President Obama has been the most pro-gay rights president in US history. He has allowed gays to serve openly in the military, refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, endorsed gay marriage and pledged to sign the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would prevent workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Mitt Romney opposes gay marriage, even going so far as to support a constitutional amendment to ban it. He has refused to take a position on ENDA, but he opposed it in his last run for president. He did not support repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell.” So you would think that from a gay rights perspective, the question of which candidate is better would be unambiguous.
Well, not if you ask the Log Cabin Republicans. The self-described, “only Republican organization dedicated to representing the interests of LGBT Americans and their allies,” endorsed Romney on Tuesday. Of course, one can argue, as to an extent LCR does, that they simply care more about some other issues than their own civil rights. But, to the immense frustration of liberal gay rights advocates, they also elide the differences between two candidates on gay rights itself.
In the most pivotal paragraphs, LCR writes:
If LGBT issues are a voter’s highest or only priority, then Governor Romney may not be that voter’s choice. However, Log Cabin Republicans is an organization representing multifaceted individuals with diverse priorities. Having closely reviewed the candidate’s history and observed the campaign, we believe Governor Romney will make cutting spending and job creation his priorities, and, as his record as Governor of Massachusetts suggests, will not waste his precious time in office with legislative attacks on LGBT Americans.
We are confident that there will be no retreat from the significant gains we’ve made in recent years, most importantly on repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” With regard to the LGBT issue most likely to reach the president’s desk and most vital to many in our community today—workplace nondiscrimination—we are persuaded that we can work with a Romney administration to achieve a desirable outcome.
The first and last sentences of that section struck me as nonsensical. While it is legitimate for LCR to say that they care more about tax cuts than LGBT issues, how can they only acknowledge that Romney “may not” be the candidate for a voter whose only priority is gay rights? Shouldn’t that phrase be “would not”? And why is LCR persuaded they can work with Romney to pass a workplace nondiscrimination law?