NOM BLOG

Video: PBS Interviews NOM Chairman John Eastman on Anti-Prop 8 Decision

 

NOM Chairman John Eastman was interviewed yesterday about the 9th Circuit ruling against Prop 8.

He says the question here is "The right of the people to decide for themselves a very fundamental policy question about whether we're going to continue to have an institution of marriage that is rooted in biology with a purpose of procreation as it always has been or whether we're going to allow the courts to mandate a dramatic altercation of that institution with potentially devastating consequences to society. So it's the right of the voters of the state of California to have their judgement about the basic policy in question here affirmed."

13 Comments

  1. james2
    Posted February 8, 2012 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

    Eastman seemed kind of lost here. The talking points the anti-gays repeat and repeat seem so meaningless at this point. There's simply no affect on anyone, in any way, if same-sex couples get married. This is such a weird issue for the religionists to be devoting so much energy to.

  2. Jason jackson
    Posted February 8, 2012 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

    1 man and 1 woman can make a baby
    2 men cannot
    2 women cannot
    Biology discriminates against homosexual relationships having equal outcomes to heterosexuals.

    we need an institution to encourage that.

    For the last 1000 years, it has been called "marriage".

  3. Publius
    Posted February 8, 2012 at 11:18 pm | Permalink

    The SCOTUS has reversed Judge Reinhardt before, and Boies has lost before the SCOTUS.

    It is a mockery of democracy that Justice Kennedy is expected to decide if seven million Californians are rational.

    One might argue that the LGBT movement has some of the characteristics of a religiionist cult, one might call it an infertility cult.

  4. Zack
    Posted February 9, 2012 at 12:06 am | Permalink

    @Publius

    Kennedy might be the likely vote that makes or breaks it. But I wouldn't count out Sotomayor...she may be a liberal but even liberals have boundaries they won't cross.

  5. Adam
    Posted February 9, 2012 at 12:55 am | Permalink

    Jason, procreation is only one rationale for marriage. It's a good one, but not the only one.

    Publius, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. Someone needs to do a little refresher!

  6. Adam
    Posted February 9, 2012 at 12:57 am | Permalink

    Jason, procreation is not the only rationale for marriage. It's a good one, just not the only one.

    Publius, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. Someone needs a little refresher!

  7. Zack
    Posted February 9, 2012 at 1:18 am | Permalink

    @Adam

    At the state and federal level...yes we are a republic. But at the local level we are a democracy.

    Either way, each form is a rule of majority. Just one requires more input than a simple majority.

    Either way this man says that polygamy is a desperate argument. Excuse me? The star of Sister Wives was just told by a judge that he was allowed to sue the state of Utah to recognize his marriages to other women! He's going forward with his lawsuit!

  8. Publius
    Posted February 9, 2012 at 2:00 am | Permalink

    Boies is factually incorrect to say polygamy never came up in the Prop 8 campaign. He is desperate to keep the argument off the table, but he can hardly prove it never came up or was never a factor in the minds of some voters. The liberal case requires judges to read the minds of the voters when making their decision.

  9. Publius
    Posted February 9, 2012 at 2:05 am | Permalink

    @Adam

    Yes, we live in a republic, but that republic is founded on the bedrock notion of the sovereignty of the people. That sovereignty may be properly buffered too slow down and cool off hasty decisions by the people, less we have mob rule (hence the bicameral legislature with only a third of the Senate up for election at a time, separation of powers, etc.) but take away the ultimate sovereignty of the people, and we are back to monarchy. Without the consent of the governed, government is not just.

  10. Posted February 9, 2012 at 6:38 am | Permalink

    @james2 I live in Vermont and there certainly is an effect when civil unions are passed and then that is upgraded to same-gender "marriage." What happens are lawsuits: people are getting sued for not treating the union of two women exactly the same as a gender-integrated couple. Our freedom of religion is trampled.
    Also, children are coming out on Youtube as bisexual. We are confusing the heck out of kids! One teacher "came out" to her 3rd grade class. Don't tell me there is no effect! I see it in my own state and my own family.

  11. Adam
    Posted February 9, 2012 at 8:18 am | Permalink

    Sovreignty of the people does not mean majority rule in all circumstances. We may disagree as to whether marriage rights is a constitutional question, but if it is, the courts have a proper place in deciding it.

  12. Randy E King
    Posted February 9, 2012 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    Adam,

    The rational for extended marriage rights it not based on a single guiding factor, but on a combination of factors; with procreation being the one and only inseparable component.

    The courts exist to verify the people’s intent; not to dictate to the people what their new intents should be. Marriage corruption supporters have embrace tyranny as an acceptable tool in their quest to mandate acceptance of their depravity - in their quest to create willing victims.

  13. Layne
    Posted February 10, 2012 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    Randy, do you have any idea what courts are for? If they ruled by the "people's intent", then slavery would still be legal, women wouldn't have the right to vote, and we'd still have segregation.