Earliest time for a gay president?

[Brittain33]

All true. Although I do point to Cicciline as a very likely elected gay governor in 2010. Rhode Island may not count as a state for this purpose, however

I forgot about him! He's definitely the best bet right now.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Whoever it is could of course not act stereotypically gay and probably would have to be single. No children either! The fundamentalist/redneck vote would destroy any chance today of course. Not that sexuality has anything to do with how one conducts themself in the office, but then again fundamentalists never voted on effectiveness anyway.

[Meeker]

I could reasonably see Charlie Crist getting elected in 2016.

[Dan the Roman]

It will take a while, because not only do you need a new generation to grow up, but you need candidates who happen to be gay but are not gay candidates to be elected. We had Black congressman for the last thirty years, but it was not until Mike Espy in the 1980s that you had one who might conceivably have been able to win enough white votes to win. There is no gay candidate right now who is a viable national figure. This is true not only at the national level, but at the state and local level too. Most are too left wing.

For this reason i think the first viable gay candidate will be:

1. Most likely a Republican, simply because it will insulate them from negative stereotypes.

2. A man(or woman) whose primary political background is in appointed positions such as Secretary of State, NSA, UN Ambassador and who then parlays the prestige and attention from that into a political career. Right now no gay politician can be elected in an area where they can have credibility, the credibility will have to be given to them and they will have to bypass the social institutions.

3. They will have to break with the "Gay community" far more thoroughly than Obama had to with the black one, whether by attacking sex education in the schools(I think a likely route), or public health or something similar.

We are still early with gay politicians. Of the ones in existence, the only one I think could have seriously made it was Linda Ketner in SC-01 this year. She nearly won a 62% Bush district, would have had a Conservative voting record, and would have become a national figure instantly. Yet even had she won she likely still would have had trouble moving up.

I think that lesbians have an advantage at this, and had Condi Rice "come out" I think she would have been a viable figure, though she probably would have primary problems for other reasons. That said, I think that had she come out in 2004, and Cheney decided to retire, Bush could have pushed her into the VP slot had he been willing to spend a lot on it.

[Lunar]

I think a problem with being a homosexual Republican is that you have to win in the GOP primaries where you'd encounter the evangelical activists.  Granted, the Democratic minorities might not be hot for you

I agree I think it also has to be a woman.  People are a lot more comfortable with lesbians  than they are with penis-to-male-butt sodomy.

I don't know if would be better or worse for this person to have a partner.

To those saying 2012 - who would run?  In 2008 we elected America's first openly gay Congressman to a freshman term (different than those who come out after being elected). 

[Psychic Octopus]

Not for a long time.

How about the first Muslim President?

[Verily]

I think a problem with being a homosexual Republican is that you have to win in the GOP primaries where you'd encounter the evangelical activists.  Granted, the Democratic minorities might not be hot for you

I agree I think it also has to be a woman.  People are a lot more comfortable with lesbians  than they are with penis-to-male-butt sodomy.

I don't know if would be better or worse for this person to have a partner.

To those saying 2012 - who would run?  In 2008 we elected America's first openly gay Congressman to a freshman term (different than those who come out after being elected). 

Gay male. Tammy Baldwin was out when she was elected.

[Mint]

I could see it as early as 2032, but that's really pushing it. More likely around 2036-2044. By that point most of the Boomers will be either a) dead or b) too decrepit/senile to make it to the polls.

[Brittain33]

Well, it won't be Mayor Sam Adams of Portland, Ore. (sigh)

[Psychic Octopus]

I could see it as early as 2032, but that's really pushing it. More likely around 2036-2044. By that point most of the Boomers will be either a) dead or b) too decrepit/senile to make it to the polls.

Really, I think it'll be the 2090's, just because when I was in high school at my school everyone made fun of gay people. It's kinda sad.

[Mint]

I could see it as early as 2032, but that's really pushing it. More likely around 2036-2044. By that point most of the Boomers will be either a) dead or b) too decrepit/senile to make it to the polls.

Really, I think it'll be the 2090's, just because when I was in high school at my school everyone made fun of gay people. It's kinda sad.

I doubt it, attitudes have changed very rapidly. Even among the general population, gay marriage has 39-44% support by now among the general population (>70% for 18-35 year olds) in addition to high support for opening the military and anti-discrimination laws. That's pretty remarkable considering bi/homosexuality was a 'mental illness' into the '70s. If we keep up the current pace gay marriage will probably be legal and treated the same was a 'inter racial' marriage in another 15-20 years. And considering what's going in Rhode Island (and elsewhere) I'd say openly gay governors aren't out of the question for the Northeast and West Coast this decade...

[Dan the Roman]

The reason I think it will be a Republican is because I don't think a gay democrat could win a general election. On the other hand, any gay politician who could neutralize the religious right enough to win a Republican Primary I think would be very likely to win the general. I mean from that point on, it would be smooth sailing(media-love affair, Democrats in awkward position in terms of attacking, free to position as far right as you want on other social issues).

 The latter is important too. Being Gay would give a Republican license to be as far right as they wanted on other social issues and inoculate them from the fallout. Its why I am not convinced that such a hypothetical person would be doomed with the religious right. Especially pos-gay marriage, or if they used a condemnation of the gay rights movement post-Prop 8 as a sister Souljah moment. They could offer religious leaders things straight republicans never could and still be viable.

[Brittain33]

I have to say that this was the same logic I had for assuming the first African-American president would be a Republican. An African-American Democrat wouldn't win a general election, while an African-American Republican candidate would deny racist white voters from finding a home with the Republican candidate, whether or not they shared the party's views.

Clearly, America surprised me. I can see a gay Democrat following Obama's path, if he were skilled enough: be appealing enough to all communities to not be pigeonholed as a community candidate, and then win against a Republican in an environment so toxic to them that they can't be considered a "safe choice" for people who are otherwise uncomfortable because of racism or homophobia.

I really just can not see how a gay Republican can neutralize religious right opposition. That gets to the core of those voters' identities. There will always be a viable alternative to the gay candidate in the Republican primaries, no matter how flawed that alternative would be in a general election.

The reason I think it will be a Republican is because I don't think a gay democrat could win a general election. On the other hand, any gay politician who could neutralize the religious right enough to win a Republican Primary I think would be very likely to win the general. I mean from that point on, it would be smooth sailing(media-love affair, Democrats in awkward position in terms of attacking, free to position as far right as you want on other social issues).

 The latter is important too. Being Gay would give a Republican license to be as far right as they wanted on other social issues and inoculate them from the fallout. Its why I am not convinced that such a hypothetical person would be doomed with the religious right. Especially pos-gay marriage, or if they used a condemnation of the gay rights movement post-Prop 8 as a sister Souljah moment. They could offer religious leaders things straight republicans never could and still be viable.

[The Dowager Mod]

1860 they say...

1856

[Franzl]

1860 they say...

1856

I'd consider it irrelevant. Only if a person who aknowledges his homosexuality is elected President can we claim that the country is ready.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Never - it's not gonna happen.

[jamestroll]

Never - it's not gonna happen.

Uh, you are wrong.

If this country can elect an inexperienced, black man, from chicago, with a muslim-esque name, and has several horrible associations over a fairly moderate and respectable republican;

we will elect a gay president one day