June 17, 2004
Feeling at home.
So, Andrew Sullivan has finally decided he's definitely not voting for Bush. He is not sure he is voting for Kerry, but Bush's support of the Federal Marriage Amendment was a dealbreaker. And that's fine. As I've written before, people have issues that matter to them above all others. And while to me everything I don't like about Bush (spending, immigration, Medicare) comes second to the war on terror, to Sullivan everything comes second to gay marriage. Again, fine.
But, now that he's, uh, out, what's with the conservative bashing? He posts some nasty comments about him from Lucianne's site and notes 'Some voices from the conservative movement. And people wonder why gay conservatives have a hard time feeling at home there.' So, are gay people at home among Democrats, then? I guess with John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, Tom Daschle and the other leaders of the Democrats voicing unequivocal support for gay marriage, Democrats really can become the party of gay people. Oh. Wait. That's right. They're all against gay marriage too. In fact, polls have consistently shown that a majority of Americans are against gay marriage. So, why pick on conservatives, Andrew? Sullivan can find many liberal sites that will hate him for a variety of his other issues. At the very minimum, at least conservatives don't, as we say in Brooklyn, talk shit and give the impression that they are for gay marriage without actually being for it (classic Clinton).
I've said before that I do feel for Andrew Sullivan. If both parties (and the majority of the country) was, say, anti-Israel (or another issue that I see as a 'dealbreaker'), I think it would be difficult for me to vote for either party. I just don't like the pretense under which Sullivan is making his decision. It would be a different story entirely if he ran over to the Democrats and was immediately embraced. But that's just not happening.
Posted by Karol at June 17, 2004 12:34 PM | TrackBackTechnorati Tags:
The way I see it, if there is not a sitting President whom I am confident will protect the country against terrorism, then, what good will marriage be for anyone, gay or straight?
It's like in CPR class, the phrase "Life over Limb" in this case, "Life over Legal Marriage."
Posted by: Vanessa at June 17, 2004 01:53 PMAnd....here is to the hope that this whole legalization of gay marriage is simply an election-year issue (like gays in the military) and it will go away once Bush, shows us he's got Bin Laden, and thus is re-elected. (My November fantasy)
Posted by: Vanessa at June 17, 2004 02:01 PMI found this link http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_06_13_corner-archive.asp#034029
on Instapundit, and Jonah Golberg quotes Andy from a month ago:
But it’s time to say something very clearly: Bush’s endorsement of antigay discrimination in the U.S. Constitution itself is a deal-breaker. I can’t endorse him this fall. Like many other gay men and women who have supported him, despite serious disagreements, I feel betrayed, abused, attacked.
The whole "making up his mind" reminds me of the Disney brouhaha of Michael Moore. A bullshit trick to create some suspense. Great move. "I feel betrayed, abused, attacked"? You have wasted your talent on being a drama queen, Andy, and while it helped you gain popularity in the past, it will prevent you from being taken seriously in the future.
Posted by: Ivan Lenin at June 17, 2004 03:22 PMI am not sure why Andrew Sullivan thought that Republicans would not be opposed to gay marriage. Perhaps he thought the Republicans would back down as they often do from controversial issues. But the fact that the Republicans have not backed down should hardly be considered a 'betrayal'. Andrew Sullivan should realize by now that the rest of the country is not Provincetown.
Posted by: Dan at June 17, 2004 05:29 PMit's not the "against gay marriage" part that Sullivan's so opposed to; after all, the lack of gay marriage is the status quo. It's just that Bush took the extraordinary step of proposing a constitutional amendment.
For Sullivan, who wrote books about this a decade ago when gay marriage wasn't even on the radar screen, it would be a betrayal of his principles to vote for the president again.
Posted by: Stephen Silver at June 17, 2004 06:23 PMBut that's exactly it. If you're against gay marriage and do nothing about it, it will be a reality via the courts. The Democrats are against it (out loud) but don't want to do anything to stop it (wink, wink gay people, we're really with you on the marriage thing but we can't do or say anything about it).
Posted by: Karol at June 18, 2004 12:44 AMI think the thing most of the readers of AS's Daily Dish are upset about is that he has suggested that he was still open to Bush even after saying homosexual marriage is a deal breaker.
For me, and I think for most people, the War is a priority that should trump all others: be lexically ordered as philosophers would put it. Well, not just trump other priorities, but a priority that must be satisfied before you even consider other priorities.
It has looked like Andrew understood that, and it is profoundly disappointing to learn that his horror that the Bush would not support state-sanctioned buggery so overwhelms his being that he would support a candidate and a party who would appease people who would cheerfully kill him and all his ilk, and think they were doing G-d's work to boot.
Posted by: rob at June 18, 2004 07:36 AMState-sanctioned buggery, huh? Well, sodomy IS legal now, thanks to the efforts of the radical, right-wing US Supreme Court.
I don't see how legalization of gay marriage would lead to "state sanctioned buggery"; it's not that nonmarried gay people aren't doing that anyway.
Posted by: Stephen Silver at June 18, 2004 10:56 AMHealth insurance
Posted by: Health insurance at July 26, 2004 05:09 AMHome based business
Posted by: Home based business at July 27, 2004 02:53 AMBankruptcy
Posted by: Bankruptcy at July 27, 2004 06:27 AM
