Gay Patriot Header Image

Is Andrew Sullivan Serious about Gay Marriage?

Over the years, as I have watched my brothers and male friends get married, I have observed how that institution changes them. Men who once enjoyed frequenting bars and “cruising chicks” focused on developing strong relationships with their wives. In short, marriage transformed these men. It seemed that their wives’ feminine qualities helped tame their masculine impulses.

One of the objections I have raised to calling same-sex unions “marriage” is that I see a different dynamic in such unions as I do in opposite sex relationships. To be sure, I have witnessed numerous gay couples settle into the same patterns as their straight peers. While it seems more common for lesbians to adapt to the responsibilities of relationship, such unions have also had a transformative effect on many gay men as well — even without a woman’s presence.

If we’re to be serious about marriage, we must recognize its transformative power. By meeting the obligations of this ancient institution, including (and especially) fidelity to our partner, it serves to bring out qualities in us that had long lain dormant — as well as deepen, make more intimate, our connection to our spouse.

One of the reasons, I have referred to Andrew Sullivans’s 1989 essay, “Here Comes the Groom” as “one of the few serious pieces on gay marriage” is that in that short piece (short for the topic at hand), he outlines the responsibilities of that marriage “places . . . upon gays” and references the social benefits of marriage.

But, given some of Andrew’s comments in the past year on fidelity and circumcision, I have begun to wonder if he’s serious about marriage. In a post last May, he held that an “Momogamy (sic) is very hard for men, straight or gay, and if one partner falters occasionally (and I don’t mean regularly), sometimes discretion is perfectly acceptable.” (Via Ann Althouse via Instapundit.) Yes, monogamy is hard for men. As we enter into marriage, we must recognize that and, as I wrote when first commenting on Andrew’s remarks, “must strive, do everything in our power to live up to the monogamous ideal.” At the time, I wasn’t quite sure “what to make of Andrew’s remarks.

Looking back on them, I wonder at Andrew’s failure to make clear that monogamy is an essential aspect of marriage. If he were really serious about marriage, I believe, he would stress that while monogamy is difficult, the very institution exists to discourage infidelity. And those who marry must bear that in mind not merely at the moment of their betrothal, but also for as long as the union lasts.

It’s not merely Andrew’s apparent tolerance for infidelity that has made me question his commitment to marriage. As The Malcontent‘s Matt noted last summer, Andrew became obsessed with circumcision which he called Male Genital Mutilation.” Andrew’s grievance is that circumcision “lessens sensitivity and therefore sexual pleasure.


Iraqi Army Captures Death Squad Leader

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 1:19 pm - January 3, 2007.
Filed under: War On Terror,World War III

News from the World War III battlefront in Baghdad…

BAGHDAD – Special Iraqi Army Forces captured a suspected death squad leader during operations Dec. 31 in Sadr City. 

The Iraqi-led operation, with Coalition advisers, captured the leader of a rogue illegal armed group allegedly perpetrating widespread death squad actions in the Baghdad area.  The suspect is directly responsible for inciting the continuing cycle of sectarian violence through the criminal and violent actions he directs.

Credible intelligence indicates the suspect is a primary perpetrator of Baghdad death squad activity; kidnapping, torturing and murdering Iraqi civilians and directing the assassinations of Iraqi police and community leaders. He is allegedly a former, high-ranking illegal armed group leader within Sadr City, and allegedly once controlled the actions of wanted death squad commander Abu Dura. The suspect reportedly directs the emplacement and use of improvised explosive devices aimed at and causing widespread injury and death among Iraqi civilians.  He is reportedly involved in the trafficking of specialized IEDs used in illegal armed group attacks against Iraqi Security Forces and Coalition forces.   The operation was a major success in Iraqi efforts to combat violent elements that kidnap, murder and continue to undermine Iraqi security.   The operation highlights the aggressive pursuit by trained and competent Iraqi Security Forces of all criminals, wherever they are, that terrorize Iraq.  The suspects were captured during an early morning raid that occurred without incident and minimal damage. There were no Iraqi civilian, Iraqi forces or Coalition forces casualties.

Hmmm…… a death squad leader in Sadr City.  I wonder if a certain Iraqi cleric is feeling a little extra stress these days?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

DIS-ASSOCIATED PRESS — The Big Lies From Iraq Exposed

It has become pretty clear in the past 24-48 hours that the news reporting from Iraq by the Associated Press is false, misleading and most likely been a purposeful propaganda effort by the Iraqi insurgents and/or Al-Qaeda. 

Here is a refresher on the scandal from Eason Jordan, formerly of CNN, who has now become a key player in exposing the AP’s fictional source and “news” from Iraq.

The back story: On November 24, the AP quoted Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein as the source of a sensational AP story that began this way:

“Militiamen grabbed six Sunnis as they left Friday worship services, doused them with kerosene and burned them alive as Iraqi soldiers stood by.”


It was a horrific report that was an AP exclusive – a story picked up and reported by news outlets across the U.S. and the world.

The U.S. military and Iraqi officials were quick to call the story baseless, saying there was no evidence that six Sunnis were burned to death in Hurriya and that there was no record of an Iraqi police captain named Jamil Hussein. The U.S. military and the Iraqi government demanded the AP retract the story and explain itself.

Bob at Confederate Yankee spent the past week dissecting all of the 60 Associated Press stories using Jamil Hussein as a “police source.”  (Bravo, Bob!)

Put bluntly, a search for other news agency accounts of the events described by Jamil Hussein seems to indicate that most of these events simply do not exist anywhere else except in AP reporting. I was completely unable to find a definitive corroborating account of any of Jamil Hussein’s accounts, anywhere.

That I was unable to find corroborating accounts for some stories is quite understandable; even in non-war-torn countries some news organizations have access to some stories denied others, as reporting assets and sources are not evenly distributed.

Most of the AP dispatches using Jamil Hussein as a source were simply not that big in the wider and often larger chaos of the bloody sectarian conflict whirling through Baghdad; a gunbattle killing two suicide bombers, or even a non-fatal car-bombing is something that has sadly become far too common in many parts of Iraq, and Baghdad in particular. That other news agencies don’t account for every single attack of this kind is not surprising-though it should be somewhat suspect when in 40 straight stories, not a single one of your competitors captured the same event. Not one. At that point, some sort of editorial oversight should have kicked in, should it not?

And yet, in 40 AP stories checked, only in two instances covering a total of four stories did I run into anything approaching possible corroboration.

So far, the Associated Press (like CBS News & Dan Rather in the Bush Forged Documents case), have refused to admit something is wrong.

Eason Jordan, who as CNN Baghdad Bureau Chief admitted to covering up the atrocities of Saddam’s Iraq in trade for access for his network, has harsh words to the Associated Press on its Jamil Hussein integrity scandal:

Until this controversy is resolved, every one of those AP reports is tainted.

When two governments challenge the veracity of your reporting, when there are reasonable doubts about whether your prime named source for a sensational exclusive story exists, when there’s no proof a reported horrific incident occurred, when the news outlet responsible for the disputed report stonewalls and is stridently defensive, when the validity of dozens of other of your reports has been called into question as a result, then that news organization has a scandal on its hands, and that is where the AP finds itself.

Having learned from my own successes and failures and those of others, I know that a journalistic scandal can be handled effectively only when the news organization’s management deals with it proactively, constructively, and transparently, with a readiness to admit any mistake, to apologize for it, and to take appropriate corrective action.

The AP has failed to do so in this case.

I, therefore, urge the AP to appoint an independent panel to determine the facts about the disputed report, to determine whether Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein exists, and to share the panel’s full findings and recommendations with the public.

Until this matter is resolved, the AP’s credibility will suffer.

The American news media’s reporting and bias about World War III – Iraq Battle is critical because our enemies have admitted that using our own news media against us is part of their strategy. 

The AP owes the American people and the Iraqi people the truth:   WHO IS JAMIL HUSSEIN and why has the AP been so eager to peddle his information?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)