Wednesday, November 03, 2004

Speaking of Andrew

Andrew Sullivan early this morning: "I'm a big believer in the deep wisdom of the American people. They voted in huge numbers, and they made a judgment. Not a huge and decisive victory by any means. But at least a victory that is unlikely to be challenged. The president and his aides deserve congratulations."

Andrew Sullivan a few hours later: "Karl Rove understood the American psyche better than I did. By demonizing gay couples, the Republicans were able to bring in whole swathes of new anti-gay believers into their party. With new senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, two of the most anti-gay politicians in America, we can only brace ourselves for what is now coming."

That was fast.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

What is Sullivan smoking? How myopic. This race was not about "demonizing" gay people or courting "anti-gay" believers. The American people spoke decisively about the issue of gay marriage, which is not the same thing as being anti-gay people. But that was hardly the reason the Dems lost. If anything, Bush didn't play up the gay marriage issue as much as he could have, given the overwhelming margins on the gay marriage issue at the polls. Will Sullivan swing back to being a sharp political observer or is he going to see every issue through the gay lens from now on? I guess we should brace ourselves for that. Or just avoid AndrewSullivan.com, which would be a shame.

Ronnie Schreiber said...

Gay activists have nobody to blame but themselves. By forcing the issue through the courts and renegade elected officials, they handed the Republicans a great get out the vote issue. It's Sullivan and his fellow activists for gay marriage who ensured that Evangelicals and other social conservatives would not stay home this election.

Michigan had a marriage related ballot proposal to define marriage as heterosexual. Frankly I'm ambivalent on the issue but I voted against same-sex marriage because the gay activists who promote it are cultural revolutionaries who don't really endorse the institution of marriage anyway.

Anonymous said...

Me thinks bizarro jack needs to make an argument. That would be the first step in an effort to convince others. Opining that those others are wrong and biggoted is merely your assumption. A rather tenuous foundation upon which to lay your claim.

A marriage performed by a JOP is a marriage conducted under the authority of the state. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Look it up in a dictionary. A simple explanation is that words have a fixed and consistent usage and definition. Voters prefer it that way. Like it or lump it, as they say.

I suggest you're living in an alternative universe--one where you decide definitions and usage.

Anonymous said...

Just because one is against gay marriage does NOT mean one wants to lynch gay people. Marriage is the centre and base of our civilization. The man and woman concerned - with the children they engender and nurture - are of central importance to our society - and therefore, the state.

In fact, given the position of marriage in ALL societies at ALL times in history, I think it is gay marriage proponents who have an obligation to explain why gay marriage will NOT hurt our society as a whole.

Anyway, you Americans are very lucky: you have been able to register your opinion in the ballot box. We in Canada are not allowed to do so - our judiciary is too strong, and our democracy is now too weak.