Maggie Gallagher: Still trying to make 'Olson/Boies are faith-haters' meme happen
The strategy laid out by Olson and Boeis [sic], which is exciting the base, seems to me (granted, I'm not a legal scholar) strikingly unlikely to win Justice Anthony Kennedy's vote. They are attempting to use this trial to prove that religious views on sex and marriage are, consituutionally [sic] speaking, bigotry and animus. Being Catholic, or being Southern Baptist, in their view, makes you a marriage bigot.
Gay-marriage advocates are cheering wildly. I dunno, I don't really think this is the way to Justice Kennedy's heart.
Prop 8 'From Bad to Worse'? [NRO]
Kennedy-based reluctance that might be true, except for one teensy little thing: On the subject of religion and marriage, Maggie is being her typically intellectually dishonest self! Because while the pro-equality side's argument does claim that marriage bias is most often born out of faith belief, nobody on our side is saying that being a [insert whatever kind of religious person] automatically makes you a "bigot," as Maggie asserts (and has asserted throughout this trial). Obviously.
Nor is our side saying that ALL people of faith are anti-marriage equality. On the contrary, we on the pro-equality side proudly acknowledge the many pro-gay people of faith, because that works in our favor against the other side's "protect religious freedom" arguments! We want to defend everyone's religious freedom -- both those who want to love us and those who want to loathe us, just as long as they want to do either of these things without violating others' civil equality!
When it comes to faith and marriage, we are simply saying that religion is what's most fully being used as a justification to deny us of a civil license. And when you look at it the way (i.e. the accurate way) and consider the biggest piece of evidence we have about Justice Kennedy's marriage views (i.e. his majority Lawrence V. Texas opinion) then we remain more than confident that he will see the merit of our side's arguments. Look, here's what he said in Lawrence:
It must be acknowledged, of course, that the Court in [Bowers v. Hardwick] was making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral. The condemnation has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the course of their lives. These considerations do not answer the question before us, however. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law. "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 850 (1992).
Lawrence v. Texas [Cornell Law]
"The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society...". Exactly! In the case of Lawrence, it had to do with criminalization via so-called sodomy laws. In the current case, it has to do with discrimination in the form of marriage bias. But the key religious aspect remains the same: The overreaching by anti-gay people of faith to force all of society to accept their personal religious views as policy!
In Maggie's world, where the dual masters of God and a paycheck are guiding her, if one resists religious-based discrimination then she jumps and claims that the person (or in most cases, large swaths of society) hate the faith itself. This is what has prompted her to say simply startling things like "San Francisco hates Catholics," or to quip that Olson/Boies are determined to "put Christianity itself on trial." Her negligent rhetoric in this regards is not only damaging to marriage equality: It also seems frighteningly desirous of starting an all-out faith war! She needs to stop it and she needs to stop it now.
**SEE ALSO: Evan Hurst attempts his own Maggie-based breakthrough: Maggie Gallagher Attempts Compassion, Misses the Mark Completely [TWO]
Stirring up animus! That woman knows how to stoke the embers to fire up the indignant rage that her supporters harbor. And, the true bigots among them, just become that much more blinded by their hatred. And Maggie! She knows exactly what she is doing. And, the rage that is waging inside of her, has her so indifferent to the harm she is doing, that she doesn't care. She has a goal, and any means to that end are perfectly acceptable to her. Damn the torpedoes, Maggie... Full steam ahead!
Posted by: Dick Mills | Jan 28, 2010 4:40:53 PM
She's making what, maybe $300k a year?? spewing hatred?? We can probably match that, Maggie! Hell, we can probably top that! The dark side has it's allures. But we can offer righteousness, peace, justice... those are some decent perks! Of course, you will end up pissing off a lot of the hatemongers that currently support you, and they can be pretty nasty; so there is that. Wha'da'ya say? We can even get you onto a diet and exercise routine so that you feel better about yourself??
Posted by: Dick Mills | Jan 28, 2010 4:49:51 PM
Dick Mills is completely right - people like Maggie know what they are doing and will continue to do so because it works almost everytime.
Posted by: Alonzo | Jan 28, 2010 5:00:49 PM
Hey J-man, that was brilliant! Never read that from Kennedy before... Indeed, it makes me more hopeful for a positive outcome. ;o) 'Course, my only regret so far is that mags wasn't called to testify and answer for her hate-rallying speach, 'cause...i really wanted to see her cry on cross! :o) C'mon, can ya' blame me, considering what she's put us all through?
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 28, 2010 5:53:35 PM
It's sad, and it's SCARY, that by Maggie's actions (through NOM), that we can clearly see that she believes that ANY and EVERY pro-equality legislation or protection of any kind is viewed, by her, as a direct threat to "people of faith"--ie. Christians! 'Course, as a Pagan, and a history-buff, I firmly believe that this would would have been a LOT better off had Christianity remained a fringe faith during Roman antiquity. Most people, then, would be free to worship their joyous Old Gods, we'd likely have come much farther in scientific advancements, and far fewer would have a single draft of animus towards "the Gays".
Maggie also MUST remember this old Pagan saying, that, if you go back far enough, *everyone's* ancestors were Pagan! She should reflect upon the ramifications of that and stop her rhetoric that seems intent on starting a religious war much like an American vers. of the taliban!
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 28, 2010 6:00:27 PM
What Boies and Olsen are pointing out is that those who just HAPPEN to claim their faith affiliations say things such as:
same sex marriage runs the risk of damaging 'real marriage' and traditional families.
the homosexual agenda is really about eventually having sex with children.
incest and pedophilia is a core value of homosexuals and eventually, if given the opportunity to marry, will force the government to accept incest and marriage to children.
These are NOT religious values, nor any kind of proscriptions coming from religious texts.
These ARE statements with bigotry and defamation writ large on stirring up the voting base.
And you're so right Mags, you're NO legal scholar, nor any KIND of scholar.
You're just a megalomaniac who seems to be hiding and neglecting her own family for HER agenda.
Brian Brown has five children.
He seems to be too preoccupied for what's good for them as well.
I'd respect these people more if they attacked gangs and drug dealers in our society with the zeal they are attacking law abiding and contributing gay citizens and THEIR children.
Over 200 children died at the hands of their caregivers in Los Angeles county alone last year.
I really think that these people's priorities are seriously screwed up.
We KNOW they have better things they SHOULD be doing if 'protecting children' was so essential to them.
Any law enforcement officer, CPS provider or foster care case worker could tell you:
gay folks aren't part of the problem, but a serious part of the solution.
And clearly Mags and BB are not.
Makes you wonder why these people MUST go about what they do. It sure isn't helping those marriages, children and social burdens carried BY anyone in the most vulnerable of situations, right?
Posted by: Regan DuCasse | Jan 28, 2010 6:12:14 PM
Hey, wouldn't it be fabulous to be able to get ahold of some private memos within NOM that details their actual present and even future plans, and how they will be directed at the gay community?!
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 29, 2010 12:19:32 AM
Her wit is sharp, you must admit: "I'm not a legal scholar" is directly referring to a question Boies asked one of the defendant's witnesses (Blankenhorn, I think) about which legal scholars he relied on to come to his conclusions about gay marriage. One that he mentioned was Maggie Gallagher. Boies had fun with that, asking if he considered her a legal scholar - witness said no, just an intellectually curious person - Boies was off and running with the lack of actual scholarship from her and nearly all of the other sources cited.
Ms. Gallagher must have read about that testimony and felt honored to be mentioned, even if it was a backhanded compliment. I'm no comedian, but that was funny.
Posted by: Sykler | Jan 29, 2010 8:11:00 AM
Sykler: Oh yea, Maggie has her wits about her. That's what bothers me so much about her, actually: That she's not a dumb person. The truth is that she is an intellectual who understands the process, and why her personal faith should not be used to deny others; civil liberties. She also knows that gay activists are not anti-religion. She just chooses to spin, twist, and mold what she knows to be true in order to fit her movement's preconceived script.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 29, 2010 8:31:32 AM
Posted by: Evan Hurst | Jan 29, 2010 1:50:14 PMcomments powered by Disqus