Gallagher and George work tirelessly (on behalf of the Catholic hierarchy and other wealthy, conservative Catholics like themselves) at the state and federal level to stop the inevitable reality that is marriage equality in the United States. They do this by whatever means necessary: direct ballot like Prop8 in California or Question 1 in Maine; threatening the legislatures like Rhode Island, Maryland and New York; or constitutional amendments at the state level in Minnesota, and at the national level with the Federal Marriage Amendment. (Jeremy Hooper, at goodasyou.org, does a wonderful job of cataloging all that they do. You can find more information here).
Though Gallagher is an ivy-leaguer like George, calling Yale her alma mater, she is less subtle with her inconsistencies.
One thing I have noticed, especially about politicians and especially right-wingers, is they try and stay general and vague about complicated issues. Soundbites and stupid are king. It makes it much easier to sway opinions when the people you are talking to don't really understand what you are saying, but think they agree with you regardless.
NOM-ers tend to use a lot of patriotic, (small d) democratic imagery when massing their hordes. They want to 'Let the People Decide,' (direct democracy) on this civil rights issue, as long as they know the majority of people who can vote, will vote with them. When the state involved does not have a referendum process (purely republican), like New York, they encourage constituents to call their representatives, and call for a referendum anyway. They believe in religious freedom (to discriminate in the public sphere), and liberty (to do as they please without following the law). When fleshed out, this argument works against them. The latest battle ground, New York state, finally gained marriage equality through the legislature, after religious protections (that were already in place) were explicitely stated in the legislation.
In retaliation, our Maggie decided to looked to a revised history of the ancient Roman republic to write an op-ed, stating that because marriage equality passed, our republic is on the decline. Tisinai calls it, "a puff piece, an attempt at high-falutin’ rhetoric with as much substance as cotton candy — no, even less, not cotton candy but flavored air." She starts like this:
“What form of government have you given us?” a lady is said to have asked Benjamin Franklin as he left Independence Hall on Sept. 17, 1787 — that other great day in American history, when the Constitution was promulgated if not yet ratified.Tisinai then goes on to share her answers and is baffled at how outright contradictary her statements are to her 'beliefs'. Note: I always feel guilty, lifting large parts of pieces I didn't write, so please go to his blog and read it. Needless to say, she goes on about 'saving the republic,' while she herself has played a strong role in undercutting it, when it comes to campaign finance laws, lobbying, and civil rights. Tisinai concludes his post like this:
“A republic, madam, if you can keep it,” Franklin is said to have replied.
A republic: What is that? And how do we keep it?
Who’s worried about the rebellion against restrictive marriage laws?
Who opposes dealing with that rebellion by opening marriage to more couples, giving more people its rights and protection?
Who wants to deal with the issue instead by amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage?
Let’s see if I put this into a single sentence: Maggie Gallagher earns a great living by denouncing republic-style government, stripping people of their rights, and pushing for a Federal Marriage Amendment, but paused just long enough to write about saving the republic by expanding the rights of the citizenry instead of resorting to Constitutional amendments.
We all our blind spots when it comes to self-awareness. Lord knows I do. But after reading this piece I’ve concluded there’s ordinary blindness, and there’s what we ought to call Maggie-blindness. It’s in a whole different league.This is Maggie Gallagher. A person trying to prevent civil rights legislation because of religion-based objections by any means necessarily. She and her organization, NOM, are more than willing to break the law, then not comply when they lose in court. She doesn't want to defend the republic. She wants to bring it down. I am thinking that if she really wants to live in a theocracy, she should go ahead an move to Vatican City, or perhaps Iran.