Bush appointee resigns over marriage issue (Washington Blade Online, Friday, March 05, 2004)
A New York City real estate developer who became one of President Bush's most visible openly gay appointees resigned in protest last week from his post as vice chair of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts after the president endorsed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
"In light of the president's support for the Federal Marriage Amendment, I could no longer continue serving the administration, given the impact of that proposed amendment on me and my family, should it ever become law," Donald A. Capoccia said.
Capoccia, president of the Manhattan-based BFC Construction Corp., has been a longtime Republican Party contributor and a strong supporter of the Log Cabin Republicans, a national gay GOP group with chapters in New York and other states. Capoccia also serves as co-chair of the Republican Unity Coalition, which bills itself as a gay-straight alliance of Republican Party leaders who favor equal rights for gays.
I point out, as gently as one can, that if the "most visible" gay person is but the vice chair of the US Commission on Fine Arts -- and the Republicans are on record as believing that the government should provide no funding whatsoever to fine arts -- then you're not terribly visible. This is, however, purely a side note.
... Gay Republican activist David Greer said he intends to remain in his post as Bush administration appointee to the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS. But Greer said he would speak out strongly against the Federal Marriage Amendment. He predicted Bush would be hurt rather than helped in the upcoming election because of his call for a constitutional amendment.
Greer, as president of the Log Cabin Republicans of Philadelphia in 2000, helped organize a gay host committee to welcome Bush and the GOP leaders to that city, where the 2000 Republican National Convention was held. Greer and Capoccia were both members of the so-called “Austin 12” gay GOP activists who met with Bush during the 2000 presidential campaign.
Now, four years later, Greer said, the president’s endorsement of the FMA has effectively ended gay support for Bush and would most likely result in a near “wipe out” of the 1 million gay votes that Bush received in the 2000 election. “For myself, this is a line in the sand that can’t be crossed,” Greer said. “Any gay Republican who says this is no big deal, that the amendment can’t be passed, is being disingenuous.” Added Greer, “If there is one reason for gay Republicans to exist, it is this one moment in time. We must stand up and say this is wrong for this party and this is wrong for this president.”
One would think that Greer, whose appointment was quite public and quite contententious within the Republican Party, would be considered the most visible gay person within the administration. And he's staying.
While I do think that he's right in saying that the Republicans do need someone within the party to stand up and say, "This is wrong," I'm not at all sure that he's the person to do it, or that any gay person would be. After all, gays within the party have already been marginalized; the chance that anyone would pay the least attention to him is vanishingly small. He'll also be perceived as somewhat self-interested. (Why is it that self-interest is only considered a bad thing when you're advocating positions that actually matter to you?) That said ... given that he's decided to stay, all he can do is try to make changes from within. And maybe if he can make his points forcefully enough and with the right people, someone will listen.
Both Greer and "Gay public relations executive Charles Francis, the Bush family friend who played the lead role in founding the RUC in 2001" note that this is likely to strip one million votes from Bush out of hand. Others would note that (1) it's very likely to add quite a few conservative Democrats to his tally, and (2) unless all one million of those votes are in some closely contested state, given the structure of our voting, it doesn't matter that much. A few hundred thousand in California (which Bush would likely lose anyway), a few hundred thousand in New York and Illinois (ditto and more ditto), maybe some in Texas and even some in Florida (which Bush is very likely to win outright this time around) ... scattered like that, the loss of a million votes isn't likely to matter to Bush directly ... although it may make a difference in some local races, maybe even in the House or Senate. Depending on where they all are, of course.
Posted by iain at March 09, 2004 11:31 AM
