Christian radio Maggie versus DOMA hearing Maggie

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

06/07/2012

by Jeremy Hooper

On his show this week, Michelangelo Signorile called Maggie Gallagher on something we online activists have been noticing (and noting) for years. Specifically, the way that the National Organization for Marriage personality talks one way when in viewpoint-friendly circles and another way when her sense of political pragmatism necessitates:

I noted to her that she speaks in that way, about gay people as fellow citizens who should have rights (even if not marriage), when she is on shows like mine and on CNN and other mainstream outlets. But when she goes on Christian media outlets she talks about homosexuality as something that is an "unfortunate thing" and sinful.

"I think it's not true that I go on some stations and have a radically different view than I have here," she responded. "I don't see that any of us has the right to redefine marriage. It's older than government. It has its own meaning and purpose."

But Gallagher did not deny that she called homosexuality "unfortunate" and in fact reiterated that she has "orthodox" Catholic views on the issue. It's an important fact because Gallagher and NOM often try to couch their arguments against gay marriage as strictly secular, social science-based arguments about the family and children. The only reason religious people are so prominent in the debate, they contend, is that they have more "motivation" to speak up.
FULL: Maggie addresses her ‘villain’ role; continues her victim act [HuffPo]

I've heard her deny it before. But the thing is, I've noted this reality in multiple forums—on radio shows, on panels, in meetings, in conversation, on site—and every single time I do, there is a resounding "Yes!" from the audience. We would have no reason to make this up. There are many other things we could note about Maggie. But this truism gets play because it is, well—true.

Maggie #1: