In early April 2003, the Institute for American Values invited two dozen activists, scholars and journalists to Osprey Point, a conference center near the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, for a “marriage leaders summit.” …

The meeting lasted three days, and one evening, after the main sessions had ended, Gallagher gathered a group of attendees to talk about same-sex marriage. “The questions began by talking about what people think about homosexuality,” Gallagher recalls. “And I said that’s a perfectly legitimate question, but that’s not my concern. My concern is that marriage really matters because children need a mom and a dad, and after gay marriage, I can’t say that anymore. I won’t be allowed to say it. Marriage will not be about that anymore. We will not have an institution dedicated to putting together mothers and fathers and children.”

The making of gay marriage’s top foe - Gay Marriage - Salon.com

Maggie Gallagher is willing to deny hundreds of thousands of people the right to marry the person they love in order to preserve a rhetorical point for argument.

Think of how she says it:  ”My concern is that marriage really matters because children need a mom and a dad, and after gay marriage, I can’t say that anymore. I won’t be allowed to say it.”  As a literal matter, it’s untrue—completely untrue.  Of course she can still say it.  Gays can marry in several states now, and it hasn’t stopped her from saying it.  What she means is that she can’t say it credibly, because there will be growing evidence of same-sex success stories.  

If you read the whole article, you’ll find that Maggie Gallagher isn’t an evil person.  She’s well-intentioned; she’s kind; generous; forthcoming and sympathetic.  And yet she’s leading a movement that is cruel and mean and unjust.  Her motives are pure, but they are generated by nothing … there’s nothing there to back them up.  She’s a woman who found salvation and meaning through a cause that makes no sense, but she can’t give it up, because it’s her salvation and it gave her meaning.  At least she’s told herself that it did.

We deride flip-flopping politicians for their inconsistencies, and maybe it’s because their behavior reflects the malleability of their principles, and not a genuine turn of their heart.  But the flip-flopping isn’t the problem; the malleability is.  A genuine turn of the heart to something better is something that ought to be praised and encouraged.  It’s the real path to salvation.  I hope to read an article one day about how Maggie Gallagher found this path.

Source: salon.com

7 Notes/ Hide

  1. chaptertwelve said: Agreed. Except that “better” is completely subjective.
  2. iambal reblogged this from jeffmiller
  3. jeffmiller posted this
,