I'm sorry, but this article must be wrong. After all, Andrew Sullivan has posted three or four emails proving that people are deserting the President because of his unprecedented bigotry in trying to take away a right that, um, no one has yet.

I'm buying stock in log cabin companies.

It's interesting to read Sullivan or some other bloggers who a few months ago were saying the 2004 election would be "all about terrorism," who have now decided 2004 apparently will be all about the legal definition of marriage (or in Jeff Jarvis' case, the removal of Howard Sterm from the airwaves in Rochester, N.Y. and five other cities). It will be interesting to see if their passion over domestic social issues can remain at such a fever pitch for the eight months between now and election day, given Kerry's inconsistancy about what he would do to maintain pressure of the country's terrorist foes.

If you're anally fixated isn't everything about you?

I suspect what worries Sullivan most is the test of the proposition that 10-15% of the nation is gay. If the true number is really only 3% or less, then the agenda collapses completely. The media may worship at the altar of homosexuality, but most of America won't.

Jim:

I read Mr. Sullivan a lot. He doesn't presume 10-15% of the nation is gay; rather, he assumes the 3% or less you do.

That 3% is sufficiently large, though, for most people to know at least one gay person. All those gays have immediate family members. It remains to be seen, when push comes to voting booth, whether people will vote against the interests of people they know and love.

If the figure was 15% gay marriage would have been recognized by now. Think of all the African-American politicians and activists you know by name (the nation is 12% African-American) compared to the openly gay politicians you know by name. The second group is loud but not especially numerous, which explains why most of the movement's accomplishments have been cultural rather than political.

Jeff:

You can love them and still vote to prevent them from degrading themselves and our culture.

>> It remains to be seen, when push comes to voting booth, whether people will vote against the interests of people they know and love.

Jeff: That assumption is faulty, as Orrin pointed out, because it rests on the premise that if you love someone, you're automatically going to support whatever they do. I think it's quite possible for a lot of people to love their gay relatives dearly and yet believe that their sexual practices are morally wrong and should not be endorsed by the government, which is exactly what supporters of gay marriage are asking for to happen.

Joe, OJ:

No assumption there; rather, an open question. People may well do as you suggest. But they may not.

And there are some non sequitors in your arguments. It is difficult to imagine how allowing marriage has anything to do with degradation. And those familiar with homosexuals, their immediate families, may conclude that "morally wrong" and homosexuality have nothing to do with each other.

Jeff:

Similarly, Mel Gibson loves his father despite his anti-Semitic ravings.

You stretch the meaning of "similarly" well past the breaking point.

Jeff:

Yes, to the best of our knowledge the elder Mr. Gibson has never acted on his odd beliefs so as to harm someone.

Gay men "degrade" themselves past being acceptable in American society, but denying that the Holocaust happened doesn't ?
Your definition of "dignity" gets stranger all the time.

Thoughts and actions. If Mr. Gibson starts shattering Jewish shop windows then lock him up. If I happen to think Denzel Washingston is dreamy, that's my affair.

Holocaust denial is certainly preferable to Jeff's advocacy of abortion.

"Holocaust denial is certainly preferable to Jeff's advocacy of abortion."

And that is germane to this discussion how? (Ignoring, for the moment, the complete non-sequitor.)

Denzel Washington is dreamy.

In a strictly platonic way.

Plato was Greek.