Sep 12, 2008  |  By: JOAN GARRY  | COMMENTS     

I THOUGHT THE Log Cabin Republicans would withhold their endorsement of John McCain. Maybe I just hoped they would. After all, they withheld their endorsement of President Bush in 2004, so I thought it was possible.

In making its endorsement, the group pointed to the Arizona senator’s opposition to a federal constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. The group also indicated that it had honest disagreements with McCain on the subject of same-sex marriage. The Log Cabin gang traveled to St. Paul to carry the message that Republicans are on the “wrong side of history” when it comes to the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry.

Where to start?

First, I understand the idea of working from the inside. I’ve seen heroic strides made by gay employees groups and gay teachers groups working for change from the inside. In this context, I understand and respect the work of the Log Cabin Republicans.

Second, I am not a single-issue voter and most LGBT people I know are not. But my rights as a citizen are pretty damned important. And we all know that an endorsement means that an organization will mobilize its membership base to actively support a candidate. In this case, one who works against our fight for equality.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am the co-chair of the National LGBT Finance Committee for Sen. Obama. You could argue that I am not objective and I suppose you could be right.

But there are facts that are impossible to ignore:

“I don’t believe in gay adoption,” McCain said. “I believe that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is working in the military.”

In 2000, 2002 and 2004, he voted against adding sexual orientation to federal hate crimes legislation. McCain voted against extending the Civil Rights Act to prohibit job discrimination based on sexual orientation.

IN THE 2000 election, exit polls indicated that roughly 1 million gays cast their votes for George Bush. Numbers like that can make a difference in a close election. If you think about it, that should have given the Log Cabin Republicans greater access to power than ever before. And what did we get for that investment? The fight of our lives against a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

The argument of course, is that if McCain is elected, we will need a voice. But here’s where the logic starts to go awry for me: There is a huge difference between “If McCain is elected” and “Let’s go out and push a million LGBT voters to help ensure his election.”

Patrick Sammon, in an interview on Logo this week, tells viewers that George Bush won an estimated 18-20 percent of the LGBT vote in 2004 and, “Senator McCain has the ability to get a higher total than that.”

Not if I have anything to say about it.

THERE ARE MANY who say mean things about the Log Cabin Republicans.  I’ve heard the line that “gay Republican” is an oxymoron too many times to count. Gay Republicans are often subjected to personal attacks, that they are LGBT people of the “self-loathing” variety.

I disagree. The LGBT community is diverse. As voters, we have a responsibility to look at all the issues America faces and that we as individuals care about. Arguably, we all vote with some element of self-interest as we make our decisions. That makes sense, right?

But voting against our self-interests? Not now. Not this time.

I am angry about the endorsement. This election will be close and we will need every vote to ensure that McCain is not elected and that he is not the man who makes the next one, two or three Supreme Court appointments. 

The Log Cabin tribe has spoken. We can’t change that. But here’s hoping that LGBT Republicans will think for themselves and question the endorsement. Here’s hoping that we keep talking about the real issues with all of our LGBT friends regardless of party affiliation. Here’s hoping that one-by-one, we can persuade some of these chickens to make a different choice.