NOM's Maggie Gallagher Argues Against Same-Sex Marriage

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/10/20/Gay_Marriag...

Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, argues same-sex couples should not have the right to get married. "If we had a powerful marriage culture, gay marriage would make no sense," claims Gallagher. "Because the marriage culture is dramatically weakened, it's plausible to some people."

-----

With a potentially precedent-setting legal challenge to California's Proposition 8 working its way through the federal court system, the National Constitution Center presents a timely program on the issue of same-sex marriage. Last November, California voters approved the Proposition 8 ballot measure, amending their state Constitution to ban marriages between same-sex couples. A lawsuit filed on behalf of two gay couples wishing to marry has attracted national attention.

David Boies, one of the leading lawyers in the case, is joined in a conversation by Keith Boykin, Maggie Gallagher and Glenn Stanton. Margot Adler moderates.

Maggie Gallagher is president of the National Organization for Marriage, which the Washington Post recently called the "pre-eminent organization dedicated to preventing the legalization of same-sex marriage." NOM is widely credited with getting Proposition 8 on the ballot. She is also president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (www.marriagedebate.com).

Gallagher is a nationally syndicated columnist, the author of three books on marriage, including The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better-Off Financially.

Keith Boykin is the editor of The Daily Voice online news site, a CNBC contributor, a BET TV host, and a New York Times best-selling author. He served in the White House as a special assistant to President Bill Clinton.

Each of Boykin's three books has been nominated for a Lambda Literary Award, including his most recent book, Beyond the Down Low: Sex, Lies and Denial in Black America. Boykin won the Lambda Literary Award for his second book, Respecting The Soul. He is an associate producer of the 2007 feature film "Dirty Laundry" and is working on his fourth book.

• Category

  News & Politics

[wfmkk]

"many neutral studies"

Wrong. The research is riddled with statistical insignificance and experimental bias. You and your ilk are simply jumping to conclusions. You are in deep denial about the significant differences that exist between men and women.

[wfmkk]

"Pandering to nature"?

Speaking of meaning, what the hell is that supposed to mean?

{ face palm }

Finish high school and if you manage to get into college, take a few courses on biology and ecology.

[wfmkk]

ROFL ... I don't believe that for a second.

[aarongtr180]

I have been tested to be at least genius level, so I am certain my IQ either meets yours or surpasses it.

[aarongtr180]

If you're worried about the fate of children in homosexual households, many neutral studies have shown that children who grow up in households with two men or two women fare just as well as, if not better than, children in heterosexual households (at least in the criteria upon which parenting can be based objectively). The two main factors to good parenting are economic status and the quality of the parenting itself, not the sexuality of the parents.

[aarongtr180]

My argument is that I don't practice subjectivity when it comes to the meanings of words, and you do. You'd probably be able to rationalize calling an apple a banana if it complemented your "traditional values". Marriage is not centered on children and no amount of pandering to nature and tradition (both blatant fallacies) will change that objective fact.

[wfmkk]

(continuing)

... from screening all couples for fertility, because that would violate the medical privacy of couples. (See Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965.)

In sharp contrast, homosexual couples can neither create children nor raise them with gender complementarity. They are **biologically incapable** of fulfilling the implicit quid pro quo that is the political institution of marriage. Their unions are all sterile, and they cannot provide both a mother AND a father for children.

[wfmkk]

The state awards marriage benefits and recognition to heterosexual couples because their unions — in principle — create the best situation for procreation and child rearing, which is a huge social benefit. Procreation is NOT required in every instance; it is anticipated.

The state does this without regard for **incidental** infertility or contraception — because (1) the overwhelming majority of married couples **do** have children, and (2) the state is constitutionally prohibited ...

(continued)