Alex Blaze

Maggie Gallagher: Obama Says Gay Is the New Black

Filed By Alex Blaze | February 24, 2011 12:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Media, Politics
Tags: Fox News, LGBT, Maggie Gallagher, NOM

Maggie Gallagher of NOM went on Fox News to say that Obama declared unilaterally that gay is the same as black, which means that Obama is trivializing the Civil Rights Movement or something.

Gallagher fudges the facts and says that Obama will require strict scrutiny in cases involving sexual orientation discrimination, which he didn't do - the letter Holder wrote only asks for "more heightened scrutiny" (so intermediate scrutiny like sex discrimination is held to is included). He also didn't "unilaterally" declare what level of scrutiny should be applied since he doesn't have that authority (nice implication there that he's an "activist president," as if he wasn't elected); he made a recommendation that the court use a higher level of scrutiny but a court could always reject that.

Oh, and Megan Kelly lied in saying that DOMA will no longer be enforced; Eric Holder specifically said that the Executive Branch would. Bonus points for chalking this all up to Obama's "feelings" (a standard-issue rightwing move that says that Obama's an irrational sob-sister) and for completely ignoring the numerous times Bush went to the Justice Department to get memos justifying whatever laws he wanted to break, including limits on torture and surveillance.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

I love how the anchor here presents this in a "omg what a threat to society" way. So much for impartial huh? I know, I know.. we all know Fox is anything but impartial, but this is just silly. I wonder how Shepard Smith feels about her tone on this.

Maggie Gallagher, lol.. who the f*&% cares about that hag.

Maggie's use of the word 'worthy' when referring to gays and lesbians was a little slip that she corrected. But we know in her little loveless lying heart she, "does not consider LGBT americans as worthy of protections or equality"

Regan DuCasse | February 24, 2011 1:32 PM

Maggie G a white woman, who herself had a child out of wedlock and has no visible husband at the moment, dares to lecture TO a black man on what being a black man is?
What black history is?
A black man who IS married, never divorced, living the VERY marriage that Maggie G is supposed to be defending?
Does HE look like he needs his marriage or anyone's LIKE his defended by the likes of MG? Does HE look like someone who should be taking lectures from HER?
Where does SHE get off thinking that to begin with?

What an arrogant and impossibly self righteous bitch that woman IS!

That was kind of how I felt, Regan.

Even if that was what President Obama said, who in the hell is Maggie Gallagher to disagree with him?

There are so many layers of weird/hypocrisy/stupidity in this, but for most people watching Fox News it probably boiled down to: Nice Christian woman berates Muslim Democrat who hates America.

If I remember correctly, her husband is an Indian Hindu.

Religious fundamentalism is the new stupid.

Oh, wait, it was the *old* stupid, too...


I can't watch the video - it seems to have been disabled. But just based on what you've written, Alex, I gather that Gallagher is criticising Obama for claiming that gay is the new Black, and therefore trivialising the Civil Rights Movement.

Isn't that what the Gay Movement has been, quite problematically, claiming for a number of years now? That Gay is the New Black? I've got photographs of people holding signs with those words at Prop 8 rallies, and The Advocate had that on its cover.

I mean this in sincerity: I'm trying to understand whom we're criticising here and what we're making fun of, exactly. Is it okay for gayz to say that gay is the new Black but not for Gallagher to say that?

Pardon my obtuseness here.

I agree with you somewhat...

My thing is, if Obama had actually said that, then Gallagher would not be in a position to disagree with him (it occured in a portion of the interview that discussed heightened scrutiny...which doesn't have to necessarily include race, of course, it could include any number of things including religion)...

I don't know if in that context that your analogy would hold, Yasmin, but I see where you're coming from

And I've been trying to locate a working link for that video, but it appears to have disappeared.

And even if Obama did or were ever to say that, I'd still look at him and say, "Really, REALLY?" His saying that would not validate the statement: no one who knows anything about where race is in this country can say that without proving themselves a) delusional b) not of this planet c) all of the above. And he's certainly none of that.

I'd love to know the nature of her comments, and what we're criticising her for when, in fact, it's an argument made by many of teh gayz. For which many, including me, have rightly criticised them.

Regan DuCasse | February 25, 2011 1:37 PM

Hello Yasmine, if I may:
MG hasn't in any way, been honest or educated about the WHOLE of the similarities and exceptional analogies to black/gay struggles with regard to civil rights. And there ARE serious and legitimate parallels to the processes of systemic bigotry and discrimination, as are the results of such laws and social stigma.

MG exploits fear and ignorance of these similarities. And indeed, BB and MG have claimed that THEY are the victims of civil rights abuses, as well as 'militant homosexuals'.
Alveda King, niece of Dr. MLK has gone on their anti marriage tours and rallies as a representative of the Civil Rights Movement and spokesperson of the intentions of Dr. and Coretta King's as anti gay.

NOM has proven themselves cynical in this ploy regarding who has more claim to being compromised regarding civil rights.

If BO is in accord with how gays are TREATED in America and those similarities to blacks in the past, he is more accurate than MG claiming that it's not so, and that NOM'ers are suffering more than gay people are or ever did as a means of justifying their war on gay people.

The opposition to gay equality has spent a lot of time SPEAKING for gay people, and making all kinds of claims as to the 'real' intentions and purposes for gay people wanting equality.

It's only been problematic for gay people because the opposition is MAKING it problematic. That doesn't mean that gay people didn't have legitimacy and examples to go by. The campaigns against gay people are all about making things problematic for gay people, creating impossible and intractable situations where none has to exist.

When in the media, MG and BB are not called out on THEIR claims of being abused, or silenced or misrepresented (where no harm has come to them). And they are definitely are NOT being silenced.

It only seems that gay people have to keep explaining themselves, regardless of the terrible problems that result from anti gay prejudice and distrust.

The hypocritical contradictions that MG sets up are all kinds chum that are difficult to get through. Starting with her taking offense that BO can empathize with gay people. Which is what blacks SHOULD be doing.

MG on the other hand, wants to have all the empathy in the world for HER troubles with gay people.
Well, what the fuck for?

Hi Regan,

There are parallels yes, but teh gayz who use the "Gay is the New Black" argument are not talking about parallels. They implicitly and often explicitly argue that racism is over or somehow immensely mitigated and that gays are now the most opppressed minority in the country.

That's problematic on at least a few grounds:
it assumes that the problem of racism is over, it ignores the systemic ways that racism operates (we may not have separate drinking fountains but try being a person of colour in Boystown trying to get into some businesses, or having a "Black" name on a resume, etc. etc.), and it completely ignores the historical specificities around oppression/marginalisation. It also plays into an oppression Olympics game.

On the other hand, I don't think it helps us to carry the burden of racism around all the time as if it nothing has changed, and I do think it's important to recognise the significant improvements we've seen.

But, but, but...I live in the most racist city in the country (it's technically referred to as the most "segregated" city because that just sounds ... well, less realistic, so Chicagoans can continue to ignore its troubled racial present), and I have little patience with the whole "Gay is the new Black" argument.

I have no doubt that Gallagher, King, and the rest have narrow and bizarre views about their own oppressions and how they think gays benefit from such.

But why are we letting the Maggie Gallaghers of the world define how we think about race and homosexuality?

For that matter, why do we consistently forget that some of are actually Black *and* gay? (I know that this last thought will cause horror in some gay circles)

Over and over, we let the Right define our discourse. Which is why the "left" or "progressives" spend all their in knee-jerk responses to people like Gallagher but have few agendas of their own. And when gays keep engaging Gallagher and the rest, they're taking on the easy and funnier battles. I mean, really, how hard is it to dismantle her racism, sexism, homophobia etc.?

Neoliberalism and the trouble with gay identity politics, on the other hand? Marriage, hate crimes, and DADT as the trifecta of everything we stand for? We'd rather leave those alone, even though they have much more effects on our lives.