2012 Election | Barack Obama | Gay Media | Mitt Romney

'The Advocate' Backs President Obama's Re-Election


Saying the 2012 election "presents a choice between starkly opposing futures," the editorial team at long-running LGBT magazine The Advocate today endorsed President Obama's reelection campaign. This is the magazine's first presidential endorsement in "decades," but they felt compelled to back Obama because this year's race "presents a choice between starkly opposing futures."

Mitt Romney, they say, "betrays equality on numerous issues and aligns himself with a faction of the Republican Party that does not include equality among its declared ideals." And while some fear Obama's "radical" policies, The Advocate describes him as a moderate whose policies "only appear particularly progressive in contrast with the policies of his predecessor."

More from the endorsement:

By saying aloud, “I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” in a televised interview on ABC, [President Obama] has sparked conversation domestically and internationally. While he is our president at home, globally he’s an icon, a symbol of the promise of America, of the promise of equality.

Obama may be the most prominent man on the planet ever, given the pervasiveness of modern media and his anomalous and historic nature as the first black American president; he is surely the single most recognizable head of state on the globe.

By virtue of his unique position, his endorsement of marriage equality is not merely rhetoric. His words constitute action. On the very face of it, his statement is enormous, and has the power to move millions in a way that a statement from no other person could have.


Obama's influence doesn't exist in a vacuum, they say, and his declaration inspired other Democratic leaders and constituencies to fall in line with equality, no small feat. But their endorsement isn't simply about same-sex nuptials:

Also significant are the Obama administration’s actions in support of LGBT equality. In 2009, Obama signed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act, and announced the lifting of the ban on HIV-positive green card applicants and visitors to the U.S. He signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the first pro-LGBT federal law in U.S. history. After just two years into office, he had appointed more LGBTs to head commissions and agencies, to ambassadorships, and to senior staff positions than any president, surpassing the entire two-term record of Bill Clinton. He has quadrupled the number of openly gay judges on the federal bench.

You can read the rest of The Advocate's Obama endorsement HERE.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Let's be real, the mag is left leaning. Some gays will vote mittens most will vote Obama. It's going to be that way from now on. As courts rule our way and change things republicans and republican gays will feel safe to come out and be part of the solution. Republicans will start voting our way because people in their districts are changing. It's obvious why people vote mittens, he promises "money" like all republicans do, few deliver.
    Personally I hope for Obama, if not at lease the senate so they can kill every anti bill he puts forth. Make his 4 years hard

    Posted by: GeorgeM | Jul 6, 2012 6:10:20 PM

  2. With unemployment currently being at 8.2%, I think any gay guy interested in keeping his job would vote for Romney. Obama just isn't working.

    Posted by: bruce | Jul 6, 2012 6:18:21 PM

  3. Obama just isn't working, that's right from Romney's play book
    In your opinion why would Romney do better?

    Posted by: GeorgeM | Jul 6, 2012 6:31:02 PM

  4. As a gay man, I will very gladly vote for Mitt Romney. I supported John McCain in 2008 (he got 27% of the gay vote) and now I support Romney. Obamacare is a slap in the face to the nation. I'm not even gonna go into all the shocking things the bill actually contains.

    Thank goodness I don't subscribe to The Advocate. This issue right here would've led me to terminate my subscription.

    Posted by: ? | Jul 6, 2012 7:20:29 PM

  5. Slap in the face? Why? What makes you support one over the other?

    Personally as a gay man I like obamacare and think it will do good

    Posted by: GeorgeM | Jul 6, 2012 7:25:15 PM

  6. It was reported today that in The United States of America in the month of June 2012 that more Americans were granted federal disability benefits than new jobs were filled. Why don't you repeat that about 3 times to let it sink in. If you think this country can survive 4 more years of truely disabled people along side of what is sure to be a multitude or lazy f*cks gladly gaming the system........no way he is reelected. Never in history has a rotten economic president ever been.

    Posted by: MarkUs | Jul 6, 2012 7:34:12 PM

  7. My my. Aren't we shocked. The responses to this post just prove that many white, wealthy (or think they could magically become wealthy just by "working hard")gay men are exactly like their white, straight counterparts. Obamacare a "slap in the face to the nation?"
    It's a slap in the nation's face that people won't have to die from life threatening conditions because they can't get insurance? Huh?
    Do you people hear yourselves? Thank your lucky stars you're employed, you have health care, and you aren't sick. You have no idea how lucky you are.

    Many people aren't so lucky. Please, explain in DETAIL what Romney will do to ensure they won't suffer. Details, please. Doing nothing isn't an option, btw.

    Please explain how Romney, who has stated many times that he will enact a Constitutional amendment to ban any form of recognition for same sex couples, will ensure that you can visit your spouse when he or she is sick in the hospital, how adoption rights for gay couples will work, etc, etc. Are you actually telling me you DON'T CARE that you'll officially be second class citizens? Really?

    I'm all for a nuanced view of things when that's called for, but there is no nuance in this upcoming election. Are you for the guy who's trying to help people, or the guy who wants to keep the status quo, and doesn't care that his fellow citizens will suffer.

    I mean, really guys, I'm trying to understand your viewpoint, but all I hear is "get off my lawn, you lazy brown

    Posted by: Dramaticartchild | Jul 6, 2012 7:39:05 PM

  8. Jason, you were on here a few months ago throwing your support behind Newt Gingrich. I just wanted to remind people of that.

    And that cover SUCKS. So ugly. Terrible graphic.

    Posted by: Gregoire | Jul 6, 2012 7:45:05 PM

  9. Well put, Dramaticartchild. Some people will throw away their own civil rights at the VERY HINT of a threat to their piles of money.

    Posted by: Gregoire | Jul 6, 2012 7:47:23 PM

  10. Markus who are you talking to? Anyone or just in general? I mean you never have the balls to answer questions. I'm guessing in general

    Posted by: GeorgeM | Jul 6, 2012 7:52:50 PM

  11. Reading some of these comments has been alarming. Whatever you think of Obama (and I think he's done a great job and he's just getting warmed up), only a CRAZY PERSON would vote for Romney!! Not only do the Repubs have no interest in advancing advancing gay rights, they will dial back any and every gain that we as LGBT's have made over these years. We'll watch every one of our hard-won victories go up in smoke. I hate to be crass, but seriously ppl- get your heads out of your butts, and help Obama get his second term. We can't afford aything less.

    Posted by: Ealan14 | Jul 6, 2012 7:56:51 PM

  12. Dramaticartchild
    They don't care about the threat of an amendment, or possible return of DADT. Visitation or lifted travel restrictions. They don't think it will happen. See Jason said Obama says things to get elected, well Romney said he would work on an amendment. Promised the religious right. So did mittens lie to get votes OR is he going to work on that????
    If the prospect of an extra twenty is offered many will jump, their right to jump. Free to vote

    Posted by: GeorgeM | Jul 6, 2012 8:00:56 PM

  13. YAY Advocate!

    Posted by: Marky | Jul 6, 2012 8:47:32 PM

  14. Dramatica (or whatever the heck your username is), I have a newsflash for you: Obama's not here to "help" people. He's here to advance the interests of the elite entities who prepped him to run for president in the first place. I mean seriously, a community organizer & one-term senator was suddenly qualified to lead one of the greatest countries on Earth?

    Say what you will about "Mittens", but he has already declared that his primary concern as president would be to create jobs. He also plans to repeal Obamacare. The public will hold him accountable if he reneges on those promises once elected. Fear-mongering doesn't cut it with me. You Obama supporters are forgetting a very significant detail: NOBODY owes you anything. You want all gay voters to choose Obama based on what would benefit YOU.

    Posted by: ? | Jul 6, 2012 8:55:00 PM

  15. That's not tru, it's your right to vote anyway you want. We just want gays to stop screwing us
    Just our take on it

    Posted by: GeorgeM | Jul 6, 2012 9:08:18 PM

  16. ?, do you ever ask yourself HOW Romney will create jobs?

    Posted by: BobN | Jul 6, 2012 9:19:02 PM

  17. The level of Fox enduced ignorance here is as embarrassing as it is depressing. But why am I surprised? These are the same people who deny evolution and climate change. What are facts when you have "belief" and ideology. If it wouldn't be so disastrous for not only us, but also for the rest of the country, watching what another 4-8 disastrous Republican years did to these people would be fun to watch. Smh

    Posted by: Michaelandfred | Jul 6, 2012 9:19:02 PM

  18. Michael we may get that, who ever wins will do so by points. It really could go either way

    We need to hold the senate, that way we can stop the repeal of obamacare, amendments and turn around is fair play. Stop the things he wants to do like the republicans do now.

    Posted by: GeorgeM | Jul 6, 2012 9:29:15 PM

  19. "Obamacare is a slap in the face to the nation. I'm not even gonna go into all the shocking things the bill actually contains."

    Translation: I have no idea what the bill actually provides so I'm just here to recite Faux News talking points. We've seen your kind before, like in this brilliant video by a young gay guy exposing how little the most rabid Obamacare opponents actually know about the law: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pilG7PCV448

    So please specify which exactly are the "shocking" provisions of Obamacare to which you most strongly object.

    •Is it the requirement that insurance companies allow young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance plans until age 26? Shocking.
    •Is it the requirement that companies with more than 50 workers provide health insurance for their employees? Shocking.
    •Is it the prohibition on insurance companies denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions? Shocking.
    •Is it the ban on lifetime caps on claims payments, which insurance companies have previously used to deny coverage to very sick people? Shocking.
    •Is it the requirement that at least 80% of premium payments be spent by insurance companies on medical services, instead of advertising and executive salaries? Shocking.
    •Perhaps it's the individual mandate? Never mind that the mandate, loved by the insurance companies and loathed by progressives who want to replace our employer-based, for-profit system of health insurance with a single payer system, was born at the conservative Heritage Foundation and has previously been championed by conservatives ranging from Bob Dole to Newt Gingrich. Surely these days you would recoil at someone who would suggest that "if people can afford to buy it, either buy the insurance or pay your own way. Don't be free riders and pass the cost of health care on to everybody else." Such a person would clearly be a radical socialist hell-bent on destroying everything that is good about our society. Your problem? Those words were uttered by your candidate, Mitt Romney, and he's never made more sense.

    Yes, those provisions are "shocking" and a "slap in the face." I can certainly understand why you wouldn't want to discuss them when children might be reading this blog.

    "Say what you will about "Mittens", but he has already declared that his primary concern as president would be to create jobs." Since jobs are so important to you, I imagine that you've done more than simply take Romney at his word and that you've researched both his record and his present policy proposals. So, I'm wondering, just which part of his record on jobs has inspired you with such confidence? Was it that Massachusetts ranked 47th in job growth while he was governor or was it that Massachusetts suffered the second largest labor force decline while he was governor? Just wondering. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/04/494282/5-facts-about-the-massachusetts-economy-under-mitt-romney/
    And just which of Romney's proposals inspires such confidence in you that he'd have a better record on job creation as President than his abysmal record as Governor? Perhaps you should share your thoughts with the conservative editors of the Wall Street Journal, since just this week they lamented Romeny's failure/refusal to articulate "why the President's policies aren't working and how Mr. Romney's policies will do better." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304141204577506652734793044.html

    The facts are that the President's accomplishments on job creation are pretty remarkable when you consider that (i) the country's financial system was on the brink of collapse when he took office, (ii) Republicans in Congress have refused to implement any of his job creation proposals over the past couple of years, (iii) businesses are making record profits but not reinvesting them in the economy and (iv) Europe has been teetering on the brink. Indeed, had public sector employment increased over the past few years (as it did under Reagan and the Bushes when they faced economic downturns) instead of decreasing as it has, unemployment would stand at about 7.0% today. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/public-sector-austerity-in-one-graph/2012/06/11/gJQAv89NVV_blog.html Particularly significant among the President's accomplishments was the successful 2009 stimulus law. No doubt it would have been more successful had it not been reduced in size and laden with relatively non-stimulative tax cuts in order to overcome a Republican filibuster but nonetheless it provided a significant boost to the struggling jobs market. As concluded by the non-partisan CBO, unemployment would have shot well above 10% had it not been for the stimulus law. http://blog.wvpolicy.org/2012/02/29/cbo-report-shows-the-stimulus-is-still-boosting-the-economy.aspx

    "With unemployment currently being at 8.2%, I think any gay guy interested in keeping his job would vote for Romney. Obama just isn't working." Please look at this chart - http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/tag/bikini-graph/ - and remind those of us who are not as savvy as you just how it is that the President's record on private sector job growth is so horrible (especially given the forces working against him which I've noted above). While you're at it, please identify for me the recession in world history of comparable depth to the Bush recession from which any economy recovered more rapidly, with respect to job creation, than ours has over the past few years. I can wait.

    One of my very favorite comments on this post was this one: "Markus who are you talking to? Anyone or just in general? I mean you never have the balls to answer questions. I'm guessing in general." Loved it, GeorgeM. You're right on and I should say that I do not expect any response to any of the questions I've raised here from any of the self-loathing Romney backers. That would require that they actually understand something about world or national history or the world economy or the provisions of the laws against which they're railing. Who has time for any of that when it's so much more gratifying to just listen to Rushbo and the talking heads at Faux News?

    Posted by: Patric | Jul 6, 2012 10:28:19 PM

  20. Patric great post!
    You want to build the economy start by spending. The government can and I think has a responsibility to creat jobs. Bridges, roads, buildings, plants etc. when the government cuts spending jobs are lost. England has yet to pull out of its slump because the government has cut overall spending. It doesn't work it never did.
    When people start spending money the economy grows. We buy things, pay taxs the government gets money, it spends and creats jobs, we make money we buy things.

    I think it was in the new york times about how the insurance companies love the mandate. They ere even lobbying republicans to keep it. It's money for them

    Posted by: GeorgeM | Jul 6, 2012 11:15:15 PM

  21. I think it is a great cover. Obama, as flawed as he is, will go down in history as important to LGBT freedom as lincoln, as flawed as he was, is to the freedom of African Americans.

    Posted by: andrew | Jul 7, 2012 1:18:16 AM

  22. will surely bookmark it as well and also go through your other posts tonight.Thanks for you sharing!Don't miss this golden chance to own them. welcome to

    Posted by: fitflops | Jul 7, 2012 3:08:03 AM

  23. @PATRIC :
    Thank you so much for your post.....from reading these posts from others I was beginning to despair about my fellow gays....but all the points you make kick the real substantive issues right back at the GOProud wankers on this site.

    As a previous writer has said , are we all turning into white, self-satisfied suburban faux-republicans ?......watching that propaganda $hit box, FOX ?
    Any gay who votes for Romney is too self absorbed to see the big picture.
    And as for disabilities social welfare, well, that's a matter of reform.....but not a reform based on tax cuts for the rich.
    Obama is right; we need to take back the House and pass decent equitable reforms which are more reflective of the obligations of the rich to pay increased contributions to the society in which they live.
    It boggles the mind that gays are contemplating voting for Romney; don't they understand what will happen to our rights with a religious zelot mouthing platitudes for the next four years ?
    And have those gays heard of SCOTUS ? or know what that could mean for us ?

    But then again, we gays haven't exactly distinguished ourselves in our political sponsorships of the past !!!!!!!!

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Jul 7, 2012 7:50:02 AM

  24. At least they get a point right: the president of USA is a symbol of equality. I hope you Americans will do the right thing and let your nation be a beacon of hope for repressed LGBT people around the world. From Indonesia with love, darkorient.

    Posted by: darkorient | Jul 7, 2012 9:18:48 AM

  25. It would have been dereliction not to support Obama after he signaled his support for marriage equality. Our struggle for rights has - for good or ill - will be made decisive through the marriage battle. It's not the first battle, it won't be the last battle, but it is and will continue to be the turning point.

    There are no logical reasons related to gay rights to vote for Romney. That's not meant to necessarily impugn those LGBTs who vote for him, but merely to state that if an LGBT person is voting for Romney, they are not allocating as much interest in marriage equality and civil rights as someone who is voting for Obama is.

    Posted by: Nat | Jul 7, 2012 4:40:10 PM

  26. « | 1 2 3 »

Post a comment


« «Aussie MP Blasts Opponents Of Marriage Equality: 'Worst Sort Of Hypocrisy'« «