RECENT  POSTS:  » 2006: When Clinton vocally supported her state moving forward w/ marriage equality but Sanders did not » Where art thou, Jeremy? » Video: Ad for blemish remover/ tourist spot for our new, bettered America » Whether justified or Kim Davis-ed, individualistic rage rarely outplays broader truths » Kim Davis: The almost too perfect coda to the marriage discrimination fight » Anti-gay clerks are going to have to do their jobs. Because of course they are. » Jeb really wants to remind voters of his anti-'same status' plan for gay couples » Maine: NOM finally forced to hand over its tiny, out-of-state, incestuous donor roll » This delusional primary: Huckabee claims 'same-sex marriage is not the law of the land' » The 'Yeah. Duh. Of course' phase of this fight  

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


'Live and let [the majority vote on minority rights in costly, fallacious campaigns that I craft with high dollar PR firms]'

by Jeremy Hooper

Mag-GallagherMaggie Gallagher has printed yet another piece that paints pro-marriage equality politicians as the enemy of the Catholic Church. Fine. Let her. It's starting to look silly at this point.

However, we do want to look at these two lines from Mag's latest:

"If [the Catholic Charities situation] were left up to ordinary gay people, I'm betting it would all turn out very different. Live and let live is the American impulse across ideological and moral disagreements." [Source]

Why these two lines? Well, because it's about the most self-unaware assessment that someone like Maggie could offer to this situation. The last line in particular. Because not only does Maggie not practice a "live and let live" mentality -- her work and her organization, NOM, has come to epitomize anti-"live and let live" impulses in the 21st century! The very core of Maggie and NOM is a "live like a religious heterosexual, or we won't let you live free under civil law" impulse!

Maggie is right that most Americans would support freedom. But every single day of her life, she works to muddy the picture so that the American public gets a completely skewed view of pro-fairness people's motivations, goals, and "agendas." She purposefully creates "ideological and moral disagreements" in matters of civil law for the sole purpose of keeping this conversation a "culture war" rather than a civil national discourse. She lives for making our lives a fight rather than an existence!

Maggie goes on to say of the D.C. city council:

"Shame on them. Shame on them. They will only fuel Americans' legitimate fears about what the real motivations behind gay marriage are."

Which is fine. Let her shame whoever. Judging by what we've seen from Maggie's professional life in the past few years, she has no more shame left in her pen to bestow upon anyone else.


**SEE ALSO: Maggie and company can try all they want to make gays and the city council look like the bullies. However, the video proof (featuring admitted "good advocate and good friend" of the Catholic Church, openly gay David Catania) paints a VERY different tale:

Catholic Charities faces David Catania, at DC gay marriage hearing [Metro Weekly via YT]

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

Your thoughts

Hey Maggie - it's not "shame on the DC city council." It's "shame on the voters who elected them democratically, at which point the council had the *audacity* to do something I didn't like."

Posted by: DN | Mar 4, 2010 10:29:10 AM

I love how Maggie and the NOMettes portray how awful everything is in DC and how mistreated its citizens are. I'm sure her little clan believe her... the citizens of DC really don't. The people here understand their representative democracy and they knew that they voted in at least 11 very progressive council members that reflected their political views.

The people of DC are appalled at the Catholic Charities for putting their need to discriminate before basic human rights. What she should know is the more she carries on like this the more people are turned against her and her mission.

There's a certain electricity in the air around here and mood is positive. But at the same time there's no tolerance for bullsh*t, and that bullsh*t is NOM.

Posted by: Bob Barnes | Mar 4, 2010 10:43:27 AM

Not to mention that Maggie Gallagher is a resident of Ossining, NY, not Washington D.C. So she's appalled at a city council that she didn't vote for or against, essentially telling D.C. citizens that they were wrong to use their right to vote for the majority members who approved equality.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Mar 4, 2010 10:55:14 AM

When Maggie is on camera she's always careful to never voice silly and suggestive attacks on our motives and play the old "hidden gay agenda" card, maybe because she knows that the whole "what are they *really* after?" noise turns most people off.

Instead she and Brian always try to come across as empathetic and recognize that all we want is the right to marry, but then focus on rhetoric about the "very real consequences" of that right, or some other argument justifying why we shouldn't be afforded the rights that they pretend to empathize with.

Of course here, as you quote her Jeremy:

"They will only fuel Americans' legitimate fears about what the real motivations behind gay marriage are."


Posted by: Christopher Eberz | Mar 4, 2010 2:32:36 PM

As you know, C.E., these folks all have different personalities dependent on the forum. The worst is Tony Perkins. On TV, you would never know it's the same man who churns out such a steady stream of offense (even though it's all surely ghostwritten, it still goes out in his name).

Posted by: G-A-Y | Mar 4, 2010 2:45:44 PM

Regarding Maggie's line: "If [the Catholic Charities situation] were left up to ordinary gay people, I'm betting it would all turn out very different. Live and let live is the American impulse across ideological and moral disagreements."

Live and let live entails marry and let marry. If Maggie truly believed in live and let live she wouldn't be trying to deny gays the same right to marry that she has.

Posted by: Priya Lynn | Mar 4, 2010 3:02:22 PM

The Roman Catholic Church, like all churches, has no legitimate business meddling in politics. They IRS is legally required to take away their tax exempt status for this.

Besides, they should be taking action to stop the rampant child rape in their clergy instead. They shouldn't have any time left for politics.

Posted by: libhomo | Mar 7, 2010 11:06:38 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails