Talk:Maggie Gallagher/Archive 1

Double standards section

I'm deleting the Double Standardds thing entirely. I can't see how this is neutral, or ever could conceivably become neutral. --Nick 17:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Cmon guys, wikipedia presents the facts, it doesn't draw conclusions for people. Especially like this, man. --Nick

We present the facts, including facts about opinions. We shouldn't adopt an opinion but we can report it. We have to make clear that that's what we're doing, though. I think the material should stay in, with proper NPOV treatment, although I don't think it deserves the prominence it had, coming immediately under the TOC. It seems, however, that the link to the criticism is incorrect (links to the current version of the page instead of to the older entry that criticized Gallagher). I'll hold off restoring it until I have a chance to find a valid link. JamesMLane 19:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Issues

This article has more information about the alleged pay scandal than it does on Ms. Gallagher's actual accomplishments -- the things about her that make her notable and worth doing a biography of. This seems to me to create a question about NPOV. Also, much of the pay scandal section has no citations. I would suggest that this section be shortened and that any uncited material be deleted. I have added some biographical information to the rest of the article. SCBC (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am about to remove the following from her biographical section: "Maggie Gallagher was spawned in the basement of St. Aloysius Church in Lake Oswego, Oregon, the offspring of an alcoholic carny from a passing carnival and a secubus from the 7th ring of Hell." Cbflagginc (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No wait, it gets better - I just realized that the entire section reads: Maggie Gallagher was spawned in the basement of St. Aloysius Church in Lake Oswego, Oregon, the offspring of an alcoholic carny from a passing carnival and a secubus from the 7th ring of Hell. She attended Lakeridge High School under court order as the local school board did not usually admit livestock as students. She later worked as a janitor at Yale University, (Gallagher claims she was enrolled as a student) where she belonged to the Party of the Right in the Yale Political Union. She was run out of Yale in 1982, with a forged B.A. in Religious Studies. A former sex worker, she is now the common law wife of an undocumented alien and raising two sub-human children in Ossiningcorrectional facility Sing Sing, in OssiningNew York.[1] Nice...so what non-bigoted, optimally tolerant proponent of gay marriage wrote this? Perez, aren't you busy enough with your own blog? Stick to drawing crude illustrations over pictures of closeted male celebrities, and leave the biography writing to people who know how to actually WRITE. Cbflagginc (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, okay...so it wasn't the basement of St. Aloysius Church. It was behind the dumpster in the KMart parking lot. So sue me. Maggie Gallagher deserves any potshots she gets. Her personal tragedy (an unplanned pregnancy and disapointment in the baby's father) hardly offers justification for her self-righteous trampling of the rights and desires of her fellow American citizens. Also, sorry, but it's factual: she is a cow! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.18.25.60 (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Gallagher v. Srivastav

She writes as Gllagher and is known as Gallagher - shouldn't we just keep her full name in the lead and keep her article under the name she uses? -

Oops, now I see this. Indeed I agree. I found 9 Google his for Srivastav (two of which are Wikipedia) and 130,000 plus for Gallagher. According to MOS:NAME, the most commonly used name is the article name, not necessarily the topic's "true" name. —EncMstr (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the move-back. - Schrandit (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Gay marriage

Gallagher is opposed to ALL forms of legal recognition for same-sex couples, not just same-sex marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.19.251 (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hoo, boy, some gay marriage advocates are really pissed at Gallagher. This is badly in need of an NPOV rewrite. --KJJ 23:55, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Do you have to be a "gay marriage advocate" to point out that Gallagher is on a payroll, supports polygamy, and lectures people about their children having problems if they don't get married ASAP even though she herself was a single mother (by choice) for 10 years? Sorry, I don't see it. This is the truth about Maggie Gallagher. --JamesB3 15:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with Gallagher's views but I think this article is biased. it can properly include facts, such as her acceptance of payola. It can properly include unfavorable opinions, if properly attributed and worth reporting. Such things shouldn't be censored. Nevertheless, the overall presentation needs to be more objective. JamesMLane 16:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see the "asshole" comment. I can see why that had to go. I don't think the rest is a problem. --JamesB3 13:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think something needs to be included about her support of Stanley Kurtz's thesis that gay marriage leads to the decline of straight marriage. Gibbsale 03:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is clearly biased. The entry about regarding being on the Bush admin. payroll, undisclosed by Gallagher and denied by Bush is titled "Work for the Department of Health and Human Services" instead of "Controversies", which should also be expanded.--DCX 20:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougcweho (talk • contribs) This was signed, but didn't include the link. I have adjusted my preferences so it now does.--DCX (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

I can only speak for myself, but I contributed several portions of this article and I can tell you that I am neither Maggie Gallagher nor a PR rep of hers. Before I revised it, this article largely consisted of a bunch of quotations and some lengthy discussion about a "controversy." I don't think that anything I've contributed is POV or inappropriate. The article could certainly use expansion, however.

SCBC (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the person was being insincere. Wikipedia is mostly socially liberal so she's not going to be liked here. I think if this fails to say she's a corrupt bigoted witch than it's going to be seen as written by her or POV. Personally I think it should seem sufficiently negative. It has a controversy section. It also makes sure to include a quote of hers that sounds like a defense of polygamy and in the Anglosphere doing that generally gets you branded a nut.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it's self written, but it is poorly written and doesn't seem to fit the standard for a biography of political and social commentator and writer. As far as being having information that is "controversial" as long as it's true, fits the standard and is verifiable, it should not be an issue considering the subject. It seems biased with little dissenting interest. Especially troubling to me is the subject titled "Work for the Department of Health and Human Services" instead of being titled "controversies". I would compare this to Andrew Sullivans bio and think the Sullivan bio format and content is a better template than this.--DCX 19:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougcweho (talk • contribs)

The section on beliefs.

I've made an attempt to cite everything in this section, as part of recreating it. If you object to any part, particularly if you've already removed it, I would appreciate it if you explained your reasoning here. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

User:NatGertler removed the specific mention of Terry Schiavo's parents, but I'm not quite sure why. The article I linked to shows that she supported the parents' view that Terry should be kept alive no matter what. I don't think it's WP:OR to notice that, even if she didn't mention the parents directly, she supported them. If you really think it's WP:OR, I suspect one of the other articles you can find using this search is more explicit. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your sources are not acceptable by Wikipedia standards. Townhall.com is not a reliable source. Please read WP:RS. The Conservative Chronicle and Catholic Education are self-published sources. Please read WP:SPS. The burden of reliably-sourced proof is on the person adding or restoring text, not on the person removing text. Please read WP:BURDEN --Dr.enh (talk) 03:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed Schiavo's parents because they aren't referred to in the source, and they aren't particularly relevant to the topic at hand; it's what she believes, not whom she agrees with. I'll dispute Dr.enh on the applicabilty of the Townhall material, because it's Gallagher's own writing and people are considered appropriate sources for their own beliefs. The Conservative Chronicle and Catholic Education I have not investigated for RS concerns, but I should note that the CC material is just a copy of her syndicate bio, and thus is best viewed as hype. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I think that, as it stands, it's quite clear what her views are, so digging up a specific mention of Schiavo's parents and then including them wouldn't really improve anything. Really, I just wanted to know why, and you answered that quite clearly, which I appreciate.

I agree that Gallagher writing about herself is always a WP:RS about what her stated views are. While I understand your concern about trusting a syndicate bio, particularly if it puffs her up, I think we avoid relying on it for that sort of thing. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Quotations

Don't forget that rather extreme quote by Gallagher in which she has said that homosexuality is "a sexual disfunction" because it prevents men and women from engaging in sexual activity with each other to make babies! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.20.40 (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, BCorr. Yes, those are quotes by Gallagher. --Uncle Ed 17:22, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Moved quotes

Moved quotes off main article per Wikipedia is not a repository for quotes. Consider either turning these quotes into encyclopedic content or consider adding them to Wikiquote. (Quotes have been commented out).

None of Gallagher's quotes are in the Wikiquotes section.--DCX 20:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougcweho (talk • contribs)

Euthanasia/Assisted suicide issues

I added some on the euthanasia issue as that's a concern where I for one sympathize with her position and it seems significant in her columns. I wanted to add elements of her life history to be more fair, but I will admit I'm perplexed by how difficult it is to track down anything about her as a person from online sources. I consider Dworkin to be loathsome, but I thought her statements about her kind of humanize Ms. Gallagher in a way. --T. Anthony 07:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

What made you think she needed to be humanized? She's a very funny, brilliant woman with sharp, strong opinions. Simplemines 14:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please use the discussion board to comment on ways to improve the article, not to express your opinion.--DCX (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As a person

Does anyone know anything about her as a person? Like the year she was born or who her parents are? I feel like right now this article is way too waited to just quoting her and therefore is likely to stay in dispute forever. It'd be good if we could say something about her career, life, education, etc.--T. Anthony 06:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I understand why people dislike her but this article is still not very good. It's mostly just her more outrageous quotes and scandals. Does anyone even know what year she was born?--T. Anthony 11:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I know her. What do you want to know about her? That she was articles editor of National Review in the late 80s? How about that what drove her to become a conservative was an unintended pregnancy while she was in college, and her refusal to have an abortion but bring the baby to term and raise it on her own. Her first and strongest view was being against abortion. That's part of the reason why she is such a strong advocate of marriage (seeing as how the father of her child was another Yale undergrad and scarcely able to fulfill any fatherly duties.)

I'd add more, but seeing as how this is just my POV, it really doesn't have much to do with the article in terms of putting it in (how would you footnote it? That I said so?)

FWIW, the article isn't very good. Lots of stuff missing, and some of it is online (like who her husband is.)Simplemines 14:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

An "unintended pregnancy"!? Condoms are not a recent invention, you know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.20.40 (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

So she won't have an abortion because that's "wrong" biblically but she'll fornicate? She also apparently has been to busy to read 2 Corinthians 6:14 "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.248.26 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

self-written, anyone?

Anybody else get the notion that this article was written by Maggie, or at least a PR rep of hers? It seems presented in a manner akin to a public announcement of issue stances and responses, rather than some basic form of biography. 24.98.225.16 (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm starting to wonder of Gallagher has her PR people write and ensurte that this page is edited to her standards as the so-called "public face" or NOM and all it'sd intolerance! Remember, she one said that even CUs and DPs "erodes the status" of marriage! WTF?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.20.40 (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Prejudice and discrimination", "LGBT rights opposition" and "Homophobia" category links should be added

As is evident based on the nature and mission of her organization, NOM. If further direct references need to be cited, that can be provided.--Dougcweho (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If we put into the Homophobia category everyone who argues at times against the equal interest of homosexuals, we'd end up with a category that was stuffed to the gills with politicians and preachers, and some reasonable WP:BLP concerns regarding the definition of the term. Similar concerns go for Prejudice and Discrimination. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"Arguing at times against the equal interest of homosexuals" is very different than creating an organization whose sole purpose is to create and support legislation and belief that LGBT people should not be treated as equal to heterosexual people in the eyes of the law. Your language troubles me. You minimize Gallagher's efforts to "arguing at times" and use the word "homosexual" instead of referring on point to sexual preference in a neutral sense or LGBT, which is the accepted form used by Wikipedia and the ACLU or "sexual identity" as the United Nations does. Are you aware that the word "homosexual" is generally regarded as outdated? Most conservative writers and bloggers use the word "homosexual" as a means of expressing contempt and for more negative impact. The fact that you are unaware of this or purposefully choose to use language this way does not seem consistent with a knowledgeable on the subject or a neutral position. --Dougcweho (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your lecture. However, this is the place to discuss editing of this article, not whatever personal failings you may choose to assume for me; if you feel the need to have that discussion, User talk:NatGertler would be a more appropriate place. If you check the Homophobia category, you will find it is not generally category for individuals, with the only individual listed under that category being a fresh listing this week and likely to be removed - because as per this discussion, individuals and organizations are not to be included in this category. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Nat is 100% correct, even categorically labelling organizations as homophobic is very controversial at present. If you figure this practive should be altered in the future the place to have that discussion is here. - Schrandit (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point that Homophobia category is not used for individuals and will even say the same for the Prejudice and discrimination category, however "LGBT Rights Opposition" clearly is an accurate description of NOm and Gallagher herself. --Dougcweho (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like that category was deleted over a year ago; if you find a page with a link there, it should probably be cleaned off. (If you're considering creating the category, you may want to delve into its history first; looks like it's been deleted twice.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The category "LGBT rights opposition" is still there and you contributed talk points arguing March 12, 2010. It is relevant to link Maggie Gallagher and NOM to an LGBT category link and association and "LGBT rights opposition" seems the most appropriate. If you can suggest another, please advise. --Dougcweho (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see the source of confusion! What you're looking at is not a category, it's an article. Categories are lists of related articles, as Category:Homophobia is. There used to be a ategory:LGBT rights opposition, but as I said, it's been gone for a while. I don't do much categorization, so I have no specific suggestions for good categories here. -Nat Gertler (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize for the confusion. I am still new. --Dougcweho (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

One good thing to try when looking for good categories for an article is to find similar articles and see what categories they link to. However, checking pages like Paul Cameron and James Dobson, I don't see any relevant categories to add here. Checking the NOM page does find the Same-sex marriage in the United States category, but checking that category finds it lists no individuals, which at least to me suggests it's a category to be cautious about adding. (But I'm also not worried, as NOM would be the more-relevant article there anyway.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is the reason I signed up. The article on Maggie Gallagher is clearly one sided and in fact does not mention any of the ideals she supports which clearly are discriminatory against LGBT people. There are no subject lines outlining the positions in her weekly opinion column and only a vague passing reference to her own controversies such as non-disclosed acceptance of payment from the Bush Admin. to write columns favorable to their positions, euphemistically titled "Work for the Department of Health and Human Services" nor any of the other controversial actions such as allegations that she has distorted findings of studies including those regarding child abuse and same-sex parenting and marriage. --Dougcweho (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

--Nat Gertler (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

After having at least one out-of-wedlock child?

This line is suggesting she has more out of wedlock children. Is there any evidence to support this? If not I would like to change it to "After having a child while unmarried" or similar, less derisive and suggestive language.--DCX (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The line suggests she may have more out-of-wedlock child; we know that she has more than one child, so unless we have evidence that the other child was born in-wedlock, it would be misleading to speak as if it is known to us that it is only one, as your phrasing appears to do. Facts would, of course, be helpful. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Her first child's last name is Gallagher, her second child's has her husband's last name, Srivastav. --DCX (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Which does not mean that they were married at the time the second child was born; the child may have been adopted upon marriage, or may simply have been given the father's name at birth without marriage. I've seen both happen. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Former single mother" does not communicate the relevant information; many a widow or divorcee is a "single mother". --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

hmm...I see your point...do you have any suggestions?--DCX (talk) 06:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I realized the fix right after leaving that message and heading off to bed last night - "unwed" has, in modern usage, more of a sense of never-wed than "single" does. (Should've been obvious to me, Maggie uses that term herself.) I've made the change. Still would be useful to know for sure the relative timing of the marriage child #2. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Presuming a child is a bastard simply because an individual had another out-of-wedlock child is ridiculous. Moreover, you are completely turning the whole concept of burden-of-proof on its head. It is the responsibility of the individual making the accusation, in this case claiming the child is a bastard, to provide the evidence for such a charge; it is not the responsibillty of Gallagher, her supporters or your critics, to whom you so flippantly reply, to prove otherwise. If we adopted your position, this so-called encyclopedia would be filled with tons of potentially-libellous nonsense (or perhaps I should say more than is already contained in this "encyclopedia" already). If there is no source indicating the child is a bastard child, then you shouldn't be forcefully implying otherswise. Furthermore, your argument as to why you should continue to use the phrase "at least one child-out-of-wedlock" can be charitably called less-than-persuasive. I personally call it bullsh*t. If you are going to engage in innuendo in an entry that is supposedly encyclopedia, the burden of proof is on you; claiming your critics need to prove the negative is asinine. You have provided no evidence for your implied assertion in the first place. But hey, I guess you think we should overlook it, because by now anyone who visits Wikipedia more than once should be used to the non-neutral garbage contained in articles concerning figures who are even remotely controversial. And by controversial I mean "people who don't slavishly adhere to left-wing orthodoxy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.101 (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I checked numerous articles on Wikipedia concerning other well known individuals who have had children "out of wedlock". NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM gratuitously mentions that the children were born "out of wedlock". It is quite obvious that the individual who wrote this supposedly "encyclopedic" entry is trying to make some sort of editorial point concerning what is perceived as Gallagher's supposed hypocrisy. Silly me for thinking Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. And in case you think I am lying about checking numerous articles, I checked, among others, Kate Beckinsale, Marsha Hunt, Gene Simmons, Goldie Hahn, Mick Jagger, Jerry Hall, Luciana Gimenez, Halle Berry, Camila Alves, Matthew McConaughey, Mark Wahlberg, Rhea Durham, Naomi Watts, Liev Schrieber. The list goes on and on and on. For Christ sake, not even the article on Bristol Palin uses the term. NOT ONE of those entries uses the term "out of wedlock" nor does it even use the alternative term suggested by critics of this piece of garbage entry, unwed. As I stated earlier, it is obvious to anyone with an IQ over 12 that the use of the term "out of wedlock" and the way it is used, rather than just using the term partner, as is used FOR EVERYONE ELSE, is meant to be some sort jab at Gallagher, a jab that the author apparently, and mistakenly, thinks is cleverly subtle. Please, save your editorializing concerning Gallagher for a blog catering to like-minded individuals, rather than ruining an entry that is supposed to be "encyclopedic" .

I don't know that most of those other figures has made their unwed parenthood a part of their career. In Gallagher's case, it's part of what brought her a lot of attention, as she got a big boost from her editorial on being an unwed mother during the Murphy Brown foofraw (and that term "unwed" was in the title of the column itself). It is a descriptor that she still chooses to wield, as you'll see in this press release. To the extent that we lean toward using a person's self-descriptors, "unwed" seems the correct call. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if "unwed" seems to be the correct call, why is the phrase "out of wedlock" still being used? Furthermore, Gallagher's description of herself as unwed is already detailed, in a much more relevant way, in another section of the article. The section detailing her personal life should be an unbiased description of her personal life; nowhere is it mentioned in that particular section (or anywbere else) that the phrase "out of wedlock" is used because that is Gallagher's preference. As I state above, it is pretty obvious that the use of the term, when it is NOT USED FOR ANYONE ELSE, is pretty clearly a shot at Gallagher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.101 (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The use of "out of wedlock" differentiates the status of the children (the phrase "unwed children" would be odd at best), and you seem to feel that care in not branding in-wedlock children as potentially otherwise is needed. It seems to be a descriptive rather than pejorative term. And it is a term used in over 800 other articles on Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Mark Oppenheimer Salon article 2012-02

"The making of gay marriage’s top foe: How Maggie Gallagher's college pregnancy made her a single mom, and a traditional marriage zealot at http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/the_making_of_gay_marriages_top_foe/ Rorybowman (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking of using that as a source, on her early life anyway, if it's not already being used. I don't think I saw it in "references." Would others be okay with that or is not seen as a credible source?--T. Anthony (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Salon is a reliable source, and the author is a New York Times columnist, so there shouldn't be problems with using it as a source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

synthesis problem

One can say that Maggie wrote some things about journalistic ethics, and one can site the federal contract situation - but when one abuts those things in order to suggest that she was being hypocritical (particularly when one uses a term like "contrast"), then you are engaging in synthesis, using two sourced facts to create a new fact. I am not trying to imply that such a fact is inaccurate, but the proper way to cover such a statement is to find reliable sources that note such contrast. Yes, a frustrating way to go about things, but such is Wikipedia. (And the ref that was given did not actually provide the source for any of the material in the paragraph I removed; I believe the source that was intended was http://www.concernedjournalists.org/having-point-view-while-serving-citizens .) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Noted with thanks, I will revise it--DCX (talk) 06:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Gallagher's Distortions

Hey, I was wondering if we could add a section highlighting and analyzing the instances in which Gallagher has demonstrably lied, with a smile on her face, citing she and NOM's own actions and words to the contrary? As a rep. for NOM, Gallagher lied on national TV, twice, that I know of. And, I can only imagine that this was in an attempt to soften its appearance, depending on whom she is speaking to (her audience), because when she debated at Yale in front of very liberal students she claimed not to have any "moral" animus against Gay people, yet Jeremy Hooper at GoodAsYou.Org disclosed several instances when appearing before right-wingers that she does take a harsh moral stance against the Gay community, even declaring that heterosexual supporters of marriage equality are committing a sin! But, I digress... Those two instance I was speaking of occur on CNN:

When Gallagher was debating a Gay rights advocate named Toby (if i recall correctly), she empirically LIED and stated that sub-second class "Civil Unions" are fine by her (and, by default, NOM). That is a LIE! She was quoted at a Gay rights group in NOM as stating that Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships "erode the [special] status" of marriage; while, at the time of taping, NOM was engaged in an anti-gay campaign against Washington state's new "everything but marriage" law in order to defeat Civil Unions. Toby stated just that, to which Maggie responded accusing Toby of LYING (which, itself, was a lie on her part)! Gallagher, of course, opposes all legal rights and benefits for gay people, according to her own writings. Several weeks ago i read an article written by Gallagher herself, stating her vehement opposition to Civil Unions and any such status: she recounted how, after a lecture, a woman asked her why she doesn't start each discussion with the "PC thing" and come out in favor of Civil Unions. She reflected on that and, instead of giving the answer she gave that woman, she goes on to state that, had she had the forethought, she would have whipped out her birth certificate and said tat that is what makes her a free citizen, though (if Gay people get their way), "I may or may nit die free"! If you are familiar with her various statements over the year, Gallagher really is quite ruthless!

More recently, on another CNN debate, this time with Evan Wolfson of Freedom TO marry, he quite correctly stated that Gallagher and NOM really don't care about the peoples' right to vote on marriage, otherwise they wouldn't be fighting for a Federal marriage Amendment (which NOM has been endorsing for years), to which Gallagher responded that Wolfson was simply putting words into her mouth and she doesn't believe that at all. This, of course, was another lie on her part, because NOM has been trying to get a FMA passed foir quite some time, and that WOULD have taken away the peoples' right to "vote", just as Wolfson declared.

So, you see, NOM very CLEARLY has this pattern of lying to the public in order to make it seem more mainstream than what it really is.

Also, shouldn't we highlight that Gallagher seems to have definite racist tendencies, as evinced by a 1991 article where she claimed multiculturalism in public schools was a threat to "the family", alongside this little racist nugget: "Embarrassing as it may be to admit, most African Americans are Christian". ~ Wade MacMorrighan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.20.40 (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if people start throwing around accusations of racism in various entries because a particular individual has criticized multiculturalism, then it will be all the evidence anyone needs that this site has become infected with a pervasive, politically correct orthodoxy and has thus completely failed at being a neutral source of information. What are we going to do next, start claiming that criticism of affirmative action is racist? Or perhaps in entries on people who happen to be critics of Barack Obama we should start repeating the asinine claim that vociferous criticism of the president is irrefutable proof someone is a racist. The talk section for this article is yet another exhibit in the case of "Why Wikipedia will never be a neutral encyclopedia worth reading". Moreover, we now have people who want their hazy, vague recollections of interviews with Gallagher to be used as evidence demonstrating her supposed belief that gays have no rights at all (something I am pretty sure she never said). Seriously. You can't make this shit up, though when it comes to what Gallagher has supposedly said or believes, people sure are trying hard to do just that.

Here is but ONE article demonstrating the numerous distortions and gross misrepresentations throughout Gallagher's writings in an article called, "Harvard [University] Press was Right to Reject The case for Marriage": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bella-depaulo/harvard-press-was-right-t_b_480152.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.20.40 (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center

It should be noted that Maggie Gallagher's group, NOM, was recently added to it's list of anti-Gay groups practicing in America. Not only that, but no where in this article do I see an acknowledgement of her quote during Maine's Question 1 battle that, to quote Gallagher, Civil Unions "erode the status" of marriage! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.20.40 (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That information is already in the article on NOM; this is the article on Gallagher herself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that it is apt, considering that Maggie is at the helm of NOM, and has reacted against the SPLC's designation as if it's an attack against "religion" (ie. Christianity) through various articles. I would also like to know why Gallagher's claims that all laws allowing Gays freedom and equality is, somehow, a direct threat to "peoples of faith"--or that it's literally impossible to dioscriminate against Gays (which she said in a recent lecture/ debate)--is not a part of this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.20.40 (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why it's not there, but it could well be due to balance issues, lack of reliable sources, or—given what is already in the article—would that provide any additional insight as to her beliefs? —EncMstr (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the poster review the article carefully. While it cannot hold every single statement that Gallagher makes, it already does cite her "erode the status" claim. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and while we are at it, why don't we publish every other criticism of NOM emanating from an irrelevant and nakedly political organization like the Southern Poverty Law Center. The notion that the opinion of that particular organization should somehow be accorded extra weight such that its opinions are somehow required in various entries is absolutely absurd. As for Gallagher's claims that the SPLC's labelling is an attack on Christians(and frankly, I have good reason to doubt your highly dubious interpration of her words), it should be obvious to anyone what she means. SPLC has labelled NOM and similar organizations "hate groups" solely for their stances on gay marriage, going so far as to deem any criticism of gay marriage, for whatever reason, as "hateful". Gallagher's position arises from her religious convictions, thus she, not-unreasonably, deems it as an attack on Christians. Frankly, I couldn't care less what the Bible says, but I have read it enough times to know that it condemns homosexual relationships, and claims otherwise are pure garbage. And please, spare me the ridiculous lecture about how use of the term "homosexual" is somehow verboten. Anyway, the views of the Southern Poverty Law Center should be given no more weight than any other left-wing organization, just as articles concerning left-wing figures should not be plagued with a cataloging of criticisms emanating from every critic on the right. The SPLC should be given no greater consideration than any other partisan or political organzation. And please, don't open yourself up for more mockery by claiming the SPLC is not a blatantly political organization. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.101 (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to check some of your assumptions; the SPLC has not labeled NOM a "hate group". --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Man you sure got me on that one. They called the Family Research Council a hate group and merely labelled NOM "anti-gay". Now everything I have written has been trumped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.101 (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Given that most of the rest of your reply to a months-dead discussion seems to be your assumptions about other people's assumptions and arguments not put forth here, and given that it largely concerns a group not mentioned in the article, there didn't seem to be much else to respond to. I thought you'd appreciate knowing that your concern about the SPLC calling NOM and other groups "hate groups" solely for their stance on gay marriage was unfounded. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually most of my reply concerns giving undue weight to a partisan political organization, the SPLC. There is a grand total of, get this, ONE WHOLE SENTENCE in my original argument specifically concerning the SPLC's labelling of NOM and other groups; either you can't count or you are ignorant of the definition of the word "most". Instead of answering my primary argument, you engage in irrelevant semantic hair-splitting. As for the SPLC not being mentioned in the article, I made my argument because, hey, what do you know, a section on the discussion page is headed, wait for it, "The Southern Poverty Law Center". -- Precedeing unsigned comment bu User:74.141.154.101

Question: Have you seen the messages here? You have been asked to sign your comments eight times. Yet you still do not sign your comments. Why is that? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)