Audio: Maggie needs to stop putting 'hatred' claims in Ethan Strimling's mouth
At this morning's House Judiciary Hearing on DOMA, Maggie Gallagher said this about a radio appearance she made during Maine's marriage fight:
Over the past couple of years, Maggie's made the claim a number of times. She's referring to a 9/4/09 appearance she made on WGAN radio's "Ken and Mike Morning Show," wherein she engaged in an exchange with fill-in host Ethan Strimling. Only problem for Maggie/actuality? She's completely misrepresenting how the thing really went down.
In actuality, the left-leaning cohost (a former Maine state senator) sat patiently and listened to Maggie say all kinds of things about all of the supposed harms that gays are doing to religious people, about why marriage is good for some but not for all, etc, etc. He made his feelings clear throughout the piece in an intensely respectful way, even when Maggie tried to reduce the conversation to "two dudes" who "don't really want to get married." And then when Mr. Strimling did finally chime in and push back, he came back, in the most good-natured of ways, and said, through Maggie's constant crosstalk: "Maggie, how do you just let these things just roll off your tongue? I'm sitting here biting my tongue as you say such remarkable things, I can't even fathom that you actually believe them -- maybe they're poll tested -- but I sit here Maggie and I say to myself, Maggie, I mean, are you kidding? What world do you live in that's so different? Let me just try to come back to one point that you said, because I would like to understand the difference. If you are talking about, this is not bigotry, which you've said over and over again, how is this different? Because the language you are using, to be honest is very, very similar to the language that was used -- hold on, let me finish my question -- very similar to the questions that were raised when we were trying to make it clear that blacks and whites could marry. The same language was being used to stop that from happening that you are using today."
Here's the snip in question, abutted on both ends by Maggie's preconceived "they'll call us bigots" narrative:
*Listen to the full thing here
Yes, he did liken Maggie's current talking points (which he's quick to note that he doesn't even think she herself believes) to past discrimination. But that is not the same thing as calling someone a bigot. It's certainly not the same thing as calling someone a hater. Mr. Strimling, through good-natured laughs on both sides, directly asked Maggie to defend her views against historical discrimination. He says "I would like understand" -- he's asking her to make him understand. But rather than seize that opportunity --a burden that should be expected/accepted of all of us who engage in the public realms -- Maggie works the larger NOM goal of attacking those who pushback rather than truly justifying what she herself is pushing. And that is what she did again today, under oath, before a congressional committee.
*NOTE: Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher have been working this canard since literally the day of the appearance. This is from a NOM e-blast dated 9/4/09:
comments powered by Disqus