I just voted “Yes” in a Facebook poll which asks,

Would you vote for an openly gay candidate for president if you agreed with his or her other positions?

So far, it seems to be winning handily.
However, because I’m a contrarian, it almost makes me want to do a poll along the lines of “”Would you vote for a closeted gay candidate for president if you agreed with his or her other positions?” But there are such obvious logical problems with such a question that I’m not sure it can be answered intelligently. Maybe “openly closeted,” or “blatantly closeted.” Nah, that’s too surreal. It does an injustice to a perfectly unjust word, and tortures the meaning of already meaningless words beyond all meaninglessness.
I’m not sure that this issue breaks neatly as a Republican versus Democrat issue, though. For while there is no denying the existence of a certain hard core conservative enclave which believes homosexuality is a dire threat to Western civilization itself, the vast majority of the rank and file don’t agree with that. (Being against gay marriage or thinking homosexuality is immoral is a far cry from believing it threatens Western civilization or is a “thermonuclear device aimed at the soul of America.”)
While it was never widely reported (although I’ve pointed it out before), back in 1999 John McCain said that he would be “comfortable with a homosexual as president of the United States.”
And then there’s Dick Cheney, who is to the left of Barack Obama on gay rights.
But I don’t expect to see that widely reported either.
It might have a chilling effect on the narrative.