Gay Patriot Header Image

President Bush & Andrew Sullivan, Senator Coburn & Us

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 12:28 pm - January 30, 2006.
Filed under: Gay America,Gay Politics,National Politics

Back when I used to read Andrew Sullivan’s blog regularly, that is, before 2/24/04, the transformative date in his political life, I appreciated that he was able to praise as well as criticize President Bush. (I did not read him much prior to 2003 when I understand he was often a gusher of admiration for the president he now reviles.) He hailed the president for his leadership in the War on Terror, yet at the same time, took him to task for having difficulty firing officials who were derelict in their duties. (I am grateful to Andrew for drawing my attention to this flaw of the president — which I might not have noticed had I not read his blog.)

Before 2/24, Andrew showed that one could support a leader even while disagreeing with some of his policies. What makes his transformation which James Taranto calls “one of the oddest, and saddest, stories on the World Wide Web over the past few years,” particularly sad to gay conservatives is not only that he had been the first prominent openly gay, conservative pundit, but that he had also been a kind of role model, even a “poster boy,” for us. He wrote well, indeed still writes well, spoke well and made solid arguments. He could not easily be pigeonholed.

Many conservatives looked up to him and saw a smart gay man who did not let his sexuality define his politics. In many cases, it allowed them to see gay people in a different light, no longer as individuals who change their politics as soon as they come to terms with a sexual orientation which differentiates us from the social norm, but as complex individuals who make political decisions pretty much as everyone else does, by balancing a number of concerns.

Thus, when the blogger who once held a nuanced view of President Bush shifted so completely when the president, on February 24, 2004, announced his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment (which, like Andrew, I also oppose) Andrew, as the most prominent gay conservative, made it seem, for a moment, that, unlike most people, gay conservatives would let one issue so completely change their view of a man they had once praised.

With that as introduction, perhaps you can see how Andrew came to mind as I finished up my post yesterday on Tom Coburn. (And even before Bruce posted his piece about being fit, like Andrew, with a CPAP mask to help him breathe better at night!) If we were to judge the Oklahoma Republican, as Andrew has judged President Bush, letting his view on one gay issue, cause us to change our political views altogether, we would fail to appreciate those aspects of the politician we would otherwise have admired. As I noted in the post, Coburn has taken the lead in opposing earmarks and in standing up for fiscal restraint — to the great delight of many of my favorite conservative bloggers and pundits.

We should not let the rather bizarre comments this freshman Senator has made about gay men and lesbians in the past color our overall view of the man. It’s not always easy supporting someone who has said some of the things that he has. Nor is it always easy for us to support a president who backs a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We should of course take them to task for these statements and policies.

That said, Senator Coburn has not proposed any legislation which would prevent us from living freely and openly as gay men and lesbians. By the same token, while President Bush opposes gay marriage, he has said he favors letting states decide whether to recognize same-sex civil unions while inviting the Vice President’s daughter together with her female partner on stage when he declared victory in the fall of 2004. I say this to indicate that I do not give a politician a blank check on gay issues. Were a politician to support incarceration of gays, mandatory “conversion therapy,” or otherwise limit our freedom, I would of course oppose him no matter how much I agreed with him on other issues.

Overall, both Senator Coburn and President Bush have compiled a strong record on issues of concern to Reagan Republicans. Senator Coburn has risked the wrath of his more senior colleagues by standing up against spendthrift practices which have grown out of control. The president had shown leadership in the War on Terror and has been steadfast in his prosecution of the war in Iraq despite setbacks there and dissension at home.

Andrew Sullivan’s example notwithstanding, most gay conservatives are aware that while some of the men we admire don’t always have the views on gay issues we would like them to have, they have nonetheless shown leadership on other issues. Serious gay conservatives don’t let our disagreements with leaders on gay issues get in the way of our admiration of them on others.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Share

52 Comments

  1. I never bought into Andrianna Sullington’s conservative schtick. Andrianna advocated a massive tax increase (a dollar a gallon on gasoline) while bragging that as a non-driver, it wouldn’t affect him. Andrianna also has no problem with the concept of an unelected judiciary as the supreme branch of government, so long as it imposes his politicial philosophy.

    Sullington only looked conservative when contrasted with the far-left whackjobs that dominated (and continue to dominate) gay politics. You could call him “the conservative gay” only by contrasting him with the likes of Michelangelo Signorile and radical organizations like Queer Nation. It’s like if you contrasted Hillary with Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell you could call her “the thin one.”

    As for Senator Coburn, the simple fact of the matter is that the only impetus for fiscal restraint is on the conservative right. The Democrats can not even manage their own party’s finances, and have firmly opposed even the 0.3% reduction in growth proposed in December. There is clearly no hope for spending restraint on the part of the left or the center.

    Comment by V the K — January 30, 2006 @ 1:09 pm - January 30, 2006

  2. Wow. I think its a pretty conservative principle to say that the federal government shouldn’t amend our founding document to discriminate against its own citizens. Its a deal-break for me. It would be like my parents saying “You know, Mike…we have to support Governor Wallace despite the fact he thinks we’re n—-rs and wants to send you to a second-rate school because you’re not equal with them White kids.”

    Thank God the courts said Wallace – and the majority of people here in Alabama – were wrong.

    Comment by Mike — January 30, 2006 @ 2:00 pm - January 30, 2006

  3. The amendment process is the only Conservative way to change the Constitution. Letting an outcome-based judiciary make up new laws using “penumbras” and “emanations” to make up stuff that is no where in the language of the Constitution is more akin to tyranny.

    Comment by V the K — January 30, 2006 @ 2:18 pm - January 30, 2006

  4. Mike, I agree that it’s not conservative to favor amending the constitution to define marriage, even if in reaction to a state judiciary’s usurpation of the legislative function.

    But, to take the president’s support for that amendment out of context, as Andrew has done, is also not a conservative reaction. Nor is it conservative to compare the president’s support for the FMA with Wallace’s support for segregation.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 30, 2006 @ 2:20 pm - January 30, 2006

  5. Is it just me, or does the site seem really slow to load today? Maybe its a good sign (increased traffic).

    So, VtheK, are you saying that you favor amendmeng the Constitution to bar marriage for gay people? Just trying to understand what you mean.

    Comment by Jeremy — January 30, 2006 @ 2:32 pm - January 30, 2006

  6. I’m sorry, I forgot that Andrew Sullivan mattered. Oh well.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 30, 2006 @ 2:37 pm - January 30, 2006

  7. Purely for clarity of discussion: Jeremy / Mike seem likely to be the same. (Also “Gregg” in the past.)

    Comment by Calarato — January 30, 2006 @ 2:39 pm - January 30, 2006

  8. #6 – He matters just to Left-liberals, Matt. Because, since he lost all his marbles and became one of them and now tells them what they want to hear, they point to him and go “See? See???!!”

    It’s very, very important to them that he be identified as “a conservative”, although I agree that not only is Sullivan not remotely a conservative now, he has never been one, even before 2/24/04. Nor a (consistent or actual) libertarian.

    Sullivan has always been a Big Government guy, despite his self-indulgent pretentions to the contrary, and his good willingness to defend the pharmaceutical companies. He has simply been one of the more moderate ones. And yes, before 2/24/04, one who was able to appreciate Bush’s vigorous War on Terror.

    But look how far we’ve come! A relatively moderate Big Government guy, able to support a defense of America (pre-2/24/04), is merely a 1980s Democrat! That’s to be labelled “conservative” now???

    Long story short, Dan I was frankly surprised to see you grace him with the word “conservative”.

    Comment by Calarato — January 30, 2006 @ 2:53 pm - January 30, 2006

  9. #5 – No, but I would support an amendment that specified that marriage could only be defined by the people, or by the people acting through their elected legislatures. Similarly, I would support amendments that restricted the power of the court to dictate tax policy or formulate regulatory schemes.

    Comment by V the K — January 30, 2006 @ 2:54 pm - January 30, 2006

  10. Thanks for clarifying. And yes, Mike is my partner (8 years).

    Comment by Jeremy — January 30, 2006 @ 4:03 pm - January 30, 2006

  11. “Nor is it conservative to compare the president’s support for the FMA with Wallace’s support for segregation.”

    Yes, if the amendments only called for banning of same-sex marriage. However these amendments almost always, including the FMA, also ban civil unions or “marriage like contracts.” That is the same as Wallace’s support for segregtion. His failure to support amending existing hate crimes and non-discrimination laws which already exist to support innate characteristics (race) and characteristics by choice (marital status and religion) also falls into the same category as Wallace’s racism.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 30, 2006 @ 4:20 pm - January 30, 2006

  12. Sullivan’s opposition to the president goes far beyond his support for FMA, which I haven’t seen him mention in some time. He also has issues with his NSA domestic spying program, the way torture has been handled by the administration a la Gonzales, Cheney, et cetera, and his general kowtowing to the religious right. I realize that in these circles disagreeing with the president is signs of some sort of mental instability, just as agreeing with the president is seen in the same way on the left wing blogsphere, but get real already.

    On Coburn, are we really picking which fiscal conservative is the least social conservative as opposed to a fiscal conservative whom is a social liberal (aka supports gay rights, right to privacy, limited FCC censorship, et cetera)? This situation is just so damn pathetic anymore…choose between incompetent Democrats or religious right backed Republicans…

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 30, 2006 @ 4:26 pm - January 30, 2006

  13. But isn’t Bush in favor of anti-sodomy laws? He certainly was as governor. I’m not aware of any statement he’s made to indicate he’s changed his mind. Wasn’t incarceration a possible penalty of that statute? And how is Sullivan a ‘Big Government’ guy? Even a ‘relatively moderate’ one? He’s been a consistent critic of the size of government, from what I’ve read. I understand the need to villify him, but I’m hoping for some facts here.

    Comment by inLA — January 30, 2006 @ 4:28 pm - January 30, 2006

  14. At one time I, too, read Mr.Sullivan. I found him to be a very pervasive voice, not because he re-inforced any ideology I adhere to, but because his arguments were lucid and very well thought out.
    His recent hysterics have caused me to visit his site less and less…what a shame. I felt he was a very standup guy.

    Comment by SixStringBassPlayer — January 30, 2006 @ 4:34 pm - January 30, 2006

  15. Actually I think people should welcome the FEMA debate. I personally think that a majority of people would be persuaded to defeat the amendment and that would push the debate into a more open discussion about marriage. I know that I would vote against it because you could then argue that this is a discriminatory amendment targeting one small part of the population. Once that argument, and I think that it would be a very good argument, is used then people would be able to discuss gay marriage by discussing what role the government has in regulating marriage any way. Out of my bedroom and out of my pocket.

    Comment by Wayne — January 30, 2006 @ 4:34 pm - January 30, 2006

  16. Yes, the site has been slow today, yet less slow this afternoon than it was this morning (PST).

    Yes, I know, Mr. Moderate (#12) that Andrew’s opposition goes beyond his disagreement with the president on gay issues, yet, as a number of bloggers have detailed, notably James Taranto of Best of the Web, Andrew has since 02/24 offered views quite opposite to things he was saying before the president came out in support of the FMA. So it seems, as I wrote in the post, it seems that he has let his disagreement on that one issue color his opinion of the president.

    And his arguments are far less rational than they once were, and as SixStrings suggested in #14, increasingly hysterical.

    Wayne makes a great point in #15. We should welcome the FMA debate. While some people on both sides, have used the issue as an excuse to hurl insults at their opponents, many have good arguments on the role of the Constitution in this debate. I recall reading some great speeches by Arizona’s John McCain and New Hampshire’s John Sununu, both of whom opposed gay marriage – and the constitutional amendment.

    Good comment, Wayne.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 30, 2006 @ 4:55 pm - January 30, 2006

  17. #13 – You’ve been given some facts in various comments.

    — Sullivan advocates tax increases – ones that won’t affect him, no less.
    — Sullivan is not offended by redistributionism (as a true conservative and/or true libertarian ought to be) and entitlements.
    — Sullivan is generally not bothered by extensive government regulation / intrusion in marketplaces, workplaces, etc.

    Sullivan’s ONLY 2 positions consistent with small-government conservatives or libertarians, that I ever saw, were: (1) his willingness to say that the pharmaceutical companies are good, not evil; (2) his distaste for deficit spending and willingness to cut pork spending. Note, however, that the latter does not translate to Sullivan supporting tax decreases.

    I say again: Sullivan is no conservative and never has been at any time; before he went loony on 2/24/04, he was a moderate 1980s Democrat, in effect.

    There some facts. And facts aren’t “vilification”; sorry bucko. Face the truth about Sullivan.

    Comment by Calarato — January 30, 2006 @ 5:04 pm - January 30, 2006

  18. He has consistently been opposed to the new prescription drug entitlement so I don’t see how you can say he’s not offended by them.
    And I wish people, especially gay people, would stop calling him hysterical or shrill. Many conservatives have become critical of the Bush administration and yet only Sullivan is described that way. I sense code for ‘big silly fag.’

    Comment by inLA — January 30, 2006 @ 5:14 pm - January 30, 2006

  19. If I had a prayer that the anti-FMA groups could handle the media football as well as the pro-FMA groups have been able to, I would support it. I agree most Americans would be against it under an equal media barrage from both sides. However the pro-FMA groups are far more effective at getting their message across, and would make minced meat of the anti-FMA side. Ideally it would highlight just how much control the religious right has over the present day GOP and the political system with the current GOP leadership in power. I just haven’t been impressed with the ability of moderate Republicans and Democrats to effectively get that point across to the American people.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 30, 2006 @ 5:16 pm - January 30, 2006

  20. I think its a pretty conservative principle to say that the federal government shouldn’t amend our founding document to discriminate against its own citizens.

    It is, though it’s hardly that simple. For one thing, nobody has a right to get married; states disallow other groups from getting married. For another thing, with legislation by judicial fiat, something must be done to prohibit one court from waving their magic wand and making gay marraige legally binding upon the other 49 states.

    It was obvious all along that the amendment was going nowhere — it had less support than the idiotic ERA. The amendment is never going to be ratified.

    Comment by rightwingprof — January 30, 2006 @ 5:21 pm - January 30, 2006

  21. #18 – You must be a Sullivan fan, because taking “hysterical” as a homophobic slur is one of Sullivan’s big pet themes.

    It’s another reason I believe Sullivan has gone, well, hysterical.

    You see, I have seen “hysterical” applied to many, MANY NON-gay Bush critics or leftists – apart from Sullivan. To say its use has to do with Sullivan’s homosexuality is a stretch indeed, and, moreover, a way of dismissing the criticism (i.e. that he is excitable and, since 2/24/04, has peculiarly degenerated in the quality of his thinking and arguments).

    Sullivan’s endless complaints that the word “hysterical” must somehow be code for homophobia excellently showcase his thin skin.

    Comment by Calarato — January 30, 2006 @ 5:24 pm - January 30, 2006

  22. A case can be made that Sullivan is peculiarly obsessed with female-related metaphors of any kind.

    Here, James Taranto documents Sullivan’s obsession (or: excessive concern in no way justified by facts, if you prefer) with the idea of menstrual-blood-as-torture-device.

    Comment by Calarato — January 30, 2006 @ 5:27 pm - January 30, 2006

  23. However these amendments almost always, including the FMA, also ban civil unions or “marriage like contracts.”

    What part of “backlash” don’t you understand? What did you expect, not just or even primarily from the Massachussetts court ruling, but the grandstanding in SF in the papers every day for two weeks, the pictures, the statements? You can only slap people in the face so long before they slap back.

    But isn’t Bush in favor of anti-sodomy laws? He certainly was as governor.

    There is a huge difference between believing that the people should be able to legislate sodomy laws and being in favor of them. I have never heard GWB say anything, as governor or president, that indicated whether he is or is not in favor of sodomy laws.

    And indeed, Sullivan has never been a conservative — though he would qualify as a British conservative.

    Comment by rightwingprof — January 30, 2006 @ 5:33 pm - January 30, 2006

  24. Well as long as they can hide behind the backlash argument, then it will be okay if they outlaw “marriage like contracts” and stuff I guess. It is identicaly to the hysterical (since the word is being thrown around a bit today) reaction that southerns had to desegregation by the courts. It does not excuse their position. Nor should it provide solace for you when you consider voting the people who believe this tripe or are willing to leverage anti-gay backlash to gain or hold office.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 30, 2006 @ 5:44 pm - January 30, 2006

  25. OT: Kennedy is having a total red-faced meltdown over Alito.

    We know, of course, that Alito is nothing like Kennedy describes. Yet Kennedy thinks he is. I think his emotion is sincere; he’s not just phoning it in as Kerry would.

    So the question in my mind: How can a person be so far off, cognitively?

    Comment by Calarato — January 30, 2006 @ 5:57 pm - January 30, 2006

  26. Reading Michelle’s transcript… Kennedy seems to fear that 1957 Brown v. Board of Education is at risk, with Alito!!! (Kennedy doesn’t mention it specifically, but by implication)

    I wish, oh how I wish, that Bush would nominate Janice Rogers Brown. We’d see Kennedy’s head explode as he makes the same speech about a respected conservative BLACK, female Supreme Court nominee!

    Comment by Calarato — January 30, 2006 @ 6:06 pm - January 30, 2006

  27. So the question in my mind: How can a person be so far off, cognitively?

    I think spending the last forty-odd years in an alcoholic stupor, surrounded by politicians, beholden to the most radical, wild-eyed activists of the left, and finally insulated from reality by a thick bubble of wealth and privilege, probably explains 90% of Teddy’s disconnect from reality.

    Filibuster goes down 72-25. That’s gotta hurt.

    Comment by V the K — January 30, 2006 @ 6:12 pm - January 30, 2006

  28. Also, Kennedy was a pioneer of ‘borking,’ — the left’s way of defeating sound, qualified judges through all-out, scorched Earth attacks on their character. Borking was the left’s ultimate weapon, and against highly-qualified judicial nominees, it was their only weapon. Borking was the Death Star of Democrat politics, and the rebels just blew it up in his face.

    By the way, I’m getting reports that the inmates at Kos are banging madly on their cages.

    Comment by V the K — January 30, 2006 @ 6:32 pm - January 30, 2006

  29. Re: Kos inmates banging… any link to a good little summary?

    Comment by Calarato — January 30, 2006 @ 6:39 pm - January 30, 2006

  30. Here’s a report from NRO’s “The Corner:”

    One diatribe from one of the site’s “recommended diaries”:

    What I want is a complete list of every scumsucking f–kstick Democratic a–hole senator who voted for cloture. That’s what I want.

    Frankly, right now I’d like nothing better than to torpedo the entire lot of them. Just dump them like so much worthless, leaden, VICHY MOTHERF–KING BALLAST.

    I got nothin’, folks. Don’t look over here if you want comfort or a nice, uplifting LIVE TO FIGHT ANOTHER DAY speech.

    I’M DONE WITH THEM. They are DEAD to me.

    Yeah. CANTWELL and BYRD and LANDRIEU and BINGAMAN and every last motherf–king one of them, I’m DONE with them.

    I’m registering Independent tomorrow. You’re welcome to join me.

    Comment by V the K — January 30, 2006 @ 6:54 pm - January 30, 2006

  31. And at the

    Democratic
    Underground
    Message
    Board

    But if Alito can get past a significant fraction of the Dems, and all Republicans, is either party worth a damn? Just how many more questions could Alito have refused to answer, waving his contempt in their sell-out faces? Just how many kittens would Alito have had to strangle, on camera, to be filibustered–or better yet, not be nominated at all?

    American democracy is dead, folks. We’re on our own.

    Comment by V the K — January 30, 2006 @ 7:01 pm - January 30, 2006

  32. A couple of things to remember: First, Defense of Marriage petitions and ballot initiaves generally pass with a great deal of support from registered-Democrat voters as well as from registered-Republicans; and generally either pass by a big margin of voters or (rarely) fail by a small margin. Mike and Mr. Moderate should spend less time comparing President Bush to Governor Wallace and should consider why the public appeal of their ideas might be so… selective.

    Second, I- and, evidently, not quite everybody else- knew that the last nail in the coffin of gay marriage was the insistance of certain spokesmen to try to link their cause with the Civil Rights movement of the Fifties and Sixties. There are people alive today who were denied their right to vote, to speak in public, to be given a fair trial; who went South at great personal risk to march and to work for voter registration; there are alive today people who had friends, loved ones, lynched or beaten for having the courage to claim equal voting rights. Dogs, fire hoses, Sandy Bull, ten-thousand-member Klan rallies, Selma. Attempting to link what they faced and what they conquered with the inability of Sarah and Susan to open a joint checking account under one last name was possibly the single most tone-deaf and arrogant public policy since Marie Antoinette.

    (the SECOND most tone-deaf statement ever was Sullivan’s admission that even though terrorism was the single most important issue in the 2004 election and Kerry was hopeless on national defense, “no self-respecting gay man” could vote for Bush because of his position on the DCMA: at the same time, announcing that the possibility of another 9-11 would be preferable to not being able to marry a same-sex partner and holding that any other gay man who disagreed must be mired in self-loathing.)

    Comment by DaveP. — January 30, 2006 @ 7:08 pm - January 30, 2006

  33. Attempting to link what they faced and what they conquered with the inability of Sarah and Susan to open a joint checking account under one last name was possibly the single most tone-deaf and arrogant public policy since Marie Antoinette.

    Amen.

    Comment by V the K — January 30, 2006 @ 7:10 pm - January 30, 2006

  34. “DCMA”? oops…. I meant DMA. Preview is my friend, but he won’t loan me a ten-spot…

    Comment by DaveP. — January 30, 2006 @ 7:11 pm - January 30, 2006

  35. This situation is just so damn pathetic anymore…choose between incompetent Democrats or religious right backed Republicans…

    Beats the hell out of waiting on the fence for a consensus to form and then jumping onto the bandwagon claiming that’s what you believed all along. Somebody needs to get down of their high dildo.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 30, 2006 @ 7:19 pm - January 30, 2006

  36. DMA – is not like the ERA, my memory of the fight for ERA went like this –
    Pro ERA – We just want equal rights
    Ati ERA – You already have equal rights, its in the constitution.

    DMA arqument is not like that, this is a limit of persons rights, restrictions, in fact you could make the argument, What is next small pink patches to be worn on the clothes?? A vast majority of people would reject that being in the constitution, but it also changes the debate from Are you going to let the courts dictate to you what you must accept or not accept. I personally believe that most of the ballot initiatives following the MASS decision went the anti-gay marriage direction because a majority of people felt that the Mass supremes went to far and the campaigns were framed by that issue. Reagan taught us that optimism vs doom gloom will win every time. Celebrate the victories that you have accomplished in this political arena, (CT civil unions for example). That does not mean you have to accept that as the final step, you can continue to work for the marriage etc. But CT civil unions was a victory for the gay community ( or at least I think so, and if one of you compares me to bull conners again … no i haven’t forgotten).

    Some times small political victories lead to bigger victories. Using Civil unions as a start in CT can make a big difference in the fight ahead. As long as it is remembered that it is a step in the journey and all journeys start with that first step.

    Out of my bedroom and out of my pocket

    Comment by Wayne — January 30, 2006 @ 8:47 pm - January 30, 2006

  37. FMA = Federal Marriage Amendment – what Bush proposed (and Kerry supported implicitly, and Clinton supported explicitly)

    DOMA = Defense Of Marriage Act – what Clinton signed in 1996 (or 7?)

    Comment by Calarato — January 30, 2006 @ 9:34 pm - January 30, 2006

  38. Damned you Six Stringed Bassplayer. I only have five!!! 🙂

    Comment by sonicfrog — January 31, 2006 @ 1:31 am - January 31, 2006

  39. And I only have four! Smallest in something, I guess… 😉

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 1:52 am - January 31, 2006

  40. Perhaps I’m just a tad young, but I really don’t see why we should bother dissecting Sullivan. If everything eveyrone is saying about him is true, he doesn’t even seem to be worth the time.

    Comment by Hello Moto — January 31, 2006 @ 2:13 am - January 31, 2006

  41. Hello, he used to be quite an original thinker, a good speaker and conversationalist.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 31, 2006 @ 2:40 am - January 31, 2006

  42. Those laws, rather the parts that attempt to outlaw contracts, will be stricken down as soon as they are challenged. They are property rights violations, something liberals have no respect for.

    Comment by rightwingprof — January 31, 2006 @ 7:47 am - January 31, 2006

  43. American democracy is dead, folks. We’re on our own.

    It’s amazing how completely out of touch with reality the moonbats over at Dummycratic Underwear are. They’re taking some very bad drugs.

    Second, I- and, evidently, not quite everybody else- knew that the last nail in the coffin of gay marriage was the insistance of certain spokesmen to try to link their cause with the Civil Rights movement of the Fifties and Sixties. There are people alive today who were denied their right to vote, to speak in public, to be given a fair trial; who went South at great personal risk to march and to work for voter registration; there are alive today people who had friends, loved ones, lynched or beaten for having the courage to claim equal voting rights. Dogs, fire hoses, Sandy Bull, ten-thousand-member Klan rallies, Selma. Attempting to link what they faced and what they conquered with the inability of Sarah and Susan to open a joint checking account under one last name was possibly the single most tone-deaf and arrogant public policy since Marie Antoinette.

    Well said, sir!

    Comment by rightwingprof — January 31, 2006 @ 7:54 am - January 31, 2006

  44. The unhinged ranting must be even worse than we thought, the DUMB kooks have restricted VIEWING of their discussion threads to DONORS ONLY.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 8:46 am - January 31, 2006

  45. repost: I’m sorry, I forgot that Andrew Sullivan mattered.

    Except for some witty lampooning by VdaK, Sullivan should be treated like a converted liberal –loved but suspected by the Left, ignored or minimized by the Right.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 31, 2006 @ 12:21 pm - January 31, 2006

  46. #44 – Hah hah – I selfishly hope someone has donated $1 to DUMB, so they can re-publish the “best” comments for my enjoyment 🙂

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 12:41 pm - January 31, 2006

  47. Except for some witty lampooning by VdaK

    Matt, have you ever read the disclaimer in the left sidebar of my blog?

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 1:13 pm - January 31, 2006

  48. FMA = Federal Marriage Amendment – what Bush proposed (and Kerry supported implicitly, and Clinton supported explicitly)

    DOMA = Defense Of Marriage Act – what Clinton signed in 1996 (or 7?)

    Comment by Calarato

    Calrato is right. I apologise for my misacronymization.

    Comment by DaveP. — January 31, 2006 @ 9:12 pm - January 31, 2006

  49. 9: And what do you do when the people vote for something that is at direct odds with equal protection clauses of both State Constitutions and the US Constitution?

    Comment by Kevin — February 1, 2006 @ 11:18 pm - February 1, 2006

  50. 43: I think it’d be nice if people on here could discuss/debate political ideology without constantly attacking the right of opposing groups to exist. terms like “repuklican” and “dummycrats” bring any real political debate to a grinding halt and assist in bringing down the whole nation.

    Comment by Kevin — February 1, 2006 @ 11:25 pm - February 1, 2006

  51. And what do you do when the people vote for something that is at direct odds with equal protection clauses of both State Constitutions and the US Constitution?

    You remember that said constitutions exist by the will of the voters; thus they can with perfect right change them.

    When one keeps that in mind, one tends to treat voters with far more respect. As should be obvious by their behavior, most gay activists believe that the voters have no power or right to change constitutions.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 2, 2006 @ 12:50 am - February 2, 2006

  52. […] Sullivan turned on the Bush Administration with a vengeance, many said it was due to Pres. Bush deciding to publicly support a Constitutional amendment which would have […]

    Pingback by The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Andrew Sullivan giving himself whiplash on Obama — May 14, 2009 @ 12:14 pm - May 14, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.