Vote openly (but keep the narrative in the closet)

I just voted "Yes" in a Facebook poll which asks,

Would you vote for an openly gay candidate for president if you agreed with his or her other positions?
So far, it seems to be winning handily.

However, because I'm a contrarian, it almost makes me want to do a poll along the lines of ""Would you vote for a closeted gay candidate for president if you agreed with his or her other positions?" But there are such obvious logical problems with such a question that I'm not sure it can be answered intelligently. Maybe "openly closeted," or "blatantly closeted." Nah, that's too surreal. It does an injustice to a perfectly unjust word, and tortures the meaning of already meaningless words beyond all meaninglessness.

I'm not sure that this issue breaks neatly as a Republican versus Democrat issue, though. For while there is no denying the existence of a certain hard core conservative enclave which believes homosexuality is a dire threat to Western civilization itself, the vast majority of the rank and file don't agree with that. (Being against gay marriage or thinking homosexuality is immoral is a far cry from believing it threatens Western civilization or is a "thermonuclear device aimed at the soul of America.")

While it was never widely reported (although I've pointed it out before), back in 1999 John McCain said that he would be "comfortable with a homosexual as president of the United States."

And then there's Dick Cheney, who is to the left of Barack Obama on gay rights.

But I don't expect to see that widely reported either.

It might have a chilling effect on the narrative.

posted by Eric on 08.31.09 at 04:44 PM


That's not an interesting question.

The interesting question is "Would you vote for an openly gay candidate if you didn't agree with his/her positions?"

I suspect that would still win. We already know that a good number of people voted for a black candidate even though they did not agree with his positions.

brian   ·  August 31, 2009 6:01 PM

What are the other positions of this openly-gay candidate? 69? Bottom-on-top? Plain vanilla missionary? While I may agree with this candidate on some of those positions, I feel I've lived far too many decades to have sufficient flexibility to agree with him on all.

In actuality, the question is idiotic primarily because of the use of the term "other" as a modifier to the noun "position." Being gay is not a political "position." It's a sexual orientation. I know the personal is supposed to be the political, but this is ridiculous.

Rhodium Heart   ·  August 31, 2009 7:22 PM

"And then there's Dick Cheney, who is to the left of Barack Obama on gay rights."

(Sigh.) The one guy who embodies pretty much every characteristic I can think of when filling out my "who's your absolute first choice for President" contest entry-form - the one guy who, if they could be bothered to stop hissing at him and made to listen to him instead, about fifty percent of the Dems would line up behind - quietly competent, secure enough to leave most of us to our own values and choices while enjoying his own - and he's been reduced to a caricature.

So we go with the McCains. And the Romneys. And . . . (small mouth-gag) . . . The Huckaby.

Bizarro world.

bobby b   ·  September 1, 2009 1:44 AM


So we go with the McCains. And the Romneys. And . . . (small mouth-gag) . . . The Huckaby.

Bizarro world.

Yeah. But Palin is coming along. One way or another. BTW did you note her endorsement of libertarian Glenn Beck?

She could have picked Hannity or Limbaugh, or any of a number of others. And yet it was libertarian Beck.

Now I'm a big fan of Beck's philosophy (what I know of it) not so much of his style. Although he has done a few things I liked.

The "leave me alone" people are coming out in American politics. This is good.

M. Simon   ·  September 1, 2009 8:25 AM

The issue is not whether a candidate is gay/black/female/Republican/Democrat, etc., but what their positions are and, importantly, if they define themselves within the scope of identity politics.

I would not vote for any candidate who saw themselves more as a GAY candidate than as a gay CANDIDATE. I want them to focus on the issues of state, not the issues of identity politics.

T   ·  September 1, 2009 10:03 AM

Why do you say Cheney is to the Left of Obama on gay rights? I would say he's to the Right. What business is it of mine whether a guy is gay or not? Now if you start talking about government involvement in issues that are referred to as "gay rights issues", I don't think that my opposition to create newly found rights is incompatible with the view of "not my business". This includes civil domestic partnership. If a coupla guys or gals wanna link up, I can't think of a reason to want to deter them. If they want to agree to it, how can I effect a wall of separation that would nix such a plan? What motive would drive me to do so? Liberty and freedom means the ability to do dumb. And if they are able to find a vicar to tie the knot? Let them call it a marriage. Why would I care? Would being married make them any more or less gay?

OregonGuy   ·  September 1, 2009 11:18 AM

OregonGuy: I like the cut of your jib.

Rhodium Heart   ·  September 1, 2009 2:59 PM

If we could just get Cheney to see reason on drug policy, he's be a liberhawkian.

TallDave   ·  September 2, 2009 6:42 PM

Post a comment

April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Search the Site


Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link


Recent Entries


Site Credits