Because a culturally liberal nation cannot have low taxes, less spending, and limited government. Show me an area that’s “gay friendly” and I’ll show you an area full of big government socialists. Case in point: San Francisco. Try going there and running for office on a promise of less government and fiscal conservatism. Assure them that you’re fully with them on the issue of “tolerance” for homosexuality. It won’t make a bit of difference, they’ll still vote for the big government socialist and reject you. That’s because a socially liberal populace is inherently going to be weak and dependent.
Take your state of Minnesota as an example. Where would a campaign based on opposing big government have a better chance? In the socially conservative rural areas and small towns? Or in “tolerant” Minneapolis? It would flop in Minneapolis because the people who think homosexuality is just peachy keen are also weak-kneed, whiny, socialists who want national health care and every other free goody the left can offer.
There have been politicians who have run as being “progressive” on gay issues while being solid economic conservatives, sometimes even moreso than their social conservative counterparts. For examples, see former Gov. Bill Weld (R-MA), former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY), and former Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ).
A campaign against big government would flop in both the Twin Cities and socially conservative rural areas. Most rural areas of Minnesota vote DFL - look at our Congressional representation and our state legislature. Conservative strength in Minnesota is all in the suburbs, which includes both socially conservative suburbs and not-so-socially conservative suburbs, such as my hometown of Edina.