Candy Crowley | CNN | Gay Marriage | Gay Rights | John Eastman | NOM | Supreme Court

NOM Chair: Supreme Court Rulings on Marriage Equality are 'Judicial Tyranny' -- VIDEO

Screen Shot 2013-07-01 at 3.26.37 PM (2)

National Organization for Marriage Chairman John Eastman went on CNN's State of the Union yesterday morning to rant against--ahem, discuss--last week's Supreme Court rulings on marriage equality.  Suffice it to say, he is not happy:

Well, it is a state-by-state battle, and I think he had one aspect of the state-by-state battle that is legitimate, which is to try and persuade people to make this change through their legislatures.  But he had a threat behind that: if the legislatures don't do that, we're going to have the courts impose this on them whether the people want it or not.  

Earlier you said that 12 states had voted to change the definition of marriage.  Well that's not true.  Half of them have--less than half of them have; the others have had it imposed on them by the courts.  This question is clearly not answered in the Constitution of the United States, and we are manufacturing a right to redefine marriage and impose it no matter whether the state or the country wants to have that definition.  That's judicial tyranny.

For a law professor (he teaches at Chapman University School of Law), Eastman doesn't seem to have all that much respect for the judicial process.  

You can watch his full remarks to Candy Crowley, in all their glory, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. In the words of Ms. Pelosi: who cares?

    Posted by: Jim | Jul 1, 2013 6:15:57 PM

  2. Dear John,
    Then leave.

    Equal Americans

    Posted by: Geoff | Jul 1, 2013 6:19:59 PM

  3. Why is CNN giving this clown a forum?

    Posted by: Steve | Jul 1, 2013 6:23:23 PM

  4. To be "judicial tyranny", they'd have to take something away. Did they take your vaunted heterosexuality? Did they take away your marriage? Did they take away your "right" to your religion? No, they took away your ability to be bigoted--and that's not a right; it's a correction to society to be better than the small parts you inhabit. Learn to speak English properly and understand the words. Classless little gnome.

    Posted by: woodroad34d | Jul 1, 2013 6:25:21 PM

  5. For 200 years, the Supreme Court had never said that the 2nd Amendment gave individuals a right to have guns -- and then, presto, a few years ago the conservatives on the Supreme Court read the constitution in that way. But "finding" that right in the constitution wasn't judicial tyranny to the conservatives!

    Similarly, the Supreme Court had never said that a corporation had the same First Amendment rights as real people. But when the Supreme Court "found" that right, the conservatives didn't scream about judicial tyranny.

    This is all about hypocrisy combined with bigotry -- both of which many (not all) so-called conservatives and fundamentalists have in abundance (caveat: Justice Kennedy is a 'conservative Republican', so we can't paint all of them as unenlightened bigots; it's a person-by-person thing).

    On the other hand, it doesn't matter how hypocritcal or bigoted they are. The reality is that we have a fight on our hands, and we need to win it not only in the courts, but with the legislatures and the public in general.

    Posted by: MiddleoftheRoader | Jul 1, 2013 6:25:23 PM

  6. In other words, "I hate queers."

    Posted by: DannyEastVillage | Jul 1, 2013 6:35:08 PM

  7. And Prop 8 was a tyranny of a majority... but only 1 of them was legal.

    Eat it, buddy, and get gone, already!

    Posted by: Pete N SFO | Jul 1, 2013 6:35:52 PM

  8. @ MiddleoftheRoader: I think the real deal is that this issue is already dead. In conservative families that have come to terms with their gay loved ones, it's not only dead, but had begun to give off a stench. Even conservatives don't like to hear people trash their loved ones. My mother was one of those: she cut off her two sisters when they expressed chilly attitudes about me. I didn't find this out until years after it happened, not long before my mom's death. No, this issue is already dead. Burial will take a little longer, however, given the ghoulishness of conservatives.

    Posted by: DannyEastVillage | Jul 1, 2013 6:39:45 PM

  9. In the posting above I should have said, "(E)ven conservatives don't like to hear people trash their GAY loved ones."

    Posted by: DannyEastVillage | Jul 1, 2013 6:40:54 PM

  10. What Eastman, who lives in California, deliberately ignores is the fact that California legislature passed marriage equality bills twice, only to have them both vetoed by GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Schwarzenegger's veto was ostensibly to protect the sanctity of marriage, even though he was hiding at least one extramarital affair, with his family's housekeeper, at the time.)

    Posted by: Jon Ponder | Jul 1, 2013 6:40:55 PM

  11. Most dictionaries already include gay marriage under marriage, so if anyone is redefining marriage as a heterosexual only meaning, it's NOM and the likes.

    Posted by: Kev C | Jul 1, 2013 6:52:11 PM

  12. All this marching out of the old shebboleths--male/female families and protecting the children and judicial activism--is nothing but a smoke screen so they can hang on a second or two longer. Why doesn't one of these so-called journalists ask how the Supreme Court's ruling will affect these right wing organizations' fundraising and their future. Because that's the real question. These guys and gals are on their way to the buggy whip museum (and I don't mean S&M. I hope they invested their blood drenched money well. Or else find a new victim to pursue. Muslims, maybe? Or immigrants? Unfortunately, we probably have not heard the last from this crowd.

    Posted by: barryearle | Jul 1, 2013 6:54:22 PM

  13. Are all decisions of this Supreme Court judicial tyranny or just this decision alone is judicial tyranny ?

    Posted by: Teehee | Jul 1, 2013 6:56:18 PM

    on a paid lackey of a few conservative interests?
    NOM is having trouble getting money, so he is just out there stirring the pot.

    Posted by: Bob | Jul 1, 2013 7:02:57 PM

  15. @woodroad34d: Exactly! I don't think the word "Tyranny" means what this idiot thinks it means!

    Posted by: kit | Jul 1, 2013 7:04:24 PM

  16. Democracy does not mean that three wolves and one sheep vote for what's for dinner. The courts are designed to protect minorities. Deal with, Professor.

    Posted by: Seattle Mike | Jul 1, 2013 7:05:59 PM

  17. @woodroad34d To be fair, the whole SCOTUS ruling did not even take away his right to be bigoted; he still can be a bigot if he chooses. He just looks more and more antiquated and backwards thinking with his attempts at reason. He will be remembered for standing in the way of progress, just like those politicians that were against the civil rights movement and desegregation. He will be remembered for being vitriolic, intolerant, and bearing false witness.

    But he still has the right to be so.

    Posted by: misha | Jul 1, 2013 7:25:20 PM

  18. And people (well bigots) send their checks to this unimaginative and inarticulate organization. Sad waste of money I tell you.

    Posted by: Jay | Jul 1, 2013 7:46:17 PM

  19. @misha, EXACTLY

    The SCOTUS didn't even take away his ability to be anti-gay, just as previous rulings didn't prevent or stop people from being racist. All it did is create LEGAL equality for gay marriage in California. By not recognizing their standing in the case, it further said that "not liking" gay marriage wasn't a valid legal argument against it because they couldn't demonstrate any way they had actually been harmed by it.

    He's free to go on believing that gay marriages are lesser than straight marriages. Just as I personally believe that Gingrich's 3rd marriage to his 2nd (at least) mistress is lesser than the marriages (or relationships) of gay couples who have been together for decades. Everybody's got opinions and they're welcome to them. (Keeping in mind that opinions are like @ssholes...)

    What he CAN'T do is prevent gay couples from having the same LEGAL rights he does, at least in CA and several other states so far.

    Posted by: Caliban | Jul 1, 2013 8:15:38 PM

  20. I love how these people scream "activist" court when things don't go their way but if the court rules in their favor it's an "act of God".

    Posted by: KurCus | Jul 1, 2013 8:15:39 PM

  21. No they are not. LEGAL FACT.

    Posted by: RMc | Jul 1, 2013 8:23:08 PM

  22. NOM = Catholic front group spreading lies.

    Posted by: Christophe | Jul 1, 2013 8:29:38 PM

  23. The Supreme Court basically said that the government exceeded its authority when it made this laws and limitations. This should be music to a conservative's ears. As is usually the case, they want to get government off our backs and focus on other parts of our bodies.

    Posted by: Armando | Jul 1, 2013 10:48:47 PM

  24. Interesting, though, that the "man from behind the curtain" finally comes out and speaks, rather than sending out Brian "spittle drips off my lips" Brown to be the frontman, as he usually is.

    Posted by: Dev | Jul 1, 2013 10:57:57 PM

  25. This same POS lied on NPR's "All Things Considered" last Wednesday, hours after the Prop 8 opinion came out (pun intended). He said, without challenge, that in the TRIAL Court the State officials conceded that Prop 8 was unconstitutional (true) and therefore the issues did not get heard (unbelievably false). This from a former Dean of a California law school who no doubt followed every single day of the trial. He counted on laypeople not knowing the difference between Intervenors (who can participate as fully as can the original parties, which is what happened before Chief Judge Walker) and Proponents (who cannot appeal - and neither can Intervenors). Lying for Jesus is alive and well at Chapman University.

    Posted by: nolaramie | Jul 1, 2013 11:02:31 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Towleroad Guide to the Tube #1397« «