Donna Pandori

NOM's answer to "ban gay marriage" talking points: Chatty Cathy

Filed By Donna Pandori | November 17, 2009 3:30 PM | comments

Filed in: Fundie Watch, Living, Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: Brian Brown, DC gay marriage, DC marriage equality, National Organization for Marriage, NOM, same-sex marriage

It's difficult to make it through an entire video clip of NOM's executive director Brian Brown anymore but when I can I get a horrible déjà vu of Chatty Cathy. Somebody PLEASE stop pulling that string!

Mr. Brown's "ban same sex marriage" talking points are so repetitive Chatty Cathy would actually be more entertaining to listen to.

This next DC Channel 8 News interview with Mr. Brown illustrates my point.

Brian Brown interview with DC Channel 8 News

Did you count how many times Brian used the phase bigot to play the victim card? Six. How many times did Brian shift the focus back to "redefining marriage" and "marriage between a man and a woman"? I lost track.

Brian tells us why this strategy works on NOM's website

Language to avoid at all costs: "Ban same-sex marriage". Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don't use it. Say we're against "redefining marriage" or in favor or "marriage as the union of husband and wife" NEVER "banning same-sex marriage."

Legal scholars state extending the civil right of marriage to gays and lesbians will NOT impact small businesses and religious organizations as long as "religious accommodations" are provided. Brian doesn't seem to care though and this next exchange between Brian Brown and David Shuster, MSNBC, is by far the best take-down I've seen of his "arguments"

Note how Brian kept trying to bring the focus back to "redefining marriage"? The fact of the matter is Brian Brown wants to "ban same-sex marriage" period. He knows there is no legitimate reason for denying gays and lesbians the civil right of marriage so he has to make up reasons which he knows will play on people's fears. He does this by demonizing gays and lesbians; if we allow gays and lesbians to marry they'll recruit our children. Here's my response to that fear tactic.

One has to wonder why Brian is so passionate about keeping same-sex couples from marrying. Is Brian Brown a bigot? Perhaps this will be the topic of my next post. Stay tuned.


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Regan DuCasse | November 17, 2009 5:16 PM

I get NOM's e-newsletter and I've been reading and listening to BB and Maggie G for a long, long time.
It bears saying that the issues BB has brought up were NOT TRENDS, but literally a matter of a few where a church, with a PIECE of property open to the public, suddenly got religion when a lesbian couple tried to use it.

The list does not 'go on and on' because BB and his ilk, keeping repeating over and over again, the SAME few incidents.

I'd have to ask BB, how is a gay couple supposed to know when they can't be accommodated in a public place because of someone's religion?
Why are heterosexuals who meet the same criteria not also excluded?

Unless businesses that have public accommodations have a LIST posted at their doors on who they'll serve and who they won't, and do so without exempting ONLY gay people, I think we all know what would happen.

It would recall those days of 'white only' 'colored only', wouldn't it?

But no one wants to say that it's not a gay person's fault that they can't know what religion a person has if it's not a church they are entering.
And even then, a church can post a sign (free speech protection) that also has signage in the regard I just mentioned.

We know that BB makes people carry big shovels to dig through all his bullshit.

As for redefinition, marriage has withstood redefinition before.
But him trying to say it's redefinition in a BAD way, well he's not honest about that either.

I think discussing that our nation, society and many faith communities have respected a person right to live without discrimination if they do something that offends their religion in some way. Because being religious or not, IS essentially a choice.
That's why bans have been lifted on autopsy, organ and blood donation, contraception and dancing.
All kinds of faiths are offended by this and it's members cannot engage these (even it these are basically new things not mentioned in any religious texts).

But they also are not demanding the government discriminate because others want it or who do it.
And we've recently witnessed some of the worse systems of government and social bigotry be supported by people of faith.
Which is the main reason why there should be more than caution in letting anyone get away with it.
BB is deceitful, above all things. By omission or gravitas, he is very deceitful.
I just wish most people wouldn't allow him to hit their fear button, even against their better instincts towards logic.

Brown is probably a member of Opus Dei. He even belongs to the same church that Robert Hanssen belonged to. That explains some of the religious zealotry.

The truth is fairly simple. He virulently opposes marriage equality because it serves as an official affirmation that homosexuality is acceptable. Brown sees himself as a Knight Templar.

Brown is a bigot. He has expressed his outrage to me personally (and Tips-Q) in his email rants for calling him a bigot. My response was that, if he wants not to be called a bigot then he should stop acting like a bigot. After his head exploded, that unleashed another torrent of hyperbole.

Well, he's definitely NOT My Buddy...