As A Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist, I Have Just One Question to Maggie Gallagher, President of The National Organization for Marriage: "What’s It All About Maggie?"

These words are inscribed in walls of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC.  They were spoken by Thomas Jefferson and immortalized in marble because those words are the true intentions of the founding fathers for creating a nation that is both tolerant and flexible.  We would do well today to take in and live by what he so eloquently spoke over two hundred years ago.  If you click on the photos, they will enlarge so you can read for yourself what he said.
_________________________________________________________

Emotionally healthy people don’t have an obsessive preoccupation with the sex lives of others.  Then again, emotionally healthy people don’t hide their families from public view, unless they are trying to manufacture a deceptive appearance for public consumption.  I doubt Ms. Gallagher would pander to such base levels so there must be another reason for the conspicuous absence of her eldest child (the page was removed after this publishing) and  husband at, the so called,  public family gatherings that function as rallies for banning the recognition of same-sex couples.  I would imagine that she regards her followers as up-standing, open minded and accepting individuals, so why the apparent shell game with her family when same-sex couples honestly and openly declare their love for their partners before God, country and the news media? 

Another curious issue for someone with the so called traditional values that she claims to promote, is that she doesn’t take on her husband’s last name publicly.  Instead, she presents herself to her followers with her maiden name, Maggie Gallagher and not Maggie Srivastav.  Srivastav is her married name.  

Her agenda calling for the banning of same-sex civil marriage is allowed in a free and open society, but what is the point if she has to create mistruths, conceal personal agendas, and fabricate history to achieve her goal?  Also, she has not revealed to the public where she derives her funding.   Her organization, the National Organization for Marriage even defies court orders to reveal who their donors are. The Mormon Church and Catholic bishops could be the leading suspects.  Is it possible that they are trying to redefine civil marriage along their own “traditional” theological teachings and impose their will through civil law on all Americans?  

Certainly, no one has benefited more than Ms. Gallagher/Sirvastav when it comes to an inclusive civil marriage law.  I find it ironic that she, herself, had a child out-of-wedlock and is currently married outside the Christian faith to a Hindu husband.  How dare she complain that others are trying to change the definition of marriage.  Clearly she has taken maximum advantage of the civil marriage laws afforded her but now advocates passionately to deny that same right to others.

Simply put, the goal for civil equality is quite open and honest about its intention.  It’s about attaining civil marriage equality for all people.  No hidden agendas, no shell games, and no public deception for mass consumption coming out of a hidden agenda to sell books, or attain fame, or public office and no more victimizing of others.  It’s simple goal is to attain civil equality for everyone.  An equality that allows all individuals, such as Ms Gallagher/Sirvastav, to stand before the public view without fear of shame or judgment for the individual they love and chose to make a life commitment with through civil marriage.

I was watching her debate marriage issues with Andrew Sullivan on a conservative panel at the invitation of the conservative think tank Cato.com and was struck by a realization:  She has no formal education, to my knowledge, on the topic.  She graduated Yale University in 1982 where she earned a B.A. in Religious Studies.  A B.A. In Religious Studies from Yale is a respectable degree, but it doesn’t qualify her as an authority on interpersonal/marital relationships such as a Masters in Marriage and Family Therapy, or a Masters of Social Work, or a Doctorate in Clinical Psychology would have afforded her.  She simply does not hold any degree higher than a Bachelor’s in Religious Studies. 

While at Yale, she belonged to the "Party of the Right" in the Yale Political Union.  I’m sure that she made many fine contacts with some very influential people during that time.  It may have even garnered her favor with the Bush Administration when they paid her ten’s of thousands of dollars from the Department of Health and Human Services in 2002 and 2003 to promote George W. Bush’s marriage initiatives.  But when she testified before Congress in favor of those programs, she never disclosed those  payments. 

Why was that?  It was my impression that social conservatism steadfastly stood against such shameful behavior as misleading others, acting as an authority when one is not, and premarital sex.  All of which she advocates for in others but apparently fails to follow for herself.  Maybe, the times they are a change’n, or maybe it is something else.

Just because she serves as president for the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy does not mean that she is qualified to theorize on or make healthy public policy decisions on the topic of marriage.  One may become head of the military of the United States by simply becoming president of the country without ever completing a competent stay of service.  As a nation, we all have experienced the fallout from the bad decisions and incompetence that have come out of those situations.  Had she completed an education in marriage and family studies or clinical psychology, she may have enriched herself with a more complete understanding of the emotions, lives and loves of all fellow human beings. 

Projection is a very insidious thing.  We don’t even know that we are doing it when we do it.  By its very nature, it is designed to create a wall of denial for ourselves distancing us from acknowledging the very behaviors within ourselves that we so vehemently abhor in others.  By attacking it in others, we can buy ourselves some relief from the internal conflict that has us in its grip.  The relief is only temporary however.  Unless we come to terms with it, we will continue to demonize others in a desperate bid to gain some relief. 

I wonder if there was a time in her past when she loved someone very much that she couldn’t have.  People tend to do to others that which was done to themselves.  Her actions against same sex couples may carry some of that tenor.  Her apparent desire to denigrate and dismiss relationships that she considers non-traditional, although she herself is involved in relationships that would be considered non-traditional by her own standards, reeks of resentment.  “If I can’t have it, why should you” is a pattern in people who feel a sense of helplessness in unrequited desires.  Of course, if this is the case, she has made it an obsession on a national scale affecting the private lives of millions of people. 

Affecting millions of people through an individual’s personal self-loathing is nothing new.   Just recently, State Senator Roy Ashburn (R-Calif.) was arrested at 2 AM for drunk driving after being seen leaving a gay nightclub in Sacramento, CA while driving a state owned vehicle accompanied by a male companion.  He later divulged that he was in fact gay and hiding the fact from the public, his family and maybe even himself.

To quote CBS13 The CW31     

“Ashburn served six years as a state Assemblyman before being elected to the State Senate.  According to Project Vote Smart, Ashburn's voting record shows he has voted against every gay rights measure in the State Senate since taking office including Recognizing Out-Of-State Same-Sex Marriages", Harvey Milk Day and Expanding Anti-Discrimination Laws.”

How much more clearly can I make my point?  People are simply not interested in the sex lives of others if they have already dealt with their own internal conflicts.  Healthy people want others to have healthy lives, and healthy lives include healthy relationships and sex lives that are not up for moral victimization by those who have something to hide from the public or profit from a hidden agenda. 

When it comes to the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, this short video makes some very compelling and concise statements.  NOM Called Out on Deceptive Ad.

If you would like some excellent talking points for dealing with this bigotry please check out Dr. John Corvino's short video.  You can also check out the spiritual perspective on this topic by Father Geoff Farrow at www.FatherGeoff.com.

So... What’s it all about Maggie?


For more information on James E. Walton, Ph.D. log onto his website at www.LAtherapist.com.  For information on his self-help series, log onto www.TheDrWaltonSeries.com.

Orientation and Not A Choice:

In 1991 Simon Le Vey, the well known neurobiologist, discovered that homosexuality was biologically determined, as opposed to environmentally caused. He discovered that the hypothalamus of the average homosexual man was smaller than the one found in heterosexual men. This discovery lent strong credence to the biological theory of homosexuality in opposition to the old idea that homosexuality was caused by the environment or as choice made from a side effect of “weak” morals. People who have erroneously operated out of the belief that homosexuality was environmentally caused have cause irrespirable emotional and psychological damage to their gay children in a futile attempt to usurp nature.

This erroneous and archaic understanding implied, if not outright stated, that homosexuality is caused by poor parenting skills, something that anti-gay parents abhor. This belief maintains that homosexual men did not have a "normal" development and are therefore unhealthy. Certainly, no parent wants to be held responsible for causing such damage to their very own child.

Gay men have been made to feel as though they were somehow flawed right from the beginning of their childhood. If only they had the right and normal experiences when growing up, maybe they would have turned out "normal" in their sexuality like their heterosexual counterparts. This labeling and looking for causes for homosexuality has done more harm than good for the self-esteem of gay men and women. Just the suggestion of a cause for homosexuality implies the possibility of a "cure" for their "disorder." The self esteem of gay men and women is not served by such implied beliefs.

According to Richard A. Isay, M.D., the strained relationship between a gay child and the family may be a result, rather than the cause, of a child's development of homosexual orientation. It is a widely held belief backed by research that gay males experience a high proportion of hostile or withdrawing fathers. Isay, however, proposes that it is the fathers who are reacting to their sons' homosexuality with withdraw and hostility, rather than the hostility and anger causing the homosexuality. It is from this withdraw and hostility that the gay child begins to develop a lower sense of self-esteem.

Fathers of gay sons may become aware of their child's differences at some time in the early development of the child and have a sense that the child is closer to them than what they expected or for what society deems normal. Some fathers grow very uncomfortable with this sense of closeness or difference and reject the child through either withdrawing or by becoming hostile towards the child. It is the father's initiative to reject the child not the other way around. The reasons for this rejection has more to do with the father's sense of insecurity than with the child's actual "deviant" behavior.

It is also probable that the father feels some sense of responsibility and guilt for his son's being gay. It might be difficult for a father to face the son or even be able to stand the feelings that might be associated with the thought of having caused his son to be gay. Isay proposes that gay male children do go through an Oedipal phase of development, but it differs from the heterosexual experience in that the love attachment is to the father rather than to the mother. It is at this point that the father becomes uncomfortable with his son and begins the hostile or withdrawing behavior. Most gay men would deny this original erotic attachment to their fathers. This is apparently a natural aversion response children, straight and gay, have to incest. Rejection by the father is very confusing to a young gay child.

Gay sons have been accused throughout history as being mama's boys. Society shifts as much blame on the mother as on the father for raising a gay son. The mothers of gay sons are viewed as dominating, doting and castrating women. Popular belief has it that these women squelch the masculinity out of these boys so much that they do not know how to behave as men. It is also believed that gay men are afraid of women as a result of the behavior of their mothers.

Any way one looks at it, the mothers of gay sons are condemned by society, as much as, the fathers. It is no wonder that parents of gay sons feel a tremendous amount of shame when they discover that their child is gay. They are very much aware of how society will view them as parents. In many instances, they feel shame and anger over the child's admission of being gay which they direct to the child. Often they feel as failures having let their child and family down and that they have caused this to happen in some way.

If it were true that gay men had such oppressive mothers, they would probably not be able to handle relationships with women of any kind because of having projected the bad part of their mothers onto them. However, many gay men are able to seek out and enjoy healthy and fulfilling relationships with women. As a result, gay men have long been fervent supporters of women's rights. In a survey of 312 homosexual men three quarters of them had at least 1 heterosexual experience since puberty and 98 of those men were either married or living with a female lover for three months or longer (McWhirter & Mattison, 1984, p. 270).

In reality, the mother becomes the only ally the child has when the father rejects him. A mother may or may not be able to sense the child's latent homosexuality, but she can clearly recognize when the father is rejecting or hostile to the child. For these reasons, the mother may find herself defending the gay child in front of the father more often than she might with the other heterosexual children in the family. It is only common sense that if the child has been rejected by the father, he would seek out his mother for the attention he could not receive from his father. In many cases, it is actually the mother who requests that the son not tell the father. Although this may appear on the surface as a manipulation of the mother to distance the father from the son, in reality, the mother has been witness to the hostility of the father and in most cases is probably trying to protect the son from further assault and harm from the father.

If environmental causes are paramount for the creation of a gay child, then we would expect to see evidence of such a belief by a high rate of homosexuality in the other children who are growing up in the same environment. This has not turned out to be the case. Out of a study of 312 gay men, only two and a half percent of the siblings were known to be gay (McWhirter & Mattison, 1984, p. 182). That is one half to one quarter of the estimated percentage of gay people in the general population, which is estimated to be somewhere between 7% and 10% of the population. Such widely held beliefs beg the question, if environment is the cause, why are all of the children within this type of family not gay? Such a question seems to expose the unreasonableness of these archaic beliefs.

These kinds of experiences can be very damaging to a developing gay boy. As the child grows up and develops into an adult, the models he has had for relationships have been fraught with hostility, rejection and shame. The child now leaves the home, and hopefully at some point acknowledges his homosexuality and may desire to enter into a relationship with another man.

In conclusion, the hostility of the father and the protection of the mother are the result of the parents' reactions to the child's latent homosexuality rather than the cause of the child's gay orientation. It is the dysfunctional family constellation that pathologizes his future love relationships. However, a gay man who has experienced a tumultuous childhood, can overcome his liabilities of the past and enjoy a rich, fulfilling and healthy love relationship as can any human being. The only choice these individuals face is not in their orientation but whether or not to be honest.

For more information on sexual development and orientation log onto LAtherapist.com or for more information on self-help downloads, and to listen to free downloads, log onto The Dr. Walton Series.

REFERENCES

Clark, D. (1978). Loving someone gay. New York: New American Library.

Isay, R. (1989). Being homosexual: Gay men and their development. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux.

Lewes, K. (1988). The psychoanalytic theory of male homosexuality. New York: Simon and Schuster.

McWhirter, D. & Mattison, A. (1984). The male couple. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Beebe, J. (1993, March). The individuation of homosexuality. Unpublished lecture, Pacifica Graduate Institute, Carpinteria, CA.