Of course logic has little to do with bigotry, and any attempt on Santorum or Gingrich’s part – or anyone else’s – is really an exercise in sugar-coating prejudice based on irrational fear-mongering. They know very well that their arguments will never hold up in a forensics debate without religious justification, but they don’t care – that’s why they’re bigots. They don’t need to prove their views are just and fair; they know they’re not, but the simply do not care. You will never convince hard-core haters like these two. Scratch that: I believe Santorum, who’s a loony zealot (redundant, I know) in his black little heart, truly hates gay men and lesbians. He doesn’t just hate us, he despises and loathes us and if he could have his way he’d bypass concentration camps and have us all arrested and executed at the earliest convenience. No one should underestimate just how nuts this guy is and if he got his hand on true power he wouldn’t hesitate to start mass arrests as soon as he could make it legal. Don’t forget that everything Hitler did was perfectly legal because he has control of all three branches of the government. George W. Bush showed us all how that can be done again if a president has a blank check legislature and compliant judiciary at his disposal. Gingrich, on the other hand, is much more of a pragmatic political opportunist. Although his substantial ego usually does him in by separating his brain from his mouth, his opinion on some social issues blows whichever way the public opinion wafts the wind, as well as whoever’s putting the most money in his coffers. (The fact that his sister’s a lesbian is irrelevant, by the way, so that argument would never work with him.) I don’t think either bigot has a prayer in winning the nomination, but one of them might be selected as the VP running-mate in order to pull in those far right-wing votes during the general election.

For anyone not wanting a November victory for the Republicans and a very possible reinstatement of DADT there are two primary objectives. The first is the most obvious one Matt Brauer ends his commentary with: VOTE!

The second goal, however, will a bit more work and more balls (sorry for the obviously sexist colloquialism): win over the hearts of the conservative voters out there by discussing this issue directly with them. In some cases it might mean coming out, which can be very difficult, but sitting silently by and letting the family bigot pontificate on and on about the evil of homosexuality is tacit agreement and approval of the sewage spewing from their mouths. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said that evil thrives when good people say nothing. If everyone who thinks homosexuality is a perversion and gay men and lesbians should be prevented from living a full life knew just one person they love and/or respect, they’d have a lot of soul-searching to do. You can’t always change everyone’s mind even when they know about you (my own father never had an issue with my sexual orientation, but he voted Republican to his dying day) but you will definitely change a few minds.

My mother, like many people, does not like to discuss politics very much, especially with anyone who disagrees with her. “Never discuss politics or religion,” she always says. That’s fine and even appropriate in most social settings. But as I pointed out to her recently, if no one ever discussed politics or religion except the politicians and clergy, she would never have been able to pursue a career, I would have been burned at the stake if my sexuality had been discovered, and everyone would still be forced to accept that the sun and planets and all the stars revolved around the earth. (The stars would be very easy to see, by the way, because there’d be no electric lights flooding them out in the night sky.)

I believe it is very important to let your political views and sexual orientation be known to your close family members and closest friends. These are the most important people in your life and they will never know the true “you” if they don’t know you’re gay. Of course you have to be reasonablly sure they won’t reject you outright, which still happens, but sometimes that’s worth the risk, too. It still makes them think, even if it doesn’t change their vote.

Also, not sure where you get the idea that democratic senators would vote to reinstate DADT in exchange for concessions on other ideas, but that’s ludicrous. Every single democratic senator and an additional six republican senators voted to repeal DADT. Where is the “lack of cohesion” on this issue in the democratic camp? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/18/dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal_5_n_798636.html

You need to do a little more research before you publish nonsense.