Maggie Gallagher addresses NOM's claim about gay marriage and children

In my last post, I talked about National Organization for Marriage's Maggie Gallagher attempt at covering her tracks in regards to claims of racism she lodged against those angry at Maryland legislator Sam Arora.

Gallagher had initially implied that the anger of the lgbt community over Arora's shift from supporting gay marriage was due to racism. However, this was not the case. Lgbt anger at Arora dealt with his backtracking on gay marriage even after he campaigned for and supported the issue.

In the midst of her efforts to wipe away her initial claim, Gallagher emailed me. I took that opportunity to ask her for a response on another matter regarding NOM's claim that gay marriage was being "taught" to kindergartners in Massachusetts because of that state's law allowing gay marriage.

The Pulitizer-Prize winning site PolitiFact had called NOM out in February after investigating and finding this claim to be false. However, NOM continued to push the claim, even to the point of sending out mailers last week in Maryland saying the following:

Massachusetts public schools teach kid as young as kindergartners about gay marriage. Parents have no legal right to object!

This was the initial claim - word for word - which PolitiFact said was false.

Gallagher's response to me was as follows:

Contact Brian Brown for NOM's response.

But personally I think deciding the two instances Politifacts says were offered (I don't know the details only what PolitiFActs claims happened) were insufficient might justify a finding of "unproven" but hardly shows it is "false."

Moreover in the court cases surrounding these incidents, all the major gay marriage groups argued that in fact parents have no right to prevent their children from being exposed to gay marriage in public schools.

We have never claimed the law will require teaching about gay marriage. We have only said that once it is the law, it will be taught in public schools.

In fact don't you think it ought to be?

Now in all honesty, there should be some fairness to Gallagher there. She is the Chairman of the Board at NOM, and not the operational CEO.

But still her answer to my response leaves a lot to be desired. It does appear to be misleading.

Arora controversy has National Organization for Marriage scrambling for cover

The situation with Maryland delegate Sam Arora which nearly derailed gay marriage in Maryland is fastly blowing up in the face of the National Organization for Marriage, the organization trying to prevent gay marriage from taking place.

Arora is the Maryland legislator first supported the gay marriage bill. He campaigned on it, raised money because of it, and engaged in discussions with lgbt families in terms of why this bill is important.

And for while he decided, even after all of this and publicly giving his support to the bill, to change his mind and vote against it.

Arora faced a serious firestorm from voters who felt betrayed, angry, and hurt at his shift. Because of this, he changed his mind again and said he will vote for the bill, while emphasizing that the question of gay marriage in Maryland should be the subject of a referendum.

Into this controversy stepped Maggie Gallagher, head of NOM, via a post on the organization's blog during Arora's initial change:

First, if Sam Arora is wavering under this media firestorm, he must be hearing from hundreds of constituents who do not want him to vote for gay marriage.

Secondly, as someone married to an Indian-American, I find it interesting that the gay marriage machine appears to be re-focusing its attacks from Black Democrats who oppose gay marriage to an easier target: Indian-Americans.

Tiffany Alston appears now to be off the hook regardless of how she votes.

Supporters of the Maryland gay marriage bill seized on Gallagher's comment, claiming that she was unfairly accusing those angry Arora of being racists. And they had a point. Nowhere in her post did Gallagher address the simple fact that the ire at Arora was solely because of his backtracking of an issue which played such a central part in his election.