[Ronly Bonly Jones]

and his new overall tone unreadable and increasingly detestable>>

Given a choice between getting on his knees and receiving the Body of Christ on Sunday, and getting on his knees and receiving the Body of Steve on Saturday, he has chosen option 'b'.

Anathema sit.

[King Black Robe]

If they win marriage then they win everything. No one will be able to discriminate. Their "lifestyle" will received equal treatment in schools and elsewhere. They Boy Scouts will lose their free association argument because gays will be a protected class.

[Old Sarge]

This article just re-validated my decision never to read this fag's site.

[CatoRenasci]

Thanks for posting this. If this stuff is real, and it certainly seems to be from first impression, then AS is a complete hypocrite demanding homosexual marriage while living the promiscuous life-style of the homosexual slut.

I have deleted my links to his site.

[King Black Robe]

Oh yeah....and they will win a windfall in benefits. And who will know that they are having it both ways -- monogamous benefits with polygamous lifestyles? Andrew, when AIDS takes his life, will be about to secure social security tax benefits for another gay person. It will be a huge financial gain to their community and causes. They "marry" another just to give insurance benefits while they have a joint agreement to sleep around.

[keithtoo]

Andrew loses all semblance of rational thought when the subject is 'gayness'. He becomes a blithering lib.

[Petronski]

I am not busting on you, and I will not visit his site. I just have a question: "Andrew Sullivan" is a common enough name--is everyone certain the writer is the slut and vice versa?

[microgood]

Thanks for the post. I hope he gets exposed for what/who he really is.

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

Thursday PM sodomy bump.

[Cinnamon Girl]

What the H are you doing studying gay sites?

[Agnes Heep]

Sullivan is suffering from the same self-loathing that's experienced by all homosexuals, and has a difficult time squaring his need to justify a disgusting habit with what his rational mind knows is right. Hence the contradictory results.

[CFC__VRWC]

I have always thought that Sullivan's so-called conservatism had much less to do with any kind of "Damascus road conversion" as it had to do with extending a big middle finger to Howell Raines, Pinch Sulzberger and the New York Times for canning him.

[buwaya]

This all came out a long time ago (over a year), and certainly isn't something one can blackmail him with. In fact, given all this I don't see how anyone could blackmail Sullivan.

[Dolphy]

I stopped reading him regularly a while ago. He is not a conservative. He's a self-centered man who resents that blacks, Hispanics, elderly etc. get more legislative and print attention than he gets as a white male. Andrew loves the victim card just as much as every other Democrat. What else explains his obsession with expanding the definition of an institution he would like consider constraining, as well as his infatuation with Edwards, the victim's advocate.

[Miles Vorkosigan]

I need to stress here: Sullivan hasn't only moved leftward on homosexual issues. He's also pro-abortion and anti-gun. His whole message seems to be that the Democrat issues should win--except for their opposition to the war, and frankly I'm not sure that he won't backpedal on this issue either--but that they should be nicer to the GOP while winning.

He opposed the partial-birth abortion ban, because it might strengthen his fictitious bogeyman, the "religious right." (Homosexuals feeling good apparently trumps saving babies from getting their brains sucked out). He also sided with Sen. Charles Schumer when Schumer wanted to use 9/11 as an excuse for making a permanent database of gun sales. He flirted with supporting Howard Dean until it became obvious Dean was tanking--this when Bush had not supported the marriage yet. He at one point attacked Newt Gingrich on some national security issue (I forget which one, but I think it was Taiwan), not because of the substance of Newt's generally correct remarks, but because Newt was the "most reviled American politician in recent history." (Note that Newt doesn't have a history of being especially anti-homosexual; Andrew simply doesn't like him because his homo friends tell him not to like him). He rejoiced at the departure of Phil Gramm, not because Gramm was any kind of an extremist--he admitted he wasn't--but because he had a Southern accent and therefore was beyond the pale.

The really ironic thing here is that Sullivan has gloated about the triumph of "gay" culture--even to the point of saying, not without some validity, that it's now the dominant culture--yet now that Bush supports the FMA, he acts as if homos were some beknighted victims. He can't have it both ways: they can't be persecuted dictators.

I think part of his rage is that Bush stole his show: he was planning on back-stabbing Bush in late October, and instead Bush has forced his hand now. No one is running headlines of "Sullivan endorses Kerry" at a crucial time; instead they're saying "Bush endorses gay marriage ban." As usual, Sullivan is angry at being the first one kicked to the curb.

[Timesink]

I'll say the same thing here I said the first time someone brought up AS's increasingly unpleasant web site: I stopped reading him way before this gay marriage thing started up, for one simple reason: He's an elitist pontificator, not a blogger. He refuses to answer email unless you are yourself part of the media establishment or one of the single biggest names in blogging, and he refuses to correct even the most blatant errors on his site unless he's embarrassed into doing so by one of those same "A-List" bloggers. He's the utter antithesis of what blogging is supposed to be about; he even CHARGES for access to his supposed "best" writing.

If I want to read one-way, pompous treatises issued from On High, written by snobs who expect their readers to just shut up and consume, then I can get that in spades from Newsweek or The New York Times or any of a million other newspapers and magazines. I sure as hell don't need more of it from Andrew Sullivan.

[OldFriend]

Why do we care what he does with his private life.

Why do we care what he has to say in public?

[beckett]

He's gone from the Bush fold. He won't be back. He is a one issue commentator. By that I mean that despite his evident brilliance on a whole range of topics, only one issue really matters to him. And since W has now set himself in opposition to him on that issue, Sullivan will ratchet up his criticism and soon openly call for the president's defeat in November.

Look for Sullivan to endorse Edwards. He's hot for the guy.

[spodefly]

The percentage of gays that are relatively normal (in other than their sexual orientation) is pretty low. I live in a 'gay' area of Atlanta and work with several openly gay people. They are without doubt the most neurotic people I have ever met.

I doesn't surprise me that Andrew Sullivan is going off the deep end when it comes to gay marriage. He has successfully appeared to be 'conservative' to many people over the past several years. But scratch the surface of most gay people and you will find a self-hating neurotic whose almost singular purpose in life (aside from worshipping their own sex organ) is in trying to make the world embrace their perversions.

[beckett]

By the way, the story about Sullivan's "bareback" sex ads was aired in mainstream media outlets over a year ago.