Marriage equality's biggest foe sees she can't fight the new family values

Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D, NY-18) was sworn into the House this week. His partner Randy Florke to his right,
surrounded by their kids and Speaker Boehner. The nationally syndicated column of Maggie Gallagher, founding president and board chair of the National Organization's (NOM), is no more. As of Wednesday, syndicator Universal Uclick will no longer be distributing it to the 25-35 papers that carried it.

This is notable because this is another data point reinforcing the conclusion that hardcore social conservatives in general, and National Organization for Marriage in particular, are increasingly becoming marginalized and irrelevant in the national political dialogue.

Speaking with Huffington Post, Gallagher says newspapers are a dying media. She seems to comprehend the gravity of the losses her cause has suffered and says, " I wanted more time to think. So many people are flailing, I want time to think," and "I'm considering other projects, but I haven't made any decisions."

After NOM experienced what can only be described as a routing in 2012, the front woman for the anti-gay marriage movement is doing a pretty terrible job maintaining her game face. She has predicted that the Defense of Marriage Act will fall at the Supreme Court, courtesy of Justice Kennedy (and maybe Justice Roberts as well, she says). And Wednesday's column seemed to be more evidence a sense of inevitable doom has overcome her, one that she can't be bothered to hide. The exact title to her column is "This I believe: Farewell to Optimism."

It isn't a particularly unique column, just sort of an overview of her philosophies with regards to the "family values" movement. She speaks in simple declarative sentences: "Every life is precious." "Men and women are different." "Sex makes babies." "On every key measure, marriage is weaker."

Her rhetorical choices have always been tailored in this way; find some simple universal truth, and lead the reader to the next conclusion. "If A, then B." The premise being her conclusion, B, can't be wrong because A is a fact. The problem is the logical leap between the common ground objective truth and her subjective conclusion has become far too vast to many Americans to make the leap with her.

She'll take what may well be an objective truth:

Since 1993, the proportion of children born out of wedlock has jumped from 31 percent to 41 percent -- mostly since about 2003. For women with only a high school degree or less, nonmarital childbearing is the new normal.

And from that she draws a flawed conclusion: It's because of Hollywood and pornography and states that are letting gay people get married (stopping the last one being her life's mission and livelihood). Empirical evidence that suggests her conclusion may be flawed is never acknowledged, like the fact that Massachusetts has enjoyed marriage equality for almost a decade and still has the lowest divorce rate in the country.

(Continues after the fold ...)