Betty Bowers | Gay Marriage | Maggie Gallagher

Maggie Gallagher Vs. America's Best Christian: VIDEO

Picture 17
Thom Hartmann at RT News interviewed Maggie Gallagher on Thursday, and holy god! It was brutal! Thom spent the whole interview looking at Ms. Gallagher, co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage, like she was some kind of outsized exotic insect who'd bumbled onto the set. He swatted aside her points one after another before bringing the interview to a crazy, deeply unprofessional but undeniably awesome denouement -- the sudden, shocking appearance of Betty Bowers, Thom's "heroine, and America's best Christian," who showed up to explain what real Christian marriage is all about. Watch AFTER THE JUMP ...


Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Marriage IS NOT ROOTED in society NOR the foundation of Society. Sanitation is.

    Posted by: Sargon Bighorn | Feb 11, 2012 3:48:26 PM

  2. maggie gallagher's poor son is just waiting for her to die so he can finally live a happy life.

    what an awful woman.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Feb 11, 2012 3:52:07 PM

  3. Her son is studying musical theater, hence I believe he's on his way to a very happy life as a gay man.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Feb 11, 2012 4:07:00 PM

  4. I think it *could* be argued that marriage is one way society stabilizes itself, creates social bonds and community. That's a far more convincing argument than "marriage is about children." Otherwise no one would be married until children are produced and a birth certificate and a marriage license would be the same thing.

    But it doesn't follow that ONLY heterosexual marriage stabilizes communities. Gay couples uniting in marriage serves the same purpose and the ONLY reason NOM and others oppose it is due to religion and bias.

    Posted by: Caliban | Feb 11, 2012 4:10:38 PM

  5. RT occasionally rocks.

    Posted by: KevinVT | Feb 11, 2012 4:11:27 PM

  6. This was great fun!

    However, it's important to note that RT is basically a propaganda machine for the Russian Federation. I'm sure the folks at Radio Moscow from back in the day would be quite impressed.

    Posted by: Frank Butterfield | Feb 11, 2012 4:18:42 PM

  7. Maggie Gallagher's inter-racial marriage would have been illegal in 27 states before Loving v. Virginia.

    Posted by: Michael | Feb 11, 2012 4:21:36 PM

  8. is there a confirmation that her son is studying musical theater? that speaks volumes to me...she must have some driving force that keeps her fighting for this. Is she married? I really would like to understand what the hell got up her ass?

    Posted by: tommyboy10T | Feb 11, 2012 4:28:23 PM

  9. @ TOMMYBOY10T -- Here is a link to a very lengthy profile/interview with her from recently. She is a very damaged woman whose main problem seems to be that no one loves her and that no one has ever loved her.

    Posted by: kit | Feb 11, 2012 4:39:35 PM

  10. What an awful news program. Not only will he not let her finish a point, he's muddling all of his and completely confusing the dialogue.

    Also: They seriously need to get better at fact-checking. The circuit court ruled that Prop. 8 violated the US constitution, not the CA constitution. The ruling was in a federal court, they those judges can't even rule on the CA constitution. They even certified the standing question to the CA supreme court.

    I'm very unimpressed.

    Posted by: at | Feb 11, 2012 4:41:14 PM

  11. I feel really bad for her son. He must have a terrible time dealing with her. She's probably even more oppressive in her home than she is in her public life. I wonder he's even able to make (or keep) many friends considering that she's as disliked as she is.

    Posted by: Tyler | Feb 11, 2012 4:48:32 PM

  12. It's so sad their spokesperson is bovine.

    Posted by: Paul | Feb 11, 2012 5:01:09 PM

  13. She always makes me sad. She's always looks unhappy and on the verge of breaking down and diving into a gallon of Ben and Jerrys. I get the sense that she hates herself and her life but now that she's even getting a modicum of attention she will take it just to feel worthy.

    Why else would she appear on a satire show, is that what NOW has been reduced to. To go on a show where the best she can hope for is she doesn't get a pie in the face?


    Posted by: Bart | Feb 11, 2012 5:05:44 PM

  14. If, as Maggie suggests, marriage is rooted in society as being between a man and a woman, and she is not basing that argument on her religious beliefs, one has to wonder what she would have to say to those societies where the women live separate from the men, the men in the valley, the women on the mountain, descending their homes annually to mate?

    What are the men and the women of this unique society doing the rest of the year? Hmmm . . .

    And what would she have to say to those societies that believe that a part of male maturation involves the elder males of their tribe, usually the father and uncles inseminating the younger males, either anally or orally?

    I am certain that while she can pretend that her religion is not the TRUE root of her argument against gay marriage, she would find it difficult, if not impossible, to make that same argument as she attacked societies that do not conform to her religion.

    Of course it is about religion. We know that, and she knows we know that, so Maggie's bullet points on anti-gay issues have evolved as an attempt to take, so to speak, the winds from sails.

    I call this dissembling . . . and dissembling comes perilously close to breaking the ninth commandment: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

    And while dissembling may be alright for politicians, it is okey-dokey for those who would appoint themselves the moral compass of society.

    I Corinthians 15:17-19: 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

    It is specious for Maggie, and others of her ilk, to pretend that I Corinthians 15, as only one biblical example, does not form the sole basis of their argument against gay marriage as anthropological studies do not bear this argument out, that marriage is so rooted, as other cultures do not share Maggie's concerns about homosexuality or plural marriages.

    Nor can they, with less than 10% of the human population comprising those with same sex inclinations, against a backdrop of an over populated planet one cannot make survival of the species as a valid argument against gay marriage, as they have done.

    And as to the argument that the one-man-one-woman unit she prescribes provides the stability and love children, as well as society requires, if society, and societies children, are to thrive, a pall is cast over the argument by the sheer number of broken homes. Of course we already know the answer to that question . . .

    If, as Paul said, Christ had not risen from the dead, then all Maggie's arguments would become nullified, and she, of all people, the most to be pitied. It would then be left to societies and individuals to formulate their own morals, and decide, without Christ, who may have or may not have risen from the dead, what is right for them.

    Naturally, the atheist would say, that the evolution of all religions have been designed to do just that.

    The question then comes back to the underlying issue of I Corinthians 15: Which is was Jesus of Nazareth both born and raised from dead? Is the Christian faith, one of many faiths in the world, FACT?

    Since there is no empirical data to either support, or negate the supposition, then it becomes a matter of faith . . . thus an individual choice to believe, or not believe, something Maggie, along with Iran, Iraq, and most of the Middle East is not willing to leave to individual choice, but would if she could, legislate the Christian faith, or at the very least force society to live by its precepts. Something, by the way, that is the very antithesis of free will, and Christianity.

    So, even if Christ has risen, Maggie is the most to be pitied as she has clearly substituted a great religion, allowing for free will, for a very poor facsimile of a great religion that would do the oxymoronic, by legislating or imposing their faith upon others.

    Posted by: Ricco | Feb 11, 2012 5:19:25 PM

  15. Nicely done interview. MG seemed out of logic and confused, which is natural based on her arguments.
    The ending, oh dear, I would have liked to see MG's face and reactions.

    Posted by: Matt26 | Feb 11, 2012 5:22:02 PM

  16. Being a recovered Catholic, I can say that the Catholic church believes a woman who bore a child out of wedlock , as Maggie did, are classified as IMMORAL and a HARLOT by the Catholic church and are often banished by their family/community and Church.

    Maggie calls herself a Roman Catholic?! LMAO...she's a hypocrite and a WHORE.

    Posted by: Paul | Feb 11, 2012 5:32:44 PM

  17. I bet when her husband has sex with her, he first has to roll her in flour and aim for the wet spot. She is DISGUSTING.

    Posted by: shle896shle | Feb 11, 2012 5:40:07 PM

  18. One begins to feel chivalrous towards Maggie. She's obviously tired and upset over the recent victories. She was able to conciliate the interviewers so that he would allow her to finish her points.
    At first, it's a wonderful thing to see mobs of pink-clad gays charging into the Manhattan J C Penney's waving their charge cards. But it's starting to look like the French Revolution. Things will, if I know my drunk and rowdy gays, be taken to far, and their will be repercussions. I am very worries by our little moment of success.

    Posted by: Didaskalos | Feb 11, 2012 5:51:28 PM

  19. Eugh… That was painful to watch. The interviewer was unprofessional and disrespectful to start with, and his "counterpoints" were canned and week. Mrs Gallagher was much calmer, and her willingness to call him on his poor technique made her come across far better than he did.

    I'm very unimpressed. You can do a way better job of arguing for marriage equality than Mr Hartmann did. :(

    Posted by: Jordan Gray | Feb 11, 2012 6:08:10 PM

  20. Please don't post anything from Russia Today. It's a propaganda machine.

    Posted by: Tyler | Feb 11, 2012 6:19:09 PM

  21. I have to say after reading the salon article about her, I find her really intriguing and someone i can relate to much better than stupid fundamentalists who just quote ancient scripture to justify their position against gay marriage. I've followed her for years, and especially in her pre-NOM days she was remarkably levelheaded, never made personal attacks or general anti gay comments, just focused on this one issue of marriage. like the salon article says, she considers gays as collateral damage in her crusade to protect traditional marriage, unlike her other colleagues who use the marriage issue to inflict pain on gays generally.

    But while I genuinely appreciate the fresh approach, and continue to be impressed that she never stoops to schoolyard attacks when she's confronted by so many, two things trouble me. First, I understand given her personal history as a single mother why she feels promoting mother and father families is so important to her. But I don't at all understand who that objective morphed into a singular focus in fighting gay marriage, which is at best a totally peripheral issue. I know she disagrees but as this clip shows she makes no sense here. Her answer to the sterile straights should marry but not gays, which she must be confronted with thousands of times, is just nonsensical and basically reverts to the definitional "I think marriage is between a man and a woman", which is content free. If her real concern is for children, then why not target gay adoption or surrogacy to prevent unwed people from raising children? Or target divorce or other ways to strengthen marriage. But there's something more going on here because she's totally silent on all this and only obsesses about gay marriage, which she must know will have no bearing on her cherished mom and dad families.

    Second, her credibility with people that matter, such as moderates, swing voters etc would be dramatically enhanced if she put her money where her mouth is. She says she's not at all anti gay, just pro marriage, so why doesn't she couple her anti gay marriage crusade with some pro gay steps like supporting ENDA, anti bullying, civil unions, anything really. I know her answer is she doesn't care, she cares only about her marriage thing, and it's not her problem if she's causing a spike in gay suicides, but she'd certainly seem like a better human being if she dropped that stance. I also think it would be more convincing to the undecideds, who would appreciate the "I love gays and traditional marriage" message more than her current message which is tangled with the nasty fundamentalist anti gay snarlings that turn so many people off.

    Posted by: Brian | Feb 11, 2012 6:19:31 PM

  22. LOL

    Love Betty Bowers and am a subscriber to her you tube channel

    so funny

    Posted by: say what | Feb 11, 2012 6:30:52 PM

  23. I thought Hartmann was surprisingly weak and underprepared.

    Posted by: Jeff Kurtti | Feb 11, 2012 6:44:25 PM

  24. Unfortunately, I think this makes the interviewer look really bad. He sort of just bumbles through, jumps all over the place, interrupts her, and never seems to be able to pin down a topic or point. She ends up looking level-headed, intelligent and professional by comparison. It's a shame.

    Posted by: Scott | Feb 11, 2012 6:49:53 PM

  25. I wish one interviewer would just ask any of these anti-gay nutjobs what are they doing to stop over 55% of all marriages endinhg in divorce? How about a constitutional amendment to no dicorce? Or just ONE marriage? I bet they wouldnt even think that was a viable option!

    Posted by: Tagg | Feb 11, 2012 6:52:24 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Sen. Steve Sweeney Predicts Marriage Will Pass NJ Legislature And Get Vetoed By Chris Christie« «