Video: NOM Chairman John Eastman Comments on Same-Sex Ceremonies at the National Cathedral


NOM's Chairman John Eastman was on FoxNewsHQ this Sunday speaking about the National Cathedral's decision to offer ceremonies to same-sex partners.

"The step that [the National Cathedral] has taken ... is directly in violation of international Anglican law and the Book of Common Prayer. So they can do this if they want but redefining marriage to be something it was never understood to be is going to have dramatic consequences both in this country and in their church."

Watch the rest of his appearance below:


  1. Marc Paul
    Posted January 14, 2013 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    "international Anglican law" - (Sighs in complete exasperation)

    Mr Eastman, this is not the RC Church. It is a Communion of Churches only. There is no Pope, no Vatican, no curia, no enforceable canon law.

  2. Will Fisher
    Posted January 14, 2013 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    International Anglican Law? No such thing exists. The Anglican Communion is based on a common liturgy and worship, not common doctrine or belief.

  3. Marc Paul
    Posted January 14, 2013 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    Tellingly, no comments from NOM supporters.

    It's worth repeating the oxymoron for its sheer chutzpah.

    International Anglican Law.

    Silly man.

  4. Susan Rosenthal
    Posted January 14, 2013 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    If NOM is going to preach and scream about religious liberty, then it is time to let churches decide if they want to marry gay couples. The NOM leaders need to keep their mouths shut and mind their own business.

  5. OldKingBlog
    Posted January 14, 2013 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

    Earth to Susan: NOM leaders and people who support normal marriage have the right to speak out. You ever heard of the First Amendement, hon? Besides, a point of clarification: the "churches" (note the quote marks) who have supported secular leftist policies and goals in the past (like legal abortion) have long ago abandoned religion and have embraced secular humanism. These "churches" have only ONE other thing in common -- declining membership. In short, should they choose to "marry" same-sex couples, their journey to dinosaurdom would come all that much faster. Truth will always defeat ideological fantasies.

  6. Randy E King
    Posted January 14, 2013 at 11:44 pm | Permalink

    The Church of England is the Mother Church of the worldwide Anglican Community; the same Church that presided over the marriage of Prince William and Kate Middleton where the Archbishop of Canterbury noted that the intent of marriage is to join man to woman as God intended.

    The Anglican Church of the United States is acting in direct opposition to its own faith by equating depravity with Godliness.

  7. Publius
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 1:14 am | Permalink

    Nr 2 “The Anglican Communion is based on a common liturgy and worship, not common doctrine or belief.”

    The authors of the Thirty-nine articles of religion, not to mention the authors of the various books of scripture and the creeds, would be quite surprised or at least disheartened to learn that Anglicans no longer have a common doctrine or belief.

    As for liturgy and worship, the solemnization of matrimony in the Book of Common Prayer refers to man and woman, husband and wife. The liturgy will have to become unorthodox as well.

    As for current Anglican canon on matrimony, “The Church of England affirms, according to our Lord's teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.”

    Of course, the world-wide Anglican community and its members can adopt whatever doctrines they want, but we ought not to suppose or pretend that Anglicans are Congregationalist in government or Unitarian-Universalist in doctrine.

    I recommend that interested readers google “Anglican” or “Episcopal” and “schism” or its synonyms to see what is happening to this faith community.

  8. Susan Rosenthal
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 4:13 am | Permalink

    Dear Old King Blog,

    I am back on earth now. Of course I realize that the First Amendment allows NOM to criticize the National Cathedral. I simply think it is ironic and hypocritical to preach about religious liberty and then criticize a church for exercising it's' liberty to marry gay couples.

  9. Randy E King
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 9:03 am | Permalink


    The Anglican Church is acting in opposition to its recognized written doctrine. Pointing this well known fact out is no more hypocritical then telling you your zipper is down - so to speak.

    If the Emperor wants to walk around with no clothes that is his business, but under the United States Constitution we have an obligation to publicly acknowledge self evident truths.

  10. Publius
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 10:59 am | Permalink

    There is no irony or hypocrisy here on the part of NOM.

    Liberty is not synonymous with freedom from criticism. Indeed, religious liberty meant precisely that individuals were allowed to criticize churches and churches were allowed to criticize other churches without fear of punishment and retribution.

    However, political correctness requires that certain protected groups not be criticized. Please don’t confuse political correctness with liberty. Political correctness is an enemy of liberty. If there is irony it is political correctness claiming to support liberty.

  11. Publius
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    Re nr. 1. The key word is “enforceable.” There is such a thing as Anglican canon law, and it explicitly holds that marriage is between and man and a woman. Googling the term Anglican canon law will yield a wealth of information. But enforcing it is another matter. The Episcopal Church is in the process of splintering over the ordination of gay bishops and “gay marriage.” People are voting with their feet. Membership in the Episcopal Church, which was more than 3.5 million in the 1960’s, has fallen below 2 million.

    Jeff Walton of The Institute on Religion and Democracy put is this way: "Despite all its liberal cheerleading about inclusiveness, the once-influential Episcopal Church is a dwindling, nearly all white, increasingly gray-headed denomination with a grim future, absent divine intervention."

  12. Will Fisher
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 11:34 am | Permalink

    Of course professor Eastman is free to criticize my church. He is also free to insinuate, without any evidence, that if the ECUSA allows SSM, then other churches will soon be required to allow SSM. We are likewise free to call him out on his b.s.

  13. M. jones
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    Sadly this church that has no doctrine has been co-opted by the homosexual agenda. If anything they have become a perversion of the lords truth.

  14. Posted January 15, 2013 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

    What SSM advocates are after is not membership in the church (they could form their own church).

    What they are after, and this is strikingly obvious to me, is control over the centuries-old BUILDINGS these colonial churches are housed within! It is materialistic greed.

    Note modern architects just don't build buildings this majestic way. . . too difficult? Often, these buildings are in multimillion dollar properties.

    By infiltrating the leadership positions in the church, and ignoring Biblical teaching, they create a split in the membership. Paul advises early Christians (Roman) to not even eat a meal with certain astray members of the church (though 'members' is a more modern invention), and he is very explicit. But, amazingly, we are to intermingle with pagans outside the church. Churches don't follow this advice, and therefore become mere country clubs sooner or later.

    Comfort and glamor is a very American ideal. So-called 'gay' like glamor and comfort.

    Since true Christians care about the community of believers, and much less about the fancy church building (which God can easily replace with a much better one), they leave to join other churches, and start construction anew (in gymnasiums, cafeterias, and the like).

    That's because true Christians will follow the instruction of Jesus and Paul in the Bible, whether politically correct or not, whether in comfort/glamor or not. And we are blessed for it, a thousand-fold! It is unexplainable. . .

    When the church building and the entertainment is more important than the church's doctrine and its mission, that setting already supports the watering-down of doctrine, and the property becomes a fancy country-club.

    Now, lots of people like country clubs, and that's fine. The colonial church building is rented out for weddings, reunions, etc. - even tourism. That is all that is left of a once thriving church, at that location. That's because a church is not a building - that was once called the 'temple' - calling it a church belies the misunderstanding, and they are ripe for a take-over. . .

    But a remnant of Christians in colonial church buildings wakes up and begins to volunteer for leadership positions, reconsidering recent doctrinal aberrations. These are the heroes of each church. They don't run. They stay, and work from within. They are the true 'pillars' of the true church.

    Looking at a short-term trend developments regarding a church building does not tell us the long-term trend, as some would think (bad mathematics). Both, Presbyterians and Methodists have had a push one way regarding SSM, only to experience the backslash from their own congregations. I haven't met many pastors who don't care about the amount of offerings, and therefore indirectly the number of members :) We are all human.

    Put SSM in a church, and long-term, it purifies it. The building is just the shell, not the egg.

    What's left might be a small portion of the initial membership. In human terms it is weaker, and maybe it lost its downtown COLONIAL building. But it is purified, more powerful through the workings of the Holy Spirit.

    God is not impressed by architecture. Look at the tabernacle Moses built - the only God-given architectural plans. The temple in Jerusalem was majestic - God destroyed it TWICE.

  15. Publius
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    The first line of attack (comments 1-3) on John Eastman was to scoff at the idea that the international Anglican Communion has doctrines and a canon. But those doctrines and canons are easily found on line. John is right that these are being ignored or violated.

    The second line of attack (comments 4 & 8) on John was to claim it is wrong or hypocritical to criticize a church, an ironic attack coming from the left. But John clearly articulates that the churches can do whatever they want. He just doesn’t think it is a good idea.

    The third line of attack (nr 12) claims John said something he didn’t say in the posted video. Let’s have a little evidence here of the claimed insinuation. He, in fact, says that different organizations will go their different ways and that is something that the courts should allow.

    John Eastman is holding up rather well under these attacks.

    Little Man (nr 14) suggests the move by the dean of the cathedral and his supporters is part of an edifice complex. Interesting thought.

  16. Publius
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

    Somehow a computer glitch turned "8)" into a smiley.

  17. Randy E King
    Posted January 15, 2013 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

    Me likey!

  18. E. Cohen
    Posted January 17, 2013 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

    No one is born gay. That is a fact proven by dozens of identical twin studies. The entire gay agenda rests on the one huge lie - we're born this way (i.e., God made us this way and how dare you question God!).

    If folks are born gay, why do only 10% of gay identical twins have gay twin siblings? Want proof - check out 2008 Swedish study, largest twin study of homosexuality. 90% of gay identical twins have STRAIGHT twin siblings.

    NO one is born gay. It was and always will be a mental disorder that arises in reaciton to lifes dysfunctions, but can be changed. My ex-gay friends are living proof and so is God's word.

  19. Jak
    Posted January 17, 2013 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

    Gay marriage?
    "Certain Ideas Are so Stupid, Only an Intellectual Could Believe in Them".

    (George Orwell)

  20. Posted January 17, 2013 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

    Picture of this magnificent cathedral on nomblog:

  21. Chairm
    Posted January 19, 2013 at 3:11 am | Permalink

    Clearly the SSM advocates hope that the SSM idea will supplant the marriage idea. Not just in the legal system but in the culture. And that includes the religious institutions.

    The pro-gay agenda in the Anglican sphere is aggressively anti-Anglican. It need not be so. But the radicals have worked slavishly for supremacy and against tolerance and faith in the truth. They would rather be anything but indiscriminate.

    SSMers have long proclaimed that the only good religion is the ro-SSM religion. They press their sociol-political agenda into their theological mumbo jumbo. It is analogous to the abuse and perversion of religious institutions by white racist supremicists. They turn away from the moral truth and from the source of their religious authority.

  22. Chairm
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 3:50 pm | Permalink


    your comment @ January 15, 2013 at 6:44 pm showed that SSMers have lost the wind in their sails on this one and so their huffing and puffing was all they really had.

    Nice summary there.