La Cage Aux Conservatisme?

In this week's issue of New York magazine, Kelsey Grammer discusses his upcoming Broadway turn in La Cage Aux Folles, and the implications of being a Republican playing a gay role. From Adam Sternbergh's profile:

“It’s a great story about any couple. They all have the same dynamic: a heterosexual relationship, a homosexual relationship, a man-with-dogs relationship. There are universal events that take place: the differences, the angers, the insecurities, the histrionics. You would call it, I guess, a male-female dynamic. This just happens to be two boys.” I ask him about La Cage’s relevance today, given the Proposition 8 fight in California. He says, “Oh, right. Of course. You know I wasn’t even thinking of that. Isn’t it funny?” On the subject of gay marriage in general, he adds, “Why is the government involved at all? If two men marry or two women marry, fine, go ahead—it’s not my issue. But when governments get involved, it just becomes more confusing.”

Well! First off, the government is "involved" in the gay marriage issue because it is a legal issue. But Grammer surely knows that, and is just tiptoeing, quite deftly, around answering the question. Also... "man-with-dogs relationship"?? Really!?

It's tricky: being a pretty big supporter of gay rights, I want to support La Cage, buy tickets, and encourage others to do the same. The message is wonderful, I am what I am, blah blah blah. On the other hand, I don't particularly feel like turning out to see Grammer, an out "Republican in Hollywood" (and in my opinion, gigantic douche), play this role. I'm not saying his politics should have kept him from being cast - that would be a terrible road to go down. But in the power-of-the-consumer sense, this issue is really, really important to me, and the idea of watching this guy play that role feels all wrong. Thoughts?