10/04/2008 05:12 am ET Updated May 25, 2011

Log Cabin Republicans Demonstrate Their Commitment to Putting Party First

In a move as mind-numbing as it is bizarre, the Log Cabin Republicans (LCRs) today endorsed Senator John McCain for president. It happened at their "Big Tent" event in Minnesota. By doing so, they have put the GOP well ahead of their mission. By its tortured analysis only, the LCRs have made clear they would rather support the GOP's choice for president, than deliver a truthful, rigorous analysis of McCain's actual LGBT record to their members.

It is laudable that Senator McCain voted against amending the U.S. Constitution to curtail individual rights (for the first time in its 27 amendment history, except prohibition) and to enshrine discrimination into that document. But that is an extremely low bar. And, it is the only basis for the endorsement. But McCain is also against literally every other major goal held by the vast majority of LGBT Americans. (See policy analysis at The LCRs say he paid a political price for his votes to preserve the Constitution. What price was that exactly: being selected as the Republican nominee for President?

Most annoying is the way the LCRs plant (as a kind of exclamation mark) statements such as the following at the end of their endorsement announcements:

"I expect Sen. McCain will receive strong support from gay and lesbian Americans," said (Executive Director Patrick) Sammon. "LGBT people are not single-issue voters. Gay rights issues are a critical part of the equation, but so are many other issues impacting our daily lives -- foreign policy, the economy, jobs, energy policy, health care reform, and taxes."

So who needs the Log Cabin Republicans? Presumably the LCRs are there to evaluate a Republican candidate's gay record, not his or her record on foreign policy, the economy, jobs, energy policy, health care reform, and taxes. Any voter can go to a variety of sources to get information on those policy positions. Indeed, the central purpose of the LCRs should be to deliver a detailed and honest analysis on where a candidate -- especially for the top job in the world -- stands on LGBT issues. They have failed miserably in this case.

And, by desperately wanting to be part of the Big Tent, they have folded their own.