Talk Elections

That makes no sense. It's like a Jew voting for the NSDAP.
McCain garnered 27% of the LGBT vote in 2008, that's even an increase from 19% support for President Bush four years before.
And how many among those voters were female?

I doubt those numbers will continue, what with full-on marriage equality from the Democrats.

Self loathing. Not to single them out, of course. American voters are a self-loathing bunch in general.

The 2008 swing (according to exit polling) is not really something I've ever understood, and I've tried to pin point the cause, but to no avail. I know it sounds like a cop out, but I really think it was just bad sampling/crappy exit polling.

Patriotism.

Why did so many blacks vote for Wilson?

My neighbors back in Illinois were two gay Republicans. These are generally the sort of people who really couldn't care less whether the government recognizes their marriage or not, but like Republican economic policy. Honestly, why more in 2008 than 2004 I don't know, but even if Democrats go full-on marriage equality I doubt it'll help them much, as these are the exact sort of voters that don't really care.


You sound like opebo.

I'm no innovator, Vosem.  Anything I post is obvious common knowledge.

You're wrong, Vosem. Even homocons want marriage. Two people who used to be your neighbours does not represent an entire voting block.

I'm sorry, are you implying that gay Democratic voters aren't patriotic?

Your posts, and I say this in the nicest way possible, are insane conspiracy theory bulls**t. But they're fun to read.


Of course they want marriage, but they may view other issues (such as, in that case, tax policy) as being more significant. How else do you explain 27% of gays voting Republican?

Who's going to be the first to point out the obvious problem with exit poll data regarding this particular demographic?

Here's a strange hypothesis: bisexuals who don't fully identify with the gay community and don't have as much of an incentive to be passionate about gay rights because they're already with straight partners.

Are such people going to claim to be gay to a pollster?

Poster geesthacht82 proposed that a certain subset should not vote for a political party based on the peculiar belief that such 'makes no sense'.

Regardless of one's opinions on the particular happenstance here, I would hope you would agree in principle that there are some voters who choose their political party based on their belief of the best interest of the nation and not the alleged best interest of a certain subset of that nation.

Humans are complex. Homos come in all shapes and colors.

Chelsea fans excepted, of course.

A broken watch, etc.

I'm inclined to be believe that a non-negligible amount of them would.

Uh oh, someone mentioned the b word. But I've not, ever, even those with partners of the opposite sex, encountered a bisexual who is against or not passionate about LGBT rights.

Do you think there's the possibility that they're less invested in it though?

Certainly, and I'm actually pleasantly surprised that you're ascribing patriotism to even some gays, but...

I guess, but thinking they're less invested because they have an opposite sex partner is actually rather silly, and a reason why a lot of gay people don't care for bisexuals in the first place. I'll echo a bit of what Vosem said and hypothesize that, if they don't care, it's not so much because of their sexuality than their own personal choice, I suppose?

Hmm, probably because:

1) They're very comfortable economically, so, rich. Voting GOP out of self (economic) interest. Plus being well off means you don't need to worry about marriage/federal benefits.

2) They live in parts of the US where the state GOP is more moderate or less dominated by social conservative interests, basically the Pacific Coasts, Northeastern states etc.

3) They don't identify with the communitarian aspects of the LGBT community. So, in essence, they don't make being gay/bi/lesbian/what-not, a big part of their life and don't care (probably too strong a word) for other LGBT people per-se. Hard to explain.

McCain made less of an issue out of gay marriage than Bush did, so I imagine that gays polarized from Bush came back into the fold when it appeared McCain was more focused on economic rather than social issues.

It will be interesting to see if gays swing back toward Obama this year, after DADT, refusing to defend DOMA, and the Dems adding a gay marriage plank.

Lots of gays (myself included, once) had the delusion that McCain was libertarian on social issues and ok with gays, even if he wouldn't do anything about it. Which meant that some Republican gays who felt they had to vote against Bush in 2004 because his campaign (if rarely him directly) made the election a referendum on rejecting gay marriage didn't feel they had to send the same message in 2008.

Or the exit poll was just wrong in one year or the other.

How do they vote?

Why do many (probably around 20-25%) of small business owners vote Dem?  It's probably close to half of the broader "1%" too.  Because they are not single issue votes.

Or if you want to think of it this way, many Republican voters support same sex marriage.  Some of these people are gay.

Well, Dems aren't anti small-business.

They're usually the most insufferable people I've ever encountered... and oddly enough, from my experiences, they typically aren't rich.

I'd be astonished if only 20-25% of small business owners voted for Democrats.

Because gay rights is not a priority for them.  Sometimes I am rather irritated that they benefit from the equal rights work of others since they don't really deserve it.  But civil rights and women's rights went through this too -- some blacks and women were not supportive of the movement.

Just read the first page. Not gonna bother with the rest. The stupidity hurt my brain.

Maybe, just maybe, and I know this is crazy but hear me out... gays are actually individual people with their own political thoughts besides one single issue. Maybe not all gays are stero-typical effeminate hippie pofters. Maybe some of them cares strongly about defense, maybe some gays like guns, maybe some gays even care about the economy without subscribing to an Social Democratic agenda.

But what do I know. It's probably just self-loathing.     

You could say the same thing (obviously inserting a few different stereotypes here and there) about oil workers, blacks, academics, secular jews and union members. This forum is dedicated to psephology and the reasons why a member of the LGBT community would vote for a member of a party who consider them to be immoral sodomites should naturally interest us just as the reasons why we'd be interested in understanding the voting behavior of the few southern whites in rural areas who voted for Obama.

The real world isn't reflective of the forum: very few people are passionate enough about something as mundane as our health care system as opposed to an issue that directly affects them and where the opposition consistently refers to them in pejorative terms.

"Mister Generic Republican may not much like my existence and doesn't support me and my partner having any rights, recognition, or protection under the law, but I sure do like his views on the Second Amendment!"

If you can actually take something like that seriously, then God bless you, because you're a special kind of person.

I'm generally not a person that likes hearing the "it's so much more complicated" card when it comes to voting intentions. There are a few simple black and white things about voting that either consistently make sense, or they don't. If you claim to care about certain issues very high on your list of political priorities, and then don't vote for them, most people would rightly consider you a total moron.

No candidate is ever perfect for the individual voter, especially in the good old US of A, but if, for instance, Joe Average thinks union rights is important and hates infringement on them, but decides to consistently vote for candidates that infringe on them (as was represented in the recent Wisconsin recall election) then the only explanations for that are ignorance or evidently not caring that much about union rights to begin with. This isn't a difficult concept, it's the basis of a lot of conversations around here. "Why do you vote for Republicans if you support our welfare state?" "Why do you vote for old lobbyist insiders when you say you care about 'throwing the bums out'?" "Why do you support conservative Republicans if you claim to care about protecting abortion?"

They're good questions, because you shouldn't, shouldn't, and shouldn't. At least, not if you actually care about what you claim to care about and are at all consistent of an individual. All of that is besides the point, but it's worth mentioning because the only reason you wouldn't stick around to vote for something you should vote for or claim you will vote for is because it turns out, you don't really care or know that much to begin with. Contrary to niceties that make people sound like wise nuanced individuals, there is a right or wrong way to vote depending on who you are and what you care about.

Which is what brings me to being gay and voting for a political party as right-wing as the Republican Party. Being gay isn't just an "issue," it's who you, as a person, are. And no, I'm not particularly interested in hearing a long bulls**t diatribe about how being gay doesn't at all define anyone as a person and that it's just a sexual preference completely separate from everything else. It's an identity, full stop. And with that identity comes a set of unfortunate realities about the current world we live in.

One being, the Republican Party as a whole is not interested in defending the rights of gay people as people. At least, not yet. And unlike just deciding not to be specifically one-issue on broader voting preferences like with abortion, or union rights, etc, being gay and voting for a conservative Republican requires the type of compartmentalization that I just can't respect whatsoever. You're doing a disservice to who you are by separating yourself from your own identity when you shouldn't, and in a way that doesn't happen with other issues. It implies a level of prioritization that lists your civil rights as a minority group low on what you care about. And if you're a queer that doesn't care about your rights as a person, then I don't respect you or your voting decisions whatsoever, and I see no reason why I should.

I'd say the same thing to women not voting for women's rights or blacks being opposed to the civil rights movement.  If you oppose your own rights be it intentionally or unintentionally, you're a bad person, and if you don't care about them, you're just as bad as people who are actively opposing them. There's not a chance in hell I'll ever apologize for thinking of such people as bizarrely twisted individuals who either don't care about themselves or don't realize the harm they're doing to other people just like them.

Look; I don't like you much, but you're not a bad person. You're nice and also incredibly lucky with your position in life, but this has nothing to do with your constant crusade to poke at Social Democracy in literally any way that you can. It has nothing to do with it whatsoever. This is about the kind of mindset a person has to have to literally vote against themselves as people. It's not about voting for union rights or taxes, it's a bigger deal than that, and I don't think people realize what a psychologically damaging (or just damaged) worldview one has to have to be able to do that. You can flit around about how much you super duper hate Social Democrats, but on this one I have no way of viewing that type of behavior as anything but either supremely ignorant or self loathing.

That's some awfully inflammatory language, friend.

I don't know where a 'social democratic agenda' comes from. Gay marriage isn't a left or a right or a centre issue; it's a universal issue. It has as much to do with economics as it has to do with equality; why on earth should someone who is concerned with low taxation and individual freedom support a party that doesn't want to give them the right to marry and therefore force them to incur additional taxes if they want security with their other half? It doesn't make sense.

Two 'o's.

So any gay person who doesn't vote strictly based on the candidates' view on gay marriage is obviously a total moron. Whatever their views may be on any other issues, they are f**king not allowed to take those views into consideration. If they vote for a candidate that, god forbid, opposes their right to marry, obviously they are total dumbasses that hate themselves.


Because it's impossible to care about union rights or the welfare state but decide your belief in 'family values' is more important? Obviously there're zero voters who really think about how they have two beliefs which, in modern American politics, conflict and how they nevertheless have to pick a side. Because the particular old lobbyist insider you vote for may be the reason your district has nice things like bridges? Because (this last one I find particularly offensive, because it describes my views) you may find economic policy and the lack of a welfare state more important than protecting abortion?

Especially in the USA where you have, generally, a grand total of 2 choices, voting is never black and white, and it's honestly rather disturbing that you have lived in the US and view politics as the shining knight against the evil ogre.


No, that's wrong. Obviously, you have an opinion on which way to vote is 'right', and so do I. But I'll let you in on a secret: not everybody has the same opinion. And I'll let you in on another secret: it's totally possible to care about two different things, and decide one is more important than the other, and vote based on that. For example, to again take my ex-neighbors as an example, there's no contradiction between being gay and deciding that, really, tax policy is a more important issue for them than gay marriage, because they came to the conclusion it would, you know, actually affect their lives more.


Being gay isn't an identity; it's a characteristic that goes into building up your identity, which is always, always going to be more complex than "I'm gay." In addition to being gay, you might identify with the area you live in; with your ethnic background; and with other political views you may have. In addition to that, what that identity actually means is different for everybody. As I've already pointed out, there's also the reality, where you might like gay marriage to be legal in your state, but you recognize that tax policy will actually affect your day-to-day life much more.


Gay people who vote Republican suck because I don't understand them. They SUCK.


The difference between the women's rights or civil rights movement and the modern gay rights movement is that the former two groups were denied the opportunity to participate in government, which gays are not. Gay marriage is simply one issue. It becomes more important if you actually are gay, but it is still only one issue. Which is why some people, you know, take other things into account.


Any gay people who vote based on economic philosophy HATE THEMSELVES.

Honestly, son, you're going to find politics rather difficult to comprehend if you can't get past the idea that not everybody votes strictly on the issue you personally think is most important for them, in the way you think they should vote on that issue.

It's not just about the right to marry and the rights that come along with it, it's about being recognized and protected by the State in any way at all. About being given the expressed understanding that the government recognizes who you are as a separate and distinct group that is protected via hate crime laws and given all the respect that entails. The national Republican Party as it stands right now is interested in none of those things and no self-respecting gay man or woman should be complicit in that.


Union rights and the protection of the welfare state is infinitely more important than some crusty old grandma's views on boys kissing. I couldn't care less what your personal view on that is, but one is objectively more important and impactful than the other.

And before you hop on here thinking you have an excellent rebuttal, the gay point of view is not equally invalid. One is about one old traditional group's moral objections to other people doing things entirely separate from them, the other is about someone from that group being given equal recognition and protection under the law.


Oh please. I hate this country's politics and don't view it as anything close to that.


I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that I as a gay adult understand being gay better than you do.


Is that really all that you got out of that paragraph?


But it's not just about gay marriage. It's about the broader treatment of a minority group in every way the State can affect them. Respecting them, protecting them in criminal statute and the privacy of their bedrooms, and affording them equal rights in all things. I can understand voting for a waffly Democrat who goes back and forth on the issue, but not for a conservative Republican in the vein of a Rick Santorum.

The ability to do that implies you either don't care about your rights as a minority group that much or at all, or that you have a remarkable ability to separate yourself from your identity when you walk into a voting booth. It's the sort of battered wife mindset that I can't imagine is anything but psychologically damaged and damaging. You're not only hurting yourself but also everyone else that is deeply hurt by a socially conservative agenda as the supposed side dish to the tax cutting main course. There is no justifiable way to "take other things into account" when it is the rights and respect of your own minority group on the line.


Did a 14 year old really just call me "son"?

As has been pointed out several times in this thread, I guess some homosexuals vote Republican simply because of the fact that there are issues that they find more important than "gay rights".

In response to Marokai's comments, how does one, and I"m trying to look for the right phrase here, afford them equal rights in all things. I'm not up on the law codes of any state or the national government, but I wasn't aware that it was okay just to kill a gay person and get away with it in certain states (well, the judge may decide that, but in terms of the actual law...).

I really don't have a rebuttal to this beyond the fact that 27% voted for McCain, which is a pretty big number, and it's sort of preposterous to say none of them have any self-respect. Again, it isn't patently unreasonable to hold the view, even if you are gay, that tax policy is more important. Neither is it unreasonable to say that gay marriage is more important than tax policy. But you have the right to vote how you want.


My own personal opinion is that I agree with you about which issue is more important (welfare state+union rights), though I hold a very different view. But my point is that there are plenty of people who view family values as being more important, and that doesn't make them wrong -- it's subjective.  


You're getting ahead of yourself, Marokai; remember that I support making the gay community equal to everybody else under the law. (My opinion on legalizing gay marriage, since I'm on the topic of my own opinion, is more conflicted, since I do think gays should be equal but I'm unsure about the idea of a government definition of what marriage is existing at all.)


The point was that you seem to be saying that all gay people should vote Democratic on the basis of gay marriage, regardless of their opinions on any other issue, which is patently absurd.


You're right in that you understand more, but I'm pretty confident that (for example) in addition to being gay, you also identify as 'living in Ohio'. Does that make you any less gay, or make being gay less important? No. But is it also part of your identity which affects your life every day? Yes. There is nobody in the world whose identity can be summed up in the one word "I'm [blank]."


What I got out of that paragraph is that you have no respect for gays who vote Republican, because they don't view gay marriage as their single most important issue, which can be expressed more succinctly in what I said up there.


But suppose (for example) you are Cuban and gay, and you vote Republican because you view them as being more anti-Castro. You're not separating yourself from your identity; you're simply deciding to focus on a different part fo your identity. It's the same with gays who vote Republican because of tax policy -- you're taking a different part of your identity into account. The fact that you personally view being gay as the single most important part of your identity does not mean all gays do, and it doesn't make the people who do vote Republican 'less gay'.


If you are Cuban, is there a justifiable way to take into account your support for union rights by voting Democratic, because after all Republicans are anti-Castro and it's the respect of your minority group on the line? It's the sort of argument that can be used to support any kind of tribal voting (the respect of our group is on the line!), where people end up voting for things that will hurt their livelihoods outright because that's what the rest of the tribe is doing. It isn't justifiable to not at least consider other issues.


Haha, yes, I was trying to be patronizing, because saying that all gays should vote Democratic because Republicans are anti-gay marriage seems, to me, to be a very naive position. I'm sure in real life you're twice as old as me or so.

It takes extreme self-confidence to find yourself at odds with 75% of gays and 75% of your party, thinking the former are deluded and part of the herd and the latter are fools whose bigotry is being used to serve your cause. You don't have to be arrogant to be a gay Republican, but for many, it really helps. They find themselves on the defensive all the time so the wall comes up.

Because there's more issues than gay marriage in the world?

I'm not saying the question was stupid, but rather most answers so far was. It's absolutly legit to discuss why some LGBT voters decide to down-prioritate gay-rights in favour of other issues. When people seem to explain it by them only being "self-loathing" on the other hand.


Exactly. Your oppinion on gay-rights doesn't affect your oppinion on other issues. So if you're strongly Conservative on other issues why should you not be allowed to vote for Repulicans without being self-loathing. Especially considering that up until very recently Democrats was rather shy in their support for LGBT-rights.


It was  ment to catch attention. Didn't mean to offend anyone. (Well maybe Marokai)
Personally I find the notion that people aren't allowed to vote a certain way because of their sexuality more offensive. Besides pofter isn't a slur, now if I've had used two 'o's in there...
 

Oh Swedish Cheese, we both know that you fit the stereotype far better than I do.

I might very well do in some ways. :P

But how can it be a 'conspiracy theory'?  I'm describing the open and obvious legal/political/economic structure of the society.  There is nothing hidden or conspiratorial about capitalism, Vosem, nor have I ever claimed so.


You know, I've never thought of hippies as effeminate, not at all.  They always seem very hetero to me - hairy guys, not particularly in shape, and sort of mother-earthy women.  Very uncool scene, centered around pot and hairness, probably mostly eschewing speed and $10 cocktails.. I don't see hippy as having anything to do with homosexuality.

There are quite a few gays with money out there, mostly because gays are less likely to have children and children are very expensive.  (There's also a self-fulfilling prophecy angle there, as gays with money are more easily able to insulate themselves from homophobia)  At a certain point, voting GOP becomes pretty natural.

Just to add one thought to this most energetic thread, an un-closeted gay Pub can do a lot to change hearts and minds within his party, simply by being himself. So to demonize such folks as having their values all screwed up or something, ignores the potential good such people can achieve. On sexuality matters, personal anecdotal experience counts for a lot in my experience.

It should also be borne in mind, that about a third of the Pubs support gay marriage these days - a figure that is slowly going up.

Ok, aside from the fact that I do LOVE sexual anecdotes, I'm not sure making the GOP less hate-mongering is 'good' for my side.

Of course not, opebo, but it would be good from the perspective of gay Republicans, or gays who have to live under Republican government.

In an issue-based advocacy situation, the way to win an issue usually is to build support for it within the opposite party such that virtually all of your party agrees with you and the other party's status is something more like "confused" on the issue. Basically what happened to the Democrats on gun control when the Republicans pretty much won the issue.

This will eventually happen with gay marriage, barring some unexpected turn of events, and at that it will be like asking why do some gun owners vote for Democrats?

Yeah but I don't care so very much about this issue, only about defeating Republicans.

You're also not gay.

It's a conspiracy theory because the way you interpret the legal/political/economic structure of society (as benefiting only the rich and not anyone else at all) is very unusual, and such unusual beliefs are usually labeled 'conspiracy theories' in American political discourse whether or not they include conspiracies.


Because obviously Republicans are horrid corporatist anti-poor neoliberal jerks ::)

Come on, its as plain as the nose on your face - you can tell the legal/political/economic structure benefits only them because:  They have enormous wealth and privilege.  Think of it this way - instead of using all your rationales for them being your masters, just 'follow the money' - follow the privilege.  Imagine yourself as an alien flying over your city in your saucer - what do you see?  You see a few people living in idleness and luxury in palaces, secured by guards and servants.  You also see a vast populace working for those few, and doing their bidding.

Now, who does the structure of society serve?


Yes, and that is most definitely common knowledge, Vosem.

I just looked around opebo, and didn't notice I was sitting in a palace, surrounded by guards and servants. What happened?  Where the F are they? 

Some gay Republicans may come from a Republican family, that still accepts their homosexuality.

Torie, you not really all that rich, are you?

I only read half of this...so uh...maybe they want to vote Republican so homosexuality will be illegal so that they will go to jail and get all the tail they want..

hum… it’s not a closet that they are exiting…

So...there is some sort of reverse-gay Bradley-like effect. With the Bradley effect, some racists go into the polls and come out of this closet and go back in at the exit polls....its the opposite here...the subject stays in the colset for the duration and only comes out during the exit polls.

Yes. As a gay man, I tend to sense that they use their homosexuality as a bludgeon to distance themselves from others (to stand out, oddly a separatist/not conservative position), and because of this desire to stand out, to be different, they have to embrace conservative positions for the attention. Now obviously, not all gay Republicans are just Republicans for the sake of being different, but there's a very particular strain of gay conservative that is like this, and I (and all my gay friends) despise them. They are awful, awful people. They need to grow up.

It might be easier to just go on Gay Patriot and ask them.

You are the one that put me in the super rich oppressor class, not I opebo.  I was just going along with your ride as a passenger is all.

It is a rhetorical device of course, and after all you and all the right-wingers on here are apologists for that class, whether members or not.  Anyway I suspect you could have a houseboy if you liked.

Hrm. I can't say I've met any who are Republican to be contrarian. Usually I think they're guys who would have unquestionably been Republican if they weren't gay, but since they are gay, they try to make it work and it means having to explain themselves a lot to both sides to the point where they're just over it and end up being defensive.

I wouldn't say these guys would ever admit to being Republican for the sake of being contrarian, but their approach to their sexuality usually goes hand-in-hand with their conservatism.

Wait, what happened to the hoard of browns Torie employs then gets high with?  

Yes, I am very fond of browns, Grumps. They know how to have a good time in general.  :)

I'm sure they are gratified that you are amused...

()

I was honored by an invitation to visit the home towns in Mexico of two of them (one in Jalisco state and one in Sinaloa), both of which I accepted, and at one of them, took up my old pot smoking habit again. So they seem to like this particular gringo's company. Go figure. :)

Many homosexuals vote Republican when LGBT rights is not their #1 priority in politics.

Different priorities, money, from less-homophobic GOP areas, etc.

()

Oh yeah?

Sure, why not? I didn't say a majority or even a particularly impressive minority of them do.

If someone's political convictions have a lot more in common with GOP planks than those of the Democrats, with LGBT issues being one of the few exceptions, why would they want to vote in opposition to the bulk of their political goals? Furthermore, it would not surprise me if a certain fraction of homosexuals were socially conservative on account of their environs and/or genetic inclinations, and eventually reconciled some of their ensuing internal conflicts by becoming a bit ashamed of their sexual orientation, or otherwise settling for a pro-LGBT rights attitude less thorough or robust than that one would expect from social liberals.

In a sense, what I'm trying to get at is that the condition of being heterosexual, homosexual, or otherwise doesn't have to wholly define who an individual is or what they strive for in the realm of politics any more than nationality, race, age, or other affixed statuses do. Folks are defined by a lot more than their sexual preferences, and so demographic trends in voting should not be confused with a solid predisposition for people of group A to monolithically support political faction B.

Not that I want to put words into your mouth, of course, it's just hard to reply to two words. xP

What are your thoughts on the matter?

Where's the mystery?

Some may not be practicing. Others may be practicing, but not care about gay marriage and the like. Still others may care somewhat about gay-rights issues, but find other issues rather more important (especially if, like many gay people, they have no real interest in entering into any kind of marital union themselves).

You don't ask Republicans why they vote the way they do. That's just silly. It takes out all the fun of dreaming up bizarre and condescending theories about their motivations.

Most people don't really analyze why they vote the way they do. Self-reflection is not big among contemporary America.

"Patriot" has basically become in Political Science what "Special" has become in Education.

logcabin.org (http://logcabin.org)

The 2010 exit polls showed that 1/3 of voting gays (31% to be exact) voted Republican, compared to 27% in 2008. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44743.html



This is the reason that most gay conservatives I know vote Republican, and I've yet to meet anyone say they do it beause they "self-loathe," though, who would say that? Both sides have played politics with gays for years, so at some point, they start looking at their economic self-interest. When you include the fact that gays are better off financially than the general public at large, you have your answer to how nearly a third identify as Republican.

I think that you may have stumbled onto the truth. Plus, sad to say, a non-negligible number of gays tend to be racist (which also sad to say, very sad, has a positive correlation with being a Pub). For some, there is a narcissism streak, and they prefer folks that look just like themselves.

But I thought rich people were Democrats and liberal elites these days. :P

A third of voting gays voted for Republicans in a Republican wave election. I'm not disputing the rest of MorningInAmerica's point; I'm just disputing that that constitutes 'nearly a third identify[ing] as Republican'.

Right. It was 31% in 2010, less than that in 2008, and substantially less in '04.

Will the gays snap back to 2004 levels in this election thanks to Obama evolution?

What Swedish Cheese said.

Quite probably back, quite possibly by quite a bit, although not, I think all the way back. 2004 levels had a lot to do with the Bush-Rove campaigning style in that year.

I expect something like 2008. Republican gays feel safe voting for their nominee, and that's the major factor.

It would be cool if someone with a lot of interaction with GOP gays could comment with anecdotal reports!

About what? I have one friend from high school who is independently wealthy and secular Jewish who sounds like a Tea Partier on FB and is upset that all these gays he knows are falling for Obama's lies. He claimed to have voted for Obama last time. Another one I know is just a very nice guy from the South who has always been Republican and is happily voting for Romney. In 2008 you had a lot of Republicans decide Obama was ok to vote for. A lot fewer feel that way now, at least at this time of year. I expect them to either vote for Romney or sit the election out.

Cue the opening of The Apprentice.

It's not that a lot of them don't know what they're doing is wrong, it's just ... you know, money is more important sometimes. And Iraq too whatever we guess, old news.

Oh, I will say this: I feel like this election will help solidify gay voters around democrats by a margin similar to their numbers with blacks. It's just that much harder to justify being a Republican when you can't just say "ah, both sides suck when it comes to gay rights."

Gay Republicans are immoral because they are greedy and something about Iraq ???

So you honestly believe gays will go from voting 31% GOP 2 yrs ago to voting about 5% GOP (which is about what McCain got from blacks in '08) this November?

Simply because Obama came out for gay marriage as an obvious political tactic, which is a state issue in any event?  I think you may be selling gays short myself. I would like to think they are more serious than that.

I haft to say, a distinction that is of no grey area.

Agreed. And I think it's important to point out that Obama didn't just flip-flop on gay marriage, he flip-flopped-flipped on it. He supported gay marriage as a state Senator from Illinois...opposed it as a presidential candidate in '08 and President from '09-'12. Then supported it in the Spring of a presidential election year. That's where I'm coming from when I say "gays have been jerked around by both sides."


Edited to say no pun, whatsoever, intended.

I just can't see it as anything other than wrong, anymore. There's just too strong of an "they're the enemy" line being drawn right now.


No, not simply because Obama came out in support. That was probably the most visible cue, but let's not forget the 50 state battle that's being waged across the country. Lines are very sharply being drawn in New Hampshire, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maine, and even North Carolina. Many, many Democrats have gone to the wall for gay marriage rights. Many Republicans have gone to the wall to stop them. The division is only going to get more and more pronounced as time goes on, lest Republicans finally understand what a losing issue their base has saddled them with.


Nah. The shift will happen, but it won't be so sharp and so immediate. But it only makes sense to say that a notable shift begins now, the first real election cycle where support for gay rights has finally been deemed "mainstream."

I can tell you that here in Washington State when we had battles over anti-discrimination laws, domestic partnerships and eventually marriage, the large majority of Democrats supported gay rights while the large majority of Republican opposed them.  I believe this has been true in many other states as well.  That is a real difference on an issue, not just being "jerked around."

I would not say that all gay Republicans are self-hating.  Some in my state have done good work on LGBT issues.  Pablo Monroy, for instance, filmed an excellent video in favor of R-74.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/gay-marriage-washington_n_1624913.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/gay-marriage-washington_n_1624913.html)

That said, it is easy to find even more counterexamples:  Larry Craig, Jim West, former WA state legislator Richard Curtis, Ted Haggard, Phillip Hinkle, etc. we could go on and on.  These folks are either Republican politicians or affiliated with the Republican party.  They denounced LGBT and LGBT rights and/or voted against them while engaging in gay sex.  So yeah, I would call them "self-hating."  Perhaps one can see how gay Republicans have developed a negative reputation in the larger LGBT community.

I appreciate what you say Mr. Moderate about state battles, but I hope you bear in mind that gay marriage is muddled when it comes to the usual partisan divides. It is more about class and education and secularism really. But the point is, is that electing a POTUS who will not really have much impact on this, to me has little to do about these state battles, most of which we are destined to win, and sooner rather than later, anyway, outside the zone most gays avoid like the plague anyway, for reasons going beyond the homophobia quotient, like living in a place in which it is worth living, if you are gay, educated, etc., etc.

No, I am not trying to change your mind here Mr. Moderate about your POTUS choice, as simply trying to explain as best I can - however pathetically - mine.

I didn't realize the number 1, top, most important issue for gays was getting "marriage equality". Maybe they just vote like the rest of us.

Would it actually surprise you if I said that the main issues for not all but many gay people are indeed those issues that affect them as a discrete group, and if so, why?

Isn't it about time they were treated as normal individuals, as opposed to this homogeneous "gay bloc"

It is. Get to your party grandees about that, why don't you?

In all seriousness, it shouldn't come as any sort of shock that groups of people exist. This is what makes demographics a relevant discipline. The fact that this seems to surprise and upset you is revelatory.

Isn't it about time white Southern evangelicals were treated as normal individuals, as opposed to this homogeneous 'white Southern evangelical bloc'?

Wow...see I can get into this whole "reasonable conversation" thing. Please continue.