Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Maggie Gallagher on the implications of gay marriage
Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, offers an excellent analysis of the issues and implications coming out of the gay marriage debate. “Ideas have consequences. This is what ‘marriage equality’ means,” she writes at National Review Online.
Topic: Issues, WorldMagBlog
Keywords: gay-marriage, National Organization for Marriage
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top48 Comments to “Maggie Gallagher on the implications of gay marriage”
How do you get around a commandment that says, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife”? Change the definition of “neighbor.”
This is the challenge set before us. If the good folks of Californian want to change the definition of “married”, they will need to review each statue in which the term is used to see if the new definition makes sense.
It may be, considering the new definition of marriage, the state of California will not want to financially support this new version of marriage by statute.
Report comment to moderator
The only marriage equality I see here is now that lesbians can get married, both can have headaches which makes them equal but I’m guessing they will have even less sex, if you can call it that, than straights since booth partners will have headaches.
I loved this part “[T]here will have to be a new definition of marriage because it’s disingenuous to say that gays and lesbians should be included in marriage but then for them to exclude others.”
The CA SC just rewrote the definition and now some are saying it needs to be re written again? Better to get a constitutional amendment passed by initiative in CA toot suite and go back to the old definition before beasts, plants and inanimate objects, in any quantity, can get married.
Imagine trying to get some quality time with your; wife, gay husband, spousal sofa, favorite jade plant and your pet rock. Can’t wait to see it all on DVD.
Report comment to moderator
The crux of her argument is that since gays are more open about extra-marital sex than straights, we will soon have polygamy and child brides?
As usual, the cries of dire consequences are mysteriously devoid of actual dire consequences.
Report comment to moderator
Was this article one of the propaganda pieces the Bush White House paid Gallagher tens of thousands of dollars to write?
Or does she really mean this one?
Report comment to moderator
Lets see. Is there a good way to easily describe how I feel about Maggie Gallagher?
I guess a bit like if you crossed Lynn Vincent is Cindy McCain but took away both the military services and the piles of money, but them made sure that she looked a lot like Gallagher (This Gallagher: http://tiny.cc/05R26)!
I think you would all be pretty grateful if I did not actually respond to her article piece by piece, so instead I just have a good link for you (don’t worry it’s WMB appropriate):
http://tiny.cc/1Hppj
Report comment to moderator
Adam, for serious Christians the ideal is a sacred life-long marriage between faithful men and women. While you’re right that many heterosexuals have had affairs, most of them know deep down that they were wrong.
What Maggie Gallagher claims is that many of the folks in the gay community are proud of their assorted infidelities.
Underneath all of this is the sexual revolution which essentially views human beings, homo or heterosexual, as driven sexual animals. Devout Christians will not stand for this.
Report comment to moderator
Peter, do you know if this is simply another piece of propaganda Gallagher was paid to write, or does she really mean it?
Report comment to moderator
It was reported that California is printing up new marriage licence applications on which such hatefulm sexist and bigoted terms as “husband” and “wife” have been censored and exized! It has been replaced with terms that could cripple sensitive hearts for a lifetime: “Partner A” and “Partner B.”
Think about how “Partner B” must feel — is he/she a “second class citizen?” This could scar that partner forever.
And notice how “Partner C” and “Partner D…” and “Partner W” have been totally excluded!!!!!! How do they justify such unconscionable exclusions?
How discriminatory can you get?
Report comment to moderator
Joel, you’re way behind the curve. They’re not just printing them up. They printed them up a month or so ago, and now they’re actually using them.
Report comment to moderator
Shouldn’t Maggie Gallagher articles come with some sort of add on, like a paragraph at the top of the article that says either “The Bush White House paid me several thousand dollars to write this.” or “The Bush White House didn’t pay me anything to write this one. I really mean it.”
How are we supposed to know which articles are which?
Report comment to moderator
Mmmm…you know, maybe I have just read a little two much Dworkin, but “Partner B” sounds a lot less likely to be a term that would relegate me to second class citizenship than the term “wife” would-or for that matter historically has!
P.S. Here is the NYT feature where Maggie got the “mixed bag” language. I think you’ll find it a lot more HUMAN than her portrayal. Maybe we should follow up with her. Is she saying marriage should not be a mixed bag???
http://tiny.cc/AhnpA
Report comment to moderator
From Gallagher’s article:
Eric Erbelding (a partner in a same-sex marriage) said, “Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.”
Eric elaborates… “I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn’t mean anything.”
This reminds me of President Clinton’s defenders who often said, after it was proven that he lied about his adultery with an intern, “It’s just sex!”
Sex is profoundly meaningful for those who see it as a sacred gift of God. It was never meant to be meaningless. “Meaningless sex” should be seen as an oxymoron.
Report comment to moderator
No never mind. There is no such thing as reading too much Dworkin!
Report comment to moderator
If men are pigs, what in God’s name was Andrea Dworkin?
Report comment to moderator
Yeah Joel, I don’t think me and Eric Erbelding would get along. I will never understand how people can defend being sexually active in such sex-negative terminology. I think maybe he is not an effective communicator, doesn’t actually see himself or his partner as a “pig,” but lacks the language necessary to describe the unique agreements he and his partner have made. It is disappointing that he hasn’t put some more thought into explaining his situation with self-deprecation. If he isn’t aware yet that there are awful people like Maggie Gallagher out there who will take his words and try to paint us all with them, he should figure it out.
Report comment to moderator
NightTrain, Maggie Gallagher’s non-profit orginization was paid 41,500 to do legitimate work for the Bush administration. The Gay Mafia, of course, has smeared her for this.
I have no doubt about her integrity. You would do well to address the serious issues she raises as opposed to whining about her legitimate government contracts.
Report comment to moderator
Since any law that restricts marriage to a union between an adult man and an adult female already applies equally to all, the attempt to circumvent the binary and complementary nature of sex by appealing to “equal rights” is founded on a nihilistic assault on truth and reason.
Report comment to moderator
The gay marriage debacle might have a silver lining. I think few straights beyond therapists like James Dobson or Dr Joseph Nicholosi have a clear grasp of the reality of male homosexuality. The gay guys are educating lots of undecided or indifferent folks in a way most unfavorable to truly “normalizing” their sex lives in the view of America at large.
If the men in these “marriages” fully expect and make allowances for doing it with other dudes, can we really equate this with heterosexual monogamy? If marriage exists as a codified declaration of exclusive monogamy with one person, then gay men are foisting off a big delusion on all of us. Gay men want marriage without the “..and forsaking all others” part of the vow. If partners are free to get some on the side from a non-spouse, can it really be viewed as marriage equal to that of exclusivist heteros? I think not, folks.
Report comment to moderator
Maggie’s anti-gay rhetoric rides again on Worldmag. So what else is new?
She’s been spreading her message of hate for a long time. Maggie’s fondest dream is to one day see gays jailed or locked in mental wards. She doesn’t believe in the dignity, freedom, or rights of gay people.
She’s a Rev. Phelps in a dress. And Worldmag is all to happy to give this hateful woman a platform to spread her toxic message.
Nothing new to see here folks.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, if you read the Gallagher article carefully, you will find her honest views on the issue of homosexual marriage. She has over the years debated gay advocates at various forums and showed respect to her interlocutors.
You’re the one that’s really being hateful when you utter such vicious lies that Gallagher wants gays jailed or locked up in mental institutions. Her issue basically is to defend the sacred institution of Christian marriage.
Get a life.
Report comment to moderator
Let’s see, anti-gay rhetoric, message of hate, gays jailed, locked in mental wards. Yep, you’re right Anlir. Nothing new to see here in your post at all.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt: I have no doubt about her integrity.
Of course you don’t. She feeds right into your prejudices and that’s all you need.
Report comment to moderator
You would do well to address the serious issues she raises
Been there, done that, Peter. She has good reason to be scared. And she misses the point completely here:
Many of the harshest legal conflicts could be alleviated with religious-exemption legislation. But gay-marriage advocates will fight those religious exemptions tooth and nail (as they did in Massachusetts when the Catholic Church asked for one for Catholic Charities) because, they will say, it’s the principle of the thing: We wouldn’t give a religious-liberty exemption to a racist, so why should someone who opposes gay marriage get one?
Of course that’s what they’ll say. And they’ll be right. If “racists” don’t deserve a religious exemption, then neither to “homophobes”. Maybe one day it will finally sink in with Gallagher and other conservatives that maybe they should’ve stuck up for the rights of racists to believe what they want to about marriage without fear of losing their tax exemptions or license to do business. If the government can trample the rights of a despised minority, it can do it to you, too. That’s what they should’ve done a long time ago – defended the rights of people to hold views we find morally repugnant. But they didn’t, and now that their own views have been declared morally repugnant, all they can do is sputter “B-B-But our views of marriage aren’t that repugnant! The racists are the really repugnant ones. Please be nice to us, we’re not like those really repugnant racists. Can’t you see the difference?’
Report comment to moderator
Maggie “Phelps” Gallagher, like all good anti-gay propagandists, selectively trots out the quotes of a few individuals, and then deduces a generalized statement about gay people from that.
In Maggie’s world, gays are incapable of love, commitment, and faithfulness. In Maggies’ world, gays are nothing more than promiscuous tramps, incapable of controlling their passions.
In Maggie’s world, gays are damned no matter what they do. And that’s her point exactly.
You won’t see Maggie lobbying for a constitutional amendment outlawing divorce. Why? Because it detracts from her campaign to enshrine the second-class status of gays in the constitution.
When a person devotes their life to spreading hatred of other human beings, as Maggie has, it’s a sad, sad thing.
Report comment to moderator
You know, Anlir, I hope I am not as predictable as you.
Report comment to moderator
NightTrain,Of course that’s what they’ll say. And they’ll be right. If “racists” don’t deserve a religious exemption, then neither to “homophobes”
Your argument fallaciously assumes an equivalence between racists and those who hold principled views against homosexual behavior and marriage. No principled contemporary Christian seriously attempts to justify racism, while most orthodox and evangelical Christians hold carefully reasoned views contra homosexual behavior and marriage.
Christians for millennia have dealt with “cultured” despisers of religion and their smug sophistry. Even the pagan, Plato, argued in his Laws that homosexual behavior was a fundamental disorder of nature.
Report comment to moderator
MICKEY: . . . an excellent analysis . . .
Sorry, Mickey, an analysis is more than a conclusion. Gallagher tosses out <i the conservative case for same-sex marriage is looking pretty tattered. but she fails to even mention the conservative arguments for gay marriage, let alone poke holes in them.
Report comment to moderator
Your argument fallaciously assumes an equivalence between racists and those who hold principled views against homosexual behavior and marriage.
No, it does nothing of the sort. I’m simply able to see what apparently eludes you – that the powers that be in this country – liberals, government, the media – regard opposition to gay marriage with the same contempt they have for opposition to gay marriage.
And you and Maggie G play right into their hands by continuing to insist that those evil “racists” deserve to lose their religious liberties because they’re nothing but bigots. You’re hoping that TPTB will fall for your line that the marriage views of “racists” are nothing but irrational hatred and bigotry, but your marriage views are highly principled and profoundly held, and therefore worthy of exemptions. Well, good luck with that. What you should’ve been doing was sticking up for the “racists” and “bigots” to be free to believe about marriage whatever they want, without fear of government reprisal or interference. But you didn’t, because you guys believe the government should penalize people who oppose interracial marriage, because you disagree with that view. Fine. You made your bed, now lie in it. You’ve already agreed that the government can penalize “bigotry”. But you forgot that the government also gets to define “bigotry”, and now it’s your fat that’s in the fire. Too bad. So sad.
No principled contemporary Christian seriously attempts to justify racism, while most orthodox and evangelical Christians hold carefully reasoned views contra homosexual behavior and marriage.
So what? People – Christians, Jew, atheist, whatever – should be free to believe what they want to about marriage without being penalized by the government, whether or not you think their views are “principled” or not. No one should have to do business with anyone they don’t want to, and that includes restaurants in the Deep South of the 1960s. A government that can force a man to do business with someone he despises (no matter how rightly or wrongly) can do whatever it wants. As the Christian wedding photographers in New Mexico just found out. If it’s OK for the government to tell a man who believes races shouldn’t mix that he he has to serve everyone in his restaurant, then it also has every right to tell Christian wedding photographers that they have to serve homosexual customers.
You and others seem to think that the government should respect your views because the Bible clearly teaches them, but is under no obligation to respect the views of others if they conflict with your interpretation of the bible. But it doesn’t work that way.
Report comment to moderator
NightTrain: So what? People – Christians, Jew, atheist, whatever – should be free to believe what they want to about marriage without being penalized by the government, whether or not you think their views are “principled” or not. No one should have to do business with anyone they don’t want to, and that includes restaurants in the Deep South of the 1960s.
Your advancing a purely libertarian argument here that is essentially based on moral relativism. It is in fact important that businesses open to the public serve any law abiding folk who wish to be served. It is even more important that state laws regarding marriage uphold the traditional morality that prevents bigamy incest, polygamy, and homosexuality.
NT No, it does nothing of the sort. I’m simply able to see what apparently eludes you – that the powers that be in this country – liberals, government, the media – regard opposition to gay marriage with the same contempt they have for opposition to gay marriage.
We actually live in a free nation where one has a right to express his honest and principled views regarding any subject including the immorality of homosexual behavior and marriage. The liberal powers that be in the country, including the media, and $i.50 might get you a cup of java.
Report comment to moderator
Excuse me, at he beginning of the second para. it should be you’re rather than your.
Report comment to moderator
“You know, Anlir, I hope I am not as predictable as you.”
Ok Bob, how do I put this gently…?
Report comment to moderator
#31 Luke
I AM successful, you can recognize my “World View.” I certainly don’t want to “Hide it under a bushel. NO!”
Report comment to moderator
It is in fact important that businesses open to the public serve any law abiding folk who wish to be served.
Exactly. That’s pretty much what the New Mexico Human Rights Commission told the Christian photographers before they fined them $7000 for refusing to serve a couple of law abiding citizens.
I’d memorize that phrase if I were you, Peter. You’ll be hearing it a lot in the coming decades.
We actually live in a free nation where one has a right to express his honest and principled views regarding any subject including the immorality of homosexual behavior and marriage.
No we don’t. People aren’t free to express their honest and principled views about “any subject”. To express some views – like opposition to interracial marriage – is to risk losing your tax exemption, your right to practice certain professions, etc. Bob Jones University lost their tax exempt status for this very reason in 1984. The feds said that opposition to interracial marriage violated “public policy” and therefore didn’t merit tax exempt status. Did Christians and conservatives take to the streets to demand that BJU be allowed to believe what it wants to believe about marriage? No, they didn’t. And 24 years later, most Christians think the government was right to do that to Bob Jones U. Well, when gay marriage is the law of the land, as it will be within 10 years (and probably much sooner), guess who’s going to start losing their tax exemptions for violating public policy? I’ll give you three guesses.
And you and others can keep repeating over and over and over that opposition to interracial marriage isn’t “principled” because you disagree with it until your blue in the face. Whether you think opposition to interracial marriage is principled or not, the government should have no power to punish people for holding that view. Because, as you’ll soon find out, if they have that power, they also have the power to determine which of your beliefs are “principled” and which are mere “bigotry”. And, as Maggie G, points out, those decisions will be made by the very same courts that are legalizing gay marriage. So keep whisting past the graveyard, Peter. It won’t change the fact that opposition to gay marriage is about to take on the same legal status as opposition to interracial marriage. You guys are about to experience the whirlwind. In a few years, the tax exemptions will start disappearing, and the fines will start dropping. You’ll see. And your whistling past the graveyard won’t do a thing to hold it back. But I’m sure it makes you feel better.
Report comment to moderator
On matters of public policy and the law, there should be no discrimination. Just as American public policy and law came around to supporting equality for black people, it’s coming around to supporting equality for gay people.
After all – we are all American citizens, whether we’re black, white, gay, straight, female, male, Christian, heathen, whatever…
Now I know it infuriates to no end our conservative Christians friends that gay people are achieving both legal and social equality, but they’re just gonna have to get used to it. Your dreams of going back to a time when gays were persecuted, harassed, and worse are just not going to happen.
One must remember that this website is a tiny, tiny slice of America. The vast majority of Americans have no ill will toward gay people and want them treated equally under the law. The anti-gay voices on here represent a shrinking minority. The irony is that the smaller their numbers the more extreme they become. Indeed, time and history are not on their side. For that we can all be thankful!
Report comment to moderator
Also, Peter – I think once the tax exemptions start disappearing, and the crippling fines start being levied, we’re going to find out that a lot of the Christian opposition to gay marriage isn’t nearly as “principled” as they like to claim. I think we’ll see many, many Christians organizations dropping their opposition to same sex marriage in order to stay in business.
We shall see.
Report comment to moderator
“I AM successful, you can recognize my ‘World View.’ I certainly don’t want to ‘Hide it under a bushel. NO’!”
I stand corrected! I certainly did not predict that!
But in my defense…who really would?
Report comment to moderator
Night Train, those New Mexico photographers have appealed the decision of the Human “Rights” Commission. While the law is settled on businesses discriminating for racial reasons; it is not settled on discriminating for religious reasons. Pharmacists in some states have won the right not to dispense abortificants on religious grounds. These photographers on appeal will claim similar rights.
Your talking through your hat with your claim that religious laymen, priests, and ministers may not state their principled position against homosexual behavior and marriage. The Catholic Catechism states without equivocation that homosexual behavior is a disorder of nature and a grave sin. Do you really think that priests or pastors will be barred from stating what they consider to be important religious and rational truths? You apparently suffer the illusion that the US is some sort of banana republic.
Report comment to moderator
I never once claimed any person or organization would be barred from from stating anything. Bob Jones U was never “barred” from stating that interracial marriage was wrong. They simply lost their tax exempt status for it and acting on that belief. Doctors who oppose interracial marriage aren’t “barred” from saying it’s wrong, they merely face losing their medical license for saying it and acting on that belief when it comes to helping interracial couples with fertility treatments. And I’ve never denied that preachers, churches, schools, and other Christian orgs won’t be free to state that gay marriage is wrong and act on those beliefs in the future. They’ll have the same freedom that BJU had – to act on their beliefs and pay taxes, or to drop their beliefs.
We’ll be just as free as we are now.
Report comment to moderator
To correct a detail in #8:
The new California marriage licence applications have apparently replaced the words “husband” and “wife” not with “Partner A” and “Partner B,” but with “Party” A and “Party B.”
Well, there are 26 letters in the alphabet so at least now we have a practical cap or limit on how many “parties” can make up a marriage in California.
Report comment to moderator
Clearly California should cater to Joel’s uncomfortableness with reading legal contracts, which is what a marriage application/license is after all. I know that “Party A” and “Party B” are scary legal terms that no commoner could possibly make sense of, much less pronounce.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark has a pathological need to leap straight to the most absurd extreme of the supposed slippery slope.
If we let two men marry each other, why the next thing you know, a woman will marry the coffee maker and they’ll cohabit with the ferret. Doom!!
From where I sit, the sky does not appear to be falling. But Joel Mark lives in a much more surreal world, I think.
Report comment to moderator
“Well, there are 26 letters in the alphabet so at least now we have a practical cap or limit on how many “parties” can make up a marriage in California.”
This is why conservatives are such abysmal failures in the information age, no political imagination.
Dummy, you start again with AB, BB, CB, etc. If Excel can do it, I don’t see why mass polygamists should be excluded, but where was you’re slippery slope then?
I mean, when you think about it, hasn’t the whole alpha-numeric system just been marching toward gay-mass-polygamy from the start of things?
Another reason for all you people to home school?
Report comment to moderator
The vast majority of Americans have no ill will toward gay people and want them treated equally under the law.
While this statement is basically true, it’s also true that the vast majority of Americans (who have voted on this issue) have sided with the traditional definition of marriage.
Report comment to moderator
True, Tychicus, but every year the percentage of people opposed to gay marriage gets smaller. The majority is no longer a vast one. One poll in CA shows a very slim majority (52%) saying they will vote for the amendment to ban gay marriage; another shows only 47% saying they will vote for the amendment. The vote looks like it’s going to be a lot closer than it would’ve been 10 years ago. And if you look at people under 30, something like 80% of them favor gay marriage. It’s only a matter of time until gay marriage is legal in every state.
Report comment to moderator
One thing this whole debate has sharpened for me is my responsibility as a parent not to hand over my kids to any organization, including schools or even church classes. I don’t trust that the organization screens as carefully as I would any more. I am not suggesting that homosexual = predator, but just acknowledging that we really don’t have a collective sense of right and wrong any more on a number of issues. The fact that schools, daycare centers, etc are intimidated by claims of bigotry for screening out potential employees that most parents would be uncomfortable with makes me extra, extra careful about who has access to my kids. The debate about gay marriage strikes at the very heart of the home, and demonstrates the power of the gov’t to override parents’ choices for their own kids.
Report comment to moderator
It occurs to me that the state that has legalized gay marriage is the same one that attempted to briefly outlaw homeschooling (also by judicial fiat). Interesting trend in the movement for “freedom”.
Report comment to moderator
Karma would lean toward Momof5 ending up with a gay kid.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, if that happens, I’ll pray for that child (and any “partners”), love that child just as much as the straight ones, and continue to disagree strenuously with the sinful behavior. Disagreement does NOT = hate. BTW, my opinion doesn’t ultimately matter anyway. God’s does. I’d disagree strenuously with a child who chose any sort of sexual activity outside of monogamous, heterosexual marriage, for the same reason.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!