« Wanda Sykes at Las Vegas Rally: I'm Gay and I'm Pissed |
Main
| Marriage Equality Protests Sweep Nation - Photo Gallery »
11/16/2008
CNN: Signorile vs Gallagher on Same-Sex Marriage
Last night, Michelangelo Signorile and President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy's Maggie Gallagher faced off on the topic of marriage equality. Don't watch this in 3-D unless you want ongoing nightmares of Gallagher popping out of the screen to talk your head off.
Watch it, AFTER THE JUMP...
Posted 1:30 AM EST by Andy Towle in California, Gay Marriage, Michelangelo Signorile, News, Proposition 8 | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Why isn't our community pushing how the Yes on 8 groups went after the businesses that endorses No on 8?
They were fine using public information until the tables turned and I think we need to call them on their hypocrisy.
Posted by: Ed | Nov 16, 2008 4:18:46 PM
Exactly, Ed. I was disappointed that Michaelangelo didn't bring that up.
There is a huge difference between a grassroots effort to boycott businesses and a well-funded official campaign threatening the same in an attempt to extort money.
Posted by: Eric | Nov 16, 2008 4:21:17 PM
Is she a moron, poorly prepared or being strategic when she talks about this "putting people up on the internet"? MS was trying to explain that it's public record. Duh. It's not the No on 8 people making the names available.
Posted by: Rachel | Nov 16, 2008 4:48:37 PM
I love how right wingers like Maggie are now crying VICTIM because they're being "intimidated" by gay people (boohoo) just after she and her ilk used the bullying tactics of the majority to axe our constitutional rights. So exercising our free speech rights to protest against and boycott the bullies is seen as one-sided aggression, while depriving us of an equality that would have no effect on their lives whatsoever is viewed as noble. Oh, the irony. Maggie should, but will probably never, understand that as soon as they stay out of our lives and go about practicing their bigotry in private, we'll be more than happy to put down the signs and get on with our lives.
Posted by: Ernie | Nov 16, 2008 5:17:47 PM
Since when did not supporting a bigot’s business become attacking their right to free speech or freedom to practice their religion? Let’s call this what it is, a bad business move. Donating money that identifies you as a bigot and that discriminates against your employees and customers is always a bad business decision. Of course people are going to choose to spend their money where it won’t be used against them, their family or friends. The individuals who donated are deservedly realizing the consequences of their actions and it should be a cautionary tale for any business or group that financially benefits from the gay community while actively discriminating against them.
Posted by: JBo | Nov 16, 2008 5:22:38 PM
I don't think it was a very wise move for these businesses to discriminate against a group of people whose disposable incomes have kept them afloat financially especially in these economic times. Suckers.
Let the boycotts begin!
Posted by: Palto | Nov 16, 2008 5:46:22 PM
Michelangelo did a good job. I encourage everyone to continue to boycott anti-gay businesses until marriage equality is a reality in America.
Posted by: Bill | Nov 16, 2008 6:06:36 PM
He repeats himself a lot. He should make more points rather than saying a sentence six times. Good for him for doing it, I'm just saying I'd expect a little more succinct speaking skills from someone who has a radio show.
I say Boycott the hell out of them all.
Posted by: Dan | Nov 16, 2008 7:07:18 PM
Duh! When I donated to No to Prop 8, I knew that the information I provided was a matter of public record. How can she complain about being a victim? I was brave enough to provide my name, but not stupid to give my address, employer and phone number, knowing that it could end up on the internet. The problem is that "they" expected the gay community to stay in the closet and mumble about our dissatisfaction.
Posted by: 2nd Class Citizen | Nov 16, 2008 7:24:34 PM
That disrespectful pompous b*t*h has no clue what intimidation is. Mike had to keep repeating himself because that cow couldn't keep her pie hole shut long enough to let him talk! I think Mike showed great restraint. We fight them with our actions...boycotts, turn our backs on them, refuse them services, over perm their hair, fire them. ...but wouldn't that be stepping down to their level? ..food for thought..
Posted by: Rebecca | Nov 16, 2008 9:34:17 PM
Funny, another gay tv anchor doing a story about this.....if only Don would have come out, then we would have seen maggie run for the woods.
Posted by: matt | Nov 16, 2008 9:38:31 PM
It's absolutely ridiculous that people like Maggie are acting like victims, when their vicitimazation of gays and lesbians has gone on for YEARS, DECADEDS, and this vicitimazation is now to be stamped into law. This is our time.
Posted by: Christopher | Nov 16, 2008 10:23:23 PM
Her side is losing--it's fun to see her squirm.
Posted by: mark | Nov 17, 2008 12:02:36 AM
As I noted on Joe.My.God's blog- Isn't Maggie short for Maggot? She resembles a disgusting fly larva wiggling around the rotten corpse of the anti-gay rights crowd.
Posted by: homer | Nov 17, 2008 12:29:45 AM
We were on our way out to celebrate The Rally in Vegas making the news (THANK YOU WANDA SYKES!) and we listened to this is in the car.
Thank god they decided to feature this woman!
I can't imagine any right thinking person heard and didn't stop to think that all of her views were at the very least, odd.
Her position that marriage was the only way to procreate and meant for that left out non-fertile couples and seniors who find love in their golden years.
Then that rant about these poor people being targeted for their views!
Oh why bother going on?
Posted by: Derek Washington | Nov 17, 2008 12:52:21 AM
Funny how the bullies always claim to be victims the second anybody dare fight back. They're nothing more than pitiful cowards.
We're doing nothing illegal. If they want to be bigots they can do it with their own money, not ours. I will not fund the people who seek to destroy me and they have no right to demand that I do.
Posted by: Buffy | Nov 17, 2008 5:15:40 AM
If Only. Unfortunately they were equally matched. Dumber than a sack of hammers, all of them. Of course Signorile made a few good points but he ended up endorsing a fake equivalence. Like both sides had equally valid points. They do not.
Not pointed out were:
The RICH IRONY of that "president" of and "Institute" making a CAREER out of this battle - as she whines about the unfairness of Prop. 8 supporters receiving economic feedback - she is dining out on their misery. Them hanging out to dry serves her cause. The "victim" that is "Traditional Marriage." Cry me a river.
"Studies" don't prove shit. It's not about 'studies.' which are just scientific speak for "opinion." IT IS NOT ABOUT OPINIONS IT IS ABOUT RIGHTS. When you equate rights to current fads of opinion, or mention such opinion as a rationale for any right whatsoever you have already conceded the point. And the right to the Right. Signorile outsmarts himself by quoting all sorts of facts to make his argument extremely stupid and bankrupt.
The concept and definition of "traditional Marriage" was adroitly DELIBERATELY avoided. On purpose by the "President" of the "Institute" devoted to it's advocacy, and ignorantly, stupidly, [WHY?] avoided by Mr. Radio know-it-all talking head. Traditional Marriage meant virtual slavery for women at one time here, still does in many countries today. It's a property contract as seen by the State. America is different, or should be and CAN BE. If people with more than one neuron together can think themselves through it, and let the real issues get an incredibly needed airing.
Signorile let pass the assumed agreement as to the similarity between religious and civil marriage. What a maroon.
Boycotting is an American tradition. Lost in this fray was the recent history of the Nutballs-forJesus's proud proclamations against Disney, Ford, McDonald's, etc. Why? BECAUSE THEY WERE FAILURES! Ms. Marriage Windbag is AFRAID. [Good.] Thanks Mike, for pursuing that.
What is wrong with supporters of Proposition 8 experiencing hardship and loosing jobs etc.? IT IS IN NO WAY EQUAL TO OPPONENTS OF PROP. 8 LOOSING THEIR JOBS. NONE. NO. WAY. EQUAL. (You IDIOT.) One is being persecuted for standing up for their rights and exercising their rights as an American, the other is getting feedback in their most American of ways, by their neighbors using their own money, because they monetarily supported the oppression of a whole set of citizens arbitrarily. This is in NO WAY EQUAL. Thanks Mike, for making the lady's point. (I use the term "lady" generically and so I do not start typing other nouns that might get me banned.)
And thanks CNN for picking and arranging a 'debate' that did nothing more than to turn people off as they had to reach for painkillers because the Stupid JUST WOULDN'T GO AWAY.
Posted by: JamesR | Nov 17, 2008 5:38:54 AM
What a hateful, horrible, annoying woman! And so typical of right-wing(nut) methods... don't give your opponent a chance to make their point by endlessly, rudely and stupidly blathering on over them while they try to speak...
'Hateful bitch, party of one, your presidency of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy is ready.' Frigging moron!
Posted by: CK | Nov 17, 2008 7:07:57 AM
Ms. Gallagher is afraid. She is on the defensive. Good. Both sides can argue the pros and cons of gay marriage until we're all dead of old age but it won't change the fact that gay and lesbian rights are being systematically stripped from us. I was surprised Signorile was able to contain himself but was proud that he did so. I am usually skeptical of boycotts and don't really think they impact an issue. In this case I'm all for it. I think anything we can do to eliminate this outrage is well worth the effort. Personally I would like to see religious organizations taxed. That would most likely "bail out" the economy in short order.
Posted by: Island Girly | Nov 17, 2008 8:11:40 AM
I agree with some of the comments above that Maggie is the perfect spokesperson because she avoids all the issues and just whines, making it harder for people to agree with her position. Anyone remember the bible-bangers' Disney boycott? How about the recent McDonald's boycott? Her hypocrisy is deafening.
Since Obama's election, my sense here in Ohio is that there has been an awakening of reason and logic. We're once again talking about the causes of problems (Obama) rather than just sound-bite rhetoric (Rove/Bush). The Prop 8 nationwide grass-roots response is just one example of that. The nation is coming out of an eight-year intellectual closet and it's now okay to expose people like Maggie as superfluous and harmful. People are getting it now.
Incidentally, please stop letting the bigots frame themselves as 'defending traditional marriage.' Neither side of the issue has a position on mixed-gender marriages. The only issues are about gay marriage. We all know it's hypocritical to 'defend' marriage by outlawing it, so in discussions on the issue, please don't let them take this false credit. Make them find a new, more accurate description of their position.
Posted by: BobOhio | Nov 17, 2008 8:45:11 AM
My son is the product of a heterosexual union that procreated - a man who abandoned him, and a woman who abused him. Then he was adopted by a heterosexual woman with a boyfriend. That man abandoned him, and that woman abused him as well. He lost TWO sets of parents who were supposed to protect and care for him. Strike two for heterosexual unions!
My husband and I (legally married in Provincetown, more-or-less recognized in New York... so far), adopted him at the age of 17. He is dealing with hurts and issues caused by those heterosexuals who had the right to marry. He is now thriving, he graduated high school, and every day is a step forward for him.
I am not blowing my own horn, or looking for praise. I am simply pointing out that parenting is about love and commitment, not about the biological functions of your particular sexuality.
Anyone who uses the the argument that marriage should only be between a man and a woman because of the ability to procreate, and to provide a child with parents, should spend a day in my house, and talk to my son about his past.
And then try to extract their heads from their asses!
Posted by: Rich | Nov 17, 2008 10:43:27 AM
Am I the only one who beleives that Prop 8 needed to fail in order to galvanize the current generation? Look at the national stage that we now protest on. This would never have become the firestorm that it is if Prop 8 had been defeated. It may have been a step back, but it's only so that we muster our energy for a leap forward.
Posted by: WeHo Superhero | Nov 17, 2008 2:15:05 PM
This dialog speaks for itself. What do they fear? Why does being out of the "religious closet" make them vulnerable? is it perhaps that they realize they are on the wrong side of history? and that in deed they acts out of ignorance and hate? At least I'm proud of what I stand for.
Posted by: Rafael | Nov 18, 2008 4:57:51 AM
I recently emailed Maggie Gallagher, asking her about her "reverse discrimination" rhetoric. She answered almost immediately (I guess she sits on the computer all night) and dismissed me in three lines which addressed none of my questions (she also misspelled the word "with"). All she knows how to do is scream and whine. Eventually she will collapse in on herself and end up like Anita Bryant (another deeply misguided bigot out of touch with her times.)
Posted by: Steven Zumbrun | Nov 18, 2009 5:34:46 PM