Gay Marriage and Andrew Sullivan

UPDATE: Sullivan has updated his site since I posted this. He addressed the point I was trying to make, and I give him credit for it.

I’m not sure if it’s propoer blog etiquette, but I’m deleting my post. I don’t want there to be any misunderstandings.

The Discussion: 11 Comments

Andrew Sullivan is a twit.

BUT it is an important ruling all the same.

Remember in To Kill a Mocking Bird? About the little steps? (I tried to find the exact quote but couldn’t in google).

Mainly even if you lose, the baby steps needs to be taken.

America used to have laws against Misegenation too. Now it’s one of the countries with the highest percetage of “Mixed Race” marriages in the world.

You will win. And rejoice in the small steps. When it comes.


November 19, 2003 @ 2:58 pm | Comment

Yes, it definitely was an important ruling. But for Sullivan to gush poetic about it and ignore the very important fact that those for whom he beats his drum are dead-set against it — can he be this naive? He has to come to terms with the fact that the man he praises most is a sworn enemy to the cause he most espouses. Somehow he manages to evade the issue.

November 19, 2003 @ 3:24 pm | Comment

This is an amazing ruling and a fantastic step forward for the whole country.

AS has been making the case for gay marriage since before Bush was elected Governor of Texas, so I think he can be allowed this jump for joy, as can we all. It is time to celebrate.

The conservatives are going to huff and puff, but in the end the tide of history is against them. Don’t forget that the US is a socially conservative culture – women weren’t granted the vote here until 27 years after New Zealand. Gay marriage was legalized in Denmark just 14 years ago, and now it’s here in the US. That’s progress…

November 19, 2003 @ 3:58 pm | Comment

Totally agreed!

I think the point I am trying to make is a bit hard to explain. Where Sullivan bothers me is the tolerance he continues to show Bush, even in light of Bush’s strongly worded vow to fight the ruling. He rhapsodizes about Bush to the point where he parodies himself. Yet he is silent on Bush’s reaction to this, Sullivan’s most precious cause. Most infuriatingly, when Hillary Clinton uttered a much subtler defense of “the sanctitity of marriage” some months ago Sullivan ripped her to pieces.

November 19, 2003 @ 4:32 pm | Comment

Actually, I don’t see how you can say AS is silent on Bush – he has a long section on the white house’s official response today and includes a direct appeal:

“If this president wants to stake his re-election on writing a minority of citizens out of the federal Constitution, then the stakes will be as unnecessarily high as one can imagine, and the already deep cultural divide in this country will widen still further. This president doesn’t need that. It’s not what many of his centrist and moderate supporters want. And he has far more important things to do. In those vital things, most specifically the war on terror, the last thing he needs is to polarize this country even more. Please, Mr. President. Don’t”

I think it is a measure of sophistication to not be a blind supporter of any one person but to be able to agree with some policies and disagree with others and to be specific about your disagreements.

Unfortunately, no Democrat has been brave enough to come out in support of gay marriage (other than the 3 also-rans of Kucinich, Mosely-Braun and Sharpton). Even Dean says to leave it to the states.

Political cowardice lies on both sides, and there are a few more battles to be won in this civil rights battle, but the history has turned to our side…

November 19, 2003 @ 6:07 pm | Comment

OK! I just saw it — that was not on his site when I wrote this post, though it was on several other sites. You make some very good points, and I will update my post. Thanks.

November 19, 2003 @ 6:14 pm | Comment

That’s pretty cool of you…

November 20, 2003 @ 2:01 pm | Comment

You shouldn’t delete posts. Just put a strike through it or something. Like this.

November 20, 2003 @ 4:30 pm | Comment

Okay, next time, Adam.

November 20, 2003 @ 5:14 pm | Comment

(In reply to Richard’s reply)

Ya. I know. It was just a very cynical announcement of the subject. It’s kinda like. Bitch about AS at the party with a drink in your hand.


November 21, 2003 @ 3:37 am | Comment

But not, not go to the party at all.

November 21, 2003 @ 3:38 am | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.