For Andrew Sullivan, sex wins out over safety. I stopped reading him.

Sex is also what drives Al Qaeda. They believe (rightly so) that if their women adopt Western values, the men will lose control over them. So they want to destroy Western Society so Western values cannot contaminate their women.

Dawn can do her part to end terrorism by wearing a headscarf, veil, and never going out in public.

I would hold it against him b/c I already do. People who are voting against Bush (or not voting at all) because of homosexual marriage make me sad. That they don't recognize that the fate of the West is at stake in the global war on terror, that they would prefer to sit in coffee shops philosophizing about gay love, just mystifies me.

Lord help us.

I've been thinking for a long time that Sullivan is not such an ally for Republican values as he comes across. His own gay agenda takes precedence - as he tries to out-log the log-cabin Republicans.

He continually doubts Bush, contemplates Kerry and maintains a pro-independent mindset amongst readers - whereby many will wait until Nov 1 to make their choice. He insists he's strong on defense/terror, but berates Bush ethics and values.

I stopped readin him often as well. I think he was a wonder kid of the gay niche who leaned right, and the Right embraced him. A total outgrowth over multiculturalism and diversity that has infected out educational system and culture.

Now he ranks as one of the top bloggers and gets huge traffic. Yet he hides his posts and has an incomplete archive. I've tried to go back and find evidence to support my position, but it is simply not there.

He is intelligent and very insightful, but he cannot separate his personal life from his politics. Maybe he shouldn't. But maybe he shouldn't be considered a leading voice for conservatism and Republicanism.

For the record, I am not for giving Al Qaeda anything that I care about -- Saudia Arabia, eh, they can have it-- me wearing a headscarf and veil and never going out in public, well... wait, would I still have my TV?

Nice comeback, Dawn

Sullivan's writing has always been sharp and truly nuanced (as opposed to that thing Kerry does). But he is losing it a bit over the gay marriage issue. Don't get me wrong, I think on principal Sullivan is correct, but the writing is getting shrill. It's a shame.

On the other hand, I'm hoping the hammering Bush is getting on this will force him to ramp down the Culture Wars approach a bit. I REALLY don't want a Kerry presidency.

Well suprise, suprise.

Andrew Sullivan, former editor of the New Republic, is not a conservative. Yes, he supports Bush on Iraq and the war on terror. But sex comes before everything to him including the church that he proclaims to be involved with (before trashing it, the current pope and, in his review of Constantine's Sword, its entire history) as well as his politics.

And then there is the Sullivan record: being paid by a drug company he prasied on his blog; posing for the Gap ad; his online personal ad looking for unprotected sex with another man (yes, despite his HIV positive status); trashing politicians who are married, do not have kids and oppose same sex marriage; his claim to "out" a number of supposedly homosexual public figures; and his allowing TNR to run works by Charles Murray and Stephen Glass.

Pretty conservative right ?

I am sick of people thinking that Sullivan is a leading American conservative. He is neither. He is a Tory who hunkers down in P-Town waiting for Thomas Gage, William Howe, Henry Clinton and John Burgoyne to return with their redcoats.

There is one issue that I think he supports above the war if not as much as gay marriage. He was very euphoric about Bush's plan of sending the hard earned money out of the American tax payers to Africa to fight HIV.

Sullivan is a fine writer and often raises some great points. But sex trumps all with him. He is not so much in favor of a libertarian; he wants a libertine society.

My problem with Sullivan is that I disagree with him on most issues.

However I do agree with him that the gay marriage debate is important and possibly even more important than the so-called war on terror. I just take the opposite side on the issue. If America continues its decline in morals, standards, and traditions, there won't be much worth protecting from terrorists anyway. It is not so much gay marriage itself that is the problem, but the continuous assault on traditions by courts, politicians, media, etc. that is the problem. An excellent book about this cultural decline is "The Abolition of Britain" by Peter Hitchens (Christopher Hitchens' smarter brother). While the book is about cultural decline in Britain, almost everything in it (other than the part on the royals) could be repeated verbatim about the United States.

Some people might find the gay marriage debate a distraction from the war on terror. I find the war on terror a distraction from problems we have at home.

I think you've got your priorities screwed up Dan. The war on terror is aimed at preserving the very freedoms that allow us to argue over certain issues like gay marriage and not have them dictated to us.