Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Gay Republicans protest GLAA ratings

Two gay Republicans running for the D.C. Council this year are protesting the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance candidate rankings that were released Wednesday, which rate the Democratic incumbents higher than their GOP challengers on gay rights issues.

The election rankings, distributed to gay voters through the Washington Blade and other advertisements, are based on candidates' records and responses to a questionnaire.

In the Ward 1 council race, the GLAA gave openly gay Council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) a perfect score of a 10. But Marc Morgan, the GOP candidate in the race, received a score of 3.

"He agrees with GLAA on the issues but offered no substance in his questionnaire," GLAA said of its rating of Morgan. "We found only a minimal record."

Morgan sent out a statement today accusing GLAA of engaging in a "high school popularity contest. "

"As a gay man who has traveled across the country fighting for gay rights, I find it hard to believe that someone such as CM Graham can be three times as supportive of LGBT rights as I am," Morgan said. "I don't understand how any person who answered GLAA's questionnaire could be more supportive of gay rights than a gay man himself, but I suppose that is something the GLAA will have to live with should one of their "favorites" not win this election."

In the Ward 5 council race, GLAA rated incumbent Democrat Harry Thomas Jr. a 6, noting he voted for the same-sex marriage law even though he opposed a GLAA-supported initiative to relocate some gay nightclubs to Northeast. The Republican in the race, Tim Day, earned a 1.5 rating.

Day said it was "downright dishonest, to claim that Thomas could ever be more supportive" of gay rights" then he is.

"As a gay business owner, I fight for gay business rights every day," Day said.

Rick Rosendall, vice-president for political affairs for GLAA, defended the ratings, saying the organization doesn't "give points just for being gay."

"We don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation," Rosendall said. "They gave minimal responses and did not offer much evidence of a record for working on LGBT rights. I can't believe they think we should just give them points because they are openly gay."

- Tim Craig

By Tim Craig  |  August 26, 2010; 12:00 PM ET
Categories:  2010 District Election , D.C. Council , same-sex marriage  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Current newspapers endorse Gray
Next: Former Rep. Floyd Flake rallies Fenty supporters


wow. from his comments, marc morgan appears to be an idiot.

Posted by: MarilynManson | August 26, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Well, one reason that Democrats are going to score higher on this survey is because of the "record" section. If you don't have a record of voting in favor of LGBT issues you're going to miss out on some points. As a result, people who haven't held a position to demonstrate their support will have lower scores. Most Republicans haven't held an office in DC and won't do well there.

I haven't looked at the scores close enough to see how much this factor impacted Republicans, but that is something to take into consideration.

If it appears I'm critical of this system, I'm not. I realize it's slightly unfair to non-incumbents, but I am in favor or rewarding incumbents' strong on our positions.

Posted by: DCCharles | August 26, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Stop fussing and do more for GLBT citizens Republicans!! How about demanding that Obama put an end to DADT ,NOW ?!!! or that Obama make a statement in favor of gay marriage?!!, or better yet make this part of the Rebublican platform?!!! No one is stopping you!!

Posted by: 10bestfan | August 26, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Although I have great respect for Rick Rosendall and the GLAA brain trust generally I think Rick needs to rethink this. There really does need to be some mechanism for correcting this anomoly so that the scores are not skewed so far off.

Rick Rosendall is not to be confused with that utter twit Peter Rosenstein. Rick Rosendall is an actual LGBT intellectual whose opinions have merit. Rick is known to be "passionate" at times. He is not, however, known and ridiculed for childish histrionics like channeling actresses from classic 70s movies creating spectacles of himself in very public events wherein he vomits green bile, screeds invective and rotates his head 360 degrees around his neck.

Hey, Rosenstein, how is this Clark Ray thing going for you? Was it your idea to have Clark dye his skin and hair to look more black? It mostly looks ridiculous. That sounds like the kind of brilliant political strategy you would ream up.

Posted by: SoCali | August 26, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

It has been years since I participated in GLAA ratings however one thing I am aware that has stayed the same has been their attempt to be fair and balanced when doing ratings. Committee members have been encouraged to mention positive things that a candidate may not have mentioned. They have given high ratings to individuals of all the political parties over the years. If what a candidate submits is incomplete they can not expect a high rating.

One thing I remember is how too many candidates would try to give simple yes/no answers and avoid any detailed written comments to questions. Junk in and you get poor ratings.

While I think Clark Ray is a little lower than I would have supported I can not say the same for the other two candidates. Not knowing much about them I did a search on the web regarding each of them and while both mention support Aids causes there is nothing showing anything they have done in support of the GLBT community. Nor could I tell from their sites or anything else that either were gay.

I wondered what exactly Day did in support of GLBT business as I can find is that he supported business in general.

As Ken Mehlman showed in his coming out the fact someone is gay does not automatically mean they are supported of GLBT caused. While it is nice that a candidate will make promises I will always give the higher rating to the person who has shown by their record that they are supported. Each of the men has had years to build up a record of serving the GLVT community but I could not find it. They come across as two Johnny Come Lately.

Considering Jim Graham's record with among other things, the Whitman Walker Clinic and his record on the council I can easy see why he would receive so much of a higher rating than someone with none.

My experience is that people can expect as fair a rating from GLAA as they have earned and deserve.

Posted by: bowlhawk | August 26, 2010 11:59 PM | Report abuse

If this were 1932 Germany and some German Jewish shop owner supported the Nazi Party because of its policies of reviving German nationalism and negating the unfair stipulations of the Treaty of Versailles, I, as a member of the Jewish Union, would still give that Jew a -1 rating and a 10 to the blond haired blue eyed German who was a member of the Social Democratic Party. No matter how hard that deluded Jewish shop owner fought for Jewish business rights.

Posted by: xandersun | August 27, 2010 1:10 AM | Report abuse

...and I would give Ken Mehlman a flat zero, for example.

Posted by: carlaclaws | August 27, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

a "gay Republican" is an oxymormon

Posted by: areyousaying | August 27, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Why don't you Gay Republicans denounce the Republican Anti_Gay platform?

Don't you have consciences?

Posted by: vigor | August 27, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

How remarkable, NOT. Republicans who happen to be gay are campaigning on the basis of identity politics.

Hey, it worked for Richard Nixon, it worked for Lee Atwater, it worked for Jesse Helms, it worked for George W. Bush, and it worked for Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman (who, by the way, has given money as recently as this past spring to Republicans with strong records opposing same-sex marriage and equality in other areas).

Incidentally, Vigor wrote:

"Why don't you Gay Republicans denounce the Republican Anti_Gay platform?

"Don't you have consciences?"

If they had consciences, they wouldn't be acceptable as Republicans any more. Think Mitt Romney, think John McCain, think Ken Mehlman.

Posted by: edallan | August 27, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Gay Republican= Oxymoron. Gay rights goes against everything Conservative, therefore there is no such thng as a Gay Republican, ask the GOP.

Posted by: patmatthews | August 27, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Being a "Gay Republican" is kind of like being a "Black KKK member."

Posted by: jef2 | August 27, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

The way they rated people makes their ratings system look like a joke. And there are gay Republicans. I am one. You know why? I don't want liberals regulating everything I do. I support gay marriage, but I prefer conservatives to liberals any day. (liberal=ugly losers).

Posted by: columbiaheights | August 27, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Their opponents were given points for being Democrats, though.
That's how it works in the militia compound world of Gay America.

Posted by: htimothyjones1 | August 27, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

It seems to me that both Carol Schwartz (Straight) and Davis Catania (Gay)who ran as Republicans have repeatedly received high ratings by GLAA for their support of GLBT issues. It is not that someone is a Gay Republican but what kind of Gay Republican they are that matters. Every candidate has to earn their GLAA rating and no sensible person would expect any group to give someone a higher rating just for being gay. One of the beliefs of Republicans is that people should have to earn what they get so they should support GLAA's approach.

Posted by: bowlhawk | August 27, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company