NOM: Alabama Should Ignore SCOTUS

"The Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell mandating same-sex marriage throughout the nation is not only wrong, but illegitimate. The oaths that elected officials take is to 'the Constitution,' not to 'the Supreme Court,' and it is high time that 'that eminent tribunal' be reminded that the very essence of its authority comes from the Constitution. As John Marshall stated in the famous decision of Marbury v. Madison, the power of judicial review does not imply a superiority of the courts to the elected branches of government, but a superiority of the Constitution to both."- NOM chairman John Eastman, in a joint press release urging the Alabama Supreme Court to act on the demand filed earlier this month by the Liberty Counsel.

Ted Cruz Convenes Senate Hearing On "SCOTUS Activism" - Calls Hate Group Leader John Eastman As Witness

Yesterday Ted Cruz convened a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, which he chairs, in order to call for reining in the "judicial tyranny" of the Supreme Court. One of the three witnesses he called was NOM chairman John Eastman. MSNBC reports:

Eastman agreed with Cruz’s proposals on judicial term limits and retention elections, but added one more “check” to the judicial branch – that states be given the ability to override “egregiously wrong decisions of the Supreme Court.” Cruz seemed interested in the idea, and asked for Eastman to elaborate. “The massive transfer of power from states to the federal government that came in the wake of the Civil War … unmoored the courts,” Eastman said. “A simple majority of the states ought to be able to override those kinds of decisions of the Supreme Court.”

The irony of such prescriptions was undoubtedly not lost on many of those watching Wednesday’s hearing. In order to correct what Cruz views as a series of decisions that have no basis in the U.S. Constitution, as well as what he considers to be an unconstitutional transgression by the justices into the realm of policy making, Cruz entertained several solutions – such as judicial term limits, retention elections, and state or Congressional overrides of “egregiously wrong decisions” – that would serve to dramatically alter the U.S. Constitution, not restore or strengthen it,

Today Cruz posted his opening statement to his presidential campaign channel on YouTube.

NOM Chairman John Eastman: I Hope That Uganda Reinstates The Life Sentence For Homosexuality "In Short Order"

"Contrary to the way it was reported here in the United States, it provided life imprisonment for aggravated homosexuality, that is homosexual acts committed by somebody infected with HIV/AIDS, who knew that by conducting that act they knew they were very likely to give that deadly disease - death sentence - to their sex partners. And homosexual acts with minors. And then prison for groups who counsel people into homosexuality. The Ugandan Supreme Court invalidated the law, but only on technical grounds that there had not been a quorum. I suspect that it's going to come back and I hope that it does come back in short order." - NOM Chairman John Eastman, speaking in an FRC video which denounces the Obama administration's "pro-homosexuality agenda" in foreign relations. Eastman fails to note that under the stricken-for-now Ugandan bill, "aggravated homosexuality" is also defined as having been arrested on those charges more than once.

Here is the clip description:

The Obama administration has engaged in an aggressive effort to force recipients of American foreign aid to accept the President’s pro-homosexuality agenda. This has gone even to the point of demanding that African nations change their laws against same-sex intimacy and those barring same-sex marriage or risk losing U.S. assistance and even American military support in fighting terrorist organizations. As with so many other areas of Mr. Obama’s priorities, this initiative pushes the statutory authority of the President past the breaking point. Join FRC and Dr. John Eastman as he examines the ways in which our foreign policy has promoted a radical agenda on marriage and sexuality and what can be done to change it.

Eastman's comments on Uganda begin at 38:00.

NOM: We're Encouraged About Kennedy

"I am extremely encouraged by the questioning, especially from Justice Kennedy, because it focused on what marriage is. It shows that the justices realize that marriage has existed for millennia and they have no constitutional basis to redefine it. The entire spectacle of the same-sex marriage litigation has undermined confidence in the judicial system as activist federal judges around the nation have taken it upon themselves to substitute their own views for the sovereign right of states, expressed through their voters and elected officials, to decide this issue. We call upon the US Supreme Court to put an end to this judicial tyranny by ruling forthrightly that there is nothing in the US constitution that prevents states from defining marriage in the law as it has existed in reality for millennia – the union of one man and one woman. Nobody can safely predict the outcome of a case like this on the basis of oral argument, but we are encouraged that the justices understand what is at stake – upending an institution that has served society well for millennia – and are hopeful that they will find that the constitution does not prevent traditional marriage laws. In doing so, they will restore to the people the power to decide the issue of marriage." - NOM chairman John Eastman, via press release.

NOM Chairman John Eastman: Opponents Will Never Accept SCOTUS Ruling

"Over the past decade and a half, more than $215 million has been spent on ballot initiatives defending (or trying to overturn) the traditional, biologically rooted definition of marriage. No matter what Justice Ginsburg says, the more than fifty million voters who have spent an immense amount of time and treasure to protect the fundamental nature of the institution of marriage are not at all likely to 'accept' a Supreme Court decision that takes the decision about marriage policy away from them. Judicial interference in hotly contested policy disputes is never wise. One such attempt, over forty years ago, has so polarized our nation’s politics that respected commentators and legal scholars from across the ideological spectrum have noted its destructive consequences for our democracy." - NOM chairman John Eastman, writing for Public Discourse.

NOM To SCOTUS: Don't Approve Gay Marriage Because The Surveys Are Wrong

NOM chairman John Eastman has authored an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in which he argues, among other reasons, that same-sex marriage must not be approved because surveys on the issue are designed to favor gays. From NOM's blog:

Schubert also addressed several national surveys purporting to show majority support for same-sex marriage, including the Gallup Survey (May 2014) which claims that 55% of Americans believe that "marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized as valid with the same rights as traditional marriages." 42% disagree. Schubert noted that the Gallup survey suffers from two flaws. First, it connects the marriage issue with "rights," making it difficult to separate out the issue of redefining marriage from the general issue of gay rights. Second, Gallup engages in a practice called "priming" by asking a leading question about whether gay relationships should be legal (they have been legal for decades) designed to elicit support for same-sex couples right before asking respondents about support for same-sex marriage. Schubert said, "[T]he most accurate statement of public opinion on the issue of the definition of marriage is that Americans have conflicting viewpoints on the issue. Neither side has "won" the debate, but one thing is clear: It is a debate that should be resolved by voters and legislators through the democratic process, not one that is truncated and its outcome mandated by [the Supreme] Court.

The brief also warns the Supreme Court that public opinion on "judicial authority" is very low.

NORTH CAROLINA: NOM & GOP Appeal Marriage Ruling To Fourth Circuit Court

Via Raleigh's News & Observer:

Within hours of a split ruling by a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel upholding gay marriage bans in four states, attorneys for North Carolina legislative leaders filed notice in the federal courts of their plans to appeal rulings in North Carolina that struck down a gay marriage ban. The court document, filed by John C. Eastman, a California lawyer and chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, outlines the plans of Phil Berger, president pro tem of the N.C. Senate, and Thom Tillis, speaker of the state House, to appeal a ruling in October by U.S. District Judge William Osteen Jr. that nullified a 2012 amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Though Osteen allowed the legislators to intervene in the case on a narrow basis, Eastman’s notice states that the Republican legislative leaders do not believe that the federal district court put limits on their arguments during appeal.

Read the notice of appeal at Equality Case Files. NOM and the GOP were granted permission to intervene by the above court last month, although the court essentially told them they are wasting their time.

Court To NOM: No, You Don't Even Get Legal Fees For Your Failed IRS Lawsuit

Back in June a federal court declared that NOM had not "produced a shred of proof" that their donor information had been deliberated leaked to the Human Rights Campaign. The government did agree to pay NOM $50K for the "unintentional disclosure" of that information, prompting chairman John Eastman to hit Fox News and every teabagger site to declare victory - even though NOM actually lost their lawsuit, a pesky detail that none of those outlets reported. Today NOM lost again when the same court told them to suck it regarding their legal costs. BOOM. Anybody know how much they won't be getting?

UPDATE: Whoa. The demand was for nearly $700,000.

Federal Court To GOP/NOM: You Can Intervene In North Carolina's Marriage Case, But You're Wasting Everyone's Time

United States District Court Judge William Osteen today ruled that the GOP/NOM legal team has the standing to appeal North Carolina's marriage equality case.

Osteen issued an order granting requests by House Speaker Thom Tillis and Senate leader Phil Berger seeking to intervene in the cases. Osteen's order follows a separate ruling Friday by U.S. District Court Judge Max O. Cogburn Jr. declaring the ban unconstitutional, triggering a rush of joyful same-sex couples getting legally married. "In reaching this conclusion, this court is not expressing an opinion on the relative merits or demerits of any appeal, only that there is an appeal right that a party with arguable standing and interest has sought to preserve," wrote Osteen, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush.

But check out this smackdown towards the end of the ruling.

Notwithstanding some of the ongoing cases on a national level, this discussion is merely academic in this court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has issued its ruling in Bostic. As recognized by the district court in General Synod, this district court, sitting in North Carolina and the Fourth Circuit, is bound to apply that law. The parties to this case have the right to expect nothing less, whether they agree with the law or not. The issue presently before this court is solely whether to permit intervention for the purpose of preserving and taking an appeal. Although it is a very close issue, this court concludes that the motion to intervene should be granted, but only for the purpose of lodging an objection and preserving that objection to this court’s application of Bostic.

BOOM. Read the full ruling at Equality Case Files.

NORTH CAROLINA: Federal Court Denies GOP Demand For Oral Arguments UPDATE: No Ruling Will Come Today

NORTH CAROLINA: GOP Tells Federal Court It Has No Jurisdiction On Marriage

GOP leaders in North Carolina have filed their response in that state's marriage equality case, claiming that the federal court has no jurisdiction over state laws. Matt Comer reports at Q Notes:

Attorneys for state Speaker Thom Tillis and Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger filed their latest document shortly after 11:30 a.m. In it, the state GOP repeatedly says, “Intervenors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a basis as to the truth of these allegations,” in response to claims of discrimination and harm caused to same-sex couples. Additionally, Tillis and Berger are arguing that a 1971-72 federal case, Baker v. Nelson, allows the state of North Carolina to continue discriminating against same-sex couples and tells the court it has no jurisdiction over the current cases.

“Intervenors deny that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter,” the GOP’s answer reads. “Intervenors contend that this matter should be dismissed for want of substantial federal question.” In the Baker case, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s ruling affirming no right to same-sex marriage in Minnesota. Conservative lawyers and activists have often argued the case allows individual states to set their own marriage laws. Other legal experts, though, say last year’s decision in Windsor overrules Baker, applying equal protection to same-sex couples. Every affirmative decision for same-sex marriage since Windsor have said the same.

Dig into the full response. I'm betting the judge will take a very dim view of this tactic. (Tipped by JMG reader Kent)

NORTH CAROLINA: GOP & NOM Face Noon Deadline For Marriage Arguments

The Charlotte Observer recaps:

California law professor John Eastman took little time getting involved in the fight, filing motions in two of North Carolina’s marriage cases to give the General Assembly a role and more time to make its arguments. In a ruling Thursday night, U.S. District Judge William Osteen gave legislators only part of what they wanted – denying them the eight days they sought to review the files, and setting a noon Friday deadline for the Republicans to file expanded arguments. In an order submitted by Osteen late Thursday, the judge said the legislators had not persuaded him of their need for extra time. The legislators, Osteen said, “allege that additional time is required to ‘investigate the files and conduct appropriate research in order to adequately prepare the pleading.’” Osteen said he was aware that only a short time had passed since the Supreme Court decision, but “these cases have been pending for a lengthy period of time and the defendants have been clear in their position” that what happened in Virginia could determine what happened in North Carolina.

A local legal expert rants: "Are North Carolina taxpayers paying for this gambit? If so, they should be incensed because it is a pure waste. North Carolina cannot win." It seems possible that North Carolina could become this week's ninth state by the end of the day. It's certainly been that kind of week.

NORTH CAROLINA: Judge Denies GOP Attempt To Delay Ruling In Marriage Case

A federal judge tonight denied the GOP's attempt to delay a ruling in North Carolina's marriage case. Matt Comer reports at Q Notes:

On Thursday afternoon, state House Speaker Thom Tillis and Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger hired attorneys affiliated with the anti-LGBT National Organization for Marriage — the same group which funneled more than $400,000 into the 2012 anti-gay amendment campaign — to represent the state. In addition to their motion to intervene, the attorneys requested an extension of eight days to make their arguments against same-sex marriage. Late Thursday evening, U.S. District Court Judge William Osteen issued an order denying their request. “In light of the stage of this litigation, and the arguments and positions previously asserted by both parties to this case, this court does not find good cause to extend the time for filing a proposed Answer,” Osteen’s order read.

The judge gave them until noon tomorrow to file their motion to intervene. It looks like NOM chairman John Eastman won't have time to make very much money in North Carolina, even at $400/hr.

Berger spokeswoman Shelly Carver said Eastman has agreed to forgo his first $10,000 in legal fees. After that, he will be paid $400 an hour. American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina legal director Chris Brook criticized the move as a waste of taxpayer funds. "The legislature has had more than a year to intervene in this matter if they felt their interests were not adequately represented, and failed to do so," said Brook, who represents nine same-sex couples seeking the freedom to marry and adopt children. "The result here is no longer in doubt. ... The legislature should quit playing politics by seeking to defend the indefensible." Tillis, who is running for U.S. Senate, said in a debate earlier this week he felt obligated to defend the will of North Carolina voters against "liberal activist judges" appointed by President Barack Obama.

Osteen, by the way, was appointed by George W. Bush. Snork! (Tipped by JMG reader Amber)

NORTH CAROLINA: GOP Hires NOM Chairman John Eastman To Fight Marriage

NOM chairman John Eastman has been hired by North Carolina's GOP leaders to fight the enactment of same-sex marriage. He's got a track record, people!

House Speaker Thom Tillis and Senate President Phil Berger reportedly have hired a conservative California legal expert to lead the effort. John Eastman, a former Republican candidate for attorney general in California, is the former dean of the Chapman University School of Law in Orange, Calif. He is also chairman of the board of the National Organization for Marriage, a group involved in the legal defense of traditional unions between a man and a woman. U.S. District Judge William Osteen notified the other parties in the case that Potter called Wednesday to say that the legislature “intends to file a motion to intervene” on Thursday. “The court will address that issue tomorrow (Thursday),” the judge’s office said in an email.

Questions to Berger’s office on the decision to hire Eastman and whether he will be paid were not immediately answered. In 2013, the General Assembly passed law giving its leaders the authority to mount their own defense when the state is sued. Lawmakers took the step after the attorney general in three other states announced they would no longer defend the state’s marriage laws. Osteen must approve any intervention by the legislators, and legal experts says there is no guarantee he will do so unless attorneys for the General Assembly can open some new legal argument. That appears unlikely, UNC law professor Maxine Eichner said this week. “There is nothing at issue that hasn’t already been decided,” she said.

(Tipped by JMG reader Rob)

OREGON: NOM Files For En Banc Rehearing Of Attempt To Stop Same-Sex Marriages

Included in the filing are dozens of attachments which NOM claims bolsters its accusation that the Oregon attorney general's office colluded with the plaintiffs in the case.

On September 10, 2014, I was able to quickly review some of the documents in the production and learn that there had been a high degree of cooperation between attorneys for Plaintiffs and attorneys with the Office of the Attorney General in the underlying litigation challenging the constitutionality of Oregon’s state constitutional definition of marriage passed by voters as Measure 36 in 2004, and that this cooperation began even before the lawsuit was filed. As a result of that quick initial review, co-counsel and I determined to include reference to these documents in NOM’s petition for rehearing en banc, with a promise of this declaration to follow, because the documents demonstrate a lack of adversarialness sufficient to raise serious questions about the jurisdiction of the court below to have issued the broad-ranging declaratory and injunctive relief that it issued.

See the full filing at Equality Case Files.

NOM: Oregon's Attorney General Colluded With Plaintiffs In Marriage Equality Case

NOM chairman John Eastman today accused Oregon's attorney general of colluding with marriage equality plaintiffs in a post that was almost immediately deleted from NOM's blog, but not before Good As You blogger Jeremy Hooper captured the above screenshot. A larger version of the above image is here. As you surely know, courts have repeatedly denied NOM's attempts to intervene in Oregon's same-sex marriage battle. These attempts continue even though gay couples have been marrying in Oregon for more than four months.

Final FRC Hate Summit Roster

After yesterday's addition of Sarah Palin, the Family Research Council dropped about a dozen crackpots and deleted their "invited but unconfirmed" names from its Values Voters Summit speakers roster. In addition to the confirmed fuckweasels above, Maggie Gallagher will lead a panel titled "Moral Decline Causes Big Government." Mat Staver will sit on a panel titled "The Assault On Constitutional Rights In A Nanny State." NOM's evil triad of Brian Brown, Frank Schubert, and John Eastman will have a panel all to themselves: "The Future Of Marriage: To The Supreme Court & Beyond."

Frothy Mix, interestingly, will Skype in from Pluto (or wherever his flying saucer may be) to lead a panel on "Reclaiming Blue Collar Conservatives." Heritage Foundation anti-gay wonk Ryan T. Anderson will lead a panel about the "tough questions" on "marriage and religious liberty." (Expect lots of cake talk!)  The most entertaining trio of crackpots promises to be World Net Daily founder Joseph Farah, Janet "Loony Tunes" Porter, and Pastor Rick Scarborough - who will hopefully discuss that class action suit against homosexuality when they talk about "Standing Up To The Assaults On Our Faith"

The list of exhibitors at the Values Voters Summit includes just about every anti-gay and "ex-gay" hate group you've ever heard of, including the World Congress of Families and the Red-Caped Catholic Loons, who presumably will provide the usual bagpipe accompaniment to their Hitler Youthian rants. The NRA will be there to demonstrate proper Uzi usage for grade-schoolers and the Association of Mature American Citizens will be handing out materials denouncing those homofascist commies at the AARP. See the whole list here.

OREGON: NOM Petitions Ninth Circuit For En Banc Review Of Marriage Ruling

Because they can never take "Didn't we just tell you to fuck off?" as a hint, NOM is trying again to gain standing in Oregon.

Despite a string of legal defeats, the National Organization for Marriage is continuing its battle against the May 19 federal court decision overturning Oregon's ban on same-sex marriage. Two weeks after a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the group's attempt to intervene in the case, the National Organization for Marriage on Wednesday asked the full Ninth Circuit Court to reconsider the decision. The group -- which has waged a legal battle against same-sex marriages throughout the country -- had earlier lost several attempts to insert itself in the Oregon case. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request by NOM to halt same-sex marriages in Oregon, which began after U.S. District Judge Michael McShane ruled that the ban unconstitutionally discriminated against gay and lesbian couples.

Read the full petition at Equality Case Files.

NOM's Boycott Of Target Is Flopping Even Worse Than All Their Other Boycotts

A laughably measly 2583 people have signed NOM's boycott petition for Target since the retail giant submitted pro-gay marriage briefs last week in the states of Wisconsin and Indiana. NOM's 30-month-old boycott petition for Starbucks has yielded 68,745 names - a number that has scarcely budged in the last two years. Their 25-month-old boycott petition for General Mills petered out in the fall of 2012 and the current total of 27,612 names is only a couple of hundred more than a year ago. And of course, the more recent boycott petition for trillion-dollar international banking behemoth JP Morgan Chase remains stalled with barely more than 7000 names. Are you seeing the trend here?

NOM Chairman John Eastman: Marriage Rulings Are Like Living In Stalinist Russia

"We keep making the argument of the importance of marriage, that it takes a man and a woman to make a child and that the state can’t continue to redefine that if civilization’s policy goal is to support families rather than water down marriage to be about any adult relationship. These judges keep saying that’s not what marriage is. Based on what? It’s like we’re in Stalinist Russia. The only plausible grounds to not defend a statute is that there’s no possible basis for defense. When you’ve got two highly regarded judges [at the 4th and 10th circuits] ruling that the marriage laws should be upheld, there is clearly a basis." - NOM chairman John Eastman, speaking about tomorrow's big day before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, when arguments from Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio will be heard.