1. MTz38hek says

    LMFAO! I came to Towleroad and the first thing I saw was that screen grab. That pretty much sums up everyone’s favorite hateful moo cow.

  2. Sargon Bighorn says

    “Marriage Equality” she does not like. USE that term MORE. “Gay Marriage” focuses people on GAY not marriage.

  3. Chris says

    It’s funny, NOM posted the same link on their blog and said that MSNBC was making up facts. Unfortunately my comment correcting that and saying that Maggie was caught in a bold-faced lie was not posted

  4. tommyboy10 says

    I always ask myself, why the hell would married people want this stupid fat cow representing marriage? Seriously…
    Is she even married or does she just have a bug up her ass…cause her son is studying muscial theater…yikes.

  5. enough already says

    She is a real piece of work.
    The very lie that my marriage somehow changes the definition of a straight marriage is beyond belief.
    Nasty, hateful woman.
    And dangerous – she has the blood of countless gay and lesbian and transgender children on her hands.

  6. shle896shle says

    If she’s not a lesbian, then I’m not a gay man. The poor woman is full of self-hatred. Kind of sad.

  7. says

    I think a gay son may be her biggest problem…

    …that and the possibility , since seeing her pic with her tongue sticking out, that there is this very real possibility she’s a closeted lesbian. What a treat 😉

  8. says

    So good to see Maggie called on her lies. Make no mistake — this is very important. She claims she wants to “Defend Marriage” and that is her only goal. But it’s plain her real goal is to destroy us. But thanks to the success of the gay rights movement she knows she can no longer say that out loud.

    Marriage Equality is winning.

    Maggie Sritastav (that’s her legally married name — use it) is LOSING>

  9. gr8guyca says

    I wish it had just been Chris Hayes interviewing her. The discussion kept getting sidetracked, while he had the most substantive questions. He’s a sharp guy and a good addition to MSNBC.

    As far as most comments on here, can we avoid the fat jokes
    and making fun of her appearance? It’s irrelevant. What is so unattractive is her opinion and her work to oppose marriage equality.

  10. Jim Stone says

    Last week my partner and I went out to San Francisco to view the premier of a documentary called “The Right to Love-an American Family.” Jay and Bryan Leffew are friends so we were thrilled to see them showcased. I hope this film makes the mainstream because more people need to see the value of marriage equality and adoption.

  11. says

    My Religous convictions say all people are created as they are perfect in Gods eyes and are free to choose who they love!

    I am a minister, I hold a degree in divinity and pastoral counseling and I am legally married to my Husband who holds a doctorate from Harvard.

    get an education. . . learn the bible in context and proclaim God’sd love for all….STOP THE HATE!

  12. GZeus says

    Ironically, since Maggie is married to a Hindu, her own inter-racial and inter-faith marriage would have been illegal before the laws were changed. How sad that she takes this position.

  13. Chadd says

    Clearly with that hair, makeup application and choice of outfit, she has never met a gay man.

    Best screen grab ever!!

  14. Oliver says

    Maggie Gallagher, the poster-child for the “Fat Ignorant American” campaign. (Nice freeze-frame of her piggy little face, btw.)

  15. Mona says

    Whereas I love making fun of this woman, I love my lesbian friends far too much to want her counted as one of their number, closeted or no.

  16. Sami J says

    Marriage has been redefined various times, against popular support, and against religious institutions’ will.
    Making who you marry a choice, instead of arranged, allowing Divorce, calling women equal partners instead of property, not requiring procreation to constitute a marriage. There has been a gradual evolution/cultrual shift as far as what marriage actually is. Within that paradigm of the original marriage, Maggie Gallagher is actually 100% correct. That institution is barred from gay couples definitionally. But THAT institution-where a woman is a piece of property transferred from the father to the husband, where the woman had no voice. where the institution itself was an arranged affair, having nothing to do with love, but rather socioeconomic and blood ties, divorce being illegal and polygamy being frequent-no longer exists anywhere in this society.
    Maggie Gallagher defines marriage as between a man and wife loving one another and rearing children. That definition has only the force of her personal opinion, and should certainly not have the force of law, regardless of how many people may share that opinion.
    This is because that definition has no Biblical foundation(Biblical marriage was what I described above). It also has no societal foundation. We’ve already seen the effects of gay marriage on society in Spain, the Netherlands, etc. and it doesn’t redefine anything. Society doesn’t collapse. The only thing that happens is the economy booms briefly from all the gay weddings, stays elevated because of all the tax preparations for gay couples, and then also remains elevated from all the gay divorces. The inclusion of that group of legal adults of sound mind in a long term contract improves the society and the economy.

    Also, it will be nice when Maggie Gallagher and her ilk are officially categorized as hate groups-oh wait, they already are- and when we as a culture move past legitimizing these people in the media by letting them on tv and radio at all.

  17. Gregoire says

    She’s actually stunningly beautiful on the outside compared to the black swamp of ugliness that is her corroded, hate-choked soul.

    I actually feel a tad sorry for her, because she’s a bloated, venom-filled harridan on the butt end of a fading way of thinking. She will make the history books as an icon of the losing side.

    Not only are millions laughing at her physical appearance and decrepit personality TODAY, but there will be millions more in the future who look at this curious cow and note, “Wow, she really embodies the mid-20th century bigot!” By then, her sad fashion choices, her pathetic gait and posture will be even more out of date and ridiculed mercilessly.

    Her life is a farce.

  18. Robert in NYC says

    She wasn’t so pro-marriage when she was having unprotected sex and was knocked up, then married later. To think this ugly sow was having sex, yuck! Its enough to turn any straight man off. She’s nothing more than a bold-faced liar.

    I once had an heated email exchange with her and asked her if her son were gay, would she be comfortable voting against her own child? She dismissed it and changed the subject. Stupid cow!

  19. Mike C. says

    I gotta say she’s a good speaker and great debater, and the other commentators, except for Chris, came off as uninformed and unready, particularly the woman. Most of our talking heads couldn’t hold a candle to this woman in a proper debate. We need a Maggie Gallagher for our side

  20. Matt26 says

    So she thinks she is a good front/face to her very negative issue? Does she ever wake up thinking she is wasting her life?

  21. sparks says


    She didn’t eat her eyebrows, just didn’t bring them. When you’re Ms. Potato Head, it’s your prerogative which pieces to put on.

  22. Jeff Kurtti says

    Mike C.–I agree! Gallegher has her hate speech down pat, and pushes emotional buttons so skillfully, that even a Thom Hartmann or Chris Hayes comes across as unprepared. Anyone preparing to interview her needs to have their rebuttal READY–these people all seemed caught flat-footed.

  23. says

    NOM should be concentrating on mandatory marriage for breeders. Soon’s your squawling bundle of joy pops out, a blood test is performed and whoever’s the bio dad is legally hitched to you automatically, no ceremony necessary. That’d show the father of Maggie’s first kid.

  24. Gregoire says

    Of course she has her ammunition ready. IT’S ALL SHE DOES. She practices her spiel in the mirror. She might be able to outclass interviewers like Chris — who discusses a great span of topics on his show. But watching her going up against a marriage equality activity is hilarious.

  25. olterigo says


    Yes, she is married to some guy with a last name Srivastav. But I am yet to see her actually speak about him or wear a wedding ring. I am guessing that she keeps him hidden from the public, because of either his appearance or his religion. Or maybe he knows that it’s just plain bad for business to publicly associate with Maggot. (Especially, as they live on the East Coast.)


    The jury is still out on that question as Maggot’s own son is in theater in NYC.

  26. Sean Maloney says

    Who died and made her the vocal barometer for marriage? Talk about making the personal the political. Just because she was an unwed mother who struggled raising her child alone doesn’t mean everyone else out there with a similar beginning has a struggle, too. What an ego on this woman. She’s very dishonest when she thinks she can separate her personal beliefs from her political advocacy. By her own admission, this is what drives her and yet, she just won’t come out and say she’s homophobic. And why doesn’t anyone ever ask her the hypothetical about if her son came to her and revealed he was gay, what would she say? What would she do? She’s very lucky I don’t interview her. There’d be nothing left of her.

  27. TJ says

    I thought her dodge regarding not putting her focus on divorce was pretty lame (i.e., “I was 15″ when no-fault divorce came about). Seems there are plenty of people who were “young” at the time currently fighting to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    I don’t understand her point about “changing the definition” (if you buy into that) as in and of itself something to fight or else all hell breaks loose. As another poster noted previously, the definition of marriage has been redefined many times previously. Traditions may serve continuity and provide comfort, but if they no longer adequately address the needs of people, they can and should be changed. How does being married in my house in my life in my way in any way affect anyone else’s marriage? If same-sex couples are allowed to marry, how does that stop a heterosexual Roman Catholic couple from getting married, staying married, and having children if they are capable of doing so? “Because you’ve changed the definition” is meaningless; what happens in your marriage is up to you, Maggie, not me.

    If this is all about protecting children, what about the children in same-sex parent households? Don’t they deserve the protection of a stable relationship? If you truly have nothing against gay people, you ought to be advocating for those families if children are your priority. I suspect Maggie’s vision of the mother/father ideal involves making adoption by gays illegal, and taking children away, in her perfect world.

    How can someone so large be so full of holes?

  28. says

    she’s not really “coming across well”, nor is she even making intellectually solid arguments.

    the reason interviewers come across as “unprepared” is because they, alas, don’t speak fluent Derp.

    derp derp derp.

    she sidesteps, she evades, she uses baselessly intellectually-dishonest non-arguments and distractionary techniques.

    it’s like having a debate with a cockroach.

    and, yes. her son is involved in the creative side of NYC’s musical theatre community, still starting out. he’s a kind, generous, and progressively-liberal young man who has had to deal with a harridan of a mother his whole life. a woman who put great pressure on him as she hammered home that “she’s the only one who’s been there for him” – a woman who has made it abundantly clear that she has no room in her life for a gay son. frankly, he’s waiting for her to die.
    when asked about his life with maggie as his mother, he was quoted as sayign “perhaps i’ll write a musical about this some day”

    the interview is online. the new civil rights movement.

  29. DeedaRitz says

    That pic of Maggie Gallagher. SMHWTFOMGLMAO

    That pic sums up exactly what I think about her brain, her entire personality.

  30. Jexer says

    *ARGH* Why does no one come out and pin her with better questions like:

    * Do you believe your efforts will make any committed same-sex parents split up and seek out opposite-sex partners?

    * You oppose the right for a person to legally adopt their committed same-sex partner’s biological child, yes? How exactly does that help the child?

    * Would you have us believe the child is worse off being raised by one biological parent and their same-sex partner, than they would be if they were forcibly put up for adoption or forced onto their other biological parent who surrendered them?

    * Not all children to be born to wedded biological parents, or born to parents who wish to raise them. What’s your plan on stopping surrogacy and anonymous sperm donors so that same-sex couples will have fewer opportunities to raise children?

    * Being a single parent is hard. You’ve said so yourself. Why are you insisting that society treat gay and lesbian parents as if they were single parents? Wouldn’t life be so much better for them and their children if their chosen partner were respected and recognized as an official guardian of the children in that household?

  31. says

    I encourage you all to go to their website: and “register” and in the comments let them know, nicely, what crap they’re spreading. All their arguments against marriage equality are tautological.

    Their number 1 talking point is “gay people have a right to live their lives as they want [really?], but we don’t have the right to redefine marriage for straights.”

    And the obvious rebuttal: We’re not doing ANYTHING to straight marriage.

  32. Abel says

    I’ve promised myself I would stop ridiculing Maggie’s appearance. That screen grab is just mean, and I hate seeing it used. The woman is a sad and misguided human being who makes her living peddling hate and discrimination. Her life is so dismal, and all she has is her pretense of faithfulness to her nominal Catholicism. And her very large income, of course. I do not believe her marriage is happy. I suspect her elder son is a closeted gay man, but I don’t know this. An acquaintance who does know him vaguely insists this is the case. If that is true, my heart goes out to him. It would be rather like having Medea for a mother.

  33. Shawn says

    She’s a Roman Catholic??? She got preggers at 15? Is she married right now to the man that got her pregnant???

    Hmmm…should we look up what the bible says about women like her?

  34. Jexer says

    Oops. should have been “Not all children are born to wedded biological parents,” above. oh well.

    One more question Maggie needs to be asked:

    * Why aren’t you crusading against deadbeat fathers? Is this anti-gay-marriage thing some kind of bitter revenge against specifically targeted at the (probably closeted gay) man who got you pregnant and refused to marry you afterwards?

  35. GRivera says

    ROMAN CATHOLIC!?!?! This does not give them the right to make rules for America with their backwards antiquated beliefs.


    Religion and that so-called god have made us the immoral and the enemy since that book was penned. GET EDUCATED – RELIGION IS BAD!

    And to say “My god does not condemn gays and a lesbian is just asinine. How many gods do we need to create????

  36. ricky rocky says


    Can we please stop using schoolyard taunts about a person’s appearance as some kind of logical argument. What does someone’s appearance have to do with the merit of their opinions and arguments? I find it embarrassing and detrimental to our cause and undercutting the power of our own observations.

    Harriet Tubman, you’re next !

  37. Brian says

    @ Chris — I laughed at NOM’s version of this as well, where they say that Maggie “emerges victorious!” And NOM also wouldn’t punish my comment. In fact, I’ve been trying to get various comments through, including one asking them not to use the phrase “pro-family” when talking about people who oppose marriage equality, but that is insulting and demeaning to the children of gays and lesbians. Attacking children and telling them they aren’t part of a family is reprehensible.

    NOM wouldn’t publish a single one of my comments, nor would they respond to a private e-mail asking why not. These people are contemptible, and don’t even try to pretend otherwise.