« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
01/27/2010
Maggie Gallagher: 'I'm in favor of marriage equality'
Point:
"I'm against discrimination, I’m against hatred, I’m in favor of marriage equality, but I don’t think same-sex marriage is marriage. Therefore I think it is wrong for the government to insist, through the use of law, that we all believe that same-sex unions are marriages.” -Maggie Gallagher, as quoted by the Catholic News Agency
Counterpoint:
"So you're against discrimination as you define it, not the way that it's defined by the tax-paying citizens whose loving bonds are being denied in ways dissimilar from their heterosexual peers? Why, exactly, should the stakes of this debate be defined by they who are driving a stake in the peaceful,principled progress as it's almost universally defined by the community that's directly affected? It's kind of like a schoolyard bully justifying his 'right' to take the smaller kid's lunch money simply because the mashed potatoes taste good to his personal palate!
I actually believe you, Maggie, that you think your stance is non-discriminatory. Sincerely. But the operative words there are 'you' and 'think.' Because the fact is: It doesn't matter how you, a Catholic, personally view marriage. It doesn't matter whether you will or will not ever recognize same-sex unions in your own life. And on that same token: it doesn't even matter how I, a legally married gay man, view marriage. What matters is policy, and whether certain policies jibe with the promises of this nation's governing documents. Right now, America's marriage laws fail in this area. Gay couples have more than ably made their case, which is why we have been winning in the courts of law. These courts of law DO matter more than Maggie Gallagher's personal opinion, regardless of how fully activists like yourself might want to place the 'activist' label on the independent judiciary."
-Jeremy Hooper, as quoted while looking over his and his husband's taxes, which are demonstrably (and sickeningly) higher than they would be if their state-recognized marriage was fully recognized under federal law
Your thoughts
I'm in favor of dogs, but I just don't think that Pekingese are dogs, therefore I just think it's unfair that the government insist that we all treat Pekingese as dogs.
(I actually do believe this.)
Posted by: Evan Hurst | Jan 27, 2010 10:34:41 AM
"I’m in favor of marriage equality, but I don’t think same-sex marriage is marriage."
Then, you're not for marriage equality.
Posted by: Bearchewtoy75 | Jan 27, 2010 11:06:15 AM
FABULOUS analogy, Evan! :o)
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 27, 2010 11:16:05 AM
One interesting point about Maggie: She never, ever, EVER weighs in on matters like DADT, ENDA. hate crimes leg., etc. That's an odd disconnect for someone who is *so* focused on the LGBT community.
So I've posed that question to her. If she truly does believe in equality, what are her views on these other issues? One would think that if she was supportive of our non-discrimination in other areas, she'd be shouting that fact from the rooftops. But she hasn't done so. I'm now giving her that opportunity.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 27, 2010 11:38:43 AM
I’m in favor of marriage equality too, but I don’t think a Catholic/Hindu marriage is marriage - especially when the Catholic "wife" keeps her Hindu "married" name hidden from the public so she can be accepted and funded by them in order to conduct a massive campaign of persecution against certain other people who want to marry the person they love.
Posted by: Richard Rush | Jan 27, 2010 11:41:18 AM
This is what Ted Olsen says of Pugno's Blankenhorn's comments about the "de-/institutionalization" of marriage, and his comments are actually quite appropriate for all of the empty rhetoric coming from the lying liars:
"It’s a game. It’s a tautology. They’re saying, 'this is the definition. You’re going to change the definition by allowing people access that don't have it now, and that would change it so that people who currently have access won't want it any more because it's changed.' This is all nonsense. They are not proving that. This is a syllogism that falls apart. The major premise, minor premise and conclusion are empty."
Posted by: Dick Mills | Jan 27, 2010 11:56:11 AM
Another thing, I've noticed about Maggie....
Based on debates I've heard her be a part of at various places around the country, I am under the impression that love is less important to her than a heterosexual couple being married.
I heard her say in one of these debates (I'm sorry I can't remember which, but it was very recent) that our society embraces "soul-mate marriage" and she was looking at "soul-mate" marriage like it's a bad thing! Also, after hearing about a gay couple and their loving committed long term partnerships, she has said things like it sounds better than HER OWN marriage!
Given the fact the she and her husband rarely ever appear in public together and her refusal to use her married name, it seems to me that she thinks that it doesn't even matter if the married couple is happy or even love (or like) each other, just the fact that a piece of paper says they're married makes for a good well-adjusted kids.
That I just don't get, especially if the parents are miserable together.
Posted by: Bearchewtoy75 | Jan 27, 2010 2:01:28 PM
I love how you weave the issues into your personal life (i.e. taxes, etc). You make it crystal clear.
Posted by: JB | Jan 27, 2010 2:25:39 PM
The only reason Magster cares about this is the enormous paycheck she is getting from the dimwits giving money to NOM.
Posted by: homer | Jan 27, 2010 10:25:35 PM
If ever someone was engaging in some good ol' cognitive dissonance, ol' Mags is engaging. HARDCORE (is hardcore too gay for her?).
Posted by: Eric | Jan 28, 2010 3:11:00 PM
comments powered by Disqus
