Comments on: Andrew Sullivan Wags Finger At Pragmatic Gay Politics

By: montrealsimon

montrealsimon — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 05:20:01 +0000

I don’t see that you guys have any choice but to be tactical….as humiliating as that may be. In this case winning is EVERYTHING. Especially since you live in a country where the evil monkey of religion has so many by the throat. I mean you’re almost as religious as the Iranians…What I think it is important to do is make sure the Democrats know that you’re supporting them because you don’t have any choice. But that you are mighty pissed to still be treated as people who don’t deserve full equality. I mean really really angry.
And it’s also important never to settle for anything less than full marriage rights whether you believe in the institution…or wanna get married…or not. If you don’t have the choice straights have then you’re not equal. But I understand…coz we had to deal with political cowardice in Canada too. If the courts hadn’t pushed them to do the right thing….and ruled out the civil unions option…we’d still be fighting…

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:30:36 +0000

Well OF COURSE Sullivan doesn’t like Democrats’ “wishy washy” positions on gay marriage; the more a Dem candidate wraps her or himself in strict gay marriage, the more likely we are to get yet another four years of conservative rule. Since conservative gays like Sullivan claim that they are utterly so much more than their sexuality (i.e., pro-war, pro-environmental havoc, pro-big business, anti-immigrant, etc.), that works just fine for HIM. It’s kinda funny really: last time around, gay marriage was used by the Republicans as a false issue to divide the nation and defeat Democrats; this time it’s being used by the liberal gay community to divide the liberal community and elect a Republican. Neat trick, that.

By: Alexa

Alexa — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:30:44 +0000

I’m all for civil unions, for everyone, gay or straight. Leave marriage as an archaic religious institution for those who believe in such bullshit. Not that there’s a chance in hell of that happening in the US, as it seems to be turning into a theocracy more and more every day.

By: nycstudman

nycstudman — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:01:39 +0000

Interesting that people like Sullivan don’t mention that 10 years ago, no credible candidate for any office above dog catcher in either party would have advocated for civil unions. A little perspective here would be useful.

By: Dawster

Dawster — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:30:45 +0000

yet it is Greg… err… Jack. the conservative heart himself.

you know… (as mentioned previously), The Netherlands introduced “registered partnerships” for gays and straights in 1998. and that went well… so well that in 2001 they were expanded the idea to “civil marriages” for both gay and straights alike.

so, whereas i HATE the idea of civil unions, there is something to be said about what it eventually leads to… namely, marriage. it’s worked before, there’s nothing that says it won’t work now.

but i, like other gay people, are highly impatient…

By: Jack Jett

Jack Jett — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:19:14 +0000

Is this the same Andrew Sullivan who supported Bush’s war for years?

pot/kettle/pot/kettle/pot/kettle

jack jett

By: cjc

cjc — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:13:34 +0000

Gee, Andy, like there’s any Republicunt with a chance of winning that can and wants to give us complete equality.