Wednesday, August 22, 2012

NOM's Brian Brown becomes accidental ally for marriage equality through a slip of the tongue

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, didn't mean for it to happen.

He probably didn't think it would happen when he agreed to debate noted gay activist Dan Savage.

And he probably isn't aware that it did happen, but he will soon be.

Through a statement he made in the debate - held in Savage's home - Brown has become an "accidental ally" for the cause of marriage equality.

During the debate (starting at 47:40) the moderator pointedly asked Brown if he was in favor of making divorce illegal.

Brown said the following:

"Because you believe something is wrong doesn't mean you make it illegal"

Savage, aware of Brown's faux pas, immediately asked him why doesn't he think the same way regarding marriage equality. Brown's answer was poor:

"Gay marriage cannot exist. There cannot be a marriage between two men or two women."

Brown then went into a bizarre tangent about cats and dogs.

But those who viewed the debate - supporting and opposing marriage equality - noted just how big the mistake Brown made by his statement.

Jeremy Hooper from the blog Goodasyou created the following:

And the Facebook page, I bet this turkey can get more fans than NOM, created the following graphic:

Who would have thought that from a quick slip of the tongue, Brown undermines the entire argument for passing laws against gay marriage and becomes the gay community's unwitting ally in the cause for marriage equality.

How quick will it be before he and NOM scramble to correct the public image damage of this one?

Bookmark and Share


StarLiteDreamer said...

Love it. When I watched I was just in awe that he said that. It made me giggle for 5 minutes.

David said...

You know you don't have any rational arguments left when you say inane things like, "You can call a cat a dog, but it's never going to be one.". That comes directly out of the I'M AN IGNORANT MORON PLAYBOOK of Rick Santorum, who argued that gay couples can't get married because napkins can't be paper towels. Yeah, Brian... you're THAT stupid.

Anonymous said...

Ruth institute also said marriages not based on Bible.

NOM Comments said...

Oh Brian. Just think of where we'd be if famous people in history had his attitude.

"The United States of America cannot exist, we are colonies of Great Britain" ~ Circa 1776

"Protestantism cannot exist, Christianity is dictated by the Pope" ~ Circa 1517

"The square root of negative one cannot exist, it is imaginary!" ~ Circa math nerds

Capote said...

What a disaster....for NOM. Between this and their "money and transparency problems", I personally don't see exactly how they will be able to maintain any credibility at this point. Just in time for the fight in my state of Washington. Hoping we can break the cycle come November.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone seen the NOM version to see if they edited stuff out?


James Savik said...

Don't expect consistency or logic out of this particular clown college.

Anonymous said...

at about 32:25 Brian says "looking at the breast" instead of best. Freudian slip maybe? They say WE are the ones who are overly sexual, but clearly Mr.Christianity has breasts on the brain.

Anonymous said...

It really was an embarrassing moment for Brian Brown. I'm glad it's being circulated!

Jerry said...

What strikes me the most, is that Dan presented his point and was respectful to Brian's point. But Brian, in expressing his point, made such points by saying Dan was wrong in his interpretations. This is exactly the point of all of this. Just because he says Dan was wrong does not make it so. What is wrong is basing your sides opinion on how wrong the other is, and not on the points which justify your own side. I can't see how Brian made any solid new justifications. "If we do this, I'll be called a bigot." That's your point???

Take this entire video, remove same-sex marriage and add interracial marriage and we can move this video back to 1967, absolutely no differences. It was wrong then, now we are not even arguing about interracial relationships. Same will happen with same sex marriage.

Matthew Moulder said...

Dan said that polygamy was in the old testament and then Brian said, that it was part of the old testament and that by the new testament polygamy was gone. He then says that Dan's history is wrong because since it's not in the new testament that the whole bible doesn't accept polygamy. The old testament does, but the new testament doesn't. The old testament said the things about gays, but the new testament didn't. Brian's history is wrong because by the new testament the stuff about gays was gone. Dan's entire argument is that we need to get rid of things from the old testament just like that.

Anonymous said...


I would not consider this a "slip of the tongue" and I think that is a bad way to play this.

To me, a "slip of the tongue" means that I said something that I didn't mean or that came out wrong.

I don't think that is the case here. He believes what he said. He just fails to apply the same rationale to any thought that is contrary to his own little world.

Anonymous said...

My cats are super gay. Seriously. They prefer the same gender. Don't bring animals into this, they are on our side.