Gay Republicans? It’s an oxymoron, people!

I was doing my usual amount of reading the other day and found a headline that absolutely freaked me out. It read, “Gays could split over McCain.”

I had to read it at least two or three times before it fully sank in. I don’t understand how gays could possibly split over McCain. Actually, I don’t understand how any self-respecting GLBT individual could even consider wasting a perfectly good vote on John McCain. As some one who has been gay since the womb, let me take it even one step further: I don’t understand the whole Gay Republican thing. It’s just an oxymoron.

And I certainly don’t want to hear the excuse that there’s more to being gay than just sexuality. I fundamentally agree, of course. The most important thing is civil rights…the same civil rights that heterosexual Americans are blessed with. And that’s where the equation becomes: Gay + Republican = Oxymoron.

<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>

I wonder if any members of the Log Cabin Republicans have actually read the proposed 2008 Republican Platform that will be presented at the convention. I have read it and nowhere in that platform is there a reference to the GBLT community…at least no direct references. There are several clandestine (or stealth) references to our community there, however. We’re mostly mentioned as something that heterosexual people have to be protected from.

<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>

Protecting the sanctity of marriage

<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>

Apparently, we’re a threat to heterosexual marriage in some way. I’m not quite sure how the threat works and, quite frankly, neither is the Republican Party. I haven’t read one good reason yet for the need for ‘protection,’ yet the 2008 platform calls for a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. I quote directly, “We believe, and social science confirms, that the well-being of children is best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father anchored by bonds of marriage.”

Now, here’s the rub: “We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has been historically called marriage.”

<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>

These quotations come from the section entitled ‘Protecting Marriage,’ so I’m not sure just exactly how the kids fit in here, but I’ll get to that. We are apparently trying to protect marriage here, but I’m not sure just exactly how gay marriages threaten heterosexual marriages. If we are allowed to legally marry, does the divorce rate of heterosexual marriages go up exponentially? We’ve been allowed to legally marry here in Massachusetts now for four years. They sky has not fallen in. In fact, it has become a non-issue here. We pretty much peacefully co-exist. A Constitutional Amendment, for those of you Log Cabin Republicans who still do not get it, does not protect heterosexual marriage. What it does do is write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution. The usual suspects of poverty, infidelity, lack of communication, domestic violence, and alcohol and drug abuse will continue to be the biggest threats to any marriage, heterosexual or not.

<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>

According to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, “Defenders of the family attack gay marriage as the single most serious threat to the heterosexual institution of marriage. This is a boldface lie. It would behoove straight men and women to accept personal responsibility in having nearly destroyed heterosexual marriage rather than passing the buck onto gays.” He further states, “Straight men and women have killed off marriage by creating an acceptable culture of male womanizing, no-fault divorces, workaholism that puts professional success ahead of the marital intimacy, and by having developed a grossly misogynistic culture that trains exploits and degrades women, thereby impeding male respect. Gays and lesbians constitute, at most, 15 percent of the general population, while heterosexual divorce is at 50 percent. So, let’s stop the canard that gays are a threat to the institution of marriage.”

<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>

Protecting our families

<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>

There are several references to children in the proposed 2008 Republican Platform, but this time I’m not writing about ‘No child left behind.’ I’m writing about what the Republican Party has deemed the best environment for children to be raised in. The platform states, “Evidence shows us that children have the best chance at success when raised by a mother and father who love and respect each other and their children.” Here’s yet another oxymoron. This would hold true whether or not the parents were man-woman or same sex. I spend a lot of time teaching my children to respect others and to accept nothing less than being treated with respect. As for the so-called ‘evidence’ that a man and woman raise emotionally healthier children, that myth has been dispelled many times over.

<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>

There is no shortage of information out there on this topic, and one study in particular has followed lesbian families since 1986. I encourage the Log Cabin Republicans, as well as the framers of the 2008 Republican Platform, to Google the topic and read up on the facts presented as a result of the studies rather than spread falsehoods about the damage that is done to children when raised by same-sex parents. Let’s at least bring a little truth to the topic.

<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>

Ensuring equal opportunities <!–[endif]–>

I’d like to advise the Log Cabin Republicans that there is absolutely no mention of sexual orientation in this section. The Republicans mention gender, skin color and ethnicity only. Yet, they state, “Our nation is a land of opportunity for all, and our communities must represent the ideal of equality and justice for every citizen.” While it is true that the framers of the Constitution intended it to be this way, our nation is no such thing and the Republican party platform will not get us any closer to that ideal either.

<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>

It is not a land of opportunity for all when the GLBT community is left out of the equation. It is not a land of opportunity for all when it is still perfectly legal to fire a member of the GLBT community from their job based on who they are, not what their job performance is. Congress did pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) this year, but only after dropping trans-gendered protections. It was called a ‘symbolic’ passage since it doesn’t have a prayer in the Senate (the Democratic majority is not big enough) and since George Bush has already said he will veto it if it does pass. Frankly, a ‘symbolic’ passing of ENDA may be enough for the Log Cabin Republicans, but it’s not enough for those who have been fired because of their sexual orientation. Why is this legislation necessary?

<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>

Only ten states protect the GLBT community by law. They are Massachusetts, Maine, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. The other forty states (along with the Bush administration) have free reign to fire at will. Cracker Barrel, Inc., took this freedom to fire to the extreme in the early 90s when an internal memo stated that managers should fire employees who did not “demonstrate normal heterosexual values.” Cheryl Summerville, one of the victims of this policy, stated that the reason listed for her termination that appeared on her separation papers read, “Employee is gay.” That’s why the legislation is critical.

<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>

Don’t waste a vote on John McCain

<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>

Members of the Log Cabin Republicans should think twice about endorsing any Republican candidate until they fold the GLBT community into their platform. This will, of course, bring us to the logic that they are supporting the man (or woman), not the party. This is another common myth. When you vote for the man (or woman), you are voting for the party and the platform. Do not expect John McCain to include the GLBT community in any of his plans. <!–[endif]–>

This is the man who actively sought and won the endorsement of the Reverend John Hagee, who stated that Hurricane Katrina happened because the city of New Orleans had a Gay Pride Parade planned for the Monday that Katrina came ashore. I didn’t hear John McCain express any outrage over this remark. In fact, John McCain didn’t reject Hagee’s endorsement until he insulted the Jews. McCain was, in fact, more than okay with the GLBT community being considered the basis for God’s wrath.

<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>

I’m sure that the Log Cabin Republicans will jump to his defense because McCain voted against the attempted 2006 Constitutional ban on gay marriage. He only voted against this because he thought it should be handled at the state level. What his supporters don’t tell you is that McCain endorsed a Constitutional ban against gay marriage in his home state of Arizona that appeared on the November 2006 ballot there. He also openly applauded the proposed ban on gay marriage that will appear on the November 2008 California ballot, in spite of the California Supreme Court’s finding that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. Like many other misguided individuals, McCain’s premise is that the general public should determine who does and does not qualify for equal rights. That premise is absurd and is in direct conflict with the basic tenets of the U.S. Constitution.

<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–><!–[endif]–>

I encourage all GLBT voters to band together to ensure that we do not elect another administration destined to set our civil rights back a decade or more. That is what a John McCain presidency will ensure. There is absolutely no silver lining for the GLBT community in the agenda that the Republican Party has proposed for the next four years.