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

Watch: Democrat Delivers Fiery Rebuke to House Republicans Trying to Deprive Veterans of Abortion Rights

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Elissa Slotkin, Democrat of Michigan, blasted congressional Republicans on the floor of the House of Representatives Wednesday, accusing them of turning a basic, bipartisan bill to help the nation’s veterans into “a cold heartless, violent” referendum on the right to abortion.

“In terms of making decisions on behalf of women, if you want to take a veterans’ bill and make it about abortion, then let’s do it,” Slotkin dared her Republican colleagues. “What you are saying – and you’re saying in front of the American people – is that you believe a veteran who has been raped, who was the victim of incest, or who is having a dangerous miscarriage, does not deserve access to abortion.”

Slotkin was referring to the Solid Start Act, her legislation designed to help veterans transition into civilian society. Republicans tried to block the bill after learning it includes a “requirement that the Department of Veterans Affairs provide female veterans with information ‘tailored to their specific health care’ needs, which would adhere to a new VA policy providing abortion access for women vets who are victims of rape, incest or whose life is jeopardized,” HuffPost reports.

READ MORE: ‘Yes’: GOP Nominee Mastriano Supports Charging Women With Murder if They Have an Abortion After a 6 Week Ban (Audio)

“If you can’t state it, then be clear you believe in no exceptions for women — a cold heartless, violent approach to women’s health,” said Slotkin, whose stepdaughter is a female Army officer. “You want to ban all abortions. That is your goal. Many of you have been open about that, and if you flip the House, we know that you will put forward a full ban on all abortion for all states.”

Slotkin, a military spouse and military step mother, is correct. House GOP Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s plan for Republicans to take back control of the House, his Newt Gingrich-endorsed “Commitment to America” says it very clearly. In the section called “Preserve Our Constitutional Freedoms,” he says Republicans will “protect the lives of unborn children and their mothers.”

But GOP opposition to the abortion provisions in the veterans’ bill is even more extreme than McCarthy’s message – and does not protect the life of the mother.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Get to Tell the County What They Can Read’: Lawmaker Blasts Christian in Viral Video Attacking LGBTQ Library Books

“We are all, on this floor, elected officials and not medical professionals,” Slotkin added in her more-then two-minute rebuke. “If it was your wife, your daughter who was suffering through a miscarriage, are you going to tell her she can’t until her fever gets high enough and until she’s bleeding harder?”

“If that’s what you want for veterans, shame on you! Shame on you!”

Watch below or at this link.

 

 

Continue Reading

RIGHT WING EXTREMISM

Ginni Thomas Testifies Today Before J6 Committee

Published

on

Far-right-wing activist and lobbyist Ginni Thomas, who held a months-long pressure campaign with Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to try to force him to somehow overturn the 2020 election, and sent numerous emails to GOP lawmakers in multiple states also trying convince them to overturn the election, will testify today before the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack.

Were Thomas merely a far-right wing extremist, or even a wealthy and powerful lobbyist, her actions would have received less scrutiny, but given she is married to a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, who was the sole vote opposing the release of January 6 documents to the House Select Committee investigating the insurrection, many see her actions as concerning and deserving of investigation.

Politico’s Kyle Cheney broke the news Thomas will testify before the Committee today. Her testimony will be virtual. The Guardian’s Hugo Lowell adds, it is “voluntary.”

READ MORE: Former GOP Congressman Has ‘Legitimate Concerns’ Clarence Thomas Was Involved in ‘Push to Overturn the Election’

Calling Thomas “one of the panel’s most high-profile outstanding witnesses,” Politico reports, “Lawmakers took interest in her connections to John Eastman, a legal architect of former President Donald Trump’s last-ditch plan to subvert the 2020 election. She’d invited Eastman to speak to an activist group in the aftermath of the election, though Eastman has denied ever discussing Supreme Court-related matters with Thomas.”

In a March opinion piece on MSNBC, Wayne Batchis, associate professor of political science at the University of Delaware, examined the Supreme Court’s “Clarence Thomas (and Ginni Thomas) problem.”

“It turns out that Thomas not only sat on the board of an organization that promoted the dangerous fiction that the 2020 election was ‘stolen’ from former President Donald Trump through fraud, she also attended the rally attempting to vindicate this paranoid propagandistic fantasy (and said she left before Trump took the stage),” Batchis wrote.

READ MORE: Trump Sarcastically Prayed for Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Health – Before Asking ‘How Much Longer’ She Had: New Book

” All the while, in what might resemble the coordinated efforts of synchronized swimmers, husband and wife seemingly sought to thwart the investigation into the democratically perilous events of Jan. 6. Ginni Thomas signed on to a letter seeking the expulsion of Republican Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger from the Republican conference for joining the House Jan. 6 investigation committee; Clarence Thomas was the sole dissenter — standing in opposition to the rest of the court, including its three Trump appointees — in a decision allowing for the release of Jan. 6-related documents to said committee.”

“Without trust in the courts,” he warns, “American democracy does not stand a chance.”

 

Continue Reading

News

Former GOP Congressman Has ‘Legitimate Concerns’ Clarence Thomas Was Involved in ‘Push to Overturn the Election’

Published

on

Questions surfaced after Justice Clarence Thomas was the only member of the U.S. Supreme Court to oppose the release of Mark Meadows’ texts and information to the Jan. 6 committee. It turned out that in those text messages that the justice didn’t want revealed were communications with his wife.

Former Rep. Denver Riggleman (R-VA), wrote in his new book that he thinks Justice Thomas is far more involved in his wife Ginni Thomas’ 2020 election overthrow attempts.

Riggleman, who left the committee in April, included many of the text messages that had previously been released from Ginni Thomas, along with the note that he had a difficult time trying to get the House Select Committee to sound the alarm on her actions.

“Supreme Court spouses are typically low profile. Ginni’s involvement with political groups had already led to questions about whether Clarence would need to recuse himself in cases with a political component,” wrote Riggleman. If Clarence had been in the logs, it would be a much bigger deal than all that. When I began to suspect Ginni and Clarence had texted with Meadows, I put together a technical brief outlining how we might be able to cement the identifications.”

IN OTHER NEWS: GOP lawmaker leaves people baffled with his opinion of drug seizures

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) called him to express concern that telling Americans that such an influential figure had gone full-Q. Cheney was worried it would turn the whole committee into a political sideshow and overshadow all of the other work the committee was doing. The release of Riggleman’s book has left the committee members furiousover possible leaks after spending a year with so few.

Riggleman persisted in pressing Cheney to tell Americans about the Thomases.

“The committee needed to show the American people that there was an organized, violent effort to reverse the election—and that there were indications it could have been directed by the White House,” he wrote. “Thanks to their prominence, Ginni and Clarence would make a lot of headlines, but those headlines might overwhelm the other important work we were doing.”

The conversation with Cheney didn’t go well, with the two “type A personalities” duking-out their arguments. Riggleman argued that data wasn’t political. It wasn’t right or wrong.

“I also thought that, given Clarence’s position and Ginni’s prominence in conservative circles, the American public had to know what she had been up to,” argued Riggleman. “Some of the messages went beyond simply cheering Meadows on. It was legitimate for me to have concerns as to whether a Supreme Court justice had been involved in the legally questionable push to overturn the election. Was it possible that one of the country’s nine top judges was on board with an authoritarian interpretation of the Constitution? The implications were overwhelming. Cheney found it all improbable. I think she still had more faith in the institutional GOP than I did at that point.”

Riggleman’s book, The Breach, is on sale now and Raw Story has complete coverage here.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.