http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/06/03/david_catania/index_np.html I don't know what he expected being gay and supporting Bush in the first place.
I think a more honest headline would have been "RNC Strips Delegate who opposes Bush re-election of status."
I admit I haven't read the whole article (just the part you don't have to pay for), but I didn't get the sense that he was planning on voting against Bush until after they stripped him of delegate status. If there's anything in the rich-person version of the article that cares to enlighten me, I'm all ears.
The article I read said he intended to cast his delegate vote for Bush like a loyal party man, but did not say how he would cast his personal vote. Clearly a security risk.
This was actually covered in the WashPost last week: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61775-2004May27.html D.C. Council member David A. Catania said yesterday he has left the local Republican Party organization after its chairman stripped him of his delegate seat at the national convention because he opposes President Bush's reelection.
He says he's remaining a Republican, but not voting for Bush. I didn't realize that voting for Bush was a requirement to be let in to the RNC. I can't wait for them to bar any reporters from the RNC who won't be voting for Bush.
The more relevant headline would have been "Republicans base public policy on who's sucking off who in private bedrooms- it matters that much to them."
In a similar vein but closer to home (for me anyway) I can understand why gays might want to try to be Republicans, but I can REALLY understand why they wouldn't.
There's way more closeted kinksters in the republican ranks than in the democratic ones. And when you break off your illicit liasons with them, they can't really make a public scene about it...