RECENT  POSTS:  » GOP pollster Luntz to Heritage Foundation's Anderson: 'Gay marriage is harmless' » Read: Federal court judge rules against Colorado's discriminatory marriage ban » You guys, will you please pipe down so Sen. Rubio can dismantle your deserved freedoms? » 'Mask is coming off' LGBTs, says man who vowed to export and/or criminalize LGBTs » Exxon, infamous holdout on fair and decent employment protections, could be running out of options » Oregon baker who refused same-sex wedding cake bakes for 'ex-gay' org » PFOX rebrands; into group play, seemingly » Audio: Listen to this ADF spinmeister and his anti-gay spin » Report: US District judge won't deny justice to gay Coloradans; might delay it, though » AFA to POTUS: End your 'love affair with homosexuality,' give anti-gay Christians entitlement instead  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

01/19/2010

Seriously, Maggie: You and sleep -- how?

by Jeremy Hooper

One of the most mean-spirited, unscrupulously boastful posts we've ever seen from Maggie Gallagher:

6A00D8341C503453Ef0120A55C0D89970B-6San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders testified today in the Prop 8 trial, in favor of misusing the Consittution [sic] to overturn the rights of 7 million Californian voters.

Here’s the interesting thing most people don’t know. San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders is the reason Prop 8 got on the ballot.

He gave moving testimony in court today about how much he loves his lesbian daughter. Sure. But he ran for office promising the people of San Diego he opposed gay marriage. And then, he signed a city council resolution trying to overturn Prop 22 instead of meeting his obligations, living up to his promises. And he used his daughter as an excuse. That’s wrong. Politicians are not elected to advance the views and values of their families.

The National Organization for Marriage, which has been credited by gay rights activists as one of the main reasons Prop 8 qualified for the ballot, got involved because Mayor Sander betrayed his campaign vows. I was asked to fly to San Diego in October of 2007 by a group of San Diego Catholics upset about the Mayor’s betrayal. That meeting lead directly to NOM’s decision to try to raise a million dollars in January of 2008 to help Protect Marriage get this on the ballot. The rest is history. Thank-you Mayor Sanders.

San Diego Mayor Sanders: The Reason Prop 8 Happened [NOM]

Uhm, okay, let's all look back for a second:

What Mayor Sanders expressed on this '07 day was a change of heart, based on the what we in the LGBT community know to be our strongest ally: Personal knowledge of an LGBT person. In this case, it was the mayor's own daughter, as well as his many LGBT constituents. His personal convictions were as honest as they were principled. His heart was on his sleeve. His evolution was true. It's the sort of genuine emotion that could not be faked by a Winslet or a Streep, much less a non-thespian mayor with a very-lesbian kid.

Yet here we have Maggie not only suggesting that some sort of malfeasance was at play, but also flat-out gloating about how a father's undeniable love for his daughter led Maggue and her discriminatory cronies to butt into millions of gay lives for the sole sake of bias. She comes right out and says it: Local people of faith were enraged by Mayor Sanders' support for CIVIL -- CIVIL, CIVIL, CIVIL, CIVIL, CIVIL, did we mention, CIVIL? -- marriage that they recruited professional 'mo foes to help them in their society-weakening efforts. A father's love didn't lead them to reconsider their own hearts -- it instead led them to apply an even stronger layer of brick around the same. And this makes Maggie so f****ing proud, that she gloats about it 2+ years later?! Plus she has the gall to THANK the man for helping her break his own daughter's heart?! It's seriously unfathomable human behavior!

Maggie Gallagher is someone who has built a highly profitable career on taking her personal ideas on family and trying with all of her might to cram those largely faith-based views into public policy. Yet here she is all-out condemning an official for letting his own tangible, first-hand evidence of family inform his views about the same. It's beyond hypocritical: It's nothing if scream-inducing. And it's yet another hurtful contribution to the ignoble filing cabinet that is Maggie Gallagher (Srivastav)'s unfortunately misguided legacy. An archive that will inevitably be relegated to history's dustbin, yet will inevitably wound many more souls before it reaches its place of overdue rest.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

She really needs most of the money she makes for her monthly feed bill.

Okay, okay I'm not really into ad hominem attacks per se, but I couldn't help myself on that one, especially since her book of hatred condemns gluttony as well as homosexuality (hypocrisy anyone?).

I feel nothing but pity for these people whose lives are totally consumed with dehumanizing wonderful human beings.

I, on the other hand, will continue skydiving, spending my money in L.A. and San Diego when not freezing in Ohio, enjoying my wonderful racehorses and spending time with the family I love - my sister and our friends, etc.

Posted by: Dale | Jan 19, 2010 10:28:54 PM

"Family values" only count for the *right* sort of families!

Posted by: Dan T. | Jan 19, 2010 10:38:36 PM

Maggie is conveniently forgetting that Mayor Sanders easily won re-election a year after his public support for SSM. I guess San Diegans didn't feel as "betrayed" by their mayor as Maggie would like folks to think.

Posted by: John | Jan 19, 2010 11:16:40 PM

Funny how she'd have absolutely no problem with a representative or senator voting against the will of his or her constituents if it meant a vote against gay marriage.

Posted by: Gary | Jan 19, 2010 11:17:01 PM

Persons of her girth, generally have very labored sleep. They generally wake themselves up several times during the night, and many times don't get the requisite amount of rest. It also wears on them to the point of reducing their life expectancy. That is also why they generally appear exhausted and sluggish. They are also generally unsatisfied, or even miserably unhappy, sometimes even suicidal. Of course, I'm just making all of this crap up. But one can hope that as many lies, and as much hatred as she spews, that her miserable existence is really the cause of her pathetic choice of careers... Someday, the anti-gay supremacists may be relegated to wearing white hoods and (in her case, super-sized) white sheets.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Jan 20, 2010 12:04:48 AM

"Politicians are not elected to advance the views and values of their families."

Did she just said that?!?! - Isn't that one of the litmus test for people like Maggie when it come to supporting politicians that support "traditional family values"?


Posted by: Alonzo | Jan 20, 2010 12:13:50 AM

One of my biggest joys is imagining one of Maggie's biggest fears: that gay marriage and homosexuality might be viewed as "normal" in 20+ years, and that the "definition" of marriage in the popular mind of children will NOT be a "mother and a father"/ man or woman, but simply "two adult individuals who come together in love".

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 20, 2010 12:29:53 AM

Ah...if only someone would give this woman her Anita Bryant moment! (The hurt and pain-filled eyes of the man who did the deed still haunt me every time I think about it!) But, she's too good for that! Anyhoo...I have a rope if someone else can rangle up a bucket of pig's blood! Just sayin' is all; then again, I'd probably get tried as some sort of "domestic terrorist" (thanks Bush!).

Anyhoo...ol' Mags' argument is fatally flawed at the outset. You see, the citizens of California had NO RIGHT to vote on this issue what-so-ever because the CA. SC justice ruled that the Gay citizens were "a suspect class" (like ours did, here in Iowa); and with that declaration meas--surprise, surprise--that NO ONE gets to vote on what freedoms are extended to me, or what laws may specifically target me! But, apparently the reason that California lost is principally because no one volunteered to stand up and defend that high class of distinction which affords the HIGHEST level of judicial scrutiny, so what they should have done, then, was to sue the CA. gov't (like, I fear, we may have to do in Iowa in a few years)--the law would have BEEN on YOUR SIDE.

Also, for all of Mags' talk about the "will" and "rights" of "the people" I can't help but be struck by the irony that, had Mags' group not gotten involved in Cali. OR Maine, by directly attempting to manipulate the Will of the voters through sorely duplicitous means and relying upon historic tactics to vilify us (a la "Anita Bryant in making it "all about the children" or "protecting the children" from us, and employing an ad campaign to discern--using a FOCUS GROUP--how to turn the "debate" from one into "Equal Rights" into one of "individual (parental) rights"/fears.

Incidentally, if anyone would like some fun poking holes into ol' Mags' specific declarations about why we don't deserve Marriage equality, she was part of a panel at The National Constitution Center, mediated by Margot Adler, a High Priestess and author of "Drawing Down the Moon" (it's actually quite a recent debate): http://fora.tv/2009/10/20/Gay_Marriage_A_Debate

Sad thing is, no amount of talk of "equal rights" or "equality" and "civil rights", etc. will even get her to CONSIDER another POV. She sincerely BELIEVES that marriage is the strict heterosexist reserve for opposite-sex couples because of the way she has convinced herself that the gov't got involved with marriage for the sake of kids (despite how marriage no longer seems to reflect that), and that we don't deserve ANY rights because our rights are a direct threat to religious groups/ "faith groups"!

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 20, 2010 12:35:44 AM

Essentially she admits Prop 8 was against valuing families from the very beginning.

His change of heart wasn't just about his daughter, but members of his staff as well. He testified about that today. But she's gotta spin it per usual.

Posted by: remix | Jan 20, 2010 12:40:35 AM

God, she's a pig.

Posted by: Evan Hurst | Jan 20, 2010 12:58:03 AM

For me, it wasn't so much about his experience as the father of a lesbian woman, it was the way he described his experience as a principled political guy.

One daughter, Jamie, was straight, and Lisa, the other daughter, was lesbian. Both had worked on his campaign "every step of the way" and accepted his position on civil unions as "politically palatable."

But Sanders had the gall (i.e., fortitude) to meet with the constituents whose rights he was getting ready to veto -- local LGBT community leaders.

"This was not a night of politics," Sanders said. "This was a night where they showed the depth of their hurt."

[Sanders must have already plumbed a few of the depths of his lesbian daughter's experiences... and still emerged determined to oppose marriage equality, never mind the hurdles his loyal daughter might be jumping to support her dad.]

Sitting down to listen for a moment is nothing for a politician... sitting still long enough to hear something new for the first time is a little anti-political... hearing and adopting something innovative and forward-thinking, from a previously known but generally antagonistic group of constituents?

That's a rare moment.

Especially when you're still retelling that story years later.

Posted by: Bose | Jan 20, 2010 2:09:49 AM

Dale: Mags Srivastav is reprehensible, and some day soon she'll be a mere footnote in American history. That being said, I'm equally repulsed by how the go to response to her by some is to attack her weight. This from a community that, one would hope, would know better.

We're better than that, and there's far more to rightly condemn about her behavior. Denouncing the actions she's decided to take against the LBGT community is a response that is far more substantial than her weight, or any personal attack against her, will ever be.

Posted by: Sassifras | Jan 20, 2010 2:39:58 AM

I would never attack Maggie for her weight, especially when there are so many OTHER things about her that are TRULY horrible, and being overweight isn't a bad thing.

Posted by: Bill S | Jan 20, 2010 7:16:21 AM

Agreed, Sass.

And I do want to say that if the photo I chose for this post led to increased weight chatter, that really was not my intent. I just like to use this photo on some of her more disturbing comments, because the face she is making is just so over-the-top happy, and it's really how I have begun to envision her looking while she's writing this stuff. I'm really starting to believe that she gets off on this nonsense, and the pic reflects that in my mind.

But yea, folks: Let's take on her message.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 20, 2010 8:03:47 AM

Btw: NOM has deleted 2 of my comments, both of them perfectly fair and measured.

This is a group that wants to hold any and everyone accountable for their pro-gay support, yet who refuses any semblance of accountability in regards to their own homo-hostile actions. We must be even more forceful. Fair, but forceful.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 20, 2010 8:23:24 AM

Some days it's really hard to stay on-message with these people. You're exactly right, Jeremy, in how these people are absolutely sick in their giddy delight at the hurt they cause (for the NOM facebookers: Rick DeLano, I'm looking at you).

Mayor Sanders is a great reminder that the way to win this fight is going to have to be through conveying our stories and our lives to those close to us, rather than bashing back. Unfortunately, the one-personal-story-at-a-time method has us gaining rights in the mid 2020s, which also isn't right.

I guess we can take satisfaction knowing that, unlike these Christians, we are able to live up to the Christian call to turn the other cheek.

Posted by: DN | Jan 20, 2010 10:09:41 AM

I hate that woman.

Posted by: John in MN | Jan 20, 2010 10:26:32 AM

@ Dick Mills: Absolutely agree with you! We should publicly/ culturally shame them en mass. One wonders, however, if non-bigots in the US thought the same thing about the KKK when, during certain periods in our history, the vote of the Klan was REQUIRED to get elected into office!

@ Alonzo: You are absolutely 100% correct! Moreover, you have observed a Logical Fallacy known as "Special Pleading" (look it up!) in which one mandates they someone whom they are criticizing follow rules that the person criticizing seems to be excused from following.

Also note what ol' Mags implies, when she discusses that marriage is responsible so that a child can know his or her biological parents 9as if they always make GOOD parents, which we know to be false), but it's just struck me that if she is finally able to make it impossible for we Queers to be able to achieve any rights and protections (which she clearly views as a threat to Christian religion, she clearly believes that gays should not be parents, especially adoptive parents!

BTW, it looks like she's gained a great deal more weight in the panel discussion at The National Constitution Center; and that's unfortunate, because it's a tax on her life-span (although, maybe if she passed on sooner rather than later we wouldn't have to struggle so hard!). And, speaking of struggling, she taunted the Gay member of the panel by saying that if Marriage Equality was "inevitable" than why are we so worried and working so hard? WTF?! We are only working so hard because of people such as she (esp. due to her group, NOM, publicly misleading the public!). After all, had it not been for NOM's MENDACIOUS ads in Cali. and Maine we almost certainly would have won, because they were playing upon parents' fears and worries of the unknown! ("Mendacious" is the word of the day.)

Incidentally, ol' Mags (like G-dog who came before her) believes that she is not a bigot, and that history will vindicate her! Well, I swear to the gods whom I serve that, even if i have to write it myself, *I* will write the history of how she has marginalized and vilified a minority, replete with her common hateful rhetoric that seems to allow her to excuse her devious actions without a care in the world. HOPEFULLY, even school children will know and despise the name "Maggie Gallagher" along the lines of some far more notorious bigots throughout our history.

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 20, 2010 11:16:20 AM

OH! OH! OH! Jeremy!!! *I* just had a wicked little thought... Wouldn't it be oh-so delicious if The Daily Show, The Colbert report, or (my personal fav.!) Real Time with Bill Maher to REALLY give it to her arguments from a factually-based and absolutely SOUND pov! (OH!!! Sensory over-load at the thought of them grilling her, especially the latter!)

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 20, 2010 11:21:55 AM

She and her Brown boy know what they're doing is wrong and won't last. They are just slowing the clock to make as much money off of the misfortune they have caused us. They will be exposed sooner or later. Hopefully sooner. And Jeremy, they obviously don't want the truth known which is why they've deleted your comments. Cowardly people.

Posted by: John Ozed | Jan 20, 2010 11:31:15 AM

Serious question: Maggie says that she was "asked" by a Catholic group to fly to California in October 2007, and that the meeting with that Catholic group "lead directly" to NOM getting involved in Prop 8.

Was the flight paid for by NOM or the Catholic Church? Was it accounted for on the 2007 tax returns that we have?

Would it make a difference, or am I snipe hunting?

Posted by: Matt Algren | Jan 20, 2010 11:46:26 AM

@Wade

That's what I'm kinda hoping for, that 15-20 years down the road when you get into classes in APUSH and such, they'll have some of these documents, the way they have documents on Phyllis Schlyaffiblyriddiculousargument

Posted by: Bry | Jan 20, 2010 1:42:43 PM

Sass, G-A-Y,

As I'd written I try to refrain from attacks, in this particular case, on her weight and in general the "sins" of other hypocrites. BUT I don't find it troubling that others do. She and countless others are using a book of disgusting hatred to attack the LGBT community - all the while ignoring the same book that condemns their own "sins." It must not be forgotten that these are vile, hateful people and I have no problem with others calling them out on their own "sins."

Hypocrisy is very ugly in this particular case, when so many lives have been ruined by these (excuse me) sick, hateful f*cks.

Posted by: Dale | Jan 21, 2010 12:26:03 AM

Alonzo took little of my thunder. I was a gob smacked as he was by such a statement coming from this woman.

A father, who is showing a depth of love and support for BOTH of his daughters.
And his lesbian daughter at one point, doing the same for her father despite his initial rejection of her getting married.
THAT is family values. THAT is what the depth of real love will do. Give a father courage to defend his gay child, damn the torpedos.
He's not hiding BEHIND his daughter to defend himself from his own and public prejudice, but rather he's standing IN FRONT of her, to protect her from whatever prejudice would come her way.

It figures that Mags and Brian Brown can't appreciate that because they themselves don't have that kind of courage, family values or moral integrity.

They think other people should be as shallow and cowardly as they are, and will throw stones from glass houses.

I wish ALL the parents of gay children had the guts, to fight the Mags and BB's of the world.
It would be a world I'd love to see, and that supremacists like Mags and BB are afraid of.
What boring, small people they are.

Posted by: Regan DuCasse | Jan 21, 2010 1:44:47 PM

Oh and...
I don't like to make fun of a person's weight either. Many of our fine and amazing friends have some girth and I consider it more to love.

However, there ARE plenty of other things to criticize Mags over.
Most importantly, her lack of courage, understanding of the historical vindication of those who fought and still do for justice and equality and mores the point, she spreads viral fear and exploits ignorance.
And only those of evil intent tend to do so.

She pins hero on her chest, while at the same time, taking up the mantle of victim. How crass, low and significantly without merit or rational thought.

She's an UGLY human being. Ugly and so wrong.

Posted by: Regan DuCasse | Jan 21, 2010 1:49:20 PM

Thank you very kindly for the pick-me-up, DW. It is a great consolation to know that I am worth even a fraction of the vitriol you folks heap on Maggie.

I shall endeavour to do even better in future, since obviously only those who defend marriage effectively can ever hope to be the recipient of the honor of your specific attention.

Posted by: Rick DeLano | Jan 22, 2010 12:55:06 AM

Somebody did a vanity search!!!

Posted by: Matt Algren | Jan 22, 2010 3:05:41 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails