Never mind that the removal of the judges threatens to impede the operation of the judiciary in Iowa, denying justice not only to the minority targeted by NOM’s mystery donors, but to anyone else in the state court system. Never mind that the state’s governor, Chet Culver — also defeated by a Republican on Tuesday — is unlikely to fill those vacancies on the bench before his term ends in January, further tampering with the due process of law in the state. Never mind that John Adams, one of the founding fathers who people like Gingrich and Sarah Palin like to invoke at any opportunity, believed that a judiciary protected from the political storms that rage around the contentious issues of the day is one of the foundations of a stable democracy:
The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the morals of the people, and every blessing of society depend so much upon an upright and skillful administration of justice, that the judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive, and independent upon both, that so it may be a check upon both, as both should be checks upon that. The judges, therefore, should be always men of learning and experience in the laws, of exemplary morals, great patience, calmness, coolness, and attention. Their minds should not be distracted with jarring interests; they should not be dependent upon any man, or body of men.
The sweeping ramifications of NOM’s success in Iowa this week are not lost on legal authorities. “What is so disturbing about this is that it really might cause judges in the future to be less willing to protect minorities out of fear that they might be voted out of office,” Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Irvine, School of Law, told the New York Times. “Something like this really does chill other judges.”
You’ll note, via the link above, that “Maggie” says that John Adams, who alive from 1735-1826, probably agreed with her about marriage equality. Putting aside the fact that Maggie Gallagher takes pride in having a point of view that was popular in the late 1700s, I wonder if John Adams agrees with Maggie about slavery too (while Adams refused to own slaves, he did oppose emancipation – how are you on emancipation Maggie?)
DNC on track for record fundraising month? "The DNC will file papers on Thursday reporting that for the first 13 days of October it raised .1 million. The total, an aide said, put the committee 'on pace for one of our best months ever for a midterm election.' The DNC also revised its records from September, adjusting the total amount raised during that month from million to million."
Saudi media silent on murder conviction of gay prince: "If it has been reported in the kingdom's mainstream media I'll be interested to know where. Some of the Lebanese and Emirati media (Gulf News and Emirates 24/7) have carried reports from international agencies but mostly the Arab media seems to be showing a distinct lack of interest in the crime."
Clarence Thomas' wife harasses Anita Hill for apology in voicemail message: "I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband."
Members of Finland's Evangelical Lutheran Church leave in droves after anti-gay remarks on TV: "The number of people resigning from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the wake of last week’s TV discussion programme on homosexuality and the church continues to rise. The number of resignations has now exceeded 20,000…"
The window for civil unions in Illinois is brief if GOP gubernatorial nominee Bill Brady wins in November. Brady and his challenger Pat Quinn squared off on that issue in a recent debate. "Brady defended his position against protecting gay people from discrimination or letting gay couples marry. He said his beliefs are his beliefs, and believes the people of Illinois respect that. He said his agenda is about jobs and the budget, not social issues."
Was a man, was a big man: A third generation Texan from Austrian stock, Richard stands an impressive 6 feet 4 inches of furry, pierced muscle. Originally from Amarillo, he has resided in Dallas for 28 years.
An animal loving Capricorn, Richard shares his life with a newly-adopted border collie, Romo, and a tortoise-shell cat named Maggie. A natural homebody, this engineering-minded man spends his time at home remodeling (he’s building an amazing addition on his house), and is equipped with electrical and plumbing skills. Richard’s hobbies include working out (really? We’d never have guessed), attending sports events (he’s a huge Cowboys, Stars and Rangers fan), and downloading all genres of music.
His favorite quote comes from his grandmother: “It’s nice to be important, but it’s more important to be nice.”
This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition October 15, 2010.
“I think fundamentally we’re just going to have to man-up on this one,” … “The one most repeated command in the Bible is ‘be not afraid.’ We really have to take these bullies on and show them that they can’t win by silencing or intimidating opposition.”
-Person who earns her living attacking gay people’s civil marriages, Maggie Gallagher, describing the “bullies” who are supposedly the mean ones for working towards a goal of having people like her simply LEAVE. THEM. ALONE. [QUOTE SOURCE]
Yes, please, by all means — “man-up,” Maggie. In terms of both feasibility and civil fairness, turning your own union into a same-sex one would be infinitely more preferable than your current war to stop the inevitable tide that is civil marriage equality!
Shorter Maggie Gallagher: “That’s sad and all, but I’m going to keep spending my life trying to hurt those kids and their families, because I’m an entirely pigheaded individual who isn’t capable of ruminating over the consequences of my actions, and because I have very little connection with the real world, instead choosing to battle my own personal demons in the public square.”
In the future, Maggie: Don’t talk unless you can do it without pissing on fresh graves.
But here’s the thing: It doesn’t matter what Maggie personally thinks about what will or will not resolve tragedies like the ones we’ve seen this week. It doesn’t matter how heartfelt her personal condolences may be. What matters is the body of her professional work with NOM and elsewhere, and the fallout that we gay folk all-too-well know can stem from these “culture war” activities! Because it is this bias cultivation that changes the molecules in the air. It’s this anti-civil rights work that puts heterosexism into everyone’s psyches. It’s this fear-fostering that foments a world where LGBT people are viewed as different, wrong, or in some extreme cases — unworthy of life.
The thing about loose lips: They can sink ships. So too, loose interpretations of who was and was not born into the right sexuality!
The reality is that none of us have ever grown up in a world where the full population is free to live as they were formed. A very big and undeniable reason for this is the far-right’s “culture war” against gay people’s lives and loves. A “culture war” that Maggie Gallagher has been a part of for decades now.
“The suicide of that teen was not only a tragedy it was a crime. The young people who violated laws out of mindless desire to bully or embarrass or whatever the heck kids do this stuff will be prosecuted and probably jailed, I hope. Nothing in the press accounts suggest the kids who did this were motivated by homophobia, and the cruelty of cyberbullying is causing teen suicides among those who are not gay, as well. I do not think the absence of gay marriage is the cause of these tragedies or its presence will resolve them. We can make this a symbol of all our other fights, or we can try to save all our kids, gay and straight, from this kind of ugly and mindless cruelty. My heart goes out to the family of the young man. God bless him and them.” – Maggie Gallagher, commenting on NOM’s blog.
Jeremy Hooper responds at Good As You: “It doesn’t matter what Maggie personally thinks about what will or will not resolve tragedies like the ones we’ve seen this week. It doesn’t matter how heartfelt her personal condolences may be. What matters is the body of her professional work with NOM and elsewhere, and the fallout that we gay folk all-too-well know can stem from these “culture war” activities! Because it is this bias cultivation that changes the molecules in the air. It’s this anti-civil rights work that puts heterosexism into everyone’s psyches. It’s this fear-fostering that foments a world where LGBT people are viewed as different, wrong, or in some extreme cases – unworthy of life.”
First and foremost: I totally believe her. I think the vast majority of us know that Maggie Gallagher does not wish harm, much less death, on anyone. In fact, I don’t believe that she even wishes mental anguish on anyone, having truly bought into the talking points from her movement which detach the actions from any kind of hurtful intent.
But here’s the thing: It doesn’t matter what Maggie personally thinks about what will or will not resolve tragedies like the ones we’ve seen this week. It doesn’t matter how heartfelt her personal condolences may be. What matters is the body of her professional work with NOM and elsewhere, and the fallout that we gay folk all-too-well know can stem from these “culture war” activities! Because it is this bias cultivation that changes the molecules in the air. It’s this anti-civil rights work that puts heterosexism into everyone’s psyches. It’s this fear-fostering that foments a world where LGBT people are viewed as different, wrong, or in some extreme cases – unworthy of life.
The thing about loose lips: They can sink ships. So too, loose interpretations of who was and was not born into the right sexuality!
The reality is that none of us have ever grown up in a world where the full population is free to live as they were formed. A very big and undeniable reason for this is the far-right’s “culture war” against gay people’s lives and loves. A “culture war” that Maggie Gallagher has been a part of for decades now. This writer knows: I’ve read through her archives more than just about anyone. I’ve seen the stigmatizing comments, like in 2001 when she referred to homosexuality as a “sexual dysfunction” whose reparative therapy deserves research dollars:
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]
Or in ’00, when she presented gays as abnormal members of the species:
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]
And of course there’s all the modern day stuff with NOM, where she’s pointedly told gay people that they “can always control” their “unfortunate” behavior:
I’ve heard and seen so much from Ms. Gallagher. Much more than I’ve ever even published. Did Tyler Clementi also experience it? Did Raymond Chase? Did Seth Walsh? Did Asher Brown? Did Billy Lucas?
Well, I of course don’t know how familiar any of these five young men were with Ms. Gallagher or NOM. But again: Their personal familiarity with this one “culture war” person doesn’t matter! Because what I do know without a shred of doubt is that all five were familiar with the ol’ fashioned mental torture that the “pro-family” community so aggressively fosters (sometimes unwittingly, sometimes not so much). And I know that when given the choice of fostering civil peace, Ms. Gallagher instead chose to defend exclusion. That certainly didn’t help matters.
This speculation/activist view of the court comes from our ol’ two step partner Maggie Gallagher:
“How could Judge Walker exhibit such gross bias and deliver such an injudicious opinion? The answer appears to be, in part, that it was his swan song. He’ll leave the bench famous, a hero in his hometown, and a hot commodity in whatever private venture he moves into.
Compare that to where Judge Walker would be if he had done what a lower level federal judge probably should have done: found that Baker v. Nelson is binding precedent, even if he also felt compelled to state why he believed it should be overturned by the Supreme Court.”
Right. Because that’s exactly the principle in which Judge Walker crafted his 146 page decision: Fame. Instant Celebrity. A thirst for his 15 minutes. In fact, didn’t he actually study at the Kim Kardashian School of Law?
Oh, and as for Baker v. Nelson (as much as we’d like to continue talking about reality TV instead): These social conservatives really need to stop acting like that case went completely unacknowledged at trial! Because Walker quite pointedly brought up that 1972 case (which SCOTUS dismissed with a one-sentence “for want of a substantial federal question” order), leading Ted Olson to even more pointedly explain why the current matter before the court was/is different:
THE COURT: Well, now, the Supreme Court in the Baker vs. Nelson case, decided that the issue which we are confronted with here was not ripe for the Supreme Court to weigh in on. That was 1972. What’s happened in the 38 years since 1972?
MR. OLSON: Well, a great deal has happened. Among the things that have happened is the Romer case. Among the things that have happened is the Lawrence vs. Texas case. You know what those cases involve. A lot of other things have happened. Changes in the ballot propositions. California has adopted something completely different than the state — I guess it was Minnesota or Michigan, involved in that case. So there are a lot of factual situations that are different. This case is very different.
And, by the way, the Supreme Court rejected the opportunity to take a miscegenation case. Now, I think it was — Dr. Cott testified to this. I think it was 1955. And then they took the case, the Loving case, in 1967.
As Olson aptly mentioned: The reality of both the world and the law has greatly changed since 1972. Romer v. Evans. Lawrence v. Texas. DOMA and anti-LGBT ballot initiatives, which while anti-equality, certainly raise new legal questions about the constitutionality of bias that did not exist in 1972. Plus the undeniable reality that is five U.S. states and one jurisdiction in our nation’s capital with equality, as well as the many other countries with marriage equality abroad. Oh, and the civil unions and domestic partnerships that are spread all over, including in California.
Baker would only be binding if the current court was deciding the precise issue that it examined almost four decades ago. But things have undeniably changed, regardless of how much the Maggie Gallaghers of the world think the Earth’s trajectory is dependent on their team’s heels alone!