Comments on: Politics: America’s First Gay President?

By: Ehla

Ehla — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 01:19:30 +0000

Sorry guys–but I’m gonna take care of “women,” “atheist,” and “queer.” I’ll go in all undercover, heterosexual-privilege-style with a trophy husband. After re-election, it will come to light that I’ve been having a passionate affair with my Hispanic Lady Love (an EX-Mormon), who I’ve put up in Washington state with our love-child (adopted from Syria and relatively safer in Seattle). At this point, I’d have to do right by my kid and divorce my old man so I could marry my mistress. (The Pope’s invitation will get lost in the mail) There may be a brief Tea-Party-Esque move for succession in the Bible-belt, headed up by my Ex-hubby. It may or may not involve a KKK-Militia-Mega Church Coalition. Regardless, it will be quashed by my elite Transgender Task Force (glitter warfare, drag-showdowns, etc.). We’ll paint the Washington Monument purple to honor our fallen Rainbow Revolutionists.

By: Phineas

Phineas — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 08:33:51 +0000

An interesting theory. I’m inclined to believe that a conservative (or centrist) gay is more likely to be the first to win national office (or statewide office) Sure there are some deep blue states like New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, where a liberal gay person might get into statewide office before too long. (I don’t count McGreevey since he wasn’t Out when he was elected, even if it was an open secret in the town where he was mayor) It simply seems that having conservative bona fides (or centrist) will make one more palatable to the public in general elections. I’d agree that it is likely to be quite a while. Though I’d say there are decent odds of a gay US Senator within 12-14 years.

Excellent point on the over-representation of states like Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska. Though, shifting populations do seem to help provide balance. (The population decline in the Rust Belt and boom in the Sun Belt is likely bringing a little more parity)

I recommend taking a look at this the December 2007 Gallup poll here: http://www.pollingreport.com/politics.htm (Might be something the Slate article referenced) Apparently the hierarchy in American politics is:
-Protestants (straight white male implied unless contradicted)
-Catholics
-African Americans
-Jews
-Women
-Hispanics
-Mormons
-Gays
-Atheists

The poll didn’t references Muslims or Arabs, but given current politics gays might land above those groups in the ladder. So, when you see a Jewish or Female president you’ll know the line is getting shorter.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:19:00 +0000

Well then how’d you like to be my First Gentleman, since I’m going to be the first gay president. But its gonna have to wait till 2040.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 00:43:00 +0000

Also, although Buchanan and Lincoln very well may have been gay, there has never been a Gay First Gentlemen before, and in 2036 I will be fulfilling that role. I will through the best parties DC has seen since Jackie.

By: Tÿler

Tÿler — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:25:00 +0000

Buchanan was indeed our first homosexual President; however, he was not called Aunt Fancy. Buchanan had a special relationship with Senator William Rufus King who was known around the Senate as Aunt Fancy or Miss Nancy… not Buchanan. Abraham Lincoln succeeded Buchanan so we had two homosexuals in the White House from March 4, 1857 through April 15, 1865.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 21:26:00 +0000

I will indeed be the first Gay first Gentlemen in 2036, just you wait, you know I get what I want, watch out DC here I come.

By: Clearlyhere

Clearlyhere — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:14:00 +0000

Really, Aunt Fancy? What kind of drag name was that?

By: Philip

Philip — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:11:00 +0000

We have already had a gay president — or a homosexual one, if you want. His name was James Buchanan, and his nickname around Washington was “Aunt Fancy.” I’ll be writing about him at some point for Hidden History.