Maggie Gallagher, whining about gays and stuff:
“It’s becoming increasingly clear that the gay rights movement, the gay marriage movement, really does believe you’re like a racist if you think marriage is the union of husband and wife,” explained Maggie Gallagher, co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage. “They want to rip Genesis out of our Bibles.”
Maybe I should leave it to one of my Christian friends to say this, but it’s adorably quaint listening to a representative of the Religious Right say this, since the entire “family values” Christian Right pretty much ripped the Gospels out of the Bible as the first order of business for their movement. Isn’t that sort of the basis for the religion they claim to follow?
[h/t Jeremy]
Pretty sure Genesis also tells the story of the “just and righteous” Lot offering up his daughter for gang rape. Well, it would at least have been men on girl rape. So much more pleasing to the Lord. ;)
Um, Yo Mag! No one is trying to speak against marriage being between a husband and wife, they are just saying that such need not be the only option for everyone since not everyone is heterosexually oriented. And guess what, Magger’s, the mention of the union of Adam and Eve in the story of creation, and then again by Jesus within the context of a specific question about divorce, does not mean that such is the only acceptable model of a healthy, committed covenant partnership…and it is only brainwashing that maKes you think otherwise. The GLBT community seeking equality is not trying to rip books out of the Bible, but they ARE tired of hearing people like yourself pull stuff out of context to use against them and of enduring false information spread about them. If freedom of religion does become lost, it would likely be a self-fulfilling prophecy brought on by people, like yourself, who misuse the Bible to produce the opposite of freedom for others. Also, I might add, that freedom of religion extends to those who believe differently than yourself.
If Maggie had been a marriage crusader in the 1960s:
“It’s becoming increasingly clear that the civil rights movement, the interracial marriage movement, really does believe you’re a racist if you think marriage is the union of a white husband and a white wife. They want to rip Genesis out of our Bibles.”
Maggie is sooo concerned about limiting marriage to man/woman marriage, that her husband never shows up with her and her wedding ring is never on her hand. Is she really married?
Hello, Mr. Hurst. Thanks for linking to me in your (sweet!) “Well, Christians?” ending.
As always, it’s about impossible to know where to begin reacting to the terrible things Maggie Gallagher is compelled to say by (if I had to guess) her barely-hidden fury over not having a girlfriend. But, well for one: what part of Genesis should we assume she’s referring? The part where God slipped a rib out of Adam’s skeleton and then presented him with something much more engrossing to do than name animals? Or maybe–and certainly, even–the part where … well, not to be THAT guy or anything (and, seriously: forgive what I know can’t help but seem like an Opportunistic Link), but the other day I published on my blog a piece called “Sodom and Gomorrah: ‘So Don’t Be Gay’”, in which I basically reflected upon the idea that I must have a faulty Bible translation; that piece is here: http://johnshore.com/2011/11/09/sodom-and-gomorrah-also-dont-be-gay/
Maggie Gallagher. You almost feel sorry for her. Almost.
Here is my short version: Adam and Eve-of course it had to be; God is quite clever knowing He needed a sperm and an egg to get the race rolling. Next, the Bible says He chose Eve FOR Adam. Again, no surprise. Same reason as above. Third, the Bible says a man shall leave his father and mother and get together; the best translation here is “will” which is less imperative than “SHALL”. And let’s not overlook the whole marriage contract thing that Maggie enjoys, or at least says she enjoys. Contracts in the church did not happen until the Council of Trent in 1563, when the RCC wanted to get involved and get some order and money by checking out the lineage and making sure cousins were no marrying cousins and they secondly wanted to establish a context in while to have an raised children. Then the next big step came when women escaped the role of chattel and become more equal partners in the 1800 to be followed by the introduction of “love” into the union in the 1880′s. The Bible has more polygamy than monogamy and the bulk of cultures to date on the planet have NOT been monogamous one man one woman. What Maggie enjoys ( or says she does) as Biblical marriage is NOT Biblical marriage. It is an institution that has evolved over time and culture to become what she clings to today. There were grabby people before her that did not want women to be equal or people of color to marry white people and they claimed destruction of the Bible with expansion of the meaning as we better understood the concepts of God-messages-the BIG one being love. The model of loving relationship has evolved to include some unlikely concepts 10K years ago. THANK GOD!!! I am not good at sharing with a stable of cutie pies and I am NOBODY’s property. I like Genesis and I have NEVER thought of ripping out of my Bible. AND, I do not consider ripping the glbt community out of the equality equation either. I can hold both with respect. Maybe I am just smarter than Maggie?
I don’t understand. Why pick out just this in the Bible and go after gays (and it’s been misinterpreted anyway)? I’m pretty sure the Bible says that divorce is wrong, and if you get divorced, you can’t get remarried, and if you get re-married…. Why aren’t they going after people who get divorced? Or remarried? You can’t just pick and choose verses out the Bible to back up people’s own agendas of hate and bigotry. There are so many other things in the Bible saying what is right and wrong, but all those are ignored. The over-riding rule is to love everyone unconditionally. Yet that one gets ignored, too. Go figure.
“It’s becoming increasingly clear that the gay rights movement, the gay marriage movement, really does believe you’re like a racist if you think marriage is the union of husband and wife,” explained Maggie Gallagher…”
If you strive to prevent others from having the rights you do based on your beliefs then you are like a racist.
“They want to rip Genesis out of our Bibles.”
No, we just want you to stop using them as weapons against us.
It’s Mags whose like a racist. I have never heard a GLBT person saying that marriage shouldn’t be a man and a woman. We want to expand it to make it a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and a man. Like I said it’s Mags who sounds like a racist when she insists that marriage is ONLY a man and a woman. Quit lying. Maggie.
@9 We want to expand it to make it a mand and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and a man.
LGBT – Includes bisexuals. So then equality in marriage has recently been expanded to homosexuals and then next will be expanded for bisexuals to marry a man and woman. Correct?
No, Leslie. As I said when you redundantly left your silly comment in another thread, you obviously don’t know what a bisexual is.
Try again after recharging your battery.
A bi sexual means attracted (or committed loving) to both sexes. Bis are included in LGBT.
Loving committed relationships is the logic so Bisexuals should be able to marry both a man and a woman if they are loving and committed.
Are you arguing polygamy, Leslie?
Ar you trying to change the definiton of marriage?
Definition’s already being changed and expanded to include homosexual. We’re talking Bi included in GLBT.
I’m just using logic based on the “Born this Way orientation. If a bi is born that way that is their “orientation” and they should have equal rights to be allowed to marry a man and a woman whether polygomy or not.
Well, there is certainly nothing in the Bible against polygamy, so Leslie must be correct.
Give me a break, Leslie R.
Is a heterosexual man allowed (in the USA!) to marry multiple women? Even if he were attracted to multiple women? No.
Is a heterosexual woman allowed to marry multiple men? Even if she were attracted to multiple men? No.
NO MORE would a bisexual be allowed to marry BOTH a man AND a woman (even if attracted to multiple, both male and female). Can ONLY marry Either/Or!
This confusion of bisexuality w/ promiscuity or polygamy is INFURIATING! They have NOTHING to do w/ each other!!!! Nothing, Nada, Zip, Zilch, Zero!
Get a clue, and GET OVER your friggin’ bigotry already!
Leslie is apparently unaware that bisexuality and monogamy are separate concepts, and that while some bis may be polyamorous, so too are some gay and straight people. We’d have to tackle that along the way. And right now, the question isn’t about multiple marriages.
My wife and I are both bisexual (omnisexual, as neither of us consider ourselves limited to binary options), but our relationship is closed. End of story, there. We’re not asking to add a man to the marriage, as we’re not interested.
@17. Why not? It’s all based on “committed loving relationships” That was the reasoning for including and legalizing homosexual marriages in America. If a bi sexual is born that way that should be their right for any Bi who loves a man and a woman.
Merely asking for a reasonable answer isn’t bigotry. So far no reasonable answers to the question.
As post 18 stated “We’d have to tackle that along the way.”
Down the road someone will want to make it law.
Personally, I think that poly marriages could be an option, but that is a completely separate can of worms than the current situation, and so far, there has not been much of a push for it. Hence my wording. For now, the rights we’re fighting for are:
A man to marry a man
A woman to marry a woman
A trans or genderqueer person to marry a person regardless of their birth gender making a mess of things.
For a single person to marry multiple partners, regardless of gender, I feel that there is not yet enough momentum, but there may be some day.
I’ve often said that I’m a tri-sexual because I’m attracted to Asian, African American, and European men. And now Leslie suggests that I should be able marry one of each – simultaneously. That would be cool if it were only all about me, but what happens if the Asian and African American are not attracted to each other? And what about the bisexual man who is attracted to both brunette and blond women?
Leslie thinks she devised a clever way to poke her finger in our eyes, but she only exposed herself as just another bigot who can’t find a legitimate reason to oppose same-sex marriage, so she must resort to changing the focus onto all sorts of bizarre slippery slope scenarios. That’s what happens when you start off with bigotry and then have to desperately hunt for reasons to justify it. That may work to persuade gullible feeble-minded logic-challenged people, but to the rest of us, you just look stupid.
Richard, I love that answer. I have noticed the religious right has been trying desperately to attach “polygamy” to “same sex marriage”–that and the laughably moronic “marrying a dog” thing. Leslie, get it through your skull that fringe religious groups are, by and large, the only ones with a polygamy agenda. At least in this country; some majority religious groups in other nations have no problem at all with polygamy.
Leslie said “A bi sexual means attracted (or committed loving) to both sexes.
Nonsense. It solely means attracted to both sexes, it doesn’t in any way mean “committed loving” to two people at the same time.
Leslie said “It’s all based on “committed loving relationships” That was the reasoning for including and legalizing homosexual marriages in America. If a bi sexual is born that way that should be their right for any Bi who loves a man and a woman.”.
A man can be attracted to two women at the same time. If your only reason for disallowing him to marry both women is that gays aren’t allowed to marry then you have no basis whatsoever on which to disallow such marriages. Leslie, on what basis do you say a man can’t have multiple wives?
Leslie said “Down the road someone will want to make it law.”.
Nonsense. Gays have been allowed to marry in many countries for many years and there has never been any push for polygamous marriages. Once again, if the only justification you have for disallowing polygamous marriages is that gays aren’t allowed to marry you have no justification whatsoever for disallowing polygamous marriages. Leslie, on what basis do you justify denying people polygamous marriages?
If a man can marry one woman, why can’t he marry two? or Three? or his mother? she’s a woman.
#25.”If a man can marry one woman, why can’t he marry two? or Three?”
Well, clearly the ancient Hebrews couldn’t see any reason why not. The Old Testament tells us that Jacob had two wives, Gideon had “many wives” (exact number not stated), King David had at least 7, and King Solomon had 700 (+300 concubines).
You’re right, Ben. If there’s a slippery slope here, it starts with heterosexual marriage.
Well, there IS that slippery slope that conservatives are afraid of Ben. Like the one where, if women could vote, then soon children could vote (claim made pre womans sufferage), and we all know how 12 year olds got the vote soon after the voting age was lowered to 18!
I mean, conservatives KNOW that ANY change to their dearly held convictions/prejudices means that EVERY change conceivable MUST follow afterwards, so there must never be ANY change.
It is just the conservative way to fear all change, and, when you see it is coming, try to scare people with a “but if THIS happens then (Name your boogieman/monster undre the bed) WILL happen! IT’S A SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!!” (they say, cringin’ under the bed with a rifle and a picture of Michelle Bachman in hand to ward off evil)
What is the logical answer for allowing homosexual marriage in the first place?
What is the answer please. Someone?
Leslie believes the Religious Right definition of “bisexual,” which, like all their definitions is hilariously stupid and not grounded in reality at all.
Also, she is a troll, y’all. Stop feeding her.
Leslie said “What is the logical answer for allowing same sex marriage in the first place?”.
Come on, Leslie, surely you’re not that stupid. Gays should be allowed to be married for the same reasons heterosexuals are allowed to marry – it makes them happier, more productive and is good for their children. Gays don’t have to justify why they deserve the same rights heterosexuals have, the onus is on bigots like you to justify denying gays those rights and you haven’t a hope in hell of doing that.
This has nothing to do with the Religous Right.
I just want a simple answer as to what is the logical answer for allowing homosexual marriage in the first place? What was the reason? Thank you.
post 30: You said it make them happier, more productive and is good for children.
That could mean any coupling or group.
What are the qualifications for marriage?
Here, Leslie, let me try: We live in a complex society, with property and laws and money and jobs and insurance, etc — and there are gay couples, too. Now, when a guy and a girl get married they automatically get a full set of family law — usually Title 2 –that makes everything very easy to accomplish that property and money and insurance require to protect the rights of both parties, say, oh, owning a house in tandem. In most states one actually has to exclude one of the married persons specifically from ownership — otherwise it is automatic.
OK, so marriage is a legal contract that confers a certain equality in property, particularly when it comes time to dissolve the marriage — and since nearly 50% of hetero marriages wind up in divorce, well, then, the dissolving is rampant, I’d say. Serial polygamy even, to my mind.
Now, let’s take a gay couple — oh, let me use a real one — Guy and Richard; they own the bar here in my town, and they’ve been together for 32 years, monogamously apparently. They own a house. Guy works for a company, he’s got a pension; stock options, etc. Now, in order for Guy and Richard to protect themselves and effect what hetero married couples do under Family Law, they have resorted to Commercial Law.
And in so resorting to commercial law they formed a Limited Liability Company and instituted into the bylaws of their two person company all the legal stuff that heteros get automatically under family law. And presto — the state recognizes this union, and lived to tell the tale. Now, Guy and Richard are such a couple that even the local paper has covered them, because Richard has Alzheimers, and Guy must make the decisions — and he does so within the confines of his legal arrangement with Richard signed when Richard was competent.
Now, since they’ve owned their home for more than 25 years, and they owned their business for 32 years — they are, in effect, “married” — and the state recognizes this because it recognizes their legal regime — but under commercial law — and not under family law — even though they do the exact same thing.
And so why should gay taxpayers, such as G & R, have to go through legal gyrations to get the government recognition to effect what they want to do — when heteros can do this automatically without a worry in their silly heads?
This is called “equality under the law.” And if for some reason you think that gay marriage demeans your marriage, well, not only is your marriage then some cheap thing with no foundation, but your logic is faulty — for Guy and Richard have nothing to do with Leslie and spouse, as much as you have nothing to do with theirs. You live your life, they live theirs — and that’s called “Minding your own business.” Which is very logical indeed. Cheers.
And ma’am, more to the point, what is your logic in denying family law recognition to gay couples? Surely they exist — and the state recognizes them in commercial law (and in six states, as soon as gays were allowed to get married in family law, they flocked to town halls — do you think that of a sudden two single gay guys just looked at each other and without a moment more together said “Let’s go get married!” Or don’t you see that these couples existed for quite sometime? Or by an even stranger lack of logic do you think a bunch of heteros, upon family law recognition of the commercial law couples, will all of a sudden rush down to a gay bar and find a guy?
And gay couples are not prohibited from commitment ceremonies, even those done by any clergy that might do the honors (where is their religious freedom?) — nor from living together, nor from owning houses and businesses together, nor from even saying to any who meet them “we’re married.” Gay marriages are already allowed — now it’s a matter of legal definition: family or commercial.
The Orwellian named Defense of Marriage Act doesn’t “defend” marriage either — divorce, shacking up, unwed mothers, adultery — all perfectly legal. All it does is prohibit fair access to a subset of contract law called “marriage.” And then, we get to pay through our taxes for what you all do — and we are denied a simple “go in peace.” And instead, by some strange ill logic of enormous proportions accused of “attacking” marriage, when it is you heteros who have bollixed the thing.
Finally, don’t worry about what other people do — worry about what you do — which is far more logical than anything. Along with the best logic: treat others as you wish to be treated.
Thank you, Jim.
And Leslie, to answer your REAL question:
Gay people want to marry for exactly the same reasons that heterosexuals do. and do you know why?
Because we were raised to value marriage, stability, family, children, and religious freedom.
Becuase we ARE your children.
Jim: Thank you for sharing some of your thoughts and making an effort using the example of Guy and Richard.
First, I want to say I think it’s fine if two of the same sex live together and love each other as “friends” but not the same way a man and woman “love” each other. There are diffent kinds of love and we don’t marry everyone we love.
Even with hetero marriage, there are silly laws that can keep the other spouse with no powers to deal with health issues or insurance without the consent of their spouse and silly forms have to be signed.
What are qualifications for marriage?
One man/one woman.
P.S. I am taking your advice and treating others as I would want to be treated.
That is why I have not called anyone here a bigot as some of done to me.
@Leslie:
“What are qualifications for marriage?
One man/one woman.”
And herein we have the utter futility of attempting a dialog – your ideology is simply inflexible to the point of refusing to consider any evidence, facts, studies or points of view that might contradict it. It’s sad, but not unexpected.
That you would value your own inflexible belief over the rights of fellow citizens, to the point of actively supporting discrimination against couples like Guy and Richard, is also sad but again, not expected.
Finally, if I am to assume that you are an American citizen who is also a woman (‘Leslie can be a male or female name), then you personally have benefited from 100+ years of tireless activism on your behalf – against a society who refused to see the benefit in offering you the right to vote, or hold office, or be an equal partner in marriage because such rights went against ‘how things have always been’. That you are championing the same mentality that *you* would have had to endure, had you been born 50 or 100 years earlier is sad, but once again, not unexpected.
Leslie said ” I am taking your advice and treating others as I would want to be treated.”.
No you’re not. You wouldn’t want anyone to deny you the right to marry for no reason and yet that is what you’re trying to do to gays. Stop it – treat others as you’d want to be treated.
Leslie said “That is why I have not called anyone here a bigot as some of done to me.”.
We haven’t said you shouldn’t be allowed to marry, we’re therefore not bigots so of course you have not called us bigots. You’ve advocated denying gays the right to marry, that makes you a bigot so of course I’ve called you a bigot.
Leslie said “post 30: You said it make them happier, more productive and is good for children. That could mean any coupling or group. What are the qualifications for marriage?”.
Any two non-related people.
Leslie said “What are qualifications for marriage?
One man/one woman.”.
If you can say one man one woman, why can’t I say any two people? If male/female is the qualification why not 1 man and four women?
That you deny marriage to gays is not a reason to restrict marriage to two people.
On what basis do you restrict marriage to two people?
Honey, not all bigotry is hate.
A good deal of it is your own unquestioned belief in your own otherwise wholly imaginary superiority.
And your comment about “friends” indicates clearly that that is what is going on with you. I have friends who have been together as a devoted couple for 30 to 50 years, which pretty much makes them far more than friends, and far more married than the 50% of heterosexuals who marry and divorce and merrily marry again.
So, you are not really treating people as you would want to be treated, even though you are quite polite about it. you denigrate their relationships and their lives. I doubt it if you would enjoy it if you your life were being disadvantaged by some (possibly)well meaning, but misguided, pig-ignorant, moralizing busybody, who knows one thing about you and then think that tells them EVERYTHING…
telling YOU what’s wrong with your life. No, I don’t think you’d like that at all.
You don’t have to hate us.
You just have to believe you’re superior, that your life has more value, that your primary relationship that has created your family is more valuable, that your family has more value, that your children are entitled to more legal protection than mine, that your religious belief about what god wants for people is more important than mine and thus deserves legal protection while mine gets legal discouragement, that the protection of your life assets for your loved ones should be obtainable with a $75 marriage license, while mine can be purchased for thousands of dollars and can be thrown out by the combination of a distant relative, a homophobic judge, and a law that permits it.
No, i don’t think that you are treating others as you owuld want to be treated.
But believing it certianly gives you comfort and a justification for behaving badly.
Lucky.
Leslie, your bigotry is more hateful than any crap we could say to you. So you can whine about how you’re “treating people as you’d like to be treated” but it’s BS. If we treated you as you’re treating people, we’d be calling for making you a second class citizen.
But we’re not. Because we’re better.
“What is the logical answer for allowing homosexual marriage in the first place?”
The answer is to be found in that very book of Genesis that Maggie Gallagher doesn’t want ripped out of the Bible:
“It is not good that the man should be alone.” (Gen. 2:18)
I just read all the previous comments and most are superb, demonstrating excellent knowledge of the Bible, homosexuality, bisexuality, cultures past and present, etc. -vastly more than Maggie or Leslie could ever hope to have.
Bravo to all of you and Truth Wins Out for providing this great forum.
As for Leslie, I won’t call you a bigot. But I WILL call you stupid!
Jerry