RECENT  POSTS:  » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists' » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama  

« 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