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 »


Maggie is so tired—SO TIRED!—of 'the enemy' being so uncivil to her

by Jeremy Hooper

In the first passage, Maggie Gallagher talks about civility, as if she is an innocent who has done nothing to foster the intense reaction that she seems used to receiving. But then in the very next section—the very next breath, really—she refers to her fight as being against "the enemy." It's kind of definitive, actually.

Snips comes from Salvo, a Christian magazine; Maggie is the subject and Marcia Segelstein (formerly of the American Family Association) is the interviewer:


I waver between thinking that (a) Maggie is really too ensconced in her own conservative circles to see the situation clearly and (b) that she is just trying desperately to flip the script of this national debate because she knows that the roles, as they are most typically cast, paint her in an unfortunate light. However, I have no internal debate regarding her assessment of this debate and its fundamental brokenness.

I am someone who doesn't give a flying flapjack about why Maggie has done what she has done. Hate? Bigotry? Political access? Wanted a hobby and all of the other options seemed too mundane? I've never really cared. I have years of writing that bear this out. I've done a few thought exercises on the subject, but at the end of the day, what I care about is Maggie's record. Her rhetoric. Her policy pushes. Her political connections. Her organizational legacy with NOM and elsewhere. She earned her record, regardless of what led her to the fight.

I do believe that Maggie sees hers as a fight against an "enemy." I do not see it that way. I see this fight, as it were, as a conversation between factual fairness and biased misinformation. Just as with Maggie, I don't spend a ton of time assessing the differentiated motivations that have led folks to embrace (or allow themselves to be duped by) what I see as discrimination. Maggie's choice to use the phrase "the enemy" tells me that she does, in fact, have a generalized view of what has led outspoken activists like me to my fight—and it tells me that her view essentially casts me out of the realm of "good" (or heroism, at the very least). If this is how she feels—and all I know to do is to take her at her own word—then perhaps the NOM co-founded needs to stop projecting so much. Maggie would seem to be the one making charges about her political opponents. Pretty serious ones, too.

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