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.

  • Stev84

    He also fails to mention the penalties for not reporting anyone who could be gay. Or for someone who rents an apartment to someone who is gay.

    The whole law was incredibly vague. There was a long list of what could be considered “homosexual conduct”, including so much as touching.

    • They take the same approach to talking about the anti-gay law in Russia. They make it sound like the law only bans gay rights advocacy on school grounds when in reality it bans pro-gay speech anywhere that youth may be present which is basically everywhere. They know they can’t defend the law as it actually is so they only talk about a small part of the law in order to make it look less egregious. They also do the same thing here in the US, acting like the SPLC has labeled them a hate group only because they oppose gay marriage while ignoring everything else on their record which goes far beyond marriage.

    • Gest2016

      Ok I’ll say it. I respect Hitler much more than John Eastman. At least Hitler admitted who he hated and why. Monsters like Eastman hide behind religion.

      • Todd20036

        That’s why I respect the WBC. THey said out loud what other haters try to cloak in pretty words.

  • TampaZeke

    Remember when Maggie Gallagher said that NOM’s ONLY concern was with “protecting marriage” and not with withholding any human or civil rights from gay people, whom she “loves”?

    • TheManicMechanic

      Hah, I just wrote the same thing.

      • MythicalBeast

        Me too, sorry I didn’t see your comment first, but it makes sense that we all thought this.

    • Timothy Kincaid

      While I don’t take Maggie’s statement at face value, NOM has changed SIGNIFICANTLY since she passed the baton to Brian Brown. They’ve become a full on anti-gay anti-trans activist group.

      • TampaZeke

        But so has Maggie. Maggie has become much more broad and vitriolic in her anti-gay activism since leaving NOM.

        • Todd20036

          I stopped reading at, “Maggie has become much more broad…”

          • RoFaWh

            Those donuts! They’ll do it to you every time.

          • Stephen Elliot Phillips

            and that chris christie seefood diet.
            old joke it know….
            seefood diet, whatever food u see, you eat

      • Schlukitz

        They were always a full on anti-gay, anti-trans activist group.

        They were just better at covering it up in the early days of their existance until they began losing left and right.

        Like desperate rats on a sinking ship, they are grasping at anything to stay afloat.

    • JJS_prime

      NOM is not strictly about marriage and never was. It’s nothing but a hate group and that is all it ever was.

      • Mark_in_MN

        Indeed. But that was Maggie’s strategy in her and NOM’s crusade against marriage and LGBT people. The whole intent was to give cover to marriage equality opposition that was supposed to look like it wasn’t just animus and hate. It was fairly transparent, however. And when Maggie no longer ran that particular show, neither NOM nor she herself needed to stick to that strategy.

      • People4Humanity

        Celebrities of Track and Field?

        • BlueberriesForMe

          You changed the date!? What will future historians think?!!1!!!!

    • Bill T.

      Maggie was lying through the donuts stuck between her choppers.

    • LovesIrony

      a hate group leader lies. You’re not surprised are you?

    • vorpal

      Oh, Haggie… I think I can safely speak for all gay people when I say that that’s a love that will forever go unrequited.

    • StraightGrandmother

      Yeah I remember that.

      Now she is exposing herself with her Religious Liberty rants. She she really does want people who are gay to have less rights all around. At least John Eastman & Maggie Gallagher are more honest now.

      I wonder if this will FINALLY get NOM Hate Group Status at SPLC?

      • Eric in Oakland

        “I wonder if this will FINALLY get NOM Hate Group Status at SPLC?”

        I was about to post something similar, but saw that you had already said it. If these vile lies and support of antigay pograms don’t qualify, I don’t know what would.

  • Treg Brown

    Fuck yourself John

    • johncAtl

      With a sharp, rusty object.

      • Ragnar Lothbrok

        Or a rusty duggar

        • Ben in Oakland

          Is rusty another one of the kids?

          • Todd20036

            That’s a real possiblilty

          • Robincho

            No. You must be thinking of Justy…

    • Gest2016

      Don’t you mean “finger yourself”?

    • People4Humanity

      Joshua Duggar, Executive Director “Family Research” Council Executive Director NOM Rick Santorum Sarah Palin Rafæl Cruz Piyush Jindal Rand Paul Donald Trump pRick Perry Greg Abbott

      • RoFaWh

        Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Piyush Duggar Duggar Piyush Duggar Duggar Santorum Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Palin Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Cruz Duggar Trump.

  • TheManicMechanic

    I’m starting to think this whole NOM thing is not really about marriage…

    • johncAtl

      He and Brian have certainly proven that lately.

    • Megatron Man

      NOM is about aggravated homophobia.

    • Jake


    • brian

      Ya think…

    • David Walker

      They were forced to change their business plan.

    • Jude Newton

      It use to be the Vatican checks, but since Pope Francis rake over the Cardinals accounting their life source has been drying up.

    • vorpal

      Indeed. I think that it’s high time the SPLC re-evaluate their hate group status.

      It was one thing when Haggie was leading the charge and kept everyone toeing the organization line, but now that Braying is in charge, he’s gone full homo-hate.

    • fuzzybits

      Those MFer’s were always about hating gay folks.

  • Ben in Oakland

    “And then prison for groups who counsel people into homosexuality.”

    Since the latter is impossible, it seems that he is advocating for people to be punished for a crime that doesn’t exist. The real question is, why does Eastman hate freedom of speech?

    • Timothy Kincaid

      What he means is that he supports jailing the members of gay support or advocacy groups.

      • Ben in Oakland

        I know.

        These people are slime.

    • JW Swift

      Freedom of speech is not applicable in many other countries, including, I would imagine, Uganda.

      On the other hand, he and his ilk never seem to have a firm grasp on the meaning of the concept as it applies here in the US, either. They always seem to think that it means that they can say whatever hateful stuff they want, and expect no consequences from it.

      • Ben in Oakland

        Absolutely, but this douche bag is in America, speaking to Americans.

  • MythicalBeast

    Falsehood upon falsehood in this despicable hate mongering Where to even begin? I trust in present company, there’s no need to dissect all that’s wrong with this bloviating cretin’s screed, but it’s distressing that such aggravated stupidity and vile animus even exists.

    “NOM isn’t homophobic, we just want to protect marriage!” Uh huh.

  • 2patricius2

    And I hope the courts send the heads of NOM to jail for not following court orders about their funding “in short order.”

    • TampaZeke

      Yeah, what ever happened to that. It seems like NOM is being allowed to say a big FUCK YOU to state and federal court orders with absolutely no consequences. What do we have to do to make sure that doesn’t happen?

    • GreatLakeSailor

      They’re on the list right after Bankster, War Criminals & DeadBeat Bundy.

  • Their agenda never stopped at marriage. When talking to the
    media many of them like to pretend that they are only about “defending marriage” but the agenda goes all the way to criminalizing homosexuality and given the opportunity they would gladly re-instate those laws in the US as well. End of the day they know that they have lost in the west, now they are just trying to engage in damage control to keep as many nations in their camp as possible.

    • Tim

      I watched the whole disgusting presentation. There’s at least 1 lie or factual error in every sentence. But what struck me the most is how he waxes outrages about how US aid might be cut off to select African nations because of their tendency to commit genocide against gay people. He becomes emotional as he emphasizes how important these aid programs are. But this man cares not a whit about these aid programs. He never once in his entire public career ever uttered a word about them. And his party generally opposes foreign aid and constantly seeks to cut it. His one driver in life is harming gay people. If he needs to pretend to care about foreign aid in order to get at us, he’ll suddenly do it and then forget about it just as soon as the “gay part” is resolved.

      • Exactly right my thought the enter way through was: give me a break, you people don’t support this aid in the first place. Secondly he makes
        it sound like we can’t both advance gay rights and give aid when that completely isn’t the case. We are just evaluating what kind of relationships we have/ aid we give to those who are actively trampling on the human rights of gay people.

  • pj

    and remind me again how NOM gets the money to pay these people and rent office space?

    • Gest2016

      I think ultimately their funding goes all the way to the Vatican despite all the current Pope’s effort to distance himself from hate groups like NOM.

      • pj

        too bad he cant do more than distance himself

  • Princess Lardass

    looking forward to the day when Ms. Westwoman has to find another job…

  • TommyTune

    Since most HIV transmission in Africa occurs through heterosexual contact I find it telling that they’re not proposing a similar crime of “aggravated heterosexuality.” This is very similar to the Vatican policy of rooting out seminarians with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” but not those with “deep-seated heterosexual tendencies.”

    The flagrant hypocrisy in both cases is striking.

    • Ben in Oakland

      Excellent point.

    • carswell

      I was coming here to make just that point and to note that the same could be said about the sanction against homosexual acts with minors. It’s the wilful transmission of HIV and having sex with minors that should be the issue. That the law and Eastman make it about homosexuality is pure bigotry and scaremongering as well as a perversion of justice. Eastman and his ilk should be tried for crimes against humanity.

    • Schlukitz

      When have Christians ever told the truth or took notice of the facts as they really are?

    • Robincho

      Here’s one deep-seated homo who recognizes redundancy when he sees it…

  • Lakeview Bob

    Fucking ugly low life piece of shit. Nothing more needs to be said.

  • Gest2016

    Why aren’t genocidal socio/psychopaths like John Eastman not in jail or being prosecuted for international human rights abuse? The Christian Right always complains about being persecuted but they give civil society every reason to want them locked up.

  • bkmn

    If he wants to do some good in the world he would work on getting the Duggars locked up.

  • Silver Badger

    A sad day when “Christian” hate is a major American export.

  • Then I am willing to testify that every member of NOM is gay and send them to Uganda.

  • Octavio

    John Eastman touched me in my private places, many times, over a period of five years. And I’m willing to testify in any court of law in the USA to that fact. 🙂

    P.S. He wasn’t very good at it. 🙁

  • Mike__in_Houston

    I’m sure you would just *love* this, wouldn’t you, asshole? And you would love it even more if you could get similar legislation passed in the U.S.

    You are as useful as a hemorrhoid and twice as ugly…

  • JJS_prime

    Yet these goons claim they don’t hate us. Lying bastard. I hope he gets to spend time someplace where “christians” are imprisoned.

  • Mark McGovern

    Is it just me, or does that dude look like an older Josh Duggar? Regardless of the resemblances, he is clearly trying his damndest to Duggar our LGBT brothers and sisters in Uganda.

  • LarryChemEngr

    What does “counseling people into homosexuality” mean? Fuck You, NOM.

    • KnownDonorDad

      Projection regarding “reparative therapy,” I would guess.
      P.S.: Duggar.

      • RoFaWh

        Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar

    • People4Humanity

      FRC Action Executive Director Duggar

    • zhera

      Telling people that it’s ok to be gay?

      • Schlukitz


    • Well you lay out the nice benefits plan and incentives package for joining homosexuality as well as walk them through the initiation process and if they decide to follow through with it then you have successfully counseled someone into homosexuality.

  • cee

    And why the F the gay media and gay organisations are silent on this? Here we have NOM chairman in FRC video “hope” that they bring back life sentence for homosexuality and we still let these people get away with it?

  • TheSeer

    SPLC should classify NOM as an anti-gay hate group.

    • joe ho

      i think they’re still on the “watch” list.

  • KnownDonorDad

    As Sam Handwich noted, Eastman and Sherif Girgis had a debate with Evan Wolfson and Kenji Yoshino last night, and they got their clocks cleaned.

    • People4Humanity

      One must admire a clean clock.

      • KnownDonorDad

        I somehow missed the online voting option. And it’s still open, cool.

  • BlueberriesForMe

    I will pray that John Eastman and his ‘associates’ meet ‘God’ in the very near future.

  • John Eastman kicks off the talk with a list of reasons why he is “cautiously optimistic” that SCOTUS will not rule for marriage equality. He has zero credibility when predicting how the court will act, he predicts what he WANTS to happen not what is likely to happen but it’s how he rolls. That takes us out to 28 minutes in at which point he rolls into the “harms of gay marriage.” typical nonsense about it causing a decrease in marriage and harming kids.

    • Mark_in_MN

      His second reason for his being “cautiously optimistic” is Kennedy’s opinion in Windsor. He then pulls a quote from it saying it’s how Kennedy opens his opinion. Only the quote is pulled from the 13th page of Kennedy’s opinion, and referred to the cultural situation until fairly recently. Eastman goes on to claim that Kennedy didn’t really come back to the point to challenge it, yet just two sentences later Kennedy notes that there has been, for some, “the beginnings of a new perspective, a new insight.” Which leads directly to noting that some states have concluded that same-sex marriage out to be recognized and given validity in the law, and how limiting marriage to heterosexual couples came to be seen as unjust exclusion. It’s certainly not a description of what the case is all about.

      A great example of how John Eastman plays fast and loose with facts and legal arguments.

      • Yup and they did the same thing when talking about the questions that were asked in this case. They only report on what they want to and ignore the rest and it’s because they are trying to predict the outcome they want, not the one that is actually most likely.

  • sequel

    from this point onwards, every reference the media makes to NOM should include the disclaimer that public statements by their chairman call for lifetime imprisonment for gay people. this is grounds for hate group classification (in short order). could someone start a petition to have this person removed from NOM? if they refuse to do so, it’s a tacit agreement with his call for imprisonment. bastards

    • I agree that it should be mentioned for any future NOM media appearances but at this point I would say don’t even bother with a hate group label for NOM. They are imploding all on their own, no reason to give them something to rally around when they are falling apart over their own failures.

  • JamesStone

    How do you “counsel” someone into homosexuality? (I wonder who counseled me? I don’t recall..)

    • Schlukitz

      I’m scratching my head on that one as well.

    • People4Humanity

      I don’t know either.
      [In my defense, it was a long time ago.]

    • Leo Tallant

      You might need more counseling. . . . Call me. 😉

  • zhera

    Lying asshole. If what he said was true, there would be no reason to add ‘homosexual’ to the language of that law.

  • NZArtist

    And what about aggravated heterosexuality?
    What about trying to counsel people into heterosexuality? Or giving someone a disease while straight? After all, heterosexual transmission of HIV is highest amongst heterosexuals in the country you’re bitching about. What about fuck-warts like yourself who’re constantly talking about their sexuality?
    *THIS* fuck-wart should be locked up for life.

  • NZArtist

    Makes me wonder who he’s been duggaring in the back rooms.
    Those who scream the shrillest have the most to hide.

    • People4Humanity

      “Those who scream the shrillest have the most least to hide

      I googled “teeny peeny” + John Eastman, and this was the top hit [nsfw, and you might not want to see “more”]:

      • Todd20036

        It’s only barely NSFW

        • People4Humanity

          Yea. And, it’s also a different RWNJ, not NOM’s chair.
          But still.

  • delk

    Here’s to hoping your stupid, uneducated friends mistake you for being gay.

  • So the actual talk starts 30 minutes in, everything before
    that is waiting for the opening and then Eastman talking about marriage in the US. So to start the actual talk Eastman says that it is “preposterous” that we would only provide military aid to nations that share common values with us….apparently
    he thinks that all the anti-gay nations of the world are entitled to US assistance. It is obvious from the get go that his problem isn’t with US influence in the world but rather US influence used in ways he doesn’t like.

  • Bill T.

    And I personally hope that the testicles of every NOM member fall off just to keep them from procreating.

    • People4Humanity

      … and ovaries fall out [¿is that a thing?]

      • Bill T.

        Ask Maggie.

  • Ninja0980

    Just a reminder that it isn’t just a paycheck to some of these bigots fighting us.
    They truly do hate us and want us dead.

  • Around 34:00 Eastman basically says that protecting LGBT
    people because of their status isn’t a problem but protecting them because of their conduct is a problem. Well of course this is absurd because he can then define conduct up to the point of including publically identifying as being gay. Sexual orientation isn’t a visible trait and thus anything that can lead to others knowing one is gay could be classified as “conduct” this
    would be like saying “oh yes, the status of being catholic is protected but wearing any catholic symbols, or belonging to any catholic organizations, or publicly identifying as catholic, or operating any building or institution as a catholic building or institution is illegal.” Obviously at that point saying the status of being catholic is protected would be meaningless.

  • Toasterlad

    Mr. Eastman, if you care about stamping out homosexuality in Africa so much, by all means, move there and fight it in person.

  • 39:00 minutes in, So apparently ensuring that we only give
    aid to those who are in line with our understanding of human rights = cultural imperialism. Last I checked the US isn’t obligated to give Uganda or other similar nations this aid nor are they entitled to it. Of course the anti-gays also pitch a fit over anti-gay adoption groups losing contracts here in the states. They seem to have a systematic problem with understanding that if you want someone’s money you need to play by the rules of the people offering the money. You don’t have a right to get the money while also disregarding the rules that come with it nor is there any right to the money with no strings attached.

  • oikos
  • 46:20 Eastman claims that laws that criminalize homosexuality might well help in the prevention of HIV/AIDS. Actually we know that just the opposite of this is true. Criminalizing homosexuality leads to people not being able to talk to their health professionals about their sex life, not receiving safe sex education and support, and not engaging in testing. It also leads to lower rates of commitment and higher rates of anonymous sex as more personal relationships bring higher risk of detection and penalty. So to claim that anti-gay laws help to combat HIV/AIDS is completely wrong and opposing these laws is 100% in line with our foreign policy goals around combating HIV/AIDS.

  • MDB

    Holy Fuck ! Is this ALL these twatwaffles ever think about ???
    I, for one, would like to just ONCE see these fundamentalist and uber-Catholic whining crybabies fulfill the mission given to them by Christ himself, or to live as He commanded. How about focusing on heterosexual families, preventing duplicity, lies and divorce for families (and the children) experiencing divorce, strengthening REAL education. helping eradicate all abuse of children , starvation, malnutrition, and homelessness ??????

  • BobSF_94117

    I wonder how much of NOM current income comes from Uganda.

  • bambinoitaliano

    NOM chairman? Wonder how many little girls and women were his victims. Nothing send out warning sign like a jesus freak condemning someone else lifestyle.

  • LovesIrony

    evil murderer should go to Uganda and get the fuck out of here, We’ll trade you for all homosexual Ugandians

  • Schlukitz

    Simple question for Mr. Eastman?

    How will reinstating life imprisonment for homosexuals in Uganda preserve traditional marriage?

  • RoFaWh

    Ooooo, lookee! A hater’s lips are moving. And guess what? He’s lying about something.

  • Bill_Perdue

    During the first American Revolution, 1775 – 1783, Tories paid a high price for their support for colonialism. About 70,000 of them were forced to flee and many more lost their wealth.

    During the second American Revolution, 1859 – 1865, hundreds of thousands of slavers lost all their wealth, and many lost their lives in the fight that emancipated slaves and criminalized slavery.

    Here, and globally, we’re in the beginning stages of a prerevolutionary situation where tens of millions of workers and especially workers in communities of color are being radicalized by unemployment, underemployment and poverty wages enforced by both the Democrats and the Republicans. If a Third American Revolution emerges from these prerevolutionary developments then the people who use anti-gay bigotry, racism, misogyny, immigrant bashing and union bashing to harm people, here and abroad, will pay a heavy price for their thuggery.

  • Mark_in_MN

    One thing that he has been successful at is making it clear that John Eastman is aggravating.

  • BudClark

    He looks like the enema didn’t “take.”

    • Stev84

      What Christopher Hitchens said about Jerry Falwell fits him too: “If you gave him an enema, he could be buried in a matchbox”

  • leo77

    Am i the only one who finds this the height of hypocrisy?

    A bunch of conservative Christians from US are bemoaning cultural imperialism in Africa? There’s a direct connection between US missionaries working within Uganda and the writing and passing of this draconian legislation. The laws that they support are artifacts of cultural imperialism.

    Or do they imagine we’ve all forgotten that? Or do they believe Scott Lively’s work time in Uganda doesn’t qualify as imperialism? Out-fucking-rageous.

    • Stev84

      Not just these laws specifically, but their entire current culture and legal systems. Their earlier sodomy laws were imposed by Britain. And even without the current insidious proselytizing by American radicals, there has been centuries of work by European missionaries to undo local customs and culture and replace them with western ideology.
      These African loons go on about how homosexuality is a western import while thinking that Christianity is somehow naturally African.

    • Very well said and yes, it is beyond hypocritical for them to bemoan “cultural imperialism” when they have made it perfectly clear that they want everyone to live under their own religious ideology. Their only objection here is that they don’t like the idea of human rights that is being promoted here substitute in their ideology and they would have no problem with it at all.

  • Peter Sprig asks the first question asking if pressure was
    being applied to Muslim nations or only against Christian ones. That seems to be their favorite line of defense “oh but look at what those Muslim nations who are criminalizing homosexuality are doing, we aren’t as bad as them so we shouldn’t receive any negative pressure. Eastman didn’t really go for that which I’m sure was a disappointment to Peter. At 55:20 Eastman claims that most nations still criminalize homosexuality which is of course false but given that he is affiliated with NOM such disregard for facts is to be expected.

  • 57:00 minutes in an FRC affiliate attempts to claim that
    these policies constitute a religious test that discriminates against Catholics. Well no, if being catholic means that you must violate basic human rights then that doesn’t mean you are being excluded because you are catholic it means that you are being excluded because you violate basic human rights. People don’t get a free pass for violating basic human rights nor do government lose their ability to protect basic human rights just because the offender has a religious affiliation that supports or demands the denial of basic human rights.

  • lenvus

    So much for NOM caring *only* about preventing same-sex marriages. Next, they’ll be parading LGBT US Citizens by horse carriage, to be drawn, quartered, and put on display so all those family “values” people will have a sense of gratification.

  • Impotently he notes that the next president could remove any
    LGBT human rights considerations from US AID initiatives and this is indeed true. This is why elections matter and why it is important that our next president be someone who will continue this commitment to the human rights of LGBT people. So thanks Eastman for providing another example of why we ensure that your side doesn’t win back the presidency.

    Also at 62 minutes in John Eastman voices opposition to changing in Blood donation policies so (surprise surprise) he also doesn’t think that gay people should be allowed to be blood donors.

  • Mepp

    “Homosexuals have the right to live and love as they choose, but no one has the right to redefine marriage.”

    What they really meant is that we have the right to live as we choose within the confines of a prison cell block.

  • Mepp

    How stupid is this guy? How dumb is this former candidate for Attorney General of California?

    He says that his side has a good chance to win the marriage case at SCOTUS. Why? Because in 2013, in the Prop 8 case, Justice Ginsburg held that there was no standing in order to prevent a majority of the Court from getting to the merits of the case. Eastman says that Ginsburg really believed that the Prop 8 proponents had standing, but because she has no ethics or principles, she had to rule the other way because she was terrified that Kennedy would rule against gay marriage if he was allowed to get to the merits. The only problem: Ginsburg years earlier held in a different case that proponents probably do not have standing. This fool doesn’t know anything about the issue or Justice Ginsburg’s history, but he weaves a whole theory around it to show why NOM is going to win.

    • KnownDonorDad

      He was a candidate for California’s AG? Hoo boy…

  • kaydenpat


  • Why does he remind me of the Baron Harkonnen?

  • teedofftaxpayer

    Can we just buy him a one way ticket and send him? If he loves it there so much why doesn’t just move?

  • JCF

    “speaking in an FRC video”

    Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar Duggar…

  • Claude Jacques Bonhomme

    Whatever happened to his face and his eyes? He doesn’t look like he’s popped out of a box of Cracker Jacks for a change… I’m disappointed.

  • Captain Jack

    Someone needs a bitch slap in shorter order!

  • John T

    Because the best way to ensure strong healthy “traditional” opposite-sex marriages is to threaten gay people with prison time to ensure that a huge portion of the gay population stays hidden in the closet and even marries opposite sex beards, um I mean traditional spouses, to avoid the scrutiny of the law.

    Seriously though, these so-called protectors of marriages don’t give a single fuck about the quality, durability, or value of marriages, they just want to make sure everyone goes through the motions of performing a “traditional” marriage no matter what kind of coercive or deceptive foundation its built on. Swindled spouses trapped in loveless marriages to closet cases are just gonna have to take one for the heterosexual team.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Yes see, it NEVER was simply about Marriage, about Protecting Traditional Marriage it has Always simply been anti gay. This is why he hopes Uganda re-instates their Kill the Gays Law. This man is despicable. He truly must have demons inside that he is hiding.

  • GayEGO

    Well we know where NOM is going!
    .| | | |
    VVVV Flusssssshhhhhhh…..

  • SFBruce

    So NOM has totally dropped the “we’re only trying to protect traditional marriage, but gay people have the right to live their lives as they see fit” routine. And they have the nerve to claim we’re the ones driven by an agenda to grab power with no other principles.