For the last 10 years of my life I've moved back and forth from San Francisco to New York, and have had the chance to interact with all sorts of people. As a small business owner who works 'virtually,' I make my own schedule and live where I want to live, which is why I chose San Francisco as my home base.
When I moved back to San Francisco three years ago, I was invited to have dinner with a group of new friends. During dinner the discussion turned to politics and one of the guests, named Scott, began to talk about his support for the Republican Party. Mind you, Scott is gay, and when I heard that he supported the Bush administration—and therefore their discriminatory policies—my blood began to boil.
Since then, every time I see Scott, I make it a point to ask him whether he's changed his thinking to be in line with a party that openly supports the gay community, rather than the party that works actively to repress us. In person and via e-mail I've tried to explain the fact ( and it is a fact ) that our rights as gay men and women ( not to mention other rights, including Roe vs. Wade among others ) will be challenged if the three Supreme Court justice nominations that will likely come up in the next election swing to the conservative side of the coin.
Sadly, Scott has no interest in hearing me, nor can he even explain why he chooses to vote for the very people that work to keep us down.
A few weeks ago a good friend of mine told me that Scott is currently serving as one of the co-chairs for the GLAAD ( Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation ) San Francisco Media Awards set for May 2009. According to my friend, Scott told him that Neil Giuliano, the executive director of GLAAD and a fellow Log Cabin Republican, asked him to participate.
'Wait,' I said to my friend. 'How can an organization that focuses on media advocacy for fair, accurate, and inclusive representations of the LGBT community hire a Log Cabin Republican to lobby for fair treatment when the very people they are supporting, voting for, and helping to elect are actively working to maintain—and increase—discrimination of our community?'
When I queried GLAAD on this, their response included the following:
He [ Neil Giuliano ] has given time, support, and significant financial contributions to many other LGBT activist causes, most recently the Vote NO on Prop 8 in California and Vote NO AGAIN on Prop 102 in Arizona. He is not engaged in any way in the presidential campaign, and has not been involved in presidential politics since the primary season of 2000. His financial contributions in this cycle, all public record, are to U.S. Representatives Harry Mitchell, D-Ariz., Gabrielle Giffords D-Ariz. and Tim Walz, D-Minn., as well as Congressional candidates Bob Lord, D-Ariz., and Linda Ketner, D-S.C. As a former non-partisan elected official in Arizona, he has been praised and appreciated by Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano ( D ) .
Basically, in GLAAD's eyes it's okay to be Republican and gay if you throw money at the democrats and support the issues that concern us. Excuse me? That makes no sense at all.
I question the decision-making of gay republicans who are charged with 'ensuring fair, accurate and inclusive representation of people and events in the media as a means of eliminating homophobia and discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation' ( direct from the GLAAD Web site ) . Although GLAAD is an organization focused on the media, as someone with reasonable intelligence I know that political decisions greatly affect the way we as a community are portrayed in the media.
Scott has also communicated a similar message to me regarding his volunteer work. In fact, I think he, Neil and GLAAD's PR person likely spent hours crafting the email response to my inquiry. Somehow they think that by volunteering and donating to causes in our community gives them a Log Cabin Republican hall pass.
In my opinion, it does not.
As a community, we have a responsibility to support one another, and not root for the team whose members ( at their most generous ) could care less about our rights. We should call into question the leaders of LGBT advocacy organizations who choose to vote republican. If GLAAD's goal is to '...choose staff members, and recruit board members who are the most qualified and share our passion and commitment to changing hearts and minds and ending homophobia and discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation' ( a quote from the e-mail I received, accent added ) then isn't it counterproductive to hire someone whose republican vote supports long-standing and active discrimination against gay men and women?
I personally will not support an organization whose leaders' political affiliations are in direct conflict with the jobs they set out to do, and I believe that a number of people would agree with me on this.
Scott, Neil and all of you Log Cabin Republicans out there, when you vote in November know that your Republican vote supports Palin's decision to NOT recognize National Coming Out Day in Alaska. Remember that McCain voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation, voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage and voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation.
I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that these people do not like us, do not really like you and they only wish to make your hard work even more difficult.
Michael Volpatt is a partner and co-founder of Larkin/Volpatt Communications, a boutique PR firm with clients in the technology, healthcare and publishing markets. He resides in San Francisco and is a food writer in his free time.
