Maggie sings the tune -- so why not support the band?
Fred Karger has a question for "traditional marriage's" biggest champion, Maggie Gallagher:
"Are You Even Married, Maggie?
No one has ever seen your husband. You attend countless marriage events, chock full of married couples, celebrating marriage, yet you always, always show up alone.
I had the displeasure of attending your recent presentation at the CATO Institute in Washington, DC. I was amazed to see that you don't wear a wedding ring. No rings on any fingers. Where is your alleged husband? Why no ring?"
Open Letter to Maggie Gallagher [Huff Po]
Okay, so we totally believe Mags is married. But the ring thing does seem to be a perfectly fair question to ask of a public marriage advocate. After all, NOM's very logo is two intertwined rings, an image that we've seen used in countless anti-equality ad campaigns. We knew the ads lacked an authentic ring, but we had no clue that some of their key creators did as well!
We've posed the ring question directly to Maggie. We'll let you know if/when she tells us why diamonds are not this married girl's best friend.
What is Mrs Srivstav ashamed of?
Posted by: John Ozed | Mar 8, 2010 4:39:33 PM
Perhaps she'll say that her personal life is her own business (while continuing to interfere in yours...)
Posted by: Dan T. | Mar 8, 2010 4:42:15 PM
Well I of course agree that her personal life is her own business. But marriage is the business in which she makes her living. It's more than fair to ask general questions about her own marital status, the same way it's fair for any of my political adversaries to ask me about mine. Hell, they'll have a hard time getting me to shut up about mine :-)
It also must be noted that Maggie herself has mentioned her marriage, both in print and speeches. The only reason we know about Raman (and that he's Hindu) is because of one of her columns.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Mar 8, 2010 4:55:27 PM
So Maggie got knocked up by one fella out of wedlock, and didn't bother to marry the bloke. Now she supposedly is "married" and one or the other (or both) of them don't want to be seen together? Maybe he has been having a sordid affair with the pool boy, and the Magger caught the two of them in the pool house one afternoon - when she was supposed to be OUT OF TOWN! And, that was the day that she ripped the ring off of her finger and jammed it into one of the exposed orifices... never to be seen again...
Or, at least we can hope...
Posted by: Dick Mills | Mar 8, 2010 5:13:19 PM
Who's the guy in drag at the podium?
Posted by: stojef | Mar 8, 2010 6:50:09 PM
@ G-A-Y: Indeed, this is most astonishing, as I've never noticed her lack of a band before! GREAT CALL!!! Sadly, most of her acolytes will likely not be phased by such hypocrisy. BTW, isn't this a rather ironic move on her behalf, considering that back in the 1980s she was the poster girl for anti-Feminism?! Shouldn't she be touting her ring as a badge of honor, and be at home at the service of her husband? ;o)
BTW, any know if the Catholic Church endorses mixed-religious marriages? I can't imagine they've be in favor of a polytheistic wedding ceremony!
@ Dick: she supposedly could not convince the guy who used her as his personal cum-dump to marry her after she'd been bred like that...well...use your imagination and knowledge of certain farm animals to fill THAT one in. Yeah...i'm in a bitchy mood tonight... ;o)
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Mar 8, 2010 7:14:43 PM
BTW, to play devil's advocate, she *could* have some metallic-based allergy...though that's unlikely.
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Mar 8, 2010 7:16:04 PM
@Wade MacMorrighan: My Sister was refused marriage at her husbands childhood/family parish because she wouldn't convert to catholicism. It was a big rift in her fiance's family. Not quite as big as the rift when they divorced 3 years later & he came out gay, but then, the same church that refused the wedding won't recognize the divorce, so . . 30 years and 3 husbands later, my Sis is still "married" to a gay guy in the eyes of the "church". . .just the way his parents like it. . .Delusion and denial.
Posted by: Jon | Mar 8, 2010 8:01:56 PM
I've been wondering myself. Of course, the classic dodge about privacy...or fear that identifying her husband and child will endanger them because you know, she's SO concerned about being a PRIVATE person herself!
When someone like her is in a corner, they sure pick a fine time to use privacy as a rationale for not revealing everything about what they are advocating for.
When having no such respect for the privacy, private endeavors or civil rights of her fellow gay citizens.
Posted by: Regan DuCasse | Mar 8, 2010 8:05:56 PM
Although and allergy to metal is rare, how does that explain the absence of her husband at marriage and family friendly venues?
She allergic to her husband too?
Posted by: Regan DuCasse | Mar 8, 2010 8:06:54 PM
But even a claim of privacy would ring hollow to me in this case, Regan (and I'm a big believer in privacy rights). Because we're talking about something so simple. Something that should be so joyous. Something that should maker so happy. Something that Maggie herself has referenced in her columns. Fred isn't asking for details about her marriage: Just simple facts about why she, America's most public pusher of "traditional marriage," is not practicing her deep attachments to the custom in either symbol or physicalization. I think she'd have a hard time saying this mere observation into her public persona is some kind of deep prying.
Again, I, an advocate on the flip side of Maggie's coin, will proudly show my ring to anyone who asks. Because it makes me so insanely happy. I don't view something I wear on my publicly exposed finger as being part of the realm of privacy. I don't think Maggie can either. Not if she wants to continue as a willingly participant in these public "culture wars." Preach - practice.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Mar 8, 2010 8:24:50 PM
Maggs claims to be a Christian while espousing homophobia which real Christians know is not, and never could be, a legitimate "religious belief." However, this is not the only part of Scripture she deliberately ignores. The Bible which she claims to follow chearly tells us she should not be lecturing or "teaching" men on this or any other issue. Who gives this sinner authority to ignore God's Word?
"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)
Posted by: Michael | Mar 8, 2010 8:32:09 PM
I'm not fond of digging into others intimate relationships, however. . .when Maggie puts herself out to condemn the intimacy of others for a profit, she also puts herself out for scrutiny. . .in this case, Maggie has some explaining to do. . .It's unfortunate that hypocrisy seems to have become fashionable.
Posted by: Jon | Mar 8, 2010 8:49:30 PM
Maybe Maggie's beau is one of those 750 pound bed-ridden agoraphobics who never leaves the house... but because he is sitting on a shit-pile of money, the Gagger married him, and is just waiting for his heart to give out so that she inherits all of that loot?? Hell, maybe he isn't even capable of squeezing through the bedroom door any longer??
In the absence of an actual explanation, I guess we are free to suppose whatever we want? And, one can only hope that the actuality is far more sordid, or salacious, or belly laugh funny, or will at least further besmirch her tawdry "reputation".
Posted by: Dick Mills | Mar 8, 2010 9:23:48 PM
@ Dick Mills: "In the absence of an actual explanation, I guess we are free to suppose whatever we want?" . .That's the price we all pay for the right to freedom of expression. . Personally, I didn't find your post particularly humorous or productive.
Posted by: Jon | Mar 8, 2010 9:50:22 PM
Maybe the Gagger is having an affair herself! Maybe she accidentally forgot to put that ring back on, after a tryst from earlier that day? Maybe she got caught, and she is just hoping and praying that the hubby doesn't find out that she was videotaped without that emblem of her undying bond on her finger??
Or, maybe she has an "invisible ring" that is similar to her invisible deity? Well, you can't see it, because you don't believe! Gawd@!%$ A picture of Maggie with no clothes on just passed through my mind! I need a drink!
Posted by: Dick Mills | Mar 8, 2010 9:53:50 PM
I've got it! I've got it! Maybe this "husband" she talks about is another imaginary "friend" of Maggie's? Maybe she prayed to god, and he answered her prayers the only way he could... with another figment of her imagination...
Posted by: Dick Mills | Mar 8, 2010 9:57:24 PM
Jon, I didn't find anything in your post to be either humorous or productive either? Sounds like you think that freedom of expression is a bad thing. I'm just not getting what your seem to be saying??
Posted by: Dick Mills | Mar 8, 2010 10:08:13 PM
I wasn't trying for humor, just pointing out that, sometimes we love our freedom of expression to the point where it goes overboard. I don't find it funny or productive.
Posted by: Jon | Mar 8, 2010 10:40:06 PM
I have a friend who has metal allergies, so yeah, I'd totally buy that argument. BUT! Mags IS wearing glasses, and the frames look to be metal....
Posted by: WMDKitty | Mar 8, 2010 11:09:27 PM
@ Regan DuCasse: No, she's probably just "allergic" to her husband's religion! Personally, as a polytheist, myself, I'm down with the Hindus! Saw a fascinating documentary, a few years ago, about a Hindu cult of transsexual priestesses called the *hijra*, who are usually present as "lucky charms" at weddings; they are also feared, because to offend one could cause them to curse a man with a spell causing him impotency. ;o) Been researching Hinduism, lately, for an article I have planned on the concept of idol-worship. Would love to contact some Priests at Iowa's main Hindu temple for an interview, but my every effort has gone ignored! But, I digress...
How can she claim to be the epitome of Catholicism, if her Church will not recognize her inter-faith marriage?
And, speaking of "rings", the moment the ruling came down in Iowa last April--not only did I feel more pride as an Iowa than ever before in my LIFE, but I immediately began designing my Handfasting Ring for that special day, when I meet Mr. Right: it'll be a large platinum ring (pricier than gold!) with a central band of perfectly flush malachite (a stone that was dedicated to Aphrodite on Her sacred isle of Cypress in Greece). X-D Now, if only I can find a jeweler to make my vision a reality--noting that I am a PERFECTIONIST! ;o)
BTW, Jeremy... Have you thought of scouring every public pic. or TV appearance of her that you are able, in order to determine if she *is* or *isn't* wearing a wedding ring in any of them?
Ya' know what bothers me, though? Why no one in the media--say CNN, especially--seemed to pounce on her about how, in America, she could 1.) she could stir up mob mentality and DEMAND a vote on the private lives of her fellow Americans; and 2.) how can she be a "defender" of marriage, when SHE was some guy's cum dump, conceived a child out of wed lock (remembering she is, after all, the paragon of anti-Feminism!), when she is CLEARLY a hypocrite!
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Mar 8, 2010 11:52:05 PM
I guess everyone's a critic... at least to some degree. But, what you really appear to be intimating is that you are of the opinion that my crass, indelicate, unflattering, sick, gross, disgusting attempt at humor (which you find unfunny - and I'm okay with that), is actually worse than just unproductive. It sounds like you are suggesting that it is counter productive. Otherwise, I mean really, what would be the point of saying it at all?
While I would disagree with the "counter productive" claim, I certainly do agree that it doesn't add anything to the discussion. But who says that everything has to be productive? Who says that nothing can ever be counter-productive? Who even gets to determine which is which? At best, I would suggest that any such speculation is merely a guess, with little (to no) evidence to substantiate it.
Of course, if my obtuse (?? - okay I will agree that it wasn't my best) stab at humor turns out to be correct... then, who's laughing?
Posted by: Dick Mills | Mar 9, 2010 2:05:13 AM
I myself have wondered why her alleged husband has never been seen in public with her, particularly at any of these "celebrate (hetero only) marriage" events her hateful organization is so fond of throwing. I didn't notice the ring thing, however.
As to her privacy, AFAIC she makes a business of shoving her nose into the lives and families of millions of LGBT people. She extols the virtues of the "traditional family". She's fair game for any and all questions about her so-called "traditional family".
Posted by: Buffy | Mar 9, 2010 6:23:31 AM
Maybe the reason she doesn't wear rings is because her fingers have just become too fat to get them on.
Posted by: Richard Rush | Mar 9, 2010 8:59:49 AM
I think the basic reason Mr. Gallagher (ha!) is invisible is because 1). he isn't white and 2). he isn't Christian. Maggie's main supporters are fundamentalist Christians who would not be very understanding is they knew Miss Anti-Gay Marriage was not exactly like them (white, lower/middle class, KKKristian).
Posted by: homer | Mar 9, 2010 9:05:09 AM
Someone needs to get a good photo of Maggie's husband for publication on all of the christofascist websites (OneNewsNow, the Catholic websites, the LDS church websites) etc and continually harp on why she wasn't stoned to death following her sham interfaith marriage since she wasn't a virgin.
Posted by: Mykelb | Mar 9, 2010 12:25:10 PM
Because Maggie's husband might be Hindu - it's very common for Hindus to use a toe ring or bichiya which is worn instead of a ring on a finger.
Or maybe she just doesn't like wearing rings.
Posted by: Alonzo | Mar 9, 2010 1:07:18 PM
Ah...could "How I Met Your Mother" be more germane with this l'il gem? hey, Maggie, "take a look at *yourself* ya' dumb slut!"
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Mar 10, 2010 1:08:40 AMcomments powered by Disqus