NOM looks west, spots another opp. to take gays south
The National Organization For Marriage has found its next Golden State golden opportunity. Though this time it's not a ballot initiative that strips gays of a civil right. Instead it's California Attorney General candidate John Eastman, for whom NOM will next week co-sponsor a Washington D.C. fundraiser. This from NOM's Maggie Gallagher:
Former attorney general Ed Meese, Rep. Michelle Bachman, and half the conservative establishment are hosting a fundraiser for [Eastman] on Monday, February 22, at the Capitol Hill Club in D.C.
When: Monday, February 22, 2010, 5:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m.
Where: Capitol Hill Club, McKinley Room, 300 First Street SE, Washington, DC
Suggested Contribution levels:
(Full disclosure: NOM is also a co-sponsor.)
Winning Jerry Brown's Seat [Maggie Gallagher]
Now, if the NOM/Meese/Bachmann trifecta didn't clue you in: Eastman is not our community's friend. He's an out and proud Prop 8 supporter (*Eastman donated $1000 to the "yes on 8" campaign) who was quick to knock the California Supreme Court's opinion just days after its May '08 issuance:
Those that support same-sex marriage have, in more candid moments, said what we're seeking to accomplish here is really the decoupling of the sanctity of marriage from the procreation function that made it a societal institution and making it just a matter of contract.
Of course, if you do that, you establish an entirely different institution than existed before. And this is no longer a state as a matter of policy, you know, letting a third cousin that married legally in one state come in and continuing to recognize it. This is a rather transformative thing that's going on.
Calif. Gay Marriages Raise Legal Questions Nationwide [PBS]
And just a few weeks ago Eastman was back in the Prop 8 news, penning pieces critical of the federal trial that read somewhat like NOM press releases:
The defendants are the sponsors of Prop 8 who have been forced to spend millions of dollars supporting the initiative because Attorney General Jerry Brown has abandoned his responsibilities to the people he was sworn to represent.
They can be expected to argue that Prop 8 is a validly enacted and constitutional measure that was supported by more than 7 million California voters -- twice the number who voted for Schwarzenegger to be their governor.
They advance the reasonable and common-sense proposition that marriage is about more than the relationship between the two adults involved and has broad implications for society as a whole, especially children. They will point to the procreative nature of the male/female relationship as one of many things that separate traditional marriage from same-sex relationships.
Whether traditional marriage, and the rights of more than 7 million voters like me who approved Prop 8, prevail in Walker's courtroom remains to be seen.
Prop 8 trial set up aids gay marriage side [CNN]
So NOM and the far-right see potential to take the Prop 8 mindset and turn it into a sweeping movement that changes the Golden State landscape irreversibly. Now is the time to stop them. Not tomorrow. Not in the spring. NOW! Or else they will have once again framed the debate for us, and we will be running around chasing our tail trying to refute their nonsense.
OPPOSE JOHN EASTMAN FOR California AG!!!!! Pass it on.
As a Republican I am going to support Tom Harman. Tom Harman may not be friendly to LGBT Californians but he is not as toxic as Eastman. Eliminating Eastman is a good idea, if you have Republican friends or family have them support Tom Harman.
Posted by: Matt from California | Feb 20, 2010 12:43:47 AM
Ummmm.....k. This dude is in favor of "traditional marriage", which he frames as being entirely different from this new-fangled "social experiment" where marriage is a civil contract between two adult individuals?! Ummmm...he didn't study history, did he. Actually, by his use of "traditional marriage", an iron clad argument can be made that the contractual basis as the definition of marriage IS "Traditional Marriage"!!! I guess love within the context of a marriage, even when children are not present, doesn't matter to he and his ilk, right?
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Feb 20, 2010 1:38:27 AM
This past Thursday I had the dubious pleasure of watching Dr. Phil (although some people like him). He had on as his guest a woman author who wrote the book "Marry the Man." No, this is not about "traditional marriage," it was about how heterosexual marriage has evolved into a domestic partnership... YES, DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP. The show covered subjects like stay-at-home husbands, wives earning the bulk of the household income, and how 87% of women reported that they marry for partnership... NOT PROCREATION. John Eastman and his ilk want to trash all that and basically reduce marriage to a state procreation license. :-P
California Republicans, vote Harman in your primary!
Posted by: Ed-M | Feb 21, 2010 12:22:01 AM
Meg Whiteman (spelling??) has been aggressively advertising her lies here for probably more than a month now. The billionaire wannabe for governor. More like wannabuy a governorship. Last I heard, she was still trailing Brown by something like 5 points. I'm hoping that the electorate is intelligent enough not to fall for for it.
Maybe it's just me, but I have the sense that most won't give her a pass because of Ebay... Google maybe, but when I think of Ebay, I think of a company that really has no social consciousness. Kind of like a black hole just sucking the essence out of everything around it. The company is pure capitalism (mostly greed), and does nothing to really benefit society, so I'm hoping that it ends up being more of a negative for her than not. There is the name recognition, but, I don't really see it as a positive. Despite all of her flowery happy-speak in her ads, I always get such a gloomy vibe from her.
Need to get Brin, Page, Jobs and some of the true luminaries in Silicon Valley to quickly come out in support of Brown. And Brown is going to need a lot of cash to defeat the billionaire's bank account. But, it will really be interesting to see if all that it takes is money - because that is the only thing that Whitman brings to the fray.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Feb 21, 2010 6:04:23 PM
Posted by: LOrion | Feb 22, 2010 1:29:56 PM
So this mean's that ever time Mr. Eastman has had sex with a woman it has resulted in the birth of a child or at least the intent.
I call Bull Shit!
Posted by: Michael | Feb 22, 2010 2:01:08 PMcomments powered by Disqus