# Barney Frank criticism of Democratic Party **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 5, 2026, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barney-frank-criticism-of-democratic-party/1029811 "2026-05-05T18:36:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2026, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barney-frank-criticism-of-democratic-party/1029811/41 "2026-05-06T16:27:19Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > You know the world is a very big place, right? I could list probably a hundred politicians alive right now who have done more for LGBTQ+ rights than Newsom has. Gavin Newsom is the reason same sex marriage is legal in the US. Period. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2026, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barney-frank-criticism-of-democratic-party/1029811/42 "2026-05-06T17:05:48Z")
Sorry, but that is not true. He had a role to play, but that really does a disservice to the men and women who worked on this for YEARS. I lived in California when he was doing this, but of course without interstate and federal recognition, it’s not equivalent to marriage. That came in 2015, and remains precarious. You don’t think this court would overturn it? He was significant. So was Obama, another politician who is not actually super comfortable with gay people (or at least wasn’t early on). So were lots of people. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2026, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barney-frank-criticism-of-democratic-party/1029811/43 "2026-05-06T17:16:27Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I think more like MAGAs/bigots, but conservatives do not have to be bigots. Well no. They kind of do have to be bigots, because bigotry is most of what there is to be conservative _about._ Bigotry _is_ the great majority of the “traditional values” they say they support. ---
**Author:** ![CaveMike](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cavemike/32/16379_2.png) [@CaveMike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaveMike)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2026, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barney-frank-criticism-of-democratic-party/1029811/44 "2026-05-06T18:44:17Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The party is already defined on trans rights. Running from it does nothing, unless Democrats are going to spend decades to become an anti trans party This is a really good point and has the advantage of being both pragmatic and, IMHO, moral. Frank is making a pragmatic argument for the past and it no longer applies. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2026, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barney-frank-criticism-of-democratic-party/1029811/45 "2026-05-06T18:47:49Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > If he supports trans women playing women’s sports, he can just do the real simple thing and say it out loud. He did, by telling the trump adminstration to go to hell. > [@Tamerlane](#): > > Newsom kick-started the gay marriage debate in the United States by allowing/promoting legal gay marriage in San Francisco when he was mayor. He basically threw the first snowball that started the avalanche. While it could be labeled cynical by local political standards (SF being as gay friendly as it is), for someone with wider political ambitions it was a bold move. He deserves credit regardless of motive for having some balls on that one. > > Whether he has ‘done more than any politician alive’ is of course a much more debatable point. Thanks, and yeah, okay, more than any known American politician. > [@suranyi](#): > > Gavin Newsom is the reason same sex marriage is legal in the US. Period. One of the reasons, and an important one. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2026, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barney-frank-criticism-of-democratic-party/1029811/46 "2026-05-06T19:21:46Z")
From a purely pragmatic mathematical standpoint, does supporting transgender athletes in women’s sports gain, or lose, the Ds more support? In this era, elections are often decided by very thin margins. Is it costing the Ds something like 2% in votes it might have had otherwise? It would be hard to calculate but maybe some political analysis/research group could do it. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2026, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barney-frank-criticism-of-democratic-party/1029811/47 "2026-05-06T19:51:15Z")
I don’t buy it has any impact. Not because voters don’t care, but because the views on the party are baked in. Democrats are the trans rights party. It doesn’t matter if party leaders were to publicly say “we oppose transgender athletes”, because voters already see them as the trans rights party. As long as they can point to a single Democratic office-holder in favor of trans rights and trans access to athletics, that will be enough to reinforce this view. IMO, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2026, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barney-frank-criticism-of-democratic-party/1029811/48 "2026-05-06T19:58:38Z")
I’ll also point out that the Democrats have a reputation for abandoning their own supporters in order to make failed attempts to pander to the Right; something often given as a reason to not bother to vote for them. Doing it _again_ won’t help them at all. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2026, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barney-frank-criticism-of-democratic-party/1029811/49 "2026-05-06T20:07:30Z")
I suppose so, insofar as if a party is for it, the Democratic party is the one. But the question you ask is exactly what I’m thinking too- is it better to be _right and moral_ and lose consistently because there are enough undecided voters who aren’t on board with all the trans rights stuff? Or is it better overall to maybe just leave the trans rights stuff alone and concentrate on what people really care about, which is economic stuff and not liberal social stuff like trans rights. 98% of people probably find transgender people weird and repellent, and would just as soon not think about them, much less be confronted with hard questions like trans righs vs. women’s sports. On top of that, the way the Democratic party and the Left seem to work these days, there are NO shades of gray with respect to issues like this- you’re either all-in for , and ok with all of it, or you’re a bigot. And guess what? There are a lot of people out there who may not be 100% on board, but who _really_ dislike being told how to think or that they’re a bigot/etc… for disagreeing. Congrats. You just created a GOP voter because you drew that stupid line in the sand, rather than accommodating multiple points of view/degrees of tolerance. That’s what Frank’s talking about when he talks about purity tests. And he’s not wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2026, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barney-frank-criticism-of-democratic-party/1029811/50 "2026-05-06T20:13:33Z")
> [@bump](#): > > There are a lot of people out there who may not be 100% on board, but who _really_ dislike being told how to think or that they’re a bigot/etc… for disagreeing. Yeah, if you disagree with the idea that “group X deserves the same rights as everyone else,” then you are, in fact, a bigot. Bigots often hate having this pointed out. > [@bump](#): > > 98% of people probably find transgender people weird and repellent, and would just as soon not think about them, much less be confronted with hard questions like trans righs vs. women’s sports. So, just to be clear: you think “trans people are weird and repellent” is a position that could **not** be fairly characterized as bigoted? ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2026, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barney-frank-criticism-of-democratic-party/1029811/51 "2026-05-06T20:15:48Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > …voters already see them as the trans rights party. As long as they can point to a single Democratic office-holder in favor of trans rights and trans access to athletics, that will be enough to reinforce this view. You mean anti-trans voters here, right? Because it would take a hell of a lot more than that for someone in favour. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2026, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barney-frank-criticism-of-democratic-party/1029811/52 "2026-05-06T20:20:26Z")
Yes – I think the point of the question was to suggest that maybe there are some anti-trans voters the Democrats could get. I’m saying “no, those voters will see the Democratic party as pro-trans as long as a single Dem House member is pro-trans”. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2026, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barney-frank-criticism-of-democratic-party/1029811/53 "2026-05-06T20:20:57Z")
With this kind of logic, no party, including Republicans, would or should change their stance. If Republicans are associated with XYZ, then even if they ditch XYZ, they will be tarred as the pro-XYZ party. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2026, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barney-frank-criticism-of-democratic-party/1029811/54 "2026-05-06T20:21:11Z")
> [@bump](#): > > But the question you ask is exactly what I’m thinking too- is it better to be _right and moral_ and lose consistently because there are enough undecided voters who aren’t on board with all the trans rights stuff? > > Or is it better overall to maybe just leave the trans rights stuff alone and concentrate on what people really care about, which is economic stuff and not liberal social stuff like trans rights. Why should we _care_ if the Democrats win, then? "Liberal social stuff " applies to the majority of the population, and without those civil rights they won’t benefit from any improvement to the economy even if they aren’t imprisoned, deported or killed. What use is a theoretical wage increase to some guy beaten to death by gay bashers or some black guy in prison on false charges, for example? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2026, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barney-frank-criticism-of-democratic-party/1029811/55 "2026-05-06T20:21:44Z")
On big, controversial issues, parties usually don’t. And if they do, it takes decades – like the Republicans and Civil Rights. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2026, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barney-frank-criticism-of-democratic-party/1029811/56 "2026-05-06T20:21:45Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > So, just to be clear: you think “trans people are weird and repellent” is a position that could **not** be fairly characterized as bigoted? Did I say that? No. I said a whole lot of people think that way even if I used a hyperbolic percentage. My point is that whether it’s bigoted or not, it’s foolish to present all this as some sort of binary thing where you’re either in or out, because with a lot of these issues, more are going to be out than in, especially the more controversial they get. And by posing it as a binary, “you think like us or you’re a bigot” type of question, you lose voters who are otherwise somewhat sympathetic to your cause. There are shades of gray, and it’s a mighty stupid party who deliberately excludes people who aren’t committed _enough_. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2026, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barney-frank-criticism-of-democratic-party/1029811/57 "2026-05-06T20:39:22Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yeah, the Dems need to stay away from the issue of trans in sports. How can they when the Republican messaging is “Dems want trans in sports.” It’s not Democrats crusading for it. Unless you mean Democrats should cave to the conditions set by Republican messaging. It’s a wedge, Dems choices are either to eat it or to betray it. There’s no middle way. That’s why wedges exist, they force politically inconvenient choices. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2026, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barney-frank-criticism-of-democratic-party/1029811/58 "2026-05-06T20:40:40Z")
You have to be in power _first_ before you can enact any changes. Without being in office to wield power, everything else is rather beside the point. The Democrats need to say and do whatever it takes to get into office in the first place. Then, once sitting there, they can start doing what it is they want to do. Just like, with some job interviews, you have to say what the boss wants to hear, before you can get hired. So they could avoid promoting trans rights publicly, get elected, and then quietly get pro-trans stuff done once in office. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2026, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barney-frank-criticism-of-democratic-party/1029811/59 "2026-05-06T20:52:17Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Did I say that? It certainly appeared that way. If you’ve got another way to reconcile the two parts of your post, I’m all ears. > [@bump](#): > > And by posing it as a binary, “you think like us or you’re a bigot” type of question, you lose voters who are otherwise somewhat sympathetic to your cause. There are shades of gray, and it’s a mighty stupid party who deliberately excludes people who aren’t committed _enough_. Explain the “shades of grey” opinion that thinks trans people should be second class citizens, but isn’t bigoted against them. How does that work, exactly? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2026, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barney-frank-criticism-of-democratic-party/1029811/60 "2026-05-06T20:56:41Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > You have to be in power _first_ before you can enact any changes. Without being in office to wield power, everything else is rather beside the point. > > The Democrats need to say and do whatever it takes to get into office in the first place. Then, once sitting there, they can start doing what it is they want to do. Just like, with some job interviews, you have to say what the boss wants to hear, before you can get hired. > > So they could avoid promoting trans rights publicly, get elected, and then quietly get pro-trans stuff done once in office. So, the dems should… what? Get elected, and pass a whole bunch of pro-trans legislation, but not tell anyone about it? Pass secret pro-trans legislation? How does this work, when the next election cycle rolls around, and some troglodyte in a red hat points to all the pro-trans legislation that just got passed as a reason not to vote for democrats? Deny it exists? Promise to repeal it? Just ignore it and hope nobody notices? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barney-frank-criticism-of-democratic-party/1029811.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barney-frank-criticism-of-democratic-party/1029811.md?page=4)