"So, tell me about this "log cabin" republican thing. I want to know more about who might elect GW!"

Letter to a friend

The Log Cabin folks are Republicans who happen to be gay, or vice-versa. If this sounds like an oxymoron to you, consider first for a moment the Dignity group, a prominent gay pride group unofficially tolerated within the Catholic Church organization of all places.

The thinking is that, just because we're this or that minority, doesn't mean we have to feel disenfranchised because of an irrational official policy by our chosen church or party. I have many friends in Dignity (though I'm not Catholic myself) and on the fraternal and even spiritual level, Dignity seems to serve their needs well.

Dignity has managed this enviably precarious role for over 30 years by not challenging the authority of the church directly. It remains a safe space for gays who happen to be Catholic and don't want to renounce their faith over the Church's century-old posture.

It comes as no surprise then, that a (surprisingly large) minority of gays would also already have a predisposition to the Republican Party. This might be by virtue of upbringing, socioeconomic status, or a wishful belief that the Republican Party stands for some particular kind of bedrock philosophical or political precept.

That's the backdrop. You never hear of Gay Democrats Clubs because of the inclusivity of the Demo platform over the past two decades. One doesn't become isolated by being both gay and Democratic. There's nothing particularly unusual about being both, and no ostracism attached to either.

Gay Republicans do need to band together, as you can already see, to exert whatever influence they can muster on the direction of the Party as a whole, while insulating themselves from Party dogma and personal attack.

This serves to keep gay issues in the face of the Republican Party. Many people regard Log Cabin as shock troops, a role similar to that served by the dissident (and occasionally violent) Act Up group in the '80's and early '90's.

The role is essentially one of the spoiler, the can't-get-rid-of-us nettle in the side of the Republican lion. And, they make the rest of us look reasonable in the comparison.

I respect Login Cabin people in the abstract, though it is a little too hair-shirt for me and I don't agree with them or their party.

The inherent Log Cabin need to politicize before anybody has agreed to broad principles leads to enormous, glaring contradictions. One the one hand, there's the obvious fact that even moderate Republican leaders wish the gays would just go away, like divorce scandals and poison ivy. Then there's the rabidly religious sectarians within the party, who wish somebody would just execute gays as abominations of the True Word Of God.

On the other hand, we see feisty Log Cabin leader Richard Tafel, the politicizer who insists on forcing debates with party leaders over trivia such as who is or is not going to be invited to attend the Convention, or who is or is not going to permitted to donate real money to the very Republican Party which despises him.

To people who see human rights as an absolute, this is akin to bickering with the Nazis over the seating arrangements on the cattle cars, enroute the concentration camps. We grant you the right to do this to our people, and please be assured we respect your position absolutely, but don't you think we could negotiate a ride with dignity and first-class seating?

This is "work for change within the party" brought to its final logical absurdity.

If one's chosen primary cause were civil rights, there are many and much more respectable organizations which actually accomplish major gains in these areas. The ACLU, GLAAD and NAACP come to mind, and, while many people mistakenly associate them with one party more than another because of the Democratic Party's attempt to get serious about inclusivity, these organizations are basically apolitical. They work outside all parties to accomplish their own goals, and they do a remarkable job. Their tools are a powerful network of professional resources of all kinds, and equally professional campaigns to educate the public and key decision makers.

But what if one's first chosen cause were the advancement of political principles? Again, one could do much worse than to work with organizations already listed in the first category. But, political parties which actually put pure ideology near the top of the platform are few, and they are marginal and factious. Unfortunately, though they often pay lip service to equal rights for everybody, they have little liking for real live gay people or gay issues within their organizations. Examples of this category might include the libertarians.

By choosing Log Cabin, what does a gay person get? With all due respect to the innocents who believe in winning over the enemy from within, one manages to avoid any real commitment to either civil rights or political ideology, while hob-nobbing with like-minded gadflies and pretending to influence Real People who tell us, nothing personal, that the point of the game is all for the greater power and glory of the Party.

What did they expect?

Hope this sheds some light on your question.

Your friend,

Alex

April 27, 2000

copyright Alex Forbes and La Parola ©2000