Maggie Gallagher | News

Maggie Gallagher's Final Syndicated Column

NOM's Maggie Gallagher says good-bye to her syndicated column.

Maggie_gallagherHere are a couple excerpts:

Men and women are different. A society that pretends otherwise is not going to raise boys to be loving, reliable family men. Marriage is about settling for less but raising up an ideal much bigger and more important even than the most urgent whispered promises of romantic love.

Sex makes babies. Society needs babies. Babies need their mother and their father. Men and women need each other. We all need a strong marriage culture, whether we choose to marry or not. If it is true that sex makes babies, then that is clearly the most important thing about sex, the thing around which a decent person or society will organize sexual values, behavior and norms.

If they saw clearly. If they were only told the truth. For of all the ways adult society can abandon the young, one of the worst is to ignore the key adult task of creating and sustaining a larger meaning for sex and sexual desire for young people.

And more:

Without a powerful ideal of masculinity that points men toward marriage and fatherhood, more and more young men are deciding the hard work of becoming marriageable is not worth it: Porn, beer, video games with the guys, freedom and fleeting sexual encounters are good enough. The most urgent overlooked need is the deep need of boys for masculine ideals.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Yes, this is a hurt and angry woman, but also a stupid one. Her writing fails even the slightest application of logic. Someone (above) suggested that she should be a greeter at WalMart -- but I think her anger disqualifies her even for that job. She is to be pitied.

    Posted by: Alex Parrish | Jan 4, 2013 10:08:01 AM

  2. Marriage does mean settling for less...less taxation.

    Posted by: Dastius Krazitauc | Jan 4, 2013 10:18:19 AM

  3. They want to colonize Mars. She could go there. Put her in charge of truffle gardening! Dark, moist places that don't get much sunlight.

    Posted by: the sooner the better | Jan 4, 2013 10:26:10 AM

  4. She reminds me of my 3rd grade English teacher. Looking back on it now, the woman was a HUGE lesbian.

    Posted by: Michael | Jan 4, 2013 10:26:53 AM

  5. Guess she thinks gay men can't be masculine.

    Posted by: mikemike | Jan 4, 2013 11:03:49 AM

  6. When I first read the column, I thought it was written by Rick.

    Posted by: ***** | Jan 4, 2013 11:31:40 AM

  7. My born-again sister in law has these same ideas--she thinks she's the de facto head of our extended family because she's had so many kids and goes to church in a basement somewhere. She can't comprehend that my divorced sister and I--who are far more widely traveled, better read, more cultured, better informed (we don't watch Fox) and better educated--don't automatically accept her "stewardship" on family matters. I'm sure she resents us for our freedoms while she secretly revels in her marriage martyrdom.

    Meanwhile, we're a great Aunt and Uncle to her kids, who desperately need reality-based adults in their lives. It's sad, really.

    Posted by: arrant | Jan 4, 2013 11:44:21 AM

  8. She is especially against gay men. Lesbianism seems to be OK with her. Is it because her son is gay?

    Posted by: simon | Jan 4, 2013 12:13:58 PM

  9. Or her husband left her because he is gay?

    Posted by: simon | Jan 4, 2013 12:20:44 PM

  10. I didn't even know that Heifertiti HAD a column!

    And if that's the kind of drivel she wrote it's no wonder she's being put out to pasture.

    Posted by: Caliban | Jan 4, 2013 12:36:58 PM


    It's Maggie The Hutt, Jabba's wife.

    Posted by: jamal49 | Jan 4, 2013 12:40:44 PM

  12. The reality is, married people rarely settle for less. That is why the divorce rate is 60%. Granted, she would argue that is why divorce should be illegal. She's conceded they lost that battle and this is the last one left to fight. I've hard her speak publicly several times. She's oddly interesting to talk to. And for people here who have mentioned religion, she never once makes a religious argument regarding marriage. So that point is unfounded. She simply (incorrectly) believes that actions have consequences and that in this case, those consequences are x, y, and z. She fails however to offer any empirical evidence to support her arguments. She admits that logic fails. It's almost like she just has a gut feeling that gay marriage will doom marriage as an institution and society will crumble because people will stop caring about it.

    And she is married, though her husband does not join her publicly and is not involved in her crusade. Her son is still fairly young I believe, so I am not sure he is actually gay.

    And she does argue that female-female relationships are more stable than male-male ones. Obviously that is drowned in sexist nonsense, but she ultimately believes women are more nurturing parents and that is more important than what a man brings to the equation. I'm sure this opinion (again, lacking any empirical support that would be sufficient to justify banning gay marriage) is based on her own personal experiences with men. And frankly, she is probably right that. Women are likely on the sum more nurturing. But she has to connect the dots. Does nurturing matter? How much does it matter? Does that mean men who ARE nurturing should be denied the ability to marry and raise children together?

    I think people like her just live in fear. They fear the future, they fear change. Marriage may very well change dramatically from what it is now. It has always been changing. And I still have not been shown how a society without marriage is necessarily a worse one than one with marriage. She assumes a lot.

    Posted by: FancyPants | Jan 4, 2013 12:49:17 PM

  13. DavidEhrenstein, since I'm a marriage equality supporter now, could you lay off the snark? Or maybe change your name to Little Kiwi II? I was only trying to explain Maggie's comment about "settling for less," not validate her anti-equality views.

    Posted by: Mary | Jan 4, 2013 1:00:30 PM

  14. Poor Mr. Srivasetv, she's actually doing the same thing as the Westboro's Shirley Phelps: she had a kid out of wedlock and is "atoning" for it, in her crazy mind, by devoting her life to attacking LGBT people. Specifically, the LGBT people who are making a decision that she was too busy opening her legs to stop to really think about making.

    In another less-progressive generation, she'd have been branded a loose woman for life, and her son Patrick a "bastard" - stamped and sealed be their fates. Luickly, we're in more progressive time. And this is, of course, lost on her.

    Btw, food is also traditionally to be used to sustain life. Stop abusing it.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jan 4, 2013 1:02:50 PM

  15. What a steaming load of horsecrap from a total hypocrite.

    The human living population has more than DOUBLED in my lifetime... can we please quit with the "Making Babies is Priority #1" crap?

    Posted by: jexer | Jan 4, 2013 1:11:11 PM

  16. she making a dig at her own son for his "choice" to go into NY's musical theatre scene?!?!?!!?!?

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jan 4, 2013 1:23:46 PM


    I'm sure the many folds on her body will make ideal growing spots for truffles, once you clear out all the loose change, stale Cheetos and old TV Guides.

    Posted by: FuryOfFirestorm | Jan 4, 2013 2:13:01 PM

  18. JEXER, when the right wing says that we are not making enough babies what you should hear is we are not making enough white babies.

    Posted by: Mawm | Jan 4, 2013 2:14:05 PM

  19. Men and women are different, and Maggie is the missing link

    Posted by: Garst | Jan 4, 2013 2:17:08 PM

  20. @JonB Yeah her position on marriage is clearly influenced by her story. She has this theory that gay people being allowed to marry will change how we perceive marriage in such a way that men won't stay married to their wives. It's absurd, but it's the kind of tortured nonsense reasoning that comes out of places like the Yale Political Union (where Maggie was an active member) and talking heads in general.

    NOM is dying. Look at their (2) donors, and their blog with its boring copy of the same recycled phrases echoed over and over. Maggie has lost, and it's almost time for her to move on.

    Posted by: JR | Jan 4, 2013 2:52:38 PM

  21. Poor sad Maggie. She can't accept that many of us know a lot more about marriage than she does, even though our relationships/marriages receive no federal recognition. Her "reasoning" only reveals her own failure of generosity and imagination and her own deep unhappiness. The truth is all the problems she tries to lay on gay couples are in reality the products of broken heterosexual families like her own.

    Posted by: Ernie | Jan 4, 2013 4:21:21 PM

  22. It's a standard RC talking point to deny the reality of overpopulation.

    Posted by: Diogenes Arktos | Jan 4, 2013 5:03:06 PM

  23. I LOVE that picture of her.

    Posted by: Dee Vee | Jan 4, 2013 11:33:16 PM

  24. These people operate on the fear that hetero sexuality needs to be defended. Dah, most people are attracted to the opposite sex. But gays are not. Bisexuals are attracted to both sexes. Organic sexuality is a continuum. Those people that fall in love and can maintain a long term relationship with someone of the same sex need and deserve the ability and protection of marriage.

    Posted by: Tom in long beach | Jan 5, 2013 12:15:04 AM

  25. This is NOT the last word from the zombie.

    In her Huffington Post interview:

    "In my view 'social conservatives' need to do two big things much, much better: build actual political organizations instead of religious ministries masquerading as political organizations..."

    and then she says (same interview):

    "I am [now] serving on the board ("Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund")... The overarching goal is to build legal institutions to protect traditional religious believers from what I believe is going to be increasing efforts to stigmatize and marginalize us from mainstream society..."

    So, her "Defense" of Marriage campaign now morphs into "Defense" of "Conscience" (i.e. religion).

    This is like one of those zombie movies - they never die. Or, one of those dismal political comedies - they always find bigger and easier bucks.

    Strange she could for decades "defend" marriage from "homosexuals who chose their lifestyle" and are said to lack legitimate claims to civil rights, then she ends up now "defending" "conscience" (religion) - most definitely a lifestyle with a claim to rights based on choice. No one is born religious.

    Maggie, sadly, was born a zombie and grew to be a political comedian. Am told, both pay well.

    Posted by: LeslieDF | Jan 5, 2013 12:10:23 PM

  26. « | 1 2 3 »

Post a comment


« «Illinois Pro-Equality Advocates Look to Next Session as Time Runs Out for Same-Sex Marriage Bill« «