John Edwards does not believe in queer
marriage.His daughter said,it is not his fault he was raised in a Baptist
family.What a jerk!We will surely fall
from grace with people like ms.Edwards
walking around.A total collapse is
imminent.

If you want to know what the Supreme Court says about Gay Issues….Read "Courting Justice" by Joyce Murdoch and Deb Price….. I have a funny feeling about Chief Justice Roberts….. I think he will give us gays the equal rights we deserve…. I don't know why I think it…. I just have a gut feeling…. I ain't asking to marry my pet nor am I asking to marry 2 other people…. I am asking to marry another person who happens to be the one I love and just happens to be of the same sex…. I am thinking spouse and spouse not husband and wife…..funny thing about the English language…it seems to always be changing…

Where does it say "All men are created equal” UNLESS YOUR GAY? I strongly believe gay people need to bring this before the US Supreme Court and demand the same rights as other Americans. If not I don’t think they should pay taxes. I mean after all Gay people are subhuman right. not real Americans? Not patriotic? Well then gay people should not pay taxes to a Government that is clearly denying people basic rights because of PERSONAL issues, and are not upholding and defending the Constitution they ARE SWARN to protect!

Something to think about… If the Republicans were so concerned about the gay marriage issue (and abortion) why has nothing been done in the 6 YEARS they've had control of both Congress and the White House? Could it be that actually resolving the issue would mean the loss of one of their "feaar cards"?

loyda ~ WDC wrote,

"The divorce rate in the US amoung heterosexuals is 10 times bigger that the separation rate amoung homosexuals….."

Loyda - you're clueless and you don't know how to do math. If 90% of gay couples stayed together for life - that would mean 10% of gay couples broke up… and 100% (10x 10%) of heterosexual marriages end in divorce.

Gay couples break up as often as heterosexual couples. Get over your self-delusional view of the gay world.

"When you take the sacredness out of marriage, you will drive the marriage rates down."

Regardless of which side we take on the same sex issue I believe we can all agree that the statement Brownback makes here is grossly moronic.

Sanctity means holiness, saintliness, or Godliness. Using Brownback's argument any person who enters into a marriage who is not religious in any regard is removing the sanctity of the union. Should people who do not believe in God also not be allowed to marry? Are they not also driving down the number of marriages?

According to the Bible Mark Chapter 10 there is no divorce. Jesus states very clearly when a man puts away his wife and marries another woman he is committing adultery to his first wife. The same applies to a woman. Using Brownback's argument when divorced people remarry they are removing the sanctity of the union. Should divorced people be allowed to remarry? Are not divorced people driving down the number of marriages?

The whole mindset is ludicrous. When I went to get married I did not look around my community to see how many Godless people were removing the sanctity. I was not studying the number of divorced people ruining my big event.

A marriage is a union between individuals that have legal implications. In a very real sense a marriage is a contract. There is no sanctity in the union in today's culture and hasn't been for a very long time.

When Senator Brownback argued against the so called Marriage Penalty Tax in 1999 he made this statement: "We must quit subsidizing divorce and incentivizing cohabitation. The government should not use the coercive power of the tax code to erode the foundation of our society. This year we can end the injustice of the Marriage Penalty Tax"

I won't even go into Brownback's advocacy of intelligent being taught in schools. Let's just suffice to say I'm comforted knowing Brownback will never be elected President.

Perhaps this state employee (lady who said YES to same-sex marriage) should vote for a leading Democratic Candidate which supports her view.

Oh wait… there isn't one.

When Sen. Brownback says we need to "strengthen our families" what he really means is "we need to strengthen the families I approve of. The rest can go rot."

Sen. Brownback, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, there are MILLIONS of gay and lesbian families in our nation. They are leading loving, committed lives, they are contributing to their community, and they are raising children. The only difference is that rather than support them, people like you are using your narrow view of what is right and wrong to make life as difficult as possible for them. And who suffers? Their children.

And as for your "sacredness" comment, when my friends Harlan and Dan stood in front of their families and friends and committed to love, honor, and cherish one another 'til death did they part, THAT was a sacred moment. And 40 years later, they are STILL honoring their commitment to one another and to those gathered. If that isn't respecting the "sacredness" of marriage I don't know what is.

Thank you, Sam. If we don't strengthen the family and get the children to understand the purpose and sacredness of marriage, this nation will eventually fail.

I agree with Chritian!

The divorce rate in the US amoung heterosexuals is 10 times bigger that the separation rate amoung homosexuals…..

If you don't believe me, check your own GOP candidates… there are at least 2 divorcees….

"the best place is between a mom and a dad"???????? sorry, but if the mom and the dad are hurting each other, that is certanly not the best place to live….. I have know more very-well adjusted kids coming out of divorced parents committed to their kids than from married couples….

Lets be honest, the enemy of traditional marriage isn't gay marriage, or even civil unions, its divorce.

The only reason far-right conservatives are ganging up on Gay marriage and not divorce is because (in their minds at least) you can score political points in a primary by picking on a minority group like gays, as opposed to the HUGE number of divorced Americans.

Churches used to consider divorce "an abomination". With the divorce rate far in excess of the gay population, end the hypocrisy of so-called "family values" conservatives, and stop picking on homosexuals and do something about divorce…

This guy is, almost by definition, a yahoo. How can any rational person argue that by allowing more people to marry we will "drive the marriage rates down"?

Does Senator Brownback honestly expect us to believe that hordes of heterosexual people will decide not to marry because of the controversy over gay marriage? Marriage rates are down for a number of reasons that preclude this current issue.

Please.

Brownbeck is a nut job and it's becasue of his ridiculous comments like this that he is polling so poorly. Go back to Kansas Sam and try to concvince everyone that evolution doesn't exist.

Brownback may talk all he wants about the "sacredness of marriage" but I think he is so blinded by religious beliefs that he can't see past it.

I actually think Brownback needs to get out of the race and get some toilet paper, know what I mean!

Just goes to show that it's the right wing of the Republicans, and not the US left, that are un-American in thoughts and actions. It seems to me that the ultra-conservatives desire nothing more than to limit other peoples' freedom to fit their own dysfunctional dreams.

Well i think that the marriage between persons of the same sex is a small issue,because everyday more and more people divorce,i don't care if they marry ,but i do carry that more and more straight families are teared apart,this are serious matters.

There are many of us who don't watch TV and only follow Internet, so CNNs coverage is very useful for us. CNN, thanks.

I thoroughly enjoy these postings. I don't have television, much less time in my day to watch it. This way I am abreast of debate highlights and aware of candidates' platforms. Enough 'rice crackers' will plant the seeds for decision making on Election Day.

Perhaps the gal that asked this question should consider voting for a leading Democratic candidate which supports same-sex marriage.

Oh wait… there isnt one!

I wouldn't get married if homosexuals could… wait no, thats absolutely foolish. Allowing same-sex marrages will not change the way people feel about the ones they love. People get married to engage in a life long (hopefully) bond with someone they truly care about, they dont get married because homosexuals can't. Brownback's statements about preserving the sanctity of marrage and same-sex marrages causes a decline in marrage rates is foolish.

Same sex unions will drive marriage rates down? Ahem. Gay marriage was not legal when Reagan got divorced. Gay marriage has not been the reason for the multiple unions of Thompson, Giuliani, and McCain. If you want to find the experts on marital stability, one needs to look to the gay-friendly Democrats - the Edwardses, Obamas, and Clintons. One and only unions for all of them. Congratulations to all 3 couples.

What happened to the Republican party that believed government didn't belong in the bedroom or the classroom? Where has the sanity gone?

Do you members of the RNC actually believe that you can create so much division that it just might actually get Mr. Brownback elected?

This issue of gay marriage, will eventually play out the same way racism did, the same way the womens' right to vote did, the same way that every oppressive act by small minded people always do.

Your efforts will fail and you will with it.

Bottom line, if you don't want gays to get married in your church, that's your church's decision. If you want to get married and you happen to be gay, go to a church that will marry you.

It should never be the government's right to discriminate and make separate and unequal. What happens in the home or church should stay there. I don't even want to know about it.

The idea of passing a Constitutional amendment to restrict rights is… well, as obscene as any deviant sex act these neocons can dream up in their deviant minds.

Somebody please hook these backward thinking dinosaurs off the stage.

Hey, Dan Book, I don't have a television because it is largely a waste of time. I'm glad I can turn to CNN for all the material I missed out on.

Wait, so gay marriage would be a social "experiment," but Brownback already knows the outcome: "They impact the rest of the culture around you. When you take the sacredness out of marriage, you will drive the marriage rates down."? It may have been a few years since I've taken a science class, but according to the scientific method, aren't you supposed to conduct the experiment before you can know the result, otherwise it's just a hypothesis?

Oh, sorry, I forgot, Brownback doesn't really believe in science…

Raising children is not done better with a Mom and a Dad, just ask some of the children out there with neither, with one or the other or with two mom's/dad's or one of each. Raising a child is done with love and no one should be able to judge that. I agree that the sacredness has been taken out of marriage and not by homosexuals but by the people who do not hold their vows and cheat. So take a look at yourself Congress, House, & Presidential canidates before you decide who should and who should not be able to get married.

Re: Dan Book's "Dear CNN"

I don't have cable television. So I get my news by using a WIFI connection with an outdoor, external antenna that is being bounced off my neighbor's chimney to an access point somewhere far away.

Not all of us are as privileged as you, and your jokes are about as dry as your Thanksgiving turkey. We're all glad that you've grasped the ability to multi-task. Now get over yourself.

Thanks CNN.

Gee, Sen. Brownback..

Isn't legalized discrimination a social experiment that already has been proven to have failed and tore our country in half?

That equality is a social experiment in Sen. Brownback's thinking (and rhetoric), it's no wonder that this country is still so divided and the rest of the world is either laughing at us or trying to think of ways to destroy us.

CNN left out an important part of Brownback's response. At the beginning of his answer, he affirmed his opposition to same-sex marriage, and you could hear a mix of boos and cheers in from the audience. That is why he continued by saying, "I understand this is a divided audience."

I find that a lot of the objections to gay marriage to be spurious. Yes, the two people involved cannot have children on their own; that also applies to post-menopausal women, senior citizens, and people who have suffered specific injuries, but they are not prevented from marrying.

I also find the idea that allowing gay marriage will drive the marriage rates down to be nonsensical. You do not get married based on what other people do; you get married based on what's going on in YOUR life.

Even if you think that the best situation for a child is with two loving parents that are bonded for life, we don't legislate in this country that all parents must stay together for life, etc. to provide the best possible enviornment for our children. Why should we use that excuse to deny homosexuals their rights to marry the person they love?

Hey Dan,

You're on the Internet reading about a televised debate. Hello.

CNN covers the debate online because, quite frankly, not everyone watched the debates. Lots of people may have had other obligations during that time block. CNN's coverage of the debate on the website is designed to complement and enhance the televised coverage of the debate.

Please return to your uninterrupted three-hour block of television.

Homosexuals haven't been able to get married until Massachusettes - and the sanctity of marriage was already down the tubes. Its a bogus excuse to draw out voters and its just getting weaker and weaker each election. Republicans have nothing else to use…and Democrats should stand up and support it on moral principle and stop being afraid of losing votes.

What is meant by freedom in this article? If I want to support the responsibility of procreation, then traditional marriage is a well established mechanism that is in line with my point of view. If I feel that people should be free to define their relationships in whatever way they want, then they should - but not by forcing everyone else to recognize this as equal to traditional marriage. If someone wants to recognize both arrangements, then they should be able to do it without imposing a moral view on others.

I do not agree that they are the same. The responsibilities, while similar in some areas, are not the same.

The argument that old people can get married is not a good comparison. An old men can still father a child outside his marriage. This undermines his responsibility. To say that a gay man can father a child outside of his relationship is mixing the issue, in a sense contaminating the comparison.

There are other arguments in favour of changing the law but they can just as easily be challenged. I personally know of couples that did not want children change their mind, or couples that were told they could not have children that ended up having a child. If a couple wants to have 2 children, then how is that different from a couple that wants no children? The planning responsiblities (and consequence of failure) from a procreation perspective are the same whether or not a couple has children.

Rules based on exception to me are not good policy anyway. We should handle exceptions but not use them as a foundation.

The recent decisions in favour of gay marriage in the courts could have used at the least the "spirit of the law" to defend traditional marriage. But this is something that certain judges chose not to consider.

I like all the posts about different candidates' responses. We can hash it all out ad nauseum. Some people do not have TV but do have internet access. Some people don't have a working TV. Some people live with family members who do not choose to watch the debates. Some people even have radio headsets (the debate was also on Fox radio) to listen to while watching on line. ANd yes, some people prefer to watch streaming on line while multi-tasking! Thanks to CNN for keeping a running selection of topics on these debates!

Brownback apparently has Two Fathers, his biological one and another according to his religion. But each American has a personal relationship with their own deities, or none at all, and it is arrogance in the extreme to attempt to impose his God on us as a secular President.

Dear CNN,

What is the point of your debate night coverage? Do you intend it as a service for people who have internet access but not access to a TV? You don't really add anything with your posts that one wouldn't already get from watching the debate itself. Reading your ticker during a debate is like eating a plain rice cake during thanksgiving dinner: even if you like airy, tasteless rice cakes, why would you eat it when you have a full Thanksgiving dinner as an alternative?

I think the sacredness of marriage has been removed, but not by homosexuals…

In a nation where the divorce rate is approximately 50%, one does not still believe that marriage is considered sacred in that nation.

BAN IT! BAN IT! BAN IT! Since when can two people of the same sex NATURALLY create a child together? Personally, I find the thought of same sex relationships disgusting. I hope that America will choose a candidate that appreciates real family values.

When you deny the right of a loving couple to get married, then you take the sacredness out of marriage.