This time she was defending David Blankenhorn—who was called as an expert witness for the defense in California's Prop 8 case—against his being called an "ignorant bigot." Poor David. Poor Maggie.
It seems, rather sadly, that Maggie's talking points have recently boiled down to two very run-down ideas:
Idea 1) Those who are for marriage equality—that is, FOR providing civil marriage rights and responsibilities to committed relationships between two people of the same gender—are big meanies who viciously call well-meaning, decent folks bad names. "If even David Blankenhorn’s reputation can be irresponsibly assaulted by allegedly respectable people without any pushback in this way, what will become of the rest of us?"
So, because the pro-gay-marriage folks are a bunch of big name-calling meanies, marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Makes sense, right?
Idea 2) Marriage ONLY exists to protect children from being raised in ANY OTHER ARRANGEMENT than "biological mother plus biological father." She writes: "Marriage deserves its unique status, because these are the only unions that can make new life and connect children in love to their mother and father. On that ground, I will stand or fall."
On that ground, she is bound to fall, because what do spousal hospital visitation rights have to do with new life or connecting children with their biological parents? What does social security inheritance for our senior widows and widowers have to do with parental love? How does being denied the right to collect the body of your deceased partner protect ANYONE's children? Please tell us, Maggie, how?
And what about those LEGAL marriages where procreation is specifically NOT allowed—such as in those states that allow legal marriage between first cousins who are past child-bearing age? What about marriages between people who have no desire to raise children together? Maggie, please explain clearly why such things should be legal, because you're not making sense if you can't defend non-procreative heterosexual marriages.
Anyway, I hope that someday Maggie Gallagher will realize that my legal Iowa marriage to my partner of 14 years hurts her in no way, and hurts nobody's loving relationship with their children. However, NOT being legally married for 13 of those 14 years DID provide us with numerous moments of personal pain and uncertainty. Things would have been easier for everyone involved in those situations—not just us—if we had a simple marriage license at the time.
So as long as there is real, honest, daily-life pain happening on one side of the argument, THAT is the side of the argument that will eventually prevail. Loving same-gender couples have been the ones on the receiving end of the "sticks and stones," not poor David Blankenhorn or Maggie Gallagher.