Video: Maggie Gallagher Debates Entire MSNBC Panel!


NOM co-founder Maggie Gallagher takes on all comers in this early-morning segment where she responds to everyone (and everything, including made-up facts about NOM) ... and emerges victorious!

A great reminder that if we marriage supporters stick to our arguments and the truth about marriage, and refuse to become phased when our opponents try to change the topic, we can win the day!


  1. Anne
    Posted February 15, 2012 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    Awesome job Maggie!!!

    It's so sad that they were so busy preparing to disagree that they didn't seem to bother to listen to what you had to say.

    God Bless You for standing strong for Marriage and Religious freedom.

  2. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted February 15, 2012 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

    Fantastic job, Maggie! And perhaps just as important, you serve as a model for how the rest of us can discuss this topic with those who disagree with us. Excellent !

  3. Davide
    Posted February 15, 2012 at 12:06 pm | Permalink


  4. AM
    Posted February 15, 2012 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    Maggie, that was great!

  5. Ash
    Posted February 15, 2012 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    I'm glad to see the issue of marriage back in the news! As the election season progresses, we'll see even more discussion of this issue.

    BTW, why do SSMers always bring up no-fault divorce? Their arguments about marriage serving no public purpose except to recognize love is the best argument for maintaining no-fault divorce. And I doubt if many of the SSM advocates in academia would favor repealing no-fault divorce laws in exchange for legalizing SSM. The mentioning of no-fault divorce is merely a tactic to distract us from fighting against the redefinition of marriage.

    The interviewer had a better discussion style than the other guy who was featured in the video posted by NOM a few days ago. Maggie was great with both :)

  6. Leo
    Posted February 15, 2012 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    Good job Maggie

  7. John Roberts
    Posted February 15, 2012 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

    “BTW, why do SSMers always bring up no-fault divorce?”

    Because it illustrates the disingenuousness of your organization and its position. The name of the group is the “National Organization for Marriage” yet they barely even pay lip service to anything to do with heterosexual marriage. The organization exists for the sole purpose of denying gays and lesbians access to legal recognition of their relationships. If NOM changes its name to something more honest like the “National Organization Against GLBT Equality” then we’ll stop bringing up no-fault divorce.

  8. AD
    Posted February 15, 2012 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

    Every person should be concerned about one marriage - their own.

  9. Lefty
    Posted February 15, 2012 at 2:58 pm | Permalink


    Yeah! Screw the common good.

  10. Dan
    Posted February 15, 2012 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    Maggie agreeing to single-handedly take on the entire panel seemed akin to young David taking on Goliath. And just as young David was the victor in his battle, so was Maggie in hers.

  11. Ash
    Posted February 15, 2012 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

    "Because it illustrates the disingenuousness of your organization and its position."

    I'm glad that you're honest in admitting that you all don't really care about the harms of no-fault divorce, but are mentioning it as political strategy. You don't deny that the arguments for SSM are in the same vein as justifications for no-fault divorce policy. The clamoring from SSMers about no-fault divorce only serves to feign an interest in the problem. Now that's disingenuous.

    "The name of the group is the 'National Organization for Marriage' yet they barely even pay lip service to anything to do with heterosexual marriage."

    I've seen numerous posts on this blog discussing divorce, unwed child-bearing, and other symptoms of marriage decline. In the video above, Maggie talked for a good amount of time about single-motherhood. In fact, it is all too common for every post on this blog, that doesn't even mention SSM, to be hijacked by attention-hungry SSMers who can't allow for a discussion of marriage's ills without injecting SSM into the comments thread.

    SSM is the most pressing issue on NOM's agenda, but they have definitely shown an interest in other problems. To me, NOM wanting to preserve the definition of marriage is sufficient to retain the name "National Organization for Marriage," even if they don't focus on the other threats to marriage (which they do).

  12. SC Guy
    Posted February 15, 2012 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    While I salute Maggie's standing by her principles, I think her argument definitely weakened when she wasn't willing to more fully defend her belief that homosexuality is morally wrong.

    She knows that won't fly with the wingnuts on MSNBC but that is the bottom line in opposition to the homosexual agenda. Yes there is for sure a secular argument that one man and one woman will produce children, etc but is that really the only argument we're willing to present? Why do we oppose polygamy - because it's not good for children? No, because it's simply wrong and abhorrent. We can argue until we're blue in the face about whether or not same-sex marriage should be allowed, but we have to remember that whether or not they're in a 'marriage', homosexual couples are still doing what's wrong.

  13. GZeus
    Posted February 15, 2012 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    Things that were morally ok in the bible: incest, polygamy, stoning, slavery. Now in modern society those things are immoral.

    Things that were immoral in the bible: shaving, eating pork, eating shellfish, mixing fabrics, divorce. Now in modern society those things are ok.

    See where I'm going with this?

  14. Bryan
    Posted February 15, 2012 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    I don't pay attention to much to NOM (I am very much opposed to a legal recognition of SSM) but I think she did a great job here. Her strongest comment, in my mind, was around 7:30 when she spike about how laws change the way we think about things.

    If we are going to protect vulnerable women and their children in this society we need to teach men how to be real men, and loving their wife is a crucial part of it.. Reducing marriage to something so shallow as two people living together will have its negative effects on ALL people.

  15. Mr. Incredible
    Posted February 15, 2012 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

    Yes, we see. We see that you're trying to put the Law -- that is, the ministry of condemnation and death -- ahead of Grace -- that is, the ministry of life.

  16. Zack
    Posted February 15, 2012 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    The only person on that entire panel who didn't sound whiny was the host. That's it. He sounded like he genuinely wanted to understand the conservative argument where as the panel just wanted to attack Maggie and make her out to be an out of touch bigot and it failed.

  17. Randy E King
    Posted February 15, 2012 at 8:04 pm | Permalink


    "Things that were morally ok in the bible: incest, polygamy, stoning, slavery. Now in modern society those things are immoral."

    You obviously never read the Bible because though you can find examples of some of what you noted in scripture at no time are any of those things presented as moral; either implicitly, or explictly.

    It is quite obvious that marriage corruption supporters have based their entire existence on falsehoods, half-truths, and blatant lies.

  18. OrthodoxJew
    Posted February 15, 2012 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

    Way to go Maggie!
    Don't let the liberal PC crowd drown out your cogent arguments. And certainly don't let them get away with fabricating charges just to make us traditionalists look bad.
    Keep at it!

  19. Kieran
    Posted February 15, 2012 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

    but maggie did lie...she wrote an article calling homosexuality a dysfunction...its on google

  20. Rick DeLano
    Posted February 15, 2012 at 11:28 pm | Permalink

    Maggie, you were maggie-nificent!

  21. Louis E.
    Posted February 16, 2012 at 12:11 am | Permalink

    GZeus,I'm not religious so I don't care much what the Bible says,but your attempt to treat morality as able to change just shows you don't understand the whole idea of morality.

    Kieran,if you're trying to represent homosexuality as not a dysfunction,that would make you a liar.

    John Roberts,
    I believe that the concept of marriage is strengthened by the availability of divorce to weed out bad marriages,and completely destroyed by the failure to enforce a requirement of partners being of opposite sexes.No useful purpose is served if preferential treatment is not guaranteed exclusively to opposite-sex unions in recognition of their unique and specific importance.

  22. Leo
    Posted February 16, 2012 at 2:51 am | Permalink

    I would like to add, Maggie! In the video, you looked rested and relaxed, I can see you were in a comfort zone...

  23. AD
    Posted February 17, 2012 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    @9 - The common good? How about feeding the hungry and helping people? You know, the sort of things real actual Christians do.

  24. TC Matthews
    Posted February 17, 2012 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    AD, do you obey the law of the tithe? It's easy to point fingers and make wild guesses about what people do with their time and resources, especially if you don't agree with their political views. The reality though is often much different. I can tithe AND donate to NOM.... AND I can chew gum and rub my belly....get this...... AT THE SAME TIME>>>>> ;-)

  25. Little man
    Posted February 17, 2012 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    John Roberts: So you are going to change the name of NOM? Are you on the Board or what? NOM is indeed about marriage, both sacred and civil marriage. Each organization has a mission. It's available for you to read. And note your suggested name does not focus on marriage, but generally on BLTG (whatever that means) so-called rights. Yes, you have a right to contract AIDS, but that is not the topic. Divorce is the legal exit from civil marriage. But first you have to enter civil marriage, to talk about divorce. Friendship is not enough to enter civil marriage, in my opinion. Not even brothers and sisters can enter marriage, so that shows in itself that marriage is about procreation, not someone -sticking- their appendage into any hole they can find. Actually, friendship is not about that neither. Get real.

  26. Little man
    Posted February 17, 2012 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    The poll trend showing increasing support for same-sex marriage (or does it read 'gay' marriage?) is not based on mathematical systematics. A trend must be based on polls which ask the same question. If, over time, poll questions find clever ways to bias the questions in a way that creates controversy, then a trend will result. A trend must also take into consideration the standard error in the prediction. And the standard sampling margin of error does not include other types of errors the polls invariable ignore. If you were to ask a more pointed question, as reality would require: 'Do you think the homosexual sexual act is equal to the marriage sexual act?' most people who would disagree would simply not answer the poll question, or lie as a form of prank. There's also the fact that many polls are automated, and then some are on-line polls where minors can give their opinion. It is understandable actual votes have a way of being inconsistent with vote predictions. It doesn't matter if a majority of people think one way, supposedly. It's the voters that matter. How does a poll survey determine who is answering the phone? All it does is ask questions to whoever is posing as a voter.

  27. Little man
    Posted February 17, 2012 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    SC Guy: 'Why do we oppose polygamy - because it's not good for children? No, because it's simply wrong and abhorrent.' Polygamy is permitted for all patriarchs in the Bible. Even in the new testament it is not prohibited or a sin. Certainly, Jesus is quoted as saying the optimum arrangement is for marriage to be as in the beginning - male and female, indicating one-to-one, not one-to-many. So, polygamy is not simply wrong and abhorrent, according to biblical scripture. Now, for feminists, polygamy as between one man and several women would be 'abhorrent', but not between one woman and several men. Either way, polygamy happens, today. What we argue about is whether government would regulate polygamy, and thereby promote it. If the government accepts same-sex CIVIL marriage, it is promoting it.

  28. Little man
    Posted February 17, 2012 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    AD: You need to read the biblical book of James.

  29. LK
    Posted February 18, 2012 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    Thank you Maggie, for standing the heat coolly.

  30. Pat
    Posted February 18, 2012 at 11:15 pm | Permalink

    If she "sticks to her arguments" when people "change the topic" she isn't actually "responding" to them, now is she?

    Can't win a debate without actually answering your opponent's questions, Maggie dear.
    And maybe there's a reason why you have no answers--it's called "Being wrong."