Jimmy LaSalvia, co-founder of the conservative gay group GOProud, has been getting a lot of love in the liberal media after renouncing the Republican Party and declaring himself an independent, saying, “I am every bit as conservative as I’ve always been, but I just can’t bring myself to carry the Republican label any longer.”
LaSalvia is certainly entitled to the political affiliation of his choosing, and there are plenty of anti-gay bigots in the GOP, including Republican National Committeeman Dave Agema.
Still, I find his renunciation disturbing. For one thing, he and GOProud’s other co-founder, Christopher Barron, have long been critical of the Log Cabin Republicans for insufficient conservative purity—that was the reason they originally founded their alternative group. In particular, they cited Log Cabin’s refusal to endorse George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004 (after Bush gave his support to the anti-gay federal marriage amendment).
Now, LaSalvia has appeared on MSNBC where he was welcomed like a prodigal son. He used his time to castigate the Republican Party over its social issues, but this is a network that spends 24/7 attacking Republicans on all their issues, including economic conservatism. Just what point was LaSalvia trying to make, preaching anti-Republicanism to left-liberals on a station that most non-liberals view as a Democratic Party mouthpiece?
And then there are LaSalvia’s remarks to The Advocate, in which he rebukes GOP party chairman Reince Priebus over his “tolerance of bigotry”:
“Reince Priebus, he talks a good game,” LaSalvia says, “but he doesn’t have the balls to do what it takes to actually change things.”
Is that the way to reach out to Republicans? Priebus isn’t all we would hope, but he was behind a report that called on the GOP to be more welcoming of gays, for which he took much heat from social conservatives, and stated “I don’t believe we need to act like Old Testament heretics” on gay issues. The party’s Dave Agemas view him as their enemy.
If the goal is, still, to work for change within the GOP, LaSalvia’s media appearances aren’t the way to do it. Republican social conservatives now will claim that GOProud was always what they said it was, an attempt to undermine the GOP on behalf of the liberal agenda.
GOProud accomplished something truly valuable when it fought for inclusion of a gay conservative group at CPAC, the annual conservative confab. It won that right, but lost it after a boycott instigated by the Heritage Foundation and other social conservatives. Too bad GOProud isn’t going to be able to continue that fight, which I believe would have been victorious. But wins of this sort don’t come easy, and they don’t come fast.
I’m glad Log Cabin is still willing to carry out the hard, long slog to create a Republican Party that is as welcoming and supportive of gay people as the British Conservative Party (recall that Prime Minister David Cameron declared, “I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative”).
There were and still are anti-gay bigots in the British Conservative Party, and it took a long struggle to achieve the victories that have been won there. In the U.S. Republican Party, that fight will now be made without Jimmy LaSalvia.
More. From the Detroit News: Former Republican National Committeewoman and Michigan state party chair Betsy DeVos:
joins a growing number of traditional Republicans dismayed that the party is being jerked to the extreme by a small-but-noisy element obsessed with divisive issues. What’s driving [DeVos] to speak up are the serial outbursts of Dave Agema, who has drawn fire for his hateful rants against gays and Muslim Americans. …
“There is a fear, untested and unfounded, that standing up to a small minority in the party will have a tremendous backlash,” she says. “Instead, I believe they are going to continue to drive more and more people away from our party and our viewpoints.”
More power to her, and for fighting the good fight within the GOP.
26 Comments for “LaSalvia Abandons the Fight”
posted by Doug on
LaSalvia finally woke up and saw the light. The GOP is not going to change it’s anti-gay bigotry anytime soon. Maybe if more folks had the courage to leave the GOP they would wise up. Well here is a news flash, folks are leaving the the GOP and they still don’t get it. What is the problem with calling an anti-gay bigot like Reince Priebus an anti-gay bigot. If the shoe fits. . . .
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Just what point was LaSalvia trying to make, preaching anti-Republicanism to left-liberals on a station that most non-liberals view as a Democratic Party mouthpiece?
MSNBC invited him to appear (LaSalvia has appeared on MSNBC many times over the years, defending the Republican Party), and Fox News apparently didn’t. Let’s hope that Fox News will invite him for a long interview.
Republican social conservatives now will claim that GOProud was always what they said it was, an attempt to undermine the GOP on behalf of the liberal agenda.
And in that Republican social conservatives will be dead wrong, as always.
I’m glad Log Cabin is still willing to carry out the hard, long slog to create a Republican Party that is … welcoming and supportive of gay people …
I am, too. LCR is an honest player, unlike GOProud.
Under LaSalvia’s leadership, GOProud endorsed Connie Mack, Tommy Thompson, Jeff Flake, Dean Heller, Tom Smith, Elizabeth Emken, Barry Hinckley and a lot of other Republicans with impeccable anti-equality records. That’s just wrong.
And keep in mind that other forces are at work in the Republican Party — Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry, the American Unity PAC, and so on.
LaSalvia wasn’t the only gay in the village.
posted by Jimmy on
In an interview LaSalvia gave to Time he states, “I spent my career working to create an atmosphere in the conservative movement where gay conservatives can be open and honest and live their lives and work within the conservative movement. I wanted it to be a place where straight conservatives could publicly support gay Americans and even eventually come to support civil marriage for gay couples. I feel like I have accomplished that. I had hoped that would be enough to melt the anti-gay bigotry that runs through the ranks of some in the Republican Party. I’ve come to realize that it is not, and that the leadership of the party tolerates bigotry, not just antigay bigotry, but anti-Muslim, any people who are not like us it seems like, because they are afraid of losing that sliver of their base who are anti-gay. And the truth is they are turning off millions more Americans by kowtowing to a group that frankly is losing and who most Americans think are wrong.”
Looks like he had to face the writing on the wall. In it’s current form, the GOP’s days are numbered. Tell me what will bring moderates back into state GOP organizations. The right has been hard at work solidifying its hold on state Republican parties. They are not just going to go away.
posted by Houndentenor on
This is all bizarre though. LCR did fight for gay rights. Their successful case against DADT was one of the few accomplishments of any national gay organization (something HRC can’t say). There was no reason to splinter off to form GOProud in the first place except that the GOP was angry that LCR wouldn’t endorse Bush in 2004, a decision that was 100% correct given the party’s platform that year. GOProud was nothing but astroturf. Most of the board wasn’t even gay. Barron and LaSalvia tweeted anti-gay rants on a regular basis. What kind of gay rights group is anti-gay? What a mess. At least he’s figured out the futility.
It reminds me of a recent story where a church filed its openly gay choir director and as a result 80% of the congregation left the church. Some have argued that the members should have stayed to fight but honestly as long as they have your presence and your money, there’s no reason for them to change. The same goes for the GOP. They are not going to come around on gay issues until it costs them elections and not just one but a string of them. If all the people who claim they are Republicans but disagree on gay rights would stop voting for anti-gay candidates the party would change overnight. (I call BS on some of them anyway. They say that to me. I don’t see any evidence they are saying that to the anti-gay politicians.) If the sane wing of the GOP wants to take their party back, they they should do so. The crowd running things now is going to drive the country over a cliff with defaults and shut-downs if sanity does not prevail soon.
posted by Don on
I guess maybe I’m softening on all of this. I really feel of LaSalvia. He tried to toe the hard-right line and show his fellow tough conservatives that they have something in common. But it is the hard right. And it’s hard to keep fighting for “your team” if they keep throwing sticks and stones your way. Especially if they use actual projectiles in the way of mean-spirited legislation.
Stephen’s assertion that this is a fascination with the left-wing media on a “trash conservatives” beat is just bogus. Anytime a profile player on either side denounces his own, it is news. Trust me, if Sandra Fluke became a republican but still supported birth control rights, it would be a story.
In fact, it was during Reagan times. Labor voters left liberals in droves for being too “out there.” It was at a time when the pendulum swung too far in a particular direction.
Sounding much like it now. Just, in the opposite direction. Still, I think things have to get much worse before the true believers will question themselves. Mostly because they are waiting for the divine retribution to rain from the heavens. It’s going to take a while to realize that isn’t coming.
posted by TyRamey on
Yeah, well those apocolyptic idiots have been waiting and waiting for centuries…they ain’t stopping soon. I think LaSalvia is in short supply of self-esteem. Why in the hell would you hang around with a bunch of people who reject , and in many cases, loathe you? And an organization full of kreepy KKKristian racists. And he’s just now discovering that ..what? They really mean it? Please. Get a life, loser.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Aside from endorsing a litany of candidates that supported rolling back marriage equality and were generally p*ss poor on LGBT equality issues, LaSalvia (and Barron) and GOProud did little but provide a fig leaf for those in the GOP that wanted to feign tolerance of LGBT equality.
Their only other gig seemed to be to fling poo at other gay bloggers who took them to task for what they posted online or tweeted… especially the ones that had the temerity to quote them verbatim.
Now that that’s ended — LaSalvia works for (horrors, leftist horrors!) the ALCU — it’s not surprising that he’s putting down the Don Quixote mantle and finding tha work that is more substantive is more rewarding.
posted by Kosh III on
“Is that the way to reach out to Republicans?”
If he quit the GOP, why would he want to reach out to them?
posted by Kosh III on
“Priebus isn’t all we would hope, but he was behind a report that called on the GOP to be more welcoming of gays, ”
And did h e follow up with concrete action? That report was just ink on paper. If he’s a “leader” he should lead not yammer. “Faith without works is dead.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
… that sliver of their base who are anti-gay …
The percentage of Republicans who favor marriage equality is 26%. Republicans who oppose marriage equality are not a “sliver of their base”, exactly.
That’s why pro-equality Republicans are experiencing such heavy lifting trying to turn the party. As Stephen notes, even trying to get GOProud a berth at CPAC is an uphill fight — “wins of this sort don’t come easy, and they don’t come fast“. Well, when getting a berth in a conservative forum that is supposed to represent economic conservatism rather than social conservatism is considered a “win”, that tells you where the party stands.
It will be very difficult — porbably impossible — to turn the party on “equal means equal” unless and until party leadership engages in the fight.
I don’t like LaSalvia. In the build-up to the 2012 election, he cruised MSNBC, Fox and anyone else who would have him, spreading the word that “equal means equal” wasn’t nearly as important to gays and lesbians as lower taxes. He built an endorsement process that endorsed anti-equality Republicans, over and over again. And he kept GOProud out of the marriage equality battle until after the election. LaSilvia was no champion of equality.
But LaSalvia is right about one thing: The current Republican leadership is not willing to stand up to the social conservative troglodytes and say, plainly and clearly, “You are wrong!”, no matter how outrageous the statement. “We all don’t think like that …”, maybe, but “You are wrong!”, no.
posted by Houndentenor on
They can’t. If they take on the religious right (and by extension the Tea Party wing that they have bonded with in most of the country) the party will implode. Better to take their chances that Democrats will shoot themselves in the foot on the way to election day (which isn’t that bad a bet, I’m sad to say). The party courted Evangelicals and now they run the party in most of the country (state GOP conventions in the south look more like tent revivals than political rallies).
posted by Jorge on
The current Republican leadership is not willing to stand up to the social conservative troglodytes and say, plainly and clearly, “You are wrong!”, no matter how outrageous the statement. “We all don’t think like that …”, maybe, but “You are wrong!”, no.
Hmmmmm
Bush did it with a soft touch in his day. And Rick Santorum did condemn people booing a gay soldier during a primary (albeit after the fact; he claimed not to have heard the booing.
Which is in a sense why Bush is a former two-term president and Santorum is an also-ran. You don’t win in politics by being that honest. You win by leading.
posted by Jorge on
I think the CPAC battle and others like it must have wounded Mr. LaSalvia more than he expected. It is more than I expected, too–the behind the scenes details probably cut him deeply, and I’m not unsympathetic. However nothing that he complains about is either surprising or incompatible with what he originally set out to do–it is the very reason for it. But this is really just a case of an Icarus flying too close to the sun and getting burned. You see its like in all those young Obama voters who are suddenly disillusioned because they didn’t get everything they wanted. He’s just tired.
“Reince Priebus, he talks a good game,” LaSalvia says,
Oh, PUKE! The game Reince Priebus talks is elephant excrement. Conservative this, conservative that. That’s the very reason I left.
Still, I find his renunciation disturbing. For one thing, he and GOProud’s other co-founder, Christopher Barron, have long been critical of the Log Cabin Republicans for insufficient conservative purity—that was the reason they originally founded their alternative group. In particular, they cited Log Cabin’s refusal to endorse George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004 (after Bush gave his support to the anti-gay federal marriage amendment).
I wouldn’t say disturbing, but I do find it odd. I do not consider the federal marriage amendment to be anti-gay.
Too bad GOProud isn’t going to be able to continue that fight…
Huh? Am I missing something? What does Mr. LaSalvia leaving the Republican party have to do with anything GOProud does?
What, just because it has GOP in its name? Doesn’t GOProud attract the really crazy conservative-first, Republican second people anyway, or am I being too stereotypical? They’re trying to get into CPAC, not GOPAC.
posted by acer123 on
LaSalvia saying he’s now an independent is like a straight guy saying he’s now a bisexual, when everyone knows he’s on the off ramp to Gaytown. LaSalvia is on the off ramp to Democraticpartytown. Next year at this time he’ll be endorsing Hillary and looking for his next media spotlight.
posted by Mike in Houston on
“Giving up the fight”
Just what is “the fight”? I mean what is the goal, the strategy, methodology , what have you for remaking the GOP nontoxic on LGBT equality and civil rights?
Other than bemoaning certain LGBT organizations for leaning left or working with the Democrats, what substantive actions have actually been proposed and/or acted on ?
posted by Houndentenor on
I don’t see a strategy either, but then I can’t imagine what that would be. Get some party insider’s to say sympathetic things behind closed doors that contradict what they say on Fox News? What’s the point of that?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think the CPAC battle and others like it must have wounded Mr. LaSalvia more than he expected. It is more than I expected, too–the behind the scenes details probably cut him deeply, and I’m not unsympathetic. However nothing that he complains about is either surprising or incompatible with what he originally set out to do – it is the very reason for it.
I think that it is important to keep in mind why LaSalvia and Barron, both senior LCR staff members at the time, left LCR to found GOProud — that is, what they “originally set out to do”.
GOProud was founded because LCR had become “too centrist”, caught up in the idea that “equal means equal”, including, specifically, marriage equality, was both the foundation and the goal.
As an e-mail Stephen quoted in his post “The Gay Republicans’ Feud” on June 20, 2010, noted:
”
As Stephen also notes in that post:
A post by James Kirchick (“Crashing the (Grand Old) Party”, August 10, 2009) suggests that there may have been personal conflicts involved, as well:
Whatever the personal dynamics in the split, Barron and LaSalvia built an organization that worked to detach the focus of Republican gays and lesbians from the battle with social conservatives over “culture war” issues, and focus it instead on what they considered conservative issues — reducing taxes, reforming social security, reducing government involvement in health care, and so on, in search of “common ground” with social conservatives.
The effort, probably, was doomed to failure, if the goal of reaching “common ground” was to bring social conservatives around on “equal means equal” in any form. As a contemporary Wall Street Journal acticle Stephen cited (“Gay, Proud and Conservative: A new group asks the GOP to return to its Reaganite roots”, WSJ April 14, 2009), noted at the time:
Seen in this light, GOProud is one of many efforts to find a compromise (for example, “A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage“, but David Blankenhorn and Jon Rauch, New York Times, February 21, 2009):
Whatever the prospects for reaching “common ground” or a “reconciliation” that would satisfy both gays and lesbians, on the one hand, and religious social conservatives, on the other, might have been at the time, events have overcome the day when social conservatism and equality sans marriage equality could coexist, within the Republican Party and outside the Republican Party. Marriage equality is the battleground in the struggle for “equal means equal” now, is a fact on the ground in 17 states, and both state and federal courts have entered the fray. In a word, the battle over marriage equality is joined and is going to be settled in a decade, like it or not.
I can’t predict the future for gays and lesbians loyal to the Republican Party.
GOProud was silent on the issue of marriage equality until after the 2012 election, when LaSalvia (then Executive Director of the organization) made several statements supporting marriage equality, but also affirming state’s rights on the issue.
GOProud’s website appears to be continuing to attempt a straddle on marriage equality (“The concepts of Limited Government and Family Values are core conservative ideals, and they are the reasons GOProud supports expanding marriage rights to include gay and lesbian couples. We recognize that there is an enormous diversity of opinion on this issue, and as we move forward we will continue to maintain a respectful dialog with groups representing a variety of those opinions.“), but comments on GOProud’s Facebook page suggest that Republican gays and lesbians are engaged, or want to engage, in the fight to marriage equality.
Where that leads, I don’t know.
posted by Houndentenor on
For about a decade, friends would ask me “what about civil unions?” My response was, get the GOP to agree to that in all 50 states and I’m sure we can make a deal. (This was before there was marriage anywhere but Massachusetts, of course.) The problem with “the deal” is that the vast majority of people who were against gay marriage weren’t going to be for civil unions or spousal benefits of any kind. Look at what they passed in Virginia! There was never going to be a deal. AND, there’s no reason I should show up hat in hand asking for half a loaf when the other party isn’t going to give me any bread at all. It wasn’t gay people who played the “all or nothing” game. It was the right wing, and in the end we are going to get it all anyway.
posted by Jorge on
Whatever the personal dynamics in the split, Barron and LaSalvia built an organization that worked to detach the focus of Republican gays and lesbians from the battle with social conservatives over “culture war” issues, and focus it instead on what they considered conservative issues — reducing taxes, reforming social security, reducing government involvement in health care, and so on, in search of “common ground” with social conservatives.
The effort, probably, was doomed to failure…
If they expected not to get any resistance at all from the right, even major setbacks, then it indeed would be doomed to failure. If they expected to accomplish a level of integration that LCR had not, well… it’s a longshot, especially early, but it brings to mind Charles Krauthammer’s advice to then Sen. Obama that his long game chances won’t be hurt at all if he loses should he run in 2008.
Playing the long game means suffering minor setbacks or even long political exiles. Not everyone can do that (I know I have my limits).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
For those interested, Zack Ford has an interesting observation over at ThinkProgress: “How Marriage Equality Opponents’ Three National Strategies All Contradict Each Other.”
posted by Not zack on
The ThinkProgress criticism of allowing religious accommodations, terming it “The Everybody-Who-Wants-To-Discriminate-Should-Be-Able-To Approach,” was overstated, grouping it with the federal marriage amendment and state DOMAs as something very very bad. In fact, allowing reasonable accommodations for people of conservative faith would be a good thing. As Stephen, Walter Olson and others have noted, forcing small businesspeople to provide services to gay weddings is draconian and makes us like like bullies, which, in this case, the activists are.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
In fact, allowing reasonable accommodations for people of conservative faith would be a good thing; as Stephen, Walter Olson and others have noted, forcing small businesspeople to provide services to gay weddings is draconian and makes us like like bullies, which, in this case, the activists are.
I agree that public accommodation laws should have a “small business” exemption, but social conservative Christians are running away like scalded cats from honest attempts to create a religiously-neutral, issue-neutral reasonable accommodations for personal conscience, such as this proposed constitutional amendment in Wisconsin:
What is prudent and salutary about allowing conservative Christians to a religious exemption with respect to same-sex marriage, but not allowing similar accommodation to other citizens on other issues?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As side note to this thread, the political situation in Indiana gets curiouser and curiouser:
Why Republican leadership in Indiana is so hell-bent on forcing the anti-marriage amendment to the ballot is beyond me; even in Indiana, I suspect that a full-throated anti-marriage campaign would hurt Republicans in the November election as much as it might help. 2014 isn’t 2004, and the Bush/Rove anti-marriage amendment strategy has played itself out.
But this kind of political maneuvering, coupled with the ugly testimony at the committee hearing (not to mention what might be said in an Assembly debate on the issue and during the run-up to the November election) will almost certainly provide more than enough ammunition for a court challenge to prevail if the amendment is voted on and prevails.
I can’t help but think that this is the kind of thing that LaSalvia was complaining about …
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
First off all I must confess that I only had a vague idea — prior to LaSalvia becoming an “Independent” — who was running the GOProud group.
I was not opposed to the group existing — although I disagreed with its views on many issues. I have said — here and elsewhere — that gay Republicans certainly need to come out and work within their party to change its position on gay rights.
However, even the gay Republican and gay Libertarian friends of mine rarely had a terribly kind word to see about the organization.
Not sure how representative this is of the gay, political right in America as a whole, but I got the sense that GOProud was not really taken seriously by gay folk who generally liked what they had to say.
Second off all, I would be curious to see what LaSalvia’s hopes to do — as an Independent. I suspect that he means this to be short hand for being socially liberal and fiscally conservative (which can also mean either a Neo Liberal or a Burkeon conservative, depending on who you believe)
He could be effective in trying to Independent-interest group that backs gay rights. It is certainly has some potential, but it is too soon to tell one way or the other.
Thirdly, I suspect that LaSalvia is one of the many gay Republicans — more along the lines of Rockerfeller — who is frankly sick and tired of being sick and tired. They are loyal Republicans, who are even willing to keep quiet and work with anti-gay Republicans for the ‘good of the party’, but they are also starting to wonder whether or not this loyalty is actually going to change the party’s policy.
In the case of LaSalvia, I suspect he has come to the conclusion that the GOP was not to going to change its (generally) anti-gay social policy anytime soon. Again, not being a Republican I can only speculate.
Fourthly, I doubt very much that Fox News and the right-wing media entities would be eager to give LaSalvia a voice. While it can be argued that Fox New’s coverage of gay rights issues has improved — I dispute how much — they [i.e. Fox news and company] would much rather that gay Republicans kept quiet/kept up their blind loyal/for the good of the party business…..until (I suspect) the 20 – 30% of the ‘religious right/lets outlaw homosexuality’ electorate dies off or somehow ceases to be terribly relevant in GOP politics.
The problem is that people generally want something in exchange for their loyalty/sacrifice. Gay Republicans are — with few exemptions — simply not getting more socially liberal/fiscally conservative in positions of leadership within the party, much less running for major office.
Yes, they may be getting a nice tax break/cut and that may — for some gay Republicans — be enough, but more and more gay Republicans are actually going to start wondering about the return of their investment.
I suspect that one of two things will — ideally happen;
(1) Either gay Republicans (and their straight allies) somehow manage to take control of the party back from the religious right.
Frankly, I do not see much of this happening.
(2) Their will be some sort of strong movement to create some sort of ‘Independent political alternative’ in America which is socially liberal/fiscally conservative.
Last, but not least, a major party chairman is certainly important, but far less so then in say, Canadian or British politics where the chairman (woman) becomes prime minster should his/her party win a majority.
In America much of the GOP policy on gay rights is set by who shows up to local/state GOP meetings, who runs for (major) office in GOP elections and who votes in GOP primaries….a similar thing can be said about the Democratic Party’s policy on gay rights.
So either their is going to be a significant number of gay Republicans — and straight GOP allies — getting deeply involved in their party machinery or, some sort of independent party or group will form around brand similar to the GOP — minus the religious right.
posted by Jorge on
Fourthly, I doubt very much that Fox News and the right-wing media entities would be eager to give LaSalvia a voice. While it can be argued that Fox New’s coverage of gay rights issues has improved — I dispute how much — they [i.e. Fox news and company] would much rather that gay Republicans kept quiet/kept up their blind loyal/for the good of the party business…..until (I suspect) the 20 – 30% of the ‘religious right/lets outlaw homosexuality’ electorate dies off or somehow ceases to be terribly relevant in GOP politics.
I must protest that this is incredibly ignorant.
The only reason Fox News would have for wanting gay Republicans to keep quiet is because Megyn (“Santa Claus is white”) Kelly’s head would explode if she found out there were such a thing.
Actually I think Fox News Channel and GOProud share a similar cocktail crowd.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Jorge
You fail to explain how my particular comments are ignorant (much less incredibly ignorant).
About all you offer up as evidence is, “I think Fox News Channel and GOProud share a similar cocktail crowd.”
Well, this may in fact be true — again I did suggest that for some gay Republicans getting an upper income tax cut or something like that may be enough (when they are not getting what they want from the GOP in terms of social policy – gay rights).
It is possible that they do circulate in the same ‘cocktail crowd’ but that does not real disapprove what I actually said.
Some people in Fox News (and similar right-wing groups) may be perfectly happy to share a cocktail with a well-to-do, Republican homosexual. They may privately tell this homosexual that they wish the party would be more liberal on social issues.
However, they still want this Republican homosexual and indeed all of his cocktail buddies to keep quiet, take one for the team and not trying to do anything that might upset the religious right.
The GOP needs the ‘religious right’ voter in order to win key elections — especially when it needs to appeal to more blue collar/lower middle class voters whose economic views are a bit more populist then Ayn Rand–
For gay Republicans — again I am not one — eventually they have to ask themselves how long can they be expected to keep ‘taking’ one for their party?
How long can they help elect anti-gay Republicans based on the vague and ill-defined promise that someday, somehow the party might, possibly, change.