Signorile Talks to National Organization for Marriage's Brian Brown
Yesterday, Michelangelo Signorile talked to National Organization for Marriage executive director Brian Brown about ballot measures and interracial marriage, the group's tax returns and allegations of money-funneling, and NOM's religious agenda.
Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...
Listen to Signorile's full interview with Brown at his blog.
Posted Sep. 3,2009 at 9:33 AM EST by Andy Towle in Brian Brown, Gay Marriage, Michelangelo Signorile, News | Permalink
Dayum. The Sig took Brown down and he got owned!
Posted by: Christopher | Sep 3, 2009 10:12:53 AM
Arguing with a bigot is like arguing with a dining room table...
Posted by: Ambrose | Sep 3, 2009 11:26:38 AM
That was one of his worst interviews ever. He comes across like a hysterical queen with the way he cuts people off when they don't agree with his position, and Mr Brown never lost his cool, even when Mike kept cutting him off. Between the way he twists words and changes questions, it's frustrating to listen to.
He needs to take a page from Rachel Maddow's book and learn how to properly take down an opponent. Her talk with Tom Ridge was a flawless example of how to do it. This is why his interviews are posted online turning his guests into martyrs.
Posted by: DR | Sep 3, 2009 11:45:27 AM
DR, I disagree with you. I'm not a huge fan of Signorile but I think he handled this well. Mr. Brown continued to dodge the question and Signorile held his feet to the fire, continually pointing up the askewed logic that Mr. Brown tried to pass off as sense. He simply couldn't answer the question put before him because Signorile had trapped him into sounding like a bigot if he did. So instead, Mr. Brown opted to appear as the less than artful dodger. The fundemental question whether or not in a democracy that the majority rules will always plague any minority. Thankfully, Mr. Brown doesn't get to make the rules.
Posted by: Bart | Sep 3, 2009 12:32:11 PM
Michelangelo gives way too much airtime to anti-gay bigots. We know anti-gay bigotry is pervasive. Just look at the 30 heterosexual-only marriage constitutional amendments around the country. I wish Michelangelo's show was more pro-gay.
Posted by: Bill | Sep 3, 2009 12:43:48 PM
DR and Bill, I actually disagree with both of you guys. Although I think Michelangelo makes some excellent points, his overall impact is weakened by his constant overtalking. It's the same sort of behavior that has me running for the remote every time I stumble upon Chris Matthews. But DR, calling someone an hysterical queen, besides being patently offensive, only serves to weaken us as a community. And Bill, I think MS could easily have backed him into a corner without relying on the gestapo-like tactics.
Posted by: dijiba | Sep 3, 2009 1:31:40 PM
Ambrose,
OK Barney Frank.
Posted by: Coco | Sep 3, 2009 1:34:05 PM
I heard the interview yesterday in my car and all I can say is how can people not see through the stupidity that is NOM's platform?
First, this guy comes off with the non confrontational, good cop approach. Why? Because he knows their poll numbers will go down if he attacks gays. So they take the non attack approach of protecting the definition of marriage without directly attacking gays.
It's still BS and they are still the enemy!
Then, he says that all of us are entitled to basic human and civil rights, but since not all of us (gays) are allowed to exercise that right apparently marriage isn't in that realm.
So his logic says marriage is not a basic civil or human right. Marriage is such an advanced right it transcends basic human and civil rights. So what category of right is it? It must be one of those supercalifragilisticexpialidocious rights. We know this because the heteros hold marriage in such high regard and sanctify it everyday...uh huh.
And finally he says the will of the people needs to be enacted, but when Signorille asked him if the will of the people was to support marriage for all, would he / NOM stop their battle and he said no. So, it's only OK when their will is the same as the will of the people or read between the lines, they get to impose their will, by whatever means necessary, on the people.
Same result. Different approach. Still the enemy.
Posted by: Beef and Fur | Sep 3, 2009 1:34:29 PM
As usual, Signorile talks right over the top of people he doesnt like. I would have liked to actually hear what Brian Brown said, but all I heard was Signorile telling us his interpretation of what he said. Waste of time.
Posted by: Trace | Sep 3, 2009 1:39:21 PM
I COMPLETELY agree with Dr.
Although I do like Signorile in general, he does come off as a "hysterical queen with the way he cuts people off when they don't agree with his position". He's this close (> <) to annoying the hell out of me, and I'm on his side!
Posted by: Mark | Sep 3, 2009 1:49:47 PM
I absolutely stand by my comment.
Whenever Mike asked a question and didn't like the answer, he would make a subtle shift in the question, shout Brown down, talk over him, or basically say "I'm bored, it's my show, and we're moving on to the next topic".
His rants about turning America into a theocracy were a joke and very much hysterical. The last two interviews he did with religious men had him coming off as poorly prepared, hostile, and bigoted himself. He needs to keep it together like Rachel can. He needs to stop with the personal attacks, and as Brown said, needs to be honest about his agenda in having these people on his show.
He conducted himself very poorly, and I will not support him if this is the way he's going to conduct himself. I don't care if it's divisive (nor do I believe it is, quite frankly); he's not a politician or policy-maker, and even if he were, I'd still criticize him if it were appropriate.
Posted by: DR | Sep 3, 2009 2:35:09 PM
There are arguments on both sides about whether or not marriage is actually a civil right. If it is, it is, and we deserve it as well.
If it isn't... fine, then whatever it is, if law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting heterosexual adults have access to it, so should law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting homosexual adults.
EQUALITY is a civil right, and that's something nobody can deny or argue.
Either way, LGBT marriage equality is a must.
Posted by: Rich | Sep 4, 2009 10:53:04 AM
BEEF AND FUR:
Maybe, “this guy comes off with the non confrontational, good cop approach.”, because he naively hoped to have an intelligent conversation with and intelligent advocate for the opposition. Obviously, he was mistaken.
I refuse to employ the more popular word when referring to the same-sex community, as it is primarily male oriented and tends toward a disregard for the female half of the homosexual community. Or are the females still a subservient, second-class, homosexual? Misapplication of the more popular word also denigrates the 1890’s, happy, joyous, and ecstatic all at the same time. Lastly, homosexual is an accurate word that does encompass the L. G. portion of the L. G. B. T. community.
Also, has anyone even considered that it will be only the homosexuals who will see any benefit from it if homosexuals gain a victorious outcome to this current marriage issue? Bi-sexual persons will still be disallowed to marry each of the PERSONS they wish to marry, presumably that would be at least one person of each sex. Oh well! Enjoy the weather and thanks for all the fish!
Just exactly what is equality?
All persons are equal under the law. Well, I will allow that we are all supposed to be, but I dare not commit a real crime and test it.
“So his logic says marriage is not a basic civil or human right. Marriage is such an advanced right it transcends basic human and civil rights.”
So, are you saying that marriage is so transcendent that there should be absolutely no limits? Sounds to me that you are actually calling for the straw man! But, trying to remain realistic, if marriage were a right, and not just a custom of society, there could be very few, mostly only criminally related, limits placed by society upon it.
As a right, one could be concurrently married to as many persons as they chose to. A right is a right! There are some who could outright afford it and many others who could make it seem to work. ( Go for it bi-sexuals. )
As a right, adults of any age could marry children of any age. A right is a right!
As a right, siblings could marry. A right is a right!
As a right, parents and children, or other very close blood relatives, could wed each other. A right is a right!
As a right, children might also be able to wed. That may be arguable, but rights are still rights!
This is not a STRAW MAN argument. RIGHTS ARE RIGHTS!
Perhaps you should really take a good look at the Constitution of the United States of America. There are seven articles and only the fourth comes even close to mentioning anything about our American freedoms and it only mentions privileges and freedoms. The rest is concerned with detailing the operation and limiting the power of the government.
There are twenty-seven Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The first ten, which everyone knows as The Bill of Rights, only include three that actually pertain to the Rights of American Citizens. The First Amendment: speech, clergy, press, and assembly basically. The Second: forget it, the Second Amendment was effectively gutted by the Tenth Amendment. And then there is the Ninth Amendment, which is really open to interpretation. Perhaps it alludes to the basic rights of persons to enjoy Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as mentioned ONLY in the Declaration of Independence.
Of the remaining seventeen Amendments to the Constitution of the United States only four, that is less than one-fourth, mention rights: the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-fourth, and Twenty-sixth. ALL of these Amendments deal with a persons right to vote. The rest basically deal with prohibition, taxes, and detail the operation and limits of our government
What happened to the Fourteenth Amendment? Essentially, for this topic, the Fourteenth Amendment only restates part of the Fourth Article of the original Constitution of the United States and deals with Privileges and Immunities; these are not rights, they are protections from the power of the government.
So PLEASE, BEEF AND FUR, explain to me this “transcendent” right you refer to.
Next, BEEF AND FUR, you tear into the response to the diatribe about the will of the people. Would you really admit defeat even if you knew it was unavoidable? I don’t really think so. (That’s okay. Neither would that Austrian Corporal.) But, the point at the time was also the issue of Loving vs. Virginia and the, supposedly, overwhelming national attitude at the time
I will admit that hindsight is twenty/twenty, but I still need glasses and a little help. But, in 1967, the time at issue, twenty of the fifty American States had either never had or had already repealed any Anti-miscegenation laws almost eighty years previously! Thirteen more had also repealed any anti-miscegenation laws prior to Loving vs. Virginia, and another one repealed its laws at the outset of the case. Only sixteen of the Fifty States, less than one-third of the total, can be claimed as having been directly impacted by the Loving vs. Virginia Court decision. Hardly convincing evidence of an overwhelming, or even a strong, national attitude against intercultural marriage. (I refuse to say “RACE” as I believe we are all human.)
Still, the Loving decision clearly dealt with humans of opposite sex. The Skinner reference, “ ‘basic civil rights of man’ ”, had to do with the applicant trying to avoid forcible, state sanctioned, sterilization. And, it was a direct reference to the applicant’s inborn and natural ability to parent children with persons of the opposite sex, which IS “fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
I really do not care what you say, homosexual couples cannot inherently co-generate children together. Anything else is just an assemblage of pre-existing components or a contrivance.
Regardless of any emotions involved, homosexual couples are analogous to corporations. Formalized homosexual unions are as worthy of special consideration as are any other corporate entities.
RICH:
Hope you are still reading this and not too P/ O.ed
You come across as still open minded. There are arguments on both sides and, I will admit, homosexuals are people who are deserving of love and acceptance. AS ARE ALL PEOPLE AND ALL LIVING THINGS.
But, your equality claim still stops short at L. G. The B. T. are apparently being left out of the general agenda. Bi-sexuals will still not be included. And then there are the trans-gendered. Full blown trans-sexuals I am referring to here, not just those who took the hormones and got some plastic face and the water balloons implanted in their chest but stopped short of the cut and tuck. Some of the trans-gendered can actually pass, sort of, but they aren’t really included either. And I had trouble thinking about those who go the other way.
Actually, I feel much more compassion for the trans-gendered than the rest of you. You just have to accept your lot in life, as do we all, but the trans-gendered are self-compelled to undergo horrific, risky at best, and very expensive, surgical procedures that are not even assured of resulting in a functional, let alone a livable, outcome. Hey, make a law to fix that! GOOD LUCK!
Posted by: dhoward4 | Sep 5, 2009 8:35:20 AM
BEEF AND FUR:
Maybe, “this guy comes off with the non confrontational, good cop approach.”, because he naively hoped to have an intelligent conversation with and intelligent advocate for the opposition. Obviously, he was mistaken.
I refuse to employ the more popular word when referring to the same-sex community, as it is primarily male oriented and tends toward a disregard for the female half of the homosexual community. Or are the females still a subservient, second-class, homosexual? Misapplication of the more popular word also denigrates the 1890’s, happy, joyous, and ecstatic all at the same time. Lastly, homosexual is an accurate word that does encompass the L. G. portion of the L. G. B. T. community.
Also, has anyone even considered that it will be only the homosexuals who will see any benefit from it if homosexuals gain a victorious outcome in this current marriage issue? Bi-sexual persons will still be disallowed to marry each of the PERSONS they wish to marry, presumably that would be at least one person of each sex as they gravitate towards both. Oh well! Enjoy the weather and thanks for all the fish!
Just exactly what is equality?
All persons are equal under the law. Well, I will allow that we are all supposed to be equal, but I dare not commit a real crime and test it.
“So his logic says marriage is not a basic civil or human right. Marriage is such an advanced right it transcends basic human and civil rights.”
So, are you saying that marriage is so transcendent that there should be absolutely no limits? Sounds to me that you are actually calling for the straw man! But, trying to remain realistic, if marriage were a right, and not just a custom of society, there could be very few, mostly only criminally related, limits placed by society upon it.
As a right, one could be concurrently married to as many persons as they chose to. A right is a right! There are some who could outright afford it and many others who could make it seem to work. ( Go for it bi-sexuals. )
As a right, adults of any age could marry children of any age. A right is a right!
As a right, siblings could marry. A right is a right!
As a right, parents and children, or other very close blood relatives, could wed each other. A right is a right!
As a right, children might also be able to wed. That may be arguable, but rights are still rights!
This is not a STRAW MAN argument. RIGHTS ARE RIGHTS!
Perhaps you should really take a good look at the Constitution of the United States of America. There are seven articles and only the fourth comes even close to mentioning anything about our American freedoms and it only mentions privileges and freedoms. The rest are concerned with detailing the operation and limiting the power of the government.
There are twenty-seven Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The first ten, which everyone knows as The Bill of Rights, only include three that actually pertain to the Rights of American Citizens.
The First Amendment deals with the freedoms of speech, the clergy, the press, and public assembly basically.
The Second Amendment: forget it, the Second Amendment was effectively gutted by the Tenth Amendment.
Then there is the Ninth Amendment, which is really open to interpretation. Perhaps it alludes to the basic rights of persons to enjoy Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as mentioned ONLY in the Declaration of Independence.
Of the remaining seventeen Amendments to the Constitution of the United States only four, that is less than one-fourth, mention rights: the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-fourth, and Twenty-sixth. ALL of these Amendments deal with a persons right to vote.
The rest of the Amendments deal with prohibition, taxes, and further detail the operations of and limits to government power.
What happened to the Fourteenth Amendment? Essentially, for this topic, the pertinent part of the Fourteenth Amendment only restates part of the Fourth Article of the original Constitution of the United States and deals with Privileges and Immunities; these are not rights, they are protections from the power of the government.
So PLEASE, BEEF AND FUR, explain to me this “transcendent” right you refer to.
Next, BEEF AND FUR, you tear into the diatribe about the will of the people. Would you really admit defeat even if you knew it was unavoidable? I don’t really think so. (That’s okay. Neither would that Austrian Corporal.) But, the point at the time of the interview was also the issue of Loving vs. Virginia and the, supposedly overwhelming national attitude at the time
I will admit that hindsight is twenty/twenty, but I still need glasses and a little help. But, in 1967, the time at issue, twenty of the fifty American States had either never had or had already repealed any Anti-miscegenation laws almost eighty years previously! Thirteen more had also repealed any anti-miscegenation laws prior to the beginning of Loving vs. Virginia, and another one repealed its laws at the outset of the case. Only sixteen of the Fifty States, less than one-third of the total, can be claimed as having been directly impacted by the Loving vs. Virginia Court decision. Hardly convincing evidence of an overwhelming, or even a strong, national attitude against intercultural marriage. (I refuse to say “RACE” as I believe we are all human.)
Still, the Loving decision clearly dealt with humans of opposite sex. The Skinner reference, “ ‘basic civil rights of man’ ”, had to do with the applicant trying to avoid forcible, state sanctioned, sterilization. And, it was a direct reference to the applicant’s inborn and natural ability to parent children with persons of the opposite sex, which IS “fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
I really do not care what you say, homosexual couples cannot inherently co-generate children together. Anything else is just an assemblage of pre-existing components or a contrivance.
Regardless of any emotions involved, homosexual couples are analogous to corporations. Formalized homosexual unions are as worthy of special consideration as are any other corporate entities.
RICH:
Hope you are still reading this and not too P/ O.ed
You come across as still open minded. There are arguments on both sides and, I will admit, homosexuals are people who are deserving of love and acceptance. AS ARE ALL PEOPLE AND ALL LIVING THINGS.
But, your equality claim still stops short at L. G. The B. T. are apparently being left out of the general agenda. Bi-sexuals will still not be included. And then there are the trans-gendered. Full blown trans-sexuals I am referring to here, not just those who took the hormones and got some plastic face and the water balloons implanted in their chest but stopped short of the cut and tuck. Some of the trans-gendered can actually pass, sort of, but they aren’t really included either. And I had trouble thinking about those who went the other way.
Actually, I feel much more compassion for the trans-gendered than the rest of you. You just have to accept your lot in life, as do we all, but the trans-gendered are self-compelled to undergo horrific, risky at best, and very expensive, surgical procedures that are not even assured of resulting in a functional, let alone a livable, outcome. Hey, make a law to fix that! GOOD LUCK!
Posted by: dhoward4 | Sep 5, 2009 9:15:20 AM
hello
Posted by: dhoward4 | Sep 5, 2009 9:25:09 AM