NOM’s Brian Brown gets the full David Blankenhorn treatment

August 2, 2010

By Adam Bink

For those of you who followed the Perry v. Schwarzenegger proceedings, you probably recall David Blankenhorn, a supposed “expert” witness for the defense (anti-equality) side who was backed into a corner by plaintiff co-counsel David Boies. Blankenhorn was forced to respond to assertions made in his book on how the freedom to marry would mean many more same-sex couples would enter into committed relationships, their children would benefit, would increase the worth and validity of same-sex relationships, would decrease the number of gay/lesbian individuals who unhappily marry someone of the opposite sex, etc. Blankenhorn was forced to affirm his belief in these statements and many more, to the embarrassment of the defense. You can read the full liveblogging coverage of the epic cross-examination from Prop8TrialTracker by clicking here, and see here as well.

Yesterday in Des Moines, the Courage Campaign Institute’s Arisha Michelle Hatch gave Brian Brown the same line of questioning for NOMTourTracker.com, setting him off on several rants. As promised, we have the video. Watch:

Notice that Brown refuses to answer virtually all the questions on the grounds that he doesn’t accept the nature of the questions because if he answers it in the hypothetical, it somehow means he accepts the right of same-sex couples to wed. Translation: If Brown affirms what Blankenhorn affirms, it would box him into the corner of accepting that the freedom to marry would benefit same-sex couples, their children, and society.

Arisha hits spot on when she asks:

Arisha: “You went to Oxford, right?”

Brown: “Yes.”

Arisha: “Me too. Would you get away with not answering questions in the Socratic method there in the way that you do now?”

What do you think of Brown’s bobbing and weaving around the questions?

Later today, I’ll have a lengthy video interview with Iowa State Assembly Speaker Pat Murphy and Iowa First Lady Mari Culver, who both came to the rally, as well as coverage of the rally itself. Stay tuned to NOMTourTracker.com.

One Iowa responds to NOM in kind NOM ally Louis Marinelli: Your marriage...

3379174 Comments2010-08-02+17%3A15%3A19Adam+Bink Leave a Comment

1. Ķĭŗîļĺę& | August 2, 2010 at 3:16 am

Some scribing
2. anonygrl | August 2, 2010 at 3:19 am

Can't WAIT to get home so I can see the video!

I bet you did great job, Arisha!
3. Ronnie | August 2, 2010 at 3:22 am

ditto…<3…Ronnie
4. Alan E. | August 2, 2010 at 3:24 am

Awesome job Arisha! I'll bring over my comments from the last post.:

<blockquote cite="Alan E.">Good on you for trying to get him to answer the question instead of spinning!

You handled that a lot better this time around Arisha. It looks like you took many of our comments and criticisms to heart, and it worked out well for you! He cannot fathom any hypothetical situations because he knows that will go way off the talking points track. “I don’t accept the nature of the question.” /puke

A good point to bring in is atheists getting married. We obviously don’t believe in a religious marriage and the state sees our marriages just fine without religious intervention. A religious marriage is not required in order for the state to recognize a valid marriage.
5. Kathleen | August 2, 2010 at 3:25 am

Good morning, everyone.
6. AndrewPDX | August 2, 2010 at 3:30 am

Agreed…
For those of us stuck @ work w/out the option to hear/watch these videos, could one of you wonderful folks scribble down a transcript of this interview? I won't be able to see it for another 10 hours or so, and I don't know if I can wait that long

Love,
Andrew
7. l8r_g8r | August 2, 2010 at 3:30 am

It is absolutely insulting to hear him talk about the need for a religious basis for law. MLK wrote "A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law."

He did not say that all laws must have a religious basis. He did not say that religion is the sole source of morality. Indeed, there have been plenty of cultures in existence throughout the years that determined that it was a bad idea to steal from your neighbor even without having read the bible.

Just because religion does provide a moral code does not mean that moral code can only be derived from religion. Just because you went to Oxford, BB, doesn't mean you understand logic.
8. Alan E. | August 2, 2010 at 3:31 am

A transcript really doesn't do justice to watching Brian squirm.
9. fiona64 | August 2, 2010 at 3:34 am

I'm beginning to believe that BB's idea of "going to Oxford" featured strolling through the campus whilst on vacation.

Hi, Louis!

Love,
Fiona
10. Mark M. (Seattle) | August 2, 2010 at 3:36 am

And I thought it just refered to the type of shoes he wears
LOL
11. Linda | August 2, 2010 at 3:39 am

Great job, Arisha! Kudos to you! Keep it up!
12. allen | August 2, 2010 at 3:42 am

Good job Ashira! This is the track we need to follow when asking him questions. We need to focus our questions about the constitutionality of marriage bans and talk about the benefits and protections of the institution of marriage. This is an area they know they are wrong and we need to put the heat on it.

By the way, did we get video of BB sorta saying he supports Civil Unions? Just further proof they know they are wrong fighting to withhold equal treatment under the law.
13. Lightning Baltimore | August 2, 2010 at 3:47 am

His line of reasoning is despicable.

His assertion that marriage rights cannot be extended to same-gender couples because marriage is one man/one woman is the same argument used against granting African Americans human rights: they could not be given the same rights as whites because they were not fully human.

Furthermore, if religion is the be-all-and-end-all for marriage, why is he not publically condemning Maggie's obviously non-religious marriage to a non-Christian?
14. Lightning Baltimore | August 2, 2010 at 3:48 am

NOM fights against civil unions just as hard as marriage.
15. Kim | August 2, 2010 at 3:49 am

Well, if anything has become clear, NOM wants to the fundamentalist christian churches to dictate state law. And the more he affirms that, the better for us. because it shows over and over again the religious motivation against same-sex marriage.
16. Richard A. Walter (s | August 2, 2010 at 3:49 am

Sibing the scrubs.
17. Sagesse | August 2, 2010 at 3:50 am

Engaging the conversation.
18. Kathleen | August 2, 2010 at 3:56 am

I think that's the first time I've heard it suggested that the reason the Prop 8 Proponents couldn't get expert witnesses was because it would ruin the witnesses careers.

Of course, we all know the real reason they withdrew their defense witnesses, But his makes even less sense than the suggestion that they feared general harassment from teh gayz.

Wouldn't any supposed experts already have their names associated with their views, most likely in published papers? Why would their appearance in a court of law suddenly jeopardize their academic careers if years of publishing unsubstantiated drivel hasn't?
19. Alan E. | August 2, 2010 at 3:58 am

The new Mr. Deity is out! It's not a projection if there is some truth to the matter.

[youtube
20. dieZiege | August 2, 2010 at 3:59 am

You should ask him how he expects to have a reasoned debate if he refuses to entertain, even in a hypothetical, the basic premise of his opposition. Further, you should ask him why, if same-sex marriage is simply an impossible thing to imagine, why he is going on tour to fight against it.

21. Alan E. | August 2, 2010 at 4:00 am

Those wit(less)es were more than willing to give their 2 cents until after Boies deposed them. Everything they said would still be on public record regardless if they were videotaped for public release or not.
22. Ann S. | August 2, 2010 at 4:01 am

Good morning, Mr. Dumpty.
23. Ann S. | August 2, 2010 at 4:01 am

Meaning Louis, of course.
24. allen | August 2, 2010 at 4:02 am

About the hypothetical… we don't need to talk about hypothetical when speaking about gay marriage. It's the law in 5 states, it's beyond the point of hypothetical, it's real life.
25. AndrewPDX | August 2, 2010 at 4:04 am

True… But at least I canunderstand what y'all are commenting on.

Love,
Andrew
26. Ann S. | August 2, 2010 at 4:11 am

A California domestic partnership is a legal relationship available to same-sex couples, and to certain opposite-sex couples in which at least one party is at least 62 years of age.
27. allen | August 2, 2010 at 4:11 am

I believe an opportunity was missed. Brian Brown said in reference to CA, that anti-prop8 people were trying to redefine marriage. But that's not the case.

Prop 8 was the constitutional amendment redefining marriage in CA.
28. Alan E. | August 2, 2010 at 4:15 am

In San Francisco, the age does not matter.
29. Sagesse | August 2, 2010 at 4:16 am

Kathleen, do you think he's ever going to run out of people in positions of power who are sooo wrong aallll the time. Judges, who read the constitution and weigh the evidence and still get it wrong. Academia, where if your conclusions aren't evidence based and don't stand up to peer review, you aren't allowed to have a career. Legislators and governors, who are elected by the people and persist in doing things the people don't want.

It's a cruel world.
30. Alan E. | August 2, 2010 at 4:16 am

The Alameda County Clerk mentioned that in the closing arguments, but I knew that before the trial. Plus, my boss of 39 and her boyfriend just recently got a DP when they moved in together.
31. AndrewPDX | August 2, 2010 at 4:17 am

Actually, I remember hearing that before. The only reason an academic would fear losing their job over testifying is if they knew the fiction they were supporting couldn't possibly hold up to an academic peer review.
So, of course they were afraid. It just goes to prove there is no logical, rational, academic reason for banning same-sex marriage.

Love,
Andrew
32. Papa Foma | August 2, 2010 at 4:19 am

@Andrew,

As expected he says nothing and refuses to even answer the question. A transcript would only be confusing. IT is worth the wait to see him look like a pompous ass!

Felyx

@ BS Brown, you are certainly living up to your name! Even Blankenhorn did better than you!
33. Tracy | August 2, 2010 at 4:22 am

I find it amusing that Brian insists that marriage means one thing and cannot be redefined. There have been other times when people argued that redefining something as fundamental as, say, freedom, would be detrimental to American society. Specifically,

"Lincoln ultimately came to believe that the war provided the context and circumstances that allowed Americans to redefine freedom and equality, and extend it beyond what the Founders were prepared to do." (it's time to redefine marriage beyond what the Founders were prepared to do) http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=25083

"the Slave-Trade is intrinsically good and licit, [and that the holding of slaves] is perfectly consonant to the principles of the Law of Nature" (Like the Law of Nature that marriage is only for heterosexual couples?) http://www.ralphmag.org/tise.html

"White supremacists thought that the mixing of the races would result in the loss of the white race." (Like gay marriage will result in the loss of marriage?) http://momo348.tripod.com/

"Arguments in favor of slavery centered on … the "scientifically proved" inferiority of the Negro, the belief that the slave class was necessary for the cultural development of the ruling class" (Or, the "scientifically proved" inferiority of gay relationships?) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4narr1.html

"Charles, like most of the North’s men-at-arms, fought to restore the Union but learned that this could not be accomplished without a redefinition of freedom. … Charles joined a chorus of white Iowans anxious about the prospect of competing with freedmen in an integrated society." (Or competing with homosexuals in marriage rights…)
Soldier Boy: The Civil War Letters of Charles O. Musser, 29th Iowa By Barry Popchock

"…the struggle against slavery required a redefinition of both freedom and Americanness…" (Time to redefine marriage for all Americans — let Americanness stand for freedom and equality)
African Americans and the Story of American Freedom by Eric Foner

I challenge Brian to convince anyone that the redefinition of freedom was detrimental to society.
34. Kathleen | August 2, 2010 at 4:23 am

I know, huh? (said in my best 'valley girl' dialect)

Seriously, it's tough being a bigot. Let's keep it that way.
35. Linda | August 2, 2010 at 4:27 am

I was so enlightened to learn that MLK's passion for civil rights was because of his religion, and not because, as an African American Male, he was experiencing first hand the injustice of racial prejudice.

Fascinating!
36. Dave in Maine | August 2, 2010 at 4:30 am

Good morning!!

Dave
37. Sagesse | August 2, 2010 at 4:30 am

Good job Arisha. He was agitated. Is it my imagination, or did he not answer the question about civil unions?
38. Ķĭŗîļĺę& | August 2, 2010 at 4:30 am

This just in via email… OK… 2 hours ago in…
B.S. Brown invites everyone (who's for “One Man, One Woman,” of course) follow NOM on Twitter.
39. Sagesse | August 2, 2010 at 4:33 am

On the subject of NOM's messaging, while waiting for Sioux City. Underlying their leaps of logic are two stereotypes, both dating from the 60s/70s. An image of 'traditional marriage', which is code for the 'traditional family', and a stereotype of gay people (for a separate post).

To NOM, traditional marriage, one man-one woman and their biological kids, is the ideal, and to hear them tell it, the norm. Cue Ozzie and Harriet, Leave it to Beaver, The Donna Reid Show and the Huxtables. In fact, the definition of (heterosexual) family has been continously evolving since the 60s/70s. Families come in all shapes and sizes: single parent families, step families, extended families, foster families, adoptive families. Such is the scope of Blankenhorn's 'deinstitutionalization' of marriage. I've seen statistics on the various household structures, but I can't find good citations, so don't quote me, but of all the families raising kids under 18, a little more than half are NOM's 'traditional families'.

The goal of much of the law that is 'hung' around marriage is to provide support for families, and for most of these non-traditional families, it more or less works. The legal definition of civil marriage is the framework for providing benefits to a family unit and providing the legal structure within which families operate: parental rights, parental obligations (financial support), divorce, inheritance rights, social security entitlements, etc, etc, etc).

Everytime NOM praises their ideal tradtional marriage, where 'children have a right to be raised by their mommy and daddy', they are by implication insulting all the parents in those other familiy structures who are providing their children with parenting that is somehow deficient… because it is not ideal. They are telling all the children in those families that they are disadvantaged somehow because they have the 'wrong' parents.

It's time to shine light on those 'invisible' non-traditional families. Marriage equality language and messaging needs to poke holes in the stereotype. Perhaps Arisha could ask Brian how defending traditional marriage is going to protect those children. And how denigrating them and their families is useful.

For anyone who is in the mood to have at it, the floor is open.
40. John | August 2, 2010 at 4:34 am

subskirting
41. Linda | August 2, 2010 at 4:34 am

But they don't recognize those marriages, because marriage can only be between one man and one woman. So….?

I wonder if we stood and chanted 'same sex marriage, same sex marriage' over and over and over, would BS Brown eventually self-destruct? He seemed to recoil everytime Arisha used that phrase.
42. Zachary | August 2, 2010 at 4:35 am

He pretty much didn't answer anything. Yes, he was definitely agitated.
43. Adam | August 2, 2010 at 4:37 am

I suppose if Brian were aware that Marriage Equality is legal in Massachusetts and a few other states, then he would not be objecting so conveniently to the basis of all the questions. Someone should tell him. No don't. It's too entertaining. There is a word for people who are obstinately devoted to their own opinions and prejudices. Can we say it all togehter?
44. Linda | August 2, 2010 at 4:37 am

@Kim–

And, according to BS Brown, there is no such thing as a 'civil marriage'; all marriages are religious.

Really!

So, not only are same sex couples not able to marry; but atheist couples aren't either?

Hmm…..
45. Sagesse | August 2, 2010 at 4:39 am

Stereotype # 2: the 'homosexuals' (I don't ever use that term, but it's their term, so it's the right name for their stereotype; it's also dated, like the stereotype). Homosexuals are deviant (or at least deranged), perverted, hedonistic, promiscuous, sex crazed, and predatory… and diseased. They are defined by their sexuality (as opposed to heterosexuals who identify themselves by their education, their jobs, their interests, their communities, not by who they sleep with). Homosexuality is a choice (because if it is not a choice, how can it be a sin). Homosexuals can change, or can be cured. Homosexuals seek to convert others to their perverted way of life, and are not above targeting children. I had almost forgotten this chestnut, but Father Becker reminded me: in homosexual sex, one party is being used by the other for selfish pleasure (????). Homosexuality is at least immoral, and probably should still be illegal. Somehow, they don't credit the notion that homosexuals have emotional lives.

Society's understanding of what it means to be LGBT has evolved with stunning rapidity over time, as the community has become more and more visible. LGBT have lives like everyone else, they go to school, they go to work, they have interests and friends… and happen to be emotionally and sexually attracted to members of the same sex. They form relationships, they form long term relationships, and they raise families.

NOM paints the desire to be married as selfish: those guys have it so we want it too. They're slowly catching on to the couples part, but, in their antiquated worldview, have been kind of oblivious to the family part: that same sex couples don't need to be married, or in a domestic partnership to raise children or legally adopt.

Which is why it is so important to shine a bright light on the 'invisible' committed same sex couples and their families. It's about civil rights, but it is also very much about families and children. Don't just poke holes in the stereotype, blow it up.
46. Tracy | August 2, 2010 at 4:40 am

Why is my last message in moderation? Because it contains links?
47. nightshayde | August 2, 2010 at 4:42 am

Does it rhyme with "spigot?"

*wicked grin*
48. l8r_g8r | August 2, 2010 at 4:48 am

Yet another thing on my list of what irritates me about NOM — BB keeps reiterating that they are for one man-one woman marriage. By reiterating that statement and by telling that to their followers, they are implying that supporters of marriage equality are against one man-one woman marriage. I am absolutely in favor of opposite-sex marriage. I am also in favor of same-sex marriage. See, I am in favor of marriage equality.

As bad as NOM is with truth and answering questions, they are equally good at spin and rhetoric, and it makes me sick to my stomach.
49. Alan E. | August 2, 2010 at 4:50 am

If you have too many links, it will go into moderation.
50. PamC | August 2, 2010 at 4:56 am

For those of you who remember, and for those who don't!

Excerpt from Murphy Brown in which she challenges the definition of "traditional families":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INWaOLq-dOw

In your face, Dan Quayle & Brian Brown!

Love,
Pam
51. Christoph | August 2, 2010 at 4:58 am

Please ask this evil man, just what he thinks should be the role of GLBT people in society-period!
Does he consider same to be part of the human kingdom, or of some other kingdom??
Please ask him!
52. Joel | August 2, 2010 at 5:09 am

Great post. It speaks to the misconception that there is a "gay lifestyle." And it points out, although a little obliquely, that people who define lifestyle solely by the sex they have, and with whom they have it are the very thing that they claim to be fighting against: perverts. None of us describes or defines our lives based exclusively on the sex we have.
53. Lightning Baltimore | August 2, 2010 at 5:16 am

I hate it when people claim I define myself by my sexuality, when THEY are the ones doing it, not me.
54. jonelle | August 2, 2010 at 5:25 am

just subscribing
55. Apricot | August 2, 2010 at 5:30 am

Actually, I think I may have liked Arisha's first interview more than this one.

Granted I know that she's a much more skilled journalist than I can ever be, but there are a few things that held my attention in a way.

For example, I'm not sure Arisha understood Brian when he basically said that he disagreed with the premise of a question he had been asked. In essence when Arisha asks Brian whether or not extending marriage to gay couples would do X, Y, and Z, he returns by saying that he didn't agree with "the nature of the question" on the grounds that marriage CANNOT be extended to gay couples because then it wouldn't be marriage, and thus the premise of the question is flawed. As sketchy as his logic is, it's still a fair position to take.

Similarly I can say "If all tortoises wear mustaches, then how many flies do you think they attract" – well, turtles don't have mustaches so the question is impossible to answer – thus is the case with Brian. HOWEVER, you could have easily played along by saying "Hypothetically if the state were to legally recognize a same-sex union as a marriage – etc" – There would have been no way out of that question if it had been framed in this way.

But here's what fascinates me. Did you see what Brian did just there? According to Brian's logic, even if states legally recognized same-sex marriages, same-sex unions will never be marriage at all because marriage CANNOT be extended to gays by virtue of its very nature. If that's the case then why even bother 'protecting' something from being changed – that which cannot be changed?

The obvious answer is because Brian is full of crap. This has nothing to do with "protecting" straight marriages. It has everything to do with expressing disapproval of the existence of same-sex couples by trying to take away their dignity, their families, and their lives.
56. Richard A. Walter (s | August 2, 2010 at 5:33 am

That is why most people here usually only put one link in each post. Better to have several posts go up close together than to have one post stuck in moderation while they verify that it isn't spam.
57. l8r_g8r | August 2, 2010 at 5:36 am

Arisha attempted to restate the question. She asked if "civil marriage" were extended, she asked if "marriage rights" were extended. He didn't care what the question was, he wasn't going to answer it.

But I agree with your assessment of his arguments. If he's saying by definition same-sex marriage isn't marriage, then what's the problem with legalizing it and calling it marriage? They already do that in Mass and Iowa, so what he's saying is that the legally recognized marriages don't even exist if they're between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. He has every right to pretend those marriages don't exist.
58. Shannon | August 2, 2010 at 5:38 am

I second this! NOM goes on and on about traditional marriage without ever recognizing that gay and lesbian people exist as real-live human beings. Denial and internal personal conflict, perhaps?
59. Linda | August 2, 2010 at 5:38 am

@Allen–
Your point is a good one, though. It isn't a hypothetical at all in those states. So then the question would be, 'how has same sex marriage in those states negatively impacted OS marriage?'
60. HunterR. | August 2, 2010 at 5:39 am

Sorry for this very long entry. But it is an interesting read by the GAY LIBERATION NETWORK and their upcoming protest against "Americans For Truth About Homosexuality," in Arlington Heights, IL.

So many things about AFTAH's forthcoming anti-gay "academy" are offensive on their face that it's easy to lose sight of the broader, strategic reasons for organizing public protests against organizations like AFTAH.

* Many rightly have a visceral reaction against organizations that try to turn back the clock to a time in American history when it was openly acceptable to scapegoat minorities who had already endured plenty of hate and discrimination, thank you very much.

* Organizations like AFTAH that target young people for indoctrination with bigotry – their anti-gay "academy" says that it's for people as young as 14-years-old – recall historical pictures of adult white supremacists bringing their children to rallies against African Americans, Jews and "communists."

* Organizations that peddle their paranoia about "the Other" in times of economic distress, like today's "Great Recession," recall earlier times in history when such scapegoating had devastating effects on the lives and opportunities of those targeted.

Important as these reasons are for protesting AFTAH, our own LGBT civil rights struggle shows that there are civil rights opportunities to be gained by not taking an "ignore them and they'll go away approach" towards groups like AFTAH.

Reading through AFTAH's propaganda materials, one is struck by the great lengths they go to portray themselves as simple, "good Christians" (albeit far better than those lapsed, "fake" Christians). Besides wrapping themselves in Biblical goodliness, they're hyper-patriots, boisterously proclaiming their Americanism. And diabetics beware – their sanctimonious tracts about what they call family values contain so much sugar they are hazardous to your health. They're just about as Godly, Pro-American and Pro-Family as you can get.

Why so much emphasis on God, patriotism, Mom and apple pie? Because the real product they're selling is one that, when Americans think about it more deeply, is something many will find repugnant. This is where marketing comes in.

AFTAH is in favor of denying equal access to employment, housing and public accommodations – including government services like equal Social Security and marriage benefits – to a whole group of people. AFTAH's central mission is to prevent the spread of full LGBT legal and social equality and to roll back those gains that we have already made. In order to accomplish these goals, they must expand further the territory they've already secured for "acceptable" anti-gay bigotry in mainstream politics and among the wider public.

Their problem is that, while the 1960s Civil Rights Movement for African Americans certainly wasn't popular in many quarters at the time, it did win at least surface acceptance over time. And part of its legacy was that it eventually established in the United States a popular repugnance among many against those who overtly oppose legal equality for African Americans and indeed against anyone who peddles hate and discrimination against whole groups of people.

Like present-day anti-gay bigots, in the 1960s opponents of the movement for African American civil rights also boisterously wrapped themselves in faith, family and country. And it is no accident that many prominent anti-gay leaders of this century, such as the Mormon Church and the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, were strident opponents of African American legal equality in the last century. Falwell, for example, infamously labeled the Black freedom movement "the civil wrongs movement."

So as anti-gay groups like AFTAH promote themselves as godly, patriotic, and pro-family, this is not just stylistic exuberance. Rather, it is part of a carefully thought out strategy aimed at countering those who label them as haters. And when mainstream LGBT leaders advise our community to ignore groups like AFTAH or go lightly on them, they are playing right into their hands.

By contrast, in the late 1970s when the pro-gay movement which brought us Harvey Milk defeated the anti-gay movement represented by Anita Bryant, they did it by successfully labeling Bryant as a narrow-minded bigot very reminiscent of the bigots which the African American Civil Rights Movement organized against. All the "pro-family" and "Save Our Children" saccharine in the world could not protect her from a pro-gay movement which peeled away the patriotic and "Christian" façade to reveal a nasty bigot underneath.

For the most part, our present-day mainstream LGBT leaders repeatedly fail to take on the present-day Anita Bryants. Instead, while AFTAH and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) spew out vitriol suggesting that we are a bunch of disease-ridden child molesters, pro-gay leaders typically pull their punches and prefer to shy away from labeling creeps in AFTAH and NOM as the anti-gay bigots that they are. The result, in contrast to our 1978 victory over California's anti-gay Briggs Amendment, is our defeat in many eminently winnable anti-gay referenda fights over the past few years, including in places like Maine where we held a 2-to-1 fundraising advantage.

Rather than paint the Catholic and Mormon Church leaderships as bigots opposed to equal rights and painting them into a corner the way that Harvey Milk, et al, did against Anita Bryant, most LGBT leaders give anti-gay leaders like the Pope a pass; instead, they try to compete on the same terrain by setting up "faith-based" divisions at organizations like the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and out-doing the bigots in demonstrating our "godliness" and "pro-family values" (whether we're Christian or not, or whether we consider ourselves part of families or not).

With dozens of defeats in recent statewide referenda, this is a spectacularly failed strategy.

The question is why do mainstream LGBT groups and their leaders obsessively persist in this failed strategy? Part of the answer lies in their fear of taking on still-powerful religious hierarchies like the leaderships of the Mormon and Catholic Churches – the latter still very dominant in American life despite the repeated pedophilia scandals and the gradual growth of agnosticism and atheism among the public.

But this alone does not explain LGBT leaders' hesitancy to take on religious anti-gay leaders. After all, until California's anti-gay Briggs Amendment, Anita Bryant also appeared to be hugely powerful, a seemingly unstoppable force in the late 1970s, rapidly over-turning pro-gay legislation in city after city while a seemingly friendless gay community gathered virtually no support from established institutions in American society. Yet our young gay movement took her on and was successful.

The core of our present-day problem lies in our movement's reliance on leaders who themselves have intimate ties to the Democratic Party and explicitly or implicitly take their marching orders from it. And the fact remains that most significant leaders in the Democratic Party oppose marriage equality and other aspects of full citizenship for LGBT people.

Part of the reason mainstream LGBT leaders fail to more actively take on anti-gay religious leaders is that for them to do so, while failing to also take on their anti-equality politician-allies, would make them look like hypocrites. So in the face of anti-gay leaders' vitriol and slander, these mainstream gay leaders in groups like HRC and the Stonewall Democrats take the easy way out. Rather than earning respect by taking the battle to our enemies by labeling their opposition to LGBT equality to be plain and simple bigotry, they earn people's contempt by pathetically pleading for "fairness" and “tolerance.”

So as important as it is to oppose AFTAH's nasty attempt to indoctrinate the next generation with anti-LGBT hate, our protest on Thursday night is about much more than that, too. It is also about breaking from the failed strategy which gave us the California Prop 8 and Maine Question 1 defeats. It's about rejecting a "kids-glove" treatment towards anti-gay leaders who, like AFTAH's Peter LaBarbera, relentlessly push anti-equality legislation and constitutional amendments when given half a chance.
61. Richard A. Walter (s | August 2, 2010 at 5:41 am

In fact, I have a blog that debunks that lie every time I am able to get the opportunity to post. It is truly a shame that nobody from NOM ever reads it. If they did, they would find out that my lifestyle is probably as routine as theirs is, only without the free bus tour of 19 states that other folks are paying for.
62. Brittney | August 2, 2010 at 5:47 am

Honestly, I'm tired of seeing Brown's ugly face, besides, it's always the same argument with him…

I would love to see some footage from our side!
63. Sagesse | August 2, 2010 at 5:48 am

The long and winding road of NOM-logic seems to be taking a new curve. Both Louis in his blog post and BB seem to be saying: the only marriage is religious marriage (and we own the definition of religious marriage). Any law or legal recognition of marriage is illigitimate. What five states and DC have done is illigitimate, the marriage licence means nothing, the legal rights that go with marriage mean nothing.

Huh? If the people vote…. it's the….law?

Do these people ever get dizzy?
64. Linda | August 2, 2010 at 5:49 am

@Tracy–
Nicely done. Thanks!
65. Dave P. | August 2, 2010 at 5:52 am

Go Get 'em Arisha!!

Regarding his constant yammering about how he can't 'accept' a 'hypothetical question', in follow up interviews it could be pointed out to him that:

1. Same sex marriage is not hypothetical, it has been happening for years in several states and other countries, and

2. If he has no views on SSM because he considers the topic and the questions hypothetical, why is NOM touring to urge voters to vote against SSM, etc.?

2. Is he arguing that opposite sex couples who have a non-religeous civil marriage are not 'really' married?

2. Even if he thinks a civil marriage is not a 'real' marriage, many SS marriages DO involve a religeous ceremony as well as the legal civil marriage paperwork, just like other couples. These people are being married in churches, synagogues and various other places of religeous worship and the events are officiated by the same people who regularly perform opposite marriages in those same places of worship. THey have the blessings of their church as well as the recognition from the state.

THEREFORE – it is clearly not hypothetical, regardless of his views on the subject of the validity of those marriages. Given this fact, can he now answer these clearly non-hypothetical questions?
66. Alan E. | August 2, 2010 at 5:54 am

Civil Partnership Bill is little more than an institutionalised apartheid

Opinion from Ireland's irishtimes.com.

The key arguments against full gay marriage to date seem to consist of two main threads – natural law and tradition.

Natural law is fairly straightforward: propagation of the species is dependent on procreation. This argument, of course, falls down in two regards: firstly, it discounts the right of married couples to not have (or not be able to have) children; and secondly, the world is an over-populated place as it is. Survival of the species may be dependent on childless marriages.

Tradition is a more convoluted one. It’s mainly based on the idea that marriage has always been an agreed partnership of man and woman and, as marriage is fundamental to society, to change its definition would change society. It also governs the opinions on same-sex adoption, in that raising children in a non-traditional environment can be harmful to them.
67. Richard Cortijo | August 2, 2010 at 5:57 am

first…I LOVE NOM TOUR TRACKER!!!! Second Arisha, you and the camera guy are absolutely wonderful.. I mean seriously, def competes with any news covererage and interview I have ever seen..simply awesome! I follow daily.
68. Leslie | August 2, 2010 at 5:58 am

I just want to go on record that MANY churches, including Christian churches are supportive of same sex marriage. The United Church of Christ has been fighting for the rights of LGBTQ people for decades.
69. Bob | August 2, 2010 at 6:04 am

Wow, I'd love to see the video coverage of that protest!!!
70. Owen | August 2, 2010 at 6:07 am

Even though I've been complaining about the time spent interviewing Brian Brown, I must say:

That interview…was awesome. You could see the smoke coming out of Braun's ears.
71. Dave P. | August 2, 2010 at 6:10 am

Indeed! I live in Oakland, CA and there are MANY churches and other places of worship right here in my neighborhood that performed SSMs during the period when they were legal in California, and since then even more have become quite vocal and open about their support of LGBT rights and same sex marriage. And that's just Oakland. Other cities around here are even more welcoming and supportive of SSM.
72. Straight Grandmother | August 2, 2010 at 6:10 am

Thank you for talking about children. It is not often I find posts on P8TT that talk about how children in GLBT families are hurt in states that do not permit; SSM marriage, civil unions, co parent gay adoptions. It really truly does hurt those innocent children. All NOM and their adherents care about are children born to hetrosexual families.
73. Dave in CA | August 2, 2010 at 6:10 am

Posted in earlier thread, but repeated here a propos of the discussion of religious aspects of marriage:

Tamara Scott, who made that extraordinary claim in Des Moines that banning same sex marriages will improve the economy, is from Concerned Women of America. That group, CWA, recently wrote about an op-ed in which they expressed their concerns about Chelsea Clinton marrying a nice Jewish boy!

Clinton Wedding Raises Questions of Interfaith Marriage http://www.cwfa.org/articles/19229/BLI/dotcomment…

I am starting to believe these groups really won’t stop at banning gay marriage. Next up on the chopping block – interfaith marriages!
74. Lesbians Love Boies | August 2, 2010 at 6:10 am

@ Arisha – Do you think Brian Brown will ever let you interview him again?

Great job!
75. nightshayde | August 2, 2010 at 6:11 am

All marriages are religious, as long as the religion passes Brian's rigorous screening process (i.e. the religion doesn't bless same sex marriage).

If the religious institution blesses same sex marriage, it's clearly NOT a (the?) real religion & any ceremonies performed under its purview are invalid.

Hmmm. I believe the word "God" was uttered once during our ceremony (and even though we asked the officiant not to mention him/her). Even though we are a heterosexual couple, can our marriage really be considered a marriage?

*panic*

*rolls eyes*
76. allen | August 2, 2010 at 6:12 am

You know he won't answer, but I think this is a good question too.
77. Linda | August 2, 2010 at 6:13 am

I'm confused. Didn't NOM give a lot of financial support to the prop8 campaign? So, wouldn't that mean that NOM was, by extension, involved in the prop 8 trial? And so, wouldn't that mean that Blankenhorn was in fact speaking as a NOM rep (indirectly, of course)?

It would appear that NOM can't seem to find anyone who's views they can endorse. They can't endorse the prop 8 witnesses, they can't even endorse the speakers they invite to speak at their own podium at their rallies.
78. Ken | August 2, 2010 at 6:13 am

I opened the comments to say the very same thing. I am a Christian, but I despise the bigots acting like they are the only ones who have any morality and that ALL moral thought must necessarily come from Christianity!
79. Straight Grandmother | August 2, 2010 at 6:14 am

Allen- Yes you rais a very good point. Since they an in the Equality state of Iowa Arisha coould have asked, "Do you think Gay and Lesbian married couples in Iowa dot dot dot. Se really doesn't have to us the hypothetical, does she?
80. AndrewPDX | August 2, 2010 at 6:14 am

And if " the only marriage is religious marriage," then they shouldn't have a problem with those denominations that do support same-sex marriages, right?

Oh, I forgot… Once these arse-holes are done ruining our lives and turn this into the United States of Uganda, they plan to split it down the middle: the eat coast gets annexed as part of the Vatican, while the west becomes New Zion.
Oh, they may let the Baptists keep the south, but only if they donate enough cash first.

Love,
Andrew
81. ArishaMichelle | August 2, 2010 at 6:16 am

@ Lesbians Love Boies

haha, not sure, but if I were betting?….. i don't think that he has the capacity to resist.
82. Leslie | August 2, 2010 at 6:19 am

Plus, his argument assumes that all Christians (I'm assuming he wouldn't consider other traditions valid) agree on what is moral or immoral. There are plenty of us Christians out there who do not believe that homosexuality is immoral. So, who gets to decide what is moral and what isn't? Which version of Christianity is right? The one that takes rights away from our LGBT brothers and sisters and treats them as second class citizens or the one that treats everyone with the same love and compassion no matter what their sexual orientation or gender identity?
83. nightshayde | August 2, 2010 at 6:19 am

If he does, (which I doubt), PLEASE ask him this:

If only marriages performed in/by religious institutions can be called "marriage," (1) are straight couples who were married in secular ceremonies REALLY married, or are we all single and deluding ourselves (and our newly-defined-as-bastard-children)?; (2) if a same-sex couple has been wed in a religious ceremony by a clergy member (especially in a state which recognizes marriage equality), how can Brian NOT call that a marriage?; (3) in light of the fact that so many religious institutions are now recognizing the right to marriage equality, why should the religious rights of the marriage-equality-affirming churches/synagogues/any other religious institution and those who adhere to religiously-based marriage-equality-affirming beliefs be subjugated to any other churches' rules and regulations?
84. Christopher Burtt | August 2, 2010 at 6:20 am

There started to be an interesting discussion about religions that do support same sex marriage (I'm Unitarian and we do!). Brown asserts that religions should have the final word, so the state should recognize same sex marriages from those churches. The current laws in effect suppress freedom of religion.
85. nightshayde | August 2, 2010 at 6:25 am

Evidence? They don't need no stinkin' evidence. Witnesses/Representatives? They don't need no stinkin' witnesses or representatives.

The Bible is the only "evidence" they need. Jesus/God are the only supporters they need.

Anyone who believes differently is clearly influenced by the devil (or by socialists – which may be the same thing).

If people support marriage equality, they're clearly wrong. If they vote for marriage equality, they're clearly wrong. If their elected representatives vote for marriage equality, they're clearly wrong (and have clearly duped the wrong-minded public into voting for them in the first place). Justices who rule in favor of marriage equality? Wrong.

The people should be allowed to vote, until such time as the majority votes for marriage equality — then NOM can go to work trying to convince whoever on their side is left that somehow a mistake was made and a great injustice has been perpetrated… on and on until they can muster support against some other minority in our population (my bet is Muslims since just saying the word "Muslim" in any context other than with contempt seems to get their knickers in a twist).
86. AndrewPDX | August 2, 2010 at 6:26 am

Heh… Christians have been fighting each other over "who is right" for ages… Just take a look at all the Catholic v. Protestant violence in Northern Ireland.

No, the NOMzies will just throw supporting denominations under the bus… Then, once they've gone all Ughanda on us, our surviving Straight Allies will be able to witness the religious battle over coffee.

Love,
Andrew
87. Sagesse | August 2, 2010 at 6:26 am

Perceptions haven't caught up with reality.
88. Linda | August 2, 2010 at 6:30 am

@nightshayde

I'm sorry to say that yes, that means you are not really married. You are living in sin, and are going to hell. After all, BS Brown clearly stated that marriage can only be marriage if the ceremony was religious. One mention of God hardly qualifies.

I think Louis should include a picture of you and your spouse with the disclaimer 'not really married'; don't you?
89. CGS | August 2, 2010 at 6:31 am

So he refuses to answer the questions because they are based on what he says is an impossibility: same-sex marriage. The problem with this argument is that its premised on the negation of two social realities: 1) the separation between civil/religious marriage in the U.S.; 2) the thousands of legal same-sex marriages that have already taken place. Sorry, but you can't just claim you don't "believe" in facts. In any case, if same-sex marriages are so impossible that we can't even consider them as the premise of a question, why are they such a threat? Someone should tell them that their entire organization is meaningless, since same-sex marriages, by their own definition, can NEVER exist.
90. Straight Grandmother | August 2, 2010 at 6:41 am

Quote from the article, "Rather than earning respect by taking the battle to our enemies by labeling their opposition to LGBT equality to be plain and simple bigotry, they earn people’s contempt by pathetically pleading for “fairness” and “tolerance.”

This is what I have been saying all along. Quit trying to "nice" your way into Equality, fight for it! Protest, protest, protest, loud and long, feet on the ground, confront the enemy!
91. Linda | August 2, 2010 at 6:41 am

@Apricot
But…..if the person argued that turtles don't have mustaches WHILE protesting the rights of turtles to grow mustaches….well, hasn't the person already aknowledged the validity of the hypothetical simply by protesting it?
92. PamC | August 2, 2010 at 6:47 am

lol, well put!
93. PamC | August 2, 2010 at 6:49 am

If NOM won't answer a hypothetical, then they have to abandon all of their "slippery slope" arguments; i.e., box turtles, puppies, etc.
94. mike | August 2, 2010 at 6:55 am

might be nice if Mr. Authority on the issue could find out whether gay people would benifit overall from marriage. So that at the very least he could understand why were so upset to be denied it.
95. MJFargo | August 2, 2010 at 6:56 am

"So do you think that Roe v. Wade should be overturned?"

"I don't accept that it was ever the law so I can't answer that question."

Clearly Mr. Brown wouldn't fare well on the witness stand.
96. Owen | August 2, 2010 at 7:00 am

That's an important follow-up, actually.

If BB is going to claim that civil and religious marriage are inextricable, ask him if he feels that disallowing SSM infringes upon the rights of churches that wish to perform same-sex weddings.
97. Owen | August 2, 2010 at 7:02 am

I'm really left wishing he would have been put up there.

In fact, I'm rather perplexed that neither he nor Maggie were.

NOM bankrolled the prop. 8 campaign, right?
98. AndrewPDX | August 2, 2010 at 7:03 am

Wow!
Awesome research! Lots of reading material to keep me from having to do work
Thank you!

Love,
Andrew
99. Brendan | August 2, 2010 at 7:08 am

The interesting point he is making that is complete and utter trash is with regard to the "bifurcation" of marriage. There most certainly is a bifurcation of marriage and he MUST accept that.

One may have a marriage recognized by the state AND by a church.

One may have a marriage recognized by the state and NOT recognized by the church.

One may have their marriage recognized by the church and NOT recognized by the state.

These are facts about which he seems to be in denial – and it is difficult to accept an argument made from a position that denies these facts. He's not arguing reality, but fantasy.

He is certainly free to believe that there shouldn't be a bifurcation, but he can't deny that it exists.
100. JonT | August 2, 2010 at 7:09 am

Greetings and felicitations.
101. MJFargo | August 2, 2010 at 7:10 am

Maybe they're smarter than we give them credit for. Look what happened to the poor souls who got up and did testify for them.
102. Bill | August 2, 2010 at 7:18 am

How sad that Humpty Dumpty went to Oxford.

I thought they turned out thinkers instead of stinkers.
103. Gina | August 2, 2010 at 7:19 am

Comment on religious marriage v. Civil marriage… As a straight woman I was able to marry religiously In a catholic church and civilly through the state.., now that I am divorced religiously and civilly, the church can refuse to recognize my second marriage while the state does recognize it… Doesn't that prove that the two ARE already desparate yet using the same word? Isn't that what SSM is asking for?
104. Gina | August 2, 2010 at 7:23 am

Desparate = separate.
105. Richard A. Walter (s | August 2, 2010 at 7:36 am

In fact, Dave, I remember an early comment on this thread from a young gentleman who grandfather lived through WWII and made the following comment that came from his experiences then: "Watch out. When they start in on the queers, it's starting all over again." After all, it wasn't the Jews Hitler first went after, it was the Rainbow tribe. Had we lived then, my husband and I would have been twice the bounty for the Third Reich–after all, we are both gay and Jewish.
106. Steve H | August 2, 2010 at 7:47 am

BB didn't come out of Oxford as a pundit or, apparently, even a very well-educated man. I believe the correct term for him is "oxymoron."
107. JonT | August 2, 2010 at 7:50 am

That was an interesting interview.

I was struck by the 'new' (at least in my experience) argument regarding their opposition to the bifurcation of marriage – ie: saying that marriage is both civil and religious, and there can be no separate definition of the term.

I hadn't heard this before (except a hint on LM's blog yesterday) – something BB seemed to be really stressing in that interview. LM's blog seemed to be pushing this argument by saying that the two women, who have a valid marriage, aren't *really* married.

Is this a new approach in their arguments? That marriage is by definition religious and civil, and that implicitly, without a religious blessing, a marriage cannot be considered a real marriage? Huh?

Since when is religious approval required for straight people to get married? My mother's third marriage took place in a courthouse. It was a valid marriage, no religion required, and none was requested…
108. Sagesse | August 2, 2010 at 7:53 am

Oxymoron.

Oh, so well said.
109. Richard A. Walter (s | August 2, 2010 at 7:53 am

Either that, or he is referring to the same Oxford that Jethro went to on "The Beverly Hillbillies," and he is smart because he "gradiated the sixth grade."
110. rick jacobs | August 2, 2010 at 7:54 am

Richard:

You just made the day of all of us here at Courage!

Rick.
111. rick jacobs | August 2, 2010 at 8:02 am

Yes, NOM did participate actively in the Prop. 8 campaign. And yes, they and the oxymoronic Protetct Marriage dot com do not believe in evidence.

As their lawyer, Mr. Cooper, said in closing arguments, "We don't need any evidence." The judge was incredulous, "You don't need any evidence?"

That's who they are. They KNOW the truth; they don't need evidence for it and they don't care who and how many their "truth" hurts. They don't care that they are hurting kids. They don't care that the suicide rate for LGBT teens is dramatically higher than the rest of the population (in fact, based on waht Arisha, Anthony and Phyllis are reporting, they may think that's God's plan). They don't care that they divide and weaken our nation, even accoding to their own witness, Charles Blankenhorn.

And now we see Louis saying he does not care if the state issues a wedding licesnse; people are not married unless he says they are.

Welcome to NOM in Wonderland.
112. StraightForEquality | August 2, 2010 at 8:02 am

Watching over your shoulder.
113. Richard A. Walter (s | August 2, 2010 at 8:07 am

Rick, I thought their witness was named David Blankenhorn.
114. Derek | August 2, 2010 at 8:08 am

I would like Arisha to ask Brown why he's so adamant that marriage, by definition, is the [religious] union of one man and one woman. History has shown us otherwise.

Ancient Romans could be considered married just by living together for 1 year, and even when a couple chose to have a ceremony, a religious leader did not need to preside over it. The Aztecs married by having both families come together to tell stories, then the couple's clothes would be tied together (tying the knot). In pre-medieval Europe before Christianity exerted its influence, marriage (and divorce) were civil matters, often treated like a business transaction to connect families. Martin Luther described marriage as "worldly" and as belonging to the "realm of government."

The definition of marriage has been so different across so many cultures throughout history, so why is BS Brown so vehement that marriage is and can only be one thing?
115. l8r_g8r | August 2, 2010 at 8:11 am

I love this. I'm going to have to find a way to use this.
116. Alan E. | August 2, 2010 at 8:16 am

Rick, how was the courtroom able to hold back from commenting from the peanut gallery? In Overflow 2, we were cheering and throwing out comments left and right. Of course, there were many, many, many facepalm slaps to be heard during Cooper's arguments.
117. l8r_g8r | August 2, 2010 at 8:23 am

I also read somewhere that in Korea and Japan, a woman married her husband by writing her name in his family's book, without the husband even being present. These were the "picture brides" that you sometimes hear about.

I'm not quite sure how that fits into the definition of a religious union…
118. The Mad Sotsman | August 2, 2010 at 8:24 am

I think I've got a slightly different take on the interview.

First off, I think it's good that he allows himself to be interviewed – not many people in his position would, especially since he knows that we are out to "get him" on tape if at all possible. He also has to walk a very fine line – for example, he has to distance himself from those who advocate lynching gays without driving them from the "big tent".

More importantly, though, I found his reticence to answer the questions as stated was quite reasonable. When same sex marriage is part of the question, to him that's a contradiction in terms. That's almost as bad as asking "when did you stop beating your…". The latter implies that beating had happened, and the former implies that same sex marriage is possible.

Maybe that analogy is a stretch, but if the objective is to get his views on the benefits to the children of a same sex union being allowed to marry, we have to try a different approach. This isn't a court and it isn't an Oxford University debate, it's an interview, and one has to respect the subject.

Maybe the phraseology should be "In (choose your state/country), same sex couples are allowed to get married (a fact). Are there any benefits to the children of a same sex union if their parents or guardians opted for that State option?".

Cheers, Neil.
119. Alan E. | August 2, 2010 at 8:31 am

Very good point. It should get him to answer the question as long as you make sure he doesn't stray (which he loves to do).
120. Linda | August 2, 2010 at 8:44 am

Clearly BS Brown and the NOMbies have given up on trying to justify their position legally or Constitutionally. Their only recourse now is to convince their followers that this is a religious freedom issue.

They know they can't win in the courts. They have no legal basis for their prejudice; but they CAN win in the voting booths, and that's now their focus. They are pouring money into campaigns for right-wing, anti-gay candidates; and at the same time they are working hard to put the fear of gays in the hearts of their gullible followers.
121. ArishaMichelle | August 2, 2010 at 9:25 am

We actually did ask him that follow-up question…I'm not sure that it made it into the cut (I'll check now). His response was similar to his other responses: duck and jive. We actually spoke for about 30 minutes yesterday.
122. Luke | August 2, 2010 at 9:34 am

when this goes to appeal they MUST get Brian Brown on the stand and go with the same type of questioning route thqt they went with Bankenhorn, then we'll see exaclty how well his claims really stand up, hopefully they can get him admit his prejudice and such, but they ned to be brutal.
123. Roger | August 2, 2010 at 9:37 am

IIRC there was at least one amicus brief submitted in Perry v Schwarzenegger that made exactly that point, that Proposition 8 stripped those churches willing to perform ss marriages of the ability to do so and thus curtailed their first amendment right to the free exercise of their religion.

I don't know how many of the still-valid 18,000 marriages that were performed in California before Prop8 became law were officiated by clergy-people, but I would be very surprised if there were none.
124. Ann S. | August 2, 2010 at 9:43 am

@Luke, sorry, but the evidence phase is over. No more testimony.

I don't know how involved Brown himself was in the Prop 8 election, either.

He's just another wingnut, except he's making a living playing off people's fears and prejudices.
125. Kathleen | August 2, 2010 at 9:45 am

No witnesses on appeal. Appeals courts base their decisions on the trial record, briefs submitted by both sides and oral arguments by attorneys.
126. JonT | August 2, 2010 at 9:52 am

@rick jacobs: 'They KNOW the truth; they don’t need evidence for it and they don’t care who and how many their “truth” hurts.'

Absolute Truth(TM) Corrupts Absolutely.
127. Peter Blaise | August 2, 2010 at 9:57 am

A church does not "do " a marriage, it's officiator merely officiates and insures the state's requirements have been met.

The couple marries each other, period.

Marriage is what the couple calls it.
128. Roger | August 2, 2010 at 9:59 am

It's too late for that. The record of evidence in Perry v Schwarzenegger is now closed, and any appeal can only be on the basis that Walker erred in interpreting it or that he erred in his interpretation of the relevant law(s). No new evidence is admissable.

As someone suggested, that is precisely why NOM refused to take the stand. By declining to allow their assertions to be scrutinised in court, they can still spout whatever they like in what Brown calls "the public square". But alas for them, that is not where law is made, nor is it where P v S will be decided.
129. JonT | August 2, 2010 at 10:01 am

@The Mad Sotsman:

I agree – he is doing his job.

But his argument in this interview that a marriage is not valid unless sanctioned by a religious organization (his, I presume) is a point worth pushing to it's logical conclusions.

If he cannot answer a question that supposes the reality of an SSM, then the question should be rephrased so that 'marriage' is not part of the question.

BTW: I think you are doing a freakin great job Arisha! Far better than I would do Hugs!
130. JonT | August 2, 2010 at 10:07 am

I remember listening to the 8+ hours of audio (live) from the New Jersey State Senate Judiciary Committee when they were hearing testimony on their attempt to legalize SSM.

One of the things that struck me was the number of religious organizations that testified in support of SSM. Previous to that, I had always assumed that 'if it's religious, it hates me'. How wrong I was.

The common mantra was 'Keep the government out of my Sanctuary!'.

Wonder how BB/LM reconcile that?
131. Luke | August 2, 2010 at 10:10 am

oh that sucks too bad they couldnt do that.
132. Dave in Maine | August 2, 2010 at 10:20 am

JonT-

My involvement with the No on 1 campaign here in Maine led me to discover a church right down the street from me that is "open and affirming." They helped the campaign a LOT and I met many wonderful people and because of that, and the fantastic Rev. Lorna, Steve and I joined and have gone almost every Sunday since. I feel very fortunate to have found this church and this group of people who accept Steve and me and teach us about God and love.

I think it's ironic that I actually started going to church during this battle for marriage equality when others are telling the people that we are trying to destroy their religion.

Dave
133. Richard A. Walter (s | August 2, 2010 at 10:57 am

But, Ray, don't you see? Anyone who joins a church that doesn't preach fear, judgment, and bigotry IS destroying their religion, because they are learning the truth!
134. Peter Blaise | August 2, 2010 at 11:01 am

He's very practiced and thoughtful and has his discipline. I'm impressed that he let's himself get beat on so often in these videos.

He apparently owns the definition of the word "marriage" and won't let go, even though many places around the world throughout history and today, including in the US, and many religions define marriage differently as:

– between one man and one woman
– divorce okay or not
– between many men and one woman
– between many women and one many
– between tow adults regardless of gender

Does he suggest that the United States should be subordinate to the Roman Catholic Pope and outlaw divorce? Why not? Anyone divorcing is breaking his rule for what a marriage is. according to him.

What is the state's compelling interest in the gender of the couple?

More later.

Click!
Love and hugs,
Peter Blaise
Equivalent Consideration For All
135. Chrys | August 2, 2010 at 11:08 am

Yes, which is why I am so, so upset about Equality PA deciding to host a viewing of Stonewall Uprising and a panel on youth activism the night before NOM hits Harrisburg, while discouraging people from actually counterprotesting their rally.

We cannot let them go unopposed. We need to show who we are and what we stand for.
136. rick jacobs | August 2, 2010 at 11:16 am

BUT, Courage's Testimony project will involve everyone here and everyone in the country. After Judge Walker rules, we'll have at least two years to try to change public opinion before the Supreme Court rules. And it's vitally important that we do that.

Academic studies show clearly that the High Court does not act in isolation. The justices pay attention to trends and direction in society.

We did all we could through the Trial Tracker to get the substance of that trial out. Arisha did a terrific job in purusing many of the questions from the trial with Mr. Brown and she'll continue that.

But as you all point out, YOU did not get to testify in that trial. Testimony: Equality on Trial, which first featured excerpts of the actual transcripts for folks to act out, will be the vehicle to allow just that. We'll gather, organize and share stories in a very meaningful way.

By the way, we'll be launching a mini-version of this in a few days right here as a result of comments posted a few days ago.

As always, thanks!

Rick.
137. Marlene | August 2, 2010 at 11:19 am

I'd like to ask this uneducated twit just *what* he considers a marriage between "one man and one woman"?

Does he accept a male-to-female transsexual/cisgender female as "one man/one woman"? What if one of the participants is intersexed? Is someone with Turner's Syndrome (XO) male or female? Is a genetic male with Androgen Insensitivity where they look, sound, and act female truly female? Is a female with Congenital adrenal hyperplasia to where they have nearly male musculature and features male?

Questions like this must make their tiny intelligence swoon!
138. Scotty B | August 2, 2010 at 11:30 am

No Maggies marriage is not real. God does not recognize it. Per the Bible a "christian" is not to be unequally yolked. That means that God's Word tells Maggie that she IS NOT to be married to her non-christian husband. God cannot recognize something that is against His Word.

Sorry Mags, but you are living in sin.

BTW Mr Brown, sorry to tell you but EVERY state in this nation you are REQUIRED to get a CIVIL MARRIAGE LICENSE in order to get married. If you want a religious ceremony or a civil one is up to you. But religion only has a small bid on the ceremony, not the license. A minister CANNOT marry anyone without a CIVIL MARRIAGE LICENSE. For an Oxford man you don't know much about Marriage Law in this country.

Also, divorce is the number one threat to marriage. But Brian doesn't find it useful to try to get divorce outlawed. That just show me that he and NOM are not in it for the family or the children. They just want to keep marriage rights away from gay couples, that is bigotry plain and simple!

SHAME SHAME SHAME on you NOM!!!
139. Scotty B | August 2, 2010 at 11:37 am

What I find funny is that they will call someone that is for women's choice for an abortion, "pro-abortion". I personally do not agree with abortion, but I do feel that everyone has the right to choose for themselves, That makes me "pro-abortion" in their eyes, But when you call them anti-equality, they freak out. They have so many double standards they don't even know which way is up.
140. Tweets that mention NOM�&hellip | August 2, 2010 at 11:39 am

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Harry Dauz, Testimony. Testimony said: NOM’s Brian Brown gets the full David Blankenhorn treatment via the #NOMTour Tracker #lgbt http://bit.ly/9e4fXR [...]
141. Paul in Minneapolis | August 2, 2010 at 12:02 pm

Mr. Dumpty need not worry about a great fall. I fear his fate will depend on whether his shell shatters from the steam boiling within him.

He'll either explode and spew egg drop soup guts for miles or end up hard-boiled.

A sad fate either way.

Poor Mr. Dumpty.
142. Lightning Baltimore | August 2, 2010 at 12:06 pm

Hmmm . . . just a thought . . .

Has anyone attended a NOM rally with Grindr running? I don't know how pinpoint accurate it is (never even seen it and don't wish to), but I think it'd be interesting to track if any NOM supporters (or employees!) have it running.

>:-D
143. MKandefer | August 2, 2010 at 12:08 pm

BB paraphrased,

"I'm committed to reason."

and later:

"I haven't spent much time thinking about the implications of what I'm fighting for."
144. Sagesse | August 2, 2010 at 12:34 pm

Oh now that is devious. Not that they're anything wrong with that.
145. Kathleen | August 2, 2010 at 12:47 pm

I've heard there are some issues as to how accurate the distances are – something to do with whether it's reading off GPS vs cell phone towers? (don't know the specifics). But hell, I'm sure we could start rumors and, frankly, wild conjecture on our part would certainly be as reliable as most of the 'facts' that NOM spouts.
146. JonT | August 2, 2010 at 1:15 pm

Hehe, here's a 'test' of that by my one of my favorite bloggers, JMG:
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/06/zomg-gay-men…

Seems there's a lot of grinding at the Family Research Council!
147. Kathleen | August 2, 2010 at 1:25 pm

I remember that post. (I'm a j.m.g fan, too)
148. Sheryl | August 2, 2010 at 1:37 pm

Hey, Dave P. we are neighbors. I live in Concord. Nice to meet you.
149. Sheryl | August 2, 2010 at 1:53 pm

“I haven’t spent much time thinking about the implications of what I’m fighting for.”

Now that got me. How do you find yourself fighting for something without thinking about the implications. You just say, "hey, that sounds good let me join the cause."

So, if he hasn't spent much time thinking about the implications, how does he even know what he is fighting for?

Having a really difficult time with that one.
150. Richard A. Walter (s | August 2, 2010 at 1:56 pm

He is probably just buying the Knights of Columbus party line on this one. I do know that most Knights feel obligated to do something simply because the Council wants it, because Supreme Knight Carl Anderson says it, or because Pope Benedict wants it done. There is a very subtle arm twist that goes on in the RC and in the organizations that are part of the RC.
151. Anonygrl | August 2, 2010 at 2:56 pm

Last night on the NOM bus… part two.

Brian: (on the phone) No, I can't get him to listen to me. YOU talk to him. (He pushes the phone toward Louis, who refuses to take it. They glare at each other. Finally, Louis takes the phone. We hear Maggie's voice on the other end)

Maggie's voice: Louis?

Louis: I am not going to restrict my blog again. No one at all read it when I did!

Maggie's voice: Yes, but Louis… remember… helping us out? Remember how this is not doing it?

Louis: But I keep telling them I don't speak for NOM, just myself.

Maggie's voice: You drive our bus. You have been very visible at every stop. YOU were the one who suggested we TAKE this trip.

Louis: So?

Maggie's voice: So you have got to stop saying such crazy things! They are picking you to pieces about every word you publish! Saying those two women aren't married? They do have a marriage license, we KNOW that. We are just trying to get things turned around so we can make that license invalid! But you can't deny they HAVE one. And claiming gay NJ Governor Jim McGreevy's failed marriage to his wife is proof that we stand for marriage equality? You have got to stop saying such off the wall wacky stuff!!

Louis: (getting more and more agitated) ME? Oh COME ON! Tamara Scott told our supporters today that gays are hip and cool and they drive Toyotas with bad brakes and eat contaminated peanut butter! She then blamed the national debt on the breakup of gay marriages, and gay marriage isn't even LEGAL in most of the country! For gay marriage to wrack up such a huge debt, each gay divorce would have to cost the taxpayers 73 billion dollars!!!

Maggie's voice: Stop exaggerating Louis. You KNOW you can't count… it would only be… (we hear calculator keys clicking).. oh. Wait. (she sighs) You are right.

Fade to black.
152. Michael | August 2, 2010 at 4:59 pm

Radical anti-gay activist Brown is not only a liar, but a coward as well. As the Hate Tour goes on, he's looking more and more foolish.
153. Straight Grandmother | August 2, 2010 at 5:08 pm

Chrys, Arghhhhhh…. Well you could do like what happened in Indiana, just start a facebook page for the counter protest event and then go and invite people to the event. You as an individual person could do that. It worked in Indianna, two individual people just put up an event in Facebook sent out invitations to lots of GLBT organizations and people turned up, in force. If I remember right I think NOM was out numbered over double their number of attendees.
154. Felyx | August 2, 2010 at 5:09 pm

@Sheryl

If you would just put as much thought into understanding this as BS has you would not be having such a difficult time. Now would you?… No, clearly not!

Love,
Felyx ;`P
155. Sagesse | August 2, 2010 at 9:58 pm

Makes you wonder abut Maggie and Brian's parenting skills. Tee hee.
156. Zoe Brain | August 2, 2010 at 11:30 pm

They consider such things fictions invented by Evil-Utionists. Or quite possibly signs that those so afflicted are not human, but spawn of demons.

No, I'm not joking. I am Intersexed though, so know whereof I speak.
157. Alan E. | August 3, 2010 at 1:04 am

Albany, CA here!
158. Ann S. | August 3, 2010 at 1:06 am

Corte Madera, CA, checking in.
159. MJFargo | August 3, 2010 at 1:29 am

Yes, he is saying that the U.S. should be subordinate to the Roman Catholic faith and/or the Mormon faith and/or any faith that condemns homosexuality. It's been their game from the beginning.
160. MJFargo | August 3, 2010 at 1:35 am

Please develop a screenplay on this project…please.
161. anonygrl | August 3, 2010 at 2:19 am

I could do that…

And, I bet, to save the producers some money, we could buy the bus off of Brian at the end of the tour for a discount.
162. Richard A. Walter (s | August 3, 2010 at 2:41 am

Let me know when you have the casting calls. I have plenty of experience portraying straight guys.
163. Felyx | August 3, 2010 at 3:19 am

Richard, sorry to inform you, but there will be no roles for straight acting guys in the production… all the guys in the production will have to be true to life and appear very very gay!
164. Al | August 3, 2010 at 3:42 am

At 2:45, Brian's comment:
"I don't think you can extend marriage to same sex couples because by nature marriage is something, and the thing that marriage is, is the union of a man and women. Once you create something you call same sex marriage that's no longer marriage. The State doesn't create marriage."

There is so much wrong with those 3 sentences. But he did get 1 thing right, "I don't think". He insinuates marriage is created by nature, definitely not the state, is he insinuating that the church is in charge of nature? I guess Brian's group doesn't recognize the state is empowered by the constitution to enable laws as necessary.
165. Jacob | August 3, 2010 at 4:09 am

Rather than asking questions like…

"Do you think that extending the freedom to marry to same-sex couples would make them happy?"

…see if Brian responds to questions like…

"Do you think the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Court case Goodridge v. Department of Public Health made same-sex couples happy?"

I'm still reeling from the fact that he managed to avoid answering every single question in that interview.
166. Richard A. Walter (s | August 3, 2010 at 4:10 am

I also have experience there as well. I can swish as well as RuPaul or Carrie Underwood.
167. Paulie | August 3, 2010 at 6:48 am

Here's where I think there might be more progress in/around these lines of questioning.

Rather than stay "Right to Marry" or "extension" or "inclusion".

Say, if with the separation of church and state, if the state were to "define marriage" in a gender neutral way, would… (a) good thing number one, (b) good thing number two, (c) good thing number three be afforded to same gendered couples.

Likewise, if with the separation of church and state, if the state were to "define marriage" in a gender neutral way, would… (a) bad thing number one, (b) bad thing number two, (c) bad thing number three be afforded to opposite gendered couples.
168. Marek | August 3, 2010 at 6:51 am

Apricot: I so totally agree, I had exactly the same feeling.

If Brian feels tricked by the language of the question itself (and however weird is his thinking – he can feel this way, an interviewer has to listen to what he is trying to say) , the proper solution would be to rephrase the question to ask about the merit.

So the proper reaction should have been to right away explicitly say that you understand the point and that you will reformulate the question to respect this: "OK, I see; so: independent of how we would call these laws, there are laws introduced like this in Mass, right?; what I'm trying to ask is: do you agree with a statement that such laws increase well being of gay couples and their children?". This would have totally avoided Brian's objections about calling "these laws" marriages.

I understand that Arisha did try to do something like this with her questions about civil unions, but it was a bit too late (from the interview-dynamics point of view) to get any sensible answer and it drifted towards civil union vs. marriage discussion, which was not the intention.

Pity. These are good questions and I would like to hear one day Brian's answers.
169. Colin | August 3, 2010 at 2:11 pm

Arisha,
- that question does not have to be posed in the hypothetical. Since there are same sex couples currently legally married, why not ask if he thinks their lives have been improved in the ways mentioned. Not hypothetically, but actually.
- Yes, it is very hard for an academic to say marriage is a union that can ONLY be forged between a man and a woman. It is even harder when under oath….this is because they do not have legitimate facts to support their claims. If they are in an arena where their professional reputation is on the line, using all of the same fallacious appeals to tradition and fear would harm their academic crediblity, whereas they can get away with it when "preaching to their choir", so to speak.
- did he really say it wouldn't be realistic to make divorce illegal. That was a "traditionally" definitive feature of marriage as viewed through the Catholic church. Just one more way in which marriage has changed over the years, but don't tell BB.
170. Sheryl | August 3, 2010 at 5:46 pm

You know, Felix, you have a point there. I should not think so much, just let those who "know better than me" do my thinking for me.

Isn't that kind of like when the Bible was only in Latin and only priests could tell you what it said? Thanks to Martin Luther (hoping I recall my history correctly), we can all read the Bible, if we want, and know for ourselves what it really says, not what someone else tells us it says.

Richard, as for the Knights of Columbus doing something because they are told to, that very much happens in the Mormon Church. While we are told to study and learn for ourselves (i.e, think, ponder, and pray) about things we question or are told, we've also been told that if the Prophet leads us astray we will not be held accountable. I think that is where so many Mormons are on the issue of marriage equality for all, they won't be held accountable if the Prophet is wrong. Personally, I have to look at myself in the mirror and deal with my conscience.
171. Felyx | August 3, 2010 at 5:52 pm

Yes Sheryl, now you understand! Just let the Catholic Church do the thinking for you… that is what BS Brown does!

And as for Martin Luther, the Catholic Church does not approve!

Felyx – Tongue in Cheek! (But not saying whose tongue in whose cheek! )
172. Felyx | August 3, 2010 at 6:10 pm

@Richard,

Well then…

Just make sure you wear a 'plus-sized' body suit to the casting call. I have seen you… you are way too skinny to play either of them! (I could play Louis though… I am good at whining and can't get dates with girls!)

Felyx – Sometimes plus-sized but always proud!

(Actually, due to all the medical attention I probably will never be 'plus-sized' again. Such is life!)
173. Morgan | August 4, 2010 at 2:16 am

Arisha,

Stop interrupting him even though he is an ass. And you are sometimes rude. Please be more professional in your questioning. An interview is not a one-sided affair. It takes two people to have an interview.
174. Frank J | August 5, 2010 at 2:27 am

I'm frustrated by this interview because each time he denied to answer, his objection could have been subverted by a small change in the wording of the question. Instead of saying "if the benefits of marriage were extended to same sex couples…", say "if the legal process extended the same legal rights as marriage and called it 'marriage' for same sex couples, even though you would not accept this as marriage in the biblical sense and would not believe these coupes are truly married in your eyes, …". His basic refusal is based on his belief that passing laws can not redefine "marriage" which, in his view can only be defined by his god. So he concludes that he cannot answer the question since redefining "true marriage" is an impossibility. But he can't deny that our legal system can extend benefits and call it anything the legal system decides to call it, whether he agrees with it or not. Please try this in a future interview so he can't so easily sidestep the questions.

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!

Equality On Trial

Login

Quick Hits

Recent Comments