1. mad1026 says

    Koester’s closet door must really get a workout. Wouldn’t the real “protection of the family” be to allow couples of any gender makeup to have and love children? This crap of a mother and a father being necessary no longer flies. It appears to me these “family protectors” don’t care if couples are happy as long as they are man and woman!

  2. rjp3 says

    Come on Andy get with the 21st Century.

    This guy is NOT homophobic… he most likely could care less if some guy jerked off and shot on him …. as long as his STATUS of being superior to gay people is retained.

    Black slave owners were not afraid of black people — in fact many slave owners slept with the hot young buck and raped the women. What they cared about was keeping their STATUS superior to black people.

    What we are fight is STRAIGHT SUPREMACY much more than homophobia.

  3. Maxx E Padd says

    Please will these people tell me how gay marriage has any effect on a straight marriage? And what are they protecting it from?

    Can someone also tell these so called Christian’s that they did NOT invent marriage. They do NOT own marriage. It does NOT just belong to them. Do they have any idea where marriage originated from?

    How is my marriage going to change how they go about their lives?

    How about we do what that gentleman in California is trying to do and outlaw divorce. Let’s see how straight America would feel about that.

    Can we call Stupid what it really is.

  4. Troy says

    Yes, when all of those gay married Iowa couples walked out of city hall brandishing assault weapons, tossing moltov cocktails into crowds of straight families and punting chipmunks and squirrels right off of the sidewalks, I can see why it would be one of the worst days of his life. How could it not be? Wait…none of that happened? You mean straight folks weren’t affected at all by more Iowans getting married and their children having the same protections as other families? OH, so that wasn’t what jacked up his day? Well, maybe it was the fact that they can put a man on the moon but no one, NO one has taken the time to develop a salt and pepper eyebrow tint.

  5. Brains says

    Just another closet case exhibiting vindictive envy at the brave ones!

    He just regrets marching to the tune of the cowards drum, and foolishly marrying a women who he has such distaste for!

    Seen it all before!

  6. says

    If I lived in Iowa I would of voted NO on all the Republicans and then voted YES on the judges.

    Sometimes you gotta retaliate back. It is just sad that the inclusive Republicans are a dieing breed like me and those Iowan justices that have the targets on their back.

  7. TANK says


    I’m gonna press the gas pedal and I’m gonna go farst…nascar, yeeeeah! FUCK YOU, DANICA PATRICK! You ain’t half as dumb as me! GAS PEDAL! That’s gay as hell!

  8. jamal49 says

    So, this guy makes muddled statements about “…actions of the Supreme Court were certainly within the bounds of what the balance of power would expect”, but as soon as this brilliant flash of logic regarding secular government begins to cloud his “moral vision”, he retreats into “…but God wrote His book long before men wrote any State constitution”.

    What is it about conservative republicon evangelicals that makes them such ass-wipes?

    @RJP3 Gore Vidal once wrote about the “heterosexual dictatorship” which I always thought succinctly described state-sanctioned homophobia and repression of LGBT people. But, this Iowa guy IS homophobic as are the rest of these evangelical conservatives. They don’t want to maintain their “heterosexual superiority” over us. They want to eliminate us because their “moral visions” and “moral beliefs” based on their religion demands that their reaction to us is one of revulsion and the certainty that we have chosen to act out our sexual “deviancy” in violation of “God’s holy laws”.

    Such a belief system does not even countenance simple repression to maintain superiority. It demands a repression up to and including killing those “offenders of God’s moral laws”.

  9. William M. Andrews says

    This is exactly why the framers of the Constitution knew it was import to protect the independence of the judiciary. Federal judges receive lifetime appointments so that they don’t have to worry about crafting opinions that meet majoritarian approval. without this protection, some of the Supreme Court’s most important decisions might never have been written including Loving v. Virginia, the case striking down the ban on interracial marriage. State judges are not so lucky.

  10. says

    “protection of the family” is EXACTLY what this moron is voting AGAINST ! There are tens of thousands of gays and lesbians raising children and this ass is voting to tear apart their legal protections. What an asshat !

  11. JTlvr says

    Funny, these people cry and gnash their teeth over “activists” judges (who they think base their decisions on politics). But they see nothing wrong with playing politics to place their own judges on the bench.

  12. Gregoire says

    I suggest the readers of Towleroad use their mouse to quickly flip between this story and the one below, alternating between the kind face of Tyler Clementi and the monstrous face of Kevin Keoster.

  13. BenB says

    I’ve come to expect idiocy from politicians, but what never ceases to sadden me is their utter disregard for semantics. Iowa for FREEDOM? Do they even know what ‘freedom’ means?

  14. Sargon Bighorn says

    “The protection of the family” as if Gay Americans are working overtime or anytime to “harm” families. 27% of Americans live alone (as of the last 2010 census). I assume THOSE single non-family people are the ones doing the harm? Notice his use of the term “same sex marriage”? It’s a term Marriage Equality proponents should avoid as it’s a loaded term and suggest something OTHER than equality.

  15. says

    Albeit in a fit of passion and a bit sloppy, this was my e-mail I just shot off to Koester to the address listed on his (amateur looking) website.

    Mr. Koester,

    The day same-sex marriage was approved in your state was the “worst day of” your service? How about the thriving meth problem in your state? Is it of less concern to you that your constituents are cooking up poisonous meth to sell to school children than if two people want live with equal protection under the law? I challenge you to present one single reason to deny the same rights to same-sex couples to me without quoting the bible or “conservative values.” Name one way that you or your constituents are personally affected by two people living out their lives together, not being denied hospital visitation rights or social security benefits and not losing their children.

    How about instead of spreading your ridiculous brand of bigotry to the tune of 7 gay youth suicides in our country in under a month, you try to do “What Jesus Would Do” and preach acceptance and peace. It’s sickening that people like you who want to enshrine your perceived values in state-level law are able to run unchallenged.

    You will undoubtedly be on the WRONG side of history and the polls are quickly proving that. Approval of same-sex marriage is approved by 42% of the nation’s population and for the first time, less than half (48%) are opposed. I have great pity on your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren who will be apologizing for your deplorable record on same-sex rights for generations to come.

    I’d advise you reconsider and think of how your life is truly effected before you enshrine second class citizenship in your state’s legislatures.

    Christopher F. Dilley

  16. says

    The 7-0 UNANIMOUS decision for marriage equality was precisely about “protection of the family,” idiot. I’d love to know why exactly it was the worst day of his public life? Really, so upset about something that doesn’t affect you at all. What a baby.

    P.S. Once again, it’s not “gay marriage,” it’s “marriage.” Gay couples in IA can get married, not gay married. And not all anti-gay morons are closet cases. Some are, many are just anti-gay straight people.

  17. jjd says

    He’s not angry at gays and same-sex marriage but I think rather whatever has happened to his eyebrows. I find them so distracting as to not be able to seriously take anything he says and infer this has been his experience with others too.

  18. dizzy spins says

    I’m perfectly fine with Koester thinking gays and gay marriage are immoral. Because the courts don’t judge morality, they judge LEGALITY. Just because you think something is wrong doesnt make it ILLEGAL. If it did, all those tourists I see wearing capris, crocs and fannypacks would be in Rikers.

Leave A Reply