IGF CultureWatch

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.

Gay-rights opponents are fond of noting that the majority of Americans are against same-sex marriage.

This is a reasonable claim for them to make. For one thing, it's true (although by increasingly narrow margins). Furthermore, it's rhetorically effective. America is, in spirit if not always in practice, a staunchly democratic society.

So what's the problem? The problem is that, when it comes to minority rights, the majority has historically been an unreliable moral guide.

Forget the debate about whether gays and lesbians are a "minority" in the same sense that ethnic minorities are. The point is that we're a relatively small segment of the population (indeed, exceedingly small, if you believe our opponents' numbers). Small, often invisible, and largely misunderstood.

And so it should come as little surprise that the straight majority often doesn't "get it." That's changing as more of us come out of the closet - hence the improving statistics on gay-marriage support. But we've still got a ways to go.

Return, then, to the claim that the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage. President Bush often sounds this theme, complaining about "activist judges" subverting "the will of the American people." (Notice that the will of the American people appears irrelevant when it comes to abortion, stem cell research, and other issues on which the American majority is more progressive than the president. He doesn't govern by consulting polls, you know.)

The president's inconsistencies aside, the fact that the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage isn't an argument against gay marriage. It's backdrop.

After all, no one on either side denies that most Americans currently oppose gay marriage. The question is not whether they do, but whether they should. Pointing to the "will of the people" doesn't answer that question, it begs it.

But doesn't majority support for an idea lend credence to the idea? Sure it does. As the old saying goes, 50 million Frenchmen can't be wrong.

Except that the French are a lot more relaxed in their attitudes toward homosexuality than Americans. Bad example.

See the point? Suppose we're debating whether to adopt X or Y, and we both agree that most people favor X. In arguing whether to adopt Y, it does no good to repeat that most people favor X (or for that matter, that most people somewhere else favor Y). One must put forth reasons for favoring X or Y.

So our opponents should stop grumbling about gay-rights activists "foisting" their "agenda" on an unsuspecting public, and start explaining why people should prefer their moral vision to ours. (Apropos, why is it that when they voice their values, it's a "moral vision," whereas when we do it, it's an "agenda"? Funny, that.)

This November many states will offer ballot initiatives to prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages. In Michigan, for example, voters will be able to decide whether to add the following amendment to the state constitution:

"To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

Ballot initiatives seem very democratic and fair - until you remember what history teaches us about the majority's handling of minority rights.

The Michigan amendment is especially worrisome. It precludes not only gay marriage but also "similar union[s] for any purpose." It would thus strike down existing domestic-partnership benefits.

In talking about the amendment, we should emphasize the latter point. We shouldn't call it "the amendment to ban gay marriage." We should call it "the amendment to roll back domestic-partner benefits" - for that will be its primary practical effect. Gay marriage is already illegal in Michigan.

Such subterfuge is part of our opponents' strategy. They lead with a call to "secure and preserve the benefits of marriage" - and who can argue with that? It isn't until the end of the amendment that they slip in language that quietly rolls back existing benefits.

Imagine an amendment that banned the use of marijuana - already illegal in Michigan - and then slipped in ambiguous language that also outlawed tobacco without ever mentioning the word. Sneaky, huh? Well, that's what we're up against.

Now, fair or not, we've got to make our case to the majority. And just as we'd have a better chance at garnering majority opposition the "anti-tobacco amendment" than to the "anti- marijuana amendment," so too we have a better chance of garnering majority opposition to the "anti-domestic-partner- benefits amendment" than to the "anti-gay-marriage amendment." (Note to the Coalition for a Fair Michigan: remember this when deciding on slogans for lawn signs.)

The only way to stop the tyranny of the majority is for the minority to make its voice loudly heard.

First published on September 8, 2004, in the Chicago Free Press.

For gays and lesbians there was little to watch for during the Republican National Convention, except perhaps the presence or absence of Mary Cheney, whose visibility was as varied as a troublesome member of the Politburo in old Kremlin photographs. But as a sideshow, Illinois Republican senatorial candidate Alan Keyes, who was not a delegate and spent most of his time promoting himself to the media, almost made the whole thing worthwhile.

Interviewed by Sirius Satellite Radio host Mike Signorile, Keyes delivered the following: "If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it is possible to have a marriage state that in principle excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism."

When Signorile asked, "So Mary Cheney is a selfish hedonist, is that it?" Keyes, who never misses an opportunity to avoid being gracious, replied, "Of course she is. That goes by definition."

The next day, Keyes expatiated for the Chicago Sun-Times, "In a homosexual relationship, there is nothing implied except the self-fulfillment, contentment and satisfaction of the parties involved in the relationship. That means it is a self-centered, self-fulfilling, selfish relationship that seeks to use the organs intended for procreation for purposes of pleasure."

Although Illinois Republicans professed themselves shocked and offended by Keyes' comments, Keyes is simply stating good Catholic doctrine. In the eccentric Catholic version of "natural law" genitals are "intended" for procreation. People may enjoy the pleasures of sex only if sex runs the risk of creating a fetus. Any other use of the genitals, as with homosexual sex, constitutes misuse.

This is the same argument the Vatican uses against masturbation and artificial birth control: They allow pleasure while avoiding the risk of creating a fetus, so they involve a misuse of genitals. Of course, Catholic natural law also ought to disapprove of sex by women after menopause or a hysterectomy, but it wimps out and says, "Well, it is sex of an essentially procreative type even though it cannot procreate, so it is allowable." They try to say this with a straight face.

As for Keyes' "organs intended for procreation," he seems ignorant of female anatomy. Someone should explain to him and the boys at the Vatican that the primary source of sexual pleasure for women is the clitoris, which is not involved in reproduction. So women engaging in homosexual sex are not using, much less misusing, organs of procreation. Perhaps a human anatomy text would help.

But "natural law" is pretty much discredited nowadays. To say genitals were "intended" for procreation ignores the fact that genitals, like the rest of our bodies, evolved as they did because they were more efficient means of reproduction than other means. Nothing about their development in the random mutation and natural selection process of evolution requires or implies any "intention" - or precludes their use for other purposes. The mouth evolved as an efficient way to eat, but people also use it to talk, sing, whistle and suck venom from snakebites. The Vatican has never really come to terms with evolution.

Recall too that in the Genesis story God first intended Adam to be alone in the Garden of Eden. So God must have originally intended Adam's penis for urinating since there was no other use for it. It was only later after God created Eve that God could have added using the penis for sex, although it does seem an odd choice. And since Adam and Eve were not told to have children until they were expelled from the Garden, God must not have initially intended Adam's penis for procreation even after creating Eve. Here as so often "natural law" conflicts with the Bible.

Consider finally Keyes' claim that a homosexual relationship involves nothing but the "self-fulfillment, contentment and satisfaction of the parties involved" so it is a "self-centered, self-fulfilling, selfish relationship."

To most Americans, "self-fulfillment, contentment and satisfaction" in a relationship probably sounds pretty good. Many heterosexual couples, even ones with lots of procreation, seem unable to achieve that, as witness the divorce rate.

And it seems particularly bizarre to call a relationship in which two men or women love, nurture and care for each other "self-centered" or "selfish." Keyes might try to say that of single people, but, if anything, loving and caring for another person should be viewed as benevolent, even "selfless." Did Keyes avert his eyes from gay men who cared for partners dying of AIDS? Or will he say anything at all no matter how mendacious?

Keyes reveals once again how religious conservatives reduce even the most deep and loving gay relationship to sex. They are absolutely obsessed with sex. And even though most of them would agree that sex can deepen and enrich their own loving relationships - how many engage in sex only to have more children? - they refuse to acknowledge that the same must be true for gays and lesbians. Because that would mean we are more like them than they want to admit.