2012 Election | Mitt Romney | News | NOM | Rick Santorum | Ron Paul

Pressure Builds For GOP Candidates To Renounce NOM Pledge


Way back in August of 2011, Republican candidates save for Ron Paul signed the National Organization for Marriage's anti-gay equality pledge. But that was before it was revealed that NOM wanted to exacerbate racial tensions to split blacks and gays and therefore weaken the marriage equality movement.

So, will the remaining candidates who signed the pledge, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, rescind their support? AMERICAblog called on them to do so this week, and the national group Freedom to Marry is doing the same.

"Now that NOM's race-baiting strategy of pitting American against American, minority against minority, and family members against family members is out in the open, we call on GOP candidates to renounce their NOM pledges," said group founder and president Evan Wolfson in a press release.

A president's job is to lead and unite the nation, not take part in a politics of division and cruelty. Anyone seeking the nation's highest office should not be affiliated with a group seeking to discredit the strong and clear voice of those African-American civil rights champions, such as John Lewis, Julian Bond, and Coretta Scott King, who have stood up for the freedom to marry and the equal civil rights of all people, including gay people of color.

While Republicans are entirely comfortable being called homophobic -- in fact, they consider such a title to be a badge of honor, and often actively court the label -- aligning yourself with a racist group is far less popular among the voting masses, and none of the candidates, I'm sure, want to be associated with such tactics. Could these revelations may be precisely the thing we need to put NOM out of business once and for all? Let's hope so.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Not gonna happen. Like the GOP doesn't produce racist ads on a regular basis? Please!!!

    Posted by: MikeH | Mar 29, 2012 11:18:35 AM

  2. Just more evidence of how out-of-touch almost all gay activist organizations are with the political and social mainstream.

    Living in a fantasyland where all minorities are allies with each other (when in reality, they all have their own agendas and could not care less about other minorities and their agendas)........trying to make straight white men into culprits (when in fact every single victory for gay rights has been the result of an initiative undertaken by one or more straght white males).......demonstrating their own condescending racism by imagining that racial minorities can be easily manipulated by groups like NOM (when in fact they pay no attention to them and their homophobia is a reflectiont of their own culture)......and on and on and on......

    Spinning their wheels pandering to groups that will never be our allies and making enemies of groups that could be allies if more of an effort were made to reach out to them (recent polls have indicated that a majority of registered Republicans are in favor of either same-sex marriage or civil unions, which, as we know from empirical evidence, are--in sharp contrast--overwhelmingly opposed by blacks).

    Basically just whores to the Far Left, caring more about both adhering blindly and mindlessly to the ideology of the Far Left and protecting the interests of the Democratic Party than they do about actually eradicating homophobia and advancing gay rights.

    Pretty sad, indeed.....and their strategic stupidity will be reflected by yet another stingling defeat when marriage equality goes up in flames in Maryland via referendum.

    A movement gone wrong in every respect.

    Posted by: Rick | Mar 29, 2012 11:32:19 AM

  3. Let's stop blaming this on NOM. Don't african americans have a mind of their own?

    You're making the point that most blacks vote the way they do (e.g. Prop 8) because NOM brainwashed them and had so much control over them.

    NOM had nothing to do with it. It's a cultural thing and african americans will continue to vote that way in the foreseeable future, NOM or no NOM.

    Ok, now go ahead. Call me a racist.)

    Posted by: Sean | Mar 29, 2012 11:34:59 AM

  4. So help me out here....is NOM funded directly or indirectly funded by the Catholic Church?

    Posted by: FreddyMertz | Mar 29, 2012 11:39:23 AM

  5. Rick sucks.

    Posted by: endo | Mar 29, 2012 11:57:54 AM

  6. Why would Republican candidates reconsider their stance based on a 'secret' proposal they could have themselves devised?

    Posted by: Gregoire | Mar 29, 2012 12:02:26 PM

  7. "Don't african americans have a mind of their own?"

    Yep, one big mind. One big single mind for 38,000,000 people.

    Just what the world needs. Another Gay Archie Bunker.

    "(when in fact every single victory for gay rights has been the result of an initiative undertaken by one or more straght white males)"

    I no longer think Little Kiwi has been too harsh on you, Rick. Suicide is your only answer. We'll do it in drag: I'll be Judith Anderson and you'll be Joan Fontaine. (Google it)

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Mar 29, 2012 12:05:48 PM

  8. These tools brought us Obama Waffles at the Republican National Convention. Why would anyone in their right mind think they would renounce NOM? They ARE NOM.

    Posted by: MARCUS BACHMANN | Mar 29, 2012 12:08:57 PM

  9. @Derrick No, Derrick. No suicide for me, thanks.

    But I will note that if black gays such as yourself spent one-one-thousandth of the time trying to eradicate homophobia among other African Americans that you do attacking white gays for "racism," we might not have this problem.

    But you don't, do you? No, you stay on the down-low (which is why almost all new HIV infections among gay men are among black men).....and refuse to do anything.

    And as for the statement you quoted, yes, marriage equality in New York was spearheaded by Andrew Cuomo (a straight white male), DADT repeal was spearheaded by Patrick Kennedy and Joe Lieberman (both straight white males)....and shepherded through the Senate by Harry Reid (a Mormon as well as a straight white male).....if Prop 8 is overturned, it will be thanks to Ted Olson and David Boles (both straight white males).

    But, hey, if you want to give me a single example of a gay rights victory that was spearheaded by a woman or a racial minority or even a gay man, feel free to do so. Problem is, you can't.

    Posted by: Rick | Mar 29, 2012 12:17:17 PM

  10. In today's growing racial climate, I would be surprised that any of them would make any move to distance themselves. They are what they are.

    Posted by: jakeinlove | Mar 29, 2012 12:22:53 PM

  11. Rick thought process is a little misguided

    Posted by: jakeinlove | Mar 29, 2012 12:24:02 PM

  12. I love blacks, it's just those faggots i can't stand.


    Posted by: Maggie | Mar 29, 2012 12:39:39 PM

  13. Rick, again you're just making stuff up to support your racism. As we argued yesterday, income levels and levels of church attendance are much, much more important predictors of same sex marriage support than race. But you just ignore that fact and trot out some fake statistics. Today's fakery seems to be to contrast republican vs african american support for gay rights. But while you state a majority of republicans support civil unions or marriage, these are supposedly "overwhelmingly opposed" by african americans. Let's take the most recent poll I could find, which showed that in new york, 46% of african americans supported gay marriage. In the most recent California poll, the percentage was around 50%, but this was a combined total for Asian and African Americans. So when you say overwhelmingly opposed, you're just lying. And you misleadingly add civil union support by republicans to get a majority of republicans support, when of course if you did the same thing for African americans you'd get the same thing, majority support. Where we fall down is in church attendance, with evangelicals opposing gay marriage more than 2 to 1. Interestingly, opposition is even higher with white evangelicals than african american evangelicals.

    But facts are boring, hate is fun, so just continue in your little racist bubble.

    Posted by: Brian | Mar 29, 2012 12:45:18 PM

  14. @ brian

    spot on! response to rick


    "pressure" LOL pressure of goproud types wishing on a star that will never deliver. The repub candidates will never ever renounce anti-gay stance. The 1 guy who supported us = Huntsman with civil unions never got above 5% and is out of the race

    Posted by: say what | Mar 29, 2012 12:58:20 PM

  15. another fun fact - the guys on here blaming blacks are ALSO complete cowards who can't put a face and name to their comments.

    it speaks volumes. of course you blame blacks. if you stop joining your family in hating black people they'll be reminded that you suck c**k and will continue hating you for being gay.

    poor sad gay white boys who need to promote racism to get their piece-of-S**t families off their own backs. you're a bunch of cowards.

    care to prove me wrong with any evidence at all at who you truly are? of course not. you have capers for testes.

    don't ask Rick for explanation, ask him for the URL to his own web/youtube page where he SHOWS US ALL what he's talking about.

    he won't. he's a closeted adult screaming bigotry from the place of hiding he's destined to die in. it's now actually funny.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Mar 29, 2012 1:06:20 PM

  16. Ricky is just sucking up to his GOP masters. Poor Rick is just bitter that his party will never fully embrace him and so he has to blame blacks for his misery. If only you were straight it would be so much easier for you right Ricky? Sure Rick, it is because of black people your own party openly and proudly shuns you.
    It is because of black people your relationship is not legally recognized at the federal level, there are so many black people in the Senate after all. We've had so many black presidents before Obama.

    It's a typical ploy of gay Republicans to scapegoat those leftist blacks, women and other minorities for their problems while voting for the straight white male bigots who make the decisions. So Rick will be voting for NOM supporting Mitt Romney come November while continuing to blame women and blacks for his pathetic existence.

    Posted by: NY2.0 | Mar 29, 2012 1:06:22 PM

  17. "demonstrating their own condescending racism by imagining that racial minorities can be easily manipulated by groups like NOM"
    Actually that is what NOM is doing by targeting the community the way they are, not to mention their soft bigotry against gays in expecting us to unthinkingly denounce "racial minorities" as the enemy. However in your case it worked all too well, identifying them as "groups that will never be our allies" while "making enemies of groups(even though you mean just the one)that could be allies".

    Posted by: Task | Mar 29, 2012 1:08:16 PM

  18. I completely agree with Brian: religious affiliation is definitely the biggest factor in political homophobia. If we look at blacks and Latinos as a whole, they might appear to be slightly more homophobic, but that is an illusion supported by their slightly elevated levels of relegion, mostly baptist and catholic respectively. Again, as Brian pointed out, if we look at whites with anti-gay nominations, we see the same trend if not more so.

    Posted by: Bryan | Mar 29, 2012 1:17:41 PM

  19. ########WEAR ORANGE########

    It's the color of racial tolerance.

    Posted by: ophu | Mar 29, 2012 1:46:22 PM

  20. @Brian No, facts aren't "boring". We will put aside your predictable cherry-picking and the statistical dishonesty embedded in the polls you have cited (illegitimately lumping together Asians and blacks in the California poll, for example, to try to make blacks look good, knowing perfectly well that the gap between Asians and blacks is as huge as that between blacks and whites and between blacks and other groups--the same sort of slight-of-hand used in the study you referred to the other day in which only big cities were included, so as to skew the results in a more "acceptable" direction)

    And we will put aside other evidence, like the rampant homophobia in rap lyrics, which has nothing to do with religious beliefs.

    Putting those aside, I will ask you again: What difference does it make what the reason is that a group is homophobic? And if being more inclined to attend church is the reason blacks are more homophobic--and that makes their homophobia somehow less detrimental, then why does the same argument not apply to White Evangelicals, Mormons, or any other predominantly white religious group? And if it does apply, then why are those groups undeer constant attack on this site and elsewhere, while blacks are given a pass?

    Posted by: Rick | Mar 29, 2012 1:47:53 PM

  21. the best fact of all is that none of these people blaming "blacks" can put a face and name to their comments.

    sure is easy to say that stuff when you're a coward hiding in the closet, eh?

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Mar 29, 2012 1:53:32 PM

  22. When will we learn to ignore the trolls on this site? Engaging the 'Ricks' only eggs them on.

    Posted by: scotsyank | Mar 29, 2012 2:01:08 PM

  23. I'm not cherrypicking and I'm not being dishonest. I googled for the most recent polls, and these two showed up so I put them in my comment. And dishonesty would be if I hid the fact that Asians and African Americans were combined, but I highlighted it instead. I agree the Asian inclusion would probably skew the results, but of course I disagree with your use of the word "huge", "overwhelmingly" etc. These are just simply seared into your brain but not related to reality.

    And you never asked me why it makes a difference why a group is homophobic, but I'll answer for the first time. You're the one that obsesses with one group, blacks, being homophobic, and it's very important to you, not me, that you can make up a reason for it, hip hop music. My entire point is that dividing by race doesn't matter, so there's no point in spouting racist invective. dividing by religious conviction does matter, since it's statistically significant.

    I never said church attendance makes black homophobia less detrimental, it's all equally detrimental. You, again, insert the race element but keep attributing it to me. Mormon homophobia is bad, Catholic homophobia is bad, white and black evangelical homophobia is bad. It's all equally, horribly bad. I can't be any clearer than this. You must be able to understand this, but then again you end your comment with the stupid if mormons and white evangelicals can be attacked here, why not blacks? for the hundredth time, it's because religious affiliation is the issue here, so why are you lumping a race with two religions. I see lots of attacks against mormons and fundamentalists here for their homophobia, but I really don't remember ever reading attacks only on white mormons or white evangelicals. You insert race into every single article you read, and it just doesn't belong.

    Posted by: Brian | Mar 29, 2012 2:07:05 PM

  24. "And if being more inclined to attend church is the reason blacks are more homophobic--and that makes their homophobia somehow less detrimental, then why does the same argument not apply to White Evangelicals, Mormons, or any other predominantly white religious group? And if it does apply, then why are those groups undeer constant attack on this site and elsewhere, while blacks are given a pass?"

    Oh Rick, so feeble minded aren't you? White evangelicals, Mormons follow religion, they're a segment of the white population. They don't represent the white race. The black population in the US is not a monolith just as the white population isn't. Not all blacks are christians or are religious. The black population doesn't subscribe to a single teaching. There is a thriving black lgbt population. The majority of black (democratic) politicians are pro-gay rights.

    Another dumb stereotype you've made is that some how homophobic rap/hip hop music represents black people's views. Does country music represent you?

    Posted by: NY2.0 | Mar 29, 2012 2:13:46 PM

  25. Rick forgets about Harvey Milk defeating the Briggs Initiative. Also, in the article it should say "Could these revelations be precisely the thing we need" instead of "Could these revelations MAY be precisely the thing we need".

    Posted by: SebastianQ | Mar 29, 2012 2:14:08 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Mark Bingham's Mom Responds To Carson Daly« «