Anti-gay group: Chief Justice Roberts' decision to adopt "second-best"
John Eastman, chairman of NOM, told AP:
[quote]"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. [bold]Certainly adoption in families headed, like Chief Roberts' family is, by a heterosexual couple, is by far the second-best option,[/bold]" said John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage. Eastman also teaches law at Chapman University law school in Orange, Calif. [emphasis added]
This must be the most ill-timed pronouncement EVAH.
R10 I love that photo!
R7 don't be afraid, Americablog is a gay rights site
The study used to supposedly demonstrate the superiority of raising children with one father and one mother compared hetero couples as parents vs. single parents. Comparison with same sex couples was not studied. But it is consistently misused.
I must be missing something. I don't get this.
[quote]Comparison with same sex couples was not studied.
As I recall, there were quite a few entered in the Prop 8 case. They showed no difference between mixed-sex and same-sex.
Is it possible that NOM and the like believe that Roberts may actually be in favor of the upcoming gay rights cases and are firing off this crap as some kind of warning to him?
Gay Chief Justice John Roberts and his gay friends get together for dinner:
I should be embarrassed and deeply ashamed that I find John Roberts very fuckable, shouldn't I?
[quote]The study used to supposedly demonstrate the superiority of raising children with one father and one mother compared hetero couples as parents vs. single parents. Comparison with same sex couples was not studied. But it is consistently misused.
What "study?" I haven't seen references upthread, in the Ameriblog article, or the AP article it references.
R18, see 10.
I don't know whether or not Roberts is gay but what is the big problem with adoption? And we're not even talking about same-sex couples. Seems like NOM is just going out of their way to be ridiculous.
[quote]Is it possible that NOM and the like believe that Roberts may actually be in favor of the upcoming gay rights cases and are firing off this crap as some kind of warning to him?
Let's not forget that morbidly obsese Maggie Gallagher procreated without the benefit of marriage. Years later, when she finally got some guy to marry her, it didn't last. He left her two years ago.
In all the years of her gaybashing fight against marriage equality, no member of the media has asked why the founder of NOM is a total failure when it comes to marriage.
Her obsession with gaybashing screams self-hating closet case. Her photo should be in the DL dictionary next to caneface.
Maggie Gallagher [bold]IS[/bold] Nan Michiganwomyn!
I actually think Roberts is a decent human being.
Unlike those other two creeps, CT&AS
We should force orphans to self-deport.
I would rather be adopted by Chief Justice Roberts than have John Eastman's genes.
We shall see very soon about Justice Roberts.
This NOM shit will only reinforce the blatant bigotry towards gays.
r17, but what kind of "warning" would that be? Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. It's not an elected position. And I doubt they try to impeach him (you'd think they would've tried after the Obamacare ruling); now, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, I do think there are justifiable grounds for impeaching them.
The only thing I get out of this is that the NOM are out of touch, delusional bullies.
I think the warning is they know he's gay and they intend to out him if he doesn't rule their way.
Reading that actually made me feel sorry for Roberts' family, especially his kids.
It's going to backfire, just like Romney's negative campaign ads.
I wish I had gone for the best option (a termination) rather than the second-best option (squirting out the turd)