Did you hear the one about the gay Republicans? Probably not; it isn't something many people are talking about. In fact, it's kind of embarrassing for just about everyone. The group that claims to represent the largest number of conservative gays, the Log Cabin Republicans are at the moment finding it difficult to get their message heard. Gay Republicans in general don't seem to get a whole lot of respect from either the left or the right. Other homosexuals ridicule them, Democrats rarely even acknowledge them, and many Republicans would like it very much if they went back to their conservative closets and changed into something more presentable. Nevertheless, Log Cabin Republicans are becoming increasingly vocal in and outside of the party. In the process, they're bringing into question traditional notions of conservatism, activism and identity politics.

Log Cabin was founded in 1990 by Rich Tafel, a Harvard Divinity School student who later was ordained as a Baptist Minister (speaking of gluttons for punishment). The National Log Cabin Federation came briefly to national prominence in 1996 when presidential candidate Bob Dole first accepted and then returned a $1,000 donation from the group. Dole would later quietly accept Log Cabin's endorsement in that race, but Log Cabin would still be far from entering the mainstream of Republican politics. In 1998, for example, Gov. George Bush responded to the barring of a National Log Cabin Federation booth at the Texas Republican Convention with the non-committal statement that "the vast majority of Republicans in the state of Texas are tolerant people…" The following year, candidate George W. Bush snubbed Log Cabin on "Meet the Press," saying he probably wouldn't meet with the group any time soon. This really shouldn't be surprising to anyone. On the issue of gay rights in general the President has quietly played both sides of the political fence; hinting at a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a solely heterosexual institution and defending Rick Santorum as an "inclusive man" in the face of his anti-gay statements, while on the other hand appointing an openly gay doctor to head the National AIDS Policy Office and speaking out against "politicizing people's sexual orientation." On this last point it's not clear that the president's statement bodes well for the group, because politicizing sexual orientation is exactly what Log Cabin Republicans aim to do.

Republicans have been decidedly ambivalent on the issue of gay rights. It seems every time somebody in the Republican Party acknowledges the legitimate existence of Log Cabin, or of homosexuals generally, somebody else in the party is standing by to take him or her to task for it. Log Cabin takes the stand that such divisiveness threatens the viability of the Republican Party. As recently as August of 2003, Log Cabin released a statement saying they believe they "are now at the center of the greatest political battle in American politics." This battle, they say "pits fair-minded Republicans against the extreme right in a fight for the soul of [the] party."

Despite the calls for condemnation of gays by shrill anti-gay conservative voices, the administration finds itself in the awkward position of having to tone down its anti-gay rhetoric in the hopes of attracting the votes of gays and other traditionally Democratic constituencies. In line with recent polls that suggest that though traditionally liberal groups such as Blacks and Latinos still identify predominately with the Democratic party, significant numbers within those groups are openly supportive of conservative agendas like tax cuts and school vouchers. Picking up on this, Republican candidates-led by the White House's example-have begun courting these potential voters in the hopes of tipping the scales just far enough in their direction to defeat Democratic rivals. Without alienating a good chunk of the party that clings steadfastly to the ultra-conservative social agenda, however, they may find it difficult to overcome suspicions of potential swing voters who still view the Republican Party as exclusionary, if not outright hostile, toward traditionally marginalized groups. For the White House the issue may amount to little more than having to do damage control with regard to the alternating flurries of criticism from liberals, moderates and neo-conservatives. But, for moderates at the state and local levels an ominous storm may be forming on the horizon.

The drum beats of the War on Terrorism and the shrieks of a troubled economy are also probably going to drown out the issue in 2004. Even taking into account the recent Supreme Court Ruling that struck down Texas' anti-sodomy law and effectively reversed the courts 1986 ruling in a similar case, most candidates are likely to avoid anti-gay rhetoric and civil rights advocacy. Another recent poll, this one by the Associated Press, suggests that fewer Americans support certain gay rights like civil unions after the Supreme Court decision than before and that candidates who support gay rights legislation may actually face a backlash from conservative voters in upcoming elections. Indeed, far-right candidates, often backed by hard-line conservative interest groups, have already begun mounting challenges to Republican incumbents who they view as out of step with the party's steady march to the right. For moderate candidates who may have been more inclined, or at least not overtly opposed, to equal rights for gays and lesbians, this presents a serious dilemma that does not bode well for the conservative gay agenda. Log Cabin seems to be rowing upstream against a fairly swift current.

Log Cabin has, however, learned a thing or two from the public relations machine that is the gay and lesbian advocacy movement. Log Cabin's mastery of spin is formidable even in its transparency and, as one might expect, the group has had to come up with some creative public relations stands. It is no small task fighting for equity in a party that even diehard gay conservatives must admit treats them as second-class citizens. At the same time, the group apparently feels obliged to defend Republican officials' less than outstanding gay rights record from liberal detractors.

Last year, for example, the group defended the questionable record of Senator Orin Hatch, who in 1999 effectively killed anti-hate crime legislation that would have added sexual orientation to federal civil rights law. They then derided Democrats, who pulled a similar bill from the floor to prevent conservative Republicans from adding killer amendments. On several other occasions Log Cabin has issued statements condemning Democrats for "gay-baiting" and proposing "anti-gay" legislation.

Though Log Cabin has sometimes been critical of lawmakers in its own party who have taken "anti-gay" positions, they often sew a silver lining into the dark cloud of Republican intolerance, as they did when the President hinted at his support for a constitutional amendment to effectively do away with gay marriages. In this instance, Log Cabin released a statement praising Vice-President Cheney's supposedly more enlightened view on the issue. To support their claim, Log Cabin pulled an obscure line from a 2000 debate in which Cheney said, "People should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It is really no one else's business, in terms of trying to regulate or -- or prohibit behavior in that regard.... I think we ought to do everything we can to -- to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into." Conspicuously absent from Cheney's statement was a commitment to legally recognize gay relationships -- either through gay unions or the extension of benefits to the partner of gay employees. Tolerance and accommodation make good copy but they hardly satisfy the equity test. Yet Log Cabin's communication machine seized the opportunity to push its agenda and praise the administration while backhandedly holding over its head earlier public statements. This conundrum is familiar to Log Cabin. In supporting what Patrick Guerriero, the current director of Log Cabin calls an "evolution, where we work from the inside to change what needs fixing." Gay Republicans are forced to defend those who would just as readily see the "big tent" Log Cabins want all Republicans to stand under burn to the ground, presumably, with all the homosexuals still inside.

So, what are we to make of these strange birds, the Log Cabin Republicans? Guerriero describes letters from Democrats and other homosexuals calling him Log Cabins, "self-hating faggot[s]" and "the worst enemies of the gay community." Others consider them, more innocuously, privileged suburban offspring looking to have their cake and eat it too. Still others, however, border on empathy, admiring the group's tenacity and dedication to an ideal. But, while many will want to denigrate the group's self-serving and blindly ambitious politics they must also recognize that Log Cabin may just be the harbinger of a new identity politics that we will all eventually need to accommodate. This particular brand of identity politics ignores the heretofore immutable categories of race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation in favor of the subjective realms of personal belief and political ideology.

Log Cabin is not alone in this apparent ideological shift. One doesn't have to look far to see similar examples in the realms of religion and race, for instance. Pro-choice and gay Catholics have also been garnering attention as of late, yet very few people have suggested that they give up their faith. Black and Latino Republican groups have been around for some time, often but not always drawn to the party's strong "family values" rhetoric -- which often includes a strong anti-gay element. Unlike its gay constituency, however, the party seems to relish trotting out minority members to promote them to the highest levels of the public sphere. President Bush went as far as saying that he wanted his cabinet and advisory counsels to "look like America" in terms of race and gender. He never mentioned sexuality.

Log Cabin Republicans fall into a category of dissidents for whom many of us have mixed feelings. They put us in the uncomfortable position of having to first admit that people often have seemingly contradictory values simultaneously; and second, forcing us to decide whether we can respect their right to do so. Gay conservatives may force us to reassess our own presumptions and come clean on our secret -- or not so secret -- prejudices. On the other hand, Log Cabin Republicans may simply be a bunch of ideological conservatives who happen to love people of the same sex. Why should a simple quirk of genetic coding interfere with the pursuit of individual self-interest, after all? Gay men, and to a lesser degree lesbians, represent one of the most affluent constituencies in America. Notwithstanding the end of the "marriage penalty," President Bush's tax policy represents a potential boon for affluent gays as much as anyone.

In the current environment where electoral margins are increasingly narrow and candidates are forced to vie for that most disdainful of constituents, swing voters, who have been traditionally left outside mainstream politics. Those whose allegiances are not to party line politics will garner ever-more clout. Log Cabin and groups like it, if they play their cards right, could very well become important players in key elections that have the potential to shift the balance of power in Washington as well as in states and municipalities. Where the electorate is sufficiently "independent" or in major metropolitan areas with sizable gay communities, Log Cabin's support, or lack of it, could make a difference. So far, it hasn't -- and that may just be what everyone is banking on.

It is still anybody's guess whether Log Cabin will ultimately achieve equity in the Republican Party. This is a critical moment in American politics all around. In what may turn out to be a major irony of the Log Cabin experiment, inter-party battles could change the face of two-party politics for generations to come. If conservative Democrats like Joe Lieberman have their way, "New Democrats" could very well sweep in to fill the moderate Republican vacuum. As elements in both parties push ever further to the right, leaving progressive Democrats disenfranchised and moderate Republicans feeling a bit schizophrenic, "New Democratic" principles could fall right in line with Log Cabin's fiscally conservative and socially ambiguous agenda. In the end, it could turn out that gay conservatives were fighting the wrong battle with the wrong party. But, that's what happens in American politics, I suppose. After all, who would ever have imagined that the legacy of Abraham Lincoln would turn out to be George W. Bush?

About Todd Kutlya

Talk politics at the The Water Cooler