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.”


  1. Stephen says

    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.

  2. RB says

    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.

  3. RB says

    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!

  4. Dean says

    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??

  5. ATLSteve says

    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.

  6. anon ( says

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

  7. Stephen says


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

  8. vinny says

    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

  9. Jeff says

    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.

  10. Zeke says

    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).


  11. Stephen says

    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?

  12. John says

    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.

  13. Leland Frances says

    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!!!!!!

  14. Jordan says

    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.

  15. Jordan says

    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.

  16. CRAD says

    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?

  17. Zeke says

    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]

  18. Zeke says

    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.

  19. tjc says

    1. DOMA is federal. It ONLY applies to federal benefits and situations.
    2. The federal government does not issue marriage licenses. It recognizes licenses issued by states.
    3. Unless that license is to a same-sex couple.

    I don’t know what the hell Stephen is talking about regarding DOMA needs to be federal and enforced consistently (“every state complies”). He is somewhat correct that the federal gov’t could recognize civil unions or other same-sex partnerships (granted by states) if it wanted (for federal benefit purposes). But because the federal gov’t does not issue any sort of marriage or marriage-like licenses at all. all the feds could do is recognize a state-issued partnership or marriage.

  20. tjc says

    Leland is correct about what DOMA does. I focused on the one aspect (federal rights and benefits) because that’s what most people think of when they think DOMA.

  21. Zeke says

    I have another question that I hope Leland can answer.

    If part three of DOMA is repealed, will a person who lives in a state with a gay exclusive Marriage Amendment be able to go to a state that allows marriage/CU/DPs, get hitched, return to their home state and still be eligible for Federal benefits. I don’t think anyone has talked about that.

    I live in Florida, which will probably be voting on a marriage amendment in 2008. If, god forbid, it passes AND part three of DOMA is rescinded AND the federal government passes federal benefits for legally partnered couples, will I have to move to a state that recognizes my marriage in order to be eligible for those rights, responsibilities and benefits?

    That’s easier said than done for most people, especially if they have a family and school-age children.

  22. tjc says

    Don’t forget too that New Hampshire has enacted a Civil Unions law that kicks in this January. They are the first state to do so without any court case in the wings (Connecticut had a court case pending).

    But the really interesting thing about the NH CU law is this: it recognizes same-sex marriages validly performed elsewhere and “commutes” them to Civil Unions. No other CU / DP law specifically does this (well, I can’t vouch for NJ).

    This is important because it —
    1. Shows they are definitely trying to be equal but are specifically NOT equal (by name, and the fact that opp-sex couples can’t have a CU)
    2. It means NH residents can get MARRIED in Mass. and return to NH. Still would be 2nd class in NH, but Mass. will be able to issue licenses to those couples (in spite of our 1913 law used to deny other states’ residents licenses).

    So people in NH are waking up to equality and the importance of equal marriage rights.

  23. tjc says

    Zeke, if I may answer your question:
    [Background: I live in Mass. as half a married gay male couple (also been fighting for equal marriage rights for >10 years here). Oh, and IANAL.]

    It depends.

    The federal gov’t does not ISSUE licenses but instead recognizes those issued by states and other countries. Whether they would require you to be recognized in the state in which you lived (rather than where you got hitched) would likely depend on the language of the legislation involved.

    Barring any clarifying language, it would most likely require you to live in a state that honors your marriage to get the benefits. Because the feds look to the state for the license, if your state says no license, the feds would probably agree.

  24. peterparker says


    I believe this is the third time I have asked this question of you: are you a man who has sex with other men?

    Let’s see if you’ll answer it this time.


  25. stephen says

    oops! me bad! i’m so drunk with desire for men that i can’t even spell my own name correctly! tee hee! now where’s that DOMA domo?! (domo = dumbmutherfucker)

  26. Leland Frances says

    It’s clear that—far more quickly than I at least imagined—we, that is to say the federal government is in new territory.
    As noted, all Dem candidates support repealing the following section of federal DOMA that reads:


    (a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

    `Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage’ and `spouse’

    `In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.’.”

    Note it does not specify how/where such “legal union” took place, though there is probably case law that functionally defines it.

    But, while the SUBSTANCE of the candidates’ position is simply to have the effect of giving us federal rights and benefits, mere repeal would be inadequate because it leaves open the issue of those opposite gender definitions. THEY are the real meat/obstacle in not just federal DOMA but state versions, state constitutional amendments, etc., and states have been very careful to have the prerequisite “opposite sex/gender” definition regardless of whether it’s “marriages” from Massachusetts they want to ignore or “civil unions” from “New Hampshire” or any other label we might suggest and McCain, Giuliani, et al., would come out against.

    Therefore, it would obviously require something proactively REdefining “marriage” OR “legal union” and “spouse” as not being limited to “one man and one woman” in order to transcend all of the various government documents and regulations. In fact, 1,049 provisions of federal law in 13 broad

    For instance, Federal Income Tax Form 1040 that most of us are familiar with has five options for indicating “Filing Status.” Two of them, emphasis mine, are:

    “MARRIED filing jointly (even if only one had income),” and “MARRIED filing separately. Enter SPOUSE’s SSN above and full name here.”

    In practice, the IRS accepts at face value the claim of all filer[s] about his/her/their status. There’s no section of tax forms instructing, “Attach copy of marriage certificate here.” Unquestionably, new clarifying legislation is going to have to be created and that passed—why not just electing a Dem President is so important but INCREASING the number of Dems in the House and Senate!

    As Lea Brilmayer, Yale University Professor of International Law, said in a Q&A for the “Washington Post” in 2004:

    “[O]ne way or another there will have to be some kind of federal decision on the issue. It may be made by the IRS, or possibly there will have to be some kind of omnibus treatment of the matter at the Congressional level.

    The states cannot decide what ‘married’ means for federal purposes, except in those situations where federal law itself says that the question is supposed to be decided by looking at state law on the subject (and there are some situations like that).”

    For the rest of his fascinating explanations of the many bends and curves of state and federal laws as they apply to all kinds of benefits related to “marriage,” see the link below. Note, interestingly, that he was rather pessimistic about short term progress three years ago. I’ll try to find any updated opinions he might have since the Dems have advanced so far since then. Below the link are the responses of the top 3 Dem candidates to the relevant HRC questionnaire question.


    [I have merged those relevant here.]

    “If a state has taken the steps to recognize same sex couples and their families for purposes of state-based benefits, rights, privileges and responsibilities (such as marriage in Massachusetts and civil unions in Vermont and Connecticut), should the federal government recognize the state’s legal recognition of such couples and families for purposes of federal benefits and tax treatment? Do you support extending federal benefits, rights, privileges and responsibilities to same-sex couples (and their children) provided the partnership meets certain federal standards of commitment and mutuality of interest? Do you support modifying the Social Security System to pay survivor benefits to the same-sex partners of gay and lesbian people? Do you support fair and equal tax treatment of same sex couples on the same basis as married couples? Would you support the Uniting American Families Act, which would enable an American citizen to petition for immigration sponsorship for a same-sex partner, and the INS would treat the relationships between opposite and same-sex couples in the same manner under the immigration code?”

    HILLARY: Support
    OBAMA: Support
    EDWARDS: Support

  27. Stephen says


    Please be advised that you have people posting on this site that are entering other people’s information (User name and e-mail address). I call your attention to two postings today on this topic: 1. @ 2:26 by STEPHAN 2. @ 2:29 by STEPHEN

    In each case, someone else has used my name and e-mail address.

    Your attention to this ignorant action should be a priority.

    Thank you.

  28. Zeke says

    Leland, that didn’t answer my question.

    TJC, though you tried, you didn’t answer my question either.

    I guess the answer is, no one seems to know the answer and no one seems to be asking the question of the “I’m for civil unions”, “I’m for the repeal section 3 of DOMA” and “I’m for leaving it up to the states” Democratic candidates.

    I think the real answer is that it wouldn’t cover families like mine and because of that I think it is utter bullsh*t to give them a pass on this MAJOR hitch in their platform.

    What they are realy saying is they will support partnership rights for those homos who happen to be lucky enough to live in one of the very few states that treats them as real citizens. The rest either have to move or try to convince the people of their state that they as law abiding, tax paying citizens deserve to be given the rights and benefits that they pay a higher price for but aren’t given.

    Someone should ask Hillary and Obama and the rest of the Hee Haw gang how they would feel if, instead of just asking the parents of their fiancee, they had to go door to door, to every household in their home state, asking for permission to marry the person they loved.

    YES, I am fully aware that the worst Democratic position is better than the best Republican position but that doesn’t mean I won’t challenge Democrats at every turn when their professed committment to equality and nondiscrimination fall far short of their actions and stated positions.

  29. Adam says

    Poor little Stephen. Remind me again..WHY ARE YOU HERE?!?
    We all know your position on gay marriage and I think I can safely speak for most folks here in saying that no one wants to hear your ignorant bile anymore.
    I don’t go to asshat conventions and tell your fellow asshats that they don’t deserve the right to marry just because they are asshats. So why do you come here to tell gay men what rights we do or don’t deserve? Oh I know, because you’re a bigoted little troll.
    Please go back to your home under some bridge. I am sure an important talking points fax is awaiting you there from the Mitt Romney campaign.

  30. Leland Frances says

    Other than no one “knows” the answer, I disagree, Brother Zeke. I see no evidence that supports you’re perception of what they are “really saying.”

    On the other hand, there’s reason to believe that their LGBT advisors haven’t yet gotten to the point of discussing the change in logistics and linguistics that would need to occur for application of those federal rights to equally occur. One can mock, condemn, bitch slap someone like McCain for being so clueless that he didn’t even recognize the acronym LGBT, or revealing that he doesn’t know enough about HIV/AIDS to comment about condom efficacy. It’s quite another to say, “In the middle of running for President against a dozen or so others, of being bounced from pillar to post day in and day out, of trying to come up with answers that others will support about Iraq and terrorism and nuclear weapons and the economy and global warming and ethanol versus electricity and universal health care and education and hate crimes and job protection and taxes and prescription drugs and gun control and stem cell research and and and and and … tell us exactly how you are going to turn much of the federal government upside down — while fighting off those who say NOTHING should change — and PAY for it so that you can revolutionize legal unions overnight!!!

    In her written response to some of those questions, Hillary said, “I would need to
    examine the feasibility of implementing such a provision and look forward to
    working in partnership with the Human Rights Campaign and others in the gay
    rights community to determine the best path for realizing this goal.” And, re the issue of relationships with non-US citizens:

    While I’m supportive of this proposal in principle, I have been concerned about fraud and believe implementation of this provision could strain the capacity of our Citizenship and Immigration Services.”

    Obama expressed similar support for goals re immigration but similar concerns about challenges in implementation: “As someone who believes that homosexual couples should have the same legal rights as married couples and that our immigration laws should unite families, I support the Uniting American Families Act in concept. But I also believe that changes need to be made to the bill to minimize the potential for fraud and abuse of the immigration system.”

    Not addressing logistics but the importance of advocacy, Edwards wrote, “I believe the right president could lead the country toward consensus around equal rights and benefits for all couples in commtted, long‐term relationships.” Obama commented similarly, “Whatever the make-up of the family, it is the President’s role to provide policies and
    leadership that enable the family to thrive.”

    Anyone who wants to see such things realized can contact HRC and NGLTF and Lambda Legal and members of each of the candidate’s LGBT advisory committees and demand that they provide the candidates with detail strategies for implementing them legislatively and administratively.

  31. Leland Frances says

    Replacing missing words in Edwards quote above, “I believe the right president could lead the country toward consensus around equal rights and benefits for all couples in committed, long-term relationships.”

  32. Zeke says

    Here’s my bottom line.

    Don’t tell me that you are for FULL equality for all citizens and that you don’t believe in separate but equal institutions and then turn around in the very same breath and tell me that you believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.

    You may not find a discrepancy between what they are saying and what they are “really saying” but I most certainly do.

    Look, you don’t have to sell these characters to me. I, as I always do, will end up voting for one of them; not because I am so blown away by their positions but because I so fear the positions of their opponents.

    I’m sorry if that upsets some people but that’s just the way I see it.

    For a lot of people this whole argument is etherial and theoretical and just a matter of gay rights, but for some of us it is real life, here and now matter of survival.

    Perhaps that is why I take it more personally when someone (REGARDLESS of their political party) looks me in the eye and tells me that my 16 year relationship, with a child, should be looked upon differently by our government than the thrice married abusive couple across the street.

    Look, I’m realistic. I know that this will have to be an incremental process but that doesn’t mean I won’t speak truth to power every chance I get up to and including my dying breath.

    Having said all that, Leland my brother, I appreciate your passion and your loud, consistent and unwavering voice in the fight for equality and fairness. I’m glad your on our side bubba!

  33. tjc says

    Zeke, there really is no answer to your question because it will depend on how the legislation is drafted. However, I do think that absent a miracle, it will only cover those couples whose relationships are recognized by their state of residence. Any other scheme or plan would be a nightmare to implement, and even this one wouldn’t be simple.

    To your futher points about political candidates and choices, it sucks.

    And you know, you SHOULD take it personally when someone denigrates your relationship and family. Everyone should. We won’t win until it becomes PERSONAL for EVERYONE.

    We do that by being out, by forming communities like this one, and by being honest with our friends, coworkers (I’m looking at you, Senator), and families. It’s a lot harder to deny rights to people you know than an abstract group. It’s a lot easier to demonize an abstract group. It’s harder to demonize Bob and Darrell down the street, or Susan and Linda next door.

    But this is not new. Sorry for the mild rant, but it irks me when people don’t realize how important the marriage fight actually is in the long run.

  34. peterparker says


    You insinuate, without ever saying it directly, that you are part of the GLBT community. So why won’t you answer my question about whether or not you are a man who has sex with other men? My guess is because you are really a troll who identifies as heterosexual.

    So, what’s the answer, STEPHEN…are you a man who has sex with other men? Or are you heterosexual?


  35. jimmyboyo says

    I think people have missed the most important part of this

    FOX as in CONSERVATIVE PRO repub FOX picked audience cheered for gay marriage and booed the anti-gay marriage stand.


  36. Adam says

    Don’t hold your breath PeterParker,
    It seems like Stephen shoots off his usual bull at the top of these gay marriage threads and then runs away to avoid any further questions and confrontations. I would be totally fine with that actually…that is, as long as he didn’t come back.

  37. RB says

    Zeke my brother, I hear you loud and clear. It is different for those of us that have kids and understand that separate but equal is NOT! I want my relationship recognized…period! There is absolutely NO REASON why anything less should be tolerated. Keep up the good fight my friend. Some of us are listening and we are with you.

  38. tjc says

    Jimmy– The audience and the debate were in New Hampshire, the reddest of the New England states. Which means it’s still several shades bluer than the bluest of the red states.

    Dems do now control the house, senate, and governor’s office, and like I said above, they passed a Civil Unions law that kicks in this coming January. So while the support for same-sex marriage is stronger than you might think, it’s not unexpected. Of course, it’s not completely there yet, but it’s much further along than even a year or two ago.

    Also, their proximity to Mass. helps — the southern portion of NH is more or less part of Greater Boston (for better or for worse), and Boston television provides plenty of coverage.

  39. Zeke says

    TJC, Jimmyboyo and my dear friend RB, I salute your voices as well. I’m glad you’re all on the same side of this issue as I am.

    Jimmyboyo, you must have missed my first comment in this thread. That was the first thing that I pointed out.

    PeterParker, you may as well give up on STEPHEN. I outed him as a breeder a month ago.

    I seldom, and only VERY selectively, use the term “breeder”. I find the use of it to describe all heterosexuals, or all people with children, ugly and offensive. However there are some people for whom the word, by its very definition, fits.

    In my opinion, a person who believes that a man or a woman’s soul purpose in life is to reproduce or that the only purpose for marriage is procreation sounds no different than some dog breeders who see no value in dogs other than their ability to make more dogs.

    I think STEPHEN has made it abundantly clear, through his ad nauseam “marriage is only for those who, in a best case scenario, COULD have children together” rants that he is one of those select people.

  40. midak 8 says

    To suggest a constitutional ban on gay marriage is one of the most twisted and fascist proposals to come down the pike.
    The Constitution of the United States was written to guaranty people their rights, not take them away. It is meant to include all citizens rather than exclude some.
    The Nazis wrote rules like this against the Jews so that they could not own businesses, property or go to schools. It is so sick it makes me want to puke. Sadly, George Bush himself as come out in favor of such an amendment. In their support of this measure, Brownback, Bush and their ilk display their complete ignorance to this subject and/or their true hateful selves.

  41. Stephen says


    You and most of your ilk don’t know how wrong you can be at times.

    What a pity too, that you are so egocentric as to not accept the DIFFERENCE between the sexual union between a man and a woman versus that of two men. You repulse me.

    Thank God there is a majority that believe as I do on the topic of marriage – as do most of the current opportunists, i.e., candidates running for president.

    Keep on dreaming. One day you will wake up.

    – END –

  42. Zeke says

    A MAJORITY once believed in slavery.

    A MAJORITY once believed in the subjegation of women.

    A MAJORITY once believed in segregation.

    What was your point again STEPHEN?

    You, STEPHEN, will go down in history with the rest of the scorned bigots.

    You think marriage equality will never come and you think I’M dreaming?

    You’re not dreaming your hallucinating.

    Your desperation is still amusing me though. Keep it up.

    Oh, and get back to me in about ten years and tell me all about what the majority of Americans believe and all the rest of your “popular” beliefs.

    I DARE you!

    Play the clip of this REPUBLICAN debate arranged by FOX NEWS over and over again. Listen to the reaction of REPUBLICANS in New Hampshire on the issue of marriage equality. A couple of years ago that would NEVER have happened. Even with the hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of hours spent by the “defend marriage” crusaders, EVERY time a new poll is taken, it becomes more and more clear that public opinion is swinging in the direction of marriage equality.

    But don’t worry STEPHEN, James Dobson will be sure to find you something or someone else to hate and fear once the homophobia routine runs its course. I can ASSURE you of that. I know that people like you wither and die without someone or something to hate and fear.

    It must be a terribly sad and unfullfilling existence to be you STEPHEN!

    I pity you, but not enough to keep me from laughing at you.

  43. Zeke says

    Oh, and STEPHEN, have you answered PETERPARKER’s question yet?

    You know, the one about having sex with men.

    In case there’s any question, toilet stall sex DOES count.

  44. Adam says

    Wow Zeke,
    You seem to have been sucessful in bringing out the real Stephen. The “repulse me” comment pretty much puts it on the table. If gays repulse this bigot so much why is here?

  45. Zeke says

    I certainly do my best ADAM.

    This is the man who has repeatedly insulted me, belittled my marriage and called my son unnatural and illegitimate.

    I think the “you repulse me” comment from STEPHEN is the greatest compliment that I’ve ever received in my 3+ years on Towleroad.

    If I’m repulsing the likes of STEPHEN then I must be doing something right.

    To answer your question; I have no idea why STEPHEN trolls Towleroad on a daily basis. I think he is either a paid troll on the FOF pay roll or he is the Larry Craig type who is deeply closeted, self-hating, homophobic, but even still can’t seem to stay away from the gays.

  46. Adam says

    Well, I am always glad to read what you have to say Zeke. You do a good job sticking up for your family and the rest of our community. Thanks.

  47. Johnny says

    A quick, off-topic message to Zeke and David E if I may: “CD” the homophobe has posted again at C&L.

  48. Stephen says

    If one is to base their beliefs on homo sapiens being the ultimate purveyors of a moral, honest and healthy way of living (read: humanism/secularism) then it is not surprising that they scoff at, deny and dispose of the teachings of a supreme being, a higher calling, a God and the words of his son, the Christ. Hence, they say, in effect, “Let’s write our own rules and tenets, for we know best.” And so here they are in the infancy of the 21st century saying and believing that a man can marry another man.

    Man has always been fallible. Gay marriage (an oxymoron) is another mistake made, one of great magnitude.

  49. Grego says

    When are we Americans, in the tradition of our patriot forebearers going to rise up and take back our country from these psychos?