Writing in the Washington Post, Michael Gerson observes:
Just 20 years ago, opposition to abortion and opposition to homosexual rights seemed to overlap entirely. They appeared to be expressions of the same traditionalist moral framework, destined to succeed or fail together as twin pillars of the culture war.
But in the years since, the fortunes of these two social stands have dramatically diverged. A May 2009 Gallup poll found that more Americans, for the first time, describe themselves as "pro-life" than "pro-choice." A February CNN-Time poll found that half of Americans, for the first time, believe that homosexuality is "not a moral issue." This divergence says something about successful social movements in America.
He goes on to note that:
...a generation of thoughtful gay rights advocates, exemplified by Jonathan Rauch of the National Journal, has made the argument for joining traditional institutions instead of smashing them. More radical activists have criticized this approach as assimilationist and bourgeois. But only bourgeois arguments triumph in America. And many have found this more conservative argument for gay rights-encouraging homosexual commitment through traditional institutions-less threatening than moral anarchism.
That speaks to the advancement of gay marriage and other "assimilationist" goals once virulently denounced by "progressive" gays as "rightwing." But going back to Gerson's initial point about abortion, many leading gay political groups still maintain a pro-abortion-on-demand litmus test for candidates they'll endorse, including the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund. This effectively eliminates many Republican gays-and gay-supportive but pro-life Republicans (and a few Democrats)-from ever being backed by these officially nonpartisan LGBT groups.
More. Another sign of the times. Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, a Republican and long-time social conservative, unexpectedly issued a directive barring discrimination against gay state workers. As the Christian Science Monitor reports:
By making that move, the governor "is now projecting the image of reasonableness and inclusiveness," says Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "This is not going over with the hardcore right-wing elements in the party, but it is a necessity for governing and it tells you where our society has gone. McDonnell has recognized a reality."
Small steps forward are still steps forward, and we'll only fully gain equality under the law when anti-gay stances are anathema among both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans.
Corvino, John
{ 63 comments }
Why are gay organizations so stupid? The NRA doesn’t focus on how politicians vote on abortion, they focus on their thing which is the second amendment and free speech (which campaign finance reform took away for a while). Gay organizations need to focus on gay rights and nothing else. Remember, jack of all trades, master of none.
I’d be interested to know how the NRA does that, since most progressives are for gun control and most conservatives are for gun rights. What kind of leadership does it take for an organization to be fanatical on only a single issue?
Oh, right, that whole rainbow coalition mindset is a progressive thing.
I too get a sense that on gay rights, the pro-gay side is winning and the abortion issue, the pro-life side is gaining ground. Maybe it’s because with abortion, a life is being taken. Imagery is a factor also. Which is more attractive: smiling happy couples or a bloody, lifeless fetus?
“Another sign of the times. Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, a Republican and long-time social conservative, unexpectedly issued a directive barring discrimination against gay state workers”
I’m sorry, but this is pure partisanship. Gov. Bob McDonnell only issued his executive directive (which may or may not actually have any force of law behind it) after having rescinded a pre-existing executive order and replaced it with one that explicitly (note that, explicitly) allowed discrimination against homosexuals – Executive Order 6, if you want the reference.
So yes, there was a massive outcry against McDonnell’s actions… but…. it was amongst the Virginian students, not the Republicans.
“I’d be interested to know how the NRA does that, since most progressives are for gun control and most conservatives are for gun rights. What kind of leadership does it take for an organization to be fanatical on only a single issue?”
—The NRA knows that some of the members may be liberal in some issues like abortion, affirmative action, welfare, the death penalty, etc. So instead of alienating members by getting involved with non-gun issues, they focus on one issue and thus all NRA members enjoy common ground.
Besides, the NRA gets results, Obama himself has said that he believes in the second amendment as an individual right to bear arms even though his voting record proves otherwise. The DNC knows that gun control will hurt them, so most democrats avoid it like the plague at the federal level.
“I too get a sense that on gay rights, the pro-gay side is winning and the abortion issue, the pro-life side is gaining ground. Maybe it’s because with abortion, a life is being taken. Imagery is a factor also. Which is more attractive: smiling happy couples or a bloody, lifeless fetus?”
********************************************
This would appear to be someone taking pleasure from believing that a sudden flash of light will expose the lineaments of the wolf……so to speak.
The abortion issue is immaterial to the issue of SSM, although SSM proponents tirelessly inundate the discussion with tedious longueur.
To embrace your flirtation with the fundamentalist/religious view of abortion, one would have to believe that “life” begins at conception.
Many believe that it begins at birth, although, even those who vehemently support the woman’s right to choose do not support abortion in the late stages of the pregnancy when the fetus is fully formed.
But I do understand how someone whose apparent knowledge of, and interest in, procreation—the natural way for which the body was designed—could so sloppily make such grotesque comparisons.
I’m waiting with bated breath for the “race” and “ethnic” tools to surface…..as they do ad nauseum.
Lastly, as with any controversial issue, images and dramatic photographs illustrating one point-of-view or the other can be easily achieved.
Let’s not even discuss the ravages and the downside of the “gay” issues which you tout as “winning”.
Who knows? Perhaps the SSM démarche will soon be successful with regard to law; however, it will never be fully embraced at the visceral level—even by many of those “sensitive” Liberals who will support it publicly.
The SSM issue is, quite simply, in its own category and always will be.
One thing the SSM “activists” have in common with those rabid conservatives like Sarah Palin: They bore the hell out of everyone within earshot by trying to reorganize reality.
Daniel “I’m sorry, but this is pure partisanship. Gov. Bob McDonnell only issued his executive directive (which may or may not actually have any force of law behind it) after having rescinded a pre-existing executive order…”
So a social conservative changes course and instead of cheering his veering away from bigotry, you still condemn him. That’s the way to ensure that the GOP remains anti-gay forever, which is what Democrats want (it’s in their partisan interest). So, just who is being purely partisan, Daniel?
…A social conservative “changes course” under severe electoral pressure without actually changing course (remember, Executive Order 6 stands, since executive directives have no force of law behind them and are “advice”), and we should applaud the rhetorical sop given to gay rights and ignore the actual legal attack on them? That seems to be a course for losing everything in exchange for pretty words.
“…..losing everything in exchange for pretty words.”
******************************************
You’ve just described Obama’s way of handling the SSM issue.
Good job!
Even as people like Andrew Sullivan—who also seems to be descending into a professional psychosis, of late, with his current anti-Semitic rants and shoddy “journalism”—continue to provide cover for Obama’s lack of support.
Wonder why gays who tout themselves as knowledgeable on the issues of the day say nothing about this at all? Even as they look stupid in the process.
Pot……kettle…..black.
…A social conservative “changes course” under severe electoral pressure without actually changing course (remember, Executive Order 6 stands, since executive directives have no force of law behind them and are “advice”), and we should applaud the rhetorical sop given to gay rights and ignore the actual legal attack on them? That seems to be a course for losing everything in exchange for pretty words.
Okay, that’s a whole lot of inside baseball to absorb. Are you sure he was under political pressure to “change course” instead of to really change course or there being no pressure at all? Well, if it’s not over yet, then good luck.
The NRA knows that some of the members may be liberal in some issues like abortion, affirmative action, welfare, the death penalty, etc. So instead of alienating members by getting involved with non-gun issues, they focus on one issue and thus all NRA members enjoy common ground.
Yes, but… it seems ridiculous that this is actually a difference between them and gay organizations.
So I decided to ask the horses themselves and go on the NRA website. And I read the following from their Executive Director:
“The NRA is successful because of three little words: Truth and Justice. The NRA refuses to tell the American people anything but the truth. The NRA demands justice for all. And because we’ve held firm to our deepest convictions, the American people trust and respect the NRA like no other organization in Washington. That’s the simple secret of our success.”
Sounds like a load of BS to me. [Thinks of the gay organizations, the feminist organizations, the black organizations, and contrasts with PETA for good measure.] Never mind.
I think that if they ever do discover a gay gene, all the pro-choice homos will flip-flop overnight.
“Yes, but… it seems ridiculous that this is actually a difference between them and gay organizations.”
—It’s not ridiculous, I quit paying attention to HRC after they refused to endorse pro-life candidates that were gay friendly. I’m pro-choice, but if I want to support abortion I don’t want to do it through HRC.
“So I decided to ask the horses themselves and go on the NRA website. And I read the following from their Executive Director:”
—Why don’t you do what I did? Call them and ask them if gays can join.
“Sounds like a load of BS to me. [Thinks of the gay organizations, the feminist organizations, the black organizations, and contrasts with PETA for good measure.] Never mind.”
—PETA? Are you kidding me? Those people are clowns, they get attention through ridiculous shock tactics, even the former president of PETA has condemn them. The NRA doesn’t engage in those tactics. As for black organizations, the NAACP supports gun control which means they support disarming law-abiding black men in bad neighborhoods.
Either way, if I was a congressman I’d be more afraid to cross the NRA and the AARP than any other organization unless I came from a very liberal state. Let’s just say Barney Frank is lucky he runs from Massachusetts.
My question was more about what is different about the NRA that makes them act differently and makes them successful compared to gay rights organizations.
PETA? Are you kidding me? Those people are clowns… the NRA doesn’t engage in those tactics.
I don’t agree with you.
The gay, feminist, and black organizations and leaders are overall very progressive/Democratic-pushing, and they’re very transparently hypocritical about it. Every month, like clockwork, actual or imagined controversy and we get to see the double-standard in action by how loud these groups squeal depending on whether a Democrat or a Republican, a powerful/majority or disenfranchised/minority is involved. Each passing year, the country takes these organizations and their leaders less and less seriously.
PETA in contrast gets attention with at least some of its ads and gets people talking. It’s very nonpartisan, and consistent in saying the same thing every time in every situation.
Bit of an editing error there. It should say something like “every month, like clockwork, we see another actual or imagined controversy…”
Also, while this is the first I’ve heard of anything like it, a couple of weeks ago there was a story on gun rights people walking in groups into Starbucks franchises to publicize open carry laws. I don’t think much of displays like that.
I agree that gay rights groups should be more focused.
At the same time, I think that a lot of women focus on abortion as a critical issue on which a lot of women’s rights issues hinge – and that any serious abortion backlash will take a lot of women’s issues with it. Whether that perception is true or not is debatable as a separate issue.
So it’s my understanding that, even though abortion is almost a null issue for lesbians, since it is seen as a critical women’s issue, you’ll have a hard time keeping it off the table. Removing it is often seen as a symptom of “lesbian invisibility” in gay groups.
At least we don’t have to save the whales any more to be a valid gay group.
The NRA is successful because it is a single issue group that is intensely focused and relentless.
Bobby: “Why don’t you do what I did? Call them and ask them if gays can join.”
Bobby, if you are referring to the NRA, the answer is yes, gays can join.
Gays might have difficulty with individual NRA members — including, most famously, Charlton Heston, who seems to live in another century — but the NRA itself makes no distinction between straight and gay and most chapters (based, admittedly, on anecdotal evidence from gay friends who are NRA members, rather than any kind of poll data) seem not to care about sexual orientation.
The “Pink Pistols” are affiliated with the NRA.
I am a gun owner. I support concealed carry, which is not currently available in Wisconsin. I don’t have a problem with limited regulation — I am registered and comply with the law — but I think that widespread concealed carry by gays and lesbians would have a salutary effect on potential gay-bashers.
“….Charlton Heston, who seems to live in another century….”
*******************************************
Well, whatever century can be debated.
But since he’s dead, he’s most certainly in a different world.
I’m not “into” guns and such hardware, but it seems odd for anyone to be concerned with the sexual orientation of those who want to carry them.
Amusing, that.
I think you may also need to look outside the United States. Opposition to abortion and LGBT rights are still closely collected amongst the US Christian Right’s satellite movements in other countries. And when I say satellites, I mean just that. Perhaps you don’t realise that they try to export rhetoric, propaganda, tactics and strategy to locales outside your country, leading to resentment of the United States from political progressives elsewhere.
There are complexities that you fail to grasp here. For example, what about libertarians who are pro-choice and pro-gay? What about ex-Republicans
who have been alienated from their party through rampant authoritarian conservative statism?
Sorry, but you’re deluding yourselves.
“Progressive” anti-abortionists are a
tiny minority within their movement.
And I’m not sure that you’d find their
other views on defence policy and
central government welfare provision
particularly appealing from your fiscal responsibility perspective…
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
Debrah: “I’m not “into” guns and such hardware, but it seems odd for anyone to be concerned with the sexual orientation of those who want to carry them. Amusing, that.”
Amusing, I suppose, but Heston was a bad apple and he was the head and symbol of the NRA for many years. He was a wing-nut, and built the organization in his image. As a result, enough NRA members seem to come from the fringe right — black helicopters and all that — to make NRA orientation neutrality worth noting.
I don’t know about being “into” guns — being “into” guns (as well as other things) seems to be an urban fascination. Not enough to do, I guess.
Guns are an everyday part of rural life, as ordinary as bread and butter. Gun ownership and use doesn’t break down along “conservative” and “liberal” lines in this area, in any event.
If men, gay or straight, Republican or Democrat, could get pregnant … abortion would be available in convenience stores and drive-through windows.
Jimmy, many women don’t think terminating the life of an unborn baby should be easy and convenient.
“If men, gay or straight, Republican or Democrat, could get pregnant … abortion would be available in convenience stores and drive-through windows.”
**********************************************
The quote of the day.
No truer words have ever come off another keyboard.
GIS!
Whatever our individual positions on abortion itself, it seems to me that we should all work to protect the individual’s freedom of conscience from government interference in this arena.
I suppose that is a “pro-choice” position in today’s either/or, black/white, “for us or against us” religiously-framed political environment, but it seems to me that “pro-choice” versus “pro-life” misstates the issue; the real issue is whether or not we believe that the government should be empowered to interfere in the abortion decision.
With respect to the topic of the thread, I believe that that the HRC, GLAAD, Lambda Legal and other gay-advocacy groups should be single-issue, single-minded and single-purpose — advocates for equal treatment under the law, period.
@another steve – The morning that you wake up and discover that you are, in fact, a woman is the day you may inform us on what women “think” about anything…right after you alert the media.
If “a woman” (singular) is somehow entitled to tell us what “women” (plural) think about an issue, than “a man” (singular) is only slightly less entitled to offer his opinion on what “women” think.
“Amusing, I suppose, but Heston was a bad apple and he was the head and symbol of the NRA for many years. He was a wing-nut, and built the organization in his image. As a result, enough NRA members seem to come from the fringe right — black helicopters and all that — to make NRA orientation neutrality worth noting.”
—Tom, I’m a member of the NRA and get the magazine every month. There’s no right-wing cookie conspiracy theories or talk about black helicopter. When Heston spoke as a private person, yes, he made his views known, but when he spoke as President of the NRA he focused solely on guns and free speech.
He was an excellent president who raised the organizations numbers. He was a man of principle who didn’t bend over when pressured to do so.
“PETA in contrast gets attention with at least some of its ads and gets people talking. It’s very nonpartisan, and consistent in saying the same thing every time in every situation.”
—PETA is not persuasive, they are just as annoying as ACT-UP used to be, except that the ACT-UP people were fighting for something worthy rather than calling Obama cruel for killing a fly. The funny thing about progressives, and I’m not saying you’re one of them, is that they think an organization is influential if it has a lot of celebrities. If that was the case, Obama’s popularity rating would be 90%, health care reform would have been passed last year and we’d be running towards European-style socialism. Instead, Obama’s facing a well-organized opposition. Progressives cry like children “we won, we can do whatever we want.” Well, that’s never the case no matter who wins.
Gay organizations like PETA have lots of celebrities, yet when it comes to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, it’s the testimony of real people that counts. In fact, pro-gay people like Sean Penn, the hateful actor who played Harvey Milk and who said people who refer to Hugo Chavez as a dictator should go to jail, do more harm than good.
Now, when it comes to outing celebrities I take a different view, because every time a straight-acting man is outed the stereotypes against us are undermined. But when Sean Penn says “I support same-sex marriage” chances are some people might say “I hate Sean Penn, so same-sex marriage must be bad.”
@Throbert McGee – and I am entitled to offer my opinion on said man’s opinion.
I agree with Tom that the gay rights movement should focus its efforts; but, we must also avoid operating in a vacuum.
It sucks.
I own guns, ones of the type the municipality in which I live has determined to be reasonable. I don’t believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees unfettered access, since it does include the words “well regulated”.
I think where abortion is concerned, there is a distinct difference between a zygote, or even an embryo, and a six month old fetus, and I have no problem with abortion laws reflecting that distinction.
But, I really have call into question the notion that the Catholic Church can consider itself a force for compassion in the world when it will excommunicate a doctor for freeing a 9 year old girl of the trauma of bringing into the world the fruits of her rape while offering absolution to her rapists.
The forces arrayed against us, the GOD GUNS and GAYS crowd, make a lot of hay with their trinitarianism.
I fully support the notion that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It’s so much more fun.
And PETA is annoying. I’ve always wanted a glorious beaver…coat, that is.
Bobby: “I’m a member of the NRA and get the magazine every month. There’s no right-wing cookie conspiracy theories or talk about black helicopter.”
I’m an NRA member. Although I don’t always agree with the NRA — I think that the NRA often goes beyond what is constitutionally mandated — I think that the NRA is useful and I agree that NRA’s publications and website are mainstream. I’m not talking about the NRA’s publications, though, or even of the NRA as an organization, per se. I’m talking about the members that Heston, with his fringe views, attracted. A lot of these folks are as off-map on LGBT issues as he was.
Jimmy: “I agree with Tom that the gay rights movement should focus its efforts; but, we must also avoid operating in a vacuum. … The forces arrayed against us, the GOD GUNS and GAYS crowd, make a lot of hay with their trinitarianism. I fully support the notion that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
It seems to me that there is a difference between what we support or oppose as individuals and what we expect our LGBT advocacy organizations to support or oppose are distinct.
To my way of thinking our LGBT advocacy organizations should focus on LGBT equality to the exclusion of everything else. As I see things, that’s not operating in a vacuum, that’s focused advocacy.
Individuals, of course, have a wider scope. I think that’s great, if that’s what individuals want to do.
But just as I don’t think we should expect Planned Parenthood to be advocating for ENDA, I don’t think Lamba Legal should be taking on abortion cases.
We are a small minority in the population, with limited resources. We need to keep focused on the goal.
It’s hard to take either the WashPo article or this introduction seriously when both are so obviously biased.
That speaks to the advancement of gay marriage and other “assimilationist” goals once virulently denounced by “progressive” gays as “rightwing.”
BULLSHIT. It’s amazing how much mileage certain right-leaning commentators try to get out of this lie. They cannot seem to grasp that the right to full equality long sought by the majority of left-leaning gay people has included the right to marriage since before these commentators were born.
Andrew Sullivan employs this tactic all the time. You’d think that, until he arrived on the scene, no gay person had ever thought of getting married! How his book released in the 80s reached back in time and caused two gay men in Colorado to seek a marriage license back in 1972 is never explained…
Sullivan, Rauch, and others who have been “making the conservative argument for gay rights” for a couple decades now are just making some of the same arguments that liberal gay people, middle-of-the-road gay people and conservative gay people without access to the Reagan administration have been making since the 40s. There’s nothing original in the argument.
Mr. Miller states, “…many leading gay political groups still maintain a pro-abortion-on-demand litmus test for candidates they’ll endorse, including the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund. This effectively eliminates many Republican gaysâand gay-supportive but pro-life Republicans (and a few Democrats)âfrom ever being backed by these officially nonpartisan LGBT groups.”
How many Republican gays? Enough that I should really care given that the Republican party is lurching further to the right that ever? This vision that Republican gays are something other than a quaint novelty, when viewed within the context of national GOP politics, is looking more like mirage.
I have to wonder what LCR spokesman Charlie Moran means when he says, “We are kicking down the doors and really forcing the Republican Party to deal with the fact there are gay conservatives.â
Really, Chuck?
Oh I forgot, LCR is on the outs and it’s GOProud who is going to ride in and somehow make meaningful inroads with the GOP. It’s so hard to keep track. The day that either of these organizations have any ameliorating effect on GOP platform where LGBT is concerned is the day I will take them seriously.
“I’m an NRA member. Although I don’t always agree with the NRA — I think that the NRA often goes beyond what is constitutionally mandated”
—Well, I’m glad you and Jimmy share some of my political views. I watch Glenn Beck and have learned that the founding fathers wanted our country to have freedom without anarchy and with the smallest possible government.
Moving on, if you think the NRA goes too far, you should check out Gun Owners of America which accuses the NRA of compromising with unconstitutional laws such as background checks and waiting periods which the NRA supports.
Personally, I don’t believe in gun control. The law should punish crimes, not whether you carry a gun, knife or bazooka. Gun control punishes the law-abiding to preserve the criminal. Bad people don’t care about the law, if I need a gun and don’t want to wait 5 days, I can go around the government. How? Easy.
Step 1. Find a homeless person or drug addict.
Step 2. Communicate your desire to buy a gun.
Step 3. Wait for him to contact his dealer.
Step 4. Arrange a meeting.
Step 5. Get your gun.
See? So while the law-abiding citizen is waiting his or her 5 days to buy a gun, the man who will kill him or her already has the gun, knife, baseball bat or can get it right away.
It occurs to me that you could also "undermine the stereotypes" by badgering out-and-proud queens to stop being so fucking effeminate.
Arguably, this isn’t a very nice thing to do, but outing closeted celebs because you, personally, suffer from a gigantic sense of entitlement, and you’re unembarrassed to use a stranger’s "straight-acting-ness" for your own perceived political gain, isn’t very nice, either.
Oh, fiddlesticks. Forgot to close the blockquote tag in my previous post.
The Second Amendment is tied, historically, to reluctance to maintain a standing army and the role of the states in the federal system as a deterrent to national power.
Although the constitutional arguments tend to cluster around marginal issues (interstate transport of arms, and so on), the core question lying within the Second Amendment, it seems to me, is the role of an armed citizenry in deterring undemocratic government.
It seems to me that we are going to have to confront that question, in terms of modern military technology, sooner or later, if the Second Amendment is going to have any meaning beyond the right to bear arms for individual self-defense.
In earlier times, military weaponry was little different than personal weaponry, and any citizen familiar with arms could be trained to fight effectively in a relatively short period of time. That is no longer the case.
Modern military weapons — even weapons as simple and portable as C-4 or daisy cutters — are remarkably destructive and even these weapons will not do much in modern conflict. An effective military force depends on highly sophisticated weapons and highly skilled personnel using those weapons.
I the present, maintaining a powerful standing army as we do, it seems to me that the only way in which an armed citizenry could deter undemocratic government would be through use of guerrilla warfare, and that is a form of warfare that an average citizen would not be capable of fighting without intensive and long-term training.
So how are we going to train large numbers of our citizenry and properly arm them for guerrilla warfare? It seems to me that this is where “well-regulated” comes into play, as Jimmy pointed out. But who regulates, and at what level of government or quasi-government? I don’t have an answer.
Bob N: “Sullivan, Rauch, and others who have been “making the conservative argument for gay rights” for a couple decades now are just making some of the same arguments that liberal gay people, middle-of-the-road gay people and conservative gay people without access to the Reagan administration have been making since the 40s. There’s nothing original in the argument.”
Dead right. The marriage movement has always been a “ground up” movement. Although I think that Jon Rauch articulated the case for marriage with real clarity (Sullivan less so), the idea didn’t originate in the minds of conservative theorists.
“Andrew Sullivan employs this tactic all the time. You’d think that, until he arrived on the scene, no gay person had ever thought of getting married!”
*******************************************
In truth, Andrew Sullivan is a self-serving, overrated poseur.
I’m angry with myself for thinking otherwise in the past.
When he used to show up on the political talk shows and panels, he’d put on a charade of being something apart from the usual gay Leftist loudmouth incapable of discussing topics unrelated to his own sexuality.
However, as this country has embraced this non-citizen, and as he’s moved up the ladder of journalism and blogdom, his true agenda surfaces more and more……making him just another loudmouth gay “activist” with a permanent whine.
Here’s a recent lecture he gave in which he’s simply rhapsodic.
It even brought tears to my eyes at one point. :< ) LIS!
Complete with the typical religious piety that accompanies such conversations…..flavored with the obligatory dose of “G/d-liness” to prove how serious gay men are about “matrimony”.
But if one’s past performance is, indeed, any indication of what future performances will be (and have been), Sullivan has a rather…..how do you say?……checkered past with regard to credibility.
Check out what this freaky man tried to put forth to the public about Palin’s pregnancy. His Wiki page outlines so much of his slithery positions and his inability to back down from his fabrications about other people.
Very similar to the oily drone, Nancy Grace. The only difference are the accents and the inflections of their deliveries.
***** “In May 2001, Village Voice columnist Michael Musto said that Sullivan had anonymously posted advertisements for bareback sex (anal sex without a condom) on America Online and the now-defunct website barebackcity.com, despite being HIV positive.” *****
***** “Sullivan responded that his advertisement stated that he was HIV-positive and he intended to have bareback sex only with consenting adults who were HIV-positive. According to Sullivan, limiting unprotected sex to other HIV-positive men reduces the risk inherent in the behavior.” ******
Great strategy, Andrew!
Does anyone wish to throw up now ….or later?
Yesterday when I read this Wiki, there were many more citations of Sullivan’s lies and smears, but I see that someone (most likely Sullivan, himself) has deleted them.
His loose style and inattention to truth……along with his prissy distaste for anyone in disagreement with his newfound Left-leaning tactics serve to illuminate his gossipy-fishwife-fare posing as profundity.
His current anti-Israel and anti-Jew smears are something we would not have seen from Sullivan a decade ago.
Now that he’s evolved into a chubby bald man (who looks much older than he actually is) and his years on the circuit and ability to attract loose and ready twinks by placing bareback advertisements—dangerous promiscuity galore—have waned, he appears to have “settled down”.
Settling into an apparent Leftist Liberal side of town after faking Republican conservative credentials when they gave him cachet and made him a political novelty.
Sullivan’s “convictions” are synonymous with any position on which he can capitalize at some point down the line.
After reading more in depth, I’m struck by just how vile this little misogynistic chubby b!tch of a man can be…….
…….as he waxes angelic on Catholicism.
"Andrew Sullivan employs this tactic all the time. You’d think that, until he arrived on the scene, no gay person had ever thought of getting married!" *******************************************
In truth, Andrew Sullivan is a self-serving, overrated poseur. I’m angry with myself for thinking otherwise in the past.
When he used to show up on the political talk shows and panels, he’d put on a charade of being something apart from the usual gay Leftist loudmouth incapable of discussing topics unrelated to his own sexuality.
However, as this country has embraced this non-citizen, and as he’s moved up the ladder of journalism and blogdom, his true agenda surfaces more and more……making him just another loudmouth gay "activist" with a permanent whine.
Here’s a recent lecture he gave in which he’s simply rhapsodic. It even brought tears to my eyes at one point.
But if one’s past performance is, indeed, any indication of what future performances will be (and have been), Sullivan has a rather…..how do you say?……checkered past with regard to credibility. Check out what this freaky man tried to put forth to the public about Palin’s pregnancy. His Wiki page outlines so much of his slithery positions and his inability to back down from his fabrications about other people. Very similar to the oily drone, Nancy Grace. The only differences are the accents and the inflections of their deliveries. *****
"In May 2001, Village Voice columnist Michael Musto said that Sullivan had anonymously posted advertisements for bareback sex (anal sex without a condom) on America Online and the now-defunct website barebackcity.com, despite being HIV positive." ***** *****
"Sullivan responded that his advertisement stated that he was HIV-positive and he intended to have bareback sex only with consenting adults who were HIV-positive. According to Sullivan, limiting unprotected sex to other HIV-positive men reduces the risk inherent in the behavior." ******
Great strategy, Andrew! Does anyone wish to throw up now ….or later? Yesterday when I read this Wiki, there were many more citations of Sullivan’s lies and smears, but I see that someone (most likely Sullivan, himself) has deleted them. His loose style and inattention to truth……along with his prissy distaste for anyone in disagreement with his newfound Left-leaning tactics serve to illuminate his gossipy-fishwife-fare posing as profundity.
His current anti-Israel and anti-Jew smears are something we would not have seen from Sullivan a decade ago. Now that he’s evolved into a chubby bald man (who looks much older than he actually is) and his years on the circuit and ability to attract loose and ready twinks by placing bareback advertisements—dangerous promiscuity galore—have waned, he appears to have "settled down".
Settling into an apparent Leftist Liberal side of town after faking Republican conservative credentials when they gave him cachet and made him a political novelty. Sullivan’s "convictions" are synonymous with any position on which he can capitalize at some point down the line. After reading more in depth, I’m struck by just how vile this little misogynistic chubby b!tch of a man can be……. …….as he waxes angelic on Catholicism.
Sorry about the duplication, but half of the post keeps being cut off.
Perhaps I’m using a link that is at odds with the system.
How perplexing!
how perplexing
You probably have a stray < in your post.
Sullivan can be infuriating, but he’s hardly a “poseur”.
Poseur or not, he is most certainly a hack.
It’s awesome when gay men- who can neither become pregnant nor who regularly impregnate women- favor selling out women’s rights in order to advance the gay rights agenda!
Good thing no one in the LGBT rights movement is a woman. This strategy just might work!
It seems to me that there is a difference between what we support or oppose as individuals and what we expect our LGBT advocacy organizations to support or oppose are distinct.
To my way of thinking our LGBT advocacy organizations should focus on LGBT equality to the exclusion of everything else. As I see things, that’s not operating in a vacuum, that’s focused advocacy.
Yes, I agree with that. Would you believe some people are offended by that? I wish everyone else luck in their mission and I support them, but I’m only one person with one mission here.
See? So while the law-abiding citizen is waiting his or her 5 days to buy a gun, the man who will kill him or her already has the gun, knife, baseball bat or can get it right away.
Five days? Good grief! Solution is simple: get the gun now, worry about when you need it later.
Unless in you live in NYC in which case you already have to be killed to take it outside your home–but you can defend your home!
Wait, actually, you can’t… but you can get the gun.
Yes BobN, I put a “smiley face” and couched it in bold after that last sentence and perhaps one of those “<” that you mention was turned the wrong way.
Wonder if I should try the rest of the post?
Can you take it?
Oh, man…..
You can’t use a < because in HTML it indicates the beginning of an HTML tag (italics, bolding, etc.). If you want to type one for folks to SEE, you have to use the HTML entity.
< = less than, is displayed by typing < (ampersand followed immediately by “lt” (less than) and a semi-colon)
HTML entities start with an ampersand and end with a semi-colon.
Thanks BobN, for that excellent tutorial.
In the past, I simply had never run across this problem.
I was attempting to write the “less than” sign when responding to you and I placed quotation marks around it, resulting in the same issue as before.
So, I assume if I had just written the “less than” sign without using the quotation marks, everything would have been OK.
In any case, even though it’s not in the original form, the full comment emerged…..sans the superfluous “smiley face”. LIS!
And I agree with Jimmy: Sullivan is a hack. His true motivations continue to surface.
The Great Catholic Cover-Up from Hitchens at Slate.
“The pope’s entire career has the stench of evil about it.”
************************************
This is why I adore Hitchens and Krauthammer so much.
No verbal emollients for them.
“It occurs to me that you could also “undermine the stereotypes” by badgering out-and-proud queens to stop being so fucking effeminate.”
—So I’m supposed to tell Ru Paul to give up dressing up like a woman? Nonsense, the problem isn’t that some gays are effeminate, the problem is that the ones who aren’t don’t always come out.
“Arguably, this isn’t a very nice thing to do, but outing closeted celebs because you, personally, suffer from a gigantic sense of entitlement, and you’re unembarrassed to use a stranger’s “straight-acting-ness” for your own perceived political gain, isn’t very nice, either.”
—Heterosexual celebrities are often “outed,” that is, their sexual adventures get outed all the time. Tiger Woods is a good example of that. So if there was evidence that Tiger is gay and he’s cheating on his wife with men, why not use that evidence in the media? If you want to be in the closet, you have no right to enjoy anything from the gay community. That is, you don’t get to go to our bars, you don’t get to hire our escorts, you don’t get to go to the White Party, and if you advertise on craiglist make sure you don’t show your face and you meet another closet guy, or else you will be outed. That’s the way it should be.
“So how are we going to train large numbers of our citizenry and properly arm them for guerrilla warfare? It seems to me that this is where “well-regulated” comes into play, as Jimmy pointed out. But who regulates, and at what level of government or quasi-government? I don’t have an answer.”
—We don’t have to do anything, citizens who choose to train will find plenty of militias and gun ranges where they can train. You don’t need to be GI Joe to fight in a war, lots of Afghan kids have fought and proven themselves worthy soldiers.
Tom: “So how are we going to train large numbers of our citizenry and properly arm them for guerrilla warfare? It seems to me that this is where “well-regulated” comes into play, as Jimmy pointed out. But who regulates, and at what level of government or quasi-government? I don’t have an answer.”
Bobby: “We don’t have to do anything, citizens who choose to train will find plenty of militias and gun ranges where they can train. You don’t need to be GI Joe to fight in a war, lots of Afghan kids have fought and proven themselves worthy soldiers.”
Afghan kids who were taught by fathers and uncles who spent a decade fighting down the armies of the Soviet Union. In other words, Afghan kids who were taught guerrilla warfare by some of the best guerrilla warriors in the world.
What passes for “militias” among the right-wing whack nuts in this country taking on the 82nd Airborne? ROTFLMAO.
“Afghan kids who were taught by fathers and uncles who spent a decade fighting down the armies of the Soviet Union. In other words, Afghan kids who were taught guerrilla warfare by some of the best guerrilla warriors in the world.”
—How much time does an 8 year old soldier spend training? Conflicts in both Afghanistan and Africa are full of fine soldiers with little training. Even in the USA it only takes the army 9 weeks to turn a private into a marine and if he has chosen infantry as his career, no further training is required, they will be shipped straight to war.
Using guns is not rocket science, you just need to know how to shoot and have the courage to shoot when the time comes. I have read of 80 year old men in wheelchairs defeat 20 year old home invaders. So if an invalid can defend himself, imagine people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and even 50s.
“What passes for “militias” among the right-wing whack nuts in this country taking on the 82nd Airborne? ROTFLMAO.”
—I would not be laughing at them, there’s quite a few veterans in the militia movement, they are being trained by people that got trained by the army. If there’s ever a situation of social unrest the way it was after Katrina, it’s the rednecks and gun owners that are going to survive while the frapuccino-drinking progressives are gonna be running for their lives.
This Oath Keepers patriot movement, along with the survivalist mentality in general, strikes me as a bunch of dickheads who want play soldier.
I’ve noticed that people who have actually been to war, and made it back, and really faced some heavy sh*t, don’t live their lives on the edge of a hole that they dug, with barbed wire around it, stocked with MREs, Old Milwaukee, and Slim Jims. Their not particularly paranoid, either.
There are a fare number of paranoid burn-outs, social misfits, and general losers who didn’t have what it takes to serve in uniform honorably, that can be counted within the ranks of these organizations. And they are well armed.
Now, I’m fully aware that they have the right associate as they please. I just hope someone is paying attention.
Comments on this entry are closed.