Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Tag: Maggie Gallagher

Is Maggie Gallagher a bigot?

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: “Love 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.

105 Comments September 15, 2010

Maggie Gallagher meets St. Peter

By Rob Tisinai

Here’s an animation experiment about NOM’s Maggie Gallagher that I made using this site, whose software has set off a little boom in text-to-speech, user-friendly, 3-D cartoons.

Please share if you like it. Note that the Closed Captioning button is active if you want subtitles.

Frankly, I think maybe we ought to do an animation festival. Make a video, upload it to youtube, and post the link here. Anybody want to give it a try?

197 Comments August 30, 2010

Yet another #NOMturnoutFAIL today: Is NOM imploding right before our eyes (and cameras)?

By Eden James

Another day, another #NOMturnoutFAIL.

And, in yet another example of how NOT to stage an event attended by as many staffers as supporters, NOM decided to hold their latest tour stop in a huge, empty grocery store parking lot in Lima, Ohio. Seriously.

Arisha Michelle Hatch and Anthony Ash, our intrepid NOM Tour Trackers following NOM from one tour stop to the next, are in Lima but experiencing spotty internet connections. Fortunately, they were able to send iPhone pictures to accompany the brief report below from Arisha (it may be awhile before more pictures or video come in. Stay tuned):

In our most rural tour stop to date, the NOM bus tour has taken us to a parking lot, in front of a closed-down grocery store in Lima, Ohio.

A hand-count of 22 NOM supporters (many of whom were staff) gathered into a cavernous parking lot…

NOM's empty-parking lot rally in Lima, Ohio

NOM's parking lot rally in Lima, Ohio

… while 19 equality supporters stood quietly to the right of the rally holding handmade signs in silent, but powerful, protest: Equality supporters outnumber NOM at counter-protest in Lima, Ohio, parking lot

"Straight not narrow": Equality supporters counter-protest NOM rally in Lima

A young girl – an employee from the Subway next door – stopped and asked me what the bus event was about. “Nothing like this ever happens in Lima,” she said. “What’s this bus tour for?”

I explained and asked her how she felt about NOM coming to her town. “I think whether to be gay or straight is a choice,” she started. Of course, that’s something most NOM supporters would say, not recognizing the scientific evidence demonstrating that being gay is not a choice.

But she then went on to make a point about “choice” that was unexpected: “Why shouldn’t they be able to make the choice to get married? I don’t really care either way.”

Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH), originally scheduled to speak, did not make it out to the parking lot. A NOM tour staffer read a short letter from him.

Hmmmm… I wonder why Congressman Jordan didn’t show up? Remember, this is the same Jim Jordan who introduced a bill that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman in the District of Columbia, in an effort to kill marriage equality in DC.

Maybe a congressional staffer saw the runaway public relations disaster looming, as a result of, and decided to make sure the Congressman avoided the inevitable embarrassment? Smart move. If this is indeed the case, one can only imagine that other public officials will avoid this tour like the plague at future NOM, er, “rallies” on this tour.

So, after eight absolutely disastrous tour stops, the threatened arrest of our videographer, the sudden disappearance of Brian Brown (as featured on this milk carton), and the sudden reemergence of Maggie “I’m not Brian’s keeper” Gallagher, and now the decision by Congressman Jordan to duck the Lima event, the question needs to be asked:

Is the National Organization for Marriage imploding right before our eyes (and cameras)?

Is this tour just an example of NOM’s failure to organize events — or the tip of a much larger iceberg of internal turmoil inside the organization?

Should NOM consider canceling the rest of its tour stops before this turns into a national embarrassment?

Or are they going to double down on failure and hope no one notices?

Let us know what you think in the comments. And if you have any solid information or credible evidence that you think might help the community understand what is happening behind the scenes, please share it.

(More to come later, as Arisha and Anthony are able to send updates, pics and video. As usual, keep refreshing this thread as news develops…)

UPDATE BY EDEN: Wow. Maggie Gallagher really doesn’t give a damn about maintaining NOM’s credibility, does she?

Yes, this is the the headline on NOM’s blog post about Lima that just went up:

Another successful rally in Lima, Ohio!

If by “success” you mean “EPIC FAIL,” then yeah, I guess I would have to agree.

If any of our intrepid online Trackers see similar news about the Lima event (or Columbus yesterday) let us know in the comments. And thanks again to “Lesbians Love Boies” for continuing to break news in the comments, with link after link. You are amazing, LLB!

421 Comments July 24, 2010

Where is Brian Brown? NOM’s Maggie Gallagher: “I’m not Brian’s keeper”

By Eden James

Arisha Michelle Hatch, our lead, met Maggie Gallagher, a founder of NOM, today. We’ve got video of their first encounter.

Why was Maggie in Columbus today? To take over for Brian Brown, at least from what she said.

Money quote: “I’m not Brian’s keeper.”


Maggie’s message to NOM’s minions: “Hate is not a family value.” Hypocrisy much?

Of course, love IS a family value, and marriage is our society’s method of officially recognizing love and partnership between two people.. That’s why we support marriage equality.

UPDATE BY EDEN: Anthony just uploaded this overview of today, including a bunch of sights and sounds. This video includes:

1) Another interview with Maggie Gallagher, who claims she doesn’t know what the NOM Tour Tracker is — after all, she’s “not a big blogger” — and repeats that she’s “not Brian’s keeper.”

2) Footage of the counter-protest
3) An interview with Erin and Michelle, a sweet lesbian couple that approached the rally and were stopped by a police officer.

Check out the video and let us know what your favorite moment is — and favorite quote.

153 Comments July 23, 2010

Hate the Act, Denigrate the Actor

by Brian Leubitz

I have always found “hate the sin, love the sinner” to be one of the more demeaning slurs against the LGBT community. While the anti-gay folks like to consider this very thoughtful, it is belittling of our lives and how we choose to live them. It invalidates our entire lives as the sum total of our “sin.”

As luck (or a conference organizer with a sense of humor) would have it, GOProud’s booth at the Conservative Political Action Conference is located two booths down from the National Organization for Marriage — opposite-sex marriage, that is. When CNN started shooting a story on the gay Republican group’s experience at CPAC on Thursday, the NOM delegation sent someone over to shake hands, suggest a beer summit, and smile for the cameras.

After the CNN segment ran Friday, however, NOM, under pressure, felt compelled to blast out a statement that fell well short of an invitation to guzzle some suds. “We welcome everyone’s right to participate in the democratic process, but we have a message for GOProud on marriage: If you try to elect pro-gay-marriage Republicans, we will Dede Scozzafava them. The majority of Americans, and the vast majority of Republicans, support marriage as the union of husband and wife, and NOM is here to make sure these voters and their voices are heard loud and clear,” the statement reads.

Say it to our faces, GOProud Executive Director Jimmy LaSalvia said. We’re standing right next to you.

Maggie Gallagher  and NOM like to pretend that they are very thoughtful and considerate. At debates, she likes to say that if they could get in a room, they would be able to solve this issue. But when you consider that Gallagher and her ilk thinks that our whole community is nothing but a bunch of sinners. And as soon as she can talk about you behind your back, she will.

The heart of the matter is that the rights of our community should not be judged based upon what Maggie thinks or believes, but only based upon the law and full equality under said law.

224 Comments February 20, 2010

NOM’s Maggie Gallagher’s Tiny Violin

By Julia Rosen

Remember way back when, before the trial started, when NOM was predicting they would lose this case because Judge Walker wasn’t ceding to their lawyers’ every demand and motion?

Turns out the actual proceedings of the case didn’t make NOM’s president Maggie Gallagher any more confident about the outcome. Today out of nowhere she penned a letter whining to Judge Phyllis Hamilton, Chair of the Rules Committee that Judge Walker simply attempting to get the trial televised lost the case for them. Well actually, she put Judge Hamilton’s name/address at the top, but addressed the letter to Judge Walker. Don’t worry…as you will see these details don’t matter too much to Maggie.

My objection to televising high-profile trials is not theoretical. It emerges directly from the experience of the attempt to televise the trial for Proposition 8. Two-thirds of the expert witnesses-people who had been willing to sit for deposition, to prepare testimony, to fly to Sacramento to testify-dropped out under the prospect of having their faces and names televised.

Uuum, Maggie the trial was in San Francisco. While we residents of humble Sacramento are happy to be confused with our much more famous (and by you despised) neighbor 85 miles west, we won’t try and take away this spotlight from San Francisco.

The Supreme Court stepped in to prevent the broadcast of these hearings. But it was too late. Expert witnesses had already dropped out. The trial had been changed, forever, by the mere prospect of television broadcast.

Our case for Proposition 8 has been deeply harmed. The public record has been impoverished and the information available to reviewing courts permanently reduced all because some witnesses feared retaliation as a result of the publicity. I wish they had more courage, but I cannot view their fears as unreasonable.

Maggie conveniently forgets that part of the televising plans included allowing witnesses to request that the cameras be shut off during their testimony. NOM and Prop 8 built their case on unfounded fear and are now trying lay the groundwork for appeal, or at least influence the media narrative. More from Maggie:

Here’s the bottom line: If the Supreme Court should overturn Proposition 8 and find a constitutional right to gay marriage I will never know whether or not that would be a result of the haste to televise the trial.

Oh poor Maggie, I have a tiny violin playing for you. My heart is just breaking.

More seriously, if these witnesses were as good as Mr. Blankenhorn and Dr. Miller, you were better off having them not testify. For proof I give you this lede from an article in the SacBee today:

The star witness for backers of Proposition 8 testified Tuesday that he’s confident – but has no evidence – that same-sex marriage would increase divorce rates and lower the rate of heterosexual marriage.

Blankenhorn had no evidence because he was not really an expert and chances are that if this was a jury trial, he would not have been admitted as an official expert witness.

My guess is the witnesses they had lined up were supposed to actually testify that children are better of in homes headed by a man and a woman than a same-sex couple. After all, that’s what Pugno was claiming was their big argument. They never got a legitimate social scientist up there to prove this, not that it would actually be possible. Study after legitimate study has proven that children do just as well with same sex parents as they do with opposite sex ones.

The facts, they burn.

Really that’s what it comes down to, the facts. Judge Walker will weigh the evidence presented in court and issue his legal opinion. Maggie, et al are just upset that we have three branches of government that check and balance each other. They simply want public opinion to be the final word, not those pesky “activist judges”, you know like George H. W. Bush appointees like Judge Walker. So, they whine and complain. They try and shut the public out to in order to keep them from hearing these facts, not the fears and lies of a campaign.

This letter will have no effect on the trial. It is simply an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of its proceedings. And perhaps to hear some violin music.

253 Comments January 28, 2010

Previous page