A letter to my red-state family members asking that they think twice before casting their vote for Mitt Romney
By Sean Bugg
November 5, 2012
Sean Bugg and Cavin Le exchange rings
(Photo by Ward Morrison)
I’ve joked often in the past few months that I’m lucky my family tree is rooted firmly in red-state territory — my father’s side in rural Kentucky, my mother’s in southern Indiana — which means I don’t have to worry about trying to convince any family members to vote for Barack Obama tomorrow because in the larger scheme of things their votes in 2012 won’t make one whit of difference in those states.
This is, honestly, a cop-out. I stand by my stance that I will not de-friend or otherwise back away from family members or friends who have different political opinions than I do. And I’m familiar with the cliché that knowing an actual gay person in the family makes a huge difference in how straight people react to other gay people, so I know that simply by being an openly gay part of my family with my husband in tow is important in the long run.
But it’s a cop-out because there’s more to life than living by example and, frankly, it’s part of my job description to make my opinion heard and, I hope, change some minds or at least encourage people to think about certain things from a different angle. I don’t enjoy direct political discussions with family. Fortunately, I’m a writer so I can do it this way. And opinion writing is much more of a two-way street these days than it ever was, so they can just as easily tell me to ”shove it” online as they could over a holiday dinner.
So, here’s my last-pitch effort for my folks back home:
Dear Buggs and Kintners,
I think you all know by now that I’m pretty proud to be a Kentucky boy and a half Hoosier, so I’m just going to jump right to the point: I realize that most of you are planning to vote for Mitt Romney tomorrow and I’d like you to at least consider the reasons that are important to me that you don’t.
I’m sure a lot of you have assumed that the reason I’m so pro-Obama is because I’m gay, and gay issues drive my vote. To be honest, that is in large part true. But it is no minor reason for me — it goes directly to what it means for me to try to build my life and family as I see fit.
As it stands right now, should something dire happen to me, every one of you would have greater claim over my life and possessions than Cavin, who is my husband in every way but legally. My father’s wife could have more claim over my business assets than Cavin if I were to die; my mother or father, or pretty much any of you, could block him from seeing me in the hospital if I were sick and incapacitated. And the reverse is true: If something happened to Cavin, because of the way we divvy up our ownerships, his family could toss me on the street.
We’re lucky in that I don’t believe either of our families would do that to us, but I know far, far too many people who have had it happen. These are not fantasies of persecution on the part of those of us who are lesbian and gay; they are true and justified fears for us.
I don’t kid myself that the idea of Cavin and I being married is not a religiously difficult thing for you. I grew up going to church with many of you, and I know how important church is in your lives. But I’m asking you to remember that I can get married in a church right now; in fact, our wedding ceremony incorporated a lot of the religious traditions from Cavin’s family. No one can ever force your church to recognize or conduct a same-sex marriage, any more than they could force the Catholic Church to recognize a divorce. You have a constitutional right to that and I would fight my butt off to make sure you keep it. I just want my marriage to be legal, not to be performed in a church that doesn’t want it.
But Romney and the current Republican Party want to change the actual Constitution to not only block marriage for us, but to retroactively divorce the thousands of gay couples who’ve married in states where it’s already legal. Romney says he thinks we should have a few things, like hospital visitation, but supports state and federal laws and amendments that would erase that right, even beyond marriage.
I just ask you to put yourself in our shoes. None of you would ever stand for that kind of interference in your own marriages and families, and you never should. I don’t want to stand for it either, so I have to ask you to think about Cavin and me, our family and our friends, all of whom just want to enjoy the liberty that each of you already do. I think that you all know that my marrying Cavin hasn’t done anything to weaken your marriages, and being so accepted by all sides of my family has done nothing but strengthen my own relationship to Cavin, as well as to each of you.
Please keep that in mind when you cast your vote tomorrow.
There are plenty of reasons that I support Obama beyond gay-equality issues, enough that I could go on for another couple thousand words, but with less than 24 hours to go I don’t think you or I really want to get that deep in the weeds. I will say this: While my political leanings have oscillated over the years, I’ve maintained a slightly conservative interior bent on non-social issues. The answer for every issue can’t be ”tax cuts”; government has a positive role to play, even if it must always be evaluated by voters; and we have a responsibility to build a society that provides opportunities — opportunities, not handouts — to those who have been a lot less fortunate than us. This isn’t socialism, it’s fairly conservative realism, and it’s what I voted for in 2008 and what I will vote for again tomorrow.
Like I’ve said, I’m not going to turn my back on anyone in my life who chooses to vote for Mitt Romney. Doing so would just make me the very thing that I feared most when I was young — the idea that I would be cut off from my family for things I believed and something I was. While it was rough going at first in some ways, that never happened and I’m grateful for that. I think it’s only fair that I return the favor.
However you vote, just keep us in mind. I’ll always love and respect you all. Maybe in a couple years we can talk about Mitch McConnell — that’ll be a hoot.
The former Kentucky clerk -- and anti-LGBTQ culture warrior -- who went to jail rather than issue licenses to same-sex couples is now targeting the landmark 2015 ruling.
A decade after catapulting to right-wing stardom, Kim Davis -- the former Rowan County, Kentucky county clerk who chose jail over issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples -- has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its landmark 2015 decision that legalized marriage equality nationwide.
Represented by the anti-LGBTQ Liberty Counsel, Davis has formally asked the nation’s highest court to strip away the right of same-sex couples to marry.
A Mike Huckabee acolyte and four-time married fundamentalist zealot, Davis rose to fame in 2015 when she refused to issue marriage licenses to any couple -- gay or straight -- after the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision struck down all state-level bans on same-sex marriage, including Kentucky’s. Ordered to comply, she instead spent six days in jail for contempt of court.
A new Pew Research Center survey finds that 59% of LGBTQ U.S. adults under age 50 who have never been married say they want to marry someday -- nearly the same as the 63% of non-LGBTQ adults who do. About 12% of each group say they never want to marry, while more than one-quarter are unsure of their future marriage plans.
By age, younger Americans who have never been married are more eager to wed than older peers, who are less certain and more doubtful about ever marrying.
Among those aged 18 to 29 who have never married, 67% of LGBTQ adults and 73% of non-LGBTQ adults say they want to marry someday. By contrast, just 48% of LGBTQ adults and 49% of non-LGBTQ adults aged 30 to 49 say the same, with nearly one-third in each group unsure.
With Obergefell at risk and 32 states poised to restrict same-sex marriage, LGBTQ advocates push to enshrine protections at the state level.
By Maximilian Sandefer
August 6, 2025
On June 22, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision with Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Abortion rights were now no longer guaranteed nationwide as the issue was left up to the states. This shock reversal of over 49 years of precedent left reproductive rights activists scrambling as anti-choice state laws stemming from as far back as 1864 were revived and reinstituted.
As people's ability to access to reproductive care dwindled in conservative-led states, activists also found their footing. The 2024 election saw abortion rights ballot measures win in seven out of ten states. As we navigate a landscape where it will likely be a long time before we see any form of successful federal legislation protecting a woman's right to choose, state-by-state activism seems to be the driving force behind change.
These are challenging times for news organizations. And yet it’s crucial we stay active and provide vital resources and information to both our local readers and the world. So won’t you please take a moment and consider supporting Metro Weekly with a membership? For as little as $5 a month, you can help ensure Metro Weekly magazine and MetroWeekly.com remain free, viable resources as we provide the best, most diverse, culturally-resonant LGBTQ coverage in both the D.C. region and around the world. Memberships come with exclusive perks and discounts, your own personal digital delivery of each week’s magazine (and an archive), access to our Member's Lounge when it launches this fall, and exclusive members-only items like Metro Weekly Membership Mugs and Tote Bags! Check out all our membership levels here and please join us today!
