Comments

  1. Caliban says

    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.

  2. Frank Butterfield says

    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.

  3. tommyboy10T says

    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?

  4. at says

    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.

  5. Tyler says

    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.

  6. Bart says

    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?

    Sad.

  7. Ricco says

    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.

  8. Matt26 says

    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.

  9. Paul says

    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.

  10. Didaskalos says

    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.
    —Didaskalos

  11. Jordan Gray says

    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. :(

  12. Brian says

    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.

  13. Scott says

    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.

  14. Tagg says

    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!

  15. Will says

    I agree with Scott. While I’m not a big fan of her and her organization, the interviewer reminds me of Bill O’Reilly. Someone who just interrupts the other person and think they’re the high and mighty one. There are better ways to interview this woman….like Rachel Maddow! or Ellen! 😀

  16. keep your religion to yourself please says

    Marriage is primarily about property law. Which man owns a woman. Her father does until handed off to her husband. That is, if you want to get at the historical roots of the legality of it.

    Governments do not deal in sacraments, only legalities. If a particular religion does not want same sex marriages, fine. But that’s no reason to deny a same sex couple the legalities of their relationship or the recognition of the law.

  17. Migueliito says

    I agree with you Jeff. Although I don’t agree with her at all, Maggie totally won. She was rational and very clearly explained which position she was articulating. It is so rare for someone being interviewed on TV to say “Here is what the Supreme Court thinks.” “Here is what I think.” “It is based on this.” “My position is not based on the authority of scripture.” Again, I don’t agree with her, but her clear style was welcome. And Hatmann just looked really underprepared. He should have taken speech and debate in high school

  18. nikko says

    I can’t believe many of you thought the interviewer sucked- he flat out pointed out the absurdities and hypocrisy of her “biblical” viewpoints and how obscene they really are. What didn’t you get?! And betty Bowers hit the nail right on the head about biblical marriage- with humour. Talk about missing the truth altogether.

  19. Redebbm says

    She was also on UP with Chris Hayes this morning. Continue the tired rhetoric that she believes that we are still in the 80s when gay marriage was taboo. Still blathering about how the majority should decide on minority rights, and counting us out as parents. She has no credibility on this issue and is a one note person. Perhaps if she spent some time with some married couples in the states it’s legal, but then she would be terrified to see that gay couples are NORMAL and her ilk want to make us seem different.

  20. OberonOZ says

    I agree with those who thought the interviewer was not good. I loathe what Maggie Gallagher stands for, but she was polite, consistent and tried to answer the questions put to her. The interviewer was all over the place and tried to browbeat her and was interrupting her etc. It was unprofessional. It seemed that all he wanted to do was score points on her. Thats not that hard really, she is ridiculous, but she came off better in this exchange, even though the interviewer was right in most everything he said. I loved the Betty Bowers thing, but I still dont feel that airing it in this context in any way provided a “win”. There are others I have seen do a much better job of this, like Rachel Maddow for a start.

  21. Brian says

    Did you watch the video Nikko? I happen to think she made lots of weak arguments, and I’m pretty sure she made up the whole supreme court thing unless I missed a gay marriage ruling the supremes made recently. But she specifically says she has no interest in biblical/religious objections to gay marriage so I think it’s weird that you thought the interviewer pointed out the absurdities of what you call her biblical viewpoint, which she explicitly doesn’t have.

  22. enough already says

    I have heard him quite often. He is not the shrill, screaming sort of person.
    This was exactly the sort of gentle refusal to budge when confronted with lies he is well known for.

    Maggie Srivastav always reminds me of an insane moment in my earliest childhood. My brother had been directed to share a toy with me. He didn’t want to, so he broke it. “There, he said – if I had to share it with you, it would break my heart. I’d rather just destroy it”.

    That’s about the level this hateful woman works at, she doesn’t want to ‘share’ her ‘marriage’ with us because, well, and there it all just falls to pieces. No matter how she pretends it’s not biblical fundamentalism or slavish devotion to catholic principles or anything else, in the end it all comes down to: I’ve got it, I don’t want to share it and I have the money and friends to keep it from you, so there!

    We can present all the facts and figures showing that we are just as good parents, that our marriages are just as strong, nothing will matter.

    She hates us.

    Until the queer community realizes how dangerous she is, we will continue to lose. We must fight her and her kind constantly.

  23. mike/ says

    has SCOTUS identified marriage as a ‘right’? i have been under the impression that it is a ‘privilege’ and not really a right.

    Maggie certainly is a contraction in terms by the things she says. her reasoning behind the question about sterile couples being allowed to marry is to ‘protect the children’. huh? how?

    what about ‘serial’ marriages? divorce is still on the rise and the percentage of step-parents abusing children in every way is skyrocketing. who/what is protecting the children in these cases?

  24. Jerry6 says

    Considering how many thousands of years “MAN” has existed on this planet and got along with living and procreating offspring WITHOUT anything called “Marriage” being involved, it is almost a comedy act to see and hear the Maggie Gallagher types preaching all of this “Sanctedy” of Marriage stuff.

    “Marriage” was invented by MEN after fixed settlements became the mode of living following the original nomadic life, as a way of Binding a woman to perpetual servitude to a single man. It evolved into the payment of a dowery (sp) by the bride’s Father as a payment to the Husband to take the woman off the father’s back; so to speak.

  25. Jordan Gray says

    “has SCOTUS identified marriage as a ‘right’? i have been under the impression that it is a ‘privilege’ and not really a right.”

    Yes, marriage is a right. SCOTUS explicitly recognised this in Loving v. Virginia: “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man'[…]”

    The reasoning of the CA Supreme Court in In re Marriage Cases was that sexual orientation constitutes a suspect class, and thus (thanks to the due process clause of the 14th Amendment) could not be restricted from exercising a fundamental right without demonstrating a compelling governmental interest, and that such restrictions are narrowly tailored to that interest and constitute the absolute minimum necessary to protect it. It was an entirely sound decision.

    Note that Prop. 8 therefore had the effect of eliminating a fundamental right, something which contradicts Art. 1 Sec. 1 of the CA State Constitution:

    “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights.”

    Call me crazy, but an initiative that obliterates the first premise of your state constitution is definitely a revision, not an amendment. If a 51% majority can eliminate whatsoever right they please in a ballot initiative, your rights are certainly not inalienable.

  26. Mark says

    Maggie who is a “catholic” is married to Raman Srivastav who is a Hindu..( didn’t “god” say something about separating the races?) Its been reported that the marriage was for the purpose of getting Raman a green card.. It was also reported he is gay and has a traveling companion which is why NO one has every seen a picture of Raman OR why Ramn has never made an appearance with Maggie in support of her.

  27. Manuel Little says

    Bravo Maggie!
    They start by saying they are not equal, and then expect to be treated as equal. Marriage cannot be more equal than it is. What they mean is ‘equivalence’, not equal.

    Someone has to educate that questioner who asks 3 questions on different subjects at once. Was he out of time, or out of arguments. His approach is that of the sophists who merely wish to win the argument, not seek the truth. Because they argue among their own social class, they believe they are winning. But some 15 States had not made a decision about same-sex civil unions or marriage.

  28. Susan Rosenthal says

    I do not agree with Maggie Gallagher regarding gay marriage, but I do not like all of the nasty comments about her weight. They are not appropriate, and only serve to make the commenters look nasty and biased themselves. Stick to the issues, there is enough to criticize, and continue the fight for marriage equality/

Leave A Reply