I was only in middle school during Thomas’ appointment, but the perception I was left with in later years is that his approach, when it comes to constitutional matters that would impact minorities adversely, was based more on personal experience, views, and accomplishments rather than fully examining the experiences of the people whom laws might impact.

It is easy to bash gay McCain supporters because a) it may be difficult to forget Bush’s support of the FMA in Feb. of 2004, b) it may be difficult to forget the GOP platform contains language that is anti-gay and c) McCain, himself, is a propoent of “traditional marriage.” Personally, when it comes to LGBT issues, and even though I came to my liberal beliefs on my own, I have no problem with the idea of McCain being president. I do, however, get the feeling that he is more tolerant of the community rather than accepting, but is accepting of LGBT persons he may personally know. It’s not perfect, but it’s a start.

What gay liberals need to accept is that in our country, there will be LGBT persons who identify more strongly with a conservative approach to government, and they’ll never make sure the community is accepted if they don’t provide a voice from within.

On the same hand, gay conservatives should not completely dismiss the trees in pursuit of the forest. It is, after all, the trees that make up that forest. Using that analogy as an example speaks to both sides, but the approach might seem Darwinian to some; I’m not convinced government is meant to work that way.

What angers me about this is that the reason I’m a conservative is not because I want my own interests catered to. I’m a conservative because I believe that its underlying tenets result in the greatest good for all, and therefore is inherently unifying. It allows all people to benefit. It’s harder to sell, because you have to paint the big picture, then show how the big picture results in good details for individuals. Liberalism inevitably looks at the trees, sees the knobby branches and frets about them, criticizes the leaves which are underdeveloped, then loses the image of the forest. Result: micromanagement.

It doesn’t seem some of these gay pundits and organizations are much interested in a Republican’s record on gay issues, they’re just focused on that annoying (R) after his name. It somehow causes them to writhe in agony and fall into paroxysms of anger.

No surprise there.

They didn’t coin the phrase knee-jerk liberal for nothing!

he’s good for gay Americans because he’s good for all Americans.

Bingo, therein lies the problem, he treats everybody equally – no room for vicitimology or special treatment because of minority status – that won’t sit well with the progessives.