VIDEO: Few Supporters of Gay Rights at Iowa GOP Debate

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The majority of the GOP presidential contenders who spoke about LGBT issues at Thursday night’s debate in Ames, Iowa did not come out in favor of gay rights. There were only two exceptions. One was no surprise: Jon Huntsman, who supported civil unions as governor of Utah, spoke out in favor of them again, adding, “I think this nation can do a better job when it comes to equality.” The other was rather unexpected: Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who has compared gay marriage to bestiality and supports a state’s right to ban anal sex, said that Iran’s “mullahcracy…tramples on the rights of gays.”

Here’s a look at where the other candidates from last night’s debate stand on gay rights (with a tip of the hat to Think Progress):

Michele Bachmann: The congresswoman from Minnesota has built her career on opposing gay rights in the name of God, and it’s been widely reported now that her husband runs a clinic linked to ex-gay reparative therapy. At the debate, she reiterated her support for a federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage and said she “would not nominate activist judges who would legislate from the bench.”

Herman Cain: The former Godfather’s Pizza CEO doesn’t support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and has said he would appoint a gay person to his cabinet (provided they’re not also Muslim, presumably). But he thinks homosexuality is a sin and doesn’t support gay marriage either.

Newt Gingrich: After the Iowa Supreme Court struck down the state’s gay marriage ban in 2009, the former speaker of the house helped bankroll a successful effort to oust three of the justices from the bench. He supports a federal marriage amendment to beat back “gay and secular fascism.”

Ron Paul: He’s a hero among libertarians but doesn’t endorse the Libertarian Party’s support for equal marriage rights. At the debate, he said that he thinks “marriages should be between a single man and a single woman and that the federal government shouldn’t be involved,” although he supports the federal Defense of Marriage Act under the guise of states’ rights.

Tim Pawlenty: The former Minnesota governor claims that he’s a fan of Lady Gaga, an outspoken gay-rights activist. But as governor, he opposed a same-sex end-of-life rights bill. He also supports a federal marriage amendment.

Mitt Romney: In 1994, during his time as governor of Massachusetts, Romney penned a letter to the state’s Log Cabin Republicans supporting gay rights. “We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern,” he wrote then. But now, he says that he supports a marriage amendment. “Marriage is a status. It’s not an activity that goes on within the walls of a state,” he said at the debate.

Rick Santorum, take two: Sure, Santorum may support protecting gays from Iranian hardliners. But at the debate he warned that states’ gay marriage laws were examples of the “10th Amendment run amok,” in the process comparing the laws to forced sterlization and accusing Ron Paul of supporting polygamy.

And the no-shows: Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who’s expected to announce his presidential bid Saturday, supported a law to ban gay sex in his state. Former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer supports the Defense of Marriage Act but says it’s okay if a state chooses to legalize gay marriage. Obscure Detroit Rep. Thaddeus McCotter has voted for marriage amendments. Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson supports civil unions. And the openly gay (and, save for one yard sign I saw yesterday in Ames, nearly invisible) Fred Karger, not surprisingly, supports gay marriage rights.

Think Progress compiled a two-minute video of the anti-gay rhetoric on display at the debate:

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate