NOM Chair Maggie Gallagher’s 5-minute evolution on gay-baiting Judge Walker
August 11, 2010 at 5:00 pm adambink 136 comments
by Adam Bink
Here’s Maggie Gallagher on the topic of Judge Walker’s ruling:
Here we have an openly gay federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution.
Clearly implying that his judgment is skewed.
Maggie spoke today in Charleston, and Arisha interviewed her on camera afterward on this topic. Here’s the opening part of the exchange:
Arisha: One of the opinions you expressed is that Judge Walker is biased because he’s gay.
Maggie: No, I don’t think that I said that.
Right.
In the first five minutes of this video, she is just all over the place in her response. First she says “first of all, it’s relevant” to “I’m not sure it is relevant” to “it’s not necessarily relevant” to “it could be relevant” to “I don’t believe that it’s totally irrelevant” to finally admitting “I don’t know if it has a bearing or not”. Eventually, she says, “if he upheld Prop 8, I think it’d be even more relevant”- clearly drawing a line between his sexual orientation and his judgment, even if she doesn’t want to admit it.
Watch:
Entry filed under: NOM Tour Tracker, Right-wing, Videos.
136 Comments Add your own
Leave a reply to Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) Cancel reply
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
Prop 8 Trial Tracker 
1.
Sagesse | August 11, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Here is the Rachel Maddow bit on how hard it is to amend the Constitution. Somebody play it for Brian or Maggie.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#38633836
And subcribing.
2.
Seraphiel | August 11, 2010 at 5:12 pm
That poor woman is such a mess. She clearly has no idea what she really believes apart from “gay people are icky.”
Maybe someone finally told her that “traditional marriage” would have her staying at home and being subservient to a husband. Fortunately for her and everyone else, the definition of “marriage” has evolved and changed quite a bit over the centuries in Western culture.
3.
Dave in CA | August 11, 2010 at 5:15 pm
“…She clearly has no idea what she really believes…”
Well, I am sure she believes she needs to make her mortgage payments at least. Maybe she is flustered because she knows she has no other skills and she is worried about how to pay the bills when this is finally over.
4.
Trish | August 11, 2010 at 5:15 pm
OH MY GOD STOP ROCKING BACK AND FORTH!
…
Sorry for yelling.
5.
Josh | August 11, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Did I miss it??
Where is the ruling on the stay?
6.
Richard | August 11, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Judge Walker is going to release his ruling on that tomorrow ( Thursday the 12th) by noon. I can’t wait!!!
7.
siren76 | August 11, 2010 at 8:05 pm
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/08/11/Prop_8_Judge_to_Issue_Stay_Ruling_Thursday/
8.
Kathleen | August 11, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Strange. The article says the info comes from an email that went out late today. It didn’t go out on the regular listserve list. Maybe media are part of a separate list?
9.
Dano | August 11, 2010 at 5:18 pm
I love it! He’s openly gay, but has never confirmed it. Umm that’s not openly gay… “It’s not discrimination to treat different people differently”? Really? I thought that was the definition of discrimination. She certainly speaks with intent, but it would be nice if a little more intelligence was injected in there too.
10.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 5:33 pm
she cannot inject into a conversation something she does not have.
11.
Sheryl | August 11, 2010 at 5:43 pm
LOL, thanks for my chuckle for the day, Richard.
12.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 5:55 pm
You’re welcome, Sheryl.
13.
Kathleen | August 11, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Dano, Maggie makes the distinction (correctly so) between discrimination and unlawful discrimination. This is one of her set talking points. She doesn’t think (or so she says) that Prop 8 constitutes unlawful discrimination. I disagree — and now there is a federal district court judge who agrees with my opinion.
14.
Trish | August 11, 2010 at 5:21 pm
“It’s not discrimination to treat different people differently.”
I just pulled my hair out.
Oxford English Dictionary:
“discriminate: 1. trans. To make or constitute a difference in or between; to distinguish, differentiate. ”
If you can “redefine” words, then so can we.
15.
Anna Bryan | August 11, 2010 at 5:51 pm
NOM redefines words all the time. According to them, a “crowd” of supporters is just slightly more than 15 people.
16.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Gee, I thought they were using the definition from the old adage about “two’s company, three’s a crowd.” After all, once you remove the police officers and the NOM staff, that’s about all you have left.
17.
Dpeck | August 11, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Well, ya know, everything is relative. I mean, if they were holding their rallies in an elevator, then yes, 15 would be a crowd. So that makes it accurate to refer to 15 as a crowd… right?
18.
Phil L | August 11, 2010 at 8:28 pm
As far as I can remember in one statement she referred to herself as “plump”, which totally redefines that as well as the word “obese”. If plump is the appropriate adjective for her then we will have to redefine the weight requirement for obesity.
19.
Anna Bryan | August 11, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Magz Gallagher: Judge Walker is an “openly gay federal judge ” –[2.50 minutes]–> “I don’t know if he’s ever confirmed it”. How exactly does she define “openly gay”?
So she is either purposefully lying in order to disparage a federal judge, or she just doesn’t know what she is talking about (in which case, NOM is paying her WAY too much).
Oh, NOM you make my head explode!
20.
Sagesse | August 11, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Her definition of relevant… the SF Chronicle said it, so it’s ok to repeat it, ’cause it might or might not be relevant (or irrelevant, depending)… but not necessarily that his bias is that bias or some other bias that doesn’t necessarily makes him unfit to render judgment.
Paraphrasing. Gives new meaning to the word ‘spin’. Maggie is an industrial strength margherita blender.
21.
AndrewPDX | August 11, 2010 at 6:43 pm
You mean like the Blendtec ones on http://www.willitblend.com?
Hm… Maybe we could ask them to take NOM’s talking points and blog entries and transcripts of their Tour-de-Farce… Throw all that rhetoric into one of their Blendtec blenders and put it in reverse… Maybe the Truth will come out.
Doubt it.
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
22.
Sagesse | August 11, 2010 at 6:49 pm
I’ve never actually seen a margharita blender… it’s Arisha’s quote for what kind of kitchen utensil BB is.
23.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 7:06 pm
@Sagesse: I have seen a margarita blender at WalMart. Arisha is right, the buttons are difficult to decipher, and it is nearly incomprehensible trying to figure out which ones to press. Especially on the combination ones that are now available that will do margaritas, frappes, smoothies and your normal blending.
24.
Sagesse | August 11, 2010 at 7:27 pm
@ Richard,
Yes, but with Maggie you don’t need to press any buttons. She’s voice activated.
25.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Actually, I was beginning to think that Maggie was sight activated. You know, she starts talking whenever anyone has her in their sight. Even if they are looking at something that is near her.
26.
Kevin | August 11, 2010 at 5:24 pm
I don’t think this has been posted anywhere else, but it’s possible; if so, apologies for the double-post. I have some information regarding the appellate calendar I thought I’d pass along. Notice of appeal was received on Thursday 5 Aug. and has been calendared for the winter. Proponents’ briefs are due on 12 Nov. and plaintiffs’ on 13 Dec. There will then be a two week window in which Proponents may file replies to plaintiffs’ briefs. This case will not be adjudicated en banc, but will be a more typical 3-judge panel. As of right now, we do not know who these judges will be.
27.
Joel | August 11, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Yes, but what’s being appealed and by whom? And what of the stay?
28.
Kevin | August 11, 2010 at 5:55 pm
This is the appeal for the substantive decision released on 4 Aug. If/when Walker lifts the temporary stay there will be a separate (expedited) appeals process to address this issue which may possibly impact upon the Nov./Dec. calendar.
29.
rf | August 11, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Mrs. Srivastav should be home cooking buscuits for husband.
30.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Not really sure he wants her at home. If she is this way at home, he probably enjoys the breaks.
31.
Anna Bryan | August 11, 2010 at 5:26 pm
BTW: I’m REALLY glad Magz is back on the tour. Her interviews are infinitely more interesting than Brian Brown’s. It’s like that time when Paula Abdul returned to American Idol and everyone tuned in just to see how truly awful the train wreck was going to be…
32.
Dave in CA | August 11, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Maybe this long tour is affecting her memory. Let’s help her out a bit, and quote from her op-ed piece in the SF Gate on Aug 5 2010 – just barely one week ago.
The op-ed headline reads:
Maggie Gallagher
Aug. 5, 2010
Prop. 8: Judge Walker’s Bias Will Be Overruled
and concludes:
Judge Walker is off-base… The Supreme Court and Congress will reject his biased view.
* * * * *
There. Okay, maybe she didn’t “say” it technically but she seems to have written it.
33.
AndrewPDX | August 11, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Actually, i believe on Anderson Cooper 360 last week, and then picked up by John Stewart, Maggie called the judge biased. When AC asked why she said that, she said “I don’t know why he’s biased.”
I’ll try to find the link, but it’s on some older posts and you’ll prolly be able to find it quicker just searching the internet.
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
34.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 5:31 pm
okay, I finally got to the page through the author archives. YAY! Feed my hungry email box.
35.
Paul in Minneapolis | August 11, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Wow.
Just … wow.
After I got done retching from the opening shots (looks like she needs to milk herself — maybe someone should just politely slice off the first few seconds of that video), I just watched in disbelief.
The reality in which she chooses to participate is extremely far removed from mine. And that’s a good thing.
Unbelievable….
36.
MJFargo | August 11, 2010 at 5:35 pm
What would be most helpful is: If individuals who quote Judge Walker’s ruling could do so accurately or at least mention where he said “gay marriage has always been in the Constitution.” And, “Did Judge Walker come up with it or is he quoting what experts in the field(s) testified to in court and he found credible?” After listening to Ms. Gallagher, I wasn’t sure at all I’d read the same document that she was quoting.
37.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 5:38 pm
MJFargo, I think that what has happened is this: You actually read Judge Walker’s ruling, while Maggie and the other NOMbies are only pulling things out of thin air based on what cherry-picked items they have been fed as talking points.
38.
rf | August 11, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Guarantee Brian brown got beaten for linking to Walker’s ruling in his rant yesterday.
39.
MJFargo | August 11, 2010 at 5:47 pm
(Congrats on the Walter-Jernigan)
40.
Straight Grandmother | August 11, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Hmmm don’t knwo about beaten, maybe just spanked.
41.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Thanks. We are just trying to get everything lined up for what needs to be handled here while we are out of town each of our two trips to DC.
42.
Anonygrl | August 11, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Well, for those of you waiting for tonight’s episode of the continuing saga of “OneMan, OneWoman, OneBusdriver”, I am sorry to disappoint, but I spent the evening writing something of an ENTIRELY different flavor… lyrics for a song, in fact… so no satire/parody tonight.
:)
43.
James Tuttle | August 11, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Aww…everything is so serious here most of the time (thanks Ronnie for the video clips) and I was looking forward to another installation. Can’t wait to see what happens next.
44.
Anonygrl | August 11, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Sorry… got totally tied up in writing a love song, which I think is coming out pretty good, actually… and right now, my brain is just not doing funny. I am sure I will be back in gear tomorrow.
:)
45.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 7:14 pm
That’s okay. And I for one am looking forward to hearing the love song. Any chance you can post a link to the audio of it tomorrow after the stay is lifted?
46.
Anonygrl | August 11, 2010 at 7:22 pm
The difficult there, Richard, is that I don’t write music. I write lyrics…. so as of yet there IS no music with it, just the lyrics. It is a sort of Ani Difranco type thing in my head… a little bit driving, a little bit angry, but for the right reasons, and probably acoustic guitar. I suppose I could post the lyrics, if you want, and you can supply your own music in your head?
47.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 7:33 pm
And I will print them out, so that if a melody line strikes me, I can sing it into my computer and then try to send you that recording via FB PM. Usually when I write, I get lyrics and music, but my notation isn’t worth bupkis. Fortunately, thanks to Paul, I have found out about Finale, so will be looking online for it soon so that I know how much to save up to get it.
48.
Anonygrl | August 11, 2010 at 7:34 pm
OK… and now for something completely different…
When I Can Speak…
You stand there and look at me
So close and yet so far
Can’t cross this gaping chasm
Describing who we are
And I will take you in my arms
And I will hold you through the storm
But I so want to say
So much more.
A hundred years ago we would never have held hands
We’d have never touched our fingertips and never taken stands
We’d have passed each other by
Our eyes fixed on the ground
And this question I now want to voice
Would’ve never made a sound
You stand there and look at me
So close and yet so far
Want to cross this gaping chasm
Describing who we are
And I will take you in my arms
And I’ll protect you through the storm
Though I’m aching just to say
So much more.
Fifty years ago, we would have hid behind closed doors
And talk of promises would just lay dying on the floor
If we’d held on for an instant
It would have to last life long
And this question that I long to voice
Would’ve never found its song.
And twenty years ago, though defiant we might be
We’d always walk in fear of dangers we just couldn’t see
Declaring love, so risky
Though love longed to run free
And this question I’d have died to voice
Might have been the death of me.
You stand there and look at me
So close and yet so far
Want to jump this gaping chasm
Describing who we are
And I will take you in my arms
And I will keep you safe and warm
Maybe now I can say
So much more.
Perhaps tomorrow I can speak
And someday soon you can agree
And please, oh please, before we die
We’ll find our own equality
Ten long years ago, the prize was just outside our reach
And we were shipwrecked in the water, trying hard to find the beach
And the battle’s worth fighting
And the mountain’s worth the climb
And the question I will one day voice
May one day find its time
You stand there and look at me
So close and yet so far
I will close this gaping chasm
Describing who we are
And I will take you in my arms
And hold you tight forever more
And know that I can finally say
So much more.
The day has now arrived and I can speak the words I feel
And the reason for the waiting is that now the words are real
Today words tumble out
Fill the chasm totally
And the only thing I want to voice?
That’s will you marry me?
49.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Anonygrl, that is BEAUTIFUL!. I am printing the email out, and I am already hearing music to it. Since I am currently the only one awake, I will have to wait until in the morning to sing it into my laptop, but I am going to do this. This love song deserves a melody, and it deserves to be heard. When I finish it, I will try to send it to you via FB. If that doesn’t work, I will send you my phone numbers and you can call me and I will sing it over the phone so you can hear it. Who knows, this could be your breakout song as a songwriter and mine as a recording artist.
50.
Anonygrl | August 11, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Thanks Richard! I kind of hear it in my head as a woman singing it, but of course it does work both ways.
51.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Well, I could do one recording and Chely Wright could do another, and release both of them at the same time. My range is pretty much the male equivalent of Chely’s, so there probably would not have to be any transposition done.
52.
Dpeck | August 11, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Really nice, Anongrl. I like this a lot.
53.
Anonygrl | August 11, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Maybe an arrangement as a duet, but the man and woman are not singing to each other, as everyone assumes from the lyrics… but to another man and woman, respectively.
Anyway, I am glad you guys like it. :)
54.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Actually, I was thinking two totally separate recordings. Especialy since Chely may get to go to the studio before I will.
55.
Sheryl | August 11, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Okay, I broke down and listened. At least she doesn’t get me quite as upset as BB does.
Loved the way she assumed that Arisha had not followed the trial. Could it be that the “perplexed” look that she saw was Arisha wondering if they followed the same trial.
56.
Anna Bryan | August 11, 2010 at 6:15 pm
I’m sure Arisha’s face was simply mirroring what everyone watching was thinking: “That must be some serious medication she’s on”
57.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Actually, I was thinking it was about time that Magz went back on her meds. She is talking as though she has forgotten to take them for quite some time.
58.
Mark M | August 11, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Anna, I can’t decide if she is ON medication, or needs to be…….UGH!!
59.
Terrie | August 13, 2010 at 1:49 am
I am sure that my expression was the same as Maggie spoke – the what on earth are you talking about look.
60.
Straight Grandmother | August 11, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Good interview, that Maggie Gallagher she sure spins like a top. The Biggest Bigot in America Brian S Brown is more focuses and evades better than Maggie. She was sure all over the place.
I gotta go it is now 3am and I got tons of farm work to do tomorrow and won’t have access to the internet. Now you jsut know Judge Walker is going to rule on the stay and I’ll miss it live. Oh well I already bet that he issues it at like 5:45 on Friday, so if I’m right I will probably be around.
61.
James Tuttle | August 11, 2010 at 5:58 pm
It would be hard for me to be eloquent or even make sense when I knew that the ship I was riding was slowly but surely sinking.
62.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 6:02 pm
And the sinking is starting to pick up speed.
63.
Lesbians Love Boies | August 11, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Louis is talking to someone in the background…
Hi Louis!
and subscribing
64. Box Turtle Bulletin » Maggie finds Judge Walker’s orientation relevant, not necessarily relevant, could be relevant, not totally irrelevant | August 11, 2010 at 6:00 pm
[…] Oh, but listen to her try to explain that comment to Tour Tracker’s Arisha Hatch […]
65.
Sagesse | August 11, 2010 at 6:08 pm
Can someone point me to where in the 14th amendment is refers to ‘race’?
66.
Ronnie | August 11, 2010 at 6:08 pm
Booooooo…hiss…hiss…boooooo…<3…Ronnie
67.
James Tuttle | August 11, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Our cat does that when we roll over in bed and disturb him.
68.
Ray in MA | August 11, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Oh Arisha, my heart goes out to you again… putting yourself face to face with someone who will twist and spim ANYTHING you say.
Do you go home to your hotel at night and bang your head against the wall? The result of that is the same as trying to talk with this idiot.
I hope your management has a good reason for you to do this.
I can thinkg of some reasons… but I hope that they’re right in what thet are thinking, becasue it is questionable.
69.
Bob Miller | August 11, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Now if Arisha could actually get a margurita after all of the spinning putting up with the spin might actually be worth having to listen to the spinning.
70.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 6:13 pm
And here is what WUNC had to say about yesterday’s event.
http://wunc.org/programs/news/audio-archive-2/SLL0810b.mp3/view
71.
Al | August 11, 2010 at 6:17 pm
She gives new meaning to the word spin. Her arguments went in complete circles – does she not remember what she has said, in this interview, or in the past few?
72.
AndrewPDX | August 11, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Well, as Mark Twain said, If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.
It is only when you are lying that you need to remember what you said before, lest you contradict yourself…
Now, what does this adage tell us about what Maggie is saying?
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
73.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 7:36 pm
And how apropos that Maggie was wearing a white cardigan, since her dream seems to stand a snowball’s chance in a fire.
74.
Anonygrl | August 11, 2010 at 7:40 pm
@Andrew
That she doesn’t read the works of American humorists?
:P
75.
Sagesse | August 11, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Ok. So how do we get this video picked up by every LGBT blog out there. Make it go viral. Get Rachel Maddow to play it. No one will ask this woman to give an interview, or write an op-ed again.
76.
Paul in Minneapolis | August 11, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Just saw on Advocate.com that Walker is going to issue his decision about the stay tomorrow morning (Thursday, August 12).
77.
Paul in Minneapolis | August 11, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Advocate says it will be between 9:00 a.m. and noon PDT.
78.
Paul in Minneapolis | August 11, 2010 at 6:45 pm
And more detail from Advocate.com:
The court will enter its order on the motion to stay judgment pending appeal (docket number 705) in Perry v Schwarzenegger, C09-2292, between 9 am and noon on Thursday, August 12 PDT.
The order will be posted on the court’s web page devoted to the Perry case, will be available through PACER and will be available in hard copy at the San Francisco courthouse in the hallway outside the ADR courtroom (16th Floor) and in the Press Room on the 18th Floor.
79.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Guess I will just have to make sure I have everything done before noon tomorrow EDT, won’t I? Or at least have everything at a point where I can take a break.
80.
Paul in Minneapolis | August 11, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Yes — for you, between Noon and 3:00 p.m.; for me, between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.
Gonna be a looooonnng morning at work tomorrow…. At least I can read this site at work, even if I can’t post from there!
81.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Paul, you have my email. anything you want to say tomorrow, just email me, and I will post it for you, with a notice to everybody that it’s your comment.
82.
Paul in Minneapolis | August 11, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Thanks, Richard! I will have my BlackBerry with me, so I could send a short message if the urge won’t wait until after work! Or I’ll call you….
83.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Call the landline number. Cell phone doesn’t work too well in the house. Menorah interference.
84.
Dpeck | August 11, 2010 at 7:37 pm
CONFRIMING HERE – I just heard the report on ABC NEWS RADIO (KGO 810 AM Bay Area News radio) that Judge Walker WILL announce the decision about the stay on Thursday.
85.
Lesbians Love Boies | August 11, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Ann S just posted in another thread that tweeters are posting:
BREAKING Court: Prop 8 judge will issue ruling regarding a stay of the decision on Thursday morning btw 9am and 12pm pacific time.
86.
James Tuttle | August 11, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Aww…crap..here we go again. SO EXCITED!
87.
Felyx | August 11, 2010 at 6:46 pm
“He is potentially ruling on a matter which would affect his own, say… financial or other rights.” – Maggie Gallagher (2:40 to about 2:50)
Did Maggie say that Judge Walker, a gay man, had financial or other rights in regards to the ability to marry on which he might be ruling? Do gay men (etc) have rights that need to be ruled on?
I am so confused… I could swear her position is that gay men (etc) have NO rights in regards to marriage with the person of their choice… where is the conflict of interest Maggie? How can he be ruling on his rights if you say that he has none (in this particular issue) to begin with?… !!!
I am so dizzy right now from all the spin!
88.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 6:50 pm
I have some Dramamine to help you with the motion sickness. Want me to run up there with it?
89.
Felyx | August 11, 2010 at 6:53 pm
I fear Richard, that the only thing that can help me right now is a nice White Russian. :`(
90.
Anonygrl | August 11, 2010 at 7:00 pm
I am telling you, Felyx… great big cardboard box, air holes… FedEX….
:)
91.
Felyx | August 11, 2010 at 7:06 pm
For those of you who don’t know, Cheburashkas are shipped in orange crates.
But something tells me that FedEXing loved ones is a crime that will haunt one FOREVER!!!
All of you in CA who are partnered… call in sick and go get your asses married immediately!!! It is about the only thing that will make me feel a little better at this point. Goodnight.
92.
Felyx | August 11, 2010 at 7:09 pm
@Anonygrl
Possible ending….
Brian and Louis walk away hand in hand. Maggie is left with the credit card bill for the entire trip. Just as Bri and Lou turn to kiss each other they are ripped apart in the explosion of Maggie’s head.
Wow… I am evil tonight… I better go. Night all.
93.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 7:11 pm
I hear you, Felyx. And I agree with Anonygrl, with only one difference. steamer trunks work a lot better. They are sturdier and once you get him home, you can patch up the holes and pack your clothes in it for your honeymoon trip. Oh, and use UPS. They ship a few days faster than FedEx.
94.
Paul in Minneapolis | August 11, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Felyx, would that ending make it a tragedy?
I’m thinkin’ opera here….
95.
Lesbians Love Boies | August 11, 2010 at 7:22 pm
And there I thought a White Russian was a drink : )
96.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 7:34 pm
It is unless we are talking about Felyx’s favorite white Russian.
97.
James Tuttle | August 11, 2010 at 6:48 pm
Is this thread going to s’plode?
98.
Lesbians Love Boies | August 11, 2010 at 6:50 pm
No, they I am sure CC will post another thread tonight dedicated to tomorrow’s pending ‘big smile’ ruling.
I am going to start work at 1am just so I can be reading what he writes with all of you.
Whoot…prayers for everyone.
99.
Paul in Minneapolis | August 11, 2010 at 6:51 pm
I’m hoping it’s the right wingnuts that explode tomorrow….!
100.
Paul in Minneapolis | August 11, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Too bad NOM doesn’t have an event tomorrow. It would be soooooo nice for Walker to deny a stay in the middle of one of NOM’s speeches!
101.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 7:12 pm
That’s okay. We will hear BB’s and LJM’s heads exploding on the way to Harrisburg.
102.
Paul in Minneapolis | August 11, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Yeah, they’ll probably hear it in China!
103.
Lesbians Love Boies | August 11, 2010 at 7:06 pm
I wonder if Kathleen is still at the Dentist…she said it would happen while she was there (she must either have ESP or some strange luck.)
104.
rf | August 11, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Maddow just spent 40 minutes on DADT- prob because of this: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jgHYwOaDlTewf5gClM1IF9NkZ9GQD9HHKKV00
she’s pissed.
105.
Paul in Minneapolis | August 11, 2010 at 7:10 pm
NOM’s taking credit for the defeat of Paul Koering in yesterday’s primaries. From their website:
I don’ t live in the 12th district, but I don’t know that same-sex marriage played as important a part in the election as NOM wants to claim. Furthermore, this was a primary election; Republicans — and Republicans alone — simply decided to endorse a different Republican for the general election in November.
I wonder how NOM will spin it if the Democrat wins (which, unfortunately, is probably not too likely). Hopefully by then NOM will be even more irrelevant than it already is.
106.
Dave in ME | August 12, 2010 at 5:40 am
They seem to do that a lot. This issue, from what I have read in the papers, is low on the radar of most voters. If a pro-equality candidate loses, then THAT is why they’ve lost-no other reason, and NOM takes credit.
Dave in Maine
107.
Sagesse | August 12, 2010 at 6:50 am
Wasn’t there also a ‘scandal’ involving Koering (who is openly gay) and a twenty-something porn star?
NOM targetted anyone who is supportive of same sex marriage in Minnesota, which is likely to come to a vote (probably after the election). There is building support in MN for, if not marriage, civil unions. It’s close, and marriage equality has a real shot, so NOM is very active, spending and speaking out.
108.
James G in Philly | August 11, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Just an FYI: the stay ruling will be given tomorrow between 9am and noon! Being here on the East Coast and having to worry all morning is not fun! I guess it’s a good thing that I work at night and can refresh the screen at home all morning….
109.
Miles | August 11, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Source?
110.
Lesbians Love Boies | August 11, 2010 at 7:34 pm
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hOiMLmsztmiGlNvjNLQLw4N41h1QD9HHL6200
111.
Josh | August 11, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Any news about the ruling on the stay?
112.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Ruling coming down tomorrow between 9am and noon PDT.
113.
Josh | August 11, 2010 at 7:25 pm
oh, James G in Philly answered my question.
Thank you!
114.
erika | August 11, 2010 at 7:34 pm
What about the issue of standing? Will that be ruled on tomorrow as well?
115.
AndrewPDX | August 11, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Okay… now that I’m home, I can embed this video… I’d like to dedicate this song to Maggie and Brian
Alvin and The Chipmunks You Spin Me Right Round Like a Record Music Video HOME MADE from PJ Synk on Vimeo.
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
116.
Kathleen | August 11, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Weird. I didn’t get a notice for this post. So I’m a bit late to the party.
117.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Not as late as you may think. Many of us who got the link were unable to access it for about three hours. We all kept getting 404 errors when we tried to get into it from the email.
118.
AndrewPDX | August 11, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Say… someone mentioned where, last time same-sex couples were getting married, people from across the country had wired in orders of flowers to be handed out at the courthouses… anybody know of CA florists who will be doing that tomorrow (assuming the stay is lifted)?
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
119.
Doug | August 11, 2010 at 8:05 pm
The sad thing was, I went to the “family gathering” a few blocks away, and I couldn’t stay longer than 5 minutes without passing out from the heat. So I decide to head over to the capitol building to watch these clueless bozos tell the audience, if you can call it that, all about pro-marriage decisions and crap. My straight, but gay-supporting, friend and I, the gay one, were the only ones not clapping. It made me throw up a little… The press also interviewed us, because we were 2 of the 5 or less pro-gay supporters in that whole rally. What has the world come to?
120.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | August 11, 2010 at 8:11 pm
I wish I knew, Doug. I wish I knew. But it surely can’t be good when you have folks like MG, BB, and LJM trying to change our country into a theocracy. Also, if you are on FB, send me a friend request. I grew up in St. Albans, as did Alan E. In fact, go to the FB group Prop 8 Trial Trackers. All of us are open to expanding this family of ours here.
121.
Mark M | August 11, 2010 at 8:18 pm
DAMN IT!! I will be in a training class all morning tomorrow so won’t know what the ruling is till mid afternoon
UGH!!!!
122.
Ed Cortes | August 11, 2010 at 9:56 pm
“outing” myself (I have been using ed c)
@anongyrl )hehe) my HUSBAND (we’re one of the 18kClub in CA) is a composer – check out http://www.composer.ws – and I was hitting F5 all day on the CA court page – DARN! Tomorrow at 9:10 I’m having sutures removed on my finger!
123.
Lightning Baltimore | August 11, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Interesting that the mother of a BASTARD CHILD would be harping on about “responsible” procreation.
I guess responsible procreation means . . . not bothering with birth control?
124.
Lightning Baltimore | August 11, 2010 at 10:33 pm
NOTE: No offense whatsoever meant to children born out of wedlock. I was going for shock value, just as Ms. Maggs is wont to do, when it comes to LGBT citizens.
Then again, my statement is not a lie.
125.
Kathleen | August 11, 2010 at 10:36 pm
Some of my best friends are bastards.
126.
Alan E. | August 11, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Please send me more emails!
127.
Errin Davenport | August 12, 2010 at 2:17 am
She said “…I actually think that marriage should be undissoluable (sp), nobody lets me do that. If marriage is going to be a public legal status then somebody has to decide ‘this is a marriage… this is not’. There is no neutral standpoint, the way to crate a totally neutral standpoint is just to get the government out of the marriage business and i think the reason we have never done that is not that we have such an individual right to have government recognize our romantic relationships…”
Wow! Fine logic! So then no legal marriage for anyone? Or Civil Unions for everyone and let the churches decide o marriage for themselves, which I am fine with by the way!
If it really is the word “Marriage” then to be fair let government issue civil partnerships, extend ALL rights to same sex couples, and let us say we are married if we want under our own religious/spiritual/civil pretenses.
128.
Errin Davenport | August 12, 2010 at 2:18 am
She also supports no divorce, “…I actually think that marriage should be undissoluable (sp)…” She can’t be that bad!!!
129.
Chris B | August 12, 2010 at 3:06 am
I really hate the false logic of statements that begin with: “The Founding Fathers would be shocked if they knew…”, because the founding fathers would be shocked at a lot of things in the modern era:
–A Black President
–Women voting. Females in Congress, Female Governors, etc.
–The content of most Hollywood movies
–The content of most prime time TV shows
–The lyrics of a lot of music on the radio these days
–Interracial marriage
–40% out-of-wedlock births in the US
–54% divorce rate in the US
–A woman with a illegitimate grandson running for VP of the US
–Hooters restaurant
–Women clergy
–Catholic mayor, governors, presidents
–Pornography available almost everywhere
–The prevalence of tattoos on people of all ages
–Women with careers
–People going out in public in shorts and halter tops
–Anyone on “Jersey Shore”, “Real Housewives”, “The Real World”, etc.
–Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, Britney Spears, etc.
–Serial divorce and remarriage (Larry King, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Elizabeth Taylor, etc.)
–People being openly homosexual
–etc., etc.
You can’t take the morals and mores of 200+ years ago and expect them to remain unchanged, unless you are Amish (or live in Iran or Saudi Arabia).
Does Maggie also think that homosexuality should be made illegal again, since the founding fathers would have been ‘shocked’ by that? My guess is Yes.
130.
Lightning Baltimore | August 12, 2010 at 8:35 am
They also would’ve been shocked by her hideous hairdo.
I don’t think they would’ve envisioned that someone would think they have a constitutional right to have such an appalling insult to hair upon his or her pate.
It’s unnatural.
It’s also against God, as the Bible instructs that women are not to cut their hair short.
131.
ChrisQ | August 12, 2010 at 7:32 am
Anyone notice she has gone from “treat different THINGS differently” to what she really means which is “treat different PEOPLE differently”??
132.
Sagesse | August 12, 2010 at 8:11 am
Excellent point. She’s cleverly making exactly that distinction. It’s not the ‘people’ being treated differently, it’s the ‘relationship’.
Not to mention that the statement is completely ridiculous. It depends on what the DIFFERENCE is.
It the ‘difference’ is race, it’s clearly not ok to ‘treat different things (or people) differently.
If the ‘difference’ is ‘age’, then it is ok to deny marriage rights to anyone below legal age. The rule applies to every person equally, for the time they are too young to marry, and then it doesn’t apply to everyone equally afterward.
If the ‘difference’ is blood relative, it is always ok to treat an incestuous relationship differently.
At some point someone needs to call Maggie on this. Brian, interestingly, doesn’t use that line.
133.
Steven | August 12, 2010 at 11:35 am
…I’m late in mentioning this (and honestly, I don’t know whether anyone else has) but on either Monday (8/9/10) or Tuesday (8/10/10), NPR ran a story on the up coming decision by Judge Walker.
I was absolutely FURIOUS how they discussed “NOM” and made them sound so, nice.
THEN, they ran a clip from Maggie “Hater” Gallagher, that was all nice and stuff.
Errrrrrrgh…I was so mad.
134.
Brian Miller | August 13, 2010 at 7:42 am
While we’re talking about concepts that would “shock” the Founding Fathers, let’s not forget they’d be equally “shocked” by the idea that the constitution would end slavery or allow women like Maggie to vote and participate in the political process, too.
Oops.
135. NOM vs. the judicial branch « Prop 8 Trial Tracker | December 3, 2010 at 11:14 am
[…] what I wrote at the time (bolding added): In the first five minutes of this video, she is just all over the place in her […]
136. What NOM Chair Maggie Gallagher said about Judge Walker’s sexual orientation « Prop 8 Trial Tracker | April 26, 2011 at 9:21 am
[…] I wrote at the time in a post titled “NOM Chair Maggie Gallagher’s 5-minute evolution on… In the first five minutes of this video, she is just all over the place in her response. First she says “first of all, it’s relevant” to “I’m not sure it is relevant” to “it’s not necessarily relevant” to “it could be relevant” to “I don’t believe that it’s totally irrelevant” to finally admitting “I don’t know if it has a bearing or not”. Eventually, she says, “if he upheld Prop 8, I think it’d be even more relevant”- clearly drawing a line between his sexual orientation and his judgment, even if she doesn’t want to admit it. […]