Tweet
crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
Recently on a Maryland talk show, News Talk with Bruce DePuyt, Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage was interviewed regarding not only marriage equality in Maryland but also the decision by the Obama Administration not to defend DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) in the courts.
She threw out a lot of comments and talking points but tripped herself up a few times and actually affirmed gay marriage on one occasion.
Some quick points about the interview:
At 2:12, Gallagher said she is sure that if the bill is passed in Maryland allowing same-sex marriage, a referendum would overturn it. She claimed that NOM's internal polling shows that folks support stopping gay marriage 54 to 38 percent.
Of course Gallagher did not reveal that NOM got into a bit of trouble with that poll. According to Erik Hartley of the Capitol Newspaper, NOM posed the question in a specific way to get more support on their side of the issue:
. . . NOM asked it this way: "As far as you personally are concerned, should marriage be between a man and a woman, or should it also be available to same-sex couples?"
Hmm. Why the phrase "as far as you personally are concerned"? Perhaps to appeal to people's visceral discomfort with gay people? Note that the question does not ask about the proposed law; it asks about values — "as far as you personally are concerned" — and how you think the world "should" be.
A more factual based poll actually showed that Marylanders favored gay marriage.
At 3:22, Gallagher says that it's not a good idea to ask young voters what they think about gay marriage. Her exact words were:
On an issue like marriage, it's not a good idea to poll the 18-year-olds and do what they think. I think we need some grownups here.
Of course she said this because a majority of young voters favor marriage equality. Gallagher's comments are spooky in that she echoes an ongoing trend to potentially disenfranchise young voters.
At 3:55, DePuyt point blanks asks her how has gay marriage hurt the institution of marriage in general. It leads to an excellent exchange in which Gallagher makes the case for marriage equality by acknowledging that gay marriage is a relationship between two loving people.
When DePuyt makes her aware of what she has done, Gallagher not only backtracks but implies that gay couples are not monogamous. And then she pulls out the "polygamy" card.
And if that's not enough, she pulls out the "gay marriage will lead to awful consequences for the rights of Christians" card by citing a case in Great Britain of a couple who were told that they could not be foster parents because they would not "affirm" homosexuality.
However, that case(in which some lgbts have actually voiced support for the couple) had nothing to do with gay marriage. According to Robert Piggot of the BBC:
The court discriminated between kinds of Christianity, saying that Christians in general might well make good foster parents, while people with traditionalist Christian views like Mr and Mrs Johns might well not. Such views, said the judges, might conflict with the welfare of children.
In other words, the court was concerned about potentially placing an lgbt child in a home which would not affirm that child.
Then Gallagher brings up a recent situation in Illinois in which the state is investigating whether or not religious groups can turn away gay foster parents. Gallagher terms this as a "result" of the civil unions bill which just passed in that state.
She omits the fact that the state is merely investigating because these groups are receiving public funds.
In another snippet of the interview, viewer (a good friend of mine) sent in a question which Gallagher could not answer. It has to do with an infamous claim on a mailer which NOM sent throughout Maryland claiming that gay marriage is being "taught to kindergartners" in Massachusetts.
Gallagher's answer (or non-answer) speaks for itself:
Gallagher claims that "gay marriage advocates" are saying that this claim isn't true, but again she is not being honest.
The original assertion that this claim is untrue came from the Pulitzer-Prize winning site PolitiFact, which said the following:
Bottom line: The National Organization for Marriage mailing says that Massachusetts public schools teach kindergartners about gay marriage. The wording, including the present tense verb, gives the impression this is happening now, in many schools.
But the group’s only evidence is two incidents five years ago. It’s possible that somewhere, in one of the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts, other kindergartners have been taught about same-sex marriage. But NOM couldn’t cite any other examples. We find its statement False.
Gallagher continues to stumbles through an answer, telling DePuyt that he should ask NOM's president Brian Brown about the claim.
But shouldn't she know the answer? She may not be NOM's president, but she is speaking for the organization and therefore should have considerable knowledge of whatever talking points the organization pulls out to imply about the so-called negative consequences of gay marriage.
And by the way, she doesn't even say what's wrong with children learning about gay marriage or same-sex households (which by the way they do anyway because many of their classmates come from same-sex households).
All in all, Gallagher's interview amounts to lies, fear tactics, and bad hypothetical points. And like all of the other times, these lies, fear tactics, and bad hypothetical points may yield success for her and NOM. But based on how she stumbled through parts of this interview, Gallagher may soon need to seek a new line of work.
Wouldn't that be nice?
Related posts:
Maggie Gallagher addresses NOM's claim about gay marriage and children
Arora controversy has National Organization for Marriage scrambling for cover
Lgbt community hit with betrayal in Maryland?
National Organization for Marriage continuing to spread false claim about gay marriage and children
PolitiFact catches anti-gay group NOM in a huge lie about gay marriage and children
NOM needs to stop peddling in fantasy and face reality about same-sex families
13 Comments
A question that should be asked of Maggie Srivastav: Why don’t you proudly bill yourself using your husband’s last name?
Ah, yes, because 18 year olds, though old enough to GET married aren’t old enough to understand marriage!
And they’re old enough to be shipped off to foreign countries to witness, and participate in, the most horrible atrocities known to man; old enough to be killed and maimed in war, but not quite old enough to understand that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry the adult, able minded, consenting INDIVIDUAL of his/her choice.
If Maggie really believes this then perhaps she should be fighting for Amendments limiting marriage to people who are, by HER definition, “grown-ups”.
I’m about ready for the Oompa Loompas to haul this fat ass blueberry outta the Chocolate Factory!
Maggie won’t get her bonus from the Vatican if she keeps tripping over the script like this.
No one is saying……that straight couples can’t get married and have dozens of children if they want. So for those straight couples marriage won’t change at all. In fact, there are a lot of straight couples that NEVER have children, and the government doesn’t seem to have a problem allowing them to get married. I’d also like to ask Maggie why the government doesn’t enforce an age restriction on marriage. If marriage is all about procreation, why are people over the age of 50 allowed to marry? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Maggie’s theory about marriage being ONLY about “the children” is a lie.
Hate in Action:Poor, pitiful Maggie Srivistav (yes she is married to a Hindu), who had a child out of wedlock, goes around preaching Catholic doctrine and whose organization is on the watch list for hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Ms. Srivistav has obviously never read our U.S. Constitutition that guarantees my liberty from her Catholic dogma (1st Amendment), guarantees that I retain my inalienable rights whether or not enumerated in the Constitution (Amendment IX), and also guarantees that I and everyone are treated equally under the law (Amendment 14). She only has her middle class Catholic brainwashing upon which to base her factless arguments. She is truly pathetic.
NOM SurveysMy Husband is registered as a Republican in the state of California so NOM has called us a couple of times with their “Survey”. He just hangs up on them, me, I tell them I’m in favor of marriage equality and they thank me for my time and hang up on me. I guess their survey results are because they realize that can’t hang up on everyone they disagree with.
When?When oh when oh when will someone read this bitch her beads?
Gallagher is a nice Irish surnameand lends her more creditability to the Catholic supporters of NOM than Mrs. Raman Srivastav would.
Have you seen her husband?He would hurt her career of “hate” if NOM followers actually could get a grasp on the fact that she doesn’t follow her own preaching. This picture of the two of them from 2005 wouldn’t go over to well as the poster child for “traditional marriage”.
http://christwire.org/2011/01/…
Sign of marriageIt’s interesting in the photo that Maggie’s “husband” is wearing a Kunkumam (red dot) on his forehead a sign of marriage in the Hindu religion. Oddly enough Maggie reportedly doesn’t wear a wedding ring.
Fun, butfor all of us not up on all the latest parody sites, you ought to drop a mention that none of this can really be believed except that it contains a photo of dear Maggie. Sure, the pic screams Photoshop, but unless you start reading the article you may not realize that it’s a send-up.
The NOMonstermust not be making a whole lot of money. It appears she’s wearing the same outfit in the 2005 picture and the 2011 interview.
18 year olds are searching for the truthIn this country you are considered an adult at age 18, that means everything and all responsibilities related to adulthood. Choosing who you want to be with would definately fall in that relm of responsibilites. The gay haters search all they want and still not get the satisfaction they want because eventually there will be justice.