Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register

NOM’s Maggie Gallagher Claims She’s Still Married To Raman Srivistav. Show Us Proof!

After GOP gay Fred Karger hit Maggie Gallagher with accusations that her husband was fictional/nonexistent, Buzzfeed was more successful in getting a response out of the NOM co-founder than us.

Writes Buzzfeed:

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.”

Whatever. We won’t believe it still she produces some actual proof. We’re like birthers on this shit. Give us papers, Maggie! We want your marriage license! Photos of you with him! Produce!

On:           Apr 13, 2012
Tagged: , , ,
    • John C

      Why are we wasting our time with this? Even if he’s a fake, it’s just a lame ad hominem attack, and what good does that do us? We all know she’s a hypocrite already, so why spend any press effort on this when it could just as easily bite us in the butt when other people see us as getting too into her personal life about it?

      Apr 13, 2012 at 10:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tavdy79

      “I could be divorced and I still could not be for gay marriage. I don’t really see that it’s relevant.”

      Sorry, ma’am, but it’s entirely relevant. NOM is largely funded by right-wing religious groups like the LDS and Catholic churches, and NOM acts as their proxy org in fighting against our human & civil rights. For you to represent them when you are divorced is the ultimate hypocrisy – for both you and them. The Bible’s teachings on homosexuality are ambiguous and debatable at best (unless you want to ignore the original Hebrew, Armaic and Greek words used) but there is not a shred of ambiguity in Jesus’ prohibition against divorce.

      Apr 13, 2012 at 10:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1equalityUSA

      Maggie has been relentless in her efforts to undermine our families, to have our families be susceptible to financial hardships, legal vulnerabilities, and demeaning lies perpetuated by NOM and whomever is falling in line with their message. They are well funded haters. I would rather be us than them.

      Apr 13, 2012 at 11:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Casey

      I would rather be gay and unmarried than straight and married to Maggie Gallagher-Srivastav any day of the frakkin’ week. That’s also not a dig on her looks, that’s a dig on her personality and her soulless, compassionless outlook on the world and society. I think I’d rather gouge my eyes out with sharpened plastic spoons in the middle of a Denny’s restaurant than deal with her for a mere 15 minutes.

      Thankfully, I’m gay and engaged! Mag can’t darken OUR doorway!

      Apr 13, 2012 at 11:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Johnny

      The incessant cycles of news about this woman are exhausting.
      Yes, she is against gay rights.
      Yes, she is a clown.

      WE GET IT.

      Apr 13, 2012 at 11:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B

      No. 1 · John C wrote, “Why are we wasting our time with this?” Maybe it’s a slow news week.

      Seriously, though, you don’t win a war by underestimating the enemy. She has to be good at something to cause all the trouble she does, and what should be newsworthy is how she does it.

      Apr 13, 2012 at 1:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • drewa24

      In the photo accompanying the article…um, is it underwater? If it stays underwater for a long time will it die? Does it keep fish in it’s pouch for later? Did someone stick it with a harpoon, because it has a red gash in the middle of its head(I think that’s the head, could be where it’s poop comes out.

      Apr 13, 2012 at 3:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1equalityUSA

      I see a new board game coming out of this…”Where’s Raman?” Great family fun, but only for “normal” families, families that rigidly fit into narrowly defined margins. Roll the dice, move three spaces, you land on the wedding ring, lucky duck! Roll the dice, awwww! an illegitimate child, back slide…Roll the dice, whoo, you made it through the chapel doors! Awwwww, your spouse has you walking alone to the finish line…

      Apr 13, 2012 at 3:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the other Greg

      Fat people shouldn’t be allowed to marry invisible people. It’s unnatural and goes against 5,000 years of civilization. We should have a referendum about this (since of course, that’s what they did in ancient Mesopotamia – have referenda) so that normal folks like us can put a stop to such unnatural marriages.

      Apr 13, 2012 at 4:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • drewa24

      @the other Greg: Where can we go vote on that? And how many times did it’s bastard spawn go to bed hungry because it ate all the food/Cheeto’s/Little Debbie snack cakes in the house/shed/trailer/underpass?

      Apr 13, 2012 at 5:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Ehrenstein

      Where’s her gay son these days? He’s a lot more interesting than her invisible husband.

      Apr 13, 2012 at 5:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B

      http://christwire.org/2011/01/maggie-gallagher-one-womans-catholic-marriage-dilemma/ has what is claimed to be a picture of Maggie Gallagher and her husband (who they only list by his first name). This is allegedly a “Christian” web site, so I’d imagine they were trying to supportive of Maggie.

      Apr 13, 2012 at 7:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1equalityUSA

      B–That is so photoshopped! The shade isn’t even matching on their double chins. The only thing that would make this photo less believable would be if they were flying on a magic carpet.

      Apr 13, 2012 at 7:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • keke

      OMG, She sat on his face, and sucked him inside of her. never to be heard from again.
      Moby Maggie!

      Apr 13, 2012 at 7:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B

      No. 13 · 1equalityUSA wrote, “No. 13 · 1equalityUSA B–That is so photoshopped!”
      Possibly, but why bother when you can just take a picture with some random Indian dude?

      In any case, why not contact Patrick Gallagher and ask him if the guy next to Maggie is in fact her husband? It’s not like Patrick wouldn’t know and it is a simple yes/no question. It’s something we should expect Fred Karger to do in order to fact-check his accusations/questions.

      Apr 13, 2012 at 10:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam

      She claims she defends traditional marriage and yet….

      She doesn’t use his last name.

      She doesn’t wear a wedding ring.

      There aren’t any pictures of them together.

      Apr 13, 2012 at 11:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Abel

      Hey, guys. Christwire is a parody site. The article and the photograph are totally bogus. And the article is funny as hell.

      Apr 13, 2012 at 11:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mark

      It would be a good story if true, but she and Raman were living together at 126 Dalmeny Rd, in Briarcliff Manor, NY as of a few years ago. He exists, but don’t know if they are married. Seems an unconventional relationship… keeping her maiden name. Gasp.

      Apr 14, 2012 at 2:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve

      Divorce is a far greater threat to marriage than allowing others to marry.

      But, Maggie is right about one thing: She _could_ be divorced, and still be a bigot.
      Divorce does not cure bigotry.

      Apr 14, 2012 at 8:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B

      The perfect husband for Maggie, someone as big as she is:


      Skip to 6:36 into the video for the wisecrack.

      Apr 14, 2012 at 7:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mark F.

      @Mark: Dalmeny was a house Raman owned from 1993 to 1998 when he sold it to someone else with an Indian name (Mags doesn’t appear to have been that deed eventhough they were allegedly married the same year he bought it–I didn’t look at the actual deed but the search results seem to list all parties listed on the deeds). Have you seen evidence that he or they were at Dalmeny more recently than 1998? That would be curious.

      In 1998, Mags bought another house in Ossining but Raman isn’t on that deed–so weird that this married couple doesn’t appear to have any real estate in common. She still owns that house and you can google the real estate listing (its for sale) if you get the address. Westchester property records are online, as are most towns.

      So yes, there is a documented person named Raman Srivastav in Ossining and enough coincidences to show he and Mags were together somehow (his house sale and her house purchase were at virtually the exact same time–recorded 2 weeks apart). But very weird that they may not be on each other’s deeds and the house she bought is a 2 family, a situation perfect for a fake marriage.

      Apr 14, 2012 at 10:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robroberts

      @John C: John, when she stops fucking with MY personal life on so many levels, I will stop careing about HER personal life. She is waging all out war against gay lives. She is going to get everything she gives and more.

      Apr 14, 2012 at 10:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • cwm

      @Mark F.: Which one’s the beard: Maggie or Raman?

      Apr 14, 2012 at 10:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B

      No. 16 · Cam suggested several points:

      “She doesn’t use his last name.” It’s not that uncommon for people in public positions who have to consider name recognition as a factor. The Wikipedia article on her http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggie_Gallagher calls “Maggie Gallagher” her “working name”.

      “She doesn’t wear a wedding ring.” She claimed a problem with arthritis.

      “There aren’t any pictures of them together.” Maybe they want to keep their marital life private. Also, it’s possible that her husband doesn’t agree with most of her public positions and would feel uncomfortable lying about it, so they don’t appear together when she is “working”. On the other hand, if you search Google Images for ‘”Dan Rather” wife’, you’ll find a picture of him with his wife. Try that with Maggie, and nothing shows up on the first few pages (and who is going to go through all of them). But then, Dan Rather’s wife doesn’t have anything to be embarrassed about, unlike Maggies husband, who has Maggie.

      Apr 14, 2012 at 10:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1equalityUSA

      Maybe the cosmos is punishing her by making it so painful to wear wedding rings. It’s ironic that the hag of the century, doing her best to undermine our families, cannot wear a ring due to painful joints. I tried not to enjoy this fun fact.

      Apr 15, 2012 at 8:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1equalityUSA

      Let’s pool our money and investigate her to the fullest. Histories mysteries— I really want to know what the hell she’s hiding. Robert P. George is a dirt clod that needs turning over as well. I have to go to work now, so that I can pay my taxes to a government that doesn’t recognize me as a full citizen. I say constant surveillance and night-vision cameras for both of these turds will extrapolate data that counters their crusade. Honey badgers.

      Apr 15, 2012 at 8:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B

      No. 26 · 1equalityUSA wrote, “Let’s pool our money and investigate her to the fullest.” The easiest thing to do is to ask Patrick Gallagher. He has no reason to lie, but might say, “no comment.” I’m curious as to why people so interested in Maggie’s marriage don’t do that.

      BTW, she said they are still married. She didn’t say they were not separated, for whatever that is worth as nobody seems to have asked her that.

      Also, I tried an on-line search for marriage records in Arizona using her husband’s name and nothing turned up. Someone else might want to try – had cookies disabled (and some web sites don’t work if you do that) and “Raman” may be a shortened version of his “official” first name and the search may require an exact match. The idea is that her husband’s name is less common, so you won’t get as many false hits.

      Apr 15, 2012 at 3:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B

      http://www.archives.com/GA.aspx?_act=MarriageRecords&klp=GA05001&cam=237&gclid=COzj69Dat68CFQ4zhwodADoCiQ lets you search for marriage and divorce records. I gave it a try, but didn’t look at any records as they want some information about you and the last thing I need is more spam.

      For the search, I used Margaret as a first name, Srivastav as a last name, and Gallagher as a maiden name. It claims there are over 300 licenses in the U.S. for that combination, and 5 records for a divorce. Note that I could not also specify a husband’s first name.

      If anyone is really interested, they can take it further, but that at least narrows things down to a reasonable number to go through.

      If Karger wants to claim her husband is nonexistent, he should be able to go through lightly over 300 entries to see if any match the infamous Maggie Gallagher.

      While the web site claimed to be able to restrict a search to a particular state, the total number of entries it gave me were for the U.S. as a whole.

      Apr 15, 2012 at 4:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • LittIe,Kiwi

      why shouldn’t “WE” get into HER “personal life”?

      She’s getting in to ours. In fact, her raison d’etre is simply getting invovled in other people’s lives. She exists to stop other people, whom she doesn’t even know, from marrying.

      She should, absolutely, be living transparently. She throws away most-held facets of this so-called “tradition”, and cannot, and will not, appear publicly with her husband and children. Why not? We LGBT people don’t have the luxury of invisibility – we have to Come out, risk a lot, and all so we can fight to earn….equality.

      Come on maggie. your bluff has been called.

      Apr 15, 2012 at 8:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

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

  • Copyright 2016 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.