 by Michael Jensen
Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Who's onlineThere are currently 60 members and 1807 guests online.
|
Should NOM president Maggie Gallagher be called a bigot?
Main Entry:
big·ot To the Editor: I believe that marriage matters because children need a mother and a father, and I have spent the last five years warning that opposition to gay marriage will be treated as bigotry. Now Frank Rich describes the National Organization for Marriage’s “Gathering Storm” ad as “The Bigots’ Last Hurrah” (column, April 19).
That's the Letter to the Editor from Gallagher that The New York Times printed last Friday. Ah, poor Maggie doesn't like being called a bigot. I'm sure Father Coughlin, the KKK and the rest of the bigots now resting on the ash heap of history didn't like it either. Sorry, Maggie, but if the white hood fits... But as Maggie points out, the majority of the country still doesn't support same-sex marriage. Obviously, our rights shouldn't depend on the support of the majority (a fact obviously lost on, say, a bigot like Gallagher). So is it a smart for Frank Rich (and, frankly, me) to call Gallagher a bigot?
I'd argue yes, as it was Gallagher and her NOM ilk who put out that horribly offensive — and bigoted — ad (we're taking away their freedoms!) and I'd like to think most Americans, even those against our right to marry, see that ad for the nasty piece of propaganda it is. And since most Americans don't like to see themselves as intolerant or to be associated with those who are, I believe it's up to us to call out bigots like Gallagher. What do you think, though? Does Rich just make Gallagher look more sympathetic? Or does he help people see her for what she is? Submitted by on Mon, 2009-04-27 12:03. |
 Recent Comments
Recent blog posts
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
nope
sympathetic? hell no.
gay marriage has consequences she says. that, IMO, does not help her case one bit. maybe to people who are with her, it does....but otherwise...naaahhh
oh dear god....swine flu....you know what, it's not the pigs....it's all of the gay marriage that's happening. oh damn. well...i guess that's it. that must be what she means. mm-hm.
She Discriminates?
Bigot has sort of become a word that people use as a pejorative without really knowing what it means. (Like "ignorant")
We could just say she discriminates and wants to write discrimination into the law. I know it doesn't have the same bite as bigot does...but she can't really say she doesn't discriminate.
No, we can just say that she's a bigot, because she IS!
Frankly because of cultural narratives
Claiming to be the victim
I saw that tactic work in Hawaii a decade ago, which basically comes down to "See how quick they resort to name-calling, whose the intolerant one, really?" (It didn't help that the group fighting the amendment muddied their message with ads about how abortion rights will be under attack next.) As offensive as NOM's ad is, they're re-using (disproven but still repeated) arguments that helped Prop 8 pass.
What I do think works, however, is to point out that people like Gallagher believe that gay couples should have fewer rights than opposite-sex couples. That spells out the bigotry in a way that isn't as easily dismissed as "You're making fun of me for my beliefs."
If you can get into the stories of that NOM ad, it gets even better because their examples of how gay marriage will trample on the rights of religious conservatives are really examples of Christian conservatives who believe their religion should make them exempt from the rules. Take that Massachusetts parent, apparently his demands included that his kid's teacher not acknowledge same-sex parents if their child was in the same class as his. At that point, people like Gallagher look whiny and petulant. Their desire to live in a gay-free bubble is trivial next to marriage benefits like immigration sponsorship and inequal taxation.
My thoughts
My thoughts are three-fold:
1. You don't necessarily have to be a bigot to support the idea of marriage being between a man and a woman. A logical case can be made for that. (Though it's a case with which I totally and vehemently disagree.) It's more difficult, though, to support the idea that a ban on gay marriage is constitutional. And I think gay marriage opponents realize that, which is why they work so hard for constitutional amendments.
2. Only a small number of opponents to gay marriage fit into the scenario I mention in point number one. I'd guess that a large number are genuinely bigots. But I'd guess that a larger number are people who are simply not thinking the issue through, and are going with a gut reaction of marriage being the bedrock of the "family", and gay marriage is simply too much of a wrench in the works of their perceptions. Based on the definition of bigot at the beginning of Michael's post above, those people aren't necessarily bigots.
3. Maggie Gallagher seems to clearly be a bigot. The "Gathering Storm" ad is so obviously the product of bigotry that anyone supporting it (except gullible dunderheads) pretty much has to be governed by bigotry.
I agree with this completely
Check out my new fantasy website: TheTorchOnline.com. It's like AfterElton.com for fantasy geeks! And I Twitter
Your post reminds me of the lawyer joke
Craig - This issue is
Craig - This issue is so divorced from a concept like 2+2. We're dealing with completely unquantifiable things like meanings of words, feelings, shadings, interpretations, etc. You are trying to grossly oversimplify something that doesn't allow that.
The definition of "bigot" included the concept of treating "members of a group...with hatred or intolerance". There are many people who are fully supportive of gay people but believe marriage is a religiously based concept meant to be for a man and a woman (reflective of the Adam and Eve parable). You or I may not agree with that, but if they have no "hatred or intolerance" then you can't call them bigots. There are others who argue that marriage "should" be the cornerstone of the "family", defined by them as the traditional family. Again, we can argue the limitations of that concept of family, but if those people harbor no hatred or intolerance then they can't be called bigots.
I referred in my earlier posts to "dunderheads" who didn't think the issue through before coming to a conclusion. Being a dunderhead is not the same as being a bigot.
Speaking of dunderheads and not thinking, it distresses me that sometimes we gay people have so much trouble thinking deeply enough about things to avoid carelessly throwing around words like "bigot" or "stereotype". It certainly makes dealing with things easier, but it doesn't always make it accurate.
Simple task given your premise
The thing is, you're trying
The thing is, you're trying to change the meaning of the word "bigot". It doesn't matter whether or not there are logical reasons why someone might be against marriage equality. I happen to think there are no reasons that fit my conception of logic. But neither you nor I are the official arbiters of what constitutes "logical". I've read detailed arguments by extraordinarily bright people arguing against the inevitability of gay marriage as a constitutional fait accompli. Logic in cases like this is not preordained. It is to a large degree a matter of opinion. Hence the need for lawyers and judges. Lawyers lay out logical arguments based on their perception of the logic. Then, because the logic is not cut and dried, the judges deliberate to determine whose logic is "best". And, as we know, the highest arbiter in the land, the Supreme Court, often ends up 5-4 in trying to determine what is really logical.
The bottom line remains the definition of bigot. In a post below, Charles refers to "Bigotry and Idiocy". They are not the same thing. Someone can be ill-informed, or you can even call him an idiot, if he doesn't fully understand as well as we do the history of marriage. But if there is no hatred or intolerance there I don't think the word bigot can be properly used. Or if I quoted from one of the editorials I mentioned above you couldn't use the word bigot to describe the writer unless you could find some semblance of hatred or intolerance. Saying that your logic disagrees with their logic isn't sufficient.
For the same reason you're not correct to call "tautological" the fact that some people rely on tradition to support an anti gay marriage view. A lot of people don't see marriage as constantly evolving. They see it being now and forever the same thing. Ignorance and bigotry aren't the same thing any more than idiocy and bigotry are the same thing.
You imply that the teacher who wanted you to play basketball rather than go to college was by definition a bigot. Was there hatred or intolerance of black people involved in that admonition? If not, I don't see how you can call him a bigot.
I think we so often leap to use words like bigot or homophobe because it gives us an easy way to feel morally superior to the other person. To demonize people on an a priori basis is easier than trying to understand them or where their attitudes come from, or to engage them in discussion.
four things
Facts and empiricism
Craig, I sure wish you would use paragraphs when you post. It would make them much easier to read.
I've noticed a couple of distressing things in several of your posts. First, there is often a haughty sense of (faux?) superiority in your tone. As if you're so superior to the poor sots you deign to address.
But more importantly is the mantra of "facts" and "empiricism" (apparently your favorite word) in areas where those two words don't apply. You earlier made an analogy to 2+2=4. Discussions like this one are simply not reducible to simple minded "fact" gathering. Everything is clouded and informed by perception of intent, interpretations of meaning, moral value judgments, and opinions of various stripes. You are pulling out opinions and interpretations, and positing them as "facts", and then dismissing my opinions and interpretations. Again, I reference the legal system, which adjudicates disputes over just such interpretations and "facts".
I'll give just one example. "Calling someone what they are is not demonization unless...." You are referring to a bigot. But YOU DON'T GET TO BE THE FINAL JUDGE OF "what they are". If two different people look at the "facts" and come to two different conclusions, it is not Craig Young who gets the final word. Again, what do you think the legal system is for? It takes cases where two different people or groups of people see the "facts" differently and it painstakingly tries to determine whose "facts" are more correct. It's not 2+2=4, though you keep trying to turn it into that.
I'll give you one thing. You make a good point about your teacher, assuming it was as straightforward as you state it, with her solely using your race to determine that college wouldn't be a good fit for you. I was assuming that it wasn't likely as straightforward as you state it, i.e., she had truly made a judgement about you solely based on her perceptions of the mental capacities of black people as a race. If it truly was that stark, then yes, of course she was a bigot.
But I do wish you would give up your quixotic quest to reduce complex situations to "empirical" constructions that just don't work.
And by the way, you mis-used "tautology" toward the end of your post. And I'm surprised you don't know what "a priori" means.
The only non-anti-gay argument against gay marriage
Maggie Gallagher
"I am not the only one Mr. Rich is calling a bigot. In a March CBS News poll, only a third of Americans said they supported gay marriage."
I guess it must have slipped her mind when she forgot to mention the other chunk of Americans that support civil unions. Which clearly puts her in the minority when it comes to civil rights for gay people. (It must really suck to be in a minority, Maggie. Eh?) She also knows that time is running out for her and her cronies. Every year the numbers keep sliding our way. In a year or two her organization will be completely irrelevant.
Gallgher has always been a bigot
But she's like the Klan back in the days when it was respectable to be a Klan member. Originally they positioned themselves more as "pro-White" rather than "anti-Black". They said they were about promoting white culture, which was the foundation of America and the basis of all that was noble and good.
Gallagher plays the same game. She is one of the leading hypocrites on the Right.
For example, for years she has been a strong advocate of the importance of the full-time mother who dedicates herself entirely to her children rather than career. Yet she has done this while she herself has had a busy career as an author and political activist. Maggie goes off on book promotion tours, attends political hearings in state and federal governments, is involved with NOM, etc...
But it's okay, she's never really been a "working mom" because she's a conservative!
Likewise, she's prepared to devote plenty of time and effort to trying to deny gays the right to marry. But if marriage is all about children, then why doesn't she campaign for denying the legal benefits of marriage to childless couples? Where is the campaign for a Constitutional amendment banning divorce? Why does she support, indeed actively cheer, sending fathers to war, to be away from their children for perhaps years, and possibly die or be crippled while fighting?
The answer of course is that she is a bigot. But she wants to couch her bigotry in "friendlier" terms. So she argues that it's really "all about the children", much like Anita Bryant did. That way she can spout her bigotry and claim that's she's not "anti-gay" she's just "pro-children".
Did the fact that, not all that long ago, a clear majority of Americans believed that blacks should be second class citizens make it anything other than bigotry?
If the scarlette letter fits!
There is no sympathy for this woman and her entire organization of bigots. She spouts lies to sway people to her ignorant way of thinking and that is one of the main signs of a bigot. Then, she tries to turn around and make it out that she is the victim, when she is the one trying to throw us in front of the bus.
You want to know what this is all about? It isn't about denying people their rights. She doesn't consider us as people, so that isn't it at all. It is the fact that every time we get rights that are inalienable to all people, she becomes just a little bit less special. We're knocking the gilding off her 'Sacred' tiara, and that just gets her goat like nothing else.
What these ads just boil down to is a spoiled little girl stomping her foot because she's no longer the only one who got the pony for her birthday. Sorry, princess, but you're no longer popular just because you have something no one else does. That's right, you're just like us, now get over it!
She's the best kind of bigot, pathetic and unintentially funny.
That ad was so hysterically camp as to be the best endorsement for the right of same-sex couples to marry ever. It makes those who oppose it look absolutely ridiculous. Reed the comments on youtube. As of last week they were running 1000:1 against the ad. That's not just gay people writing those remarks. That shows a widespread acceptance that this kind of intolerance is not only stupid, it's laughable.
Personally I would like to thank Maggie for giving us this generation's answer to "Reefer Madness" and "Duck and Cover", a camp example of hate so ludicrous it can only be mocked. And a huge thank you goes out to all the parody makers. I haven't laughed so hard in ages!
I think it's amusing that
Bigotry and Idiocy
I've followed Mrs. Gallagher for quite a while since I am a somewhat regular reader of The New York Post even though I live in the DC area. The first article I read of her's was in 2007 when she was questioning certain candidate's credentials in protecting "traditional marriage". The conclusion of her article stated that the only candidate who would successfully accomplish this task was former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.
When I saw this from her, I knew I couldn't take her seriously. The candidate that was going to best "protect" heterosexual marriage was the only Republican candidate who was ever quoted on the record as promising to be a candidate more supportive of gay rights than Ted Kennedy?
I don't believe that Gallagher is a bigot and beieve that the characterization of her with the KKK and Fred Phelps is a little unfair. While she is advocating that we not be treated equally under the law, she is NOT advocating for us to be strung from trees and for the law to turn a blind eye while she does such acts.
I don't know, but for some reason, I'm not comfortable calling Gallagher a bigot. I am willing to do so with people such as Tony Perkins, Newt Gingrich, Donald Wildmon and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), so maybe I have a double standard.
But I am comfortable in calling Gallagher a host of other names. She is an idiot. She is a dumb broad. She is a gullible sheep. She is many things and in time her idiocy will be realized by the majority....one can hope.
Yes.
Yes. Because she IS a bigot.
Next question.
I really don't have a
I really don't have a problem with calling her a bigot.
If she looked inwardly and decided that same sex marriage was not something she personally wished to engage in and voiced the opinion for herself then there would be nothing wrong with that... BUT when she looks outward and decides that no one else should have that choice either and actively works towards that then it is discrimination. She wants her intolerance to be the law of the land.
seems to me...
Should NOM president Maggie Gallagher be called an idiot?
I actually misread your headlining question, so my answer would be, yes, of course! Yes to the bigot question, too. I don't know how we could justify calling her anything else after that ridiculous oncoming storm advert (gay marriage is like The Doctor? Bring it on!)
My favourite parody is the Stephen Colbert one, although both parodies riff on the "Eet ees comin'" line - will that poor actor ever work again?!
Why do I focus on parodies? Laughter is the best way of dealing with bigotry and bigots. It diminishes their power and draws attention to the paucity of their arguments.
Why do we even need to debate this?
Despite the fact that everyone knows the ad is packed with lies and fearful rhetoric, Gallagher continues to defend it. The first two cases the actors in it describe had NOTHING to do with gay marriage. The third "consequence" described is, "But...if gay marriage is legal, kids will learn that gay people exist!" Unless you have a personal animus towards gay people, why would THAt be so threatening?
Also, her purported reason for opposing gay marriage: "Children need a mother and a father" doesn't make any sense at all. In the first place, nobody in their right mind would deny heterosexual couples the right to get married if they chose not to have kids, or weren't able to. Everyone, including Gallagher, knows this (and if you press gay-marriage opponents for an explanation, they never come up with a satisfactory one). In the second place, children of gay couples are likely to benefit from having their parents union legally recognized. Denying this wouldn't magically turn one parent into a member of the opposite sex, so she's basically saying that children of gay couples should be punished. For all the talk about "protecting" children, she doesn't sem to concerned with the ones who'd be most directly affected by the issue.
So in addition to being a bigot, she's also an asshole.