Comments on: Generic Andrew Sullivan Critique http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/generic_sullivan_question/ Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:20:10 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Jeremy Pierce http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/generic_sullivan_question/comment-page-1/#comment-42131 Jeremy Pierce Sat, 09 Apr 2005 01:59:24 +0000 /?p=9981#comment-42131 It's ok to be fixated on something that's very important to you. It's idiocy to place something very important on a level where absolutely nothing can outweigh it, even things that are more important. Surely life and death issues, including defense issues, are more important than whether Andrew can visit his partner in the hospital. The latter issue is a big deal, but it's not as important as whether his partner survives a terrorist attack to make it into the hospital to begin with, for instance. It doesn't help matters that Sullivan refuses to acknowledge that Kerry on gay marriage wasn't a whole lot different from Bush when it really came down to it, and he also failed to consider that Bush was so much more progressive on the issue than any other Republican in history could ever have gotten away with while serving as president. It's ok to be fixated on something that's very important to you. It's idiocy to place something very important on a level where absolutely nothing can outweigh it, even things that are more important. Surely life and death issues, including defense issues, are more important than whether Andrew can visit his partner in the hospital. The latter issue is a big deal, but it's not as important as whether his partner survives a terrorist attack to make it into the hospital to begin with, for instance.

It doesn't help matters that Sullivan refuses to acknowledge that Kerry on gay marriage wasn't a whole lot different from Bush when it really came down to it, and he also failed to consider that Bush was so much more progressive on the issue than any other Republican in history could ever have gotten away with while serving as president.

]]> By: John W. Matthews http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/generic_sullivan_question/comment-page-1/#comment-42030 John W. Matthews Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:38:56 +0000 /?p=9981#comment-42030 I didn't condemn Sullivan for, to use your words, "being fixated on gay marriage." I did note how important I think gay marriage is to Sullivan. But that's not the same as condemning him. At least it's not in my mind. I didn't condemn Sullivan for, to use your words, "being fixated on gay marriage."

I did note how important I think gay marriage is to Sullivan. But that's not the same as condemning him. At least it's not in my mind.

]]> By: James Joyner http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/generic_sullivan_question/comment-page-1/#comment-42004 James Joyner Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:24:13 +0000 /?p=9981#comment-42004 I don't disagree on the others. Sullivan is gay. To condemn him for being fixated on gay marriage is like saying Martin Luther King, Jr. was obsessed with race. I don't disagree on the others. Sullivan is gay. To condemn him for being fixated on gay marriage is like saying Martin Luther King, Jr. was obsessed with race.

]]> By: John W. Matthews http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/generic_sullivan_question/comment-page-1/#comment-42000 John W. Matthews Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:12:08 +0000 /?p=9981#comment-42000 I don't think Sullivan’s a brilliant commentator. He’s self-indulgent and quick to anger. Mean spirited, too. With Sullivan, gay marriage is not a “hot button;” it’s his sine qua none. Hitchens, Steyn, and Kaus: they're often brilliant. I don't think Sullivan’s a brilliant commentator. He’s self-indulgent and quick to anger. Mean spirited, too.

With Sullivan, gay marriage is not a “hot button;” it’s his sine qua none.

Hitchens, Steyn, and Kaus: they're often brilliant.

]]>