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?

Writer upset after having to answer for defense of anti-gay hate group

Dana Milbank is not a happy camper.

A week after the defending the Family Research Council from the claim (from the Southern Poverty Law Center) that it is a hate group, he sat down with Michelangelo Signorile to discuss his piece.

In a spirited interview, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank defended his stance that the antigay Family Research Council should not be listed as a “hate group” by the venerated civil rights group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, because they wear suits and “don’t wear white sheets,” and some of their founders and officials are “respected” individuals. 

Milbank was invited on my SiriusXM show to discuss the column he wrote last week which has generated much controversy on social media. In the comments section on the Washington Post’s web site and on Twitter and Facebook, many criticized Milbank’s defense of the FRC as a “Washington think tank” which thus shouldn’t be called a hate group, and his calling the Human Rights Campaign and the SPLC “reckless” for terming the FRC a hate group. The controversy reached a point where Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Jonathan Diehl sent a tweet out defending Milbank, but that only inflamed the controversy as Dielhl referred to "idiotic' emails he had received on the topic.

Apparently Signorile took Milbank to task big time because the columnist complained later to The Advocate magazine. According to Signorile:

After the interview, Milbank told The Advocate that the interview was “an ambush and unfair,” and made the same comment in a email he sent to another SiriusXM host which he cc’d me. That is patently untrue: Milbank was not asked to come on the show under any false pretenses. He was invited on the show to discuss the controversial column he’d written, and he accepted the invitation.

What do you think? Did Signorile ambush Milbank or is Milbank being too sensitive?

Check out the interview here and then tell me what you think.

Editor's note - Personally speaking, what I think of Milbank's piece and then his appearance on Signorile's show can't be repeated because I am trying not to "lose my religion."

'Dan Savage vs. NOM's Brian Brown - the debate' and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Finally, the debate we all have been waiting for. Dan Savage vs. NOM's Brian Brown. If you have time,
check it out:

 

In other news:

Two columns taking those to task those who minimize the Family Research Council's hate group status:

 Calling out hate when we see it 

  Op-ed: Violence Makes It Harder to Sort the Good from the Hateful

 While I despise the circumstances which led to this discussion (i.e. last week's shooting), I think it is good that we are having a discussion because finally, the ways the Family Research Council demonizes the gay community is seeing some mainstream light.

 In further news:

Barber: Polygamy and Incest are 'Inevitable' if Gay Marriage is Legalized - But if you look in the Bible, polygamy and incest came BEFORE gay marriage.

Some people think that same-sex families don't matter

The problem that some people have with marriage equality is probably because assumptions they make as to why gay folks want to get married.

And leave it to organizations like the National Organization for Marriage to exploit those assumptions like in the following:

According to NOM:

A lay Catholic in California put together a graphic showing why debating marriage can be "fraught with peril" -- it also underscores how central to society the meaning and definition of marriage is.

First of all, what's wrong with debating marriage?  Most importantly, however, the creator of this chart is making many unfair assumptions as to why gays want to get married? He/she makes it seem that gay couples have no idea of commitment or loyalty to each other and that we view marriage as a toy for something like sexual gratification.

It's a huge contradiction to reality. Gays and lesbians wouldn't be fighting so hard for the right to marry if we viewed it as a hedonistic thrill.

And then there is the subject of same-sex families:

The saddest thing about the way some folks attempt to demonize marriage equality is how they deliberately omit any discussions of these families.

It's as if they don't want these families to exist. Or think that these families are so irrelevant that they don't deserve a mention.