John Eastman | John Roberts | News | NOM | Supreme Court

NOM Chair John Eastman Denies Smearing Chief Justice John Roberts and His 'Second-Best' Adopted Kids

NOM Chairman John Eastman says he didn't mean to tell the Associated Press that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts' adopted kids were "second-best".

EastmanSaid Eastman in the AP story:

Gay marriage opponents said they are not worried about the votes of Roberts and Thomas.

"You're looking at what is the best course societywide to get you the optimal result in the widest variety of cases. That often is not open to people in individual cases. Certainly adoption in families headed, like Chief Roberts' family is, by a heterosexual couple, is by far the second-best option," said John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage. Eastman also teaches law at Chapman University law school in Orange, Calif.

Writes Eastman in a statement today:

"An article by the Associated Press, excised in part by The Huffington Post, grossly misrepresents my views on adoption. I believe that couples who adopt children are heroes and do a great service to society, and to the children they adopt. I strongly believe, based on thousands of years of experience and countless social science studies, that children do best when raised by a mother and a father within the bounds of marriage. I commend all those couples who selflessly give of themselves to raise a child who, through no fault of her own, has been deprived of a mother and father. There is nothing 'second best' about adoption."

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. So what he said wasn't what he said?

    Posted by: Jack M | Mar 15, 2013 2:13:26 PM

  2. Unsurprisingly, comments pointing out this inconsistency are being "moderated."

    Posted by: Drew | Mar 15, 2013 2:14:53 PM

  3. "I said it but don't quote me on it because it makes me look bad. This is what I am saying now"

    Which makes you look even worse.

    Posted by: RMc | Mar 15, 2013 2:20:04 PM

  4. F this stupid fat jerk. Let him work himself into terminal irrelevance.

    Posted by: Paul R | Mar 15, 2013 2:22:29 PM

  5. "Why should anyone think I actually meant anything I said? I work for NOM for God's sake! What are you, morons?"

    Posted by: Lymis | Mar 15, 2013 2:35:10 PM

  6. Thousands of years? where...
    Countless social science studies? name them...

    Another lying hypocritical bigot hiding behind religion and ignorance.

    Posted by: HankNYC | Mar 15, 2013 2:50:56 PM

  7. Another lying hypocritical bigot hiding behind religion and ignorance.

    What an embarrassment to Chapman University!

    Posted by: Fahd | Mar 15, 2013 3:06:41 PM

  8. LIAR! The internet is forever and you're already on record. Too late!

    Posted by: Joseph | Mar 15, 2013 3:35:28 PM

  9. So, he believes that couples that adopt are heroes. That's great. I'm sure he's including me and my husband in that. After all, we adopted two children from foster care, and gave them a permanent home with two loving dads.

    Posted by: Ray | Mar 15, 2013 3:46:40 PM

  10. I know this is going to be unpopular, but here goes: He said "
    Certainly adoption in families headed, like Chief Roberts' family is, by a heterosexual couple, is by far the second-best option,"

    This, as opposed to his opinion of the 'Best Option'; a child raised by biological parents.

    I'm not saying he's not a jerk, but the media is really grabbing for straws on this one.

    I'm just sayin'....

    Posted by: DavnJef | Mar 15, 2013 4:16:41 PM


    He didn't just say that adoption was the second best option. He said it was "by far the second best option." Those two words, "by far," speak volumes. Adopted children and their families are, in his view, a distant second place.

    Nobody's grabbing at staws. Eastman threw them a whole bale of the stuff.

    Posted by: Clayton | Mar 15, 2013 4:35:27 PM

  12. @Clayton

    Sorry, I guess we see from different angles. I see the glass half full in this case.
    Again, I'm in no way defending the twit. Just a matter of syntactic interpretation?

    Posted by: DavnJef | Mar 15, 2013 4:50:59 PM

  13. @Clayton

    Sorry, I guess we see from different angles. I see the glass half full in this case.
    Again, I'm in no way defending the twit. Just a matter of syntactic interpretation?

    Posted by: DavnJef | Mar 15, 2013 4:51:01 PM

  14. @ DAVNJEF1 Nonetheless, his opinion states that a family of adopted children, even headed by a father and mother, even if they are the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court ( and/or an associate Justice- see Clarence Thomas) is SECOND BEST. He provided no room for qualifiers- he proffered none. Of course, in a make-believ world free of any pain, hardship, cancer, poverty, war, hate, etc., believing that is perhaps ok- saying the original, biological parents of the child are best, and adoptive parents are second best.
    But the reality is that in many cases, in fact- there are studies, and no, I don't have any links, but there are lol- studies which show adoptive parents were much, much better than the biological parents as they had strict guidelines to meet, and the fact that, well, they were more into caring for the child than the mindset of "oops- the condom broke. Oh wells!"

    Adoptive parents ARE the best choice in some, in many cases. He, John Eastman, categorically states in this same statement and at other times the OPPOSITE of this, and the opposite of what NOM's star witness, David Blankenhorn stated- that many times, adoptive parents were better for the child than the biological parents.

    So Davnjef, I agree some things are worked up and sometimes I'm like "eh, no controversy here." But this is not one of those times. Granted he didn't say the Supreme Court's Chief Justice's family sucked, but he said they and every other adoptive family were second best. There are NO it's,ands, buts about it. And I hope the mainstream media picks up on this, tho I doubt it.

    The ridiculous fanaticism of these people, who have stated many times their opposition to marriage equality is not religiously based, but based in concern for society and children's welfare, have taken that argument and have so warped it til they will (and I really hope they do, as it shows their insincerity, their anger, their hateful,spiteful, win-at-all-costs side) piss off many people they wouldn't have before.

    Posted by: Scott | Mar 15, 2013 5:19:04 PM

  15. OK, so people who adopt are "heroes" but they're still "way second best" to couples who personally breed.

    Got it. I'm sure the Roberts will be so pleased with the clarification.

    Posted by: BobN | Mar 15, 2013 6:25:14 PM

  16. @DAVENJEF Even if we agree to disagree on whether what Eastman said was objectionable, there is still this: Lets say, for the sake of argument that two married biological parents are categorically the best option. Chldren being put up for adoption dont have two married biological parents. That's why they're up for adoption. Banning gay marriage won't magically make such parents materialize.

    Posted by: Clayton | Mar 15, 2013 11:19:41 PM

  17. Oh my God at the CHINS. My effing EYES! Someone get that man Joan River's plastic surgeon stat. It'd be an improvement in this case.

    Okay now that that's outta my system, I hope Justice Roberts goes full tilt for teh gheyz when DOMA and Prop 8 come up just to spite this bastard. -.-

    Posted by: ble.d_out.colo.r | Mar 16, 2013 4:30:34 AM

  18. This is NOM, religion, and hate at work.

    Posted by: Scott Johansen | Mar 16, 2013 5:42:51 AM

  19. Don't you just love these 'studies' that never were??

    Posted by: billmiller | Mar 16, 2013 8:58:43 AM

  20. @Jack M and @Clayton:

    What he is now claiming seems to be that the AP misquoted him. You can't then use the AP story itself as proof that he really said it - you need some independent source like a youtube video or a tape recording of the interview.

    It's possible that "by far second best" meant that adoption by a heterosexual couple was the best option other than the child being raised by married, heterosexual parents. If so, he probably should have said, "I phrased it very poorly and what ended up being reported was not my actual opinion."

    What's not clear is whether he was misquoted, misspoke, or is simply covering up for blurting out what he really thinks.

    Posted by: Bill | Mar 16, 2013 7:34:08 PM

Post a comment


« «Comet Spotted Over New York City: VIDEO« «