The Rise and Fall of the National Organization for Marriage

NOM co-founder puts biblical ‘evilness’ on millions of marriage supporters’ hearts

January 17, 2013, by Jeremy Hooper, Guest Contributor

I've already commented on another portion of Maggie Galalgher's new interview with Christian magazine Salvo.  However, there is one more section of the NOM co-founder's chat that I felt was worthy of address.  Highlighted chunk:

Maggie Galagher Interview

This is ludicrious logic.  It's also deeply offensive to the millions who believe in both the Bible and their fellow citizen's right to civil equality.

First, the whole idea of there being one clear "biblical understanding."  It's a bit of a cliché for LGBT activists to note that the Bible includes all kinds of couplings (e.g. concubines, polygamous) and family ideas (e.g. offering your daughters to an angry mob) that none of us, Maggie included, would want to consider part of our "biblical understanding" of marriage and family in the 21st century.  But it's a cliché because it's true.  If Maggie wants to overlook the many "biblical understandings" that reinterpretation, evolution, or just plain inconvenience have led the vast majority of modern people to ignore, then maybe she shouldn't rule out the possiblity that gay people's unmentioned marriages are reconcilable with the modern Christian vision.  Just a thought.

Then there's the element of separation.  There are many religious people who hold on to certain beliefs that they would never try to codify into civil law.  Orthodox Jews are not going around trying to ban ham snadwiches or shrimp, regardless of their faith's strict demands when it comes to their consumption.  Devout Mormons are not demanding certain undergarments be the required costuming for our nation's citizenship tests.  Heck, even most Catholics are not trying to eliminate contraception from drug store shelves, despite the Pope's clear condemnations (which actually do use words like "evil") against condoms, et al.  This is because most Americans understand that their faith convictions—even strictly held, life-guiding, you're-gonna-go-to-Hell-if-you-don't-follow-them convictions—are not the same thing as public policy.  The acceptance of this rational reality does not violate anyone's faith; the rejection of that rational reality can and does violate civil rights.

But now the big one: the idea that supporting civil fairness means that you think the Bible is "evil and discriminatory."  Why is that the possibility to which Maggie leaps?!  Some people, as I've already mentioned, just think that the Bible and its diversity of interpretations are separated from constituional reads.  Others see the Bible as basically silent on the subject of gays and our marriage.  Then there are those who think the Bible is just plain wrong on this, as most of us think it is wrong on other matters of public import.  And so on and so forth.  There is absolutely no reason why Maggie has to put this stated contempt for the Christian holy book in the hearts and minds of every one of the millions upon millions who support the freedom to marry.  

There's no reason for it, although it's obvious why she's doing it.  Maggie is so determined to be "right" in this debate that her every step forward these days is propelled by the gusts of hot air that waft off her verbal sleights of hand.  She twists every script so that she is the victim, so that equality supporters are in opposition to most anything good and decent, so that everyone who doesn't think like she does is just incapable of understanding her deep intellectual truths, and so that all of us who have come to understand the clear and consitutionally sound good of marriage equality have some sort of deep-seated need to ruin the lives of people like her (*hint, M.G: most of us just want to be left alone, free from your daily work against us).  Maggie just throws all of these attempts to name reality against the wall in hopes that something—anything, hopefully, pretty please—will convince the American public that she, the most noted embodiment of this form of civil discrimination in the 21st century, will come out of this debate as the pure-of-heart soothsayer whose only goal was to save America from its unwitting self.

Anyone else as sick of it as I am?