At a recent GOP debate, the audience booed a soldier when he revealed that he was gay. On today’s ABC’s “This Week,” Candidate Herman Cain, claimed that he should have stood up for the soldier.

So why didn’t he? Is this one of those cases of “I meant too, but I didn’t” flip-flopping attempt to make himself sound more compassionate in hindsight?

The debate took place ten whole days ago, he had plenty of time to make a statement in the interim. Why did he remain silent, until being confronted with the question?

His silence indicative of his position against equality.

Herman Cain said in an interview on Outside the Beltway, that he believes that being queer is a sin and a choice.

The problem with falling back on the Bible for this belief is that it is open to interpretation. It is very likely the clothing Cain wears is made from mixed fabrics – also listed in Leviticus as an abomination. Is Cain going to outlaw mixed fabric garments based on his Biblical beliefs? Perhaps a national “Don’t Weave, Don’t Wear” policy? Probably not. Instead he picks and chooses issues from the Bible that will give him the most support from the GOP base. The same kind of pandering Jesus rebuked. And just when did Cain choose to not be gay?

Herman Cain’s official positions are that he is opposed to same-gender marriage and wants to write inequality into the U.S. Constitution.

The problem with writing inequality into the U. S. Constitution is… it’s unconstitutional!

What does this say to Log Cabin Republicans?
Log Cabin Republicans regard themselves as queer persons and allies who support queer rights, but continue to align themselves with the GayOPposition Party under the guise of fiscal responsibility. This is a strange land of exile they are living in. Based on the official positions of GOP contenders, here’s what else they have to choose from:

Michele Bachmann – In 2004, Bachmann stated that the issues regarding queer rights became the defining political issue for her. But using verbal gymnastics in an interview on Meet The Press, she tries not to be clear about her position on particular issues:

But we all know what she means. She is opposed to marriage equality and she supports writing inequality into the U. S. Constitution. She opposes queer persons from serving openly in the military, and she opposes adoption by queer persons. She claims to show compassion, honor and dignity toward queer persons, but where is the dignity, honor and compassion in discrimination?

Newt Gingrich – believes that being queer is a sin, he opposes domestic partner benefits, civil unions and adoption and he wants to write inequality into the U. S. Constitution.

John Huntsman – is trying to play the moderate position by downplaying the queer elephant in the room, claiming he only cares about the economy.

Huntsman has no stated position regarding queer rights on his web site. To his credit, Huntsman supported legislation that established civil unions for gays in Utah in 2009 and also set up regular meetings with the Log Cabin Republicans as governor.

But Human Rights Campaign’s Fred Sainz says that Huntsman’s moderate position is dubious. And in 2004, Huntsman supported Utah’s constitutional amendment outlawing marriage equality for queers. So, he’s pro-civil unions, but supports adding anti-equality in the U. S. Constitution (June 2006, Sep 1996) – a compromise position that is so 1990′s. Beyond the marriage/civil union issue, Huntsman is mum about where he really stands on the rest of the issues that matter to queer people.

Rick Perry – is a flip-flopper on gay rights, depending on his audience.



After Perry signed a pledge to support marriage inequality, R. Clarke Cooper, Executive Director of the Log Cabin Republicans, said “It is unfortunate Governor Perry decided to turn to a big government, anti-conservative position by signing the National Organization for Marriage’s pledge.”

Unfortunate?

Ron Paul – There are a smattering of posts on his web site from speeches and interviews with Paul, but not an issues page that clearly states his position in regard to queer rights. In a radio interview Paul has stated that, as a doctor, it is his opinion that being queer has to do with problems with the way people are born. He states that there are “homosexual problems” in the military. He states that queer people place a burden on the military.

He’s not much of an activist either. Paul conveniently falls back on impracticality of having the government defining marriage exclusive to hetrosexual couples, without clearly stating support for equality.

He suggests a dictionary definition of marriage. I wonder if he’s referring to dictionaries written in Texas. Oh, but wait, it sounds like he supports state’s rights on the issue. He states that it is not a federal issue. That’s interesting because while Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004, also in 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which passed in 1996. So which is it, is Paul in support of equality for queer persons, or not?

Also at the federal level, Ron Paul supports the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy.

When it comes to expanding the 1969 US federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, Ron Paul opposes it on the basis of freedom of speech. Paul needs to explain to the parents of Matthew Shepard and the thousands of families around the country how beating someone or killing them, is protected by 1st Amendment right to free speech.

Sarah Palin – whether she is a viable candidate or not is to be determined. What she says and what she does regarding equality is all over the board. Palin has declared that she supports for same-gender marriage only as long as it does not redefine the traditional definition of marriage, whatever that means in GOP parlance. She vetoed a bill that would deny the state of Alaska from providing same-sex benefits, but has stated that she opposes the Supreme Court ruling she had to uphold with that veto. Palin has strong ties with the anti-gay Family Research Council.

Mitt Romney – is the candidate with the strongest position against any form of gay rights. He opposes gay persons from serving openly in the military, he supports an inequality amendment to the U. S. Constitution, he opposes civil unions, and he opposes a Supreme Court ruling that supports equal protection under the law.

Rick Santorum – In the September 22, 2011 GOP debate on FOX, Santorum stated that he would reinstate the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. His answer was in response to the gay soldier who got booed. Being that he was addressed by the soldier, Santorum, had the best chance to ask the audience to show respect, but he did not.

According to OnTheIssues Santorum opposed adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes in June 2002 and June 2000. In September 1996, he voted against prohibiting job discrimination according to sexual orientation. In 2002, the ACLU gave him a 25% rating on his civil rights voting record.

Playing on fears lacking scientific evidence and common sense in an April 7, 2003 AP interview in 2003, Senator Santorum, stated his slippery slope position that:

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything”

The Log Cabin Republicans made an official statement about Santorum’s remarks, calling on him to apologize or step down from the leadership post. A lot of good that did, now he’s one of the choices for them to nominate for the Presidency.

So there you have it.
Those are the choices the Log Cabin Republicans have to choose from the GOP debate. Looks like it is time for the Log Cabin Republicans to drink some more Red Bull and wake up!