Andrew Sullivan: Defending Marriage from Heterosexuals
Wisconsin University Law professor and blogger Ann Althouse is reportedly marrying a long-time commenter on her blog.
After four years of sparing in the comments section, exchanging several emails, and a few weekend rendezvous, Althouse announced her whirlwind romance in typical Althouse fashion, an emblematic photo essay.
While engagements are generally joyous occasions, not all of Althouse’s fellow bloggers are rejoicing in her impending nuptials.
Upon learning of the news of Althouse’s engagement, The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan ironically adopted the mantle of the marriage brigade, crassly writing, “Ten days of emailing … and she was ready.”
Sullivan, a gay man with a committed partner of 5 years, is one of the most outspoken advocates for marriage equality, a proponent of the notion that all people, irrespective of sexual orientation, are inherently equal. This concept of equality, then, should confer the rights of marriage, proponents of gay rights argue.
Not so, says Sullivan, at least when this concept of marriage equality is applied to what he ostensibly views as frivolous heterosexual unions. Sullivan’s shrewd opposition to Althouse’s marriage is merely a disingenuous excuse for gay rights activists to flex waning political muscle in the wake of Prop 8’s passage.
Ironically, Sullivan is guilty of the same crime of his most socially conservative opponent: He now considers it his responsibility to validate, and likewise invalidate, the unions of others.
It takes a real egotist to make the news of another’s engagement about one’s self. At this rate, Sullivan would wear a white dress to Althouse’s wedding.
Shame on you, Andrew. Your comical egotism aside, the spiteful rhetoric – “OMFG” – likely won’t build the coalition of support necessary for the federal government to recognize your cohabitant as your husband.
UPDATE: GayPatriot’s Daniel Blatt is less than pleased with Sullivan’s behavior, saying the prolific blogger and author has “long since left the conservative fold.”
Zing
How does one go from being one of the more thoughtful, level-headed public intellectuals to spewing this crap? If Andrew Sullivan hadn’t already lost me with his crazy-eyed Trig trutherism, this would have sealed the deal.
I’m just glad you’re on my side, Jenn. I’d hate to piss you off.
[...] Ironically, Sullivan is guilty of the same crime of his most socially conservative opponent: He now considers it his responsibility to validate, and likewise invalidate, the unions of others. [...]
[...] Cross-posted at Skepticians.com. [...]
[...] Cross-posted at Skepticians.com. [...]
[...] UPDATE: Offering similar criticism of Andrew’s post, James Richardson takes note of something I missed: “It takes a real egotist to make the news of another’s engagement about one’s self. At this rate,…“ [...]
Although AS is indeed crass in denigrating Althouse’s nuptials, nowhere does he even begin to imply that she shouldn’t have the legal right to do as she wishes. And yet you imply that he does.
Are you not capable of basic reading comprehension, or are you just being mendacious?
I think that Andrew Sullivan is fully aware of the distinction between social sanctioning and legality a nuance that you seem oblivious to. The reason that Andrew Sullivan is generally liberal on moral LEGAL issues is that he believes that the proper way to deal with moral issues is on a social level. Thus, Sullivan is not denying this couple the legal right to marry but merely drawing the wedding into a state of social opprobrium. I see nothing wrong with that. That being said, I do disagree with him in being so incensed against the idea of true love developing first online and then blossoming in person.
The issue at hand here, which neither of you seem to grasp, is not one of legal nuance or reading comprehension.
Andrew and I agree on many things, including the rights of LGBT people to marry the partner of their choice. Among the reasons I favor marriage equality is the notion that social elites should not hold the power to invalidate the love of others, which is seemingly a private concept and warrants no public debate.
He saw Ann’s wedding as frivolous for 1)developing online and then 2) maturing with almost comical pace. Even if they did rush into things, it’s their right — just as it will soon be his. He and his parter of 5 years are married, but aren’t seen as such by the federal government. The ball has been set in motion and the pieces are in play, but it is seriously undermined by heterophobe commentary.
And just to quibble with you, Daniel, since you seem so intent on questioning my understanding of legal matters, Andrew is not “liberal” on legal issues because he “believes that the proper way to deal with moral issues is on a social level.” The courts have always justified intellectually lax legal reasoning by deeming it in accordance with social norms — suffice it to say, as a minority, Andrew would be wary of such a theory. The majority — namely, those who establish norms — rarely, if ever, intercede on the behalf of a minority party when their rights have been infringed upon. Go read some Dworkin, you need a refresher course in legal theory.
Since Sullivan is not looking for moral approval from the religious right for his marriage, merely the legal right to have it accepted, he is hardly, as you put it, “guilty of the same crime of his most socially conservative opponent.”
They wish to deprive him of the legal right to marry. His disapproval of Althouse’s marriage is on an entirely different level. It is this which makes your statement such a bald misrepresentation.
That was actually my point. Law should not be based on moral values which is why Gay Marriage should be legal, but we should not be expected to view everything that is legal as moral and to support and approve all legal decisions. Moral and legal are not subsections of divisions of each other but two categories that happen to intersect on many points.