If Maggie Gallagher could self-assess the way she self-victimizes, marriage discourse would be infinitely more productive
Ever the victim, that Maggie Gallagher:
I have tried hard to say we should treat gay people with respect as friends, neighbors and fellow-citizens. But I have been thwarted by progressives’ insistence that the opposite of 'agreeing with me' must be 'shaming me.'”
Okay, first—no, Maggie, you haven't. Yes, for the most part, you are quite pragmatic with your words. And yes, you are friendly with people like John Corvino and can even tell him you see why his partner of many years is his "home." But at the end of the day, you still engage in this fight at least in some part because you see homosexuality as "unfortunate." And sometimes, in moments of candor, you admit as much:
8/9/10:"Well I do think there's a lot of negative reaction around [ex-gay programs]. But
*AUDIO SOURCE: In The Market with Janet Parshall -- 8/9/10 [Moody Radio]
To me it's just even more basic. Maybe you can change your desires and maybe you can't,
but you can always control your behavior. There's a sleight of hand going on when Ted Olson
says just as we can't discriminate on race, this always applies to gay marriage, he isn't acknowledging
-- some of it's just a fundamental difference where we may or may not find certain relationships deeply
satisfying, and maybe we can't totally control that, but behavior has to be subject
to moral critique and reflection, and skin color doesn't because it's not a behavior.
'Whatever theory you have about how people become gay, and I think there's sort of a mystery in our
fallen world about how people are saddled with that, what I view as an unfortunate thing,
but in any case, you can't expect to be exempted from the idea that your theory
about what sex is, what it's for, how we're supposed to behave can't just be reduced to the
question of what skin color you have. You've got to live in a society where people are free to reflect,
to critique, to disagree with you about that. And that's what Ted Olson and Judge Walker's decision doesn't
acknowledge. It's not about live and let live at the private level, it's about importing as
quote/unquote fact into our founding documents the idea that religious views about the nature and
meaning and purpose of sex are judicially harmful to gay and lesbian people, and
that's just wrong, it's a category error. And it's damaging, I think, not only to the rights of Christians
and other traditional faith communities
-- ultimately it's dehumanizing to gay people for it to be suggested that
their desires are not subject to moral reflection and critique."
5/14/2001, Maggie uses Dr. Robert Spitzer's study in a way that goes against his own wishes and findings: "I believe there is rather powerful evidence that human beings are a two-sex species, designed for sexual rather than asexual reproduction. If this is true, then the absence of desire for the opposite sex represents, at a minimum, a sexual dysfunction much as impotence or infertility. Human beings seeking help in overcoming sexual dysfunctions deserve our respect and support (and may I mention, President Bush, more research dollars?)." [Source]
3/20/2000, Maggie defends Dr. Laura: "In a simple biological framework abstracted from all religion and morality, homosexuality is like infertility. It is a sexual disability preventing certain individuals from participating in the normal reproductive patterns of the human species." [Source]
Gays and their straight supporters are supposedly embracing"several different kinds of very serious sins":
*Source: Catholic Answers Live -- 6/30/08
The pure callousness of joining a radio host in "humorously" likening gay people to castrated domestic cocks:
(click to play audio clip)
[*SOURCE: Iowa's WHO radio, Jan Mickelson's show]
So that's #1: The idea of a Maggie who always maintains "respect." It is simply untrue, both in action and rhetoric.
But then #2: Stop it, Maggie, with the idea that every person who pushes back against the NOM shell game is out to "shame" the individual. I have probably written more about NOM, Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown, and all the rest of it (and have sourced other pieces for other reporters, campaigns, etc.) than anyone else who covers such things. Never once have I attempted to "shame" Maggie Gallagher. Hell, I don't even use words like "bigot" or "hater." My focus is—now, then, and always—on the work, the tangible words, the actionable deeds, the organizational failures, the jaw-dropping strategies, and so on and so forth. If personality comes into play it all, it's only a byproduct of the personal nature of this work.
In terms of disagreement, I am about as much like water to NOM's oil (or a fly to NOM's ointment) that you will find anywhere on the American political landscape. Yet not one bone in my body or thought in my head is out to "shame" Maggie Gallagher as a human person. Frankly, I don't care that much about people who are not in my life in a real way. Yes, I want to "shame" the NOM agenda because I find this form of discrimination, which is so fully targeted at my own marriage and family, to be deeply and resoundingly shameful. But when my "side" wins this fight (we will and fairly soon), I am not going to be sitting around hoping Maggie Gallagher is out of house, home, and all deserved luck. I am in this because I believe in fairness, not because I seek cruelty. In fact, opposing human cruelty (even when directed at you, Maggie, whether you believe it or not) is itself a motivator for me.
comments powered by Disqus