I just received a contribution request from the Victory Fund, which is an LGBT organization that "provides strategic, technical and financial support to openly LGBT candidates and officials. It is the only national organization committed to increasing the number of openly LGBT public officials at all levels of government."

While this seems like a good mission to me (though I have never heard of them previously), I wonder if they support candidates simply based on the candidate's sexual orientation, or if there is a political agenda they require? Funding somebody only because they are gay seems a bit short-sighted, especially given the complexities in elected office.

I did notice they expect a candidate to:

• Be openly gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender;
• Demonstrate electoral viability;
• Publicly endorse federal Gay/Lesbian Civil Rights Legislation, and similar state and local anti-discrimination laws or legislation;
• Advocate aggressive public policies and positions relevant to HIV/AIDS research, education and treatment; gay and lesbian health and wellness; and women's reproductive freedom.

These are all issues that are very complex and can be understood on many different levels by those of us who are gay or straight. I am not sure there is a single "party line" (as if there is a party) on any of these, so I am still not sure what criteria they are using. Regardless of these issues and where one falls on them, I am not sure what "women's reproductive freedom" has to do with these gay-focused issues. Perhaps there is a larger agenda? After all, the donation request I received was from Senator Edward M. Kennedy.

I wonder if this insistence on advocating a set agenda is any different on the politically left than it is on the politically right? As I try to do for my own piece of mind and my own attempt at critical thinking, should playing the advocātus diabolī be any different here?