The Truth According to Maggie Gallagher
Yesterday writer, commentator and National Organization for Marriage (NOM) President Maggie Gallagher, one of America’s foremost opponents of same-sex marriage and the Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) President Joe Solmonese, the largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) lobbying group and political action committee in the United States, met on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” to debate the recent changes in the gay marriage laws in Iowa, Vermont and Washington, DC.
As you could expect, it was not pretty….
As you will see, Maggie has a bit of a problem in the point counter point exchange department with Joe… that is reminiscent to a child sticking their fingers in their ears and going…. lalalalalala I can’t hear you… when an adult is telling that child something they really don’t want to hear…
Maggie and her video try to ignite hatred of gays and seemed to be saying… “You have the right to be an ignorant bigot all the time because God and the Bible say you can, but if gays and lesbians have equal protections under the law… You can’t do that anymore… therefor your religion is in danger. Furthermore, you can’t take a chance that your kids might find out their mother or father is an ignorant bigot from school either, and if those evil gays have their way, they will, so this is the reason we should all fight against gay marriage”.
A pretty crazy thought process all and all, but one that is not new to our county.
During the antebellum period in this country, there were churches in the south that promoted slavery as an institution endorsed by God. Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America said…”Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God…it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation…it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.” and Mr. Davis believing he had the word of God on his side, started a civil war that eventually killed over 620,000 people.
Mr Davis believed he was right and that he was defending his faith to his dying day according to his memoirs. So if you go by Ms Gallagher’s argument’s, this mean that once the civil war ended and slavery was abolished, Jeff Davis should have gotten a special provision to the law allowing to still keep his slaves because his religion said it was ok.
Ms Gallagher and her video distort the facts of what to her children and all people in this country should be taught and that is not that gay marriages are better then straight marriages and the religious are bad because their beliefs, but that all people are equal and that discrimination no matter what its reasoning and supposed justifications will not be tolerated under our laws. No more. No less.
Religious organizations that are against equality for any group are engaging in bigotry. If they choose to discriminate against any legally protected minority, they should rightly lose any special government privileges such as tax-exempt status.
It is not gay marriage Maggie Gallagher fears… but equality or any form of acceptance of gays or lesbians by the general public, simply because Maggie does not want anyone to call her and people like her out for the bigots they are and tell them to stop.
How sad is that?
Related articles by Zemanta
- Defeating The Forces Of Fear (mydd.com)
- Deal With It, Maggie (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
- Gay Marriage Will Make It Rain! (oliverwillis.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=08b67dde-8f16-4d77-af8f-c2bc0107c54b)
Loading ...
Jeff Davis did not start the co called “Civil War”, nor was he a supporter of secession. All the South wanted was a peaceful separation from the Northern states. Abe Lincoln provoked the the start of the war by reenforcing Fort Sumter when he should have been eveacuating it for it belonged to the state of South Carolina. As far as Jeff Davis fighting for slavery until his dying day is also inaccurate, his memoirs consist of one chapter devoted to slavery and it debunked the myth that the South was fighting for the sole preservation of slavery. The one thing Davis did fight for till his dying day was the preservation of the Constitution the way it was originally written by the Founding Fathers in the form of States Rights.
Johnny… you can not imagine how much you just reinforced what was said in this article… hell you guys are still fighting the Civil War
The only war we’re fighting are the lies and revisionist history that people like yourself put into print. All I have stated are the real historical facts that you conviently left out or twisted to fit into your story. You stated you had read his memoirs it is obvious you have not.
I have read them… and Davis tried to make it sound like a noble cause he was fighting for to be sure…But the state rights argument of the day as first put forth by Calhoun and later Davis were nothing but an argument why it was the southern white right to engage in the evil of slavery and were nothing but a smokescreen.
All Davis did is make excuses about slavery… Yes while he said in his memoirs that “eventually” the south would end slavery it was needed it in the short term for the south economic viability and he still made countless excuses and justifications why it was ok to keep slaves anyway he could…
As for revisionist history… I would look a little closer to home… the way you write it would make Joe Georbels and David Duke proud.
A Bigot only knows the truth that suit them…
No revision on my part. The way I wrote it is the historical truth not warped or twisted to fit an agenda.
So now I’m a bigot and a racist because I correct your historical references. You have to stupe to name calling when someone doesn’t agree with you. Awfully hypocritical, for as you said “A Bigot only knows the truth that suits them”
Forget the Civil War analogies…
There is a much more recent example of bigotry that is directly applicable to Gay Marriage.
Are you aware that it was still illegal in many states for a black and a white to marry as late as 1967 when the US Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to prevent people from marrying due to race. I can remember the furor that people made about “pollution of the white race” then. They used the Bible to justify that too, and it was just as wrong.
All we gays are saying is that we are prevented from marrying in most states for no better reason than the laws that were overturned in 1967.
I hope that you can see that we aren’t saying anything bad about any race… We just want the same rights that any straight person has…
Maggie Gallagher came across as a mean-spirited, bitter women -not a good argument for marriage no matter what gender.
We need more people like her to show the country who the opponents of fairness really are. Maggie may be the best thing happening to promote marriage equality.
Ok Johnny no revision right…. Davis’ states right smokescreen was not all that unlike like this ad Maggie has cooked up in this article… it was a tool to frighten poor southerners… the one who had no slaves and who would have economically benefited by slavery’s abolition into fighting for the ends of privileged southern land owners such as Davis, by telling them the big bad northerners and Lincoln were coming to make them the slaves and hand over their wives and daughters to the Black men they would free in the process.
Davis’ memoirs were in fact revisionist history at its very best… he was trying to find a way to explain leading the south into a losing war so privileged southerners could keep their privilege and make it sound noble, when all he really needed to do was tell Beauregard to stand down at Charleston, and do what was right. But instead he approved the decision to bombard Fort Sumter. That war was every bit his choice.
So Johnny was there a Holocaust or is that also just victors history as well?
Davis had already stood down weeeks prior to Ft. Sumter when Lincoln reenforced Ft. Barrancas in Florida. At the time of Ft. Sumter, Davis had a commitee in D.C pressing for a peaceful resolution, Lincoln did not want peace. The common soldier North and South were not fighting for slavery one way or the other. This is proven over and over by the personal letters the soldiers wrote and sent back home. The Southern armies were raised to fight the invading armies of the North which did as feared, lay waste to the land and property of the South. The South was right on when fearing that the North would take heir properties and make them slaves to the Federal government, remember a thing called Reconstruction. Gen. Lee had zero slaves, Stonewall Jackson had zero slaves and taught Sunday school to black children, Gen. Cleburne had no slaves, etc, etc. These men fought for their country. You have tried to paint me as some kind of Bigotted racist and keep trying to lure me down that path, it won’t work. You like to use the word “Bigot” as I have noticed it several times on this site, this is a label you like to throw around when people have an oppinion other than your own. What does the Holocaust have to do with Jeff Davis, Judah Benjamin (Jewish) was Secretary of State for the Confederacy. Union Gen. U.S. Grant was anti semitic and Union Gen. Sherman was an avowed racist who referred to the black folks as “Sambo”, kind of a double standard.
Lincoln did not want the Union broken up… and the Union was broken up because the privileged southern landowners feared Lincoln would end slavery… no more. no less… anything that came after secession was pretty much what should have been expected. Davis knew knew what firing on Sumter could bring… he was a former Secretary of War. But he was also a something of a poker player and bet that citizens in the north would not support Lincoln or die for the blackman.
You will find no love for either Grant or Sherman here… they are in my option, both war criminals, not so much for their conduct of the Civil War, but for their genocidal policies directed towards Native Americans later.
Reconstruction was a joke, the privileged did not want to be held libel for their actions or for enslaving a good portion of their population and used every trick to make sure they did not have to pay up… or lose their “special positions” up to and including the use of terrorism and murder… shall we throw out another Southern Generals name while we are here … Nathan Bedford Forrest, one of the founders of the Ku Klux Klan, a former slave trader and member in good standing of the planter class that agitated for secession in the first place. Forrest war service included massacring surrendered unarmed African-American Union troops at Fort Pillow.
In his memoirs Davis said the Confederate high command had failed to adequately use Forrest’s talents.
Forrest’s main goal after the war was the restoration of white supremacy to the south and he was far more typical of the antebellum southerner of privilege and had a far more lasting legacy in the south then Lee or Jackson ever did…
Your version is revisionist history of the worst kind.. because you seek to make the civil war a noble struggle for the rights of the states and not the attempt of a select few to continue to economically befit by the evil of enslaving their fellow man it was… it was about greed, money and maintaining privileged positions, nothing more.
My version of history is the one we teach in schools… thank god.
Hope you had a great Easter week end but, it will be a long week for you here.
I guess you think the American Revolution was fought over tea also. You are correct that Lincoln didn’t want the Union broken up, he wanted it subjugated. The war was over economics, the South had been paying 80% of the federal tariff which funded the federal government. The North was about to signifgantly raise that tariff again. Had the South only wanted to keep slavery it would have accepted the original 13th amendment which was favored by all the Northern states and rejected in the South. That amenment would have Constitutionally protected slavery. Also as you stated Davis had been Secretary of War do you not think that he knew the newly formed Confederacy was not prepared for war. As I said before Davis was not for secession and was not involved in the formation of the Confederate States, he was elected President without even being there.
As far as Forrest, the greatest cavalry general the South had. He freed the slaves that rode with him and many did. Ft. Pillow and what is blamed on Forrests is not proven and is still debated. He was elected grand poopaw of the klan but, it was not the same klan we know of today, it was for fighting Reconstruction. When the faction got to be unruly and violent he had it disbanded. I have located a speech by Forrest made on July 5, 1875 to the precurser of the NAACP, it doesn’t sound like the person our school text books talk about.
“Ladies and Gentlemen, I accept the flowers as a memento of reconciliation between the white and colored races of the Southern states. I accept it more particularly as it comes from a colored lady, for if there is any one on God’s earth who loves the ladies I believe it is myself. (Immense applause and laughter.) I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong. I believe I can exert some influence, and do much to assist the people in strengthening fraternal relations, and shall do all in my power to elevate every man, to depress none.
(Applause.)
I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going. I have not said anything about politics today. I don’t propose to say anything about politics. You have a right to elect whom you please; vote for the man you think best, and I think, when that is done, you and I are freemen. Do as you consider right and honest in electing men for office. I did not come here to make you a long speech, although invited to do so by you. I am not much of a speaker, and my business prevented me from preparing myself. I came to meet you as friends, and welcome you to the white people. I want you to come nearer to us. When I can serve you I will do so. We have but one flag, one country; let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment. Many things have been said about me which are wrong, and which white and black persons here, who stood by me through the war, can contradict. Go to work, be industrious, live honestly and act truly, and when you are oppressed I’ll come to your relief. I thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for this opportunity you have afforded me to be with you, and to assure you that I am with you in heart and in hand.” (Prolonged applause.)
Remember history is written by the victors but, there is always another side to the story.
Johnny,
I grew up in the South. I also grew up with the same load of lies and myths that you are trying to push here. Oh, I know that many of the slaver owners freed their slaves. I know that President Davis sent down the order that any slave who joined the Confederate ranks was a free man. I also know that many did not take him up on that.
What I also know is that the Civil War was not the real problem, hence the mythology. The war itself is a great rallying cry, but the reality is that many of the problems which occurred in the South happened AFTER the war. Once the Suez Canal was opened, the South’s future was sealed. You see, the Suez allowed the British Empire to import lots of cheap cotton from India rather than relying upon the American South for it. The Civil War only added to the impetus to bring cheap cotton from India. The thing about Empire is that it allows you to get stuff really cheaply from other nations within the Empire without worrying about those pesky tariffs.
I remember dealing with a professor who was just as romantic about the South as you are. I also remembering shredding his book because of all the unethical things he had to do in order to fit his thesis into his already patented conclusions.
And, you are right, it was about economics. You see, cotton was unsustainable without slavery. Without a source of cheap, easy to acquire and keep labor, cotton was useless. In fact, without the expensive market for cotton, slavery was also untenable. That is why most places that did not grow cotton and tobacco gave up slavery long before the American South did. For the British, it was easier and cheaper to get their cotton from India and Africa. The same for the French, Germans, and just about all the European powers.
From a global perspective, the South was doomed. Of course, we never teach global history in conjunction with American history. And, of course, we never teach how global events impacted the situation in the United States.
You see, Johnny, I was once like you and had stars in my eyes about the Civil War. Then I woke up to what really happened. I studied a lot of the actual documents rather than relying upon interpretations. What the South did was illegal and unconstitutional. A war ensued, and they lost because the North was industrialized and could produce all the things a war needed. The South also had far higher numbers of deserters than the North. In fact, Georgia had the highest number of deserters possible.
Add to that, Johnny, that the South was so bad at military planning that they abandoned the most important fort on the coast in order to retreat. They abandoned the intercoastal waterway in Brunswick, GA. Early in the war, the Union captured the city and set up a garrison. Any attempt to sail passed that key port resulted in the destruction of the ships. The South could not move goods from Florida to Georgia for distribution up the Savannah.
Great post but, what was illegal and unconstitutional with secession? Northern states had threatened secession long before the Southern states ever did. In fact they believed just as the Southern’s did that the Union was voluntary and as soveriegn states they the right to leave it. It was different times back then, the states had the all the power and the federal government was designed to be a figure head. The greed for money, power and empire is what caused the the federal government to morph into what it became. If it was illegal and unconstitutional why was no one ever tried and convicted? Davis would have eaten them up on the fact that secession was legal, constitutional and they knew it.
Johnny,
The major argument at the time was simple. The Congress did not authorize secession of a state. Since a state had to be granted the right to join the Union by Congress, it also required authorization to leave. Those in the North argued that it was unconstitutional because it was open rebellion against the legitimate and ratified government of the United States of America. Whether or not you agree with that assessment right now is moot. You see, what you would be arguing is not the notion as it was argued at the time, but from your own biases based upon events later.
Since it was seen as an illegal, unconstitutional act of rebellion by the North and the Northern politicians, the soldiers stationed at Ft. Sumptner were not ordered to evacuate. The South fired the first shots, and the war started. It is mythology to believe otherwise. The mythology comes in the form of taking sides.
You see, most scholars in the debate over the Civil War take sides, especially Southern scholars who want to prove that the South’s cause was righteous. They do exactly what you are doing. They are also ignoring the entire picture, and often attempt to jam their facts in to fit their theories.
Now, personally, I could give a rat’s arse about the Civil War. I am more interested in Celtic, Scythian and Indo-European History than I am in American History. Typically, my interest in History ends with Industrialization. The Civil War is something that has been heavily mythologized in order to prove how the South was wronged, and how the cause of state’s rights was just. The reality is that the South’s practice of slavery was inhumane and doomed in the long run. Cotton was destroying the Southern soil so fast that they were having to push further and further west just to keep up with demand. The plantation system created an unsustainable economic structure which was going to fall at the first sign of trouble, and often resulted in massive booms and busts. The play soldiers which the Southern armies fielded at the beginning of the war resulted in the slaughter of most of the young gentlemen which owned the very plantations that the Southern economy depended on. I remember the descriptions of the gentlemen militias gathering together to ‘practice’ every month or so and how it went on for half a day before they retired for the day to sip their drinks and laugh about how they were such good soldiers. Meanwhile, the militias of the North were often practicing each weekend and did not spend half the day lounging around. Many draftees were from the cities where they learned the hard and rough ways in which to fight and fight hard. The gang wars which occurred in the Northern cities made the Southern fighting style look positively weak by comparison.
If you want to get really technical, the war was over slavery, but the origins of the Civil War was based in the same argument that Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton got into. It was the fight between an agrarian society and an industrial one.
“And thus the North waged upon it’s weaker neighbor a war of subjugation”
Secession was only illegal to those wanting to force the Southern states back into the Union.
Even Lincoln had the right in 1848 by stating: “Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so many of the territory as they inhabit.”
Johnny,
Once you are willing to see this from both sides, and to drop the idea that one side was right or wrong, then we can have a discussion on this. Until you do, all you are trying to do is justify and mythologize a war. Was it wrong? Was it right? Personally, I don’t care. All I care about is the fact that you are trying to highjack some of these threads to argue about the Civil War with one of my collegues and next time you post about the Civil War, it gets deleted.