By Christopher Williams,Staff Writer

Brian Duprey, a conservative Republican state representative from Hampden, has sparked controversy and attracted media attention this legislative session over some of the unusual bills he has sponsored.

He has appeared often in news reports and was even featured recently on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show.”

The first bill to draw public attention was a measure that would have legalized same-sex marriage, a recently withdrawn measure he said he planned to vote against. He later submitted an opposing resolution that would amend the Maine Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage.

He also sponsored measures that would:

• Make it illegal to have an abortion if the fetus were carrying a “gay gene,” something that has not been discovered.

• Prevent taxpayer money from being used to pay for sex-change operations. The bill was defeated.

His actions and statements have also drawn attention. On the floor of the Maine House, during debate over an anti-discrimination law, he argued that its passage might lead to pedophiles dressing as women and stalking children in school bathrooms.

He tried to submit a bill that would have allowed motorists to purchase one of two different state license plates featuring either “Choose Life” or “Protect Choice,” but he wasn’t able to meet the requirements for that legislative proposal.

Duprey has sponsored dozens of other bills as well, including several that deal with day care centers, abortion and sex education. And he sponsored a bill that would rename I-295 the Ronald Reagan Memorial Highway.

Duprey, 38, is married with five children. He owns a chain of day care centers in central Maine. He spent eight years in the U.S. Navy and has some college education. He grew up in Fairfield.

He says he had no religious upbringing, but during his time in the Navy became a church-goer after a friend died. Now he attends Bangor Baptist Church.

He is serving his third term in the House.

Question: You submitted a bill that would have made same-sex marriage legal. You said you drafted the bill for a constituent but planned to vote against it. … What would you say to the folks who contend this was a ploy on your part to undermine the governor’s effort to pass a gay rights law this session (by trying to link gay rights with same-sex marriage)?

Answer: I’m not in their loop. I’m not one of their (gay rights supporters’) cronies, so I don’t know what their plan is. … How could I screw it up?

Q: When you drafted the “gay-gene” bill, were you concerned specifically about the rights of homosexual unborn children or were you really concerned about all unborn children?

A: I’m concerned about all, but I’m specifically concerned about targeting that could be done if they ever do have the gay gene. I have no doubt these babies would be aborted, not by the Christian community but the non-Christian community, people who were just that shallow. To me, somebody would have to be shallow to abort a child just for that reason. But in the United States you can abort a baby just because the baby’s a girl or just because it could have Down Syndrome or because it could have a cleft palate? There doesn’t have to be a reason. So I think people, yes, I think they would abort if they knew they (would) give birth to a gay child, because when we had that debate last year for inheritance rights for homosexuals, I heard a lot of horrific stories from homosexuals that they were ostracized and kicked out of their family, teenagers just kicked out on the street when their parents found out they were gay. And if parents are that disgusted by homosexuality – which, of course, I would never be – but if parents are that disgusted, I think they would abort a child to not face a gay child. I think that would be absolutely wrong. I think all babies need protecting, but I think this class of babies is gonna be a bigger target. I don’t think they’re ever going to discover a gay gene. I don’t think it exists. But if it does – I could be wrong – I want protections for that unborn child.

Q: Is this a way to get on the record that you don’t believe a gay gene exists?

A: I don’t need this to get on the record. I’m pretty consistently on the record. I think homosexuality is a choice, because I’ve met many ex-gays. I’ve never met an ex-black or an ex-woman. I’ve met too many former homosexuals who thought they were born that way who (later) realized they weren’t. … I think the extenuating circumstances have led them down that direction.

Q: So, if your bill were to pass, you don’t believe this law would ever actually be used because there would never be any scientific proof of a gay gene.

A: In my opinion, no. But like I said, I’ve been wrong once or twice in my legislative career. I’m willing to be wrong in this case too. People make mistakes.

Q: When you were taping the “Daily Show” at Comedy Central, do you think the producers at the show were taking your political views seriously?

A: I was serious in what I was saying, sure. I think they were looking for a little comedy. I think I came off pretty good. I think I came off a little better than (Sen.) Ethan (Strimling, D-Portland) did. It probably made him a little upset. I think the other side thought they had a lot of ammunition to use against me, and after the show they thought I came off looking OK. They didn’t beat me up too bad. And I have a good sense of humor. That’s why I agreed to do the show. I don’t mind people pokin’ fun at me. They poke fun at President Bush all the time. So if him and I are gettin’ poked fun at, you know, I consider it an honor to be made as much fun of. I’m in good company, I guess. Ethan’s a good friend and I asked him to be on the show with me, just so I could have the other side represented. I didn’t think it would be fair to be just my side, because I like fair and balanced reporting. He’s one of my best friends down there. We have a good time. It’s not personal. It’s just business.

Q: Why don’t you think it’s appropriate for insurance to pay for a sex-change operation?

A: I think it’s a choice. I don’t think the state should have to pay for it. I don’t think employers should have to pay for it. If somebody wants to do that, I think they should have to pay out of their own pocket. They’re born a certain way, in my opinion. I’m a religious man. God made them a certain gender and for them to change it, they have the right, but they should have to pay for it.

Q: You don’t see it as corrective surgery?

A: To correct what? A mistake God made? No, I don’t think so. I don’t think God makes mistakes.

Q: You said on the House floor you were concerned that a gay rights law might lead to (a man) wearing a dress and lipstick using the (women’s) room at a public school?

A: It could, absolutely. The way this bill is worded … there’s a provision in the bill that cross dressers can actually use. If they feel discriminated against in not (being allowed to use) the women’s locker room or dressing room, then they could actually sue to have the right to use those facilities. And one concern I have, since most cross dressers are heterosexual … Why should these people be allowed to go in women’s locker rooms and have a peep show? Or what about a pedophile who thinks, “Oh, all I have to do is put a dress on and I can go use the girls’ locker room at elementary school.” I tried to have an amendment to fix that problem, and the other side didn’t want to hear of it, because other state supreme courts have ruled that cross dressers can use the opposite locker rooms and bathrooms. So, since it’s happening in other states, I can only assume it could happen here once this law is passed. (Duprey later explained that when he used the term “cross dressers” he meant men undergoing a sex-change process.)

Q: Some people might think abortion and marriage are the only issues of concern to you based on the news accounts.

A: If you look at my track record, children’s issues – since I own child care centers – children’s issues are first and foremost. … There are other things I fight for. I’m fighting for a bill right now that, with (Rep.) Ben Dudley (D-Portland) – as a matter of fact who’s a big Democrat – (would) protect the rights of children that are being denied medical treatment for religious reasons.