Hypocrisy, thy name is Maggie Gallagher
So get this one: Maggie Gallagher has taken to the NOM blog and put up an post which, in the abstract, declares that a link is not an endorsement:
Some in the gay blogosphere are trying to assert that NOM--or me--endorses the view of every blogger/article NOM links to, by the act of linking to it.
This would lead to the absurd conclusion that NOM endorses the editorial positions of the New York Times, because NOM links to them--or The Advocate for that matter, as we often link to stories in the gay press.
If you want to know what NOM's message is, there are abundant videos and press stories (including our own press releases) with me, or Brian Brown, or other NOM personnel actually speaking. Fair enough to criticize us for what we actually believe and say.
The standard "a link constitutes an endorsement" would cut off the free flow of ideas at the knees.
MORE: A Link Is Not An Endorsement [NOM Blog]
Now, she doesn't say to what, exactly, she's referring. I'm assuming from context that she's referring to yesterday's duo of posts from Equality Matters and my buddy Alvin McEwen, wherein both noted how NOM was pushing some logic that used Paul Cameron as a credible source for opposing gay parenting. And if that is in fact Maggie's topic, then she's being obtuse enough with the above logic, since the post NOM pushed was not a mere news outlet on par with either the AP or the Advocate, but rather a relatively obscure Catholic blog (at least in the mainstream sense). And NOM didn't just link to it -- they did so with isolated chunks that specifically called into question Zach Wahls' lesbian-headed family. So it's not like NOM/Maggie was just aggregating a news story. It was clearly pointed.
But wait it gets better. Because remember that video I showed you yesterday? The one from the Marriage ADA spinoff project that Maggie herself is spearheading? The one that NOM press released and e-blasted around with great fan fare? Remember its sole focus?
No? Well here, let me remind you:
Yes, that's right: The entire video faults one organization for linking to a resource whose content changed without their knowledge! The whole "controversy" -- which, again, has been blasted around all of NOM's social media properties as a fundraising tool -- revolves around the idea that a link is an endorsement. And not only just an endorsement -- but an endorsement of one very isolated, very specific piece of content on said resource (in this case a slightly racy video intended for an adult audience) which, again, changed after the initial link was included!
Plus in this case, the head of the organization actually welcomed the kerfuffle, saying it gave him a chance to highlight all of the good work they were doing. (unlike Maggie, who can't even be bothered to name her focus). When the matter came to attention, the organization took proper action.
But none of that stopped NOM from faulting the organization. For a link. Spun as endorsement. Spun as an example of bad gay activism. Spun as "defamation." For a project that is not only NOM's, but one that MAGGIE SPECIFICALLY CONTROLS. And yet now we have Maggie, a day later, saying "a link is not an endorsement"?! Unreal.
The last thing I will say on this (at least for now): It's also pretty interesting that Maggie jumps in and stands up against this one claim in the veiled fashion that she does. We in the gay blogosphere have documented literally thousands of outright written and verbal endorsements that NOM figures have quite undeniably given to this, that, or the other, and when we do, NOM/Maggie/Brian/whoever are just like, "whatever." But now Maggie highlights this one, relatively small thing to try to make some sort of a point? Please, Maggie! I'll see your "this is not an endorsement" spin and raise you more outright, undeniable endorsements than I could possibly ever count! For starters, we could talk about the times you, Maggie, called homosexuality an "unfortunate thing" and "at a minimum, a sexual dysfunction much as impotence or infertility," suggested gays "can always control their behavior," called on a sitting President to give more research dollars to "ex-gay" research, or talked about the "several kinds of sins" that both gays and their supports commit every time they support marriage equality. Then we can go from there.
comments powered by Disqus