While I have never paid much attention to the Log Cabin Republicans, I am intrigued by the stories (denied here) that the organization's leadership has been taken over by Democratic political operatives.

It has to be considered a bit odd that an ostensibly Republican organization would refuse to support an incumbent Republican president in wartime, but then, I have no more influence over the Log Cabin Republicans than I do over Pat Robertson. Skullduggery on the part of either would not surprise me.

(Anyway, if there's no truth to the allegations, why the apparent coverup?)

Is Blog Cabin Republicans taken?

More disorganizations are needed!

UPDATE: Why would any self-respecting gay person vote for Bush?

It’s not that these gay Bush voters are stupid, it’s that they dissent from the approved gay view of what’s important in the world. It’s not that they don’t care about gay rights, it’s that they define gay civil rights on their own terms. It’s not that they’re easily sucked in by deceptive Republicans, it’s that they’ve been taken for granted by the Democrats. I know this is hard for gay activists in Washington, D.C., to believe, but not every gay person wakes up thinking life would be great if only Congress would pass a hate crimes law.

Regardless of how the board of a national organization might vote, individuals tend to vote as, well, individuals:

An informal survey of Log Cabin chapters around the country supported the notion that gay Republicans are angry at Bush for supporting the constitutional amendment. But surprisingly, very few vocalized any likelihood that they would abandon Bush over the issue and unify the gay vote behind Kerry.

"We support the president, we'll stand behind him without fail, and we'll be voting for the president wholeheartedly," predicted Maurice Bonamigo about the Palm Beach chapter of Log Cabin that he helped found in Florida. Bonamigo said he's met the president several times and finds him "very accepting, not judgmental."

"He accepts people for who they are," said Bonamigo, who said he has contributed money to the Bush campaign and helped raise "an awful lot of money" for him.

In another swing state, Missouri, John Rogers, president of the Log Cabin chapter in St. Louis, said he's ready to vote for Bush again, too. As far as he's concerned, Bush and Kerry "cancel each other out" on gay marriage. And he, like Bonamigo, said he decides who to vote for based on a range of issues, including "less government intervention in my life, less taxes, strong defense - those types of things."

Patrick Killen, president of Log Cabin New Mexico, said he'll vote for Bush again, too.

"Clearly, a great majority of members are very upset with the president's advocacy of the Federal Marriage Amendment. There are some members who are so upset by the president's support for this amendment that they are not supporting him," said Killen. "There are other members, like me, who will continue to support President Bush on other conservative issues while strongly disagreeing with his position on the amendment."

Killen, a college student, has given money to the Bush campaign, will be an alternate from New Mexico to the convention, and has met Bush three times. He and others credit Bush with increased funding for AIDS.

UPDATE (10/28/04): Megan McArdle (guest-blogging at InstaPundit) shares a similar opinion voiced by one of her best friends:

....I'm inspired by the example of one of my most beloved friends, who has decided to vote for Bush. She was persuaded by the debate in the comments section of my blog, but that isn't what inspires me. The truly inspirational thing is that she is gay. Does she like Bush's position on gay marriage? Hell no. But she isn't voting on gay marriage. She's voting on national security.

Now, you may or may not think that Bush is the right guy, national-security-wise. You may even think that gay marriage is a more important issue to the nation than the foreign policy questions that the last four years have raised, though you'd get some pushback from me. But my friend decided her vote based on what she thought was most important for the country, even though Bush's stand on an issue that's important to her personally is worse than Kerry's.

That's why I don't understand complaints from the left that low-income evangelicals don't vote their economic interest, or from the right that high-income democrats are funding the party of redistribution. We should rejoice every time we see someone who is voting on ideology, rather than merely supporting the candidate who puts the most money in their pocket.

And so even if it means a lifetime of celibacy, I'll try to take the high road, and vote my conscience, rather than my . . . er . . . well, you know what I mean. Unfortunately, that just makes the decision all the harder.