NOM Chairman John Eastman, talking to MSNBC:
“If the Supreme Court … manufactures a right to same-sex marriage out of the Constitution, then the remedy would be a constitutional amendment,” he said Friday.
[…]
But Eastman doesn’t think they’ll need to go for the amendment. “I don’t think it’s going to be necessary because I don’t think the Supreme Court’s foolish enough to go there,” he said. “They recognize what harm they’ve caused to our body politic when they did something similar to that in 1973 (Roe v Wade) and that issue still infects our politics. You can’t run for dogcatcher in this country without that issue being part of the campaign.”
[…]
“I think for the marriage movement it won’t be as strenuous of a climb provided they don’t hand down a decision that looks like Roe,” he added. “I think over time — even if there is a bad decision in California — that could also be overturned in the light of new evidence, in the light of new findings as to what the impacts of redefining marriage are on marriage rates and on parenting, and outcomes for children. … There would be reasons to reform marriage laws.”
A couple of questions: who would support this supposed constitutional amendment? That issue has been dead for almost a decade. Moreover, approximately 55% of the country supports marriage equality, a number that grows every day. Second question: when Eastman refers to “new evidence” and “new findings,” is he telegraphing that the Religious Right plans to buy more pretend studies that purport to confirm their beliefs? I know they’ve gotten traction out of the Regnerus study, even though no real scientist would use it for anything besides toilet paper. I suppose we shouldn’t put it past them.
