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

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.

RIGHT WING EXTREMISM

The ‘White Power Movement’ Is Ramping Up Its Attacks on Energy Infrastructure – Anti-Terrorism Expert Explains Why

Published

on

Professor, historian and author Kathleen Belew, one of the United States’ top experts on white supremacist and white nationalist terrorism, has often stressed that violent, racially motivated attacks shouldn’t be viewed as isolated incidents, but as part of a broader movement. And when Belew made a Monday night, February 6 appearance on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show,” she explained how a Maryland woman’s alleged role in a plot to attack five energy substations in the Baltimore area fits into the overall “white power” game plan.

Earlier in the day, law enforcement officials had announced the arrest of Maryland resident Sarah Beth Clendaniel, who, they allege, conspired with fellow white supremacist Brandon Russell in that plot. Clendaniel and Russell, according to officials, hoped to completely disable energy infrastructure in Baltimore and deprive the city of electricity for an extended period of time.

During her conversation with Maddow, Belew emphasized that this was not an isolated incident. White supremacists, white nationalists and neo-Nazis, according to the professor, are targeting energy infrastructure in general — not just in Baltimore, Maryland.

READ MORE: Why the power grid is an ‘attractive target’ for domestic terrorists and white supremacists: report

Belew, author of the 2019 book, “Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America,” told Maddow, “The electrical part may be new, but infrastructure attacks by this movement are not new. This is a strategy that was pioneered by a group called The Order in 1983…. Infrastructure attacks are one kind of violence among several others that are all laid out in a strategy in common in order to bring about what the movement seeks, which is the overthrow of the United States and the creation of a white ethno-state — mass violence against communities of color and even genocide against non-white peoples.”

According to Belew — who teaches at Northwestern University in the Chicago suburbs — attacks on energy infrastructure and the January 6, 2021 insurrection are both part of the “white power” game plan.

Belew told Maddow, “Infrastructure attacks sit next to a show of forced violence like the January 6 attack on the Capitol and mass casualty violence like the Oklahoma City bombing. All of these exist together within one broad ideology in the white power movement.”

READ MORE: Terrorism expert explains why the Great Replacement theory is so central to white racist ideology

Watch the full video at this link.

Image via Wikimedia and a Creative Commons license

Continue Reading

COMMENTARY

Right-Wing Outraged Over Falsely Thinking White House Press Secretary Said National Security Council Is Using ‘TikTok’

Published

on

For decades White House press secretaries, military officers, and reporters have used the words “tick-tock” to denote an overview of a conversation, or a chronological telling of a series of events – and not the now-popular Chinese app “TikTok,” which some allege has major national security implications.

And yet, the far-right-wing website Daily Caller, a veteran Fox News host, and many others on the social media site Twitter attacked Karine Jean-Pierre Monday afternoon, after the White House Press Secretary told the press: “I know there was a tick-tock that went out to all of you from the National Security Council that was pretty detailed on how everything broke down for the past week.”

Inside Elections’ Jacob Rubashkin mocked The Daily Caller, (which was founded by Tucker Carlson,) for getting something so basic so wrong.

READ MORE: Morning Joe Reminds Viewers of the Last Time the Koch Network ‘Stopped the Craziness’ in GOP Primaries

Longtime journalist Keith Olberman blasted several people on Twitter who assumed the worst, including veteran Fox News reporter David Asman.

He didn’t stop there.

 

 

Continue Reading

News

House Ethics Committee Begins Questioning Santos Staffers

Published

on

The U.S. House Committee on Ethics has begun questioning staffers for embattled Rep. George Santos, who on Friday was accused of sexual harassment and improper hiring practice by a prospective aide the New York Republican interviewed and hired.

CNN Capitol Hill reporter Melanie Zanona, reporting the committee’s questioning, calls it “a sign that the committee is looking into some of the allegations against Santos, though it doesn’t necessarily mean a formal investigation has been launched yet.”

“It is unclear what exactly the committee asked these staffers about, but multiple ethics complaints have been filed against Santos,” Zanona adds.

READ MORE: Watch: Democrats File Ethics Complaint Against George Santos After GOP Leadership Calls It an ‘Internal’ Matter

Most recently, a prospective staffer filed a complaint that the congressman made an unwanted sexual advance.

Two New York Democrats last month also filed an ethics complaint against Santos over his financial disclosure reporting.

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.