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

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
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

‘Fundamental Miscalculation’: Columnist Says Democrats Have ‘Little Chance’ in Midterms

Published

on

Democrats made a “fundamental miscalculation” in the redistricting wars and now have “little chance” in the November midterms, argues Eric Garcia at The Independent.

Calling the Virginia Supreme Court’s nullification of a voter-led ballot initiative that allowed the creation of four Democratic congressional districts a “massive body blow,” Garcia also points to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision “virtually nullifying the Voting Rights Act” by requiring Louisiana to redraw its congressional map. There is also the Tennessee legislature turning majority-Black Memphis into another GOP seat — erasing the only Democratic seat in that state.

“And this does not count the redrawing of congressional districts in Missouri and North Carolina before the Supreme Court decision, or Alabama, which is under a court order to not redraw its map until 2030,” Garcia says. He notes that California has been the only state to respond, doing so by adding five Democratic seats to the state.

Zachary Donnini, the head of data science at VoteHub, a political news outlet, “put it bleakly for Democrats.”

Donnini says that now, instead of having to flip just three seats to take the majority in the House, Democrats will have to flip an additional nine seats — a total of twelve in all.

Democrats tried to “lead by example,” but, Garcia says, they turned their states into “laboratories for democracy” by creating “unilateral” disarmament “on behalf of the Democrats” — an act, he labels, a “fundamental failure.”

But he offers Democrats a little hope.

Texas’s redistricting plan relied on Hispanic voters, “after flirting with Trump,” to stay aligned with the GOP. That might have changed. The situation is the same in South Florida, “where the state’s normally conservative Cuban Americans have been caught in the Trump immigration dragnet.”

Pointing to inflation, the economy overall, and Trump’s Iran war, Garcia says Republicans holding on to the House might be “even more difficult.”

Democrats, however, made a “fundamental miscalculation,” Garcia concludes. “By creating guardrails and rules, Republicans did not see a reason to compromise and meet them halfway. It made them targets for weakening. Now, Democrats have put themselves in a bind. They only have themselves to blame.”

 

Image: Public Domain by Architect of the Capitol via Flickr

Continue Reading

News

Trump Is Bored With His Iran War — Iran Isn’t: Columnist

Published

on

President Donald Trump is “bored” with his Iran war, but Iran is not — and isn’t ready for the war to be over, argues Jonathan Lemire at The Atlantic.

The president, now in a “bind,” is tired of the war he started, and has declared victory several times, while Iran “does not want the war to come to a close.”

Trump’s GOP “is warily watching rising gas prices and falling poll numbers,” while the president “doesn’t want to be bogged down in a Middle East conflict like some of his predecessors were. He doesn’t want it to upend his high-stakes summit next week in China. He is ready to move on.”

“The president, five aides and outside advisers told me, is convinced that he can sell any sort of agreement as a win. But at least for now, the man who wrote The Art of the Deal can’t even get Iran to the negotiating table.”

Iran hasn’t even responded to Trump’s one-page memo “that is far more of an extension of the cease-fire than a treaty to end the conflict.”

Trump, Lemire says, did not expect the war to go like this. After his successful excursion into Venezuela, he “set his eyes on Iran, telling confidants that it would ‘be another Venezuela,’ a pair of outside advisers told me.”

It has not been that.

Trump expected his Iran war to last days, or maybe a week or two. It has now been months.

And while administration officials believe the blockade will be successful, experts say Iran can withstand it for months, time the president, with the midterms coming, does not have.

“It then becomes a matter of pain: Which side can withstand the most economic hardship?” Lemire asks.

Trump, impatient, has debated declaring victory and moving on.

“Secretary of State Marco Rubio went so far as to say earlier this week that the war was over,” Lemire notes. “But doing so now would leave the conflict’s goals, as outlined at various times by the president and his aides, unfulfilled.”

The president, says Lemire, “wants the war to end. He wants a deal. But deals take two parties, and there’s no evidence that Iran is interested in bailing Trump out of a dilemma of his own making.”

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

Lauren Boebert Knows What Aliens Really Are: ‘Fallen Angels’ — and Possibly Demonic

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) says that aliens from outer space are actually “fallen angels and Nephilim” from the Old Testament of the Bible, according to Right Wing Watch. On Friday, President Donald Trump released declassified government UFO files.

“God is the creator of the universe,” Congresswoman Boebert says in recorded video published Friday by Right Wing Watch. “He’s never not going to create.”

The Colorado Republican lawmaker said that it’s “always been something in my mind to say, ‘Well, how can we be the only ones?’ Like, God’s not going to stop creating just with us.”

“But the more I look into this,” she continued, speaking from inside a car, “the more I see the Old Testament and what was told to us there, of fallen angels, and Nephilim.”

She defended her take by saying, “this is in the Bible,” and there’s “nothing that says that fallen angels, that Nephilim just disappeared. And so I believe that this could be an aspect of it.”

Boebert went on to say that “things that we have seen…could resemble portals,” although in the video she does not explain further.

“And, you know, I mean, this is, we serve an infinite God, a God of the universe. And to say that this is the only realm, is ignorant.”

She denied that aliens are a “Marvin the Martian kind of thing.”

“But I do believe that this is more spiritual, and if you really want to go there, demonic.”

 

Image via Shutterstock 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.