In 1991, Urvashi Vaid, then director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s (NGLTF) Policy Institute, denounced the Persian Gulf War against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Those who saw the role of gay activism as helping correct the nation’s—and indeed the world’s—injustices applauded Vaid. Others were outraged by her position, in part because they believed the Gulf War was just, and in part because they saw the proper role of gay groups as using their resources to address gay issues, not a wide range of other matters.

Faced with the prospect of another war on Iraq, opponents are coalescing behind a new peace movement, and gay leaders are once again pondering what the gay role—if any—should be in the debate.

So far, NGLTF has not repeated its 1991 foreign policy venture. Jubi Headley, the group’s communications director, says a response to the Iraqi crisis is currently under discussion among NGLTF’s board members and staff. If my guess is correct, this traditionally leftist group will end up opposing an attack on Iraq.

The Metropolitan Community Church (MCC), which has at times assumed a centrist stance in the gay political spectrum—witness its co-sponsorship of the Millennium March on Washington in 2000—has joined the debate. MCC has issued a “declaration of conscience” calling for restraint in the conflict with Iraq. MCC compared the “vilification of the Iraqi nation” by the U.S. government and others to the experience of gay people, “who also know how difficult it is to survive under such circumstances.”

The Human Rights Campaign, a generally liberal but somewhat mainstream group—and the nation’s largest gay political organization—is purposely staying away from the issue. According to David Smith, HRC’s communications director, the group has no policy on Iraq and doesn’t expect to.

There is significant support for the general direction of the Bush administration’s Middle East policies among gay writers and activists on the right. Paul Varnell, a Chicago-based columnist of a libertarian bent, has contrasted the brutal—even fatal—treatment of gay people in Arab countries with the relative tolerance of gays in Israel. In addition, Dale Carpenter, who teaches at the University of Minnesota Law School; Jonathan Rauch, a columnist for the National Journal; and Richard Rosendall, a Washington, D.C., activist, have written columns that in general approve the president’s stance toward Iraq.

The effect of gay groups’ involvement in the issue is unknown. While the pro-peace stands of gay groups could strengthen the current antiwar movement, this positioning may associate the gay movement with an unpopular cause, one unrelated to gay issues per se.

Public opinion surveys on the Bush administration’s Iraqi policy indicate that a large majority of Americans back the President. Americans would vote for the resolution giving the President the authority to attack Iraq by 59 percent to 28 percent—more than a 2-to-1 margin—according to a survey taken for Fox News. In a Gallup, CNN, and USA Today poll, 58 percent of women and 56 percent of men favored sending troops to Iraq. Women are traditionally more dovish than men, but the well-publicized mistreatment of women by Muslim nations may have influenced female opinion. In a Zogby poll, however, when asked whether they favored sending “sons and daughters” to war in Iraq, respondents were closely divided—46 percent “no” to 45 percent “yes.”

Another visible gay participant in the debate—though perhaps coincidental to his sexual orientation—is Hank Perritt, the openly gay law professor running for Congress in the Chicago suburbs. Perritt was one of the first Democratic politicos to take a leading role in opposing what he terms President Bush’s “rush to war with Iraq.”

A legal scholar with an impressive list of books and articles to his credit, Perritt authored an op-ed piece in The Washing-ton Post contending that “unilaterally starting a war against Saddam Hussein is wrongheaded.” Perritt said an Iraqi war “could mire the United States in a nasty, prolonged conflict,” and he criticized fellow Democrats for failing to challenge “the administration’s bellicose posture.” More recently, Fox News’ Hannity and Colmes show invited Perritt to appear opposite Congressman Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) in a debate on war with Iraq. Perritt has spoken at peace rallies at churches and other venues in his district.

Whether Perritt will benefit from an anti-Bush foreign policy stance remains to be seen. He has, however, gained unaccustomed visibility in the nation’s capital that might bring in contributions from antiwar liberals. On the other hand, anti-Saddam Hussein sentiment runs strong among many voters, and Perritt’s campaign may gain visibility but lose votes.