I’m a pretty homophobic guy, and quite sure I don’t agree with a lot of the social agenda of gay fiscal conservatives. But if I do happen to agree with them on size of government issues, why wouldn’t I cooperate with them on those issues?
Temporary alliances are most certainly possible. However, the main problem is that the exact budgetary/fiscal issues are anything but simple to get an exact agreement on which causes are we going to change? Are we going to get a ban on federally funded abortions? Who would be willing to at least bring into honest question the way our funding for medical research grants into better treatments for cancers, AIDS, what about figuring ways to promote or discourage, rather than try to mandate, various bad behaviors that can increase one’s own risk of developing or contracting various diseases that we pay to try and treat and/or cure?
All I am saying, and trying to make sense about here, is that the real questions and possible solutions to the fiscal issues are tough, and divisive, along social lines. The two are not entirely separate, because the solutions would be divisive along the lines of one’s moral convictions. I agree with you otherwise that yes, sometimes temporary alliances may happen, but in the end, the real solutions are divisive, and this is largely why some matters are truly untouchable to numerous politicians.
The GOProud are not fiscally conservtive, nor are the Log Cabin Repugs (who mostly vote Dem anyway).
The sole purpose of the above organizations are to advance the homosexual agenda. They are not conservative in any way shape or form except in their nod to second amendment rights - even on their website that nod sounds like an afterthought or just so they aren't obviously "all gay" although they have indeed admitted that "gay rights" are their sole interest.