Props to Andrew Sullivan (I Guess)

We admire Mr.Sullivan's integrity in presenting his (near) endorsement of John Kerry during a pledge week.

The VodkaPundit wades through the endorsement; Andrew defends himself against the charge that this was all about gay marriage.

Our view? Please. Andrew identifies some issues where Bush has been bad from a conservative perspective (trade, federalism) and slides by the fact that Kerry will surely be worse. He also speculates that maybe Kerry won't be a disaster in the war on terror - hey, let's fly under the bridge!

Just do it, Andrew, and no pretense. The President's support for the FMA wasn't a straw that broke the camel's back - it was a hundred pound boulder.

Comments

[paul a'barge]

Saliva-n (yes, that's deliberate) wants to claim that he's not a single-issue pony, with the single issue being gay marriage.

Actually, he's a single-issue pony with the single issue being the support by the President for the FMA.

Because of that one issue, Saliva-n is willing to sell out his soul and the country in which he lives.

Nice work, Saliva-n

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

``Let's fly under the bridge!''

Yeah, isn't the winner supposed to be announced during the convention. Do you suppose the fact that I haven't received an all expenses paid trip to Boston, a bad omen?

[Kevin Murphy]

The abbreviated quotes:

"I inadvertantly removed classified documents" -- Sandy Berger

"You're putting words in my mouth" -- Theresa Kerry

"FMA wasn't everything" -- Andrew Sullivan

The full quote --

"During the course of trying to deliberately remove every copy of a particular classified document, I inadvertantly removed some other classified documents"

"You're putting words back into my mouth"

"FMA wasn't everything, it was the only thing"

[WillieStyle]

You know what? As a liberal watching Andrew Sullivan’s anguished conversion to my side, I must say, I’m really not enjoying it nearly as much as I should. Here we have a guy who disagrees with me and my party on a whole slew of substantive issues. And yet he’s going to vote for my guy. Why? Because the other guys don’t have the common decency to treat him like a full-fledged adult human being. It’s really not something that makes me feel good about my country.

And to make matters worse. The guys on the other side, realizing that Sullivan is essentially one of their own who turned on them on an issue of simple manners, decide, not to develop some manners and cut that s**t out. No, they decide to criticize him. “How could you turn on us Andy, you single issue voting pansy?!” No embarrassment; no shame; merely indignation that he wouldn’t take their s**t. Words fail me.

[Paul Zrimsek]

"Words fail me." If only!

[TM]

If you characterize the gay marriage debate as a matter of simple manners, I suppose your analysis makes sense.

Polls suggest that most Americans, along with John Kerry, see the issue differently.

[WillieStyle]

Polls suggest that most Americans, along with John Kerry, see the issue differently.

You're right TM. How could I have been so foolish! Clearly the FMA is a matter of national security. Rick Santorum thinks so and "most real Americans" agree with him.

But you're wrong on one count: John "I want to destroy marriage and America" Kerry does not support the FMA.

[TM]

Sorry, were we talking about gay marriage generally, or the FMA specifically?

I was referring to gay marriage broadly, although I suppose Sullivan's anguish is over Bush's support of the FMA, so maybe I did switch topics a bit.

Or maybe not - Kerry's full position, last I checked, was that he opposed the FMA and the DOMA, but supported the Massachusetts attempt to amend their state constitution to ban gay marriage but allow civil unions.

Andrew insists that the FMA also bans civil unions, which I recall others disupute.

I think Kerry's postition is better for Andrew because Kerry's "real" position is, I can read the polls so I am opposed to gay marriage, but when some judge enacts gay marriage from the bench, well, no one can blame me.

Anyway, I have no idea what your comment about Rick Santorum and "real" Americans has to do with it. And no, I am not saying it is a matter of great national security (which is sort of the reason people wonder why Andrew is letting it be the reason he switches sides).

[WillieStyle]

And no, I am not saying it is a matter of great national security (which is sort of the reason people wonder why Andrew is letting it be the reason he switches sides).

Let's see here:
The issue is of little national importance, yet is of great personal importance to those gays who want to get married. So what is the response of partisans on the right? Perhaps that their party should not have chosen this time with many important national issues to push for a ban of gay marriage? Nah! The smart partisan knows that the individual is nothing, the party is everything. Particularly when the individual is a minority.

The only pleasure I take from all this is imagining the convoluted excuses y'all will be bustin' out 20 years from now to explain your reactionary position.
"See Son, it wasn't that we were hateful prudes. It was all about states rights... um... uh... I mean activist judges."

[TM]

...their party should not have chosen this time...

Let's see, we had the Massachusetts State Supreme Court plus the run-amok county clerk in San Francisco. Who chose the timing?

See Son, it wasn't that we were hateful prudes. It was all about states rights... um... uh... I mean activist judges."

Kerry is the hateful prude who favors state's rights. I am the hateful prude who opposes activist judges.

I happen to prefer evolution, not revolution on this subject. If any legislature anywhere in this country legalized gay marriage, more power to them.

But the votes aren't there, and I think judicial cram-downs are a terrible alternative to an educational campaign that actually changes people's attitudes.

OTOH, people who have enjoyed the Roe v. Wade debate (and plenty of fundraisers have made it their life's work, on both sides of the issue) will love a similar ruling on gay marriage.

And lest we forget, abortion was a states-rights issue (Kerry, the neo-Federalist, no doubt approved) and was legal in, for example, New York, before Roe.

I am unable to infer your position, BTW - do you favor or oppose the activist court approach to this issue? Or do you think the Dems should introduce legislation in Congress, or what?

[WillieStyle]

Let's see, we had the Massachusetts State Supreme Court plus the run-amok county clerk in San Francisco. Who chose the timing?

What does this have to do with the FMA? Aren't you a federalist? Let Massachusetts and San Francisco go the way of Sodom and Gomorrah. At least we'll still have Kansas. Righteous, beautiful Kansas.

Kerry is the hateful prude who favors state's rights. I am the hateful prude who opposes activist judges.

Nah. Kerry's the cowardly politician with the heart of gold, while you're one of a few too many sensible Republicans who choose to defend the Santorums of the world rather than smack some sense into them.

I happen to prefer evolution, not revolution on this subject. If any legislature anywhere in this country legalized gay marriage, more power to them.

I take it then that you are against the FMA?

But the votes aren't there, and I think judicial cram-downs are a terrible alternative to an educational campaign that actually changes people's attitudes.

Civil rights should not be left to referendum. If folks want to discriminate, the least they could do is amend their constitutions accordingly.

OTOH, people who have enjoyed the Roe v. Wade debate (and plenty of fundraisers have made it their life's work, on both sides of the issue) will love a similar ruling on gay marriage.

I like how you used Roe v. Wade there, rather than Brown v. Board of Education. Slick!
Look, some issues, such as abortion, will be controversial however they are resolved legally. With other issues, time merely serves to reveal the moral vapidity of one side of the debate. Examples of the latter are legion.

I am unable to infer your position, BTW - do you favor or oppose the activist court approach to this issue? Or do you think the Dems should introduce legislation in Congress, or what?

Being the radical lefty that I am, I am unapologetic in my favor of non-violent means of social change including – but no limited to – judicial activism, civil disobedience and gentle mockery.
The way I see it, none of the objections to gay-marriage pass either the "how is it any of your business?" test, or the "you do realize it isn't mandatory, right?" test.

Having said all that, none of this is particularly relevant to my earlier point. Whatever you or I may think about gay marriage, for Andrew Sullivan it is understandably a very important personal issue. Hence, giving Bush and Santorum a pass, while chiding Sullivan, suggests an unattractive incapacity for basic human empathy.

[sym]

To add to Willie's words, I'm surprised you're so surprised by Sullivan's change of heart. The FMA's message to gay people is "please never vote Republican again". I'm surprised he stuck with Bush for so long.

I happen to prefer evolution, not revolution on this subject. If any legislature anywhere in this country legalized gay marriage, more power to them.

But the votes aren't there, and I think judicial cram-downs are a terrible alternative to an educational campaign that actually changes people's attitudes.

I generally agree with this. This is why gay marriage is a good idea for my country (that socialist paradise up North) , but not for Americans at the moment. But Kerry is way closer than Bush to your beliefs here.

[Paul Zrimsek]

As a proponent of gay marriage, I suppose I'm expected to agree with Willie. So let me be very clear: while the FMA is a matter of little national importance, it is also a constitutional and civil rights violation just like Plessy v. Ferguson. So no one except gays should care about it because it's no business of the government who the government issues marriage licenses to, and those who insist on caring about it anyway should stop out of courtesy to Andrew Sullivan.

The FMA is also an infringement of states' rights, which is a codeword for racism anyway. Those who say they oppose gay marriage are vary nasty people, unless they're lying about it, and they will, unlike Bill Clinton, be judged by history. This trivial issue is too important to be left up to them, so if they insist on having their way they should amend the Constitution-- so long as they don't do it by constitutional amendment.

[TM]

I'm surprised you're so surprised by Sullivan's change of heart.

I'm not - this train has been coming into the station forever. I just wish he would admit that the FMA is what drove it.

Now, back to Willie:

I take it then that you are against the FMA?

Yes, as I subtly hinted at with "Federal Marriage Amendment - Bush Blew It".

My preferred approach was to make this an issue of Bush appointing judges, or, if some darn amendment was deemed to be politically expedient, this one would be it.

I like how you used Roe v. Wade there, rather than Brown v. Board of Education. Slick!

Actually, I was being a sheep-like follower of Mickey Kaus.

I understand that gay rights advocates prefer to cast this as part of the civil rights struggle (Brown), rather than as part of the religious/cultural war (Roe.) Some quick reasons to compare it with Roe rather than Brown - (1) the courts had been grappling with the racism and the South since Reconstruction; (2) Brown's impact was not felt widely outside of the South, so it was a regional cram-down, which works for me. (Oh, I say that - I ran into two Atlanta Braves who commented on my NY Yankees cap; they were suitably deferential, and even volunteered the reminder that the Yanks humiliated them in two recent Series, so I am feeling good about the South. Today.)

[WillieStyle]

-A white guy marrying a black woman is not a matter of great national importance. However, a constitutional amendment banning interracial marriage would be.
-Whatever reservations I have about white guys marrying black woman should have nothing to do with laws governing marriage, because a white guy marrying a black woman is none of my business, marriage license or no.
-In a hypothetical world where Republicans attempted to pass a constitutional amendment barring interracial marriage, Republicans would do well to consider the feelings of inter-racial couples yearning to marry.
-Furthermore, in such a world, Republicans should not be aghast that said couples would be reluctant to vote Republican.
-Those who say they oppose interracial marriage are nasty people. Unless they are lying about if for political purposes in which case they are merely craven (don't see what was so confusing about this one).
-Such people will be judged harshly by history.
[Some irrelevant nonsense about Bill Clinton]
-The issue of interracial marriage is too intimate to be left up to partisan strangers.
-If they insist on passing laws discriminating against interracial couples, they should pass constitutional amendments that make such laws constitutional..
-Any attempts to pass such a constitutional will be met with my relentless scorn.

There, that's as dumbed down as I could get.
Man translating from English to wingnut is hard.

[WillieStyle]

I understand that gay rights advocates prefer to cast this as part of the civil rights struggle (Brown), rather than as part of the religious/cultural war (Roe.) Some quick reasons to compare it with Roe rather than Brown...

Fine, "Griswold v. Connecticut" then. The point is, there are some fights that seem existential to some at the time, but that appear ridiculous under the glare of history, with one side ultimately seeming foolish.
Abortion certainly would not have been one of those fights, however it was resolved. Gay marriage, on the other hand, almost certainly will be.

[TM]

I happen to agree with you on gay marriage and the passing of time. However, you seemed quite derisive of my abilty to predict history's judgement in another thread, so I doubt my concurrence here will give you much assurance.

Hmm, can we find that? Yes, we can:

When one is forced to rely on the "history will judge" contrivance it means either:
1) One is a prescient thinker; ahead of ones time and thus unappreciated.
or
2) One is wrong and everyone knows it.

It rarely ever is the former.

I disagreed then, and still do. Your view? Prdon me, your revised view?

I am absolutely unable to guess at your point in the "translation" post on interracial marriage.

[WillieStyle]

Well... um... ahem...
Clearly I am always the former, visionary thinker that I am...
Oh look over there, Andrew Sullivan's gonna vote for Kerry!

My "translation" post is meant to mirror Paul Zrimsek's above.

[Paul Zrimsek]

Which in turn is meant to mirror all of yours. Which is why it's impossible to guess the point.

[TM]

Willie, you are a visionary.

Oh, go comment on Obama's speech, please. You Dems have the total package. Groan.