Looper/Stephens Campaign Reaches New Depths in “Hate The Gays” Competition

(Surprised? Neither are we. – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Marsha Looper’s campaign has reached new depths in her attempt to stay in the State Legislature by outing her own son as gay.

Looper’s campaign, in an attempt to show that she loathes the gays even more than her primary opponent Amy Stephens, has issued a press release saying that even though her son is gay, she stood opposed to civil unions.  Looper’s campaign, through her campaign manager, Lana Fore-Warkocz, stated, “God is truly to be praised for Marsha Looper because she also has a homosexual son (and did not let that influence her decision to oppose equal rights for her son and other gays and lesbians).

Looper then promptly distanced herself from her campaign manager’s actions by saying she was “very disappointed” in Fore-Warkocz’s actions.  She did not, however, fire her….

Full Story:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…


71 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. abraham says:

    So, I am confused here.  Was Looper in support of civil unions before she was opposed to them or was she oppoed before she was in support and then opposed again?

    And, are we to understand that on an issue of this sensitivity that she allowed a volunteer campaign manager to draft and distribute a press release that she did not review?

    And, it is interesting that when Rep. Coram – who actually cast a vote on the bill – was addressing a nearly identical situation in his own family disclosed that prior to his vote that Rep Looper said not a word about her personal dilemma.

    Would anyone have known about her family situation had the press release not been issued nearly a month after the civil union bill was killed?

    A cynical person might be suspicious of this whole scenario and think that Looper really did know about the press release and is trying to —- what exactly is she trying to do?

    Seems a bit on the incredibly hypocritical and tawdry side.

    • Arvadonian says:

      that Looper didn’t know about the press release (c’mon, we’re talking a state rep race her not President—there aren’t enough staffers at this level for one to go “rogue”).

      Looper is trying to show that she is SO anti-gay she is willing to throw her own flesh and blood under the bus to please her constituents.  This is a craven attempt to appeal to the “kill or maim the gays” crowd in Focus on the Family Land.  Sad thing is, it just might work….

    • Pam Bennett says:

      It is possible she did not know about the press release when it was sent out. It is not possible she did not know about it afterwards.

      • …that from running for office twice, mistakes as big as this one do happen (almost too frequently) — I can believe either one – that Looper disowned it afterwards, or that there was an actual ‘mistake’

        Either way – it’s kind of funny watching all of these legislators ‘acknowledge’ having gay children, yet can’t ‘acknowledge’ their right to marriage  

  2. Barron X says:


    It seems quite hurtful to “out” someone without their consent.  Golly, it might even put them at risk of losing a job, an apartment, or physical injury.  or worse.  

    And the suggestion is that a Mom did this, or had a part in this ?  I don’t believe it.    

    I don’t know Ms. Looper at all, but I’ve had some remote interaction with Lana.  

    I think this really might be a case of a rogue volunteer staffer.  

    In my opinion, Lana is capable of this.  

    my 2 cents.  

    • Arvadonian says:

      I would like to think that if Fore-Warkocz did, if fact, “go rogue”, and if Rep. Looper was, in fact, “disgusted” by her actions she would have fired the “rogue staffer”.  Absent that, it certainly appears as though Looper approves, at least tacitly, of the injection of her son’s sexual orientation into this campaign.  

      You can bet that had the Stephens injected Looper’s son’s sexual orientation into the campaign she would have been calling for their head on a platter.

      The irony of all of this is that for all of this is that Looper is trying to appeal to the “Pro-Family” vote but she isn’t even willing to stand up and support her own son against her own staffer—rogue or not.  She really has only one “family” she is responsible for and it appears as though she has failed in that role.

      • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

        No good God-fearing Christian would ever let their child choose to grow up gay.  She has failed as a parent.

        Snark off.

        • VoyageurVoyageur says:

          I remember when I was 14 and discussed the pros and cons.  Be attracted to men, face the ostracism and bullying of my colleagues, or chase women and win the accolades of my colleagues and the approval of friends, family, and society, with tons of support for even a failed relationship.

            What to do, what to do…?

    • Ralphie says:

      But I do think that the campaign manager who did ought to be fired, praise to God.

  3. ProgressiveCowgirlProgressiveCowgirl says:

    A young man probably needs some support as a result. I hope that those who know Ms. Looper’s son have reached out to him to provide a listening ear. It was agonizing to hear Coram’s son speak about being used similarly as a pawn to advance an agenda that denies him equal rights, and if anything this is worse — rather than expressing any love or support, the statement applauds Looper and makes no allowance for her son’s feelings.

  4. allyncooper says:

    Reminds me of about the tactic I read about in the South years ago.

    Back then the Democratic primary was the real election, because of little or no Republican opposition in the general. The primary candidates would try to “out-nigra” the other candidates (few blacks voted then) to prove which one was more segregationist.

    It’s 2012, substitute “gays” instead of “nigras” , but the same tactic.  

    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

      Even at the height of the Segregation Forever era I can’t remember a right-wing politician admitting that he had a black child but voted for segregation anyway — even though Strom Thurmond, for one, met the basic qualifications of fathering a black daughter and running for president on a Segregation Forever platform in 1948.

        Let’s hope Amy Stephens wins this race.  She may be very conservative, but he has at least some decency.

  5. LakewoodTodd says:

    A. As someone who has managed a campaign at both the state and federal levels, there is NO way that this goes out without the candidate seeing it. The only scenario in which that happens ends with the responsible party being fired or asked to leave the campaign.

    B. Despicable. Of course, that is my liberal take. Proudly claiming that she voted against this even though it directly effected her son… words can’t express my disgust.

    C. Does someone REALLY think this strategy is effective? In the primary world of today’s GOP, I think this hurts her more than burnishes her right wing credentials. I can think two likely scenarios. One, primary voters hold her as morally suspect for HAVING a gay kid and not “getting him fixed.” Two, they now consider her suspect BECAUSE she has a gay kid – meaning one day, she’ll turn on them in favor of her kid. Either way, it is not good for her.

    The whole thing feels like a desperate move.

  6. ajb says:

    but I’m having a difficult time articulating this, so bear with…

    Those who oppose civil unions and/or gay marriage do so on the grounds that it’s not “natural”, i.e., we have free will and it’s a choice.

    Yet, here’s a parent who raised a child and knows that this is who that child is. It’s NOT a choice, it’s hard wired. And when they had a chance to extend to their child the same rights enjoyed by the rest of society, they turned their back. Who does that?

    And then there’s this…suppose they still maintain that their child made a choice. Don’t they see that this could be anybody? Politics, religion, schooling all don’t matter. Doesn’t their own personal experience teach them that? And if that’s true, then doesn’t it follow that it matters not one whit whether sexuality is innate or a choice?

    And still they turn their back. Why? Is it some powerful denial? Is it self-loathing? Is this what motivates them to enter politics? To make things “right”?

    I don’t know. All I know is that I wouldn’t turn my back on my child and deny them their civil rights just for being who they are.

    • allyncooper says:

      Made me think of the phrase the anti-abortion crowd (which is probably much the same crowd as the anti-gay crowd) uses.

      A child, not a choice.

      Yet for them being born gay was somehow a choice.

      • Barron X says:


        I don’t think homosexuality is a choice.

        I think it is learned, to a great extent.  Children get clues from their environment and respond.  That’s a choice ?  That’s destiny.  

        • Arvadonian says:

          insult to my Mother, my family and the environment they raised me in.  No one “taught” me to be gay (some may have assisted with perfecting my techniques—but that isn’t what we are talking about).

          • Barron X says:


            But I have the impression that a large % of homosexual men were sexually assaulted as boys.

            This is a pretty strong signal to a child victim, independent of any external “truth,” that they were singled out for a particular reason.  

            Most of what is learned is not formally taught.  

            People are continually taking clues from their environment and adapting to survive.  Especially children.  

            Looking for approval, or at least acceptance, forms the rough parameters of what is learned through formal teaching.  

            But each one of us is constantly learning and adapting way more than just in a teacher-student setting.  I venture that a student in public education learns 10 times as much from their peers than they do from classroom teachers.  

            • LakewoodTodd says:

              Your impressions are wrong.  

                • droll says:

                  This is a good place to start learning because not only does it break down the common misconceptions, but also clears up why Focus on the Family has an issue at the core of their facts.

                  The correlation doesn’t exist. Now you know. Get over it and move on.


                  • Barron X says:


                    this article agrees that there is a strong correlation between sexual abuse as a boy – by a man – and that boy later engaging in homosexual acts when grown.  

                    I know that isn’t how homosexual orientation is defined in the article, but it is a representative indicator.  

                    Few heterosexual men choose to engage in gay sex.  The clinical term is “yuck factor.”  

                    • Duke Coxdukeco1 says:

                      I was not “changed” by being molested as a child. Admittedly, it only happened twice, when I was about 12 or 13.

                      As I said before, I am thoroughly heterosexual.

                      BTW, Barron. They have a name for hetero men who engage in gay sex…they call them bi-sexual.

                    • droll says:

                      I was about to drag out the actual fact-facts about people who abuse children, but you gone and sunk your whole argument, which is that gay folks are faking it for approval and no one actually is gay. It’s a choice!

                      Unless you don’t think gay men are having teh gay sex. Poor people! Gagging their way through years and years of having sex with other men!

                      For the record, sexual abuse of any kind has surprisingly little to do with sex. For instance, Sandusky is not gay. It is more likely that, if he’s guilty, he’s been trying to find himself as a young boy. I do think it’s interesting that you seem to be arguing that one aspect of life, namely an illegal aspect that the vast majority of folks don’t have, makes gays legitimately gay in the same place you argue that consenting adults are clearly all sick and either have been abused, or are abusing children.

                      It’s a bit deep in here for me. I don’t mind an opinion grounded in nothing. I do mind people presenting that opinion as fact and trying to build an argument around it. Facts then opinion, sir. Not the other way around.

            • droll says:

              than why are there so few homosexuals in our population? Most studies put the number between 5 and 10%. What circumstances could possibly account for only one or two children seeking acceptance from statistically no one?

              The sexual abuse thing has the nasty overtones of homosexuals being more likely to abuse children, which just isn’t true. But maybe you’d like to clarify that thought?

            • Arvadonian says:

              Neither was my partner nor were any of my close gay male friends.  I do have some female friends, both lesbian and straight, who were victimized as children….ironically all by straight males.  Even with that being the case I would never form the “impression” that all straight men are sexual aggressors.

              But don’t let the facts stand in the way of your “impression”….if you did, you likely wouldn’t be a conservative.

              • Duke Coxdukeco1 says:

                I am undeniably heterosexual (I’ve never met a man that turned me on.) I have no bias against gays in any way. They should be treated COMPLETELY the same as anyone else.

                There are no hard and fast rules here, my friends.

            • nancycronknancycronk says:

              Yes, it is true children learn more from peers than from adults. There are numerous education studies that prove that (and part of an effective pedagogical philosophy is understanding the role students have in supporting the education of other students).

              Your “impression” about homosexual men is completely false. There are no studies that bear that out. You should call your local PFLAG office and ask for information. They can send you brochures or books with FACTS, drawn from a wealth of studies that have been conducted over the last two decades. There is really no excuse for someone to believe “impressions” in 2012. It’s time to educate yourself, please.

        • nancycronknancycronk says:

          Ask a lot of gay people when they first thought they might be gay. When I did that, the responses I received were all in the neighborhood of “about five years old”. In other words, they always knew it. I have yet to have one gay friend tell me they “learned” to be gay.

          When did you “learn” to be straight? How did you learn it? Do you remember the moment that happened? (I didn’t think so.)

        • ajb says:

          How does that justify denying gays the same civil rights afforded to the rest of society? After all, if it’s destiny, there’s really no choice, is there.

  7. Craig says:

    No way did the campaign manager do this without running it by the candidate.  In addition, if Looper is truly disgusted, she fires the person.  Looper just wanted cover and the campaign manager agreed to give it to her.  I’ve been asked to do the same thing, but refused. (Certainly not to the depths of insanity which is present in this case).

    • Libertad says:

      To know your own principles and those you suspect we’re employed in this case are at 180 degrees.

      • Willard Smitten says:

        and look less of an idiot. idiot

        • VoyageurVoyageur says:

          So far, not with much success.  Unfortunately, he is often so unclear, as in above, that I can’t figure out what he is trying to say.

          • I wrote that mistakes like this definitely happen on campaigns

            That said – I know Lana (I like her a lot) and she’s got terrific follow-through – hard for me to believe that she’d make a mistake like this

            • LakewoodTodd says:

              Not a mistake. Not an accident.

              MAH, I’ve enjoyed your perspective on things but I was stunned by your statement that “mistakes as this one do happen  (almost too frequently).”

              The best I can imagine is this mistake happening one time and then the person is fired so it can’t happen again.

              But, truly, I can’t even imagine a scenario in which a campaign so small as a state senate or house campaign would make a gaffe like this. There is no way I would have put out an email, forwarded an email or written a press release without a very clear conversation with the candidate who I would have been talking talk with daily if not more regularly. Especially, if I was going to be mentioning anything about the candidate’s family or personal life.

              Nope, cannot fathom that this was a “mistake.”

              • …thank you for the kind words! IMO, most State House races receive very little attention, thus, 9 out of 10 mistakes are never caught or publicized

                God knows I had so many gaffes in my own HD race (ones that weren’t even caught or reported!) – but we had far less on State Treasurer, because I had already run once, and part of a candidates ability to ‘upgrade’ and run for bigger seats like Senate and Governor is their ability to manage good staffs – every candidate is going to make gigantic mistakes running for State House/Senate and most go unnoticed, because there aren’t spotlights

                However, this race (Looper/Stephens) has many more spotlights than most, because of the drama behind it – in turn, I expect we’ll see plenty more mistakes coming out of this race (even if this email release was not a mistake)

  8. Libertad 2.0 says:

    does it say that the son was outed?

    • droll says:

      At the very least it’s a huge invasion of the privacy he’s specifically asked his mom for.

      The resulting cascade of media attention is a bit ironic. Sad, but ironic.

      • Libertad 2.0 says:

        is that if he was already out to hundreds, if not thousands, (or the vast majority of her constituents) then was this really “outing”?

        • droll says:

          Although the impression I have is that it’s not as well known as that.

          Can anyone ever be outed by anyone other than themselves? Outing implies someone’s knowledge who isn’t the outed, which means it’s not your secret anymore.

          So if a bunch of people are constantly outing Anderson Cooper, does it mean I’m outing him right now? Or is it different because it’s not public knowledge (the rumor anyway)? Or because I don’t really know Cooper and therefore have no idea what his sexual orientation is (nor do I care in reality) unless he explicitly tells me?

          Bottom line is that Looper’s son asked for privacy, which I’m fairly certain would include not having a story in the metro daily paper. It’s a little invasive. The Post has quoted Looper as saying that her son has asked for her to not make a big thing of it.

          Maybe shades of outing? I do understand what you’re getting at, and it’s its own question; was this kid outed like bjwilson83, or like LaughingBoy? Obviously most of us would argue that bj wasn’t outed at all and LB was big time. I think this is somewhere in the middle… until you add the statewide news coverage. Ironic that our collective outrage has far more thoroughly outed than the original email, but I think that, realistically, this was a foreseeable consequence. Does that make it more of an out?

          • Libertad 2.0 says:

            Yes. That was my takeaway from it. This diary, in addition to the Bartels story and the HuffPo diary have contributed more to it than the original e-mail ever could.

            Also, who benefits from this? I think it’s a net gain for Looper as she can hit Stephens on civil unions getting as far as it did while at the same time getting credit for opposing it in an extremely harsh fashion.

          • sxp151 says:

            Some dude discovered his personal information and threatened to out him, but I don’t recall anyone actually doing it. Maybe you’re thinking of MOTR?

  9. CaninesCanines says:

    God is truly to be praised for Marsha Looper because she also has a homosexual son (and did not let that influence her decision to oppose equal rights for her son and other gays and lesbians).

    And, still rhetorically speaking, who would hire this mush-mouth as a campaign manager?

    How about this?: “God is truly to be praised because Lana Fore-Warkocz hasn’t the foggiest fucking clue how her tortured prose has made her employer and herself look so really, pathetically bad?”

    • abraham says:

      I sort of glossed over the report when I first read it, and then when I saw your comments I went back read it again.  

      It seems telling that the comment that was made was that Looper opposed equal rights for her son.  That is extraordinary.  Apparently Looper and her campaign folks acknowledge that the issue is one of equal rights and that it is perfectly OK to discriminate against some people.

      Civil rights have to be for everyone or else they are not civil rights.

      Do these people ever listen to what they are actually saying?

        • droll says:

          you’re reading.

          I, like abraham, missed the phrase the first time and only read it again after you posted. I’m pretty sure his subject line was telling you that he also read it again. Mine would’ve.

          I suspect he doesn’t need me to answer for him, but it seems like he’s not here much to clarify.

          • abraham says:

            Thanks, Droll – you are correct and I just did not communicate that clearly.  Sorry for the confusion.

            I read it quickly the first time – and was adequately appalled.  I re-read it after Canines post pulled the quote – and was even more appalled.

            There have been some good posts on this issue that have caused me to conclude that the distribution of the release was probably not accidental because the Looper responses were so lame.  It would seem that a protective parent who had been asked by her son to respect his privacy would have been aggressive in her response and would have ripped the throat out of the transgressor.

            The press release looks like pandering to the bigots without having to actually carry a lighted torch.  Being an enabler is no less reprehensible than being the actor.

          • CaninesCanines says:

            My confusion.

      • sxp151 says:

        If you oppose gay marriage, you wouldn’t call it “equal rights.”

        And if you believed in God, you wouldn’t say “We should praise God because He made my boss awesome.” Aren’t you supposed to praise God no matter what?

        Even by whackjob standards this is really odd.  

        • Barron X says:


          my Christian brothers & sisters often talk like that, “praise God for doing what I want.”  While good Christians probably DO praise God, no matter what, most of the ones I know are sinners, selfish, venial, etc.  I’m keeping my eye on that guy in the mirror.    

          And your first point is correct, as I see it.

          My locution:

          Homosexual relationships cannot be marriage, because by definition that means one man and one woman.  


          Homosexuals have the right to marry: a gay man can marry a woman, and a lesbian woman can marry a man.  It happens all the time.  And who’s to say those marriages aren’t as successful and happy and fulfilling as other marriages, so long as they love and like each other ?  

          The unspoken truth is that lots and lots of people don’t get to marry their first, or even second choice.  Many settle for a partner they can tolerate.  

          • harrydobyharrydoby says:

            Of the many obstacles that can occur to make that true, we have a growing majority of American voters that do not believe that a secular law should exist to enforce religious dogma.

            We’re still not a theocracy, and civil ceremonies do not involve a church or particular religion.

    • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

      That really is an extraordinary indictment within their own comment. That she chooses to not vote for equal rights for her child.

      I think even among many conservatives, this will be going too far.

    • Barron X says:


      it was supposedly in an anonymous email (?) sent to the campaign.  

      Lana forwarded it to supporters without running it by Looper, I’d bet.  

      U folks don’t even know who Lana is.  Google her.  See what she’s done in the past.  

      • sxp151 says:

        This was a sarcastic message from a civil-union supporter that Fore-Warkocz misunderstood and forwarded because she’s some kind of moron. Now it makes more sense.

        P.S. since you know her, how do you pronounce her name? “For warcocks”?

        • Barron X says:


          I never figured that sarcasm part out.  

          And I never tried to pronounce her last name.

          She published the “T-Party Gazette” or “Patriot Gazette” or something like that for several months in El Paso and Teller Counties.  

          It looked like a questionable business proposition to this MBA.  I think it was more (or less) than she represented.    

          Read between the lines.  

          • CaninesCanines says:

            I apologize for saying that she wrote that.

            I also agree with the above comment saying that she’s a moron for the questionable action of forwarding the email to campaign supporters.

            • ajb says:

              While technically distinct, the act of forwarding the message is really no different in intent than crafting and sending it yourself.

              Both deserve the same derision.

              • CaninesCanines says:

                I usually avoid calling someone a, say, “moron,” as well — which I did. I usually prefer to say someone performed a “moronic” action, most excellently.

                That’s my trip.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.