Pam’s gone and laid out the gold standard of how queer folk can think most clearly about what candidate might deserve their vote.

The problem, as she notes, is that the press and such keep asking the canidates how they “feel” about queer rights, or marriage. We don’t give a rat’s ass how they feel. We give a rat’s ass about how they vote, make policy, and govern. Their fee-fees are their own.

Justice Frankfurter…though on the wrong side of history with this one, puts it thusly: “Were my purely personal attitudes relevant I should wholeheartedly associate myself with the generally libertarian views in the Court’s opinion . . . But as judges we are neither Jew nor Gentile, neither Catholic nor agnostic.”

That’s the dissent on W. VA School Board v. Barnette, btw.

Back to Pam’s criteron:

Candidates having positions in place for LGBT voters that are 1) consistent (not dependent on the audience they are speaking before/shaking down for money), 2) policy-driven (not what’s in your heart or how you were raised), 3) believable (you have to explain how civil unions are going to work with the federal DOMA still in place), 4) honest (A tall order indeed), help us shop for candidates to support. It’s not a lot to ask where they actually stand on the issues and what policy changes, if any, they will advocate for in this area. Get on the record and explain yourself. Put your positions up on your web site, for god’s sake.

Go read the rest.

And ask why we’ve gotten so caught up on feelings. Why do some issues come down to that, and what issues get policy statements?