Brian Brown’s Historical Delusion


At NOM’s March for Marriage, Brian Brown, who runs that organization (into the ground, apparently), predicted that history would judge him well, that “people will look back at this time and remember those of us who stood up for the truth.” No Brian. They’re going to look back at you the same way we look at George Wallace, as bigots who were left behind.

Comments

  1. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    Brian Brown’s Historical Delusion

    Argh. For a second there I thought you were talking about the author Dan Brown.

    Who has a few historical delusions – or maybe just unwarranted extrapolations of his own.

    Oh well , never mind.

    Pity tho’, Dan Brown reads much better even if he did plagiarise much of his famous “Holy Grail” stuff from a conspiracy theory “non-Fiction” tome.

  2. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    At NOM’s March for Marriage, Brian Brown, who runs that organization (into the ground, apparently), predicted that history would judge him well, ..

    Just like its already judged interracial marriage bigots well ..Oh wait, no, the opposite of that.

    I guess on the bright side like many others (eg.Orson Scott Card) it seems he is albeit grudgingly finally admitting defeat.

    Wonder how long till he claims it was a good idea he was behind (heh!) all along?

    Oh yeah, and the Bible was never used to support slavery either – although fact checking says it was.

  3. Trebuchet says

    @1: I also thought “Dan Brown”. Whose history is probably more accurate than Brian’s!

  4. raven says

    No Brian. They’re going to look back at you the same way we look at George Wallace, as bigots who were left behind.

    More like the Catholic Inquisition, the witch hunters, the Mithraists, the Voodooists, and the followers of Ra, Anubis, and Marduk.

  5. John Pieret says

    Well if nothing else, it takes a lot of chutzpah to quote Abraham Lincoln in support of a movement intended to deprive some people of rights others enjoy.

  6. says

    John Pieret “Well if nothing else, it takes a lot of chutzpah to quote Abraham Lincoln in support of a movement intended to deprive some people of rights others enjoy.”
    To be fair, a house divided cannot stand. And a joined house can’t, either, if one group won’t let the other group live in it, even though the other group splits the mortgages and the utilities and also they do all the yard maintenance and sure the first group helped the second change the oil in their Subaru that one time but it really doesn’t make up for the way the first group treats the second group and another thing…

  7. criticaldragon1177 says

    Ed Brayton,

    —————————————————————————————————————————————————–
    No Brian. They’re going to look back at you the same way we look at George Wallace, as bigots who were left behind.
    —————————————————————————————————————————————————–

    That’s assuming people remember him at all. Historians probably won’t even mention him in the history books.

    I have a feeling that in the future, even most rightwing pseudo historians won’t say much about today’s typical GOP homophobic politicians.

  8. Abdul Alhazred says

    Historians?

    Even people who support him won’t remember six months from now.

  9. John Pieret says

    Reginald Selkirk:

    At least Reed says:

    I’m not comparing slavery to same-sex marriage, OK?

    But then he goes to say things just as stupid as if he had compared them:

    Continued Reed: “Only six of them, six out of those 17 [for some reason not counting states that have changed since Windsor], six out of 50 states, had done it by referendum or by state legislature. In every other case, it was imposed by courts. Just like the courts had to impose Dred Scott. Because they couldn’t do it on the country because the country didn’t agree with it. The country, by the way, doesn’t agree with same-sex marriage.”

    Um … the country didn’t agree with the decision? Is he already drumming the southern states (including a whole lot of Southern Baptists and other churches in the south) out of the country in 1857? Southerners quite liked the decision, as did a whole lot of southern sympathizers in the North. The decision did spark outrage and helped to lead to the Civil War but to say the country didn’t agree with it it is quite a stretch.

    But not as big a stretch as to say that, today, the country doesn’t agree with same-sex marriage.

  10. says

    That’s assuming people remember him at all. Historians probably won’t even mention him in the history books.

    I’ll have to assume you mean history textbooks, which generally are not written by historians, especially the K-12 variety, which are notoriously inaccurate even when someone with an agenda isn’t causing that inaccuracy.

  11. freehand says

    criticaldragon1177: That’s assuming people remember him at all. Historians probably won’t even mention him in the history books.
    .
    Pffft. Books? His name will show up on computer monitors with a thousand others as typical turn of the 20th and 21st-century bigots, when freshmen history students research the historical sequence of fighting against marriage equality for inter-racial, gay, genetically enhanced, interspecies, robot-human, and Terran-E.T. couples.

  12. robertberra says

    Freehand @ 16, you missed non-dyadic marriages, which is very likely the next matrimonial justice battle.

Leave a Reply