Just read an e-mail from a reader linking me to a piece an e-mail David Horowitz received and posted from a gay reader. In that missive, M offers a view on Andrew Sullivan’s shift to the left near identical to my own, that he did so for social reasons. That one-time conservative had grown tired of being ostracized in the gay community for his political views so he adopted the views of the gay “political milieu” “in order to maintain both friends and sex partners,” commenting:
I know this sounds crude, simplistic, and mean-spirited, but frankly it is the only plausible explanation I can think of. I made the decision long ago to wear the scorn of such people as a badge of honor. I was virtually excommunicated from the gay “community” years ago for my conservative political views, and have been quite content to associate with my fellow thinkers, regardless of their sexual orientation. Needless to say, VERY few of them are gay.
Sounds like this guy has experienced something similar to what a number of our readers (and even yours truly) has experienced.
I wonder if he reads this blog.
I cant stand Andrew Sullivan.. talk about sanctimonious.
Nothing is worse than a moralistic gay sanctimonious priss.
I think this is rather mean-spirited: after all, since Andrew got married, I assume his husband is something more than merely a “sex partner.” I say that as no particular fan of Sully. Many on the left will probably never forgive him for his post-911 attacks but he has – as have most Americans – come to recognize what a disaster George Bush has been. And he is right on same-sex marriage and is enough of a libertarian to appreciate Ron Paul as a candidate. About all I can see that he’s done to merit the scorn and antipathy of those around this blog is to oppose Bush’s handling of the war. For that, I guess he’s no longer part of the tribe.
I do not have much patience with lily-livered types. If your basic belief system is for sale to a group of “friends” or sex partners, what are you worth?
I find it difficult to accept that anyone’s integrity is so shallow.
Certainly being gay is not a contributing factor to such spinelessness.
Has Andrew committed to monogamy with the man he calls his husband? If so, then I would agree that the comment I quoted was mean-spirited.
#4: Well, I would hope he has committed to monogamy else it’s not really marriage is it?
My, what a reversal; previously, Ian claimed that philandering and cheating on one’s partner, lying about it, and whatnot was merely “trying to make your marriage work”.
We agree, Ian. If he hasn’t made that commitment, it’s not really marriage.
I’m new to the World of Sullivan. In a few words, can anyone summarize what might be considered his indisputable contributions to politics, culture, letters?
At about 1h 5m into this CSPAN interview with Tammy Bruce
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=193300-1&highlight=bruce
a caller calls her and says basically “How come you only criticize the Left, when it’s the right who are against everything that you are and hate you”
She replies to him “Its been the left that has been the most aggressive to damage me. The theory goes the right is out to harm, yet it’s only from the left where people aggressive attempt to damage me. People on the right might disagree wth me but they dont try to harm me”
This of course conforms with what we on this blog have been saying too.
When will you Leftists out there get it ? Does any of this ever get you to examine yourselves and your princples?
Exactly.
#6: We’re talking about commitment to monogamy which I happen to believe is part of marriage. That some may try but not be able to live up to that commitment completely does not necessarily invalidate the marriage. Some couples can work through such a problem and still make the marriage work including the commitment to monogamy. I don’t recall that Sullivan, in any of extensive writing on the subject, has suggested that marriage does not entail a commitment to monogamy. Therefore, I doubt he would leave it out in his own marriage.
Actually, in my experience… there is a direct relationship in being a Political Gay and spinelessness. Exhibit A: Andrew Sullivan. Exhibit B: HRC’s lobbying history.
That about says it all. Modern marriage and moral relativism go hand in hand for those the left.
No matter what to “happen” to “believe” I would advise a tooth and nails pre-nup, because what you “happen” to “believe” can change in a heartbeat in the world of moral relativism.
(I love you….oooops……look at that candy over there!)
Ian in #11, in this post, I speculated about Andrew’s commitment to monogamy, given a comment he had made.
Since I don’t read Andrew’s stuff much any more, I wasn’t aware if he has said anything much about monogamy. I do recall him noting on his blog (before he was affiliated with Time or The Atlantic) that he had taken issue with Bill Bennett when that social conservative challenged him on the monogamy issue. Andrew claimed that in a preface (or postscript) to the paperback edition of his first book (Virtually Normal) he had clarified a confusing passage in the hardback edition, making clear he believed monogamy was part of gay marriage. But, since I can no longer access his original posts online, I can’t provide a link.
In recent years, however, Andrew has made several comments which suggest he has shifted his views on monogamy.
I did two separate searches of his blog, looking for “monogamy” and “monogamous” and came up with more references to this blog (a trackback) than comments from Andrew recognizing that ideal as a defining aspect of marriage. I could find no statement from Andrew expressing a commitment to monogamy. (If you do a search and come up with such a statement, please let me know and I’ll update the post accordingly.)
Since I don’t know where Andrew stands on monogamy given his recent statements, I posed the question I did in comment #4.
Right now, it seems that the only difference between us (on this issue) is that you believe that unless Andrew says otherwise, he has, in getting married, made a commitment to monogamy whereas I, aware of some of his recent writings and statements, am skeptical.
Otherwise, it’s nice to see that there’s one thing we do agree on–that a commitment to monogamy is an essential part of marriage.
#14: Dan, Sullivan’s comment to which you refer suggested to me more that he was acknowledging how difficult monogamy is but I can see where it could be interpreted that he believed the occasional lapse could be tolerated. Certainly, from this Sullivan comment:
I would gather that he does not accept the concept of “open marriage.”
Ian S, fair interpretation of that comment, but when seen in context of other things Andrew has said, it seems he’s excusing such faltering.
And coupling that with my inability to find any expression of a commitment to monogamy, I come to a different conclusion than you do.
Ugh. I can’t stand St. Sully of the Perpetually Bleeding Heart.
It’s not marriage if it’s not monogamous? There go over half the marriages in the country. LOL
Houndentenor, I think you’re confusing divorce rates with the commission of adultery. It’d be pretty hard (no pun) to keep track of adultery, since most of it is likely unreported in monogamous relationships. And on what appears to be a dismal divorce rate, the credibility of the “rate” is low given that multiple divorcing couples in a set of serial marriages make repeated bad choices in partners, upping the rate. For those of us in monogamous relationships, marriage looks like a brass ring of ruin.
I like to think that with all that distress in the divorce rate, the last thing we need is to add a constituency to the mix (gays) where the constituency has a long standing and justly earned reputation for non-monogamous serial relationships -my rare experience withstanding.
I wonder what percentage of all those SF and Mass and VT “marriages” are still operational 1-2 years later? I’m betting it’s a lot less than 50%.
On one hand I hate to see that others have experienced what I have/am experiencing. On the other hand it helps to know others have weathered it. Im finally having to take legal action to stop 2+ years of unending vicious harrassment/slander/libel from a group of gay libs that just cant stand that there are living gay conservatives in the world.
Elephant.. what happened?
oh, happening, just a little group of die hard libs going around telling everyone they can that Im hiv+ and have full blown AIDS and am a meth addict and all sorts of other lovely things. after 2+ years of it, I just finally decided im left no other choice than to take legal action, it all sucks big time