Video: She's just so mean-spirited. There's really no nice way to say it.
It's fitting that Maggie would record this video for the Catholic News Agency, considering the National Organization For Marriage is essentially a Catholic front group. It's also fitting that she'd gloat over her ability to dupe a majority margin of 30,000+ Maine voters to support her side's unbelievably offensive and fallacious strategy about schoolchildren, because she has chosen a cruel lifestyle that equates one's ability to pass off vile lies to "success":
"This gay marriage thing." This has become Maggie's new favorite line, one that's clearly meant to even further dehumanize the loving LGBT couples who her team has hostilely hurt and denied in this unprovoked, unwarranted, unprincipled "war." She used the line a few months back on The Christian Broadcast Network, and she's hauled it out many times this week in her reactions to Maine. It goes right along with the dismissive "two dudes" line that she's used in the past.
So why does Mags use these subtly antagonistic phrases? Oh, well It's absolutely, positively strategy on her part. Just like NOM admits in their literature that they don't want people being honest about their desire to ban same-sex marriage (because they know actuality doesn't poll well for their side), Maggie also knows that using words that make gays seem like an "other" helps her side disconnect their fight from the constitutional principles of equality and fairness. She doesn't want anyone realizing that gay couples are seeking EQUAL access to a CIVIL institution afforded to them by the GOVERNMENT that is supported by their TAX DOLLARS. She wants "gay marriage" to seem like a weird, wacky "thing," meant to be studied or sold in Ikea, not enjoyed by peace-loving Americans. So she doesn't talk about human beings fighting for the "radical" notion that they are equal. She talks about "two dudes" doing a "thing." Coldly. Unabashedly. Heartlessly.
All Maggie is saying in this video is that her side was able to again dupe folks with hurtful lies. Well yes, that's true, as far as that goes: They were able to waste millions of dollars (and force us to do the same) on an unprincipled act of faith-based hostility. But she cannot speak to any true merits or achievements, only to a specific Schubert-Flint campaign construction about marriage in schools. This "win" may allow her to gloat for now, but the callous cackles are shallow. Americans are wising up to the fact that minority rights are not silly putty, meant to be molded by tyranny. And when all is said and done, it won't be "this gay marriage thing" that is seen as wacky: It will be the fact that a grown woman dedicated her every breath towards denying her neighbors of peace, all in the name of God.
Maggie's chosen career path is among the most hurtful occupations to ever hit the American job market. In some jobs the employee acquires sick pay with time and merit. In Maggie's line of work, every dollar tendered is about as sick as you can get! The better her performance (and she is skilled in her field), the worse our national welfare.
It might be worth remembering that 16 years ago, no one was even thinking about this issue. 10 years ago, only 1 state had civil unions, and even that was controversial. When states first put this issue up for popular vote, it would fail by 2-1 margins, with no effort by the anti-gay side.
Today, 5 states have marriage, 4 have civil union equivalents, another 3 jurisdictions are in the pipeline, and NOM and Co. had to spend something approaching $4 million just to eke out a 5.5% victory.
Posted by: Dan | Nov 7, 2009 1:06:50 AM
She works so hard for injustice/inequality. Let her complain to deaf ears, when the precedent she pushes comes pushing back against her and her loved ones. She will be the person standing next to me when terrified soldiers will shoot anyone who speaks against "THE BEAST" that she blindly/ignorantly served. Now stop giving her publicity.
Posted by: yezbok | Nov 7, 2009 1:25:03 AM
You know, I try to remain somewhat emotionally detached when it comes to these anti-gay people and their attacks on our lives and rights, because I find it's better (for me) to try and keep a level head and rise above them and their petty tactics. But every single time this woman opens her mouth, I'm filled with rage and sadness over the fact that someone can be so cold and callous about trampling on other people's rights, just because we're different from them. The worst part is, she's totally convinced that her antics are for the greater good.
She makes me sick.
Posted by: Reynvaan | Nov 7, 2009 1:41:03 AM
This woman and her cronies are prions. No matter what whale shit they spew about "protecting" marriage and society, they're as damaging to the things they supposedly care about as a prion is to any living thing.
Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | Nov 7, 2009 1:47:48 AM
She's totally dispassionate in her delivery of this message. She looks completely run down. Her smiles are forced. She also keeps on looking down, to the side, and emphasizing how hurt the gay community is. And let's not forget how she quietly sat in observance of the DC rally. She didn't talk about it or anything. She just sat there watching.
.....I question if there's something bigger going on with Maggie. Is the magnitude of her actions slowly beginning to set in as she goes about her work?
Posted by: anonymous | Nov 7, 2009 2:00:43 AM
God, she is a hateful bitch!
She knows she's hurting people, and she acknowledges it in the video. And she's HAPPY about it.
I seriously hope this woman comes to grip with whatever demons she's hiding before she dies. Not for our sake, though that would obviously be a bonus. But for her own sake...I hope one day she's able to come to her senses and realize that whatever she thinks that gay people have done to her (because, I guarantee, it's personal) didn't actually happen, and has a bit of time to reflect, and yes, repent for the pain she brings to peoples' lives.
I'm actually pretty speechless. She's a sinister force. If gay activists are smart, they'll dig until they can corner her with whatever it is that's haunting her, because that woman is a meltdown waiting to happen.
(Or maybe she's just pissed off about her golden child Carrie's diddleflick going public...)
Question to ponder: Was Maggie Gallagher holding the camera?
Posted by: Break the Terror (Evan) | Nov 7, 2009 2:37:45 AM
Gods, I just cannot stand this woman!!! And, right now, I just need someone to hold me, and to comfort me... Seriously! She has Iowa in her sights, next! Our Republicans are in the process of trying to circumvent the Democratic controlled legislative process which is protecting our rights (because a Gay Marriage ban failed to miserably, previously) by holding our once-every-10-year Constitutional Convention that allows Iowans to vote on what constitutional Amendments can be voted on PRONTO. So, Iowan's could be able to vote on this issue much sooner than previously thought, possibly without the liberal legislature's input. Just Google Iowa + Constitution + 2011.
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Nov 7, 2009 3:37:48 AM
I agree, she does look tired in the video. However, I did notice the smallest of smirks just before she mentions the 'victory' margin in Maine. I honestly believe that she enjoys inflicting this pain on gay families and such smirks half-way through and towards the end are indicative of this kind of Schadenfreude.
What annoys me about this video is how dispassionate she is. It's as if she has rehearsed this kind of narrative over and over in her head and now spouts it out without thinking. Her language is also just soulless. 'Gay marriage thing' is flippant at best, offensive at worst. Imagine if we started to talk about this 'Catholic thing'. I'm sure Maggie wouldn't be too happy with that.
Posted by: Mikey@UK | Nov 7, 2009 7:24:52 AM
There comes a time where zealots lose sight of the cause behind their fight and the fight becomes the cause. Hence, Maine today; Iowa, tomorrow. it shows in Maggie's blurb.
I am done with live-and-let-live. She is totally allied with the most corrupt of religions and its haughty hypocrisy, the Roman Catholic Church. Find the dirt on her!!!!!!!!
Posted by: brucci Davidson | Nov 7, 2009 8:18:16 AM
Mikey: I just listened to an interview with author Sarah Schulman, and she talked at length about how we've so fully mislabeled homophobia. Her gist: that often (if not most of the time) there is a pleasure motivation rather than a fear-based one. The desire to hurt often comes from a desire for self-aggrandization.
Then with Maggie, you have profit motivation. Never forget that she's made a very comfortable living out of hurting us.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Nov 7, 2009 8:43:54 AM
Jeremy, you're right - "homophobe" is the wrong word. It fails to convey the fact that they think a) they're better than you, and b) you should be like them. That's why I say "heterosupremacist."
Posted by: DN | Nov 7, 2009 11:44:49 AM
There is no victory in denial and compromise to individual self reliance. There is no victory in setting aside a different set of punishment for what would be applauded if the only difference were those involved were heterosexual.
She and Brian Brown are self righteous and self aggrandizing. In the end, there is less security and married parents for thousands of children WHO NEED IT.
She cares not for them. She cares not for the self sufficiency and health of gay people.
She's ballooning up with her self importance.
And I hope she explodes.
Posted by: Regan DuCasse | Nov 7, 2009 1:08:03 PM
We're not going to win unless this happens. We have to make the people who either support marriage equality or don't care either way to vote.
The problem is that the people who are against it are much more passionate about it, and will be more likely to get out and cast their vote.
As the margins in CA and Maine show, we have a great deal of support. The challenge is how do we make just a few more people care enough?
I fear that they will get their way, and it will be banned in all 50 states. Once that's done, they're gonna go after domestic partnerships, and after that I don't even want to think about.
What is so frustrating to me is that I think that they think they're voting away homosexuality or gay couples in general. I recently read about a study that said people are more likely to support marriage equality if they know someone who is gay. We gotta come out in freaking droves!
Posted by: Bearchewtoy75 | Nov 7, 2009 2:07:34 PM
Jeremy, I completely agree that the term 'homophobia' is inaccurate. I prefer to use the term 'heterosexist' because it evokes the same feelings that the word 'sexist' does - a sense that the heterosexist person thinks they are superior, often with a bullish (and bullying) demeanor. And of course, nobody wants to be sexist so it is useful to show just how wrong heterosexism is if the two are compared. (How's that for an 'agenda'?!?)
Oh, and I do believe she is also financially motivated because she has found herself a lovely niche with virtually no competition. She's a clever one that Mags.
Posted by: Mikey@UK | Nov 7, 2009 2:23:47 PM
I honestly don't know how she can sleep at night. I think her conscious must be starting to get to her by now and she's clinging to her own denial. You can tell by her constant instance that public opinion is not shifting by making meals out of crumbs as Question 1 and Prop 8 only passed by narrow margins. Heck, even if we had won by a narrow margin, we'd realize that we barely made it. I've become quite numb to her rhetoric and only expect silly notions to come out of her mouth, so the thing that struck me the most in this video is that she acknowledged that gays were hurt. It makes me wonder if she saw the photos of the Maine couples holding each other in tears on election night and how she could gloat about her involvement in striking a blow to their dignity or if she actually has an ounce of the compassion I felt for them.
Also, Jeremy -- I'm hoping you can post a link to the Sarah Schulman interview..?
Posted by: remix | Nov 7, 2009 3:26:09 PM
@remix: " Heck, even if we had won by a narrow margin, we'd realize that we barely made it."
EXACTLY! Even if we had convinced the 30k and change voters that we needed, there would still have been 260k+ who voted against us (just as the situation is now, in reverse). These hurtful, unnecessary votes divide us as a people . Nobody "wins" when minority rights are put to a public referendum.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Nov 7, 2009 4:25:47 PM
The Sarah Schulman interview can be found here. It's from the "Gay USA" program:
For those not familiar with Gay USA: You really should be! It's a weekly show, wherein Ann Northrop and Andy Humm provide some of the best LGBT news and commentary you will find anywhere. Even if it's something you've already read a million times by the time their show airs, they find ways to bring out new things that you may not have ever considered. A strong recommend!!
Posted by: G-A-Y | Nov 7, 2009 4:29:09 PM
".. we've so fully mislabeled homophobia. Her gist: that often (if not most of the time) there is a pleasure motivation rather than a fear-based one."
A new entry for the urban dictionary:
Xenosadists - those who delight in inflicting pain on those who differ from their self-identification, and purely for their own enjoyment / self-aggrandizing.
Homophobic Xenosadists - those who delight in inflicting pain on homos purely for their own enjoyment / self-aggrandizing / over-compensating fear.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Nov 7, 2009 9:00:22 PM
And... perhaps most importantly, in both Xenosadism and Homophobic Xenosadism, the perpetrator derives a high degree of sexual gratification from the perpetration of those sadistic activities.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Nov 7, 2009 9:08:17 PM
Thanks so much for the link! :)
Posted by: remix | Nov 8, 2009 10:45:27 AM
Praise God! I appalud the people of Maine for standing for marriage as Almighty God has designed it: Between One Man and One Woman for Life! Clearly, America doesn't approve of Gay unions!
Posted by: James Perkins | Nov 8, 2009 10:35:40 PM
James Perkins, I'll bet you get tingle in your private parts as you revel in your "conquest"... don't you? Come on, you can be honest with us. And, even if you lie to us, you can't keep your lie away from that figment of your imagination that tells you to celebrate achieving absolutely nothing for yourself, but only in what serves to hurt families that need the protection of marriage.
You take great pleasure in hurting others who have done nothing to you. And your aggression is simply for the perverse thrill of the sport. We know exactly what motivates you and your cadre of lying liars who have no shame when it comes to deceiving voters about us. Enjoy the ecstasy of your illicit "victory" while you can, but if you think it's over, you are sadly mistaken.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Nov 9, 2009 12:00:41 AM
They continue to win battles, but they will never win the war. SSM will eventually prevail.
Posted by: MarkL | Nov 9, 2009 11:59:50 AM
I expect that the battle lines will be drawn after the California Court upholds that Prop 8 denies people their Constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment this January. This ruling will be appealed by the far right and go to the Supreme Court where we will again prevail and shut down 27 state's amendments barring us from having equal families.
Posted by: Mykelb | Nov 9, 2009 3:48:31 PM
I just wish someone would yank that old bitch off her broomstick and beat the livin shit out of her.She is plain old bitter and ugly from the the rotten core of her.
Posted by: ricky | Nov 10, 2009 11:58:51 PMcomments powered by Disqus