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. Maggie would just brush such questions off with "Yes isn't that terrible" and then get back to her talking points that same-sex marriage must never happen.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Feb 11, 2012 7:11:34 PM

  2. 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 Rachel Maddow! or Ellen! :D

    Posted by: Will | Feb 11, 2012 7:19:28 PM

  3. Someone buy that woman a neck ...

    Posted by: TJ Parker | Feb 11, 2012 7:23:08 PM

  4. 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.

    Posted by: keep your religion to yourself please | Feb 11, 2012 7:46:53 PM


    Posted by: Stephen Q | Feb 11, 2012 7:55:09 PM

  6. 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

    Posted by: Migueliito | Feb 11, 2012 8:25:11 PM

  7. 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.

    Posted by: nikko | Feb 11, 2012 9:18:54 PM

  8. No straight MAN on earth would want to have sex with that creature.

    Posted by: jaragon | Feb 11, 2012 9:56:08 PM

  9. 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.

    Posted by: Redebbm | Feb 11, 2012 10:52:49 PM

  10. I liked watching the gay couple celebrate and kiss behind the pontificating Maggie.

    Posted by: Joe | Feb 11, 2012 10:56:41 PM

  11. 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.

    Posted by: OberonOZ | Feb 12, 2012 12:27:52 AM

  12. omg this woman need a good slap....just get on with your life and leave us to get on with ours!!!!

    Posted by: martin brown | Feb 12, 2012 1:00:41 AM

  13. 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.

    Posted by: Brian | Feb 12, 2012 1:19:29 AM

  14. 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.

    Posted by: enough already | Feb 12, 2012 10:40:55 AM

  15. 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?

    Posted by: mike/ | Feb 12, 2012 12:42:08 PM

  16. 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.

    Posted by: Jerry6 | Feb 12, 2012 12:50:53 PM

  17. "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.

    Posted by: Jordan Gray | Feb 13, 2012 7:29:27 AM

  18. Excellent post Jordan.

    Posted by: Kevin | Feb 13, 2012 2:21:36 PM

  19. 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.

    Posted by: Mark | Feb 13, 2012 2:46:29 PM

  20. 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.

    Posted by: Manuel Little | Feb 24, 2012 5:18:48 AM

  21. 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/

    Posted by: Susan Rosenthal | Mar 5, 2012 3:09:03 AM

  22. « 1 2

Post a comment


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