Comments on: Maggie Gallagher In 1996: DOMA Is “Timid” Because Schools Can’t Expel Heather

By: KZ

KZ — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:21:19 +0000

Talk about mean-spirited. There are national and global issues that really threaten our civilization and this is what she’s been concerned about… …going back 13 years? Nincompoops Obsessed with gay Marriage.

By: Johnson

Johnson — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:20:37 +0000

Little did Maggie realize that little more than 10 years later, she herself would be in the pocket of the very organization that made statehood for Utah so difficult in the first place. Oh, life’s sweet ironies…

By: Christopher Waldrop

Christopher Waldrop — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:19:44 +0000

I also assumed that Gallagher was talking about banning the book Heather Has Two Mommies and not about expelling children–although either way it’s pretty disturbing. This makes me think of the flap over the book Baby Be-Bop at a Wisconsin library where four people have sued for the right to take the library’s copy and burn it. They don’t want to destroy all copies of the book (such an effort would be futile) but they claim to have been so “damaged” by the book that their only hope is to publicly burn the library’s copy.

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 01:53:22 +0000

I think Gallagher was almost certainly referring to the book “Heather Has Two Mommies.”

Still, this just means that if she had her way, children would be ignorant to the fact that, like it or not, people of the same sex form long-term relationships, get married, and raise children together. God forbid we tell students the truth!

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 23:36:43 +0000

Well, to be charitable, I’ll give Maggie the benefit of the interpretation. Perhaps Maggie wasn’t actually speaking of expelling children based on the sexual orientation of their parents, rather it is conceivably possible that she was thinking of a simple book banning.

Perhaps she wanted to “keep out” any reference to the book, Heather Has Two Mommies. Perhaps she was advocating censonship instead of championing the most insideous of bigotries.

Perhaps she only favored book burning rather than cruelty to children.

Yes, I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt.

By: Pender

Pender — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:57:24 +0000

What an evil person. Almost makes me wish there were a hell.

By: M3

M3 — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:53:43 +0000

"handful of lawyers appear poised to impose gay marriage on the majority" I love that kind of phrasing. Makes me think of the classic Onion article.

By: David C.

David C. — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 20:38:45 +0000

Maggie and the NOM-Nuts

A really evil crew of the most pernicious kind.

By: AJD

AJD — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:09:53 +0000

What I find even more significant is that she doesn’t appear too keen on anti-discrimination laws, either. She even puts “discriminates” in quotes and holds up anti-discrimination and marriage-equality laws as efforts by the federal government to strip people’s right to have “negative moral views” about homosexuality (gee, why would she be so eager to defend such people?).

This woman is a disgusting person, through and through. She’s the same “journalist” who accepted money from the Bush administration to promote its policies — frankly, I think that should be brought up whenever she goes on TV to debate our side just because it calls her integrity into question.

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:29:47 +0000

Just keep talkin’, Naggie.