Maggie in Politico on Boehner and DOMA


NOM Chairman Maggie Gallagher was quoted in Politico yesterday on Speaker Boehner's defense of DOMA:

“We were extremely pleased with Speaker Boehner’s decision to intervene. That improved our prospects of prevailing,” said Maggie Gallagher, who chairs the National Organization for Marriage, which has become an active voice in opposing same-sex marriage laws since its creation in 2007. “He has shown a commitment to the law. … This is not about legal or political theatrics. It’s about the defense of marriage.”

Gallagher warned against the familiar media narrative of concluding that Boehner’s role is merely for show or that he is not committed to the case. “Everyone knows that there will be a PR hit in the mainstream media for standing up on these issues,” she said. “The story line is that the GOP will abandon social conservatives. That hasn’t happened with Boehner. … He has been magnificent.”

... With the boost from Boehner, conservatives contend that they are on a roll on the marriage issue. Gallagher said that recent legislative and election success in several typically liberal states should dispel the conventional wisdom that gay marriage is a bad issue for Republicans.


  1. SC Guy
    Posted April 29, 2011 at 11:45 am | Permalink

    Gay marriage is a great issue for conservatives and Republicans. The polls that show that gay marriage is supported by a majority are a complete farce.

  2. Don
    Posted April 29, 2011 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    Yeah, SC Guy, the SSM people aren't protesting to have a vote on gay marriage, LOL! 😉

  3. Sean
    Posted April 29, 2011 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    The rights of a minority group should never be voted on.

  4. John N.
    Posted April 29, 2011 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    Same old sterile and useless comments like that in post #3. Because a minority of people practice a human form of conduct (sex act) they dream up terms that they are a minority and that democracy is not allowed. Same old tired lies.

  5. Don
    Posted April 29, 2011 at 7:24 pm | Permalink


    What "rights" might those be?

    Might I also point out, Sean, that The United States Constitution, which enshrines all of our rights, was adopted on the basis of a vote.

  6. edgwaterprog
    Posted April 29, 2011 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

    Don - You should be glad that there is a process in this country by which our rights are upheld by institutions other than the direct vote. Some day, your rights might be in question and the courts might protect you.

  7. Posted April 29, 2011 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

    It is true that the rights of a minority should not be voted on by a majority. Indeed the Constitution was voted upon..which has nothing to do with what Sean said.

    Have you looked upon anyone with are guilty of hell fire and you should not have any rights. Have you told a lie? The Bible says it is an abomination and now we should take away your rights.

    Same sex folks are not asking for special treatment .... only equal treatment.

    The Bible says we all are sinners. When Jesus was on Earth...they only people He got angry with was those on the religious right...they criticized Him for eating with sinners....

    I am a constant student of the Bible and have sat at the feet of scholars for over 15 years, and would welcome the chance to chat with anyone on what the Bible really says about homosexuality.

  8. Don
    Posted April 29, 2011 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

    Renee Dawson:

    I beg to differ, Renee. The Constitution is the repository of all rights for all of the people. If those rights could be voted on than all other rights may be voted on as well.

    Same sex people are not asking for equality. They already have equality. What they are asking for is that the definition of marriage be changed to grant them specific additional rights above and beyond the equal rights which they already have.

    It isn't simply reading the Bible which is important. It is absorbing the spirit of what is written there which is important. If I want to know what something in the Bible means, I ask God, not "scholars". Don't forget that, even as a child, Jesus Christ had discussions with the Rabbis about Truth. God is the source of Truth, not scholars.

  9. John Noe
    Posted April 30, 2011 at 7:20 am | Permalink

    Renee: If you are serious about being a student of the Bible and want the truth about homosexuality I recommend the following two things.

    (1) Their are websites like for example the Truth about homosexuality that will tell you all you need to know.
    (2) Join a Bible believing evangelical church. Avoid the liberal ones as they no longer follow the word.

  10. edgwaterprog
    Posted May 1, 2011 at 7:41 am | Permalink

    Don - probably the oldest tiredest argument on this website is that LGBT persons have the same rights as heterosexuals. To accept that argument means any other discussion on here is unnecessary.

  11. TC Matthews
    Posted May 1, 2011 at 8:03 am | Permalink

    "probably the oldest tiredest argument on this website is that LGBT persons have the same rights as heterosexuals."

    Well. You do. There isn't a "right" to have marriage any flavor you want based on who or what you are physically attracted to. People can be physically attracted to many things, and quite sincerely.... but that does not make it marriage.

  12. Don
    Posted May 1, 2011 at 10:55 am | Permalink


    That IS the essence of the disagreement, isn't it? You claim a "right" to SSM. We say you have no such right. You claim inequality in marriage. We say that there is no inequality in marriage. SCOTUS hasn't ruled on any of that so there is litigation. One side will lose, one side will win.

    We aren't going to convince you and you aren't going to convince us.So there are legislative battles, ballot initiative battles and legal battles. Until it is decided, all we can do is to make our arguments. There are a limited number of arguments to be made so, of course, the arguments on both sides are going to be old.

    That's just the way it's playing out, edgwaterprog.

  13. John N.
    Posted May 1, 2011 at 11:28 pm | Permalink


    LBGT people already have the same equallity as we do. If LBGT people abide by the rules equally like everyone else they have the same rights.

    Your group has never presented any evidence that when you tried to obey the laws like everybody else you were discriminated against.

    There is no right in our constitution whereby you make up your own rules and laws and simply say that you want to the same things equally like everybody else.

    You want special rights. Not only that you want rights that are not available to any other American. So the fight is real. If your side wins in the courts you will get a lot more than so called marriage equality. You will not get two seperate interpretations of the constitution. One for the homosexuals and one for the rest of us Americans.

  14. edgwaterprog
    Posted May 2, 2011 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

    John N. - "obey the laws like everyone else" - This is not a matter of breaking laws; it is about the law recognizing relationships that exist. There is no law saying who can and cannot live together.

    How will there be a "separate" interpretations of the Constitution if marriage equality is achieved? Relationships between two consenting adults will be recognized regardless of the sex of the individuals involved, correct?

  15. John N.
    Posted May 3, 2011 at 12:38 am | Permalink

    To post #14

    Of course there is no law saying who can and who cannot live together. Name one state that does this to people? That's right none. You are bringing out the straw man again. In all of these states where the people have voted for marriage as is, and our side won, there was not one case where the government stepped in and said who could and who could not live together. Your argument is bogus.
    As far as the law is concerned where you state about recognizing relationships that exist. There is no civil right demanding that the state issue you a certificate recognizing your relationship. However for the issue of governing its citizens the state does already recognize your relationship. I just worked for the Census Bureau doing the census as we recognized the relationships.
    But in no way does that lead to a right of SSM. We can still define marriage as one man/ one woman and then decide how we will recognize other relationships. There is no linkage between recognizing the fact that Happy Hank and Smiling Sam live togother to having to redefine the institution of marriage.

  16. edgwaterprog
    Posted May 3, 2011 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    15 - John N - I do not believe I was making a straw man. I was just saying that the relationships exist, they are consenting adults, there is not reason - except for religious reasons - for the government not to recognize them.

    The Supreme Court has ruled for many decades that marriage is a fundamental right. That is the source of the belief that is deserves "higher scrutiny" when courts review marriage laws.

    I am not sure what redefinitions of marriage are permitted and which are not? Apparently, heterosexuals can redefine marriage every generation or so to suit their emotional and economic needs but no one else is permitted to expect it redefined for their situation.

  17. John N.
    Posted May 3, 2011 at 11:44 pm | Permalink

    Hold it edgwaterprog: Read Michael E's post #13 in the Sowell blog. Although marriage is a right, it is defined as one man/ one woman.

    By the way no one is denying that there are other relationships that exist and that the government should recognize them.

    In the blog for reciprocal benefits I was okay with extending some of the benefits that come with marriage and extending them to non married people. This is negotiable.

    We are fighting the redefinition of marriage and your attacks on our institution, not whether or not other relationships exist.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.