Big time influencing his perspective.
Yes it is. He's totally whacky on it these days. I now just skip over anything he posts that brings this issue up.
To be fair to Andrew, he's also concerned with Bush's spending. But gay marriage is clearly a hot button issue for him which tends to make him go soft in the argument and colors his opinions of people.
No, you absolutely pegged it. I, too, tend to skim his postings on the topic. Unfortunately, he seems to get so worked up about it that he starts frothing. And I see that anger spreading into his other posts.
That's pretty much his only issue these days.
I still enjoy Andrew's political stuff and skip over anything gay related. I decided long ago that he wants not just equal rights, but to be loved, simply for being gay, and that includes heterosexuals recognizing homosexuality as an innate, inborn trait, no different from being born with blue eyes as opposed to brown. It isn't going to happen.
Someone should pose Mr. Sullivan a few questions:
1. Were you and your boyfriend able to get married, would you do so?
2. What new obligations and privileges would you expect to flow from this change?
3. Would you expect to be able to dissolve the bond at will? Either party, or mutual consent only? Would you expect that a judge would have the power to set the terms of your divorce -- or to deny it to you altogether?
4. If you were to divorce, what consequences would you expect to follow?
5. Tell us again, please: why do you want to get married?
Bets on the answers?
Francis, I think that Sullivan's answers would be:
2. The ability to file joint income taxes, and the simple recognition of their commitment.
3. The same procedures of any divorce currently permitted.
4. The same consequences of any divorce.
5. For the same reason that most straight people marry--an expression of love and commitment.
Sullivan has been very consistent on the subject of marriage, and while I don't share all of his views on the subject, I understand hsi rationale behind it, and most of his rhetoric is internally consistent.
On the topic of the original post, I was a bit startled to see last's weeks vitriol on Bush, but it strikes me as similar to what "Spoons" and Bill Quick have been saying for a while. Bush's big spending is the antithesis of what many want from a Republican, and that his handling of domestic issues does not help matters. I will be voting for Buhs, but it will be with a certain amount of ambivalence, and the knowledge that none of the Democrats are going to reduce spending either, and I'd rather have Bush managing the WoT than any of his likely Dem opponents.
I think he is a bit wacky on spending as well.. I mean I think he has good points to make about it and basically agree, but he is starting to become obsessively debt-hawkish and use dumb "impoverishing our great-grandchildren" type rhetoric that always bugs me.