Gay Dems and Republicans Can Find Common Ground in Obama
BY Lane Hudson
October 28 2008 12:00 AM ET
According to polls, George W. Bush received around 25% of the gay vote in 2000 and 2004. This was in spite of his abandoning a promise to be a compassionate conservative by backing discriminatory constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage in order to win reelection by driving conservative turnout. It was also in spite of the Log Cabin Republicans withholding its support for his reelection.
In 2008 our community is once again faced with choosing an ally we think is most likely to help gain for us what has been elusive: passing any legislation that moves us closer to full civil rights equality. This year the Log Cabin Republicans may have made that choice more difficult for some of us. After McCain’s selection of Alaska governor Sarah Palin, the group ended insiders' speculation and announced its endorsement of the Republican ticket.
I can appreciate the difficulty of Log Cabin's position. It needs to remain politically relevant within its own party. Continuing to not support Republican nominees would surely guarantee that Log Cabin is denied access to the highest levels of Republican leadership that the group enjoyed during Patrick Guerriero's tenure as executive director.
Often, gay Republicans express frustration that gay Democrats are single-issue voters. While this is a generality that is not an accurate description of our community as a whole, among the activist class there is some validity to their complaint. At this point in time, however, we stand at a precipice. Judging the candidates based on how they will affect our community is necessary. This presidential election will affect our struggle to achieve civil rights equality more than any other in history.
There are two overwhelming reasons why the gay community should not follow Log Cabin's lead and instead fervently and actively support Barack Obama for the presidency. Failure to do so may set back our struggle for equality for decades.
First among these reasons is based on the candidates' stances on issues. McCain’s opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment has often been used as a reason for why our community should support him. However, he has actively campaigned to amend the Arizona constitution to ban same-sex unions. He has also indicated support for Proposition 8 in California and Amendment 2 in Florida, both of which would enshrine discrimination in their respective state constitutions. He also actively opposes all other legislative priorities of our advocacy organizations: ending "don’t ask, don’t tell," penalties for hate crimes, employment nondiscrimination, repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and federal recognition of civil unions or marriage.
Some have intimated that Palin has not been antigay during her political career. However, she said she voted for a 1998 constitutional amendment in Alaska banning marriage for gays and lesbians. She also indicated that she would support a ballot measure that would overturn an Alaska supreme court decision mandating benefits for domestic partners of state employees.
She also recently broke with McCain by indicating that she would support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. It is also worth noting that antigay fundamentalists like James Dobson, Dennis Prager, and Ralph Reed exchanged their contempt for John McCain for avid enthusiasm in supporting a ticket including Palin. That should tell us something.
The second big reason we must reject McCain-Palin is that McCain has made it clear that he will appoint Supreme Court justices like John Roberts and Samuel Alito. That is code language to antigay fundamentalists for those judges who won't advance gay rights (which itself is, to the far right, code language for "special rights," when we are only seeking the same rights that nongay people have).
If McCain is elected, the Supreme Court will deny the progress that we are seeking, equal treatment under the law -- which racially diverse couples were only able to achieve via a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, for instance. While reaching this goal legislatively is preferable, politicians rarely have the courage to lead on equality. It’s particularly frustrating because we know that politicians of both parties privately support equality. However, we have no idea when these politicians will decide that their private opinions are worthy of being their public policy.