NOM co-founder Maggie Gallagher participates in a series by The Daily Beast where readers can ask prominent thinkers anything they want. She answers the question why is protecting marriage against redefinition important along with strengthening marriage against divorce and infidelity:
23 Comments
I decided to get involved after a phone call with a former college roommate, whose 14-year old daughter was approached at school by another classmate, the day after Prop 8 passed, who first demanded to know if she is "Mormon," and upon an affirmative, threatened to burn down their family home.
Yep, it was time to get involved.
Watching the mobbing, vulgarities, threats of violence, and vandalism after Prop 8 passed help galvanize me.
Thanks Maggie.
Too bad the opposition can't listen to the substance of your argument instead of childishly finding things to pick on you about.
I guess that's the foundation of the opposition's push for redefining marriage: appearance over substance. Redefining marriage would lend an appearance of legitimacy to their lifestyle. It would cover up the substance, which is unnatural.
I'd like to see childish comments like these from the opposition deleted. They serve no function.
Barb
Great comment.
"I guess that's the foundation of the opposition's push for redefining marriage: appearance over substance."
Excellent, Barb.
Actually, Maggie presents a unique personality on video that grabs people's attention. Attention grabbers, and specially those which are formal and academic, are used by everyone. The punks draw attention easily, but then don't know what to do with it
Maggie has substance and a caring personality. It's a winner combination.
Seems to me it is those opposed to civil marriage equality, who are concerned with appearance over substance. For instance, they are willing to let infertile opposite sex couple marry they value the appearance of being able to conceive children, while ignoring the substance that they are patently unable to do so. All the while opponents of civil marriage equality claim THE purpose of marriage is the conception of children.
Great Maggie, once again. Thank you for all your work!
Maggie Gallegher answers why after 10 years of trying to fix the leak, it might be high time to start building a raft.
How to develop effective marriage culture privately, without a governing public institution? Again Maggie, one of the most important or effective tools will be a newly created unique word to name the traditional marriage (the very thing which that culture would be developed around). Without a new and unambiguous word, I don't know how that culture could develop effectively. For it would stay fragmented in different isolated groups.
A new word is not be a “governing ideas” way of doing things, it will simply be naming a real thing that will otherwise be left unnamed.
Yes its time to start work on building that culture on our own. Naming, without any ambiguity or possibility of attack, the man-woman union is the first big step. Its time to start building a raft, or we are (our children are) going to go down with the ship.
I got into this when I realized that the English language no longer has a word to name the man-woman life long union. In America, Canada and other speaking countries, same sex couples are MARRIED. That is a fact!!! And our growing children, don't understand the problem. Their teachers, the media, their countries president and the laws themselves all tell the children that these people are without any reservations, married. And the children are very right in seeing these same-sex couples as married, because they are in fact married.
I came in when I realized that the western world leaders had already stolen the word marriage, and that it was time to invent another word to name the now left nameless man-woman union.
John Colgan: You must be a genius. You observed that some really old opposite sex couples get married. Wow, those are true powers of observation. So, that means. . . to satisfy your criticism, the government would need to somehow check all couples seeking to marry, to make sure they can conceive and bring babies to term, and only allow those people to marry by the State. Oh, and the State would also check same-sex couples to verify they can conceive together (a waste of time and funds), out of 'equality'. Next, people who are allowed to marry by the State (what a blessing from the State!) would not be allowed to abort their fetus, because that's why they got the marriage license in the first place. If they do, then more funds would be spent inspecting whether they purposefully aborted or the fetus died of 'natural causes' (like bad nutrition). Anything else you would like the State to spend on? They don't even require a blood test for opposite-sex couples! Other countries do. How about AIDS regulation? Would you like that too? We are already up to the neck in taxes. Get real. Lots of friendships don't get married. Sometimes marriage is the best way to wreck a good friendship.
Good News. Can you please just think of a new word for marriage and get it over with? Which language would you like it in? How about 'hooked'? Not as cool sounding as 'marriage', because the word 'marriage' comes from the French, and the French are very classy.
What's this? : 'In America, Canada and other speaking countries'
The original word comes from 'matrimony' (see Dictionary.com) :
matrimony c.1300, from O.Fr. matremoine, from L. matrimonium "wedlock, marriage," from matrem (nom. mater) "mother" + -monium, suffix signifying "action, state, condition."
Notice the word 'mother'. Can you get a better word? Yes, marriage is about a special protection for motherhood, within fatherhood. It's a formula worth supporting for society's sake.
Good News.
I can only hope that building a raft wont be neccesary in the U.S.A.
However: Maggie is way ahead of you on this...
She has already purposed that we NOT use "traditional marriage". This just feeds into the idea that its outdated and obsolete.
You are correct that they will drop the hyphen in same-sex "marriage" and it will become the new "marriage" a sexless genderless construct.
So - the new term is...."TRUE MARRIAGE"
Its perfect, (once again Maggie came up with it)
Yes, we end up with the hypen instead of them... But adding "true" to marriage gets the idea across imediatley and has a militant tone to it of resistance to the lie of same-sex "marriage".
Im going to start using it immediatley and suggest all on this board use it in place of "traditional".
which explains the marriage corruption movements opposition to the term "redefined" in the recently approved marraige corruption bill in Washington.
The marriage corruption movement is trying to reframe the debate so as to make it appear as though these deviants are historic victims as opposed to the malcontents history shows them to truly be.
Malcontents: one who is in active opposition to an established order or government
Marriage corruption supporters are historic perpatrators; not victims.
@ Fitz
Thanks for understanding the idea. Yes “true marriage” is better than “traditional marriage”. And can be effectively used in this environment of wanting to compare it to a “(New York) marriage (for example)”. But it is only a reactionary name. Though a necessary one within the struggle against the confiscation of the word marriage. But it is a defensive name, used for something other than only naming a perfectly legitimate real thing that stands alone and does not need defense. It expresses a slight sense of hostility or resentment: or at least disagreement, and its the sense of disagreement expressed in it that ends up taking president over the thing that is wanting to be named uniquely for what it is, free of any comparison. So when the time comes this could not be an acceptable name.
[The utility of the Pro-life, Pro-choice opposition of names cannot at all be duplicated on this issue with a “true-marriage”, “marriage” opposition of words. The dynamics are completely different.]
At this time, 'true-marriage', 'traditional-marriage', 'historically understood marriage' are needed for we're in the middle of the fight; and the words are used in this context of confrontation. But if the sex irrelevant union does in the end achieve the hostile takeover of the word marriage. Than it will be more than wise for the American (and or English language) to invent a single, different, unique and original word for the life long man-woman union. For to be able to say to the child, “no honey, they're not married they're paulied (for example)” does not introduce a competitive confrontation of the two things in the child's mind. But rather simply points out to him two clearly different things.
Not to mention that when translating old texts from different languages, and there is a word that signifies 'the committed union of a man and a woman' we will have a word that accurately translates the meaning. (The bible for only one example.) And so without any prejudices or legal conflict the priest or pastor can tell same sex couple who which to get married, “sorry we do not preform marriages at this church. We preform paulages. But why don't you try the church across the street.”
Of course this are all very ruff possibilities and suggestion. We're all still in the garage trying to work this thing out. But one day we better have it ready to wheel out.
The marriage issue has been a lifelong cause of mine.
The gaycentricism of the SSM idea has brought a new conflict that has some of the worst kinds of argumentation and rhetoric that I have witnessed regarding marriage.
That such lousy thinking can produce such a threat to a foundational social institution is not new, but it is shocking nonetheless.
The SSM campaign has confirmed the profound flaws of using identity politics as the guiding light for lawmaking and for policy-making. It has highlighted the abuse of judicial review and the undermining of the principles of good governance.
The impoverished SSM idea does not merit the attention it has been getting, however, the SSM campaign has presented the US with an opportunity to reinforce the marriage idea, to promote the societal significance of uniting the sexes, and to affirm the most pro-child social institution humankind we have. It has been a massive opportunity to debunk the lousy thinking of the sexual revolution and the bizarre upside down priorities of the statists far and wide.
The peril is real but the opportunity has been presented and it is up to each of us to make a difference. Today.
If not us, who? If not now, when?
Nice Try LittleMan, but it is your side that claims that procreation is THE purpose of marriage, not mine. All that would be required, if your side really believed your claim. Obviously you do not.
John--
But if you take a minimalist approach to government (as most conservatives do), the appearance would protect the culture well. Making sure everyone fits every component is a liberal idea. It is entirely consistent to believe concern over the family trumps small-government ideals (hence why you would want an institution to bring children in), but to recognize people make their own choices (and not require childbearing or fertility).
Since our basic belief is that we need an institution linking parents to biological (or, occasionally, adopted) children, your "marriage equality" only serves to link couples (who you see as the institution being about, not families linked by biology), and does nothing for us and becomes the equivalent (or worse then) no marriage law at all.
Ugh...Randy. Your posts are downright PAINFUL to read.
It's obvious you're another Exodus "graduate" because nobody except an embittered, "ex-gay" closet case could be this homophobic.
(That and you use blatant ex-gay talking points like: "There's no such thing as homosexuality.." blah blah)
You and Overcame are real pieces of work...
Homer & Lane
Your comments are just insults and sour grapes. You come to this board not to comment or even to debate but to make blanket assults..
Homer - you have no reason to think maggie is miserable.. She seems quite happy fighting the good fight and doing it well..
Please refrain from making such comments or visting this board
Well said, Chairm!!
John Colgan: i quote from your own comment: 'All the while opponents of civil marriage equality claim THE purpose of marriage is the conception of children.' If you are going to 'equate' your new type of civil marriage to the original civil type, you are in essence riding piggy-back on the Public Purpose of civil marriage (statistical procreation possibility when the two sexes form a union). Nice try. You pretend to seek equality, when actually you seek equivalence of two unequal definitions of marriage. Without the aspect of procreation you don't have civil marriage at all on which to piggy-back. Government will be totally out of the 'marriage' business, and will have to pay skyrocketing social services. Therefore, logically, your side cannot stand without the indirect claim that procreation is a governments' Public Purpose of marriage. You are confusing that with governments' Public Purpose of friendship. Don't try to confuse me. For me, logic comes first, sympathy second.
@ Little Man (around #11)
Thanks for the input.
Correction : - In America, Canada and other "English" speaking languages. -
“Can you please just think up a new word for marriage and get it over with?”
I'm trying, I'm trying! I'm pushing hard. But you think giving birth to a new baby is easy and painless; to any of the people involved?
And there are many attempts before something can be invented. Many failed attempts on the laboratory floors of NOM's blog work shop.
1) Of course marriage is the best word for it at this point. (But its being violently and dishonestly confiscated.) “True marriage” and others, will be valid rebuttals to this takeover.
2) but if a new unique word was to be 'invented', it should not have any link to the past, to another word, another idea, or to a foreign word etc. It most be free of any possible contamination of any sort. The only link it must have is to what it is naming; the traditional, true marriage. Which still needs by the way a simple, (incompatible with same-sex union), definition. (I'm trying to give birth to twins here – 'name' and 'definition'.)
3) A name like “:,*{µ;¤”. Which would have at its origin only one incontestable meaning allocated to it. Some closely related word (synonyms in a way) would be : “true-marriage”, “traditional-marriage”, “historically understood marriage”, “the ONE-human-species”.
4) As an example “hooked” is evocative of many things, so is already 'used' and 'muddied'. And “paulage” has the name Paul in it, which some would link to a person, a male, or Paul in the Bible etc. rendering it as well, a muddied word. No one word will be perfect. But during its creation it must sincerely not have any links to anything else. It must be invented; out of thin air. And so be free of any future attacks.
5) Okay I'll try to come up with a list of some possibilities before the end of the month. But this is not a one man (nor one woman, Maggie) show. And we don't want this 'side track' (of a name) in the middle of our fight for marriage to do more harm than good.
The point in history that the necessity of this word will have come into being, is when science and technology is able to allow virgins to have children, with the sperm of a men who had died years before the virgin herself was even born (as only one of the multiple examples). The day that these possibilities are promoted in the community. And that day is here, if we cannot come to stop it in its tracks.
Amen, Chairm. The part of your comment--where you speak of the opportunity that is now before us--is especially good.
Excellent post.
A WWiII veteran once noted:
"When you start getting flak you know you are right over the target."
In response to Layne's:
"Ugh...Randy. Your posts are downright PAINFUL to read.
It's obvious you're another Exodus "graduate" because nobody except an embittered, "ex-gay" closet case could be this homophobic."