  There are a lot of people angry at EMILY's List (which stands for "Early Money Is Like Yeast (It helps the dough rise)). It seems the nation's largest grassroots political network that raises money for pro-choice Democratic women has urlLink endorsed Inez Tenenbaum from South Carolina for U.S. Senate .
Tenenbaum, however, is a urlLink supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). EMILY's list has claimed no wrong: "EMILY’s List links its position, in terms of who we back, firmly to the issue of choice. This is not a conflict for us," [EMILY’s List CEO Joe] Solmonese said. "Other progressive issues have come up in the last 20 years — gun control, capital punishment — and EMILY’s List has always chosen to stick with its original purpose. "You have to be careful to respect individual organizations and their missions, and to make sure we all stay true to those missions.
" However, gay groups are crying foul: "We think that it is unfortunate that EMILY’s List would support anyone pro-FMA," said Dave DeCicco, a spokesperson for the [Gay &amp; Lesbian] Victory Fund. "We see them as an ally and this is a matter that we should stick together on. Just as the Victory Fund only endorses candidates who support women’s reproductive rights, EMILY’s List should back only those who support gay rights.
" It's a slippery slope because, while Tenebaum is pro-FMA, she is a Democrat. In a state where you already have a conservative Democrat, the logic would be that the Republican would be even more conservative than your standard Republican. And, to me, that is a scary thought. So, what do you do? Which one would it be easier to work with? Would both shut the gay community out? The whole thing makes my head spin and makes me glad I don't live in South Carolina.
I think Suzanne Martinez from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund said it the best: Susanne Martinez, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood’s PAC, the Action Fund, agreed that a more socially conservative Democrat would fare better than a conservative Republican on progressive issues, but she added that voters must not lose sight of the basic tenet behind pro-choice and pro-gay legislation: the right to privacy. Planned Parenthood issued a statement in June officially opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment and Martinez said its PAC would not endorse Tenenbaum — partly for her refusal to answer a questionnaire regarding her reproductive health viewpoints and partly for her opinion on the amendment.
"Several cases, including Roe vs. Wade and Lawrence vs. Texas , form a seamless web that underscores an individual’s right to freedom from government interference in the most personal, private decisions," Martinez said. "We see them as intertwined. You start pulling away at individual freedoms and equal protection laid out in the Constitution, including the right to private sexual activity, and you unravel all other privacy rights.
" 
