Maggie: Gay Marriage Will Destroy American Civilization

File this under “Before they were famous…”

Maggie Gallagher has worked hard to perfect a reasonable, sad-but-sweet persona. I guess in 2003 she wasn’t as worried about hiding her extreme views.

Winning the gay-marriage debate may be hard, but to those of us who witnessed the fall of Communism, despair is inexcusable and irresponsible. Losing this battle means losing the idea that children need mothers and fathers. It means losing the marriage debate. It means losing limited government. It means losing American civilization. It means losing, period.

Emphasis added.  On the other hand, she says she doesn’t care for the slippery-slope argument of gay marriage leading to polygamy because — wait for it — polygamy isn’t as bad as gay marriage.

  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • email
  • Reddit

27 comments to Maggie: Gay Marriage Will Destroy American Civilization

  • 1
    BradP says:

    A) It’s the usual disconnect that gay marriage=kids not having parents. The two have nothing to do with each other, but who lets facts get in the way of ideology.

    B) It is a continual source of amazement to me (yes, broken record) that these nutjobs who predict the end of Civilization As We Know It don’t look to the fact that, really, most of the countries with gay marriage are doing BETTER than the United States. E.g. Canada (no economic collapse, universal health care, better infrastructure, lower crime), Netherlands/Norway/Sweden/Iceland/Belgium (ditto except for too much herring in their diet), and are certainly not doomed (Portugal/Spain).


  • 2
    SNC says:

    Mmm, too much hate, too much bile. Need antidote in form of good (or at least better) news. Ignore the AFA stuff, just watch the video here:

    Also, interesting news from the literary front:

  • 3
    Tre says:

    She’s a vile, paranoid, vapid soul. Could you imagine waking up to THAT everyday? “Oh the humanity…”

  • 4
    Martin says:

    Actually, I found another quote in the source you direct us to, which I think is very illuminating.
    Legitimating same-sex marriage amounts to an official declaration that, as Evan Wolfson put it in a debate with me in a just-released book Marriage and Same-Sex Unions: A Debate: “What counts is not family structure, but the quality of dedication, commitment, self-sacrifice, and love in the household.” Family structure does not count. Marriage in this view is merely expressive personal conduct, a declaration of love between two adults. As such there is no reason for the state to be involved in preferring marriage as a family form.
    The question is: Do we also need marriage? The answer to this question is, I think, abundantly clear from 40 years of experimentation both here and in Europe. The consequences of our current retreat from marriage is not a flourishing libertarian social order, but a gigantic expansion of state power and a vast increase in social disorder and human suffering.
    It seems that this isn’t actually homophobic per se at all. It is the fear that the government cracks up their cozy internal patriarchal, religiously powered social structure. That their family members gain the freedom to say, THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES. We can move away, we can change partners, we can be WHO WE WANT TO BE instead of who you tell us we must be.
    As a European, I have a different view of government as seems prevalant in the US. To me government ideally is there to protect the weaker members of society from the bullies. I WANT government to interfer, I WANT it to regulate big business, banking, religion and all the other power groups that REALLY threaten my freedom. Yes, government CAN become just such a power group, which is why there is the division of power and why there is free press to kick their arses if they get too cocky, and it is far from a perfect system.
    But from that article by Maggie Gallagher you referred to I think I finally begin to understand what this whole debate really is about. It is a school yard bully afraid the geeks and nerds are banding together and creating an alternate system in which he no longer has any say.
    And I am sorry, Maggie, but there is not much suffering in Norway or Sweden. If anything, Scandianvians are the wealthiest, happiest, healthiest, most peaceful, friendliest, most relaxed, least meddlesome, freest, and most tolerant people I have ever met. If THAT is the horror of social engineering, bring it on.

  • 5
    Richard R says:

    What exactly are Maggie’s qualifications/credentials on the marriage issue, other than the mindless bigotry rising up from her gut? Given that she has become the largest ubiquitous figure in the marriage battle for her presumed expertise, wouldn’t you have expected her to be the most sought-after witness to testify in the Prop-8 trial?

    Well, her most impressive credential is a B.A. degree in Religious Studies from Yale University, which essentially means that her expertise is in the study of how superstitious nonsense is turned into Magic Truth.

  • 6
    Ben in oakland says:

    Martin:P the other issue is this. Christianity has spent 1700 years preaching against gay people. I think they are TERRIFIED that if gay people get a break, then all of their theology is open to question. Of course, it is open to question by anybody with a brain. and of cours,e despite all of the quesitons and the obvious absurdities, people are still rlegious.

    So it ALL just boils down to fear.

  • 7
    dasunrisin says:

    She should be ashamed of herself.

    Yes, Ben in oakland, it does boil down to fear. and I am afraid of angry, hateful people like this.

  • 8
    Richard R says:

    Ben in oakland wrote:

    I think they are TERRIFIED that if gay people get a break, then all of their theology is open to question. Of course, it is open to question by anybody with a brain. and of course despite all of the questions and the obvious absurdities, people are still religious.

    Yes, I too think they are TERRIFIED, and probably even more so of Evolution.

    Due to their fear I think many of them go with Pascal’s Wager, but few would admit it, even to themselves, I suspect. Somehow, they must think their God is too stupid to know about their doubts, even though He is the biggest prosecutor of thought-crimes in history. I think their underlying doubts may be some of the reason they spend so much time compensating by excessively repeating Bible quotes, praying extra hard, and trying extra hard to force others to believe and live up to their concept of righteousness. They may be thinking that if they do all those things, they are suppressing their doubts and God won’t notice them.

  • 9
    robtish says:

    The problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it doesn’t tell you which of the mutually exclusive religions to follow. Do you simply pick the one with the worst punishment for unbelievers and go with that one?

  • 10
    BradP says:

    The other problem with Pascal’s wager is that it’s theologically unsound. The rationale is “well, because the risk of not believing is burning in hellfire for eternity, I’d best believe.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but surely the belief has to be heartfelt/sincere, not motivated by a cost-benefit analysis.

    And really, if I were a god who was inclined to send the wicked into hellfire for eternity, whom would I rather have in heaven with me: An atheist who did good for good’s sake, with no expectation of reward in the hereafter, or a believer-of-convenience who did good things just so he can get into heaven?

  • 11
    Tre says:

    Forgive me for chiming in again but I can’t help it – It’s amazing to me that in Maggie’s narrow, bigoted, fearful mind, she is 100% certain that by giving 10% of the population equal rights under the law, civilization as we know it will be destroyed. This is a completely irrational statement and should get her some serious sofa time, as well as discredit her insane ass….

  • 12
    Martin says:

    @ Brad. I think for Christianity, yeah, you need that sincereity of belief… as in “whosoever believeth in me…”. For Muslims, for example, I think it only matters what you profess to. As long as you SAY you blieve in the One God, and that Muhammad was his prophet, you’re good. Thoughts don’t matter as much as deeds. And if I remember correctly, in Judaism, what you think or say doesn’t really matter much at all, as long as you stick to the code of conduct and observe the rites (eating, clothing, workdays, all that).

    @Ben and Tre: I dunno, from the article I’m beginning to doubt that homophobia really is at the core of this. I mean, sure, that they picked that particular playing field certianly has a lot to do with the “icky” factor… to them, men snogging me is just too gross for them to stop fussing over it… playground cootie panic. But over all their behaviour seems to make more sense if you assume they feel threatened by possibility of change per se. They sound to me like the people who would have screamed just as loud in the 60s about racial equality (esp. marriage, again), and in the 70s about reefer madness and long hairs.

    I mean, it IS the very people who are as rabbid about evolution as they are about gay marriage. Just think about it… the two things that scare them most are the idea of evolution (CHANGE towards something better) and marriage without fixed gender roles. Maybe even more than the icky manlove factor, it is the fact that it would institutionalize that families no longer needed a “MAN” and a “WOMAN” with all the cultural baggage that means that is driving them out of their narrow, cobwebbed little heads?

  • 13
    Martin says:

    And, now that I think about it, isn’t the third big scarecrow on their moral field Health Care? Again… what public health care does is – from my deluded European prespective at least – free people to do what they want. You don’t have to be so scared of losing your job, of leaving your family, all that. It frees you of the social ties that bind you if you have to be afraid of getting sick alone otherwise. Of course those people wouldn’t want folks to get that freedom either. No, everybody has to respect their elders, marry young, live in little communities, go to church every sunday, stick to their job all life long, make lots of little Chirstians, and just stay under their thumb.

  • 14
    Martin says:

    And the very idea that change is part of the natural order has to be declared anathema and banned from the heads of little kids.

  • 15
    Elmo says:

    Before they were famous? What’s a Maggie Gallagher?

  • 16
    RJ says:


    I had added this comment to the very same blog post by our lovely Maggie. It has been waiting moderation since this morning with other comments submitted afterwards approved. I figured I would share it here:

    My dear Maggie:
    You make me weep. You make me feel ashamed for the human race. You make it not only your career, but your life mission to cause direct and unforgivable harm to other families. You use mockery and humor and psuedo-compassion to control the structure of society around you and, in doing so, PUNISH love. Who are you to punish love? Who are you to cause direct and very intentional harm to the families and relationships of others?
    How can you look yourself in the mirror knowing that you are one of the most unethical and immoral women in this nation? How can you sleep at night knowing that, through your actions, you have rendered yourself, a potentially beautiful woman, so very, very ugly.
    Please, Maggie. For the sake of all that is good and decent in the world, stop hurting us. It’s that simple. Stop hurting our families – stop punishing our love and please stop doing so with the arrogance and mockery that you are currently using. Our lives and our love is NOT a joke, Maggie. For you to treat it as such is the epitome of evil.”

  • 17
    BradP says:

    RJ: Very nice. But, ultimately, there’s no point even talking to these people. Dialog is pointless, because they are so morally certain of their views–even despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary–that they will never be persuaded.

  • 18
    Bobby in Seattle says:

    RJ – I admire your willingness to try and reason with Maggie, but you’ll soon understand that there is no way to reason with someone that is 100% convinced that their interpretation of the Bible, life, love and relationships are the “only” correct interpretation. Facts and/or evidence, empathy or a willingness to see some other person’s point of view mean absolutely nothing to such people. Asking her to “play nice” will only get you a response that she will, when you find “her” God, and stop your deviant ways.

    You simply cannot fill someone’s cup with more knowledge when their cup is already full. It ends up being a waste of your precious time.

  • 19
    Ioan Lightoller says:

    Brad and Bobby, unfortunately you are right. There is no use in trying to reason with people who are driven by irrationality. These people don’t CARE about any argument, no matter how sound and sensible, in our favour. They do not want dialogue with us; they want surrender to their point of view. I agree with you, trying to argue with and persuade these sorts is a complete waste of time.

  • 20
    JFE says:

    I’m not surprised she would say polygamy isn’t as bad. There’s plenty of biblical evidence for polygamy.

  • 21
    DEE says:

    Spin and twist away but no one can convince any logical thinking person that most marriages do not result in children, most all do. Children need both a good mother (female) and a father (male). Sure you can live with one leg or arm but the ideal is to have two normal right and left legs! The same analogy is for any child to have their best life!

  • 22
    Anonymous says:

    These people do not want marriage or tradition, they want to in force their gay life style and crucify all who oppose them, mainly the Christian church. They forget Mormons, Muslims and every other faith is against gay marriages too. Once they can marry it will be the end of most all religions to practice their faiths without law-suits. Religious persecution will begin with banning and stripping the bible. Just wait and see and pray hard people! Next it will be three people will want to have a group marriage thus a bottomless pit of degenerate behavior will lead to the downfall of this society!

  • 23
    Dee says:

    I am also opposed to single (heterosexual) parenthood by choice. Experts tell us that Prisons are filled with people from single parent homes.
    I pray the Supreme Court will consider what is in the best interest of most children. It takes years of forsaking lies & denial to admit society is messed up because of a lack of both good mothers and fathers in our households!

  • 24
    Just the facts says:

    Facts…..less than 3% of population is gay.  This is not a normal practice…..its all about sexuality.  Just go and attend a gay pride parade.  Its disgusting and vile.  What’s right is now wrong in this country.  The gay agenda is not about “equal rights.”  Its about acquiring special rights that most Americans are not afforded.
    Fact: A great traditional marriage is always better for kids than a “great” gay marriage. Kids need a mother and a father.  When the best of each class is put against eachother….traditional marriage wins hands down.
    Fact: CDC lists homosexual sex as a dangerous and unhealthy practice.
    Just so all you gays understand……we have be tolerant.  And tolerance does not mean you have the say for everyone.  You are forcing you unnatural, vile lifestyle on Americans.  For now we have tolerated you sinful non-sense.  You may get what you want here in this world….but judgement is waiting for you.
    We are all born with sin….and this includes those who are gay.  With the proper counseling and seeking God this sinful practice can be stopped.

  • 25

    […] the radical extremists aren’t on our side so much. It’s the NOM royalty like Maggie Gallagher and Kirk Cameron and Frank Turek who think homosexuality and same-sex marriage are a threat to […]

  • 26

    […] the radical extremists aren’t on our side so much. It’s the NOM royalty like Maggie Gallagher and Kirk Cameron and Frank Turek who think homosexuality and same-sex marriage are a threat to […]

  • 27

    […] Marriage? Will marriage equality wreck people’s conception of marriage and destroy society? Our opponents think so. They put the idea in their legal arguments, and I recently mocked Nevada Judge Robert Jones for […]

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>