Maggie Gallagher should be championing religious expression ruling. But instead…

If there’s anyone who should be defending the Snyder v. Phelps ruling, it’s Maggie Gallagher. All the time, we hear her talk about the need for more and greater defense of religious freedom, even if those freedoms come at the expense of LGBT people’s desire to feel welcome. While “protecting marriage” is her stated cause, defending religious expression is at least in the sidecar.

Yet Maggie is not only standing in opposition — she is actually outraged by the majority 8-1 opinion, as authored by Chief Justice John Roberts:

Burials happen in public (we don’t actually let people bury their dead on their own property any more). But they are not public events.

These regulations designed to circumvent Fred Phelps’ evil and irrational plans, are not directed at the content of speech, they are reasonable time and place restrictions that any decent society should respect.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

The Supreme Court Just Went Off the Deep End [NOM Blog]

Some facts:

(A) The Phelps family was 1000+ feet away, on a public sidewalk. They were not at the burial.

(B) They did abide by all time and space restrictions placed upon them, as they always do. They actually worked with law enforcement, again, as they’re wont to do.

(C) Mr. Snyder didn’t even know of their messaging until after the fact — he learned about it from TV and WBC’s own website writings.

(D) While most all of us with their views, it’s undeniable that they were coming from their belief in God. Everything WBC says comes from their view of God. The fair public expression of that view is exactly what Maggie should be defending! This is what Maggie does defend, rhetorically, as it applies to other religious expression.

(E) No, the constitution is not a suicide pact. That is why we are protecting its most crucial and cherished demands, even when we are the most targeted by it (Westboro has directly targeted this site on a number of occasions).

(D) It’s pretty rich being educated on the Constitution by someone who was at the forefront of amending our nation’s most precious federal document so that it specifically targets gay citizens’ right to marry under civil law.

***

*SEE ALSO: A great piece from Jim Burroway: The First Amendment Lives [BTB]




Good As You

—  admin

Nu uh, Maggie Gallagher: You’re not gonna blame us for foreskin!

Really, Maggie? You’re seriously connecting the following independent push — which has been met with diverse support and opposition that transcends all political, religious, gender, etc. lines — to the modern civil marriage equality movement?

The next big idea out of San Francisco: ban circumcision.

That’s really the next big idea for liberals? No Jews allowed?

BY MAGGIE

After SSM: What Next? [NOM Blog]

So is this what we’re in for: Anything that happens from this point in time forward is all part of same-sex marriage’s supposed “slippery slope”? Every time a gnat farts out a wind that drifts too leftward, and I’m going to have to answer for the ring that proudly resides on my left hand? Really?

And ironically: This circumcision proposal is making use of California’s ballot initiative system, the very system that Prop 8 proponents like Maggie used for their own purposes. So if we were going to connect it to any prior thing (though we probably wouldn’t), wouldn’t it be most logical to look back on those other times that the CA ballot was used to fulfill a motivated group’s personal whims? We’re thinking so.




Good As You

—  David Taffet

Happy Valentine’s Day from Maggie Gallagher

201102141447To me, it’s amazing, given the array of forces pushing for gay marriage and the weak response of most conservative politicians, that the American people have stubbornly dug in their heels on this question: Are two men in a union a marriage?

The answer is “no,” and people really do know it. Marriage is the union of husband and wife — for a reason. Creating a world where people are treated like haters or bigots for standing for marriage is irrational, and people know that, too. An America in which Genesis is akin to racism is an America that will be unrecognizable. Ideas have consequences, and this idea cuts us off from our roots and makes the future much harder.”

-Maggie’s V-Day love letter to loving gay couples everywhere

Writing off my marriage as fake? Reducing the principled stands I take to defend my family down to an unfair name-calling campaign? Suggesting that gay activists want to liken Genesis to racism, when in fact the marriage equality movement actually just wants people’s personal theological views of Genesis to not be used as a basis to deny *CIVIL* marriage licenses?

Gosh, Maggie: Next year those chalky message hearts will do just fine, thank ya very much!

***

*After our post went up, Maggie also posted the above snip to the NOM Blog, adding to it: “The idea that Genesis represents hatred is not only false, and wrong–it cuts America off from its roots in a new way.” Which, again, is extremely offensive to gays, in that it (a) uses personal faith as basis for rights denial, and (b) ascribes false name-calling to all of equality activism. But beyond that: It’s also downright offensive to LGBT people of faith, whose lives and loves Maggie essentially positions as excluded from God’s natural design.




Good As You

—  David Taffet

Maggie grades prez hopefuls; Potential noms not so NOM-pleasing

Pawlenty: D

Thune: D+

Romney: D

Ryan: C-

Trump: D

Santorum: A

Gingrich: D

McConnell: D

Bachmann: D

Those D’s of course have nothing to do with party affiliation. Ryan’s C- aint for conservative. Rather this is the list of faliling “marriage” grades that the National Organization For Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher has given to the slate of Republican presidential hopefuls who’ve spoken thus far at the weekend CPAC convention. A report card unlikely to please any parents, be they opposite-sex, same-sex, or single.

And as for the one bona fide good grade, belonging to Rick Santorum: Maggie admits, in full disclosure, that the former PA senator ran his speech by her ahead of time. Oh, and it’s the “values issues”-deviled Rick Santorum. Maggie could’ve written that “A” three weeks ago.

So all in all: It looks like Maggie’s biggest fight might not be with the many loving gay couples who are sick of pausing their lives to “prove” that they are worthy of full and equal citizenship under the nation’s civil laws, but rather within the one party that she has no choice but to have in her pocket. Because let’s get real: When Michelle “I once hid behind some bushes to spy on a gay marriage rally” Bachmann gives a conservative speech that doesn’t drop even one “protect marriage” rally canard? Well, Tea Partying Toto: I don’t think we’re in the Bush years anymore.

*Maggie’s grades can all be found on NOM Blog




Good As You

—  David Taffet

Watch: New RNC Chair Reince Priebus Promises NOM’s Maggie Gallagher That He’ll Keep Marriage from Gays

Reince_priebus

Reince Priebus tells Maggie Gallagher that marriage is a "gift from God" and the sanctity of marriage should be protected from gays. He also tells her believes the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is important and that activist judges should not redefine marriage.

Priebus clucks about how he has kept opposite marriage in place in Wisconsin and says he'd be committed to that as RNC chair.

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP



Towleroad News #gay

—  admin

Flashback: When Maggie met Hedwig, Johnny Rotten, and Ezra’s apparent superior

(2:07, clip 1): “::laughs:: I don’t put down rules and regulations” [on marriage]

(3:42, clip 2): On the charge that she’s profiting off marriage: “I wish

And then a convoluted conversation about same-sex marriage, homosexuality, and gender identity that shows how much some of us have grown in a decade, while others among us have worked to regress our collective understanding:




Good As You

—  admin

Maggie calls us gloaters, then pulls post. Which kind of makes us wanna gloat, frankly.

For some reason NOM abruptly pulled this post from Maggie Gallagher (which referenced this here website as the “gloaters”):

Screen Shot 2011-01-12 At 10.30.01 Am

(*Thanks to Bob Barnes for capturing it!)

Interesting that she responds to this one thing we wrote, with a frivolous “gloat” aside, considering we’ve directly taken on her logic in any number of ways over the past six years. Guess this one matter was easier to spin than the time we caught her calling homosexuality “unfortunate” and said that gays can “always control [their] behavior” (to name but one instance). But I digress.

Since we were able to reclaim this removed post, let’s look at Maggie’s stated claim. Maggie says that even though her ideas still ended up getting trounced in the Economist debate, she’s actually glad because of the change that occurred. This change:

6A00D8341C503453Ef0148C778D0C3970C

That’s what she’s so happy about: That through NOM and other group’s GOTV actions she was able to grow opposition by 19%, getting it all the way to 37%? Well okay, Maggie, if you want to claim that as progress, then go for it. Though you should know: It is less than the The Cool Moose Party candidate for Lt. Governor ;-) .




Good As You

—  admin

At least one ‘Economist’ agrees: Maggie should start stashing away some of her gay marriage profit

Just like a growing body of the public, the courts, and fair-minded politicos, The Economist‘s readers and editors have determined that Evan Wolfson’s arguments in favor of the Freedom To Marry greatly outweigh Maggie Gallagher’s dogged attempts to NOM equality’s path:

The votes are in and though the tally has fluctuated throughout the week, a steady majority of you are convinced that gay marriage should be legal. Congratulations to Evan Wolfson, whoEconomist-marriage-Gallagher-Wolfsonpassionately defended the motion. He is your winner. Commiserations to Maggie Gallagher, whose losing argument still resonates with many Americans.

In the end, our audience was not convinced that gay marriage would have a deleterious effect on society or heterosexual unions. Quite the opposite, in fact. Many of you noted the benefits marriage would bestow on gay couples and their families, while agreeing with Mr Wolfson’s argument that “there is no good reason” for their exclusion. Marriage is as applicable to devoted gay couples as it is to their heterosexual counterparts, you concluded, and it is their right.

Even so, some of you have questioned whether we should have held this debate at all. One commenter said, “I wonder if The Economist would be willing to set up a similar debate: ‘This house believes black people deserve equal rights.’” Perhaps not today, but I believe such a debate would have been very useful in the 1960s, when society was still coming to terms with the idea of racial equality. That debate would have illuminated the flaws in the exclusionary arguments that still held sway at the time. I hope this debate has been similarly useful.

Before I sign off, I would like to thank our spirited debaters, Mr Wolfson and Ms Gallagher, our insightful guests, Susan Meld Shell and M.V. Lee Badgett, and the hundreds of readers who shared their views and personal stories. The debate over gay marriage has come to an end…in this forum, at least.

Winner Announcement [Economist]

Today The Economist, tomorrow National Review. Inevitably this conversation goes permanent, no longer in need of any periodical debate.




Good As You

—  admin

Thanks for the push, Maggie. We like this Michigan poll too

This is how Maggie Gallagher, writing for the NOM Blog, presents new Michigan state polling data:

Screen Shot 2011-01-07 At 9.49.48 Am

[NOM BLOG]

So okay, let’s start with the “only 55 percent” claim. Are we seriously at a place where Maggie is painting a certain subdivision’s majority support for marriage equality as a good sign for her side? Because it wasn’t too long ago — as in HDTV was already around — that all breakdowns in all polls were under the 50% mark. If Maggie wants to look somewhat favorably at majority percentages like this one, in a world where support firms up every time a new voter turns eighteen, then that’s her prerogative. But we don’t believe she believes it. Not really.

But beyond just that: The actual WDIV/Detroit News/Glengariff Group Inc data paints an even more favorable pic than Maggie’s purposely limited presentation would have one believe.

By a margin of 38.5%-50.2%, Michigan voters oppose allowing gay men and lesbians to get married. 54.9% of Democratic voters support gay marriage, 42.3% of Independent voters support gay marriage, but only 19.6% of Republican voters support gay marriage.

But when asked if they support granting the alternative of civil unions to provide the legal benefits of marriage while still preserving the word marriage as something between a man and a woman, voters support civil unions by a margin of 55.7%-36.5%.

63.7% of Democratic voters, 61.1% of Independent voters and even 44.3% of Republican voters said they could support civil unions for gay and lesbian Michiganders.

There is a strongly difference by gender specifically on the issue of marriage.

Men oppose marriage by a margin of 33.0%-56.7% But women SUPPORT same sex marriage by the narrow margin of 44.0%-42.6% Men support civil unions by a margin of 55.7%-36.7%. Women support civil unions by a nearly identical margin of 55.7%-36.3%. Men appear to have a strong reaction to the word ‘marriage’ that women do not share.

Michigan Voters Survey (pdf) [Glengariff]

Funny that Maggie completely overlooks civil unions (which, at the end of the day, NOM almost ways disfavors, even if they’re less forthright about it).

But beyond even that data, there’s one more important piece that Maggie fails to mention. In the marriage question itself, there is a pretty high “don’t know/refused” percentage, and an undeniably small opposition figure:

Screen Shot 2011-01-07 At 9.58.54 Am

11.3% didn’t answer? Hmm. There are multiple reasons why folks might fall into that category. But most opponents of marriage equality are pretty darn forthright about it. We’d def. go out on a limb and say a larger portion of that 11.3% will move our way over the years, especially if we just keep telling our stories.

And finally: The fact that only 50.2% in total voiced opposition, and only 42% of them strongly? That’s pretty soft for someone like Maggie, who relies on a motivated opposition to turn out on election day. No wonder she ignored it.

If this poll is truly representative and a question of marriage inequality again makes its way to Michigan’s polls, will Maggie able to hold onto/turn out enough of this 50.2%, or to convert enough of the undecideds to put her fight above the bare majority threshold? Perhaps. But tick, tick, Maggie — 18th birthday party invites go out every day.

**

*NOTE: An earlier version of this post suggested that Michigan did not yet have a constitutional ban. In fact, the state did pass a ban in 2004 — One that banned both marriage and civil unions.

Interestingly, they did so by 58.6%, which would seem to further highlight that momentum is on our side, not Maggie’s.




Good As You

—  admin

Evan Wolfson Vs. Maggie Gallagher

All this week the Economist is hosting a rather unusual online debate between Freedom To Marry’s Evan Wolfson and NOM’s Maggie Gallagher. Click over and join in.

(Tipped by JMG reader Mark)

Joe. My. God.

—  admin