Maggie Gallagher: Whether I’m Married or Not is Irrelevant

Yesterday Republican presidential candidate and NOM investigator Fred Karger sent out an email speculating that 'marriage defender' Maggie Gallagher may not actually be married because she never wears a wedding ring in public or appears with her husband Roman Srivastav.

Maggie_gallagherGallagher spoke to Buzzfeed about Karger's accusations:

Gallagher laughed when asked about Karger's speculation, and said "I think I would know better than Fred."

Gallagher, who was a single mother for years after college, says she married her husband Raman Srivastav in Arizona in 1993: "We are still married and living together. He's a very private person."

"They just make up all kind of stuff about me," she said. "It doesn't really matter. I could be divorced and I still could not be for gay marriage. I don't really see that it's relevant. It is a fact — I am in fact married. I've only been married once. I am not about to get a divorce."

Said Karger, who has been pursuing NOM's corrupt election finances and tactics for years: "I'm taking the gloves off. I've been a little reticent to go after [Gallagher] personally, but no more."


  1. atomic says

    Every time I see this woman’s homely, miserable face, I ask myself: who is she to dictate who I can marry? This grotesque cow gets to have a say in whether my love is valid and recognized in the eyes of the law? That is the injustice I cannot stand. The sheer arrogance, the egotism, the naked bigotry of her position is nothing more than the result of a small-minded and hateful jealousy of the idea that there exist other people in this world who are smarter, happier, more secure, and more attractive than she is.

    You make of the world what you see in yourself. Maggie Gallagher seeks to poison society with her hate because it is a reflection of her own vicious and diseased soul.

  2. Rob says

    NOM is a fringe hate group per the SPLC. If Karger really wanted to make a difference he’d focus his lobbying efforts on establishment republicans, you know – like the ones fighting to hold onto DOMA.

  3. Mitch says

    If whether or not she’s married is so irrelevant then why is it so relevant to her whether or not I’m married. Bigotry and hypocrisy knows no bounds…

  4. Strepsi says

    “I could be divorced and I still could not be for gay marriage.”

    A-HA! This is the truth — she is AGAINST GAY PEOPLE.

    She always claims she is “for traditional marriage” and interested only in protecting that sacred institution — now she flippantly says it wouldn’t mater if she’s divorced?

    A divorce wouldn’t matter — something that is a sin in her church’s teachings, and the anathema of protecting traditional marriage?

    No, a divorce wouldn’t matter, because she is not for traditional marriage, she is AGAINST GAY PEOPLE.

  5. says

    If it should be irrelevant to us whether she’s married or not, it should be irrelevant to her whether we’re married or not. Fair enough, eh, Maggie?

    But it’s a silly battle on Karger’s part. NOM is increasingly becoming a fringe group on their own. Their clout and money are shriveling up as Maggie and Brian keep ballooning. Giving them added attention, particularly since Maggie is quite capable of defending herself and then playing the victim, doesn’t advance marriage equality. It only means we’re stuck once again seeing that wretched (yet hilarious) picture of her face with that little tongue lapping out as if to catch the next buffet when it flies by.

  6. TruthWinsOut says

    The foundation of her argument regarding marriage is that we as a society need to set an example for children, so that they value and want to be married. On that, I might be inclined to agree with her. I do think there are positive aspects of being raised in a two-parent household when the parents want to be married to one another and care for one another. Where I disagree is obviously that those two parents need to be male and female. She often argues that allowing gay marriage changes what marriage is and makes it less valuable to society and so the “next generation” does not feel as inclined to get married. Well, if we need to set a good exmaple for society, then why is she so hell bent on hiding her own marriage? She should be out showing everyone how wonderful her marriage is so that people want to be married.

    I’ve heard her speak in person. She’s actually quite intelligent and makes salient points that are hard to disagree with. The issue is when she draws this imaginary line and says that somehow, allowing gays to marry changes things. The way I see it, allowing gays to get married only reinforces the importance of marriage and being in committed relationships. It should drive new generations to WANT it more, not less. I mean, after all, if you see a loving gay couple who is not legally married live a happy, productive life and raise a family, doesn’t that only strengthen the view that marriage as a legal institution really isn’t that important?

  7. mikey1ca says

    I don’t care at all about this woman’s personal life. Who cares whether she’s married or not? What matters is that she is a bigot, a hatemonger, a child abuser and a murderer. She can claim that she’s not anti-gay and pretend innocence all she wants, but the fact is she is encouraging bullies and driving children to suicide. I don’t know how she gets up in the morning and looks herself in the mirror.

    In many places around the world, she’d have been stoned to death for getting pregnant out of wedlock. You might think that a woman in her shoes would focus her energy on saving the women around the world who are in a similar situation.

    But no, Maggie the murderer thinks that persecuting gay people is her life’s work.

  8. Michael F. says

    Not relevant? She’s cruising against gay marriage and single mothers touting that the sanctity must be held up to the Bibles standards. If she is in fact no longer married, she’s the biggest effing hypocrite.

  9. says

    oh, he’s a very private person? it’s a shame that we LGBT people don’t have the luxury.

    “privacy” is what kills us, and keeps our rights denied.

    this is intriguing actually. i’ve always been a fan of asking people to prove they are what they say they are, and prove that they’re living by the same standards…’s very telling when people give long-winded excuses to not live with that transparency…..very telling, indeed.

  10. says

    I don’t know why “children need two parents” is in ANY WAY being looked at as an “intelligent argument”….

    not all LGBT couples who marry will have children.
    not all straight couples who marry will have children.

    LGBT couples are not being denied the right to have children. therefore, LGBT couples with children are having their CHILDREN put at a disadvantage by NOM – NOM’s tactics are putting those kids at risk by denying them the benefits THEY would receive if their parents could legally marry.

    again, i have no idea why we’re even listening to these “children need two parents” arguments. the issue is about legal marriage, not about parenting.

  11. BobN says

    We should be talking about NOM’s tax status, their tactics, and their refusal to obey the courts.

    Why Karger of all people is taking the fight to Maggie’s marital bliss, or lack thereof, is beyond me.

  12. jeffers says

    She is beginning to look like a bitter woman with a string of failed relationships in her wake, who has taken up this cause “to protect marriage” to hide her inability to have one…

  13. says

    well, Gallagher is trying to repent – she got knocked up, and had a baby. she’s worked her gluttonous behind for decades to punish others to distract from her own perceived sin.

    similarly, their spokesman david tyree – his father left his family. by choice. that’s why he’s opposed to lgbt couples marrying and having children.

    the idea that gays and lesbians will want to step up to the plate and CHOOSE to do what his own heterosexual father WOULDN’T is something that hurts Tyree to his core.

    his straight dad didn’t stick around. therefore, he gets upset that two gay dads out there WANT to be fathers.

    know their intent and motivation – it aint about protecting marriage, it’s about them needing to “feel better than gays”

  14. tommyboy10T says

    it is completely revelvant if this woman is married or not and it is a valid question. something is driving the hatred from this woman. I heard she is supposed to be very nice in person, but I don’t care … she is spreading a lot of misinformation about gay people… and I would love to understand her motivation. I did hear that her son may be gay … which is always perplexing to me as to why these people fight against gays especially if they have one so close to them.

  15. Rob roberts says

    Maggie also has a gay son who works on broadway, who takes $160,000 bribe /hush money from NOM every year. At least his mom han’t destroyed his ability to get married in New York yet.

  16. Gry says

    “I got a man!”

    Why won’t Maggie Gallagher just release her marriage certificate and put an end to all this? What is she hiding? Why is NOM protecting her?

  17. says

    let’s be fair to patrick gallagher – he doesn’t take hush money, he’s a young progressive liberal man who is tragically still under the thumb of a mother who has guilt-tripped him his entire life. he’s waiting for her to die off so he can live a real life.

  18. Caliban says

    Sorry, an adult man who hasn’t stood up for his own beliefs is only “tragic” for his lack of a spine.

    It’s NOM’s sad belief that by playing “keep away” with marriage makes it more valuable, that’s it’s weakened by granting greater access to it, rather than it being strengthened by more people seeing it as a desired ideal. To them rights are a finite resource, that when others gain rights they somehow lose some of their own, even though they cannot demonstrate or even explain how that supposed loss comes about.

  19. says

    hey, i’m not letting him off the hook. what you permit, you promote – as my mum always said.

    but he’s not taking financial “hush-money” – he’s doing what far too many others in his situation do: taking hush-tolerance, instead.

    just want to be clear about that. slight distinction.

    if he were to come out, it would call into question his mother’s character on a much grander and profound level. and he should do it.

  20. JeffreyRO5 says

    Ironic who someone who insists her own marital status is irrelevant, while insisting that other people’s marriages are highly relevant. Only in the pea-sized conservative brain do things like this make sense.

Leave A Reply