Log Cabin Interview in the Advocate
I am proud of my Executive Director. He really represents gay conservatives well.
Log Cabin declares war
Patrick Guerriero, the leader of nation’s largest gay Republican group, is furious over President Bush’s endorsement of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. But he says the battle to defeat it only makes his organization stronger
By Christopher Lisotta
An Advocate.com exclusive posted February 26, 2004
Patrick Guerriero was furious when President Bush announced his support for a proposed federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. After all, as executive director of the gay political group Log Cabin Republicans, Guerriero’s job is to convince gay men and lesbians they have a place among the conservative ranks of the Republican Party. While the group might have made excuses in the past, Guerriero has declared war on the president’s policies. Log Cabin is launching a protest in swing states that are key to Bush's reelection bid, including Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Ohio. It plans to make announcements on television and radio shows that cater to conservatives, moderates, and independents. Its message? The White House is “playing politics with the Constitution.”
Amid a flood of television interviews, phone calls, and e-mails seeking comment from the onetime Massachusetts legislator, Guerriero spoke to The Advocate about his reaction to Bush’s decision and how it will affect the November election.
The Advocate: Were you surprised by President Bush’s announcement?
Guerriero: We were expecting it, but until you actually hear the president say he’s going to support an amendment codifying discrimination in the U.S. Constitution, it’s really, truly hard to believe until that point. And despite our believing it, it was like a kick to the stomach, actually.
In the past you have said it would be very difficult for Log Cabin to endorse the president if he throws support behind the amendment. Where is your organization now on making an endorsement?
I think the president’s announcement jeopardized not only the chance of him getting a Log Cabin endorsement but jeopardized the over 1 million gay and lesbian votes he received in 2000. We have a process that requires us to meet with our grassroots members and our national board members from all across the country. We’re going to be doing that in California at our national convention in April. But we consider the president’s support of the [Federal Marriage Amendment] a declaration of war on gay and lesbian families.
There are moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats who are on the fence about this amendment. What does the president’s decision do to them?
I think it looks so transparent and so political it might actually remind folks it’s really not about principle, it’s about playing politics with the Constitution heading into the 2004 presidential race. In some ways I actually think there is going to be a surprising backlash, and we’re starting to see members of Congress and others in the Senate say this goes a step too far. There is a lot of bad aftertaste the day after you see the president say he wants to amend the Constitution. This is a document that is at the core, the foundation of our nation’s existence. And to say we want to go tinker with it right now without any federal lawsuit against the Defense of Marriage Act suggests this is about politics. I think in some ways while we are concerned because the bully pulpit of the president is powerful; the transparency of it as a political move may help lock in some of these folks who have hesitated in supporting it.
Do you think the FMA could get out of both houses of Congress this year?
I learned a lesson, as a lot of gay and lesbian folks did in the 1990’s: Don’t underestimate your opponent. So I take this extraordinarily seriously. I think there are individuals who want to tweak this amendment to make it less comprehensive. We consider it a 50-50 battle, and we’re going to wage it as if it is that close.
If the lawmakers rewrite the amendment proposal to allow for civil unions, what will be the endgame of that?
The bottom line is that if they tweak this thing to be just a one-sentence definition of marriage, it has a very good chance of passing Congress. There will be folks who will try to do that. But that is somewhat unlikely. This amendment is the product of the radical right. This is an antigay amendment and a type of cleaned-up amendment wouldn’t satisfy the people that have been pandered to [by President Bush]. They would not be happy with that amendment, which is interesting. It shows that what’s really at the root of it here is not defining marriage; it’s about marginalizing gay and lesbian people
What happens if the amendment gets out of Congress?
You get concerned, because 38 states [the number needed to ratify an amendment] have already passed a “defense of marriage act.” The one thing I do know is there would be tremendously ugly battles all across the country. The voices of intolerance would have a platform and an issue to rally, and unfortunately another generation of gay and lesbian young people would have to deal with seeing that stuff. I think all of us, in the joy of the [Supreme Court’s 2003] sodomy ruling, and as civil rights advances started taking place across the country, felt that we were the last generation going through life really feeling negative about coming out. What we’ve seen is a quick backlash to remind us there’s a long way to go in our fight. I wouldn’t underestimate the quickness of states taking this up, particularly in an election year.
Do you think this will electrify Bush’s ultraconservative base?
If the president didn’t already have Christian evangelicals before, then we have a serious problem here. Every poll I’ve seen indicates he already has a 90% approval rating [among that group]. And the reality is, if in trying to appease your base you tick off a million gay and lesbian voters, our family members, and 5 or 6 million Americans who are more concerned about jobs and terrorism, I think it can backfire. If you’re in a swing state like Ohio and you’re out of work, you’re wondering why the president is talking about this stuff. If your son or daughter is in Iraq, you’re wondering why the president is trying to amend the Constitution. Even if you’re a conservative gun owner from West Virginia who loves the Constitution because of the Second Amendment and you don’t support gay marriage or civil unions, then you wonder why the president is focusing on this stuff. There might be some short-term blip in benefit, but in the end most Americans want a uniter, not a divider, as a president. They want people who bring out the best in the American people. And this could become a very, very ugly debate. It’s not presidential, and it’s not a way to unite different parts of the American family.
Your organization has argued that gays and lesbians can find a place in the Republican Party. Do you still believe that today?
Absolutely. In fact, one of the things this reminds us of is the community has spent nearly all of its money and time building allies only in the Democratic Party. And we need organizations in addition to our own to focus some time and energy building friendships and allies on the Republican side. You’re seeing successes, and California is one of them, where you have people like [Republican representative David] Dreier coming out against the amendment. You have [Arizona Republican] Sen. John McCain saying it’s a states’ rights issue. We need to do a better job of focusing our community’s resources, at least a piece of that, in a party we need to help change. The radical right wants to kick gay and lesbian people out of the Republican Party. You cannot pass legislation that will give us full equality until we build new allies on the Republican side.
Do you see yourself working with other gay and lesbian groups, including the Stonewall Democrats, to fight this?
We talk to our fellow groups every day, particularly the [bipartisan gay rights group Human Rights Campaign]. We’ve done joint ads in the states together. Even with Stonewall and [the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force], when anyone declares a war on gay and lesbian families it unites all of our organizations. Our number 1 priority is not going to be electing a president or even members of Congress, it’s going to be protecting the Constitution and protecting states’ rights. We don’t even need a meeting to decide that. Log Cabin’s role is to be the conservative voice on why it’s not conservative to amend the Constitution.
Who are you going to vote for in November?
Log Cabin only supports Republican candidates, and so it would either endorse or not endorse in this election. But everyone is soul-searching. We’ve learned lessons from the broken promises of past presidential candidates from both political parties, and so it’s really too early to determine on a personal level who I’ll vote for. I do know the president really hurt the effort to win support for gay and lesbian Americans by his decision to support this antigay, antifamily amendment.
What do you think this will do to that other gay Republican group, the Republican Unity Coalition?
I’m sure they’re going through a similar soul-searching, maybe even more intense than we are. This is a tough time.
Are you hearing from any of your members who say Log Cabin should support the president on this amendment? Is that a debate you’re having internally?
No. There are some who are concerned about this rush to focus on civil marriage, but it is almost a full consensus that any type of amendment is something we need to forcefully oppose. I actually think the disagreement is in a lot of other gay and lesbian organizations as well, which is how far should we push the envelope when it comes to gay marriage. It is such a new issue that we need to be pragmatic or we’ll experience what we did with [the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act], which is have a few small victories and then end up with a tremendous backlash that takes decades to overturn. So I think that’s the tension everyone’s feeling.
Log Cabin declares war
Patrick Guerriero, the leader of nation’s largest gay Republican group, is furious over President Bush’s endorsement of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. But he says the battle to defeat it only makes his organization stronger
By Christopher Lisotta
An Advocate.com exclusive posted February 26, 2004
Patrick Guerriero was furious when President Bush announced his support for a proposed federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. After all, as executive director of the gay political group Log Cabin Republicans, Guerriero’s job is to convince gay men and lesbians they have a place among the conservative ranks of the Republican Party. While the group might have made excuses in the past, Guerriero has declared war on the president’s policies. Log Cabin is launching a protest in swing states that are key to Bush's reelection bid, including Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Ohio. It plans to make announcements on television and radio shows that cater to conservatives, moderates, and independents. Its message? The White House is “playing politics with the Constitution.”
Amid a flood of television interviews, phone calls, and e-mails seeking comment from the onetime Massachusetts legislator, Guerriero spoke to The Advocate about his reaction to Bush’s decision and how it will affect the November election.
The Advocate: Were you surprised by President Bush’s announcement?
Guerriero: We were expecting it, but until you actually hear the president say he’s going to support an amendment codifying discrimination in the U.S. Constitution, it’s really, truly hard to believe until that point. And despite our believing it, it was like a kick to the stomach, actually.
In the past you have said it would be very difficult for Log Cabin to endorse the president if he throws support behind the amendment. Where is your organization now on making an endorsement?
I think the president’s announcement jeopardized not only the chance of him getting a Log Cabin endorsement but jeopardized the over 1 million gay and lesbian votes he received in 2000. We have a process that requires us to meet with our grassroots members and our national board members from all across the country. We’re going to be doing that in California at our national convention in April. But we consider the president’s support of the [Federal Marriage Amendment] a declaration of war on gay and lesbian families.
There are moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats who are on the fence about this amendment. What does the president’s decision do to them?
I think it looks so transparent and so political it might actually remind folks it’s really not about principle, it’s about playing politics with the Constitution heading into the 2004 presidential race. In some ways I actually think there is going to be a surprising backlash, and we’re starting to see members of Congress and others in the Senate say this goes a step too far. There is a lot of bad aftertaste the day after you see the president say he wants to amend the Constitution. This is a document that is at the core, the foundation of our nation’s existence. And to say we want to go tinker with it right now without any federal lawsuit against the Defense of Marriage Act suggests this is about politics. I think in some ways while we are concerned because the bully pulpit of the president is powerful; the transparency of it as a political move may help lock in some of these folks who have hesitated in supporting it.
Do you think the FMA could get out of both houses of Congress this year?
I learned a lesson, as a lot of gay and lesbian folks did in the 1990’s: Don’t underestimate your opponent. So I take this extraordinarily seriously. I think there are individuals who want to tweak this amendment to make it less comprehensive. We consider it a 50-50 battle, and we’re going to wage it as if it is that close.
If the lawmakers rewrite the amendment proposal to allow for civil unions, what will be the endgame of that?
The bottom line is that if they tweak this thing to be just a one-sentence definition of marriage, it has a very good chance of passing Congress. There will be folks who will try to do that. But that is somewhat unlikely. This amendment is the product of the radical right. This is an antigay amendment and a type of cleaned-up amendment wouldn’t satisfy the people that have been pandered to [by President Bush]. They would not be happy with that amendment, which is interesting. It shows that what’s really at the root of it here is not defining marriage; it’s about marginalizing gay and lesbian people
What happens if the amendment gets out of Congress?
You get concerned, because 38 states [the number needed to ratify an amendment] have already passed a “defense of marriage act.” The one thing I do know is there would be tremendously ugly battles all across the country. The voices of intolerance would have a platform and an issue to rally, and unfortunately another generation of gay and lesbian young people would have to deal with seeing that stuff. I think all of us, in the joy of the [Supreme Court’s 2003] sodomy ruling, and as civil rights advances started taking place across the country, felt that we were the last generation going through life really feeling negative about coming out. What we’ve seen is a quick backlash to remind us there’s a long way to go in our fight. I wouldn’t underestimate the quickness of states taking this up, particularly in an election year.
Do you think this will electrify Bush’s ultraconservative base?
If the president didn’t already have Christian evangelicals before, then we have a serious problem here. Every poll I’ve seen indicates he already has a 90% approval rating [among that group]. And the reality is, if in trying to appease your base you tick off a million gay and lesbian voters, our family members, and 5 or 6 million Americans who are more concerned about jobs and terrorism, I think it can backfire. If you’re in a swing state like Ohio and you’re out of work, you’re wondering why the president is talking about this stuff. If your son or daughter is in Iraq, you’re wondering why the president is trying to amend the Constitution. Even if you’re a conservative gun owner from West Virginia who loves the Constitution because of the Second Amendment and you don’t support gay marriage or civil unions, then you wonder why the president is focusing on this stuff. There might be some short-term blip in benefit, but in the end most Americans want a uniter, not a divider, as a president. They want people who bring out the best in the American people. And this could become a very, very ugly debate. It’s not presidential, and it’s not a way to unite different parts of the American family.
Your organization has argued that gays and lesbians can find a place in the Republican Party. Do you still believe that today?
Absolutely. In fact, one of the things this reminds us of is the community has spent nearly all of its money and time building allies only in the Democratic Party. And we need organizations in addition to our own to focus some time and energy building friendships and allies on the Republican side. You’re seeing successes, and California is one of them, where you have people like [Republican representative David] Dreier coming out against the amendment. You have [Arizona Republican] Sen. John McCain saying it’s a states’ rights issue. We need to do a better job of focusing our community’s resources, at least a piece of that, in a party we need to help change. The radical right wants to kick gay and lesbian people out of the Republican Party. You cannot pass legislation that will give us full equality until we build new allies on the Republican side.
Do you see yourself working with other gay and lesbian groups, including the Stonewall Democrats, to fight this?
We talk to our fellow groups every day, particularly the [bipartisan gay rights group Human Rights Campaign]. We’ve done joint ads in the states together. Even with Stonewall and [the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force], when anyone declares a war on gay and lesbian families it unites all of our organizations. Our number 1 priority is not going to be electing a president or even members of Congress, it’s going to be protecting the Constitution and protecting states’ rights. We don’t even need a meeting to decide that. Log Cabin’s role is to be the conservative voice on why it’s not conservative to amend the Constitution.
Who are you going to vote for in November?
Log Cabin only supports Republican candidates, and so it would either endorse or not endorse in this election. But everyone is soul-searching. We’ve learned lessons from the broken promises of past presidential candidates from both political parties, and so it’s really too early to determine on a personal level who I’ll vote for. I do know the president really hurt the effort to win support for gay and lesbian Americans by his decision to support this antigay, antifamily amendment.
What do you think this will do to that other gay Republican group, the Republican Unity Coalition?
I’m sure they’re going through a similar soul-searching, maybe even more intense than we are. This is a tough time.
Are you hearing from any of your members who say Log Cabin should support the president on this amendment? Is that a debate you’re having internally?
No. There are some who are concerned about this rush to focus on civil marriage, but it is almost a full consensus that any type of amendment is something we need to forcefully oppose. I actually think the disagreement is in a lot of other gay and lesbian organizations as well, which is how far should we push the envelope when it comes to gay marriage. It is such a new issue that we need to be pragmatic or we’ll experience what we did with [the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act], which is have a few small victories and then end up with a tremendous backlash that takes decades to overturn. So I think that’s the tension everyone’s feeling.