Maggie Gallagher and I Agree to Agree

So my three-part series last week on whether or not marriage equality is radical (in brief: who cares?; yes; and no) drew the attention of Maggie Gallagher, longtime opponent of same-sex marriage. It was kinda fun to be called "always interesting and honest." I've known for a long time that she and I agree about the symbolism of allowing two people of one sex into marriage—it's why we were paired several times in debate. As she says, quoting me whole:

Graff also acknowledges that Blankenhorn’s (and mine!) core concern is not irrational. Gay marriage furthers the disconnection of marriage from procreation; it helps in an ongoing way to sever the link between sex and diapers.

I just think the change is a good idea, while she thinks it's a bad one. I have long wondered, though, why she's fighting this particular rearguard action. Our 1.5 percent of the population is hardly a very important symbol. Why doesn't she focus on the real source of this disconnection—same-sex couples are just the aftereffect—and take up arms against legal contraception? Maggie, this is a real question. If you have an answer, I will give you my spot, here, for a day in which to post it. 


the sad thing is, preservation of marriage is a very legitimate issue that the anti-gay marriage crowd is completely undermining by using the issue as cover for their anti-gay bigotry. children really do benefit from a stable home life being raised by 2 parents, and the institution of marriage is designed to help achieve that goal. of course, the institution of marriage is also designed to achieve other goals. for example, one such goal is protecting the economically weaker spouse from being taken advantage of and then left with nothing when they get older. there are all kinds of reasons to get married. people to living up to their marital vows in a life-long commitment has many benefits, not just for potential children, but also for the adults in the marriage. making medical decisions or having inheritance or immigration rights, co-mingling property, etc., are all rights of marriage that everyone shares, regardless of whether they have children. there has never been a movement to prevent people who cannot have biological children from getting married until now. allowing people in their 80s to get married makes marriage "less about diapers," but there is no harm in it, so no one has ever tried to prevent it. the old "moral" arguments against homosexuality are falling away because people realize that they just do not make sense: no one chooses their sexual orientation... some little boys look at Playboy mags as kids, not because they are actively choosing to be straight, but because something deep inside them makes it innately fascinating... however, i never got those feelings... i had very different feeling, and although that made me different, it made me no less deserving of being happy and having the right to live my own life. and i had all the things maggie gallagher says i should have had: two biological parents, whose marriage only ended when my father died after more than 50 years together, and was raised in a very conservative Catholic home, went to church every week, became an Eagle Scout, was active in sports, the church, my community, was an excellent student who always did what he was told and tried to always live by what my parents and church taught me, but it still didn't make me like girls. unfortunately, those fighting gay marriage will end up painting all pro-marriage activists as "bigots" and when NOM and the like lose their struggle and marriage equality becomes the law of the land, those who might legitimately be fighting to save marriage will be thoroughly discredited by the bigotry that we see in full display in this fight, undermining their chances to actually try to sustain the institution.

Maggie sounds very annoyed about taking the conversation away from her own blog page at NRO. Considering her day has long past and is nothing more than a relic of a failed hategroup, she should be willing to talk to anybody anywhere.

What does a professional bigot do when she becomes political poison for her own party? Who cares?

I am completely baffled by Gallagher's bizarre use of the term "orthodox Catholic." In 16 years of Catholic education, I never once heard this term used and remains a mystery to anyone I ask as well.

What Gallagher is, of course, referring to is a form of Opus Dei-inspired conservatism one saw in her friend from The Heights school, Rick Santorum, and his miserably failed presidential bid. It is ultra-conservative Republican Catholicism rather dismally code-worded as orthodox.

Catholics ourselves put an end to Santorum and do NOT appreciate our faith being endlessly abused for the political aspirations of anybody, including Gallagher.

You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)