Meet the Republican who got California and Maine to investigate NOM and the Mormon church and now intends to debate Mitt Romney on national TV

Fred Karger GOP National Organization for Marriage NOM Politics Proposition 8

Fred Karger and I worked together on establishing the NOM-LDS connection. Now hes the GOPs first declared 2012 presidential candidate and has just released his first ad.

I’d love to see Fred debate Mike, Mitt, Sarah and the rest of the (more-or-less anti-gay) 2012 Republican field. Campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire is the surest route to securing a spot on the stage.


Fred got CA and ME to investigate NOM and the Mormon church and is now charting a course to debate Mitt. Follow his tweets @fredkarger

Fred Karger Presidential Exploratory Committee

Fred Who? – First-in-the-Nation Commercial to Run in New Hampshire

GOP 12: Karger releases first TV ad of 2012 cycle

Fred Karger: Good Morning, New Hampshire

Fred Karger’s First TV Ad

Openly Gay Presidential Hopeful Fred Karger Releases First Ad

Karger forms exploratory committee, uses Scheffler comments to raise cash

In Wake of Ballot Initiatives, Questions About the National Organization for Marriages Funding

Catching up with Fred Karger in Iowa and Netroots Nation

Go Fred!

14 thoughts on “Meet the Republican who got California and Maine to investigate NOM and the Mormon church and now intends to debate Mitt Romney on national TV

  1. D’oh! Thanks for the heads up. I’ll remind Fred to avoid calling out Mitt for strapping the family dog to the roof of the car or risk facing chanson’s zinger by way of reply.

  2. I can just see the mud-slinging commercials now: “Fred Karger endangers New Hampshire drivers while on his way to campaign — in fact, he’s so proud of doing it, that he put it in his campaign commercial!” lol,

    But seriously, I agree it would be cool to see him debate the rest of the (more-or-less anti-gay) 2012 Republican field.

  3. Speaking of campaigns, check out this link:

    T&S vs. BCC vs. MSP

    Last month, Main Street Plaza had more unique visitors than Times & Seasons. That’s a first. That’s a milestone. And that’s why I’ve asked a T&S admin to include this MSP post in their “Notes From All Over” sidebar. 😉

    And we’re now on track to pass both Feminist Mormon Housewives and By Common Consent in early 2011:

    FMH vs. BCC vs. MSP

    Moments like these, I recall how Russell M. Ballard’s wonderful words of encouragement catalyzed my own commitment to this exciting new online world:

    Your world of cyberspace cell phones that capture video downloads and iTunes, and social networks like Facebook, text messaging, blogs, Twitter, handhelds and podcasts are just the beginning of what is yet ahead of you in the remarkable expanding of technology.

    And so — as T&S, FMH and BCC increasingly find themselves choking on our dust, sucking our exhaust, squinting ever more tightly to catch that last glimpse of our plume before we vanish at mach speed over the horizon — I’d encourage our brothers and sisters in the bloggernacle to take heart in Ballard’s observation that this is still just the beginning. You’ve still got plenty of time left to figure out a way to catch up later.

    And to MSP readers, I’d simply say “Thank you.” You rock. Especially those of you who’ve taken Ballard’s advice to heart and regularly link to MSP on your Facebook walls and in your blog posts and tweets.

  4. Yeah, well, I probably need to get back on topic. The folks over at r/atheism are upvoting this post as I type, but I worry that all this ‘inside baseball’ Mormon blogging jargon is gonna turn them right off if they do actually bother to click through and read comments here. My bad. 😉

    Just a shout-out to the r/atheism crew, if you’re reading, thanks again for upvoting the link:


  5. The confusion is that men bedded and lived together all the time prior to the 20th century, but certain presidents seemed to have close relationships with men that would point to “homosexual” status by today’s standards. Lincoln had a close friendship with a guy and seemed distant toward women. But a lot of men were distant toward women back then, and only courted them out of propriety since they didn’t find women to be “equals.” Buchanan lived with a man for many years and the public questioned this relationship. He also died a bachelor, but there’s also the story of his undying love for a woman (who died) and pledging himself a bachelor. So who knows.

    Personally, I think men were just more intimate with one another back then, and though they didn’t likely engage in sodomy (since people had strange notions about sexual release…for example, thinking that semen was tied to longevity), they probably were quite romantic with one another. If there were “gay men” back then, they could probably successfully have a relationship with “straight men” up to a certain age, as which point there’d be an expectation of marriage.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *