Log Cabin Republicans Withhold Endorsement

Log Cabin Republicans Vote to Withhold Endorsement from President Bush

Log Cabin Republicans are withholding their endorsement from President Bush for 2004. “Log Cabin’s National Board has voted to withhold a Presidential endorsement and shift our financial and political resources to defeating the radical right and supporting inclusive Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives,” said Log Cabin Board Chairman William Brownson of Ohio. The Log Cabin Board of Directors voted 22 to 2 not to endorse the President’s re-election.

“Certain moments in history require that a belief in fairness and equality not be sacrificed in the name of partisan politics; this is one of those moments. The national board’s vote empowers Log Cabin to maintain its integrity while furthering our goal of building a more inclusive Republican Party. Log Cabin is more committed than ever to its core mission to build a stronger and more inclusive Republican Party. There is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party, and that fight is bigger than one platform, one convention, or even one President,” said Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director Patrick Guerriero.

The vote by Log Cabin’s 25 member national board marks the first time since the organization opened a national office in Washington, DC in 1993 that the organization has not endorsed the Republican nominee for President. Log Cabin endorsed Bob Dole in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2000. Exit polls confirmed that over 1,000,000 gays and lesbians voted for Bush/Cheney in the 2000 election, including nearly 50,000 in Florida alone.

Andrew Sullivan is pleased:

I’m impressed by the lop-sided vote against Bush, as well as their care to insist that they do not reject all his policies – just the discriminatory ones. They did what they had to do, in my opinion. But it’s terribly sad, nonetheless.

I can certainly understand why gays in general and Sullivan in particular would not support President Bush’s reelection bid. I continue to note, however, that doing so on the single issue of support for same-sex marriage is rather odd given that the Republican Party has never, in its 150 year existence, supported same-sex marriage.

The Log Cabin Republicans have two defining characteristics: 1) they are gay and 2) they are Republican. They twice endorsed Ronald Reagan, who opposed same-sex marriage. They endorsed George H.W. Bush, who opposed same-sex marriage. They endorsed Bob Dole, who opposed same-sex marriage. They endorsed George W. Bush, who opposed same-sex marriage, in 2000. The only thing that has changed since then is that, pursuant to the action of judges in Massachussets and elsewhere, it has become a political issue. Bush has endorsed an amendment to preserve the status quo. An amendment which has already failed and which has zero chance of actually passing, ever.

FILED UNDER: 2004 Election, , , , , , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.


  1. Mark says:

    You nailed it. The only reason it is an issue is because of the courts. If the Mass. courts did not act, then we would not have even seen this question being discussed anywhere.

    But, if the Log Cabin Republicans endorse any candidates who oppose same sex marriage (vast majority of politicians as far as I can tell), are they subject to charges of hypocrisy now that they have set this precedent?

  2. Bithead says:

    You’ll forgive me if I fail to mourn over the loss of the demonstrably flakey Andrew Sullivan wing on the party.

  3. Boyd says:

    If this lack of an endorsement helps them achieve their goals, then good on ’em. My problem is, I can’t figure out what they’re actually trying to achieve.

  4. norbizness says:

    I think the current GOP platform goes a little further than calling for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I think they’re also down with working to deny civil unions or benefits for any same-sex couples:


    So, I’d say they’re fighting against a political movement that would be working towards the revocation of existing legal recognitions apart from marriage, as well as benefits.

  5. Lee says:

    It sneaked into my brain and it’s stuck there: drama queens.

    I’m sorry. I really am.

  6. wes010 says:

    Can you expect any more from the homosexuals?

    To secure a new true love on the left, they would soon become socialists.

    Do the homosexuals ever really vote Republican?

    I suspect they vote for anyone they suspect will tear down the nation’s morality to their own level. They pretend to be Republican just to attempt to corrupt the Republican party. When does the left leaning national press ever miss the opportunity to give these “Democrats in Drag” the air time to express their extremely
    micro-minority opinions?