NOM's Maggie Gallagher goes to gay protest event looking for trouble, gets disappointed

Yah, after they passed the Sheppard/Byrd Hate Crimes Act...

it seems like the evangelicals are coming out in droves to try to provoke attacks against themselves.

Isn't it pathetic that no one will beat the crap out of them just so they can be martyrs? I'm starting to think that they're jelous of us gettng our asses kicked around.

...maybe if they pray hard enough God will answer the prayers they send up and drop a flaming lion on their heads that has a collar on it with a tag that says "If found please contact GOD at...". Maybe then they'll get the message.  Ok, maybe that's not what they pray for.... {Please GOD? at least some flaming Lion poo? Just a little?}

---

by: Gina9223 @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 08:18:50 AM CST

One of the more interesting things I saw at the NEM...

... was a religious anti-gay type telling the passers-by that they were going to hell and would burn forever etc. He was standing in a place where most of the people gathering on the capitol lawn would have to pass within a meter or two of him.

We all just ignored him.

I passed him by, realizing that this guy was going to spend his day insulting tens of thousands of people, being a visible symbol of the forces that disempower, disrespect, legislate against, brutalize, and tyrannize the very people passing him by, and that no one would touch him.

I think it is to our great credit that we generally refuse to reply in kind.

---

by: pgraydon @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:56:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Is that her husband next to her?

That would be surprising since she never is with him.

---

by: Donica @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 09:13:32 AM CST

Yeah? So?

After that vote last year, some lgbts allowed their anger to rule their minds, acted the fool, and created a few events that folks like Mike Huckabee, Peter LaBarbera, Matt Barber, and the rest replayed continuously as proof of "intolerant angry lgbts."

I am an angry, intolerant LGBT. Can you give me even one reason I shouldn't act like one? Screw them - all of them. I'm not going to play the good little faggot any more.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 09:39:28 AM CST

Where you one of those

that dropped all kinds of racist shit after prop H8 and that I saw making such comments during the Maine vote?If that's what you mean, then your hurting far more than you help.

---

by: onthesea @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:24:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I wasn't one of those

who bought the whole "blacks made Prop 8 pass" crap in the first place.

And that's irrelevant, because that isn't what's being talked about in this piece.

They clearly show how it should be done - harness the anger against the wrongs done to us and not the folks behind it.

This is what this piece is talking about. Turn the other cheek, and meekly ask for what we want instead of being loud, angry and in-their-face about it. Frankly, I'm out of cheeks, and they can kiss the only ones I'll turn to them.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:55:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That's what I figured

but "intolerant" covers a lot of ground.  I know what you mean, but I hope you realize that from a political view it is correct that the "angry fags" stance, however justified, is not the most effective.  However if you don't care about that you are certainly not obligated to "tone it down" if you don't want to.

---

by: onthesea @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:01:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What has politics gotten us?

Second class citizenship, our rights voted away, and MG and those of her ilk deliberately provoking attacks by us and against us. We've made history by being the only group in the nation, ever, to have a Constitutional right that was in our hands taken away.

I resigned my membership in the Democratic party when they gave away the Supreme Court, long before the current administration took office. I'm done with playing politics, triangulating, and accepting the scraps they decide to throw me from the banquet table. But everyone has to decide for themselves when enough is enough.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:18:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm kinda with you on this one

I can understand the reason to be peaceful... but why are we allowing them to control our actions?

So what if someone were to throw a piece of garbage at her?  It's in no way comparable to the violence the GLBT community experiences on a day to day basis.  People like Gallagher help incite this violence.

Whether or not we do these things, their side will continue to work against us, continue to despise us.  So what if a queen decides to mash a little bubble gum in her hair?  I really don't care one way or another...

we can't control everyone within our movement.. and we certainly don't need to control them because we worry they will use our actions against us... They already do.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning violence... I'm just saying we don't need to act meek

---

by: flyerfier @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:06:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

or, as a I heard a queen from the hood say once

the fundies can kiss the pink part of said cheeks.

I am angry and pissed off as hell, as you are (now I know how a lot of GLBT Californians feel...).

How we channel that anger...

---

by: kevinchi @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:20:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I channel it every day

when I go into work, wearing my "Support Marriage Equality For All" button on the lanyard that holds my ID tag. I wear it in front of coworkers, my bosses, customers, it doesn't matter. I have my wedding picture in my office, where I conduct training for visiting customers before they can go into the cleanrooms. I call people on their stupid comments. I've complained to HR and the Benefits Manager two years running because my company's benefits website requires me to call my legal marriage a "domestic partnership" and my company denies dental insurance coverage to my husband. I'm as in-their-face as I can be and still be considered remotely employable - and that's farther than many can because, throwing aside modesty, I'm damned good at what I do, and they'll put up with more from me than they would someone else.

Maybe one day I'll lose my job, and they'll hire someone else who won't make the waves I've made. If that happens, because I'm the only family income these days, we'll lose our house. So be it. I'm not playing their games by their rules any more. The game is rigged, and I'm done.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:29:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Waitaminut

I've complained to HR and the Benefits Manager two years running because my company's benefits website requires me to call my legal marriage a "domestic partnership" and my company denies dental insurance coverage to my husband.

You and your hubby are married. How can the company get away with that?

Orion45 was making this point as regards DP's/civil unions but there is real and actual marriage discrimination as well...

---

by: kevinchi @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:37:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

DOMA

Health insurance is covered under federal law, and under federal law, my husband and I are two strangers who happen to live together.

My company isn't required to discriminate - we used to be covered under my husband's insurance, and I got the same benefits any other spouse got. But they can discriminate, and they choose to.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 13:11:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Kev and Queer: Don't let the "Kumbayas" get you down...

...stay angry.

---

by: DavidinPS @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 14:33:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It don't even take all of this

When I said harness the anger at the wrong done and not the folks behind it, I meant the folks in D.C. should be commended for not allowing their anger to keep them from their goals.

I meant that we should channel our anger in positive action rather than threatening words. And positive action need not be meek.

I hear all of rhetoric about "no more nice gay" and the like but one one level, it is self-defeating if it's not channeled right.

It can cause a cycle.- We lose a ballot initiative, grouse in chatrooms about how tired we are of "being nice," act the fool and create footage that religious right folks are able to use in another anti-gay marriage ballot initiative, lose that battle initiative, grouse in chatrooms about how tired we are of "being nice," act the fool and creat footage that the religious right folk are able to use in another anti-gay marriage ballot initiative, etc. etc.

At what point do we stop acting like dogs chasing our tails?

---

by: Alvin McEwen @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 19:08:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And I say...

..we need to encourage "good cops" and "bad cops."  We need to have reasonable people fighting the lgbt cause, focusing the anger in positive action as you say, but we also need a group that is feared. Now, I don't know whether that's just threatening words  or if it involves more, but it is clear to me that we will get nowhere if we are perceived as weak. And after a while, asking politely for our civil rights over and over and over, can be considered nothing other than weak.   And then who is "acting the fool?"

---

by: DavidinPS @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:28:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't think

that those in the northern part of the state had to deal with active queer baiting on a daily basis like we have before and after the hate vote. These inciters would get on buses crowded with high school students and verbally bash you while encouraging the crowed to engage in the same behavior. They don't see it as an issue of self defense.

No I am not advocating violence but I don't like to be told that my reaction to constant harassment is unseemly. Especially since my verbal responses are less caustic and aggressive as the tripe that is thrown my way.

If we speak out about how hateful someone is being we can expose the hate driving the ballot initiatives.

---

by: pantherq @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 15:54:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I wonder if Mags heard Foxx's remarks this morning

Virginia Foxx was protesting “the tyranny of the majority that our founders so rightly feared” this morning. One wonders if Maggie, who has made a business of promoting that tyranny, heard this, or what she thinks of it.

What am I thinking — as if either of them would notice the contradiction or care.

---

by: pgraydon @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:47:16 AM CST

It shows what a SMALL evil B*tch she is....and don't kvetch about the B-word she OWNS it

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:06:29 AM CST

There's probably a reason we've all heard of ACT UP

while REACT UP remains decidedly less well-known. /snark

I agree with the OP - good on the crew who left Maggie alone.

That said, what I can't figure out is why there have been no wedding parties at NOM's DC office.  I mean, they're the National Organization for Marriage, right?  Their name suggests an outfit that should be pleased to host a happy couple and a dozen or so of their closest friends for an impromptu wedding on the NOM premises.  

At this point, it's no secret that NOM was the major funder of the anti-equality campaign in Maine.  Unless I'm mistaken, Yes on 1 marks the first time NOM has earned this honor.  What better way to celebrate that achievement than a wedding ceremony to be held at 1100 H Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC?

twitter.com/ChinoBlanco | youtube.com/ChinoBlanco

---

by: Chino Blanco @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:46:28 AM CST

It Would Have Been Nice

if Maggie had gotten what she was trying to provoke - her ass getting whooped.

If she was brazen enough to show her overstuffed face around ANOTHER segment of the population which she got their civil rights taken from, those people would have made short-work bacon out of her right then and there, and she wouldn't have lived to see today.

It's about time everyone starts making an issue about her being married to a Hindu and intentionally hiding that from the "christians" she represents - along with her "too ethnic" married last name that she doesn't want those people to know about.  It's not racist.  She's ashamed of her marriage, and gay people should force her to accept her husband's race and religion.  

---

by: bluegrassfool @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 12:29:57 PM CST

Where do we go from here?

Coming from Washington state, I'm very proud that the people here appoved Ref.71. It makes me wonder if we as a community need to reevaluate the way we go about things.

Would 71 have passed if it was called marriage? No one will ever be able to say, but I suspect the answer would be no.

Maybe we should bail on marriage and push for fully inclusive DPs or civil unions. It infuriates me to say that. No one wants to ride in the back of the bus. But the back of the bus is better than walking.

Certainly it would be easier to enact a name change of an existing law in the future than it has been to achieve marriage. 0 and 31 leaves a  b i t t e r taste in my mouth.

---

by: pb1025 @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 12:38:38 PM CST

Would 71 have passed if

there hadn't been a high-profile contest regarding full marriage equality in California?  Or Maine?

0 and 31 is the opposition's framing.  The reality is not nearly as grim.

twitter.com/ChinoBlanco | youtube.com/ChinoBlanco

---

by: Chino Blanco @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 12:52:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes

Washingtonians are surprisingly averse to any mention of "well, in california..."

And besides, this approach has been well-publicized since 2007, so it's not like anyone was surprised there was a referendum on the matter.

---

by: Baconcat @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 14:28:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

71 won because NOM spent

all there energy and resources in Maine. Not because 'partnerships' are more palatable than 'marriages". Let's not alter our strategy based on a false premise. We should place gay marriage on the ballet in every State simultaneously. No way can they beat us, we will drain the churches dry.


Come, come, my conservative friend, wipe the dew off your spectacles, and see that the world is moving."
-Elizabeth Cady Stanton

---

by: T2inDC @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 17:17:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think the more salient question is...

... would the fundies have even bothered to file ref 71 in the first place, had they not been emboldened by the win for the Mormons and other haters in California?

"Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." - Dorothy Parker

---

by: RubyDynamite @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 18:38:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I dont think...

I don't think that settling for less and going for Civil unions is a good idea:

1) It's not like we won in Washington by a "huge" margin. It would probably still be a close race in most states even without the name "marriage" involved.

2) The second we would "drop" marriage organizations like NOM of course wouldn't leave us alone... they would apply their same scare tactics to civil unions... they are earning their money on our backs.

---

by: Kamikapse @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 13:16:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Really?

No one wants to ride in the back of the bus. But the back of the bus is better than walking.

That's not what they thought in Montgomery. They refused to accept it, and look where they're riding now.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 14:35:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Google ads

Is anyone else getting the one for a link to something for gay conservatives and their allies?  Google really needs to do something about their software...

My America includes LGBT families.

---

by: Mena @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 14:16:47 PM CST

I was at the rally

everyone left Maggie alone. She sat quietly and safely on a bench and witnessed the entire rally. Altho I don't have too much faith (no pun intended) that her views were altered, she did get to witness the personal and emotional consequence her actions cause our community.

I thought us leaving her alone spoke volumes about the 'content of our characters.'

Come, come, my conservative friend, wipe the dew off your spectacles, and see that the world is moving."
-Elizabeth Cady Stanton

---

by: T2inDC @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 17:24:51 PM CST

My reaction?

I would've been standing behind her asking questions like "Why do you hate us, Maggie?", "When did you choose to be a bigot, Maggie?", "Why don't you use your husband's name, Maggie? Afraid the reicht would know he's got a weird name?", "What does the Bible have to say about those who bear false witness, Maggie?", "What did Jesus have to say about a mote in another's eye, Maggie?"

Listen to "TransTalk" every Thursday at 4-5pm ET on http://www.falconradio.org

---

by: Marlene @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 18:49:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm tired of US having to have ALL the content to our character

And get beaten by those who have NONE.

Rather than passively allow her to smirk at our pain, I would rather a good cop bad cop reaction had been used.
Most of the rally rush her with vengence in their eyes and a full throated battle cry, then ten LGBTs encircle her and keep her safe...but just barely.

Let her get an eyeful of what could happen when we don't show restraint.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 18:58:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No more Mr. Nice Gay

Our signs say that, but we 'are' nice. We run honest above board campaigns, follow all the campaign finance laws. We try not to be too offensive. At our rallies and marches (and I've been to most here in DC) we are very orderly, polite, walk in the crosswalk when we cross the street, and clean up after ourselves. Our signs are clever, and clean. And our opponents can feel safe attending our rallies. That's just who we are as a community and I think that speaks volumes.

Now, is that effective? That's another issue.

Come, come, my conservative friend, wipe the dew off your spectacles, and see that the world is moving."
-Elizabeth Cady Stanton

---

by: T2inDC @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 18:10:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Angry queers?

Why is it that when we stand up for ourselves and our families that we're angry?  I defend myself against this crap and I'm the angry one?  Really?  We don't have a right to be pissed off?

BTW, I'm not talking a screaming in the streets kind of angry.  I've even been told on my Facebook page by a "good Christian" regarding this legislation that I'm "filled with anger and hate" because "you can't even try to see that EVERYONE needs better laws" when I DID say "Anyhoo, don't see how it can be segregation when the law applies to all groups (now it does at least) who can be targeted by hate. That's the part you won't listen to and... Read More get. This is about EVERYONE, not a few. You could just as easily be targeted by a hate crime for being a white, straight, Christian Republican as I could for being a lesbian."

I guess I'm only considered "angry" because I won't listen to what they say without argument.

---

by: callie @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 20:52:16 PM CST

It's OK to be angy. Anger is a *choice* though.

The DC activists have it together when they say they are going to call-out people for lying about us.

We did NOT do this in Maine, we played too nice, we didn't ACT like it MATTERED that much to us.

In Maine, we did not DEMAND freedom FROM people's religious views, we did not CHALLENGE the legitimacy of the assertions that marriage is a God-given, exclusive, holy heterosexual right.  We FAILED to confront the bigotry aggressively enough, we didn't play the game seriously enough.  We were TOO nice about the fact that some religions was dictating to other religions the rules, when we are supposed to have a separation of church and state in this nation.

And most of all, we did not SHOW the other sides hypocrisy and hate of us.  THEY played the game perfectly.  THEY came off as being righteous and as "just in support of the word of God".  They rarely were shown for who THEY are, their hate of us was not shown, their REAL agenda was not revealed.  Even while they received funding to repeal same-sex marraige in Maine from the SAME PEOPLE giving them funding to repeal Civil Unions in Washington State !  

They aggressively argued that their holy heterosexual exclusive marraige was off-limits and that we could get the "same" thing WITH the very Civil Unions that their backers sought to deprive the same-sex couples in Washington State ! They actually went so far as to say "Civil Unions would be OK with us !"

They claimed that a marraige at a city hall is just as holy a heterosexual exclusive right as a marraige in one of their churches.  And we let them get away with it.

Most distressingly of all, and this is what REALLY P.O.'s me, Maine has some stringent disclosure laws when it comes to campaign financing.  THIS issue was hardly talked about.  The opposition actually hired lawyers to SURE THE STATE OF MAINE so that they could guarantee to certain donors that their names would REMAIN ANONYMOUS. Even while they used OUR donor information AGAINST US.  SO the people of Maine never really knew exactly WHO it was that was pouring money into the state on their side.  Let me give you a hint - the Mormon Church are experts at playing a financial shell-game.  This would have gone over like a fart in Church in Maine.  Well, that and the fact that the oppositions campaign intentionally, and without any regard for Maine disclosure laws, subverted a system designed specifically to let people know who was trying to manipulate them.

And we lost.

This time.

= equality isn't free =

---

by: NVTodd @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 04:22:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No, we should not GO FOR Civil Unions....

Using both Maine and California as examples, in the most recent referendums, the right-wing, anti-gay, reactionary position was that CIVIL UNIONS ARE GOOD ENOUGH.

Can you imagine?

It was not so long ago that civil unions were the scary thing, the unimaginable thing, the cause of the breakdown of society if they were allowed, and now, the public voice of the opposition is that civil unions are just peachy as long as we don't call it marriage like decent straight people do.

We would never have gotten there by shooting for civil unions. We got there by shooting for marriage and recognizing that civil unions are a sometimes useful partway point toward that goal. We're seeing that a lot of people take a deep breath and realize legal gay unions aren't so scary.

We want marriage. We aren't done on this issue until we have marriage. But if a federally recognized "everything but marriage" national civil unions bill is the partway step in that, then yippee. But not because it is good enough, or that we are done when we get it.

---

by: Lymis @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:23:18 AM CST

The real face of Maggie

Please excuse my feeble Photoshop skills...

---

by: BradK @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:33:49 PM CST

Thanks brad

and I'll raise you two Maggie images

Adam and Maggie
  http://s810.photobucket.com/al...
and Maggie Dolls
  http://s810.photobucket.com/al...

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 18:25:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Maggie should be on the hit list to get de-funded by

constantly dragging the IRS and State Campaign finance laws into the light and making the state and the FED investigate their illicit money laundering activities and put these suckers out of business once and for all.

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.-- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: Mykelb @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:45:37 AM CST