This is not the way I feel, but I understand the thought process. For the record, I hate the United States political system, and don't feel a strong affinity to any political party. I find South Park's analysis that every election is between a giant douche and a turd sandwich to be accurate, and found it amazing when I saw lawn signs for Giant Meteor 2016. In this case, I'm for equal rights for everyone. Please don't send hate mail just because I'm trying to articulate my observations of our political process.

When you have a large group of people with a specific belief structure, in the United States' (and perhaps some others) form of government, people elect people that they think will represent their interests. So an informed voter will look at the candidates, and pick the one that aligns with their world view. A less informed voter may align with a political party, and vote down party lines. The elected officials will then advocate for those positions.

Now we get into the political side of things. A representative will have to show they are advocating for that position, and somewhat effectively to maintain their constituency. So some representatives might say things like "The gays are ruining this country, we should be allowed to exile them to Belgium and force them to eat only waffles." Then they can introduce legislation that has no chance of passing, but makes their constituents happy. This shows that they're working in the interests of their constituents. Then the representative will say that they're trying, but the opposing parties are terrible people who want hate the country, and are trying to take away your rights to do the things you like, and are blocking the legislation that would make them happy.

This is why there's such a big deal when legislators get such a large majority of the various branches of government - Banishing the gays to Belgium with a waffle diet can sound reasonable enough to enough legislators that it might pass. The legislation can be pushed through, and now we have to have challenges to show that the legislation can't be enacted as written because it conflicts with a higher law.

Perhaps overly simplistic, and it's based on my observations. Please feel free to comment/correct as you feel appropriate.