Gay Marriage | Maggie Gallagher | News | NOM

Maggie Gallagher Grilled Over NOM's Anti-Gay Agenda: VIDEO

Maggie_gallagher

On MSNBC’s Up with Chris Hayes on Saturday, NOM's Maggie Gallagher was grilled by Hayes over the trends and polling in marriage equality and why anti-gay activists are losing (she doesn't think so, of course). Hayes also asked Gallagher why 'no fault' divorce shouldn't be the focus of NOM's efforts instead of gay people.

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Richard Kim, executive editor of TheNation.com, laid into NOM's “anti-gay animus” and her history of anti-gay rhetoric.

Gallagher denies that NOM's website endorses a whole array of discredited right-wing memes about gay people.

Writes Carlos Maza at Equality Matters:

Kim, of course, was entirely accurate in his depiction of Gallagher and NOM’s anti-gay animus. He returned later in the show to quote a TownHall.com article Gallagher wrote in 2001 in which she called homosexuality a “sexual dysfunction” and called for federal research dollars to support “ex-gay” therapy. NOM president Brian Brown also recently celebrated a study on the effectiveness of “ex-gay” therapy, calling it “good news.”

Gallagher’s defense of NOM’s blog – that linking to an article isn’t an endorsement – is questionable at best. While NOM does occasionally link to gay news publications like The Advocate, it is important to examine what type of stories NOM highlights from that paper. Over the past few months, NOM has linked to or cited The Advocate in order to highlight stories about gay men advocating for non-monogamous relationship, the decriminalization of pedophilia, and equality in divorce laws.

Meanwhile, the blog – which Gallagher claims to keep a “close track of” – has linked to a number of extreme and inflammatory anti-gay columns.

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. I gotta say she's a good speaker and great debater, and the other commentators, except for Chris, came off as uninformed and unready, particularly the woman. Most of our talking heads couldn't hold a candle to this woman in a proper debate. We need a Maggie Gallagher for our side

    Posted by: Mike C. | Feb 15, 2012 1:37:09 PM


  2. So she thinks she is a good front/face to her very negative issue? Does she ever wake up thinking she is wasting her life?

    Posted by: Matt26 | Feb 15, 2012 1:39:51 PM


  3. kermeeeeeeeet!!

    Posted by: sparks | Feb 15, 2012 1:44:54 PM


  4. @GAYLIB

    She didn't eat her eyebrows, just didn't bring them. When you're Ms. Potato Head, it's your prerogative which pieces to put on.

    Posted by: sparks | Feb 15, 2012 1:46:42 PM


  5. Mike C.--I agree! Gallegher has her hate speech down pat, and pushes emotional buttons so skillfully, that even a Thom Hartmann or Chris Hayes comes across as unprepared. Anyone preparing to interview her needs to have their rebuttal READY--these people all seemed caught flat-footed.

    Posted by: Jeff Kurtti | Feb 15, 2012 1:50:35 PM


  6. @ Sargon bighorn :

    Good point....we should all be using the term "Marriage Equality"....not "gay marriage".

    I'm on board .

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Feb 15, 2012 1:56:18 PM


  7. NOM should be concentrating on mandatory marriage for breeders. Soon's your squawling bundle of joy pops out, a blood test is performed and whoever's the bio dad is legally hitched to you automatically, no ceremony necessary. That'd show the father of Maggie's first kid.

    Posted by: Glenn I | Feb 15, 2012 2:01:49 PM


  8. Of course she has her ammunition ready. IT'S ALL SHE DOES. She practices her spiel in the mirror. She might be able to outclass interviewers like Chris -- who discusses a great span of topics on his show. But watching her going up against a marriage equality activity is hilarious.

    Posted by: Gregoire | Feb 15, 2012 2:29:47 PM


  9. glutton

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Feb 15, 2012 2:31:53 PM


  10. @Tommyboy10

    Yes, she is married to some guy with a last name Srivastav. But I am yet to see her actually speak about him or wear a wedding ring. I am guessing that she keeps him hidden from the public, because of either his appearance or his religion. Or maybe he knows that it's just plain bad for business to publicly associate with Maggot. (Especially, as they live on the East Coast.)

    @Chadd

    The jury is still out on that question as Maggot's own son is in theater in NYC.

    Posted by: olterigo | Feb 15, 2012 2:35:44 PM


  11. Who died and made her the vocal barometer for marriage? Talk about making the personal the political. Just because she was an unwed mother who struggled raising her child alone doesn't mean everyone else out there with a similar beginning has a struggle, too. What an ego on this woman. She's very dishonest when she thinks she can separate her personal beliefs from her political advocacy. By her own admission, this is what drives her and yet, she just won't come out and say she's homophobic. And why doesn't anyone ever ask her the hypothetical about if her son came to her and revealed he was gay, what would she say? What would she do? She's very lucky I don't interview her. There'd be nothing left of her.

    Posted by: Sean Maloney | Feb 15, 2012 2:43:17 PM


  12. I thought her dodge regarding not putting her focus on divorce was pretty lame (i.e., "I was 15" when no-fault divorce came about). Seems there are plenty of people who were "young" at the time currently fighting to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    I don't understand her point about "changing the definition" (if you buy into that) as in and of itself something to fight or else all hell breaks loose. As another poster noted previously, the definition of marriage has been redefined many times previously. Traditions may serve continuity and provide comfort, but if they no longer adequately address the needs of people, they can and should be changed. How does being married in my house in my life in my way in any way affect anyone else's marriage? If same-sex couples are allowed to marry, how does that stop a heterosexual Roman Catholic couple from getting married, staying married, and having children if they are capable of doing so? "Because you've changed the definition" is meaningless; what happens in your marriage is up to you, Maggie, not me.

    If this is all about protecting children, what about the children in same-sex parent households? Don't they deserve the protection of a stable relationship? If you truly have nothing against gay people, you ought to be advocating for those families if children are your priority. I suspect Maggie's vision of the mother/father ideal involves making adoption by gays illegal, and taking children away, in her perfect world.

    How can someone so large be so full of holes?

    Posted by: TJ | Feb 15, 2012 2:44:12 PM


  13. she's not really "coming across well", nor is she even making intellectually solid arguments.

    the reason interviewers come across as "unprepared" is because they, alas, don't speak fluent Derp.

    derp derp derp.

    she sidesteps, she evades, she uses baselessly intellectually-dishonest non-arguments and distractionary techniques.

    it's like having a debate with a cockroach.

    and, yes. her son is involved in the creative side of NYC's musical theatre community, still starting out. he's a kind, generous, and progressively-liberal young man who has had to deal with a harridan of a mother his whole life. a woman who put great pressure on him as she hammered home that "she's the only one who's been there for him" - a woman who has made it abundantly clear that she has no room in her life for a gay son. frankly, he's waiting for her to die.
    when asked about his life with maggie as his mother, he was quoted as sayign "perhaps i'll write a musical about this some day"

    the interview is online. the new civil rights movement.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Feb 15, 2012 2:45:23 PM


  14. whats with the tongue?????????????

    Posted by: Silas | Feb 15, 2012 2:53:38 PM


  15. That pic of Maggie Gallagher. SMHWTFOMGLMAO

    That pic sums up exactly what I think about her brain, her entire personality.

    Posted by: DeedaRitz | Feb 15, 2012 4:10:58 PM


  16. OMG, somebody forgot to put lipstick on the pig!

    Posted by: quick call the spca | Feb 15, 2012 4:27:35 PM


  17. *ARGH* Why does no one come out and pin her with better questions like:

    * Do you believe your efforts will make any committed same-sex parents split up and seek out opposite-sex partners?

    * You oppose the right for a person to legally adopt their committed same-sex partner's biological child, yes? How exactly does that help the child?

    * Would you have us believe the child is worse off being raised by one biological parent and their same-sex partner, than they would be if they were forcibly put up for adoption or forced onto their other biological parent who surrendered them?

    * Not all children to be born to wedded biological parents, or born to parents who wish to raise them. What's your plan on stopping surrogacy and anonymous sperm donors so that same-sex couples will have fewer opportunities to raise children?

    * Being a single parent is hard. You've said so yourself. Why are you insisting that society treat gay and lesbian parents as if they were single parents? Wouldn't life be so much better for them and their children if their chosen partner were respected and recognized as an official guardian of the children in that household?

    Posted by: Jexer | Feb 15, 2012 5:48:43 PM


  18. I encourage you all to go to their website: http://nationformarriage.org and "register" and in the comments let them know, nicely, what crap they're spreading. All their arguments against marriage equality are tautological.

    Their number 1 talking point is "gay people have a right to live their lives as they want [really?], but we don't have the right to redefine marriage for straights."

    And the obvious rebuttal: We're not doing ANYTHING to straight marriage.

    Posted by: David R. | Feb 15, 2012 8:43:15 PM


  19. I've promised myself I would stop ridiculing Maggie's appearance. That screen grab is just mean, and I hate seeing it used. The woman is a sad and misguided human being who makes her living peddling hate and discrimination. Her life is so dismal, and all she has is her pretense of faithfulness to her nominal Catholicism. And her very large income, of course. I do not believe her marriage is happy. I suspect her elder son is a closeted gay man, but I don't know this. An acquaintance who does know him vaguely insists this is the case. If that is true, my heart goes out to him. It would be rather like having Medea for a mother.

    Posted by: Abel | Feb 15, 2012 10:05:59 PM


  20. She's a Roman Catholic??? She got preggers at 15? Is she married right now to the man that got her pregnant???

    Hmmm...should we look up what the bible says about women like her?

    Posted by: Shawn | Feb 15, 2012 10:11:20 PM


  21. Oops. should have been "Not all children are born to wedded biological parents," above. oh well.

    One more question Maggie needs to be asked:

    * Why aren't you crusading against deadbeat fathers? Is this anti-gay-marriage thing some kind of bitter revenge against specifically targeted at the (probably closeted gay) man who got you pregnant and refused to marry you afterwards?

    Posted by: Jexer | Feb 15, 2012 10:16:08 PM


  22. Dat face

    Posted by: Wolf Sawyer | Feb 16, 2012 12:30:56 AM


  23. SHE IS AS HAGGERED AS HER VIEWS!!! GIRL, BURY YOUR HEAD AND FAT ASS IN THE SAND!

    Posted by: GRivera | Feb 16, 2012 9:03:33 AM


  24. ROMAN CATHOLIC!?!?! This does not give them the right to make rules for America with their backwards antiquated beliefs.

    ANY GAY PERSON WHO GIVES MONEY OR SUPPORTS ANY CHURCH NEEDS TO HAVE THEIR HEAD EXAMINED!

    Religion and that so-called god have made us the immoral and the enemy since that book was penned. GET EDUCATED - RELIGION IS BAD!

    And to say "My god does not condemn gays and a lesbian is just asinine. How many gods do we need to create????

    Posted by: GRivera | Feb 16, 2012 9:41:56 AM


  25. EVERYONE !

    Can we please stop using schoolyard taunts about a person's appearance as some kind of logical argument. What does someone's appearance have to do with the merit of their opinions and arguments? I find it embarrassing and detrimental to our cause and undercutting the power of our own observations.

    Harriet Tubman, you're next !

    Posted by: ricky rocky | Feb 16, 2012 11:13:27 AM


  26. « | 1 2 3 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Xelle's 'Invincible': MUSIC VIDEO« «