The election debates have grown extremely heated, even in mid-April, and with Ralph Nader tossing his durag in the ring, the outcome in November is ever up for question. Analysts are even trying to predict the effect frustrated gay Republicans will have if they pull out of the president and get behind John Kerry. Which leads many to speculate: What the fuck? There are gay Republicans?

Apparently so. They even have a national organization, the Log Cabin Republicans, which possibly a reference to a place Lincoln used to “entertain” visiting dignitaries. the Log Cabin Republicans, or “Loggers,” as I’ve just said, aren’t completely sold on voting for Bush this November, following the president’s hard-on stance for a “Defense of Marriage” act to amend the constitution. Neither party has come out publicly in support of gay marriage, but the Democrats have taken the bold step of saying they wouldn’t fuck with the constitution. According to polls mysteriously conducted, average Americans are against homosexual marriage but also against a constitutional amendment outlawing it.

As a heterosexual woman trapped in the body of a man, I’ve always found homosexuals something of a mystery. But at least they seem pretty straightforward, no pun intended, in their political support of candidates who pledge their support. Why would homosexuals want to support Republicans, with their history of voting against issues that support them? It’s almost as crazy as the notion of a black Republican.

Paula Squatt, a spokesperson for the Loggers and big-time lesbian, espoused the organization’s point of view.

“Just because you’re gay doesn’t mean it’s the only thing that affects the way you vote,” said Squatt, feathering her hair in a mirror. “We are multi-layered individuals, and issue-conscious voters. We believe in an unrestricted market and stressing the power of the individual to make his own fortune in our society. We think social programs do not encourage people to make better lives for themselves. And overwhelmingly, we believe in a stronger defense for this country, and putting more money into the military. Just because you’re gay it doesn’t mean you can’t vote for Bush in November. I’m not voting for him because I’m a woman, and his gender politics really piss me off.”

Still not convinced, I interviewed some gay Republican friends I know from a local dancing establishment. Why did you vote for Bush in 2000?

Del Beauchamp: “He had it goin’ on.”

Smonika: “He had more ‘strut’ than Gore.”

Roberto Love-Package: “I’ve always had a thing for Texans.”

Vera Wadlow: “The ballot was confusing.”

Obie Dufresne: “I liked how he wanted to get tough with crime. I’m a criminal, Mr. President. Get tough with me.”

Pete: “I’m a masochist.”

Admittedly, they might not be the most representative of gay political groups, but they know how to party. The ultimate answer for why homosexuals would support Bush, even in the much smaller numbers than they support Democratic candidates, should lie in the numbers. Republicans and Democrats both have a history of voting for and supporting legislation that by a large margin favors those with incomes over $150,000 a year. Since a great majority of Americans live far under that annual income level, the question becomes: Why would anyone vote for either party?