RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » 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'  

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

05/20/2011

'Pick a girl, love her, make a family': Maggie's telling take on 'the boxes we've constructed'

by Jeremy Hooper

Maggie Gallagher, circa 2003. In a back and forth with gay writer Jonathan Rauch, the now-National Organization For Marriage gave this flippant advice to those "self-identifying as homosexual":

201105191607
[SOURCE]

To which Rauch ably responded:

Screen Shot 2011-05-19 At 4.04.30 Pm
[SOURCE]

But then, of course, Maggie did what we've seen her do so many times: She backed off/couched/"explained" words and intent that had seemed pretty darn clear:

Screen Shot 2011-05-19 At 4.05.17 Pm
[SOURCE]

Merely observing? Nothing more than a digression? Uhm, Maggie wrote, and I quote:

"You are free to love anyone you want. You can also marry. Pick a girl, love her, make a family. Shocking as it is to the boxes we have constructed, there are gay men who do this, even today, and even after self-identifying as homosexual and they do not necessarily consider themselves ex-gays either."

And note the mention of "the boxes we have constructed," as if it's something far more contrived than science or the human love spectrum that is "shocked" by this concept. It would seem that Maggie made herself pretty darn clear with those first pass thoughts. The ones that instinctively poured from her fingers before Rauch called her out. The ones that mesh perfectly with her other comments from around that time, wherein Maggie claimed that homosexuality is "at a minimum, a sexual dysfunction much as impotence or infertility" and "like infertility...a sexual disability preventing certain individuals from participating in the normal reproductive patterns of the human species," leading her to tell then-President Bush that "ex-gay" therapy deserves more research dollars. Oh, and also ones that pair right up with her comments from just last year, where Maggie said gays "can always control their behavior" -- "behavior" she admits she considers "unfortunate."

With the body of evidence Maggie has provided, one really has to wonder: Is her not infrequent delving into the worlds of self-denial, "ex-gay"-ness, or unorthodox personal choices really a digression, or is it the underlying goal?

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