It's not a complicated thing to figure out. Palin has been going and going for so long that she has gone past simply "trying to get paid" and is actually believing that she is a visionary; that somehow she contributes something to the political spectrum other than being a sideshow performer whose every statement bring either peals of laughter or head-scratching confusion.
In that same manner, Gallagher seems to be approaching the fight against gay marriage. She's starting to believe her own press even when her words reveal her to be an empty vessel.
Witness the post on NOM's webpage about her testimony against marriage equality today in a front Maryland Congressional subcommittee:
Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the National Organization for Marriage and one of the nation's leading spokespersons for the societal benefits of traditional marriage, today led off the testimony in favor of retaining marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman in the Maryland Senate Committee on Judicial Proceedings.
Gallagher made a powerful case that marriage is and should always be an institution of great importance to civil society as well as one steeped in religious tradition, because it is the only institution purposely established to connect children to their biological parents and tie those parents to the raising of their children into the responsible future generations of citizens.
Hold your breath, folks. Here comes the statements of the great protector of marriage herself. This is reportedly the summation of what she said:
"Marriage is the union of husband and wife for a reason: these are the only unions that can make new life and connect children in love to their mom and dad. SB 116 doesn't just add more people to marriage, it changes marriage. As so many pro-gay marriage voices testified at this very hearing, gay marriage is grounded in the belief that this view of marriage is like objections to interracial marriage--something that should be discarded in law, culture and society. If Maryland adopts this radical new view of marriage, it will have consequences."
Are you kidding me? This is the summation of her statement against marriage equality? Doesn't it come across as vapid and perfunctionary, omitting the fact that not all married couples have children, children are born to couples who are not married, lgbt couples are raising children, etc?
Just how does allowing lgbts to marry each other change the definition of marriage? You mean to tell me that on this, blog controlled by Gallagher, that they couldn't drudge a better statement than that?
I hope Gallagher is saying these things just to get the money because I don't think anyone with half a brain could be satisfied with such a statement dripping with ignorant simplicity.
It has to be the mysterious money sources backing NOM which make it so powerful because if the organization ever subsisted solely on rhetoric like Gallagher's, I would be able to prepare my vows in no time.
1 comment:
Ooooh! "Consequences" sounds ominous.
Following the NOM playbook, she uses the "re-defining marriage" argument.
Of course, since NOM "defined" marriages (straights only) through its campaigns in many states, MG clings to "their property" vigilantly.
"Their property," of course, comes furnished with lovely rights and special privileges.
Meanwhile, the queer underclass have to pay for it all and enjoy lesser things.
The peasants are tired of crumbs. Share your cake, Miss Maggie. You could stand to lose a few stone, and we're way overdue for gaining our rights.
Vive la resistance.
Post a Comment