Brian Brown | Gay Marriage | News | NOM | Thomas Roberts

Thomas Roberts Hammers Brian Brown Over NOM's Marriage Pledge, Which Pawlenty is Now Signing: VIDEO

Roberts

Thomas Roberts asks NOM's Brian Brown why there is nothing in NOM's marriage pledge, signed by Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and now, Tim Pawlenty, to prevent divorce?

Roberts also asks Brown why he thinks gay and lesbian people deserve less rights than he does.

John Lewis of Marriage Equality USA also joins Roberts to discuss NOM's anti-gay pledge and the growing support for marriage equality.

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

(thanks to dave evans for the clip!)

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Is that a herpe on his lip? Seems appropriate, since this man is a herpe on the face of humanity.

    Posted by: kjpnyc | Aug 5, 2011 1:22:28 PM


  2. I always get sick to my stomach watching these segments with NOM. It must be difficult sometimes for Thomas Roberts as well, but am so glad he doesn't shy away from them.
    @kjpnyc: I thought the same thing about the sore on his lip lol!

    Posted by: Geoff M | Aug 5, 2011 1:36:12 PM


  3. TB asked a good question about divorces, but "naturally" BB jumped over it and went back to gays. He is also so illogical.

    Posted by: Matt26 | Aug 5, 2011 1:38:40 PM


  4. ^ And what's the deal with this John Lewis guy? Is he missing teeth?

    Posted by: Oliver | Aug 5, 2011 1:40:32 PM


  5. Maggie and Brian need to get married so they can create children. Hideous, Hideous children.

    Posted by: Lance | Aug 5, 2011 1:40:33 PM


  6. Since I thought Roberts' point at the end, where he states that black suffrage, desegregation and interracial marriage would never have been passed by a popular vote, was a good one, but all Brian Brown could do was bluster that same sex marriage was a totally different issue, apples and oranges, etc. I really want to hear WHY he thinks it's a different issue. I don't think any of his points would hold up and in a court of law, he'd be laughed out of court. (Notice that none of the bloviating blowhards for NOM or FOTF participated in the Prop 8 trial. They KNOW their testimony wouldn't stand up under cross examination.)

    Brian Brown brings out the worst response in me. I think he's either seriously misguided or seriously evil, or both.

    Posted by: Abel | Aug 5, 2011 1:45:28 PM


  7. Brian's arguments just can't grow, they only seem to get more narrow and more frightened. He keeps spouting things that have no basis in reality and then when something is tossed in his face, he either ignores it or says it has no bearing. Hey Brian, yes it does. You can say a pig isn't a pig but it's a pig. You can call a dog a cat but that doesn't make it so.

    And btw, nice herpes sore, Brian.

    Posted by: Bart | Aug 5, 2011 1:50:14 PM


  8. Brown continues to display an uncommon amount of ignorance. The definition of marriage is two loving people joined together to enrich their lives and the lives of their children, natural or adopted.

    Posted by: MichaelD | Aug 5, 2011 2:02:33 PM


  9. I like that Tom Roberts...

    Posted by: just_a_guy | Aug 5, 2011 2:11:41 PM


  10. I know that this is important to expose their hipocrasy and such on the marriage issue, but that's not the only thing Bachmann and company are guilty of. The Bachmann's recieve gov't subsidies for both of the businesses (I beileve they get farm subsidies in addition to tax breaks or something for the gay reparative clinic). Also Bachmann recieved money for a home loan from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac weeks before trying to abolish both institutions. I could go on, but I digress (And I really could go on, I just read an extremely long article concerning Santorums' dirty deeds yesterday). Why is the MSM trying to continue this discussion on marriage like both sides have a valid point?

    Posted by: Lazlo | Aug 5, 2011 2:49:45 PM


  11. Marriage equality is inevitable. Brown's on the wrong side of history.

    Posted by: Ishaq | Aug 5, 2011 2:49:59 PM


  12. Not to nitpick, but it's "fewer" rights, not "less" rights. And those aisles at Walmart saying "10 items or less"? They're wrong, too.

    Posted by: Sancho | Aug 5, 2011 2:52:24 PM


  13. Along the same avenue as preventing divorce, why has there been no legislation even proposed, much less enacted, to prohibit pre-nups?

    If you are for marriage, ergo you are against divorce, ergo there is no need for pre-nups.

    Can't you just feel the rich folks squirm?

    Posted by: Esther Blodgett | Aug 5, 2011 2:52:46 PM


  14. What I constantly hear from these NOM defenders is "consequences". When they say this what are they referring to? It sounds like a vague threat. But what is the threat? Also what person would vote for any presidential hopeful that signs pledges full of definitive statements that they can never fulfill?

    Posted by: Dogstar74 | Aug 5, 2011 2:54:27 PM


  15. I love Thomas Roberts, and I'm so glad to see a journalist challenging the nonsense arguments instead of just letting them be stated.
    Every time someone like Brian Brown makes a specific statement about "studies" or specific cases, it takes about 2 minutes of research to prove that he's not telling the truth.
    Brown stated that Jonathan Turley is challenging the Utah law on polygamy using "the exact same arguments" used for same-sex marriage.
    Well, my BS-meter went off, because clearly the way that sex discrimination can be eliminated (without changing a single specific right, responsibility or calculation used in regard to any other couple) are not in any way applicable to polygamous relationships.
    So I looked on Johnathan Turley's blog, and immediately found this:

    "“We believe that this case represents the strongest factual and legal basis for a challenge to the criminalization of polygamy ever filed in the federal courts. We are not demanding the recognition of polygamous marriage. We are only challenging the right of the state to prosecute people for their private relations and demanding equal treatment with other citizens in living their lives according to their own beliefs. "

    Since Maggie Gallagher, Brown and their ilk tend to talk in memorized soundbites using buzzwords developed by their handlers (haven't I heard Maggie Gallagher saying exactly some of the sentences he used, word for word?) we can count on their bringing up this false equivalency about the Utah polygamy case again and again.
    I would love to see that quote posted on the screen as soon as Brown or Gallagher tell this lie again.

    Posted by: GregV | Aug 5, 2011 2:55:08 PM


  16. Why can't they call it what it is? It's not "anti-same-sex-marriage". It's anti ANY rights for gay couples.

    Posted by: BobN | Aug 5, 2011 3:25:33 PM


  17. Its funny that Brown has Herpes Simplex on his face-- remember John Book 7, Verse 6 Brian -- "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

    Brian -- if you were in a monogamous heterosexual relationship you would have never got Herpes -- you are a hypocrite and a laughinstock. Also, stress seems to be getting to you fatboy -- you have certainly put on a lot of weight!

    Posted by: Kurt | Aug 5, 2011 3:26:57 PM


  18. Makes me laugh to hear him say that Catholic Business'e were forced to close. You play by the rules or you choose to close your doors. Saying you are forced to do so is beyond dishonest and they know it which makes the rest of their lies believable to themselves and the rest of the herd I guess. Nothing that comes out of their mouth is honest making the whole religious group look like spoiled children.

    Posted by: Michael | Aug 5, 2011 4:26:01 PM


  19. I read the first line of this pledge written by NOM. It starts with "I _________ promise to the American people ......"

    I wonder if it's even legal for NOM to do this: use the name of the American people to extract a blanket pledge from candidates for office. The folks at NOM should get a grip on who they really represent. Not the whole of the American people. Just a tiny fraction of the people, mostly old white people who are angry that the young generation hasn't blindly embraced homophobia the way they did when they were young.

    As for the pledge itself, I am not a lawyer so somebody please explain to me, what is its effect exactly? What does it really mean when Romney signs a pledge written by a private party? If the president violates the Constitution, he can be impeached. Can he be impeached for violating a private pledge? What recourse for remedy does NOM or anyone else have against the president in that case?

    My guess is NOM's pledge isn't worth the paper it's printed on. It's not a legally binding document. The US constitution takes precedence. NOM's pledge is really a statement by a private organization with a specific goal. It has no legal power. Why should anyone care?

    Posted by: Mark | Aug 5, 2011 5:29:39 PM


  20. I wish Thomas Roberts would hammer me... too soon?

    Posted by: Harrison | Aug 5, 2011 6:31:31 PM


  21. NOM has nothing. They have no defense, no statistics to back up their lunacy, and all Brian Brown wants to do is keep his job. Sorry, Pigs.

    Posted by: Hollywood, CA | Aug 5, 2011 7:01:25 PM


  22. Anyone noticed the nervous eye twitching from Brown starting at 4:40 - lol

    Posted by: samsara | Aug 5, 2011 10:36:18 PM


  23. Tom Roberts is great to maintain his patience and composure with a loser like Brown spouting his nonsense that would deny Tom and his partner equal righs when brown will never be anywhere near the man Tom Roberts is.
    I really liked Roberts question on divorce, why isn't NOM pushing for a constitutional amendment to ban divorce ? that would be the simplest way to defend the "sanctity of marriage"

    Posted by: Nyrkr | Aug 5, 2011 11:25:31 PM


  24. See, the people of NOM are all argumentative and interruption listeners. they will only listen to enough to fuel their own arguments. See how Brian Brown tries and talk over the other two because he's trying so hard to convert them. Then you ask them a homosexuals were raised heteros and they completely change up the subject. There is no convincing these narrow-minded people.

    Posted by: nhiaphengthao | Aug 6, 2011 2:44:25 AM


  25. These hateful, in-bred, mouth-breathing, knuckle-draggers will Never see the Truth...that Not One Single Gay marriage has ANY affect on any Straight marriage.
    I shut my straight, Religious, Republican cousin up about this nonsense when I told him that 98% of the evil and problems in the world are Caused By Straight People.
    There is No Comeback for That Fact!

    ^^X^^

    Posted by: Bruce Wayne | Aug 6, 2011 3:54:28 AM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Soldiers Lip Dub Glee's 'Don't Stop Believin': VIDEO« «