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


Gee, wonder why they aren't trying to recruit constitutional law scholars instead

by Jeremy Hooper

6A00D8341C503453Ef0120A7648A73970B-36A00D8341C503453Ef0120A8873C8C970B-4Maggie Gallagher and Robert George (the two highest ranking NOMmers) sure do get around. Last night they were at Brigham Young University to support Cardinal Francis George, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Archbishop of Chicago, hoping to foster an even deeper anti-equality coalition with the Mormons. Here are some quips from that appearance:

"There is nothing like being in the trenches together to make common cause," said Maggie Gallagher, a Catholic and president of the National Organization for Marriage. "I think we all need the courage to stand up for our core beliefs -- especially the belief that our marriage tradition is good. I'm very grateful for the LDS faith community's leadership, but even more for the ordinary member's ordinary courage. We all admire it and seek to emulate it."

For Robert George, he said he keeps coming back to the Bible scripture: "By their fruits ye shall know them."

"A lot of Catholics are looking at the fruit born by the LDS," he said, "not only in the way they conduct their daily affairs, (but in) the witness they gave on the marriage question, especially when they were so brutally attacked for it."

Those sacrifices haven't gone unnoticed, he said.

"I didn't want there to be any question about whether Catholics like me would forget about them after we'd won the war," he said
"If we do not fight it together, ... the difference is between winning and losing," Robert George said. "If we try to fight it separately, we will lose. The enemy is too strong, and our adversaries are too powerful."
SOURCE: Mormons, Catholics must defend religious freedom, Cardinal says [Deseret News via Mormon Times]
(**UPDATE: Gallagher and George weren't actually on-site. See note at end of post)

Wow, "the enemy"? We like to think of ourselves as as the peace-loving people who are sick and tired of having to pause our lives to fight this needless "culture war." Though we guess "enemy" could work too (especially if your goal is to further divide humanity behind the false veil of social conservatism).

But don't you dare think Maggie and Robert are limiting their outreach efforts to Utah. Oh no, fellow recipients of needless hostility. Because on the fittingly foolish day of April 1, the Catholic duo will head down south to North Carolina, where they'll work to recruit another group of faith-motivated troops to fight against gay people's CIVIL lives and loves:

Again bringing a controversial subject to the forefront, the Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES) Veritas Lecture Series will focus on defending the principles of traditional marriage.

The featured speakers for the April 1 event will be Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and Robert George, one of the original drafters of the Manhattan Declaration. Their topic will be “Marriage: Why It Can and Must Be Saved – The Case Against Same Sex Marriage.” SES President and host of nationally-syndicated radio talk show “SoundRezn” Alex McFarland said he anticipates the 2010 installment of the series to be the most significant yet.

SOURCE: Southern Evangelical Seminary event will uphold marriage [Layman]

So basically, if it prays in any way, then Maggie and Robert want it to prey on gay people's basic civil fairness. Never mind the fact that gay and lesbian couples are not even kind of fighting for the ability to force any church to marry us. That civil marriage/religious ceremony distinction matters not to the Gallaghers and Georges of the world. They have already cast us a "the enemy" of faith and freedom, and they are taking their hurtful dog and pony show on national tour.

Hey, it's a living.


***NOTE: We're actually not sure Gallagher and George were on site for the BYU speech. The Deseret News report says they were interviewed after the speech, implying that they were there. Though they could have possibly been interviewed by phone/email. We're checking.

***UPDATE: Turns out George and Gallagher were not on site. The reporter tells us that she did, in fact, interview them separately.

It doesn't change anything in regards to the coalitions they are seeking to build. We just wanted to clarify, because of the "national tour" concept that frames this post.

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

Your thoughts

Isn't this George dude the guy that thinks men will go to hell for masturbating? Seriously, he has some serious issues.

Posted by: homer | Feb 24, 2010 9:44:19 AM

Maggie the speaker on April 1st? How appropriate; she is a fool, as well as an April Fool...

Posted by: David Twombley | Feb 24, 2010 10:21:52 AM

One of the suggestions from George is that LDS people were "brutally attacked" for their beliefs. There aren't words to describe the insensitivity of this suggestion when gay men and women are in fact brutally attacked.

Posted by: sam | Feb 24, 2010 11:36:12 AM

They have to band together because the rolls of the bigots are getting smaller and smaller every day.

Posted by: Mykelb | Feb 24, 2010 11:50:25 AM

Quite so, Mykelb, I was thinking the very same thing.

"brutally attacked"??!!

Where. When?

No, Lawrence King and Sakia Gunn were brutally attacked.
So was Jaheem Herrera and Carl Walker Hoover, and they were just children.

What about Scotty Joe Weaver, Angie Zapata or Gwen Araujo?

What about the long, sad list of people being abused on video by police officers, or in the street for being gay or a trans person?

Or what about Barry Winchell, a soldier no longer here because of FELLOW soldiers?

Or all those thousands of soldiers who either lost their careers or their lives or limbs because they were gay?

Maggie Gallagher truly cheapens and trivializes what brutally attacked means.
And has no casualties from her side to compare with ours.

And yet, despite all that, gay folks essentially go through the slow, incremental due process of law for such outrages and daily grievances to be heard and noted.
THIS is what MG calls being 'brutally attacked'.

Her witness just gets more and more false with each utterance from her horrible face.

Posted by: Regan DuCasse | Feb 24, 2010 12:34:39 PM

I hate to say it, but maybe we're better off making enemies of the rest of the world by using BLACKWATER (talk about polluted water!) to guard our diplomats.

If we fire them, NOM could hire them. .... Just reading good books about Australias Civil War of the future with the Right Wingers hiring Chinese etc troops. Scary!

Posted by: LOrion | Feb 24, 2010 4:28:02 PM

"Wow, "the enemy"? We like to think of ourselves as as the peace-loving people who are sick and tired of having to pause our lives to fight this needless "culture war." Though we guess "enemy" could work too (especially if your goal is to further divide humanity behind the false veil of social conservatism)."

No - the ENEMY is the "creature" or "satan" (whoops don't mention his dastardly name). Thats what these crazy people believe and get themselves whipped up into a fury about. You see the devil is creating invisible armies to fight the invisible angels all above the true believers heads. Not US!

This I have learned from my MS evangelical mother-in-law (I always called her that) and her evil brewing caldrons....

Posted by: Raingod | Feb 24, 2010 7:41:19 PM

Hey, anyone ever wondered why, if Maggie is attempting to give secular reasons for refusing us access to secular marriages regardless of the religion (or lack of one) that one might practice, than why does she insist on appearing at these rabid religious functions, 'eh? Hell, last I check, the RC still hasn't released an official statement apologizing for the Inquisitions assault on local pagan worshipers and beliefs during the medieval period!

Notice how she says, "Our marriage tradition is good"! As opposed to what, Mags? Non-Christian marriages? Why this insistence on codifying purely secular and atheistic marriage with religious (ie. "Christian") marriage?! 'Cause, they are NOT the same thing, despite what you are trying to sell to the masses employing an emotional appeal, particularly to the Bridezillas of the world who want to experience being princess-for-a-day.

Also, why isn't Maggie and her religious coevals owning up to the fact that, HISTORICALLY, they have been on the WRONG side of history! The Christians supported and advocated segregation, slavery, interracial marriage bans, the holocaust, the Inquisition, women's rights to vote and to their own bodies, etc.! In fact, right now many folks cannot get voted into office WITHOUT the vote of the religious right; well, in the 50s and 60s a politician of any stripe could NOT get elected to public office WITHOUT the vote from the Klan!

BTW, anyone else think that we ought to start publicly shaming groups like NOM, FOF and their Christian supporters as Nazis and Klan members?! ;oP

And, WHY have I NOT seen on the media anyone asking WHY we should allow a public vote on these issues, despite what the US Constitution clearly says, as well as the fact that suffrage and the AA civil rights movement NEVER have to worry about having to appeal to a prejudicial public for fair and EQUAL treatment under the law and to keep America true to it's ideals!

I still fail to see how me having my High Priestess--a resident of England--officiating ober my Pagan wedding ceremony is in any way a threat to the so-called "Institution of Marriage?! Don't they care the people across the planet have been allowing to men to LEGALLY marry within the context of that culture since earliest time!?

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Feb 24, 2010 11:05:06 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails