In The Advocate's quest to make Rudy seem pro-gay, they published this op-ed by James Kirchick about a week ago. I just noticed it again when I was on their site (I know, I know, it'll warp my fragile mind).
America's third favorite gay Republican (beaten by Andrew Sullivan and Jeff Gannon) argues that LCR should endorse Giuliani in the primaries, which they've refused to do so far. It might have something to do with the fact that Rudy opposes every single piece of pro-gay legislation that could possibly come before the president and promised to roll back all progress made by gays at the national level, ever.
But Kirchick wants us to look at the real issues, like the fact that he had gay friends and participated in Pride. Kirchick also condescended to discuss policy, like Rudy's support of domestic partnerships (so long as they do nothing), despite the fact that a president doesn't even decide stuff like that.
I suppose I just can't keep up with a serious policy wonk like Kirchick!
But now that Rudy "gaffed" on Meet the Press since Kirchick wrote his opinion piece, he must be quite embarrassed. Who would have thought that America's biggest pandering fascist would sell out the rich white queers who were necessary to win in New York City but are a major liability in a national Republican primary?
Although I don't know if saying that the Catholic Church is right on "homosexual acts" being sinful (remember that we're "intrinsically disordered" and "gravely depraved" there and have to stay celibate... while Rudy has sex on NYC's dime) outweighs the staying with gay friends or if it's smaller when the gay Pride marching is taken into account.
Hmmmm.... Serious policy considerations should be left to the likes of TNR's esteemed assistant editor, I suppose.
But people should vote for Rudy not just because he's "objectively pro-gay", but because he'll fundamentally change the way politics works:
If Giuliani is the Republican nominee, gays will not be an issue in the 2008 general election, nor is it likely that they ever will be again. Homosexuality -- which proved a wedge issue in so many states during the 2004 election -- will thankfully become a moot issue
Well, 2008 is going to be about the war, corruption, and the economy, but mostly the war. After that, as homosexuality becomes more normalized and banal and immigration continues to increase the population of non-white people in the US, we're going to stop being conservatives' favorite scapegoat. So, yeah, Kirchick's right, but it doesn't really matter who gets nominated on the R side.
But moot? Let's see, each of the top Democrats disagree with Rudy on ENDA, hate crimes legislation, DADT, DOMA, possibly FMA, AIDS funding, nationalized health care, and Lawrence/sodomy laws. Just a few issues that some gays might find important if they're paying attention.
But did Hillary march in Pride parades? Has Obama stayed with gay friends? Has Edwards given his support for state and local domestic partnerships as long as they don't go "too far"?
These serious policy questions baffle my mind!