Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Maggie's testimony today in Maryland


By Adam Bink

Just a brief excerpt sums it up. If I get more I’ll update.

A “permanent, faithful, sexually exclusive, union of man and wife” is the key, eh? Not that I want this to be a personal thing, but I wonder what Brian Brown, who Newsweek calls “a product of divorce”, thinks. I get the “in an ideal world, someone like Brian has two parents” argument, but the point is that happy, healthy children and adults come from all places, which punches a big hole in Maggie’s argument.

Love and families come in all shapes and sizes, Maggie.


  • 1. Alan E.  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:18 am

    A “permanent, faithful, sexually exclusive, union” is the key

    I went ahead and fixed this for Maggie. Now sit back and watch as the earth rips open and consumes our souls…

    Or at the very least, we should live our lives as normally as we can until then.

  • 2. fiona64  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:18 am

    Short version of Maggie's testimony: "Do as I say, not as I *did.*"

    Ref: her out-of-wedlock pregnancy.


  • 3. Rhie  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:20 am

    Errrrgh. Hopefully my home state will have better sense than to listen to her.

  • 4. Ann S.  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:25 am

    She couldn't even say "husband and wife", rather than the more dated "man and wife"??

    As if anything she says makes any sense. I know this is nit-picky of me given the other nonsense she probably said.

  • 5. Carpool Cookie  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:43 am

    Why isn't she better at public speaking by this point?

    She sounds so ramble-y….

  • 6. B&E  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:44 am

    I honestly am not a bad person. I rarely use the word hate, and it is even rarer that I fell the emotion. However, if there is one person on this planet who can make me feel hate, it is Maggie. I truly despise her. May she wallow in her karmic filth!

  • 7. Peterplumber  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:47 am


    Damn, I am having trouble keeping up today.

  • 8. nightshayde  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:55 am

    If you hate lots and lots of people, it loses its impact. If you save your hatred for a very select few, you can certainly retain your status as "not a bad person." =)

  • 9. Paul in Minneapolis  |  February 8, 2011 at 9:00 am

    How does same-sex marriage prevent an opposite-sex couple from forming a “permanent, faithful, sexually exclusive, union of man and wife?”

  • 10. LCH  |  February 8, 2011 at 9:10 am


  • 11. John B.  |  February 8, 2011 at 9:19 am

    They could start with preaching this message of fidelity and permanence to the people who really seem to need it–some of their leaders and heroes on the right like New Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, John McCain, Glenn Beck, etc. etc. etc. (Hey, wasn't Ronald Reagan divorced and remarried???)

  • 12. Rev. Will Fisher  |  February 8, 2011 at 9:29 am

    Hey Maggie,
    Here's my testimonial:
    I'm a straight, Christian (since I'm ordained, I guess a professional Christian), and have been married to the same smart, funny, hard-working, loving woman for over seven years. Much of our married life was in a jurisdiction that granted same-sex marriages, civil unions, or recognized ones from another state or country. At no time did this cause us any distress. At no time was our marriage less 'conjugal'. And it certainly did prevent us from procreating. When I think how stable and secure the past seven plus years have been, I could not in good conscience, deny that same wonderful thing to my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters who are willing to take on the responsibilties thereof. In no way has the quality or stability of my traditional man/woman marriage been compromised by the granting of civil marriage to same sex couples. By the way, Maggie, I read the Bible a lot and I noticed that marriage changes quite a bit over a few thousand years. When Abraham was a nomadic goatherd, endogamous, levirate, polygyny was what made a marriage. By Jesus' time, a more urbanized people were monogamous and married outside their clan. Marriage has changed since and probably will continue to do so. Through it all the institution survives. It will continue and it's expansion to same-sex couple won't/can't hurt it. There's nothing to fear.

  • 13. AnonyGrl  |  February 8, 2011 at 9:30 am

    "The ONLY way we can give our children the benefit of a mother and a father in the same family is to first pledge to a permanent, faithful, sexually exclusive, union of man and wife"

    Wrong on SO many counts Maggie. And really, the only thing you would have had to change is "the ONLY way…"

    Had you said "One way to give our children…" we would all be with you, 100%. But you make the same mistake you ALWAYS make, and that is to assume that your way is the only way to do things and the only right way. Sorry, no. It is not.

    We support marriage. We support heterosexual marriage, and we think that families with a mother and a father who love and care for their biological offspring is a wonderful thing. We also support marriage equality and think that a mother and a mother, or a father and a father who love and care for their offspring whether biological, adopted or some combination thereof are also wonderful things.

    If you care about the kids, Maggie, get over it, let the people raising them get married to protect those kids. If you care about marriage, let people who love each other marry and strengthen the institution. But if all you care about is your narrow religious beliefs and your less narrow paycheck, carry on as you have been.

  • 14. Tasty Salamanders  |  February 8, 2011 at 9:31 am

    Actually I was going to mention that, why "man and wife” and not "husband and wife" or "man and woman".
    I think it's a bit of a Freudian slip on their part because what that implies is that marriage is a man and "his wife" aka the idea that women are just the man's property and not an equal in the relationship.

  • 15. AnonyGrl  |  February 8, 2011 at 9:32 am

    Excellent question to which no one in the history of… history… has ever posited an actual, real, reasonable, intelligent answer.

  • 16. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 8, 2011 at 9:36 am

    I'd love to live in a world where all Christians were like Rev. Will.

  • 17. B&E  |  February 8, 2011 at 9:53 am

    Perfectly stated!

  • 18. nightshayde  |  February 8, 2011 at 10:07 am

    Brava, AnonyGrl!

  • 19. Sagesse  |  February 8, 2011 at 10:10 am

    And if you care about children, support all the families that are raising them… single parents, adoptive parents, foster parents, step parents… married, single, divorced. Marriage is good for families, but not essential, and children don't get to pick the families they live in.

  • 20. Sagesse  |  February 8, 2011 at 10:13 am

    “The ONLY way we can give our children the benefit of a mother and a father in the same family is to first pledge to a permanent, faithful, sexually exclusive, union of man and wife”

    And by the way, that's not the definition of marriage in 2011 by any stretch of the imagination.

  • 21. Steve  |  February 8, 2011 at 10:18 am

    That's just standard Christian hypocrisy. They rarely do what they preach

  • 22. Mouse  |  February 8, 2011 at 10:24 am

    Man-wife marriages are fragile things. Men have to be trapped into them, for the purpose of raising their children in a healthy environment, which is why women should not allow their men to use contraceptives, as getting knocked up is a traditional way of trapping a man into marriage.

    Men and women are not faithful to one another by nature, but must be coerced into faithfulness by creating an artificial structure and stigma. By reusing this structure for unions of two men, or unions of two women, we weaken the impact of the stigma so many have worked so long to apply to unfaithfulness. It's a faith thing, and faith cannot be explained with logic.

    Also, same-sex couples being married and happy, providing role models for how two people can form a lifetime partnership and make it work undermines all the efforts to keep women with the abusive, alcoholic men who beat them and secretly cheat on them regularly, and to keep decent men with the mentally deranged women who crush their souls and withhold sex after they've gotten the baby to trap the man in the first place?

    You see, Paul, it makes perfect sense once you remove sense as a requirement.

  • 23. AnonyGrl  |  February 8, 2011 at 10:31 am


  • 24. Mouse  |  February 8, 2011 at 10:34 am

    AnonyGrl, you're making the same mistake we always make, and that is to assume that anything Maggie or Brian say is meant to be part of a dialog.

    It doesn't work if it's part of a dialog.

    They don't have conversations, they rant from a soap box. The rabble-rousing nonsense they spew doesn't have to be factually correct. It doesn't matter if it is outright lies, so long as it gets their intended audience all fired up and ready to sign their names on their checks.

    That's why they don't let us comment on their sites. Their disciples cannot be allowed to be exposed to reality or logic, or the tangled web comes apart. Also, their disciples are stupid, and while they are careful to pretend they don't advocate murdering us, their disciples get the message loud and clear and the stupid vitriol that pours from their mouths could be used against them in court.

    I wouldn't accuse the likes of Maggie about caring about their narrow religious beliefs. The paycheck, that it is clear they care about, but other beliefs are bendable to keep bringing the paycheck in.

  • 25. AnonyGrl  |  February 8, 2011 at 10:50 am

    Sadly true…

  • 26. Hanou  |  February 8, 2011 at 10:58 am

    I was amused by her comment that every child is borne of an act of sexual passion… I guess IVF means you're not a real person? I guess getting a sperm donor means the same thing, etc etc.

  • 27. Hanou  |  February 8, 2011 at 11:00 am

    "[O]nly if you're attracted to the opposite sex, which is 97% of us, and MORE than 99% of the people who create children, all of them through acts of sexual passion"
    That part.

  • 28. Owen  |  February 8, 2011 at 11:01 am

    Actually, Brian Brown is living proof that horrible things do happen when parents get divorced. =x

  • 29. Peterplumber  |  February 8, 2011 at 11:10 am

    My cousin had Testicular cancer when he was 20 something. They told him that after chemo and radiation therapy, he would be sterile, so he froze some sperm planning for a day when he would be married and want kids.
    He is in his 40's now and has three wonderful kids, all conceived in-vetro.

  • 30. AnonyGrl  |  February 8, 2011 at 11:16 am

    That is wonderful, and his kids were conceived through acts of LOVE which is so much more than simple acts of sexual passion.

  • 31. Tomato  |  February 8, 2011 at 11:19 am

    Amen, too!

  • 32. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 8, 2011 at 11:27 am

    Not only that, but I don't know of anyone who has only been raised by their immediate family. I know that most of the kids in my neighborhood were raised by the whole neighborhood. As stated above–Love, and families, come in all shapes and sizes, not only the one that Maggie envisions as the ideal family. Of course, Maggie's ideal family only existed on TV.

  • 33. Tomato  |  February 8, 2011 at 11:30 am

    The statistics amaze me.

    She thinks 97% of folks are straight? Really?

    She thinks 99% of children are created by straight acts of sexual passion… really?

    According to the latest census, 1/4 gay male households and 1/3 gay female households are raising children under the age of 18.

    40% of children in the US are born to straight unmarried parent/s.

    I think Maggie is aiming her vitriol at the wrong group.

  • 34. Ed  |  February 8, 2011 at 11:34 am

    So i posted a comment on NOM's blog….well…tried to atleast….

    My single word in the comment? What?
    Thats all i wrote…..and guess what? that 1 word was deleted…..

  • 35. Tomato  |  February 8, 2011 at 11:36 am

    Oh, and a lesbian household is more likely to have children under the age of 18 than a straight household.

  • 36. JPM  |  February 8, 2011 at 11:46 am

    Latest California Prop 8 polling from PPP:

    Same-sex marriage legal: 51%, Illegal: 40%

  • 37. JonT  |  February 8, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    Oh come on Paul, it's freaking obvious!

    Once the gays can get married, none of the straights will ever want to.

    /christianist logic.


  • 38. Michael  |  February 8, 2011 at 12:25 pm

    A person who spends his life redefining the Constitution to legitimize second-class treatment and inequality of other taxpayers is not "healthy." A person who has Jesus in his life does not choose money over God and make a living off of reviling and lying about others. Shrill anti-gay activist Brown needs Jesus in his life. First repentance, then professional counseling. And above all, urging him in a loving manner to walk away from homophobia. Thousands and thousands have walked away from homophobia. Strident anti-gay activists Brown and Gallagher can, too, if they just let go of their pride and sin.

  • 39. Michael  |  February 8, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    How sad, empty and unconvincing she seems. I guess a total inability and unwillingness to bring down the heterosexual divorce rate gnaws at her in her private time.

  • 40. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 8, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    And the largest concentration of families with same gender heads of household is in the South of all places! Who would have thought that a greater percentage of Southern gay men and women would be raising children? Could this be why the South is slowly but surely coming to accept our families more readily?

  • 41. Peterplumber  |  February 8, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    Which state has the most?

  • 42. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 8, 2011 at 12:53 pm

    I'm not totally certain about that, but from the families I know, and the listings I have seen, as well as reports I have from friends in other parts of the state, I would say probably NC. And most of those are gathered around our university towns–Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, Winston-Salem, Greensboro, High Point, and Charlotte.

  • 43. Ray in MA  |  February 8, 2011 at 1:03 pm

    Reagan: the FIRST demonic divorcee prez!!!

  • 44. Ray in MA  |  February 8, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    You got it!!

  • 45. Ray in MA  |  February 8, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    To Maggie, that isn't enough and does not qualify you!!! That is her problem!!!

  • 46. Peterplumber  |  February 8, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    Ummm, I am not too well versed in geogrophy in the south. Aren;t all those coastal towns?

  • 47. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 8, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    The cities that are closest to the coast are Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill, and they are about two hours inland from the coast. Winston-Salem, Greensboro, High Point are in the Triad, which is about an hour and a half to the east of Tennessee.

  • 48. Tomato  |  February 8, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    I was listening to the radio and they did a report on the South Has More Gay Families results. It was something like Texas and Georgia in the top 2. I know Texas was one of the top two.

  • 49. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 8, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    Cool. I wish I could remember where I saw the link. If I find it I will post it here. But if someone beats me to the link, I will not get upset.

  • 50. Peterplumber  |  February 8, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    It's just that I saw a comedian once, I think it was Judy Gold, and she was talking about the gay population of the usa. She said how amazing it was that we are most prevelant alongs the east & west coast. She said something like, "it seems like God said, 'Alright gay people, GET TO THE SIDES!!'"

  • 51. Mandi  |  February 8, 2011 at 3:12 pm

    OT: I am so disapointed! I don't generally watch the Late Show, but I've always rather liked Adam Sandler. Unfortunately I don't think I'll be able to watch his new movie (which looked really funny). What an unfortunate attempt at humor.
    )0( Mandi <3

  • 52. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  February 8, 2011 at 5:29 pm

    Exactly the point I was going to make, ownership of the woman.

  • 53. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  February 8, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    Mouse, yours is the best answer I've seen to support their logic. Doesn't work in today's society; after all, Maggie knows first hand that getting pregnant is not a sure way to get your man.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 54. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  February 8, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    Don't think either of them will let go of the sin of greed. I do believe they would let go of the sin of bigotry if they made more money being pro-gay.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 55. Peterplumber  |  February 8, 2011 at 7:39 pm

    You mean it’s possible to pray the anti-gay away??

  • 56. Jeff Weekley  |  February 8, 2011 at 11:05 pm

    I would hardly call Brian Brown a "happy and healthy" person. Certainly, it's specious logic to suggest that he parents divorce was the sole contributing factor, but his anger and hatred is undoubtedly misplaced.

    Why isn't he railing against divorce?

  • 57. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  February 9, 2011 at 1:21 am

    Could be that there are too many divorced heterosexuals and they know that the money would not roll in on that one.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 58. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2011 at 1:57 am

    So once again The Eva Braun wannabe, Maggie "Shoe Flinger" Gallagher, spouts out her offensive BIGOTED, benighted, unmitigated, supremacist diatribe….Again, she not is only attacking LGBT couples & families but all those who are Straight, as well, who do not bow down to her antiquated & delusional Fascist ideology…Maggie, with all do respect, GET A LIFE!!!!!!….. 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 59. Steve  |  February 9, 2011 at 2:21 am

    Most of those children are from previous straight relationships that people were forced into by social and religious norms.

  • 60. Joe  |  February 9, 2011 at 2:36 am

    Pisses me off, now not only is she denigrating same sex couples, but she's attacking polyamory too. Cuss words come to mind, but calling her that would be offensive to female canines everywhere.

  • 61. Ben  |  February 9, 2011 at 3:09 am

    It looks like Maggie's testimony may have changed a vote–in our favor!

  • 62. Hank (NYC)  |  February 9, 2011 at 3:31 am

    Seems like a fantasy to me – one in which she keeps trying to have ever since her first failed attempt.

  • 63. bJason  |  February 9, 2011 at 3:47 am

    You beat me to it! This is fan-freakin-tastic!

    Thanks, Maggie! Do it again!

  • 64. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2011 at 5:53 am

    The youth of America are speaking up & demanding that their voices be heard….

    Young People Drop Knowledge at Md. Gay Marriage Hearing

    "Metro Weekly has a report from the scene in Annapolis yesterday, and its striking to see how the teenagers at the hearing appeared to be the ones making the most sense."

    Here's 10-year-old Bena Williams:
    ''It's not like they're from outer space,'' she said, to Republican Sen. Allan Kittleman who said earlier that passage of the bill was ''the right thing to do.''

    And 14-year-old Maya Deane-Polyak:
    "The clerk explained to my mom that we were not able to use the card because Lisa's name was not on the card and because she was not married to my mom,'' she said during her testimony in front of the Maryland State Senate. ''As I stood there watching it all happen, so many different emotions came over me – embarrassment, sadness, hurt – but mostly I just felt helpless and angry. Helpless that I could not help my mom … that I could not make it better.''……Dean-Polyak also added: “My moms do everything for me…They create such a normal, extraordinary life for me.”

    (me)Protect the children Maggie Gallagher…..not harm & attack the children whose families are not your selfish "ideal" as if the matter is really any of your business…just saying. …..<3…Ronnie

  • 65. Straight Dave  |  February 9, 2011 at 10:22 am

    Just more help from the other side. I love how they don't even realize how stupid they sound. The MD Senators seem to have caught on.

    "Austin R. Nimocks, a lawyer for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, argued …. blah, blah, blah

    He ruffled feathers on the committee when he suggested that there was a valid argument for single parents to rear children but not for same-sex couples to be parents."

    Maybe we should be paying these guys to show up, kind of like Boies putting William Tam on the stand.

  • 66. Sagesse  |  February 9, 2011 at 11:23 am


  • 67. Carpool Cookie  |  February 11, 2011 at 2:18 am


    And I would add, "Keep your bags packed! You never know…"

  • 68. Carpool Cookie  |  February 11, 2011 at 2:21 am

    Well that FAILED! (First post of the day)

    I meant to put:


    "it seems like God said, ‘Alright [Texas] gay people, GET TO THE SIDES!!'"

    And I would add, “Keep your bags packed! You never know…”

  • 69. Carpool Cookie  |  February 11, 2011 at 2:24 am

    Ahhh, dear Mr. Tam.

    A true candidate for "Where Are They Now?"

    Testifying in such an unprepared way didn't do Mr. Blankenhorn (sp?) any favors, either. The transcripts for him are nearly impossible to read.

  • 70. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 12, 2011 at 2:33 pm

    That may be, but it definitely shows that fewer LGBT's are deadbeat parents!

  • 71. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 12, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    And yes, I know about having children from a previous marriage resulting from societal pressure. I have adult children who have children of their own because of BZ being forced into an arranged marriage.

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