Gay Marriage | New Hampshire | News | Republican Party | Sam Brownback

BigGayDeal.com

FOX Debate Audience Boos Sam Brownback over Gay Marriage Ban

At last night's GOP presidential debate in New Hampshire, FOX reporter Carl Cameron asked Heidi Cherkot of Dover whether or not there should be a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Her answer, "absolutely not," received cheers from the debate audience. When the question went to Sam Brownback, who answered "yes," the audience booed.

Said Brownback: "Answer to that is yes. And the reason is, this is a foundational institution. It is a foundational institution. I understand this is a divided audience on this."

Brownback also answered a question about Idaho Senator Larry Craig. Said Brownback: "I'm running saying that the lead thing we need to do is rebuild the family in this country. And I think we need to be clear about our efforts and willingness to do that. ... We shouldn't walk away from family values for fear that instances like this happen within our party."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Brownback's out of touch. There should not be a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. But, DOMA needs to be a federal law. In addition, the federal government should enact a civil union law for same sex couples that provide most of the benefits that married couples currently enjoy. I say most of the benefits because their is a gray area in which I do not know enough about to speak further on regarding tax breaks, children and other applications which I concede need more study.

    Posted by: Stephen | Sep 6, 2007 9:17:13 AM


  2. And I wonder why I catch total hell for being a gay republican...

    Anyway, it goes without saying that I am not a supporter of Brownback! However, I have been thinking about the process of gay marriage lately given the recent turn of events in Iowa, the real middle America.

    Have we been going about this the wrong way? Instead of saying we are discriminated against, which we are, why not speak about the stabalizing effect of marriage on relationships. Let's talk about how the institute of marriage brings stability to relationships in a very positive way whether gay or straight. Not religeous marriage, civil marriage. I know that many already are doing this, but the angle that many have taken is discrimination, not how marriage stabalizes relationships in a "positive" manner. It is like coming in the back door, no pun intended please!

    I want my relationship with my partner to be recognized. I want our three kids to be recognized as part of a family. Just thinking out loud here.

    Posted by: RB | Sep 6, 2007 9:26:10 AM


  3. The audience sure didn't sound divided to me. Brownback is a giant douche.

    Posted by: Robguy | Sep 6, 2007 9:30:37 AM


  4. Stephen, really...again?! "But, DOMA needs to be a federal law" Just stop! No one here needs to hear your crap. Why should we get "most of the benefits"? Let's talk tax cuts, kids, etc. I have kids and a relationship so I think I am qualified to discuss those things. I would venture a quess that you do not!

    Posted by: RB | Sep 6, 2007 9:31:18 AM


  5. I think there should be a federal ammendment that any heterosexuals possessing a low IQ should be sterilized to protect the sanctity of human intelligence.

    Any supporters? Stephen??

    Posted by: Dean | Sep 6, 2007 9:32:11 AM


  6. sam brownback is irrelevant to voters in new hampshire, as is evidenced by this photo from earlier this week when he delivered a speech to an empty room:

    http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/pl/041607sambrownback/im:/070904/480/5ca0cf5624ad4cb59c18a7e2ebe0f469;_ylt=Am1B.bFZt3u9y5ylSa9KOnVsaMYA

    Posted by: john | Sep 6, 2007 9:34:13 AM


  7. Amen Dean! I am sure that Stephen would support such legislation.

    Posted by: RB | Sep 6, 2007 9:38:24 AM


  8. What the F- is "foundational institution"??

    Until divorce is outlawed, anyone who hides behind the "sanctity of marriage" is full of shit.

    I've been with my partner for almost 15 years and until recently I didn't really give a flip about "marriage" but I've started to get more worked up.

    There should be a set of legal rights that apply to any committed couple and those would be conferred through state-granted licenses. Then if any couple, gay or str8, wants to go to a church and have a ceremony, that's up to that couple and the specific church/denomination.

    End of debate.

    I'm more of a fiscal conservative & social liberal, but I grow to truly despise today's Repug party more and more every day. I wish nothing but gloom, despair and agony of that bunch of assholes.

    Posted by: ATLSteve | Sep 6, 2007 9:41:56 AM


  9. Maybe they were thinking it's a states rights issue and not a federal one instead of actually supporting gay marriage.

    Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Sep 6, 2007 9:49:05 AM


  10. I'm curious. What, exactly, is marriage a foundation of?

    Posted by: Jon | Sep 6, 2007 9:54:29 AM


  11. RB:

    DOMA is NOT recognized by every state. My statement stands, that the federal government make it so every state complies.

    Posted by: Stephen | Sep 6, 2007 10:07:33 AM


  12. Only 20 states have enacted statutory DOMAs.

    Posted by: Stephen | Sep 6, 2007 10:11:27 AM


  13. these fucking republican reich guys... another catch phase they'll try and throw out to people and see if they can fool American's again. Like moral values....see what that got America! One of the most immoral administration in history. Foundational Institution, yes let's talk about the foundation of love, respect, and RIGHTS. Or does he mean foundational institution as in the church/bible? So fuck the constitution and let's impose religious belief one everyone??? Think About It

    Posted by: vinny | Sep 6, 2007 10:18:46 AM


  14. Slavery was a foundational institution, too, you troglodyte.

    Posted by: GM | Sep 6, 2007 10:45:36 AM


  15. Regardless of whether this is a State issue or a Federal issue -- if the basis of the argument is that this marriage is a "foundational institution" then divorce should be illegal and we need a constitutional amendment to strongly prohibit the Britney Spears of the world from getting married and divorced within 48 hours and the Newt Gingrich's of the world from serving divorce papers on his wife while she lies on her death bed in a hospital. Either Marriage is or it isn't -- you can't have it both ways.

    Posted by: Jeff | Sep 6, 2007 11:09:35 AM


  16. wtf is a "foundational institution?"

    Posted by: davitydave | Sep 6, 2007 11:15:16 AM


  17. When people BOO a Republican for supporting the FMA, at a REPUBLICAN debate, you know the tides are turning.

    ANON, do you REALLY think that in two seconds the audience put that much thought into his answer? I don't. I think they booed because the people of New Hampshire have moved into the 21st century; even the Republicans (who, in NH are largely libertarian).

    This is the fact that is causing STEPHEN and his "NO GAY MARRIAGE" brethren such desperation and sending them into ranting, foot stomping apoplectic seizures. They know that they are losing this fight and that marriage equality is inevitable, especially with the new generation of voters coming up.

    STEPHEN can't even get his own talking points "straight". He is under the impression that the government, through law, can "sanctify" something and can protect the "concept" of something. That is ignorant and laughable.

    Hey Stevie, Halloween is coming up. I've got a great idea for a costume; the scariest, most feared thing in America. Dress up as a Homa-ssssssek-sssssshul, complete with devil horns and a pitchfork, upon which you can impale a marriage license, an American flag and a Bible. That would certainly get your point across and it would scare the HELL out of your fellow fundies at Focus on (every) Family (but your own).

    Kisses...

    Posted by: Zeke | Sep 6, 2007 11:17:27 AM


  18. The government CAN enact a federal law that would provide most of the benefits currently provided to married couples to same sex, long term couples and they can call it a civil union law. What stops them?
    Of course, WILL they, is another question.

    There now,do I have my talking point straight enough for you?

    Posted by: Stephen | Sep 6, 2007 11:28:39 AM


  19. My partner and I have been together more than 20 years. We don't need marriage to validate what we have. However, we do, as tax-paying Americans, deserve equal treatment under the law! I honestly didn't think I would live to see gay marriage -- miracles do happen.

    Posted by: John | Sep 6, 2007 11:36:31 AM


  20. Federal DOMA involves 3 things only.

    1. Empowering states to ignore, if they choose, the tradition of recognizing marriages performed in other states, This part is moot in all but about 5 states because the rest have enacted their own duplicate OR gone further and changed their constitutions, etc. Note it does NOT say they CAN'T recognize other state's marriages or allow their own.

    2. Defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Again, now superfluous for most states.

    3. Bans the application of any federal right or benefit, e.g., joint filing of federal taxes, for any couples not made up of a man and a woman. ALL Dem candidates have said they oppose this only still viable part.

    But back to Brownback, we're deep in this election, we've had the exalted HRC candidates forum, so it is far past time that HRC, NGLTF, etc., join together and, taking a page from the GOP tactics book Hillary finally learned from, FIGHT THE FUCK BACK everytime someone like him or Thompson utters such dishonest bullshit. Pester the news networks, newspapers, etc, until they allow them on to refute such crap. Don't wait for a fucking invitation. Don't just send out another worthless, self-righteous press release that just gets ignored. FIGHT goddamn it!!!!!!

    FIGHT goddamn it!!!!!!

    FIGHT goddamn it!!!!!!

    FIGHT goddamn it!!!!!!

    FIGHT goddamn it!!!!!!

    FIGHT goddamn it!!!!!!

    Posted by: Leland Frances | Sep 6, 2007 12:02:06 PM


  21. The tides may be turning, but this is hardly conclusive evidence of it. New Hampshire voters are notoriously independent, with a strong libertarian streak. Tampering with the Constitution, especially on something as insane as an amendment defining marriage, is a big no-no.

    Posted by: Jordan | Sep 6, 2007 12:07:37 PM


  22. Okay, I watched the clip again, and I'm not quite sure how that counts as "booing." It sounded like applause to me, but maybe I'm just losing my mind.

    Posted by: Jordan | Sep 6, 2007 12:12:00 PM


  23. Hey Leland,

    Thanks for the summary of DOMA. Does Hillary only support the repeal of part 3 of your summary? That's what is sounded like at the HRC/Logo event, but I wasn't sure and it sounds like you're pretty aware of her positions. Any thoughts?

    Posted by: CRAD | Sep 6, 2007 12:26:44 PM


  24. Jordan, did you not hear the applause when the woman said that she believed people should be able to marry the person they love?

    Based on that, it seems pretty clear that the applause was for marriage equality.

    Can you not tell the difference between that and the obvious booing later?

    You may not be losing your mind but you might wanna get your hearing checked.

    And NO you HAVEN'T gotten your talking points "straight". One minute it's "ALL the rights" and screaming and crying "I said ALL the rights"; the next, as seen above, it's "MOST of the rights".

    Does that clear it up for ya or do I need to speak in tongues to get through to you?

    [pointing and laughing hysterically at STEPHEN's desperation]

    Posted by: Zeke | Sep 6, 2007 12:31:58 PM


  25. Sorry, I left out "STEPHEN" at the end of my "talking points" statement.

    That part was in response to STEPHENs latest bit of insanity and not directed at Jordan.

    Posted by: Zeke | Sep 6, 2007 12:35:58 PM


  26. 1 2 3 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Former Senator Fred Thompson Joins GOP Presidential Candidates« «