Monday, February 13, 2012

NOM's Maggie Gallagher caught lying on MSNBC

Editor's note - It happened again. So many things going on that I decided to write two posts this morning rather than one. After reading this one, please feel free to pan down and enjoy "Whines about 'attacks on religious liberties' reveal a lack of faith"




They say that when some animals are cornered, they fight with both cylinders.

In the case of Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage, she chose to fight back with lies. Lies which can be easily refuted by a simple google search.

Gallagher was  interviewed recently on Up With Chris Hayes and it didn't go well for her.

According to Scott Wooledge of Daily Kos, when she was vigorously challenged on NOMs claims, she got defensive and told a bunch of lies (the good stuff starts at 8:44):

  . . . The sparks really fly when Richard Kim, executive editor of TheNation.com, gets a chance to address Gallagher. He begins by saying:

Kim: I think you and your organization have really failed to present any evidence that same-sex marriage impacts heterosexual marriages. You also however have advocated for gay reparative therapy, as has the National Organization for Marriage, you have called homosexuality a "dysfunction" and not normal...

Gallagher: No! I have not! I have not! I have not done any of those thing

Kim: So it's hard to escape the conclusion that there is just anti-gay animus and bigotry behind your campaign.

Gallagher: You know you are making up---well, you can make up any conclusions you want. But you have just made up a bunch of facts that aren't true.

Gallagher then proceeded to say that NOM does not advocate for gay reparative therapy. Kim then called attention to several articles on NOM's webpage which called homosexuality a mental health problem.

The following were Maggie's exact words:

"No there isn't. You are confusing us with some other organization. It's not true.

Gallagher said also that she keeps a close view of what goes on the blog and just because NOM links to a piece doesn't mean the group endorses it.

Of course that explanation is just plain ludicrous. Linking to a piece  doesn't mean you endorse the piece. It is all about context. And generally when NOM links to pieces about the lgbtq community, the inference is that we are the "diseased other out to destroy society." So I am of the opinion that there is a slight degree of endorsement in the pieces that NOM links to. Gallagher used  the "we don't endorse everything we link to" defense in December when it was discovered that NOM's blog linked to an article A "Bad Catholic" Case Against SSM?

That post made the following claims:

Gay couples are less likely to stay together
Gay couples don’t want to get married
Gay relationships are more likely to be violent/abusive

In addition, it cited research from junk scientist Paul Cameron, a discredited researcher who has said that homosexuality is a mental health problem.  Amongst other things, Cameron has claimed that gay men stuff gerbils up their rectums.  He has also been censured by folks on the left and right of the political spectrum for his bad research techniques.

According to Equality Matters, NOM has also promoted columns which said:

Gay Activists Worse Than Terrorists, Should Fear Being “Spat” On

Decriminalizing Gay Sex Helped Cause Penn State Scandal


Gay Marriage Will Make Young Boys Become Addicted To Gay Sex


Marriage Equality Will Create A “Moral Wasteland,” Normalize Pedophilia
These pieces are promoted either on NOM's main blog or NOM affiliated blog The Ruth Institute run by Jennifer Roback Morse.  Morse once wrote a piece implying that white gay men are stealing African-American children from their homes via adoption

Now according to blogger Jeremy Hooper, Gallagher herself has made some ugly comments about the lgbtq community in spite of her assertions that she hasn't:

Maggie has called homosexuality an "unfortunate thing," "at a minimum, a sexual dysfunction much as impotence or infertility," and "a sexual disability preventing certain individuals from participating in the normal reproductive patterns of the human species." She has also suggested that gays "can always control their behavior," and even called on a sitting President to give more funding to scientifically-shunned "ex-gay" research.  

Hooper also points out that NOM's people have in fact endorse reparative therapy:

Also, NOM president Brian Brown recently touted a (flawed) "ex-gay" study, saying "Even those who disagree with us about gay marriage (or Christian sexual ethics) should feel good about this this scientific verification of the possibility of free will triumphing over desire. We are all more than our instincts, sexual or otherwise" [SOURCE]. NOM's Culture Director, Thomas Peters, has advocated for Courage, a Catholic "change" organization. Peters has also said that the MSM intentionally denies that "change happens."

Good grief, Maggie. Your lies were so bad that I almost feel sorry for you.

Almost, I said. But your embarrassment is well deserved, so I don't feel totally sorry for you.

But thank you for making our job of exposing your and NOM's lies and hypocrisy so damn easy.


Bookmark and Share

13 comments :

Mr. Wonderful said...

She is an odious creature. I am thankful for the fact that, after Maggie lied about not pushing an anti-gay agenda, the Chris Hayes fact-checkers did their due diligence and pointed out the fact that she'd lied in the very next segment. All too often these "reputable" news shows bring on anti-gay types like Gallagher, Tony Perkins and - ugh! - Peter Spragg and they let them get away with murder spreading their lies without ever challenging or correcting them.

Chris said...

Dear Maggie-

Thank you for lying on National television, once again proving that you are more concerned about spreading myths and falsehoods about gay people than you are about telling the truth or about actually advocating for your side.

truthspew said...

Odious doesn't even begin the describe Slaggie.

That said, she also tells a major fib during her 'introduction' where she says they've won the majority of court cases. Actually they lost but she'll never say that.

Anonymous said...

I have to say that I agree with the statement about having free will and not being a slave to instincts. But, I don't understand why this is an expectation of some and not all people then. When ALL sex becomes outlawed, or ALL marriages banned, then they can start saying that people should just control their sexual instincts. As for Maggie galLIEgher, she's so transparent only the ignorant few who choose to remain ignorant will believe her. And you'll never change the minds of those few so why bother with them?

BlackTsunami said...

Who cares about changing their minds? The point is exposing their lies for the world to see.

Wade MacMorrighan said...

So, to have the title of "Husband" one must love woman and any children that she produces out of that "love"?! Maggie os a hetero-supremist! Though, it would have been nice if the panel had also mentioned that Maggie and NOM had waged negative ad campaigns in order to defeat even Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships as well, and when she insisted that they were lying about her (which is a tactic that Maggie often employed when she is called out) they should have quoted her directly and given the date and title of the publication just to prove to their viewers what a liar she really is instead of letting her get away with saying, "No, I did not" or "No, you're wrong, that's not true, and you're making up facts!"

Wade MacMorrighan said...

I would also LOVE to eventually see fabulous programs of this sort that really nail Gallagher to ask various historians and professional anthropologists on to show that Maggie really has no footing to stand on what she attempts to invoker human culture and history a a basis for man-woman marriages as the sole legal definition that must be maintained! Some researchers would be (and they have written books and articles on the subject of marriage) include: E. J. Graff, Stephanie Coontz, Nancy Cott, and Will Roscoe, as well as a rep. from the Anthropological Assoc. of America (AAA) which released a policy statement based upon several thousands of years of recorded history and more than 200 years of direct field work i opposition to any laws that would prohibit Gay people from a legal/ civil marriage!

Wade MacMorrighan said...

Please don't forget, my friend, that it was Brian Brown himself, acting as NOM's "President" who drew the parallel, multiple times, that Marriage Equality would lead to the normalization of pedophilia in both a NOM Blog and an e-blast/ NOM Newsletter because some fringe anti-Gay group of psychologists (not affiliated with the APA, though NOM tried to infer that hey were!) were debating whether or not pedophillia should be regarded as a sexual orientation as with homosexuality. The group itself did not link their debate with marriage equality, but NOM took those extra steps as I recall.

Hel said...

I don't think it's fair to say "Linking to a piece does mean that you do in fact endorse it." You've just linked to a number of things about being gay being bad, which I'm sure you don't endorse, because it's clear that you are linking to them for purposes of discussion. One has to consider context. Now, clearly the context of their links was in fact endorsement. But this is a badly phrased line in an otherwise excellent piece.

BlackTsunami said...

Hel,

you make a very good point. I will make the change in the piece to address it.

Chris said...

However, in this case, the piece was published by the Ruth Institute (the ex-gay piece), which is a project of the National Organization for Marriage. In any case, such a link warrants NOM to distance itself from it's own project, which NOM has failed to do so.

Marcus99 said...

My view is that links are references, but in a different sense of the concept of references of the olden ways of writing. References in the olden days usually provided context, usually as support for the argument, hypothesis, or whatever.

Now, in the modern world of blogging, a good author has (in my opinion)an obligation to inform the reader of the context of the reference, even if by inference. Of course, this does not happen, and you often see a multitude of links within any one article.

This basically tells the reader where the stuff is, and go read it for yourself, if you are really interested, and draw your own conclusions.

Personally, I think it is extremely important that, when linking, it is clear to the reader what the context of the link is. Is it to illustrate support for the premise or argument, or is it an illustration of the antithesis of the article?

For example, I like the energy, directness and experience of Black Tsunami, or I wouldn't read the blog. I don't like the energy being dissipated by sending me off to a number of links of questionable purpose. I want to read the piece, and then if I need supporting stuff -hit the links.

While I doubt anyone will read this, or care about it, it served my purpose of just sitting down and writing to instantly publish, so...I'm happy. And I am providing no references.

. I like to read i

Vicki Rosenzweig said...

There are ways to link without endorsement, certainly. One blogger I know sometimes puts explicit "linking does not imply endorsement" or even "memetic prophylactic recommended" tags on entries that are "here is something wrong and/or crazy that might interest some of you" (including for people he's tracking the way you're tracking Gallagher).

That fact doesn't give everyone a free pass for all their links, including the ones where they do endorse what they connect to, as well as the ones that are just "today's linkspam," with descriptions that look factual and/or neutral. A link with a label like "$politician's sources of funding" implies that the poster believes the claims. Yes, if I click through and the list starts with "Santa Claus" and "the Bavarian Illuminati" I won't take it seriously, but if it says "BP, Exxon, Haliburton" the assumption is that the linking blogger accepts that claim as plausible, even if they haven't investigated the question themselves.