How to beat John Eastman, NOM's new spokesperson, in public debate

The Associated Press reports the following, re-printed by the Huffington Post:


"A law school professor from Southern California was named Thursday as the new chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, one of the most active groups opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage.
John Eastman, a professor and former dean at Chapman University Law School in Orange, Calif., will replace NOM's co-founder, Maggie Gallagher, who will remain a member of the board while devoting some of her time to finishing a book about the same-sex marriage debate.


Eastman, a former clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, ran unsuccessfully last year for state attorney general in California, though he did garner support from some tea party activists."




In confronting John Eastman, the new spokesperson for NOM, I would suggest using material presented in Professors Salzman and Lawler’s recent book, “The Sexual Person.” ISBN: 9781589012080 (1589012089)


The Huffington Post re-published an interesting article by Phyllis Zangano on “The Sexual Person” on 29 September 2010,



"Salzman and Lawler's dense academic argument turns traditional Catholic teaching on natural law on its head. They redefine natural law, saying "nature" is personal and individual, and that sexual activity need not be directed at procreation (contrary to what the Catholic Church has always said).

Salzman and Lawler argue that what is "natural" for a heterosexual is not "natural" for a homosexual, and therefore homosexuals and heterosexuals must act in accord with their personal "natures".

In other words, if it's "natural" for a homosexual to perform homosexual acts, then--for that person--heterosexual acts would be "unnatural" and immoral. For the two professors, homosexual activity is only immoral for the heterosexual acting against his or her nature."


Georgetown University Press offers this review, for more click here,


"Two principles capture the essence of the official Catholic position on the morality of sexuality: first, that any human genital act must occur within the framework of heterosexual marriage; second, each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life. In this comprehensive overview of Catholicism and sexuality, theologians Todd A. Salzman and Michael G. Lawler examine and challenge these principles. Remaining firmly within the Catholic tradition, they contend that the church is being inconsistent in its teaching by adopting a dynamic, historically conscious anthropology and worldview on social ethics and the interpretation of scripture while adopting a static, classicist anthropology and worldview on sexual ethics."


Professors Salzman and Lawler’s work is a very important tool in our battle for Full Federal Legal Equality, because “Natural Law” arguments form the philosophical foundation for Anti-Equality laws and policies. Salzman and Lawler's arguments transform Natural Law into our ally for full Equality and should be required reading for anyone debating John Eastman, Robert George and other NOM spokespersons.

Polite Bigotry

The man who will become the new Archbishop of Philadelphia in September, Charles Chaput:


“This is the issue of our time,” Chaput adds, speaking of “gay marriage,” in an interview published today in the National Catholic Reporter. “The church understands marriage as a unique relationship, with a unique definition, which is the faithful love of a man and a woman for each other, permanent, and for the sake of children. As children, if we don’t know that our parents love one another, our lives are very unstable. That’s why I think every child deserves a family where the father loves the mother, and the mother loves the father. For us to redefine marriage as anything else undermines that notion. I think it’s very important that the church keep insisting on this.



Let us take a closer look at Chaput’s argument, he claims marriage is, “for the sake of children.” Curiously, “The Roman Ritual” revised by decree of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and published by the authority of Pope Paul VI, places references to children in red brackets. This is done so that the sacred minister at Catholic wedding rites can easily omit all references to children/childbearing in wedding ceremonies.


Catholic theology specifies two ends to marriage. First the “unitive end” and secondly, the “procreative end.” Marriage is a union of love and life that may also lead to physical reproduction. However, not all marriages will be procreative, a common example would be any marriage entered into by a woman who is no longer capable of reproduction. These marriages are recognized as valid and a sacrament by the Church, even though procreation is impossible. The unitive end of marriage is sufficient for a valid and sacramental marriage in the Catholic Church and always has been. This is not “new” nor does this in anyway constitute a “redefinition” of marriage.


As regards Chaput’s statement, “As children, if we don’t know that our parents love one another, our lives are very unstable. That’s why I think every child deserves a family where the father loves the mother, and the mother loves the father.”
On surface, this statement seems perfectly reasonable and it resonates interiorly with most people. Of course, a child should be raised in a community of love (family), where he/she is loved. However, the term “parent” needs to be defined. The simple biological act of reproduction does not make a person a parent. Saint Joseph did not engender Jesus and yet, I doubt that Archbishop Chaput would argue that Saint Joseph was not a father to Jesus.


Being a parent means taking an active role in the life of a child. It means loving that child. It means waking up in the middle of the night to nurse a child suffering from the flu, measles, or chickenpox. It means making time to help the child with homework and encouraging him/her to pursue their dreams. It means nurturing that child physically, psychologically and emotionally. It means enabling that child to mature into an autonomous adult, who can stand on his/her own, face the world and have a real shot at happiness.


That child may or may not share your DNA. That child may be your grandchild, your niece/nephew, or may be your adopted son/daughter. What makes you his/her parent is honestly loving and caring for him/her. That, Archbishop, is what every child “deserves.” I doubt, hope, that you never “checked” your parent’s genitalia and I sincerely doubt you ever considered that central to their parenthood.



Chaput goes on to say, “I think it’s very important that the church keep insisting on this [that marriage must always be heterosexual].” Again, we need to define our terms. I have already addressed the false notion of “redefinition of marriage.” I would take issue with the use by Chaput of the term “church.” The Second Vatican Council defined the “Church” as “the people of God.” This was beautifully illustrated in the American Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s:




“Catholic participation in the southern civil rights movement culminated at Selma in March 1965. As was customary in much of the South, Selma’s Catholic churches were strictly segregated, with the priest in charge of the African American “mission” parish ignored by the city’s other clergy. (One attempt at integration of the city’s “white” parish by a group of African American teenagers met with fierce resistance.) 1 In addition, the bishop of Montgomery, Thomas Toolen, attempted to prevent northern Catholics from responding to the please of civil rights activists for assistance, maintaining that outsiders were “out of place in these demonstrations—their place is at home doing God’s work…”2 Regardless, priests from fifty different dioceses, lay people, and nuns flocked to Alabama to join in the marches.

One participant observed that many speakers at the headquarters of the Selma campaign “pointed out with happiness and gratitude that this was the first time that so many Catholic priests, acting with their bishop’s permission, had joined them on the front lines of the movement.” 3 Ralph Abernathy congratulated one priest on the Catholic turnout, jocularly adding that “the only ones they hate more than Negroes down here are Roman Catholics, especially Monsignors.”4 Newspapers across the country, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, carried front-page photos of nuns in full-habit striding down Dallas County roads.5 One editorial concluded that “For a great many Catholics…the pictures of demonstrating clergymen and religious, flashed on TV screens or bannered across front pages, spoke more clearly and directly than any conciliar decree could ever do about the effective presence of the Church in the world today.” A nun marching down Selma’s Highway 80 made the same point more emphatically: “We are the Church,” she declared.6”






During discussions at the Second Vatican Council a “proof text” for the concept of collegiality (that the bishops come to decisions jointly) was being sought. Cardinal Ottaviani quipped, “the only one I can think of is, ‘…and they fled’ [Mark 14: 50]” As citation above demonstrates, bishops (like Bishop Thomas Toolan & his Southern colleagues) often get it wrong. The hierarchy simply remains silent about these popes and bishops, knowing that silence is a stealthy censor and ignorance of history serves as an effective “white-out.”


Chaput’s comment, “It’s also important to say that we’re not against gay people”
It is the standard bromide employed by members of the hierarchy whenever they attempt to destroy the Civil Rights of LGBT people. It is as threadbare as it is hollow; it is a hypocritical nod by vice to virtue. It is reminiscent of bromides such as, “Hate the Race, Love the man.” Employed by Southern racists to justify segregation, Jim Crow laws and the ban on interracial marriage.


Joan of Arc was burned at the stake by the hierarchy, later the hierarchy declared her a saint and martyr for the Faith. It seems that bishops don’t make mistakes, just martyrs and saints, but not always the way God prefers.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, in the NY State Marriage Equality Battle.

First, a heartfelt THANK YOU! To Governor Cuomo for his noble intentions and great efforts on behalf of Equality. His courage, vision and unwavering leadership stand as a national model that will hopefully inspire other elected officials to move from being “politicians” to becoming “statesmen.”


Consider State Sen. Jim Alesi of Rochester, the first Republican senator to express support for same-sex marriage, predicted last week that the measure would pass with 35 votes. Not the bare minimum 32 votes, six of those votes in Senator Alesi’s projected count, would have been Republicans. So, why does it seem that the Republican Senate Majority Leader Dean G. Skelos is choosing kill the bill by political maneuvering?


The “micro” answer is that Michael Long, a majority of Republican State Senators, Archbishop Dolan & Co., and probably the national RNC are applying considerable political pressure in order (among the Republican Party elements) to appeal to their base. On the part of Dolan & Co., it was to appeal to Benedict XVI (and secure future promotions).


The “macro” answer is essentially that Skelos, Long & the Republican Party are driving in a very determined manner, tragically they have their eyes firmly fixed on the rearview mirror and are not looking through the windshield. Politically, this is a strategic error on the part of Republican leadership, since objective poling indicates that Americans now approve of Marriage Equality by 53% (58% in New York state). Furthermore, those polls show a movement in favor of Marriage Equality by 2% to 4% annually.



This posits a serious national problem for the Republican Party, their current strategy might work for one more national election, but after that they will have to do a radical 180-degree course correction on Marriage Equality and other LGBTQ Civil Rights issues. In short, if they kill New York State Marriage Equality legislation, they will squander a credible opportunity to begin making that course correction. An ardent Equality Foe, New York state senator Ruben Diaz said, “gay marriage is inevitable in the State of New York.” Had I been a political consultant to Skelos & Co., I would have advised him to bring the bill to a vote and timed it to occur while the President was delivering yet another of his signature milquetoast speeches at an LGBTQ fundraiser in Manhattan.




In one of life’s delicious ironies, President Barack Obama was speaking at an LGBTQ fundraiser the very night that the New York State Senate Republicans were expected to announce a decision on allowing the Marriage Equality Bill to come up for a vote. Talk about a missed opportunity for the Republicans! Take a moment now to imagine (and enjoy) the frenetic conversations between Obama and his speechwriters as he attempted to calculate the most non-committal and yet “encouraging” speech possible. Reach for an airsickness bag as you read Obama’s statement that Equality legislation should, “Best addressed by the states.” What would you call a politician that made such a statement regarding Jim Crow laws?




Consider Obama's actions on a national Health Care Plan, the two TRILLION dollar wars, the housing/financial crisis, the closing of GITMO in Cuba, his reluctance on ending DADT, hesitation on ENDA and his last hour conversion on DOMA. Winston Churchill's quip about America seems very apt about Obama as well, "Eventually they [he] will do the right thing, but only after they have [he has] exhausted every other option." In my heart, I wish it was President Cuomo instead of Obama, but like a person on a bicycle who sees an Aston Martin drive by, I wish that was mine, but the bicycle will get me were I need to go.


That said, I am not reaching for my checkbook with any enthusiasm or haste and if DADT is not certified by the projected September 2011 date, I will have extra money to spend on gifts this holiday season. I am sure that Obama’s view, and more importantly, his real world actions on, Equality legislation will “evolve.” However, I believe that evolution will reflect objective political polling, and not a personal moral conviction, on the subject. At the end of the day, he is a politician. He may well be of service to Equality, but he is no Joan of Arc, Dr. King, Gandhi or even Abraham Lincoln.


So, what practical lessons have we learned from this circus? The squeaky wheel gets the oil. Stand-up, Speak-out, reward/punish with your vote & checkbook, and perhaps most of all, do not settle for anything less than Equality NOW, or that is what you will get.