« Today's Scary Item | Main | Now, I don't want to get off on a rant here ... »

Evidently, Andrew Sullivan has been taking heat via e-mail for daring to parse out his thought process on who he may vote for in November. I saw this firsthand under the comments section of a Tim Blair post that actually agreed with one of Sullivan's snippets criticizing Bush's orgiastic spending habits. Amidst some of the mostly intelligent rebuttals and agreements, there were three or four folks who descended into flippantly referring to Sullivan as a "fag" and threatened to delete Sullivan from their "bookmarks."

For what, exactly? For daring to stray off the conservative ranch? For expressing a critical thought process on who he may vote for? While my vote is pretty solidly red state (see post below, and not like it makes a damn bit of difference in DC), I haven't shut off my mind to the possibility that any Dem, even one of the swarm of smarmy crapweasels currently running, could get my vote. If any one of them who was electable (sorry, Joe) had the stones to endorse an aggressive foreign policy and outlined a sane economic policy that doesn't dust off the ol' "hammer and sickle lite," they might have a shot with me. Doubtful this will happen, but certainly possible.

And I'm straight. Sullivan is gay.

The point about sexuality doesn't belittle or undermine any of Sullivan's thoughtful negative arguments about Bush that have nothing to do with gay marriage, rather it should give folks a reason to understand some of what constitutes his reticence about Bush overall. Some commentators seem to think the personal nature of this issue is coloring all of his views. I think such a conclusion is only partially, yet understandably, correct.

I watched a TV special on Abraham Lincoln the other day. The program delved into his views on slavery, reminding me that no matter how ardently he believed that the institution was wrong, he was always very quick to loudly acknowledge how inferior blacks were to whites. This could have been a necessary political statement for the time; it could have represented his personal views (probably both). I have no idea. But 140-some-odd years later, it did tarnish an otherwise stunning legacy, now that most of us fundamentally accept the idea that there is no inherent inferiority or superiority among the races. Watching the program, I couldn't help but wonder what our descendents might think about modern political rhetoric that dogmatically defends the idea of marriage being "between a man and a woman."

Of course slavery and the following civil rights movement aren't too analagous to the current plight of homosexuals, but most folks who have spent any serious amount of time around gay men and women have got to logically acknowledge that at least a majority these individuals have had their sexuality defined for them rather than having chosen their sexuality. This leads us to a situation where they are being denied rights freely available to others - rights fundamentally tied to who they can love and embrace officially into their family unit - because of who they are, not any sort of deviant set of choices that is intent on harming society.

So regarding Sullivan ... if I was gay ... and I was a fiscally conservative free-market fan ... strong on defense ... and if I believed in the promise of America as a truly egalitarian society ... well let's just say that it might give me pause to just swallow a declaration by my President that my very nature and the relationships that I establish are somehow less than fully equal under the eyes of the law. And there would be little I can do about it except wait. And write. And vote.

You don't have to agree with him, you might find the concept of homosexuality repellent, you might not care about gay marriage at all in light of concerns about nuclear terrorism; but you've got to be able to put yourself in the man's shoes and at least empathize with how he feels; empathize with how somewhere between 2.8 to 28 million other gay Americans may feel.

Posted by Bill at January 23, 2004 01:02 PM | TrackBack (2)