From Newsweek:
In the 2008 election, 4 percent of the voters identified themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual, according to a CNN poll, and 27 percent of them voted for John McCain—numbers that seem to indicate a healthy space in politics for the Log Cabin Republicans, the party's most visible gay organization. But as its annual convention in Washington wraps up this week, the LCR is running on fumes: it currently has no full-time employees—its executive-director position has been vacant since January—and this year's convention had to be run by consultants from local chapters. "The Log Cabin Republicans are not in any sort of danger right now," says Charles Moran, head of the Los Angeles LCR chapter, who also brushed off the void at the top. "We're not just going to accept anyone who applies. In fact, we can wait: like the GOP is trying to refashion itself, Log Cabin is looking to do the same."
So much for inclusivity. No wonder they're "running on fumes".
Seriously, I have never understood why a GLTB person would choose to be a Republican. An Independent, maybe, but not a Republican. I knew two Republican gay men, but talking politics with them was taboo. At least one of them has now registered as an Independent.
The percentages are startling, too. 4% of voters self-identify as gay, but of that 4% a hefty 27% voted for McCain. That is surprising. The gay McCain supporters seemed to take voting quite seriously.
I have always assumed those are th well-off gay professional men with luxurious lifestyles and no kids--they vote Republican for the economics.
ReplyDeleteIT, you have described perfectly the two men I know.
ReplyDeleteI second IT's comment.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, it was usually affluent white gay men, and other gay men convinced that they could win the lottery, who identified as Republican. And Lord knows, the Republican party is full of closet sisters. Anyone remember that rightwing "journalist" who moonlighted as a gay male prostitute?
The only lesbian I know who voted Republican is Camille Paglia, and I'm not so sure about her anymore.
I'm inclined to agree. Class privilege trumps gay oppression.
ReplyDeleteActually, I think they're a myth. Kinda like Bush voters. I keep hearing about them, but I've never actually met one.
Wilfried, they exist. I stayed in their luxurious house and was treated like royalty. During that week, I didn't care what party they belonged to. I just enjoyed the party. I know. Bad me. Bad, bad me.
ReplyDeleteI stayed in their luxurious house and was treated like royalty. During that week, I didn't care what party they belonged to. I just enjoyed the party.Riding the waves can be fun, ... just watch out for the undertow.
ReplyDeleteDavid, that was quite a few years ago. I believe that I'm out of danger.
ReplyDeleteI also think for a few gay men, the Republican party has "daddy" appeal.
ReplyDeleteMimi ... even more bizarre is the recent announcement of a Log Cabin schism and the formation of GOProud, the splinter organization, because the logs aren't conservative enough. {koff}
ReplyDeleteAnd no, I am not making this up.
I think that as a rule of thumb most people vote their pocketbooks - but then you have the "What's the matter with Kansas?" phenomenon where people vote social causes and political fantasies over their economic well-being. Sigh. Counterlight is also right about all the "closet sisters" in GOP politics. The GOP seems to be OK with us so long as we stay in our place. Now where have we heard that theme before?
ReplyDeleteSo, Mike, they've split. Sounds like some other groups I know - in search of purity.
ReplyDeletePaul, I heard from an excellent source that the Bush staff was "riddled with gay men". (Sorry. That's how it was put to me.)
If people in fact voted their pocketbooks, Republicans would never win an election. Their policies are terrible for working people, but they vote for them anyway. Rich people vote their pocketbook, and working stiffs vote their (the rich folks') pocketbook, cause they're too stupid, or hoodwinked by Evangelical demagogues, or something, to figure it out. The Republicans managed to turn repeal of the "death tax," a tax which affects less than the top 2% of the US, into a populist issue. Go figure.
ReplyDeleteBack to the Log Cabin Republicans, I remember the New York Native newspaper, the de facto mouthpiece of the Log Cabin Republicans. It was mostly a screed against uppity welfare recipients, black people, women, etc. too whiny and PC to know their place. Their version of gay rights also clearly did not include trannies, drag queens, bulldaggers, ie any gay person who didn't pass and wouldn't be respectable at their country club. Clearly, if said gay people also happened to be black or on welfare, they were beyond the pale.
Mimi, amend that to "riddled with that sort of gay men," and it sounds just fine.
ReplyDelete"The New York Native," I remember it, and not fondly. Wilfried is right.
ReplyDeleteMy little Sunday brunch group was talking a few weeks ago about how pervasive is racism and misogyny among gay men. Michael complains about that issue too. As I've always said, there ain't nothin' wrong with the gay community that ain't wrong with the rest of America.
Wilfried, I quoted words spoken by someone else about the White House staff. I didn't say the words.
ReplyDeleteCounterlight, you're correct. Some gay man want to associate with the "right sort" of gay men, usually white, not "flaming queers", not trannies, just conservatively-dressed, affluent white gay men.
Considering the history of the local LCR chapter, National is quite right to be selective. When the field is sparse, the loons come out for their 15 minutes of self-importance. National LCR ousted the loon that ran the local chapter (all 6 members), because he made so many wild pronouncements and alienated so many people within and outside the community. This ex-chapter head is now in Atlanta alienating a whole new bunch of people.
ReplyDeleteOther than the loons, LGBT Republicans are either wealthy men, some small businessmen, or occasionally ex-military men, during the era when it was believed by some that the Rs actually stood by servicemen.
If there's a female LCR or more than one "out" (not obsessed with "passing") transgender politically active R, I'd be surprised. (I just described an retired military officer, now transitioned to an openly transgender woman, living in her hometown in Central Missouri. She campaigned in a primary for the Congressional district including Springfield MO, held by the highly senior Roy Blunt, father of the former MO governor Matt "Baby" Blunt).
That should read "....more than one female LCR not from a famous political or pundit family...."
ReplyDeleteI don't want to diss that MO veteran.
The gay Republicans I'm acquainted with here basically tell me that a Democrat will give their hard-earned money to a bunch of "shiftless n*gg*rs." Charming, huh?
ReplyDeleteMark, how sad.
ReplyDeleteI'm always astonished when one oppressed group willingly participates in the oppression of another group.
ReplyDeleteMy parish advertises itself as welcoming to people who are deaf or hearing impaired. We have someone who signs the main service every Sunday, many of our hearing members have taken ASL classes, and our rector signs the consecration (it's really beautiful to watch).
But we don't have any deaf members any more. When TEC consented to the election of Gene Robinson, they left the church. I think they now worship with one of the "Anglican" parishes in town.
It saddens me that people who face daily discrimination in their lives and work cannot bring themselves to empathize with others who face the same issues. I guess the real miracle is that any of us EVER develop empathy for "The Other."
Pax,
Doxy
Doxy, I'm taken aback, too, when those who have been discriminated against proceed to discriminate. Where's the empathy?
ReplyDeleteTwo members of my (very progressive) church are republican, and they fit the profile listed above-gay, white, wealthy, no kids, home owners. However I've never heard either utter an even remotely racist remak, and the partner of one of them is Jewish, which leads me to believe he can't be anti-semitic.
ReplyDeleteBoth men serve with me on our vestry, and both are very hard-nosed when it comes to anything financial. I suppose they're what used to be called Nelson Rockefeller Republicans--socially liberal but fiscally conservative.
Just to be fair, most conservatives are not racists. Not all liberals are not.
ReplyDeleteA lot of right-wingers (though not all) are racist.
Yes, I do make a distinction between conservative and right wing. One's about preserving the inherited status quo (at its best, about keeping babies from being thrown out with bath water). The other is about supremacy and is anything but conservative.