Andrew who‘s this now? Sorry, never heard of the guy.*
****
update: Steve Green soundly rebukes Sullivan. Whoever this ‘Sullivan’ is. Me, I’ve never heard of the guy.
Andrew who‘s this now? Sorry, never heard of the guy.*
****
update: Steve Green soundly rebukes Sullivan. Whoever this ‘Sullivan’ is. Me, I’ve never heard of the guy.
Is that bear reference what I think it is?
Dunno. I have no idea who the guy is.
He writes a very good blog in my opinion. He has taken the constitutional amendment to define marriage between a man and a woman very personally. I can’t say I blame him for the most part. Consitutional amendments that are specifically designed to descriminate against gay couples is a pretty serious move, especially for a gay man like Andrew. There’s no mistake, Andrew’s endorsement of Kerry is based soley on the gay marriage issue. He can point to things like Bush’s spending etc… but he knows that Kerry certainly won’t be any better but likely worse in this area. He’s completely on the other side of the war. Kerry being a conservative choice is only true if you define conservative as agaisnt a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. While a Kerry administration might not champion such an amendment, Sullivan should ask himself if Kerry would vote for it if it was presented to him. He would vote like he always does, the public opinion litmus test if he can’t waffle both sides of the issue.
Anyway, er yeah.
I think you’re exactly right about Kerry vis-a-vis same-sex marriage, Dario. My problem with Sullivan is that he knows Bush is right on the WoT, and yet he’s willing to endorse a candidate he knows to be weak on defense because of a single social issue.
I’m for civil unions with benefits commenserate with those granted traditional marriages; but I’m not sure I’m for a broadening of the definition of marriage. My biggest problem is with the courts, who seem to think they have the responsibility to act as social engineers.
Yeah, Sully’s got his priorities right. I mean, there’s this bunch of guys who don’t much care in whose ass he stashes his dick of a night, as long as he shuts the fuck up about it, and then there’s this other bunch that want to push a wall over on him. And there’s a presidential candidate who wants to do something involving explosions about bunch numero dos, and there’s one who thinks said bunch are very, very naughty, but really it’s a job for Social Services and/or the UN. So Sullivan votes for the Frenchman. Maybe the Islamofascists’ll allow him and the BF (sorry, ‘husband’
a hug before the execution.
That’s his Sharona talking.
Well it’s not like anyone’s ever associated the Kerry camp with flip-flopping.
He wrote musicals with Gilbert, ainna?
What kinda rube do you think I am? I know pop culture.
The most aggravating thing about this whole Sullivan endorsement thing is that (as Ace pointed out), he lamely tried to frame it in all these ways aside from gay marriage that make him look either like a shameless liar or a complete idiot.
He should just come out (ahem) and say “It’s all about marriage.” He can’t do that, of course, because he knows it would be terribly unpopular, since (last time I checked) a large majority of Americans still are queasy about gay unions being called marriage.
I remember when the Beatles appeared on his television show in early 1964. All the girls in my seventh-grade class just creamed their jeans. Well, this was a Catholic school and it was 1964, so it wasn’t jeans; it was pleated skirts that you could count on to touch the floor when the girls kneeled. I remember Andrew Sullivan. Boy, I was missing Topo Gigio. I’m so glad the Democrats nominated him for VP.
Not only do I remember Andrew Sullivan, I remember his brothers too. What the hell was the Navy thinking of putting all five of them on the same ship?
Hey, I know this Sullivan . . . he was Jane’s dad. You know the actress that played in all those Tarzan movies in the 30s . . . Mia’s grandad.
Gay marriage? Isn’t that an oxymoron? Really, doesn’t laguage mean anything, anymore? A male and female coming together as one, and procreating another of their own flesh. Creating an environment in which to raise up their children as the next generation. As an institution, marriage has seved mankind well, for several millenia. But now the next group of victims want a bite of the grievance apple due to government tax policy–inheretance subject to estate taxes, and employer paid health benefits. Answer–Change the tax law by eliminating the estate tax, and move the tax deductability of health benefits to the individual return. Turn the culture war into a morally nuetral, and fair proposition.
“Never heard of the guy”?!? You expect me to believe that that’s why we never see you two photographed together? Mister, ah, “Goldstein”?
As for Andrew, whom I have read and respected since his New Republic days, I’m quite exasperated. How can a smart fellow like him carry on as if it is just simple prejudice stopping people from accepting the idea of gay marriage? And if his side can use the courts to beat the public into submission, why is it so wrong for traditionalists to use the more democratice Constitutional amendment process in response. (FWIW, I don’t think an amendment is a good idea.)
I don’t much care what he and his kind do in the privacy of their own downtown bathhouses or public park shrubbery. But everybody has to use the language, and forcing everyone to call these unions “marriages” is just wrong. A bridge too far.