« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
03/08/2013
S.E. Cupp responds to Maggie Gallagher (but in a way replies to me)
A few years back, I wrote a piece on conservative S.E. Cupp and my annoyance with what I saw as her double speak. At the heart of my post was a 2009 Daily News column in which Cupp argued that gay people should be okay with straight women having bachelorette parties in gay bars even if they themselves did not support marriage equality. I was particularly annoyed because while Cupp claimed to support gay rights, she also said in the piece that she "strongly oppose[d] gay marriage.” This,
coupled with her willingness to reach out to some of the most anti-LGBT groups in America, left me with some questions about her stated commitment. At the very least, I hope she'd see it and understand my concerns.
This piece still gets a lot of attention. Every day, around the time "The Cycle" comes on MSNBC, that posts gets new hits. I've certainly helped keep it alive over the years.
That being so, I look on in interest at a post that Maggie Gallagher put up on National Review Online this week. In it, Maggie wondered aloud how Cupp could go from being not-supportive to quite supportive in just a small handful of years, something I myself have admittedly ask. But what struck me more than Maggie's own musings was this, a reply that Cupp sent to Gallagher:
I do not say I oppose gay marriage in either book, and have been a staunch and vocal supporter of gay rights for years, as is evidenced by a number of columns. It’s true that in one column, written four years ago, I did make a distinction between gay marriage and civil unions, and wrote that I “strongly oppose gay marriage” but “do support civil unions, and giving gay couples all the rights of heterosexual couples, including health care, custodial rights and adoption rights.” While I have always believed gay couples should enjoy the same benefits as heterosexual couples, since then I have also decided that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional and prejudicial.
S. E. Cupp [Maggie for NRO]
The column Cupp references is the very one I kept alive. The very one that I, if I'm being honest, have referred to as one of my least pieces of commentary writing of the 21st century. That being so, I'm really happy to hear Cupp addressing and seemingly repudiating it now. She has a big platform, is a Republican, and has the power to make some pertinent points about freedom, liberty, privacy, and the nonpartisan concept of acceptance. If I helped crystallize that in any way, I'm honored.
Oh, and I expect a bachelorette party invite. ;-)
Your thoughts
comments powered by Disqus
