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