RECENT  POSTS:  » 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' » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama  

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

01/05/2012

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 Fora.tv 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