Sure enough, Paul, I am a Sullivan fan. However, my loyalty does not follow Sully into every sphere. And this is one instance where I do not quite agree with Andrew.
Let me begin by saying, that as a long time reader of Andrew's blog, I know from whence this position sprang. It comes as no surprise. It also seems to me quite clear that the Republicans inappropriately used gay marriage and homosexuality as a divisive issue in the last campaign. And they leveraged it with some success. While the subject of gay marriage is rightly controversial and there are reasonable arguments on both sides, it should not a) have been a core issue in the campaign (like re-fighting the Vietnam War), and b) been a litmus test for anyone.
I do believe that there is a rabid minority of fundamentalist "Christians" who abhor and callously demonize homosexuals. However, in my lexicon, they do not fit the definition of true Christians because through their attacks they disregard the most important teachings of Christ. Nonetheless, they profess those loyalties. These folks are not representative of most Christians, nor are they representative of fundamentalist Christians who passively disapprove of homosexuality and gay marriage. It's one thing to disapprove. It's quite another to attack, marginalize and demonize for political gain. In my opinion, this is the inherent logical contradiction of the "culture crusades." Again, there is nothing wrong with opposing gay marriage. It is a reasonable point of view for a number of reasons, but to abandon your asserted religious values to repudiate the human worth of those who share a different lifestyle or world view is basic hypocrisy in my eyes.
There is a contemporary example which helps further the point. In a similar vein, one could argue that while Osama's legions are, in fact, Muslims, they are not true Muslims in the sense that they have so codified and / or distorted the teachings of their religion as to deprive it of all oxygen, and hence, reason. Oxygen deprivation has not spurred Christianity to its greatest heights. Nor has it spurred Islam's. The vast majority of both flocks are peaceful, reasonable people who are far less concerned about their neighbor’s proclivities than their own. Muslims who disapprove of the existence of Israel or the debauchery of the United States are certainly welcome to their opinions. But to demonize or indiscriminately slaughter those with whom you disagree is to abandon the basic teachings of Muhammad.
Back to Sullivan. For a variety of reasons, he now finds himself a receding conservative. Ironic, since his good friend Christopher Hitchens (with whom I philosophically have more in common than Sullivan) continues his strange, tortured pilgrimmage to the right. However, in light of Bush's attack on gays during the last election cycle, profligate deficit spending and the seemingly unquestioned assimilation of torture into America's GWOT bag of trix, it seems that Sullivan feels largely betrayed and dismayed by his Party. In these respects, I generally and genuinely share his concerns.
However, Goldberg hits the nail on the head in points 2 and 3. I tend to agree that Sullivan's homosexuality gives him a jaundiced view of the subject matter at hand. Sullivan felt absolutely betrayed by the way Republicans played the homosexuality issue in the ’04 election and he had every right to. No one had been more supportive of Bush's foreign policy than Sullivan. Moreover, his disdain for the choice of Pope Benedict XVI , seems to up the ante for the Catholic Sullivan and to encourage him to believe that he and his “tribe” are very much under attack. And by his own Party, no less. So in some sense, there is justification for this concern.
However, you simply cannot paint Christian fundamentalists (even the rabid ones) with the same brush as those who wage jihad. The use of violence and the aim of mass death simply does not appear on the radar in this country when it comes to fundamentalist Christians and homosexuals. In fact, the closest linkages would not be on the issue of homosexuality, but rather, on the issues of abortion and the broad expanse of 'government encroachment.' In the latter case, the linkage to religious fundamentalism is at least debatable. The attacks of which Sullivan speaks are symbolic, rhetorical and sometimes legalistic, but not generally physical and indiscriminate. That doesn’t make them any less real, nor does it give us reason to be unconcerned. But it certainly raises questions as to how one could even attempt to compare the two. In my opinion, Sullivan is leveraging his “celebrity” to give voice to his cause. While there is no shame in that, it doesn’t mean that we should blindly accept the rhetorical flourishes.
Meanwhile, I sincerely hope that Andrew Sullivan continues to fight the good fight against America’s new-found friend, torture. It is a stain on the integrity of this nation that we are now in the rendition and torture business. Religious fundamentalists who demonize gays by abandoning their principles and values do not defend Christendom. They debase it. Similarly, Terror Warriors who abandon the basic tenets of our democracy in the pursuit of the bad guys do not protect America, they pervert and besmirch the values we hold most dear.
