Maggie Gallagher's Sarah Palin problem

The National Organization for Marriage's Maggie Gallagher has a serious Sarah Palin problem.

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.

Ebony magazine includes lesbian couple in 'love issue' and other Tuesday midday news briefs

Ebony Magazine Shines Light on Lesbian Couple’s Love - It's ABOUT TIME!

Bob Vander Plaats tries to snuff 'second-hand' fires; puts more kindling under ours - What's worse than a homophobe? A homophobe who tries to backtrack, thus making him a lying homophobe.


7-year-old donates to L.A. G&L Center because 'gay people are not treated equally' - Excellent moment which will not be ruined by the religious right or the "concern trolls."

The Battle Over the Smithsonian and the Right's New Culture Wars - Excellent piece by Michael Keegan, President of People for the American Way.


Exodus Co-Founder: “It was a terrible mistake for Exodus to get involved in politics” - Truer words were never spoken.

Ronald Reagan becomes homophobes' new 'tool' in attacking lgbts

I haven't weighed on the conservative mass inconization of former President Ronald Reagan because to a degree, it's so amusing.

While many on our side of the spectrum have pointed out flaws in Reagan's policies that should make today's conservatives shiver at the notion of making him their hero, as well as pointing out his lack of attention in the early days of the AIDS crisis, those who are "celebrating Reagan's legacy" are consuming themselves with making him less of a person and more of a marketing commodity.

It all reminds me of the the Adult Swim cartoon series, "The Boondocks" when it featured a "what if" episode starring Martin Luther King, Jr. Apparently according to the episode, King wasn't assassinated in 1968 but put into a coma.

What he finds when he wakes up is a world not geared to listen to his nonviolent philosophy but willing to market his image on everything, include fast food place mats.

A constant refrain of King was that he should somehow get some type of licensing over his image.

Somehow, I think if Reagan were alive, he would be asking the same question.

The ad on the left is from a group boycotting the conservative CPAC conference because they resent having a gay group, GOProud, being one of the sponsors.

Apparently their full page ad is a way of bringing Reagan's legacy on board with their crusade.

The irony is that the ad (and you can see a full pdf of it here) doesn't even have any statements from Reagan regarding the lgbt community.

Granted, it's not say that Reagan was the lgbt's community's best friend, so to speak. But the ad, signed by such prominent homophobes as Brian Camenker of Mass Resistance, Robert Knight of the Americans Civil Rights Union, World Net Daily, and Don Wildmon of the American Family Association (i.e. Bryan Fischer) seems to be wanting to exploit Reagan's prominence in the conservative movement while omitting certain incidents which may contradict the ad itself.

Like the 1978 situation regarding the Briggs Amendment in California. The Briggs Amendment would have barred gays and lesbians from teaching in the state's public schools. Reagan came out publicly against the amendment, even writing an editorial to the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner outlining why the Amendment should be defeated. Reagan said in part:

“Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this."

His opposition to the Amendment played a part in its defeat.

So what have we learned here? Nothing about Reagan, really. But more and more about the lack of integrity of those wanting to condemn lgbts to a second class status. And not caring who they exploit to achieve this goal.