Will we ever elect a LGBT president? And if we do, when?

[Mechaman]

Something I've been thinking lately. We've already elected a minority to the presidency and people are beginning to talk about the possibility of a woman being elected president. Since we are currently in the struggle for equal rights for LGBT individuals (or if you hate civil liberties for people who lean differently than you, the struggle to prevent LGBT individuals from having "special rights"), I thought I might ask if it is possible for a gay man, a lesbian woman, a bisexual, or a transgender individual to ever become president, and if it will be possible in the future: when?

In my opinion it is quite possible. If you remember 50 years ago people found it laughable that a black man would become president (although to give them some credit, Obama is half white so one could conceivable argue that we have yet to elect a black man as president), but now it is quite possible. I think in general people often underestimate how much difference exists politically from one generation to the next when it comes to social issues. What may seem impossible now may be common place 50 years from now. People in 1815 probably had no idea that slavery would be outlawed just 50 years later. People in 1870 probably thought women suffrage was a hilarious joke. People in 1915, when the pro-segregationist Woodrow Wilson was president, probably thought that there was a better chance of the sky falling than segregation ending. People in 1938 would likely laugh in someone's face if they suggested that 50 years from then the second most competitive Democratic presidential contender would be a black man. Then there is the example I used earlier, but since most everyone identifies Obama as black, I will consider this valid. Right now people are saying it will take OVER 9000 YEARS!!!! to get universal gay marriage in the US. However, after Obama was elected several more states passed gay marriage legalization in their states. Vermont, Rhode Island, and Connecticut could be written off as "Liberal politics", New Hampshire as "libertarian political climate (emphasis on the small l)", but what about friggin Iowa?! How the hell do you explain that? I say universal gay marriage is possible by 2020 when my generation comes of age. After all, this generation is much more favorable to gay rights than the one that came before it, even where I live.

I believe that 1996, the year that Defense of Marriage Act was passed, should be used as the beginning of this current 50 year cycle and that by 2044 or 2048, it is possible that the United States of America could elect a LGBT president, hell it could even be a Republican president for all we know.

Anyway, that's my insight for the day.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It would be a great sign of open-mindedness from the American People, but I doubt it would happen soon. It will certainly happen, but not in the next 40 years unfortunately.

[Psychic Octopus]

I don't think It will happen to until late 21st Century or even the 22nd Century.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Iowa can be explained by the fact that it was judges and not the electorate that made the change.

Some would say we already elected an LGBT president in 1856, but if Buchanan were gay, he certainly wasn't open about it, nor could he have been back then.I think it is safe to assume no openly LGBT person will be on Republican ticket for at least 75 years.

Nor would a Democratic LGBT nominee win the head of the ticket before then. Not only will the LGBT movement need to have won its fight to have LGBT issues treated the same as ethnic or women's issues, but a successful nominee would need to have such issues sufficiently behind them that an LGBT candidate can run without eir candidacy being perceived as something only for LGBT people to support.  The current state of the LGBT community has far more in common with the Negroes of 1948 than the African-Americans of 1968.  The Republican convention of 1992 has definite similarities to the Klanbake of 1924.

I do not expect to see an openly LGBT president be elected in my time.  Some of the youngsters on the forum will likely live to see one elected, but not I.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't think It will happen to until late 21st Century or even the 22nd Century.

You are wrong. But most of people in 1850 thought they would never have a black president before the 25th century, so I understand.

[k-onmmunist]

God knows. I wouldnt have thought a black would be president before about 2020, but that just shows how crap my prophetic skills are.

[Hillary 2016]

Well first let me say that I appreciate us discussing this.

GLBT is a lumped together umbrella term and we need to break it down first.

I do not believe that we will have a gay man or lesbian woman become President for a very, very long time, and I will most likely die before that happens.

Let's take a gay man for example.  Let's say he had come from a small town, was active in his church, led a very morally chaste life, served honorably in the military, was extremely educated, knew everything there was to know about every country in the world, spoke a dozen languages, was physically attractive, and gave one hell of a speech, this man would STILL not be considered viable by the Gang of 500 (a phrase from a book I read recently) who allowed Barack Obama to become President first with coverage and second with GOOD coverage.

I would LOVE to see a gay candidate, just for the sake of having one.  But he would have to be so much.  He would have to be a lot like Barack Obama - so unique that there's no one else like him in his own community.

And I think it would be a real hoot after all of this that this first gay President would be a Republican.  A lot of gay men are conservative elitist pigs, honestly, NOT ALL of course, but A LOT.

Let's say, for example that a lesbian woman ran for President.  Let's say that Barbara Mikulski came out.  I don't know whether she is or not, I'm just saying it to give us an image.  Let's say she ran for the Presidency and actually did well with voters.  Projecting a tough strong image would be a GOOD thing for a woman, and her being a lesbian would probably discredit her to some, but to a lot of people it would not really matter.  She'd be seen as a strong woman.

This all goes back to how we're raised - it's okay for a girl to be masculine (tomboys are embraced by people) but a boy cannot be feminine.  He would be a f****t, a queer, a sissy, a pansy, a joke, a freak.

We have a deep, deep prejudice about femininity in our males, and we don't like it one bit. 

Politics is a world for tough people and femininity, even in the women, is not encouraged because it is seen as a weakness.  I, however, do not believe femininity is a weakness, I think it can be a strength, if the right woman knows how to use it to her advantage.

Transgender, on the other hand, is a whole different world.  Transgender is about masculinity and femininity, and it is about maleness and femaleness.  Sadly, for us, we're really just either a man or a woman. 

I'm transgender because that's what society calls it.  But I'd rather just be a woman.

I've thought about running for a public office.  A lot of the stigma that women feel would be what I would feel, but there would also be what seems to be insurmountable confusion, prejudice, anxiety, hatred, unease, and discomfort among voters in my conservative home state for them to get beyond my body - and my gender - and elect me, as a woman, to public office.  I'm 23 years old and maybe things will change but I'd rather accept the cold hard reality than live in a fantasy world.

[Verily]

I do not expect to see an openly LGBT president be elected in my time.  Some of the youngsters on the forum will likely live to see one elected, but not I.

Don't like this phrasing.

Say the average President lasts 1.5 terms, or six years. That means, in the next 90 years (the longest we might expect the youngest members of this forum to live), there will be 15 Presidents. Assuming that it would not be possible for an LGBT President to be elected at least until gay marriage is legal nationwide, anti-discrimination laws are in effect nationwide, etc., that's around 24-30 years lopped off, or about 4-5 Presidents. That leaves 10-11 Presidents, one of whom has to be LGBT.

But the LGBT population is less than 9-10% of the population, probably close to 5% or a little less. So the odds are against one being elected in the next 90 years even if an LGBT candidate would stand an equal chance to a straight candidate 24 years from now. Certainly the situation will not reverse such that an LGBT candidate is more likely to be elected than a straight candidate, in which case we should not expect an LGBT President in our lifetimes--although, assuming around 5 major primary candidates at each election, a major LGBT candidate in a party primary would be very likely much sooner than that.

[Frodo]

I am almost certain that we will, though not anytime soon -probably around the mid-part of this century, if not later.

[Person Man]

I think we should focus on surviving long enough to mature to that point.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I do not expect to see an openly LGBT president be elected in my time.  Some of the youngsters on the forum will likely live to see one elected, but not I.

Don't like this phrasing.

Say the average President lasts 1.5 terms, or six years. That means, in the next 90 years (the longest we might expect the youngest members of this forum to live), there will be 15 Presidents. Assuming that it would not be possible for an LGBT President to be elected at least until gay marriage is legal nationwide, anti-discrimination laws are in effect nationwide, etc., that's around 24-30 years lopped off, or about 4-5 Presidents. That leaves 10-11 Presidents, one of whom has to be LGBT.

But the LGBT population is less than 9-10% of the population, probably close to 5% or a little less. So the odds are against one being elected in the next 90 years even if an LGBT candidate would stand an equal chance to a straight candidate 24 years from now. Certainly the situation will not reverse such that an LGBT candidate is more likely to be elected than a straight candidate, in which case we should not expect an LGBT President in our lifetimes--although, assuming around 5 major primary candidates at each election, a major LGBT candidate in a party primary would be very likely much sooner than that.

Actually, in order for it to be likely the EV (expected value not electoral votes) of the proposition 'How many LGBT presidents will be elected in the next 90 years' needs to be above 0.5, not above 1.  Plus, once we reach the point where an LGBT candidate becomes electable, I would say the electability of such candidates will continue to rise with each election even if it favors such candidates above others until the first such candidate is elected, at which point, electabilty of LGBT candidates will decline back to where it would have been without the "first" effect.

[Person Man]

I do not expect to see an openly LGBT president be elected in my time.  Some of the youngsters on the forum will likely live to see one elected, but not I.

Don't like this phrasing.

Say the average President lasts 1.5 terms, or six years. That means, in the next 90 years (the longest we might expect the youngest members of this forum to live), there will be 15 Presidents. Assuming that it would not be possible for an LGBT President to be elected at least until gay marriage is legal nationwide, anti-discrimination laws are in effect nationwide, etc., that's around 24-30 years lopped off, or about 4-5 Presidents. That leaves 10-11 Presidents, one of whom has to be LGBT.

But the LGBT population is less than 9-10% of the population, probably close to 5% or a little less. So the odds are against one being elected in the next 90 years even if an LGBT candidate would stand an equal chance to a straight candidate 24 years from now. Certainly the situation will not reverse such that an LGBT candidate is more likely to be elected than a straight candidate, in which case we should not expect an LGBT President in our lifetimes--although, assuming around 5 major primary candidates at each election, a major LGBT candidate in a party primary would be very likely much sooner than that.

Actually, in order for it to be likely the EV (expected value not electoral votes) of the proposition 'How many LGBT presidents will be elected in the next 90 years' needs to be above 0.5, not above 1.  Plus, once we reach the point where an LGBT candidate becomes electable, I would say the electability of such candidates will continue to rise with each election even if it favors such candidates above others until the first such candidate is elected, at which point, electabilty of LGBT candidates will decline back to where it would have been without the "first" effect.

This is probably why we will not see an Asian President any time soon. They are a respected community within our nation, but only comprise 3%-5% (some number in the lower single digit that allows them to be more than "several" million) of the American Population...last time checked.

[HAnnA MArin County]

When I run for President hahaha.

I doubt we will see it anytime soon, or even in my lifetime. I think the more daunting question is when will we see another white male enter the White House? I think now that African Americans have shattered their ceiling (somewhat, because I don't identify Barack Obama as an "African American" or a "black," he's mixed/mulatto whatever the PC term is), other minorities - Latinos/Hispanics, Asian Americans, Native Americans, Jews, women - will want their turn to nominate someone from their community, and seeing as how minorities vote Democratic, I just wonder when the next time we'll see a white Democratic male as President? We can safely assume that the Republicans will always nominate white males seeing as how they compose 90% of their base. Our community will want our turn as well but right now we are more concerned with our own "agenda" of getting our lawmakers to give us equal rights, i.e. hate crimes, nondiscrimination in the workforce, ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell, marriage equality, etc. When the day comes when we receive full equality and are not treated like second-class citizens is when we will try to nominate a member of our community to run for President.

Someone on here made a comment about how some gay men are conservative elitist snobs or something to the extent. They are a small minority in the community. Only about a quarter of our community votes Republican (which is like being black and loving the KKK or being Jewish and supporting Hitler if you ask me); they're referred to as Log Cabin Republicans, and even the national Republican Party tries to distance itself as much as possible from them. They're more libertarian than Republican because they obviously want gay rights and Republicans do not. But most of us in the community are not Democrats simply for the fact that Democrats don't tell us we're going to Hell and say they will give us rights; we are not single-issue voters.

I would certainly love to see someone from our community nominated as President, but there are currently only three openly gay members of Congress: Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts), Jared Polis (D-Colorado), and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin). Frank has too much personal baggage; Polis is young and Jewish; and Baldwin is a woman (not that there's anything wrong with being Jewish or a woman; it just may make it harder for them to get nominated in a society driven by WASP males). I do think my generation will be much open to the idea of electing members of the LGBT community to Congress, and we do need more.

[Dan the Roman]

Charlie Crist, haha.

On a more serious note, I would say, sooner than we expect, and he most likely will be a Republican, probably from the North East. I still maintain that Romney's decision to dump Patrick Guerrero from the ticket probably did more to set back gay rights than anything else he did.  Guerrero would have had a much stronger chance of succeeding him, and a Massachusetts Gay Republican governor would have been a big deal.

[??????????]

We've already had one.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I am almost certain that we will, though not anytime soon -probably around the mid-part of this century, if not later.

[Antonio the Sixth]

We've already had one.

You're a pathetic being.

[k-onmmunist]

We've already had one.

You're a pathetic being.

Another example of Antonio lashing out at people without backing up his arguments.

[k-onmmunist]

Yes, Charles Peterson, aka Charlene Peterson (post-op), will become our first transvestite President, elected in 2076.  Known for its love of stilettos, blonde wigs and purple lipstick, Peterson will go down in history as one of our greatest Presidents, having ended the Zeta Reticulan War without having fired a single shot.

It?

It?

*sigh*

[Kaine for Senate '18]

We've already had one.

I'm reluctant to say Buchanan was gay.  Besides, I feel like this question refers to an openly LGBT President, which Buchanan certainly was not.

[Mechaman]

We've already had one.

I'm reluctant to say Buchanan was gay.  Besides, I feel like this question refers to an openly LGBT President, which Buchanan certainly was not.

Yes, this is exactly what this question refers to. Sorry for not putting that part in earlier.

[??????????]

We've already had one.

You're a pathetic being.

Why am I pathetic for talking about President Buchanan. Are you a moron?

[Person Man]

Yes, Charles Peterson, aka Charlene Peterson (post-op), will become our first transvestite President, elected in 2076.  Known for its love of stilettos, blonde wigs and purple lipstick, Peterson will go down in history as one of our greatest Presidents, having ended the Zeta Reticulan War without having fired a single shot.

That would actually be pretty bad ass. However, I know you are being a jackass. Remember-

Isiah 56-

 3 Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the LORD say,
       "The LORD will surely exclude me from his people."
       And let not any eunuch complain,
       "I am only a dry tree."

 4 For this is what the LORD says:
       "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
       who choose what pleases me
       and hold fast to my covenant-

 5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls
       a memorial and a name
       better than sons and daughters;
       I will give them an everlasting name
       that will not be cut off.

We've already had one.

You're a pathetic being.

Why am I pathetic for talking about President Buchanan. Are you a moron?

Well, I guess we had a closeted homosexual...

[k-onmmunist]

We've already had one.

You're a pathetic being.

Why am I pathetic for talking about President Buchanan. Are you a moron?

That's a rhetorical question.

[??????????]

Here Antonio, read this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan#Personal_relationships

Now thank me for taking time out of my vacation to prove your little snipe moronic.