Like you I read Andrew Sullivan. For me this happens almost every day. I enjoy his point of view on most topics; gay marriage being the exception. I have come to the conclusion that he is blinded on this issue. I enjoyed your post today because it clearly points out the speciousness of Andrew's posted argument.
The funny part is I agree with the goal of legalizing gay marriage! I'm just really turned off (unpersuaded) by his particular arguments. Indeed, the other peculiar thing is that Stanley Kurtz, whose position on this issue I generally disagree with, summed up Andrew's current position pretty effectively when he posted this:
"As best I can discern it, this is Andrew Sullivan's position on gay marriage: 1) I am willing to argue as if it matters whether gay marriage undermines marriage or not. But if it is shown that gay marriage really does harm marriage, that is irrelevant. Gay marriage is a civil right, and must be granted regardless of its effect on the institution. 2) I am willing to argue as if I expect and prefer to see gay marriage adopted slowly and legislatively on a state by state basis. But if gay marriage is imposed by the courts in Massachusetts, and if that kicks off a process of nationalization, that is irrelevant. Gay marriage is a civil right, and must be granted, even if it is imposed on the nation by a few liberal judges. 3) I am willing to argue as if I believe in the democratic process and respect for law. But if gay marriage is forced on the nation through a campaign of civil disobedience, that is irrelevant. Gay marriage is a civil right, and must be granted, even if it is undertaken in clear violation of the law, and in clear violation of the will of the people of California as expressed in a legally binding democratic referendum."
Thanks for your post on this issue today, it sheds some much needed light on the issue and the process for resolving it.
Brian Leiter Gets His Comeuppance
I hope all of my readers followed my advice over the past few days to read Edward Feser's brilliant two-part essay on academia at Tech Central Station. Feser, a philosopher, had the temerity--the sheer effrontery--to depict and challenge the leftist domination of the academy. Naturally, this drew out the left-wing nuts, such as the self-promoting, status-obsessed Brian Leiter. Today, Leiter and his fellow do-gooders get their comeuppance. See here. Feser takes them apart, demonstrating not only their hypocrisy but their malice, arrogance, dogmatism, spitefulness, and bigotry. (Remember: I was one of them. I know.) The response to his essay by the trendy lefties, none of whom could hold a job in the real world, shows exactly what academia is like, thus, however inadvertently, proving Feser's thesis. Thank you, Professor Feser, for speaking the truth, which, judging from their responses, Leiter and his ilk can't handle. Godspeed.
Welcome to the Blogosphere
I received a nice letter from this new blogger. Thanks!