I no longer pay attention to anything Andrew Sullivan does or says unless it is linked on a right-of-center blog. And given that one of his latest narrow-minded rants appears on this very blog, I feel it somehow incumbent upon myself to address it.
Based on ad put up by Protect Marriage Washington, the one-time serious advocate of gay marriage has concluded that “the GOP believes in no rights for gay couples whatsoever.” Talk about painting with a broad brush. With prominent left-wing bloggers like Sullivan spreading misinformation like this, no wonder we regularly receive comments from unhappy left-of-center gay activists incredulous that a gay person could support the GOP.
Yup, there are Republicans who don’t want the state to recognize same-sex unions even if they’re not called marriage, but many elected Republicans have voted (or spoken out) in favor of civil unions (including the immediate past GOP Governor of Utah). (Not to mention the fact that a certain Republican Governor of Connecticut signed civil unions into law in her state.) Last summer, a poll showed 43 percent of delegates to last year’s Republican National Convention supported civil unions. Maybe Sullivan should check his facts before launching into broadsides against the GOP.
Seems Sullivan would rather attack the GOP than consider the party’s increasing openness to gay people.
Given his ignorant broadsides, it’s amazing he still, with an apparent straight face, claims to be a conservative.
(As just another example of Andrew’s admiration for Obama and (deliberate) ignorance of his predecessor’s accomplishments. While he commends* the Democrat for appointing openly gay ambassadors, he ignores (as does the article he links) that Sullivan’s great antagonist, George W. Bush, way back in 2001, appointed an openly gay man, Michael Guest, to serve as Ambassador to Romania.)
*I perhaps shouldn’t be so snarky about this particular post as Sullivan does therein provide a pretty decent takedown (accounting from his left-wing bias and liberal lingo) of Obama’s impending HRC speech; it’s a kind of lover’s lament.
I told John he shouldn’t have made his post ‘about’ Sullivan! 🙂
(In fairness – He says his main point was the ad itself.)
Ann Coulter used to call Andrew Sullivan a “recovering liberal.” Looks like he’s fallen off the wagon.
http://www.scottspiegel.com/2009/05/17/the-real-pro-gay-party/
Hahaha! I gotta go find some more stuff by Sullivan…
Oh wait. I’d have to read all of it first.
Never mind.
Scott: great article!
There is one and only one soundbite that truly sums up the tragedy that is Andrew Sullivan. By the great James Lileks: http://tinyurl.com/yk2d273
Thanks, I love James Lileks!
#5 Ok, I get that Sullivan must have humiliated himself in an interview which prompted that bit, but Im not familiar with the original. Can someone sum up what Sullivan did very briefly?
I feel somewhat chaste since I’ve never read one of his articles. I did watch him on C-SPAN once, but I didn’t pay attention. Can’t even remember who he was talking to or what it was about.
So Bush wanted a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage -discrimination written into the Constitution, the highest law in the land – but in 2001 he appointed a gay man as ambassador to Romania.
I love this blog.
Torrentprime, the fact that leftist gays like yourself fully support and endorse the FMA and state constitutional amendments means that you’re attacking Bush for something that you yourself endorsed and supported.
NDT, I’ve one better. Democrats arguing against repealing DADT, comparing gay folks to pedophiles. Obama DOJ written, Barney Frank Approved.
Livewire, I couldn’t agree more about the disgrace you mentioned. But the fact remains when it comes to vote, one party consistently votes pro-gay, and the other anti-gay. Even on DADT and DOMA. I’ll give Obama the same chance that I gave Bush, three more years, and see what his record is. If we are no further with DADT or other issues, with proposing and pushing for legislation (and signing if a bill hits his desk), then I will agree with others that he has been a poor president regarding gay rights. And, if in addition, he proposes another FMA, then I will agree that he is as bad as Bush on gay rights.