Gay Marriage | News | Tim Huelskamp

David Gregory Slaps Down Rep. Tim Huelskamp for Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment Plans: VIDEO


On Meet the Press Sunday, Rep. Tim Huelskamp defended his plans to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, explaining that it would protect children.

David Gregory challenged Huelskamp on his bogus claims: "Children tend to prosper in homes where there is a loving marriage. There is really not evidence to suggest that if you are a same-sex couple or a heterosexual couple that it makes one difference one way or the other."


Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. "It's not good for children" is the same old phony saw that Socrates was sacrificed for long before Christ appeared. If knowledge about anything sexual is harmful to children (it's not) then the internet should be closed down, Craigslist too, both of which are uber explicit.
    This guy should disappear.

    Posted by: UFFDA | Jul 1, 2013 9:10:28 AM

  2. THE CHILDREN! has become a very tiresome argument especially due to the fact there is no evidence to prove that children raised in a same sex household will suffer. However, there are children suffering every day due to the fact their same sex parents aren't legally able to marry and offer them the basic protections all other children have access to. To truly think of the children, we have to give them equal protection, not strip them of their rights because of our own selfish viewpoint.

    Posted by: Hey Darlin' | Jul 1, 2013 9:15:40 AM

  3. It's "Marriage EQUALITY" - not "Gay" Marriage...

    Posted by: Kile Ozier | Jul 1, 2013 9:16:48 AM

  4. His smirky expression is so irksome.

    If someone brings up that the Supremes overturned another law passed by Congress and signed by the president (the Voting Rights Act), somehow "that's different".

    "Good for children" is what they all hide behind.

    Posted by: kdknyc | Jul 1, 2013 9:17:04 AM

  5. They said the exact same thing about interracial marriage.

    Posted by: Steve | Jul 1, 2013 9:25:12 AM

  6. Ignorance really insists on spreading, doesn't it? David Gregory is wasting his time trying to appeal to religious fanatics like this guy.

    Posted by: Jack M | Jul 1, 2013 9:25:23 AM

  7. Good luck with that TIm. Even when anti-gay bias was used to help get George W reelected this amendment couldn't pass,no chance in hell it will go anywhere now.

    Posted by: Kevin | Jul 1, 2013 9:26:04 AM

  8. What does Russia, Putin, GOP and Christian Conservatives all have in common?

    Posted by: CB | Jul 1, 2013 9:26:11 AM

  9. "The Children" seems to be the excuse being adopted by Russia right now. Idiots in this country will soon be throwing the proverbial "kitchen sink."

    Posted by: Dave Stenlund | Jul 1, 2013 9:30:25 AM

  10. Yeah let's not make David Gregory some kind of hero. He gave this fringe guy a national forum to express his bigotry (As well as Ralph Reed and Jim DeMint) I imagine Rachel Maddow was frantically writing down rebuttals to him so Gregory wouldn't just smile and let him spew.

    Posted by: John | Jul 1, 2013 9:39:29 AM

  11. Paid consultants who lost election after mean the ones who worked on the Romney, Bachmann, Perry and Santorum presidential campaigns? LMAO! Huelskamp is a troglodyte but he knows he can make some $$$ if he flogs the dead horse of opposition to gay marriage.

    Posted by: Gigi | Jul 1, 2013 9:39:45 AM

  12. If 'children tend to prosper in homes where there is a loving marriage' - why not ban heterosexual divorse?

    Posted by: Leroy Laflamme | Jul 1, 2013 9:54:29 AM

  13. I still say that people should watch Ted Olsen's interview back in 2010 for a primer on providing the most succinct, but articulate response to the primary talking points about Republicans making outlandish claims about the case, the "evidence", and the outcome.

    For example, every time they make a claim that 5 Justices should not be able to over-rule the "will of the people", I think the response should be, "No, that *is* the role of the Supreme Court, to evaluate laws whether democratically voted upon or passed through the legislature against the Constitution and precedent. That's their entire function and reason for being! To prevent the tyranny of the majority and protect those unable to protect themselves. Would you [the objector] support that 50.00001% of the population voted that Fox News no longer had freedom of the press, or that you, [Objector], no longer had freedom of speech?"
    Part 2 of the interview is in the related videos list.

    Posted by: Robert in SF | Jul 1, 2013 9:58:29 AM

  14. Very good Robert SF!

    Posted by: UFFDA | Jul 1, 2013 10:02:38 AM

  15. If nothing else, Huelskamp should be slammed for being very bad at math. Passing a constitutional amendment requires the ratification of 75% of the states, or 38 of them. Now that 13 states have marriage equality, the largest number of states that would presumably ratify the amendment would be 37.

    Posted by: Clayton | Jul 1, 2013 10:06:08 AM

  16. @Clayton
    Even worse. It would not pass in states with comprehensive DPs/CUs like Oregon, Nevada, Hawaii, Illinois, Colorado or New Jersey.

    Posted by: Steve | Jul 1, 2013 10:12:51 AM

  17. This dolt Huelskamp squeezes his defense out his own backend and it's wrong.

    Children - I have two. My partner and I are their parents.

    And second - the question should be asked is, "If it's for the children, can you name one child harmed if same sex couples get married?"

    Truth is it isn't about the children. My children are better off and more protected if my partner and I can get married, simply from a legal standpoint. And anyone else's children are not harmed. In any way shape or form.

    And Huelskamp knows this. Look, this is a crazy, creepy guy from farm country who is showboating for his fearful, white, myopic constituents. Nearly everything he said in this short piece was wrong...thus why he kept throwing it back to abortion (as if to equate the two -- a move from the Karl Rove handbook). But he couldn't nor wouldn't because he couldn't answer a question directly. Why? Because he's wrong.

    And if he is advocating for the Supreme Court to stop judging laws, then he's against the Constitution, he's against The United States of America and should be brought up on treason charges.

    Posted by: Bart | Jul 1, 2013 10:32:18 AM

  18. Who cares?

    Posted by: Nancy Pelosi | Jul 1, 2013 10:38:05 AM

  19. Many will argue that we need to win over the hearts of people like this. You won't. You can't. They lack empathy. The harm they cause to LGBT & their families is real & substantive and yet remains unknown and unacknowledged by them. National media gives equality foes a pass on addressing it.

    Portraying Christians as victims is beyond ludicrous. Time to stop letting this lie go unchallenged. Show me any instance where my being able to marry the one I love harms you. That was the beauty of the Prop 8 case. It proved in court that not one shred of harm to heterosexual marriage could be proven. That lie has been debunked and yet we constantly have national media networks allowing this untruth to be said by advocates for anti equality and go unchallenged. My gay family does no harm to your hetero normative family yet your 'deeply held religious beliefs' politicized do a great deal of harm to mine.

    That family is one of the foundation blocks of civil society is not an argument that bolsters the bigoted anti equality position. It bolsters mine. Your attempts to legally demean my family does harm to them and to society by creating a second class of unequal citizens.

    Posted by: JONES | Jul 1, 2013 10:38:58 AM

  20. LOL @ Nancy

    Posted by: Eric | Jul 1, 2013 11:20:46 AM

  21. About 100 amendments are proposed in Congress each term and none ever pass. The last one to get anywhere was the equal rights amendment in the late seventies and it failed at the state level. The most common amendments proposed cover a lot of conservative social agenda stuff like prayer in school, English is the official language of the US, or financial stuff like balanced budget amendments and the gold standard.

    Posted by: anon | Jul 1, 2013 11:44:08 AM

  22. I agree that David Gregory should not have given this relic the forum to spew his garbage. Since he did, he should have been more prepared to rebut his talking points or at least ask relevant follow-up questions. When Huelskamp said that unelected judges should not be overturning the will of the American people, Gregory should have responded: "So that means that you disagree with the Court's decision to overturn the Voting Rights Act which was almost unanimously approved by Congress in 2006." Would have liked to seem him respond to that one.

    Posted by: PeteP | Jul 1, 2013 12:25:48 PM

  23. the research on the success rate of heterosexual parenting is all around us, have you read a book, newspaper watched the news? it's not so great! in fact it suuucks BIG TIME. get off your high horse Tim, the evidence BURIES you!
    also, if governments don't want the gays to adopt, tell the heteros to stop making babies they don't want

    Posted by: werd | Jul 1, 2013 12:39:26 PM

  24. If "the children" knew everything we did that winds up hurting them in the name of "protecting" them, they'd probably kill us all in our sleep.

    Posted by: Dback | Jul 1, 2013 12:55:52 PM

  25. Huelskamp has nothing to offer the GOP in terms of fiscal or healthcare policy.

    So he's decided to put a target on the backs of LGBT children and promote bigotry in hopes of securing some more Republican votes.

    That's all that this is. "Gay Marriage" is a wedge issue that, like abortion, is being used to convince millions of stupid bigots to vote against their own best fiscal interests.

    The man hasn't made a single comment or argument that contains a shred of intelligence. He's against gay couples marrying, yet talks about child-rearing: and as everyone with a functioning brain knows, being a parent has nothing to do with being married.
    Just as Sarah Palin about being a grandmother to two bastard* children.

    *note: not my term: "bastard" - i just dont' want to be insensitively liberal and progressive and pretend that her two illegitimate grandkids represent a traditional and biblical definition of "family".

    Huelskamp is not trying to stop gays from having children, even though his argument is solely about that.

    why? because like most republicans, he's a complete f***ing idiot.

    happy pride, auntie tim!

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Jul 1, 2013 1:36:05 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «SCOTUS Rulings Propel Macklemore's 'Same Love' Up Music Charts: VIDEO« «