When Bush comes to shove: how could gay Republicans ever have thought that a president who walks with religous extremists would do the right thing? Dude, where's your gaydar?

Are you as amazed as I am by gay Republicans who support George W. Bush? Never mind his endorsement of a constitutional amendment that would enshrine discrimination in our intimate lives. These gay conservatives say they aren't "single-issue voters"; they like the rest of Bush's program. Isn't that a little like those defenders of Mussolini who said he made the trains run on time?

Bear in mind that not a single piece of significant gay rights legislation has passed this Republican-controlled Congress. Consider the president's plan to fund programs run by churches that refuse to hire us. I guess these gay Bushies don't work in the helping professions, and not many of them worry about living off a partner's social security. But at some point even gents who just happen to be gay will run into homophobia. Then they will realize that officially sanctioned bigotry trickles up as well as down.

I know that some gay conservatives are anguishing over Bush's bias. The Log Cabin Republicans have been notably critical (though they haven't actually rejected the GOP ticket). Other homocons have gone all the way by declaring that they can't support Bush. It takes courage to break ranks like that. But how could these tormented souls ever have thought that a president who walks with religious extremists would do the right thing? Dude, where's your gaydar?

Someday, gay Republicans could find favor in a rump movement led by the likes of John McCain. I'm all for making alliances with politicians who stand for small improvements. If the GOP changes, I will kiss any gay gent with a gold elephant on his pin-striped lapel. (I hope he won't mind large lips and facial hair.) But meanwhile, we face the most important election of our lives. The Supreme Court's gay-friendly majority is hanging by a slender thread. One more right-wing justice and our parole will be revoked. In a second Bush term you can expect the White House to coddle preachers who take up the sword against our civil rights. And if the Republicans maintain control of Congress, that pesky amendment will probably come up for a vote. Every zealot needs a demon, and right now, I'm afraid it's us.

That's why it's not enough for homocons to cry their hearts out over a false friend's betrayal. You're entitled to do that in your personal life but not in politics. When Bush comes to shove, you have to make a choice. It often comes down to distinguishing between disappointment and outrage, but when the presidency is at stake, that can mean the difference between life and death. If you condemn one side without endorsing the other, you're not making a decision--you're saving face. What you aren't saving is your ass.

Actually, I'm less worried about gay conservatives sticking with Bush than I am about them straying with Ralph Nader. What a tempting way to protest against the Administration without opting for the dreaded Democrats. But look at what that tactic produced four years ago. Nader threw the election to Bush. Meanwhile, a million gay votes went for Bush in 2000. If the lion's share of those shifted into the Democratic column, it would make a real statement.

Large LGBT communities exist in a number of swing states: Florida, New Jersey, Michigan, and New Hampshire, to mention just a few. We can play a critical role in this election and beyond. After all, political parties, like people, change only when the old way doesn't work. If we want to convince the Republicans that their bigotry has consequences, we have to teach them the meaning of defeat.

In a future column I'll talk about the thorny question of John Kerry. But for now I hope this observation will suffice: It's better to sleep with a donkey than to fall for a trick who kicks you out of your own bed.