A Snapshot Of Iowa's Gay Conservative Voters
Traveling around Iowa to cover today's caucuses, Washington Blade journalist Chris Johnson met up with some often overlooked voters: young gay men willing to confess Republican-leanings. Well, five of them, anyway.
"I come from a farming family, so it’s conservative or Catholic," said a 21-year old, Bryan Pulda. "Our personal views are more reflected in the Republican candidates.”
Ryan Schrader also traced his political leanings to his family, saying, “I come from a very conservative background myself. My family is very conservative Baptists."
Like Pulda and so many other Iowa voters, Schrader's faith also influences his political preference. In this case, Ron Paul. "His views are more towards letting the people, which would be all of us, make the decisions to shape our country."
Another gay Paul supporter, 21-year old Dereck Plagmann, pointed to the candidate's calls for strict constitutional originalism, "I think it’s something that we’ve definitely drifted away from."
"We need to get back to it basically," he said. "Other presidents, everybody’s trying to make changes to it. They’ve lost focus on what really made this country, and what made us who we are.”
Mitt Romney is also getting some love in Iowa. CJ Peterson, 21, tells Johnson he's impressed by Romney's emotional evolution since his last campaign in 2008. "If you compare the YouTube videos from ’08 to now, he seems a lot less robotic and choppy and nervous," he explained. "I think he seems a lot more relaxed, and almost presidential, ready to be a leader.”
So, why would openly gay men support candidates like Romney and Paul, neither of whom have stellar records when it comes to equality? Pulda says he supports the GOP, yet no specific candidate yet, because he has worries other than inclusion. "I would find it almost selfish for me to go out and say, ‘I vote for this person simply because they want same-sex marriage,'” he explained. “There are so many more problems in this country affecting more people than just me.”
I guess that's fair enough, but then one has to ask themselves whether the Republicans have all the answers on corporate regulation, global warming or other issues as important for the nation's future. Clearly these men think they do, and many other LGBT people probably do, too. But isn't voting for someone based on their religion just the same?
It is worth noting, however, that none of these men showed support for the most anti-gay candidates, including Rick Santorum, Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann, so clearly there is some LGBT interest afoot.
In other gay election news, Google interviewed Johnson to get his perspective on Iowa, the race as a whole and where the GOP stands on LGBT equality. Check it out, AFTER THE JUMP...
@AG: You have a broad definition of "propaganda." It's a comment thread. You came here to read it. Why volunteer to read "propaganda?"
As for the "intolerant" stuff, why yes! I am completely intolerant of anyone who is intolerant of me! I will not unilaterally disarm so that I can claim some sort of tolerance prize. But I think you know that... this is just a talking point. "Gays are so intolerant. They don't tolerate the views of people who say they are same as dog f*ckers."
Posted by: RyanInSacto | Jan 3, 2012 2:41:59 PM
One said he doesn't know if its because he lives in Iowa and Iowa has marriage he feels it's enough. That's a young man's response, they all have a lot of growing up to do and I hope they do it outside Iowa. It's easy to forget that you lose that right the minute you leave the state. But saying its enough basically screws the rest who don't have that right.
I have a financial future not just a romantic future again shows age. They get what they vote for. ENDA and safe schools are very important, I'd like to know what they all think about marriage and what their families think about it since they shaped them.
The republicans are incapable of not talking about social issues, these guys are getting talking points from LCR. Social issues will come up, always do.
Lip service coment LOL
It's amazing to me, I'll state again maybe these guys will read it. Had the republican (their side) not required 60 votes the Democrats could have passed it with out republican help. It's great a few republican voted for it but... Yeah. I wonder what Romney would do with a DADT repeal bill on his desk
Posted by: George M | Jan 3, 2012 2:44:12 PM
"There are lots of gay people out there for whom being gay is not the 1st or 2nd or even 3rd most-important aspect of their lives."
I don't think most gay people want their sexual identity to be the most important aspect of their lives. But it's more or less forced to be that because their relatives, peers, or society make a big deal of it. It would be hard for anyone to live a quiet, uneventful life when the threat of ostracization, imprisonment, or death is just around the corner because of that one marginal aspect of our identity.
The day that 'gay' stops mattering so much is the day that it doesn't matter to other people.
"That some Republican candidates are appealing to folks for whom being gay is not the most-important thing in their lives, should come as no surprise, and should not cause consternation."
Not one of the interviewed comes off as a rational actor exercising a deliberate choice: they're not expressing cogent views on tax policies, labour policies, the environment, or social organization, they're reaffirming their tribal affiliation because of their family/religion. And that's all the more glaring, because both Christianity and Conservatism ostensibly emphasize the value of free will in determining the quality of our lives.
The actual reality is different, of course, but that merely confirms how frequently divorced our actual beliefs are from what we think they are.
Posted by: Nat | Jan 3, 2012 2:44:42 PM
@ AKULA:
Granted, politics is filthy...all about power and money...Dems want bigger Gov't and more control over our lives...just like Republicans.
But your economic argument is false. A Job should be done by whomever can do it most effectively.
As wages and cost-of-living increase in developing economies, American workers are becoming more and more competitive. Jobs are coming back to America.
What we need is a massive and ongoing training/retraining program.
Look what Rahm Emanuel is doing in Chicago...re-gearing community colleges to work with businesses to train American workers for semi-skilled jobs which would otherwise either go un-filled, or would be shipped overseas.
It helps NO ONE to force US companies to do anything uneconomic.
Where trade is not fair (foreign manufacturers gain an advantage from weaker environmental regulations), we need to level the trade playing field.
But fair trade (in goods, resources, labor, etc.) is good trade. More fair trade lifts everyone's standards of living...it's NOT a zero-sum game.
Posted by: Chris | Jan 3, 2012 2:47:38 PM
@ CHRIS -- yes, it does cause consternation. Because although my sexuality is not my top election priority, nor is it all encompassing, that STILL should not make me self-destructive enough to vote for people who would actually harm me BECAUSE of specifically that "unimportant" sexuality.
Posted by: Strepsi | Jan 3, 2012 2:52:46 PM
@ NAT:
I basically agree with you...but I'd say the day is fast approaching when being gay is NOT a big deal.
Who's looking to imprison or kill us? You're being overly-dramatic.
Consider Republican candidates are pandering to the right-wing-nuts in Iowa...most candidates don't REALLY feel the way they're talking.
If Romney becomes President, as long as right-wing-nuts don't co-opt his Administration, I think he'll focus on solving our economic and other problems, and there's a good chance he'll leave social issues alone, or at-least not work to reverse our gains.
Look what he did in Massachusetts. Look which issues he focused on...and which issues he compromised on in order to advance his agenda. He's not all that scary.
Posted by: Chris | Jan 3, 2012 3:01:00 PM
They're young. Give them 10 more years of realization where they get to see what laws like DOMA really do to them and they'll flip their votes. They're probably college students who don't pay taxes besides their holiday work at Abercrombie, so they don't see how different the tax structure is for gay couples (even married ones in Iowa). They don't worry about health issues and hospital visits. They don't think about death and estate taxes.
I was a 21-year old gay "Republican" too, mostly because Mommy and Daddy taught me so. For me, it took falling in love and marrying a non-citizen to realize, "Yep, I really am a second-class citizen."
Are there more important issues in this country than equality and justice for all? Absolutely not. In fact, it's selfish to desire personal wealth over the well-being of an entire segment of the population (GOProud - bastards have use the word "Proud" despite their obvious lack of Pride). Let's not kid ourselves - it's not about the "bigger" problems our country faces, it's about a bigger wallet for the individual.
Posted by: kpo5 | Jan 3, 2012 3:04:30 PM
@KPO5: Well said. I, too, am tired of hearing that gay people should de-prioritize equality because it's just not that important compared to X, Y, and Z. We know what happens when we de-prioritize the fight for equality... we slide backwards.
Posted by: RyanInSacto | Jan 3, 2012 3:13:42 PM
The group I so not understand, but so what.
Posted by: Matt26 | Jan 3, 2012 3:15:26 PM
"Who's looking to imprison or kill us? You're being overly-dramatic."
Not really. Recent improvements are just that - recent improvements. A large percentage of gays lived in an era where they could be imprisoned, or killed, if they were too overt with their sexuality. There thousands of homeless LGBT youth on the street, right now, in cities across America, because their families and communities won't accept them. Gay youths commit suicide in far higher rates in no small part due to unrelenting bullying and societal rejection.
Comparative improvements are nice, but the historical memory for most gays for now will be marginalization the likes of which most straight people don't experience.
"Consider Republican candidates are pandering to the right-wing-nuts in Iowa...most candidates don't REALLY feel the way they're talking."
No doubt. But a) Obama has long been attacked by gay liberals and conservatives for not supporting gay marriage; hence to conservatives, being akin to someone like Romney, when it's clear that he's merely pandering to socially conservative Democratic voters. Letting the Republican candidates off the hook while castigating Obama for the same political cynicism is intellectually inconsistent.
And b) the sheer anti-gay vitriol of the Republican base is proof positive that the party is no place for any gay person, even if they are conservative. The fact that candidates have to pander to such extremes - where no civil rights, at all, would be recognized says something.
And there are several Republican candidates who clearly do believe the worst about gays, or at least gays who don't vote their way.
"If Romney becomes President, as long as right-wing-nuts don't co-opt his Administration, I think he'll focus on solving our economic and other problems, and there's a good chance he'll leave social issues alone, or at-least not work to reverse our gains."
That simply isn't an acceptable outcome. I am not interested in passive antipathy from the executive for 4-8 years. If Republicans control Congress, there will be no federal advances until they don't control Congress.
"Look what he did in Massachusetts. Look which issues he focused on...and which issues he compromised on in order to advance his agenda. He's not all that scary."
Yes, a Republican in one of the most traditionally Democratic parts of the country was forced to compromise. A Republican executive paired with a Republican congress and an American population that is generally conservative is not a recipe for compromise, it's a recipe for regression, or, at the very least, arrested development.
Posted by: Nat | Jan 3, 2012 3:31:16 PM
"That some Republican candidates are appealing to folks for whom being gay is not the most-important thing in their lives, should come as no surprise, and should not cause consternation."
You're right about not being surprised but you're dead wrong (pun intended) about not having consternation in the sense of dismay not amazement.
Posted by: redball | Jan 3, 2012 3:54:00 PM
Living lives like these are akin to being brainwashed for your entire life. It's hard to blame these young men, they don't know any different and are probably used to being second class and hiding, it's their way of life. It's a hostage situation that they've been in all their lives and it's okay with them because there is no other frame of reference.
It's sad really. Because they think that we all think that our gay rights are our one and only priority (why else would you say it's not your #1, #2, or even #3 priority?) It's not but for these kids the bigger picture is elusive because they don't live the bigger picture. They live a small life. It's not a sin or a crime, it just is.
Posted by: Bart | Jan 3, 2012 4:17:54 PM
They may still be under the religious brainwashing of their parents now, while they're in their early 20s (time to think for yourselves, boys) and can speak in vague misinformed generalities about why they like certain candidates like Paul or Romney, but wait a few years as they watch Republicans in IA attempt to overturn marriage equality there (equality that was based on your Constitution, boys) and attempt to stall and set back all progress on lgbt rights. If you're voting for someone who disrespects your fundamental humanity (the vast majority of Republicans running for office now), you're voting against your fundamental humanity.
Posted by: Ernie | Jan 3, 2012 4:18:23 PM
I'm glad that there are some gay men who look beyond "gay rights" when considering a candidate. We're voting for President of the country, and not the person who successfully panders to us the most.
Of course, that doesn't mean that we ignore a candidate's attitude to gay people. It is part of the overall package, after all. But we shouldn't let the level of pandering to us to be the main determinant of our vote. It simply encourages further pandering and, in Obama's case, dishonest statements aimed at us that are designed to win our votes.
Posted by: jason | Jan 3, 2012 4:44:54 PM
Some boys in Iowa have not been paying attention.
I especially like Nat's comment: "There are lots of gay people out there for whom being gay is not the 1st or 2nd or even 3rd most-important aspect of their lives." But to most of the gang of Republicans running for President it IS the most important thing to them about who you are!
Just returned from Poland and Auschwitz/Birkenau where an entire nation was duped into accepting that if you were different you didn't deserve to have a life. There are many similar assumptions floating around today regarding "gays". If we are not diligent it can happen again and to us.
Posted by: major707 | Jan 3, 2012 5:00:27 PM
I guess what you see as pandering others see as real. What you think the president does is not what I think or others. I conceder the glass half full and am not willing to try another glass at this point in my life. But your right people will take what they want from it and do what they will. I think people underestimate the power of the religious right when a republican is in office. I'd rather have Paul win then any other republican, at least he just doesn't care. Again I would encourage them to live alittle out side Iowa for awhile, life can be a real eye opener
Posted by: George M | Jan 3, 2012 5:03:54 PM
O lol I kinda think it would be funny if Rick won tonight, would love to take him on
Posted by: George M | Jan 3, 2012 5:05:19 PM
They're traitors. Plain and simple. If a black person was voting for a candidate who supported stripping blacks of their rights because that voter felt their "personal views are more reflected in the [this] candidate," they would be called CRAZY! It's that simple.
Posted by: Rob | Jan 3, 2012 5:33:53 PM
I just don't get it!
Posted by: Harry | Jan 3, 2012 5:48:07 PM
Oh boys grow a pair. The whole "I come from a conservative family so thats why im a gay republican" is a tired excuse. GROW UP! The republicans dont care about you and your catholic church thinks you're gonna burn in hell. Stockholm Syndrome?!
Posted by: Chicklets | Jan 3, 2012 5:49:12 PM
"Towleroad readers are self-selected for their homosexuality being of great importance to them.
There are lots of gay people out there for whom being gay is not the 1st or 2nd or even 3rd most-important aspect of their lives.
That some Republican candidates are appealing to folks for whom being gay is not the most-important thing in their lives, should come as no surprise, and should not cause consternation."
Bingo, Chris. And I would add that the real battle in society is a cultural one, not a political one. Most gay people don't care about getting married, are (rightly) skeptical that anti-discrimination laws will make any difference in their lives at work or anywhere else, and will never be the victim of a hate crime or want to join the military.
The whole gay political agenda is therefore, if not totally irrelevant to them, of decidedly secondary, if not tertiary importance.
Furthermore, if the culture is changed to make it non-homophobic, none of these political issues will even exist--the laws proposed would either not be necessary or would face little opposition.
But unfortunately, what many of these guys see when they look at gay activists these days is a bunch of Far Left extremists who instead of being focused on the eradication of homophobia in society, pursue an often bizarre and unrealizable agenda of trying to destroy standards of masculinity, promote gender-bending and radical feminism, and promote general non-conformity to ALL societal standards of behavior.....in addition to being, on a personal level, generally rather obnoxious, hostile people who objectify men and worship women and are unlikely ever to be your friend.......
So is it any wonder they take the path that they do?
And I say that as a tree-hugging, raise-taxes-on-the-wealthy, anti-US-imperialism, vegetarian, animal rights activist......despite what my image on this site may be.
Posted by: Rick | Jan 3, 2012 5:57:16 PM
@ ROB:
They're not traitors. Immature maybe. Not forming their opinions - definitely. But traitors? No.
It's more nuanced than you propose. While the right-wind-nuts might strip our rights, I doubt Romney, for instance, will strip our rights.
Can't anyone see nuance, and shades of grey? It's not all black-and-white.
I do agree with @ NAT that we need to maintain a Democrat Senate if Romney (or any Republican) is elected, as a balance, to ensure right-wing-nuts don't ram through social conservatism.
Posted by: Chris | Jan 3, 2012 6:02:37 PM
Ummm ok
So who does everyone think is going to win tonight? My monies Paul
Posted by: George M | Jan 3, 2012 6:10:52 PM
"Not one of the interviewed comes off as a rational actor exercising a deliberate choice: they're not expressing cogent views on tax policies, labour policies, the environment, or social organization, they're reaffirming their tribal affiliation because of their family/religion"
Which is another way of saying that their families and the people in their communities mean more to them and are more dependable sources of emotional support at the individual level, EVEN IF they are homophobic at an ideological level.....and a much greater and more dependable source of emotional support than other gay people are.
And I would have to guess that that is a very common experience for many of us.
Most gay men's experience of other gay men is, on balance, pretty negative, I suspect. Gay men in general treat each other pretty badly.....and always have. Deep emotional connections are rare and close frienships among gay men are as rare as they are among straight men, if not moreso. Sexual objectification is the norm and one becomes a social non-entity by one's mid-40's as one's physical attractiveness fades....and God help you if you were never that attractive to begin with.
Not a very dependable source of emotional sustenance at all......certainly not compared to one's family or members of one's church and the like.......
That is most likely what is going on here.....
Posted by: Rick | Jan 3, 2012 6:15:16 PM
Chris what is it about Romney you like? Show me the gray maybe I just don't see it
Posted by: George M | Jan 3, 2012 6:16:39 PM