Do politicians care about Gay rights?

[jackfaire]

People have noted lately on other threads that polilticians make high minded promises about ensuring rights for homosexuals but then backpedal once in office.

So what are the opinions around here? Do you feel there are any politicians that care or are they merely pandering to a vocal minority that has long sought main stream acceptance?

[HYHYBT]

At this point, and living where I do, I'd settle for the pandering.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Some were pandering because they wanted the votes, others pander later because they want a second term. Put it together and the people who're actually mean what they're saying are a bit thin on the ground. That gay marriage has been legalized in a few places goes to show that some at least speak the truth... so it's overly pessimistic to write them off as well...

[smileyeagle1021]

Jackfaire, short answer, No they don't.
They are only interested in pandering to the ignorant religious nutjobs who (proving God doesn't exist) have all the money.

[draggar]

Notice how same-sex marriage was a big deal during the past few elections (I"m including congress and the house)? Now, you hear nothing about it.

They only care about issues when it will bring them votes and sponsors.

[MadMike]

Probably about the only politicians that care about gay rights are the ones who are gay themselves. After all, politicians only care about themselves.

[jackfaire]

Probably about the only politicians that care about gay rights are the ones who are gay themselves. After all, politicians only care about themselves.

Not always

http://healthinsurance.about.com/b/2...h-benefits.htm

[guywithashovel]

As the gay movement gains more momentum and gets more support, I'd say we'll get more politicians who care about it. Thing is, right now, there is still quite a bit of opposition to equality for gays, and politicians are aware of this. I think that's why many of them tend to dance around it, or flip flop on it. They know that (depending on where they are from and what office they are in or seeking) taking a firm stance either way could potentially cost them a lot of votes.

Just my thoughts. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Greenday]

Only if it gets them more votes than being against it. But for the most part, human rights doesn't seem high on many politician's lists.

[elsporko]

Considering that when put to vote most places vote against things like gay marriage I think it shows that politicians are supporting the will of the people. This is democracy. Just because you disagree with most people it doesn't mean they lose their voice and what they want.

[smileyeagle1021]

Considering that when put to vote most places vote against things like gay marriage I think it shows that politicians are supporting the will of the people. This is democracy. Just because you disagree with most people it doesn't mean they lose their voice and what they want.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Justice is a well armed lamb disputing the vote. -Benjamin Franklin.

Just because it's the will of the people doesn't make it right or just. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

[jackfaire]

Considering that when put to vote most places vote against things like gay marriage I think it shows that politicians are supporting the will of the people. This is democracy. Just because you disagree with most people it doesn't mean they lose their voice and what they want.

No it doesn't but if someone is getting elected based on his campaign promises of rights to homosexuals and then rescinds the very promises that got him elected then obviously he isn't listening to the people that voted for him.

[elsporko]

I agree with that. They should make sure to vote for somebody else next time.

[linguist]

Considering that when put to vote most places vote against things like gay marriage I think it shows that politicians are supporting the will of the people. This is democracy. Just because you disagree with most people it doesn't mean they lose their voice and what they want.

so was loving v. virginia a miscarriage of justice because it overturned the will of the people? or any court case for that matter which has dealt with civil rights, when the laws that infringed upon those rights were created according to the will of the majority?

when the "will of the people" tramples on the civil or human rights of the minority, it's the government's place to step in and protect that minority against the tyranny of the majority.

[Skunkle]

The problem is, when you vote in new people, often none of them actually fulfill their promises. I'm reminded of the film "Brazil", where in one scene, people in a restaurant try to order food, and are told, nay commanded, to olrder by number, not name...

...when the food arrives, every dish is identical.

So no, I don't think the fact that many aren't voting for gay rights means it's the will of the people. We often, in fact usually, don't get what we think we're voting for.

And smileyeagle, OT, but I don't think the religious right having all the money proves anything. It's always the poor, the oppressed who are classed as God's people; to bring out a rather trite old line, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter heaven". I'd say, if anything, you'd be a hundred times more likely than Mr. "Christian" Oil Baron who pays Senator Windbag's campaign funds in exchange for him voting against gay rights bills; YOU endured the oppressive regime that is the Mormon Church.