I wonder how different your own behaviour would be if the government refused to recognize your heterosexual relationship.

Like James, when he describes Sullivan as "single minded" you should think before you speak.

Not being married, I've never had the government recognize any relationship I've been in. I've never cared. Indeed, it wouldn't hurt my feelings if marriage as a secular institution accorded special privileges by the state went away entirely.

That's fine. I wouldn't mind that either. At least then we'd be being treated the same. But for now, gays are not treated equally, and to dismiss Sullivan talking about that as single-mindedness is, in my opinion, very unfair.

If unmarried folks in this country were unable to vote, I suspect single people would find that atrocious. Could I dismiss their concerns as single-mindedness?

If they blog about it incessantly, to the virtual exclusion of other topics, yes. :)

The day he posted 9 items and 8 of them were gay marriage I gave up. He is a smart and clever guy certainly he has more on his mind.

Besides, let's face reality for a change on this issue. It is not about "marriage" it is about money. Any 2 gay people can declare themselves married. The thing Sully and others want is money. (ie benefits.)

When the federal government has in place a tax penalty for heterosexual married couples, what on earth makes the Gay's feel so damned persecuted?

Politically incorrect I know. But accurate as hell.

That shows your ignorance of many issues related to marriage. One of them - immigration - is one that affects thousands of people in this country. I don't care about money, because I doubt marriage will do much to benefit me in that way anyway (except for the fees that I have to dish out to constantly renew my visa) But immigration policy does.

You say that for Sullivan it's all about money. Anyone who gets married for money (which you obviously believe is the point of marriage) demeans the institution.

And James: Like you, I imaging Sullivan blogs about issues that are important to him. I read him daily. Most of his posts are not about homosexuality at all - unless that's what you're focusing on. Sullivan once wrote that everytime he mentions his boyfriend, he gets an influx of email accusing him of throwing his homosexuality in the faces of his readers.

I suspect strongly that Sullivan could mention gay issues once or twice a week and get the same charges levied at him.

He's posted 10 times today. One of them is about gay issues.

Saturday. 4 posts. One may be construed to be marginally about gays.

Friday, 10 posts. Zero gay.

Thursday: 12 posts. 1 mentios his boyfriend. Uh-oh! 1 is about an ABC marriage poll.

Hardly single-mindedness.

In any case, I'll put this topic to bed! :-)

And people wonder why so many gay men vote Democrat no matter what the alternative is. I used to wonder about that as well. After Bush's SOTU and the snide blogosphere reaction to anyone who said one word against his "judicial activism" pandering (was he upset about judicial activism when it got him in the White House?), I don't anymore. The only place for gays in the Republican party these days is if you keep your mouth shut and desperately try to blend into the wallpaper. To do anything else is to somehow offend that great conservative mentality. You can cheat on your wife, get divorced and married 2, 3, 4 times...but don't mention that homo stuff. Don't play the gay card. Remember your place.

- the Southern Baptist Convention and other fundamentalist groups have said on the record: "if this doesn't become the #1 election issue, we will MAKE it the #1 election issue"

- Ron Gillespie has said on two to three different occasions that gay issues will be a major part of the Republican platform, and that gays have only themselves to blame (continuing a theme seen in this thread).

If Sully seems single-minded, maybe it's because the GOP is of one single, polluted mind on this issue. To warn that the GOP is waging a big anti-gay war in the next election is not egomania. Gay-bashing is a tried-and-true campaign tactic and will be more in evidence than ever this year.

Several people replied to Michael's posts.

And didn't Bill Clinton sign the present DOMA?

---