RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Why is this shockingly anti-gay (among other things) speech happening in a Connecticut public school? » Fined NY event space to host same-sex wedding receptions (*but no ceremonies for anyone) » Another day, another far-right pastor pushing Christians to civil war » Joseph Farah still clueless about nondiscrimination law » Hobby Lobby president to join extremely anti-gay activists at 'Star Spangled' event » FRC's Sprigg admits his side put up 'weak defense' in 7th Circuit » Photo: The latest totally convincing, in no way silly attempt at a meme from anti-gay Ruth Institute » AFA's Fischer: Time for Christians to 'get up in somebody's grill' like Jesus would » GLAAD: The World Congress of Families sparks protests in Australia. Let's examine why. » GLAAD: NOM cofounder: 'Hard to see... the logical stopping place' between gay-affirming, murder-affirming Christians  

« 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