RECENT  POSTS:  » 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 » In 2008, the AFA was the same on LGBT rights as President Obama; and I was a flying unicorn » The Hitching Post plot thickens in a truly remarkable way » On Rivka, Robert and their dirty, self-victimizing, anti-intellectual blame game » POTUS believes in fifty-state equality, happy with way it's playing out  

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

08/23/2012

What 12th of Never unicorns ice skating in a frozen hell might change Maggie Gallagher's mind?

by Jeremy Hooper

Responding to Mark Oppenheimer's mention of her during his stint as moderator of the Brown/Savage debate, National Organization For Marriage co-founder Maggie Gallagher clarifies what it would take for her to change her opinion:

I would want to see two generations of gay marriage and some society that in that time-span was able to create a basically functioning marriage culture i.e., one in which the ideal for a child is mom and dad was upheld as a norm and supported in theory (and at least to some degree in practice).

In that case, I might personally not believe gay unions are marriage, but I would no longer believe the law’s definition had any effect on the things I care about, and so would not oppose same-sex marriage.

I would add: If really good scientific evidence disproved the idea that children benefit from their mom and dad, that would rock my world in ways that I can’t say what would happen.
[NRO]

The first part is just silly, since Maggie, at fifty-two, is not likely to see two generations of Americans who get to live with full marriage equality. It's just a ridiculous parameter altogether.

As for the second—I do not have any reason to believe that Maggie Gallagher would accept "good scientific evidence" as actually being good scientific evidence. Anytime we get something that looks sounds, the social conservative movement (of which Maggie is a key leader) does everything in its power to frame that research (or ruling or debate or law or…) as being biased, skewed, flawed, or something else that will cast aspersions on the validity. This while they busily create, foster, and exalt claims from like-minded researchers (often better described as "researchers") whose methodology is flawed on its face. The war on sound science is much more fully theirs than it is ours.

I mean listen, I'd love to believe something might change Maggie's view. I've even heard through the grapevine (from people who should know) that Maggie has begun to do some self-reflection in recent months. I would welcome her turnaround, or even just her retreat from this overwrought debate. I just don't think she's stating any usable set of circumstances that we, the living humans who exist within same-sex marriages, should see as as viable.

Fortunately, our rights and inevitable victories are not dependent on whether or not Ms. Gallagher's world is rocked.

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