There was an article in the most recent Washington Blade wondering whether openly gays and lesbians serve either on the Bush reelection team or in the White House.

Well, there are. I'm not going to get into names, but there are openly gay members on the domestic policy staff, in the inner circles of the White House, in the campaign, in the RNC, in the military -- everywhere. The difference is that they understand the unspoken rule, which is, Just shut up about it.

But are they really open? How do you define "open"?

There are gay people in all those positions. As for "open," it's a [sliding] scale; it's not a big rainbow on your lapel on one extreme or a self-hating introvert on the other.

The Blade article suggested that there is a rising level of frustration in the gay community. And while nobody suggested people would be outed, there did seem to be a feeling of "Wait a minute, why are these gays and lesbians serving in the White House and on the reelection campaign if the party is in the middle of drastic rightward march?" Is there going to be some sort of friction, and do any of the people serving in those positions need to be concerned?

As long as people are loyal and continue to do their job, I don't think they're going to be fired. These are individuals whom I respect for making their decisions. It's not my place to tell them how to live their lives.

Should anyone be concerned that there might be calls for gays to come out if they're going to work for an administration that supports a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages?

I find that conversation stupid and don't waste my time with it.

You're not concerned things might slip into that mode?

No, and I wouldn't participate in it. Mostly because, who cares? That's not the issue. The issue is whether there are any legitimate gay Republican spokesmen or spokeswomen who can bring votes to the administration. I don't think there are.

You mentioned the Republican Party's 40-year march to the right and the cabal in the White House, yet you don't seem to blame the president personally. Who are you most upset or disappointed with?

You know, I don't think that adds a lot -- whom I blame or don't blame.

Well, as you've said, you've devoted a lot of time and energy to the Republican Party.

It would be easy an easy decision for me [to quit a leadership position] if the president were an inherently evil person. He is not. I've had a chance to spend time with him on a number of occasions, a couple of which were with my partner, and the president could not have been more gracious, could not have been more ingratiating and outgoing and demonstratively tolerant. So I'm still having a difficult time reconciling the man who, when you are in his company, personifies live and let live with the man who really believes in this constitutional amendment. I don't know who in the administration dreamed this thing up. I suspect it was the people who are responsible for the election strategy -- people rationalize all kinds of things in the name of winning.

Do you think the president really does believe in the amendment?

I'm having a hard time, frankly, believing that his heart is in this. I think the president has had a number of challenges with the conservative base -- with the growth of government during his tenure, with the out-of-control deficits during his tenure -- and I think this decision [on the gay marriage amendment] was too easy. That's what makes it even more disappointing.

Being thrown under the bus?

Yep.

Recent Stories