Subscribe to Breaking NewsDaigle: Dear Maggie Gallagher
Dear Maggie Gallagher,
I just watched the video you made concerning the victory of anti-marriage equality advocates in Maine.
And though we’ve never met (a product, no doubt, of some great cosmic alignment of the stars in the universe — one that I consider myself grateful for every single day), I feel as though I know you. So I felt compelled to write to you this morning, in the hopes we might better understand each other.
In your video, you say we are stunned and hurt and upset over the loss in Maine. You’re right, Maggie. We are. We’re stunned that the “Yes on 1″ campaign used the same revolting, slanderous messages that have been used against us for years — that we’re child predators, that our marriages would rob people of religious freedom, that all we want is to indoctrinate children into the big scary horror that is Homosexuality. We’re hurt that people still believe all that nonsense, that decent, intelligent Americans still fall prey to such blatant fear-mongering from people who can’t use actual arguments against ours. And we’re very upset, Maggie. We’re upset that for the second time in a very short time, strangers have been given the power to decide how the law treats other people, and strangers have decided for gay men and women whether or not they can keep the right to codify and protect their relationship.
See, Mags (can I call you Mags? Come on, I mean it with affection. I nickname all my friends, and we’re friends, aren’t we?), I watched your video, and I realized you have absolutely no idea what we’re stunned, hurt or upset about. And if we’re going to be pals, I think you should at least take the time to know something real about me. So, lend me your ear, Mags, because I want to let you in on the secret you’re missing, the little piece of the puzzle you haven’t fully figured out yet.
With a little devilish twinkle in your eye (and don’t think I didn’t see it there, because I did! I so did! The mediocre webcam lighting didn’t fool me for a second!), I saw you talk about our loss with a barely repressed glee — we lost and you guys won! — and every time you mentioned us you called us “advocates” or some other impersonal nomenclature, and all of a sudden, I got it. I got you, Mags. Finally. After such a long time of not getting you.
This fight — You think it’s all about ballot boxes and campaigns and videos and votes and which states you win and which ones you lose and what commercials can we run on which stations and what do the polls say and how can we beat them, how can we win?
For us, it’s not about that at all. For us… it’s our lives, Mags.
Fess up, Mags. You can tell me the truth. Because I’m not going to tell anyone (seriously, nobody reads this, don’t worry): It’s a game to you, right? Because that’s easy, right? It’s easier just to create these cartoon versions of actual cultural moments because to actually deal with what’s happening and with real people’s lives would be complicated and harder to spin? It’s just a way to cast people in roles that make them feel good about themselves (you know, you’re the little guy standing up against the big bad monolith and if we all just stick together — and donate some funds to the cause — we’re gonna bring that big bad monolith down! Right? I’m right. Come on, Mags. You can tell me.)
Mags, I have to share this with you, because I feel we’ve become close: you remind me of someone. Well, a bunch of someones actually.
We have these women all across Lafayette (I’m in Lafayette, Louisiana, nice little city in south Louisiana, you should stop by!), these women who have wealthy husbands and really terrific houses (in River Ranch, it’s our planned community, kind of creepy if you ask me) and they have very little to do with their time other than wait in their really terrific houses for their wealthy husbands to come home in the evenings, so their days are filled with the pursuit of Meaning — not little old regular meaning, but Capital M Meaning, the kind that transforms a life from a collection of connected days to a living, breathing agent of change in the world.
They look for Meaning everywhere — in every club, gathering, organization they can think of (because nothing says Meaning like being in a room with other people looking for Meaning as well, right? Meaning by association! Awesome!) — and when they find a message they can wrap their mind around, they grab onto it with a vice grip and wrestle it to the ground, they take that message and tuck it into the deepest part of who they are and they repeat it and shout it until the message takes root there and becomes less of a message and more of an identity, a signpost of worth, a foundation upon which Meaning can be built.
They don’t have to believe the message. It doesn’t matter if it’s true to them or true in any sense of the word. It just has to work with others. Because when your Meaning is wrapped up in a message, the only way to sustain it is for others to agree with you.
You remind me of those women, Mags. All this shrieking and hyperbole and grand religious metaphor — it doesn’t sound to me like a belief. It sounds to me like a grasp at Meaning.
Because there are a lot of people in this country who still get scared of men like me, right? And all it takes is a little grandstanding, a nicely chosen word, a little divisive rhetoric and all of a sudden, those people are looking to you with admiration, looking to you for guidance, and you’re getting on TV and the news and suddenly Maggie Gallagher isn’t just someone’s name — it Means something.
I don’t blame you, Mags. Everyone wants Meaning. But you’re earning on the backs of people like me, people who work hard, contribute positive things to the community, who love with honesty and integrity and who don’t deserve to be slandered and spit on and attacked in the way your organization has attacked us.
That’s not cool, Mags. And there are times when I suspect you know it. Because while others may just dismiss you as a raving lunatic with delusions of grandeur (just saying what I’ve heard), I think there are nights when you turn out the light and lie there in dark and you know, in the secret place we all have inside of us, that what you’re doing is wrong.
Next time you have one of those nights, think about me, Mags. I’ll be in the dark in some other part of the world, and I’ll be sleeping well. Because I haven’t built my sense of self on the backs of anyone. I found Meaning in the right place — within myself.
Be well, Maggie Gallagher. I look forward to your next video.
Leave that troll GodisGood alone. He is obviously crazy and seeking attention.
I like your column, Cody. But I doubt that those women in Lafayette are really bothering their little heads with the search for meaning. I am from South Louisiana myself and I never met anyone there who cared too much about meaning: they were far more interested in eating and dancing and making sure that everyone they knew was a good Catholic.
One more thing for “God is Good”:
again, you’ve claimed that there is some sort of emotional harm that will be caused to straight couples from same-sex relationships being recognized. As I have pointed out, you haven’t provided any evidence that any harm has, or will, take place.
Now let’s put the shoe on the other foot. There is real harm to members of the GLBT community caused by attitudes such as yours. Again, quoting from the CURRENT APA website, “The widespread prejudice, discrimination, and violence to which lesbians and gay men are often subjected are significant mental health concerns. Sexual prejudice, sexual orientation discrimination, and antigay violence are major sources of stress for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Although social support is crucial in coping with stress, antigay attitudes and discrimination may make it difficult for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people to find such support.”
Now I ask you, is all of the pain that the GLBT population is put through justifiable, especially in light of the fact that the straight population is not being harmed by us?
Some more points to ponder for “God is Good”:
I won’t dwell on the issue of decades old statistics because others have already touched on it, but it is very, very important to have up-to-date statistics, which you don’t have.
Further, you provide no context for some of your “crushing” statistics. For example, exactly how much searching did the authors of “The Gay Couple” do? Did they look in a single city, a single state, the entire country, the whole world? The number 157 is really meaningless without context, and I suspect that you really leave out the context to make the number sound much worse than it really is.
You point to an article in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology (which interestingly enough you do not cite the title or authors of so that facts can be checked) that states that “Monogamous” seems to imply some primary emotional commitment, while casual sex continues on the side…honestly, I do not need to do a study to tell you that there are plenty of heterosexual couples that I know who engage in the same types of behaviors.
You claim that in May 2009 the APA said that homosexuality is primarily nurture. Again, you don’t bother to cite your source, so no facts can be checked. However, here is an EXACT quote from the CURRENT APA website (with a link afterwards so you can check the facts):
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html
Anyway, the list of nonsense you go on about is long, and I’ve got work to do besides educating you. You consistently quote outdated sources, don’t provide context for your statistics, or outright misrepresent the truth. You put up straw man arguments that somehow straight couples will be emotionally distressed by same-sex marriages, but can’t back that up with any evidence. You have resorted to name calling on multiple occasions…in short, you are really not good at debating and have no credibility outside your own prejudiced mind.
God is Good:
you have said multiple times “…the emotional effects this could have on a straight relationship…” Exactly what emotional distress is same-sex marriage (or any other issue for which the GLBT community is struggling) causing you? How will your marriage suffer? Are you going to bed at night now feeling a little less attracted to your partner, or do you feel that your relationship is so much less meaningful? Do you think clergy from religions opposed to marriage equality are going to throw their hands up in the air and say “that’s it, marriage doesn’t mean anything anymore, so I won’t marry anyone”? I am sure that your answer to these questions is no. The truth is that heterosexual relationships have their own problems (as others have pointed out to you), and none of those problems stem from gay relationships. So seriously, stop the nonsense you are spewing…it just makes you look like a fool.
To GIG: What year was that study made by the NHSLS? My Google search indicates 1992. Don’t you think that a 17 year old study might be slightly out of date and irrelevant? Of course you don’t. Otherwise you wouldn’t have any statistics to quote. The statistics I quoted are only 3 years old, and clearly destroy your theory that the gay population is only 0.5%.
Atlanta, 12.8%; Boston, 12.3%, Portland, 8.8%, Denver, 8.2%, Long Beach, 8.1%.
Of course, this doesn’t take into account all the LGBT people that were afraid to reveal their orientation. The percentages are most likely even higher.
To GIG: Anyone that uses the offensive term “butt partner” is hardly a man of God. So you can drop the holier-than-thou moniker. It’s not impressing anyone. Truly religious people don’t spew hate filled derogatory phrases. Homophobic closet-cases perhaps.
I love reading all your various statistics. The amazing thing is, anyone can do that to make their point:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003432940_gays16m.html
“12.9% in Seattle are gay or bisexual. The findings do not necessarily suggest the number of gay people and couples is growing dramatically. Rather, the findings may have more to do with people becoming more comfortable about disclosing their sexual orientation in government surveys.”
Based on other CURRENT statistics that I’ve read, a REASONABLE figure would be in the 5% range. Let’s see… 350 million Americans = 17.5 million gay people… AND THEY ALL WANT TO CONVERT YOU!
Someone should clue Maggie Gallagher into the fact that in 40 years she will be viewed as the William Simmons of the 21st century. I wonder if she really wants to go down in history that way, or if she is so self-convinced (read: deluded) in the success of her ideals that she believes she will go down any other way.
Scott T, you are more alone than you think. Try less than 2% of the U.S. population and less than .5% of the world population.
Real facts and real stats:
The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
The study also found that only 0.9% of men and 0.4% of women reported having only same-sex partners since age 18—a figure that would represent a total of only 1.4 million Americans as homosexual (based on the last census report, showing roughly 292 million people living in America). The resulting accurate figures demonstrate that significantly less than one percent of the American population claims to be homosexual. The NHSLS results are similar to a survey conducted by the Minnesota Adolescent Health Survey of public school students. The survey showed that only 0.6% of the boys and 0.2% of the girls identified themselves as “mostly or 100% homosexual.”
The 2000 census sheds even more light on the subject. The overall statistics from the 2000 Census Bureau revealed:
The total population of the U.S. is 285,230,516.
The total number of households in the U.S. is 106,741,426.
The total number of unmarried same-sex households is 601,209.
Thus, out of a population of 106,741,426 households, homosexuals represent 0.42% of those households. That is less than one half of one percent!
Little Scott, what bothers you most, that I post or that it is true. Day and night, no this board does not get enough activity. But, quite typical of gays to lie.
What a nutcase you are, even if we believe that you were one of the 18,000 to get married in California and have been with your butt partner for 14 years, surely, that those not offend, the statistics did not say 100%.
1996 now that is only 13 years ago, but ironically it is gays who got back to 1973 to suggest that gaydom is not a disease and that you gais are born that way.
May 2009, the APA reported that homosexuality is primarily a product of environment and nurture. Or, your daddy sexually visited you as a child and mommy rejected your masculine development.
I will repost, since this is from a gay magazine. I can accept the truth of heterosexual marriages having a 50% divorce rate, many lesbians are former hetero married women. What is your problem with the truth?
Ignoring the emotional effects this could have on a straight relationship, how about the health aspect of all this? Here’s something from the upscale gay magazine Genre, which surveyed 1037 readers in October of 1996. “One of the single largest groups in the gay community still experiencing an increase of HIV are supposedly monogamous couples.” 52% have had sex in a public park. 45% have participated in three-way sex. 42% have had sex with more than 100 different partners and 16% claim between 40 to 100 partners.
Actually, no, I’ll take the bait, GIG is nothing if not good sparring practice: Taking your info about gay men from one book in 1984 would be like taking info about heterosexuals from Life Magazine in 1969 and saying ‘See! See! Those free-loving, nude- romping hippie-hedonists!’ You’d be correct as long as you stayed in context of ‘this segment of the population at this time.’ GIG is never in context because that is the only way he can win.
You see GIG: once upon a time gay people got married to opposite sex partners, raised families and hoped to God their ’secret’ was never revealed. There was really no other path to take. (Pick your gay facts from 1945, why don’t you?) That partly changed in the late 70s during our ’sexual revolution.’ And, yes, AIDS ended the party enjoyed by many (not even a majority) in the gay male community (interesting you never mention lesbians, but we’ll save that for later. And I’ll beat you to it – no, HIV is not God’s wrath. It’s a virus that affects many communities worldwide.) We live in a different society today where the LGBT community is much more mainstream. Why is this? Because of visibility, because of education, and this will only increase with time.
Now LGBT people are a small minority, probably 10% of the population. Genre readers are an even smaller minority of that minority. Take Playboy or Maxim and extrapolate the behavior of those readers to the entire heterosexual population and then pretend you have your facts straight. You can’t because it’s lopsided, ludicrous, and out of context. Are you with me now?
Last, sure some gay men are wild party monsters. Plenty of straight people are too. Others are quite, quite conservative and quite, quite traditional. To me it’s somewhat disturbing that you are literally consumed by this topic having posted day and night on this board for the last 24 hours. This can only mean that you are multiple people or you are someone who thinks more about gay sex than any random 10 gay men!!! Really, you are OBSESSED with gay sex. I noticed that behavior in town hall meetings – these angry men who would talk about the most obscure and obscene sex practices and say ‘this, THIS is what gay men are all about.’ Most people would rather not talk about their sexuality in public, thank you, so this is nothing more than a form of bullying meant to embarrass and cut off rational debate. Sometimes it borders on becoming a sex crime.
There, GIG. I hope I have educated you a little bit, but I know I haven’t reached you because I know you are unreachable. You have, however, given me a reason to express myself and better sharpen my skills for my next encounter with the likes of you. Please continue, you are making us all stronger, and better prepared – and best of all you don’t realize how many neutral people are over-hearing this and being turned off by your tone and your content. Thank you!
To God is Good: You don’t have a lot of credibility when you’re quoting from books that are 15 years old. To be honest, you have zero credibility regardless. You know nothing personally about gay people, yet you make blanket statements about them. As if ALL gay people can be reduced to a few statistics you gather.
I could make blanket statements about straight relationships just as easily: The 50% divorce rate. All of the single-parent families created from divorce. The hypocrisy of politicians that condemn gay relationships while cheating on their wives. How straight people treat marriage like it’s a disposable product, getting married over and over again. Yet you have the audacity to say that gay couples can’t possibly compete with the amazing track record that straight couples have left behind. Your position is laughable.
For the record: I’ve been in a monogamous long-term relationship with my (legal) husband for 14 years. Neither one of us has EVER slept around, nor do we have any diseases. Shocking, but true.
I sometimes find it self-delusional that the opposition uses the non-monogamy argument against gay marriage. Even a cursory bit of research will point out that heterosexual marriage is rife with non-monogamy — both the deceptive adulterous kind and the agreed-upon non-monogamy that opponents point to in gay couples.
But those non-monogamous heterosexual couples are still legally married.
It’s a lame and substantively weak argument.
Ok, make that TWO cream pies.
Education is poison to the gay community:
There is, in fact, a large body of evidence which shows that gay relationships are not the equal of what heterosexual marriage is. If we are to make the correct decision for this country, it behooves us to examine all sides of the situation – even if some of it isn’t pretty.
The first revelation we could examine is commitment. The 1984 book “The Gay Couple” was written by a psychiatrist and psychologist (who happened to be a homosexual couple), and they hoped to dispel the myth that gay couples lacked stability and long-term relationships.
Rather than eliminate the myth, their research confirmed it. After much searching, they were able to locate only 156 couples in lasting relationships. The study also revealed that only 7 couples had actually maintained sexual fidelity and none of the seven had been together more than 5 years.
The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology had this to say: “Gay” monogamous relationships are rarely faithful. “Monogamous” seems to imply some primary emotional commitment, while casual sex continues on the side (1).
Imagine coming home to see your spouse heading out the door saying “Love you loads honey, got to go see the boy(girl)friend now.” How does that make your creaky heterosexual bones feel? Does that feel like the commitment you went to the altar for? Didn’t think so.
Ignoring the emotional effects this could have on a straight relationship, how about the health aspect of all this? Here’s something from the upscale gay magazine Genre, which surveyed 1037 readers in October of 1996. “One of the single largest groups in the gay community still experiencing an increase of HIV are supposedly monogamous couples.” 52% have had sex in a public park. 45% have participated in three-way sex. 42% have had sex with more than 100 different partners and 16% claim between 40 to 100 partners.
I wanted to cut through it all and just ask if someone has a spare cream pie, but I’ll take the high road. I think sure, Mags is searching for Meaning, but this whole battle for gay marriage has turned into a very, VERY lucrative business. Follow the money, it’s not so hard to understand. It’s a career for her (and a lot of other people).