Here is my contribution to the ongoing North Carolina Forum discussion on this subject:
Whether John Edwards is homosexual is irrelevant; he's such a slimy, socialist, ambulance-chasing, dirt-eating hypocrite that being homosexual would be an improvement. But that's neither here nor there. The response demonstrates that it's now off limits to show anything but reverence toward homosexuals, which is exactly the point Ann Coulter was making, in her uniquely-Ann way.
The other commentators are huffing and fluffing over her use of "faggot," but that's just a distraction. Suppose I had stood up at CPAC - in my long dress, sensible shoes, and church-lady hat - and said, "Men who experience a desire for sex with other men are mentally ill. I feel a great pity for them, and I hope they seek psychiatric and spiritual help. Homosexual behavior is morally wrong, and also disgusting. The average homosexual man has anal intercourse with more men in one year than I've shaken hands with in 40 years. I do not want men who are sexually attracted to boys go to near my sons at any time." I didn't use a single "slur," nor particularly graphic language, but you can bet I would be excoriated for this, just as Ann Coulter is for her decision to raise the issue with rather tacky humor.
I just finished Star Parker's most recent book, "White Ghetto," in which she points out that behavior that was universally considered grotesque and immoral only a generation ago is now publicly celebrated - to the point that we have a cross-dressing Republican Presidential candidate - and nobody is allowed to mention this! Although it pains me to say this, we got in this situation by being TOO NICE. Maybe I'm a coward for being grateful that Ann Coulter has the nerve to be outrageously frank on my behalf :-).
Great post! I have to say, I admire women who actually dress in a feminine manner. Vive la difference!
I bow before your excellent post.