Connect with us

UPDATED: Why Maggie Gallagher’s Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage Is Wrong

Published

on

UPDATED: Now with video from today’s “Washington Journal.”

Maggie Gallagher, the Chairman of the Board for the National Organization for Marriage, appeared this morning on C-SPAN to discuss President Obama’s decision to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA.) But the conversation, with her foil Brian Moulton of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) really turned into an argument about the institution of marriage itself. And Maggie Gallagher’s argument was clearly wrong. (You can watch it here.)

Here’s why.

Gallagher argues that marriage should be between only one and and one woman, and (only?) for the the purposes of procreation and raising the children born of that one man and one woman.

Therefore, according to Gallagher, other marriages, such as those between a same-sex couple, are not truly marriages and the state (i.e., the state and federal government) has no business conferring the title of “marriage” upon those unions.

(She also at one point says civil unions and some benefits are acceptable to her for same-sex couples, but recoils at the thought of civil unions for opposite-sex couples. And of course doesn’t touch the possibility of opposite-sex couples who can’t or don’t want to have children getting married, because it doesn’t fit into her neat little argument box.)

Civil marriage, from a government perspective, exists to benefit the state. That’s a fact that any legal scholar should be able to support. The state confers the title of marriage upon a couple because it believes that a legal recognition of their relationship will benefit government and society as a whole.

Maggie agrees.

But Maggie continues to go down the path that children of same-sex couples do not deserve the same protections as children of opposite-sex couples. Further, she never accounts for where all these children come from.

Hold onto that thought for a moment and consider this, too.

Why is it that conservatives are so desperately concerned with protecting life in the womb, but the moment the child is born, all bets are off?

Back to Maggie.

Maggie seems to think that same-sex couples will deny the children of opposite-sex couples the right to their own parents. It’s as if she believes that if same-sex couples are allowed to legally marry and enjoy all the federal benefits and societal recognition that is afforded opposite-sex couples in marriage, that opposite-sex couples will (a) stop wanting to get married, and (b) stop wanting to have children.

This makes no sense. And it goes along with the zero-sum game mentality to which many conservatives subscribe.

But I can assure you, there are an unlimited number of marriage licenses at every city hall.

So here’s my question to you, Maggie:

Please, explain how conferring the status of marriage upon my relationship will weaken the institution of marriage. And don’t go down the hypothetical route that you’ve created that claims that “future couples” will not get married because they will think that marriage is not a valuable institution. If, according to you, marriage has been around forever, because of procreation and the result thereof, then future couples will want to marry as well. Perhaps, also, Maggie, for love.

Additionally, Maggie,  I wish you would please account for the fact that in states that have banned same-sex marriage, the incidence of divorce is higher?

Further, please, tell us, why it is OK that in the United States, (as I wrote in a 2009 piece commemorating Father’s Day,) “[t]here are 2.9 million children in America living with no parents – and 1.6 million American children are homeless. 2.9 million is almost 1 percent of the entire U.S. population – and that figure is five years old. Half a million U.S. children live with foster parents.”

“Those half a million foster kids? Only half will graduate high school, only 2% will earn a Bachelor’s degree. The day they turn 18, 30% will have no health insurance and will be on public assistance.”

Please, tell me how society does not benefit by allowing loving same-sex couples to marry, adopt, and raise some of these children.

Maggie, in may respects, I believe you and I are fighting for the same thing. We’re fighting to strengthen the institution of marriage. And we’re fighting for children to be raised in loving homes. We merely differ oin who should be “allowed” to participate.

But I promise you, same-sex couples, upon marrying, will not steal the children away from any opposite-sex family. That’s not what we do.

In a panel discussion at Brown University a few weeks ago, Maggie Gallagher said, “Marriage emerges again and again in a variety of completely separated societies because every human society has to figure out how to deal with the fact that sex between men and women makes babies, that societies need babies and that those children do better with — and certainly long for — a father as well as a mother in their lives.”

Um, not exactly.

Take, “those children do better with — and certainly long for — a father as well as a mother in their lives.”

I can all but guarantee there is no credible study that proves that a majority of children in same-sex parented households “long for” a father as well as a mother in their lives, if they did not know their father and their mother before. (And I can also guarantee that many children “long for” things like a pony.)

But I can guarantee that there are studies, as Gallagher hinted at today on C-SPAN, that prove that children raised by same-sex couples are actually better-adjusted and perform better in school that their opposite-sex-parented peers.

In fact, two long-term studies published last year found prove this. In fact, one of them,  a twenty-five year-long and vigorously peer-reviewed study published in the journal Pediatrics, found that adopted children raised by lesbian parents are better-adjusted and do better in school than their opposite-parented peers.

And there’s another, a study of gay dads that finds they are more likely than straight ones to focus on parenting over career, at least when their children are young.

In summary, I’ll leave you with a thought from a piece I wrote last year, that this “zero-sum” argument, that we can choose families headed by same-sex couples, or not, is beyond the hypothetical — and the absurd. It assumes that if same-sex marriage is not legalized, that there will be no families headed by same-sex parents. Conversely, it assumes that if same-sex marriage is legalized, opposite-sex couples will stop getting married and stop having children. It’s a ridiculously fallacious argument, and it’s the typical argument that conservatives always seem to make, because they see the world as a zero-sum game.

It’s not.

Yes, marriage is a valuable institution for society and for the state. We should all be working together to strengthen it, by allowing same-sex couples the right to fully and equally participate.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=wv7gbjaWLLo%3Ffs%3D1%26hl%3Den_US

// <![CDATA[
google_ad_client = “pub-6759057198693805”; /* 468×60, created 10/21/10 */ google_ad_slot = “8507588931”; google_ad_width = 468; google_ad_height = 60;
// ]]>

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Butker’s ‘Traditional Values’ PAC Took Retiree Cash, Spent Most on Fundraising: Report

Published

2 days ago

on

December 6, 2024

By

A political action committee founded by Harrison Butker—the pro-Trump NFL placekicker for the Kansas City Chiefs, whose highly controversial comments have led to allegations of bigotry, including antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, and sexism, along with anti-vax beliefs—has come under fire.

Butker’s Upright PAC was supposed to “promote and encourage Christian voters to vote, so that their voices are heard this November.” But according to reports, it appears to have taken in donations, and spent most of it on fundraising.

Butker, 29, a friend of Missouri far-right U.S. Senator Josh Hawley, was described as “the latest angry rich guy with a Pac,” in an opinion piece at The Guardian.

READ MORE: How Hegseth and Allies Are Waging War Against the US Military to Secure His Confirmation

His controversial views made major headlines this year when he delivered the commencement address at Benedictine college, a small Catholic school in Atchison, Kansas, back in May.

“Butker managed, in just a few minutes, to be homophobic, anti-abortion (saying that Joe Biden was responsible for ‘the murder of innocent babies’), and racist, railing against the ‘tyranny of diversity, equity, and inclusion,'” wrote Dave Zirin at The Nation. “He cried out against ‘things like abortion, IVF, surrogacy, euthanasia, as well as a growing support for degenerate cultural values and media,’ which supposedly ‘all stem from the pervasiveness of disorder.'”

“Butker was also antisemitic,” Zirin charged. “He threw down with a ‘Jews killed Jesus’ line, saying, ‘Congress just passed a bill where stating something as basic as the Biblical teaching of who killed Jesus could land you in jail.’ Subtle as a blowtorch. But you won’t hear the right say a word about it while they’ll go full-House Un-American Activities Committee on college presidents over fabricated charges of the same.”

He attacked LGBTQ Pride Month as a “deadly sin.”

Butker also went after women, or more precisely, women who want to have careers outside the home—like his mother, a medical physicist, has. His mother also has not one but two university degrees.

“I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you,” Butker told the women graduates (full transcript here). “How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career? Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world…I’m on the stage today and able to be the man I am because I have a wife who leans into her vocation…and embrace one of the most important titles of all: homemaker. I can tell you that my beautiful wife Isabelle would be the first to say that her life truly started when she started living her vocation as a wife and as a mother.”

And he went after President Joe Biden, calling him “delusional.”

READ MORE: ‘Melania Grift’: Incoming First Lady Hawks Her Christmas ‘Collectibles’ in Fox Interview

“Our own nation is led by a man who publicly and proudly proclaims his Catholic faith, but at the same time is delusional enough to make the sign of the cross during a pro-abortion rally,” Butker charged. “He has been so vocal in his support for the murder of innocent babies that I’m sure to many people it appears that you can be both Catholic and pro-choice.”

“He is not alone, Butker said. “From the man behind the COVID lockdowns to the people pushing dangerous gender ideologies onto the youth of America, they all have a glaring thing in common. They are Catholic. This is an important reminder that being Catholic alone doesn’t cut it.”

(GLAAD published this fact-check.)

On Friday, investigative journalist Roger Sollenberger reported: “Remember when Josh Hawley’s placekicker pal Harrison Butker started a PAC to promote candidates that support Christian values? Turns out it raised $36,000, gave $0 to candidates, and spent about $30K on fundraising fees.”

Sollenberger posted a link to this page at the Federal Election Commission.

He adds, “Most of the donors to Butker’s PAC say they’re retirees. One donor was unemployed three years ago and gave the pro-Christian group $475, listing her current job as an associate at Walmart.”

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) also investigated, saying, “we took a look. Butker’s PAC raised $36k from small donors. Guess how much it spent on its stated goal? Absolutely nothing.”

“But records show it spent more than $30k of that $36k, so where did the money go?” CREW asked. “$100 on office supplies. And all the rest spent on fundraising.”

And CREW notes, “A further search shows no records of Butker, the highest paid kicker in the NFL, making any political contributions himself.”

See the social media posts above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Sympathy for Dictators’: Ex-NatSec Officials Warn on Gabbard, Want Closed Door Hearings

 

Image via Wikimedia

 

Continue Reading

ANALYSIS

How Hegseth and Allies Are Waging War Against the US Military to Secure His Confirmation

Published

2 days ago

on

December 6, 2024

By

Pete Hegseth, the former Fox News weekend co-host, angrily vowed that his battle to become Donald Trump’s Secretary of Defense would not be “tried in the media,” but that is exactly what Hegseth and his allies are doing — and they’re attacking the reputation and credibility of America’s Armed Forces to make their case.

“I don’t answer to anyone in this group,” Hegseth told reporters on Thursday.

“None of you, not to that camera at all,” he said, as he began pointing. “I answer to President Trump, who received 76 million votes on behalf — and a mandate for change. I answer to the 50 — the 100 — senators who are part of this process and those in the committee, and I answer to my lord and savior. And my wife and my family.”

Earlier on Thursday, Hegseth in a social media post (below) attacked the U.S. Military and the current Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, a decorated combat veteran who fought in two wars.

READ MORE: ‘Melania Grift’: Incoming First Lady Hawks Her Christmas ‘Collectibles’ in Fox Interview

“Maybe it’s time for a @SecDef who has… Led in combat. Been on patrol for days. Pulled a trigger. Heard bullets whiz by. Called in close air support. Led medevacs. Dodged IEDs. And understands—to his core—the power of this photo…because he’s been on that knee before.”

Hegseth was excoriated.

“Odd post,” remarked award-winning journalist Kevin Baron, the former Executive Editor at Defense One. “Lots of confrontational bravado but …the current SecDef Lloyd Austi[n] has literally done this and way, way more, leading larger and larger military commands all the way from West Point to the entire Iraq War and as COCOM… while Hegseth was a TV pundit.”

The Washington Post’s Dan Lamothe, who covers the U.S. Military, added, “This basic description also applies to Lloyd Austin, Jim Mattis, and Chuck Hagel,” all current or former Secretaries of Defense.

Moe Davis, the retired U.S. Air Force colonel, attorney, educator, politician, and former administrative law judge, quipped: “Maybe it’s time for a SECDEF who doesn’t have to pledge he won’t get knee-walking drunk if he’s confirmed and doesn’t have to get his mommy to go on TV to say ‘he’s no longer the reprehensible pervert he was a couple of years ago’ now that he’s the SECDEF nominee.”


Among the common attacks from Hegseth and his supporters is the claim the U.S. Armed Forces is no longer the world’s most lethal fighting force.

U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan made that suggestion to support Hegseth late last month.

“We need to get back to the core mission of the Dept. of Defense. That’s lethality. That’s winning wars. That’s peace through strength,” he declared. “I saw first-hand some of the woke stuff that was happening with regard to the Biden administration. You now, you had a Secretary of the Navy who was more focused on climate change than ship building. One of President Biden’s first executive orders wasn’t focused on lethality, winning wars, it was focused on transgender surgery for active duty troops!”

Sullivan insisted that America needs to “create the most lethal force in the world to deter wars and I think Pete Hegseth is very focused on that and I think that is a refreshing change, a critical change.”

“Lethality” appears to be Hegseth’s marching order, under the implication that America’s military is not lethal—a direct assault on the credibility of the Armed Forces.

READ MORE: ‘Sympathy for Dictators’: Ex-NatSec Officials Warn on Gabbard, Want Closed Door Hearings

“That’s what Donald Trump asked me to do: ‘Your job is to bring a war fighting ethos back to the Pentagon. Your job is to make sure that it’s lethality, lethality, lethality,’” Hegseth said Wednesday, CNN reported. “Everything else is gone. Everything else that distracts from that shouldn’t be happening.”

“Rather than leaning into controversial policies he has supported, such as banning women from combat roles, Hegseth told senators that his aim is to ‘make this military lethal again,’ the [transition team] official said.”

U.S. Senator Katie Britt (R-AL) also promoted the harmful suggestion that America’s fighting forces are no longer lethal.

“I enjoyed meeting with @PeteHegseth and hearing about his plans to achieve President Trump’s peace through strength agenda,” she wrote Thursday. “He is committed to putting our warfighters in the best position and returning the Pentagon’s focus to our force’s lethality.”

On Friday, Vice President-elect JD Vance continued the attack on America’s Armed Forces.

“For too long, the Pentagon has been led by people who lose wars. Pete Hegseth is a man who fought in those wars,” he declared, ignoring the history of highly-decorated warriors in charge of the Pentagon, including Secretary Austin.

U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND) has been all-in on Hegseth and even suggested it’s time America overlook detrimental allegations—including Hegseth’s—for Senate-confirmable nominees.

On Thursday, on Fox Business he suggested that Hegseth’s accusers might be fictional. And he described Hegseth as “a warrior’s warrior. He’s somebody that the rank and file military men and women can look to and go ‘finally there’s somebody at the helm that represents us, not just the guys with stars on their shoulders.'”

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s bio from 2017, when he was given the Distinguished Graduate Award by the West Point Association of Graduates, includes this accolade: “Called a warrior and a ‘Soldier’s Soldier’ by many.”

See the social media post and video above or at this link.

READ MORE: Trump May Balk at Hegseth Over Drinking History, Not Sexual Misconduct Allegations: Report

 

Image via Reuters

 

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Melania Grift’: Incoming First Lady Hawks Her Christmas ‘Collectibles’ in Fox Interview

Published

2 days ago

on

December 6, 2024

By

America’s incoming First Lady, Melania Trump, in a rare public appearance, sat down with the “Fox & Friends” crew Friday morning to discuss how she is getting ready to return to the White House, how her husband, President-elect Donald Trump, is handling his second transition, and to promote her apparently for-profit business ventures, including her book, Christmas ornaments, NFTs, and other “collectibles.”

Other First Ladies have had careers after serving the American public in the White House, notably Hillary Clinton and Jacqueline Kennedy, but should she continue with this venture or others, Melania Trump may become the first First Lady who has a for-profit business during her time in the White House.

On Fox News, Trump was asked about the public programs she will focus on as First Lady.

She spoke briefly about her signature “Be Best” program, which she launched in May, 2018. It was widely mocked when she introduced it, and reports found some of it was a repackaging of existing federal initiatives around cyberbullying, including those from the Obama administration.

Trump then quickly moved to talking about what she said were her “Web 2” and “Web 3” businesses.

READ MORE: ‘You Answer to Us’: Hegseth Slammed for Saying He Only Answers to Trump, Senators, and God

“Well, when I was in the White House for four years, I established my Be Best initiative and I also successfully brought it overseas and around the world. It was very successful and after I left the White House, I established my Web 3 and Web 2 platforms where I design, where I have collectibles like ornaments every season, this is the third season. And many other collectibles that are available now.”

She then appeared to suggest some of the proceeds from those businesses go to support students, but she did not offer any specifics, nor do her websites. The website where she sells her Christmas ornaments does not appear to say anything about donations to charity.

“So with those, I have students from a foster community that I sponsor and I’m very proud of and we have many of them now, so their life changes because they will have an education,” Trump said.

Juliet Jeske, who runs Decoding Fox News, writes: “The money from the overpriced ornaments doesn’t go to charity. I went through her entire website. The profits go back to her.”

On her website, the Christmas ornaments sell for $75 each. The “USA Star” ornament is listed at $90.

“So this are the ornaments that they are available this season, this is the third season that I design and they are very special,” Trump told the “Fox & Friends” co-hosts. “For example, Lady Liberty, it was inspiration from my necklace that I bought when I was modeling in Paris. And now we have an ornament and we have also a necklace that it’s available on MelaniaTrump.com. So I, also, this one it’s the necklace and inspiration, the flower and they’re very patriotic this year. As you could see, it’s all red white and blue and I was inspired by that.”

READ MORE: ‘Sympathy for Dictators’: Ex-NatSec Officials Warn on Gabbard, Want Closed Door Hearings

“They discontinue, they retire, and this is available right now. And it’s a great gift and great collectible, actually.”

Attorney Michael Kasdan, an adjunct professor at NYU School of Law, remarked, “The Fox-Trump Home Shopping Network.”

Attorney Jeffrey Evan Gold, a CNN legal analyst, called it “Free advertising for Melania Grift.”

Last year, The New York Times reported, “In February 2022, Mrs. Trump started ‘Fostering the Future,’ a scholarship program for foster children aging out of the system. A person familiar with the program, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, would not offer details or disclose how many scholarships have been awarded, saying only that it was ‘more than two.’ No charity with the name Fostering the Future or Be Best is registered in Florida or New York.”

Hillary Clinton, who served as First Lady from 1993 to 2001, has authored nine books, including three during her eight years inside the White House. First Ladies Eleanor Roosevelt and Barbara Bush also authored books while serving in the White House.

For her first book, the 1996 New York Times bestseller “It Takes a Village and Other Lessons Children Teach Us,” Hillary Clinton donated all royalties to charity and took no money except to cover expenses, according to The New York Times. Similarly, for the other two books she wrote during her time as First Lady, Clinton donated the proceeds to charities, including the National Park Foundation and the White House Historical Association.

Barely weeks after Donald Trump’s first inauguration, in 2017, Melania Trump’s “representatives issued statements saying that the first lady ‘has no intention’ of using her public position for personal gain,” The Washington Post reported. The paper noted those statements came one day “after Melania Trump filed a lawsuit accusing a British news company of hurting her ability to build a profitable brand.”

Before Election Day this year, CNN reported Melania Trump’s publisher had requested the news network pay $250,000 for an interview.

PEOPLE magazine reported on Friday that “Melania Trump is gearing up for another four years as first lady and all the duties that come with the title, including decorating the White House for Christmas.”

“The ex-model wife of President-elect Donald Trump, 54, previously made headlines surrounding the holidays for her bold choice of Christmas decor — and because of leaked audio recordings where she griped about the responsibility of decorating 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,” PEOPLE’s report notes.

“’I’m working … my a– off on the Christmas stuff, that you know, who gives a f— about the Christmas stuff and decorations?’ she was heard saying in a recording from 2018 that has recently resurfaced on social media. ‘But I need to do it, right?'”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

RELATED: ‘Unethical’ and ‘Corrupt’: Melania Trump Slammed Over Six-Figure Fee for Political Event

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.