The Log Cabin Republicans' decision not to endorse George W. Bush does two important things. It maintains LCR's integrity as a group dedicated to equality for gay Americans. And it may actually increase LCR's influence within the GOP.
Before discussing the decision, I should explain my own past affiliation with LCR. I was president of the group's Texas chapter for three tumultuous years in the 1990s, during which we fought precinct-level battles within the party, unsuccessfully sued the Texas GOP for refusing to honor an agreement to give us an information booth at the 1996 state convention, and staged a protest against the party for again refusing us a booth at the 1998 state convention. I also served briefly on LCR's national board. Although I have many friends in LCR, I no longer have any role in the organization.
There has long been a basic divide among gay Republicans. In one corner are the "gay-first Republicans," those who generally support traditional GOP policies on taxes, spending, and foreign affairs, but whose main purpose is to advance their passionate belief in gay equality. They are deeply distressed by the party's anti-gay attitudes. They figure that equality can never be secure until both major parties support it, and that this requires having gay advocates within the GOP. Their belief in most Republican values is genuine, but their activism in LCR is primarily strategic. It is mostly an attempt to advance gays' standing among Republicans, not to advance the GOP's standing among gays. They are gay first and Republican second.
In the other corner are the "Republican-first gays," those who consider themselves Republicans who happen to be gay. The party's anti-gay positions bother them, but not to distraction. Far more important to them are the party positions they agree with, like its foreign and economic policies. Their involvement in LCR is primarily an expression of their disgust for left-dominated gay politics and reflects a desire to bond politically and socially with like-minded gay people. They are Republican first and gay second.
There are gradations of views in between, but these poles roughly describe things. I have always been much closer to the gay-first Republicans.
It has never been accurate to charge, as some benighted people do, that either of these groups is self-hating. Neither supports anti-gay policies, which is what the slander of self-hatred implies. The gay-first Republicans are every bit as dedicated to gay equality as anyone in the gay-rights movement, but believe there is a distinct and essential role they can play in advancing it. The Republican-first gays also oppose anti-gay policies, but give a higher priority to non-gay issues like taxes, just as some gay liberals give a higher priority to non-gay issues like abortion. At worst, the gay-first Republicans can be faulted for occasional tactical errors; the Republican-first gays, for misplaced priorities. But neither group can fairly be indicted for internalized homophobia.
LCR's vote not to endorse Bush, by a 22-2 margin of the group's national directors, was primarily a gay-first Republican decision. It was a strong affirmation that LCR's basic mission is to advance gay equality within the GOP, not to support GOP candidates at all costs.
But even some Republican-first gays in LCR supported the non-endorsement. Bush's betrayal of traditional conservatism on matters like fiscal responsibility and free trade made it easier for them. Republican-first gays could also justify non-endorsement as a way to nudge the party away from extremism and thus to serve the GOP's own long-term political interests.
As long as Republican candidates are making serious progress toward supporting gay equality it makes sense for a partisan organization like LCR to endorse them, even if they're objectively worse on gay issues. LCR helps the cause by showing GOP candidates there are rewards for good behavior.
That's why LCR's endorsement of Bush in 2000 made sense from a gay-rights perspective, even though Bush was objectively worse than Al Gore on gay issues. Bush had publicly met with gay Republicans, the first time a GOP presidential nominee had ever done so, and had pronounced himself a "better man" for having met them. He was making progress.
One million gay voters backed Bush in 2000, twenty-five percent of the total gay vote. In return, Bush continued to make progress by appointing openly gay people to his administration and by maintaining a federal non-discrimination policy covering sexual orientation.
Now Bush's advisors have decided that the way to win is to gin up enthusiasm among religious conservatives. So Bush has backed, and has campaigned on, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
That's why LCR's non-endorsement of Bush this year makes sense. Bush has taken a giant leap backward by actively supporting an amendment that is qualitatively more deadly to gay equality than anything any president has ever supported. It's a completely unnecessary and unforgivable betrayal of basic constitutional values.
If LCR had nevertheless endorsed Bush it would have ceased to be an organization devoted to gay equality. It would have become simply another obedient auxiliary of the GOP, albeit one with a twist in its martini, and above all one that Republicans could take for granted.
Thus, this very act of defiance may ultimately make LCR a more viable force in the party. If significantly fewer gays vote for Bush this year, LCR will have helped demonstrate that even among Republican voters there's a political cost to being anti-gay. In a close election, that might mean a lot.