I am so with you. I think - is your attachment to low taxes so important that you're willing to swallow being a second-class citizen; part of a party that considers you immoral and beneath contempt? Is the other guy SO bad at foreign policy that this issue trumps your own freedom?

I think these people just don't want to switch teams and join up with those they've derided for so long. But man, it borders on masochism.

yeah, exactly. i mean, i guess i can understand if they wanted to vomit at the thought of voting for a democrat (god knows i would at the thought of voting for bush), but i feel like i would just stay at home on election day if i were faced with this choice. i don't understand why they would still put effort into supporting a man who has so clearly shunned them and their basic human rights.

Well, I'd suggest that as an organization they don't have much of a choice. The Log Cabin Republicans' influence is almost entirely because of their novelty. Their website doesn't seem to want to list membership numbers, but I'm guessing (homosexuals) (republicans) isn't a huge voting bloc. And it's not like the Republicans need them for their money. The Log Cabins have got their platform because of the media attention they can get, and whatever little value their party places on appearing tolerant.

So what choice have they got? Bush, despicable though he may be, has pulled a little trick by holding together the traditional (sane) conservatives and Ralph Reed's crazy asshole friends -- at least for a while. The two sides seem to have been getting more and more uncomfortable with each other as the religious right's desire to enforce morality has begun to contradict the penny-pinching, libertarian instincts of secular conservatives. If the Log Cabins abandon Bush, they abandon that tenuous coalition and throw their hats completely in with the most marginalized factions of the Republican party -- the moderates. And at that point they may as well just apply for internships fetching coffee at GLAAD; politically, they'd be completely irrelevant.

At least, that's how I see it. Maybe it's overly cynical. But I think their relevance is almost entirely due to their limited usefulness as gay window dressing for the Republican party's claims of inclusiveness.

As someone who falls somewhere among the GLBT demographic, I'm troubled by the President's support for an amendment, but will still vote for him.

At least Bush is honest about his position. Kerry's "just don't use the word 'marriage'" position is just a political contrivance to try to satisfy gays and bigots at the same time.

Kerry has too many troubling flip-flops for me to vote for him.

And the "second black President" remark was the tipping point in my decision.
--scott

the second black president comment was dumb.

and i just can't agree with anyone who calls kerry a flip-flopper when bush is just as much of one. also, kerry is in full support of civil unions (always has been), whereas the language of the proposed amendment definitely leaves room to ban those outright.

like i said, i can't see it from a gay republican's point of view. but if kerry declared that somehow i was a second-class citizen and was going to change the constitution to prove it, i wouldn't vote for him. i wouldn't vote for bush, either, but i wouldn't go to the polls for kerry.

Bush has said that he wants the states to decide the "legal issues" surrounding civil unions. The present amendment proposal might prevent that. I support a Hatch amendment, if one must be presented at all.

But Bush, his intentions, his honesty, all trump Kerry's "just don't call it marriage", which is a wink and a nod to try and satisfy both bigots and gays at the same time. Can't you see that?

Given everything else that is at stake:

allowing african-americans to build wealth through a small percentage of payroll tax privatization

vouchers for inner city schools

the war on terror

getting qualified hispanic judges on the bench

These are very important issues to me.

I could go on and on...why should I stay at home? Liberals telling GLBT that they should stay at home is patronizing. We're not buying it, we're not accepting this plantation mentality and we're here, we're queer and we're going to think for ourselves.

--s

i don't mean to tell you who to vote for. i would never presume that a life-long republican would go and vote for a democrat; i know i'd never do the opposite. but i guess it's just a matter in the way we look at things. to me, it's more important that a president respect me, respect my rights, respect the constitution. if he doesn't want my support, then hell if i'm going to give it to him.

But Bush, his intentions, his honesty, all trump Kerry's "just don't call it marriage", which is a wink and a nod to try and satisfy both bigots and gays at the same time. Can't you see that?

i definitely disagree with this point of view. bush's honesty? explain to me how this is him being honest instead of simply pandering to the religious right. not to mention that this is an issue he's flip-flopped on.

kerry has never supported marriage for gays, but has always supported civil unions. that's simply his belief; it's a wink and a nod to no one.

why is consistency a virtue in politicians? I would say it's because without it, voters can't be sure they'll be getting what they voted for. A politician who changes his position frequently is less likely to represent the desires of his constituents than one who says what he'll do and sticks to it.

To some extent, I think this becomes irrelevant at the presidential level. The constituencies involved are so huge as to ensure that many voters will be upset, no matter what. The variety of issues and facts that must be dealt with is much larger than for any other elected position. Personally, I don't buy that making a consistent decision is more important than making the right decision -- particularly when it comes to an office like the presidency. If a school board rep gets my vote because he's going to increase funding for kickball, then he'd better not go and waste that money on more jumpropes. However, if the president promises me a tax cut, then a recession starts once he gets in office, well, I'd like him to at least reevaluate his economic policies. Principle guides you to a solution; it is not the solution. You may not like the lack of principle behind Kerry's position, but it's hard to say that it's less right than Bush's. The quality of the policy should be what's evaluated, not the amount of conviction behind it.

This is why the "Kerry flip-flop" thing holds no water for me. So he voted to cut intelligence spending in 95... well, we were only four years out of the cold war at that point, and nobody had flown any planes into any of our buildings. Things change; so should politicians' positions.

As for the specific issues you bring up -- sorry, I can't resist:

• Vouchers? Yeah, 'cause privatizing public services has worked so well for, say, electricity in California. People are desperate for a solution to failing schools, and for conservatives the answer to every problem is the free market, even as Martha Stewart and Ken Lay make headlines for what are ultimately market failures. All vouchers will get us is the complete destruction of inner city public school systems, and an increased emphasis on "No Child Left Behind"-style teach-to-the-test education as schools competing for vouchers desperately vie to game whatever performance metrics are established.


• Hispanic judges? Bush doesn't want hispanics on the bench for purposes of diversity. He wants them on the bench because it's easy to find socially conservative hispanics. Again: forget appearances. The potential effects of allowing Bush to continue loading the federal court system could be disastrous for civil liberties.

"kerry has never supported marriage for gays"

then why would any gays want to support him? Is it the lesser of two evils? Oh my, maybe it's a nuanced position to support either Kerry or Bush, and not as black and white as you'd like to think. If a gay man can support Kerry, knowing that Kerry doesn't want him to enjoy the full benefits of the dignity that comes with the word "marriage", then those who vote for him are making a decision based on alot of other positives about him at the exclusion of this negative aspect.

"Hispanic judges? Bush doesn't want hispanics on the bench for purposes of diversity"

The facts speak for themselves. Howard Dean's campaign called Rosario Marin a "house mexican" and Democrats frequently said Miguel Estrada was "not hispanic enough." Janice Brown isn't "black enough." You see the pattern? Apparently, I'm not gay enough.(I'm not directing that at you guys)

It's good of you to share your thoughts with me, regardless. Thanks.

--scott

they might want to consider kerry because he supports gays instead of outright persecuting them? because he wouldn't write discrimination against gays into the constitution? there is a difference between supporting civil unions and tampering with the constitution to prevent gay marriage (and most likely civil unions). it's a huge difference. this part, at least, is definitely black and white. i would love to support a politician who was for equal marriage rights for all, but between bush and kerry, kerry is far more supportive of gay rights.

look, i understand if you are willing to put what you believe is best for the country above what you believe is best for yourself. but in my case, i don't have to choose between the two.

Catherine, not allowing gays to use the word "marriage" is outright persecution, some would say.

"kerry is far more supportive of gay rights"

On long term support of "civil unions", no doubt about it. But...

Does that refer to the gay right to carry a gun to protect yourself from gay bashing?

Does that refer to the gay right to have your government put to death the people who've murdered your friends just because they were gay?

Does that refer to the gay right not to be taxed to death?

Does that refer to the gay right not to be taxed after death?

Does that refer to the gay right to put aside a privatized portion of your social security contributions to be able to pass on to your partner in the event of an untimely death?

These are concrete, very real issues that separate Republicans from Democrats and are fundamental, human rights.

Catherine, with all due respect, I'm putting what is best for me AND my country into that vote in November.

i do not believe that bush is what is best for gay people in terms of gay rights.

however, i respect your choice. like i said, you chose which values and issuse are most important to you, and you have the right to vote for the person you believe will best represent them.