One of the common claims made by gay leftists and Democrats is that the reason they so dislike conservative and Republican gays is because we supposedly don't work with them or support the organizations working to repel antigay initiatives and activities.
However, when Mary Cheney, a prominent gay Republican and the daughter of Vice President Cheney gives money and support to an organization working to stop Virginia's anti-gay constitutional amendment from passing, the responses of liberal and Democratic gays are rather entertaining.
The ones where they tell her to commit suicide (and offer their help) are particularly interesting -- and the ones where they sanctimoniously whine about her working with candidates and parties who pander to religious wingnuts and support stripping gays of rights add even more emphasis.
All in all, it is abundantly clear from these comments that Mary Cheney will not be accepted regardless of what she does -- and that gay leftists and Democrats would shed no tears if she disappeared or was killed off, by her hand or theirs.
What makes this particularly ironic is the regularity with which individuals like Pam Spaulding and John Aravosis pontificate how stupid and wasteful it is for gays to work with conservatives and Republicans -- who, they allege, will not accept gays regardless of what we do and who would shed no tears if we disappeared or were killed off, by our hands or theirs.
Perhaps they don't realize that, given the choice, we prefer the alleged examples over the clear examples.
Update (31 October): It seems I've just been linked by a commentor from Pam's House Blend, in regards to a post where Pam asks all those "professionally closeted homos in the GOP" how it feels to be "used all over again".
Of course, given her last election endorsement, what exactly does she define as "used"?
And, given the people she supports and their treatment of gay people, what exactly should make working with her attractive?