RECENT  POSTS:  » 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 » In 2008, the AFA was the same on LGBT rights as President Obama; and I was a flying unicorn » The Hitching Post plot thickens in a truly remarkable way  

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

02/09/2011

NOM's been chopping at CPAC tree; Maggie will still eat its fruits

by Jeremy Hooper

The National Organization For Marriage may be on the official boycott list, prominently signing on to the coalition letter (assembled by NOM co-founder Robert George) that kicked off the boycott. But that minor point isn't stopping Maggie Gallagher from crossing the CPAC picket line:

"I will be at the Conservative Action Political Conference this week as an opinion journalist, covering the speeches of major potential presidential candidates with an eye toward answering this question: What do they think of life and marriage? And how do they explain, in a principled way, why these are core conservative issues?" [Maggie's syndicated column]

Isn't that just a tad hypocritical? I mean, Maggie's not only NOM's chairperson, but also its most prominent face (and other co-founder, along with George). People don't really even separate the two these days -- Maggie essentially is NOM. So since NOM has been front and center in announcing "withdrawal from participation," isn't a bit bullcrappy for Maggie to reap benefits from CPAC's offerings? We're going with yes.

***

*SEE ALSO: Chris Geidner's cover story on the CPAC brouhaha.

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