The Lavender Vote

But second, I think same-sex marriage these days, and AIDS earlier in the ‘80s and ‘90s, demonstrated that lots of people have really strong feelings about gay issues. When you’re having a debate where the candidates are addressing these issues, there’s this four or five percent that are really concerned about it, but there’s also the larger population that finds it relevant. Some are concerned about it because they have family members who are gay; some are concerned because they’re religious and their religions say it’s wrong. I have no idea what the TV audience will be for this. The audience might not be large, but once it starts to circulate online and in the media, people will hear what the candidates were saying, and it will be relevant to a lot of people.

Some gay activists lament the fact that when major political candidates are asked about gay issues, the candidates give broad, generic answers that apply to heterosexuals as well, instead of answering the specific question. Do you think that will happen here?
I don’t know. They’ll be up on the stage for [two hours] articulating their stands on gay issues. What will they actually say? Are they trying to not antagonize anyone? Are they trying to carve out a really clear position? Who are they trying to appeal to in their statements? Are they trying to appeal to the gay audience or are they trying to appeal to the non-gay audience? No matter what their position, I think that candidates who waffle will really be hurt in the gay community. But I think that some candidates that are too “pro-gay” will find themselves turning off the swing voters that are looking more moderate. This is still pre-primary … but it’s part of the big picture.

In the last election presidential, 23 percent of gay voters didn’t vote for John Kerry, according to CNN exit polls. Logo/HRC is only holding a Democratic debate, though, because Republican candidates declined to participate. Will that impact gay voters at the ballot box?
I think it can, but in this context, the level of dissatisfaction with the Bush presidency is so high that I think, across the spectrum, people who might ordinarily vote for a Republican aren’t going to. And some of those will be gay people. I think it also depends on who the Republican candidate is. For instance, I think a Mitt Romney would—because he is seen to be so opportunistic and so unethical around these issues—be very hard for gay Republicans to vote for. On the other hand a Rudy Giuliani or a Fred Thompson, maybe they could [attract gay voters].

It’s not unlike African-American Republicans. In the case of gay voters who vote Republican—which is something like one-fourth or one-fifth—they’re voting Republican because gay issues are not the most important issues to them. And in this day and age especially, that’s not so surprising, because there is enough acceptance in the culture and society at large around being gay that if you’re very well educated, if you have a really good income, if you don’t really have to worry about gay discrimination, you can vote pocketbook issues, you can vote against big-government, you might be taking a libertarian point of view. So on the one hand it seems natural to react, “Oh my God, listen to the rhetoric of the Republican Party, and listen to their platform. How could you vote for them?” But the argument would be, “I’m not just gay, I’m also a banker,” or “I live in this region of the country and we’re all Republicans.”

© 2007