As the white adult put it...
Maggie Gallagher disagrees with Rosie O'Donnell about what constitutes a family. Which is about as shocking as saying that the Easter Bunny disagrees with vegans about what kind of product is suitable for children's baskets.
But what is odd in Maggie's new bout of Rosie knocking is her bizarre choice to inject race for no explicable reason. First line:
[Jonathan Rauch and a handful of other gay-marriage advocates want to believe that same-sex marriage will be part of a revival of marriage. Many other gay-marriage advocates, like Rosie O'Donnell, believe (as the black child she showcases in the first minute of her new HBO documentary, A Family Is A Family Is A Family: A Rosie O'Donnell Celebration, put it): "It doesn't matter if you have one parent. It doesn't matter if you have two moms. It doesn't matter if you have two dads. Just stick with it. A family's a family."
SOURCE: Rosie's Family Values [NRO]
See it? The mention of "the black child"? Why, exactly, is that of interest or note?
Would she have noted if this were a white child? Unlikely. But for some reason Maggie -- whose group has, in the past, re-recorded ads for no explicable reason other than to make them more targeted and who has pitted "white liberal" Jerry Brown against California's African-American community -- felt the need to note "the black child." Considering Maggie is someone who chooses her words so very carefully, we can't help but think this was done for a reason. Considering her group's strategy has been playing the black community against us for the past couple of years (esp. in D.C.), we can't help but think those reasons are political.
*Note: We're not at all calling her racist. We're calling her (a) puzzling, (b) opportunistic, and (c) in possession of a track record that does, undeniably, play communities against one another.
This is great, Rosie isn't going to let this slide nor should she. Maggie is a class-act, sarcasm intended. Look at what she has to say about the first Lady's new "Let's Move" program.
Posted by: Bob Barnes | Feb 12, 2010 12:31:41 PM
The Gaggers of the world have been race baiting since Prop H8, when the exit polling incorrectly indicated that African Americans were more disinclined to vote for us. As it turned out, that was an anomaly, and not representative of the African American community, but they still are race baiting. And, as I see it, there are two reasons. First, they want African Americans to hate us as much as they do. And on that front, they like to throw in that we are "co-opting" the Civil Rights movement. Both tactics are aimed at stirring up animus toward LGBTs.
The second, and perhaps more insidious reason, is an attempt to stir up animus in LGBTs toward African Americans. Because the best possible thing that they could hope for is for two of the groups that they hate the most (AAs and LGBTs) would turn on each other. As much as it is a divide-and-conquer, it is a let-them-kill-each-other and that way we can just sit back and laugh.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Feb 12, 2010 2:32:07 PM
I'll definitely call Maggie racist. She may or may not believe that one race is inferior to another or that members of one particular race are more likely to succeed in life.
But she has demonstrated many times that she is more than happy to exploit race to advance a particular agenda, and that fits my definition of racism. It's not the same *form* or racism as burning crosses, calling people names or writing laws that prevent the underprivileged from voting. But I still see it as racism.
Posted by: DN | Feb 12, 2010 2:51:42 PM
Also, while I think that ad hominem attacks are just plain lame and should be avoided (partly because it gives the opponent something to point to and say "see how hateful they are!")...
I'd like to point out that the reason her opponents mention her weight isn't to say "fat people are stupid / ignorant / whatever." The reason people point out her weight is because gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins. It's hard to take someone's chastising seriously when they're violating other rules or their own dogma. Mote, meet board.
Posted by: DN | Feb 12, 2010 3:03:19 PM
I despise NOM and Gallagher, but that statement is not puzzling and it is not off-base. The Rosie program contained a statement which could be construed as saying that a single-parent household is as desirable as a dual-family household. I know that is not what the quote says, but it could be taken that way.
The Black community has been seriously and disproportionately harmed by the phenomenon of single-parent households, which is associated with increased poverty, truancy, and crime. So of course Maggie would hone in on this and emphasize that the irony of show's having Black child make the statement.
All of those studies that Maggie quotes saying that children are best raised with a mother and a father are all studies comparing dual parent households with single parent households. She dishonestly tries to imply that they were studies comparing gay v. straight families. We should not be helping Gallagher spread her lie that a household run by a gay married couple is the equivalent of a single-parent household.
Posted by: Ziggy | Feb 12, 2010 3:16:37 PM
Hey J, I wonder (often) if *I* am alone in wondering if Gallagher (and gods, I miss Bea Arthur! *G*) has ever questioned her view that marriage must only be reserve for children and the support of the next generation (as if marriage is predicated on procreation, which we KNOW it is not!) when any children (as I have frequently stated) were not born out of any sense of love, but were historically looked upon as a labor force to be exploited. Is Maggie just ignorant of the historical evolution of marriage? or, does she just not care? Hell, I was reminded, today, through the Prop 8 Re-Enactment, that marriage also ensure patriarchal lines of succession in strict terms of inheritance (according to Prof. Cott!), in order to strictly prevent a bastard child from usurping his father's estate. There has NEVER been a state-based issue in which marriage is predicated on the notion that it is expressly to serve the rights of the child (according to Mags) so that a child can know and be known (and love and be loved) by his or her biological parents (as if there is some infamous" and mysterious "law" that prevents a child from being known by his baby-daddy!
And, a question that I've NEVER heard the Gallagher answer is: "What do 'children' have to do with allowing Gay people to engage in a civil/ secular marriage?!" 'Course, I wonder if she thinks that civil marriage is somehow anti-Religion.
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Feb 12, 2010 6:24:54 PM
BTW, unless I cannot seem to remember it, I have to wonder WHY Mags didn't attempt to defend her anti-Gay version of heterocentric marriage against what Prof. Cott's views in the trial records, 'eh? Dudes, I would PAY to see a verbal throw-down (a debate) featuring both Cott against the Gallagher! Anyone feel like playing Devil's Advocate and writing what you thin Mags' would say to try to repudiate Prof. Cott (my new hero!)?
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Feb 12, 2010 6:28:37 PM
Wow, I was just listening to more of our "Prof. Cott", and what she is recorded to have said in the trial, and some of it rings so true today! Apparently when there was an influx of various races within the U.S. the states flurried to ban these races from marrying white people, whether or not such couples might have fallen in love... Moreover, and this goes directly to an argument that I often seen advocated in which they claim that we are not being barred from a "Civil Right" to marry someone...we "still can--it just has to be someone of the opposite gender!", when these same laws actually did the same thing; the nullified the freedom of choice to marry the individual that one wanted! These laws were, according to Cott, "a limitation of partner--a limitation on choice"! That alone should be a very valuable weapon in our arsenal when talking to people (in deflating their Logical Fallacies) who claim that we are not being kept from a right to marriage. Heck, some have even claimed that we don't have a right to marry, because our families don't reflect their ideas (this is their hidden motive), because no one has a right to Constitutionally marry so, to them, we are seeking "special rights"!
And, it's interesting to note, also, that the Legislators who activated these laws hoped that it would decrease the number of these sorts of blended relationships; and I think this is what Mags and co. really hope it'll do to us. 'Course Gallagher desperately wants us socially shamed back into our closets so no one need fear us again. Indeed, we are really the last minority which the Religious Right suddenly came after because it was first the women, and then the blacks who upset their social order, and now its the Gays! But, Cott REALLY hit the ball out of the park when she stated that the Legislators were passing these laws because they wanted these relationships to be publicly viewed as "disfavors", and to be "second class" relationships! And, the whole bit about a law being passed in which a white woman would loose her American citizenship if she married an alien was absolutely news to me! These were only lifted and fought when women got the right to vote in the 1920s.
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Feb 12, 2010 7:00:10 PM
Ok... I didn't think it was possible, but that bitch (and I have NEVER used that word to describe Maggie) has elevated me into a new level of pissedoffness!
Posted by: Bearchewtoy75 | Feb 12, 2010 8:23:26 PMcomments powered by Disqus