The GOP presidential candidates reiterated their opposition to same-sex marriage during Thursday’s debate in Ames, Iowa, even as the majority of Americans now support marriage equality and 11.4 percent of the population lives in a state that recognizes the unions of gay and lesbian couples. The contenders sparred over the role of the federal government in regulating marriage, while former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman distinguished himself for his support of civil unions and greater LGBT equality:

MITT ROMNEY: Marriage is a status. It’s not an activity that goes on within the walls of a state and as a result, our marriage status relationship should be constant across the country. I believe we should have a federal amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.

JON HUNTSMAN: I also believe in civil unions, because I believe this nation can do a better job when it comes to equality and I believe we can do a better job when it comes to reciprocal beneficiary rights rights.

RON PAUL: I think marriages should be between a single man and a single woman and that the federal government shouldn’t be involved.

RICK SANTORUM: It sounds to me like Rep. Paul would say that polygamous marriages are okay.

MICHELE BACHMANN: I support the federal marriage amendment…and as president I would not nominate activist judges who would legislate from the bench.

Watch a compilation:

The question was about RomneyCare, but Rick Santorum — who has emphasized his opposition to same-sex marriage in the weeks leading up to tonight’s debate — turned it to an attack against ex-gay clinic owner Michele Bachmann for not being anti-gay enough. Santorum argued that states should not have the right to “redefine” marriage and called for a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Bachmann has previously said that the issue should be left to the states. Watch it:

Santorum has one of the worst records on LGBT issues — he opposes civil unions, marriage equality, or any other kind of legal recognition of same-sex couples. He would also reinstate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Over the last several days, he claimed that marriage is like a napkin, water, and tea — but unlike paper towels, beer, or basketballs.

During an interview with an NBC affiliate, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) said that states should have the right to enact same-sex marriage legislation, but left the door open for supporting a constitutional amendment that would repeal their laws:

CUCCINELLI: The only amendment I would expect to see to the constitution would be a nationwide protection of traditional marriage and restricting marriage to one man and one woman…There doesn’t have to be uniformity, I certainly see it as one possible course we get on. But there is nothing Constitutionally or historically that demands that this be addressed uniformly across the country…As between these two options, I would certainly prefer for the states to decide.

Watch it:

Cuccinelli’s position sounds eerily similar to that of Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), who until recently also spouted the very same 10th Amendment rhetoric. But Perry’s comments outraged conservative Republicans, and he quickly placated the party base by reiterating his support for a constitutional amendment that would prohibit states like New York or Vermont or Massachusetts from recognizing same-sex marriages. In other words, when push comes to shove, Republican officials who feel like they need the support of social conservatives to win elections are willing to dismiss the 10th Amendment and force everyone to conform to their views of marriage. Cuccinelli is clearly leaving room for a pivot.

In fact, he has already gone a long way in imposing a radical anti-gay agenda on Virginians. Cuccinelli instructed state universities that they could not protect gays and lesbians from discrimination, opposed extending adoption rights to gay couples, and even terminated the state’s relationship with law firm King & Spalding for backing out of its contract to defend the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act.

First it was pink toenails. Then it was Chaz Bono (until Fox News pulled the article). Now, Fox News Medical A-Team contributor Dr. Keith Ablow is back to confuse readers about sexual orientation, sexual disorders, and gender identity in a post devoid of any valid conclusions. The premise of his article is to defend his previous claim that Vogue’s sexual images of minors “can actually ‘create’ pedophiles.” Here are some of the fanciful ideas Ablow squeezes into his pieceunder that pretense:

- Pedophilia is a “sexual orientation.” (It’s not, it’s a psychiatric disorder.)

- Sexual orientation can be shaped by one’s environment. (He is correct that “desires” and “behavior” can be influenced by environment, but neglects to draw any distinction between contextual responses and an enduring orientation.)

- Prison normalizes homosexuality. (Besides reinforcing a stereotype, Ablow again conflates behavior with orientation. Men who have sex with men in prison don’t become gay.)

- Parental relationships with parents influence sexuality. (This is a junk science ex-gay talking point that folks like Rich Wyler and Richard Cohen use to substantiate their bogus “touch therapy.”)

- People who are transgender “are on tortuous, tragic paths through confused identity issues.” (Any psychologist with an ounce of merit would appreciate that transitioning gender is all about affirming the individual’s identity, and while the journey may be challenging, there is nothing “tortuous,” “tragic,” or “confusing” about it.)

- Gender dysphoria can be “kindled” and shaped by one’s environment. (What Ablow is insinuating is that, like sexual orientation, gender identity is also a choice — or at least something that can be controlled. On both counts, he is wrong.)

It’s astonishing that Fox News would boast having someone like Ablow on its “Medical A-Team” when everything that he writes is fiction. Then again, perhaps Fox News has little interest in providing factual data to its audience when propagating myths about the LGBT community caters so much more to social conservatives’ interests.

Edie Windsor is suing the federal government for not recognizing her marriage.

Joe Sudbay has posted another brief in a case filed by Edie Windsor, who is challenging the constitutionality of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Windsor was forced to pay exorbitant federal inheritance taxes after her wife passed away because the government would not legally recognize their 44-year relationship. Since President Obama announced that he would no longer be upholding the constitutionality of Act, House Speaker John Beohner has taken charge and is spending tax payer dollars to defend the measure.

Last week, Bohener’s lawyer Paul Clement filed a brief dismissing Windsor’s motion for summary judgment. He argued that sexual orientation is not a characteristic that deserves “heightened scrutiny” — essentially, that gay people have not been historically subject to the kind of irrational discrimination that justifies constitutional protection. Windsor’s filing offered the testimonies of expert witnesses, which Clement deposed — but he had some trouble finding credible experts of his own. Instead, he identified the work of professional anti-gay activists like Maggie Gallagher, thus exempting them from deposition. Windsor’s lawyers have filed a motion asking the Court to strike the documents:

For example, BLAG relies on citations to books and articles for the truth of the matters asserted as evidence that a marriage between a male and a female provides a stable and nourishing framework for child-rearing (BLAG 56.1 ¶47.) The co-author of one of those books, Maggie Gallagher, has achieved some notoriety in the media as the President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, one of the most prominent lobbying groups against equal rights for same-sex marriage. However, plaintiff was given no opportunity to cross examine Gallagher by using her own statements from her many public statements and appearances on this subject.

Indeed, Boehner seems to be running into the very same problem that David Boies– one half of the legal team challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 — identified during a now-infamous appearance on Face the Nation: anti-gay activists simply don’t have any evidence to make their case. “In a court of law you’ve got to come in and you’ve got to support those opinions, you’ve got to stand up under oath and cross-examination,” Boies explained. “There simply wasn’t any evidence, there weren’t any of those studies. There weren’t any empirical studies. That’s just made up. That’s junk science. It’s easy to say that on television. But a witness stand is a lonely place to lie. And when you come into court you can’t do that.”

During the trial, the proponents of Prop. 8 insisted that marriage is about channeling naturally procreative sexual conduct “into stable and enduring unions” in order to “minimize what I would call irresponsible procreation.” Asked to substantiate the claim, the defense replied, “your Honor, you don’t have to have evidence for this from these authorities” and suggested that “you need only go back to your chambers, your Honor, and pull down any dictionary, pull down any book that discusses marriage and you will find this procreative purpose at its heart wherever you go.”

Rick Santorum just can’t help himself. He has compared same-sex marriage to water and a napkin, but not beer or a paper towel. Yesterday, during an appearance in Iowa, he explained that “calling same-sex marriage a marriage would be like calling a cup of tea a basketball.”

But cut the guy some slack, coming up with all of these analogies is actually making him sick! As Mother Jones’ Gavin Aronsen reports, Santorum was battling laryngitis, trying save his voice for tonight’s GOP Presidential debate, and still managed to spend “a quarter of his speech explaining how our rights come from God, not any gay-friendly government.” He refused to answer questions about whether he would appoint a Supreme Court justice to overturn Lawrence v. Texas or why he — the small government advocate — had agreed to appoint a government commission to investigate the intimidation of anti-gay activists:

After the event, Santorum dodged a question from Mother Jones about his past criticism of Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court case that struck down the Lone Star State’s ban on sodomy. Santorum, who has voiced support for state sodomy bans and likened anal sex to incest after the Lawrence ruling, refused to say whether he would appoint a Supreme Court justice who would reinstate anti-sodomy laws.

Santorum was willing to double down on his promise to create a presidential commission to “investigate harassment of traditional marriage supporters,” part of the National Organization for Marriage’s anti-gay marriage pledge he endorsed last week. (“They are being harassed. You can read the paper and see all of the instances when people have been harassed.”) But he refused to explain why, after railing against government excess for nearly an hour, he would spend federal money on such a peculiar endeavor.

“I’ll talk to you later,” he said, sitting down in the passenger seat of a campaign sedan and promptly slamming the door.

Santorum also “repeatedly quoted a study that families do better in heterosexual marriages” — though that study actually does not exclude same-sex couples from the definition of family — and stuck to his guns in ignoring Dan Savage’s threats to redefine his first name:

On sex columnist Dan Savage’s threat to mess with search results for Santorum’s first name — having already done so with his surname, Santorum called it “disgusting.”

“It doesn’t deserve any kind of recognition,” he said. “This is the kind of disgusting discourse in our society that coarsens our society and doesn’t add value. Because we have a society now with the Internet that anybody on the extreme fringe can post things and be heard, it doesn’t mean that should be paid attention to.“