April 15, 2009

"Of all the debates Sullivan has been embroiled in, his collision with the gay left is the hardest to reconstruct..."

"... because the gay-rights debate has been transformed in the two decades since, not least by his own writing."

From a long article about Andrew Sullivan, a good recounting of this part of his story, which if you don't like Sullivan or understand why I read him, you need to know:
Yet Sullivan wrote the first major article in America calling for gay people to be given the right to marry—and he was savaged by other gays. His talks were picketed by a group called the Lesbian Avengers, who waved signs with Sullivan’s head in the crosshairs of a gun. In gay bars he was denounced as a “collaborator” and physically attacked. He was anathemised by mainstream gay-rights organisations, who refused to engage with him. Why?

The Village Voice writer Richard Goldstein spoke for this tendency when he claimed that Sullivan was “promoting the bargain of assimilation. But this deal comes with a price. It requires gays to maintain the illusion that we’re just like straights… [But] we were interested in messing with the codes of sexuality.” By advocating marriage, Sullivan was opting into the very system gay people should destroy. He was just “Rush Limbaugh with monster pecs,” a self-hater who “would solve the faggot problem by urging gay men not to act like fags”.

Today, marriage is the Number One demand of the gay-rights movement. So why was Sullivan demonised for being the first to articulate it? He says now, haltingly: “It was the middle of a plague, we were all dying, and here’s this brash British guy who’s a Catholic and right-winger talking about something unfamiliar, that challenges their assumptions… [But] I was too narcissistic to realise that it wasn’t about me.”
If you happened to be gay back then, you were supposed to join the left and contribute to the enterprise of smashing conventions. Now, I think there still is an undercurrent of hating heterosexuals out there, and I often feel it coming from Andrew Sullivan, but I'm not going to elaborate on that now.

ADDED: Sullivan links, quotes my last sentence, and says:
Please do. You can't throw that out there with no back-up. I'm sorry if my perhaps uncharitable snark about her impending marriage offended her. Probably not my best moment. But the notion that I somehow "hate heterosexuals" is so nutty, not to say meaningless, that I don't know how to respond. I hate 97 percent of humanity? I hate my mum and dad and brother and sister? I hate my co-workers? Just because I think Sarah Palin is a whack-job makes me a heterophobe? Please, Ann. You don't campaign for twenty years to enter a heterosexual institution because you hate heterosexuals. You don't argue for social integration of gays and straights because you hate straights. You don't write a book urging that sexual orientation cease to be a defining social divide if you are a gay separatist. And it takes Goldstein-level dishonesty to say as much.
Well, Sullivan obviously knows what is giving me the feeling of heterophobia coming from him. His weird obsession with Sarah Palin's pregnancy and his reaction to my engagement. He never answered my question "what part of my experience deserves 'OMFG.'" He said:
And I'm all in favor of the right of straight bloggers to marry their straight commenters. It's a civil right. And more than I am currently allowed after living with my husband for almost five years.
And my response was:
This isn't about legal rights. This is about how individuals treat each other, and I want to know why you disrespected me. Explain why you linked to Pandagon's scurrilous OMFG, which, as you know, means "Oh, my fucking God." Is that the way you mean to speak to me? Is that the way you talk about God?
I never saw an answer to that. And as I said in this other post, I do not see how his reaction to me fits with his interest in extending marriage to gay couples:
I too think that Sullivan's reaction to me was detrimental to the cause of same-sex marriage (for which he has fought so admirably). Obviously, he had to have thought he was serving his cause by asserting that his 5-year relationship deserved more respect than mine, but he has a tragic blind spot. He was acting as though it's perfectly fine to trash someone else's relationship because it strikes you at a gut level as wrong. But that's how millions of people feel about his relationship! If we start arguing in that emotional mode, your cause is doomed.
I think Sullivan's reaction is probably complicated. He wants gay relationships to be accepted and given equal respect, and he seems angry that it hasn't happened yet. He struck out at me with derision and contempt and I felt the hostility. He couldn't explain it then, and he doesn't explain it now.

One can be outraged at an exclusion and still dislike the people who are included. For example, I would be outraged by a private club that barred women from membership but might simultaneously hate the men who actually were members. I'd want the right to join even if I didn't want to join, because I disapprove of the discrimination.

I know Sullivan takes strong positions and stands his ground, and I don't really expect him to do this, but I think it would be cool if he would openly explore what might be complex feelings about heterosexuals — especially women.

AND: "I'm sorry if my perhaps uncharitable snark about her impending marriage offended her" = a classic nonapology.

251 comments:

1 – 200 of 251   Newer›   Newest»
Peter V. Bella said...

The gay rights issue is a phony as the tea party issue. :)

mcg said...

Maybe what has happened is that the gay rights lobby has watched heterosexuals do a good job of destroying their own institution of marriage, and figured that it served their original interests well just join in.

MadisonMan said...

If you happened to be gay back then
What a very odd phrase. Were the people gay by accident?

holdfast said...

I think a lot of conservatives suspect that "the enterprise of smashing conventions" is still a large part of the gay agenda, and that redefining marriage is just a small step in a new strategy to achieve that goal. Freakshows like the various gay pride days/parades certainly contribute to that perception, and there is a worry that under his white wedding dress, Sullivan is still wearing his assless leather chaps.

The case of Canada is instructive - gay marriage has been legal there for a few years now, and very few gay men have availed themselves of it - though quite a few lesbians have, which would seem to support the notion long held among men that marriage is really a woman thing - we wouldn't do it unless they "tricked" us into it : ). I was somewhat pleased when gay marriage was put to a vote in Parliament - even though the courts got there first, I think it is really important that the decision was at least ratified by the people's elected representatives - unlike abortion, where the courts rule on both side of the 49th - in Canada the gay marriage debate is more or less over - Parliament did speak - I may not like it (actually I am ambivalent) but I do respect the democratic process.

What is less admirable about the Canadian experience is the way various courts and human rights tribunals have turned gay marriage (and other gay agenda items) from rights into obligations - examples being the decertification of marriage commissioners who refuse to perform gay marriages (why must they all as long is there is a decent sized pool who will) or the forcing of a Catholic school to allow a student to bring his boyfriend to the senior prom.

Jason (the commenter) said...

I think there still is an undercurrent of hating heterosexuals out thereFor a lot of people, Sullivan among them, it isn't an undercurrent. Look at how he attacked Palin's family and Althouse's engagement.

I think they are targeting heterosexuals to build group solidarity and as revenge for past discrimination. For me, their behavior excuses every past wrong committed against them, from foul words, to discrimination, to death threats.

How can you not feel this way? The "victims" have proven they will do exactly what was done to victimize them to other people. And they don't have the excuse of not knowing how much harm they are causing, so they are even worse.

John said...

I think there is a large element to being gay that involves thumbing your nose at convention, at least among gay men. The old joke is that gay men don't want to get married, they just want to have a wedding. I think it has become a contest of wills and symbols more than anything else. Thirty years from now gay people will look back on the 00s and the gay marriage issue and wonder why the hell this generation wanted to get married so badly.

Salamandyr said...

Interestingly enough, that quote by Goldstein encapsulates a lot of why I think marriage is a bad deal for gays. Do gays really want to be as expected to marry as straights are? Gays don't have the responsibility for the next generation that straights do; Do they really want to shoulder the bourgeois obligations?

Maguro said...

The most shocking part is the news that Andy used to have "monster pecs". He's really let himself go!

zedzded said...

AA wrote "I think there still is an undercurrent of hating heterosexuals out there".

Yeah, ya think? Maybe Titus will show up and tell us otherwise.

Pastafarian said...

MM said: "What a very odd phrase. Were the people gay by accident?"

Well, isn't the accepted theory that biological predispositions lead to a person's orientation? And aren't those biological predispositions at least partly random?

So yes, I guess they would be gay by accident. Do you suppose something else?

downtownlad said...

So some gays hate heterosexuals? Oh what next? Some Jews hate Nazis? Some blacks hate the KKK?

Shocking.

paul a'barge said...

Go to the blog by Zombietime and look at his photographs of the Gay Pride Parade in San Francisco.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

When you get back, tell me why anyone would give gay activists an inch.

downtownlad said...

Geez - Why would gay people get upset with straight people, just because most straight people vote in favor of imprisoning gays just for having sex in the privacy of their own homes?

Most straight people also vote for policies that FORCE gay people to be fired, just because they are gay. Man - why would gays be annoyed by that?

downtownlad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
downtownlad said...

Freakshows like the various gay pride days/parades certainly contribute to that perceptionIt's bigoted statements like this that cause me to hate most breeders.

John said...

"Geez - Why would gay people get upset with straight people, just because most straight people vote in favor of imprisoning gays just for having sex in the privacy of their own homes?"


Yes because most striaght people believe that. In 1950 maybe. Do you ever get tired of being an ignorant, bigoted bore? At some point, it must get boring meeting every stereotype of the hatful, ignorant leftist. Maybe for you it doesn't.

rhhardin said...

There's a great uncuriosity what a marriage is, call it an unwillingness to look and see.

And a resulting great felt need on the other side to defend the term against its improvers.

It's only against the open possibility of failure that a marriage is said to work.

So it's not failure odds that prevents gay marriage, but the meaning of the term. Gays are insisting that analogy is reality.

Well it's not. Get your own word, is the resistance. There's enormous support for legal partner rights, but it's not marriage.

Lem said...

Now, I think there still is an undercurrent of hating heterosexuals out there.I don’t know if it’s like that now but I remember hanging out with gay friends early 90’s and I was “lovingly” called a breeder. There was a palpable invisible wall btwg them and the breeders, to the point of hostility.

One night after coming out of a (straight) club one of them not happy we had picked it started needling me about some tv show (blind date I think it was) and I finally said – no big deal I missed tonight, I taped it. Everybody cheered because I did what they’ve wanted to do but would not dare.

downtownlad said...

1950?

And that's why gay sex is still banned in over 17 states. It's why George Bush campaigned vigorously in support of the sodomy laws.

And 3 Americans were imprisoned last year for 3 months just for having gay sex.

If you don't know what you're talking about, you should just shut up.

downtownlad said...

Maybe there's an undercurrent of hating heterosexuals, because the VAST VAST majority of Americans hate gay people.

Including the VAST VAST VAST VAST majority of Althouse commenters.

downtownlad said...

The results of Proposition 8 show that the MAJORITY of Californians hate gay people (you can't honestly interpret the results in any other manner).

And California is a "liberal" state.

Quayle said...

By advocating marriage, Sullivan was opting into the very system gay people should destroy.You mean the system that enables a cub of our species to feel safe and protected during their most vulnerable years, to lean to form strong attachments to both a woman and a man, to learn that there are others beside themselves and that they must take andgive, and to learn morality and the necessity of controlling his or her passions?

That's the system, apparently, we need to destroy.

And the result will be: a society full of adults that have attachment disorders, that are totally self focused and can't feel compassion for anyone else, and that never feel a passion that they think shouldn't be given full rein.

And at the ultimate end of that grand experiment is a society that is brutish and unmerciful, prone to all shorts of passionate contentions and war, the king of unrestrained passions.

Yet in our left culture and the press, anyone that opposes the gay destruction of marriage, the basic foundation of the family, is the devil and must be destroyed.

It simply couldn’t be that they have honest motives and wish to prevent the kind of a society that would result.

Peter V. Bella said...

DTL is off of his meds again. He broke out of mommy's basement and found her computer. You just wait until mommy comes home young man. You will be in big trouble. SHe will force those medications down your throat and lock you back in the basement where you belong.

Quayle said...

you can't honestly interpret the results in any other mannerI just did.

Honestly.

John said...

"And 3 Americans were imprisoned last year for 3 months just for having gay sex"

OMG 3 Americans out of 300 million. It must be that a majority of the country hates gay people and wants to put them in camps.

Stop trolling. You can't be serious in the things you write. It was kind of fun for a while, but now it is getting insulting to gay people. No one is as stupid and bigoted as you. You can't be real. You are just some homophobe who wants to make gay people look bad by posting hate filled, ignorant comentary and atrributing it to a gay person. It is really nasty and you should stop it.

downtownlad said...

And even if I hate breeders (which I don't - I only hate the majority of them - those who vote to take away my rights), I myself would never vote to take rights away from breeders.

I would gladly settle for an America where the VAST majority of people hated gay people, as long as I had equal rights. I really don't give a fuck what breeders personally think about me. I care what they publicly vote on.

downtownlad said...

John - You're a bigot. Which is fine. But gay people are allowed to speak their mind, and point out when bigots like you are being bigots.

That's not being a troll.

You - trying to silence gay people - that's being a troll.

downtownlad said...

By the way - John voted to make it government policy to have gays fired - just for being gay.

And then he denies that laws like this exist.

10,000 Americans fired by the government in the last decade - just for being gay.

John said...

"10,000 Americans fired by the government in the last decade - just for being gay."


No. More like 8,000 kids got to get out of basic training and go home because they could claim they were gay. There are tons of gay people in the military and they do just fine. They only get kicked out when they chose to be by admiting they are gay or commit some kind of misconduct like sexual harrasment that brings them to the attention of the command. No one is kicked out for "just being gay" despite what you read.

I have nothing against gay people. That is why I find you so objectionable. I don't think you beleive anything you type. You are just on here to make gay people look rediculous. That is awful. You should leave gay people alone and let them live how they want to live.

Peter V. Bella said...

John,
I think you are right. DTL is troll. No one with any sense would write the stuff he does and expect to be taken seriously. He must be one of the people who hate homosexuals and want to paint them in as bad a light as possible.

Or he is just plain nuts. The kind of guy who has squirrels juggling knives in his brain.

montana urban legend said...

"'I think there still is an undercurrent of hating heterosexuals out there' For a lot of people, Sullivan among them, it isn't an undercurrent. Look at how he attacked Palin's family and Althouse's engagement."

You know, I was going to ask for actual evidence for the first statement, and then I realized that for the non-reality based community, the latter statement may very well constitute said evidence.

"OMG 3 Americans out of 300 million. It must be that a majority of the country hates gay people and wants to put them in camps."

No John. Hatred of straight people by gays is the real problem - even though 0 of them out of our 300 million were imprisoned for having "straight" sex. I know 0 is a lower number than 3, but you have to start your mythology somewhere. How else can one build a relevant political movement out of a motley crew of completely marginalized and disgruntled malcontents? Get with the program. Geez.

Peter V. Bella said...

"And even if I hate breeders (which I don't - I only hate the majority of them - those who vote to take away my rights),..."

Insane. Definitely insane and unstable. Oh, and DTL, if you want respect as a faggot do not call us breeders.

montana urban legend said...

It takes a high-octane dose of cognitive dissonance or mental retardation to claim that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being what will get you in trouble for admitting to being.

downtownlad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
montana urban legend said...

They probably just think he (and you) are "uppity". That's the problem.

downtownlad said...

No one is kicked out for "just being gay" despite what you read. Bullshit again.

I keep proving your wrong John - and you and your ilk just respond by calling me a "faggot" (and then claiming you're not a bigot).

Can you address the facts for once? And admit you're wrong when I keep proving you wrong?

Like right now:

A decorated sergeant and Arabic language specialist was dismissed from the U.S. Army under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, though he says he never admitted being gay and his accuser was never identified. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14052513/

Peter V. Bella said...

"Peter - Do you think Ann's son is a faggot too?"

I have never seen him dispay an irrational hatred towards people. You, on the other hand are irrational and you spew the hatred and lies of the true hater. If you do not want to be called names, do not call others names, especially hatered fueled names.

BTW, Ann is a breeder. Do you hate her too?

montana urban legend said...

Of course, it's amazingly rational to spew hatred at someone who is not threatening the deprivation of your rights, as opposed to spewing hatred at organized groups of people who do their damnedest to make sure you are deprived of your rights. Clearly the latter is the irrational hatred. Clearly. I read it on Althouse.

MadisonMan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
downtownlad said...

Name one lie I've spread.

Just one.

You can't.

What you can't get through your head, is that I am allowed to feel passionate about issues that directly affect me. I am allowed to have an opinion on an issue. I am allowed to have an opinion of others. I am allowed to hate anti-gay bigots.

Ann does not vote to take away my rights. Therefore I do not hate her.

And I use the term breeder sparingly. I use it when anti-gay insults are being thrown at me. Gay people are allowed to fight back.

MadisonMan said...

Pastafarian, it struck me as odd because happenstance connotes some kind of random walk-iness to me, like a guy or girl is walking down Sexuality Street and sees Homosexual Avenue and says I think I'll go this way and sees what happens!

That interpretation of happened to be is my very own, I realize.

rhhardin said...

You sometimes read about a marriage where a prenup spells out all the rights and obligations so much that you don't really want to say it's a marriage.

There's a clue what marriage means.

Failures to be something are often the only way to discover what even an everyday something is.

Lem said...

I think the resistance to Sullivan’s “bargain” was also borne from a sense of trying to do more for the thousands of young isolated and vulnerable gays like Mathew Sheppard that being gay was something superior to being straight. It was like trying to tell them more than the standard “you are not alone” shpiel.
They may not have articulated it that way, but it sure felt like that’s what was being hinted at.

We dont need to be like them because in effect we are better than them was the bottom line.

peprgirl said...

I am a contradiction...
Lesbian living in Massachusetts and one of the few not happy that gay marriage is the law.

Why? Well of course my own selfish reasons.

I was with a girl who wanted to get married, and I could always use the excuse of "well its not legal why bother"...and then it was, so I had no more excuses.

Me just not wanting to marry HER was the real reason.

Its an ideal and if you want to marry all the power to you, but just because I CAN doesnt mean I want to....and I think thats true with gays and straights alike.

peter hoh said...

The first time I saw/heard of Sullivan was when he appeared on Charlie Rose. I was fascinated.

He was radical in all the best sense of the word, challenging assumptions and reframing a cultural battle that had been getting somewhat stale.

The push for same-sex marriage did not come from the gay rights establishment. In my experience, the push came from gay children of pastors. These were kids who never left the church, who didn't rebel, and didn't march in gay pride parades. They just were people who happened to be gay.

They quietly set the stage for where we are today.

peprgirl said...

That was supposed to say Lesbian and REPUBLICAN

thats the contradiction lol lol

downtownlad said...

Any gay person has to be completely self-loathing to be a member of the Republican party - a party that has hatred of gay people written into its platform.

Sure - a gay person can be a conservative or a libertarian, but that doesn't mean that they have to align themselves with an organization that hates them (i.e. the Republican party). That is just stupid.

Marcia said...

"Pastafarian, it struck me as odd because happenstance connotes some kind of random walk-iness to me, like a guy or girl is walking down Sexuality Street and sees Homosexual Avenue and says I think I'll go this way and sees what happens!

That interpretation of happened to be is my very own, I realize."

Hmm. I interpreted the statement as having to do more with the happenstance of living in a particular political era.

Lem said...

That was supposed to say Lesbian and REPUBLICANDid you try the log cabin republican? I'm just curious.
Or are they an all male thing.

Eric said...

My beef with Sullivan is he's profoundly dishonest. In the 2004 election cycle he spent all that time pretending to agonize over who he should vote for when it was obvious to the dimmest bulbs he would be supporting Kerry.

And then there's the Trig trutherism. He's really become sort of unbalanced.

David said...

Hating heterosexuals?

Well there's something going on. Is there a difference between hatred and contempt? I'm not sure. It's in some way part of the contempt for traditional middle class values that's so glibly popular with large parts of the left. It's also the historical discomfort with people who are markedly different than those in your group. Kind of sad that gays are embracing the same disgust for the Other that they suffered for so long.

Jason (the commenter) said...

John : "I think there is a large element to being gay that involves thumbing your nose at convention, at least among gay men."

That's why the word "gay" was chosen, it's often been a somewhat subversive word. For example, see Nietzsche's The Gay Science.

You're automatically going against convention when you come out, so why not be positive about it?

Eric said...

Hey DTL, how's that "openly gay in the military" the Democrats promised coming along? Do you ever feel like they're just telling you what you want to hear so you'll vote for them?

Lem said...

Dtl message is stay with your abuser.

They helped Bill Clinton get elected and he turned around a betrayed them.

Smilin' Jack said...

Gay marriage is a sham, a mere simulacrum of real marriage. Marriage unites two people because humans have two sexes; if we had three sexes marriage would unite three people. But a homosexual marriage involves only one sex, so it doesn't make sense except as a mockery, a travesty, of true marriage. That's why people resent it.

Not sure I really belive that, but you don't see the word simulacrum enough these days.

Lem said...

At least with the republicnas you know where you stand and you fight for change. The republicnas can be taken over just like the right took it over.

David said...

Re: Breeders

Seems to me that without Breeders there would be no gays? Or have I missed some new scientific development?

A little gratitude from my gay fellow humans would be appreciated.

Lem said...

simulacrum - simulacro.

a put-on, a sham, a con.

MadisonMan said...

I interpreted the statement as having to do more with the happenstance of living in a particular political era.

Oh, that's a much better interpretation! I like that.

MnMark said...

Gay people don't like being thought of as different. They want to be able to get married because they want to be treated as if they're no different than anyone else. Gay "marriage" is just one more step on the road to complete "equality" - where it will be forbidden to suggest there is anything different about homosexuality and heterosexuality.

Already, gays and liberals are using the word "partner" instead of husband, wife, boyfriend, girlfriend. The goal is to eventually rid society of anything that distinguishes hetero from homo. I predict that if things continue as they are, there will be a time when people will be under social pressure from homosexuals to have homosexual relationships to avoid being called "haters". For instance, white women who don't want to date black men are sometimes accused of being racists - they feel social pressure to date blacks so as not to appear racist. There will come a time when you will be suspected of being a bigot if you don't want to have homosexual sex. And the time is approaching when bigotry will be illegal (as "hate speech" laws already have done in Europe).

That's the way these things proceed: first it's "please just leave us alone". Then when we say you can do what you want in your bedrooms, it's "we just want to be given the same rights as others." So when they're allowed to marry, it will become "you cannot exercise your personal preferences in this area because it is not legitimate for you to have a preference based on (race/sexual orientation/etc)."

For example, in England homosexual activists succeeded in having a very old traditional painting of a bride and groom that had hung in a wedding chapel for centuries taken down because it suggested that marriage was about men and women. Homosexuals' ultimate goal is for it to be socially and perhaps legally forbidden to do or say anything that suggests there is any legitimate difference between hetero and homosexuality. They don't like feeling different and they want the rest of us to be forced, in all aspects of social life, to pretend as if there is nothing different about them.

They will deny this, just as they used to deny they wanted to be able to get "married". But marriage is not the real agenda; not being thought different or worse is the agenda. And that will not be achieved until society is changed so that it is impermissible to express a sexual preference just as it has become impermissible to express a racial preference.

Just another example of what happens when you take egalitarianism to its logical conclusion.

peter hoh said...

from the article: it’s not unusual for him to produce 20 posts a dayIs it ever only 20?

Peter V. Bella said...

“Sure - a gay person can be a conservative or a libertarian, but that doesn't mean that they have to align themselves with an organization that hates them (i.e. the Republican party). That is just stupid.”

I see that the Democrat Party and its new leader, Barak Obama, ae not making any moves to legitimize or legalize gay marriage. By your own logic, DTL, you are just stupid.

John Stodder said...

This thread is disappointing.

Look, I think Andrew Sullivan has morphed into a buffoon, but he was right on gay marriage, and the gay left was being feral in its attacks on him as a collaborationist for the same reasons that most thinking people should support gay marriage: Marriage is a civilizing institution. It is the original civilizing institution, and the most important. We don't want 10 percent of Americans unhooked from this foundation stone of civilization. We want them to be part of it, and to have a stake in its rules and customs.

And then, of course, there is the civil rights argument. You really can't have an institution with measurable benefits like marriage that you arbitrarily deny to certain couples. It is unjust and contrary to the spirit of America.

Now, it might be true that the majority of gays don't want to be married because they're such rebels and such. Fine. I'm sure a lot of blacks thought the food at those lunch counters was disgusting, and that sitting in the front of the bus meant having to smell the driver's foul cologne. The point is for this civil right to be available to them. It's impossible to argue logically why it shouldn't.

The conservative movement's demagoguery on gay marriage is shameful but it's also stupid from the standpoint of its own interests. What has always attracted me about conservatism is its respect for, and safeguarding of, civilizing institutions that function apart from government. The mania to defeat gay marriage, an increasingly uphill battle, is a contradiction to that virtue. You folks on the right are not "defending marriage" by denying it to gays. You're delegitimizing it in the eyes of a substantial number of people, and not only gays.

I don't think any church should be compelled to perform a gay marriage if its members are going to be bent out of shape by it. But as a civil, legal institution, it's a right that all Americans are entitled to.

Eric said...

You'd think repealing DOMA would be a no-brainer if the Dems were actually interested in walking the walk. I mean, the Republicans couldn't stop them, assuming Snowe votes with the Dems like she always does.

Soooo... what's going on?

John said...

"And then, of course, there is the civil rights argument. You really can't have an institution with measurable benefits like marriage that you arbitrarily deny to certain couples. It is unjust and contrary to the spirit of America."


Do you really believe that? If so then isn't it unjust to tell the Somali immigrant he can't have five wives? Isn't it also unjust to tell someone they can't marry their adult sibling, provided one of them is sterile and there is no danger of birth defects?

It is one thing to argue that gay couples have reached a level of accpetance in society that it is time to grant them marital status. That is an argument I am sympathetic to. But it is something else all together to argue that gay marriage is a civil right because it is every individual's right to demand the government benefit of marriage no matter who their partner is. That is a road to judicially enforced polygomy rights, which would be the death of our civil society.

Shanna said...

So some gays hate heterosexuals? Oh what next? Some Jews hate Nazis? Some blacks hate the KKK?Because people who have chosen to have sex with the opposite sex, in a way that keeps humanity going (ie having children), are totally akin to nazi’s. WTF, DTL?

Also, how is that kind of talk going to convince people to vote your way?

John said...

"You'd think repealing DOMA would be a no-brainer if the Dems were actually interested in walking the walk. I mean, the Republicans couldn't stop them, assuming Snowe votes with the Dems like she always does.

Soooo... what's going on?"

Gay marriage is very unpopular among groups that are essential to both parties; blacks and latinos for the Democrats and evangelicals for the Republicans. It is popular among a certain breed of upper middle and upper class white people and of course gay people. The upper middle class and upper class white people are not single issue voters and the gay people are not a very large group. Moreover, it is not like people like the stereotypes Downtown Lad tries to parody are going to vote Republican anytime soon. So, basically both parties have nothing to gain and everything to lose by embracing gay marriage. So it doesn't happen.

I would also point out that BO has stated publicly on several occasions that he thinks marriage is a union of man and woman. BO also attended a church every Sunday for 20 years that objects to gay marriage. Given that, I think it is fair to say that BO doesn't support gay marriage.

peter hoh said...

Eric, there's no advantage to the Dems to repeal DOMA, so it won't happen.

You may recall that the GOP didn't take on Social Security or abortion when they had the White House, the House, and the Senate.

Remember Megan McArdle's First Rule of Politics?

Small groups get favors from the politicians they support only to the extent that it does not annoy large groups who voted for those politicians.

John Stodder said...

If so then isn't it unjust to tell the Somali immigrant he can't have five wives?No, because in no state are marriages of more than two people recognized as legal. Limiting a thing by numbers isn't inherently unfair as long as the rules apply across the board. We have age limits for voting that are arbitrary. Why can't a 9-year-old vote? Because we've decided that 18 is the proper age. But if your 9-year-old can vote and mine can't, that would be illegal.

The Somali immigrant's church might recognize his arrangement as blessed by God, but state and US laws don't have to recognize it.

Your sibling question is harder, logically, especially the way you frame it, that they can't or won't have children. It creeps me out, but I don't know if that's a good enough reason to stop them from marrying. Keeping me from being creeped out about the potential for sibling marriage is certainly not a good enough argument to deprive civil rights to a much larger percentage of the population currently disenfranchised from the institution.

John said...

John Stodder,

The issue is who decides what is marriage? My position is that marriage is decided by consensus of society through their elected representatives. We can tell the Somali immigrant he can't have 5 wives or the other person who wants to marry his sister no because we as a society have a right to determine what marriage is. The only limit is that we have to apply it equally. We can say marriage equals man and woman but if we do we must apply it equally to everyone, no rules against blacks marrying whites and so forth.

If we don't have the right to determine what marriage means, then what does it mean? If it means the right to do what you want, then you have to allow polygomy and sibling marriages and the like.

Worse still is the option that most liberals seem to favor. That is marriage means whatever a certain group of elite right thinking judges say it is. On what basis do you say "gay marriage" is something recognized in the Constitution? No one had even thought of such a thing until 20 years ago. The writers of the document certainly didn't view it as a right. Why is it a right now other than some people say it is? If people want to change the Constitution, fine. If the States want to change their definition of marriage, that is fine to. But I fail to see how it is good for the country or for civil society for a group of unelected elite judges to fundementally change a deeply personal institution in our society based on what amounts to nothing but fashionable opinion.

Minzo said...

Although I think Sullivan went overboard with Palin (although Im no fan of hers by any means) and although his comments about Althouse were unwise, Im not sure how that paints him as a man who hates heterosexuals. With Althouse, it was more a case of being narrow-minded and with Palin..well, I think he hated her for reasons other than 'she's a happy heterosexual'

Joseph Hovsep said...

"I think there still is an undercurrent of hating heterosexuals out there"

There is not a significant current of gays hating straights out there. I think there is resentment at the privileges they take for granted, yes. But hatred, no.

Althouse frequently feigns surprise/offense at the resentment directed at her on gay rights issues because she claims support for same sex marriage. But posts written by Althouse that actually articulate why and how she supports same sex marriage are very few and far between. The typical Althouse post on the topic is a defense of conservative opposition to SSM or an attack on a weak or misdirected argument in support of SSM, bolstered by a spoken or implied "but, of course I support same sex marriage so my insight should have special credibility here."

There's certainly a role for that argument, but I don't think Althouse should be surprised to feel that resentment directed her way when she exploits her nominal support of sexual orientation equality for the primary purpose of defending conservative opposition to it.

Bissage said...

Joseph Hovsep deserves credit for employing methods of persuasion more subtle than those of the Lesbian Avengers, LOL!

Lem said...

With Althouse, it was more a case of being narrow-minded and with Palin..well, I think he hated her for reasons other than 'she's a happy heterosexual'.Well, I'm not waiting for the third strike... until he apologizes to Althouse his ass is down in Pawtucket.. down to the minors (that’s Columbus for Yankee fans and Buffalo for Met fans). I don’t care how "real conservative" or how many books he's written or how brilliant he might be.

Joe M. said...

Interesting read, if rather uncritical. I've only ever encountered Sullivan's more silly tirades, but perhaps I'll dig up his blog and see if he can live up to all those lofty intellectual virtues which he espouses in this interview. It would be a nice change from much of the internet.

Henry said...

Lem wrote: until he apologizes to Althouse his ass is down in Pawtucket.

Sorry, we don't want him. Send him to Lowell.

Palladian said...

"On what basis do you say "gay marriage" is something recognized in the Constitution? No one had even thought of such a thing until 20 years ago. The writers of the document certainly didn't view it as a right."

Marriage of any kind is not mentioned in the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. Looks like the Founders didn't think such matters were under the purview of the federal government.

The government should not involve itself in regulating, prohibiting or supporting marriages of any kind.

Minzo said...

"Well, I'm not waiting for the third strike... until he apologizes to Althouse his ass is down in Pawtucket.. down to the minors (that’s Columbus for Yankee fans and Buffalo for Met fans). I don’t care how "real conservative" or how many books he's written or how brilliant he might be."

Im not defending his intellectual capabilities there- Im just saying I dont think he is motivated by hating heterosexuals or indeed 'strong women' as one theory goes. I do visit his site regularily but usually because he links to interesting sites.

PatCA said...

"Now, I think there still is an undercurrent of hating heterosexuals out there."

Strange, I read that as "homosexuals" until the commenter above mentioned it. It shows the level of indoctrination in our discourse that I expected it to be an accustion of hating homosexuals.

Sullivan's problem, if he has one, is that he is human and therefore complicated; the activist movement for gay marriage the same. There is no monolithic gay thought or straight thought. The author and others like him deny this to their detriment.

Skyler said...

Getting away from the specifics of homosexual politics, this is a classic example of how the radical left is not driven by rational thought, they are driven only by what they are told is their latest agenda.

For instance, at sometimes we've been told that plastic bags at the grocery store are better because they don't kill trees. Then they say paper is better because plastic doesn't degrade.

Then they say there's global cooling. Oh, wait, it's global warming.

They believe what they're told to believe, and they rarely attempt to create a rational system for their beliefs.

Scream, disrupt, oppress, silence, disenfranchise -- all while accusing the opponent of having done these things.

If you read the history of communist tactics over time, it's all so familiar. I'm not saying that homosexuals are communists, or even that the agenda is necessarily communist, but the methods are the same, and the useful idiots just as useful.

Skyler said...

Pasta wrote: Well, isn't the accepted theory that biological predispositions lead to a person's orientation? And aren't those biological predispositions at least partly random?That's another issue that keeps going back and forth. At one time the activists told us that they are born that way. Then they all get into lockstep saying that they aren't "victims" of their birth, they choose to be homosexual.

I'm sure the truth is that some are predisposed towards it and some choose it.

But the latest agenda is the one that must be adhered to.

Lem said...

Sorry, we don't want him. Send him to Lowell.Hell – just let him elbow his way back into little league.

Justin said...

If so then isn't it unjust to tell the Somali immigrant he can't have five wives? Isn't it also unjust to tell someone they can't marry their adult sibling, provided one of them is sterile and there is no danger of birth defects?I hope you're not an attorney, because if you are, you should be embarrassed for making these arguments. The "slippery slope" argument is just a back-stop for people who have run out of anything substantive to say. It never holds sway.


That is marriage means whatever a certain group of elite right thinking judges say it is.Kind of like when the Supreme Court ruled that miscegenation laws are unconstitutional, right? You are just like the people who fought for the perpetuation of those laws - as the saying goes, same old shit, just a different day.

David said...

"Gay people don't like being thought of as different."

Huh?

Have you been to any Gay Pride parades? Ever? I lived on the edge of Boys' Town in Chicago (where the city at popular urging has giant phallic symbols to mark the area) and whoooee they do like to be thought of as different.

Of course there is a great variation in gays as well as straights, but that statement is super silly.

Why is it demagoguery to oppose gay marriage? Until 20 or so years ago, the notion that marriage was a male-female thing was about as normative as you can get. Are we who have not "evolved" as quickly as the cutting edgers now bigots and demagogs? Ridiculous.

I get really tired of being called a bigot because I disagree with someone about what "rights" are, when those rights are a novel notion that not long ago were completely off the radar screen. It makes me considerably less favorable to the agenda.

By and large insult is not a strong weapon of persuasion.

Sofa King said...

The "slippery slope" argument is just a back-stop for people who have run out of anything substantive to say. It never holds sway.Not necessarily. Some slopes really are slippery. "Slippery slope" is only a fallacy when no reasoning is given why one thing logically proceeds from another.

Eric said...

The "slippery slope" argument is just a back-stop for people who have run out of anything substantive to say. It never holds sway.Oh? When miscegenation laws were struck down/repealed people said this kind of thing could lead to gay marriage, and supporters of mixed-race marriages said "Nah, that could never happen". The slippery slope argument is in fact the very best argument against gay marriage, as there isn't an argument for gay marriage that doesn't support plural marriage as well.

For myself I'm okay with both as long as it's legislated by legislatures and not courts.

Fen said...

Well, props to Sullivan for walking the walk. I did not know this background, and while I routinely slam his current state of mind, I've got alot more respect for him now.

Eric said...

Eric, there's no advantage to the Dems to repeal DOMA, so it won't happen.Yes, of course. I know that. I was just wondering if DTL realizes the Democrats view gays as a $5 hooker they can visit once every four years.

ElcubanitoKC said...

What Palladian said, as always.

And wasn't this a thread about Andrew Sullivan's politics through the years? What most of you think about same-sex marriage is well known and documented.

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

The "slippery slope" argument is just a back-stop for people who have run out of anything substantive to say. It never holds sway.If you are changing the definition of marriage, its not unfair to ask if polygamists and adult incest will also be included in the new definition.

I challenge you to provide reasons why one should be accepted and the others not. Convince me.

holdfast said...

" BO also attended a church every Sunday for 20 years that objects to gay marriage, Jew and white folks generally. Given that, I think it is fair to say that BO doesn't support gay marriage."

-Fixed it for you

David Bartoletti said...

God, what an ugly ugly combox this is.

JR said...

As a straight male who has loyally read Andrew Sullivan since he started blogging, I have to say, I have never felt that he has an undercurrent of hatred toward heterosexuals. Ann is off base in making that throwaway accusation with no elaboration. The worst that can be said of his crusade is that he wanted desperately to be "normal" to be accepted by the straight community and straight institutions as a gay man. That's not hatred. That's a quest for belonging. I have to say, though, he's achieved it. Gay marriage is a done deal, a given, a won battle for my generation. My coupled gay friends sit at the same dinner tables with my straight coupled friends. And we're all better for it, and for Andrew's intelligent activism. Of all the activists on the Right and Left, its his capacity for self-doubt and willingness to think through an issue rather than simply react to it that I most admire.

SMGalbraith said...

Marriage of any kind is not mentioned in the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. Looks like the Founders didn't think such matters were under the purview of the federal government.Yes, but the question of legal recognition of marriage is handled by the states.

Through their state constitutions.

And the 10th Amendment of the US Constitutions guarantees (implicitly) this right of the states.

Remember as well, if something is not legally recognized that doesn't mean it's illegal.

AST said...

MadisonMan said...

If you happened to be gay back thenWhat a very odd phrase. Were the people gay by accident?

People are discovering their gayness all the time, even into middle age and after years of marriage to women and multiple children. :)

This is a very interesting piece about Andrew S. Not paying much attention to gay issues, I hadn't known this bit of history. I thought that the idea was nothing more than a strategy for greater validation.

I recently read Tom Wolfe's report from nearly 40 years ago, "Mau-mauing the Flak Catchers." About how radical blacks learned to extort government grants by amping up their black rage and craziness for bureaucrats. Now we see it everywhere with every other "minority" whether real or fancied. Same sex marriage is just the latest demand, not for any widespread desire to marry but, like the gay pride parades, just for mau-mauing the rest of us.

mcg, I agree completely that heterosexuals have done a good job of destroying the institution of marriage. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if the government washed its hands entirely of marriage and left it up to the churches, since most people don't have any qualms about sex outside of marriage any more. For all practical matters, except unraveling legal tangles, marriage is dead. It shows how little the modern world cares about keeping one's word, and that should really worry us. Society and commerce are built on trust. When we lose that, we're doomed.

Palladian said...

"Society and commerce are built on trust. When we lose that, we're doomed."

We're doomed.

Joseph Hovsep said...

Fen, I agree that's a fair question (and I'm glad you raised polygamy and incest, rather than ridiculous comparisons some SSM opponents make like child molestation and bestiality).

If the laws are changed through the political process, I'd look at whether there is a political constituency clamoring for or politicians receptive to expanding marriage to include polygamist arrangements or adult incest. I'm sure you can find a crackpot here or there, but I'm not aware of any genuine movement seeking such action (I'd be curious what exactly a polygamist marriage bill would even look like).

If the laws are changed by courts' interpretation of state constitutions, you'd have to apply the argument made by the court. In most cases, that argument is that gays are a discrete and insular minority entitled to equal protection under the law and that there is no rational basis for the government to exclude that minority from marriage (more or less, depending on the constitution). You can certainly make an argument that polygamists and incest-lovers are a discrete and insular minority in the way that racial or sexual groups are but I personally think their arguments would be pretty weak. I think excluding polygamist relationships from marriage is pretty rational since the legal effects of marriage are so inherently tailored for binary relationships. There are also quite a few pretty rational reasons for excluding adult relatives from marrying. For example, I think preventing interfamily physical or emotional abuse in anticipation of marrying the child when she becomes an adult is a rational reason.

Some courts also invoke a right to privacy in constitutionalizing the right to marry a partner of your choice. I think incest and polygamy have better arguments under privacy but rational justifications for the laws are still pretty strong. I think there's a good argument that private, consensual polygamist and adult-incestual relations should not be criminalized, but the argument that the state must grant them access to the marriage regime or some equivalent doesn't work for polygamy because of the binary nature of marriage. The argument might work better on a theoretical level for adult incest but I have not heard of real people seeking that right except in very unusual situations that lack broad application (like two people that didn't know they were related until they were adults).

Kirk Parker said...

Everyone keeps talking about how Sullivan has changed, but did no one else notice this wonderful bit of foolish consistency?

"I was too narcissistic to realise that it wasn’t about me"

Henry Buck said...

Well, I'll agree with you there, Palladian. It depresses the hell out of me to think about the world my daughters will grow up in.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Palladian: "The government should not involve itself in regulating, prohibiting or supporting marriages of any kind."

If the government did want to encourage marriage it would ban it. Then everyone would be doing it!

Burnsey said...

Isn't there enough hypocrisy from both sides of the aisle that one could understand that it is not hatred of heterosexuals, but hatred of the treatment of gays BY heterosexuals? No, not every LGBT person hates hetero's, and not every conservative hates LGBT's, but it is a little disingenuous to assert that gay people hate straight people, unless that individual specifically says they hate straight people..

I'm gay and I certainly do not hate straight people. The majority of my friends are straight, and I love them dearly. I do not, however, love dearly, any person who would disallow me the same right to marry the person of my choice, but I wouldn't hate them, just their actions. (I'll co-opt the religious rights phrase "love the sinner hate the sin"-that is the argument the religious folks use when speaking out against LGBT people. So, if it is true of your side, why can it not be true of my side?").

And to whomever it was that posited about the use of terms like "partner" and whatnot rather than the use of the word "husband" (in my case since I am a gay man) or "wife" (for lesbians), you are unaware of the proper use of the terms husband or wife.

I got married to my HUSBAND in June of last year. Up until that point I called him my PARTNER because legally he was not my husband, he was my Domestic PARTNER. With only a small handful of states allowing MARRIAGE to same-sex couples, the term Partner would have to be used in those states that disallow marriage of same-sex couples. The usage of the terms husband or wife can only come with the ability to marry so it makes sense that LGBT people are not using it when they cannot marry.

Justin said...

If you are changing the definition of marriage, its not unfair to ask if polygamists and adult incest will also be included in the new definition. I challenge you to provide reasons why one should be accepted and the others not. Convince me.There's the obvious argument against permitting incestuous marriage - the risk of birth defects and lifelong health complications. Not so with gay marriage. (Notably, though, the degree of relationship defined as "incest" varies state by state.) There is also the question of consent, which becomes thorny when the persons entering into the marriage are close relatives (i.e., father, daughter). Again, not so with gay marriage.

As to polygamy, I think the most obvious reason is the administrative nightmare it would create, in terms of tax benefits (and penalties), entitlements, and the like. Again, not so with gay marriage. Otherwise, I don't have a problem with it in theory. (And those opponents of same-sex marriage who rely heavily on the procreation argument should be ok with it, too.) There are already ways to deal with the many other problems associated with polygamy, like abuse, abandonment, etc.

muddimo said...

"Why is it demagoguery to oppose gay marriage? Until 20 or so years ago, the notion that marriage was a male-female thing was about as normative as you can get. Are we who have not "evolved" as quickly as the cutting edgers now bigots and demagogs? Ridiculous.

I get really tired of being called a bigot because I disagree with someone about what "rights" are, when those rights are a novel notion that not long ago were completely off the radar screen. It makes me considerably less favorable to the agenda.

By and large insult is not a strong weapon of persuasion."

Absolutely. If you want me to abandon my conception of marriage, one that has been the norm for all of human history, you will need to convince me. "'Cause we say so bigot!" won't get you my vote.

Justin said...

one that has been the norm for all of human historyI think you mean all of American history.

Burnsey said...

David said...

"Gay people don't like being thought of as different."

Huh?

Have you been to any Gay Pride parades? Ever? I lived on the edge of Boys' Town in Chicago (where the city at popular urging has giant phallic symbols to mark the area) and whoooee they do like to be thought of as different.

Of course there is a great variation in gays as well as straights, but that statement is super silly.


Burnsey says: GIVE ME A BREAK. Not all gay people are like what you may see at the PRIDE festivities, just like all straight people are not like GIRLS GONE WILD ON SPRING BREAK and not all women flash their boobies like they do at MARDI GRAS.

Why is it ok for straight people to have wild sexual exploitation that they gladly participate in but is not representative of heterosexuals as a whole, but when there is a gay pride event it MUST represent every gay person in existence? You must not know very many LGBT people. Most of us live just as boring a life as our heterosexual counterparts. Except most of us don't judge most of you by the behavior of the loosest among you.

mcg said...

As to polygamy, I think the most obvious reason is the administrative nightmare it would create, in terms of tax benefits (and penalties), entitlements, and the like.

So you're OK denying polygamists their civil rights because of the paperwork it would create?

muddimo said...

And please note that I used the term norm. I don't want to hear about outliers. Even if you can dredge up some reference to homosexual "marriage" amongst some tribe in Borneo in an attempt to refute "all of human history", it is pointless. The norm has been, and still is, heterosexual and monogamous. If your argument does not accept this as a premise, you fail ab initio.

Burnsey said...

muddimo, when you state:

Absolutely. If you want me to abandon my conception of marriage, one that has been the norm for all of human history, you will need to convince me. "'Cause we say so bigot!" won't get you my vote.

Very good argument if your perception of marriage was accurate. The current version of Marriage is not the same as it has been for all of human history. Marriage has not always been between on man and one woman. In biblical times men were allowed multiple wives. Women were given in marriage even if they did not want to be, because they were considered property and not people, and love very rarely played a part. Even the men did not always have a choice in whom they were allowed to marry. Historically your argument is flawed, so how about you get your history right and then tell me why the definition should not be expanded.

bobsacamano said...

Just an off-the-wall question I like to ask at cocktail parties: of all of the "rights" that haven't been yet afforded by any level of government besides same-sex marriage, what would your top 5 be? I have to imagine that activists of all stripes have a list of "rights" they would like to see made legal, I just don't know which ones are the most important.

James H said...

Interesting quote from the article and a good article overall

So we are about to declare a right to a institution that has always been between and a male and female when just hardly not a couple of decades not only were a considerable amount of gay people were not intereted in this right they thought it was abhorrent to their gay or bisexual Id

Just something to think about before we start down this path.

Joseph Hovsep said...

The concept of a nuclear family--mom, dad, and a few kids living as an independent unit--is a very modern invention.

To the extent that heterosexual marriage is a norm of human history, it is a norm by which a father sells his daughter to the highest bidder and that woman became the property of her husband with few, if any, sovereign rights of her own. I think the usefulness of "norms throughout human history" is of pretty limited value.

peter hoh said...

Sullivan on DOMA.

But I'd be leery [. . .] of extending federal recognition of gay couples in states where such marriages or civil unions have been banned, because that too violates a core principle of federalism.

muddimo said...

Burnsey, your point does not advance your argument. To the extent that these polygamous relationships constituted marriages (in some times and places yes, in many no) they were yet further examples of societal consecration of the male/female bond that forms the nucleus of a family unit. It does not advance the argument for a similar state and societal consecration of homosexual relationships.
In addition, polygamy, even in antiquity, deviated from the norm and was usually the privilege of a male with sufficient wealth and power (king, tribal chief, etc.) to support an extended family, basically by leveraging the labor of others. Amongst the commoners it was still one man, one woman and the kids.

There are many exceptions to the norm that you will be able to point out (given all the world and all of human history to plumb) but do they make your point?

Lawgiver said...

There's the obvious argument against permitting incestuous marriage - the risk of birth defects and lifelong health complications.With birth control, and abortion on demand that is no longer an issue. Besides, in many states you can marry your first cousin, why not your sister? Why can't two sisters marry, or two brothers?

Palladian has always had the right answer in this regard.

Sofa King said...

Why is it ok for straight people to have wild sexual exploitation that they gladly participate in but is not representative of heterosexuals as a whole, but when there is a gay pride event it MUST represent every gay person in existence?I can't speak authoritatively but I suspect it has something to do with the fact that one is specifically marketed as being FOR and ABOUT homosexuality, and the other is marketed as being FOR and ABOUT plain old debauchery, leaving alone the fact that probably about as many straight people express disapproval of Mardis Gras shenanigans as they do Gay Pride shenanigans.

The resentment, I think, is feeling like we are being asked to ACCEPT and CONDONE gay debauchery because it's GAY PRIDE! and are you some kind of BIGOT?

Palladian said...

"Most of us live just as boring a life as our heterosexual counterparts."

Speak for yourself, bitch.

"The concept of a nuclear family--mom, dad, and a few kids living as an independent unit--is a very modern invention."

So is personal hygiene, female suffrage, environmentalism, equal rights, freedom of speech, the turbo Saab, Coca-Cola, the United Nations, pasteurized milk, Dolly Parton, the Martini cocktail and so on. But isn't the world a better place since the invention of all those things? Well, most of them.

James H said...

"In biblical times men were allowed multiple wives. Women were given in marriage even if they did not want to be, because they were considered property and not people, and love very rarely played a part. Even the men did not always have a choice in whom they were allowed to marry. Historically your argument is flawed, so how about you get your history right and then tell me why the definition should not be expanded."

Actually I think a man could have several wives which were seperate marraiges

But still call it marriage call it union call it arranged that fact of Biology seems to be a constant

As Arkes said yesterday

"there has not always been an Italy or a Hungary. But as long as there are human beings there will be men and women. The bringing forth of offspring marks the telos, or natural purpose, of sex. Something needed to be said about marriage as something good in principle as a framework for the begetting of children, even if no children are begotten in the marriage"

It seems the biological function seems to be linked to marraige thus gays and hetrosexuals are not evenly situated in this regard

In other words in the truest line Clinton ever said "I did not have Sex with tht Woman well he was correct. That is real sex.

Would the not real sex Clinton have suffice to real sex and thus consumation of a homosexual union

peter hoh said...

And Sullivan responds to Althouse.

Justin said...

"Palladian has always had the right answer in this regard."

I totally agree with you.

Justin said...

I'm also beginning to suspect that Althouse does these posts on Sullivan solely for the purpose of increasing traffic to her blog. My guess is it's working, since he takes the bait every time.

MadisonMan said...

It is the height of conceit to argue that your life is not boring.

holdfast said...

"I'd be curious what exactly a polygamist marriage bill would even look like"

-A lot like Sharia fused with the book of Mormon - Muslims and Mormons, M&Ms...

On Gay pride parades - you can hardly compare them to a GGW video -unless the mayor of NY shuts down half the city so Joe Francis can have a parade (sign me up!). These spectacles are, organizationally and politically, at least on a par with Thanksgiving, Columbus Day and St Paddy's as far as importance. I seem to recall in one town straight firefighters were disciplined for refusing to participate as part of the official delegation. Sure they don't represent all gays, but they surely have the stamp of approval of the official gay lobby, and the obeisance of lots of non-gay politicians. Don't try to pretend it is an outlier.

Justin said...

"So you're OK denying polygamists their civil rights because of the paperwork it would create?"

No, not at all. My only point was that the administrative problems are a significant reason why gay marriage and polygamy are distinct, why one does not equal the other, and why it isn't an answer to proponents of gay marriage to say, "Well what about polygamy?"

As an aside, I think the government ought to recognize polygamist marriages, if it's going to recognize marriage at all.

Jim C. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jim C. said...

I'm also beginning to suspect that Althouse does these posts on Sullivan solely for the purpose of increasing traffic to her blog. My guess is it's working, since he takes the bait every time.That's clearly what she's doing. A link from Andrew Sullivan is blog gold. But you're wrong about him always taking the bait. The point is that he wasn't responding. Hence the need to up the ante with this ridiculous hating heterosexuals business.

I predict that Ann will get multiple posts out of Sullivan's response, trying to build a traffic-building spat, but that Sullivan will have no more of it.

zedzded said...

Dolly Parton gives me a reason to live.

And Coca Cola is good, too.

Based on results, women's sufferage is a mixed blessing.

Burnsey said...

Palladian why all the hate? I respectfully submit my posts expressing my views, without calling anyone a bigot and I get called a bitch? Wow, such respect, and here people are saying that the LGBT community hates heterosexuals.


Sofa King why would you ask me if I was a bigot? I did not demean or attack anyone on this site, I simply stated my opinions and asked a question in a respectful manner.

And muddimo, you do not think my points further my argument, and that is your right, but they do go to disproving your assertion that marriage has been one norm for all of human history. It has changed and evolved in both the ways it happens and the reasoning behind why it happens. Thus it is not the same as it was. Some aspects remain, but many have changed so that the old norm is not the new norm.

Silly me, I thought that if I was not inflammatory, but I was polite, and simply said how I felt, that there could be a discussion about the issue and maybe we could come to understand each other just a little bit better, but obviously civility and positive attitudes are not welcome by the commentators of this site.

I called no names or said nothing disparaging and yet I get called a bitch and a bigot. And you seriously wonder why there is such animosity in American Society. When people cannot have a conversation without name calling and without civility, it really is a mess.

And a note to Ann-

Congratulations on finding love. It's a lovely thing and I hope it is a long and happy experience for you. Love, whenever it appears, is a beautiful thing. I was happy to hear of your engagement.

traditionalguy said...

The slippery slope argument is not the best way to understand Gay Activists. Try the domino theory. Sullivan did not see the degree of victory possible for Gay Activists in the Equal treatment in Marriages issue any more than the Gay Activists did 15 years ago.Back then the Gay Activists wanted de-criminalization of sodomy and recognition of their civil rights in public venues. Today those are small potatos issues. Bigot charges now work powerfully against all public speech that posits "men" and "women" as the only categories of human gender. They want to be a Third gender that must be given special priviledges and powers to intimidate and then criminalize speech by practitioners of traditional Judeo-Christian culture. That is Big Time Power, and they have now acquired a taste for it as their movement's new goal. The heteros cannot make peace with that new goal by using last year's easy change of mind agreeing to all the Gay Activist's demands for full acceptance of all private sexual activity.

Burnsey said...

Holdfast-

Most GGW videos and now BGW, are shot during Spring Break, which is far larger than the Gay Pride festivals and last much longer. Pride parades also do address a much larger social concern and that was by being visible you let others know that they are not alone. Part of the original Pride festivities were designed to support LGBT people who were often suicidal and felt alone. Visibility lets someone in Idaho, NC, or Wyoming know they are not alone and helps to prevent youth suicide. It certainly helped when I was young in Central California during the 80's and attempted suicide because of my sexuality and because I felt like I was alone.

Also, Pride parades are not just for gay people. I've attended one every year for the last 28 years and have found there are now as many straight allies going to these parades as there are gay people going to Mardi Gras. And that is a lot...


And it was in San Diego, the firefighters thing. By the way, those firefighters sued the city for being forced to participate and won the lawsuit. They made a pretty penny too. And rightly so. No one should be forced to do something that they do not wish to do. Just because I fight for Marriage Equality does not mean that I do not think someone else doesn't have the right to fight against it or not approve. I just think that equality is supposed to be for everyone, and everyone should be able to choose the person they love to marry.

Sofa King said...

Sofa King why would you ask me if I was a bigot? I did not demean or attack anyone on this site, I simply stated my opinions and asked a question in a respectful manner.

Sorry if I wasn't clear - I meant to be taking the tone of an LGBT activist asking the question of a heterosexual who disapproves of homosexual debauchery along with heterosexual debauchery. I actually greatly appreciate your willingness to engage in conversation without personal invective.

Burnsey said...

Sofa King thanks for the clarification. I am sorry to have misunderstood your post.

peter hoh said...

If Sullivan has been living with his husband for almost 5 years, then what to make of this from the article:

Then, three years ago, at a gay club-night in New York City, he met Aaron Tone, a younger actor and artist, and “fell head-over-heels in love, in a way I never had before”.

Palladian said...

"Wow, such respect, and here people are saying that the LGBT community hates heterosexuals."

It was a joke, bitch. :)

MnMark said...

Because homosexual "marriage" is out of step with human nature as demonstrated by thousands of years of history, there are going to be all kinds of unanticipated consequences of legitimizing it and setting it up as an equal of real marriage.

An easy one to see is the effect on adoption. Homosexuals will insist that all adoption agencies make children as available to them for adoption as to normal married couples. This means dooming a certain number of boys to being raised by a pair of homosexual "daddies". A kid is going to know inside that that just isn't right, that he should have a mother, that his "daddies" are somehow weird and wrong and that there must be something weird and wrong about him.

And pregnant women who don't want to or can't keep their babies and need to put them up for adoption are going to know that instinctively too. Few women are going to be comfortable with the idea that their child may as likely go to a pair of homosexuals as to a normal married couple. Which means they will simply not put them up for adoption, at least not in normal, legal channels. Black market adoptions, more abortions, and more children raised in miserable, poverty-stricken homes will be the consequence.

In the long term you can't establish social norms that conflict with basic human nature. Legitimizing sexual dysfunction by trying to force homosexual "marriage" on society as an equal of real marriage will just end up making things worse for everyone in the long run. Homosexuals would be better off being happy that their behavior is no longer legally persecuted and leave it at that.

SMGalbraith said...

"Palladian has always had the right answer in this regard."Well, he usually does but on this case I think he's wrong.

Marriage is recognized legally by states; the US Constitution has nothing to do with it.

And many (most?) state constitutions have defined legal marriage.

Maybe they shouldn't. But the US Constitution gives them this power (or more accurately, doesn't forbid them from having the authority).

Again, just because a state doesn't recognize a marriage as legal does not - not - mean that that marriage is illegal.

Palladian said...

"If Sullivan has been living with his husband for almost 5 years, then what to make of this from the article:

Then, three years ago, at a gay club-night in New York City, he met Aaron Tone, a younger actor and artist, and “fell head-over-heels in love, in a way I never had before”."

Here's a picture of the happy couple. I'm surprised to hear that they met at a gay bar. I would have though they met each other while shopping at the same beard store.

I'd say its probably a good idea to stay away from anyone who describes themselves as an "artist/actor", but as he does on every other issue, I'm sure Sullivan knows what he's doing. Artist/Actor, eh? Hmm... Is it possible to be not only unemployed but negatively employed?

Interesting to learn that they've had a long-term 5 year relationship ever since they met 3 years ago. I wonder if Andrew was allowed to bring the artistactor to dinner with his idol Barack; after all, Barack doesn't support those married gays.

I do look forward to Sullivan and his husband's release of their gynecological records. There are a lot of unanswered questions floating around, so to speak.

Palladian said...

"Because homosexual "marriage" is out of step with human nature as demonstrated by thousands of years of history, there are going to be all kinds of unanticipated consequences of legitimizing it and setting it up as an equal of real marriage."

There is no such thing as "human nature"; arguments from "nature" are invalid. Try again! Maybe you can quote from that Bible thing.

michael farris said...

Shorter Althouse: Poor Andrew, he just hasn't met the right girl yet.

Sofa King said...

There is no such thing as "human nature"; arguments from "nature" are invalid. Try again! Maybe you can quote from that Bible thing.I disagree with that - rationality is a human nature. Our capacity to deeply reason evolved as a distinctly human trait. A natural trait.

On the other hand, I think Mark is wrong. It's perfectly possible to have well-adjusted kids so long as the parents are loving, supported, and well-adjusted themselves. If I recall correctly, research shows that children of same-sex marriages have statistically fewer problems than almost any other marital cohorts.

Burnsey said...

peter hoh said...

If Sullivan has been living with his husband for almost 5 years, then what to make of this from the article:

Then, three years ago, at a gay club-night in New York City, he met Aaron Tone, a younger actor and artist, and “fell head-over-heels in love, in a way I never had before”.


I think John's article may be wrong. Wikipedia states:

"He was married on August 27, 2007 to his three-year same-sex partner Aaron Tone in Provincetown, Massachusetts."

That, if accurate, would make his relationship 5 years old. The wiki page says they were together for three years BEFORE getting married in 2007.

Better yet the article, by Sullivan, on his impending marriage printed in the Times ONLINE dated August 19, 2007 states:

The other night it hit me for the first time that this is really about to happen. I guess I had just put it out of my head until it was only a matter of a week or so away. My fiancé, Aaron, and I have lived together for three years. I have no qualms about our actual relationship. For me, this is for life.

I'll take his word on it, over the mistaken sentence in John's article.


And Palladian:

YOU THE BITCH< YOU THE BITCH!! (LOL) I have a sense of humor but cannot decipher humor as easily on the intertubes as in person...

Palladian said...

"YOU THE BITCH< YOU THE BITCH!! (LOL) I have a sense of humor but cannot decipher humor as easily on the intertubes as in person..."

I forget to use the :) sometimes. They were invented for this very purpose.

SMGalbraith said...

There is no such thing as "human nature"; Whoa.

"Men are not angels...".

That's a good start in devising a government.

Fen said...

There's the obvious argument against permitting incestuous marriage - the risk of birth defects and lifelong health complicationsAs already stated, in the age of abortion, adoption and artificial insem for gays, this response does not hold up.

Martha said...

" I think it would be cool if he would openly explore what might be complex feelings about heterosexuals — especially women."

I think Sullivan's problem is with women. He does not understand them and really truly does NOT want to try! Interesting that he refers to his partner as his "husband." Does that make him the "wife"? or can there be 2 husbands just as there can be 2 mommies?

holdfast said...

Burnsey - your answer to me pretty much contradicts your reply to David, above, but that's ok - consistency does not seem to be your strong suit.

Anyway, GGW is a pimple on the ass of Spring Break, whereas the gay pride parade is pretty much at the hear of the, um, gay pride parade. Try another analogy, your last one is broken, and the no amount of faghags, lookyloos and opportunistic politicians can turn it into anything other than a guy pride parade. Of course in NY, we also have the Halloween parade, which is really just another gay pride parade but with different costumes - and you know what, that's all fine, but don't claim that the gay community cannot be defined by its defining events.

holdfast said...

"I think Sullivan's problem is with women. He does not understand them and really truly does NOT want to try!"

At the risk of defending Sullivan, how many happily married straight dudes actually understand women? < Crickets >

trogdor said...

A few quick points:

-The article you linked to stresses his long-held support for gay integration into old-fashioned marriage. Sorry, but your blog romance doesn't fit that category. Falling in love with one of your commenters? For as prominent a writer as Sullivan--who doesn't even have comments--that undoubtedly seems bizarre, well outside of the mainstream. So he reacted by pointing out how easily your relationship is accepted, while his is not. Does that really translate into hatred of straight people?

-Newsflash: he doesn't like you, and there's no reason for him to. He's a "conservative" beloved by liberals; you're a "liberal" beloved by conservatives. He probably doesn't want to bring more attention to you than he thinks you deserve. And sometimes it seems like he's right. Do you really think he hates heterosexuals, or are you just trying to provoke him? Either way, you basically called him a bigot with almost no basis for doing so.

Burnsey said...

holdfast-

I'm sorry, how is the message contradictory? My post to David was in response to the assertion "Gay being thought of as different."

I disagreed with him, and my response to you was to let you know the original purpose of Pride Parades had visibility at it's core and was also done on behalf of those who felt different and alone. It showed me, and others, that we were not so different and that there were others like us and that the only thing different about us as human beings was that we were sexually attracted to the same sex. And by putting a face to the label (was much harder to do in the 70's and early 80's)also went a long way in showing that we were not all so different than our heterosexual cohorts.

If you think there is a contradiction, please feel free to point out the exact contradiction and I'll be happy to address it. But as it stands I do not see a contradiction. And alas, I think you miss the bigger point. YOU PAINT ALL GAY PEOPLE WITH THE SAME BRUSH. YOU THINK WE ARE ALL THE EXACT SAME.

The difference here is that I, the gay man, do not think you and all heterosexuals are the same. Some of you are even somewhat respectable.

I judge you by your actions, you choose to define me and other LGBT by the actions and activities of other LGBT people. You don't judge on merit, but by stereotype.

My point to David was clear. Don't judge every gay person by the actions of those you may have seen or may know, because that is just as erroneous as people judging every heterosexual based on the actions of some heterosexuals. It must be nice to be afforded the privilege of being judged by your own actions rather than the actions of your contemporaries.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Fen : "If you are changing the definition of marriage, its not unfair to ask if polygamists and adult incest will also be included in the new definition.

I challenge you to provide reasons why one should be accepted and the others not. Convince me."

They should also be allowed to marry. Polygamy is even preferable to monogamy as far as the well being of children.

Richard said...

Andrew writing about sex again? Everything's about his peepee when it comes to Andrew.

Lem said...

I love it.. Althouse showing some balls ;)

Speaking truth to power.

Sullivan seems to be under the impression that his resume is a license for indecorum on the one end and right down pedantry on the other.

Courage Althouse. Show'm how is done.

holdfast said...

The contradiction is clear as day - you are being obtuse, since you seem to be too intelligent to actually not see it. The gay community lets itself be defined by the freaks at the gay pride parade - which parades are, according to you, very important to the gay community. Since that is the case, and since they are, at least in part, total freakshows, you clearly have no problem putting a freakshow at the heart of your community's identity, which to me seems really dumb if you are striving for mainstream acceptance.

I do know that this freakshow does not represent all gays, just as Jesse Jackson (in the days before Obama, PBUH) did not speak for all blacks - but he acted as if he did, and by and large he got away with it because nobody had the stones to challenge him effectively.

In some ways Sullivan was a bit of a pioneer, since he challenged gays to grow up and move into the mainstream - too bad the whole power glutes / milky loads thing kind of tarnished his "conservative" image.

My beef with Sullivan is not about his support for SSM (at least he is trying, however ineptly, to harness public support instead of just running to the 9th circuit) but rather because of his hysterical (not the funny kind) approach to politics, especially as it relates to his writings during the last two election cycles and his creepy obsession with the internal plumbing of the GOP VP candidate. I guess he thinks it is safe to use another person's infant as a weapon against her, since he'll never have kids - but that he continued his obsession even after Bristol Palin revealed that she was preggers proved that Sullivan truly is mentally ill.

Giraffe said...

I have had the pleasure of reading Andrew Sullivan for several years, both as a columnist and a blogger. Unlike Ann, I have never seen hatred for heterosexuals. Jealousy for rights they are given which are withheld from him, but never hatred. As to Ann's never ending pique over several peoples snarky comments about her impending marriage, please, grow up and get over it. When my wife and I married after 12 years of dating, the general consensus among most of our acquaintances was "OMFG, what the hell is she thinking". So what? The decision was made by us and it has proved to be the best thing either of us has done, something the doubters now acknowledge. Let it go Ann. And really, be just a little bit less critical of others shortcomings. We're not as perfect as you.

Lem said...

Let it go Ann. And really, be just a little bit less critical of others shortcomings. A little less, and a little less and a little less and before you know there is nothing left!

At some point someone has to say stop!

Palladian said...

"Unlike Ann, I have never seen hatred for heterosexuals. Jealousy for rights they are given which are withheld from him, but never hatred."

Andrew Sullivan is not a citizen of this country, therefore there are many "rights" that are withheld from him. Is he jealous of all those other rights as well? Should a grown man who is supposedly some sort of gifted thinker be forgiven for throwing fits of jealousy over things?

"As to Ann's never ending pique over several peoples snarky comments about her impending marriage, please, grow up and get over it."

Funny, I would think you could direct the same advice to a grown man who simpers and snipes at other people because he's jealous that they're getting married. But you people were never good at complex reasoning. That sort of thing might hurt someone's feelings, and that's what it's all about, isn't it?

rhhardin said...

feelings about

I'd claim it's searching for what the meaning of marriage is.

Palladian said...

"And really, be just a little bit less critical of others shortcomings."

Huh, did you say the same thing to Andrew Sullivan when you had the "pleasure" of reading all the venom he spewed at Sarah Palin and her family? Of course you didn't! That was part of the "pleasure" you experienced reading Andrew Sullivan all these years.

And it's not like you could complain to him even if you wanted to. He doesn't have comments on his weblog and Reihan Salaam would never forward a critical message to his boss. Andrew might cry, after all.

Michael Hasenstab said...

I don't get it. Sullivan wants to be married, complains that there is no gay marriage, but it seems he already is married to the man he calls his husband.

Gay marriage is now legal in Iowa, as several other states. So if Sullivan wants to be married in some sense that he isn't currently married, what prevents him and his partner from going to Iowa and getting married?

Gay marriage is legal. Not everywhere, but somewhere. If you want to get married, then go get married.

Or maybe he's demanding that gay marriage be delivered to his front doorstep covered in ribbons and bows.

He just reeks of heterophobia, especially toward women. His interest in the Palin uterus(es) is just creepy.

Lem said...

To add insult to injury Andrew gives Althouse the non apology apology.

The brush off. What a jerk.

SMGalbraith said...

The Sullivan of the nineties is not the Sullivan of today (boy, there's an understatement).

Re marriage: Sullivan had admitted, in recent years but not, interestingly during the nineties, that the wish for gay marriage has arisen only because of the promiscuity now permitted in modern marriage.

He said: "The world of no-strings heterosexual hookups and 50 percent divorce rates preceded gay marriage and that "All homosexuals are saying . . . is that, under the current definition, there’s no reason to exclude us. If you want to return straight marriage to the 1950s, go ahead. But until you do, the exclusion of gays is . . . a denial of basic civil equality".

So, in this view, gay men do not want traditional monogamous marriage, only this new version changed by divorce and open marriages.

Let's all go "Hmmm..."

Furthermore, Sullivan has also argued that the inclusion of same sex couples (okay, men) to marriage will change the institution and allow greater sexual freedom in the arrangement.

This is many things; an admiration for the institution of marriage as it has historically been views is not among them.

Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice & Andrew.

Giraffe said...

One of the best things about Andrews blog is his lack of comments. I have wasted a horrible amount of time today reading the comments here. As to whether I have advised him to calm down, yep, several times. Does he listen? Nope, but then I don't expect him to any more than I expect Ann to get over her hurt feelings. The point of comments is to express oneself. I have spent a lifetime trying to get people to rely more on logic and less on emotion. A losing battle, I know. So let Andrew, Ann and her commenters sputter and I'll continue to say, "Let's calm down and talk".

Lem said...

One of the best things about Andrews blog is his lack of comments.Yoda says..

A real growing expirience Andrews blog is.

montana urban legend said...

"One can be outraged at an exclusion and still dislike the people who are included."

Right. People who don't over-complicate matters with massive helpings of inanity usually call this "jealousy". Look! Here's a definition of it in the dictionary! Wow. You'd think bloggers with incredibly thin-skins about their reputations and how they are regarded by bloggers more famous (and more serious) than they are would understand the emotion of jealousy. But that takes a willingness to refrain from seeing oneself as the center of the universe.

Of course, it is easier to not feel jealous of people who would rather put off rejoicing in the celebration of their rights, or who at least make a more solemn acknowledgment of such things until those same rights are enjoyed by all who they feel are justly entitled to them, as a show of solidarity. But "solidarity" is another one of those complex emotions. It's even more complex than "jealousy".

Some people have a ways to go.

Lem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lem said...

So let Andrew, Ann and her commenters sputter and I'll continue to say, "Let's calm down and talk".


Choose your seconds (the b word) ;)

Sorry.. I cant say it.

Revenant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ricpic said...

Bow down to the inverts the perverts the strange
As they thrust and they fist all over the range.

Jon said...

I suspect the reason Sullivan feels free to be such a complete asshole (both re: Althouse and generally) despite the obvious negative impact this has on his ability to persuade those (like myself) who are on the fence re: SSM, is that he has come to the conclusion, based on the attitudes of the young as revealed by polling, that SSM is now a historical inevitability.

Recently, for example, he featured on his blog, a state by state projection by Nate Silver, that SSM would have majority support in the vast majority of states within about 10 years, with Iowa having a pro-SSM majority by 2013.

In fact of course, there's no guarantee that the young will maintain their current liberal attitudes on the subject as they grow older. We'll just have to wait and see.

And I find Silver's prognostication to be somewhat at odds with the fact that, demographically, CA is presently where the USA is projected to be circa 2050, yet a majority voted against SSM there.

Ironically, the same demographic trend that is pushing the GOP and those dreaded white evangelical "Christianists" toward permanent political minority status- the growth in the black/Hispanic percentage of the population- is also working against SSM: In CA, blacks and Hispanics voted against SSM while the slower-growing white and Asian population voted for it.

John Stodder said...

Why is it not OK to ban gays from getting married, but OK to ban polygamy? Because there is an existing institution, called marriage, enshrined in 50 state laws and reflected in federal law, which unites two. A gay couple (=2) cannot partake in it for the sole reason that they are a same-sex couple. A polygamist is not refused marriage, so long as he or she legally marries just one person (=2).

The legal argument against siblings marrying doesn't hold as much water, and I'm not sure it's legally defensible. But I don't see how "allowing" gay marriage logically leads to "allowing" incestuous marriages. Neither case has a legally stronger claim. Neither case depends on the other. It's not even a slippery slope. It's two separate roofs.

It is entirely possible to imagine a brother-sister couple winning a lawsuit forcing a state to recognize their marriage that has not recognized gay marriage. That there appears to be no societal movement in that direction might be an accident, or it might be a sign that the taboo against incest remains strong and vital, while it is obvious to anyone that the taboo against homosexuality is crumbling, legal gay marriage or no. Sarah Palin, reputed to be a social conservative, fully accepts civil unions, i.e. state recognition of a legal bond between two people of the same sex. I can't imagine the Republican candidate for vice president as recently as 1992 agreeing to such a position.

ricpic said...

Bow down to the inverts the perverts the weird and the strange
As they thrust fist and swallow all over the range.

Martha said...

"At the risk of defending Sullivan, how many happily married straight dudes actually understand women?"

probably NOT that many but heterosexual men try their hardest not to totally alienate heterosexual women. And heterosexual men in a committed relationship with a woman (especially if children have been produced as a result of that union) certainly are not obsessed with gynecological exams/records.

SMGalbraith said...

Why is it not OK to ban gays from getting marriedBut gay people are not banned from getting married.

The issue is whether the state (or states) should be required to recognize for legal purposes same sex marriages as they do with opposite sex marriages.

For legal purposes.

The fact that a state doesn't recognize legally a gay marriage doesn't mean the marriage is illegal. Or not allowed.

peter hoh said...

Burnsey, your timeline makes sense. Thanks for doing the research.

montana urban legend said...

"Why is it not OK to ban gays from getting married, but OK to ban polygamy?"

Because it's a given to assume than any two people might be equal in their rights, but not to assume that two people together would be equal in their rights to one person.

"It is entirely possible to imagine a brother-sister couple winning a lawsuit forcing a state to recognize their marriage that has not recognized gay marriage."

Indeed. I have no problem imagining such a scenario, if for different reasons than you do.

"And heterosexual men in a committed relationship with a woman (especially if children have been produced as a result of that union) certainly are not obsessed with gynecological exams/records."

Right. Paternity tests are a different matter. And as for what people outside of that relationship might make of such a thing, well I guess your take on that depends on what you think about lying in reference to a semen-stained dress.

Some real bending over backward going on in these threads.

ricpic said...

At the risk of defending Sullivan, how many happily married straight dudes actually understand women?No one can understand the insane.

Broken Yogi said...

Ann is just being a narcissist. Sullivan doesn't like her, and thinks Palin is a dangerous boob, so she leaps to the insane conclusion that he hates all heterosexuals. Can Ann in any way imagine that it's possible to not like her and her snooty, privileged attitude without confusing her with the entire heterosexual world?

I mean, honestly, I'm straight, married with children, and I don't like Ann, or Palin, and I found Sullivan's ongoing soap-operatic coverage of Palin highly amusing. Does that mean I hate heterosexuals too?

Lem said...

Then Sully said to the blogs, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing."Don't you know who I'am?

icowrich said...

The OMFG might represent some hostility toward you, but I don't see how that translates into hostility toward heterosexuals in any way. I got the idea that he was more taken aback by the (perceived) brevity of the courtship.

The question I would ask is this: Can you imagine him responding the same way about a quick homosexual pairing resulting in marriage? I can imagine it easily.

Lem said...

Andrew Sullivan said..

“The dirty little secret of journalism is that it really isn't a profession, it's a craft. All you need is a telephone and a conscience and you're all set.”Second thought.. forget that too.

Palladian said...

"I mean, honestly, I'm straight, married with children, and I don't like Ann, or Palin, and I found Sullivan's ongoing soap-operatic coverage of Palin highly amusing."

Huh. Would you find it "highly amusing" if we started speculating about the parentage of your children? Is your wife trying to cover something up? Did your underage daughter get knocked up? Why don't you post a link to your wife's gynecological records? Who pays for your wife's clothes? Care to show us your kid's birth certificates? Haha! Highly amusing, isn't it?

"Does that mean I hate heterosexuals too?"

No, it means you're an asshole, just like Andrew Sullivan.

Palladian said...

"Can you imagine him responding the same way about a quick homosexual pairing resulting in marriage?"

"Quick homosexual pairings", is that what your kind is calling it these days?

Lem said...

Face it Andrewlians, Althousians are not going to just sit by and let Andrew dis Althouse just because he can.

Andrew has picked on the wrong lady.

Meade said...

Okay so maybe Sullivan isn't heterophobic.

Maybe he just thinks it's okay to disrespect female people.

And God.

Peter V. Bella said...

Yeah Meade,
But disrespect leads to hatred. I just think he is insanely jealous. No one takes him seriously anymore. That has to be a blow to his overly massive ego.

Revenant said...

pushing the GOP and those dreaded white evangelical "Christianists" toward permanent political minority status- the growth in the black/Hispanic percentage of the populationThe "dreaded white evangelical Christianists" have more in common with blacks and Hispanics than most white Democrats do. It is the non-religious branches of the GOP (traditional conservatives, the economic conservatives, the libertarians, etc) that fail to appeal to minorities. Blacks and Hispanics are strongly anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-marriage, and pro-religion. What's that sound more like to you -- an evil "Christianist", or Nancy Pelosi?

You're right that the makeup of the two parties will have to change as the demographics of the country change. But there will always be two parties, both appealing to around 50% of the population. It is the nature of our system.

Joseph Hovsep said...

"I would be outraged by a private club that barred women from membership but might simultaneously hate the men who actually were members. I'd want the right to join even if I didn't want to join, because I disapprove of the discrimination."

Its an interesting analogy but I don't think its quite the right one. How about this one: You decide to join a private club that bars Jews from membership. The club is arguably necessary for your professional life and it makes sense in all kinds of ways to be a member even if the discrimination against Jews bothers you. You decide on a whim to join and expect your Jewish colleagues to be happy for you but you find that the more brazen ones are outright dismissive and resentful of your choice.

Shame on those disrespectful colleagues! It must be hatred of Gentiles motivating them.

Revenant said...

Sullivan doesn't like her, and thinks Palin is a dangerous boob, so she leaps to the insane conclusion that he hates all heterosexuals.

I think Althouse is pretty obviously tweaking Andy by making the kind of wild accusation he's so fond of making, based on a similar amount of evidence.

See, e.g., Sullivan's bizarre "that isn't really Palin's kid" theory that he posed and never really retracted.

Henry said...

So Joseph -- Would you be happier if Althouse and Meade just shacked up?

The natural endpoint of your analogy is that concerned heteros should boycott marriage.

However, this defeats the purpose. The value Sullivan assigns to marriage (as opposed to civil unions, or marriage in Iowa) is normative. For marriage to be meaningful as an institution extended to same-sex couples it has to be the thing that everyone does.

Broken Yogi said...

Palladian wrote:

"Huh. Would you find it "highly amusing" if we started speculating about the parentage of your children? Is your wife trying to cover something up? Did your underage daughter get knocked up? Why don't you post a link to your wife's gynecological records? Who pays for your wife's clothes? Care to show us your kid's birth certificates? Haha! Highly amusing, isn't it?"

If I were a celebrity, it would be highly amusing, but honestly I don't think anyone cares. Sorry, I may be an asshole as you suggest, but I just don't have that kind of ego to get upset about things like this. Now, if I were a public figure, and questions like these had been raised, I'd have been more than happy to release the appropriate medical records, because I have nothing to hide. But then again, I wouldn't have used my children as pawns to advance my political career either.

As for Revenant's mention that Sullivan never retracted the Trig accusations, how could he, since Palin has never provided a lick of proof to counter them? As Sullivan has pointed out, she could have put this all to rest a very long time ago by letting her doctor speak out, by releasing some kind of medical records, birth certificate, etc. Easy as pie. Andrew said he'd be more than willing to apologize if she does so. But, just don't hold your breath for Palin to ever release any such proof. I do notice she's not tried to sue anyone for slander about this, which ought to be an easy case to win in court. I wonder why.

Broken Yogi said...

Revanant wrote:

"The "dreaded white evangelical Christianists" have more in common with blacks and Hispanics than most white Democrats do. It is the non-religious branches of the GOP (traditional conservatives, the economic conservatives, the libertarians, etc) that fail to appeal to minorities. Blacks and Hispanics are strongly anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-marriage, and pro-religion. What's that sound more like to you -- an evil "Christianist", or Nancy Pelosi?"

I don't think you understand that the term "Christianist" that Sullivan uses refers not to people who are religious, but people whose politics is determined by their religion. Blacks and latinos tend to be religious, but they don't tend to make that the basis of their politics, as many white evangelicals are now prone to do. They tend to keep them separate, which is actually the traditional religious approach in this country. So politically they can align themselves with many people they might not go to church with, or who might not go to church at all.

Likewise, even at the level of religion, blacks and latinos tend towards a different kind of Christianity, regardless of denomination, than white evangelicals. They take the social gospel to mean that the poor and downtrodden are the blessed of God, not the rich and powerful and money-makers. So they naturally gravitate towards liberals, regardless of whether those liberals are religious or not (and many are, such as myself).

Also, since when are blacks dominated by anti-abortion sentiments? That's news to me. Where did you get that info?

Henry said...

Baldwin-Johnson said she had to induce labor, and the baby didn't come until 6:30 a.m. Friday.That good enough for you?

Apparently not.

Joseph Hovsep said...

Henry, I understand that. But I also think its unreasonable to expect the people unfairly excluded from your club to bite their tongue when they see you so casually deciding to join, especially when there is a history of antagonism between Althouse and Sullivan and when Althouse is always so eager to defend the rationales conservatives give for opposing marriage rights for gay couples.

ElcubanitoKC said...

Yogi, are you either black or "latino"?

Palladian said...

So according to Broken Yogi's logic, we need to be asking questions about Obama's daughters. I mean, I've heard rumors. They're "celebrities". If they have nothing to hide, why don't they release their medical records? Why doesn't Barack Obama release his full medical records? Where's that birth certificate? After all, if you're a "celebrity", you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent. Barack and Michelle have been using those daughters as political pawns long enough! Release the records!

And Andrew Sullivan's a "celebrity" too, so where are his medical records? He's displayed a lot of symptoms of AIDs-related dementia lately. Does he have full-blown AIDs? Isn't it our "right" to know? And about this "marriage" of his- what is his "husband's" HIV status? Has Sullivan infected him with HIV? And if he has, should that be considered a crime? The public needs to know. Otherwise I'll have to keep asking questions. He could clear this up tomorrow if he wanted to. Release the records, Glutes!

I want the speculum up the pussy and the endoscope in the anus of every "celebrity" in American politics and the media. America, and "Broken Yogi" demand answers, and we need to give them to him, good and hard and deep.

Broken Yogi said...

"I just think he is insanely jealous. No one takes him seriously anymore. That has to be a blow to his overly massive ego."

Is this whole blog a treatment center for cognitive dissonant narcissism? I mean, honestly, Sullivan is the most popular individual blogger in the country. He dwarfs Althouse by exponential numbers. He appears on TV regularly, he get published in the leading magazines and newspapers, he's written books that sell quite well, his career is miles beyond Ann's. If anyone is jealous here, it's Althouse, who can't comprehend why this cheesy little fag gets all the attention, and the only way she gets noticed is by marrying a blog commenter. It's got to hurt, is all I'm saying.

Palladian said...

Conrad Goehausen, what are you and your family hiding?

Palladian said...

Does the path of self-enquiry include harassing people about the birth records of their children, Conrad?

ElcubanitoKC said...

Actually, Yogi, let's rephrase that question since you seem to know so much about minorities. Yogi, if what you say is true, how do you explain the "rap/bling culture"? A culture based on money making and ostentation, not on modesty and restrain.

And what about the thousands of people that come to this country from some countries in Latin America so that they can freely be whom they actually are, i.e. come out of the closet?

We "minorities" are not perfect, we are just human like you, flawed. None of us need neither your pity nor your excuses, we can and should take of ourselves. And, please don't claim to speak in my name, you can't.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 251   Newer› Newest»