OMGBrian Brown, was like a trapped animal… snared by his own logic. What an idiot, Mike Signorile has so much more patients than I do.  

Yeah it sounded more like Signorile was more a bully a bastion for discoveryWhich is saying a lot considering I agree far more with Mike than I do with Brian. But you can try and own an opponent too much and it really gets to a level of ridiculousness when you attempt to make yourself sound more intellectual than antagonistic. It might also help to do a little homework on the erroneous subjects raised by Brian. Brown is a slippery guy and it will take someone more adept than Signorile attempt to own him regardless of where the truth lies.

Interracial marriage I wrote an article about this a few years ago and found polls that showed that a majority of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage until the late 1980s.
That’s 20 years after Loving V. Virginia!
So, it would have taken at least 20 more years for public opinion to catch up with the court ruling (it probably would have taken much longer had the court not ruled).
If we don’t get a Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality, it could be 30 years before a majority vote approves it.
I’ll be dead by then.

Sorry the deaf and the ‘volume’ off at work peeps, need transcripts.

Issues Mike should have brought up…What is your opinion regarding divorce?

What is your opinion regarding birth control?

What is your opinion regarding married women working outside the home?

What is your opinion regarding a woman’s right to choose?
The Catholic position on all four of these issues is abhorrent to many Americans and Brown would not be able to contradict his Pope.
Signoreli should have moved on to these other issues. No one ever brings them up.
You have to trap these people with their own dogma. Once people realize how backward they are on other issues, they will start to question them on marriage equality, too.

Here you go!MS:But do you really think you’re going to be able to turn the tide?  We’ve now had state after state make marriage legal, either through the legislature or, in Iowa, it was through the supreme court.  There wasn’t outrage, there wasn’t.. most people in Iowa seemed to be taking this as just another day.  Nothing happened, nothing terrible happened.  And as more states do this, certainly young people.. we’re seeing all the polls, even of religious conservative young people, who are being much more accepting of marriage equality for gays and lesbians.
BB: Well I guess we just fundamentally disagree on the political landscape in 30 after 30 states, uh 30 of 30 states, when the people have had the chance to vote, they voted to protect marriage and they actually put it in their state constitutions.  You’ve had a few states now have legislatures move forward with same sex marriage but at the same time you’ve had those legislatures have refused to allow referenda, direct vote.  
MS: What about, bringing to a ballot, a national ballot, a vote on Loving vs Virginia, the 1967 ruling by the supreme court that marriage between people of different races, that laws.. that there could not be any laws banning that.  At that time most Americans were opposed.  So, should there have been a vote?
BB:  This is where we disagree.  Obviously, uh, the union of a man and a woman is not the same thing as as racial discrimination, but the fact that you think it shows..
MS: No, no , no no.. Brian it doesn’t matter … your argument is not that it really matters what I think or you think.. it’s what the people as a collective think.  That is your argument.  Wait.. that’s your argument.  [inaudible disagreement from BB]  Let me finish, let me finish and you can respond.  Your argument is that the people have decided.  So in 1967 when the vast majority of Americans were opposed to interracial marriage, should there have been a vote, or was it right?  This is a yes or no question.  For the supreme court to take the lead and basically be what people would call an activist court and change public opinion?
BB:  Of course there are areas the people should be able to vote and areas where they should not be able to vote.  Of course that’s the case, but the point of the matter…
MS: Why shouldn’t the majority have voted in that case? [BB inaudible] But you haven’t answered the questions.. I’m not going to let you finish until you answer it.
BB: You’re attempting to say that racial bigotry is the same as …
MS:  No, no what I am saying is that the majority, your argument is that the majority rules.  The majority believes..  Your argument is that what the majority believes morally is what is right and in 1967 the majority of people believed, morally, that it was immoral under God’s eyes, for a black man and a white woman to marry.  
BB:  We were talking about the reasons why marriage is different from any other type of relationship.  Those are reasons why this is a very different question than the question you’re raising.  And, you know, American people don’t accept your analogy.  African Americans overwhelmingly don’t …
MS: But, in 1967 American people didn’t accept, the majority of people didn’t accept it.  And this is the fundamental flaw in your argument.  And it is the thing you cannot respond to.  Nothing you have said has been adequate.  It’s been laughable.
BB:  Marriage …[inaudible]
MS:  You have not answered it:  should the majority vote on marriage?  
BB:  Again, if you let me finish.  Clearly, I believe there is something fundamentally different from any law that would try and keep the races apart, uh that is a very different issue than marriage being …[inaudible]
MS:  Brian, I’m gonna say this one more time.  That is what you believe in 2009.  You Bryan Brown.  But in 1967 …[BB talking] You’re not letting me finish.  In 1967, the majority of Americans, the majority of Christians believed that under God’s law it was immoral.  Under your logic they should have been able to vote and make that be the law of the land.
BB:  No, I just made clear to you that there’s certain issues that should not be put to a vote.  The question here is…
MS:  OK, then let’s finish it there.  Let’s stop there.  You are arbitrarily deciding that certain issues don’t go to a vote.  
MS:  There’s been some controversy about your 2007 tax return.  It’s finally been released, and in that year the National Organization for Marriage paid an outfit called Common Sense America 166 thousand dollars for consulting.  And, checking on this, it turns out that Common Sense America is run by you.  So what was that consulting for?
BB:  Actually, that was not consulting.  That was we had done a joint projects together.  The fact is I was not paid by Common Sense America
MS:  Where did the 166,000 dollars go?
BB:  Those were for joint advertisements.  
MS:  Right, but is that money not being funneled from the National Organization for Marriage to this other group that you were running?
BB:  No, it’s not being funned anywhere.  Groups that share the same basic interest as the National Organization for Marriage, uh, we help those groups all over the country.  So, there’s nothing, uh.. you know.  The fact is we gave a lot of money to proposition eight.  We’ve helped Maine, we’ve helped states all around the country support marriage.  We also help other groups, so the idea that there’s funneling money is just absurd.
MS:  Do you see a long fight here where you have a career in this?  Are you making a salary at the National Organization for Marriage?  
BB:  Of course I am, of course I’m paid for what I do and again, you can look at the 2007 990s and we’ll be releasing the 2008 and we never hid the 900s.
MS:  Now, you were before the National Organization for Marriage, you were with a Connecticut group that was funded by, pretty much owned by, James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, correct?
BB:  That’s incorrect, I was the head of the Family Institute of Connecticut, but the Family Institute of Connecticut, like other family policy councils, does not receive direct funding from Focus on the Family.  It’s associated with Focus on the Family.  
MS:  Uh, well the institute, you said, it is now is associated with the Focus on the Family the group headed by the nationally known conservative James Dobson and uh..
BB:  Well, that was in the article, but that actually isn’t accurate.  The Family Institute of Connecticut is associated with Focus on the Family, but it was it’s own separate group.
MS:  You were marching against the allowing of homosexuality, being accepted by the Catholic church.  Um, you had..
BB:  We never marched against the Catholic church.  So I don’t know what you’re referring to.  
MS:  You had said that it’s a radical departure from Christian tradition and warrants a march.  This was when you led a petition drive for the Defense of Marriage Act.  
BB:  Yeah but we were working very closely, and I have a great deal of respect for the Catholic Bishops in Connecticut to stand up for the church’s position on marriage, but again…
MS:  And you were working to prevent distribution of condoms…in school.  I guess the point is there is a very large religious component to what you’re doing here.
BB:  Well, you know I don’t hide the fact that I’m a Catholic and I believe what the church teaches.  And..
MS:  And so you are trying to make your Catholic church and the Christian faith, the law of the land?
BB:  Absolutely not, again..
MS:  That is the reason, the reason why you fight marriage for gays and lesbians.
BB:  You have to understand what NOM is.. NOM is a number of groups, a number of individuals coming together from very different faiths, very different backgrounds and some have no faith at all..

Mike has WAY WAY more control of himself talking with these nitwitsHe doggedly wants to make them answer questions, but I’d just go off on them….especially preacherette Steven Anderson. I for the life of me, can’t understand how a sane person could speak to him, and not have their head explode in seconds. Maggie Gallagher would make me swear a blue streak at her too, and not in a warm fuzzy PC approved manner.

nice work flyerfier…..and quick toocolor me impressed

Here is my NOM ad“I’m a New York married Lesbian professional who will be forced to by countless wedding presents for friends unless we act to protect bigotry now..”

thanksI’m always willing to help out the Deaf and hard of hearing.  Those at work without speakers too.  
Wish there was a way to add them as captions in the vid.  but, hopefully just the script will suffice

The way to take NOM down is to cut off itsChurch of Latter Day Saints and Catholic funding.  The NOM is a 501(c)4 outfit (HAH!  Social services, et. al.).

If LDS is pushing for funds against gays in WA and ME, they’re doing it quietlyI go read Deseret News ocassionally, and it’s owned and operated by LDS with a seperate LDS News section, I read.
Not a peep about queers since the kiss issue on their Mall.
Maybe that gave them enough flack to go to quietly with  in Ward messages.

“Atheists for Dogmatic Christian Bigotry”???
“…and some people have no faith at all.”  
Name 3 members of your organization who are not Christian Taliban…
Okay, I’ll accept 2…
ONE???
Right.

also the impatient Those of us who don’t have patience to sit through 10 min of video but are willing to speed-read a page of text to get the gist. And to scrub to the interesting point in the vid if one is encountered.
Thanks very much for the transcript!

Agreed these people have already given us enough ropeThey can hang themselves given the right coaching. I would have loved to hear the obvious question I have never heard anyone bring up with a NOM spokesperson: “what rights do you specifically support gay people/ gay couples having that they don’t have now?”

hahahahaYou can’t seriously believe that? Its just a matter of time before the LDS Church and even focus on the family find themselves in another stink over money laundering. They are just so bad at it!

I have no illusion LDS isn’t pushing for fundsThey have learned doing it publicly, in front of non-Mormons…costs them, and adds to the feelings they are power hungry nosey THEOCRATS who won’t mind their OWN bu$ine$$.

According to Frank Schubert …

…unlike in California, the Mormon Church will not be involved in Maine’s campaign.

Link: http://www.npr.org/templates/s…
In other Frank Schubert news, I liked how this Maine PBN story was written:

A devout Catholic who has three children, divorced his first wife, and remarried 13 years ago, Schubert has come to Maine to protect an institution he views as “divinely inspired.”

Link: http://www.mpbn.net/News/Maine…

If you think Mormons aren’t funneling money secretlyThere’s a nice bridge to Brooklyn you might like to purchase.

I put myself in BB’s shoes for a few minutes . . . . . . (just for the interview).
Mike, like other radio personalities, has control over a number of factors, particularly on something like the relative volume of the speaking.
So, when Mike and BB were trying to talk at the same time, it was clear as to what Mike was saying, and Mike knew that he could make BB stop and answer him.  it’s even better than a lawyer on cross-examination, because a good lawyer knows how to do exactly what Mike did without necessarily being able to control the volume.  (Since the attorney is standing and the witness is seated, there is often enough a significant volume difference that the lawyer does bear the same advantage Mike has on his home court.)
When I see some of these double and multiple interviews on CNN, often enough (but not always), when two of the interviewees try talking at the same time, it comes across as a hash until one gives up.
But Mike has control, much in the same way that Rush Limbaugh has control on his loonie-tune show. So there wasn’t a hash, just Mike picking BB apart.
BB and his ilk will look at this as Mike being a bully, sure. And then when I slip out of BB’s stinky shoes, I know that Mike is right, and I know BB’s a slime and more than a bully in his own right.

Not all atheists are going to be right on this issue . . . . . . and not all Roman Catholics and LDSaints are going to be wrong on it, either (though in the latter cases, they might be in opposition to express teachings of their bigoted church leaders).
One might not expect it, but I imagine that there could be non-Christian(ist) members of NOM.  Let’s look at it this way – there are certainly at least some devout Muslims (Islamists) or Orthodox Jews (um, I haven’t come up with an “ist” for the bigots there; Zionist has been taken and means something else; how about Hebrist or Hebraist?) might be members, and Brian Brown might be able to trot them out.
Ask them to produce a member who’s not a “member of the Christian(ist) Taliban” and they actually might mention more than a few.
Maybe trying a different tack could work:
On April 9, 2009, Weekly World News (a “news” organization with a reputation in journalism circles that rivals NOM’s reputation as an advocacy organization) had this interesting (but obviously tongue-in-cheek) article about NOM’s plans for a follow-up to the Gathering Storm:
http://weeklyworldnews.com/hea…
The list (of consequences of allowing gay marriage) included:

1.High school proms have mandatory drag dress code
2.National anthem changed to “It’s Raining Men”
3.Bridal shop owners must carry women’s pant suits
4.Christian doctors forced to treat drag queens for waxing injuries
5.The American flag is updated to include all rainbow colors
6.All college freshman girls required to “experiment” for a minimum of two months
7.Only same-sex couples will receive insurance benefits
8.Terms like “husband” and “wife” will be banned as sexist, and usage will result in stiff fines
9.Same-sex couples will be given preferential treatment by adoption agencies
10.Dollar bills will be redesigned to include new portraits; $20 bill will feature Eleanor Roosevelt

The truth is that this comedic list isn’t too distant from NOM’s actual positions.  Perhaps follow-up questions for Brian “Bigotry” Brown (more than merely a BB, a BBB – after all “Bigotry” really could be his middle name) could refer to this list as well as NOM’s actual specious arguments.

Judging Somebody Else’s Marriage……What Gives You That Rightimage I made featuring Brian Brown
  http://img.villagephotos.com/p…

But Frank said they’re not.I mean, Frank said it, end of discussion, no?
Seriously, though, this goes to a nit I’d like to pick about Signorile’s interview.
The next time Brian Brown asserts in an on-air interview that everything is kosher with NOM’s or CSA’s filings, the immediate follow-up questions need to be:
So, Brian, where can I pick up a copy of NOM’s or Common Sense America’s tax returns?  Because, Brian, aren’t you legally obligated to make them available upon request?  As a matter of fact you are, and this is me now making such a request, so when can I expect to see them?
For the record, NOM’s 2007 tax return was not “released” … the IRS mailed it to me in response to a 4506-A request I’d faxed to Ogden back in July.  If Brian Brown says he has already filed NOM’s 2008 return, there is no reason any of us should have to wait for the IRS to provide it.  It should already be available from NOM upon request.
Long story short, Brian Brown is yanking our collective chain.
Sorry to ride my hobby-horse so hard around here, but with all the investigations that Fred Karger has gotten underway and all the recent attention NOM’s attracted from mainstream media (yes, even that silly WaPo feature about Brian actually helps us by raising his profile) it sure looks like we might actually be able to hold NOM to account before election day for a change.