Is Maggie Gallagher Really This Myopic?

I just read – and re-read, just to be sure – Maggie Gallagher’s comments from Tuesday’s Prop 8 trial. Why is it that every time she opens her mouth – or her laptop – we just get another glimpse of her shallowness, her lack of understanding of the big picture, and her inability to see past her nose?

Here’s some of what she had to say:

“A distinguished Harvard Prof. Nancy Cott testified today, according to the LA Times, that “procreation has never been the central purpose of marriage in the United States. Professor Nancy Cott, who has written a book about the history of marriage in the United States, noted that George Washington, the father of the nation, was sterile. Procreation was one of the purposes of marriage but not ‘the central or defining purpose,’ Cott testified testified. The larger purpose was to create stable households, she said.”

“Okay, so why weren’t sisters allowed to wed? Can’t they create stable households? I mean family members of all kinds live together, and raise children. Why weren’t/aren’t these considered marriages?”

“People thought there was something kind of central, important, and worth noticing about unions of male and female: they make babies. We need marital unions, in a way we don’t need other kinds of relationship, however worthy or unworthy they may be.

“I mean even at Harvard, back in the day, they could see that. And back in the day, they thought it mattered.”

Seriously, Maggie, even you must know this!

Besides, who said those fictitious sisters wanted to get married?

Oh, and by, “back in the day,” do you mean this day, when you and NOM were embarrassed at Harvard because your underling couldn’t explain how same-sex marriage harms “traditional” marriage?

Incestuous relationships are not recognized by the government because of the possible health risks to their offspring. I find it cute that you throw in the “sisters” example, as opposed to “brother and sister.”

Maggie, I want to thank you for continuing to bang the “procreation” drum. It’s one that time and again the courts have dismissed.