stats for wordpress
 







Are you on Facebook?

Would you please click "like" in the box to your right, or

Visit us on Facebook!


‘Intimate, Loving, Caretaking’ Marriage Is ‘Going To Hurt A Lot Of Children’ Warns Gallagher

by David Badash on November 25, 2013

in Marriage,News,Opinion,Politics

Post image for ‘Intimate, Loving, Caretaking’ Marriage Is ‘Going To Hurt A Lot Of Children’ Warns Gallagher

NOM co-founder and former Chair Maggie Gallagher gave an interview last week to NPR’s Diane Rehm, and while it went largely unnoticed, it deserved a great deal more attention.

As I’ve stated many times before, Gallagher is the queen of unabashed ignorance. She speaks as if she truly believes that her positions and beliefs are wholly acceptable and embraced by the majority of Americans — which they are not. She has no shame, no inner editor. I think there are those who might agree that comparing some of Maggie Gallagher’s anti-gay marriage remarks to those of a person from the mid-20th century opposed to interracial marriage is rarely a huge leap.

First, let’s look at Gallagher’s comments on last week’s “The Diane Rehm Show” about the Cheney same-sex marriage family feud.

LOOK: What Did Mary Cheney Just Say About Her Sister Liz’s Candidacy?

Calling the feud “kind of a win-win for the family as a whole,” Gallagher told Rehm, “the Cheney family is a very close family, and I don’t believe they would have this spat in public, except for the fact that it’s good for both of the sisters. It gives Mary a chance to air her deeply held, passionate, moral convictions, and advance the ball for gay marriage.”

“And it helps Liz Cheney get elected senator in the state of Wyoming because — well, it’s not widely known, but a group that I am familiar with, The American Principles Fund, ran $140,000 — which is a large ad buy in a small state like Wyoming — quoting Liz Cheney endorsing benefits for gay couples and opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment, and that moved her favorable-unfavorables among likely primary voters from something like 41-24 to — it flipped it.”

It’s unclear if the American Principles Project that Gallagher works for, and that was founded by her fellow NOM co-founder Robert P. George, is related to the American Principles Fund.

Then Gallagher explained why she is “usually described as one of the leading opponents of same-sex marriage.”

LOOK: Supreme Court Will ‘Impose Gay Marriage In All Fifty States’ Warns Maggie Gallagher

She tells Rehm in an oh-so condescending to the LGBT community way, “if the only effect of gay marriage were that some nice people got some benefits and felt better about their lives, I think it would be a good thing.”

“But I actually do think it’s a — we’re making it a foundational decision about what marriage is and what it’s for. And the historic understanding of marriage is that it’s rooted in the reality we need to bring together male and female, mother and father, to make and raise the next generation.”

And then, here’s the kicker.

“And as we disconnect marriage from that idea, which is happening broadly, not just because of gay marriage, but as we disconnect marriage and children and instead focus on marriage as a kind of romantic, intimate, loving, caretaking relationship for adults, I think we’re going to hurt a lot of children.”

Yes, the bolding is ours.

Of course, she never quite explains how a lot of children are going to be hurt.

And of course, there’s more.

Gallagher adds that “the structure of marriage, what it does is it says, well, ‘we’re going to live together, we’re going to support each other, we’re only going to have sex with each other, and if we have any children, therefore we’re going to raise them together in the same home because we made a permanent commitment.’”

Which differs just exactly how from the millions of same-sex relationships in America?

It is not 1950.

I’ll leave you with this final, somewhat ironic and amusing quote from Maggie Gallagher’s interview:

“I will tell you that, in this country, finding a stable cohabiting couple with children who last until their children are grown — it’s not quite a unicorn — they do exist, but they’re exceedingly rare.”

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Friends:

We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.

Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!

{ 8 comments }

rainey13 November 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm

We can only hope that intentionally uninformed bigots like Maggie will die out, and and truly become as rare as the unicorn.

In the meantime, despite her dire predictions, loving families – of any gender make-up – will continue to raise children, just as they always have. Those children will flourish if they learn love and tolerance – or sink if they become mired in their parents' hate.

Robroberts2013 November 25, 2013 at 6:24 pm

Gallagher is becoming increasingly unhinged from reality. Any more and she'd float away, if her body mass would allow for that. At this point its transparently to milk the last few bigot dollars she can, and you can tell even SHE doesn't like the smell of the giant turds she is paid to lay.

russellsvocation November 25, 2013 at 6:58 pm

How about that out of wedlock little bastard she had… so much for the sanctity of marriage for her.
Maybe she is so against gay marriage because her "baby daddy" wouldn't tie the knot with her and she somehow compares the two.

russellsvocation November 25, 2013 at 7:00 pm

How about that out of wedlock little bastard she had… so much for the sanctity of marriage for her.

RRuinsky November 25, 2013 at 7:13 pm

She and Rick Santorum share the same pathetic little brain and talking points. He also expressed his fears that marriage would "degenerate" into a romantic loving relationship.
Which shows how messed up these people are that they view that as a bad thing.

SeanLiberty13 November 25, 2013 at 7:50 pm

Except the ability nor the desire to have and/or raise children is not a legal requirement for marriage. Those adults who cannot or choose not to have and/or raise children but get married anyway – their marriage is and will always be romantic, intimate, loving, caretaking relationship for adults. Until the non-cognitive (her anti-gay cult's word for people like her) Maggie Gallagher bans those heterosexuals from getting married she and the rest of her selfish, fascist, hate filled, elitist anti-gay ilk do not have a rational argument with this "marriage is only about having and raising children" trash.

P.S. Maggie you didn't marry the father of your son, so shut it you hypochristian harridan.

dauphinjo November 26, 2013 at 1:43 am

People like this unhinged bigot used to get me all riled up, desperately wanting to explain why she is wrong in so many ways. Now, I just smile. Her, and others like her, approach is backfiring and they don't even know it. It's like a preacher who's congregation is getting smaller and smaller, because of the hateful dogma of his religion, cranking up the hate and fear thinking that will bring people back. wtf? Of course it only drives more away. As her kind get more and more crazy, their numbers are fewer and fewer. So, knock yourself out Maggie while we sit back and watch your kind fade into oblivion.

Bose_in_SP_MN November 26, 2013 at 12:15 pm

I find myself wondering if Gallagher is bored out of her skull with her career in general, and marriage equality specifically. Her talking points have been so repetitive over the years, largely by design, in order that they could be adopted easily by others. She's generally arguing about ghosts, like hetero married couples who abandon marriage because of gay people. Apparently she's been using the line about hoping she's wrong about the no-good impact of marriage equality for a long time. It's not like she's getting heart-warming emails from people, thanking her for saving them from getting gay married.

Where is the satisfaction in that?

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 3 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: