Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Is Maggie Gallagher a bigot?

NOM Exposed Right-wing

By Rob Tisinai

Maggie Gallagher loves to complain about being called a bigot. It’s a favorite talking point. She writes whole columns about it. In fact, I’d bet she hopes people call her a bigot, just so she can roll around some more in the broken glass of victimhood.

The problem with this pose is that she founded the National Organization for Marriage . And on that group’s website is a page called “SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: Answering the Toughest Questions.” I see much claptrap on that page, but one mild statement shines out as the most offensive of all. She suggests this answer to a frequent question (or so she claims):

5. Why do you want to interfere with love?
A: β€œLove is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”

Logically, this answer is easy enough to pick apart. Certainly we’d laugh at the idea that there is a specific kind of love common to every husband/wife couple. There’s not even a love requirement for marriage in the first place, much less a legal obligation to feel some vague, undefined “special love.” In fact, Maggie and her ideological kin would argue that lack of love is no reason for heading to divorce court.

But NOM’s offense to logic isn’t what pisses me off. It’s the implication that gay and lesbian couples aren’t capable of feeling the same sort of love that straight couples can. Even more outrageously, that we can’t feel the same love for our children that straight couples can.

No. No, no, and no.

Gays and lesbians are not lacking in our ability to love. It’s literally dehumanizing to claim such a thing — to argue that we’re missing some essential component of what makes people human.

Is Maggie Gallagher a bigot? I can’t claim the right to judge the whole of her character. But in this case, to be sure, the answer she gives is the answer of a bigot. So Maggie, if you want, cry victim and roll around in that broken glass. You’re the one who put it there.

Tags: ,


  • 1. Alan E  |  September 15, 2010 at 1:34 am

    If the shoe fits….

  • 2. Rhie  |  September 16, 2010 at 7:02 am

    Agreed. I think the same as the author – I don't feel comfortable saying that she, as a whole person and on every subject, is a bigot. However, she clearly holds bigoted ideas about LGBT people.

  • 3. AndrewPDX  |  September 15, 2010 at 1:36 am

    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably not a giraffe.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 4. Ronnie  |  September 15, 2010 at 1:44 am

    Maggie "Shoe Flinger" Gallagher is a:



  • 5. Don  |  September 15, 2010 at 1:44 am

    Not surprised that she claims to be the victim, have you ever heard of a bigot that embraced the word?

  • 6. fiona64  |  September 15, 2010 at 2:09 am

    Only one. Seriously. There is a guy who has been repeatedly banned on the Sacramento Bee for hate speech. He just creates a new, free e-mail account and gets another similar screen name.

    However, one time he actually said "Yeah, I'm a bigot. So what? There are worse things to be."

    I couldn't think of any worse things to be, myself — but I did compliment him on making the first honest statement I'd seen from him.


  • 7. Ann S.  |  September 15, 2010 at 2:40 am

    Wow. Just wow.

  • 8. Franck  |  September 15, 2010 at 1:47 am

    Haaaahahaaa, it's like all those people who swore they weren't racists but kept spewing anti-white remarks in my presence. Don't want to be called a bigot? Then stop acting like a bigot.

    And another reminder of something I just posted in the other thread:

    Off-topic but extremely important to all bi-national same-gender couples and their supporters out there:

    (copy-paste from an e-mail sent by Kathy @ Out4Immigration)

    Yesterday it was reported that Sen. Harry Reid will be adding the DREAM Act to the Defense Authorization Bill (DAB) next week. The DAB will also include the Don’t Ask, Don’ Tell repeal amendment.

    If LGBT related and immigration related amendments are being added, why not UAFA, too? Please call Senator Reid’s DC office today and ask him to attach the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA; S. 424) to the DAB bill.

    Sen. Reid’s DC office: (202) 224-3542

    At the very least lets use this to re-awaken our fighting spirit to get UAFA passed this year! Yesterday we added 4 more co-sponsors in the House, bringing our total to 128.

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1181 days, as of today.

  • 9. Sagesse  |  September 15, 2010 at 1:50 am

    Surgically precise, as always, Rob. No need to hypothesize what other beliefs she may have that are bigoted… this one is.

    And subscribing.

  • 10. Anonygrl  |  September 15, 2010 at 1:57 am

    Maggie Gallagher IS a bigot.

    She has been quoted saying "It is not discrimination to treat different people differently." In fact, that is the precise DEFINITION of discrimination.

    She discriminates against homosexuals, and does so in a way that is both willful and disingenuous. She claims that she and NOM do not want to harm homosexuals, yet persists in pushing for legislation that would exclude us from the basic protections and services that help other families, based on sexuality alone. She says she supports our rights and thinks that civil unions are sufficient, to our faces, but when talking to others she says that civil unions are a gateway to marriage, and should also be banned. She claims that she loves homosexuals, but allies herselves with groups like Lou Engle's TheCall, who claim that homosexuality is destroying America and should be eliminated, thereby advocating genocide, while calling for its followers to be martyrs to that cause. She invites speakers to her rallies who do not speak one word about aiding the institution of marriage, they speak only lies about homosexuals raising the national debt and hurting children.

    She does all these things knowing that they are harmful and discriminatory to homosexuals. Thus, she is a bigot.

    The glass she rolls herself in, despite her cries to the contrary, is all round glass beads that do her no harm at all.

    I do try, with some people, to give them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they were raised by people who didn't know any better. Perhaps they fell under the influence of those who would use discrimination to their own ends and have not had the chance to make better, more informed decisions. Perhaps they are reachable and could be made to understand how their attitudes and beliefs harm others.

    Maggie has demonstrated quite clearly that she is one of those bigots that others fall under the influence of. She strikes me as intelligent enough to understand that she is pushing lies that she KNOWS are not true on people who don't know any better for the sake of her own gain. Thus she gets no sympathy from me.

    If she does not like being called a bigot, she should stop discriminating against us. But until she does, Maggie Gallagher is a bigot.

  • 11. Ronnie  |  September 15, 2010 at 2:02 am

    Well Anoygrl…maybe its time we take a hammer to those round glass beads…ACTUAL REALITY!!!….ACT UP!!!…FIGHT HATE!!!……<3…Ronnie

  • 12. Lora  |  September 15, 2010 at 2:12 am

    Great posts…both Rob and Anoygrl!! I couldn't have said it any better than you both have!

    I didn't add anything, but can I have a cookie too?? πŸ™‚

  • 13. Anonygrl  |  September 15, 2010 at 2:58 am

    Of course, Lora… and have a glass of MILK too.

  • 14. Tim in Sonoma  |  September 15, 2010 at 5:07 am

    I was going to post but you left no leaf unturned. What else to say exept, "DITTO"

  • 15. Chris in Lathrop  |  September 15, 2010 at 8:35 am

    I would add that Brian Brown is a bigot, Bishop Harry Jackson is a bigot, "Dr." Alveda King is a bigot AND a charlatan, Lou Engle is a bigot and, of course, Louis Marinelli (hi Louis!) is a bigot. Not to mention all the little bigots they've all stepped upon on their various ways to the top.

    @Maggie Gallagher (Louis, be sure to let her know about this one!): You do not have the RIGHT to REDEFINE the word 'bigot' for all of US. You've made your bed, now lie in it.

  • 16. BK  |  September 16, 2010 at 3:32 am

    In response to anonygirl's post: exactly. πŸ™‚ I've grown used to their hypocrisy and hate (and bigotry, blah blah blah) but it's still sad. :

  • 17. AndrewPDX  |  September 15, 2010 at 1:58 am

    Awesome post, Rob… as always clear and to the point and more tactful than I can ever be. Here, have an extra cookie πŸ™‚

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 18. robtish  |  September 15, 2010 at 11:42 am

    God I love cookies.

  • 19. Alan McCornick  |  September 15, 2010 at 1:59 am

    Maggie Gallagher has gotten so political she has lost sight of the fact it's real men and women, often with their children, she is talking about when she sets them aside, and contrasts them to "real" people, and "real" marriage. I don't think it's possible to find a clearer example of bigotry.

  • 20. Tim  |  September 15, 2010 at 2:07 am

    Marriage is a religious establishment, right? I quote:

    “The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent — that of total separation of church and state. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his maker after his own judgment… Such is the great experiment which we have tried; our system of free government would be imperfect without it.”
    (Pres. John Tyler, 10th U.S. President and supporter of state-church separation).

  • 21. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 15, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    Well, no. Marriage was a civil process–a legal status change–long before Western religion decided it was a sacrament and it could dictate its terms. We're still trying to crawl our way out from under that one; that's what this whole issue is about. Marriage law is one of the last bastions of civil code that's dictated by religious sensibilities. Now that has been called out and the politicoreligiose are panicking because they're seeing that they're going to lose this one eventually. That is why IMHO they are fighting so hard and so nastily.

    Once marriage is truly separate from religion, a civil right guaranteed regardless of belief, there will be few (if any) legal points where the Maggies and Brians can take control….they'll go back to hammering at abortion, probably.

  • 22. Dick Mills  |  September 15, 2010 at 2:13 am

    I think that the Gagger actually has much more sinister motives than just wanting to be a martyr. We call her a bigot, essentially because that is what she is. But SHE calls everyone that she dupes into falling for her mindset… a BIGOT. She plays the part of the BIGOT, but then SHE calls the morons who follow her BIGOTS. She needs the morons who follow her to believe that WE are calling them bigots, so that they are pissed off at US… and she can use that pissed-offed-ness to her own advantage.

    To be clear, Maggie Gallagher is a BIGOT… the people who listen to her, and find themselves in agreement with her, and who willingly adopt Maggie's mindset, and who then vote against their own best interests because of Maggie Gallagher, those people are just morons.

  • 23. Anonygrl  |  September 15, 2010 at 3:00 am

    Very true. Thank you!

  • 24. FreeATLast  |  September 15, 2010 at 2:23 am

    Great post, as always, Rob. I wonder, though, if answering the question Maggie poses–whether the pro-equality movement considers the NOM supporters bigots–helps advance our cause. It seems as though the rhetoric of bigotry–even when nuanced as well as Rob does–serves only to entrench the narrative of victimhood that NOM uses to their advantage. Maggie loves to wear the label of 'bigot'–she mentions it in every speech–so that her rhetoric sounds less hateful, vile, or extreme. Perhaps answering her challenge is simply falling into the anti-equality trap–the question is not whether Maggie Gallagher is a bigot, but whether she is right.

  • 25. Bob  |  September 15, 2010 at 4:05 am

    the answer to the question has been answered, and affirmed, repeatedly , yes she is. so what, I mean what do we do with that information,

    are we gaining any strength by continually reaffirming this truth.

    are we trying to convince others (the middle ground), about bigotry and what consequences it has?

    could we also be bigots if we are intolerant of Maggie's , creed belief , or opinion.

    is there any sense in using bigotry as the focal point if we are both equal in that sense, wouldn't it simply become a wash, forcing us to move to other points that would work towards ending discrimination.

    bigotry is a very important factor, and well worth educating the public about,

    but like FreeatLast says, the question is rather on which sde the truth lies,

    Maggie gave a hint of the slippery slope in the video the other day when she referred to her definition of marriage as the right one, which is probably the truth about how she thinks, but she was very quick to cover that by pulling god into the equation, and deferring her rightness to him. very lame.

    Our struggle is to point out the narrownes of Maggies definition of marriage and god, and to awaken people to a much wider version of both these two concepts,

    We need to convince ourselves first, by being more open minded and tolerant, and finding new and more invoative ways of bringing peoples attention to things like love, acceptance, understanding,

    The reason we're in this battle is because of bigotry, I'm thinking we need to focus our attention on the opposite , and move towards that, we're much like them in our going around in circles and ending up back at the same place, we want to move to a higher ground, a new place. Stop the focus on bigotry, so we can see and show it's opposite,

  • 26. Straight Grandmother  |  September 15, 2010 at 8:56 am

    Bob – AND Bigotry leads to DISCRIMINATION!!!!!
    It isn't often that I disagree with you. But I think we need to continue to call them waht they are, Biogts. Working towards ending the DISCRIMINATION is not mutually exclusive to calling a bigot a bigot when we see one.

  • 27. Bob  |  September 15, 2010 at 1:04 pm

    agreed, call it what it is and link the behavior to it's result, which is discrimination, suicide, murder,

    there is consensus, the answer to the question posed is YES

  • 28. Mouse  |  September 15, 2010 at 4:19 am

    You are not a VICTIM when you are PROPERLY LABELED as the VILLAIN you have worked so hard to be.

  • 29. Chris in Lathrop  |  September 15, 2010 at 8:43 am

    Part of the problem with the bigotry question lies in the axiom that if one tells a big enough lie long enough, people will believe it. Without dissenting voices–with calm, reasoned logic behind them–the lies will stand as truth. The fence-sitters and under-informed will start to believe that no, Maggie Gallagher is NOT a bigot and that rather, WE are. Because that is what she is calling us.

    So long as we refrain from making the issue about calling Maggie names, so long as our goal is to show people who have yet to make up their minds the truth, calling a bigot such is necessary.

  • 30. AndrewPDX  |  September 15, 2010 at 8:48 am

    Wizard's First Rule: People are stupid.
    Given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything.
    Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true.
    People’s heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true.
    People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool.
    — Terry Goodkind

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 31. Chris in Lathrop  |  September 15, 2010 at 9:04 am

    My wife just found Terry Goodkind! I'm re-reading WoT (as much as is published) at the moment, and will be reading Sword of Truth thereafter.

  • 32. Rhie  |  September 16, 2010 at 7:31 am

    Chris —

    I've found that people either like Wheel of Time or Sword of Truth and that there is a fair bit of rivalry between the two. Perhaps you will be the middle ground on that, heh.

    Personally, I like Sword of Truth.

  • 33. Alan E.  |  September 17, 2010 at 3:30 am

    I like SoT only because of Richard in (now canceled) Legend of the Seeker. I loved the obligatory fight scenes and the shirtless scenes.

  • 34. homer  |  September 15, 2010 at 2:24 am

    She's in it totally for the money.

  • 35. Sheryl Carver  |  September 15, 2010 at 4:14 am

    I agree. She may have started out with a sincere if faulty belief, but after learning how much she makes as head of NOM, it's now very likely all about keeping those dollars flowing in.

  • 36. Mouse  |  September 15, 2010 at 4:20 am

    Those deep-fried Twinkies aren't going to buy themselves!

  • 37. Chris in Lathrop  |  September 15, 2010 at 8:44 am

    Deep-fried-Twinkie fast! 40 days of junk food!

  • 38. elliom  |  September 15, 2010 at 2:25 am

    Bigot is as bigot does.

    As Rob has pointed out in his awesome videos, and the tragedies of the last few weeks prove, these ppl are even willing to throw their own children under the bus to protect their narrow-minded perceptions.

    And then we get Mags' ravings, and this:

    Catholics and Evangelical Hispanics: better no immigration reform than allow gay couples to stay together

  • 39. John B.  |  September 15, 2010 at 2:34 am

    NOM-backed DC Council candidate Delano Hunter trounced in Washington, DC Democratic primary:

  • 40. Straight Grandmother  |  September 15, 2010 at 6:24 am

    Woo Hoo, that IS some good news. Our son lives in DC. Take THAT NOM!!

  • 41. Bose  |  September 15, 2010 at 2:38 am

    I've argued that Maggie refuses to share the public square — common area traditionally shared by people diverse faith and principles — and is thus trying to unravel a long-standing tradition.

    It's not so much a matter of being anti-gay (which she is) but something much bigger: She argues that a large group of straight/gay religious/agnostic/atheistic citizens are not welcome to stand with equal footing in the public square.

    It doesn't matter to Maggie that Unitarian family values have always diverged somewhat from Catholic family values and yet we all have gotten along. On this, she wants to marginalize the voices of most American Episcopalians, among many more, because she and her buddies don't want to share.

    On my more cynical days, I wonder if she's laying the groundwork for a 30-year, anti-abortion-style culture war. She knows pro-equality wins are pending soon in court, and hopes are running high for chipping away at the edges for a long, long, time.

  • 42. Straight Grandmother  |  September 15, 2010 at 6:32 am

    I really don't give a sh*t if this is a 30 year cultural war like Roe V Wade, at least the Supreme Court decided the issue and women have the liberty to control thier own bodies. I am TOTALLY 100% against abortion, and for many years was a very quiet pro-lifer. But I have come to see as I got older, that these are my personal views when life begins, and I don't have a right to tell another woman how to live her life. As long as the Supreme Court rules for Gender Neutral Marriage I give a sh*t if the culture war rages on, at least during those 30 years my children, both of them, will be legally married. And when that happens my daughter will finally be able to be the legal co parent to her twin children and I will gain legal grandmother status. All the world can hate me and my family for all I care, I just know that my family and I got legal standing and recognition. Let the war rage on for all I care, just get the legal rights ASAP.

  • 43. Anonygrl  |  September 15, 2010 at 6:55 am

    And that is exactly why this is so important. Not for the high flown rhetoric about equality, although that is good too. Not for the principles of civil rights, although they are certainly valuable.

    No, the reason this fight is so important is because there are parents out there who are not allowed to be parents to their own children. It is because there are grandparents who would not be granted custody in an emergency, and would see their grandkids taken away by the state. Because there are those who love someone who can't get a simple piece of paper that lets them into the country. Because people, ordinary people, are not be able to hold hands with their partner when they needed hand holding the most. That is why it is my fight, and yours, and Ann's and Bob's and Fiona's and Harry Reid's and Lady Gaga's and should be the fight of every single person who has an ounce of humanity in them. I want Straight Grandmother to have the security of knowing she can protect her grandchildren, should the need ever arise. I want Felyx to not be on the opposite side of the globe from the man he loves. I want Andrew to know that when he finds the right guy, he CAN plan a life with him. I want Kate to be able to invite all of us to her house for our mass weddings, and to have them be perfect, and legal. I want Eden to see the families he has been fighting so hard for safe and protected. I want Richard not to have to plan to travel TO his wedding so that he can instead plan to travel AWAY on his honeymoon afterward. I want Mark to know that there will never be a reason for anyone to contemplate suicide because of this issue ever again. I want Alan E. to go to a family reunion where EVERYBODY says "Your husband? Cool. Nice to meet you. Have you met my kids?" I want each of us who has shared a story and those who have stories yet to be shared to have those stories ALL HAVE HAPPY ENDINGS.

    That is what I want. Is that too much to ask?

  • 44. Kate  |  September 15, 2010 at 11:12 am

    As usual, Anonygrl, I love you.

  • 45. Bill  |  September 15, 2010 at 2:46 am

    From the dictionary:

    big·ot   [big-uht]
    a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

    You be the judge…

  • 46. Cat  |  September 15, 2010 at 5:18 am

    Obvious to me…. Here's another one (Merriam – Webster): a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

    Even though Maggie will deny, her words and actions are the opposite of love and tolerance. Perhaps hatred is too strong a word, but hurting a group of people willingly and consistently comes pretty close, no matter how often she says she doesn't hate gays.

  • 47. Straight Grandmother  |  September 15, 2010 at 6:36 am

    Nope, hatred is NOT to strong a word, she HATES that my daughter wants to marry another woman. She HATES to let that happen. She doens't just dislike it or disapprove and wish it would go away, she would HATE for that to happen. Civilization would end according to her. That is HATRED, Maggie Gallagher is a HATER.

  • 48. aaron  |  September 15, 2010 at 3:04 am

    Maggie is CLEARLY a lesbian who can't come to terms with it. Poor girl.

  • 49. Stinky  |  September 15, 2010 at 3:15 am

    Who'd wanna mess with that nasty s n a t c h ?

  • 50. Mouse  |  September 15, 2010 at 4:23 am

    Maybe that's the problem. Some beautiful lipstick lesbian turned her down years ago, "No, sweety, I'm sorry, I like women. I'm not in to bestiality, you cow. Mooooove along." Ever since then…

  • 51. BK  |  September 16, 2010 at 3:52 am

    Oh gosh, Mouse. That was… harsh. O.o

  • 52. Phil L  |  September 15, 2010 at 8:51 am

    I've always assumed that her husband was only there as some sort of disguise. I mean, she HAS one, but we never see him, never hear about him, never see her wedding ring, and she refused to take his name.

    Something smells fishy in the state of "traditional" marriage.

  • 53. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 15, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    Hmm. You're saying she has a beard as well as being a bigot?

  • 54. MJFargo  |  September 15, 2010 at 3:20 am

    Rephrasing something Bill Maher said on Larry King last night: Bigots hate two things: (1) being called bigots; (2) homosexuals.

  • 55. aaron  |  September 15, 2010 at 5:00 am

    i reposted this on facebook.

  • 56. Straight Grandmother  |  September 15, 2010 at 6:37 am

    Ha! That guys is soooo smart.

  • 57. Chris in Lathrop  |  September 15, 2010 at 8:53 am

    Bill Maher rocks! I recommend Religulous to anyone.

  • 58. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 15, 2010 at 3:28 am

    Maggie Gallagher is a bigot, whether she wants to admit it or not. So is Brian Brown. And so is Louis J. Marinelli. When you build a career out of dehumanizing and demonizing a group of people who are different from you, and build that same career depriving them of their civil and human rights, you are a bigot.

  • 59. fiona64  |  September 15, 2010 at 6:02 am

    Hi, Louis!


  • 60. Straight Grandmother  |  September 15, 2010 at 6:38 am

    Snicker snicker

  • 61. Hank (NYC)  |  September 15, 2010 at 3:36 am

    I have a couple of thoughts about Maggie the bigot –

    1) Since she can't keep her nose out of our lives – I wonder where her husband is? Not at her side – I find that kind of curious, we never see nor hear about him. Does he not support her? Ashamed to be seen with her?

    2) If it didn't feed into her pity/victim pool – I would for her new name and mantra to be Maggie the bigot.

  • 62. rf  |  September 15, 2010 at 4:20 am

    Her husband isn't white enough, christian enough or, possibly, straight enough for the crowd she plays to.

  • 63. Phil L  |  September 15, 2010 at 8:54 am

    I also think that it can be seen the other way around. Maggie probably married him to try to hide her homosexuality. That's why she never took his name, never wears a wedding ring, and never really seems to aknowledge the fact that she's married.

    If it works for politicians (until they get caught paying same gender prostitues or leaving a gay bar drunk) then it should be able to work for her.

  • 64. Richard W. Fitch  |  September 15, 2010 at 3:48 am

    I'll ask the same question I've posed before. If MaggieMoo is so gungho "traditional marriage", why is she, a self-avowed devout RC, married to a Hindu (who presumably was NOT converted to RC) and why is Mrs. Raman Srivastav NEVER seen at gNOMe events in the company of her husband, even on occasions when other gNOMes are reconfirming their marriage vows?????

  • 65. rf  |  September 15, 2010 at 4:23 am

    Thats why I would love for the MSM and everyone fighting for glbt equality to refer to her only by her married name. that is a sign of the "traditional marriage" she espouses anyway.

  • 66. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 15, 2010 at 8:29 am

    Because it won't play in Peoria, or anywhere else if she does that.

  • 67. TomTallis  |  September 15, 2010 at 12:15 pm

    Also, where are her children. She's still of childbearing age. Maybe she should be forcibly divorced.

  • 68. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 15, 2010 at 4:01 am

    Yes, she is!

  • 69. Hank (NYC)  |  September 15, 2010 at 4:13 am

    She knows the shoe fits – that is why she likes to take them off.

  • 70. Straight Grandmother  |  September 15, 2010 at 6:42 am

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Hey you are now getting up there in Ronnie territory, that would be something he would have come up with. You are very clever Chapeau.

  • 71. BK  |  September 16, 2010 at 3:55 am

    What does your word, "Chapeau" mean in this context? I always thought it just meant 'hat'. O.o

  • 72. Straight Grandmother  |  September 17, 2010 at 12:53 am

    @BK, in French it is the equivelent of "My hat's off to you"
    The straight translation is simply "hat," it is the contect that it is used that changes it to "My hat's off to you"

  • 73. DazedWheels  |  September 15, 2010 at 4:21 am

    Yes, I believe Maggie is a bigot.

  • 74. Joel  |  September 15, 2010 at 5:01 am

    Maggie Gallagher a bigot? No.

    An unmitigated, lying, duplicitous ignorant bigot? Yes.

  • 75. Felyx  |  September 15, 2010 at 5:12 am

    I apologize if someone has already said it but…

    Maggie sure does put the 'BIG' in bigot!!!

  • 76. Felyx  |  September 15, 2010 at 5:40 am

    My last post posted before I finished. I wanted to include the Wikipedia definition of Bigotry.

    'A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs or genetics. The predominant usage in modern American English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, various mental disorders and religion.'

    Merriam-Webster defines bigot as the following:

    a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

    I know she claims not to hate or be intolerant but making claims in not the same as not actually doing the action. By definition Maggie is intolerant. She is not willing to grant either equal freedom or rights. (Religious rights are not provably impaired by the expression of gayness or marriage equality.)

    The upshot, of course, is that Maggie knows inherently that she is acting out the very definition of bigotry and seeks to evade the label by outright direct denial.


    Maybe society has just redefined the word and Maggie is the correct one.

    I just want to get married,

  • 77. Straight Grandmother  |  September 15, 2010 at 6:44 am

    Don't forget to start working on your guest registry… We all want you to get married too Felyx.

  • 78. elliom  |  September 15, 2010 at 5:25 am

    Anyone remember the Marvel Comic series "What If…?"

    What if……

    Mag's marriage is really a MINO?
    Mag's husband is really a "beard?"
    Mag's hatred and outspokenness is really hiding her own uncomfortable feelings?

    Anyone else want to play? :>

  • 79. AndrewPDX  |  September 15, 2010 at 5:32 am

    Eh… we've been playing that game for a while… I think we need a new game.

    Maybe something more like showing pictures of Maggie hugging a gay couple, Santa Claus delivering a present to Brian Brown for being a good boy, and a massive lightning storm destroying the WBC headquarters in a nice 'smited by God' way… and asking "which is most likely to happen?"

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 80. elliom  |  September 15, 2010 at 5:37 am

    Fair enough….i was kinda late to the party :>

  • 81. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 15, 2010 at 9:05 am

    Gee, that sounds like my first marriage. I was her beard and she was mine! And it was even more of a necessity in West Virginia in 1981 than it is now.

  • 82. Tim in Sonoma  |  September 15, 2010 at 5:41 am

    When are we going to take our defence to the Media?
    There are so many lies,untruths spewing from the television and utube!
    When are groups like The courage Campaine and Equality California etc.etc. going to call NOM and such hate groups on those lies?
    Respond directly to them and the lies through the media!
    I for one would send $

  • 83. JonT  |  September 15, 2010 at 6:21 am

    Is Maggie Gallagher a bigot?



  • 84. AndrewPDX  |  September 15, 2010 at 6:58 am

    @Anonygrl… <cite>I want each of us who has shared a story and those who have stories yet to be shared to have those stories ALL HAVE HAPPY ENDINGS.</cite>

    THANK YOU!!!! Your post above to SG is sooooo spot on, you've brought tears to my eyes.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • 85. Ozymandias71  |  September 15, 2010 at 7:05 am

    Oh, I firmly believe that people like Maggie, Brian and Louis (hi Louis!) are bigots – and love to speak out of both sides of their mouth, as it were – one one hand, obsessively playing the VICTIM card and on the other they are not just SAYING bigoted things, but actively pursuing a bigoted anti-Gay legislative/political agenda that seeks to shove all of us back in our Closets and adding some nails and boards to ensure we never come out again.

    That agenda even extends to our straight allies – by repeatedly demonizing LGBT folks as 'perverted' and 'dangerous to our children, our country, etc. etc. etc.' they would have our allies put in jeopardy as well. After all, if society thinks that we're all those terrible things that Maggie, Brian and Louis (hi Louis!) are pushing, then what would they think of our allies?



  • 86. Bob Barnes  |  September 15, 2010 at 7:06 am

    Oh hell yeah.

  • 87. David in Houston  |  September 15, 2010 at 8:51 am

    Even though procreation is not a requirement to getting married, Ms. Gallagher always throws out the old chestnut, "Marriage is about children. A child has the right to a mom and a dad."

    My question is, why isn't she doing anything about the 22 million children that are being raised in single-parent households. Why isn't she demanding that those children (who supposedly have a right to their missing parent) be placed in loving two-parent families? She simply can't have it both ways. She can't claim that gay couples are inferior to straight couples when it comes to raising children, then look the other way regarding single-parent families. All things being equal, common sense tells you that having two people raise a child is better than just one.

    Of course the idea that sexual orientation should be the ONLY criteria to determine whether or not someone is qualified to be a parent is ludicrous. But that doesn't prevent Maggie (I'm wearing horse-blinders) Gallagher from spewing her bigotry.

  • 88. Chris in Lathrop  |  September 15, 2010 at 9:01 am

    What of all the children who've lost at least one parent through war, or some other human-caused tragedy? Where are the rights of those children, Maggie?

    Maggie, you need to stop BEGGING the question. Please, for once, explain how marriage equality is going to disrupt procreation? How is marriage equality going to endanger civilization, as your buddy Harry Jackson says, or homo sapiens itself, as your buddy "Dr." Alveda King says? How in the bloody blue blazes is marriage equality going to disrupt one. single. marriage??? And please, don't forget to show your research.

  • 89. Phil L  |  September 15, 2010 at 9:02 am

    There's one very significant reason that she doesn't go after the single parents, and you even mentioned it.

    Maggie is scared of people who are different (oooooOOOOOOOOooooooo spooky) and thus targets homosexuals as individuals, couples, and as parents. Single parents aren't necessarily outwardly obviously homosexual, so they don't scare her.

    That's why she turns into a raging hypocrite in such situations. Children, according to her, only MUST have both a mom and a dad if their parents are a gay couple; single parents are okay as long as they are straight.

    Yeah… she's a total moron.

  • 90. Straight Grandmother  |  September 15, 2010 at 9:02 am

    That's right! And what about the children of gays and lesbians? If you want either Brian Brown the Bigot or Maggie Gallagher the hater to shut up, just ask them what should be done for children of gays and lesbains? Don't they deserve 2 parents. They have never once not once touched this question. Rick Jacobs went to Washington DC and attempted a conversation with Brian S Brown the President of NOM (and a Bigot to boot) about the children of gays and lesbians and Brian started to anser fell down on himself nd then gave up and jstu simply would not answer.

    My grandchildren have 1 legal parent instead of 2 and 2 legal grandparents instead of 4. What about them? They are children also. It is only the children of hetrosexuals that they care about.

  • 91. Ronnie  |  September 15, 2010 at 9:08 am

    Here's another point to go with David's……

    Why hasn't Maggie "Shoe Flinger" Gallagher only had one legitimate (traditionally) child in her sham marriage after her bastard child w/another man was born (I can use that term because I am a bastard child too & proud of it)?

    Maggie is a disgusting hypocrite who needs to STFU, mind her own business….& QUIT HER B!TCH!NG!!!!!


  • 92. Ronnie  |  September 15, 2010 at 9:12 am

    that was "why has"…not "hasn't….sorry typing here & FB at the same time…lol….<3…Ronnie

  • 93. TomTallis  |  September 15, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    If you took away Maggie's bigotry she'd effin' disappear.

  • 94. Rhie  |  September 16, 2010 at 8:04 am

    And the downside to that is….? πŸ™‚

  • 95. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 15, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    I think we need a new word for "maggie-gallagher=bigot" because she's so much more than just a mere bigot. Archie Bunker was a bigot, but he didn't create a campaign to create two million signed-and-sealed bigots, nor did he sell his "journalistic" and "leadership" services luring and feeding bigotry for profit. Mrs. Srivastav is beyond the normal defintion of a bigot–she needs to be called something far worse, more evocative of her megalomaniacal rampage to make bigotry a societal norm while pocketing the donations of the credulous.

  • 96. Chris in Lathrop  |  September 15, 2010 at 10:50 pm

    How about "Maggie the Marriage Nazi"? As in, "No marriage for you!!!"

  • 97. Rhie  |  September 16, 2010 at 8:06 am

    Eh. I tend to wince when I see Nazi applied to anyone who isn't actually a WWII Nazi. I know, Seinfeld…but that doesn't make it right.

    I suggest Nutso instead πŸ™‚

  • 98. Straight Grandmother  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:29 am

    I had to go back through tseveral of hese topics to find again this post from Elizabeth Oakes. I read it but it was very late my time and did not have a chance to reply, but I remember it.

    I am just curious Elizabeth how hard do you have to work at it to come up with a paragraph like the above. Do the words just fly from your brain, to your fingertips, to the keyboard keys, or do you really work at crafting your words? I am a fan of yours, especially the way you write, or should I say your writing style. It seems to me that you care about it very much and you must consider it a craft. Or maybe you are just talented, dunno, but it sure makes for good reading.

  • 99. Hank (NYC)  |  September 15, 2010 at 11:53 pm

    I like the quote from 9 to 5 for her:

    sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical, bigot

    I think she could fit all those shoes

  • 100. Linda  |  September 16, 2010 at 5:52 am

    Of course Maggie is a bigot.

    But not in her eyes; and here's why.

    We are not truly human; we are perversions; we are abominations needing saving or damning.

    And that makes us exempt from civil treatment.

    We are like errant children to her; she sends us to the corner for a time out in hopes that we will stop our naughty behavior and start minding her.

    She really thinks she doesn't hate us. She thinks she loves us but simply hates our 'sin'. And she is saddened that we show such hatred to her.

    Everything she does is motivated and justified by her religion. She invokes God as her trump card in defending her positions. Brian does this too; and the people who showed up for their rallies did the same thing.

    They're not going to change what they believe; and they cannot tolerate a secular government that will allow actions that are contrary to their doctrine; so they are working hard at rewriting our United States history so that they can prove that the intention was a favored position for (their version) of Christianity. And therefore, the constitution should be amended to inforce (their version) of Biblical rules on everyone.

    See, we are free to believe whatever we want….as long as we live according to their beliefs.

    And if we insist on living according to our own beliefs….well, we are punished, of course.

    But it's all in (their version of) love.

  • 101. Regan DuCasse  |  September 17, 2010 at 1:29 am

    Outstanding comments all. I had this exchange with Jeremy Hooper that was a bit of profiling of MG. She's an exceptionally unattractive woman. In that her voice is grating as she talks over anyone in a broadcast forum. She refuses to actually share or respect dissent. The reps of NOM are not telegenic, have none of the physicality that you'd think someone as seasoned as MG is, would have.
    And yes, her husband isn't a presence on any level.

    I've known other people like her, that are without any talent or other abilities that would make them stand out on their own merits. She's involved in one of the most controversial issues that would be, without her.
    So, she engages the issue as THE authority to dissent. She forces her way into the mix, because she'd otherwise be ignored.
    And she knows it.
    So, she's using gay people to get attention, accolades from the like minded (maybe) and certain presents herself as the go to expert on the nuts and bolts of HER agenda and she speaks for gay people too.

    She's a hog. She sucks the focus from everything and onto herself. But she needs THIS issue to do it with. Because, when it's all said and done, people are truly more preoccupied with more important things. Like keeping their jobs, getting another one. Or how to survive the layoff the just suffered and keep their houses and health insurance.

    Perhaps, after a fashion, some people have figured out that gay people getting married doesn't affect those things one way or the other. And gay people have the same, if not more concerns about keeping hearth and home together.
    And since 45 states have a ban in place, which doesn't stop straight people FROM anything, even a vote against marriage equality doesn't directly change what will happen with straight people.

    Gay people can't be blamed for the wholesale exodus of our mainstay industries to other countries. Gay people weren't at the top of the economic food chain in the banking industry that destroyed THAT aspect of the economy. USURY has Biblical directives against it, but MG and BB aren't out there protesting and rallying the masses against THAT.
    Nor are they stumping for domestic violence awareness, or child poverty.
    Things which totally destroy families. And still go on, even with bans against gay people in place.

    I suppose most of those who follow NOM's activity and believe in it, are that pathetically stupid that they'd rather blame gay people and believe that gay people would and could destroy this country, when the real captains of that destruction barely get noticed.

    So, again, MG and BB are distracting the masses from their real work, and putting the spotlight on themselves.
    They pounced on that beauty pageant contestant so hard because she was hot, young and was a much better LOOKING spokesface than anyone else NOM has.
    But she was also stupid, inarticulate and not a good moral example. At least in the obvious way.
    So, back to holding sparsely attended rallies and stumping for donations, which, they've been using for adds and printed materials.

    And no one seems to be asking the question: just what the fuck good ARE these NOM people to me anyway, when I'm behind in my mortgage and whether gay people get married or not, THAT won't change anything.
    MG is an ugly human being, who has a pathological need for attention. She's a headcase example of it.

    BB has seven children, and typical of some 'traditional' fathers, use their work as an excuse to escape domestic situations, and leave their wives to attend to a houseful of children. That many children have to compete with each other for the attention of their father. Guess it's just tough shit that dad's campaign further DEPRIVES them of his full attention.

    Both of them use gay people for their pathetic excuses for lack of attending to their own families. They use gay people as an excuse to be famous, to speak before many and to appear to be smarter and more expert on the issue at hand.

    And then what?
    They can point at their work and say, 'look, we kept gay people from getting married!'.

    I wish people would finally figure this out, and go…
    Big Fucking Hairy Deal. So. What.
    I wish gay people DID and COULD get married, because at least we wouldn't have to listen to people pretending as if it matters if they don't.

  • 102. Felyx  |  September 18, 2010 at 3:20 am

    Maggie is a good conservative FREAK!

  • 103. Felyx  |  September 18, 2010 at 3:21 am

    I mean agood conservative real freak!

  • 104. fern  |  September 19, 2010 at 2:36 am

    Ain't this word over used?
    How about infatuation?
    Marriage in under the French revolution was promoted so that women who got married would get a very small pension if hubby died in the revolutionary wars, in French it's called "les mariés de l'An II".
    The reason gay people were not included is that marriage deal is that at the time no one, but no one would have dared mention homosexuality. Remember much later a great writer and poet spent three years in jail for being that, Oscar Wilde having a relationship with the son of the founder of the boxing rules Marquis of Queesnbury.
    I also believe that once you gain marriage equality ACCEPTANCE is around the corner I've noticed that in Belgium.

  • 105. Newsericks » Blog A&hellip  |  September 29, 2010 at 10:03 am

    […] equality opponents insist they are pro-procreation, not anti anything ( 7/21/10), Is Maggie Gallagher a bigot? ( 9/15/10), and the recently launched […]

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