Tweet
crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
Equality Matters has listed the top five moments from Friday's DOMA hearing. The moments are very telling in terms of how unnecessary DOMA is and the mindset of those trying to defend it.
But the best moment comes when Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) questions National Organization for Marriage head Maggie Gallagher on the idea of same-sex parenting:
At 2:29 – 2:41 , Gallagher admits that "there are some gay people who are wonderful parents." She also says that she thinks its unfortunate that people misinterpret things she says as a condemnation of "gay people" and their parenting skills."
But as Equality Matters points out:
This “interpretation” might have something to do with Gallagher having called homosexuality “an unfortunate thing” which represents “at a minimum, a sexual dysfunction.” Or perhaps it has to do with her decision to assert that gays and lesbians are “committing several different kinds of very serious sins.”
Also, Gallagher's past other comments and actions haven't been as conciliatory to the idea of same-sex parenting as she tried to make herself seem during the hearing. In 2004, she wrote the following about same-sex marriage and parenting:
Marriage is our most basic social institution for protecting children. Same-sex marriage amounts to a vast social experiment on children. Rewriting the basic rules of marriage puts all children, not just the children in unisex unions, at risk.
During this interview with the site Ignatius Insight in October 2005, Gallagher said the following regarding same-sex parenting:
In my opinion, judging by the standards of kinds of evidence that are used in the larger family structure debate, we know almost nothing about how the children fare. There’s been about 35 to 50 studies, but there’s not a single study based on nationally representative data that follows children from birth raised by same sex couples and can tell us how they do in adulthood.
More recently, in January of last year, she distorted a study on child abuse to make the case that children in married biological homes do better to protect children from abuse than children in same-sex households.
The distortion comes because the study in question – the one she cited – didn't even look at children in same-sex households. We know this because Gallagher even admitted at the time that same-sex households wasn't a category in the study:
All the other family structures studied (which does not include same-sex parent families probably because these are such a small part of the population), but does include solo parents, other married parents (remarried primarily), single parents living with a partner, cohabiting parents, and no parents.
I don't think any us lodging criticisms against Gallagher and NOM has misinterpreted any of her words when it comes to marriage equality or "gay parenting skills."
But in sidestepping Rep. Quigley's questions, you simply have to give Gallagher points for chutzpah.
Bear in mind that I said "chutzpah," not integrity or honesty.
By the way, that story she tells about being labeled as a bigot by a radio show host in Maine starting at 3:47. Another complete lie on her part.
9 Comments
missed opportunityWhy didn’t anyone ask her about the lack of any standard of procreation for straight couples? If it’s all about parenting, and the next generation, then why does the government not inquire into that when people apply for marriage licences? There is no requirement to prove intent or ability in order to get married! Never has been, never will be. Except if you’re gay, according to Ms. Srivastav (the secretly married, won’t wear a wedding ring, doesn’t use her husband’s name, Gallagher)
So it’s not about us,it’s about her? And it’s not about our children, it’s about their effect on her marriage? Or something. It’s all so confusing.
Maggie Gallagher shucks and jives her way through the DOMA hearingWhy when I hear her talk, do I get the feeling at the end should be that old cartoon ending ” Dat’s all Folks!”?
Maybe a cartoon could be made using her as a character? A type of Mrs. Fudd ?
Magpie’s commentsI’ve listened to her comments regarding gay people and the attempt to enact marriage equality. She has used the words, “sin”, “scandalous”, “fraud”, etc., many, many times. She didn’t do that at the hearing itself, but she has certainly done her best to denigrate the gay community and gay people individually elsewhere. This is why people accuse her of being a bigot. Because she cloaks herself in religious pronouncements, looking down on high on all of those horrible, sinful, misbegotten, and misguided homosexuals, and has found them lacking. And even worse, she has accused us of trying to subvert, or pervert the civil code to enshrine our “sin” into the laws of the land. It’s just exactly that conflation of civil and religious marriage which ensnares her victims, and besmirches her reputation. For her to then go on and say that she’s the victim here is a crass political ploy. She is trying to provide cover for herself and her allies against the very real discrimination she wishes to enforce on us. If she can succeed, she will go very far, because the haters all hate to be called haters. If they can succeed in deflecting this accurate description, it will provide the cover they need to do their dirty work. Most of them would never come right out and admit how bigoted they really are. But they will enshrine their bigotry in the law, if they can do so without being exposed as the bigots they are.
Thanks Pauliji You sum it up wellNo one is calling her a bigot because she happens to oppose gay marriage, it’s because of the things she says (almost all untrue) in trying to instill in others fear and hatred of gay people. That’s what makes her a bigot.
Also, I have started noticing something about Maggie. When she is in these situations and having to be “nice” about how she presents things, she very nervously rolls some object (usually a pen) around in her hands constantly. This is often seen as being the result of stress caused by being knowingly untruthful.
reposting: comments from NOM employeeI posted this comment yesterday, but it got lost when there were several new posts later in the day. NOM’S Rhode Island executive director, Chris Plante, said that gays’ marriages “turn children into little teacup dogs–it’s an accessory to put in my purse.”
Link:
http://www.goodasyou.org/good_…
He also previously equated gay parents with dead parents (scroll down in the link above.) I think his comments should be reported more widely. Does Maggie agree with them?
Here’s someone directly affected by DOMAGlen Greenwald of “Salon”
I didn’t knowhe was gay or that he had moved to Brazil. Thanks for the link.
You’re welcomeGlen’s a teriffic journalist, and incredibly articulate.