Have we had a gay president?

[Cyrano]

Who knows? (And aside from morons, who cares?)

Speaking to "Axios on HBO" on Sunday, Buttigieg defended himself against critics who say he would be too young, liberal, or gay to be elected commander-in-chief.

"People will elect the person who will make the best president," he said. "And we have had excellent presidents who have been young. We have had excellent presidents who have been liberal. I would imagine we've probably had excellent presidents who were gay — we just didn't know which ones."

What an incredible statement coming from a presidential candidate. I'm still undecided as to my candidate, but Buttigieg's statement sure as hell makes you think.

What if _____ whoever was gay, bi, or whatever. Would it have made him a worse president?

Fill in the blank with some of our greatest presidents and see what difference their sexual preference would have made in American history.

My point is, sexual orientation, and/or political brilliance are totally unrelated. Pick your favorite American president. Was he gay? Did it make a difference?

[ProudMNDemocrat]

1. Bachelor Presidents, perhaps.

There have been Presidents who served who were either Widowers or Bachelors. I do not think there had been any that were Gay. If they were, they hid it well.

There were numerous speculations about the first FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, however.

[Codeine]

2. There has also been some speculation about Lincoln.

Some of it sounds like a bit of a stretch and perhaps wishful thinking, but I don’t think you can discount the possibility entirely.

[NewJeffCT]

7. There was speculation about George Washington as well

Have not heard the one about Lincoln, though.

[JaneQPublic]

13. Some of the Lincoln speculation arose from his sharing a bed with a man...

... at a time when such sleeping arrangements were common in the Inns and boarding houses of the time.

[hlthe2b]

3. Unlike today's cretin who won't even keep STATE secrets, I'd say any past President who was gay

yet managed to keep it private (as prior decades would have required), would likewise have protected our country's STATE secrets with the same level of care.

Of course, it shouldn't matter. And, I agree that statistically we probably have had a gay or bisexual President in our past.

[zipplewrath]

4. Unlikely

Not impossible of course. But we've only had 45 of them, and if you figure about 3% then you would only expect about 1 at the most.

[mr_lebowski]

15. Wow, only 3% of men are gay or bi? I'd have thought the % to be higher ...

I recall reading I think in the 1990's that SF was estimated to be 1/7th gay. Granted, that's SF. But it'd be a pretty amazing statistical outlier for a particular city of 3/4 of a million people to be around 13% gay, or >4 times the statistical average of the country.

Not saying you're wrong I just had always assumed it was on the order of 8-10%.

[zipplewrath]

17. It's hard to know

There's always been an argument. And it only gets more complex with the concept of gender fluidity getting involved. But especially when discussing historic figures, a reasonable estimate has been 3% who are "actively" acting on their sexual preference. (i.e. in a relationship). But yeah, if it is 10%, now you're talking more like 4 people.

[Arazi]

5. Historians believe Buchanan was gay. The Lincoln rumors are a real stretch

[Aristus]

6. James Buchanan was our only President who was a life-long bachelor.

Althought that by itself doesn't mean he was gay. Neither does the fact that for at least one period in his life, he shared a bed with a man. (So did Lincoln). In the 19th Century, sharing a bed was analogous to sharing an apartment today. Beds were just too expensive for everyone to get one to him or herself.

But IIRC, Buchanan had a male friend to whom he wrote fairly ardent letters. That might actually mean something.

[Merlot]

8. Yes, Buchannan, try reading his personal letters and coming to any other conclusion.

[Codeine]

10. This is very interesting.

I wasn’t familiar with this information at all.

[Celerity]

9. WaPo America has already had a gay president (James Buchanan)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/pete-buttigieg-wouldnt-be-americas-first-gay-president/2019/03/26/0b7b1eb4-41de-11e9-922c-64d6b7840b82_story.html?utm_term=.dad80dafe421

“If elected, you would be the first openly gay president of the United States,” Stephen Colbert said to Pete Buttigieg after the mayor of South Bend, Ind., declared his candidacy. While the characterization of being openly gay or “out” is relatively new, the fact is the United States has already had a gay president whose contemporaries knew it: James Buchanan. Indeed, the United States has also had a gay vice president and, maybe more surprisingly, a gay senator from Alabama.

If students taking U.S. history classes are taught anything about Buchanan, they learn that he was “our only bachelor president.” How quaint. But, by using euphemisms, we falsely educate students — indeed all Americans — about the realities of this country’s history. We also distort how and why Buttigieg’s sexual identity matters today.

Before becoming president in 1857, Buchanan openly lived with William Rufus King, who at various times served as senator from Alabama, ambassador to France and, finally, Franklin Pierce’s vice president. They met in Washington as young politicians, and lived together on and off for more than 16 years until King’s death from tuberculosis in 1853. Buchanan’s biographer, Jean H. Baker, believes that his relationship with the Southerner King partially explains why this Pennsylvanian was a “doughface,” a northerner who did not oppose slavery. Indeed, Buchanan explicitly urged the Supreme Court to deliver an expansive ruling in the Dred Scott case — which denied freed slaves American citizenship and forbade Congress from regulating slavery in U.S. territories — and lobbied Congress to admit Kansas as a slave state.

snip


https://books.google.se/books?id=Uyb7AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA519&dq=%E2%80%9CI+am+now+%E2%80%98solitary+and+alone,%E2%80%99+having+no+companion+in+the+house+with+me.%22&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CI%20am%20now%20%E2%80%98solitary%20and%20alone%2C%E2%80%99%20having%20no%20companion%20in%20the%20house%20with%20me.%22&f=false

[RKP5637]

11. What is always stunning to me are those that judge a person completely by what is

between their legs and what they do with it. I always find it incredible. I had a RW'er, for example, once tell me that a women could never be president because she could have periods and the US would be attacked at that time. How incredible.

[StarfishSaver]

12. Probably

We just don't know it.

[Mike Nelson]

14. I think the answer is...

… yes, we've had gay (or bisexual) Presidents. I have to agree with those who say Lincoln sleeping with a man does not show he was gay... men and women used to sleep together a lot... I believe it was common. The living standard was poorer and the winters got cold. Of course, that doesn't mean Abe wasn't gay or bisexual, either...

… probably a lot of people opted to get married and have children, since being gay wasn't acceptable - especially if they could go either way. This is just my opinion, but I think a lot of the ultra-right religious people are gay and guilty about it, so they are attracted to the religious conversion possible... sad lives have they... there must have been several gay Presidents.

[keithbvadu2]

16. Bill Clinton had Monica as his special guest. Dubya had Jeff Gannon.

Bill Clinton had Monica as his special guest.

Dubya had Jeff Gannon.

[Behind the Aegis]

18. I care. I am hardly a moron, though.

There are two types of people who care about this, bigots (the ones I assume you are calling morons) and those of us who understand the significance of having a president who is not a member of the heterosexual privileged majority. I am offended by those who try to shoo-away Buttigieg's sexual orientation as "inconsequential" because it is not! Whether people like it or not, he is a member of a minority class and some historical "he may have been a gay" is not the same as having an OPENLY gay man run for president of the United States.

I understand what you are trying to say, but my response is just my frustration at those, especially one's calling themselves allies, who are trying to negate the significance of an openly gay man running for president. Frankly, I find it almost as offensive as being called a "fag" by some random passerby.