TO MOST gay and lesbian Americans, it’s an easy choice deciding who to vote for in the 2004 presidential election. John Kerry is the most pro-gay candidate ever to run for President, while George W. Bush is pushing for an anti-family Constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage. Yet the decision on how to vote is considerably more difficult for conservative gay and lesbian Americans. President Bush’s endorsement of the anti-marriage amendment has jeopardized their support. However, for most, scruples of conscience leave them uneasy about voting for Senator Kerry. It’s a dilemma that many gay conservatives may not resolve until they step into the voting booth.
If the phrase “gay Republican” is often treated as an oxymoron, it’s because most people assume that all gay men and lesbians are Democrats. In fact, exit polls show
that some 25 percent of gay voters cast ballots for Bush in the 2000 election. Many gay people embrace the principles that the Republican Party represents: low taxes, limited government, personal responsibility, and a strong national defense. Particularly in time of war, a robust military posture seems a matter of national survival. Certainly gays and lesbians, faced with the reality of hatred and persecution by Islamist extremists, have a stake in the war on terror and the defeat of the worldwide “jihadi” movement. We can be confident that Republicans will take the battle to the enemy and persevere to final victory. Democrats are relatively untested in the leadership of the war on terror, and advocate closer cooperation with Europeans such as European Commission head Romano Prodi, who brusquely declared that force is not the answer to terrorism. Presumably he prefers, as have so many European leaders before, to appease terrorist organizations. While reluctant to stand fast on defense, people on the Left tend to believe that the government can provide solutions for every other problem, whether the issue is the economy, health care, education, or poverty. Democratic politicians too often tend to propose solutions that involve establishing another government program or entitlement. Conservatives believe that too many new government programs erode our personal freedom and individual responsibility. For the most part, conservatives want government to get out of the way so individuals can use their own talents and determination to solve social problems. For those left behind, conservatives think government should work to provide equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. These two visions of government are very different, regardless of your sexual orientation. A gay person who favors a tough stand against terrorism yet has more faith in the private sector than in government may well feel more at home in the Republican than in the Democratic Party. On the other hand, it must be acknowledged that a powerful and vocal segment within the Republican Party is content with activist government when it comes to meddling in people’s private lives. These are the people who want to legislate morality, for example, by outlawing certain types of consensual sex. If the Left is guilty of wanting to restrict economic freedom through high taxes and burdensome regulations, the Religious Right wants to restrict personal freedom by turning many private activities that hurt no one into crimes. Most Americans are somewhere in between, located in a place I like to call the sensible center. Some Historical Background Gay Republicans have chosen to transform the Republican Party from the inside, working to counteract the voices of exclusion and intolerance. The largest organization representing this constituency is the Log Cabin Republicans, a membership and lobbying organization with headquarters in Washington, D.C., and chapters in all fifty states. The name is connected with the Party’s history and refers to Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president and a man who advanced our American concept of liberty. Our organization wants the Party to return to its roots, built on the notion that all Americans should be treated with equality. The group formed in 1978 when an anti-gay ballot initiative was being pushed in California. The Briggs Initiative would have prevented gay people from teaching in California public schools. Polls showed the proposal heading for victory until gay conservatives turned to former governor and future President Ronald Reagan, whose public opposition to the proposal helped to defeat it. In the wake of that campaign, gay conservatives united to form Log Cabin Republicans. The work of gay and lesbian Republicans has often been a matter of two steps forward and one step back—or, at times, one step forward and two steps back. Through the 1980’s, gay Republicans continued working behind the scenes in Washington, as advocates in Congress and in the Reagan and first Bush administrations. A turning point came in 1992 when failed contender Pat Buchanan—who had run for the Republican nomination for president against George H. W. Bush, the sitting president—declared at the Republican National Convention that a “cultural war” was raging in the U.S. Buchanan expressly attacked homosexuals as adversaries in something he called “a fight for the soul of America.” His speech angered many gay conservatives, including dozens on the floor of the convention that August night in Houston. Buchanan’s talk of a cultural war undoubtedly contributed to Bush’s defeat that November. Out of the wreckage of that campaign, Log Cabin Republicans sought to raise their visibility in the Party and soon established a national office in Washington. With Bill Clinton as President, the Republican Party came together around the issues that unite all Republicans. Emphasizing core principles of limited government and personal responsibility, the Party regained control of both the House and Senate in the election of 1994. Throughout the 1990’s, Log Cabin members worked from the inside to educate members of the Party about the important issues affecting gay and lesbian Americans. Governor Bill Weld of Massachusetts, Governor Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey, New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, and Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan became leading voices of inclusion and liberty. They shared (and continue to share) our vision that the Republican Party should be a “big tent.” That vision was damaged in 1996 when the presidential campaign of Bob Dole returned a 500-dollar donation made by Log Cabin. Eventually, he accepted the money, but the episode showed how much work remained to be done. Even so, throughout the late 1990’s, the Party made slow but steady progress in its willingness to reach out to gay and lesbian Americans. In 2000, George W. Bush built his campaign around what he called “compassionate conservatism” and vowed to be “a uniter, not a divider.” During the campaign, Governor Bush met with a group of gay conservatives and said afterward that he was “a better man” for having heard their stories and listened to their concerns. The 2000 campaign was notable for its lack of anti-gay rhetoric. After his election, President Bush initially observed his pledge to be a uniter. He kept in place an executive order from the Clinton administration which prohibited discrimination against gay and lesbian federal workers. He appointed openly gay people to positions throughout his administration. Moreover, the federal government provided benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11th. In 2002, he proposed an ambitious fifteen billion dollar plan to tackle the global AIDS pandemic. Log Cabin members meeting for our 2003 national convention in Washington, D.C., felt a genuine sense of optimism about the direction the Republican Party seemed to be moving toward on gay and lesbian issues. This optimism soon shifted to concern. First, in June 2003, the United States Supreme Court issued a historic ruling in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down all anti-sodomy laws left in the U.S. Four of the six justices in the majority were Republican appointees, which did not endear the religious right to the decision. Their rhetoric reached fever pitch after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that civil marriage laws could not discriminate against gay and lesbian couples. Three of the four justices who ruled in the majority were appointed by Republican governors. Even before the historic Goodridge decision, the far Right had been pushing for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban same-sex unions; a major lobbying effort targeted the White House. Throughout the fall, President Bush sidestepped the issue in several carefully worded statements. In the meantime, he made a series of controversial nominations to the federal bench, notably Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, who had a particularly anti-gay track record. When Democrats in the Senate used their filibuster power to prevent Pryor’s confirmation, Bush aggressively bypassed them by making a rare “recess appointment” that installed the judge through the end of 2004. By the end of 2003, it was becoming increasingly clear that Bush was going to endorse a Constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage. When he finally did so in late February of this year, gay conservatives felt betrayed. The Bush proposal runs roughshod over principles of federalism, state autonomy, and individual liberty that the Republican Party is supposed to represent. Moreover, the President’s political advisors may have miscalculated the level of support for his ultra-right-wing pandering. Not only has Bush jeopardized the support of a million gay and lesbian voters who backed him four years ago, but he risks alienating the swing voters who will decide this election. Defending the Constitution On the night that Bush endorsed the amendment, I couldn’t sleep as I debated in my mind what to do next: was it time to fold up the tent and give up on our efforts to transform the Party? In the end I concluded that we had nowhere else to go: it was either stay and fight or leave politics altogether. I knew that giving up would be a mistake, because without a two-party strategy it could take decades longer for gay people to achieve full equality. Even before Bush’s formal endorsement of the amendment, Log Cabin was ready to fight the culture war that the far Right had been egging on. Late last year, the organization laid the groundwork for an ambitious campaign to stop any version of the proposed anti-gay amendment. Instead of helping re-elect President Bush, Log Cabin has dedicated all its efforts to defending the Constitution. First, the group made the decision to create and launch a television and grassroots lobbying campaign. In February 2004, we conducted a national poll to gauge public opinion on issues related to civil marriage equality, civil unions, and the proposed amendment. Poll results, input from our grassroots members from around the nation, and the advice of political experts went into the development of an advertising campaign against the amendment. This initiative marks the first time in Log Cabin’s 27-year history that the organization has ever run a TV ad campaign. Taking aim at members of Congress and the Bush administration, the ad targets both legislators and voters in swing states around the nation. The ad aired throughout the spring and early summer in Washington, D.C., Missouri, Ohio, Florida, Minnesota, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Arizona, Colorado, California, Washington, and Texas. This ad campaign was part of a million-dollar effort to defeat the anti-family Constitutional amendment. In addition to the TV commercial, print ads have run, complementing the most intense lobbying effort and grassroots mobilization in Log Cabin’s history. Momentum slowed for the amendment throughout the spring and summer as leading conservatives and fair-minded Republicans joined Democrats in expressing their reservations. We know Log Cabin helped convince some members of Congress that this proposal would weaken the Constitution and damage the meaning of liberty in our society. Some on the far Right, predictably enough, accused us of being disloyal to the Republican Party. Of course, true loyalty means having the courage to stand up and say when your party is heading in the wrong direction. Gay voices from the Left, on the other hand, criticized us for not leaving the Republican Party. Yet without Log Cabin’s lobbying Republican Congressmen and Senators on this issue, the organized gay and lesbian community would have had little chance of getting through to them. Understanding the imperative of progress in both parties, gay conservatives have continued to support Log Cabin. In fact, our membership has doubled since the President’s announcement. Throughout our campaign to defend the Constitution, members of the Log Cabin Republicans have struggled with the decision about how to vote in the presidential election this November. In April, hundreds of Log Cabin Republicans gathered in Palm Springs for our annual convention, where we engaged in a frank discussion about the presidential race. On one hand, people wanted Bush to pay a price for trying to use the Constitution as a way of scoring political points. On the other hand, for many gay conservatives, John Kerry is not a viable option. The Trouble with Kerry Many of Senator Kerry’s big-government solutions would erode freedom and do little to solve the problems they’re targeting. Senator Kerry’s class warfare argument carries echoes of failed Democratic campaigns in recent decades, like those of Walter Mondale and Al Gore. With globalization under the Clinton and Bush administrations fueling brisk economic growth, his resistance to free trade could slow the surging American economy. And his pandering to labor unions like the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association (whose picket lines he refuses to cross) portends policies that will end up hurting the economy. Senator Kerry was forced to move to the left during the primary campaign because of positions taken by Howard Dean: his previous support for military action in Iraq and the Patriot Act morphed into vague, unelaborated opposition. Indeed, Senator Kerry’s widely perceived tendency to waffle on a variety of issues leaves one wondering what he truly believes. For all of President Bush’s flaws, one knows where he stands. His leadership served him and the nation well after the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Gay conservatives proudly supported the war on terror and the war in Iraq, believing that this is a war against people who want to destroy our civilization. Senator Kerry has had difficulty articulating a clear and firm strategy for winning the war on terror. His handling of the Iraq question has done little to quell the doubts that gay conservatives have about Kerry. At one point, he asserted that the U.S. needed international approval before carrying out any military action. Of course, when the United States had U.N. authorization for the first Gulf War in 1990, Kerry voted against allowing President Bush to use force to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. In October, 2002, he voted for the Congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq, but later hedged on this, saying war required the support of a larger international coalition or United Nations’ permission. Another element in the foreign policy debate is something that could be called the Spain factor. In March, Al Qaeda launched a vicious attack in Madrid, with simultaneous explosions on several commuter trains. The blasts killed 200 and wounded 1,400. The terrorists targeted Spain because of its support for President Bush’s war in Iraq—hundreds of Spanish soldiers were serving there at that time—and because Spain was about to hold national elections. Days later, the voters voted out the ruling conservative government of Prime Minister José Maria Aznar. The new socialist prime minister immediately announced plans to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq. Whether Spanish voters intended it or not, al Qaeda viewed Aznar’s defeat as a victory for their cause. A conservative government that had been expected to win the election had been forced out of office, while Spanish troops would soon be leaving Iraq. Senator Kerry pledges to keep U.S. troops in Iraq, but there are still concerns about the message that his election would send to terrorists. Gay conservatives worry that a defeat for Bush would send a message to the terrorists that their violent resistance in Iraq has worked. This was the lesson that terrorists gleaned after the 1983 Beirut Marine Barracks bombing and the 1993 Somalia “Black Hawk Down” disaster, which seemed to demonstrate that the U.S. would vacate a combat situation as soon as there were American casualties. On gay and lesbian issues, Senator Kerry has a mixed record. He, like nearly all leading Democrats, opposes same-sex marriage. Worse, he endorsed a state constitutional amendment in Massachusetts banning gay marriage. Soon after his endorsement of this amendment, opponents of same-sex marriage narrowly passed a bill to initiate a process that would amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Senator Kerry can easily articulate his opposition to civil marriage equality. However, he seems to have a difficult time explaining why he supports fairness and equality for gay and lesbian Americans. Political expediency has often left gay and lesbian Democrats betrayed by their leaders. After all, it was President Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) before the 1996 election; and it was he who had earlier negotiated the disastrous “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for gay and lesbian service members. So where does that leave gay Republicans in November? It’s a difficult choice. It would be easy to vote against Bush for violating conservative principles by supporting the anti-family constitutional amendment. However, Kerry’s liberal voting record, his constantly shifting positions, and his questionable plans for fighting the war on terror create serious reservations about voting for him. Recent history suggests that when Republican candidates run inclusive campaigns, they can get at least 25 percent support from gay and lesbian voters. However, when culture war issues take center stage, as they did in the 1992 election, that number drops to something closer to ten percent. Those votes count in a closely divided nation. Regardless of the outcome of November’s presidential election, gay Republicans will continue working to transform the party. This fall, Log Cabin will be supporting hundreds of fair-minded Republicans in campaigns for local, state, and federal office. These inclusive voices represent the future of the Republican Party. The mission of Log Cabin Republicans is about more than one election or one President. We hope even those on the gay left who disagree with us politically can understand the importance of this mission. Only if gay and lesbian Americans have allies in both of the major parties can we hope to achieve full equality in the foreseeable future. Chris Barron is an attorney who is currently serving as political director for the Log Cabin Republicans.
