RECENT  POSTS:  » Report: US District judge won't deny justice to gay Coloradans; might delay it, though » AFA to POTUS: End your 'love affair with homosexuality,' give anti-gay Christians entitlement instead » Congressional right wing's right-side-of-history whip count: 8–271 » NOM, Manhattan Declaration turn Unitarian's anti-slavery, anti-war into pro-discrimination anthem » Matt Barber and Peter LaBarbera tease America's coming anti-gay street revolts » FRC writer: We're not all the same, 'gay agenda' is 'dangerous for the wellbeing of this nation' » NBC analyst Tony Dungy says he wouldn't have drafted Michael Sam » NOM becomes even more of a generalized anti-LGBT animus organization » Sure, NOM—I'll play your game!! » Bryan Fischer: POTUS 'stood on the graves' of Malaysia Air victims 'to promote the legitimacy of sexual deviancy'  

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

04/15/2011

On jewelry and Maggie Gallagher's lack thereof

by Jeremy Hooper

Here's the thing: I personally don't care if anyone wears a wedding ring or not. Everyone has their own symbols, customs, traditions, or what have you, and there is certainly no demand on funneling marital energy through a pair of metal bands. Obviously.

But here's the other thing: The wedding ring and the ring ceremony is the de facto symbol of the anti-marriage-equality movement. And this is very true for the National Organization For Marriage:

National-Organization-For-Marriage-4804Screen Shot 2011-04-15 At 12.10.01 Pm
201104151217

So is it not fair to ask the question of why the most visible face of NOM and "traditional marriage" itself, Maggie Gallagher, eschews this cherished symbol?

Screen Shot 2011-04-15 At 12.22.14 Pm

Speaking only for myself: I haven't removed my ring since June 13, 2009. Doing so would feel weird, both physically and symbolically. It just would, for me, someone whose marriage is routinely written off by both governments and Gallaghers are non-"traditional."

Isn't Maggie's personal choice, while obviously hers to make, a little odd for someone who goes around talking all about marriage being one unchangeable, tradition-steeped thing? And isn't this especially true, when coupled with her maiden name usage? I do.

***

*After all, she did wear one in 2001:

Screen Shot 2011-04-15 At 12.40.27 Pm
[SOURCE]

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