« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

12/23/2009

A Maggie little Christmas

by Jeremy Hooper

This writer had already stopped work for the day, gearing up for a night of holiday gaeity. But as I was preparing to don my gay apparel, an email came in that annoyed the jingle eggs right off my frosty antlers.

The email was from one Maggie Gallagher, who was sending around a standard NOM e-blast, shaming same-sex marriage and its supporters. I found the email gross, here two days before Christmas. So I immediately wrote back and said as much:

What then followed was one part overdue catharsis, one party needed therapy, one part fascinating/frustrating "culture war" experiment. Enjoy:

(please excuse typos on both ends)

































Yes, she just said that she wants to legally divorce me. Oh yea, Merry Christmas. Riiiiiight.

Martha Stewart Weddings, Winter 2010 (15th anniv. issue):



(click for full size)

**SEE ALSO: Our full wedding album: 6/13/09

(**Photo credit: JAG Studios)

Your thoughts

She doesnt now, nor will she ever get it. Your point about "victimization" is lost on her now and forever. She will never understand that she can yell and holler all she wants, she is entitled, however, she will not succeed in legislating against us. We in Oregon are preparing to readdress marriage equality and I am sure she will make us her next target. I admire your ability to communicate with her.......I fear I would not have the same ability to do so. Merry Christmas to you and your husband!

Posted by: Michael | Dec 23, 2009 5:09:10 PM

There is only one way to think about certain things. She can be anti-gay all she wants, but at the end of the day she is wrong, and we are living, breathing human beings. She can try and hide behind her religion all she wants, but I see right through it. Her opinion is meaningless.

Posted by: Tony | Dec 23, 2009 5:20:37 PM

"She doesnt now, nor will she ever get it." I have to believe that our political opponents have the ability to "get it." And I have to believe that firm but fair words register in their minds at night, when all is quiet in the world.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Dec 23, 2009 5:33:56 PM

If it is so clear that we do not have the right to marry, then why (exactly) does she feel the need to alter the constitution to eliminate that right? She seems oblivious to the fact that she has defeated her own circuitous "logic".

Posted by: Dick Mills | Dec 23, 2009 5:41:46 PM

Ah, the smell of dishonesty! So overpowering. Maggie says in her penultimate email that there 'are many other possibilities' for gay people other than gay marriage. Perhaps there are. Would Maggie like to tell us which possibilities she would allow us to have? Are we to assume that she supported the introduction of civil partnerships in the UK?

Posted by: Baron Scarpia | Dec 23, 2009 5:42:15 PM

What a bitch. That ;) right after she said she wanted to force your divorce about made me come through my computer. So nasty. So hypocritical. So...Maggie.

Posted by: Matt Algren | Dec 23, 2009 5:46:27 PM

For what it's worth, I'm sincere when I say. Merry Christmas to you and your spouse. God bless, Jason

Posted by: Jason J. | Dec 23, 2009 6:06:49 PM

Yes, Maggie...there ARE no other ways but hate that you're invoking here.

For each person (and I'm one of them) that believes marriage channels sexuality, builds commitment and monogamy, secures children and supports love through challenges and separation: there is NO OTHER REASON than hatred of gay people, NOT to include gay couples in what marriage itself can give. If our social belief in marriage is SO strong, that the incarcerated, the terminally ill and the disparate in any given social caste can come together in marriage, then there IS no earthly, spiritually or morally good reason to maintain a separate caste system for gay adults. The state has no prejudice against any OTHER consenting, or primary adult in marriage. Marriage only restricts based on STATUS, not what an adult is.

And Maggie and co, want the state to reflect her PREJUDICE and BIGOTRY against a specific group of people, who are unique, but who do NOT fit any categories the state doesn't already restrict or can. So yes, she has and does advocate to have rights taken away.

For her to say you never had them, and she's the one qualified to say she's the one who should decide, makes her a liar. She is disingenuous.

She is cruel and accuses gay people of victimizing those who 'don't agree with her.' Actively taking something away from an entire group of people isn't a disagreement. It's an exclusion from the vital protections of citizenship and the rights thereof...but NOT the responsibilities. If she thinks she's on the right side of history, let alone MARRIAGE history and it's egalitarian evolvement, she's ignorant.

Inforgivably so.

Marriage doesn't need protection from loving and committed gay couples. Children don't need protection from the same who are gay parents. Indeed, given all her activity and financial investment, marriage isn't suffering from gay people, but from the likes of Tiger Woods and Eliot Spitzer and Mark Sanford. And she's powerless, obviously to stop men and women from divorcing at a high rate, and children from living in poverty, neglect and abuse. But she will gloat at laws restricting gay couples from doing, the RIGHT thing by each other and their children. Way to go, Maggie. All those abandoned hetero spouses, all those who were cheated on, beaten, children stolen or killed in custody disputes, all those kids whose financial security was compromised by divorce and abandonment haven't sent you a big thank you have they? What prize is out there, like the Nobel, for reducing the divorce rate or children in foster care?

You love to make claims that you're saving marriage and in Maine, NY and now you're gunning for NJ, so bring the prize home for marriage saved. So impressed with yourselves, aren't you Mags and Brian? Well...why?

Posted by: Regan DuCasse | Dec 23, 2009 6:57:21 PM

THANK YOU! Thank you Jeremy, for having the fortitude to call this individual to task about calling a duck a "duck" and imploring her to take ownership of her actions and those of her group.



It is disheartening, while not at all surprising, that she and NOM are blind to, and in blissful denial of, the malicious harm that they cause GLBTI couples seeking marriage equality. Sadly, there are people and groups like them throughout history... later proven despicable and wrong.



It is tragic that they refuse to SEE and recognize the hardship they cause in the name of "the sanctity of marriage". It is doleful that they chose to turn this issue (our equality) into their, fiercely pious, Raison d'être. Really? Fry the bigger fish people.



I believe that a certain Hazelnut spread is disgusting, abnormal and an abomination!!!! It has 'redefined' what Hazelnuts have been for thousands of years. My opinion, however, should not interfere with another person's right to eat it!



It wasn't, at all, difficult for me to realize that I'd have no justification form a group "that seeks to prevent the legal recognition and societal acceptance of..." the nut of the Hazel? NOM = (in the spirit of the holidays, I won't fill in that blank).



There is no area in equality.



And, p.s.: SUCH a beautiful wedding! Mazel Tov!! Thank you for all that you do!!



"a hypocrite—a thing all pious words and uncharitable deeds" — Charles Reade”

Posted by: Marcihno | Dec 23, 2009 7:25:59 PM

Pardon my psuedo French, but fuhque her...

Posted by: John | Dec 23, 2009 7:48:27 PM

There is no GRAY area in equality.

Posted by: Marcinho | Dec 23, 2009 8:00:00 PM

I swear, the myopia displayed through her words is astounding, to claim that a court ruling can be "clarified wrong" because of a popular vote. Yes, that's right, popularity decides correctness. Brilliant.

Posted by: Christopher Eberz | Dec 23, 2009 8:06:54 PM

Part of Maggie's "winning strategy" is portray herself and her fellow bigots as seemingly nice people and as victims. Its easy to do when you come from a position of full equality in all matters of civil law. She will never get it (although part of me thinks she does, but doesn't care because hate is lucrative). I believe Maggie also knows that she is slowly losing. She may have one "special rights" for heteros in 31 states, but as each year passes, her kind become fewer and fewer. Eventually, they will become an extreme fringe group - same thing that happened to the Klu Klux Klan. And Jeremy - congratulations on your wedding. My husband and I were also married in Connecticut (Calf Pasture Beach in Norwalk) this past June. We also moved to Connecticut from North Carolina as we felt it was pointless to get married and then return to a place where we could not exercise our rights. Its a great feeling and Connecticut is a great place. Happy Holidays to all. . . Even you Maggie. ;-)

Posted by: JohnVisser | Dec 23, 2009 8:28:53 PM

Oh, and I also wanted to say what a great job calling Maggie out on her pretending not to know what harm she causes.

Posted by: JohnVisser | Dec 23, 2009 8:30:24 PM

So Maggie wants to help the thought police enforce the definition of marriage? And defining marriage is a right?

Posted by: Stevious | Dec 23, 2009 9:23:46 PM

Fuckin' 'A' Jeremy! Right on!

Posted by: John Ozed | Dec 23, 2009 11:43:48 PM

She won't even respond to my emails anymore. I suppose I provoked that. I've pretty much called her every name in the book and ridiculed her at every opportunity.

Posted by: Tony P | Dec 24, 2009 12:15:09 AM

Jeremy - Just remember this - people who wish to hold other people back, deny them rights and people who seek to destory genuine happiness based on genuine love, do so because misery loves company. Maggie is not happy in her own life and her own loves. This is why she takes so much comfort in her church's rhetoric. It gives her a sense of belonging, a sense of victimization and above all, a sense of control. When people are genuinely happy with themselves and with their own lives, they don't seek to drag others down. Maggie, by trying to "divorce you" as she so blatantly and frighteningly claimed, shows the world that she does not care about gay people, and mroe importantly, that she longs to have control over SOMETHING. She does not care about the harm she is inflicting, because it takes the focus off of her own miseries. I would not be surprised if she had a weak marriage, or a poor relationship with her children, or (not even being mean, but being honest) had a poor sense of self because of her weight. By focusing on others, and trying to "rule" over others by the "power of the vote", she has control over SOMETHING. And as I said, I wouldn't be surprised if she has no control over her weight, her marriage, or her family. Having control over gay people, and limiting their happiness, gives her something. It's like a bully in high school. Jeremy, you are a very good person with much to be happy about! You have a beautiful family and seemingly many friends, and many people (like myself) who truly value what you do for the LGBT community and their allies! I truly wish you, your husband, and your family a very merry Christmas, happy belated Hannukah, and a very happy New Year. All the best.

Posted by: Stef | Dec 24, 2009 12:34:16 AM

Notice how ol' Mags continually tries to fuse religious marriage with civil marriage, as if they are one-and-the-same? And, why she (and her acolytes) are continually harping about this alleged "re-definition" boondoggle is a staggering feat of Fallacious Logic! Has anyone ever come out and directly questioned this claim in a logical and legal manner that Mags' would be VERY hard-pressed to repudiate? Very well written, Jeremy! You were far better spoken than *I* would have been! I might have started calling her some pretty offensive names (which just shows what she does to me, because I'm a genuinely sweet guy!).

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Dec 24, 2009 2:30:25 AM

seriously, what is the point of engaging her? it's just frustrating and she isn't going to change her mind. better to spend that energy fighting her group.

Posted by: yawn | Dec 24, 2009 2:47:39 AM

The main reason I'm posting is to update you on what happened yesterday. After over 1.5 years, I posted on Box Turtle Bulletin under the ID Snowisfun & did I offend Priya Lynn & Jim Burroway-who not surprisingly banned me. Anyhow, Priya Lynn a BTB poster didn't believe me when I wrote that I'm non-religious & that 1 can be non-religious or even an atheist & see believe that homosexuality & GID are wrong & should be cured. I wrote there that in my view if science eventually finds the cure for homosexuality & GID, then I support it. I also wrote that if in the future they can predict whether an unborn baby will be a homosexual or GID, I have no problem if moms want to abort them for the same that I have no problem if moms want to abort unborn babies who will have deformities such as Down Syndrome. But what offended Priya Lynn the most where Priya Lynn called me an evil & horrible a##hole was when I wrote that it's possible the circumstances of the Matthew Shepard case are different from what we've heard. I raised 1 version where AJ McKinney said he hit MW Shepard 6 times with a gun after Matthew Shepard touched AJ McKinney's groin 1st against his will which caused him to lose it. I only wrote that it's possible AJ McKinney's account is true, but Priya Lynn called me evil & horrible, though I made it clear that it's only possible & that in homicide cases it's the job of juries to decide on what charge to convict a suspect of (whether it's 1st, 2nd or Manslaughter) after hearing both the prosecution & the defense. I have never defended MW Shepard's killing, but Priya Lynn was offended & condemned me for merely stating that it's possible Mattthew Shepard could've been harassing his attackers & only AJ McKinney & RL Henderson really know why it happened as there are no other known witnesses. Anyhow, just wanted to update you, as I posted on BTB for the 1st time in over 1.5 years.

Posted by: missionaryway | Dec 24, 2009 5:29:32 AM

Folks, I know Maggie's spiel, telling people not to tell her what she is thinking... but I will. In fact her boy Brian and the Bishop have alluded to it often, they don't think 'homosexuality' exists. Her smugness, their smugness comes from believing that we are individuals that have deviated from the 'norm.' This is one of the cornerstones of their foundation. They will never see us as equals and will continue to operate that way until we put them out of business.

Posted by: Bob Barnes | Dec 24, 2009 5:50:53 AM

Yawn: By my count, this site did 237 posts on NOM in the past year (including a 14 part examination into their campaign activities in Maine). So much energy *has* been put towards fighting her group. I personally don't find engagement frustrating. Quite the opposite, actually: I think a refusal to engage is frustrating.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Dec 24, 2009 8:25:49 AM

Gays deserve the right to be married and join the ranks of the walking dead like the rest of us.

Seriously,though, the many dear friends in my life who are gay or bi or straight, have made me believe that everyone deserves the right to be happy and forge a partnership with someone who will work and love and laugh with them. You can't choose who you love. You love them and that's it. Happiness is a rare commodity on this earth, no one should be denied.

Posted by: Jane | Dec 24, 2009 8:56:37 AM

Thanks for posting this. I had a similar Maggie experience when I met her at the Cato Instiitute in 2006. She reminded me of Jabba the Hut because like Jabba, she could devour human beings without any remorse whatsoever. Maggie is completely lacking in empathy. She has a mental disorder. I don't think it's possible to break through to her conscience. See my write up here: http://www.equalityloudoun.org/?p=315

Posted by: Jonathan Weintraub | Dec 24, 2009 10:15:40 AM

What a horrible evil disgusting mean human being.

Posted by: Daimeon | Dec 24, 2009 10:17:34 AM

Said it before and I'll say it again: Every single thing you say is judged by every single person who hears it. If you don't want to be disliked for holding a contrary opinion then shut the hell up! Maggie needs to understand that every time she opens her mouth about marriage equality, 45%-50% of the general population will think she's a bigot. And *I* understand that every time I open *my* mouth, 45%-50% of the general population will think I'm forcing my life on them / destroying marriage / molesting children / whatever. The fact is that there is absolutely NO provision anywhere in government (or in life, for that matter) that you can say anything you want and have the right to not be judged - negatively or positively. But like someone said above, all that matters is that they scare people into donating to them to feed their careers.

Posted by: DN | Dec 24, 2009 10:41:24 AM

DN: I actually think Maggie understands this more than many others on her side. Which is why she (and NOM) have so forcibly undertaken the "they will call us bigots" campaign. She's clever, I'll give her that. But so am I. If she thinks I'm indefatigable now, then she should just go ahead and directly threaten my marriage a few more times! I'll lose sleep to defend my family.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Dec 24, 2009 10:52:06 AM

HERE IS MY RESPONSE TO HER EMAIL BLAST "NY Times Profiles NOM Chairman Robby George!": Maggie,



He is a fucktard and your organization is doing nothing but demonizing the LGBT community to fleece the pockets of the poor 80% of Americans who are either (50%) have IQs below 100, or are ignorant (30%) with no higher education. Your organization is an the boil on America's ass.



Michael Barber

Posted by: Mykelb | Dec 24, 2009 12:09:45 PM

Hope you were able to enjoy the holiday gaeity. Thanks for making my holiday more festive.

Posted by: Dave Shields | Dec 24, 2009 1:00:52 PM

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy