Wasn't it Al Gore who said there was no controlling legal authority? Judges 21:25

Step 1: Some judges decide that "equal protection" means "same-sex marriage."

Step: 2: Some politicians decide the only way to stop this is to define marriage the way it's been defined by 99.9% of Americans for centuries.

And it's Step 2 that's "divisive"?

Let Andrew Sullivan marry his pet goat and move to France. He jumped the shark months ago. Let us waste no further time on him or his urges.

He's kind of a one-note canary, isn't he?

Yeah, next thing Bush will thwart the oh so tender canibal minority in its quest to feed freely. Beast.

If Andrew Sullivan is willing to place gay marriage ahead of national security, then who needs him?

What's pathetic is that the "John Kerry" Sullivan supports is a fignment of his imagination: Sullivan's Kerry was changed after 9/11, has renounced his history of fraternizing with America's enemies, believes in small government and fiscal restraint, and--oh, yeah--just loves, loves, loves them homos. This Kerry bears no resemblance to the carbon-based life form of the exact same size, shape, and appearance that will enter the White House with a Democratic victory, and it's intellectually shameful of Sullivan to pretend otherwise.

On the bright side, Hitchens has again (this time formally) endorsed Bush. Seeing Sullivan and Hitch together on Russert a few weeks back was like seeing two ships passing in the night. So long, Shark Bait! Let Soros fund your next Pledge Drive.

very much like hitchens, Sullivan has found his natural proclivities to be more comforting. He did indeed jump the shark a few months ago, at which point I stopped reading him. He spent half his blogging on gay rights issues. And he spent too much time finding fault with Bush. Now we know Andrew Sullivans stripes.

I had thought it refreshing that an intelligent gay man could be so conservative, a few years ago, when he came onto the scene.

Anyway, Hitchens, like a ship, has passed through the night, waved at Sullivan, and is almost now officially on the side of logic and strength. I'd rather have Hitchens than Sullivann anyway.

You can't be both.

Bum steer? You cheeky little man :-)

Andrew who? Never heard of the guy.

I quit reading Sullivan months ago as well. Removed him from my "Favorites" list.Nice to see several others doing the same.

His priorities are definitely not in the Country's best interests.

Just as to an alky, My Constitutional Right to My Next Drink must be protected at all costs, so to a homosexual, My Constitutional Right to My Next Bunghole must be absolutely protected. Nothing else matters.

This person knows well that his current position is a disloyalty to his country in favor of his trivial preferences. We would call an Italian- of German American who took the wrong side during WWII a bad man. This is no different.

Ah well: this oven, I am told, will clean itself.

This person knows well that his current position is a disloyalty to his country in favor of his trivial preferences. We would call an Italian- of German American who took the wrong side during WWII a bad man. This is no different.

Ah well: this oven, I am told, will clean itself.

I took Sullivan and Spoons off of my favorites list some months back when I saw that both of them were so very 9/10. Their respective preoccupations with gay rights and crystal pure conservative doctrine have trivialized the importance of the coming election and the sacrifices made by so many of our soldiers since that day.

His arguments are so laughably unpersuasive, it reveals that he is supporting Kerry for one reason.

On the truly most important issue facing votes, Andrew's brief urges rational people to conclude that Kerry as president will somehow force the irresponsible democratic party to once again take responsibility for National Security. My one word response --- Carter.

I don't know Andrew, but the impression that his writings leave with me, is that he desparately wants society to not only tolerate his homosexuality, but to embrace and admire it as well. Legal gay marriage is the embodiment of that desire.

It's sad that Sullivan has decided to subordinate everything in life to where he wants to place his genitalia. He must be a very empty man.

You could Google Andrew all day and find his own words from the period of roughly 9/11/01 to about January of this year to throw back at him, which I think many people will be doing about 6-8 months from now should Kerry get elected (to be fair to him, his criticism of Bush's spending policies did emerge over 18 months ago, but in terms of his feelings, for someone who once opined that national security would trumph everything in 2004, it turned out for him, DOMA was the high card in his deck).

Step: 2: Some politicians decide the only way to stop this is to define marriage the way it's been defined by 99.9% of Americans for centuries.

Which automatically makes it right. Flawless logic, that. Flawless.

Sully is insufferable, even if occasionally right.

I'm glad Jimmy cleared that up. We can just go to him for what's right or wrong. No need to decide for ourselves.

oj,

correct, you cannot be both, though, just the same, there was something refreshing about it.

newsflash, I just read the slate employee endorsements, and hitchens is endorsing Kerry. That's disturbing. Hitch, come on now.

Without giving this much thought:
aren't marriage rights given to protect the role of the traditional family to procreate, thus ensuring survival of the species? Protections provided to the one in the family who "stays home" to nurture the family; the rights for protection of the children. Shouldn't our society provide exclusive incentives to lighten the burden of those who choose to ensure the perpetuity of the nation.

I just don't understand what marriage rights those like Andrew feel their partners should enjoy beyond social acceptance as individuals.

He's a one issue voter and belongs with the Deaniacs. Took him off my favorites list months ago. Never really trusted Hitchens.

Neil: Hitch endorsed Bush in the Nation. I think that Hitch's Kerry tag on Slate is editorial interpretation of the text of what is, if I'm right, a very luke warm Bush endorsement:

I am assuming for now that this is a single-issue election. There is one's subjective vote, one's objective vote, and one's ironic vote. Subjectively, Bush (and Blair) deserve to be re-elected because they called the enemy by its right name and were determined to confront it. Objectively, Bush deserves to be sacked for his flabbergasting failure to prepare for such an essential confrontation. Subjectively, Kerry should be put in the pillory for his inability to hold up on principle under any kind of pressure. Objectively, his election would compel mainstream and liberal Democrats to get real about Iraq.

The ironic votes are the endorsements for Kerry that appear in Buchanan's anti-war sheet The American Conservative, and the support for Kerry's pro-war candidacy manifested by those simple folks at MoveOn.org. I can't compete with this sort of thing, but I do think that Bush deserves praise for his implacability, and that Kerry should get his worst private nightmare and have to report for duty.

Genecis:

I agree, but American society long ago severed the link between the welfare of children, and marriage. Thus, there's not really any compelling argument that can be used to deny individuals the compassionate permission to visit their dying loved ones or to inherit property, among other things.

Anti-marriage folks are reduced to "I don't like it", which begs the response, "So what ?"

Orrin has a neat twist to that argument, arguing that religion demands that society preserve "human dignity", and then opining that males must dominate their partners when having sex, and that it's an affront to human dignity to have one male dominating another.
However, it's still just about being queasy, and if we were to accept that argument at face value, we would still have to allow lesbians to marry.

David Cohen:

Regarding Hitchens' writings, how can he be "flabbergast[ed]" at Bush's failure to prepare the nation for 9/11 ?

As we've discussed at length at this site, the actions that could have prevented 9/11 were politically or legally impossible before 9/11.

Blaming 9/11 on Bush is 9/10-think. Doubleplusungood, so to speak.