Comments on: Maggie’s Freudian slip

By: jerry

jerry — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 16:58:36 +0000

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.

By: TampaZeke

TampaZeke — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 16:57:06 +0000

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

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 15:54:25 +0000

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.

By: Markanthony

Markanthony — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 15:04:23 +0000

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.

By: Hyhybt

Hyhybt — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 07:31:05 +0000

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.

By: David Roberts

David Roberts — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 04:48:47 +0000

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

By: Russ

Russ — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 02:29:26 +0000

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

By: Lindoro Almaviva

Lindoro Almaviva — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 01:53:01 +0000

oh, and someone slip Brian Brown a note about spinning

And a box of Kleenex.

By: Bose in St. Peter MN

Bose in St. Peter MN — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 01:22:53 +0000

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?