NOM's Maggie Gallagher Admits Rival's Same Sex Partnership May Be Better, But Still Not Marriage
Even with cognitive dissonance this striking, they still think they've got a right to withhold civil rights from a whole segment of the population:
Maggie Gallagher's disdain for Marriage Equality New York board president Cathy Marino-Thomas was palpable. The feeling, we're guessing, was mutual. The two shared the stage at Hofstra University's “Day of Dialogue," and even outside the confines of a 30-second spot, Gallagher was still trafficking in misinformation. And eye rolls.
We do appreciate the debate over whether our "intolerance" for bigotry is, by definition, hate — of the very same variety we call out and despise daily on this website. That's Gallagher's position: By labeling Prop 8 supporters as advocates of hatred, we're being intolerant ourselves, showing no respect for a difference in viewpoints.
But what Maggie does not, and may never understand is the difference between agreeing to disagree, and actively endorsing discrimination against an entire group of people. For that, we cannot be tolerant. [..]
But here's the soundbite we're holding on to, as Maggie addresses Marino-Thomas: "[Your marriage] may be better, but it's not a marriage. … It's probably better than my marriage to hear you talk about it. I wouldn't talk about my marriage in such glowing terms."
It's so sad that someone who cannot speak well of their own marriage feels it's their right to fight to keep others from having that legal union.
On a related note, it's not a serious move so much as a political statement, but here in California, someone has decided to fight a real threat to the sanctity of marriage: the ability to divorce:
California Secretary of State Debra Bowen today authorized the backer of an initiative that would ban divorce to begin collecting signatures to put the proposed constitutional amendment before voters.
John Marcotte now has until March 22, 2010, to collect 694,354 signatures of registered voters in order to get the measure on the ballot next year. The proposal would change the California Constitution to "eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced in California."[..]:
ELIMINATES THE LAW ALLOWING MARRIED COUPLES TO DIVORCE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced in California. Preserves the ability of married couples to seek an annulment. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Savings to the state of up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually for support of the court system due to the elimination of divorce proceedings.
While I obviously don't want my rights taken away (not that I'm planning on divorcing my husband, mind you. He's stuck with me.), I do appreciate the sentiment behind it. My gay uncle's marriage does not harm my marriage, threatens no one else's relationship and it's a ludicrous argument to claim it does. However, the ease in which we may end marriages (one-third of all first marriages end within 10 years, according to the CDC) certainly does. If these wingnuts want to hold up marriage as the foundation of society, then put up or shut up.
If someone doesn't like gay marriage - then don't marry a gay person?
Could it be that simple?
(if one doesn't like their gay co-workers then find a new job, don't like their gay neighbors - then move, etc.)
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
people sitting at that podium. Atrophy comes to mind at first glance so I'm not even going to watch it.
Also if you want to stick it to those 'defense of marriage' morons, make adultery a criminal offense.
If that were the case, half the republicans elected to office would be in prison.
People pissing about gay marriage must be the most unhappy people in the world and they want the gay community to suffer just as much as they do. I mean seriously, when did marriage become the focus of these people? When did the national deficit become the focus of these people? They are like two year olds who didn't get their mid day nap. They are grouchy and they blame it on everything around them as they throw one fit after another.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Conservatives want (and vote for) an amazing number of laws made to restrict the freedoms of populations that don't approve of -- banning gay marriage, banning abortion, sex offender registration -- and yet they are the first ones to object (nay, scream) about government intervention and intrusion into their private lives.)
The cognitive dissonance (disconnect) is staggering.
At one time in England it took an Act of Parliament to dissolve a marriage
Very expensive that
Which led to more fidelity
And murder.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
If I lived in California, I'd sign it in an instant, just to make the right wing defend divorce.
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
As a California resident and the mother of a lesbian, I'd vote for that anti-divorce initiative in a heartbeat. Let's see how many of those biblethumpers want a REAL biblical set of chains on marriage.
where people in this country basically lived and let lived. Or was that a hallucination? maybe it was just my generation or something. Of course peace, harmony, and love is a commie "trait" we wouldn't want that now.
Of course we we're so busy shopping and engaging in materialism no one had time to complain about lifestyle choices.
I remember when most people I knew had exactly that philosophy and we universally deplored the rules and stereotypes laid down to us by the prior generation. Then we started having children and a huge percentage of us adopted the bigotry and the intolerance and the hatred of all of those unlike "us" that they previously disparaged, for "the sake of" their children. (No word yet on why hating other people is good for children.) My theory is that most of them never had an original thought at all but went along with whatever they felt allowed them to "fit in" with the majority of their peers. I have no tolerance for fools nor any for lemmings.
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
I don't even know why I waste my time anymore with this stuff.
Some people are totally hopeless they will never get it or see the light.
Whats so difficult about living and let live?
...in our town who has made a career out of getting all sorts of policies enacted that are tremendously backwards, self-serving, and ineffective all in the name of "protecting the children" -- a badge that she wears (emblazons) on everything she does (so that everyone will be certain to understand that she is "just a concerned member of the community."
Recently, she was challenged (sued) on this by another citizen and lost to the tune of around $200K. Hopefully, it will set a precedent and put an end to her trying to control everyone.
I say sign this petition and get everyone you know to do likewise. Let's put these hypocrites in their place for once.
Banning divorce in California is as ludicrous as banning infidelity in the GOP.
Hmmm...will California ban camping on the Appalachian Trail?
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
But they should feel free to ban camping in the Sierra.
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
It's California! Do you really think they are interested in jurisdiction! LOL!
I'm surprised these assmonkeys haven't tried to ban hockey in Canada.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
...right wingers would quickly latch onto this bill because their worldview is so skewed they would not see how it applied to them.
After all, only 'libruls' get divorced--didn't you know that?
Nevermind that the ten states with the highest divorce rates in 2001 ALL went for Bush in 2000 AND 2004 (Nevada, Arkansas, Wyoming, Idaho, Kentucky, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, and Tennessee -- in that order [source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2004]). The right wing hack Peter Schweizer actually tried to argue that the reason for that was because of high divorce rates in the 'liberal counties' within those states. Try wrapping your head around that logic for a second.
Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced in California. Preserves the ability of married couples to seek an annulment.
Wingnuts wrote this legislation. Read it. It's ALL about religion.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
...and what I'm saying is that Repub fools would quickly support it without an ounce of cognitive dissonance. So if anyone expects such a bill to be the 'put-up-or-shut-up' test, I predict the opposite: Repubs would support this nonsense and would be rewarded with huge campaign contributions, support from evangelicals, and maybe even a motivational speech by W himself.
This has the potential to be the next abortion debate -- an endless culture war that the right can exploit for political gain.
Not too sharp are you? This was announced some time ago, and the guy made his intentions pretty clear here to anyone with half a brain:
Religious or otherwise are proving CA to be the cereal state.
Take out the fruits and nuts and all that is left are the flakes!
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
You know what, I am a California native and I really take offense to that fruit or nut or flake comment. Gimme a break already!! I mean where are you from that is so above everyone else? Texas?
This proposition would be an enormous waste of time and resources when so many are still needed to keep the marriage equality movement going. I hope it fails to garner enough signatures to go on the ballot. We do not need the distraction
As opposed to the residents of South Carolina who appear to be mostly the southbound ends of northbound donkeys?
That purist catholic Mel Gibson just procreated out of wedlock so there will be one more crazy bigot in our future.
Ah, I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.
The new baby-momma isn't Jewish . . .
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
Or a virgin...
I'd just like to point out that Gallagher used the word "marriage" to describe what Marino-Thomas' has. Not "union" or "relationship".
* There are two types of Republicans: millionaires and suckers.
"Mugsy's Rap Sheet": Recording history for those who seek to rewrite it.
But it read awkwardly in the title to use the word "marriage" twice. Technically speaking, I don't think that Marino-Thomas's marriage is legally recognized.
If they get any wilder
A funeral might break out.
_________________________________________________________
Tue, 11/03/2009 - 09:12 — Nicole Belle
For a second there I thought you said they wouldn't recognize Marlo Thomas's marriage.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
"It's probably better than my marriage to hear you talk about it. I wouldn't talk about my marriage in such glowing terms."
That poor bastard probably wishes he was deaf by now, Maggie...
I think divorce is one of the most important rights that comes with marriage.
When divorces are outlawed, only outlaws will get divorced. I think...
By the way, is there any legal phenomenon termed "annulment" in California? How can a "right" to pursue an annulment be preserved?
Fix the underlying social and economic problems that cause divorce like materialism, both parents having to work, lack of ethics, the media celebrating infedelity, etc.
Banning divorce is like putting people in jail for posessing drugs. Won't work.
The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence from Jerusalem of a Lunatic Asylum. -Havelock Ellis
Comments are closed on this entry