Headline:  ProBush columnist got U.S. funding

Gallageher praised marriage program

This just in from the Atlanta Journal Constitution...

"Gallagher's column appeared occasionally in The Atlanta Journal Constitution between June 1995 and November 2003."

Harrumph, "occasionally" ?  I just exhausted my AJC Stacks account searching for examples, and will have to wait until February and March to continue my search.

Covert Propaganda,  Federal Public Relations Spending Has Doubled under the Bush Administration

Photo: Maggie Gallagher said she didn't think to reveal her writing contracts.

Courts only source of justice for oppressed

In her column, "Gay-marriage ruling reeks of callousness toward children," @issue, Nov. 20, Maggie Gallagher states that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has displayed massive ignorance while "national polls are showing a sharp swing against gay marriage" and that state legislatures should move to protect the majority.

In the history of this country, those oppressed by the majority have always had to rely on the courts for any sense of justice. The courts are led by moral obligation to follow the high ideals of our Constitution while our legislators are led by re-election obligation to follow the will of the majority.

As the father of a gay son, I thank God for the high courts, which seem to be the only sources capable of dispensing justice. Roy Moore states that we should acknowledge God in court, but it seems it is God that is using the court to acknowledge my son.

JEFF ELLIS, Fayetteville

Responses to Maggie Gallagher's column "Gay-marriage ruling reeks of callousness toward children," @issue, Nov. 20

Ban no guarantee of love for children

Maggie Gallagher claims to be against same-sex marriage because it will harm children. Yet she ignores the fact that many gay couples have children, and that any law barring recognition of same-sex marriage is denying them basic legal protections.

No law against same-sex marriage, in the form of ill-named "Defense of Marriage Acts" or the proposed "Federal Marriage Amendment," will keep a heterosexual marriage from falling apart. It will not ensure children have a loving, stable home.

And insisting, as Gallagher does, that certain families don't deserve legal recognition does nothing to defend marriage or children.

KEVIN LITTLE, Atlanta

A step toward stable families

Maggie Gallagher's writing is filled with negative stereotypes. Our gay sons and daughters who are taxpaying, responsible, caring citizens deserve the same rights and responsibilities as their straight siblings.

Allowing gay marriages would help stabilize families -- the gay couple, as well as their relatives and friends who love them. How could loving parents (gay or straight) put children at risk?

Gallagher must not know any gay people, or doesn't know that she knows any.

He married for love, not for babies

I knew there was something wrong with me! Friday's coverage of the Supreme Court's landmark civil rights ruling brilliantly illuminates the darkness that has clouded my heart these many years. Sinner that I am, I married a woman because I loved her and wanted to share her life. Now, you might not realize (as I did not) exactly how awful a thing that is. But thanks to wise shepherds such as Jim Wooten, I now understand how I have fallen to my present shameful state ("Thinking Right: Grady, MARTA, U.N.," @issue, June 27).

Wooten, that veritable font of sagacity, instructs us that "marriage is the union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation." Do you see where I went wrong? I married my wife because I loved her, not to make babies! I am totally, hideously guilty of cohabiting with another adult for the sole purpose of enjoying it.

ZACH ETHERIDGE, Atlanta

The 'gift' is given, not received, by moms

As a stay-at-home mother, I appreciate Maggie Gallagher's efforts to acknowledge the credibility of this "trend," but I must take issue with her choice of wording as she begins to hail the noble husbands who give their wives the "gift" of this choice ("Increase in stay-at-home moms part of an encouraging trend," @issue, June 26). "Gift" did I read?

Come on. Any working partner who "allows" the spouse to stay home and tend to the younguns and the house is reaping benefits of his own. Namely, dedicated nanny and maid service, 24/7. Can't we call it a reciprocal arrangement? Sounds better.

It almost allows those of us who have committed this form of financial and emotional suicide just a tiny iota of self-respect.

BEVERLY MARTIN, Milner

Photo: Bride and groom figures from top of wedding cake

MOMS AT WAR: Keep things equal

So Maggie Gallagher doesn't think single moms who voluntarily joined the military should be deployed in a national emergency ("It's difficult for America to justify sending single moms off to war," Viewpoints, Oct. 26)?

Gallagher should understand that for every soldier who cannot be deployed, someone else must go instead, whether it was his turn or not.

Yes, the military should be an equal opportunity employer -- including the opportunity to be deployed to war.

MARK CULPEPPER , Cumming

This isn't a safe job

Regarding Maggie Gallagher's column on single mothers and the military: No one in the military wants to have to be deployed overseas away from families at any time, let alone during war. But this is what the military is for. It is not a safe job to provide for your family.

Why is it not fair to send single mothers? What about single fathers? Married parents?

Decisions cannot be based on gender. If a person cannot make the sacrifice, he or she should not be in the military.

LESLEY ROBERTS, Alpharetta

Consider families

I'm sorry to see Maggie Gallagher cheapen her cause by resorting to an accepted social slight ("It's difficult for America to justify sending single moms off to war," Editorial, Oct. 26). Women are not the only single parents. Why should only the single moms be excused from combat?

My deeper concern was that previous war deployment worked to maintain families. Indeed, why are we sending both parents when there are single men and noncustodial parents who are willing and able to go in their place?

SYLVIA DICKINSON, Roswell

Consider families

I'm sorry to see Maggie Gallagher cheapen her cause by resorting to an accepted social slight ("It's difficult for America to justify sending single moms off to war," Editorial, Oct. 26). Women are not the only single parents. Why should only the single moms be excused from combat?

My deeper concern was that previous war deployment worked to maintain families. Indeed, why are we sending both parents when there are single men and noncustodial parents who are willing and able to go in their place?

SYLVIA DICKINSON, Roswell

POPULATION

We don't need a baby boom

Maggie Gallagher's column ("Population decline threatens Western civilization," Oct. 19) is as naive as it is dangerous. Are we expected to believe a war of attrition will save Western civilation? Her ridiculous praise of simple-minded fundamentalist Islamic society's "channeling social energies . . . into two great sacrifices of self: war and babies" seems to imply as much.

A strong case can be made that wars and rumors of wars result in humanity's making too many babies.

Gallagher's suggestion the United States and Europe launch another baby boom is typical of the naivete of someone living in a country such as ours, sharing 3 percent of the world's population, but devouring 30 percent of the world's resources.

Not all in the West have ceased to bring more children into this world because of a mere "commodification" of sex.

One could cynically assert that fundamendalist religion is against curbing population growth precisely because it needs a strong base of well-armed, hungry, ignorant people to draw on for its innumerable jihads. America and Western civilization will not win the war against jihad by co-opting such strategies.

WILLIAM KALLFELZ, Atlanta

Our purpose is to outnumber Muslims?

Maggie Gallagher claims that Western civilization is in decline because of "a hollowing out of sexual meaning and purpose."

Then she informs us what, in fact, is this beautiful meaning and purpose: to produce enough babies that we outnumber the Muslims!

DAVID SPILLMAN, Tucker

True Christianity not practiced by most

Maggie Gallagher insults true "conservative Christians" and is an example of the problem that she describes ("Conservative Christians are left's hobgoblins," Viewpoints, Oct. 12).

Gallagher completely misses the point. With the exclusion of the Amish, Mennonites and a few other honest sects, our country does not practice Christianity in any form whatsoever. Remember, 11 of the 12 original disciples died following Jesus' instruction to turn the other cheek to violence and to love their fellow man. Christ was an absolute pacifist. American "conservative Christians" preach Christianity and follow Old Testament Judaism. They practice eye-for-an-eye and death to nonbeliever-type religion day in and day out.

On top of that, Gallagher forgets totally the Old Testament admonition to make no show of your religion before man. She prefers, as do so many Bible and flag-waving modern Americans, to paint biblical slogans all over the walls and subject the world to our public prayers while we barbecue them with our military and our financial might.

ROBERT WHITE, Watkinsville

Glad to be waging war on terrorism

I am glad we are waging war, real war, against world-class terrorism. I felt the need after the first bombing of the World Trade Center many years ago. Like most Americans, I praise and support our leader and the brave heroes of recent days, but it is under this pretext that Maggie Gallagher now attacks a past president and his supporters ("Crisis displayed best of U.S.," Viewpoints, Sept. 21).

Gallagher has assumed that a president who "feels your pain" (smirk, smirk) cannot fight terrorism, but a smug pundit has all she needs to rid the world of evil with one hand tied behind her back.

I'm betting that President Bush has changed in the last week, and he has probably mustered courage, wisdom and a sense of proportion unlike any he has ever known and unlike the previous eight months. Many of us have, but I suspect that Gallagher hasn't changed much.

STEVE BAXTER, Clarkston

Swipe at Clinton undermines unity

In her Friday column ("Crisis displayed best of U.S.: Its advances, people, leaders"), Maggie Gallagher failed to do what her column purported to praise: display the best of the United States and its people. Rather than foster unity in our country, her column took an unnecessary and inappropriate swipe at our former president's policies on terrorism.

I voted for Al Gore and have had concerns all along about George W. Bush's readiness for the presidency. I've also been very concerned about his handling of foreign policy since taking office in January. However, he is our president at this critical time, and we must put aside such concerns and support him.

Our country is on the verge of a long battle against terrorism, the success of which requires unity. Gallagher's gratuitous partisan swipes undermine the unity of our country. She ought to be ashamed of herself.

Gays want right to affirm commitment

I was saddened to see Maggie Gallagher's column "Gay activists resort to ugly smear tactics" (Aug. 10). Gay marriage has nothing to do with the so-called "sexual revolution." The sexual revolution was mostly about a bunch of over-indulged, heterosexual baby boomers discovering the pill and promiscuity. I reject such unacceptable behavior.

Homosexuality is not something recently discovered in the sexual revolution. A portion of the population always has been homosexual.

As human beings, homosexuals want to enjoy all the joys of commitment that the heterosexual population enjoys. Why is this so impossible for Gallagher to understand? Marriage should not be a club you join as part of the heterosexual clique.

DONNA REYNOLDS, Atlanta

STEM CELLS: Medical advancements help all generations

How on earth does Maggie Gallagher conclude that stem-cell research is akin to eating our young ("Don't sacrifice later generations for the sake of the present one," Viewpoints, July 27)? Whether we agree with it or not, the reality is that thousands of abortions are preformed in this country every year. Is it somehow more noble to simply destroy the fetal material rather than use it to perhaps help a child who is brought into the world?

While I wholeheartedly agree that we should encourage parents to donate stem cells from umbilical cords, that does not preclude performing research on embryos destined to be destroyed.

Gallagher's claim that we are sacrificing future generations for our present one defies common sense. Any medical strides will benefit every future generation.

DEBORAH LEHMAN, Marietta

GAY MARRIAGE

Amendment represents a denial of group's rights

Regarding Maggie Gallagher's column on a marriage amendment ("Protect traditional marriage in Constitution," Viewpoints, July 20): Whom does she think this amendment is protecting marriage from?

It's sad that our most venerable institution can't bond any two lovers. If the government fails to recognize marriage between some people, then those people will have none of the rights accorded all the others. It basically just casts folks out from under its umbrella. I guess that's the intent.

The government should have a vested interest in stamping out these pockets of ignorance, rather than in reinforcing them, but I guess we've learned not to expect too much.

Yes, Ms. Gallagher, you are on the winning side. You'll certainly be one who'll be allowed to live and let live. But I think you should consider the effect this is going to have on others.

The Founders warned us of letting factions, no matter how large, take from any one their liberty. They knew then how many can act to restrict the rights of few. I think we may have let our memories slip a little bit.

DANE VANDYCK

Athens

Gallagher's guilty of linear thinking

Maggie Gallagher fails to describe how the Federal Marriage Act will protect marriage. She fails to address how the institution of marriage has changed over the years. Reality has not always been as she opines.

She also fails to explain how giving gay and lesbian partners some legal protection in their relationships hurts heterosexual partners in their relationships.

Perhaps we need to get away from believing that marriage is a homogenous concept and move toward offering various levels of commitment.

Many politicians, entertainers and sports figures publicly practice one end of the commitment spectrum (frequent and many partners). Couples committed to and capable of raising kids until they are adults represent the other end of the spectrum. Those who just want a soulmate pal with no kids would fall somewhere in between.

Let's face it, Maggie, complex issues are not solved with simplistic, linear thinking.

STEVE SCHMIDT

Atlanta

Committed relationships set a good example

Maggie Gallagher is rightly concerned with the institution of marriage. Her article certainly will make the majority glad they are heterosexual, but I believe her insistence that nontraditional unions are a threat to our civilization is overblown.

Where is her indignation for the real causes of the breakdown in the family: adultery, divorce, drugs and economic hardships, to name a few?

She seems to use her paranoia of the breakdown of civilization and the family as her excuse to badger a small minority that has little effect on the majority of heterosexual lives. I'm sure that Gallagher would agree that committed relationships are necessary not only for stability of the family, but also as a deterrent to sexually transmitted diseases brought on by promiscuous sexual encounters.

What better way to fight the ills of society than for all people to be in committed relationships -- whether gay or straight?

THOMAS PHILLIPS

Atlanta

GAY MARRIAGE

Individual rights protect everyone

Philosopher John Stuart Mill called it "tyranny of the majority" when an intolerant majority of people in a democracy imposes its values on a minority that does not share them. That is what Maggie Gallagher hoped would happen and be permanently placed in the U.S. Constitution ("Protect traditional marriage in Constitution," Viewpoints, July 20).

There is no place for such intolerance in our Constitution, however. To the contrary, I am glad to see that our country is becoming more accepting of individual liberty.

Gallagher and some prominent local divorcees want to "protect" marriage. They'd do better to protect the Declaration of Independence, which guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not just for heterosexuals.

JACK MILLER, Atlanta

Focus on true culprits in demise of marriage

If Maggie Gallagher thinks that gays want to destroy marriage, I think that she could find more ruinous forces at work in the heterosexual community. Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky cavorted in the Oval Office and found novel uses for cigars. The Rev. Jesse Jackson counseled the President about this in the presence of his pregnant mistress. Newt Gingrich criticized the President for this indiscretion while he was having an affair with his secretary. The thrice married Bob Barr, who refused to answer questions about his adulterous affair at his divorce trial, also condemned the president. And recently, the newspapers have been full of articles about Rep. Gary Condit and his fling with the still missing Chandra Levy.

All of these straight, public people have contributed more to the demise of marriage than any gay person.

GEORGE BARTON, Sharpsburg

Pro-lifers should laud oral sex

Maggie Gallagher is correct that Monica Lewinsky got close to power in a thoroughly old-fashioned way: through sex with a powerful man ("Monica's lesson not what the elites think," Viewpoints, July 13). Moreover, the sexual relationship itself was thoroughly traditional in its one-sided, male-centered character.

Still, as a pro-lifer, Gallagher ought to acknowledge that oral sex, as well as other forms of sexual expression that don't result in pregnancy, do not lead to abortions and should be seen as less morally compromised than sex acts that do.

DENISE NOE, Atlanta July 18, 2001

Thanks for running comforting op-eds

I want to thank you so much for running Molly Ivins' columns. She is a shining ray of light that comforts me in the midst of all the hate-filled, right-wing rhetoric that often dominates the Constitution op-ed pages, courtesy of Mona Charen and Maggie Gallagher. I have to cheer every time an anti-Molly letter is printed because it tells me she's doing something right.

NORMAN HUNTER, Norcross  May 14, 2001

Columnist misses underlying problems

Frankly, I'm tired of the triteness of some of the Constitution's syndicated columnists. Maggie Gallagher's latest column on school violence ("Moral tribalism overtakes what used to be absolutes," Viewpoints, March 9) illustrates how social conservatives lack a response to serious social issues.

"Personal responsibility," they cry, as if Columbine and Santana don't show how this principle functions (or doesn't function) in our culture.

Anyway, the kids at Columbine did in a sense show "personal responsibility." They were willing to pay a price for their actions.

For me, such acts are terrifying because they reflect desperate individuals carrying out their own displacement from a social order in which they believe they can have no place. Therefore, to preach about "personal responsibility" or "moral tribalism" misses the point entirely.

WILLIAM McJUNKIN, Dunwoody  March 14, 2001

Fundamentalists must modernize

In a recent column, Maggie Gallagher reports that biblical illiteracy has reached astonishing proportions ("Teach your children about the Bible and let them see your faith," Viewpoints, Dec. 22).

I am amazed that she seems shocked by this revelation. When one considers that the most visible and vocal Bible supporters are fundamentalist, evangelical Christians, it is no wonder that the majority of Americans choose to disengage.

Even though most people in this country profess faith in God and acknowledge that there may be some gems of wisdom in the Bible, their resistance to deeply knowing the Scripture or any biblical notion that rejects modern knowledge and experience is absolutely understandable and not the least bit unexpected.

If that old-time religion doesn't evolve to reshape its antiquated framework for the 21st century, biblical ignorance will grow to the point of no return.

MICHAEL CHARLES, Marietta  December 27, 2000

Return skill to artistry

Kudos to Maggie Gallagher for criticizing shock art ("Man who defaced dung-smeared art exposes hypocrisy of taboo-breakers," Viewpoints, Oct. 27). The problem with such art is that a taboo can only be broken once. Our era has broken all of them, and it's long past time to go back to craft and skill. DENISE NOE

Atlanta  October 31, 2000

Miller, of Atlanta, teaches philosophy at a private school in Atlanta.

Keep right-wing junk off the editorial page

I just don't get it. The editorial board claims to have a liberal slant, but it continues to print garbage deriding the vice president.

If that bumbling idiot from Texas becomes the next president, I hope each of member of the board will look in his or her mirror and say, "I did everything I could do to undermine the strength of this country."

The newspaper is not doing the country a favor by printing junk -- Maggie Gallagher, David Broder, Mona Charen and countless letters from readers criticizing Al Gore.

Put that conservative baloney in the Journal and quit soiling the Constitution.

ERIC PEARSON October 16, 2000

MAGGIE GALLAGHER: Nothing 'broken'

Maggie Gallagher's article on children of divorce had me rolling my eyes ("Even bad marriages are better for children than broken homes," Viewpoints, Sept. 22).

My parents divorced when I was 7 or so, and I'll go beyond saying, "Hey, divorce is not so bad." I'm glad my parents got divorced. I love them both, but I can't imagine them living together anymore.

I still had a strong relationship with my father after the divorce, continuing to this very day -- the last time I saw my father was earlier today. I don't have any lasting scars from the divorce or being raised in a "broken home" (a term I particularly despise).

The only thing that really bothers me about my parents' divorce is the number of people, including Maggie Gallagher, telling me that I should be some kind of emotional wreck as a result.

ADINA REEVE

Reeve, of Atlanta, is a computer programmer.

Leave abuse behind

I could not believe Maggie Gallagher's column on divorce.

The "conventional wisdom" of the '70s is absolutely true to this day. Children who grow up in an unhappy home come to believe that this is the way it is supposed to be and end up repeating the cycle in their own relationships.

The best thing I ever did for my children was to get them out of an abusive environment where they would receive nothing but love, even if it was only from one parent (who just happened to be the dad).

PATRICK BROWNLEE

Brownlee, of Atlanta, is a single father of two sons. September 29, 2000

Mere propaganda

Letter-writer David Green attacked Maggie Gallagher's column on population decline and asked the question, "How irresponsible is it to promote more people fighting for resources on this planet?"

His reasoning illustrates just how successful the population propagandists have been ("This must be a joke," May 16).

These population controllers blame disease, poverty and famine on overpopulation and fund their misanthropic campaigns of forced abortion, contraception and sterilization by diverting funds from economic, social and health programs.

But to promote their agenda, they must ignore the truth. And the truth is the population in many countries is declining.

LINDA WILLIAMS CATTANACH

Cattanach, a retiree, lives in Blairsville.  May 18, 2000

POPULATION CONTROL

This must be a joke

I was shocked when I read Maggie Gallagher's column "Declining birth rates a bad omen for future" (Viewpoints, May 12.) Who could think we need an increase in population? How irresponsible is it to promote more people fighting for resources on this planet, more mouths to feed with finite supplies, more houses built in what is now wilderness, more smog, pollution, congestion, less water and oxygen. And how egocentric is her reasoning -- so that someone can take care of her when she gets old. Ionly hope her column was meant as a joke.

DAVID GREEN

Green, of Snellville, is a computer programmer. May 16, 2000

Promising trend

It seems that Maggie Gallagher's main concern regarding the recent population trend is that her Social Security checks may not roll in until she is 74. The issue of population control runs far deeper than this, but here in the United States we simply want to know "when can I quit working?"

I only hope that the trend of declining population in the industrialized world spills over into the Third World. I will happily give up an early retirement for a clean environment.

RICHARD RYAN

Ryan, of Suwanee, is an engineer. May 16, 2000

Reader responses: Column bashes men

BYLINE:    Larry Sluss; For the Journal-Constitution
DATE: April 28, 2000
PUBLICATION: The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution
EDITION: Home; The Atlanta Constitution
SECTION: Editorial
PAGE: A22

Maggie Gallagher's column "Attack on mom-to-be counts as double assault" (April 21) twisted an unfortunate and all-too-common occurrence into male-bashing diatribe. Two people had an affair. One was married, the other was not. An unwanted pregnancy was the result. What I find objectionable is Gallagher's bias in describing the events. Why was the "poor nurse" allowed to remain nameless? She was just as responsible for the pregnancy as Dr. Pack. In describing the attack by the "rage-filled" Dr. Pack, Gallagher goes into great detail, using graphic prose and an incendiary quote, as if she were there watching the assault. This portrayal of women as helpless victim and man as enraged beast further polarizes the already fragile relationship between the sexes.

I find it reprehensible that Gallagher chooses to vent

her anti-male bias in a nationally syndicated column ostensibly about abortion and fetal rights.

LARRY SLUSS

Roswell

Anti-male bias?  She’s a paid hack for the National Fatherhood Initiative

Ooops I used up my monthly subscription look for stuff on Gallagher.

Stay tuned, more to come in February & March…

Payment Information