Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  revelations

Thanks to Ted Haggard Sleeping With a Male Prostitute, Gayle Has the Marriage She Always ‘Longed For’

No, we cannot get enough of Gayle Haggard, the likable wife of disgraced pastor Ted, and who’s been making the media rounds to promote her new book. And she’s quickly becoming the biggest advocate for the power of faith to cure you of homosexuality. If you so choose!

“I do believe that [homosexuality is] listed with other sins in the Bible, but we’re all guilty,” Gayle tells the Washington Post. But “God understands our human condition and our frailty.” Which is exactly the sort of thing you should expect from a good pastor’s wife.

Still convinced, as her husband is, that Ted is a heterosexual, Gayle is finding the positives in all this. “We’ve both grown in compassion. Ted often says, ‘Both of our prayers were answered.’ He feels as though he is walking in the freedom that he really longed for and worked for his whole adult life. He feels as though he finally got the answers when he faced the problem and was able to get tools to work on it. And I got the marriage that I longed for, because the walls came down, and we’re very open and honest with each other now.”

To be sure, problem he “faced” has much to do with the “tools” that got to “work on.”

By:           editor editor
On:           Feb 4, 2010
Tagged: , , ,

  • 26 Comments
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      I grew up attracted to girls, too, Gayle. Then I started fixing their make-up. There was never a trauma between the two. Well, maybe being forced to hawk Watchtower and Awake! magazines on street corners as a kid, but that’s another therapy session.

      When the couple appeared on Oprah, even she wanted to say, “Oh, puh-leeeeeeeeze….” And was anyone else completely creeped out by them talking about their bedroom activities?! I immediately needed a shower. The mental image of Ted Haggard humping was too much to bear.

      Oh, God – it still gives me the willies.

      ** dashes off to shower again **

      Feb 4, 2010 at 4:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      What’s the betting Ted Haggard will fall off the hetero wagon sooner or later. I’m just waiting for it to happen, then his wife will come up with another ex-gay mantra to dismiss it. Its pretty clear to me both she and her husband are in deep denial and I bet when he’s humping her he’s thinking about men, not her just so he can keep it up.

      Feb 4, 2010 at 4:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Latebrosus
      Latebrosus

      “…Gayle Has the Marriage She Always ‘Longed For’.”

      Well, there are PLENTY of married men I’d like to sleep with in order to make their wives happy!

      Feb 4, 2010 at 6:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dvlaries
      dvlaries

      You know what? This is starting to make me feel sorry for Mike Jones at this point. He outted himself as a career prostitute, wrote a book while dealing simultaneously with his mother’s illness and death -that surely didn’t make him rich- all to bring down a powerful hypocrite once used to multi-weekly phone access to Bush.

      And for what? To witness mainstream interviewers, most with at least modest journalistic cred, give a platform and help this lying fraud whitewash his reputation. Not just Haggard now, but a wife road-show shopping her denial bromides in cloth covers. Watching it unfold, if I were Jones, I wonder if I would be kicking myself for not just blackmailing the bastard into underwriting me a nice, cushy retirement.

      Feb 5, 2010 at 1:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dr. Jallen Rix
      Dr. Jallen Rix

      As a sexologist, I work with a number of men who are married and living double lives – outwardly behaving as happy straight husbands, yet inwardly, unhappily suppressing homosexual feelings and fantasies. For their health and all of our health, it’s time to quit upholding the “straight monogamous until you die” model as superior and recognize that we are all over the diverse spectrum – gay, straight, bisexual. We’ve got to create an environment that celebrates this diversity and makes it okay for everyone to find what fulfills them most deeply. It’s not a sin. It’s a gift to be responsibly enjoyed.

      Feb 5, 2010 at 1:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      What she should be saying is that Ted is of bisexual orientation but has decided to suppress his same-sex desires.

      Feb 5, 2010 at 7:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      A bisexually oriented man’s ability to suppress his same-sex desires depends on the degree of his homosexual orientation versus degree of his heterosexual orientation. If he’s 90:10 hetero:homo, for instance, it’s relatively easy.

      Feb 5, 2010 at 7:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      If his wife was shown glimpses of what’s in this man’s head when they were making love, she would realize that he is so gay. It’s a fake, shame-based life that he leads. It’s too damned bad we are in a society that makes a man, or anyone, have to pretend he’s something he is not. I feel really badly for her. She must get something out of this nightmare. Irreparable damage on the deepest level. People tend to find each other, especially when unresolved pain is still dormant in one’s psyche. Out of a room full of two hundred people, she likely would be attracted to the same kind of man. It’s like a recurring nightmare, until the mind can heal, it keeps replaying the scenario over and over, until it can be dealt with on a conscious level. Pain has a way of working itself out, usually by bouncing off of others. It’s easier to consciously recognize unresolved pain, than to let it wreak havoc on one’s life. It’s better for everyone.

      Feb 5, 2010 at 8:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      No. 6 Jason….if Haggard had admitted he were bisexual but chose to suppress his same-sex fantasies, that’s the same argument that ex-gay ministries use to justify that one can change one’s sexual orientation by “choice” and prayer. This is what his wife is actually saying if you listen to her. I don’t care if a man or woman is 90% hetero and 10% homosexual, the 10% component doesn’t necessarily make it easier to pretend one is straight except for perhaps appearances. The physical intimacy component of same sex attraction is another issue. Any gay man or woman could have sex with the opposite gender if they really had to, but it wouldn’t mean we’re straight. Who really knows or cares if she claims she’s enjoying a hot sex life with her husband? We’ll never know for sure. They’re just words. I think this is just another ploy to make money and keeping up appearances. I doubt if Haggard will remain “faithful” forever. Leopards never change their spots. This is about denial more than anything else.

      Feb 5, 2010 at 8:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      As I’ve said, all we have is THEIR word about his new life. He’s already admitted to being a liar (and a drug addict, and adulterer with male prostitutes). These losers need money. Period. Shame on these broadcasters for giving them a forum.

      Feb 5, 2010 at 3:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"
      Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"

      @No. 10 Romeo

      Amen!

      Feb 5, 2010 at 3:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      Robert, NYC,

      Relax, Robert. I’m not saying Ted Haggard’s orientation has changed, I’m simply saying his behavior has changed. Two different things. Don’t confuse the two.

      Orientation never changes but behavior does.

      Feb 5, 2010 at 5:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Jason, #12 “Orientation never changes but behavior does.”

      That’s the crux of this whole matter isn’t it? The Tedious Right want to suppress behavior that they don’t feel, even if it means by political means. Who do these people think they are? If humans have orientations, this should just be accepted by others, just as we accept their heterosexual leanings. How dare they say how my mind should work or what form my sexual orientation should take? I have a right to be. Leave my community and me alone.

      Feb 5, 2010 at 6:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Jason, I was referring to NOM-skulls and Family Focus toads, not you in this last post. Your sentence just made it so simple and clear.

      Feb 5, 2010 at 6:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason [Different person #1 using similar name]

      1EqualityUSA,

      Exactly right.

      However, I would add the proviso that behavior is subject to moral judgement, from self and others. When we stop before crossing the road, we make a moral decision. When we excuse ourselves to go to the toilet, we make a moral decision. When we eat with a knife and fork instead of using our fingers, we are making a moral decision. The observer also makes moral judgements of our behavior in these regards.

      Behavior is dictated by morality. Where I take exception with the “tedious Right” – gosh, I love that expression – is when they apply notions of morality to basic sexual behavior that simply reflects orientation and doesn’t harm anyone.

      Of course, if sexual behavior becomes indulgent, it becomes self-defeating and harmful to others. In this case, moral judgements are appropriate. For example, the promiscuous heterosexual man who cheats on his wife, or the promiscuous homosexual man who cheats on his partner.

      Feb 5, 2010 at 7:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason [Different person #1 using similar name]

      1Equality USA,

      What needs to be remembered is that the tedious Right don’t just believe in moral judgement. They also believe in moral enforcement. They believe in harnessing the power of government to intrude into our lives. This is what defines the tedious Right.

      Feb 5, 2010 at 7:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      The problem with this entire argument is that the “tedious right” ignores the orientation part of it, deliberately so. They don’t view our sexual orientation as an orientation but one of purely behavioral aberrations that are chosen but something that can be changed, nothing more. They don’t consider their orientation a choice, just part of being “normal” and therefore needs no explanation to justify who they are. The American Psychiatric Association needs to get involved to debunk their argument once and for all.

      Feb 6, 2010 at 9:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Robert, NYC, It does come down to educating non-gays about our orientations, but “Thar’s GOLD in them Hills!” Tedious righters make tons of hate-dollars off of gays, just as the Red scare got people to dig deeply into their pockets 50 years ago. It’s fear-based fund raising on the backs of LGBT Americans. The one thing about this country that is hopeful is that the pendulum swings back the other way and then settles somewhere in the middle. It’s a matter of educating others about our community. The Ted Olsons and David Boises help give justice to our continued plight, but it will be forty years before the rest of the country accepts us as complete equals and maybe a hundred, before a gay president is elected. If we are not equal, then our taxes should reflect this.

      Feb 6, 2010 at 10:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      1EqualityUSA, I agree with you on that. Right now as we see states slowly passing marriage equality, in spite of the losses, this also boils down to economics. Under the 14th amendment, all Americans including minorities are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Our community clearly isn’t. On that basis, what we have is no representation but with full taxation and that is just one issue that needs urgent address. Denying marriage equaliy also harms state economies in terms of lost tax revenues that benefit states that allow us to marry. That’s yet another issue that needs to be put on the marriage equality agenda. In my state, eight conservadems voted to ban me from marrying and in doing so voted against the entire state, its economy and its people. That has to change. It must. We have a serious, legitimate grievance that must be remedied.

      Feb 6, 2010 at 11:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Dear Robert, NYC, This civil contract that is being denied us, simply because of our orientation. What is so foolish is that legally sanctioned discrimination of any American is harmful to all Americans. If it is gay people being politically oppressed this generation, what will it be for future generations? Who, then, is the next “undesirable”? It’s a dangerous road for our country to go, if freedom is what our country stands for. (sorryforendingthissentenceinapreposition)

      Feb 6, 2010 at 11:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Robert,NYC, Regarding the economic concerns you mentioned, legal recognition for GLBT Americans would be beneficial for society. With legal recognition comes legal responsibilities and stronger ties to loved ones. Spouses would be more readily available to assist their other half through tough times, whether old age or job loss. Having two be legally fused together would be better for society. It would strengthen our system, not weaken it. The community hospitals and long term facilities would need to absorb fewer people. “Spouses for life” would be more inclined to be present, both emotionally and financially. These kinds of couples exist now, though we are not legally recognized, illegally so.

      Feb 6, 2010 at 12:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      1EqualityUSA, Nos. 20 and 21 yet again, I agree with your statements. The underlying influence that causes so many straights to oppose marriage equality has its genesis in religious cults which at one time and to some extent still consider that they own marriage, both religious and civil components even though in reality, the government does when it allows states to issue secular marriage licenses. Obama has often said that government is not involved in marriage but it most certainly is in a direct way when it conveys more than nine hundred rights and privileges at the federal level and all fifty states providing another four hundred or so, rights that only come through marriage. Obama also agrees with the religious cults in regard to marriage being between one man and one woman even at the civil level. That’s the obstacle that stands in our way.

      Feb 6, 2010 at 1:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      It’s hard to do, but we must believe in the Constitution of the United States. I’ve never lost hope the the Constitution will protect us, and when it does, we will see how strengthened it is for having gone through this very painful process. Ah, I must dust it off and repost my favorite scene in Star Trek, The next Generation’s, “Outcast”

      (Soren’s Tribunal)
      In the future, the genderless race will still feel heterosexual longings. They will be dealt with appropriately.:
      http://video.google.com/videos…..BQQqwQwAA#

      Feb 6, 2010 at 1:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      Good things come to those who wait.

      Feb 6, 2010 at 1:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      No 23, 1EqualityUSA, yes, however we have a constitutional scholar in the White House who knows it inside out. Why is it he of all people from a once enslaved people just can’t seem to understand the 14th amendment when it comes to marriage equality? His refusal to acknowledge our rights under this amendment speaks volumes. As I said before, religion is at the root of it all and he’d rather not upset the beliefs of some of his conservative constituents but is more than willing and prepared to sacrifice our rights. That’s why we probably won’t see it at the federal level with a president of his mindset. If Prop. H8 in California is overturned and it heads to the Supreme Court, I don’t see the bench upholding the precedent if such an outcome comes to fruition in California, do you? Not with 5 extremely conservative catholic justices. If anything, it could well bring about a federal ban on marriage equality.

      Feb 6, 2010 at 3:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA
      1EqualityUSA

      That Federal Ban will eventually be our ticket, as it is proof that we are an oppressed minority with little political persuasion. The Constitution cannot reconcile legally sanctioned discrimination for long. Put your ear to the ground, the rumble of equality cannot be silenced, not even by mere politicians and justices. The Constitution is bigger than all men put together. It surpasses the age. Obama is a practical politician, the Constitution is the framework of our ideals. They eventually meet, after much labor and discussion. Our system could never be described as rash.

      Feb 6, 2010 at 4:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.