Andrew Sullivan Accuses Palin of Lying About Gays
Almost exactly a year before I joined my current congregation, West Hollywood’s mostly gay synagogue, Congregation Kol-Ami, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) Executive Director Matt Foreman, addressed the membership. And while I have great respect for our rabbi, Denise Eger, we don’t always see eye-to-eye on matters political. Last March, she delivered a sermon advocating U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
That said on matters spiritual and theological, she has proven a strong and effective community leader. She has been a trusted spiritual counselor who has shown a love for Torah and Jewish Scripture and has led spirited and intelligent discussions a great variety of issues, including sexual ethics.
If you were to assume that by dint of my membership in a congregation with a rabbi who invites (in my view) a radical gay activist to speak that I share Foreman’s views, you would ignore everything I have said on this blog about NGLTF.
But, that’s what Andrew Sullivan is doing in writing about Sarah Palin’s views on homosexuality. In a post on Monday, he accused the Republican vice presidential nominee of lying about gays merely because what she says is at odds with what her church has done. She has said (on at least two occasions) that she doesn’t know if homosexuality is choice. Yet, her church has promoted “a conference that promises to convert gays into heterosexuals through the power of prayer.“
Even as Andrew quotes her words, he concludes that the Alaska Governor doesn’t mean what she says and does in fact “judge homosexuals in as extreme a fashion as you can imagine.” His rationale: her church promoted that conference. If her church promoted it, Andrew argues, she must support it.
By the same logic, based on my membership in my current congregation, I support Matt Foreman and the agenda of NGLTF.
My, how Andrew engages in guilt by association. And this is a guy whose blog was once the first I checked every day. No wonder I only read it now when other conservatives link to it, or co-bloggers alert me to his posts.
36 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
What makes this even funnier and more hypocritical is that Obama has endorsed and supported as “models” two pastors who support reparative therapy.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 18, 2008 @ 7:50 pm - September 18, 2008
What makes this even more hypocritical is that Obama has endorsed and supported as “models” two pastors who support reparative therapy.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 18, 2008 @ 7:50 pm - September 18, 2008
Then, by that logic, Obama DOES support everything that was said by the good reverend Wright after all. Jeez, I thought we had worked passed this point.
Comment by sonicfrog.net — September 18, 2008 @ 8:05 pm - September 18, 2008
Does Sully still claim to be a Catholic?
Comment by SoCalRobert — September 18, 2008 @ 8:10 pm - September 18, 2008
ND30, you seem to be anticipating my next post.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 18, 2008 @ 8:19 pm - September 18, 2008
My church is more liberal than I on many political and social issues – that doesn’t mean I agree with them. I thought Democrats always accused Republicans of living in a world that was too black & white but it would appear they’re the ones playing the “all or nothing” game.
Comment by KevinQC — September 18, 2008 @ 8:44 pm - September 18, 2008
Does anybody still pay much attention to Sullivan’s prattle? Something went wrong with that guy somewhere and he’s morphed into a liberal nutjob. His blog is pretty much a trainwreck at this point. I can’t be bothered even stopping by for a laugh, he’s gone so far off the deep end.
Comment by Bob Hoskins — September 18, 2008 @ 8:44 pm - September 18, 2008
Sullivan has jumped the shark.
Comment by Tom — September 18, 2008 @ 8:48 pm - September 18, 2008
It’s obvious that Uncle Sully’s come totally-unhinged over this year’s election….it’s tragic, and disgusting. His used to be the first blog I pulled-up every morning to see what’s going-on on the world. As his Bush Derangement Syndrome metastasized I visited less-often, and later in the day. His infatuation with Obama bin Biden has blinded him to his own apostasy to Conservatism and the Republican Party. After his vitriol against McCain and Palin since the RNC, I’ve just given-up. Every posting’s yet-another attack on McCain, Palin, Bush or the GOP-at-large……ENOUGH!
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — September 18, 2008 @ 8:48 pm - September 18, 2008
the truth hurts huh???
Comment by michael — September 18, 2008 @ 8:55 pm - September 18, 2008
He was in the house next to me in PTown last year and had his wedding ceremony. It looked like the most boring event. I don’t think I’ve ever been to boring gay wedding. Can’t he move back to GB. He’s a wack job
Comment by nobama — September 18, 2008 @ 9:18 pm - September 18, 2008
As a side note: First let me say I’m not gay, nor do I have a great belief in a supernatural god. I believe in Darwin. Can anybody explain how being gay could be anything other than a life style choice in that context? Cause as far as I can tell, if there was a gay gene, it would last for exactly one generation before disappearing from the gene pool.
Comment by John — September 18, 2008 @ 10:27 pm - September 18, 2008
Troll Alert!!!!
You may not understand the science of genetic very well. Yes, some traits are dictated by a single pair of genes – blue eyes / brown eyes tounge rolling, dimples are all examples of these. But there are a lot of traits that can not be pinned down to a single pair of genes. Height is one. There are certain regions in the chromosome tree that appear to influence height, but there does not seem to be one specific set of genes that we can point to.
To answer your question of gayness surviving the evolutionary process, here is an article that theorizes on that very conundrum. Scientists suspect that the genetic components are associated on the X chromosome, and women who carry these components tend to be more fertile than those who don’t.
God, suddenly I feel like Mr. Gay Gene Wizard!
Comment by sonicfrog.net — September 18, 2008 @ 10:51 pm - September 18, 2008
There is a day coming in the not too distant future when abortion will be made illegal due to national security reasons.
Comment by Vince P — September 18, 2008 @ 11:07 pm - September 18, 2008
#6: “Does anybody still pay much attention to Sullivan’s prattle?”
The answer to your question, Bob Hoskins, is easy to answer. Just compare the number of hits (unique visitors) for Sully’s site vs. the number of hits for GP.
Kinda hard to ignore the numbers. Web traffic doesn’t lie …
Comment by JR — September 18, 2008 @ 11:16 pm - September 18, 2008
Some anthropologists have hypothesized that having homo-oriented men in a tribe would have been an evolutionary advantage. Such men would be more attentive to younger men in the tribe, more protective of them, thus increasing the probability of their survival. This would have improved the odds of survival for both members of the tribe and carriers of the hypothetical gay gene.
Comment by V the K — September 18, 2008 @ 11:18 pm - September 18, 2008
I can say that I never have.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 18, 2008 @ 11:25 pm - September 18, 2008
SonicFrog:
Troll alert seems a little harsh, I was asking the question that apparently the scientists in the article were asking (Does that make them trolls as well?). The idea of a gay gene tends to go against Darwin. If anything you could argue that if it is genetic its damn near proof positive that there is a God, because it seems unlikely that such a gene would exist in evolutionary biology, I suppose. Its an interesting concept that an x chromosome would lead to higher fertility in first generation while reducing the mating possibilities of the second generation, and yet would perpetuate itself.
Regardless, thanks for the link, its an interesting thought.
Comment by John — September 18, 2008 @ 11:31 pm - September 18, 2008
Completely unrelated thread comment, but more Vera Charles PLEASE!
Dear Vera is the reason I began visiting this blog, and Ms. Charles’ witticisms (and appreciation of G&T’s as well as all marts, least of all Gibsons) earned this reader’s immense respect … as well as this reader’s first blog crush.
Where are thou, dearest Vera??? We need you back!!!
Comment by JR — September 19, 2008 @ 12:00 am - September 19, 2008
No, Michael, The truth does not hurt anyone. Its the lies that hurt. So lets not bring your lies over from KOS.
Comment by John — September 19, 2008 @ 12:11 am - September 19, 2008
John
I apologize for assuming you were a troll. We get quite a few. I had just walked in the door after changing the brake pads and rotors on the car, I was tired and jumped to conclusions. Anyway, thanks for dropping in. Things do get heated ’round these parts, but there is often thought provoking commentary to be had here.
Comment by sonicfrog.net — September 19, 2008 @ 12:12 am - September 19, 2008
I’m gassy tonight
Comment by Vince P — September 19, 2008 @ 12:31 am - September 19, 2008
SonicFrog:
No problem, I understand those types of issues completely. And upon re-reading my initial post, it does “read” more confrontational that it was meant to be. Sorry for that. I’ll work on better phrasing in the future.
Comment by John — September 19, 2008 @ 12:47 am - September 19, 2008
To follow the “logic”, I better leave the Episcopal Church! The reason that I do not is because someone, even if it is an increasing lonely voice, must stand up and promote the truth of the person of Jesus Christ. The Episcopal Church used to be all about not leaving your brain at the door. It also used to believe in scripture, tradition and reason. Now, it appears that the leadership and too many a pastor have thrown out scripture (or perverted it) and tradition and have only reason. Any way, Andrew Sullivan, to quote one of your fellow travellers, Keith Olberman (the WORST sports reporter in the WORLD!) SHUT THE HELL UP!
Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — September 19, 2008 @ 2:36 am - September 19, 2008
***His rationale: her church promoted that conference. If her church promoted it, Andrew argues, she must support it.***
You mean how B Hussein Obama must support the views of his anti-American church? Oh, wait, that’s not the same, because when you’re a democrat, it’s “different”.
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — September 19, 2008 @ 7:31 am - September 19, 2008
John, your reasoning leaves behavior and society out of the equation. Humans are very good at disguising their sexuality. You are also thinking of sexuality as one or the other. There are very few lifelong exclusively gay or exclusively straight people. We tend to roll around the sexual spectrum quite a bit.
I also find it interesting that in conversations regarding the genetic component of homosexuality, the straight males tend to focus on the males and not the females. Hoping that the genetic factor will eventually limit that gay males of the population but will leave the female bi/lesbian community in tact for their viewing pleasure.
Comment by TnnsNE1 — September 19, 2008 @ 7:41 am - September 19, 2008
#3
I remember when Ratzinger became Pope, Sullivan basically claiming to know what REAL Catholocism is better than his Holiness. Naturally I shot off a snarky email pointing out how incompatible that was with Catholocism… he gets very bitchy when you call him on his BS
I highly recommend it.
And the only people who pay attention to his prattle anymore are libtards seeking an echo chamber and Networks seeking a “conservative” who will bash conservatives. Redundant?
But on the subject of his relevance, to turn a Robertsian phrase, the way to make Sullivan irrelevant is to stop making Sullivan relevant.
Comment by American Elephant — September 19, 2008 @ 8:57 am - September 19, 2008
ugh! Damn filter!
Comment by American Elephant — September 19, 2008 @ 8:57 am - September 19, 2008
[...] Andrew Sullivan Accuses Palin of Lying About Gays [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » By Sullivan’s Logic, Obama is a Racist, Conspiracy-Monger — September 19, 2008 @ 9:00 am - September 19, 2008
I used to love to read andrew – coversed with him often. I am afraid since he got co-opted by the giant media conglomerate and became “mainstream” he is much less a defender of rights and much more a fanatical liberal. I quit reading his column altogether when, as a “conservative”, he endorsed a dollar a gallon punitive gas tax and John Kerry. The attacks on Palin are inane. Maybe there really is nothing they can say substantively against her! (I sure don’t see anything!) The not-so-funny-thing is, Sullivan is probably one of the first ones the libs will shut up when they get that power.
Comment by ted — September 19, 2008 @ 1:19 pm - September 19, 2008
I said it in another post, but it deserves repeating here: If Andrew Sullivan is a conservative, Henri Petain was a great French patriot.
Comment by E.N. — September 19, 2008 @ 1:37 pm - September 19, 2008
#12
John,
I am a future genetic counselor, so let me explain a few things…
1-In humans, there are very few things regulated by a single gene. Even eye color, that high school biology example, is actually regulated by several genes such that two blue-eyed parents occasionally have a brown-eyed child (without anyone having an affair).
2-Much of the current thought is that, while ‘gay-ness’ is biological, it is not genetic. Those who advocate this view point to studies that show that a man is more likely to be gay if he has older brothers (or half-brothers on his mother’s side…it doesn’t hold true for half-brothers on the father’s side) and the more older brothers he has, the more likely he is to be gay. (The mechanism suggested is that the woman’s body recognizes fetal male hormones as ‘invaders’ and reacts to start destroying them and that this reaction increases with each pregnancy.)
3-Throughout history, few homosexuals have no offspring. This was even more so in societies that essentially required marriage…gays in heterosexual marriages would simply have affairs on the side and ALSO have children with their spouse. Even now, most gays have at least one heterosexual experience before figuring out that they are gay, to say nothing of the many people who had 3 kids and 20 years of marriage before coming out.
4-Gay men have fewer direct offspring than heterosexual men…but more indirect offspring through their maternal relatives. If there is a gene that has the effect of making a man gay (and thus having few or even no offspring) yet, in a woman, that same gene has the effect of increasing her fertility such that that family has more offspring overall in the next generation, that gene will be selected for.
5-Based on observations of animal sexual behaviors (particularly in primates), sexual interaction is a good way to increase group cohesion and to cement alliances. This is true whether the behavior is hetero or homo. Thus, anything that would increase the number of possible sexual partners an organism would interact with would be selected for.
Comment by DinaFelice — September 20, 2008 @ 2:35 pm - September 20, 2008
5-Based on observations of animal sexual behaviors (particularly in primates), sexual interaction is a good way to increase group cohesion and to cement alliances. This is true whether the behavior is hetero or homo. Thus, anything that would increase the number of possible sexual partners an organism would interact with would be selected for.
Then why are gay men 10000000x more drama queenish than straight guys?
Comment by Vince P — September 20, 2008 @ 2:47 pm - September 20, 2008
American Elephant, you are my hero. I think the exact same things about Sullivan…although in my case, when I sent a note after he posted a direct link to the Obama fundraising page on his blog and accused both him and The Atlantic of being bagmen for the Obama campaign, my snippy reply came not from Missy Sully herself but his equally snippy assistant Patrick, who was quite offended that I would dare accuse them of anything of the kind.
Comment by Jeff — September 21, 2008 @ 11:09 am - September 21, 2008
I live in Seattle where everyone is a either a wine and cheese liberal or government dependent liberal. Socio-economically, I am probably the classic Reagan Democrat but for some reason, I am Republican. I can relate to Sarah Palin because to me she is most regular person to run for the White House. Someone who did not go to elite college and someone who has actually worked for a living and doesnt believe that higher public is a natural for them.
I want McCain/Palin to win to give those folks the apoplexy and heartburn they so richly deserve.
Comment by LCRW — September 23, 2008 @ 8:13 pm - September 23, 2008
Andy Sullivan,
So Obama follows this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH5ixmT83JE
Comment by Kit — October 7, 2008 @ 5:12 pm - October 7, 2008