Comments for Maggie Rules at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 37 out of 20 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Mon, 20 May 2013 00:42:53 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/maggie-rules.html#comment-3204 I’m more worried the damage done to the Christian faith, being so closely aligned to the hatred and bigotry of marriage equality opposition, along with an utter disregard for the US Constitution and its requirement that all citizens be treated equally. Christianity should be associated with love, not hate. I don’t want potential converts to Christianity turned off by NOM’s shameless lies and scare tactics. All Christians are not like that! - Esther Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:29:02 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/maggie-rules.html#comment-3195 I for one am worried about the children who grow up with single-gender parents who aren’t allowed to marry. Kids are always better off with married parents. Maggie Gallagher says so herself, yet inexplicably wants to prevent same-sex couples with children from marrying. To earn a living off of hurting kids is despicable. But I guess she thinks it’s worth it! - Annette Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:19:06 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/maggie-rules.html#comment-3126 I know that Maggie Gallagher and NOM support denying the children of same-sex couples the advantages that marriage provides to children. It saddens me that she and NOM feel this way but I like children! What I want to know is if people of faith support this position. NOM says it is associated with “faith communities” on its home page. So do people of faith support her mission to hurt the children of same-sex couples, or is NOM lying about the support it gets from “faith communities”? - Leslie Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:46:47 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/maggie-rules.html#comment-3121 Louise, Brian Brown, the Executive Director of NOM, gets $130,000 per year, even more than Maggie! This is a non-profit?!?! That's an unheard of salary for the head of a tiny non-profit organization! - Jeffrey Tue, 06 Oct 2009 05:30:22 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/maggie-rules.html#comment-3118 Citing child welfare and their commitment to support what is best for children, physicians from the Maine Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) today announced their support for the NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign. “Children who are raised by legally married parents benefit from the legal status granted to their parents. What is good for parents and families is good for children,” said Dr. Jonathan Fanburg, president of the Maine Chapter of the Maine Chapter of the AAP. - Sean Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:42:07 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/maggie-rules.html#comment-3117 Maggie Gallagher is disliked not because she hates gay people (although that’s pretty sad) but because she is willing to hurt their children, too. Decent Americans don’t want children to be pawns in adults’ political games. The children of same-sex couples would be much better off if their parents/caregivers were married, and Gallagher knows this. But her malice is so strong, she can’t temper it, for the sake of the kids. - Kristen Sun, 04 Oct 2009 16:55:50 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/maggie-rules.html#comment-3116 I never thought I would see the day when a woman and a mother would earn a living by advocating a political position that hurts children, as Maggie Gallagher has done. Denying marriage to same-sex couples with children makes those children more vulnerable and their futures less bright, according to research Gallagher promotes. It’s bad enough to deny marriage’s many benefits to same-sex couples but to hurt their children, too?! Despicable. - Jeffrey Sun, 04 Oct 2009 07:50:44 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/maggie-rules.html#comment-3114 Maggie Gallagher gets $125,000 to “defend” marriage against gay people! Geez, who knew you could make so much money hurting a minority and children?! Surely the poster who says NOM pays her that much is incorrect. How can the spokesperson for a small hate-based non-profit get paid so much? - Louise Sun, 04 Oct 2009 07:49:44 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/maggie-rules.html#comment-3113 It is good to see opposition to to the homosexual lobby finally getting traction. - Andrew Sat, 03 Oct 2009 10:02:36 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/maggie-rules.html#comment-3110 Since gay singles and couples can have and raise children as they wish, it’s not a great idea for society to prevent gay couples from marrying. Kids are better off when their parents are married, and more likely to stay together for the duration. Let’s think about what’s best for kids on this issue, folks! - Sean Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:05:42 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/maggie-rules.html#comment-3106 Looks like Texas’ ban on same-sex marriage is coming unglued, thanks to a Dallas judge. I guess Maggie Gallagher’s lucrative “hate-gay-for-pay” income might end sooner than we thought! - James Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:01:27 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/maggie-rules.html#comment-3102 Then why doesn’t Maggie Gallagher advocate outlawing, adultery and divorce? Those are far more damaging to marriage than same-sex couples wanting to marry in order to ensure legal rights for themselves and their children. Maggie is in the “hate-gay-for-pay” business and doesn’t want to appear like a crackpot, which is how she’d be perceived if she advocated actually protecting marriage by outlawing pre-marital sex, adultery and divorce. Contributions to NOM, and her $125,000 salary would dry up. - Jeffrey Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:58:40 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/maggie-rules.html#comment-3096 The purpose of marriage throughout the ages has been primarily to ensure that when men and women have sex, the man stays around to care for any children he might father and their mother. With the divorce revolution, the welfare of the children took back seat to the self-fulfillment of adults. SSM will further marginalize children from the core meaning of marriage. The long-term impact of this on all children will overshadow any gains that might have been made by the children of same-sex couples. - Brandon Fri, 02 Oct 2009 05:19:31 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/maggie-rules.html#comment-3095 Jeffery - Maggie has been writing books on divorce, adultery, and premarital sex since at least 1989 (see Amazon.com). She covers the whole gamut. Eva - Divorce research demonstrates that both genders are important for their contributions to child development. For example, the presence of involved fathers has been shown to curb violent tendencies and develop empathy in boys and discourage premature sexual activity in girls. (See "Families without Fathers" by Popenoe for summary of the research) - Brandon Fri, 02 Oct 2009 05:19:10 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/maggie-rules.html#comment-3090 Michael: If "homosexual rights = civil rights," why do so many black Democrats vote for traditional marriage? Unlike white gays, black people have endured REAL oppression: Jim Crow, lynchings, slavery, etc. Thus, many blacks think white gays screaming "I'm a victim" is as silly as Bill Gates complaining about being poor. And white gays condone the racists in their midst.So, please stop the madness. Read: 1 Timothy 1:8-10 - Fred2 Thu, 01 Oct 2009 05:38:57 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/maggie-rules.html#comment-3088 Not true Austin. I just googled Maggie Gallagher LGBT and saw nothing of the sort. But the first entry is best: Even if “bigot” or “hater” is too strong of a term for all opponents of marriage enfranchisement, when you dedicate your life to denying civil rights to an ostracized minority, are you really the one in that dynamic with the right to complain? Do you really expect the people whose most private intimacies you work to invalidate to care a whit for verbal distinctions? Who is the bully? - Michael Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:23:06 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/maggie-rules.html#comment-3086 Really Austin Ruse? There are many many studies done on homosexual parenting. No, there is no "proof", you don't give "proof" in science, you give evidence. Even if there were no studies, it's still completely illogical to look at studies comparing children of heterosexual divorce to children of married parents, and say it has any reflection on same-sex parenting. You NEVER jump to those kind of conclusions in social science. You won't find that conclusion in reports on divorce. Try again. - Eva Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:32:28 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/maggie-rules.html#comment-3082 Mr. Ruse, are you against same-sex marriage or same-sex parenting? Same-sex parenting is legal in all 50 states, and there appears to be no momentum to stop gay couples from raising children. Maggie Gallagher wants to stop these children from having the same security that the children of married parents have. Do you agree with her on this goal? - Jeffrey Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:29:16 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/maggie-rules.html#comment-3081 Maggie Gallagher gets vilified because of her backwards, bigoted view on marriage. She proclaims the many tangible benefits of marriage, and then says that gay people mustn’t be permitted to enjoy marriage’s benefits. She must hate kids, since she refuses to acknowledge what she’s doing harms the children of same-sex couples. She’s raking in the dough on this issue, as another poster noted her NOM salary. This woman is a monster. - Kevin Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:28:56 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/maggie-rules.html#comment-3080 Homosexual parenting is too small in number and too new for there to be anything near social science proof either way. But we do know from the divorce culture that kids need mothers and fathers both, something homosexuals cannot provide. If anyone doubts the vicious attacks on Maggie, google Maggie Gallagher LGBT and begin reading. - Austin Ruse Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:08:34 +0100