A very nice profile of Redondo Beach, Calif., mayor Mike Gin, who is running for Congress, via the Washington Blade. The openly gay Republican would be the first person in a same-sex marriage elected to Congress if he wins:
“Certainly, we all need role models, and being gay and being married is just a part of who I am,” Gin said. “If somehow my election would provide some inspiration or maybe help a young person that’s very conflicted about being gay, then I think that’s a wonderful thing.”
An all-party primary is set for May 17.
Among the bills that Gin said he’ll support: the Uniting American Families Act, which would allow gay Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States, and repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
Gin has been endorsed by 10 current or former mayors in the South Bay of California and the Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce. He is running with the vigorous support of Log Cabin Republicans, but (as I posted earlier), Equality California is trumpeting its support for Gin’s very left-liberal, straight Democratic opponent, naturally. Gin also is seeking support from the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, which to date (and to its continuing discredit) has failed to endorse him.
21 Comments for “Worthy of Support”
posted by Houndentenor on
I’m not familiar with this election or this district (aside from what I have read here). It looks like California is going to an open election (somewhat like Louisiana’s) so that if no one gets 50% in the first round there is a run-off between the top 2. What are Gin’s chances of being in the top 2? Is there any polling?
posted by Hounentenor on
Sorry, I missed it. Gin is at 8%. Two other candidates are neck and neck at 20%.
posted by Wilberforce on
Worthy? Why. Because he supports gay causes? There are other issues. And you don’t mention his broader platform.
If he’s a republican, I assume he supports a huge nanny state for the rich and small govt. for everyone else, tax cuts for the rich, subsidies for corporations, cuts in SS, medicare, and poverty programs, and the same crazy economic policies that destroyed the national economy in 2009.
I couldn’t find his platform on the web. Do you know it? Or is it not important to you?
posted by Ed Farthing on
Wilberforce – did you try http://www.mikegin.com/ – the button that says platform and issues 🙂
posted by Wilberforce on
Thanks for that. I hadn’t looked before because my security software said the site was questionable.
Now that I have, he seems like a mixed bag. Green solutions, oversite of Wall Street, education funding good. Vague talk about taxes could mean more tax cuts for the rich, and increased money for defense is inefficient economic stimulus through the Pentagon, which would be great for investors who own the defense contractors.
I don’t have time to compare him to Equality California’s choice. But I don’t see why I should. Isn’t that IGF’s job? And notice, IGF uses the snide term ‘naturally’ for EA support, but not for Log Cabin support. This while not comparing the records of the candidates.
Journalism is so smarmalicious. How quickly did I sum up Gin’s issues, and how easy would it be to compare the policy platforms? Instead we get uncritical promotion of conservatives in a time when the economy is still reeling from Republican lunacy.
posted by JohnAGJ on
So are you saying that Equality California & GLVF are nothing more than tools of the Democrat Party as many suspect? The issues and stances you mention may be important to Democrats but have nothing to with DOMA or UAFA. Whether one is for high-speed rail or not has squat to do with being gay.
posted by Wilberforce on
You could put it that way.
I think it starts with loyalty, but goes beyond. Given the makeup of the Republican Party, there’s no other option than being a ‘tool’ of the Democrats. Or maybe you haven’t noticed the warm welcome the Republicans have for us.
I’m also not a single issue voter; sometimes there are more important issues than ours. I’m even concerned about causing a backlash that would harm our allies, and I want us to be careful in choosing our strategies. That’s a concept that the selfish crowd can’t understand.
But since his record was left out, the argument here seems to be that we should support Gin because he’s gay. Sorry. I was trained by the Reverend Dr. King to judge by merit. Period.
posted by Wilberforce on
Actually, I’m out of my depth. Concepts like loyalty, fairmess, and agape don’t jibe in the rube zeigeist.
posted by JohnAGJ on
That’s fine as long as these organizations drop the “non-partisan” claims and identify themselves as openly as say the Stonewall Democrats, Log Cabin Republicans or GOProud do. As you have said, you are a Democrat and not a single issue voter. Good for you. However, your political views are not synonymous with being gay, nor are mine or anyone else who is gay.
posted by Wilberforce on
I don’t see why they have to scream DEMOCRATIC. Most people know that the dems are gay freindly, and the repubs are not. Why make it an issue?
It’s an issue for gay republicans looking for any trivail nonsense to discredit gay organizations.
But you’re wrong. My politcal views are related to my orientation. Thats’ why most gay people are dems, because they’re our freinds. Beyond that, educated people know that the repubs have destroyed the economy many times in our history.
But this is not my scene. I was raised by a businessman, taught high Western culture and American values from Franklyn to Lincold to King, and told to improve myself, which meant thirty years of learning.
I’m not interested in the extreme selfishness and ignorance of gay conservatives. And I see now that they don’t respond to logical reasoning, just as the anti religion dingbats at joemygod can’t tell the difference between fiundamentalism and liberal religion.
posted by Jorge on
…Sorry. I was trained by the Reverend Dr. King to judge by merit. Period.
…
I’m not interested in the extreme selfishness and ignorance of gay conservatives. And I see now that they don’t respond to logical reasoning, just as the anti religion dingbats at joemygod can’t tell the difference between fiundamentalism and liberal religion.
I think you must have slept through some of Dr. King’s lectures.
Given the makeup of the Republican Party, there’s no other option than being a ‘tool’ of the Democrats.
For you, maybe, but I’m quite unconvinced. I find the composition and the ideology of much of the Democratic party and its constituency quite abhorrent. Liberals’ occasional over-the-top intolerance on gay rights is only an afterthought compared to the bigger picture.
I’m not going to argue much with your skepticism. However, no matter what you think or what you were taught, you ain’t better, smarter, or more educated than the next gay conservative guy. There’s no need for you to try to claim that you are.
posted by another steve on
The worst nightmare for EQCA, HRC and Victory Fund is that the first openly gay congressman married to a same-sex partner would be a Republican.
posted by Jerry on
I don’t have any information about EQCA and little about the Victory Fund. Anything that distresses HRC should be a plus for anyone. Aside from millions spent on self aggrandizing parties for themselves, I haven’t seen anything else they do. I do consider myself a small d democrat, who once thought that that was true of Republicans. I now think the smartest thing we could do is replace all members of Congress .
posted by Houndentenor on
What? Imagine being able to pass pro-gay legislation without being blocked at every turn by the GOP.
I predict that within a generation the conservatives are going to embrace a good deal of gay rights (I see them going in the Ron Paul direction on social issues…as in “I might personally be opposed to this but it’s none of the government’s business to interefere in people’s personal business.) I could be wrong but a quick look at the polls shows that social conservatism is not a good long term strategy.
I think the issue here is that no one thinks that this guy has a chance of winning so no one wants to “waste” an endorsement on him. I can’t speak for any of the groups but I think that’s a safe bet.
posted by Wilbrforce on
‘Within a generation’?
My lord. I’m not waiting that long.
posted by Jorge on
Oh. He’s running for Jane Harman’s seat? She stepped down? What a shame.
I don’t much like the idea of replacing someone of her stature and history with someone focused on economic issues. I’ll think about supporting him if he’s part of a runoff.
posted by BobN on
So, his claim to fame is that if someone happens to notice he’s gay, they can see a gay person — a “role model” — in a big job, doing zilch for gay rights.
Whoopdeedoo. I’ll give him some credit for forthrightly calling himself “pro-choice”, though in California, that’s not particularly bold, even for a SoCal GOP pol.
As for the Victory Fund and Equality California, their judgment seems quite sound.
posted by William Quill on
But it does matter who he is. At this point, having conservatives on side is more important that one more liberal. Imagine his voice in the caucus when they’re deciding on what to do on things like defending DOMA.
posted by BobN on
“Imagine his voice in the caucus when they’re deciding on what to do on things like defending DOMA.”
What makes you think he’ll stand up to them?
posted by Married gay Republican seeking nomination for Congress - Empty Closets - A safe online community for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered people coming out on
[…] an upcoming special electio: Gay Calif. mayor seeks U.S. House seat | Washington Blade – Gay News Worthy of Support Mike Gin For […]
posted by aphrael on
While I detest Equality California and think you’re generally right that they’re partisan shills, I think you’re being unfair in this case.
The district in question is a Democrat-majority district in a state whose most recent redistricting was a partisan gerrymander … which means that, all things being equal, it’s presumptively true that a Democrat is going to win the seat. There are two high-profile Democrats fighting for the seat, and EC appears to have concluded that (a) the Republican has no chance, and (b) of the two Democrats running, the one they’re endorsing is better.
That is: they’re not picking the straight Democrat over the gay liberal Republican; they’re picking the straight Democrat over the other straight Democrat, and assuming that in practice nobody else matters.