Connect with us

Maggie Gallagher Tells Supreme Court Justice Christians Are The New Gays

Published

on

The co-founder and former chair of the National Organization For Marriage pens an open letter to presumed swing vote Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, lamenting the persecution of Christians over same-sex marriage.

Since the dawn of time, and practically from birth, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people have been stigmatized, ridiculed, treated as second-class citizens, verbally and physically attacked, stoned to death or otherwise murdered in the name of religion, forced to hide their true selves, forced to marry a person of the opposite sex to hide their sexuality and to advance their careers, and so much more.

In America today, Christians make up about 80 percent of the U.S. population. And some of them are LGBT.

Today, National Organization For Marriage co-founder and former chairman Maggie Gallagher chose to all but ignore the centuries of hate and harm bestowed upon gay people, in an open letter she wrote to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is presumed to be the swing vote in the same-sex marriage case heard this week.

Gallagher identifies Christians as the “newly stigmatized,” in her farcical rewriting of history.

“The forces for gay marriage are powerful,” she begins. “You have been their hero in the past, when gay people were not so powerful. The tables are turned now, as I think is clear to everyone. The LGBT community has built a powerful cultural, legal, and political movement. They are not helpless or friendless. They do not need you to distort the Constitution to win the right to live as they choose. We who believe in the traditional understanding of marriage do need your help. We live at a time when our livelihoods are under new attack, when our standing as equal citizens is under attack, when the system of ideas and the deep human realities that gave rise to marriage for millennia are now being dismissed as mere bigotry, as irrational, incomprehensible hatred.”

Of course, with the exception of less than two dozen nondiscrimination cases across the country against business owners like cake bakers and florists who refuse to follow the same laws their friends and neighbors are obliged to, the idea that “our livelihoods are under new attack” is preposterous. Meanwhile, despite gains on the marriage front, LGBT people can be and are fired from their jobs in the majority of states across the nation, yet Gallagher has never once denounced that, nor supported a nondiscrimination law for LGBT people.

That “millennia” claim, as the world knows all too well, is also false. Marriage for centuries was about property rights, and in many biblical cases, the more property, the merrier.

The one thing I have always marveled about Maggie Gallagher is her unyielding habit of saying what she thinks and believes, despite how it sounds. In a way that’s brave, given how ugly and privileged what she thinks and believes truly is.

For instance, despite how ugly this sounds, Gallagher has no compunction about posting it:

“It is not true that same-sex and opposite-sex couples are equal. Not all sexual relationships are equal, even if they are loving and committed. Same-sex couples have to deal with the preference that the majority has for opposite-sex relationships, ranging from mama’s slight mourning for the family her son will likely never have to Westboro Baptist’s awful, crude, ugly, and unchristian hatred. Opposite-sex couples have the task of managing the reality that from the about age 14 until the woman ages out around 45, every single act of sex could make new life. Nothing the Supreme Court says or does about marriage will change these realities, but importing gay marriage into our Constitution will unleash a cavalcade of consequences for traditional believers.”

Gallagher goes on to claim that equality “will require continual policing, because it is based on an untruth about human nature.” 

In reality, much of society today exists as “an untruth about human nature.” If it didn’t, murder would be legal, so would robbery, rape, etc. Human nature is both beautiful and beastly, and that’s a very basic truth.

And she continues her impassioned insanity, claiming “sustaining marriage privately, without public or governmental approval, will become immeasurably harder, as the portions of society most committed to marriage, classically understood, become consumed with the task of figuring out how they survive the hatred and dhimmitude directed their way.” 

No, allowing gay people the rights and responsibilities of marriage will not make non-gay people less likely to marry. If any straight person refuses to marry because gay people are marrying, they need a psychiatric exam, not a law banning the civil rights of those they oppose.

“Government cannot confer dignity on our relationships,” Gallagher, wrongly concludes. “My best friends, my adult children, my godchildren, my brothers and sisters, every single intimate relationship that I have and that gives meaning to my life, government has no role there. To imagine that a government stamp of approval is what creates value in human relationships, or gives dignity to our sexual lives, is to accord to government a power it does not have: a power to impose an idea of equality that is not true, and to remove from the American people the hard work — of negotiating, compromise, and dealing with one another — that belongs to the democratic process, not the Constitution.”

Almost two years ago I experienced one of the greatest moments of joy in my life, the moment I married my partner. I know other gay men who tell me, as I felt, that it was a life-changing moment, that they felt, as did I, transformed. I don’t know, but I have a suspicion, that many gay people have felt that when they married. Perhaps because a decade ago we barely dreamed we ever could marry, but claiming that legal civil marriage does not “confer dignity on our relationships” is a falsehood of huge proportions. 

Update:

Jeremy Hooper at Good As You adds his usual brilliant insight:

The reason Maggie has to claim that people like me cannot exist without reducing our oppositional voices as being driven by “bigotry, as irrational, incomprehensible hatred” is because she cannot admit that her movement’s ideas—ideas she very much helped develop, let’s always remember—have simply lost out in the public square. Increasingly, people like Maggie like to pretend that this has been something other than a robust debate and that activists like her have had less of a chance to engage. Bull.Crap.

 

This article has been updated and edited. 

Image by WisPolitics.com via Flickr and a CC license
Hat tip: Daily Kos

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

‘Better Without It’: Trump Now Trashes the Deal He Once Called the Best Ever

Published

on

President Donald Trump spent years praising the trade deal he signed into law in 2020, the USMCA — United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement — which was his replacement for NAFTA — the North American Free Trade Agreement.

“America’s great USMCA Trade Bill is looking good,” Trump wrote in 2019. “It will be the best and most important trade deal ever made by the USA.” Declaring it would be good for everybody, he cheered, “we will finally end our Country’s worst Trade Deal, NAFTA!”

One year earlier, Trump said that his USMCA would serve as a means for Mexico to pay for his border wall:

“Mexico is paying for the wall through the many billions of dollars a year that the U.S.A. is saving through the new Trade Deal, the USMCA, that will replace the horrendous NAFTA Trade Deal, which has so badly hurt our Country. Mexico & Canada will also thrive – good for all!”

On Wednesday in Paris, the president gave reporters a different take on his deal, suggesting he would prefer to have no trade deal with America’s top trading partners, Canada and Mexico.

“I think it’s better without it,” Trump said. “I mean, to be honest with you. I’m not a big fan of it.”

He said the reason he had “liked it” was it helped get the U.S. out of NAFTA.

“That is the thing I liked about it the most,” Trump insisted. “We do better without an agreement.”

The president then offered two different scenarios. He said he would rather leave any USMCA extension “unsigned,” but then declared, “I’d rather have it terminated.”

When a reporter explained that those are “different things,” Trump replied, “I would rather not have the agreement, but I may sign it.”

“I would rather not have the USMCA,” he said. “I would prefer not having an agreement, but I’m open to doing it. We’ll see what happens.”

“It’ll be terminated,” he continued, as opposed to it expiring and not being renewed.

“I view it as possibly expiring immediately,” the president said.

The USMCA is up for renewal on July 1, but the U.S. has ruled that date out, Bloomberg News reported. “The US is negotiating on a bilateral basis. Talks with Mexico are ongoing, including sessions this week, while formal talks with Canada have not been launched.”

Last week, Trump said: “We don’t need anything that Canada has, we don’t need anything that Mexico has, but they need everything that we have, and they have to treat us better.”

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

Carville Predicts When Trump Will Resign — and Why

Published

on

President Donald Trump will not serve out his full second term in office, argues political strategist James Carville, but rather, he will resign and “walk away.”

Carville points to two major reasons looming over Trump as to why he believes the 47th president will exit the office.

“I want to be very clear on something,” says Carville. “I’m not doing this as a crazy a—— prediction. I’m doing it because I genuinely think that he will resign next spring.”

“He’s going to walk away because the pain that is coming for him, both the emotional pain and the physical deterioration, you watch it right in front of your eyes,” said Carville. “I don’t have to be a doctor to see this guy can’t move. He can’t get out of a chair. I know what it’s like to be in the 80s. And unlike a lot of people, I know what that job is like, and it’s not compatible. You know, maybe there’s some people 80 who could do that. He’s not one.”

Acknowledging that he is not a medical doctor, Carville does note that he is close to Trump’s age: the president is 80, Carville is approaching 82.

He highlights Trump’s “rate of decline from Election Day to now,” and warns that “it’s not linear. You don’t lose a quarter of a percent a month. When it goes down, it goes quickly, and you can look at him and see how just fat and unhealthy he is.”

The other reason Carville believes Trump will exit the White House next spring: he suggests a tremendous loss in the November midterms for Trump, and explains how devastating that will be.

“I know what it’s like to lose a massive off-year election,” says Carville. “We did in 1994. It’s so monumental. It’s so massive. It hurts so deep. You just can’t imagine it. The entire world around him is going to change after November of this year.”

“People don’t pay attention to you,” says Carville. “They’re making jokes. Everybody knows you’re on a short leash. You got two years left to go. You don’t have any power. Everybody around you is being subpoenaed for everything that you can imagine. Your life is miserable.”

Carville went on to declare, “I’m doubling down on this prediction. He is just going to walk away.”

Trump, Carville predicts, will tell Vice President JD Vance — who would become president should Trump resign — that as president Vance can likely pardon himself. And while there is “some uncertainty as to whether you can do that,” there is “no uncertainty” as to whether a President Vance can pardon Trump and his family.

“So, I’m sticking with my prediction,” says Carville. “I think the son of a b—— is just going to walk away.”

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

‘Five-Alarm Fire Bell at GOP HQ’: Conservative Warns of Brutal November for Republicans

Published

on

Republican National Committee leadership is staring at a “five-alarm fire bell,” conservative analyst Henry Olsen warns, as President Donald Trump’s sinking poll numbers put the GOP’s Senate majority at risk in November.

“The Republicans’ Senate fortunes,” Olsen writes at The Washington Post, “are tied to the man in the Oval Office. If the president can recover his standing even a few points, the GOP will probably retain Senate control. But all bets are off if he remains as unpopular as he is now.”

Olsen, a longtime Republican strategist and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, explains that at the start of the year the road map for Democrats looked daunting. They had to gain four Senate seats to win the majority, while holding three open seats — Minnesota, New Hampshire and Michigan — that were seen as “far from safe.”

At best, the “most politically favorable remaining states” on the Senate map — Ohio, Iowa and Alaska — “were all carried by Trump by over 10 points. Democrats have not won a Senate seat in a state that red since 2018, when Jon Tester prevailed in Montana and Joe Manchin carried West Virginia.”

The tables have turned, and now it is Republicans who are facing an uphill battle.

Democrats are “leading or statistically tied in all of the seats they need to retain,” and “also lead or are statistically tied in six GOP-held states: Alaska, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas.”

Plus, retired Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the expected Democratic nominee for Senate in Florida, is ahead of Republican U.S. Senator Ashley Moody, according to one recent poll.

Of course, as Olsen suggests, the campaigns have yet to get into full swing, there is still time, and the Democrats’ Maine nominee, Graham Platner, could be seen as a wild card.

“Perhaps Platner’s troubles will allow Collins to equal or slightly surpass her earlier result, but even then, the vast majority of her support will come from Trump approvers,” says Olsen. “If that total is under 40 percent, as it surely is right now, Collins probably won’t win.”

“But surely no one in the Republican high command thought they would be trailing or tied in 10 critical Senate races at this stage,” writes Olsen. “That sound you hear is a five-alarm fire bell at GOP HQ.”

In today’s polarized era, Olsen notes, many voters back their party rather than the candidate — and a party whose leader is underwater on most key issues weighs on every candidate on the ticket.

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.