If you don't know Maggie Gallagher...

We all need to appreciate the logic, reasoning and most of all, communication skills of Rob Tisinai (I practically quoted his entire blog post in my piece about religious liberty here). He's able to pick through the mumbo jumbo of Right Wing logic and present it in a way that explains how and why it is said in such a manner. His brilliance can be seen here, where he dissects point by point, an apologetics piece by NOM co-founder and conservative Catholic Robert George (a lawyer, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University). I say this about Rob, because we wouldn't really know Maggie as well without him.

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.
“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?

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:

Who’s worried about the rebellion against restrictive marriage laws?

Maggie Gallagher.

Who opposes dealing with that rebellion by opening marriage to more couples, giving more people its rights and protection?

Maggie Gallagher.

Who wants to deal with the issue instead by amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage?

Maggie Gallagher.

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.

How Far Does Religious Liberty Go?

An argument that people cite against marriage equality where they actually have a point would be religious liberty. People who are unfamiliar with law, politics, or the organized marriage equality movement, are so afraid that their precious churches and pastors will be forced against their will to marry those vile and repugnant gays (this isn't true, as it is already law that churches and clergy are not required to perform any marriages they do not wish to perform). Everyone should be allowed to practice their religious beliefs (within reason of course; we don't human sacrifices), but they should not be used to trod on the rights of others, including their right to not have religion forced upon them.

Author Rob Tisinai of wakingupnow.com, gives a scenario then poses a question.

Suppose an on-duty police officer sees a known homosexual getting stomped to death in an alley by two men shouting, “Die, faggot, die!”  He does nothing to stop it, and he lets the thugs escape, because he believes in Leviticus 20:13:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

His religious beliefs make it impossible for him to intefere with what he views as God’s will, or even to hold the assailants responsible.
Should this officer be penalized?  Or would that violate his religious freedom?

This is such a good line of questioning, because it really gets down to the meat of the issue. There are many people who use 'religious belief' to discriminate against LGBTQ people. Usually, that is legally ok, if you are a private citizen. You cannot be forced to let a gay person into your home, or be invited to a private event. But what if you are not just a private citizen, but a public employee, or you perform a public service? Should you be allowed to let your religious beliefs trump your civic duties?

He then introduces us to the first 'victim' of the marriage equality bill in New York, identified by NOM. I'm going to repost the rest of his post, because honestly, he does a much better job explaining than I do.

Barbara MacEwen, the town clerk in upstate Volney who is responsible for signing marriage licenses in the town, said she’s morally opposed to same-sex weddings and does not intend to affix her signature to any marriage documents for gay or lesbian couples.
“If there’s any possible way to not do it, legally, then yes, I would not want to put my name on any of those certificates or papers,” MacEwen told POLITICO. “That’s their life, they can do it, but I don’t feel I should be forced into something that’s against my morals and my God.”

This taxpayer-supported public servant wants the right to choose which taxpayers she’ll serve. NOM, apparently, sympathizes with her.

That’s why I have to wonder about the limits to NOM’s notion of religious liberty. Personally, I’m no big fan of government coercion. You know that New Mexico photographer our opponents keep talking about? I think he should have been free not to photograph a same-sex wedding. Just as I think a gay photographer should be free not to shoot a wedding in a church that works to strip him of his marriage rights.
But Barbara MacEwen is a public employee. She’s an elected government official demanding the privilege of not following the law.
Who’s asking for special rights now?
What other “rights” does NOM think Barbara MacEwen should have? The right to withhold licenses from interracial couples? From a divorced person who wants to remarry? From a Catholic and a Baptist planning to marry in a Baptist church?
All those unions have been considered immoral by someone’s religion. Where does NOM stand on these items? Because as far as I can tell, NOM conception of religious liberty include the right of public servants to ignore laws they don’t like.
At this point, I was going to bring back the police question I asked at the beginning, but I thought of another I like better:  A number of states have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, so…
…if NOM wants to let town clerks pick and choose the laws they’ll recognize according to their religion, then shouldn’t clerks from gay-friendly faiths be able to issue same-sex marriage licenses regardless of state law?
So tell us, NOM. Tell us exactly which religious liberty protections special rights you’d like to have.

Unfortunately, it looks like these 'special rights' have found their way into the Rhode Island Civil Unions bill that was passed by the State Senate this week.