Each week, Queerty picks one blowhard, hypocrite, airhead, sanctimonious prick or other enemy of all that is queer to be the Douche of the Week.
Have a nominee for DOTW? E-mail it to us at [email protected].
Sometimes NOM makes our job easy for us. It’s not even Friday and we’ve already got our Douche of the Week:
John Eastman, the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), has called Supreme Court Justice John Roberts the “second-best option” for his two adoptive children.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Considering Roberts will be hearing arguments on same-sex marriage this month, Eastman’s words weren’t just hateful and incorrect—they’re downright stupid.
Eastman (right) told the AP:
“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. Certainly adoption in families headed, like Chief Roberts’ family is, by a heterosexual couple, is by far the second-best option.”
Because biological parents are always the best option? Roxxy Andrews might disagree—considering her birth mother abandoned her in a bus station when she was three.
We knew NOM was down on gays as parents, but we didn’t think they had a thing against heterosexual adoptive parents too. It’s a pretty stupid stance when you consider that Joseph adopted Jesus even though he wasn’t his biological father. You know who else has adopted children? Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court Justice Eastman actually clerked for after law school!
Guess when you’re preoccupied doing philosophical gymnastics to defend bigotry, you’ll throw adoptive families under the bus, too.
All together now: What a douche!
hyhybt
Thank you, Mr. Eastman. Your comment will be helpful, especially if the justices in question hear it.
2eo
@hyhybt: Oh they have, don’t worry about that.
Elloreigh
I think ‘douche’ is too kind a term for this ‘person’. < intentional sneer quotes.
I think my nephew's five adopted children would beg to differ about he and his wife being their "second best" option.
Gigi Gee
Was this man dropped on his head as a baby by his “first best” option married, heterosexual parents?
Derek Williams
A heterosexual couple have a baby by accident, they’re both drug addicted alcoholics who abuse the baby, leave it on the sidewalk outside an orphanage, and yet they’re still better ‘option’ than adoptive parents who’d love and care for it?
jackpapa
My birth mother became pregnant out of “wedlock” (THERE’s a concept, eh?)in 1956 as a teenager by a man who promptly abandoned her. Turning to her parents, she found support and familial love that promised to help her to keep and raise me. In her 8th month, both of her parennts were tragically killed in a car accident, removing her entire support system. Upon my birth I was given up for adoption. I spent months in an orphanage, passed over by multiple couples because I was covered in a mysterious disfiguring skin rash that resisted all treatments.
My eventual adoptive parents were not looking to adopt a second child. They already had adopted my brother a few years earlier. The social worker involved in that adoption made it a point to call his families every year during the Christmas season to chat and catch up and follow the progress of families as they increased in the joy and wonder of becoming loving families over the years as their children grew. On this Christmas call, he happened to mention me.
My parents arrived at the orphanage within 2 days. As my mother tells it, my dad looked down into the crib and immediately reached to pick my blotched and unsightly body (my words, not her’s) up and bring me to his chest in a gentle embrace. He looked to my mother and simply said, “He needs us,” and kissed me.
Now, tell me again how that is “second best”?
(BTW, that rash? Cleared up within 2 weeks of being brought into the bosom of a loving family)