Why is it that when a politician changes his mind to the detriment of trans rights its ‘political reality’ that must be respected, but when a politician changes his mind to the detriment of same-sex marriage, its not simply political reality but, instead, the politician becomes the embodiment of betrayal – Benedict Arnold multiplied by Julius and Ethel Rosenberg with a Quisling chaser?
And why is it that when gays and lesbians demand their contributions to a politician be returned because he isn’t going to vote the way they want him to vote on marriage the appropriate prosecutorial authorities don’t interpret the demand as an admission that the monetary contributions were intended to be part of a quid pro quo?
Collective context
Continue through the Collective
Contextual reading from independent member publications.
Related perspective
Shares relevant subject matter in the registered Collective corpus.
In my recent post, Rose Colored Glasses, I had quite a few people respond here and on livejournal. Anyone familiar with the history of the…
Related perspective
Shares relevant subject matter in the registered Collective corpus.
From the DNC website: “Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans.” Maybe during the next Presidential election cycle the party…
Related perspective
Shares relevant subject matter in the registered Collective corpus.
It looks like Prop. 622, The Human Rights Ordinance, has a chance at passage next week. Republican Lynn McWhirter said: “(Party leaders) see it’s moving…
1 comment