I’ve just finished debating a length with a friend of mine who prefers W in this year’s election. His main reason is fear that Kerry will not be harsh enough in dealing with the likes of Iran and North Korea, thus allowing them to develop and use nuclear weapons against us. We debated the merits of this claim for a while, then made our way to a multitude of other topics. At some point, Reagan and AIDS came up. While my friend wanted to tout Reagan’s accomplishments, I wanted to point out that he took an awfuly long time to address the AIDS crisis and help develop policies to combat it. I also quoted Reagan’s communications director, Pat Buchanan, who stated that AIDS was, “nature’s revenge on gay men.”

This of course led to a exchange on how being a gay person influences one’s priorities when voting. When I mentioned that I could not support Bush because of his policies regarding GLBT individuals, in addition to Cheney’s doublespeak on the issue, I was accused of rejecting an entire large entity because of one small aspect of it. It was also insinuated that I was less a patriot for putting the interests of this special interest group above those I should hold as a patriot and American.

I realize that there are many issues at stake in this election. Considering the position I am in, some issues are more important than others. I see nothing wrong with this. Don’t older voters and young voters have different worries? Don’t rich voters and poor voters have different worries? Urban/Suburban – White/Minority …./…. ??? I don’t mean to imply by this that these groupings represent exact opposites or polar pairings. But I do think it is fair to imply that one’s situation does determine how one prioritizes issues.

I reject George Bush because I beleive that he is sincere about the FMA. I reject Dick Cheney for publicly disagreeing with Bush but agreeing to support him nontheless. And I reject Mary Cheney for supporting someone who seeks to disenfranchise her, even if that person is indeed her father.

I also reject George Bush because I beleive that he is not a worldly man, and is not the right person to be appointing those who represent our country to the rest of the world. I reject George Bush because I beleive that it is difficult to be a war hawk when you and your 2nd in command did all you could to avoid serving. I reject George Bush because I beleive that the war on terror is far too important to go alone, and that 4 more years will result in a weaker front against those who harbor and espouse such tactics.

I reject George Bush as a patriot, an American, and a homosexual. Parcel is part as part is parcel.

To acknowlege both our own special interests and that which serves the greater good of our country – and be able to weigh and reconsile the two – is the most honest form of patriotism.

Reading the paper today, I came across two articles, one about and another by Patrick Guerriero and his group, the Log Cabin Republicans. Now I’d always known of the existence of this group, but have never really paid it that much concern, after all, I’m not a Republican.

However, after reading these articles, I’m beginning to wonder whether this group might play a pivotal role in upcoming election. Take a look at this, which has been copied from the front page of the Log Cabin Republicans’ website:

As our nation’s eyes are on New York City for the Republican National Convention, Log Cabin’s mission, our courageous delegates and our GOP allies are under intense attack from the radical right. The Republican Party Platform is an outrageous insult to all of us and our families. The platform not only calls for an anti-family Constitutional amendment, but it also opposes civil unions and domestic partnerships. While thousands of courageous gay and lesbian Americans are fighting to win the war on terror, the platform also says, “Homosexuality is incompatible with military service.”

Log Cabin has decided to respond immediately to this outrageous platform. We are launching an aggressive counter attack against the radical right which has hijacked the GOP.

This is serious, and to me, represents one of the major faultlines in a party whose members are supposedly “on the same page.” The question in my mind has always been, “how can one be both a Republican and a homosexual?” I haven’t been able to reconcile those two, based on the recent history of the Republican party. But reading this message, I’m beginning to wonder if I’ve judged the entire party by the character of its least stellar members (including the president.) Guerriero mentions that the party has been hijacked. But I wonder… If people willingly submit to a shift in policy, gradually further to the right, is that really a hijacking? Or is it just a shift of opinion over time?

Guerriero’s message that his “courageous delegates” are “under attack” from the right is itself a troublesome statement. Surely he does not mean the entire GOP’s “courageous delegates,” but rather those delegates that agree with the position of his group.

And there’s the thing.

I think that Democrats are at least a little more forward on admitting that such a large party won’t be able to have one hard line policy on everything. Naturally, its members will disagree on issues, some of them fundamental. Guerriero however seems unwilling to admit that a significant portion of the GOP membership does consist of those who are a part of, or are friendly to the extreme right. A more honest appraisal by Guerriero would be to admit that the extreme right has gained prominence because of the lack of fortitude of non-far right GOPers.

However dumb the far right may be, they are allowed to say their bit and attempt to mobilize politically – that’s the American system. However, if as Guerriero contends, the group represents a minority numbers wise and yields a disproportionate effect on party policy, then complacency within the GOP is what’s to blame, not the radical right-wingers.

Of course I’m even more skeptical because I honestly think that many in the GOP really do agree with this intense right. Opposition of gay rights really does tend to coincide with a strong emphasis on faith (Christian,) and opposition to issues such as abortion.

But, giving them the benefit of the doubt, I’d really be impressed if gay Republicans stand up and be heard at this convention. If, as they claim, the far-right is a minority that has gained great power, why don’t they (also a minority in the party,) really get the word out. Since the GOP platform is so very anti-gay, if these people are unable to speak out and have some effect within the party now, it’s doubtful they will maintain any credibility in the future.