RECENT  POSTS:  » Where art thou, Jeremy? » Video: Ad for blemish remover/ tourist spot for our new, bettered America » Whether justified or Kim Davis-ed, individualistic rage rarely outplays broader truths » Kim Davis: The almost too perfect coda to the marriage discrimination fight » Anti-gay clerks are going to have to do their jobs. Because of course they are. » Jeb really wants to remind voters of his anti-'same status' plan for gay couples » Maine: NOM finally forced to hand over its tiny, out-of-state, incestuous donor roll » This delusional primary: Huckabee claims 'same-sex marriage is not the law of the land' » The 'Yeah. Duh. Of course' phase of this fight » Trailer: 'Stonewall'  

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


Video: NOM reruns two-year-old clip; didn't get more cogent with age

by Jeremy Hooper

I'm not sure why NOM just snatched, isolated, and reposted the following clip from 2009, since I've always considered it once of the more callous (e.g. listen to how condescending Maggie is to Keith Boykin) and obtuse (e.g. "if we had a powerful marriage culture, gay marriage would make no sense"?) of all of Maggie Gallagher's many presentations. But they did, so I will too:

Maggie Gallagher: "If We Had a Powerful Marriage Culture, Gay Marriage Would Make No Sense" [NOM Blog]

Marriage equality opponents will be treated like "bigots"? Only if the natural, organic development of public consensus (guided by law, culture, and other factors) determines that to be the future. But that goal is not definitive of the pro-equality side, nor it is guided by us, at least not wholly. How future public opinion plays out is being shaped as much if not more by those who are pushing the often cruel, often "ex-gay"-tinged, often hurtful "protect marriage" advocacy as it those who are seeking benign peace.

"If we had a powerful marriage culture, gay marriage would make no sense"? Well not only is that ridiculous, but it flies in the face of the anti-gay side's common talking points. They often say that we can't have same-sex marriage because it will exacerbate the "erosion" of an already wounded marriage culture, right? So I would argue that if we had some sort of marriage Utopia where celebrity headlines were filled with straight vow renewals rather than straight divorce and "till death do us part" was a given rather than an aspirational goal, and if we applied the common "protect marriage" claims of our world (i.e. Maggie's buttered bread) to this parallel reality, then gay marriage would not be a controversy. If it was still a controversy in this alternate world of armored marriages, then I think that would show how little the "ban same-sex marriage" movement is working to actually encourage a strong marriage culture and how much they are working towards an anti-gay end.

Oh, and as for the condescension towards Keith Boykin? That's classic Maggie. We should welcome it. It benefits us more than she/they know.

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