A Link Is Not An Endorsement


Some in the gay blogosphere are trying to assert that NOM--or me--endorses the view of every blogger/article NOM links to, by the act of linking to it.

This would lead to the absurd conclusion that NOM endorses the editorial positions of the New York Times, because NOM links to them--or The Advocate for that matter, as we often link to stories in the gay press.

If you want to know what NOM's message is, there are abundant videos and press stories (including our own press releases) with me, or Brian Brown, or other NOM personnel actually speaking. Fair enough to criticize us for what we actually believe and say.

The standard "a link constitutes an endorsement" would cut off the free flow of ideas at the knees.

I would like to say personally that nothing in any argument I've ever made on gay marriage, rests on the idea that same-sex couples harm their own children at any higher rates than any other family form. (If there is data that shows this, I've never seen it.)

I have written at this point hundreds of thousands of words defending marriage as the union of husband and wife, resting on the idea that society has a special and unique interest in unions that make new life (inside or outside of marriage) and that marriage's main public mission is connecting children to their mothers and fathers.

I'm very proud of what NOM has accomplished and the way it has accomplished it.


  1. NotALibertarian
    Posted December 9, 2011 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    They're going to call you "H8er" no matter what you say, Ms. Gallagher.

    Same-sex couples DO harm their children at higher rates because they always contain at least one adoptive parent. It's called the Cinderella Effect. Documented by evolutionary psychologists in the 70s & 80s, primal instincts that motivate people to care for their own blood-related children are lacking in adoption/stepparent situations. This means only a small percentage of people have what it takes to be good adoptive/step parents. The rest neglect and abuse the children in their care.

    This is why the rosy picture of "blended families" painted by liberals is nonsense. Adoption should be the exception, not the rule. People who really care about children do not actively encourage society to normalize unnatural parenting.

  2. Davide
    Posted December 9, 2011 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    maggie God knows us and our intentions. This is all that is needed for you. Maggie you have helped me in many ways. I have watched countless of videos of you. You face many trails and have suffered because of actions of a few. You can not have Christ without the cross. You will continue to suffer and find great tribulations but the cards have been dealt and this is your lot. In the end of your jouney I pray it is He who says, 'Welcome home my faithful servent'. Rejoice in your sorrows and be happy that He has called you.

  3. M. Jones
    Posted December 9, 2011 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    Same sex "marriages" make a mockery of the "union of husband and wife, resting on the idea that society has a special and unique interest in unions that make new life."

  4. sylvatica
    Posted December 9, 2011 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    Davide, I too am waiting for maggie to be called by Him.

  5. Douglas Campbell
    Posted December 9, 2011 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    Maggie Gallagher has implied and said flat out that gay parents do harm their children more than hetero parents. Here is one example, but there are NUMEROUS.

  6. Thomas Peters
    Posted December 9, 2011 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

    Douglas - that blog isn't run by Maggie Gallagher. If you took the time to click on the "About" page you would know that.

  7. leo
    Posted December 9, 2011 at 5:59 pm | Permalink mean they are taking care of someone elses kids-call it like it is...And I will say it, YES so-call ss parenting does harm and mentally confuses children by its own existence....

  8. Posted December 9, 2011 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    Douglas--thank you for the link about Frank Lombard, the white dad who sexually molested his young adopted black son and broadcast it on the Internet. Tragic story. But I don't understand your point--are you implying that reporting facts is bad? That bloggers shouldn't report facts about homosexuals?

    Thomas--thanks for pointing out that it wasn't Maggie Gallagher anyway.

  9. Louis E.
    Posted December 9, 2011 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    The simple fact of being in the custody of a same-sex couple is a harm to children,regardless of the absence or presence of other harms in those households or those of opposite-sex couples.

  10. Daughter of Eve
    Posted December 9, 2011 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

    The simple fact is that no number of mothers, or mother-figures can fill the hole left by an absent father, and vice versa. Naturally, committed parents of either sex can do a wonderful job in their own sphere of influence, but marriage between a man and a woman provides the optimal opportunity for a child to bond with and be raised by both the mom and dad, and enjoy unique benefits each sex brings to parenting.

    Maggie, NOM and the rest of the world are blessed by your efforts.

  11. Ash
    Posted December 9, 2011 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

    Maggie, I've also watched numerous videos of you. Not only have you never made claims about same-sex couples harming their children, but you always speak with kindness towards those families.

    You are appreciated. Thanks for all your work.

  12. Douglas Campbell
    Posted December 9, 2011 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

    @Thomas Peters - the article was written by Maggie Gallagher
    @mominvermont - The story in the article is tragic but not representative of gay parenting any more than the heterosexual mother who bit off her babies toes and fingers and ate them is representitive of EVERY heteros parenting.
    You seem to believe what Gallagher denies stating, even though the example I have produced disputes that.

  13. Louis E.
    Posted December 9, 2011 at 11:37 pm | Permalink

    Douglas Campbell...if it was written by Maggie Gallagher,why is it copyrighted by blog owner Maggie Thornton?

  14. M. Jones
    Posted December 10, 2011 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps another dishonest tactic by the homosexual agenda to, misrepresent, distort and confuse me thinks..

  15. Emily
    Posted December 10, 2011 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    How can you say "a link is not an endorsement" when that's exactly what you used as fodder for attacking the organization Out In Schools? Hypocrisy at its finest.

    I'd watch out for Scott Lively and Paul Cameron citations. Even most "pro-family" organizations steer clear of them because of their toxicity to credibility.

  16. Little man
    Posted December 10, 2011 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

    Emily: It hurts, so you don't like Cameron's findings. Yes the most damaging statistical studies for your cause, you would like to discredit. So, what's new? Yes, a link is not an endorsement, necessarily. That is how the internet operates, it is conventional wisdom.

  17. Ash
    Posted December 10, 2011 at 8:07 pm | Permalink

    Emily: "How can you say 'a link is not an endorsement' when that's exactly what you used as fodder for attacking the organization Out In Schools?"

    I don't recall NOM using this as a criticism of the Out in Schools story. The issue with that story was that the curriculum contained links which referred children to a site containing porn. The problem was not a matter of endorsement, but with exposing children to inappropriate material. In addition, efforts by some to institute a review of the materials were deemed as "homophobic."

    An apple to orange comparison at its finest.

  18. Pat
    Posted December 12, 2011 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    And while not all links are endorsements, you obviously have a reason for posting them.

    If that reason isn't obvious, perhaps a little more commentary should be in order.

    If you post a link that agrees with your general agenda without commentary and cite it as evidence, I think we're gonna go ahead and call that endorsement.

  19. Little man
    Posted December 12, 2011 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    Pat: I cannot speak for NOM, but then whatever you say NOM should do, to abide by your standards, is what the blogs of the opposition to NOM should do too. Yes, blogs post articles and links to articles what agree with their movement. That's what a blog is about. You cannot silence it, so you gripe.

  20. tam
    Posted December 12, 2011 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

    On January 28th 2010, on this very blog, Maggie Gallagher floated the idea of same sex parents harming their children more than married biological parents. She based a whole blog post on it, so what she's saying here about her previous arguments is simply untrue.

  21. Terry
    Posted December 17, 2011 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

    Why does NOM make such a big deal of a link to on OUT in school's website when you made it clear that a link is not an endorsement here? Hypocrisy lives here