Log Cabin. It's Better as a Syrup.

I don’t get it. I really don’t. I’ve tried to, honestly, I have. I’ve listened to arguments, investigated perceptions and discussed the topics down to a nub, but I still for the life of me do not understand one thing:

Gay Republicans.

Now, for starters, I’m not going to get into a huge political debate, which could (and usually does) explode into a gigantic finger-pointing, name calling debacle. No, I will avoid that, and focus on what I consider to be the obvious.  

And I am not going to mention Taylor (ok, maybe a little) the bow-tied star of Logo’s reality series, “The A list: Dallas” (Yes, it is a guilty pleasure of mine) who claims his basis for being a gay republican is so that he can keep more of his money to buy more shoes. He even reveled in the fact that he had lunch with Ann Coulter, who during that lunch suggested that when liberals find the gay gene, that they will abort babies found with that gene.

Gee, there’s a lunch conversation that I’ve been dying to have.

Before we discuss the elephant in the room (pun intended), I’ll share that being gay should not now, or ever, pre-dispose or require you to affiliate with any one specific political party. This is a free country (at least I’d like to believe so) and one of said freedoms is that it is your choice as to what belief system of politics you will buy into.

I have a very sound system when I choose the politicians I want to support. It's called the just-about-anyone-but-the-old-white-guy approach. So far, it’s been slim pickings.

Oh, and for the record, I’m a registered independent. 

With Rick Perry’s message on something being wrong with this country when gays and lesbians can serve openly in the military, Michelle Bachman’s husband who claims to help people pray the gay away in his practice, Rick Santorum being…well…Rick Santorum, and every other republican candidate being very direct that they believe gays should not be allowed to marry, (and I am not even going to get into the Ron Paul copout of “it should be up to the states”), and opposing the repeal of DADT, I struggle to see what there is to support, or why anyone gay would think to support any of these candidates.

Yup, simple as that.

I have a very hard time buying into the “partial support” theory. Often I hear from gay republicans in interviews that they support many of the political platforms that the republican party supports, yet they disagree with the republican views on equal rights for gays and lesbians.

My question then is, what can gays and lesbians be without equal rights? How can we truly reap benefit from such republican ideals such as free markets, lower taxes and limited government when this same party has a consistent track record of passing legislation, putting gays and lesbians in positions where they fear losing their jobs, their children, their loved ones (especially if they are not US citizens) – in short, their livelihood. I don’t see the trade-off.

Am I missing something?

After perusing the Log Cabin republican website, (for those of you who have been loving under a rock, the Log Cabin republicans are a national group of gay and lesbians who identify as republicans.) I took a moment to read their mission and history. Surely I would find something in there that made sense, something that could give a hint as to why one would put money in a hand that continually slapped them in the face once they did.

According to their website, in the late 70’s, Ronald Reagan (yes, mister former president himself) spoke out against the Briggs initiative, an anti-gay piece of legislation that would keep gays and lesbians from teaching in California public schools. The initiative failed and, “From that pivotal campaign, the first Log Cabin chapters formed in the Golden State.” 

Alright, so, Mr. Reagan did one good thing for gays and lesbians. Now, is this the same man, who as president, completely ignored the aids crisis? Ignored it for years, and wouldn’t even speak the word aids? Yup, the very same one. That is only one single example, and even though his views on gays and lesbians at one single time helped those in one state – overall throughout the US – not so much. He could have taken a proactive stance on hiv and aids, and helped to reduce the stigma the gay community suffered for many years because of the ignorance surrounding the crisis.

That didn’t happen.

The log cabin republicans say they exist to “make the Republican Party more inclusive, particularly on gay and lesbian issues.” 

Alrighty, let’s take a look at a timeline, starting with the 80’s – Reagan, two terms and not a whole lot of inclusiveness. Bush Sr., still not seeing any. Bush Jr., - where we saw his idea of a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman. (which speaks to how the republican party viewed gays and lesbians during his two terms.) Just to be fair, the log cabin republicans chose not to endorse Bush Jr. – for his second term. Apparently, it took a whole term of GW for them to finally come to the conclusion, “Hey, maybe this guy isn’t such a good choice.” Go figure. They did support McCain for president. Yes, McCain, a champion of gay rights. A supporter of DOMA, and fought tooth and nail (and happily failed) to keep DADT in place.

Hell, I’ll even throw Clinton in the mix – who gave us DADT and signed DOMA in 1996.

If the log cabin republicans have existed since the late 70’s and have been working on inclusion, where is it? Was it here? Did I miss it? Was it disguised as something else? Did the “liberal media” forget to cover it?

I don’t see it, at all. I'm looking at the republican front-runners for president, and with regards to equal rights for gays and lesbians, I'm not seeing any change in policy, platform, or anything that would indicate the republican party is any more inclusive than it was 30 years ago.

I don’t include what countless wives and daughters (i.e. McCain's and Bush's daughters) of republican candidates have done in the name of equal rights for gays and lesbians. Yes, they increase visibility, and it is truly honorable what they do – but in the end, they are not the ones passing legislation. They are not the ones addressing the country in a position of power. They cannot repeal discriminatory laws, nor implement policy that reflects equality.

Change? Where is it? After 30 or so years?  I’m talking to you log cabin republicans.

What would I like to see? Well, a party that can fuse the some of the more sound principles from the red and blue parties, and can have, across the board, equal rights for gays and lesbians. Other nations around the world are advancing in this area faster than we can even being to talk about it. Can’t we do something similar?

Sorry log cabin peoples, I cannot support any candidate, no matter how brilliant their economic or foreign policy platforms might be, when they come out and say that, if they are in office, that they will work to make sure I will never, and I emphasize the word never, have the same basic rights as any other 37 y/o (make that 38 in three weeks *sigh*) heterosexual human being. Simple as that.

Gay republicans - please, help me understand. Educate me. I still feel like I'm missing something.  

In the meantime, I do hope Taylor has been able to get some new shoes. At least it's not another bow tie.