On Thursday, as many of you have likely already heard, Maggie Gallagher has stepped down as chairwoman of the National Organization for Marriage.
Details are extremely sketchy, but NOM has put on a brave face on the announcement by giving accolades to Gallagher and introducing, with much fanfare, her replacement — law professor and tea party favorite, John Eastman.
Personally, I am not impressed. Most likely, Gallagher stepping down is probably the best thing for the organization. I for one have never bought into the idea that Gallagher herself personally founded NOM.
Let’s face facts — Gallagher was probably more likely a figurehead, a puppet picked by shadowy individuals out to stomp out the progress of marriage equality. And if that was the case, she wasn’t a good one.
Gallagher had an awful television presence in that she was combative and evasive. She did well in front of audiences who agreed with her opinions regarding marriage, but on televised debates when faced with someone from the Human Rights Campaign or any other LGBTQ group, Gallagher came across as phony. She tended to talk over folks, shout a bit, and if all else failed, pretended to be personally offended when someone actually called her out on her lies.
Other times when questioned about NOM’s tactic, she deferred to an absent Brian Brown, NOM’s president, leaving folks to wonder how much was she in the loop as NOM’s chairwoman if she couldn’t answer basic questions about how the organization is spreading its message.
It didn’t matter to the LGBTQ community that Brown was president. With her faults outnumbering her attributes, we did good job of “gingriching” Gallagher, i.e. making her the persona folks would think of when NOM’s name came up.
Any success NOM has had is due to only one thing — its deep pockets. When it’s all said and done, one could easily pinpoint NOM’s finances as the reason why the organization is able to motivate so many “leaders” to its cause and blanket each area of its choosing with so much inaccurate literature via brochures and commercials.
To this day, NOM continues to fight tooth and nail in order to hide its funders even after losing several court cases. So in hindsight maybe it is a good idea for NOM to pick a lawyer to lead it. I have a feeling that the organization will need a good one very soon.