With the discussion about the disgust over the DOMA legal filings, and a recent post over people flying away from the possibility of attending a DNC fundraising dinner, I would like to bring up again a question about the concept whether the LGBT community has fared better politically under Republican or Democratic leadership at the federal level - under those Republican/Democratic presidencies.
First, looking at the core: legal ability to even have a loving and sexual relationship. Administrations during the period when LGBT sex laws were being pulled back at the state level, more rights were conferred during Republican administrations than during Democratic administrations - 35 states (including DC and Puerto Rico) got Sodomy laws overturned under Republican presidents, 17 under Democratic presidents. Even if I disclude 2003 Sodomy law overturned at Supreme court levels (Lawrence vs Texas), it's 20 states Republican to 17 States Democrat. Ostensibly, I'd say that on the whole, the LGBT community fared better under Republican administrations in the sense of not being thrown in jail for having sex, with the notable exception of Bowers vs Hardwick (Reagan's term). That specific ruling however was overturned during a conservative Supreme Court (Bush term) with Lawrence vs Texas so I take it to be a zero sum in the long run for Georgia, and net positive for Republicans overall.
In terms of gay rights protections Romer vs Evans - overturning a Colorado constitutional amendment forbidding gay rights legislation - was also of course during a Republican administration - Reagan. The pattern for gay rights protections was set at that point, with no state being able to deny them.
By contrast, we had at the federal level DOMA (1996) under Clinton, and likewise DADT (1993) also under Clinton. They are very wide-reaching and venomous. However, on the opposite side Bush signed WRERA (2008) which mandated retirement benefits rolling over to gay partner upon death of retiree. Surprising comparison. There may be other legislation I haven't seen, but these were the big ticket items.
Gay marriage is more interesting. Before we go there, let's look at Civil Unions. Forms of civil unions were put in place in 10 states and 1 district under Republicans (Bush), but only 1 state - Hawaii - under Democrats (Clinton, '97). On the whole far better Civil Union status under Republicans for LGBT.
Back to Gay marriage. Of course we have Massachusetts and California under a Republican administration, but California was reversed, so another zero-sum. Under a Democratic administration we have Iowa, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire, so 4 Democrat (Obama) and 1 Republican (Bush).
You could argue that the state constitutions which were amended to block marriage during the Republican administration were a setback, but in reality, they attempt to block a right which wasn't even available. I don't think they're real setbacks. Republicans threatened to put up a federal amendment to block gay marriage, but that was bluster. We have the startling instance of Republican operatives and Cheney publicly stating they're for gay marriage while Obama is against it. Again, a stark contrast.
I don't have quick & easy statistics on detailed partner benefits at state levels, or protection from hate crimes, but I suspect the pattern will be similar to civil unions, decriminalization of sex, and so on.
On the whole I believe that the LGBT community has fared substantially better with a Republican as president than with a Democrat. Now you have to ask why? My feeling is first and foremost, you don't have Democrats fighting you over a liberalizing change coming in place if you are a Republican administration. With a Democratic administration, you have the immediate and automatic fight from conservatives about "moral values". Very annoying. Second, and perhaps not so valuable, is that having a conservative in place gives cover to pro-gay change because it acts as a social counterbalance perhaps. Interested in other opinions here.
My last view here is to examine Obama himself vis-a-vis Bush. Obama publicly stated he's a "fierce advocate" for LGBT rights. Bush, by contrast stated privately that he wouldn't go after gays. My question first is what are Obama's private feelings about gays, and how does that influence him. I haven't heard anything at all there. Bush was fairly consistently publicly negative, and privately inactive. Clinton was something else altogether.
Finally, a disclaimer: I'm a die-hard democrat, but above all very pragmatic about politics. Obama hasn't laid enough groundwork for us yet, and as a master of the media, the moment doesn't seem to have yet arrived for him to emerge triumphal. It will, hopefully, arrive soon.