It's too late to backtrack now, NOM. Enjoy your wormwood

April 21, 2009:

I would like to nominate Miss California as the new face of the marriage movement. Much better than mine! "Truth and love will prevail over lies and hate." - NOM head Maggie Gallagher

May 1, 2009:

Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released this statement today clarifying the role of Carrie Prejean at a press conference held Thursday in Washington, DC:

“A number of media sources have described Carrie Prejean as a spokesperson for the National Organization for Marriage.

As we made clear at our press conference yesterday: Carrie appeared with NOM as a private citizen; she does not work for the National Organization for Marriage. She is a spokesperson for her own views, as anyone watching her can tell.

We are grateful to Carrie Prejean for her willingness to stand up for marriage. We would love to work with Carrie in the future if she chooses, and we wish her well in all her future endeavors whatever she chooses. We're proud of her. Americans are proud of her. She is a remarkable young woman.

No matter how they try to sugarcoat the situation, it sounds like NOM is backtracking big time. Well to call it backtracking is too light.

NOM is moonwalking with the efficiency of Michael Jackson before he got "strange."

Just what could have made NOM suddenly make an about face after days of allowing the media to portray Prejean as the so-called new face of the marriage movement?

Could it have been the breast enhancement surgery controversy?

Maybe.

Could it be the fact that despite the controversy, no one was really going to take Prejean seriously because of the unfair stigma of beauty queens being shallow and airheaded?

That could be it also.

Or could it be that when all is said and done, Prejean was in fact a blond version of Sarah Palin - a person taking advantage of an incredible hype that wears down when one gets to know her; a walking, breathing one-hit wonder.

Now I may have something there. As seen via the transcript of a recent interview on Fox's On the Record with Greta, Prejean didn't exactly come across as a suitable talking head:

VAN SUSTEREN: What is your thought on civil unions?

PREJEAN: My thought on civil unions? You know what, Greta? I don't have the answers to everything. I'm not running for political office. I don't have the answers to everything, you know, in the world out there.

But I think that there should be rights for people, you know, especially in California. I think that people that are homosexual should have some rights, you know, hospital rights, and things like that.

But I would like to be more educated on that, so when I do have a better answer for you, I will get back to you on that one.

But so far I just support traditional marriage, and that's my main focus.

VAN SUSTEREN: What about adoption?

PREJEAN: Greta, I am focusing on marriage right now, not adoption, not civil unions, just traditional marriage, and I'm going to do whatever it takes to promote that.

VAN SUSTEREN: I understand, and I understand your position on traditional marriage. I'm just sort of trying to figure out where you draw the line in terms of what kind of rights that you think that a man and woman should have that maybe two men, two women, shouldn't have.

And that's why I was asking the question on civil unions and adoptions. I was just trying to sort it out for myself what you think.

PREJEAN: Well, I'm not a politician, so I can't give you an answer to that.

Geez, at least Palin had notes.

In the long run, I don't care why NOM backtracked. And you don't either.

Admit it - you all enjoyed this as much as I did. After the huge calamity of the "Gathering Storm" ad, NOM was grasping for any type of credibility. The group thought it could get that credibility with Prejean.

They were wrong.

I don't know what I enjoyed more - watching this entire thing blow up in NOM's face or taking in how the religious right was calling Prejean a modern day "Queen Esther." They beat this issue into the ground before it even had a chance to grow.

While it's true that I got my shots in talking about how her church cites Paul Cameronesque studies on lgbts, the award for the failure of this particular campaign belongs solely to NOM and other members of the religious right.

But it's starting to make me feel guilty.

Is it a sin to enjoy viewing a train wreck this bad?