Would you vote for a gay president?

[Ellie]

This has become a hot topic for discussion elsewhere; I thought I would bring the apparent fight here.

The big question is: would you vote for a president (Prime Minister/Electable leader of your choice)?


An interesting current news topic on the matter:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10194287.stm

David Laws, Liberal Democrat, has had to resign over an expenses scandal. He took money from the government to pay for a room he was in fact renting from a man - his partner for nine years. The thing is, he would have actually got more money from the expenses system if he had legally declared himself as living with the man in question, because the couple could have took money to rent it. But being an intensively private man, and expecting some kind of repurcussion from the public for his private love for another man, he hid behind what was essentially fraud, even if it meant actually taking less money from the Government.

 

[mawk]

man, that was a dumb call on Laws' part. diverting government money for your own use is basically dooming your political career, regardless of the circumstances. fraud is way more of a kiss of death than admitting you're gay, albeit without all the embarrassing probing that would follow the latter.

as for the main question, I can't think of any reason not to vote for a gay president. I have more or less the same philosophy for that as I did for questions of Obama's heritage during his campaign: keep your political opinions to politics. race, sexuality, whether they prefer coke or pepsi -- all of these are completely immaterial to the way a man or woman would run a country. I don't think a lot of people understand that any given president or prime minister is under a great deal of pressure to steer the country in the right direction, and will generally do so to the best of his knowledge and ability. if he happens to have a husband, how does that change anything?

that said, there might be a lot of legal outrage. I'm not sure how gay marriage laws sit in Canada and the UK (although I really should in the case of the former) but if the gay president is in fact married it might spark a bit of an uproar since the face of the nation is involved in something that's illegal in a large portion of it. there's probably a reasonable solution to this, but I guarantee that it would at least get mentioned ad nauseam during his campaign.

I don't think it could happen right now, though. there's still a lot of intolerance, hidden and otherwise, that would take some truly miraculous campaigning to overcome.

 

[Cryranos]

I would vote for a homosexual depending on how they represent the LGBTQ community as a whole.

Of course since the last good president we had was George Bush Sr., I don't think I would want to be identified with an idiotic head of state, so chances are I would not vote for them.

Besides, chances are that gay marriage will be legal in at least half of the nation by the time of the next presidential elections.

 

[Jason]

Doesn't make a difference to me, I mean I don't even follow politics unless there's an election going on, and feel that who exactly runs the country has no effect on me as an individual, but the laws that they're pushing...

 

[Cryranos]

The lady that is nominated for the supreme justice bench that will open up soon may or may not be a lesbian.

If they put that bigoted Mexican bitch on the bench, they had better not turn her down! :box:

 

[mawk]

metatron please keep to the subject, alright? we don't need this to turn into every other political argument on the internet.

 

[Cryranos]

I think that's perfectly relevant, the only difference is that there is no common referendum on supreme court appointments. I'm just saying that there may be a woman who may be LGBTQ in a position that is higher than the president, so it is feasible that we could possibly elect a president who is LGBTQ.

 

[mawk]

so Bush Sr. and Sotomayor are representatives of the GLBT population as well? this is big news!

bring in relevant stories as you please, but for the sake of this thread please leave out the tangential mini-editorials.

 

[Cryranos]

no... ok i see your point. Continue.

 

[Ellie]

If we were really in a democratic society then the person elected as president shouldn't matter (a dog could be elected president and the views of the entire nation would be expressed and acted upon). Shame we don't and never can, unless we all lived in individual 1-person states.

 

[Star]

Okay, it's time for the person with the opposite views to post here. Here I am..

I would not vote for a gay president who widely claimed they are gay. In fact, if he is gay, I hope it's don't ask don't tell. I have very good reasons why I would not vote for a gay president. Let's go over them.

1. Being a president requires lots of emotional readiness and strength to one's voice.

Most "OPENLY" gay men act feminine and would freak out at the hands of threats from countries that hate them. I don't think they'd be able to handle the stress of being president, and handling the military, much less everything else. Why do you think they don't allow gay people to join the military? They use a don't ask don't tell policy. Should the Commander in Chief of the Military be gay then?

2. Presidents are considered Major Role models.

Most family oriented with a husband and wife and kids are not gonna want their kids to turn out gay. They will vote for a person that would be an excellent role model. Sure being gay is okay, but most people who aren't gay don't want their children to end up so.

3. Same Sex Marriage Ban

Most of the States in the US still have a same sex marriage ban. Nobodies gonna vote for a president who says he only has a girlfriend or boyfriend. Most presidents have all been married. So you think all these states are gonna vote for a gay president.

4. Votes don't matter

When it comes right down to it, if you live in a democracy, not a Republic, your vote really does not matter. Most decisions are that effect the election of a president is represented by 2 representatives you elected from your state. If they haven't approved gay marriage in 46 states or so, why would they approve of a gay president.

5. I might just stop voting all together

Voting doesn't matter anyway, it's not like the president has full power over the country like some sort of dictator. So why should I care who's in office anyway. I just won't vote for him.

 

[Ellie]

While I don't agree with the "all gays are feminine" and "all feminine people are weak" sentiments, I do agree here:

Voting doesn't matter anyway, it's not like the president has full power over the country like some sort of dictator. So why should I care who's in office anyway. I just won't vote for him.

Most legislation that comes through has already been in the system long before the new government steps into power and is generally done as "the best possible measure at the time", not "the measure which best suits the president". Although it's important to note that (in the UK at least) you are voting for party, not president; you vote in all of the law makers not just the big guy on top, so the "why should I care who's in office" becomes a much bigger deal when it's all 650 law makers.

 

[mawk]

christ, star, have you ever met a gay person? fun fact: television is not real life. characterizing every homosexual as a lisping, wrist-bending chinless twit is quite ignorant.

 

[Star]

christ, star, have you ever met a gay person? fun fact: television is not real life. characterizing every homosexual as a lisping, wrist-bending chinless twit is quite ignorant.

I said OPENLY. Like flamboyant. Like Chris Crocker Gay. I did not specify every gay person like that. I have met gay people, I was friends with one, and they hit on me. You can be gay without everybody knowing, therefore you could probably still get my vote.

I don't even watch Television, or have Cable TV in my house

 

[StrawberrySmiles]

I say being gay would not matter to me. As long as he or she (that's right, she) would make a good president(ess), I would vote for them.

Being gay just means you like the same gender, nothing more, nothing less. It means nothing to me - I care about who the person ACTUALLY is not who they like. Maybe it's because I like both genders, but even if I didn't - I wouldn't worry about their sexuality too much. ^_^

 

[mawk]

starggundam, would someone of such a wilting demeanour even run for president in the first place? foreign relations and wars are not the first or, arguably, the worst signs of conflict that are found in politics.

 

[Star]

starggundam, would someone of such a wilting demeanour even run for president in the first place? foreign relations and wars are not the first or, arguably, the worst signs of conflict that are found in politics.

Well I commend you for that. I agree with that fully. I don't think they'd try running for president. But this topics subject did start with a big "IF" so I couldn't help but start a debate for great justice.

 

[Ellie]

When I voted all I really took notice of was whether they were Labour, Lib Dem, Tory, BNP, or Green. I failed to even notice one of the candidates was a woman!

 

[Daxis]

homophobia is usually a conditioned idea anyways, so hating on someone for being gay is pretty stupid.

However, while I would like to vote for a gay man to prove that the US is indeed progressive and shit, i'll find that a openly gay president would be bade for relations within and outside of the US. Like some others have said, some places highly restrict open homosexuals. I mean, think of the crap that happens to homosexuals in countries like South Africa and Isreal and crap like that. Relations with US would plummet.

Lots of people would really lose morale in the government for the shitty homophobic reasons- I'm adressing the patriotic white guy that has never seen a colored person in his life and tells his wife to make him a sammich or she accidently "trips on the stairs." Also, the president is a role model (i think that's actually one of the actual job descriptions, lead citizen), so people won't have confidence in him.

Until people can actually accept a bit more openess, i doubt the knowledge that there is a gay president can help out anything. Everyone's an essentialist by nature.

 

[Thula]

Probably a gay politician would be a gay rights activist, which is good in my book.
Can't say I'd vote him/her because of their homosexuality though.