The Log Cabin Republicans—the GOP’s most prominent pro-gay group—endorsed Mitt Romney for president this week.
They “qualified” this endorsement by writing that they believe the former governor has tacked to the right to satisfy the fundamentalist wing of their party. Qualification or not, the Log Cabin Republicans should have withheld their endorsement.
What is the basic implication here? And, actually, it’s not even implied. This is taken straight from their endorsement: “In our judgment, the pledge [against gay marriage] is ultimately merely symbolic and thus should not be the basis of a decision to withhold an endorsement from an otherwise qualified candidate, particularly given the gravity of the economic and national security issues currently at stake.”
If we don’t take our candidates for public office at their word, what use is campaigning?
Of course, this campaign cycle has been all but defined by the, uh, versatility of Romney’s policy positions. As Rachel Maddow pointed out during msnbc’s post-debate coverage on Monday night, the Republican nominee for president evidently adopted a new position on the Afghanistan War two weeks out from Election Day. I suppose it’s a possibility that a President Romney would endorse civil marriage equality for same-sex couples the day after he took office.
This is, in fewer words, what the Log Cabin Republicans are betting on with their endorsement of Romney. By making this endorsement, the Log Cabin Republicans are asserting that our politics have become, more or less, a collection of wink-and-nod promises, signatures, and speeches made with no greater intention than victory.
To be fair, there are plenty of reasons to think that the wink-and-nod approach was how President Obama addressed civil marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples until he finished “evolving,” but even during this phase, he made clear, on numerous occasions, that he opposed discrimination against LGBTQ people. For Romney to make such an assertion would be absurd on its face.









