I think the majority of Republican politicians and more importantly the majority of Republican voters do not support civil unions. While John McCain might (I'm not even 100% sure about that) that is just more of him being a lovable maverick. His party would just as soon see no accommodation of homosexuals in the world at all. Some on the far right have even called for homosexuals to be rounded up and forced to live on an island somewhere. I think they are more serious about that than you would think.

I agree with you that the presidential candidates fall far short of perfection, but with all due respect belaboring that just obscures the real point: the chasm between the parties on this issue is great.

For instance, despite the lack of total support for full equality from the Democratic presidential candidates, it's easy to suppose they take such a posture for political reasons and can easily be persuaded of our humanity when pressed. John McCain on the other hand has said he would support a constitutional amendment in some circumstances.

And off the national ticket, there are many examples of Democratic politicians that support full equality for gays and lesbians. I can't think of one on the Republican side. Can you?

I see. Thanks for answering.

I do want to clarify that my point was the candidates of both parties (and the majority of politicians in both camps) only support civil unions, not gay marriages. I wasn't claiming the Dems supported the Defense of Marriage Act. Nor, really, was I trying to say the two parties' stance on gay issues is identical. Just that the differences and perfections of one side is not absolute.

> Christopher 1988 needs to get his facts straight before

> assigning credit and/or blame to the wrong people.

Which facts would those be? Interesting that you don't give specifics. Suggests you don't have the facts straight, yourself.

I think mistica means your claim that the Republican party and Democratic party have the same stance toward gays. Even Cary cites in his (in my opinion poor) response refutation of this unsupportable claim.

From Cary's response:

The Republican platform supports the Defense of Marriage Act, while the Democratic platform says, "We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and all attempts to use this issue to divide us."

In what represents a marked shift from the Republican campaign rhetoric of 2004 -- where some George W. Bush advisors stoked anti-gay sentiment in an attempt to drive social conservatives to the polls -- Steve Schmidt, senior campaign strategist for the McCain campaign, stopped by a Log Cabin Republican luncheon Thursday to welcome the group to the convention.

“I just wanted to take a second to come by and pay my respect and the campaign’s respect to your organization and to your group,” said Schmidt, who many view as the new architect of the Republican Party. “Your organization is an important one in the fabric of our party.”

In his brief remarks, Schmidt weaved in a personal anecdote about his lesbian sister and her relationship to him, his wife, and his children. “On a personal level, my sister and her partner are an important part of my life and our children’s life,” he said. “I admire your group and your organization and I encourage you to keep fighting for what you believe in because the day is going to come.”

This convention marks the first in history that Log Cabin Republicans, an LGBT rights organization, have been fully credentialed official guests of the GOP host committee, and Schmidt is not the only high-profile party figure to address the group. Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, RNC treasurer Tim Morgan, and McCain political director Mike DuHaime – the first hire made by Schmidt after he took the helm in July – have all spoken at Log Cabin events this week.

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid60725.asp

Christopher 1988 needs to get his facts straight before assigning credit and/or blame to the wrong people.

Which facts would those be? Interesting that you don't give specifics. Suggests you don't have the facts straight, yourself.

I would recommend that you ask yourself, after walling off the political aspect of this issue: are my parents and siblings taking advantage of my goodwill? If so, what do my siblings have to say about their lack of financial contribution to the situation?

Political beliefs are SO hardwired into some people, you could argue until you're blue in the face with all of their "Yeah, I know. You're right but that's just the way I feel," responses.

You can't force your family to vote a particular way but you can take charge of your financial/emotional relationship with them.

I'd tell them "I'm sorry I can't help you out right because I'm sending that amount of money this month, and next, and right up to the election to ___________ campaign to help get Democrats elected to the White House and to Congress. After that, I'll think about helping you out. Right now, they need my support more than you do."

Sounds cold? Maybe. But it will get the point across and, by the way, why aren't your other siblings helping them out financially also? Note that when they retire and need help, those siblings will be just as uninvolved as they are. I know that from experience.

If they all resent you for standing by your ideals, so what.

"The banality of evil" is a cliche about the surprising silliness and pettiness of genuinely, monstrously evil people. They often would be laughable if they were not so dangerous.

The banality of good is a much-less-frequently-noted phenomenon. You, good Letter Writer, are doing good, but you get no credit, and you have gotten deeply involved in your family's silliness, maybe nastiness. No warm fuzzy feeling, no heavenly glowing reward. Just, at best, a wry laugh about doltish human nature.

You deserve great credit for helping your parents. Hail! You are lucky to be in a situation where you can help them. I wish I could help my parents much more than I do. I guess that things may change, so that you may need all your money desperately in the future, so that you have to cut them off.

So... I say help them while you can, as you can. The family silliness is par for every family. You would have it whether you helped, or not. We give you credit. Give yourself credit. But do not expect credit from your own family.

The banality of good. Laugh about it.