Andrew Sullivan, renowned homosexual blogger, who was once a staunch supporter of Bush and the war in Iraq has turned his back on his old loves. Sullivan now openly embraces Kerry (no pun intended), puts down Bush at every opportunity, and second-guesses the war in Iraq.
Like many other bloggers, I long sensed that Sullivan eventually would change his colors because he has been monomaniacal about the recognition of homosexual marriage. He kept harping on it in post after post, day after day, week after week. It got so boring that I took Sullivan's blog off my blogroll and quit reading it.
Now, Kerry isn't much better than Bush on gay marriage -- from Sullivan's perspective -- but Kerry doesn't make a big issue of opposing it the way Bush does. Maybe that's because Kerry doesn't know where he stands on gay marriage. Why should he? He doesn't seem to know where he stands on anything. No, I take that back: Kerry believes in serial monogamy with rich women; the evidence is irrefutable.
But I digress. Back to Andrew Sullivan. He seems to have put his sexual orientation above all else. He's really a one-issue voter. Sure, he has rationalized his change of mind, but his change of mind can be traced, I think, to his preoccupation with gay marriage as a political litmus test.
Although gay marriage is an important issue, it's not the only important issue. In fact, it's arguably less important issue than, say, the fight against terrorism and the future of Social Security, both of which affect all Americans, straight and gay.
I am disappointed in Andrew Sullivan, an erstwhile voice of reason, whose sexual agenda seem to have clouded his stance on other issues.
The last three paragraphs above replace the following two paragraphs, which appeared in the original version of this post:
But I digress. Back to Andrew Sullivan. He has put his sexual orientation above all else. He's really a one-issue voter. Sure, he has rationalized his change of mind, but it boils down to the fact that he values his homosexual identity above his identity as an American.I rewrote the post because Trent McBride of The Proximal Tubule rightly criticized the statement that Sullivan "values his homosexual identity above his identity as an American." Here's McBride:
Welcome to the narrow world of special interests Andrew. You'll be right at home with professional African-Americans, professional victimized women, professional environmental hysterics, and all the others. Talk about strange bedfellows.
...I read your blog and agree with you on most things, but this struck me as ridiculous and distasteful. You are basically saying that in valuingI did rethink it. That's why I rewrote it as I did, to say better what I had in mind when I dashed off the phrase "identity as an American."
one's sexuality over one's national identity, one is valuing an intrinsic trait of oneself over an extrinsic, arbitrary trait.
I would consider this a good thing, and I don't see how you wouldn't. The roots of socialism, totalitarianism, and terrorism find themselves in nationalism. And this passage comes dangerously close to this line. I hope you would rethink such sentiment....
There is something to be said for nationalism: It's better to be an American who is striving to uphold and defend the Constitution and the liberty it affords us than it is to be, say, a member of al Qaeda who is striving merely to terrorize his enemies through wanton murder. But being an American just for the sake of being an American -- without understanding and adhering to the deeper principles of Americanism -- is no better than, say, being a fan of the Washington Redskins. The roots of totalitarianism do lie in that kind of "home team" mentality.
I thank Trent McBride for pushing me to think and write more precisely. I am solely responsible for any remaining errors of logic or expression in this post.