GOP Death Watch

Another Debate, Another Week of Homophobic Comments from the GOP Presidential Candidates

What better way to honor the memory of Martin Luther King Jr. than to get a bunch of white men together who believe the wealthiest people in this country (in whose number most of them count) are the group most discriminated against. Of course, today’s GOP being what it is, that’s exactly what happened Monday night at South Carolina’s Republican debate. (Although in what passes as a nod to the civil rights leader, Mitt Romney boldly supported disenfranchising anyone ever convicted of a felony.) The clock is ticking down to the Romney coronation, and after the South Carolina primary on Saturday, debates will likely be coming to an end unless Romney cares to debate his earlier positions.

Even by current Republican standards, South Carolina is conservative, so the candidates have been tripping over themselves trying to find the furthest right fringes. And if the free-for-all had a song, it would be the Wedding March. Except for Ron Paul, who is contrarian enough to believe that a campaign for votes isn’t a popularity contest, the four remaining candidates have been piling on their marriage bona fides. Romney mentioned his opposition to marriage equality during the debate, and more tellingly, earlier in the day ventured into a conference of Christian leaders to genuflect before them. Among his bedrock principles–which for Romney means he won’t forsake them for at least 24 hours–is belief in “traditional” marriage.

“This president has tried to pave the path for same-sex marriage to spread across the country,” Romney argued. “My view is that we should defend the defense of marriage act and that we should have a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.”

If Obama has been the torchbearer for marriage equality, it’s been a pretty damp match that he’s carrying. But Romney has taken to attributing all kinds of false beliefs to the President, and this is likely to be another he’ll be trotting out regularly during the general election campaign. He’s also taking to boasting about the endorsement from Jay Sekulow, head of the American Center for Law and Justice, a religious right group that has been on an antigay tear for decades.

Meanwhile, Rick Santorum is hoping to capitalize on the love he’s getting from another group of religious right homophobes by positioning himself as the only true non-Romney. At the same Faith and Freedom Coalition meeting where Romney groveled for votes, Santorum tried to stiffen the spine of evangelicals who are willing to throw in the towel and admit Romney’s the inevitable nominee. “America is a moral enterprise, not an economic enterprise,” Santorum said. “Don’t compromise on what you know is best for this country.”

Santorum’s wife, Karen, also jumped into the fray Monday, to complain that gay activists have “vilified” her husband. Apparently, we aren’t supposed to criticize hateful comments and should confine our displeasure to not inviting the Santorums to our Oscar party.

Opting out of the Monday circus altogether was Jon Huntsman, the former governor of Utah and the least crazy of the GOP candidates. (It’s a low bar, we know.) Huntsman ended his campaign and endorsed fellow Mormon Romney. Huntsman’s withdrawal answers the question: If a moderate falls in the GOP forest, will anyone hear? Based on voter turnout, the answer is a resounding no.



Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #2012election #jonhuntsman stories and more


  • Jim Hlavac

    So, Romney, who brought Gay marriage to Massachusetts is all of a sudden against it? He’s accused of starting the ball rolling, and now it’s Obama’s fault — a man who ran on the “I’m against gay marriage” pledge? Egads and Hmm. Meanwhile, let Romney and these “pro-family” creeps outlaw divorce, adultery, unmarried mothers and abandoned children if he truly wanted to “protect marriage” and the “family.” I still for the life of me can’t imagine what these people are thinking of when they accuse me (and of all of us, but I take it very personally,) of being “anti-family.” Whose family? His, theirs, my own? Can they make their mush clear for once instead of tired crud and idiotic repetition of a pointless and simply erroneous phrase?

    For heavens sake, I’m my family’s historian, in possession of more than 2000 photos, and 400 letters and other things, from the past century since we escaped the theocratic-socialism of Europe, which these creeps (it’s a moral, not an economic country, eh Ricky, you idiot.) — I’m the one putting it into order and getting it ready for the archive which awaits it all — my family and I talk incessantly about what I found — my aunts uncles cousins siblings etc, here and in Europe — what the hell are these creeps doing saying I’m “anti-family”? It is infuriating; and it’s just not rational, and my family is getting rather fed up with these morons – and that means they’ve lost nearly 100 votes.

  • Jason

    Romney will do anything for a vote, including selling his mother into white slavery. The others are well-known for their homophobia, but Romney, in his desperation to get the conservative vote, will slime his way into being even worse than the worst of them.

  • Chopper Man

    I have to wonder what you people would be doing these days if you didn’t have the Republican debates to use as a scratching post for your painfully misdirected political ideology. For some reason, you believe the black guy currently in charge is on your side and wants to see you cozily married to the partner of your choice, but the Mormon wants you dead.

    Allow me to use the example of one of the Left’s favorite victimizations: Katrina. After the hurricane, the black community whined and screamed for months—nay, years—about how racist the country was for allowing a hurricane to flood the ‘hood, and yet nation-wide the black community didn’t organize a huge rescue/relief plan for the city’s victims, it was . . . wait for it . . . the Mormons who swooped in and offered aid in the form of food, shelter, and supplies. In fact, when it comes to charities, I’d like for you to look it up and see who is more charitable: Blacks or Mormons. I know, I know, you’re gasping aloud at the perceived racism in such a statement, but allow me to assure you that I have no racial agenda, just a penchant for the truth.

  • pierre

    @Chopper Man: Wow. Just wow……You are so deluded. Sad

  • christopher di spirito

    But these are the people Andrew Sullivan and Chris Barron support. Go figure?

  • Chopper Man

    @pierre: But that’s where you’re wrong, Pierre. I’m not politically correct at all, which is another way of saying I’m bluntly honest. No delusion here. But even if you disagree with me, you should understand that both of our opinions are of equal value—no one is right or wrong, we just have opposing views.
    Be well.

  • Big Mac

    @christopher di spirito: You obviously haven’t read Andrew Sullivan in a few years. He can’t find enough reasons to love him some Barack Obama. Just look at the latest cover of Newsweek. He’s about as conservative as Michael Moore.

  • christopher di spirito

    @Big Mac: I stopped reading Sully after he penned the highly controversial piece for the Advocate proclaiming w/o medical authority that an HIV/AIDS diagnosis is no more serious than a diagnosis of diabetes.

    I also know he recently endorsed Ron Paul for president on the Daily Beast. So if you know something else, please share.

  • the crustybastard

    @Chopper Man: “I have no racial agenda, just a penchant for the truth.”

    That explains why your post calls the president “the black guy currently in charge,” presumes that all hurricane Katrina victims were black, and presumes all Mormon donors were white.

    Nothing racist there, nosiree.

    I don’t know what charities you support that make your race and/or religion clearly identifiable to the recipient, but I’m certain it’s not one I’m familiar with.

    Anyway, as for your own painfully misdirected political ideology, consider that in other similarly situated countries unencumbered by a controlling party of ultraconservative theocrats (like our Republican majority), gay people are no longer presumptively regarded as outliers to fundamental, constitutional and civil rights.

    It is true that President Obama has — in a shocking and uncharacteristic display of dumbshittery — co-opted the Republican’s standard (and insipid) “…because Jesus!” argument with respect to the legal rights, privileges, benefits and obligations of civil marriage. However, indicting Obama on that single issue is also an indictment of mainstream Republican ideology, now isn’t it?

    But you keep on herping that Republican derp. They need more ignorant racists like yourself to reassure other numbskulls that when it comes to operating a government, belief is more important than reason.

  • christopher di spirito

    @Chopper Man: Where do you keep your KKK hat? In the closet next to your Klan robe or on the coat rack in the hallway?

  • Jason

    @Chopper Man: Actually the black guy in the White House is on our side, given his track record in (a) opening up some federal benefits for gay partners; (b) refusing to defend DOMA; and (c) dumping DADT.

    As far as Katrina goes, I was there with a volunteer organization for 2 weeks. Those who helped came in all colors. One of the largest volunteer organizations was – gasp – the NAACP.

    You, Sir, are an idiot, and no, your views are of equal value to those who think that 2+3=5.

  • Jason

    @christopher di spirito: Actually, Sully endorsed Ron Paul only as the Republican nominee for President. He still supports Obama versus any Republican in the general election in 2012.

    And while I’ve often found much to criticize in Sully’s comments, the management of HIV/AIDs in patients with access to good medical care is far less burdensome than it once was, and in many instances no more so than managing acute diabetes. Of course, if you lack good medical care, or are cavalier about taking your medication, or further risk your health (smoking, drugs, etc.), then its a different story.

  • Chopper Man

    @the crustybastard:
    @christopher di spirito:
    Oh please, I call bullshit on all of you. My God, someone mentions the word “race” and you all flip out. I never stated or implied that all victims of Katrina were black—I said it was the black community that complained about how victimized they’d been afterward. And I never stated or implied that all rescue was administered by white people—I only stated that the biggest charity push in N.O. after Katrina was by the LDS church. Did the NAACP do its share? Sure it did—I never said it didn’t. This is you people projecting your knee-jerk reaction to the topic of race onto me. And as far as me refering to Obama as “the black guy in charge”, I meant no disrespect to black people for using Obama’s race as an identifier, but as far as me being a racist? Well, I challenge any of you libs out there to ask yourselves if you’ve ever used the term “white” in the same manner, as an identifier (as in, “Those Tea Party rallies are so white” or “The GOP candidates are nothing but a bunch of old white guys”). If so, you’re as “racist” as I am; if not, then I guess you’re the picture of PC perfection, so congrats on that.

  • Big Mac

    @christopher di spirito: Paul is nuts and Sullivan talks out both sides of his ass, so I don’t take much stock in either.

  • ron

    @Chopper Man: A little too much coffee today?

  • chuck

    My relatives in South Carolina are still getting the vapors knowing that there is a [email protected]@@@@ in the White House.

  • tjr101

    I’d like to thank Chopperman for justifying every single stereotype that is a right-wing nutjob, now hurry on over to stormfront.

  • Jim

    I disagree with Obama on most of his agenda and positions. However, given the anti-gay climate in the GOP field, I plan on voting for him in protest of the other candidate’s support of a federal marriage amendment. I also plan on voting against any senator or representative who is also in favor of such a measure. I cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate who wants to take away my rights as a human being, even if I may agree with someone on other issues.

    TL;DR: Federal Marriage Amendment = automatic disqualification

  • Chenille Robes

    Hi there I am so happy I found your webpage, I really found you by error, while I was browsing on Aol for something else, Regardless I am here now and would just like to say thanks a lot for a remarkable post and a all round exciting blog (I also love the theme/design), I don?t have time to look over it all at the minute but I have saved it and also added your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read a great deal more, Please do keep up the fantastic job.

Comments are closed.