Tweet
Tobias Wolff, law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, does a great job of taking on the irrelevant bile coming out of the piehole of the National Organization of Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher during a debate on CNN. What’s amusing is that Lou Dobbs attempts to get her to declare how gay or lesbian couples marrying will assault heterosexual marriage — and she doesn’t answer the question. From the transcript:
DOBBS: Let’s turn to first what the administration said in its brief in defending the act this week. It reads, “The administration believes the Defense of Marriage Act is discriminatory and should be repealed,” that according to the Justice Department.Maggie, you say you were shocked by this brief. Why so?
GALLAGHER: Well, there’s two issues of trust. One is, yes, it’s true the Obama — the candidate had a position paper that he’s against the Defense of Marriage Act. But he also went in a big publicized interview, and he promised the American people in an interview with Rick Warren that although he’s for equal rights for gay people, he doesn’t include marriage among them. And now his administration is filing a brief saying the one federal law that defends marriage as one man and one woman is discriminatory.
But there’s a second level of trust here. I mean, both gay marriage advocates and gay marriage opponents are concerned because this is a brief in which the administration says it’s against DOMA and then pretends that it’s trying to defend it.
DOBBS: Right. OK.
…DOBBS: Tobias, your reaction? Do you agree with what Maggie said?
WOLFF: Well, I don’t. And let’s be clear about what this statute is about. There are six states right now and a bunch of folks in California as well — six states that allow gay and lesbian couples to get married. This is about whether those couples are going to be discriminated against by the federal government. This has nothing to do with the federal government telling states what they have to do in their marriage policies.
DOBBS: Well, here’s the Justice Department saying it’s discriminatory.
WOLFF: Absolutely.
DOBBS: And at the same time defending it.
WOLFF: Well, I’ll tell you the Justice Department is…
DOBBS: Work us through — work through that one.
WOLFF: They are in a rotten situation here. And here is why. They want this statute repealed, as does the president and his administration. There is a longstanding tradition that the Justice Department…
DOBBS: Then why not do it?
WOLFF: Well, there’s a difference between repealing a statute, which the president is working with Congress to do right now…
DOBBS: Yes.
WOLFF: And by the way, it’s part of the Democratic party platform to get rid of this statute. It’s time for Congress to step up to the plate and start working on it. There’s a difference between that and what the Justice Department’s obligation is when there’s a constitutional challenge brought to a statute.
…DOBBS: This is where the economists describe President Obama. Barack Obama tends to become incoherent when discussing gay rights. During the campaign he said he supported equal rights for gays, but also that marriage should be between a man and a woman. How do you — you know, I mean, what you say is fine. But wouldn’t marriage be a fundamental right? And why would there be any equivocation?
WOLFF: Well, let me tell you, Lou. I agree with you about that. And I spent a lot of time working for the campaign and having respectful (ph)…
DOBBS: Well, I’m not taking a position. I’m just asking…
WOLFF: Well, I hear you. But what the Defense of Marriage Act is about is not telling states who’s allowed to get married and who’s not. What it’s about is whether the federal government is going to discriminate against couples who are legally married in their states.
DOBBS: Well, it says here…
WOLFF: It’s about…
DOBBS: … the Justice Department says it’s discriminatory.
WOLFF: Absolutely.
DOBBS: But they’re going to defend it.
That’s a bizarre position, Maggie, for them to be in and for the government to be in. Isn’t it?
GALLAGHER: Well, even worse is they’re pretending to defend it. But in response to pressure from political groups, they’ve changed their argument. The federal government is now saying the Obama administration is telling the courts in your behalf and mine that the government has no interest at all in bringing together biological parents to raise their children together.
It is repudiating the idea that marriage has anything to do with mothers and fathers raising children together, which is the one great argument that all the liberal courts who have upheld marriage: New York, Maryland, Washington. They’ve always done it on that reason.
Lou then challenges Gallagher to answer how same sex couples marrying will destroy heterosexual marriage.Ms. NOM’s arguments fall flat over and over in this debate. Dobbs gives her plenty of leeway to make a case and she just hangs herself and her ideas on international TV. Wolff eloquently turns her argument on its head and asks her why she isn’t supporting federal benefits for gay and lesbian couples outside of the institution of marriage. Hahaha…
DOBBS: Of all of the things that I have seen over the course of my career, you know, listening as an assault on heterosexual marriage, I have never seen — and you correct me. I mean, where does gay marriage stand? Where is it in the queue for threat against heterosexual marriage?GALLAGHER: Well, I think…
DOBBS: And what is the causal relationship?
GALLAGHER: Well, I think that when the government changes the definition of marriage, it changes for everyone. And when the government says the idea that marriage…
DOBBS: No, I’m not (inaudible) about — no, no, no. Excuse me, please.
GALLAGHER: Yes.
DOBBS: I’m not asking — I’m not asking anybody to change the definition of anything. I’m just asking you how is a heterosexual couple in marriage in any way assaulted by a homosexual couple in marriage.
GALLAGHER: Well, because the government has changed what marriage is. For a lot of us, Lou, a marriage is a husband and wife. And the government is proposing to change that.
DOBBS: Right.
GALLAGHER: The Obama administration is saying that idea is discriminatory. Our children are going to be taught that by public schools, that our ideas of marriage are discriminatory.
DOBBS: OK.
GALLAGHER: It’s hard enough to raise, you know, people…
DOBBS: All right.
WOLFF: Let’s bring this down.
GALLAGHER: It’s hard enough to get men and women together to do this thing without our government saying and the Obama administration saying the idea itself is discriminatory.
DOBBS: Well, my God. I’m sorry.
WOLFF: Let’s bring this down to some real specifics. This is about couples who have been together for 30 years being denied their full Social Security benefits. This is about couples being denied access to health care. This is about couples who are being denied equal treatment in the tax laws after they’ve spent their entire lives…
DOBBS: But you would have that if you had civil union.
WOLFF: … paying federal taxes.
DOBBS: You would have that if you had civil unions.
WOLFF: What you have…
DOBBS: See, those arguments are not particularly persuasive.
WOLFF: Not true. Let me make sure you understand.
DOBBS: Please do.
WOLFF: This is about the federal government taking couples who are legally married and saying we are not going to give you equal access to the Social Security benefits that every married couple in this country is entitled to.
GALLAGHER: Listen, if…
WOLFF: That’s what this is about.
GALLAGHER: … the only trouble.
WOLFF: That’s what this is about.
GALLAGHER: If you have a trouble with Social Security, you could amend that act. You don’t need to go into court…
DOBBS: All right.
WOLFF: Well, Ms. Gallagher, are you out there?
GALLAGHER: … and say that marriage itself is discriminatory.
WOLFF: Are you out there trying to fight for equal treatment for gay and lesbian couples in Social Security?
GALLAGHER: What I’m trying to fight for — it’s funny that you talk about the tradition…WOLFF: Are you the one who’s going to take away Social Security benefits from gay and lesbian couples?
GALLAGHER: … of the Justice Department.
WOLFF: Are you the one who’s going to take health care benefits away from people who need them?
GALLAGHER: I am the one who is standing for the right of American taxpayers not to have a union, same-sex union treated as marriage without their consent.
DOBBS: OK, I…
WOLFF: And there are six states that have said that they want gay and lesbian couples to be treated equally in our marriage laws.
GALLAGHER: And the federal government overwhelmingly…
WOLFF: And the federal government should step out of the way.
GALLAGHER: The federal government overwhelmingly, bipartisanly said the federal definition of marriage is one man and one woman. And I support that. And I think the Obama administration should live up to its campaign promise to support marriage and change its mind.
WOLFF: They should absolutely live up to their promise to repeal this statute, yes.
DOBBS: Well, apparently there are two promises here implicit that would satisfy one of you or the other, but not both. Let me again go to this thing because the Defense of Marriage is sort of a peculiar construction. When the primary, as everything I’ve been able to study — the primary reason for divorce is financial. One in two marriages in this country, heterosexual marriages, ends in divorce.
We are watching two-thirds in some cases of children born out of wedlock. We have a disaster in this country. And, I mean, it could be argued, it seems to me, at least — and forgive me for saying it this way — that you’re blaming homosexuals for an institution that’s under assault from just about everyone but gays.
GALLAGHER: I’m not blaming homosexuals for anything. It’s four judges in Massachusetts, not homosexuals, who brought us gay marriage.DOBBS: OK.
GALLAGHER: And it’s a bunch of Democratic legislatures in blue states who are not, as far as I know, gay. Some of them may be — who brought us gay marriage in those states. This is a political movement to change the law. It’s going to have a lot of consequences.
I do not understand how we can possibly rebuild a marriage culture with the president of the United States and the government saying the idea that marriage means a husband and wife, because you need a mother and father, is discriminatory. That’s the problem. These aren’t separate battles. They’re related.
DOBBS: You get the last word, very quickly.
WOLFF: Look, at the end of the day, this is about treating people fairly and equally and with dignity. And getting rid of the Defense of Marriage Act is going to allow us to get the federal government out of the way of states who have made that decision.
42 Comments
What is so hard for people to see That not allowing gay and lesbian couples enjoy the same benefits of marriage is so discriminating.
When group like those behind ref. 71 in Washington want to stop everything to try to make all the benefits available to same sex couples without calling it marriage, they show their true colors.
Maggie would do her cause (If she were an honest person) a lot of good if she where to support gay and lesbian rights as proposed in Washington state. But no, she is on the same page as the Peter, Nothing for LGBT folks.
Maggie Owned!That was a great little interview there. I wish I could see the video and hear their tone. Wolff asking her about fighting for social security rights, awesome.
None of her arguments have much to stand on. I really wish she would back off and realize we aren’t trying to hurt any families.
oh, maggie… you’re such a liar…
I’m not sure how she can claim that heterosexual marriages are being discriminated against when THEY can get married, and gay couples can’t. What babbling nonsense. I really hope Maggie reads Pam’s House Blend because I’ll try to put this as simply as possible: If gay couples are allowed to marry it WILL NOT prevent heterosexual couples from getting married and having dozens and dozens of children to help repopulate the species. The two things are NOT related at all, Maggie.
Sixty years ago, I’m pretty sure Maggie would have been the one protecting traditional marriage from those evil people trying to mix the races:
It’s amazing what happens when you only change one word of her speech. Of course, back then, the American taxpayer didn’t want interracial marriages to take place. I think those darn activist judges had to step in and set things right.
This is why we must all contact our Congress Critters:And educate them on the 1040 laws, statutes, and regulation that have the word marriage in them and get DOMA repealed. I visited my Maryland legislators yesterday and handed them the HRC talking points from their “No Excuses” campaign which outlines the 14 pieces of pending LGBT legislation and the list of 1040 statutes that have marriage in them in which I am personally being discriminated against because of my gender. If you want to see them all go to: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d…
Maggie, please take your lies and..…go home.
god, I would so love to ad-hominem this horrible Xtianist con-artist up and down the block, but I guess I’ll have to be a bit milder than I’d like to be, so I’ll just vent with this:
MAGGIE BAD PIGGY! PIGGY NO DONUTS!
This is really interesting.Maggie Gallagher’s argument (which she believes very sincerely and deeply) is that if the government allows same-sex marriage to exist, it means that they are at the same time denying that straight marriage and straight families are important. Maybe it’s been obvious to everyone else but something just hit home for me for the first time. Maybe it’s just a subtle thing that is very hard to explain or hard for me to understand. When she says gay marriage threatens straight marriage it’s because she believes that allowing gays to marry opens some door for straight people that she doesn’t want opened. Like, if you can marry someone of the same sex, all of these straight people are suddenly going to decide, hey, we don’t have to get married anymore at all and if we still want to, we can marry someone of the same sex if we want!!!! This ties back to a fear within people like Maggie about sexuality in general. I think she, and others like her, honestly believe that sexual behavior will radically change in this country if gays are allowed to marry because it would mean that she herself is suddenly allowed to look beyond marrying a man. That must be a very scary yet enticing thought for her if she is so worked up about it.
Many of us have wondered if these militantly anti-gay people are just closeted and hanging on to some law or social code that keeps them protected (if they choose the straight life and the straight life is socially believed to be better and more moral than a gay life) and that if that bizarre security goes away, they just won’t know what to do with themselves. I guess it just really sunk in for me that that is exactly who and what these people are.
I think this proves that they have no understanding of what it means to be gay or what marriage is all about (or maybe they understand too well). Real straight people aren’t going to want to act gay if gay marriage is legal. They are still going to want to marry their opposite-sex soul mates and raise families with them. Gay people want the same thing in marriage and those gay couples that have children have them in various ways, but mostly never in a way that is discriminatorily trying to separate biological fathers or mothers from their children. No gay marriage proponent is trying to deny the importance of two parents, even a mother and a father, raising their family together. She is saying that the argument for gay marriage is to discriminate against the straight families and to take away the importance of straight family relationships. That is ridiculous! Gay marriage is about affirming the straight family and affirming the importance of father and mother and their biological children……it’s about affirming father and mother and non-biological children (for those straight couples that come by their children differently). It’s about affirming all these families but also not denying that many families are not mother and father and biological children.
She thinks that allowing gay marriage is very scary because she has gay impulses and she’s been taught her whole life that they are very bad………the straight people who support gay marriage don’t have this problem, obviously, and that’s why many people are starting to help us get our rights. Her fears are completely unfounded but her logic is so twisted that it is hard for any interviewer or sparring partner to untangle without outright accusing her of lying about her own sexuality. But maybe that’s what we should all start doing more forcefully. Up to now it has been considered foul play to do that. It’s been considered inappropriate or below the belt or counterproductive. But maybe it is the most appropriate thing to do on shows like this. Because the logic only really leads to that conclusion. Maybe in a few more years when being “accused” of being gay isn’t considered a slam anymore……
Barack Obama wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act?If President Obama wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, how come he took it off his website?
Who do I have to ask so I can get married? No one. Why should people who are gay or lesbian have to ask anyone if they can.
I have asked my fiance’ if the lesbian couple a few apartments down from us were to get married, how would that affect our marriage? Truth, it wouldn’t. Same-Sex marriage would have no affect on mine or anyone elses for that matter.
These people who are against Same-Sex marriage are nothing but one of two things, 1)not informed or 2) just bigots.
Using their logic, straight people should have to ask the LGBT community if it is OK for them to get married. Why should straight people have the automatic approval and not gay and lesbians? And I will go one better. As a straight couple, every gay and lesbian couple can get married is the way we believe and no, you don’t need our permission, it should not have to be asked for.
I want to agree but…….Unfortunately there are taxpayer-funded programs for legally married people. So while I agree that no one should have to ask permission to get married, we do all have to explicitly ask permission from each other to get legally married and get tax breaks and to be included in social security payments and the like.
We can all picket Gallagher’s place after the March on Oct 11Since she has moved into DC, we can go smear her on television after the March and get the work out that NOM is nothing but a bunch of religious lies.
You are on to something, But actually what they fear are children being born out of wedlock, which we all know happens everyday. They feel if they can’t force the parents of a child to get married they have lost that family value BS argument.
Truth be told, if gay people weren’t so hated and discriminated, many couples would not end up split because in the future one of the partners just could not keep their true feelings of who they are suppressed.
And trust me, my ex-wife felt totally deceived after 12 years of marriage before I gave up trying to hide my identity. That still doesn’t excuse her of the BS she pulled in court trying to get even with me as all that did was hurt our children.
See, they believe that if being gay is criminalized, people will not come out as who they truly are. Thus making their perfect godlike world fantasy be that much more real to them.
Sorry that you had to go through that.That sucks. I do agree that it is about control and trying to force some false idealized christian utopia that is based on lies. I’m pretty sure no theology on earth condones lying and hiding the truth.
True, I forgot the obvious, But My Sweetheart did all the asking:)
Maggie’s argument is that straight people WON’T GET MARRIED AT ALL…if gay people can get married too. She claims that the only thing that makes marriage attractive, in particular to men, who need coaxing on her theory, is its exclusiveness. If it’s no longer “special,” there’s less of an incentive for straight men to enter into this commitment to a family that they are otherwise not naturally interested in.
She lays this theory out quite clearly here (PDF). Not surprisingly for a single mom who was apparently abandoned by the father of her children, Maggie has such a low opinion of straight men that she wants to structure our family law institutions around coercing straight men into marriage.
It’s an incredibly weak and stupid argument, of course, but there you have it.
very goodI think you nailed it on the head! That is EXACTLY what Maggie thinks is going to happen. Suddenly, straight guys aren’t going to be interested in a hate-filled ugly creature such as herself, and they’ll all dump her for a hot sexy guy in leather! Oh, noes! It’s the gays’ fault that all men hate me!
What’s frustrating about all this is……how much the arguments of the Maggies are patently absurd and based on circular logic. Lingering anti-gay prejudice is the only reason why we’re having this debate in the first place, even though social scientists settled these questions a long, long time ago.
The crux of her argument is this: We have to ban gay marriage because if we allow gay marriage, we’re denying anti-gay straight people the right to deny gay people the right to marry.
Shorter Maggie (and all the religious fundiedouches)“No, you can’t have the word marriage, it’s MINE! MINE MINE MINE MINE! I had it first and it’s MINE! My Sky Daddy said so! You’re gay and icky and you can’t have marriage, it’s MINE! MINE MINE MINE and you can’t have it cuz it’s MINE! SO THERE!” **footstomp**
She only discusses what she wants, loudly… she never answers questions.Just like Donnally.
NOW THERE is a GOAL…. please add to the NEM plan!
LMAO, too funnyand sadly to true. Oh the image of Maggie stomping of into the darkness, taking her
ballbible and running home throwing a good hissy-fit.Maggie Gallagher…Fatter Dumber and More Desperate than ever. And takes 42 percent of all NOM donations off the top to feed her greedy gut.
Pretty much sums it up…“We have to ban gay marriage because if we allow gay marriage, we’re denying anti-gay straight people the right to deny gay people the right to marry.”
———————————————-
The bottom line of all anti-gay activism is trying to justify homophobia without coming right out and saying “Our right to oppress is being taken away.”
All of the ‘reasons’ are just fairy dust subterfuge. Those who are obsessed with their discriminatory views would sit in a room and openly speak their bigotry in plain language. There is no logic, reason or soundness to their arguments. They can’t state in plain language what they really mean, so they just talk in circles.
I have never seen a single anti-gay argument that would stand up to a logical analysis.
wow. that is awesome.thanks for posting the link. i guess i just never thought her argument could be based on something so inane. but it’s obviously not inane to her i guess. wow.
I don’t think soThe Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia calls marriage “a fundamental right of each individual”. I think it is very significant that in their decision they do not distinguish this right to a couple but to each individual citizen. So while we may declare to the rest of society our intent to be married it is already well established in our courts that we are not asking permission but making a declaration.
Thanks for the link to the PDF…I actually read the entire PDF. Whew! What a huge pile of crap. “If you change the definition of the word CAT, then it’s no longer a CAT.” What a brilliant analogy! LOL
It’s kind of sad how they’re desperately grasping at straws to validate their homophobia.
Seems to me you guys should stop drinking the kool aid and back away from the bongThere is nothing about Maggie’s arguments that are even remotely believable as original thinking. The fact is almost all anti-gay arguments including those against gay marriage in the past have always been based on the “icky” factor of being seen as gay or being thought of as gay.
The problem with Maggie and all those other cronies is that the “ick” factor isn’t working anymore so they have to hastily erase everything they where going to say to disparage us and make up new innovative and more PC translations of the old hate speech they were so used too.
Maggie doesn’t believe the crap she says and you can tell by the way she changes it up every month. Most of NOMs success is based on either biased individuals who don’t care what she has to say because they already think she is right and will attach to anything she has to say, or those in the str8 community who see no point in paying attention to an issue that they think just doesn’t concern them at all, or just the plain confused.
The real break through will come when str8 people and even real Christians and conservatives take note in how much deception and coercion NOM and others have used to accomplish their goals and how they have managed to sully the reputations of these people groups in the process. You can’t stay up much in the process of running others down.
It is going to eventually dawn on the heterosexual couples of our society how weak and petty they are being portrayed by the anti-gay marriage organizations. the very idea that 95% of all marriages can be divided or destroyed by 5% of them being gay is just going to make some people sit up one day and go “wait a minute…WTF?”.
Sort of like the argument currently being made over DADT that suggests that our heterosexual soldiers can not maintain their professionalism or do their job while working with openly gay soldiers even though the rest of the civilized world doesn’t seem to have a problem with it. When people really start to see how many of these superfluous arguments make them appear weak and petty they will likely look to correcting many of the wrongs in our society if for no other reason than to disprove the myths.
In that case,I’d like to officially withdraw my “consent” from all federally-funded programs which benefit married heterosexuals. Would Maggie Gallagher now be willing to put her money where her mouth is and stick up for my right to not have the “marriages” of those people supported on my dime?
I think what they *really* wantis to have their religious institutions completely enmeshed in civil institutions. That’s why they can’t accept a difference between civil marriage and their religious marriage: it would tend to discredit their position that marriage is a single, objectively-definable, universal metaphysical phenomenon. It’s the analytical-philosophy thing; insist that given words (“marrige” at the moment, and if they get that they’ll move on to others) must have single “real” meanings, and that their meaning is the “real meaning” of the word, so anyone who disagrees with them is wrong by definition (ha-ha).
WOW! Even Mr. “I don’t like brown ppl” LOLs @ Maggie!I love it! It just shows how extremist the NOMbies have become.
This makes me feel so much better, when I lose my temperPam dissing Maggie’s piehole, and the woman standing behind that anti-abortion clod yesterday, for a cheap ugly red weave.
Makes you more human Pam, I like it.
grins
an arguement between Dobbs and GallagherIt’s really too close to call which I detest MORE. I’d like to grab one by the ankles, and smack the other one with him/her REPEATEDLY around the head and shoulders.
Funny you should ask
http://loudobbs.tv.cnn.com/
It is currently at the top of the page.
What if they discover an new breed of CAT not previously known? Would it no longer mean CAT?
And I’m not buying into the homophobia from these professionals so much – I think it’s real in segments of the population, but these folks are way too tuned into the money they can generate stoking that homophobia moreso than it being one of their own major fears.
King and Queen Baby’sYou pretty much naled this!
Maggie’s husband was a “no show” to renew her vowsThis tickled me for some unknown reason…Buh hahahahaha
reminds me of the seagulls in Finding Nemomine, mine, mine, mine, mine, mine, mine, mine, mine!
http://vids.myspace.com/index….
Well, yes, but…as Pat Robertson famously reminded us, “Supreme Court decisions are not necessarily the law of the land.” Of course, Pat flunked his bar exam, but I’m sure he must know.
NO FAT HATINGIt’s been said before by the mods, and I’ll put out the reminder: stop with the fat comments. It’s easy enough to slag on Maggie Gallagher for her bigotry and corruption without making fat jokes or ugly woman jokes. That crap has its roots in misogyny; it shames women who don’t live up to a heteronormative patriarchal notion of what a “real woman” looks like. It does not belong here.
Enough with the fat hating, already.
not a chubby joke per seI was wondering where Maggie’s husband was, which was more vital and important than renewing his SACRED heterosexual marriage vows with her?
then the Far Side cartoon of a woman posting a sign for her lost little dog crossed my mind.
I’m BAAAAAAAD!
Maybe he realizeswhat a mistake he made marrying Maggie and she’s fighting not to become a statistic. One of the 50% of marriages that end in divorce.
look for a guy with one arm gnawed off
No Sympathy
So just because you don’t like being presented in a bad light, millions of Americans whose beliefs lead them to consider gay marriage to be wholesome and blessed of God (or whomever they happen to worship) have their faith discriminated against? And millions more are denied basic civil rights which you no doubt take for granted?
Of course, if you hadn’t mounted such a loud and public opposition to civil rights, you wouldn’t be in a situation where your beliefs were being attacked as prejudice and discrimination. You could have allowed same-sex couples the same civil rights as opposite-sex couples, could have chosen to keep your religious beliefs to yourself and allow other religious groups to practice their faith as they deem appropriate, but you didn’t. You chose to fight to deny your fellow Americans their civil rights, chose to inflict your opinions on everyone else, chose to ignore the First Amendment right of your fellow Americans to believe as they see fit, and practice those beliefs without interference.
Your predicament is entirely self-inflicted. Why should I or any other have any sympathy? You set yourselves up as our enemy, as a wall barring us from basic civil rights. For the sake of our own self-respect we have an obligation to knock you down, just as the Germans did the Berlin Wall twenty years ago.