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. Funny how the bleating about "judicial activism" only happens when they don't agree with the Court's decision. Anyone notice the Voting Rights Act decision from the day before? Even though that has been repeatedly reauthorized by Congress (and quite recently), I'm sure they're ok with that mess.

    Posted by: SoLeftImRight | Jul 1, 2013 11:18:56 PM

  2. I guess NOM has finally realized that Brian Brown has done a lousy job and can't appear on tv anymore.

    Expect to see Brian resign to spend more time with his family.

    Posted by: Randy | Jul 2, 2013 12:36:22 AM

  3. Ummm. MORE than half were voted on. What a dumb-ass.

    NY, WA, ME, MD, RI, DE, MN were all passed by the legislature or referendum.

    I guess I shouldn't expect a NOMbie to get his facts right.

    Posted by: Matt N | Jul 2, 2013 2:18:44 AM

  4. Certainly Citizens United wasn't Judicial Tyranny. And the dismantling of the VRA wasnt Judicial Tyranny. Just giving rights to the fags. Just letting the fags get married. Thats tyranny. But I cant really articulate exactly how it is affecting me or any other straight person for that matter.

    Posted by: jeff | Jul 2, 2013 3:34:10 AM

  5. That's because it doesn't affect the lives of straight people at all. But it does affect their emotions and judgement to such an extent that some "pro-family" groups spend millions of dollars trying to limit the definition of marriage. It's laughable. We laugh at those "pro-family" numbnuts.

    Posted by: Kev C | Jul 2, 2013 5:01:37 AM

  6. " 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"

    The conservative lie machine spun it that way, but while I normally don't make any effort to defend Republicans, both Schwarzenegger's stated reasons and the legal reality were that the California Constitution specifically says that the legislature cannot vote to override an initiative.

    The legislature could have passed marriage if it was the first to weigh in on the matter. Prop 22 was an initiative that banned same-sex marriage by law, and the legislature didn't have the legal authority to strike it down. They tried twice, and, as much as it completely sucks, Schwarzenegger did the legally right thing by vetoing it and saying that it was up to the courts or the citizens to strike it down.

    When the Courts struck it down, he didn't fight it, and when Prop 8 passed and was attacked in Court, he officially did not try to defend it.

    There were many things wrong with Schwarzenegger, but this wasn't one of them. If you want to condemn him for something on this issue, it would be for not heavily campaigning against Prop 8. The voice of a Republican governor campaigning against it could have made a huge difference.

    Posted by: Lymis | Jul 2, 2013 6:38:28 AM

  7. America - love it or leave it!

    Posted by: Jack M | Jul 2, 2013 8:10:07 AM

  8. *yawn* It used to be entertaining to watch these bigots cry and flail like spoiled teenage girls that didn't get the right color Escalade for their Sweet 16, but now it's just sad.

    Posted by: FuryOfFirestorm | Jul 2, 2013 8:22:00 AM

  9. "For a law professor . . , Eastman doesn't seem to have all that much respect for the judicial process."

    Nor does he seem to have a firm grasp on the role of the Constitution in determining the validity of laws.

    Posted by: Hunter | Jul 2, 2013 8:26:59 AM

  10. You would think this vaunted "legal scholar" would understand our system of representative democracy. Clearly, he does not.

    Posted by: shawnthesheep | Jul 2, 2013 8:34:22 AM

  11. GAYS AND LESBIANS OUGHT TO BE MAD AS HELL! Prop 8 passed and stopped marriages – then later to be found “unconstitutional”?!?!?! HOW?!?! How in the heck did it get to where a human being can be treated like an outcast? Or worse – our taxes are required but no justice for you! How did an “unconstitutional piece of law get past so many people – including the Supreme Court?!?!

    This is a pathetic part of history in America! And all for a make believe god who these people continue to speak about and yet have no evidence but hate, threats and fear. I am fed up with these people and will do I can to make sure they lose their past power for a more loving world. It can never happen with religious influence.

    Posted by: GRIVERA | Jul 2, 2013 6:52:59 PM

  12. It has been said - "If you cannot fight them; Join them!" The Catholic Church has been losing dues paying members for a long time. I am one that left them in 1956, along with my Wife and three sons. However, for whatever reasons, some of our Gay brothers and sisters believe that Religion should be a part of their lives, along with their surrogate or adopted children. But with the Church's attitude, why should these Gay people attend their services, or support them? With the Gay priests already in place, who better to understand and guide these Gay brothers and sisters to GOD?

    Posted by: Jerry6 | Jul 2, 2013 8:38:46 PM

  13. « 1 2

Post a comment


« «Towleroad Guide to the Tube #1397« «