Connect With Us


NOM Chairman Eastman Attacks Chief Justice Roberts For Adopting

Official 2005 photo of Chief Justice John G. R...

Official 2005 photo of Chief Justice John G. Roberts (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

With less than two weeks to go before the US Supreme Court considers the fate of same-sex marriage, the National Organization for Marriage is making friends with the Court…and by friends we mean enemies. Chairman of the National Organization for Marriage John Eastman slammed Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts for adopting two children. Roberts, who is a Conservative, had been considered by some a possible swing vote on the issue of marriage equality.

Eastman told the AP, as relayed by AmericaBlog, that:

“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.

John and Jane Roberts adopted John and Josephine. The Roberts are Catholics.

At AmericaBlog, they wrote:

We’ve written before about the leitmotif of contempt that many anti-gay bigots seem to have for adopted kids. Case in point: the Catholic church overall, and Catholic Charities in particular. The Catholics don’t even blink at the notion of cutting off services to adopted kids in order to take a swipe at gays. Catholic Charities has cut off adoptions and/or foster care services in Illinois, Massachusetts and DC. When it came juggling their hatred of gays with the welfare of children, the gay-haters in Catholic Charities and the Catholic Church went for gay-bashing and ignored the kids.

AmericaBlog then goes on to bring up Pope Francis I, who as Cardinal Bergoglio of Buenos Aries, was critical of expanding adoption rights to same-sex couples, but I feel that the analogy is sort of imprecise at that point. While the Catholic Church may see adoption as just fine for heterosexual couples, they do not see it as alright for homosexual couples…or any acknowledgment of the natural nature of homosexuality or the ability to raise children just fine.

The fact that Eastwood would attack Roberts for adopting a child, and claiming that this is the “second best option” shows great contempt for adoption in general within groups like NOM. It betrays the beliefs within the anti-gay groups that are actually rooted in misogyny not in homophobia.

Women are suppose to, according to their thinking, stay home, pop out children repeatedly, and die in childbirth as God intended. After all, this subjugation of women is suppose to be God’s punishment for Eve taking the Apple from the Tree of Knowledge. If a woman, in this line of thinking, were infertile, a man was suppose to kick her out and find another wife to have children with. Adoption was not really a priority of the Church until fairly recently. Until recently, orphaned children were pretty much given to the Church to either raise or bring into their orders.

What shall be interesting to see is how Roberts takes this. After all, it is unlikely that his children feel that he is their “second best dad”.

However, Eastman just showed how little he, as a Catholic, cares for children…or anyone else.



Share This Post

2 Responses to NOM Chairman Eastman Attacks Chief Justice Roberts For Adopting

  1. Pingback: IS ADOPTION THE SECOND BEST OPTION? | Bazaar Daily U.K

  2. Scott Rose

    March 14, 2013 at 2:53 pm

    Eastman’s alleged concern for children is a transparent false front for his gay bashing. The majority of children up for adoption aren’t up for adoption because their heterosexual parents passed away; they’re up for adoption because their heterosexual parents sucked out loud as parents. In the cases now before the Supreme Court, one of the most devastating things to the anti-gay side is an observation in the pro-gay Windsor case filing that the anti-gay filing doesn’t use the word “love” once.