And seeing that our own "Fierce Advocate" lags behind Dick Fucking Cheney in support for our relationships there is no doubt that the GOP could (but won't) siphon off gay voters.

Gays currently are far from monolithic with respect to voting for the Democratic Party. I believe something like 76% of fagalas voted for Obama, a lower percentage than Hispanics and Blacks.

I know many gay self-identified Republicans who believe that the Courts will ultimately decide the civil rights issues, but they're anti-tax, anti-universal health care, anti-choice, etc. etc., and as such, have no problem voting GOP.

That said, I do believe the Democratic Party will continue to enjoy the support of the vast majority of gays and lesbians for many years to come. While, as you say, Democrats haven't done much, they've done more than Republicans. In MA, they prevented a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. In Iowa, they ignored calls for an amendment. Here in Washington, they passed Hate Crimes and DP laws.

And in DC, they are making as much progress as their shortened spines allow.

The GOP has consistently passed anti-gay legislation, holds a platform with anti-gay rhetoric, and perpetuated stereotypes and lies about gays with respect to marriage and adoption for years, prolonging our ostracization, especially that of our youth, for many more years than necessary.

Fuck the GOP and the self-hating faggots who would even think calling them home would move them on this vital civil rights issue.

I agree with the premise, but disagree that the number could be significant.

Even with the lackluster showing by our Prez, I can never figure out why any gay or gay-friendly person votes Republican anyway, except in cases where they're clearly voting their pocketbook or their salary (Hi there, Mary Cheney!).

Was a time when the GOP was full of people who felt the gummint had no place in people's personal lives, but those days are long gone.

Democrats benefit from blackmail threat that works on the desperate gays: "Vote (and contribute) for us or you will be subjected to THEM!!"

Republicans are just johnny-come lately and desperate for cash. There are plenty of stupid gays willing to hear a wife or daughter or former RNC chair "go gay" and think nothing about making a donation/giving a vote.

Anyone with a brain knows that both parties use LGBTs and the LGBTs keep twisting in the wind...abdicating their power to one or the other party...thinking R or D will deliver them..and it's a monumental waste of time and money.

See Teabag anuses. They have more of an impact on the right than any fag, woman, spineless liberal crunchy eco dude has on the the left. Yet the fawners keep on fawning...

I was convinced a long time ago that a large amount of gays would be republicans if it weren't for the religios nutjobs.

Which reminds me of something I heard or read a long time ago regarding how homosexuals, especially homosexual men, came to be called gay. The details are a little fuzzy, but the word gay at the time (I believe it was the 1920's when the word was attached to them) was often in reference to extravagence and selfishness. Which certainly fits the sterotypical gay male, at least as they are portrayed in the media, and certainly fits anyone who votes republican for their own financial self interests!

@5 is right. Neither party is ever going to give gays anything more than lip service. Vote however you want, but you shouldn't use this issue as a determining factor, because deep down they're both the same.

I think the flaw in this plan is imagining that there's any difference to the Republican anti-gay base between declaring inaction on gay issues and being pro-gay. For Republicans to rely on anti-gay votes, they must pledge themselves to fighting and harming gays--anything less and they may as well get gay-married themselves. Refusing to hurt gays is the same as admitting that gays don't deserve to be hurt, which is tantamount to being pro-gay.

Bottom line: I don't the Republican will not be willing to look soft on "family values" and lose their anti-gay voters try to pick up a few gay voters (most of whom will be presumed to be left-wing on other social issues as well).

How can I make you guys (Dan!) understand that when some Republicans pander to religious conservatives around elections and fundraising it's the same thing as Democrats kissing Al Sharpton's ass or speaking to La Raza, or Obama promising to be our fierce advocate: it's solidifying the base, a substantial portion of which is made up of single-issue nutjobs in this largely apathetic country. Nobody expects Democrats to legislate reparations or give California back, it's just what they do at election time. The rest of the year they're kind of embarrased to be seen with us.

Gay rights have as good a chance of being supported by Republicans on principle as an individual-liberty issue as by Democrats as a human-rights issue. If my lifestyle was under attack, I'd much rather be supported on principle by people who didn't necessarily agree with it than by a party to whom I'm just one more special-interest group to be thrown a bone now and then.

It does amaze me that GOP chooses to alienate a group that could help them at the polls. A great many of the gays I personally know are very fiscally conservative. They tend to vote against tax increases, especially school levies and bonds. They trend very much to the libertarian side.

At some point there was a concerted effort to specifically attack gays to pander to a certain voters. This led to the party lurching to the religious right. I truly believe any overtures now are suspect.

The Democrats on the other hand can't take support for granted. They can be mainstream and still be bold in the legislation. It's one thing to lose re-election because you took a stand, but pathetic when you lose due to inaction.

By that logic, Democrats shouldn't do anything for equality because, once gays have equal rights, they'll permanently abandon the Democratic Party.

What bright shining link?

The Republicants are an environmental disaster.
They are a disaster for women's rights. They are disaster for consumers. They are a disaster for balanced budgets. They are a foreign policy disaster. They are a disaster for scientific research. They are a disaster for seperation of church and state. And people will vote for them because they claim, despite their long history of just the opposite, that they are fiscal conservatives and are for less government. Just how stupid do some people have to be to vote Republicant?

I can't deny Dan's logic. It remains my conviction, however, that any gay man who even briefly considers voting Republican is either a self-hating closet case or a complete moron.

As a conservative in favor of 100% full civil rights for all (even gays!) I sincerely hope the GOP is listening to you, you fantastic pinko liberal commie queer you!

Who would even believe a Republican promise to "do no harm"?! Only an idiot, that's who. I can't help but be reminded of the fable about the scorpion and the frog. When the frog asks why the scorpion stung him, dooming them both, the scorpion replies "It's my nature." There isn't a single thing to keep Religious Right nutjobs (too many to name, but Michelle Bachmann for instance) from proposing anti-gay legislation and GOP elected officials know if they don't support it their conservative and Religious Right voters will replace them with someone who will.

This sudden insidious message appearing everywhere that the Republicans aren't really THAT bad when it comes to gays is very disconcerting. I hope it's a tactic to get the Dems off their asses out of fear of losing the gays because otherwise it makes no sense. What is it even based on? The coming out of Ken Mehlman, who is still donating money to anti-gay pols? The outing of Roy Ashburn? The "stunning" revelation that Laura Bush didn't want GW to go along with Rove's and Mehlman's plans to demonize gays for political advantage? Just as soon as Laura Bush starts setting policy for the GOP maybe I'll take another look at their platform, but until then I'll assume they're still the soulless cretins they always have been.

I don't like paying taxes but I also don't want to live in Bangladesh, stepping over the bodies of diseased beggars while a very small number of people live like robber barons. There's self-interest and then there's suicidal blindness coupled with the assumption that your gated community will keep you safe or, for that matter, that you'll always be one of the few kept safe behind those walls.

@6 is likely correct. If you look at other western nations where the dominant right-wing party/parties are not linked at the hip with the dominant church, they tend to attract more gay (esp. gay male) voters than their left-wing counterparts. This is the case throughout much of Europe, where there have at least been a handful of examples of gay conservatives & libertarians rising to high positions in government, such as Guido Westerwelle in Germany and Per-Kristian Foss in Norway.

I'm not a single-issue voter, so there's nothing in the Republican's bag of tricks they have to offer that will make me vote anything but Democrat. Even if they decide to lay off of the gay bashing.

The GOP are trying to have it both ways: Blocking repeal of DADT, for example, while trying to win political points by pointing out that their opponents have been unsuccessful in their efforts to repeal it.

The pundits who are floating this new "not gay-unfriendly" kinder, gentler vision of a GOP that actually cares about individual rights are just trying to leverage frustration in yet another demographic group. When it's time to cast their votes, Republican lawmakers still vociferously oppose any and all concessions to the cause of civil rights, for gays or for anybody else for that matter.

@9 Sounds like you're describing the Libertarians. The Republicans don't give a damn about individual rights. They'd as soon legislate marriage and divorce as lower taxes. The only party that really does care about individual liberties is the Libertarian Party, although you'll have to put up with gun rights in exchange for your gay marryin' rights.

I love you, Dan.

Driving gays to the GOP, maybe not so much.

Driving gays away from the voting booth (or mailbox), certainly.

@23 You are confusing a large vocal minority of religious conservatives with Republicans in general. Republicans have a long history of promoting individual liberty, even when the ideas themselves were unpopular. Look up the history of the 19th and 24th Amendments and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and see where the lines were drawn.

Democrats are and never will be "pro-gay". Democrats are at best passive aggressive and allow anything truly pro-LGBT die of benign neglect. The Rethgtillians are Actively hostile and though three may be temporarily insane and support "them types", the Rethug/Tebagg'n hatemongering Anti-American anti-religious racist ignorant party cannot and will not accept gays, except for their money. They do like money, especially other people's money.

This should end the "debate" Nuff said... move along, nothing to see here.........

If the Republicans announced to the gays that they intend to do no (further) harm, how's that going to play with the Teabaggers and other wingnuts?

I'd have to see the math, but the Democrats losing some gay votes while the Republicans are left irreconcilably shattered into two or more hate groups/parties is quite possibly a win for the Democrats.