Comments

  1. says

    Maggie breaks from “tradition” herself by not using her married name, “Srivastev”, and the sheer fact that she had a child with a man she was not in a relationship with in the 1980s, and raised a child as a single mother.

    she has been “repenting for this sin” for nearly 30 years by choosing to be appallingly anti-gay. and anti-Anything-Not-Christian.

    She’s a liar, a hypocrite, and pious glutton.

  2. Mastik8 says

    I was at a Gay Pride Parade in Boston that Mitt marched in while his people handed out flyers printed on red paper I believe where he said he would support gay marriage. Should he get the nod I’m sure some clever queen has one or two filed away that will be trotted out, justifiably, to discredit him.

  3. says

    As JR noted, Maggie knows who’s buttering NOM’s bread (and it’s a lot of butter), so she best stay in good graces with the Mormons. She, unlike many anti-gay Republicans, also knows that the other candidates won’t be the nominee, so she’s trying to sell no one’s real first choice, flippy-floppy Mitt.

    As for the marriage amendment in MA, MA chose to stay on the right side of history. Marriage equality is so not an issue there now, it’s ludicrous that she’s still bitter about it, but bitterness and a well-stocked fridge is all she has going for her.

  4. Connectme says

    Well, she’s not going to bite the hand that feeds her. Of course she would support Romney, but she clearly has not done her research. I live in Boston. I saw Mitt in action… he panders to whatever interest makes sense at the time. Big slime ball!

  5. Chicklets says

    Maggie is worried about beating Obama? She should be more concerned with beating those eggs for her jumbo hog omelet she’s creating for her 2nd mid morning protein snack.

  6. Sam says

    Connectme is right.

    I live just outside of Boston too and Romney will pander to anyone who lines his pockets. At least he has some brains unlike many other politicians.

  7. Jose S. says

    Mitt is a globalist and a corporatist puppet. He supports abortion, he supports NAFTA, he supports torture of US Citizens, he supports open borders, he supports government control expensive corporate financed healthcare, he wants WWIII with Iran… oh but that doesn’t matter to ole’ hypocrite Maggie… he is against gay marriage NOW and that is all that matters to this simpleton neo-feminist anti-male creature.

  8. Michael says

    Don’t know what’s worse, the fact Maggie couldn’t look more like a hardcore lesbian if she tried, ie she’s definitely queer, or she doesn’t care gluttony is one if the seven deadly sins….

  9. NY2.0 says

    Well, how are the gay Republicans going to spin this one now? Maggie Gallagher supports their candidate. Oh right, it’s the tax cuts that’s important.

  10. Jose S. says

    @NY2.0

    Even though Mittens raised taxes in Mass over 20% during his tenure… so anything that these ‘gay republicans’ have to say is all manipulated dribble. They think that gay liberals are bad… they need to take a look in the mirror…

  11. Icon says

    “Ex-NOM Head…..” Did I miss something? Is NOM defunct? No! NOM is still intact but Maggie is the former head, the Ex-head.
    Oh, then I suppose you meant “NOM Ex-Head…..”

    I’m appalled by the state of journalism and of the use of the English language. Brandon, I hope you will recognize this common error and strive to avoid it in the future.

  12. von lmo says

    i hope everyone is aware that willard mitt romney is a bishop in the mormon church.

    did maggie agree to marry a foreigner so that he’d get US citizenship?

  13. TruthSeeker_Too says

    This is from a woman who has SO much respect for tradition and her Roman Catholic faith that she doesn’t wear a wedding ring, doesn’t appear in public with her husband and won’t even use her married name: Mrs. Raman Srivastav.
    She married Raman in 1993, but NOT within the bounds of a complete Rite of RC Wedding and Mass (she already having given birth to an out-of-wedlock child, and he being a practicing Hindu).
    Mrs. Srivastav and (twice-divorced) Newt Gringrich make a bizarre pair of Roman Catholics arguing that it is the gays who are destroying marriage in this country.

  14. Greg says

    I posted this comment on Real Clear Politics but it was deleted after a few days (too factual I guess). Re-posting it here:

    You really missed the mark on this one, Maggie. Let me start by saying that I agree with you on one thing: Mitt Romney was not responsible for, nor was he a supporter of, marriage equality in Massachusetts. As you know, it was the Massachusetts SJC decision that led to marriage equality in the state. The subsequent constitutional amendment proposed in response to that ruling was blocked (in accordance with the procedures set forth in the state constitution which, for some reason, you need to be reminded of frequently) by the legislature. Neither of those events was under the control of Governor Romney. But that’s irrelevant – because it was POST flip-flop. This criticism of Romney stems not from the events of ’03 to ’06 but from the position he took on gay rights a decade earlier in his failed attempt to unseat Ted Kennedy. In his October 6, 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts, which can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/7onburm, Romney writes “as we seek to establish FULL EQUALITY for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent” (my capitalization). He continues “But I believe we can and must do better (than Ted Kennedy’s record)…we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern.” Contrary to what some have tried to claim, marriage equality was very much a component of the concept of “full equality for gay and lesbian citizens” even way back then in 1994. Remember, this was a year after the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled that state must show a compelling interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage and just two years before 1996’s DOMA was enacted. Now (and this is key) Ted Kennedy (the guy who Romney promised to be more pro-gay than) voted ‘NO’ on DOMA saying at the time “I regard it as a thinly disguised example of intolerance. But regardless of anyone’s views on same-sex marriage, this bill is a flatly unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority.” Now, we’ll never know how Romney would have voted on DOMA had he won the election and was sitting in that seat on that day instead of Kennedy. Given Romney’s flip-flopping nature, we can’t even speculate. However, we do know that that the 2011 Romney would vote ‘yes’ without even blinking. But what is undeniable is that if Romney had voted ‘yes’ on DOMA in ’96, it would have been a complete and total abandonment of the campaign promises he’d made in that letter just two years earlier. Maggie, even with your relentless spinning, it is incomprehensible that you would try to claim that the mid-90’s version of Mitt Romney could have been a stronger advocate on full equality for gays and lesbians than Ted Kennedy and, simultaneously, a fierce supporter of banning marriage rights for them. Admit that there would have to be a major element of inconsistency, flip-flopping or whatever you want to call it. You may have many reasons to support Mitt Romney but trying to defend him against the legitimate and well-earned charges of flip-flopping on gay rights is just absurd.

Leave A Reply