More Democrats the Better?

The Advocate's Kerry Eleveld has some interesting observations on the Blue Dog Democrats and their decisive role in the current health care reform debate. Kerry then examined the record of the Blue Dogs and concluded that even though most Blue Dogs are fiscal conservatives, most of them have pretty gay-friendly voting records-if they are NOT from the South, that is. On the other hand, quite a few Republicans from the Midwest to the Northeast are also friendly to gay causes. She wrote:

But it does demonstrate another point for those who are specifically interested in pushing LGBT rights forward -- swelling the Democratic majorities by electing more Heath Shulers in the South does little to advance LGBT equality. The community would be better served, in fact, by letting Democrats lose some of those Southern seats while focusing on electing some pro-LGBT Republicans in the Midwest and Northeast. In fact, that would be particularly helpful in the Senate. The only caveat is that the movement certainly has an interest in keeping Democrats in the majority.

Personally, I care more about a lawmaker's voting record than their party affiliation. If a Republican is gay-friendly, what's the point of replacing him/her with a Democrat, who would produce an exact same vote?

Besides, the reason why Congress has not acted on major LGBT legislation such as DOMA Repeal is not the lack of Democrats/votes, but the lack of courage. Those on Capitol Hill are just not keeping up with public opinion, unfortunately.