There are those averse to working with Republicans in any situation, even if our support would help them achieve their ostensible objectives. They won’t yield even to colleagues like-minded on most political issues

I think perhaps an outing campaign directed at these “really hateful gay activists” would be useful. It would certainly be most enjoyable.

I had hoped to work with some of these people to secure our inclusion. I know that many are up to the task, but it might be asking too much of them to press them to work for inclusion of people that some gay activists perceive as representatives of their greatest enemy and whom they define as self-hating. The time they would devote to fighting for inclusion within gay organizations is time they could not spend fighting for greater tolerance of gay people in society at large. [Emphasis added]

That shouldn’t trouble you at all. Gay activists will have an easier time fighting for greater tolerance and acceptance if they aren’t all perceived as really fighting for the Left instead of for gays. So the time spent fighting for political diversity within the movement is not at all a waste.

It is a known fact that in our government, Dems and Republicans can hate each other on the floor, then socialize together as friends. I’ve had people tell me, don’t talk politics to me, let our friendship be about other things.

This idea of purity of thought is scarry and very detrimental. A simple question, a big part of the gay marriage issue is to be accepted by mainstream society. With such militant narrow minded views – how do these people think that will happen??

I think you can see in a microcosm of the commenters here what you’re up against.

We have people who are against SSM period; People like me who want to see marriage left the way it is but want a seperate-and-equal institution created via legislation/refferendum; Some who would be happy with that, but feel the courts are a valid way to pursue it, and some who want ‘Marriage for me, and damn the consequences’.

The first and the last aren’t going to compromise. Both see the good as the enemy of the perfect. The middle two however can reach common ground and coalition build.

Also with something like this, the ‘big tent’ theory works if you put the other issues aside for the single goal. Ashpenaz, to use an example, displays either a lack of understanding or willful ignorance of how health care works, and I’ll fight tooth and nail to keep him from slagging the heath care industry. But at the same time, I’ll stand with him on the creation of a seperate government institution for marriage.

What the ‘big tent’ people forget is that government is like hot dogs. You don’t want to see what’s in there. I can (for example) reach across the aisle to support Joe Lieberman’s policy on defense, but not on Health care. I can oppose President Bush’s bailout of GM (we see how well that worked out). The tent falls apart when the ‘win at any cost’ mentality comes out.

As soon as the militants on the SSM issue realize that, you’ll see progress.