Michelle Bachmann has signed a similar sort of pledge, though it's got a lot more items on the list.
I think all such pledges and promises extracted from those running for office are little more than dares. We'd do better demanding they bite the head off a live bald eagle in public: at least they'd be obliged to actually follow through. In the case of this list, some of the things it appears to demand of a Presidential candidate would require 'em to subvert the Separation of Powers and the Bill of Rights if elected. (So, business as usual, then?)
And what a list it is! The Family Leader has assembled a grab-bag of social-conservative values for their Pledge, including frequent and obsessive mention of homosexuality (Rick Santorum was frothingly happy to sign). They're agin' it, which shouldn't be a surprise; and they're agin' any claim that "those people" could be as happy or as hardwired as the rest of us.
What're they for? Well, gee, they say married couples have better sex (citing U.S. Census data -- and while I find Census questionnaires overly intrusive, I don't remember any questions about that) and more-successful children, along with a collection of dubious statistically-based conclusions leading to the assertion that, even if two people loathe one another, they should stay wed so's society and their kids will get the same advantages as the kids of the loving, married couple next door. (What's wrong with that, you might ask? Simple, there's no "control" group; it compares children of couples who choose to stay married with kids of couples who chose not to get or stay wed; this tells us nothing about the kids of couples who can't get a divorce or, for that matter, the offspring of faithful unwed couples).
They're for the First Amendment, but against porn in all forms -- so much for that racy summer novel you're reading, and so much for the lack of Zen paradox in the Judicial branch, too.
They appear to be in favor of slavery's support of marriage norms, which is (to put it gently) fairly thin ice; while their observation that the children of pre-Civil War slaves were more likely than their modern counterparts to be raised in a two-parent household (a dirt-floor doghouse of a "household," they omit to mention) is probably true, it's also irrelevant; those selfsame children were also several times as likely to be illiterate and to die of any one of a long list of childhood diseases. (You can cite the same general stat for the palefaces in the Big House; the numbers aren't as lopsided but it's a huge shift away from wedlock. So why bring up the other, except to raise a stink? War's over and the last veteran of it died a long time ago).
Near as I can tell, they stop just short of chasing us wimmens and our toddlers back into purdah -- for our own good; and in another Zen-like move, follow that by denouncing Shariah law, which would do the same thing and mealy-mouth the same thin justification for it.
For even more paradox, how's about their citing a long list of the sort of social diseases generally associated with promiscuity as evidence homosexuals should not be allowed to marry? H'mm, bit of a logical problem, you'd think, but it's whole camels for dessert if you can only manage to hack that gnat into pieces small enough to swallow!
The Grand Finale is the best paradox of all, all the more in that it is lifted from the Left: in the name of freedom of speech and religion, it demands the candidate fight against "...the intolerance of any who would undermine law-abiding American citizens and institutions of faith and conscience for their adherence to, and defense of, faithful heterosexual monogamy." At first glance, it's nice-sounding word salad; too bad that when parsed, it's tellin' the Executive to go quash the speakers at the polyamory rally -- in the name of freedom of speech and religion.
Instead of doin' the hard work to demonstrate the superiority of heterosexual monogamy in word, deed and Hollywood movie, The Family Leader want the Feds to stand over it with a whip, herdin' everybody back onto the reservation, willing or no, on the unproven assumption that it will make everything better. Ah, yes, I recognize that Leader Principle!
Top-down social engineering is just as unappealing to me when it comes from the Right as it is from the Left. YMMV.
1. It's almost amusing that the socially-conservative groups that want to fix things by gettin' Us Women back into the kitchen and nursery under the benevolent protection of Men loathe one another so intensely; Protestant monogamists vs. jack-Mormon "fundamentalist" polygamists vs. Muslim fundamentalists. Hey, guys? From over here, it looks like you're all on the same side.
2. Interesting word, by the way,