RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Man who's called for exporting gays goes on CNN to defend Indiana law, earns deserved result » Man who insinuated it's better to be thrown into sea than support homosexuality attended #SB101 signing ceremony » Considering vast (and frankly odd) amount of time he spends talking about us, no wonder Tony Perkins thinks we're 'special' » FRC keeps lying about where majority of Americans stand on marriage equality » Audio: Indiana restaurant owner openly discriminates against gays, glad to have added protection to do so » Indiana legislature, Gov. Pence awaken a fierce, powerful, anti-discrimination giant » Eleven Republican US Sens. give anti-gay conservatives a taste of a near and less divisive future » NOM proudly touts #March4Marriage backers who believe homosexuality 'should be treated by society as immoral, dangerous perversion' » Video: Gee, with compelling videos like this one, I just can't imagine why the anti-gay right is losing in court » #TBT: Even after legal equality, Americans—and particularly religious Americans—struggle to accept certain marriages  

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

10/07/2010

Maggie Gallagher makes no moral distinctions. Except, you know -- when she does. Which is often.

by Jeremy Hooper

For a complete rundown of Maggie Gallagher and Evan Wolfson's debate last night at Yale, check out Yale Daily News. Not much fodder. All what you'd expect, really.

But we do want to isolate and focus on this one part:

The speakers did not discuss the morality of homosexuality itself. Gallagher said she was making no moral distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex unions.
Gallagher, Wolfson debate gay marriage [YDN]

Why this part? Well, because it's just another instance of how socially conservative figures like Maggie operate with two different sets of messaging. At Yale, her alma mater, Maggie plays the buttoned up conservative who cares only about tradition, and who makes "jokes" about marriage being intrinsically linked to procreation, saying, "Homosexual people don’t make children because somebody looks kind of cute on Saturday night.” Yeah, yeah -- we've seen it all before from Maggie. In public settings with diverse or even largely opposing audiences, Maggie takes on a mainstream, jovial, civil persona.

However, when in forums populated by religious people who she needs to rally with fear and condemnation, Maggie has absolutely no problem with "moral distinction." Like in August of this year, when she told far-right radio personality Janet Parshall that gays don't need marriage since they can just "control" their "behavior" anyway. "Behavior" that she then went on to label as "unfortunate":

8/9/10:

*AUDIO SOURCE: In The Market with Janet Parshall -- 8/9/10 [Moody Radio]

Of there was her August '09 appearance on Parshall's show (what is it with Maggie and Janet and August?!), when the National Organization For Marriage chairman again invoked biblical morality by claiming that the Iowa Supreme Court, and by extension, gays, are striking at the heart of Genesis:

(click to play audio clip)
*AUDIO SOURCE: Janet Parshall's America

Or check out Maggie's June 2008 appearance on Catholic radio, where she discussed the "several kinds of sins" that committed gay couples are supposedly committing. Or actually, not only just same sex couples, but also straight supporters of marriage equality:


*Source: Catholic Answers Live -- 6/30/08

So forgive us, Maggie: But just not buying the "no moral distinction" act! If you're gonna be so loose lipped when around like minds, then at least have the moral fortitude to not bear false witness when your choir is more varied!!

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


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails