Maggie in the News: SCOTUS Ruling on DOMA and Prop8

Via USA Today:

But Maggie Gallagher, founder of the National Organization for Marriage, which put Prop 8 on the ballot, criticized the Supreme Court. In a written statement, Gallager said Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion “unfairly and illegitimately makes ‘custom’ and ‘tradition’ a sufficient reason to overturn the democratic branch of government — a standard which has never been applied when Congress passes new laws that affirm new leftist values.”

AP Quote

“At the heart of the gay marriage argument is an untruth: unions of 2 men or women are not the same as unions of husband and wife. The law cannot make it so, it can only require us to paint pretty pictures to cover up deep truths embedded in human nature.” – Maggie Gallagher, fellow at the American Principles Project and co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage.:

From the National Catholic Register:

Maggie Gallagher, a fellow at the American Principles Project, said that the DOMA decision “is the Roe v. Wade of this generation, not this generation’s Brown v. the Board of Education.”

“Like Roe, Kennedy stepped in to disenfranchise millions of voters’ concerns to tilt unfairly the scale of justice.”

Also like the Roe decision, she said, “the deep questions involved in marriage will not simply go away: At the heart of the ‘gay marriage’ argument is an untruth: Unions of two men or women are not the same as unions of husband and wife. The law cannot make it so; it can only require us to paint pretty pictures to cover up deep truths embedded in human nature.”

2 comments
Alan Pietsch
Alan Pietsch

Ms. Gallagher - I read your article, Moral Issues Can't Simply Be Ruled Invalid" in the LA Times Thursday, June 27th. A few thoughts: I think I may have missed something important, but I have been under the impression since my early school days that the very reason the Supreme Court exists is to serve as a check on Congress and the President. I have always been under the impression that the Supreme Court has the power to rule that any law in this country can be invalidated if it is judged to be discriminatory or infringes on the rights ofour citizens. The Prop 8 and DOMA rulings no more abandoned the California voters any more that the repeal of the Voting Rights Act two days earlier will pave the way for states enacting laws to disenfranchise millions of Americans of their right to vote. I didn't hear any comment from the conservatives about that. I would say that the logic is your article was faulty, but that would be assuming that there was logic in it in the first place. Your argument is totally illogical - devoid of logic. I am straining to understand why a newspaper like the LA Times would print such a diatribe such as yours. The reason so many conservatives in this country are ridiculed is because they will fabricate any rationale they can to support their opinions, whether it is based in reality, logic or not. In essence, you are saying that no one has the power to regulate the decisions of an elected body in this country. If this is the case, then WHO DOES? No one? So if our Congress passes a law saying you can shoot anybody anywhere if you suspect them of being a threat, there is no one who can review this law and decide whether it is unconstitutional or infringes on the rights of citizens? Your thinking is indeed dangerous. I would say, actually, un-American, for you are challenging the very foundation of our form of government - the checks and balances the Founding Fathers built into our government so that one branch cannot do something irrational, like denying an entire class of citizens the right to marry. I challenge you to explain the purported logic of your thinking, for I cannot. Perhaps we should just dissolve the Supreme Court (by the way, why is it called Supreme, anyway?). Maybe that's next on your agenda. It's just an activist court, anyway. If you don't agree with ém, just get rid of em, right? Looking forward to hearing back from you. Sincerely, Alan Pietsch

Susan
Susan

The voters in the State of Washington, where I live, passed a law legalizing gay marriage. Do you respect the will of the people who made this vote? Do you understand the level of legal complexity involved when the federal government fails to recognize these legally contracted marriages under federal law?