Gay Marriage | Maggie Gallagher | News

Maggie Gallagher: Opponents of Gay Marriage Are In a State of ‘Shock’


In a new blog post for the American Principles Project, NOM founder Maggie Gallagher claims that opponents of same-sex marriage “are in shock, they are awed by the powers now shutting down the debate and by our ineffectualness at responding to those developments.”

Gallagher's post, aimed at Christians struggling with the idea of a post-marriage equality America, is broken into a discussion of three current events, saying each highlights “one feature of the challenges before us, and what we need to build to respond.”

On Charles Cooper, the Proposition 8 attorney who recently revealed his views on gay marriage have evolved and is now planning his lesbian daughter’s wedding:

Chuck cooperAnd here is the thing I take away, and what I want you to take away, from the Charles Cooper story: Whatever we do, and whatever we say, we have to be willing to say it, as if to a beloved child of our own family, coming to us with a loving gay marriage.

There is no line we can draw that pushes gay people “outside” and leaves us free “inside” to be angry, foot-stomping, and morally “pure.”

We are all tangled up in Love with sin, our own and that of those we love.

Brendan eichOn the controversial resignation of Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla for his pro-Proposition 8 donation back in 2008:

We live in an America in which standing up for Biblical morality (or its common sense moral analog) puts your employment in jeopardy.  How will we respond to the fear this inspires?

Will we recognize we are a subculture now facing a dominant culture and build subculture strategies?  These include building networks to get our story out, to get the “face of the victim” in front of power?  For without a community that appears to care, very few individuals will find the courage to stand.

On the demise of Arizona's bill that would allow businessess to discriminate against gays: 

Screen Shot 2014-05-02 at 11.21.28 AMFirst [gay activists] defined the bill as an antigay pro-discrimination measure.  Then they got credible GOP leaders to validate this framing—John McCain and Mitt Romney.

They did this in a matter of hours.  I doubt either McCain or Romney got a thoughtful analysis of the legislation and its meaning.  They got they did not want to be “antigay” and they got props for being on the right side of history.  And it was enough.

Let us not turn our eyes from what this means:  by their capacity to use the mainstream media to define what an issue “means”—progressives got the conservative movement to fold with credible and major GOP figures.

The post is well worth a read. Check it out HERE.  

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Or it could just be Maggie that your side lacks common sense and people are getting wise to that. For the last time, live how you want but don't tell me to live by how you want. Simple.

    Posted by: Mikey DallasM | May 2, 2014 1:16:32 PM

  2. Gotta love the way this cow equates morality with bigotry.

    Posted by: Jason MacBride | May 2, 2014 1:17:33 PM

  3. I thought she said that she/they had lost and she'd go away. Anyone else remember that?

    Posted by: JimmyD | May 2, 2014 1:23:57 PM

  4. What does she mean "shutting down the debate?" The debate is being held in legislatures and courtrooms all over the country. The problem is that they have no legitimate, constitutional argument to support their position. All they are left with is anti-gay animus. So the debate is proceeding exactly as it should in a democracy.

    Posted by: John | May 2, 2014 1:25:36 PM

  5. I love how when her bigoted view was in the majority, gay people were not allowed to appear in movies or television or to show affection in public. And anyone who came out was routinely harassed and driven from the public sphere. However, now that they're losing the argument, they want to hear "respect for all sides".

    Posted by: Steve | May 2, 2014 1:31:37 PM

  6. This makes my day. Now, my year will be made if this fat pig has a heart attack or gets taken out by a rabid pro-gay activist!! Aim for the second chin!!

    Posted by: Caligula | May 2, 2014 1:34:43 PM

  7. Wonder what her Broadway musical son things of her. Can't imagine how hellish the holiday meals must be at the Gallagher-Sristav household.

    Posted by: homer | May 2, 2014 1:36:55 PM

  8. Of course opponents are in a "state of shock." Mitt Romney apparently was too when he found that he had lost the last presidential election because he believed his side's campaign operatives' spin on how things were going.

    When you are convinced that "God is on our side," you won't think that losing is a credible outcome.

    Posted by: Bill | May 2, 2014 1:38:52 PM

  9. Bigotry as a subculture? She means she has to go into the closet like that Sterling guy did. And her ugliness only comes out when speaking with her invisible husband or God which may be the same person.

    Posted by: simon | May 2, 2014 1:39:02 PM

  10. She promotes hate. She deserves everything she gets.

    Posted by: Guillermo Luna | May 2, 2014 1:39:51 PM

  11. If I did not know better, I would feel so sorry for the poor victims of hatred and discrimination. But alas the "victims" Maggie is writing about are not victims at all. They are the ones who have advocated discrimination against others. In others words, the crisis that so agitates Maggie is best defined as karma. Their hatred is coming back to bite them in the butt.

    It is so telling that for all the tears Maggie sheds for Brendan Eich and conjures the possibility of Christians losing their jobs because of what they believe, she fails to point out that it is gay people who can be fired simply for being who they are in 30 states. She has never shown any concern about us; indeed, she and the National Organization for Marriage and the Roman Catholic Church that funds it have consistently opposed employment protections for gay people. (In case anyone is misled by Maggie's rhetoric, the fact is that one cannot be fired for religious beliefs. One can, however, be fired for violating laws that prohibit discrimination against others.)

    The meme that Christians are persecuted for their beliefs is nonsense. Maggie et al. define "persecution" as their no longer being able to bully gay people. Poor babies. So sad.

    Posted by: Jay | May 2, 2014 1:48:29 PM

  12. Looks like the gravy train is coming to an end and also the train carrying the pies.

    Posted by: sylvatica | May 2, 2014 1:50:20 PM

  13. it's hard for ugly-spirited narcissists to admit that they're wrong. boo hoo.

    Posted by: Mark | May 2, 2014 1:50:51 PM

  14. She makes a fatal error in her article. She states that 2% of the population defeated these bills. I'm assuming she's saying that only 2% of the population is gay. Even if this is true, and really how are we to know, it assumes that only gay people are working towards marriage equality and gay civil rights.

    Yet in the first part of her article, she acknowledges how situations like Charles Cooper can cause heterosexual people to 'evolve' their positions on these issues, therefore also acknowledging how it is not just '2%' of the population fighting this fight. She contradicts herself in the space of a few paragraphs, apparently unknowingly.

    Ironically, it is this kind of contradictory,illogical thinking, this kind of wishful, magical thinking that gives them their initial boost, gets people to agree with them, this hiding bigotry behind morality, as another commenter pointed out, that gives them their power.

    Apparently, it is also what causes their downfall. Funny.

    It is

    Posted by: Mark | May 2, 2014 1:57:42 PM

  15. Anyone else giggle at her ridiculous wig?

    Posted by: JoshuaMyles | May 2, 2014 2:01:33 PM

  16. I love this comment by her.... she is saying they are on the wrong side of history... I always thought that, but I didn't realize they actually think it too. This proves all their efforts are to make money, not for their "sincere religious belief".

    >>>They got they did not want to be “antigay” and they got props for being on the right side of history. And it was enough.<<<

    Posted by: Steve Talbert | May 2, 2014 2:19:32 PM

  17. I can understand criticizing Maggie for her beliefs, but I'm not fond of the fat shaming that's going on in the comments. Come on, gentlemen, we don't need to resort to that.

    Posted by: Cam | May 2, 2014 2:22:20 PM

  18. CAM: New to the comments here? There's just as much hate going out from here as there is coming in from the likes of Maggie.

    Posted by: JimmyD | May 2, 2014 2:31:09 PM

  19. @Caligula—I'm predicting household mold. Always seeking damp, rotting orifices to make a home in. Can be deadly. In this case, should be.

    Posted by: tinkerbelle | May 2, 2014 2:32:15 PM

  20. I posted a comment to Maggie's article. Hope she reads it.

    Ms. Gallagher signs her post with “in truth, with love,” when she is not in service to either. People who hate instead of love and use their religious beliefs as a club to batter down their brothers and sisters are now being exposed for who they truly are, and they don’t like it one bit. That is the truth!

    Posted by: Jack M | May 2, 2014 2:34:15 PM

  21. Maggie seems to be struggling in this piece to find a way that believers in "traditional" marriage can function in the new world order and still live their faiths. Perhaps Maggie should talk to a few of her "traditional" marriage friends to see how they deal with a world that allows remarriage after divorce, as well as inter-racial and mixed religion marriages (like Maggie's). Perhaps the same kind of respect could be provided to same-sex couples as is currently granted to marriages between unwed mothers and their second baby daddies?

    Posted by: CPT_Doom | May 2, 2014 2:37:06 PM

  22. Oh Maggie, I wouldn't feel too bad. Pretty sure, in the footnote of history, there will be a picture of you.

    Posted by: Michael | May 2, 2014 2:51:41 PM

  23. I hope she chokes on her next Whopper.

    Posted by: me | May 2, 2014 2:52:09 PM

  24. This is a classic "We're losing, please send money!" plea. Happens all the time over policy debates. Actually, I'm sure a lot of people on both sides of this issue are in shock over the speed of change.

    Posted by: anon | May 2, 2014 3:06:53 PM

  25. Maggie, honey, NOM is over.

    You're over.

    Sit down and shut up.

    While you're at it, have another donut.

    Posted by: jamal49 | May 2, 2014 3:08:42 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« « Quebec Government Picking Up Cost of in vitro Fertilization for Gay Couple’s Surrogate« «