Posts Tagged ‘Brian Brown’

Stalling for the lord

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

It’s pretty clear that the christianist right wouldn’t know (or tell) the truth if it bit them on their holier-than-thou asses. While Lying for the lord is as traditionally Mormon as having a rumpus room full of backup wives, who would have imagined the Mormon’s new found allies among the extremist religious reich and the Ratzi Crime Family would so quickly adopt and master the art.

Now, vis-à-vis the Perry v Schwarzenegger Prop 8 trial, we learn the latest tactic from the lying liars for the lord is stalling for the lord. While nobody’s certain what the long-range objective is, my guess is they’re buying time to set up a case for a mistrial based on witness intimidation, because several of their star homo-hating witnesses like San Diego pastors Jim Garlow and Miles McPherson showed their true color (spine-free yellow) when they attempted to worm out of testifying (find PDFs of their court filings at the links).

Now we learn, via the Associated Press’ Lisa Leff, that the decision in the trial on the constitutionality of Prop 8 will likely be delayed thanks to the theocrat’s latest legal maneuvering:

Evidence skirmish could delay end of Prop 8 trial

SAN FRANCISCO — An attempt by civil rights groups to keep sponsors of California’s same-sex marriage ban from obtaining internal campaign documents could delay a verdict in the federal trial on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, lawyers on both sides said Tuesday.

Attorneys warned of the possible bottleneck during a hearing where a federal judge was asked to overrule a magistrate who ordered organizations that fought the 2008 ban to turn over memos and e-mails to lawyers defending the voter-approved measure.

[ ... ]

Three groups that opposed Proposition 8 are challenging U.S. Magistrate Joseph Spero’s order earlier this month requiring them to hand over all documents “that contain, refer or relate to arguments for or against Proposition 8,” with the exception of private communications between their core leaders.

The hypocrisy of the radical religious reich will never cease to amaze. When the shoe was on the other foot and those who toiled — and spent huge amounts of Mormon money — to eliminate the existing right of California gay and lesbian couples to marry were asked to produce their internal documents, they bristled and labeled the order a “fishing expedition.”

Brian Brown of the National Organization for Opposite Marriage, in a missive dated 12 February 2010, wrote:

The San Francisco Chronicle broke the news that Judge Vaughn Walker is gay. I don’t know if it’s true or not, but here’s the really big indisputable fact the mainstream media should be focusing on: Judge Walker has been incredibly biased in his rulings from start to finish.

He ordered an expensive trial over the objections of Protect Marriage, in a case where frankly the issues are primarily matters of law. He further ruled that the private and personal feelings and attitudes of Protect Marriage folks and their campaign consultants–things by definition never communicated to voters–were properly subjected to subpoena power. This was a fishing expedition of a major order: Judge Walker tried to give gay-marriage advocates access to more than a million emails by ordinary Californians who worked on the campaign, and also to internal campaign strategy memos. (The Ninth Circuit rapped his knuckles on that one.) He refused to play fair by ordering opponents of Prop 8 to open up their strategy, too. Worst of all, he broke all the rules to try to get this case televised, over the objections of Protect Marriage (who are the defendants in this case).

(emphasis: mine)

And what exactly are the anti-gays fishing for? Well, kids, it ain’t exactly plastic Jesus fish:

A federal appeals court eventually ruled that exchanges among top campaign officials about strategy and messaging could be withheld, but information disseminated more broadly was fair game in the trial.

Jesse Panuccio, a lawyer for Proposition 8 supporters, told Walker that it was only reasonable to require opponents of the ban to abide by the same disclosure requirements as supporters.

Plaintiffs have tried to prove that outlawing same-sex marriage serves no legitimate purpose, and the defense wants to see if their private conversations showed they thought otherwise during the campaign, Panuccio said.

Of course, at this point, asking the No-on-8 side (the good guys) to produce their internal documents serves no useful purpose other than to delay the inevitable. It’s a ploy, a strategy, a time-wasting tactic. It’s nothing more than a Hail Mary that consists of stalling for the lord while the theocons attempt to come up with some other strategy to deny gay and lesbian Americans the full rights of citizenship.

Bill Moyers and the Prop 8 trial

Monday, March 1st, 2010

Bill Moyers Journal (video: MarriageTrial at YouTube)

Attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies discussed the ongoing Prop 8 trial, Perry v Schwarzenegger, with PBS’s Bill Moyers. Embedding the video is not allowed, but you can kick back and watch it Chez Moyers.

Moyers sets the stage:

It’s true. Ted Olson, a conservative, and David Boies, a liberal, are in the middle of a case that, win or lose, they expect, will wind up at the Supreme Court, just like Bush v. Gore. The former adversaries have united in support of core American values: diversity, equality and tolerance. They’re key players in one of the most important civil rights trials of the last decade. It’s a pivotal legal action that could change our society, but which has escaped the attention of much of the country.

Oh! And, as a bonus, PBS viewers get to relive the paranoid insanity of the National Organization for Marriage’s craptastic Gathering Storm commerical — the much-parodied ad issued right before NOM’s Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown got their hooks into christianist porn princess Carrie Prejean.

(emphasis: mine)

(tip: Andy Towle, Towleroad)

Who’s the real con?

Monday, February 22nd, 2010

Gay conservative debate at Cato: Andrew Sullivan, Maggie Gallagher, Nick Herbert (video: MetroWeekly at YouTube)

Personally, I’d rather see these cons settle the burning question, who’s the real conservative?, with dueling pistols at extremely short range.

Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown of the Nationalist Orgasm for Opposite Marriage must be immensely disappointed that their personal raison d’être — keeping the gays from getting hitched — lined the bottom of the popularity cesspool among all conservative issues, unless you count “Other.” The CPAC attendees cared most about reducing the size of government, which is, of course, a circumlocution for tax-cuts for rich white dudes. The comedy team of Maggie & Brian, dissed so delightfully as sissies by GOProud’s Jimmy LaSalvia, was last seen slipping into irrelevancy.

From AllahPundit, writing at the conservative Hot Air blog:

A nugget mined from the PDF of the full results. This does jibe with the gay-friendly-ish vibe to this year’s proceedings, but how seriously should we take a poll that was won by, um, Ron Paul and whose results were not only booed by the crowd but belittled by CPAC spokesmen who touted the booing to the media?

The allegedly gay-friendly vibe to which AllahPundit refers is the booing by CPAC attendees of Porno Pete LaBarbera’s latest object of affection, Ryan Sorba, who trashed CPAC for letting the gay über-conservative group, GOProud, in on the annual event’s sponsorship.

CPAC straw poll: Just one percent list stopping gay marriage as a top priority (graphic: Hot Air, via Joe Jervis)

NOM’s Brown loves his ‘activist’ judges

Friday, January 15th, 2010

It’s just tickles their tiny little hearts when the radical religious right gets its claws into an activist judge who buys their bigoted malarkey. Consequently, the Executive Director of the National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, is singing the praises of Justice Anthony Kennedy in an email just sent from wherever the Hell the nomadic NOM is calling home these days. Justice Kennedy, in his black robes, led the Scalia-Thomas faction of the Court in its malevolent attack on transparency, and that resulted in the pro-Prop 8 side being allowed to continue cowering beneath their white robes and pointy hoods at the Perry v Schwarzenegger — AKA Olson-Boies — trial in San Francisco.

And it also makes the second time that Justice Anthony Kennedy has stepped forward to try to protect at least the process, to create a more even playing field for supporters of marriage. You will remember it was Justice Kennedy who granted an emergency stay that prevented the release of the names of thousands of Washingtonians who signed a petition overturning an “all-but-marriage” bill, after some gay-marriage advocates said they would try to replicate the effort in California to post these names on the internet.

Justice Kennedy joined four other justices to keep Judge Walker from hastily lifting the TV ban in order to televise the Prop 8 trial: “The balance of equities favors applicants. While applicants have demonstrated the threat of harm they face if the trial is broadcast, respondents have not alleged any harm if the trial is not broadcast.”

And who appointed three of those four justices? The man Jesus Christ himself put in the White House, the “worst President in American history,” George W Bush.

And it’s especially special when Brown patronizingly, albeit probably correctly, suggests his loyal followers are too stoopid to comprehend legalese:

I want to include some lengthy quotes from the opinion. If legalese is not your thing, skip over them. But I think those of us who went through the experience of Prop 8 will appreciate that at least five of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court recognize that the wave of intimidation and harassment was quite simply wrong.

Brown then mashes up a badly formatted collection of buzzwords and phrases like “death threats” and “powdery white substance,” as if the source of that non-toxic mystery powder was ever discovered. It was not. For all we know, the Mormon elders themselves or Maggie Gallagher mailed it to the Mormons.

There was most definitely an upsurge of violence in the wake of Prop 8, only it seems almost entirely directed at gay and lesbian Californians:

The truth about Brian Brown’s intelligence comes later in his missive:

The most amusing thing is watching the San Francisco expert’s case on how gay marriage is going to economically benefit the government fall apart under questioning. Really, is that the best you can do? Overturn the people’s right to amend their own constitution to protect marriage–so San Francisco can collect some sales tax revenue from wedding ceremonies?

Does Brian Brown actually grasp that is the constitutionality of Prop 8 that is on trial and not the right of Californians to amend California’s Constitution, or is this flack just zooming his flock as usual?

NOM’s Catholic connection

Monday, December 21st, 2009

On 16 December 2009, the New York Times Magazine ran a piece on the Chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, Robert P George. The Times piece lauded George as the intellectual force behind the Manhattan Declaration, a document signed by scores of radical religious right leaders and Catholic bishops. The Manhattan Declaration was nothing less than a demand for an American theocracy that opposed both women’s and LGBT rights, including marriage equality. Unless that demand was met, the document implied civil disobedience would follow.

Two months later, at a Washington press conference to present the group’s “Manhattan Declaration,” George stepped aside to let Cardinal Rigali sum up just what made the statement, and much of George’s work, distinctive. These principles did not belong to the Christian faith alone, the cardinal declared; they rested on a foundation of universal reason. “They are principles that can be known and honored by men and women of good will even apart from divine revelation,” Rigali said. “They are principles of right reason and natural law.”

Even marriage between a man and a woman, Rigali continued, was grounded not just in religion and tradition but in logic. “The true great goods of marriage — the unitive and the procreative goods — are inextricably bound together such that the complementarity of husband and wife is of the very essence of marital communion,” the cardinal continued, ascending into philosophical abstractions surely lost on most in the room. “Sexual relations outside the marital bond are contrary not only to the will of God but to the good of man. Indeed, they are contrary to the will of God precisely because they are against the good of man.”

George looked on with arms crossed and lips sealed. But he was obviously pleased. To anyone who knew George’s work, the cardinal’s words sounded very much as if George had written them, and when I asked him about it later, he acknowledged providing assistance. Rigali’s remarks were a summation of the distinctive moral philosophy that is the foundation of George’s power.

(emphasis: mine)

The New York Times piece continues:

“If there really is a vast right-wing conspiracy,” the conservative Catholic journal Crisis concluded a few years ago, “its leaders probably meet in George’s kitchen.”

The Times acknowledged that George, for twenty years, “has operated largely out of public view at the intersection of academia, religion and politics. In the past 12 months, however, he has stepped into a more prominent role.”

We’ve seen faint traces of that prominent role in action as the mysteriously-funded and obstinately-secretive National Organization for Marriage, fronted by Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown, have rushed into state after state, frequently defying local election laws, to stem the gathering storm of marriage equality.

+++++++

The American Principles Project

Deep in the NYT piece is this paragraph:

George instead is plunging deeper into partisan politics. Alarmed at signs that the Republican Party was moving away from cultural issues, he recently founded a new group called the American Principles Project, which aims to build a grass-roots movement around his ideas. “His new venture will make him a major political player,” the conservative writer Fred Barnes predicted in The Weekly Standard. Among the group’s first endeavors has been to call for the ouster of Kevin Jennings, an Obama education official who previously founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Jennings, George says, wants to “use our elementary schools in defiance of the wishes of parents, to use our elementary schools to teach pro-sexual-liberationist, pro-homosexualist propaganda.”

(emphasis: mine)

The name, American Principles Project, sounded vaguely familiar.

Back on 22 October 2009, in a post called NOM sues Maine over donor reporting, I wrote:

According to the Bangor Daily News, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and a second group, the Washington, DC-based American Principles in Action (AIPA), are suing the State of Maine over its campaign contribution disclosure laws

Further investigation revealed:

The organization’s website provides little background or history, but their first blog entry is dated last May. In the complaint, the group is described as: “Plaintiff APIA is a nonprofit 26 U.S.C. §501(c)(4) organization dedicated to promoting equality of opportunity and ordered liberty.”

In the complaint, APIA states, under penalty of perjury, that it “does not have as its major purpose the promotion or defeat of any Maine referendum or ballot question,” but in the next paragraph announces its intention to to create a series of videos “relating to same-sex marriage in Maine” and place them on its website.

In that post, I included the script of the malicious, anti-gay ads that APIA wanted to run in Maine.

The first ad was called Bigot:

Girl: Mommy, are you a bigot?

Mother: What?

Girl: At school, we learned that people who are against gay marriage are bigots.

Mother: No, dear. I believe that homosexuals should be treated fairly–but I also believe that marriage should be just for one man and one woman. That doesn’t make me a bigot.

Girl: What about Reverend Jones and Father Diego? Are they bigots?

Mother: Did you learn that at school too?

Girl nods

VO: Think that gay marriage won’t affect your family? Think again.

Vote Yes Graphic

The second ad was called The New Curriculum:

School Administrator (talking to an off-camera mic/reporter–as he talks, we see images of teachers in classrooms reading from blurred-out books, GLSEN-style posters, etc.): No, we’re very proud of the new curriculum. It’s all about teaching kids to embrace different lifestyles and explore their own sexuality.

Switching from images of sex ed classrooms to little boy on a bench in a darkened school hallway. We can see an adult male (not his face, we’re looking from the perspective of the child and the view never includes his head) come out of an office, take the boy’s hand, lead him into the office, and close the door. Freeze on the closed door, which has a sign that says, “Counseling Session: Do Not Disturb”

Reporter (VO) : Yes, but is it appropriate for kindergartners to be receiving counseling about whether they might be gay?

School Admin (VO): Sure, we’ve had a few complaints, but there’s not much parents can do. It’s the law, after all.

VO: Think gay marriage won’t affect your family? Think again.

Vote Yes Graphic

An article at Robert George’s American Principles Project reveals that American Principles in Action is, in fact, the “sister organization” of American Principles Project.

+++++++

NOM and the Catholics

Much has been written about NOM’s connections with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons, including about the presence of Mormon author Orson Scott Card on NOM’s Board of Directors. Card called for civil insurrection if Prop 8 was defeated in California.

The Mormon’s apparent absence in Maine left many NOM critics perplexed — despite some late infusions of cash — and at the same time stunned by the aggressive anti-gay tactics of the Catholic Church first in Maine and later in Washington DC.

Given Robert P George’s collusion with the Catholic bishops, revealed in the New York Times article, a number of other connections begin to make more sense.

San Diego attorney Charles LiMandri contributed $10,000.00 to the National Organization For Marriage California – Yes On 8 on 28 January 2008 — and another $27,000.00 to ProtectMarriage.com. Limandri is affiliated with the Catholic, anti-gay Thomas More Center, served as NOM’s general counsel during the Prop 8 campaign, and sued to fight California’s campaign disclosure laws.

NOM would later employ the same tactic in Maine, with George’s American Principles in Action joining NOM — the organization he chairs, suing to thwart Maine’s campaign disclosure laws.

LiMandri also filed suit on behalf of four San Diego firefighters (1, 2, 3) over a brief ride in San Diego’s 2007 gay pride parade. The National Organization for Marriage sponsored the firefighters defense website.

When NOM cast off the former Miss California, Carrie Prejean, who was featured in a NOM television commercial, Charles LiMandri served as Prejean’s attorney when she sued pageant officials.

Writing at The Huffington Post, Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate noted the shift from Mormon to Catholic backing in the fight against marriage equality:

The Catholic Church has become much more visible as the Mormons have backed off. Maine Bishop Richard J. Malone and his sidekick, Marc Mutty, ran and heavily funded the recent campaign in Maine to take away same-sex marriage in that state. The Roman Catholic Dioceses of Portland (ME) even set up a Political Action Committee (PAC), and gave and raised $553,000 to pass Question #1. That’s a lot of money, especially when they recently closed 5 churches in Maine.

Now, last week in Washington D.C., the Catholic Church there threatened to stop feeding the homeless if the City Council passes a same-sex marriage bill. Yes, the Catholic Church will stop feeding the hungry!

Fourteen Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops signed NOM Chairman Robert George’s Manhattan Declaration. George has apparently succeeded in uniting the Catholics and the forces of the radical religious right.

The conservative Catholic journal Crisis may have been prophetically correct when it suggested, according to The New York Times, that the leaders of this vast conspiracy might have met in George’s kitchen.