someone (anyone) else. And, then she takes a deep drag on this drug of her addiction, holds it for a pregnant moment in her engorged bosoms, and then with an overwhelmingly satisfied sigh she exhales the superheated flames of a dragon. And, then she's okay for a couple of hours.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Aug 5, 2009 2:16:04 PM
Maggie needs to find a new catchphrase. The whole "two great halves of humanity" thing is getting really old.
Posted by: Ashton | Aug 5, 2009 2:25:03 PM
Maggie just because no one wants to marry a fat cow doesn't mean you can take it out on us
Posted by: Roxes | Aug 5, 2009 3:25:03 PM
I've been inspired by Dick Mills.
The thought of married homos in Maggie's world cause the discomfort of internal pressure and bloat to build within her until she finally emits the vocal equivalent of a loud stinking fart, whereupon she feels immediate relief and a twisted sense of satisfaction in knowing that she has had an impact on the world around her. And, then she's okay for a couple of hours.
Meanwhile, we are startled by the noise, and left reeling from the stench, because it's all about her getting relief by controlling her world in the only way she knows how.
Posted by: Richard Rush | Aug 5, 2009 4:23:02 PM
Well, Dick, she's full of hot AIR, that's fer sure.
Posted by: Bill S | Aug 5, 2009 4:28:45 PM
I'm more than just offended. I actively wish for a small black hole to pop up next to her and suck her in.
Posted by: Tony P | Aug 5, 2009 5:00:45 PM
Ms. Gallagher doesn't seem to realize that in calling out her bigotry we are not saying that opposite marriage is wrong. We are saying there is more than one possibility. I like to break things down to the lowest common denominator: Conjuctions: and. but. or. We are in the camp of "and", Ms. Gallagher only wishes to use "but" and "or"
Posted by: SammySeattle | Aug 5, 2009 5:23:54 PM
And just think, Richard, she could be igniting those emissions as well! What brilliant caricature images Maggie's persona elicits.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Aug 5, 2009 5:24:18 PM
Maggie failed to heed that warning in the high-school sex-ed book that warns girls "getting pregnant is not the way to trap a man". She's been taking it out on gay couples ever since in some twisted belief that by punishing us she can force heterosexual relationships to adhere to her fantasies.
Posted by: Buffy | Aug 5, 2009 6:34:32 PM
That's it! No more Donuts for Maggie!
Posted by: John Ozed | Aug 6, 2009 9:48:14 AM
While homosexuality is never unhealthy unless combined with unsafe sex practices, obesity is always unhealthy. Obesity increases the risks for heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke, diabetes, some cancers, liver disease, gallbladder disease, breathing problems, and premature death. So one result of obesity may be that a child, who so desperately needs both a mom and a dad, will lose one of them. But Maggie prefers to focus on the homos.
Posted by: Richard Rush | Aug 6, 2009 11:48:31 AMcomments powered by Disqus