He is a supporter of those who support equality for gay citizens? You mean the gays who support equality for gays? He supports gays by not supporting their equality?

He is a supporter of those who support equality for gay citizens? Or do you mean straights who support gays? He supports straights who support gays? Exactly what rights do those straights not have?

The republican party has led the charge to deny gays equal rights. They have been unapologetic and relentless. Enough said until they issue a flat out apology and repent of their sins.

If the Republican party doesn’t want to lose people due to gay rights and abortion issues, then let them table those issues altogether.

They start at ‘this is an article of faith issue, anyone who doesn’t believe this isn’t one of us’, then move to ‘we believe this, there is a small minority amongst us who disagree, but we can work with them on other issues’. Then to ‘In general we believe this, there is however a significant even large minority who disagree, it certainly isn’t an article of faith issue’. Then to ‘there is a real on-going debate about this within our party, just as there is within wider society. Next, ‘we no longer believe this as a party in general although we have many older respected members who still do’ and finally to ‘we no longer believe this’.

Small though this first step is, it is a necessary first step.

You are reading way too much into this and giving them too much credit.

I always thought that health-care benefits, tax breaks, inheritance rights, pension survivor rights, medicare and social security survivor rights, the right to sue for wrongful death when the bread winner of a family is killed by someone, the right not to fired from your job just because of your sexual orientation, the right to apply for a loan and the right to buy or rent a home (just to list a few) were economic issues.

I guess this new Republican Party leader is telling me that I just don’t understand economics. I am not so sure that he understands what the average voter thinks about when they think of economics.

Not a great start in my opinion.

He pretends to tell people that they will not deny the Republican party their vote based on that single disagreement, as if it’s just a disagreement. It’s not. It’s one whopping disconnect. Social issues do not share equal space with financial issues. If someone runs a party that consistently advocates anti-marriage amendments and anti-abortion legislation, I’m not going to vote for them regardless of how much we agree with the economic perspective.

This was clearly a message to those LCR’s that are willing to sacrifice gay rights progress for other issues.