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


Maggie Gallagher: 'I think gay marriage is more like bans on interracial marriage'

by Jeremy Hooper

( click to play)

*Audio source: Penna Dexter's "Point of View" radio program, 1/14/10 (full podcast can be downloaded for free on iTunes)

Wow. Our legal peace is akin to one of the worst civil blights of the modern era? That's, uhm -- interesting.

Please, please, pleeeeease make that your organization's next commercial message, Maggie. For reals: We might even finance the darn thing.


**Oh, and by the way: On the exact same show where Maggie made these comments, Penna's other guest, Linda Harvey, said the following about us homo-gays and our rights:

Go here to listen to Linda's segment: http://www.goodasyou.org/lindacrazy.mp3
*Audio source: Penna Dexter's "Point of View" radio program, 1/13/10 (full podcast can be downloaded for free on iTunes)

Same show. Same host. Same booker. Same overheated movement. Just less of a carefully-crafted filter.

Although with Maggie starting to compare the gay community's civil progress to historical racism, she's certainly testing the sturdiness of said filter.

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

Your thoughts

It is staggering to me that these people are actually getting airtime. I feel like we've just regressed 60 years socially.

Posted by: Sunnivie | Feb 10, 2010 1:06:10 PM

Not just getting airtime, Sunnivie. Maggie is considered *the* voice of the anti-marriage equality movement. She's the one that the Bishops call in whenever they get involved in any state. And she speaks for NOM, an organization whose founder, Robert George, was recently cited by the Times as the "reigning brain of the Christian right."

It's quite startling. Equally startling is how much apathy/non-concern our community shows towards it.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Feb 10, 2010 1:11:15 PM

It's not discrimination to treat different things differently? Does she listen to herself? It's frightening that so many people believe this and somehow see no correlation between the ban on interracial marriage and bans on SSM. But of course she prefaced it didn't she: "racism is bad". Sorry but that was a South Park moment if ever I've heard one. She is a cartoon character. Now if we could just find the eraser...

Posted by: ZnSD | Feb 10, 2010 1:24:19 PM

"They'll impact our culture. These people will live outside the will of God."

Yes, shithead, it will, and they will. And you know what? That's not one tiny iota of your Goddamned business! I am so sick and tired of these meddling assholes acting like it's their job to make sure everyone else behaves exactly like they do. You don't want to be gay? Fine. Have at it. Knock yourself out! Go ahead and have all the hetero sex you can handle! It's no skin off my nose! JUST LEAVE THE GAYS ALONE!

How come Linda Harvey gets to "impact our culture" but gays don't?!

Posted by: The Watcher | Feb 10, 2010 1:25:58 PM

Oh Christ - Maggie pulled out the "two great halves of humanity" line again. I wish I had a copyright on that sentence so she'd have to pay me a nickel every time she said it.

Anyway, she says gay marriage would, "impose a new political ideal to an existing natural institution."

Guess what, Maggie: in the decision that led to Loving v. Virginia, the judge used the same reasoning to defend anti-miscegenation laws:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Posted by: DN | Feb 10, 2010 2:17:07 PM

Soooo...that Harvey chick doesn't want us to have ANY rights or legally (secularized) sanctioned relationships that are marriage-like? Then what is "marriage-like"? I argue that it is a stable and loving relationship that publicly portrays and repudiates the promiscuous notions of earlier eras and stabilizes those relationships in permanence (at least at the outset, because marriages don't always last); and this Harvey-chick obviously doesn't understand that, nor should she be airing her personal religious views as established facts!

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Feb 10, 2010 2:56:35 PM

@ DN: Oh, SNAP! That was a good one, and one that I don't see how she could easily refute! :oP

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Feb 10, 2010 3:00:26 PM

Seriously, their thinking is really twisted.

Posted by: stojef | Feb 10, 2010 5:30:02 PM

"It's not discrimination to treat different things differently." -


Posted by: Owen | Feb 10, 2010 8:47:35 PM

Maggie is the leader of the Christofascists in America. Her every waking moment is dedicated to hate, intolerance, and bigotry. She's not only a liar, a coward, and a glutton, she's birthed a bastard child and married a Hindu and then turns around and throws stones at us. She can't even hold herself up to a mirror without seeing the evil she wreaks on a daily basis. Anyone who is this viscious, this mendacious, this bigotted, has serious psychological problems which she projects onto our community. It's a sickness in her mind and she needs psychological counseling and possibly psychotropic drugs to cure her of her Catholicism.

Posted by: Mykelb | Feb 10, 2010 10:36:56 PM

"It's not discrimination to treat different things differently." -

Ok, then!

So I guess it's ok to treat men and women differently because they are different genders.

It's ok to treat different races differently because their skin is different colors.

It's ok to treat different religions differently because they worship different gods.

It's ok to treat people with red hair differently because most people have dark or blond hair.

Seriously Mags... this is what you got out of you Ivy League Education?

Posted by: Bearchewtoy75 | Feb 11, 2010 11:22:51 AM

I can almost deal with Maggie Moo's rhetoric as it's completely baseless, Harvey on the other hand seems to think the U.S. is somehow a Christian church, which it is not. Plenty of straight people don't follow her theological approach to politics.

The thing that makes me laugh about this, if she REALLY took the Bible literally, she wouldn't be talking on the radio. After all, she's a woman and the Bible makes several references to the fact a woman is the property of her husband and her sole purpose is to respect, serve and obey his every command.

She also demonstrates a complete lack of valid education as she doesn't seem to understand how the Bible was used to prevent women from voting. Again, if women had followed the Bible and obeyed their husbands, she wouldn't be voting on who does or does not get equal rights...in fact, she'd be putting dinner on the table instead.

Posted by: James Hipps | Feb 11, 2010 2:33:34 PM

Maggie's key to success is her ability to rationalize bigotry, spouting a fundamentally anti-gay position and then pretending it's not based on any sort of animosity against gays.

Next time somebody tries the old "I want to ban gay marriage, but I'm not homophobic" trick on you, tell them this:

There are more than 1,000 laws that straight couples are able to obtain in an instant with the simple signature and application fee. But gay couples, no matter how long they're together or how inextricable their interests are, are unable to secure these rights for themselves. This means gay people pay higher taxes, are often unable to share health insurance with their partners, cannot sponsor foreign-national partners for immigration, have no automatic right to inherit a partner's property in the event of sudden death, can't make medical decisions if the other partner is incapacitated, can be forced to testify against a partner in court -- the list goes on and on. Gay couples can only obtain a fraction of the rights afforded to married couples, usually by paying enormous legal fees. This causes measurable and quantifiable harm to gay couples and, by extension, gay people in general. Whatever rationale you use for your position, by wanting to see this situation continue, you support a legal regime that is fundamentally and blatantly unjust, inequitable and oppressive and demonstrate that you intentionally wish to see gay people harmed or simply don't care that we are harmed. Either way, your position and your indifference to the suffering you cause make you an anti-gay bigot.

As for those who support civil unions or domestic partnerships, including the ones that grant all the rights of marriage, they clearly see our relationships -- and therefore us -- as inherently inferior. So, they're still bigots.

Posted by: AJD | Feb 11, 2010 6:14:59 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails