Connect with us

For The Happiest Day Of Your Life, Maggie Gallagher Has Some Of The Meanest Words You Can Imagine

Published

on

Prompted by her love for Marco Rubio, Maggie Gallagher has just weighed in the issue of attending a same-sex wedding, and her words couldn’t have been much more ugly, mean, and harsh.

Maggie Gallagher used to be the face of the anti-gay marriage movement. While most others disagree with me, for all her animus and transparently bigoted arguments, I had often felt that there was a wall of respect to which she held herself and would not breach. 

She has.

Gallagher long ago moved from “defender of ‘traditional’ marriage” to “defender of ‘religious freedom’ for those (who think they have been) persecuted by same-sex marriage,” to a bystander who occasionally weighs in on what was once her life’s work.

She did that today.

This week Republican candidates – all of whom vociferously despise same-sex marriage – have been asked by pundits and reporters if they would attend the same-sex wedding of a loved one or colleague. 

Ted Cruz and Rick Santorum both emphatically answered no, but in a surprise move, Marco Rubio said he would, because if you love someone you support them, even if you believe their choices are wrong.

That was too much for Maggie Gallagher – who seems to have a crush on Rubio – to bear, so she took to her National Review column to pen an ugly, mean, nasty, and alarmingly hateful retort.

Now, imagine for a moment if you will that you and Maggie Gallagher are longtime friends. It might be hard, you probably don’t run in the same circles, but try. Also, for the sake of this article, you are a man. You’ll see why later.

You and the love of your life, perhaps after years of dating, maybe even living together, maybe raising children, and puppies, have decided to marry. And yes, the love of your life happens to be of the same gender as you. 

Likely nervous, but caring about your friend Maggie and wanting her to be present in your life, as we all wish of our friends and loved ones, you invite Maggie to lunch, to share the good news and to invite her to your wedding.

This is what she would tell you.

“Here’s what I think,” Maggie says – as she wrote today in the National Review – in response to your nervous but sincere invitation.

“We are born male and female, and marriage is the union of husband to wife that celebrates the necessity of the two genders’ coming together to make the future happen. I know you don’t think that. I know the law no longer thinks that. But I have staked my life on this truth.”

OK, you probably think, not a surprise, although the whole “I have staked my life on this truth” seems a bit extreme, but, OK…

“The problem for me in celebrating your gay wedding, as much as I love you, is that I would be witnessing and celebrating your attempt not only to commit yourself to a relationship that keeps you from God’s plan but, worse, I would be witnessing and celebrating your attempt to hold the man you love to a vow that he will avoid God’s plan. To vow oneself to sin is one thing, to try to hold someone you love to it — that’s not something I can celebrate.”

Now, hang on just a second here you’re thinking, as you start sipping water at a frantic pace so your face doesn’t glow bright red in shame, sorrow, sadness, or hurt. I get you believe that my relationship is a “sin,” even though I and many others do not, but really, did you have to go there? That “God’s plan” rubbish is just that, too, and by the way there are plenty of straight people who aren’t marrying these days. Have they destroyed God’s plan? 

And Maggie, I have to draw the line at you telling me I am attempting to hold the man I love to a vow that he will avoid God’s plan. The man I love is perfectly capable of making the decision for himself, and I cannot believe your concept of marriage is forcing someone else to do something against their will.

“And I would be party to the idea that two men can make a marriage, which I do not believe.” 

“On your happy day you should be surrounded by people who can honor your vow and help you keep it. I can’t do that.”

“‘Porneia’ is a word in the Bible that has been much mistranslated. But I think it means a sexual relationship that cannot by its nature become a marriage. That’s why Christ said that marriage is forever, unless it is porneia.”

Um, thanks, and by the way we may be friends but my sex life is none of your business, you’re probably thinking at this point.

“I understand that you might well want to rupture our friendship over this, my honest view. I choose to love you both and keep you in my life.”

Well, that’s terrific, but that ship has now sailed my “friend,” you’re probably thinking.

“But let us somehow against all odds find a way to love each other as we are, and not how each of us would wish the other to be.”

By now you’re of course regretting extending the invitation, and wondering why she couldn’t just have said she was busy that day, or maybe that professionally she just can’t do it, or even, “I’m sorry, I love you but I wouldn’t feel comfortable.”

And then, you realize, that this is pure Maggie Gallagher. Forever insisting, in her unique, transparently bigoted way, that her hate is just as valid, just as equal, just as deserving, as your love.

Looks like seats for Uncle John and Aunt Sue just opened up.

 

Image by Olly Clarke via Flickr and a CC license

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.

'DOESN'T PASS THE STRAIGHT FACE TEST'

Trump’s Lawyer in Stormy Daniels Case Back in 2018 Called Hush Money Payoff ‘Illegal’: Report

Published

1 hour ago

on

March 21, 2023

By

Joe Tacopina, billed as a “powerhouse attorney” and “one of the country’s top trial attorneys” when Donald Trump hired him in January to sue a former prosecutor, back in 2018 weighed in on Trump’s $130,000 hush money payoff to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, calling the payment “illegal,” and “a potential campaign finance issue.”

According to a March 15, 2018 CNN transcript, and video (below) unearthed by Twitter user Acyn, Tacopina said the $130,000 hush money payoff to Stormy Daniels is “fair game” for prosecutors.

Tacopina told host Don Lemon,”if there is an issue with that payment to Stormy Daniels being — that it was made on behalf of the candidate, OK, and it was not declared, that is fair game, unfortunately, if that is the case.”

READ MORE: ‘All-Out War’: Trump’s Attorney Tells Kimberly Guilfoyle Ex-President Will Be ‘Loud and Proud’ When Showing Up for Indictment

He went on to discredit the defense some now appear to be making, at least in the court of public opinion, that Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels on his own, without Trump knowing.

“And you know, quite frankly, you know, Michael Cohen, again has made statements that would give rise to suspicion for any prosecutor to say, that doesn’t make sense that a lawyer took out a home equity loan with his own money, paid somebody that he didn’t even know on behalf of a client who, by the way, had the where with all the money to afford $130,000, and by the way, didn’t tell the client about the settlement agreement,” Tacopina said. “It’s an illegal agreement. It’s a fraud. If that’s in fact is the case, it doesn’t make sense,” he added.

“Doesn’t pass the straight face test. And quite frankly, if that is what happened we have a potential campaign finance issue.”

Less than two months later, in May of 2018, NPR reported Trump admitted to authorizing the payoff.

The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake Tuesday morning adds: “Per a CNN transcript, now-Trump lawyer Joe Tacopina in 2018 said the Stormy Daniels hush-money payment was ‘illegal, by the way.'”

READ MORE: Republicans Are ‘Obstructing Justice’ and ‘Becoming Accessories’ to Trump’s ‘Crimes’: Former Prosecutor

Trump is expected to be indicted this week or next, on what some experts believe could be charges related to falsification of business records and campaign finance related issues.

Watch the videos and see the transcript above or at this link.

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

RIGHT WING EXTREMISM

Powerful GOP Committee Chair Admits He Can’t Control Marjorie Taylor Greene

Published

3 hours ago

on

March 21, 2023

By

Rep. James Comer (R-KY), who’s leading Republican investigations into President Joe Biden and his family, compared firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) to NBA superstar Lebron James.

The Kentucky Republican chairs the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, where he’s been tasked by GOP leadership and his constituents to investigate wild claims about the president, his son Hunter Biden and other Democrats, reported the New York Times.

“You know, the customer’s always right,” Comer said, referring to the conspiracy theories presented to him by constituents. “I say, ‘Let me see it,’ because I want to see where the source is. They don’t know that it’s QAnon, but it’s QAnon stuff.”

Greene, one of the Republicans who serves on his committee, has expressed support for QAnon conspiracies herself, but Comer admitted that he had little authority to rein in the influence she holds within the GOP caucus after a little more than two years in Congress.

DON’T MISS: C-SPAN caller blows off Trump’s Stormy Daniels payment: ‘He’s our salvation!’

“It’s hard for a coach to tell LeBron James what he’s doing wrong,” Comer said.

In addition to her history of spouting QAnon conspiracy theories, Greene has also questioned whether the Pentagon was really attacked during the 9/11 terrorist attacks, has called multiple school shootings “false flag” operations staged by the American government, and has even suggested that the Rothschild family is funding giant space lasers that are starting forest fires in California.

Continue Reading

News

‘All-Out War’: Trump’s Attorney Tells Kimberly Guilfoyle Ex-President Will Be ‘Loud and Proud’ When Showing Up for Indictment

Published

17 hours ago

on

March 20, 2023

By

Donald Trump’s attorney for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s hush money case against the ex-president was interviewed by Kimberly Guilfoyle for her new show on Monday. Guilfoyle is engaged to Donald Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump, Jr.

Attorney Joe Tacopina told Guilfoyle, the ex-Fox News host, that the ex-president will happily show up in Manhattan if and when DA Alvin Bragg indicts him.

Guilfoyle asked Tacopina if Trump is indicted would he want them to “do it virtually,” presumably so Trump could participate from Mar-a-Lago.

Frowning, Tacopina said the district attorney and prosecutors “do what they want.. At this point, this is an all-out war.”

“Donald Trump is the toughest human being I’ve ever met,” Tacopina continued.

“Donald Trump is not going to ask for anything from them. If they want him at 100 Centre Street,” the address of the New York County Criminal Court and NYPD Manhattan Central Booking, Tacopina told Guilfoyle, “he’ll be there loud and proud, and there’s nobody that’s gonna make him cower.”

READ MORE: Republicans Are ‘Obstructing Justice’ and ‘Becoming Accessories’ to Trump’s ‘Crimes’: Former Prosecutor

Guilfoyle does not appear to disclose her relationship to either Trump in her video, which is produced to appear as an actual news show, during which she shares legal theory with viewers.

Tacopina tells Guilfoyle Trump is the victim, and the only crime was extortion. The grand jury likely will have a difference of opinion.

He also falsely calls The Wall Street Journal, a sister entity to Fox News and The New York Post – all owned by Rupert Murdoch – a “far-left” publication.

Watch a short clip below or at this link.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.