Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage (and lets be truthful she does work for them and has never stopped) took to the pages of the National Review trash an An Australian study” from the University of Melbourne which found that the children of same-sex parents scored higher on measures of health, happiness and family cohesion than the of those in the “traditional family” general population that was reported by the New York Times:
The New York Times study and the media are widely reporting the results of a new study of 500 children raised by same-sex couples. Researchers are aghast that such a shoddy piece of work, which is based on a convenience sample of parents who volunteered to be surveyed, and which relies solely on these parents’ reports to determine child well-being, should have been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. The author is facing a petition and statement signed by hundreds of reputable academics, questioning his moral character and scientific integrity, and the editor of the journal who published such a thing faces similar attacks and enquiries about whether the peer-review process was compromised. Oh wait, the study shows children of same-sex parents do better than the average child, after adjusting for income. Never mind.” – National Organization for Marriage’s Minister of Propaganda Maggie Gallagher
Actually Gallagher is lying in her statement the “authors” of the survey are not “facing a petition and statement signed by hundreds of reputable academics, questioning his moral character and scientific integrity”.
But speaking of those who have been called out on “moral character and scientific integrity”; Mark Regnerus whose bought and paid for anti-gay parenting study which has been laughed at, debunked, ridiculed and even evisceratedby a Michigan judge back in March, is still being used and cited this time by theLiberty Counsel’s in one of it’s amicus brief’s in a Florida’s marriage cases.
And of course NOM took the opportunity to continue to continue pushing Regnerus’ discredited study:
The study (Regnerus’s) showed that there are “consistent differences among young adults who reported maternal lesbian behavior (and to a lesser extent, paternal gay behavior) prior to age 18.” Compared with children raised by their married biological parents, children raised in same-sex households are much more likely to have received welfare growing up, have lower educational attainment, report less safety and security in their family of origin, report more ongoing “negative impact” from their family of origin, are more likely to suffer from depression, and have been arrested more often. The study also showed that children of lesbian mothers are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance than children raised by their biological parents. Regnerus’s study shows clearly that the ideal home for a child is with his or her mother and father.
Well, they paid for the study. It’s not surprising they try to use it till its in total shreds.
“Gay marriage advocates are trying to build up a boycott of Ender’s Game because of Orson Scott Card’s personal views on marriage. It seems very strange to me that so many artists and people on the left are supporting the idea that to make art in the mainstream you have to have the right political opinions. This used to be considered the heart of McCarthyism: loyalty oaths for filmmakers as the condition forworking in the film industry. (These were imposed by the industry, not the government, remember, in response to public pressure). I suspect this boycott will be a failure, like the boycott of Card’s video game and like the Chick-fil-A boycott, because most of the public is more concerned with questions such as whether those waffle fries are banging or not.”.
So says Moogie –Maggie Gallagher, writing for the National Review and just happens to be the ex-head of the National Organization for Marriage which Card sat on the Board of and donated countess amounts of money and time to so they could promote their anti-gay rhetoric and hate.
As was commented on Gallagher’s ridiculous blog is the fact that the right has called for boycotts of these companies for their support of same-sex marriage alone on companies such as:
Adobe
Amazon
Apple
Blue Cross Blue Shield
CBS
eBay
Facebook
Goldman Sachs
Google
Intel
Johnson & Johnson
Levi Strauss
McGraw-Hill
Microsoft
Nike
Starbucks
Thomson Reuters
Twitter
Viacom
Walt Disney Company
Xerox
Zynga
But the real hypocrisy in her post is that Gallagher’s own organization The National Organization for Marriage recently started the “Dump Starbucks” And “Dump General Mills” boycotts because both companies support civil rights for LGBT people.
And what the hell does banging waffle fries have to do with anything? I’ don’t think there’s a verse in Leviticus that says this is an abomination.
But leave it to Maggie to bring food into everything. After all her it now seems that her weight problem might be caused by the two mouths that she has to to go with her two faces.
“The ultimate goal of homosexual-rights activists is not to legalize same-sex marriage. Rather, it is to silence those who disagree with them and, if necessary, to throw them in jail. In a world in which the biblical viewpoint of marriage is demonized, it does not take a constitutional scholar to predict that soon those who hold that view will find themselves in court. How did we get to the point where homosexual-rights activists would be clamoring to redefine society’s oldest and most reliable institution and people of faith would be worried about being fined or jailed for teaching their faith?”
Chick-Fil-A president Dan Cathy – Still serving that HATE sandwich Cathy tweeted and then deleted the above message. The company’s spokesman has refused to discuss the tweet
“I don’t think it was appropriate. I think it was wrong. [snip] I’ve made it very clear since 2009 that I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. I’ve said that, I ran on that, I’ve said it consistently. That doesn’t mean, in any way shape or form, that I have anything against folks who are homosexual. In fact, I’ve said I believe people are born that way. I don’t believe it’s a choice … you were born with your sexual preference. But I believe that the institution of marriage for 2,000 years has been between a man and a woman.”
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, headed by Archbishop Timothy Dolan and Archbishop and drunk driver Salvatore Cordileone –
“Today is a tragic day for marriage and our nation. The Supreme Court has dealt a profound injustice to the American people by striking down in part the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The Court got it wrong. The federal government ought to respect the truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, even where states fail to do so. The preservation of liberty and justice requires that all laws, federal and state, respect the truth, including the truth about marriage. It is also unfortunate that the Court did not take the opportunity to uphold California’s Proposition 8 but instead decided not to rule on the matter. The common good of all, especially our children, depends upon a society that strives to uphold the truth of marriage. Now is the time to redouble our efforts in witness to this truth. These decisions are part of a public debate of great consequence. The future of marriage and the well-being of our society hang in the balance.”
Yes On 8 President Andy Pugno –
“California’s Constitution says that only an appellate court, not a single trial court judge, can stop a proposition’s enforcement statewide. As of today, there is no such ruling. Nevertheless, the Governor and Attorney General today rushed forward with plans to make same-sex ‘marriage’ licenses available throughout California in the next three or four weeks. And that is where it sits this evening. Our Legal Team is closely examining today’s court rulings, and assessing what, if any, options are available to us to keep Proposition 8 in force. This is a time for careful consideration and discernment, and we thank you in advance for your patience and continued support.”
Family Research Council hate group leader Tony Perkins –
“By a single vote, five unelected justices determined that they know better than God and struck at the heart of marriage in America. It was a powerful rebuke of a law FRC helped develop, the Defense of Marriage Act, but not the final blow. Fortunately, conservative leaders across our country aren’t about to let that happen. In interview after interview, tweet after tweet, the message echoed from Governor’s mansions to congressional floors: we are not giving up. It started with Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and flooded the wires since then. Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) vowed to lead the fight for a Federal Marriage Amendment. Governor Mike Pence (R-IN) said he would use today’s rulings as motivation to work even harder for a state marriage amendment. Are these rulings demoralizing? Definitely. But we will not let a court’s definition of marriage define us.”
National Organization for Marriage Million Dollar Hate group leader Brian Brown, (typing through an unending flood of bitter, bitter tears.) –
“I am furious about what the Court has done. We at NOM and tens of millions of other Americans will never accept it. It’s wrong, plain and simple. There’s a stench to these decisions that has stained the Supreme Court. Will you show your outrage at the Court and make a special contribution to allow NOM to coalesce Americans behind a national movement to preserve marriage? Please make an urgent, emergency financial contribution to our Win More States fund — today. The work that NOM does has never been more urgently needed than it is right now, and we are totally dependent on you, our faithful supporters, to help us continue the fight. Will you join us in expressing your outrage? Please make an emergency contribution right now so that we can immediately launch a nationwide grassroots effort to protest the decisions, and preserve marriage in the 38 states that have laws in place defending marriage.”
“For thousands of years of recorded human history, no society has defended the legal standard of marriage as anything other than between man and woman. Only since 2000 have we seen a redefinition of this foundational unit of society in various nations. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to join the trend, despite the clear will of the people’s representatives through DOMA. What the Court has done will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States.”
Save California head Randy Thomasson (whose hate gravy train has just derailed) –
“Sexual behavior does not constitute a civil right, but the Supreme Court has done vast damage to man-woman marriage, the foundation of the natural family. The high court’s refusal to correct the unconstitutional rulings of lower-court judges and the dereliction of duty by constitution-bound state officials demonstrates that not only is natural, man-woman marriage no longer respected but neither is our republic and system of written laws. Because the high court didn’t care about protecting natural marriage or even the initiative process, they have allowed unnatural, homosexual ‘marriages’ to resume in California as role models for children. Today, marriage, children, and the rule of law all suffer.”
“The Supreme Court has just abandoned 7 million voters, giving us no justice and no access to the courts.. The California Supreme Court made it clear that the proponents of Prop 8 are delegated the right to defend the law if state official refuse to do so. But after accepting standing in DOMA because. . .well because it wanted to, the majority of the Supreme Court justices simply punted unable to recognize a clear injustice in kicking out of court people who have devoted thousands of hours to the democratic process –and $3 million to the defense of the law–that the Court today treats as beggars with no interest in the outcome.”
Maggie Gallagher, the former front-woman (?) for the National Organization for Marriage, and constant anti-gay pain in the ass has written a short article for the National Review complaining that that moral approval for both gay people and single parents has increased in recent polling across America..
“In its latest survey of attitudes toward moral issues, Gallup reports dramatic swings in opinion on only two of 19 issues it asks about: the morality of gay sex and unwed childbearing. Around six in ten Americans now say both are morally acceptable (59 percent gay sex, 60 percent unwed childbearing). Both experienced large swings in the last decade (19 points for gay sex, 15 points for unwed childbearing).
Correlation is not causation. In fact “cause” is probably the wrong word here; it’s more like an underlying cultural logic causing both trends. A society in which Dan Savage is a mainstream advice columnist (which he is) and it’s considered scandalous for ESPN reporters and pediatric neurosurgeons to hold Christian views of sex would sort of look like this.
I personally still cherish the hope that we can as a society eliminate cruel homophobia without jettisoning heteronormativity — which is the need for social norms and institutions to be oriented strongly around the problem and the blessing that sex between men and women makes babies.
But so far, the disconnect between sex, marriage, and babies proceeds rapidly apace.”
As per usual, Maggie tries once again to foist her moral beliefs upon the rest of the nation, discarding the humanity while she’s using words like heteronormativity to mask what she really means which is heterosupremacy.
In a nutshell what Gallagher is stating is nothing less than she and her ilk want to be able to act like a bigot without being burdened by feeling like or being perceived as the bigots they are.
Maggie so traditional and crazed. One must really wonder if it was her own having a bastard child out of wedlock in college because the father wanted nothing to with her is what caused her downward spiral into the business of traditional moral values hate machine.
Maggie Gallagher. So traditional, honest, pious, and so judgmental.
Well now with BOTH Prop 8 and the Windsor DOMA case headed for Supreme Court review the National Organization for Marriage’s anti-gay leaders are making the rounds and crowing about what a victory its going to be for them.
MAGGIE GALLAGHER:
“To strike down Prop 8 on ‘narrow grounds’ proposed by the 9th Circuit is so intellectually dishonest that if that is what the Court wished to do I think they would have refused to hear the case. I think Kennedy will overturn DOMA (perhaps joined by Roberts) and then uphold the right of states to refuse to accept gay marriage (i.e. uphold Prop 8). The victories this November for gay marriage at the polls make that outcome more likely. Justice Kennedy will likely see it as not at all unlikely voters will overturn Prop 8 soon and see that as a much better outcome than constitutionalizing gay marriage.” – Maggie Gallagher, commenting on the blog of former gay marriage opponent David Blankenhorn.
Meanwhile Brian Brownshirt of NOM was trolling on FOX-News saying that he is looking forward to having the Supreme Court “correct some wrongs that happened” in the 9th Circuit Court by taking the Prop 8 case.
Luckily, Elizabeth Wydra, the chief counsel for the Constitutional Accountability Center, was there to teach Brownshirt how the Constitution actually works.
Well, its nice to see that the Human Rights Campaign be proactive about something. And that was the case this week as folk from the HRC marched from their 8 million dollar office building in Washington, D.C. over to the National Organization for Marriage’s offices anddemanded their now-publicly due 2011 financial filings.
It turns out that NOM raised 6.2 million dollars in 2011, a significant drop from the $9.1 million it raised in 2010. But SURPRISE! It turns out that 75% of that 6.2 mil came from just two undisclosed donors which of course NOM is fighting tooth and nail to stop any information about these donors from getting out
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) saw a steep decline in the amount of money it raised in 2011 – dropping to $6.2 million from the $9.1 million it raised the previous year. Just two donors were responsible for funding 75 percent of the anti-gay group – the organization reported two donations of approximately $2.4 million each. In addition to illustrating that more than $4.7 million of NOM’s total $6.2 million reported came from just two mysterious mega-donors, the documents also reveal some interesting information about NOM’s closest affiliates. For example, NOM paid $870,000 to CC Advertising – a group HRC recently filed an FCC complaint against for spamming unsuspecting cell phone users with anti-gay, anti-Obama text messages. The organization also paid nearly $375,000 to Frank Schubert, their ad guru who makes his living largely off of promoting anti-LGBT propaganda.
So now that we know that NOM really isn’t a grassroots organization or a crowd driven social movement organization at all and has utterly failed to build a donor base.
But while the HRC bemoans who NOM paid out money to. I’m more interested in exactly WHOthe two multimillionaire backers are who are solely behind their hateful anti-gay agenda
So lets name some names shall we and throw em out there and see if any of them strike a nerve.
Best bets are that the financial engine behind the anti-equality movement is almost certainly backed by Sean Fieler chairman of the American Principles Project and board member of the Witherspoon Institute, the Institute for American Values, and the Dominican Foundation and proud NOM supporter. The other, I’d surmise, is Howard Ahmanson, Jr. a multimillionaire backer of many right-wing nutjob “Christian”conservative cultural, religious and political causes. My other guesses would be Elsa Prince, Dick DeVos, or John Templeton, Jr. but Im pretty sure that when the donors names are finally disclosed or found out that its going to be Fieler and Ahmanson.
But then again it could be The Catholic Church or the Mormon Church. Or maybe Satan! Wait that’s the same thing.
And in case anyone was wondering. Brian Brown gets paid $230,000 a year and Maggie Gallagher $170,000.00.
Oh I can’t even feign surprise at this and I was a Theatre Major.
“Romney needs to avoid McCain’s mistake of picking a running mate who is more interesting and attracts more attention that he does. Huckabee fits the bill perfectly. He not a guy to scare anyone, he’s run the presidential gauntlet and been fully vetted, and while a pleasant and interesting man, he is a familiar enough figure on the national scene not to outshine Mitt Romney with novelty. Several others on the shortlist also satisfy these minimal requirements. But Huckabee would do something else for Romney — something I don’t think any other person can do: shore up the evangelical base of the party and ignite genuine enthusiasm for getting Romney/Huckabee to the White House. It’s not just Huckabee’s style or political positions that would do this. It’s the relationship of trust and love he’s built with evangelicals and connections to evangelicals across the country. He is beloved. He can motivate. And Romney needs this.” – Maggie Gallagher, writing for Townhall. –Via Good As You
““Romney needs to avoid McCain’s mistake of picking a running mate who is more interesting and attracts more attention that he does. Huckabee fits the bill perfectly.” So I guess what she’s saying that Romney and Huckabee are both uninteresting duds.
But seriously Mike Huckabee is a very dangerous man. He had a strong anti-gay history, is pals with Wingnut Pedophile Ted Nugent, and his son is a physcopathic animal abuser moreover than the Romneys ever could be. (WARNING – This LINK is very disturbing)
Today Maggie Gallagher, writing in the conservative website rag The National Review, is claiming New Civil Rights Movement author Scott Rose is “Attacking Freedom of Thought and Scholarship”
Gallagher whose piece is blessedly short attacks Rose for his work on Mark Regnerus flawed and purposely misleading study on the dangerous effects to children of living in same-sex households study called the New Family Structure Survey
“Scott Rose, who writes that I have blood on my hands for opposing gay marriage (read this to get a flavor of who Scott Rose is and how he thinks), has filed an ethics complaint charging a serious scholar with “scientific misconduct” for publishing a study in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The study was incidentally reviewed by three major family sociologists, Paul Amato, Cynthia Osbourne, and David Eggebeen.
Will Saletan’s question about a “Liberal War on Science?” is beginning to look prophetic. Will the academic community react against political attacks on scholarship like this? Or will liberalism trump the guild? Stay tuned.”
Oh, out! Out! Damned heffer! (Blood, hands, Lady Macbeth. Get it?) Science isn’t partisan and certainly neither are you or the the “family sociologist” you name above.
Dr. Paul Amato has no credentials in gay parenting, and he was paid as a Regnerus study consultant and then he was asked to provide commentary on the Regnerus study, which was published along with the Regnerus study. And according to her curriculum vitae, Dr. Osborne is a Co-Principal Investigator of the New Family Structure Survey. Dr. Amato served as a paid consultant on the advisory group convened to provide insights into study design and methods. So neither of them can be thought of as remotely objective to the contents of the study.
And as for David Eggebeen. In 1996, Eggebeen testified in support of Hawaii’s efforts to ban same-sex marriage, saying “To me, the conclusion is clear that marriage is the gateway to becoming a parent.” and suggested that the children of a same-sex couple would similarly be at a “heightened risk” for poverty and behavioral problems. Sound familiar?
And whats most amazing (and convenient) is that Maggie failed to mention her group’s chairman, Robert George, helped fund the study. Nothing like defending scholarship by failing to disclose a conflict of interest.
Time to come in from the fields Maggie old girl because your obviously wading deep in bullshit once again.
Yesterday David Blankenhorn the founder and president of the Institute for American Values and witness against same sex marriage in the Prop 8 case in California suddenly and unexpectedly writing in the New York Times stated that he has changed his mind on same sex marriage.
“No same-sex couple, married or not, can ever under any circumstances combine biological, social and legal parenthood into one bond. For this and other reasons, gay marriage has become a significant contributor to marriage’s continuing deinstitutionalization, by which I mean marriage’s steady transformation in both law and custom from a structured institution with clear public purposes to the state’s licensing of private relationships that are privately defined.
“I have written these things in my book and said them in my testimony, and I believe them today. I am not recanting any of it. But there are more good things under heaven than these beliefs. For me, the most important is the equal dignity of homosexual love. I don’t believe that opposite-sex and same-sex relationships are the same, but I do believe, with growing numbers of Americans, that the time for denigrating or stigmatizing same-sex relationships is over. Whatever one’s definition of marriage, legally recognizing gay and lesbian couples and their children is a victory for basic fairness.” – David Blankenhorn, writing for the New York Times
Needless to say Maggie Gallagher nearly choaked in the middle of chewing her cud at the news.
“My friend and mentor and one-time boss David Blankenhorn has just published a New York Times op-ed in which he gives up on opposing gay marriage. I haven’t yet read it carefully enough to respond, except to say that ‘the argument from despair’ is the single most powerful argument gay-marriage advocates wield. I wish you well, old friend.” – Maggie Gallagher.
Brian Brownshirt, on the other hand who’s spending the weekend in San Francisco (attending SF Pride perhaps?) did not wax poetic as much as Maggie did about Blankenhorn’s decision to support gay marriage.
“It is sad when a powerful and compelling voice goes silent—especially when the topic is one as important as marriage, and where the silence is not motivated by a change of view about the nature of marriage but rather a seeming succumbing to the continual pressure of the cultural elite. Yet retreating from the debate is not a path we or our followers will ever travel a book a spirit plant journeys retreat, for retreat will surely lead to defeat. We intend to fight on, and fight harder, for the truth—that marriage is the unique union of a man and a woman.” – Brian Brown
Woo hoo! I’m a member of the cultural elite!
Seriously though Moo-gie and Brownshirt are too greedy and stupid to see that their anti-gay gravy train of hate is going down. While Blankenship has tried to jump to safety.
The best thing about this is that its too late for Gallagher and Brown.
Their names are already synonymous with homophobia, lies, anti-gay propaganda and hatred. And that’s the way history is going to remember them.
Ever see a cow spin? Well keep reading.
