Bil Browning

Interview with NOM's Brian Brown

Filed By Bil Browning | August 03, 2010 11:30 AM | comments

Filed in: Fundie Watch, Marriage Equality, Media
Tags: Brian Brown, David Blankenhorn, Judge Vaughn Walker, National Organization for Marriage, NOM, NOMTourTracker, Perry v Schwarzenegger, Prop 8

The NOMTourTracker folks caught up with National Organization for Marriage Executive Director Brian Brown and took the opportunity to ask him some questions about his stance on marriage equality. The interviewer asked Brown the same questions Judge Vaughn Walker asked David Blankenhorn, an anti-gay "expert" testifying for the pro-Prop 8 side, during the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial.

You can guess how the interview turned out for Brown. No wonder he's so unhappy to see the NOMTracker folks at the beginning of the video.


Recent Entries Filed under Fundie Watch:

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.


Brown, Gallagher Srivastav and George are all papist bigots whose rhetoric is circular all relating back to their buybull. They have no evidence or facts that would keep marriage equality from happening. Their only tactic is to demonize our community and play on the misplaced fears of stereotypes Americans have come to believe because they are ignorant. Our goal should be to show them as the ignorant fear-mongering bigots that they are in 30 and 60 second commercials placing their agenda squarely in their laps and citing their religious hypocrisy as their only reason for bludgeoning the U.S. Constitution.

The most telling part? At one point he says "I haven't really though about it". That speaks loud and clear to where he's at. He's providing support for this group, showing up at events, speaking on behalf of the organization, but when it comes to the primary topic, he hasn't thought about it. If he did stop, and think about it, just for a moment, he would realize how stupid it is to fight this.

I also love how he's against pushing for a bill to ban divorce. Divorce is the number one reason for the decline of the "sanctity of marriage". If you can just get out of it when it's not longer relevant to you, it's not very sacred any more. Yet he thinks it would be "impractical" to ban divorce. I think more to the point, he's affraid if he pushed for that, most of his bible-thumping followers would vanish, since most like having that parichute as an option while flying in their "holier than thou" marriage plane.

This is the most I have ever listened to him and I am surprised how idiotic he comes across. I am astounded how much time these people get in mainstream media and thought. They are idiots.

How difficult is it to be in academia today and say that marriage is between a man and a woman? He says it's impossible, but I'll tell you it's not too hard. I'm at a pretty liberal school, started by hippies in 1969, and there are plenty of my colleagues who don't go for changing the definition of marriage. And as far as Blankenhorn goes, he's not in academia. He's running his own think tank and has been for quite a while. He's never been in academia.

Ryan McCann | August 5, 2010 11:33 AM

Good for you Brian! Way to stand up for what you believe! We both know that the research shows that Moms AND Dads are important to raising healthy kids. If marriage is redefined so that men can marry men and women can marry women, why not allow a man to marry multiple wives or vise-versa? Why are self-identified GLBT groups so "discriminatory" that they would not also push for "marriage equality" for polygamists or cousins (I'm sure George Michael Bluth would be happy about that...*smile*) or groups of people, etc.?

A small, relatively wealthy, politically well connected special interest group just wants special privileges based on their sexual preferences...that's the answer. The ironic thing is, when same-sex "marriage" is forced on the people by judicial fiat in a state, very few same-sex couples take advantage of it. The goal here is to force social acceptance of a lifestyle, not "equality".

"same-sex "marriage" is forced on the people by judicial fiat in a state"

I'm not sure you noticed page 45, paragraph 3 of Walker's decision, in which he "forced" same-sex marriage, by judicial fiat, on people, but you and me are scheduled for a wedding next week. I think it's only polite that you pay for half of my plane ticket.