by Chuck Colbert
First off, “the gay community is much more ideologically diverse than some people would like to admit,” said Kevin Naff, editor of the Washington Blade, based in the nation’s capital.
Even with unprecedented gains in LGBT rights at the federal level, “There are working-class gay and lesbian people who are voting Republican in this election, and they have their reasons,” he said. “It’s just as important to cover those viewpoints as it is to cover the other side.”
In a first for the Blade, the publication dispatched reporter Chris Johnson not only to Iowa for that state’s January 3 caucuses, but also to New Hampshire for the first-in-the-nation primary, held January 10. Photographer Michael Key also traveled to the Granite State. And veteran journalist and senior news reporter Lou Chibbaro Jr. traveled to Florida, where he reported lopsided support at an informal “cocktail caucus” among Log Cabin Republicans for Mitt Romney.
“Gay Republicans, you don't get that reporting from mainstream media," said Bob Witeck, chief executive officer of Witeck Communications, Inc., when asked about LGBT media's contribution to coverage of the 2012 presidential contest.
And LGBT bloggers captured in videos and photos the “glitter bombing” of GOP candidates and face-to-face confrontations of presidential contenders about gay rights and their opposition to marriage equality.
Read more after the jump.
“It’s important to get out of the bubble of Washington and urban areas where gays are pretty well accepted,” said Naff, referring to the media outlet’s commitment of resources for an on-the-ground presence in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Florida.
“We forget what life is like for LGBT people who do not live in places where there are protective laws and supportive politicians,” he said. “We thought it would be a good use of our resources to hear stories from people in those places.”
Naff said journalists can’t truly cover the race while staying in Washington. "You have to get out from behind the desk and travel to places like rural Iowa and New Hampshire to talk to people in person, asking them why they are supporting Republicans and what issues are important to them."
Accordingly, reporters Chibbaro and Johnson were tasked with reporting hard news, as well as telling stories about gay residents to give otherwise “dry political [coverage]” a “local flavor,” said Naff.
The Blade was not alone in having reporters on the ground. EDGE Media Network sent national news editor Michael K. Lavers, a Manchester, N.H., native to the Granite State. The Advocate’s Washington correspondent and news director Andrew Harmon also reported from New Hampshire. And Keen News Service provided extensive reporting of the GOP presidential debates.
LGBT voters, it seems, are not at all unlike others.
“The takeaway issue is that gay voters are concerned about many of the same pocketbook issues that are on the minds of most Americans, jobs and the economy, or getting out of the war in Afghanistan,” said Lavers. “Marriage and equality also come up.”
Editor Naff agrees economic concerns are paramount. “The theme that we see is the economy,” he said. “It impacts LGBT people in unique and disproportionate ways, and those concerns are at the forefront of the minds of voters we have been talking to.”
“What was striking was the similarities, the theme of looking past LGBT issues to focus on broader economic issues. It was a recurring theme in talking to people who were themselves unemployed or looking to the Republicans to find solutions,” Naff added.
With this bad-economy-trumps-gay-rights theme, some voters voiced willingness to defer self-interest in equality for economics. One Iowa gay man, Bryan Pulda, went so far as to tell reporter Johnson, “I would find it almost selfish for me to go and say, ‘I vote for this person simply because they want same-sex marriage.’ There are so many more problems in this country affecting more people than just me.”
His quote prompted a rebuke on the Blade’s website. “As far as Bryan Pulda’s ‘selfish’ comment: I would like to know his thoughts on women’s suffrage or the civil rights movement,” a reader asked, adding, “Was Martin Luther King ‘selfish’ for demanding equal treatment of blacks when there were ‘so many more problems affecting so many more people?’”
Dismay over the economy notwithstanding, gay voters express overall satisfaction with the way President Obama has handled LGBT issues, said Naff.
“They say he has done a good job supporting gay-rights issues and delivering on his campaign promises,” he said, referring to repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," passage of hate-crimes legislation, and the president's decision to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act in legal proceedings.
And yet for all the focus on the economy and jobs, same-sex marriage was at play in New Hampshire. Lavers, who spent four days there following former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, said he was “surprised to see how the issue played with gay voters” and “how it made its way into the national media.”
At town hall forums and during presidential debates, Santorum was pressed by media and voters repeatedly about his strong opposition to equal marriage rights.
Over the years, Santorum has equated gay couples’ desire to marry to adultery, incest, and polygamy.
Same-sex marriage is not an abstraction in the Granite State, where it has been legal for two years. A unanimous state Supreme Court decision in Iowa legalized marriage for gays there in 2009.
After a contentious debate at Saint Anselm College, Lavers asked Santorum why he thinks voters continue to challenge him on marriage.
“Without skipping a beat,” Lavers recalled, Santorum told him, “Obviously, folks disagree.” But Santorum went on to say, “Folks are having an honest and respectful discussion about the issue.”
The discussion of same-sex marriage in New Hampshire also played out against a backdrop of the state Legislature, where Republican lawmakers have proposed repealing marriage equality, although the governor has said he would veto any repeal measure.
Interestingly, Lavers said, “I found increasingly that Santorum’s supporters were trying to deflect attention away from some of the horrible things he has said previously.”
“There has been quite a shift in tone,” said Lavers. “Santorum does not support gay marriage, but now says he respects gay people, thinks they should have dignity, and shouldn’t suffer discrimination.”
What might a change in tone mean? One explanation: “Anti-gay politics is not a winning message for this election cycle,” Lavers said.
What’s more, with Romney’s early wins, said Lisa Keen of Keen News Service, “It appears Republican voters might be more willing to accept a candidate who states emphatically that he is against discrimination based on sexual orientation, but they are not ready to consider marriage equality.”
Philadelphia Gay News publisher Mark Segal agrees, going even further. “The handwriting is on the wall, and Republicans see the inevitable. Americans are tired of them trashing the gay community,” he wrote in a recent column.
“The frontrunner has drawn a new line in the sand: We believe in nondiscrimination up to the issue of marriage,” continued Segal, referring to Mitt Romney’s comments during a New Hampshire debate, when the former Massachusetts governor said in effect the only difference he has with the gay community is over the definition of marriage as solely the union of a man and a woman.
“So enjoy the next few months and watch the dying gasps of the anti-equality Republican rhetoric, since this is the last presidential race you’ll hear it,” Segal concluded. “They won’t go quietly, but Romney’s statements, if he’s nominated, make that change inevitable.”
Segal also had choice words for Santorum, who he said in another column is “like George Wallace, the last proud racist to run for president. For Santorum, he’ll be the last proud homophobe to run for president.”
Still, the Blade’s Naff remains unconvinced of a kinder gentler GOP presidential nominee. “The main thing to keep in mind,” he said, “is their top candidates [Newt Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum] have signed a pledge from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the most draconian thing, supporting a federal constitutional amendment restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples.”
“They also support establishing a [presidential] commission on religious liberty,” said Naff, which would investigate reports of harassment or threats against citizens in exercising their civil rights by advocating state ballot measures to ban marriage for same-sex couples.
NOM’s pledge “is much more than an amendment. It’s as bad as it gets,” Naff said. “The candidates’ language may have changed, but you have to look at what they’ve promised to do and signed their names to.”
