Does Faith = Hate?

Rod Dreher had a thoughtful article at The American Conservative that quotes Maggie.  An excerpt:

This summer’s Windsor decision from the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, but it did not declare a constitutional right to gay marriage. Yet even Maggie Gallagher, the country’s most tireless and high-profile opponent of same-sex marriage, now believes such an outcome is a foregone conclusion.

“It’s clear that the courts are going to shut down the marriage debate and impose gay marriage uniformly,” she says. “There is not yet a unified sense of where we go from here, except for this: there is an accelerating awareness that the consequence of marriage equality is going to be extremely negative for traditionalist Christians.”

…To gay marriage supporters, homosexuality is, like race, a morally neutral condition. Opponents disagree, believing that because homosexuality, like heterosexuality, has to do with behavior, it cannot be separated from moral reflection. As Gallagher put it in a 2010 paper in Northwestern University’s law journal, “Skin color does not give rise to a morality.”Read More…

Porn Increases Support for Gay Marriage

Prof. Mark Regnerus recently noted that  “of the men who view pornographic material ‘every day or almost every day,’ 54 percent ‘strongly agreed’ that gay and lesbian marriage should be legal, compared with around 13 percent of those whose porn-use patterns were either monthly or less often than that.”

Some criticized him for noticing the correlation and speculating on its significance.

Now a new study using longitudinal data published January 13 in Communications Research suggests the strange effect is real:

“This study used nationally representative three-wave longitudinal data gathered from adult U.S. males to examine the over-time interplay between pornography consumption, education, and support for same-sex marriage. Support for same-sex marriage did not prospectively predict pornography consumption, but pornography consumption did prospectively predict support for same-sex marriage.”

The Atlantic Concedes a Point

On The Atlantic website, Prof. Phillip Cohen takes a closer look at the debate at the heart of Maggie’s recent newsletter on the New Conversation on Marriage and what it means for the gender divide.  In essence, Maggie asks (and the Atlantic columnist ponders) the greater implications of the genderless marriage movement that has surrendered on gay marriage while still fighting for the importance of marriage as a whole.  But no matter what theory, political or moral, comes into play, Cohen agrees that Maggie has a point–the “new conversation” embracing genderless marriage,  “throws in the towel on the ideal of marriage as an institution for maintaining gender distinction.”

See the except below or go to the full article here.< Read More…

Maggie: Will We Bridge the Gender Divide?

Back in the year 2000, in the old new marriage conversation, we said in The Marriage Movement: A Statement of Principles (a statement I helped to draft):

“Marriage is a universal human institution, the way in which every known society conspires to obtain for each child the love, attention and resources of a mother and father.”

This year, the Institute for American Values released a call for a new marriage conversation, which says instead:  “because marriage is the main institution governing the link between the spousal association and the parent-child association, marriage is society’s most pro-child institution.”

That is the difference gay marriage makes in how we converse about marriage.

Read More…

Maggie: “Three Questions for the New Marriage Movement”

At, the Institute for American Values is sponsoring a Valentine’s Day Symposium with the theme “Advice for a New Conversation on Marriage”.  Featuring some of the leading conservative thinkers on marriage and family today, the symposium recognizes that, “we won’t renew marriage without fundamentally reforming the way we discuss marriage.”

Maggie Gallagher’s submission to the symposium, “Three Questions for the New Marriage Movement,” builds on this idea, presenting the, “three great questions I believe we will need to answer to rebuild marriage as the normal, usual, and generally reliable way to raise children.”  For more, read the excerpt below or go here for the full article:

Back in the year 2000, in the old new marriage conversation, we said in The Marriage Movement: A Statement of Principles: “Marriage is a universal human institution, the way in which every known society conspires to obtain for each child the love, attention and resources of a mother and father.” In today’s new marriage conversation, we say “because marriage is the main institution governing the link between the spousal association and the parent-child association, marriage is society’s most pro-child institution.”

Read More…

Martinique votes No to Parisian Gay Marriage

 A moving speech by the representative of Martinique in the French Parliament:
Until now I have supported all bill and commitments of the Left. But there is, today, a deep confusion that gets in the way for me. The freedom of conscience allows me to speak honestly from abroad (Martinique) to the issues for the people of this chamber, whose opinions are diverse. Speaking for French citizens abroad, on the whole, we are opposed to homosexual marriage. The bill proposed would bring down all the structures, values, and understandings that have held together the social world of our archipelago.

This voice of the French overseas must be heard and taken into account. I must speak to the electorate and rectify their confusion about what is happening here and now. The risk here is tremendous, that the government might cause an irreparable rift. The proposed bill does notoffer supplementary liberties in truth. In fact, the proposed bill weakens the already delicate social framework that has bulwarked the Antillean and Anguillan islands in the wake of our liberation from slavery. I will go further: there is even the risk here that the bill would invalidate the pact that has tied us to the Republic of France for 200 years and more.

Read More…

Group looks to enlist same-sex couples in pro-marriage coalition

The New York Times reports on the upcoming tract from the Institute for American Values, titled “A Call for a New Conversation on Marriage” which looks to bring together a pro-marriage coalition that would include gays, lesbians, and heterosexuals.  In the article, Maggie Gallagher offers some observation on the potential challenges faced by this effort:

“David’s personal networks are liberal, but his donor networks are quite conservative,” said Maggie Gallagher, who used to work at the Institute for American Values and is a well-known opponent of same-sex marriage. It can be tough to find money for what could be called a centrist agenda, Ms. Gallagher cautioned, adding that there may be more conservatives willing to accept gay allies than liberals willing to publicly support marriage. Some financing, she said, “will be conservative, but the pro-marriage liberals have to step forward, and maybe make it more 50-50.”

Read the entire article here:

Kids Need Both Mom and Dad, Says Gay Man Opposed to Gay Marriage

This week, Maggie participated in the panel on “Building a Marriage Culture” as part of the National Review Institute’s summit, “The Future of Conservatism”–a topic that inevitably delved into the importance of intact biological families.  A few highlights below, or go here for the full article:

One of the panelists, Doug Mainwaring, spoke of his personal experience as a gay man who came to realize that his own children need both a mother and a father.

“For a long time I thought, if I could just find the right partner, we could raise my kids together, but it became increasingly apparent to me, even if I found somebody else exactly like me, who loved my kids as much as I do, there would still be a gaping hole in their lives because they need a mom,” Mainwaring, co-founder of National Capital Tea Party Patriots, said.

Read More…

A Tale of Two Rabbis

My friend David Blankenhorn has been exploring the role of doubt in civil society:

“I am not saying that persons who are rarely troubled by doubt aren’t civil, or can’t be civil. I know from personal experience that this isn’t true.  Nor I am saying that doubtful people are always civil; again, I know that this is not true,” Blankenhorn writes.

“But for the doubting person . . . civility is like oxygen.  It’s personally necessary.  Why?  Because without it, I can’t get what I need.”

What does the doubting person need? “The wisdom of the other. . . As a doubting person, civility is more than being nice.  Civility is part of what allows me to eat what I must eat and drink what I must drink.”

Blankenhorn seems to be preoccupied primarily by the lack of doubt shown by opponents of gay marriage, not the lack of doubt demonstrated by gay marriage supporters.  For years though, David has fought the tendency of his fellow liberals to dismiss and demean the insights of conservatives. For years, he successfully crafted a movement for marriage that set political ideology to one side and allowed good people to think new thoughts about marriage together.

Read More…