Thom Hartmann: Well, if you're bringing religion into this. I mean, you know, David had seven hundred wives. Should we go back to a biblical definition of marriage? Even in the New Testament, Paul said that he thought that, y'know, an elder of the church should have one wife but he certainly wasn't saying that more than one wife was inappropriate. Uh, if we go back to the classic definitions of marriage, they're gonna be very different than what you're advocating. In fact, I would say that the polygamists, with the FLS -- FLDS church would say that -- that I'm a bigot for saying that, uh, monogamy whether it's gay or straight is something that we should be encouraging.
Brian Brown: Well, I -- I brought up religion only in the sense that it's in our first amendment that we have religous liberty in this country and the fact of the matter is that if you believe in this idea that it's bigoted to believe that there's something unique and special about men and women and marriage and if you use the force of the state to support that --
Thom Hartmann: I believe that it's bigoted to tell a minority group-
Brian Brown: You shouldn't be surprised when the state starts punishing and marginalizing, uh, those of us that believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. It's exactly what's happening. It's happening in New Jersey where you saw a Methodist association lose part of it's state tax exemption.
Thom Hartmann: Oh, I know. It's a disaster, I know. When -- When-- When-- When-- When laws that institutionalize a partime (?). When laws that institutionalize the oppression of minorities are torn away -- I understand, y'know, a hundred years ago there were people going, "Oh, my God! Look at this! They're letting black vote! Oh, my God, they're saying we have to -- we might have to hire a bla- an Afri- " people, I mean, just forty, fifty years people were saying, "Oh, my God. My children have to go school with black people's children." I understand how upset bigots like you are -- or, not like you, I'll -- I'll say -- well, yeah. What the hell? I'll call you a bigot, Brian Brown. Cuz I consider your position bigoted.
Brian Brown: ...pulled off. Y'know, I'm glad that you pulled off -- certain smokescreen. Again, you're basically saying the very idea that marriage is the union of a man and a woman is bigoted. Uh, look. As I said before.
Thom Hartmann: I am saying -- no, I am saying, no. I never said that sir. I never said that. I am married. I don't consider myself a bigot for being married to a woman when I'm a man. What I consider bigotry is to say that two people should not be married because they're the wrong race, they're the wrong religion, or they're the wrong gender. I think that that is bigoted.
Brian Brown: Well, again. Marriage is based upon this chief fact of human reality. It's based upon-
Thom Hartmann: That a man should have more than- that a man should have five wives.
Brain Brown: Oh...Uh... Again, you're making -- you're just making assertions not backed up by any evidence.
Thom Hartmann: Well, I'm -- I'm citing the bible here.
Brian Brown: No, marriage has always had the basic contours that we understand today. It's not always been the same. Uh, one of the basic contours is uh, it's uh, marriage is the (stammering heavily here) union at least one man and one woman. In some cultures-
Thom Hartmann: At least? (laughs) Brian- Brian, I think we've- we've kinda beat this one into the ground. Lemme- lemme move along, if I may, 'cause y- neither one are gonna convince the other on this. And- And I think we've both made our points. Um, if you are so concerned about marriage, and the sanctity of marriage, why not outlaw divorce?
Brian Brown: (long pause) Well, we do have a very real problem in our marriage culture in this country when you have high divorce rates, you have a lack of stability and the people that are hurt are children -- children deserve the chance to have both a mother and a father. That's why the same-sex marriage debate is so important. Those of that believe that marriage is a union of a man and a woman do so because we believe it's in the best interest of children inside...
Thom Hartmann: But the gay population in this country is probably less than ten percent of Americans -- maybe less than five percent of Americans. The divorce population -- the percentage of people who have been married and divorced is in the neighborhood of fifty percent. Shouldn't we- I mean if you're really concerned about marriage, shouldn't you be going after divorced people? Y'know, join the pope and say, "listen, you can't get a divorce".
Brian Brown: That again. Outlawing divorce -- this is just way out in left field. The fact is that if you change the definition of marriage, you don't just change it for same-sex couples, you change it for the whole society. You change what is taught in the schools. You change what the law teaches. And these are-
Thom Hartmann: But the definition of marriage is "till death do- do us part", is it not?
Brian Brown: Well, the definition of marriage in the law is the union of one man and one woman in most states. In California...
Thom Hartmann: Until when? Until you decide that it's not.
Brian Brown: No.
Thom Hartmann: That doesn't sound much like a definition.
Brian Brown: No, that is the definition and the definition of marriage is based upon the lived (?) experience and the concrete reality of the fact that, uh, men and women -- only men and women can come together to naturally bear the next generation. This is- this is just a fact.
Thom Hartmann: So let's make it illegal for infertile people - y'know, I've had a vasectomy. Uh, should I annul my marriage?
Brian Brown: Uh, of course not. Again, these shorts of- ridiculous side arguments that don't deal at all with the main argument. Even those people that don't have children- they still resent the fact you need both a man and a woman to make marriage. That-
Thom Hartmann: Why do you need a man and a woman to ha- Why can't two men or two women who are in love and have a meaningful, long term, lasting, relationship and contributing to society... Why is that no less important than an infertile couple than a man and a woman that are not having children?
Brian Brown: Because-
Thom Hartmann: What is the possible difference between the two?
Brian Brown: What's the- Two women or two men are doing is not marriage. It is not. IT IS NOT.
Thom Hartmann: How is it not marriage?
Brian Brown: Because marriage is based upon the union of a man and a woman.
Thom Hartmann: I thought marriage was based upon mutual love, mutual respect, mutual support, building a life together.
Brian Brown: That may be YOUR definition of marriage, but marriage is public good. It's not nearly a-
Thom Hartmann: Ah, okay. So if I beat up my wife and if I'm just a total ass, and- and- and I- I dump on my kids and all that, that's fine 'cause that's marriage. 'Cause I'm married to a woman.
Brian Brown: No. Of course that's not fine. Again, you're making a that- that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. The people of California have the right to amend their constitution to support the definition of marriage that has always been understood.
Thom Hartmann: Yeah. Let's bring back slavery. Let's- uh. Brian Brown, you can read all about it over at National Organization for Marriage. NOM.org and NOMCalifornia.org
Thanks for posting this - it totally made my morning. I was actually just talking with my GF yesterday about how ridiculous it is that no one is asking most of these questions... so I'm glad to see that not only are they being asked, but that they're totally confusing the NOMmers. Ha.
One quick comment though - the FLDS actually do believe in and endorse polygamy. (They're the Fundie branch that separated from the mainstream LDS church in the early 20th century, when the LDS church renounced polygamy.)
Thanks for posting this...it made me laugh almost as hard as the commercial! LOL
I'm glad that Brown came off as such a buffoon here. I saw his compatriot Mary Gallagher on Hardball the other night and then yesterday she was on NPR in the morning, as well....and she, too, became super defensive and emotional and angry and demonstrated a complete lack of composure AND an inability to put together a solid cogent argument.
It's funny, for an organization that clearly thought out their ad so well...they sure didn't prepare their leadership to publicly defend it OR engage in the public discourse that it would obviously generate!
Thanks for the correction, pom! Indeed, I get my acronyms confused. But I still think the way Mormons are used as a backdrop to this debate is unfair and just an effort by gays to displace stigma on another group.
Yea Erik, it seems they're utterly unprepared to defend the advertisement, and that's a wonderful thing.
And did you see the great Rachael Maddow segment where she aired the lame audition tapes of the actors in the ad? My favorite line from her segment....
"....and we've learned that PRETENDING to be a straight person hurt by gay marriage is apparently....very callenging!" and then she starts to laugh! LOL