Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Is Maggie Gallagher losing it? Says Prop 8 decision is sign of “Soviet-style” government takeover (with “Red Dawn” update!)

NOM Tour Tracker Trial analysis

By Eden James

Maggie Gallagher, Chair of the National Organization for Marriage, just put on her Tea Party hat for an op-ed that will be published in the San Francisco Chronicle dead-tree edition on Thursday. And by “Tea Party” hat, I mean the one with the tinfoil on it:

Get a load of this crazy:
Maggie Gallagher

If this ruling is upheld, millions of Americans will face for the first time a legal system that is committed to the view that our deeply held moral views on sex and marriage are unacceptable in the public square, the fruit of bigotry that should be discredited, stigmatized and repressed. Parents will find that, almost Soviet-style, their own children will be re-educated using their own tax dollars to disrespect their parents’ views and values.

Those in power will call it tolerance, they will call it pluralism, but in truth same-sex marriage is a government takeover of an institution the government did not make, cannot in justice redefine, and ought to respect and protect as essential to the common good.


Kind of reminds me of some of the “sky is falling” arguments made by segregationists before Loving v. Virginia relegated the racism of interracial marriage bans to the dustbin of history. Of course, not only did that Supreme Court ruling strengthen the institution of marriage — it also codified and validated the relationship of two people who had become the parents of Barack Obama 54 years ago today.

You really should read the rest to understand the mindset of the opposition. It’s mind-blowing paranoia.

Or, to put the tinfoil hat on for a moment, perhaps there’s another way to think about Maggie’s message. It might just be a dog-whistle to the religious right three months before the November election.

Share your thoughts in the comments.

UPDATE BY EDEN: You know, I was so dazzled by Maggie’s “Red Dawn” rhetoric about our nation’s lurch into Soviet-style government that I completely missed this rant against Marxist revolutionaries Ted Olson and David Boies:

“The Proposition 8 case on which the Ninth Circuit’s Judge Vaughn Walker ruled Wednesday was pushed by two straight guys with a hunger for media attention, lawyers with huge egos who overrode the considered judgment of major figures in the gay legal establishment, thinkers who feared exactly what we anticipate: the Supreme Court will uphold Prop. 8 and the core civil rights of Californians and all Americans to vote for marriage as one man and one woman.”

Methinks Maggie might be projecting a bit, no?

What did I mean by “Red Dawn” rhetoric? Oh, how do I love YouTube:


  • 1. JonT  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    SUBscribing. Funny, as I'm currently watching Hunt for Red October :)

    Poor maggs.

  • 2. Ronnie  |  August 4, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    Me first…subscribing to Maggie…shoe flinging Gallagher….NOM NOM NOM NOM


  • 3. Ronnie  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:00 pm

    awweeeee…Jon T…you beat me…herumph… ; )


  • 4. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    But wait a minute! Under the Soviet regime, the Rainbow People were executed simply for being who we are born to be. How in the world can this individual call extending equality "Soviet-style"? What has she been drinking, smoking, and injecting?

  • 5. JonT  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    Ha! That doesn't happen much (ever?)


  • 6. JC  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:07 pm

    OK, this is a buzz kill on my champagne sipping evening. In February 2009, we did the whole lobby-the-CA-legislature day in Sacramento. Afterwards, we decided to visit a lovely winery in Napa that makes exquisite champagne (served in the White House since Nixon). We bought a $100 bottle of champagne (a rarity!) that we said we'd pop when equality was restored. We popped it tonight. Damn that Maggie….

  • 7. AndrewPDX  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:09 pm

    No no no no, Maggie…

    "… children will be re-educated using their own tax dollars to disrespect their parents’ views and values…"

    That only exists with the new textbooks from Texas.


  • 8. Ronnie  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    Simple….. that b!t<h failed world History just like she failed at being a good mother, a so called "Christian", American History, clearly failed logic & civics, neglects her hidden husband, has no manners, respect, morality, constantly fails at being American, had no public civility what so ever……

    and most of all Maggie "Shoe Flinging" Gallagher has completely FAILED at being a human.


  • 9. Rhonda  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    She is bonkers! Parents can still teach their children to be bigots, they just don't do it so much anymore. athe younger generation is much more aware and accepting of sexual orientation.
    <3 Rhonda

  • 10. TJ Parker  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:13 pm

    Wow, what happened to Maggie's neck??

  • 11. Biff  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:16 pm

    I don't HATE you Maggie, despite your unfortunate haircut and lack of a discernable chin…..Billy and I PROMISE to NOT invite you to OUR wedding…..chillax!

  • 12. Richard W. Fitch  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    Has anyone seen Mrs. Raman Srivastav?

  • 13. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    To be honest with you, I am beginning to wonder if MG really is married. Most married women I know are proud to wear their wedding ring, and they are proud to be seen with their husbands. So what is up with the woman who claims she is Mrs. Raman Srivastav? Or is she married to a woman, and doesn't want to kill her cash cow by coming out of the closet?

  • 14. Biff  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:24 pm

    It would be very hard for you to KNOW what fork to use….and I really can't legitimize the expense of gving you your own "sweetheart" table…:(

  • 15. Sagesse  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    When I read that piece, my first thought was… she needs a rabies shot.

    I'm also kind of surprised the SF Chronicle printed it. They usually draw the line at lunatic ramblings. It lacks her usual paper thin veneer of civility.

  • 16. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    gotta subscribe the NOM bad

  • 17. Les Late  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    Um, Maggie, as it stands now, I stand by as a parent and watch as my own children are "educated" using my own tax dollars to disrespect MY views and values. Duh. Daily. But because I'm smarter and more conscientious than the average public school curriculum, I re-educate them when they come home, daily, about my values of tolerance, love, compassion, respect and acceptance. They hear both sides, and then they have the choice to determine for themselves what makes sense and what seems right. Guess what they choose?

  • 18. Brion Hanlon  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    by "our tax dollars" does she me mine and hers? I have no idea what her income is, but since I don't have kids and the associated tax deduction, I think it is possible my tax dollars might be a tad higher than hers. Does that mean I get more of a say in how they get spent? If so, I think we owe it to the children to explain how the straight parents have the same potential to be imperfect, immoral, and irresponsible as the gay parents.

  • 19. Biff  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    her "husband" is a little TOO brown for the movement…….and probably has the sense to stay out of it……SHE is just a paid "talking Head"……..the "mr." is at home tending the garden and bank-account balances! 😀

  • 20. Bolt  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    The NOM, and it's pious imbeciles are powerless. They can keep their hate, and fester in it. Meanwhile, on Fox News, right now, a judge is interviewed, and predicts that the SCOTUS will uphold V. Walker's decision!

  • 21. l8r_g8r  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    Oh noes! If we are forced to not codify our discriminatory beliefs then we will be exposed to the public for who we really are!!!

    We can't allow that to happen. We must treat the gays as inferior so that we can continue to be treated as superior!


  • 22. Luke  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    the propblem is NOM and other such groups are still treating it as a religious issue when Judge Walker clearly stated that marriage was only a religious issue when the couple wanted it to be. It is simply being recognized as equal under the law, nothing more.

  • 23. Bolt  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:36 pm

    OMG! She looks like she drank a jar of urine. She is so unlovable.

  • 24. l8r_g8r  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:37 pm


  • 25. Sean  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:41 pm


  • 26. Mackenzie  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:43 pm

    I am just mad at her so I feel this is warranted. I am really glad that she has at least some kind of chin so that her neck does not run directly into her lower lip.

  • 27. Steve  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:45 pm

    But who would be proud to be seen with her? Maybe her husband is embarrassed because of the ugliness and stupidity?

  • 28. Sean  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:47 pm

    I can't wait until Maggie Gallagher and her cohorts over at NOM go down in history under the same category as those who opposed civil rights, who opposed Martin Luther King and his many followers.

    Congratulations, Maggie, you have a place in United States history. Bet it's not the one you wanted though.

  • 29. Mark M  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    Eden this is for you :-)
    Hagzie Magzie and her tin foil hat

  • 30. Steve  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    But their very religion tells them that ANYTHING is a religious issue. And marriage especially they see as some god-given thing and not as a legal instrument created by humans. To them, nobody has the right to change something that they see as divine.

  • 31. Mackenzie  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:50 pm

    Also, while I do not frequent FOXNEWS. com I went to see how they would spin the Prop8 overturn. The article was surprisingly fair, the comments in the blog were not. But the poll they took over decision really surprised me. This just further shows how far and quickly opinions are turning.…. Right now 11 percent more approve of walkers decision than oppose. This is FOX NEWS!

  • 32. Sagesse  |  August 4, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    Still reading. In Walker's findings of fact:

    43. Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of sexual, affectional or romantic desires for and attractions to men, women or both sexes. An individual’s sexual orientation can be expressed through self-identification, behavior or attraction. The vast majority of people are consistent in self-identification, behavior and attraction throughout their adult lives.

    So where did all that blather about 'the extraordinary fluidity of women's sexual identity' come from?

  • 33. Matt  |  August 4, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    How ironic- the Soviet Union was (and Russia still is) a WHOLE lot more homophobic than the US is.

  • 34. Skemono  |  August 4, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    If this ruling is upheld, millions of Americans will face for the first time a legal system that is committed to the view that our deeply held moral views on sex and marriage are unacceptable in the public square, the fruit of bigotry that should be discredited, stigmatized and repressed.

    Actually, this has happened before. You know, in 1948, when the California Supreme Court said that people's "deeply-held moral views on sex and marriage" are not a sufficient reason to uphold discriminatory laws, and that that they were simply "bigotry that should be discredited"? And again in 1967 via the United States Supreme Court?

    Remember that, Gallagher?

    Parents will find that, almost Soviet-style, their own children will be re-educated using their own tax dollars to disrespect their parents’ views and values.



    Yeah, that's what I suspected. This ruling is on marriage, you twit. It has nothing whatsoever to do with educating children.

    same-sex marriage is a government takeover of an institution the government did not make

    Um. Yes it did. That's the point, you imbecile. The government did create marriage, because it's a civil institution–one controlled by the government. Thus it has to follow the rules of that government, a little thing called the Constitution. You might have heard about it when all your fellow classmates were discussing that civics class you clearly slept through.

    ought to respect and protect as essential to the common good.

    That's exactly what they're doing by allowing all couples to take part in it. It's bullshit to say that it's "essential to the common good" and then exclude a substantial portion of the population from it. At that point it's not about the common good, it's just about your senseless bigotry.

  • 35. Jorge  |  August 4, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    Be sure to vote in foxnews' site!

  • 36. Jorge  |  August 4, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    Sorry the link was:

  • 37. Alan E.  |  August 4, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    My inbox is hungry!

  • 38. Alan E.  |  August 4, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    Here are my pictures from today’s rallies in San Francisco. Courage Campaign can use these if you want. I might be in a couple newspapers with my sign tomorrow, too.

  • 39. DK  |  August 4, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    That opinion is up on the SFGate website…I just got home from a nice dinner and celebratory bottle of wine, and I'm sorry I read the opinion (didn't quite lose my dinner but it was close).
    This paragraph really got me:

    "The Proposition 8 case on which the Ninth Circuit's Judge Vaughn Walker ruled Wednesday was pushed by two straight guys with a hunger for media attention, lawyers with huge egos who overrode the considered judgment of major figures in the gay legal establishment, thinkers who feared exactly what we anticipate: the Supreme Court will uphold Prop. 8 and the core civil rights of Californians and all Americans to vote for marriage as one man and one woman."

    I mean…wow, what is she on?! No-one has the "right" to vote on the civil rights of others! The 14th amendment states "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" …that is so crystal clear that I just cannot get how people like Gallagher seem unable to grasp something so fundamentally simple.

    DK in CT

  • 40. Gary  |  August 4, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    Why is that old, fat, ugly, right wing, "Christian" women have a problem with young, good lucking, fabulous, sexually vibrant, eclectically religious men and women living life to the fullest AND having a committed marriage. Could it be that they are so sad themselves that they can't find it in their black souls to enjoy their life? Hmmmmmm!

  • 41. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    TONIGHT on the NOM bus – part four

    Outside the bus we hear celebrations. People in the background are cheering, and we hear snatches of chanting "Walker! Walker!" and other happy noises. Occasionally a rainbow flag or equality poster flashes past the window, but the people outside the bus evidence no concern or even notice of those inside. Brian sits with his shoulders hunched. Louis looks at him, very concerned. The phone between them on the little fold out table still has a blinking speakerphone light.

    Louis reaches out and is about to touch Brian, tenderly, when suddenly the phone erupts with a scream.

    Maggie's voice: AAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

    Louis is so startled by this outburst he jumps in his seat, picks up the handset and slams it down, cutting her off. He stares down at the phone, and after a moment it rings again. Both he and Brian look at it, and the ringing goes on, becoming more ominous. Finally Brian reaches out and pushes a button, but neither of them say anything. After a very long moment, Maggie speaks.

    Maggie's voice: (low, scary, almost like some demented Darth Vader in a short, chubby prison matron disguise) I can fix this. You two don't do ANYTHING. Don't blog, don't do that live chat thing, Brian, it will only…

    Brian: (interjects, whining) But Maggie! I have a mortgage to pay! I have six kids!

    Maggie: Run that piece you recorded the other day. The one that says "We need your money now!" I would edit out the phrase pyrrhic victory though. That will only leave them scratching their wee little heads. We can probably get another half a mil out of the hard core crowd, and I will go see what I can stir up with the Tea Party fringe.

    Brian: You said it would be ok, Maggie. You promised the ruling wouldn't be this bad.

    Maggie: I KNOW… just get the money Brian, we can figure it out later… (in the background we hear a computer keyboard clicking, then the music to that travel commercial "Come to Jamaica and Feel All Right…" as Maggie finds the website. She mutters to herself, sounding more and more frenetic…) ok…ok…no visa… no extradition… yeah… ok….

    Louis looks at Brian, somewhat confused.

    Brian: Oh, like you thought I was just here because I love MARRIAGE? I have SIX KIDS, Louis. I would rather be anywhere than home right now.

    Louis: But… ummm…. (he looks like a puppy about to be spanked) it's not MY fault, right? I mean… my blog…

    Maggie's voice (sharply) Louis, shut up.

    Louis (pouting) Fine. (he mutters under his breath) But I am keeping the bus!

    Fade to black

    DISCLAIMER:OK, this is kind of darker than the other episodes have been… but I guess we need some pathos in this story too. Plus, in the next episode, Maggie bursts in wearing two different shoes, with her shirt on backwards, waving a frying pan and shouting "The REDS are here to take your CHILDREN! Obama wants to EAT YOUR FACES! Don't take the BROWN ACID!!!"

  • 42. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    14% now!

  • 43. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 4, 2010 at 2:37 pm


  • 44. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 4, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    No, I don't think Maggie is LOSING it. I think she LOST it a long time ago!

  • 45. Tony Douglass in Ca  |  August 4, 2010 at 2:39 pm


  • 46. Ronnie  |  August 4, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    Anonygrl…..I just spat Mott's Light Apple Juice all over my keyboard at that "Maggie's voice (sharply) Louis, shut up"


  • 47. Anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 2:51 pm

    OK… on a slightly less goofy note. I have to say, I have spent the evening reading the ruling. I am up to page 100 and it is amazingly good.

    If you haven't read it, DO. It has some "legalese" in it, but not so much that you need to worry about it, and you can skim when it does and still get the story.

    There is stuff in here that is so good, we have ammo for the next hundred YEARS of this fight (not that it will go on that long, I think) just quoting Judge Walker directly, not even trying to explain it or anything, it is so clear.

    Also, Rachael Maddow was quite good tonight, worth popping over to hear her read some of the ruling aloud. She is practically giddy with delight. I do adore her.

  • 48. Victoria  |  August 4, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    I'm not very old, but I do feel like I have seen enough to know that people who stick their nose in everyone else's business are usually the ones with the crappiest lives. They have to compensate, distract themselves from their misery in any way possible (victimhood, attack, denial, know-it-all-ness, etc), and blame others for their unhappiness. She's so lost it's sad. And concerning. Blind leading the blind over there…and poor shmucks like Tam with no actual identity and viewpoint of their own become sponges for the leadership's innate insecurity and unhappiness. *shutter* An entire mass of personality disordered people run amok…eww….

  • 49. Mark M  |  August 4, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    LOVE IT!!!

  • 50. Mark M  |  August 4, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    Wise words :-)

  • 51. draNgNon  |  August 4, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    well, I noticed the writeup becuase the link to it topped the Google News top stories. that's a lot of clickthrough and ad revenue… pretty hard for sfgate to resist, no…?

  • 52. Eden James  |  August 4, 2010 at 3:28 pm

    Remember the movie Red Dawn? Refresh this post to see how I just connected it to Maggie's sky-is-falling rhetoric on the front page. A YouTube trailer straight out of 1984.

    It's absurd, I know, but sometimes you wonder — when people start throwing around "Soviet-style" in reaction to marriage equality — how tethered to reality they are.

  • 53. JefferyK  |  August 4, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    The ruling is really something, isn't it? I couldn't stop reading it once I started. It's written very clearly — you don't need to be a lawyer to understand it. Maddow called it a "page-turner," and I agree.

  • 54. AndrewPDX  |  August 4, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    Right… I mean, isn't the standard line "…and by the power invested in me by God and the state of _____ , I now pronounce you husband and husband"?

    If marriage wasn't from the state government, then why is this line spoken?


  • 55. MaiaD  |  August 4, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    As a parent, my perspective was that I sat down with my children daily at dinner and discussed what was going on with them personally and in the world.

    This was not that long ago, they are 24 and 20. We talked about things. When they had teachers that taught things I disagreed with, I actually told my kids I disagreed and why. They, as people, get to form their own opinions. Oddly, it seems, I demanded my children defend what they had to say, even when I agreed, so they would actually learn critical thinking. It was not the school's responsibility to teach morality. My kids know what is moral, and support my same sex marriage. Being about the kids makes it about my kids and a straight marriage is no more important than mine if you want to talk about the kids.

    My kids are every bit amazing as anyone else's regardless of the gender mix and I'd dare anyone to challenge that.

  • 56. AndrewPDX  |  August 4, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    18% now (56% yes to 38% no)


  • 57. Tuffwreslr  |  August 4, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    "..paper thin veneer of civility…" <——effin hilarious!

  • 58. Franck  |  August 4, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    I just came to work right now to find the news waiting for me. I can now officially release that breath I'd been holding since yesterday. Excuse the vocabulary, but DAMN that feels good. I want to just pass out now, but sadly I've got work to do.

    Oh, and Maggie: reality and logic just called. You haven't been answered their calls in years. I thought you know that was considered rude?

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1140 days, as of today.

  • 59. Jonathan  |  August 4, 2010 at 3:54 pm

    I just want to say thank you very much to the people who run this site and to all the commenters here. I've rarely joined in myself, but reading what has been said here has given me hope in moments of doubt.

    Thank you all!

  • 60. JonT  |  August 4, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    Well, I wasn't going to say anything, but the first thing I thought of when I looked at that picture was 'Damn, what happened to your chin?'

    Ahem. Sorry.

  • 61. JonT  |  August 4, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    Haha… I hope you are keeping all these, they would be funny to gather up into one place someday :)

  • 62. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 4, 2010 at 4:25 pm


  • 63. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 4, 2010 at 4:26 pm

    Well according to Scott Lively, the Nazis were a gay regime, so any amount of historical revisionism is possible!

  • 64. Jeff  |  August 4, 2010 at 4:27 pm

    Well, Once again, the voice of the people has not been heard. vote once….overturn….vote twice(even with a ballot initiative)….overturn. Thank god judges are running our country….just as our fore-fathers wanted it. LOL sighhhhh…

  • 65. Phil L  |  August 4, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    As far as the reality and logic phone calls, she stopped paying THOSE bills ages ago. Those are collections calls, which is why she's avoiding them.


  • 66. Sheryl  |  August 4, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    One very happy mother here in California. Did'n learn what judge Walker's ruling was until after 5 today and then had to work this evening so couldn't join in any celebrations. Was apprehensive about getting online before going to work, just in case. But GOOD NEWS. And the ridiculous thinking of the other side is not going to ruin how I feel.

    Sheryl, Mormon mother with a wonderful son who just happens to be gay.

  • 67. allen  |  August 4, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    Our fore-fathers did intend for judges to evaluate possibly unconstitutional laws to protect the rights of all citizens, and that is what we are seeing here.

    Serious question though. We may very well be voting yet again on who can and cannot marry. Only this time, instead of the anti-marriage people presenting the prop to the people, it will be the marriage equality folks. If in the next vote gay marriage wins, will you accept the will of the people then? You do not have to worry about your opportunity to marry being revoked every couple of years and we shouldn't either. Just read the ruling to understand why Domestic P's and Civil U's are unequal and invite further discrimination.

  • 68. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    Mine is exploding, but oh well.

  • 69. JonT  |  August 4, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    Ok, just watched the 3 segments of maddow's show dealing with this case:

    Definitely worth the watch :)

  • 70. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 4, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    Ooh! Ooh! I can answer that one! If they lose a ballot initiative, they'll go right to the courts without the slightest sense of irony. What do I win?

  • 71. JonT  |  August 4, 2010 at 5:03 pm

    Oh come on, what did we do today… 600? maybe 700 emails in all of today's threads? pshaw!


  • 72. Johan de Vries  |  August 4, 2010 at 5:27 pm

    First of all, congratulations to the American LGBT community for this astonishing victory. I know the battle is not won yet, but from what I read, the verdict provides for a great stepping-stone on the road to the Supreme Court. I posted the following question on NOM's blog a few minutes ago, but I think I may have ticked NOM of by being overly critical in the past. So, not sure if it will show up there. I would however be interested in the answer to these questions from a LGBT perspective as well, so I'm hoping it's okay to post it here too.

    (posted at NOM's blog, reposted here for additional views)

    I have a question. As a major argument in the Prop 8 ruling by Judge Walker, the verdict is condemned by many SSM opponents as disregarding the views of seven million Califorians. Now, given the term trend of support for gay right becoming increasingly strong (, it is not unlikely that in the forseeable future a ballot initiative will receive enough popular votes to pass gay marriage in California and/or other states.

    Hypothetically speaking, and disregarding the Prop 8 trial for this question, if legislation would be passed by popular vote to make marriage gender neutral, will NOM and SSM opponents respect the result? If not, what arguments would be made to counter the will of the majority of people in that case (feel free to include prop 8 evidence to answer this question)?

    Again, congratulations on the result so far. I'm rooting for all of you that eventually DOMA will be overturned as a result of this case (or perhaps possible other future cases)


    Johan / The Netherlands

  • 73. Andrea  |  August 4, 2010 at 5:35 pm

    True! The only reason that the Moscow Pride organizers weren't arrested and beaten this year like the previous two years was because they executed a series of really sneaky evasive maneuvers. They are awesome.

    True story.

    What if the Russians don't come? What if they like where they're from?

  • 74. Skemono  |  August 4, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    Those in power will call it tolerance, they will call it pluralism

    Psst, Gallagher… your own star witness called it "tolerance", too. Remember David Blankenhorn? I know, you're trying to block out any memory of the trial and cross-examination the better to rewrite history and call this "judicial activism", so let me remind you: he said that allowing same-sex marriage would be "a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion."

  • 75. Skemono  |  August 4, 2010 at 5:44 pm

    Well, Once again, the voice of the people has not been heard.

    Indeed. Once again, the judges have fulfilled their constitutionally-obligated role. Just like they struck down other popular and democratically-enacted, but blatantly unconstitutional, laws in such famous cases as Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, and many others.

    That's their job. Take a civics course.

  • 76. Michael  |  August 4, 2010 at 5:46 pm

    Shrill anti-gay activist /false prophet Gallagher's only concern is her pay check. She knows if the anti-gay trough dries up, she can't keep eating from it. And unless she keeps taking her false doctrine to lower and lower depths, she can't keep the $$$ flowing in. Homophobia is a counterfeit "religious belief." But if she were really concerned about "religious beliefs, " she would not be lyiing, promoting homophobia and partaking in gluttony–all of which are sins. I guess since she feels she has the special right to vote away the civil rights of other Americans, she also has the special right to sin and smear Christ's face with the darkness and shame of homophobia.

  • 77. Dpeck  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:23 pm

    If popular vote decided to ALLOW same sex marriage, rather than FORBID it, it would not be unconstitutional. Prop 8 is unconstitutional because the majority attempted to use the ballot to DENY equal rights. There is no harm done when the ballot is used to ASSURE equal rights.

    The point is, issues of equal rights for minorities should nto be voted on in the first place, regardless of the outcome. Rights should be protected, not voted on. But if the state screws up and allows them to be voted on and the vote just assures that they are protected, no harm done.

  • 78. Dpeck  |  August 4, 2010 at 6:53 pm

    Oh no! Our secret has been revealed! Now the world will know that equal marriage rights is all an evil soviet plot, hatched by our fearless leader and evil genius Kirille !

  • 79. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:39 pm

    Did anyone see Faggie Gayllagher on Anderson Cooper 360 last night? She's laughable! Shameless! I would be ashamed to have her job! Can't find the video, unfortunately.

  • 80. Kathleen  |  August 4, 2010 at 7:43 pm

    I didn't see it. I'd love to find the video.

  • 81. Straight Grandmother  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:03 pm

    Me neither I didn't see it. I fell asleep reading the verdict. I was just exhausted after all the anxiety of waiting these many months and then through that looooong day until the decision. I will appreciate seeing any video that is available from yesterday. I bet AFER will have some I'll go check over there. Good morning Kevyn :)

  • 82. Johan de Vries  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:05 pm

    I understand what you are saying, and I am completely aware of it. The question wasn't really intended to be about the unconstitutionality of prop 8. Of course it matters greatly, but what I am trying to figure out is how the current trend of gay rights acceptence would eventually rebute the anti-gay crowd of prop 8 being the "people's will". After all, they are screaming bloody murder right now about rights being tramped (I know, I know… reality is different, but I'm just saying what they are saying).

    The sole existense for NOM is fighting of gay marriage (you never hear them about divorce for example, even if that is a much greater threat to whatever is left to the "sanctity of marriage"). They will do anything to convince people we are bad. My interest is in finding out what happens when they realize that at some point in the not to distant future the majority of people reject NOM's ideas. How will it change the debate? Both on their side and the LGBT side.

    Hope that clarifies what i meant.


  • 83. Straight Grandmother  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:06 pm

    I never think of Maggie Gallager that I don't remember P8TT blogging from the courtroom during the trial that she actually took her shoes off and stuck her feet up onn the back of the bench in front of her. The bailiff went over and rebuked her and made her put her shoes on. HOW disprepectful, she showed her contempt that day for the courts and continues today.

    When you read her op-ed piece you realize she has lost it, completely lost it. The rhetoric is so bizzar. I am jsut laghing my ass off in Provence France quietly humming Nah Nah Nah Nah, Nah Nah Nah Nah, Hey Hey Bye Bye.
    Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

  • 84. Straight Grandmother  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:12 pm

    I received a simmilar rant to Maggies on my Facebook page. I have my privacy controls set to allow friends of friends to see my wall. My brothers step son, in his late 30's a West Point drop out wrote something really terrible, well here I will let you read it for yourself-

    Luke- "So I guess the voice of the people does not matter. Three different times the PEOPLE have voted unanimously against this… Obama and the judges and the congress can all kiss my f'n ass. The revolt is coming. I just hope sooner than later."

    My Reply- "And you can kiss my ass. Citizens do not get the right to Vote Away anyones constituitional rights. What you describe is tryany of the majority. THAT is why each individual is guaranteed basic Constituitional civil rights that no laws may abridge. Thomas Jefferson specifically said that basic rights must be protected from the tyrany of the majority inflicted on minorities. How right he was… "

    Of course then I followed up with choice quotations from Judge Walkers ruling. I never heard back from him.

  • 85. Dave in ME  |  August 4, 2010 at 8:38 pm

    Good morning!!!

  • 86. Evan  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:08 pm

    I'm with you on that! Did you notice the last page of the judge's ruling?

    Judge Walker wrote, "And Maggie Gallagher, the next time you come into my courtroom and put your nasty feet up like it's your living room, I will throw your rude, inconsiderate, and ill-mannered butt into jail for the next 300 years. Get some class."

    Well… maybe it's not on the last page, but I really wish he had called her out!

  • 87. Dave in ME  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:08 pm

    Please, someone, tell me how voting on marriage is a "core civil right"?? If it IS such a "core civil right," then we oughta be able to vote on everyone's marriage!!! What a maroon…


  • 88. Dave in ME  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:12 pm

    The people did not vote unanimously anyway.

    I really wish people who take this position can tell me why they think it's okay to vote and enact ANY law they want, regardless of the United States Constitution?

    Would they be okay with the vote of the people if they DID vote to accept SSM? How about if they vote to restrict the rights of Christians?

    My brother in L.A. is very religious in a meddling in the business of everyone else sort of way.


  • 89. Dave in ME  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:21 pm

    Yes, I remember that movie!! I was in high school when it came out-very scary that the Reds could just come in and take over like that. But, as scary as that was, I really cannot see the parallels between "Soviet-Style" government and this recent ruling.

    I think she is hoping that bringing up the word "Soviet" will reignite the terror that was once in the hearts of her followers. However, people that DO have such memories of the Soviets are probably very old. I'm 40 and, while I remember the Cold War, it was winding down when I was young. The period during which "Red" and "Soviet" were words with real impact was a long time ago. I don't get it.

    But I do miss Patrick. May he rest in peace. Oh, man, Jennifer Grey is FIFTY! Where does the time go???


  • 90. Dave in ME  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:28 pm

    Oh, yeah, I wonder if the NOM people realize that straight people can still marry and have the children that are the foundation for our society. That hasn't changed at all.


  • 91. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:40 pm

    If anonygrl ever loses them, she can contact me. I have been saving all of my P8TT emails in a separate folder in my email account. Baruch HaShem for Yahoo's unlimited storage space!

  • 92. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:50 pm

    Blankenhorn also said we would become MORE American on the day that marriage equality was made legal in this country. He also said that our children would BENEFIT from marriage equality.

  • 93. jonelle  |  August 4, 2010 at 10:50 pm

    And in a non-religious civil-only marriage ceremony, the officiant actually say: "by the power vested in me by the state of ____". There need not be a mention of God for any couple be Legally married!

  • 94. Steve  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:23 pm

    Even if they did vote unanimously, that still wouldn't make it right. It's the justice system's job to prevent such things. Walker did exactly what he was supposed to do.

    Those idiots really need to do some studying on the difference between direct democracy and a representative republic. The former is something the founding father's always warned of.

  • 95. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:32 pm

    Also, in 18 previous SCOTUS cases since 1888, marriage itsself has been upheld as a FUNDAMENTAL Right! Take that, NOM! the SCOTUS has upheld marriage as a fundamental right. That means for ALL of us, not just those you seem to think are "Worthy" of it. ALL of us! Even the rainbow people.

  • 96. anonygrl  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:45 pm

    You win this GENUINE artificial gold plated NOSE HAIR TRIMMER and a year's supply of Rice a Roni, the San Francisco Treat!

  • 97. Francis Martin  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:52 pm

    Looks like she is not only losing the fight against marriage equality… but also the fight against diabetes

  • 98. fiona64  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:53 pm

    Looks like someone missed the day when "checks and balances" are explained during middle school civics.


  • 99. fiona64  |  August 4, 2010 at 11:56 pm

    And, West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnett saw the US Supreme Court stating that fundamental civil rights are not subject to a vote, even if they are put on the ballot.


  • 100. Evan  |  August 5, 2010 at 12:05 am

    Shhh!!! Stop making sense! It gets in the way of their (self) righteous indignation!

  • 101. anonygrl  |  August 5, 2010 at 12:08 am


    I do understand what you mean, and let me take a shot at answering it.

    When a group such as NOM finds their one purpose in life overturned by the legal system, or pushed aside by progress, quite often they become more rabidly anti-whatever it was they were against, but the effects, if any, become increasingly less noteworthy and more fringe. Consider, if you will, the KKK which at its height may have had as many as 6 million members but now peaks at somewhere around 6,000 nationwide. Eventually all but the most hard-core supporters drop away, and those that are left complain bitterly about how they were wronged, but accomplish little else.

    It would be nice to think that perhaps NOM's energies might be channelled into more productive arenas, such as advocating for better child care or more comprehensive family health coverage, but history shows this to be unlikely.

    As to what the Equality movement will do? Well, when marriage equality becomes a fact, as it will do sometime in the near future we hope, but certainly eventually, it is likely that we will go on living our lives a we have been trying to do all along. Once the battle is won, there will be no need to push it any further, as all we are looking for is equal rights, and when we have them, we will be satisfied. The chances are that some of those who are more activist in nature will turn their attention to other issues that need them.

    That is sort of a generalized answer, but does it address what you are looking for?

  • 102. Bolt  |  August 5, 2010 at 12:34 am

    Dave, republicans operate by a different set of rules. They do whatever they need to do to gain power and control. It's the only things they care about.

  • 103. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  August 5, 2010 at 12:40 am

    Faggie says Walker is off-base.
    Well, I say Faggie is off-meds.

    Hello, Grandmother.  Sorry, didn't see your comments before: it's insane to even try to follow everything that is going on on P8TT right now… yesterday in the last 10 minutes before 1 pm EDT P8TTers managed to post 88 comments in only one blog entry.  This is how many we are, and how strong we are!  (I don't expect someone will see this comment of mine either.  Such is life.)

  • 104. Straight Grandmother  |  August 5, 2010 at 12:45 am

    Back up the horses, hand slaps forehead. Look what Maggpie is doing. She is coming right back at us with her big guns, "Protect your children, save your children" THIS is what works, this is the principal reason straights vote down civil rights for GLBT people. Maggie causes them to FEAR GLBT people, that you will harm their children.

    We have got to figure out away to shut down that argument. I think this is why Prop 8 passed in the first place, and now she is ratcheting it up with more scary rhetoric, now she has escalated to "Soviet Style Indoctrination." This woman is a formidable enemy.

  • 105. Sean  |  August 5, 2010 at 12:54 am

    I was just as surprised. For some reason my mother was watching FOX News (must have been on after "Dance") and the Prop 8 trial ruling came up. I remember thinking "oh no, here we go"…but it was surprisingly fair and unbiased. It actually focused primarily on our side and how happy everyone was!!

  • 106. VIDEO: Rachel Maddow inte&hellip  |  August 5, 2010 at 12:56 am

    […] Gallagher, Brian Brown and NOM pull into St. Louis, Missouri for their next tour stop, now in full Red Dawn […]

  • 107. Jeffrey  |  August 5, 2010 at 4:39 am

    You forgot:

    …and she stuffs her face like a fat pig.

  • 108. Kathleen  |  August 5, 2010 at 7:50 am

    One of my favorite quotes, "The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage."

    It stresses the fact that extending marriage to ss isn't redefining marriage; it merely recognizes that society has already redefined the role of genders.

  • 109. A morning cuppa Prop 8 &l&hellip  |  August 5, 2010 at 8:18 am

    […] and photos from rallies in SF; videos galore including last night’s Maddow episode; and Maggie channeling the Cold War. Peruse […]

  • 110. bJason  |  August 5, 2010 at 8:56 am

    Welcome! Please join in!

    <3 Jason

  • 111. Johan de Vries  |  August 5, 2010 at 8:57 am


    Thanks for answering. It mostly addresses what I was looking for, but I guess what I really would like is from gay opponents to hear the answer to especially the last question. I mean, 'the will of the people' is what they have been hammering on so much. My comment hasn't been posted yet at NOM, so I suspect I have been blacklisted. After all, the question as I posted it was actually very mild I'd say.

    That said, I would have to respectfully disagree with the following line: "Once the battle is won, there will be no need to push it any further, as all we are looking for is equal rights, and when we have them, we will be satisfied."

    Here in The Netherlands, marriage has been gender neutral for about ten years now. However, a study by our government on the current state of affairs in the LGBT world found that despite the acceptance rate of gay and lesbians a lot was still seriously wrong. For instance, on in three are still in the closet at work, teen in highschool are still affraid to come out of the closet and a shocking one in two teens have at some point (briefly) considered suicide.

    When the USA has gender neutral marriage, you will probably find that a major shift will take place towards educating people even more. I think you will find that the goal should probably educating young people. To put it very bluntly: the biggest part of the resistance there is today will die off in 30-40 years from now from old age. It's the generations raised by them and the generation after that, that I feel need fair and objective education.

    The post became a bit longer than planned. Sorry for that….

  • 112. bJason  |  August 5, 2010 at 9:26 am

    "What a maroon…"

    Love you for that!

  • 113. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 5, 2010 at 11:45 am

    Johan, there is no need to apologize for the length of your posts. I myself have had some that were long, as most of us here, if not all of us, have. You were man enough to make your post the length you needed to clearly express yourself, and in turn you have also educated me even more. And to me, that is one of the GREAT benefits of this site. None of us is afraid to take as much posting length as we need to explain ourselves, or to ask a question, which means that all of us learn from and educate one another on almost all aspects of this fight. I for one hope you keep posting here, no matter how long your posts may be. Thank you.

  • 114. Kathleen  |  August 5, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    Johan, Thank you so much for joining in the discussion. I find it really valuable to get the perspective of people in other countries, particularly those which are ahead of the US in matters of equality for glbt people. I hope you stay around and continue to participate!

  • 115. First Maggie Gallagher, n&hellip  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:43 am

    […] striking down Prop 8. On Thursday, they went full FOX News, publishing Maggie Gallagher’s Red Dawn op-ed warning of a “Soviet-style” government takeover of marriage. Not to be outdone, Debra […]

  • 116. Prop 8 and the language a&hellip  |  August 9, 2010 at 4:00 pm

    […] Thursday, they went full FOX News, publishing Maggie Gallagher’s Red Dawn op-ed warning of a “Soviet-style” government takeover of marriage. Not to be outdone, Debra Saunders […]

  • 117. ohbloodyhellthehuman  |  November 6, 2010 at 5:17 pm

    OK, normally I'm a pretty unemotional and rational person, but I just can't get past how extremely ugly this woman is. Maybe ugly is as ugly does and that's part of it. No, I think she is the ugliest woman I've ever seen in my life. God! Ick! Yuck! Bleh! I'm off food for a month. So, she couldn't possibly be married, and maybe that's why she doesn't want gay marriage? Why doesn't she go after straight marriage as well, or just maybe after models?

  • 118. free cell phone lookup at&t  |  November 10, 2013 at 6:54 pm

    Throughout the UK proper, reverse phone look up isn’t obtainable publicly however in the Channel Islands,
    information can be obtained in the printed telephone directories.
    But if you try to search a cell phone number on the website of White
    Pages (or any other free phone directory), you will not be
    able to identify it there. But it is really simply a term describing the process
    to search and trace a cellular phone number and the details of the owner.

  • 119. Easy Gardener 87015 Sun Screen Fabric - Harvest Red - 6-Foot x 15-Foot - 75% Sun Block  |  March 31, 2014 at 3:36 am

    Hey there! I am about to
    begin my own website and was wondering if you know where the best place to
    acquire a website url is? I am not even sure if that’s what
    called? (I’m new to this) I’m referring to “”.
    Exactly how
    do I go about acquiring one of these for the website I’m building?


  • 120. Roger Carter  |  April 28, 2014 at 6:57 pm

    I think this is one of the most important info for me.
    And i am glad reading your article. But wanna remark on some general things, The website style is perfect, the articles
    is really excellent : D. Good job, cheers

    Review my web blog; Roger Carter

  • 121. John Edwards  |  April 30, 2014 at 5:28 pm

    Hurrah! Finally I got a website from where I be capable of
    really take helpful information regarding my study and knowledge.

    Here is my website – John Edwards

  • 122. Anonymous  |  May 4, 2014 at 5:39 am

    I like the valuable information you supply on your articles.
    I will bookmark your blog and test again here frequently.
    I am quite certain I’ll learn many new stuff right here!
    Best of luck for the following!

    Have a look at my web site: Paddy o

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!