Brian Brown Predicts Hate Win In Potential SCOTUS Cases

ScotusWith the Supreme Court ready to announce whether it will hear a case on California's Proposition 8, a ballot measure that revoked marriage equality, as well as other marriage-related lawsuits,  Brian Brown, president of the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage, told radio host Michelangelo Signorile that he thinks SCOTUS will hear the case and rule in his group's favor.

"I’m confident — I’m very confident — that they will take the [Prop 8] case… I don’t think the court is going to find some hidden right to same-sex marriage deeply embedded in our Constitution. So, I think we’re going to win."

He also said he anticipates a win with regard to a case about the third section of the Defense of Marriage Act, a section barring federal recognition of same-sex marriages. "The DOMA cases too, I think we’ll win,” he said. “This needs to be resolved at the federal level.”

Brown's confidence doesn't end there: he thinks equality will be defeated in the four states voting on it this November: Maryland, Maine, Minnesota and Washington State. Finally, Brown told Signorile he thinks that inclusion of marriage equality in the Democratic Party's official platform will become "an absolute disaster for the future of the party," a statement that ignores the increase of equality support that has steadily spread from coast-to-coast.

Just because you say something will happen doesn't mean it will, Mr. Brown, especially when the facts of reality are against you.


  1. kp05 says

    “I don’t think the court is going to find some hidden right to same-sex marriage deeply embedded in our Constitution.”

    Know what’s forbidden per the Constitution, Brian? Granting a right to a minority group and then taking it away without a rational government interest in eliminating such. This Prop 8 case has been going on for years and that bigot still doesn’t understand it.

  2. mike8787 says

    Fortunately, Brown’s graduate degrees in philosophy and history don’t qualify him as a relevant voice on this subject, let alone on Supreme Court behavior. He’s about as qualified to discuss quantum mechanics.

  3. jamal49 says

    They will find a “hidden right” which is actually right out in the open, Brian: The 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause.

    I am a citizen of the U.S. I have a right to marry in a civil contract my partner just as you have that right.

    Keep talking sh*t, Brian. It’s going to be fun to watch you crash and burn and gnash your teeth and rend your clothes.

  4. Chris in Irvine says

    Aaaggh! Why didn’t Michelangelo challenge Brown that if he loses in this prediction he should resign from NOM effective immediately? This Brown guy is so full of s*** that is intolerable to hear him say hateful things just to feed onto people.

  5. Brian says

    I’m probably wrong about this but, doesn’t the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Say a legal contract in one state is a legal contract in all states. Marriage is a contract between two people and the state. Wouldn’t that force a state that bans marriages being performed in their state to recognize a marriage performed in say Vermont. Like I said I’m probably wrong.

  6. Chuck Mielke says

    Really, what else could Brian Brown say? Sounds a bit desperate to me. Ultimately, he’s making an argumentatum ignorantiam: “I don’t see how… (x can happen), therefore it’ll go the way I wish it to go.” Right.

    He obviously hasn’t figured out that things seldom turn out either as good as we hope or as bad as we fear. Be ready for mixed results with both sides claiming ‘victory’ and having to explain some losses.

  7. Stefan says

    Andrew might want to say that “the facts of reality are against” Brown, but I’m not sure what those facts are.

    Sadly, marriage referendums have gone against gays and against equality whenever they’ve come up for a vote–even when polling would have suggested otherwise.

    And, while we have had some wise judges at the federal and state level rule in our favor, this does not necessarily extend to SCOTUS. Equal Protection is not a magic rule that means everyone gets treated exactly the same. It means that when the government takes action, it must act in such a way that it does not treat a group differently based on specific characteristics. But not all “groups” count the same. A law that makes a suspect classification based on race, ancestry, legitimacy, or creed, for example will need to survive strict scrutiny. Such laws rarely survive.

    Sexual orientation, unfortunately, is not a suspect class. A law that treats gays differently would almost definitely fall under rational basis review, and a state would merely need to state a rational interest in why it needs that law for the public’s health, safety, and welfare. That’s a very low standard, and I could easily see Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy, and Alito forming a majority that finds a rational basis.

    Of course, Equal Protection is not the only avenue. And SCOTUS has a few options for avoiding the substance of the issue altogether. As much as Brown disgusts me, I can’t say that his prognostications are any more or less wishful thinking than those of most of the LGBT community.

  8. Joe says

    He’s dead wrong. SCOTUS will rule in favor of equality for all citizens, both wrt Prop 8 and DOMA. In a few short years, organizations such as his will disappear because they will have no more reason to exist. Equality will be the law of the land and the hate groups will be the outcasts. This trend has already begun. Can’t wait until November.

  9. MikeBoston says

    @Brian – You are correct that the Full Faith and Credit clause would mean that a contract – be it sales contract, marriage contract, etc – executed in one state would be binding in other states. It is DOMA that allows states to opt out of the FF&C clause when it applies to marriage. This is why it is critical that DOMA be taken down. Without DOMA, Prop 8 and any individual state decision would be without effect. It would also allow gay men and women legally married anywhere to gain access to the 1100+ federal benefits and obligations that go with the word ‘marriage’.

  10. Mike says

    Not sure why this is even on TR. Obviously he’s going to say this, and obviously he’s going to keep saying it. He isn’t speaking to us, and he isn’t trying to be factually accurate. He’s speaking to his True Believers, so that they will keep the cash rolling in. Even if we win, he’ll then start talking about an amending the Constitution, etc. It’s like the War on Terror— it will never end so long as it keeps the money rolling in.

  11. JJ says

    Brian Brown is a fundraiser. He has to say they’ll win because donors won’t waste their money on avowed losers. The strategy is…

    Asked to predict the future: “We’re going to win. Give us your money and you won’t be disappointed!”

    Asked to explain a loss: “This just proves that a constitutional amendment is the only way to defeat activist judges. We need your money to make it happen!”

    Asked to comment on a win: “See, your money was well spent, but there’s so much more to do. Give us more. We’re proven winners!”

    All roads lead to more donations.

  12. says

    “As much as Brown disgusts me, I can’t say that his prognostications are any more or less wishful thinking than those of most of the LGBT community.”

    Except, @Stefan, the historical trajectory is on our side, not the side of bigotry. And, despite the current make-up of the SC, a majority of legal experts do not share Brown’s predictions. (One more reason Pres. Obama needs to be reelected–SC, duh.) So it’s not simply wishful thinking. And, though I’m no lawyer, I don’t think you should assume sexual orientation must fall under rational basis review? And, even by those standards, Section 3 of DOMA has been found unconstitutional.

    Brian, as others have said, is pitching for $$$$. He’ll be saying the same thing until the marriage equality issue is retired in our favor. They’ve given up on my state–equality is here to stay; eventually NOM will have to admit defeat and that they’ve wasted their lives attempting to prevent the inevitable.

  13. MS says

    It seems to me that the simplest argument against any of these pathetic hate laws would be to simply state that it’s a violation of 1st amendment rights. Laws have been established that favor the position of certain religions over other religions or over those of us who have NO religious affiliation whatsoever. It is unconstitutional to create laws based on personal religious beliefs, plain and simple.

  14. Sargon Bighorn says

    THE REAL QUESTION IS: Let’s say everything goes to hell and equality is voted down everywhere. The states the courts EVERYWHERE Gay folk are denied equal protections and rights under the law. THEN WAY YA GUNNA DO? Gay folk are not going back in the closet. Equality will prevail. Now or later it will happen. NEVER GO BACK.

  15. Bill says

    Brian asked, “I’m probably wrong about this but, doesn’t the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Say a legal contract in one state is a legal contract in all states”

    What the clause says literally is “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

    So, the idea that a contract valid in one state is valid in another is the default, but congress can modify that. For marriages, there have been cases involving the age at which individuals can marry or how closely related they can be. These differ slightly from state to state, so there were court cases about how to resolve the differences. Of course, any law congress passes limiting contracts must also be constitutional.

    Congress passed DOMA in part to deny same-sex married couples a legal argument based on the “Fair Faith and Credit” clause. DOMA of course
    is being challenged in court, and the outcome is not certain (if only due to the high number of 5-4 or 4-5 decisions in recent Supreme Court cases).

  16. Diogenes Arktos says

    Of all people, William F. Buckley, Jr. had to admit that it took judicial activism to bring us out of Jim Crow. While LGBT people may not think marriage equality is judicial activism, the Religions Right sure does. It is to our advantage that some consider Chief Justice John Roberts a judicial activist, as he does not seem to let precedent get in his way.

Leave A Reply