A Bet on McCain’s Share of the Gay Vote
Right after posting my piece, John McCain & the Gay Vote, I e-mailed Washington Blade Editor Kevin Naff encouraging him to link it on the Blade’s Blogwatch. Readily assenting, he alerted me to a post he had just posted on the presidential election.
After reading it, I wrote back, taking issue issue with some of his points and standing “by my prediction that McCain will do better than 30% of the gay vote provided Obama is the Democratic nominee–and am even willing to bet a dinner (with wine) on it.” He took the bet.
As usual with anything Kevin has written, this post is well-worth reading even as I disagree with many of his major points. I disagree with him that the gay political movement is a “civil rights struggle.” If it is, then it’s over. By the traditional understanding of civil rights, we have them in the sense that we can participate fully in civil society. We can vote in elections, express our views publicly, associate with individuals of our own choosing and other wise carry about our lives freely as do our straight peers.
The problem is that most states (and the federal government) do not recognize our partnerships and the military still discriminates against openly gay individuals. We need legislation recognizing those unions and overturning that ban. But, note, these are privileges the state grants not rights it denies.
As to the issue of the McCain vote, I don’t think the issues Kevin raises, particularly the Supreme Court, will matter much to gay Americans considering a vote for the Arizona Senator. While many of them, including yours truly, wish the presumptive GOP nominee would push to repeal DADT, we understand that our candidates don’t have to be perfect.
The gay Democrats and Independents (as well as a near unanimity of gay Republicans) likely to vote for McCain will do so because of his overall record. They see that while his record on gay issues is far from perfect, he did lead the opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004 while the then-presumptive GOP presidential nominee, George W. Bush, gaining a reputation for attacking gays and losing support in our community.
Still, many gays and lesbians stuck with him that year, largely because of his leadership in the War on Terror. And John McCain is not tarred by his support for that pernicious proposal to amend the constitution.
Finally, I disagree with Kevin that a “McCain presidency would set back the cause of gay rights by a generation.” Kevin bases this largely on the Supreme Court justices a President McCain would nominate. It’s unfortunate that too many gay activists look to the Supreme Court as did those in the Civil Rights’ movement. The issues are so different today. We don’t need favorable Supreme Court rulings to improve our position in civil society; that’s already happening spontaneously.
Now, all we need do is make sure the court doesn’t strike down laws state legislatures have enacted recognizing gay unions. And John McCain indicates that he would appoint judges who don’t legislate from the bench, showing respect for conservative justices who have deferred to state legislatures.
Thus, unlike Kevin, I don’t think it’s “unconscionable for Log Cabin to entertain a McCain endorsement.” Yes, his support of the 2006 Arizona referendum is troubling, but he has shown a greater degree of tolerance for gay Americans than had any of his rivals for the Republican nomination (save Rudy).
Perfect John McCain ain’t, but good enough he is. And many Americans, including a large number who backed John Kerry in 2004, will find themselves pulling the lever for the GOP nominee this fall, largely because they better trust him to lead our great nation than they do his likely Democratic rival.
And I gotta hope enough of them do so I can enjoy a nice dinner in good company this fall–at someone else’s expense.
18 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
So this was ignored yesterday, but to restate on this issue re: gay marriage and constituional amendments:
Isn’t he the teensiest bit tarred by supporting an amendment to ban gay marriage in his own home state?
Comment by torrentprime — May 8, 2008 @ 6:36 pm - May 8, 2008
Did you mean to say, “he has shown a greater degree of tolerance” perhaps? [I did. Now fixed. Thanks. --Dan]
You sly dog!
Comment by American Elephant — May 8, 2008 @ 7:30 pm - May 8, 2008
So now you’re Gay Conservative Yoda?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 8, 2008 @ 8:21 pm - May 8, 2008
Crud!
I closed my blockquote!
[Fixed it I did. --Dan (AKA Conservative Yoda)]
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 8, 2008 @ 8:22 pm - May 8, 2008
ay yi captain… two more gay americans voting for McCain…
no candidate is perfect… the under30 crowd doesn’t yet grasp that…
Comment by jon and tom — May 8, 2008 @ 9:31 pm - May 8, 2008
That’s really splitting hairs. One could argue that about any legislative principle the government backs. Certainly schooling could fit into that category. As could equality in public accommodations, since otherwise that’s largely out of the purvey of government.
Equality in our legislative law is not a privilege, it’s a right.
Comment by Erik — May 8, 2008 @ 10:15 pm - May 8, 2008
LOL
Comment by Jason — May 9, 2008 @ 1:48 pm - May 9, 2008
Slightly O/T, but did anyone else catch the LA Times apologizing for outing a supposedly gay man?
Here’s the problem - the guy was actually straight.
D’OH!!
The story is here.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 9, 2008 @ 3:37 pm - May 9, 2008
Isn’t he the teensiest bit tarred by supporting an amendment to ban gay marriage in his own home state?
Torrentprime, do you remember this back in 2004?
I think the title says it all: “Kerry Backs Massachusetts Amendment to Outlaw Gay Marriage”.
And of course, liberal gays and lesbians fell all over themselves to give him millions of dollars, endorse him, and scream “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, even though he explicitly said that he had the “same position” on gay marriage as President Bush.
You remember….the position liberal gays and lesbians called “homophobic” and “hateful”.
What people have figured out, torrentprime, is that gays and lesbians like you scream “antigay” if it’s a Republican and “pro-gay” if it’s a Democrat, regardless of their actions.
This utterly-predictable and slavish behavior is why you’re effectively ignored by both parties.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 10, 2008 @ 12:14 am - May 10, 2008
Talk about a money shot. Can I quote you on that?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 10, 2008 @ 1:16 am - May 10, 2008
I suppose that there will always be deluded gay people who will support the candidate that works to harm and who supports the distruction of our families. As I am sure that at the hight of the death camps there were still jewish people who supported Hitler.
Get over it there is no place in the republican party. The republican party does not want us they seek to harm us. They are all a bunch of religious nutcases, even Mccain.
Comment by Matthew — May 10, 2008 @ 6:08 am - May 10, 2008
We should also remember Senator McCain’s racist and homophobic vote against ending the filibuster giving the District of Columbia a real congressional seat in the House of Representatives. His “argument” that it is unconstitutional is totally bogus. IF the bill is unconstitutional, that is the job for the Supremes to decide (the bill calls for immediate judicial review). McCain preaches the importance of democracy in Iraq and worth dying for yet will not support it back home. Come on, John, vote to end the filibuster when it is brought up again!
Comment by DC John — May 10, 2008 @ 8:23 am - May 10, 2008
#11 - “As I am sure that at the hight [sic] of the death camps there were still jewish people who supported Hitler….They are all a bunch of religious nutcases, even Mccain [sic].”
Matthew, please provide proof of these statements. Otherwise, get out of the gene pool. You are embarrassing all of us reasonable gay people.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 10, 2008 @ 11:52 am - May 10, 2008
So much of the opposition to gays is rooted in religiosity. I care nothing about those that wish to adhere to a personal subjective philosophy such as religion, by which to live their own personal lives.
However, infringing on the civil liberties of others because your subjective religion admonishes it clearly is ANTI-AMERICAN in every respect.
If marriage is going to be part of government (which I do not think it should be to begin with) then it must be afforded to all individuals who seek its benefit(s).
If discrimination of marriage is to be decided for only certain members of the society, then it is disenfranchising other members and cannot continue to be part of the framework of government; nor should it be. One’s distaste for homosexuality should not be legislated into law - this is ANTI-AMERICAN in every sensibility.
Any law or subject for public discussion must be reduced to the simplest objective reflection of our nation in order to embrace ALL AMERICANS and not discriminate against any one majority or minority group.
Comment by Gregory - New York, NY — May 11, 2008 @ 6:58 am - May 11, 2008
I suppose that there will always be deluded gay people who will support the candidate that works to harm and who supports the distruction of our families.
And who would that be, Matthew?
Because, as I showed above, liberals like yourself think that Democrats who endorse and support state and Federal amendments to ban gay marriage are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, and that their behavior does not “harm” or “support the distruction (sic) of our families”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2008 @ 12:22 am - May 12, 2008
So far, of my six closest gay male friends, each of whom has noteworthy credentials as a Liberal, a Democrat, and as a gay rights advocate, five have indicated to me that they cannot and will not vote for Obama. Neither will I.
Comment by Michael — May 12, 2008 @ 6:39 am - May 12, 2008
The greatest power of the president with regard to “civil rights”–let’s call them fairness issues instead–is his bully pulpit. Obama is using his already in this campaign to benefit gay people, and would most likely continue to do so as president. John McCain hasn’t and most likely won’t.
Gay people who care passionately about their own equality have a clear choice. Conservative gay people who have the same passion have a less clear choice, but they can’t pull the lever for McCain without sacrificing a great deal.
Comment by DCposter — May 12, 2008 @ 6:09 pm - May 12, 2008
I admit previously, I considered any Gay voter who supported any republican crazy. I do worry supporting any republican empowers the religious right, that hates us. I do like McCain I think he is better qualified than Obama. McCain has showed courage and willingness to take on the religious right who controlled his party and it cost him. His win could moderate the Republican Party. Obama’s willingness to empower homophobic religious elements in the black community like Farrakhan makes him unacceptable. He has never demonstrated that he has the integrity to confront these people. Looks like a left wing Bush all rhetoric with no resume just good handlers. Since In Virginia McCain will win I currently plan to vote for a 3rd party as president voting democratic for everything else.
Comment by DC — May 12, 2008 @ 8:58 pm - May 12, 2008