Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Maggie’s Freudian slip

Timothy Kincaid

November 7th, 2012

Writing in National Review Online, the National Organization for Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher opined with her observations about what drove last night’s election results:

The Obama electorate defeated marriage. I’m guessing we lose at least three of tonight’s four races, and maybe four of the four. We were outspent eight-to-one — and no one was willing to speak for marriage, while the whole Democratic establishment and Hollywood campaigned for marriage. Last night really is a big loss, no way to spin it.

Catch it?

“…the whole Democratic establishment and Hollywood campaigned for marriage.”

Not “campaigned against traditional marriage”, not “campaigned for articifical marriage”. No, Maggie got it right.

The Democratic establishment and Hollywood (and a whole lot of others) campaigned FOR MARRIAGE, for the integrity and dignity of a treasured institution that it not be sullied by exclusion or animus or smug superiority.

(oh, and someone slip Brian Brown a note about spinning)

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Bose in St. Peter MN
November 7th, 2012 | LINK

Similarly,

“…no one was willing to speak for marriage…”

is the phrase jumped out at me, too.

What does this really mean to her? That all of NOM’s archbishop buddies nobodies who didn’t speak up enough? Or that the Catholic Church in Maine didn’t reinlist in 2012 like 2009? Not enough black pastors took the bait in Maryland?

I’m honestly curious — who didn’t speak up despite Maggie’s hopes and expectations?

Lindoro Almaviva
November 7th, 2012 | LINK

oh, and someone slip Brian Brown a note about spinning

And a box of Kleenex.

Russ
November 7th, 2012 | LINK

Haha, good one, thanks for pointing that out, I missed it first time I read her comments on another blog.

David Roberts
November 7th, 2012 | LINK

I suspect she simply left out “gay” as in “gay marriage” but who knows. She is a bizarre individual — even Freud would be challenged.

Hyhybt
November 8th, 2012 | LINK

Well, she did describe BOTH sides as “for marriage,” which is really getting it right for once. An understandable error, considering how distraught she probably is at the unignorable reminder that she will someday soon have to find a new line of work.

Markanthony
November 8th, 2012 | LINK

Great Catch. I didn’t see that mentioned in the NR comments section even.

I thought the most interesting part was her note about the lack of support the issue gets from conservatives. The only people who campaign on this issue any more are religious leaders from conservative denominations. Big business and small government types have all lined up on the pro-SSM side.

She has written alot about her side’s hidden “common sense” support. These actually losses must be making her re-think that.

Priya Lynn
November 8th, 2012 | LINK

Hyhybt said “Well, she did describe BOTH sides as “for marriage,” which is really getting it right for once.”.

No, that’s not right. Maggie doesn’t do any advocating for heterosexual marriage, her activities are solely about preventing gay marriage. Maggie is not for marriage, she is against (same sex) marriage.

TampaZeke
November 8th, 2012 | LINK

I caught that too! It was a fleeting moment of truth for ole Maggie!

jerry
November 9th, 2012 | LINK

The thing Maggie and Brian seem to have missed is that with all of the Bigots and Archbigots and close-minded preachers who railed against allowing same sex couples to have access to civil marriage the folks in the pews turned a deaf ear.

A couple of weeks ago someone wrote a comment predicting doom for the gay marriage measures on the ballots. I think it was in response to the President’s promoting it. Nate Silver is not likely to offer him a position on the staff of five-thirty eight.

If no one has mentioned it, the fourth justice on the Iowa Supreme Court was up for a retention vote. He too won with a comfortable majority. The Dems held the Iowa senate so no ballot measure is possible before 2018.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.