Matt Barber and Andrew Sullvan care deeply about your sexual desires!

Looks like it's "I TOLD YOU SO" time.

In a post not long ago, I noted that gay activist busybodies and anti-gay busybodies both share a similar mindset where it comes to privacy in matters of human sexual freedom. They don't like it:

There are gay activist busybodies who don't believe in leaving people alone, and they are assisted by anti-gay busybodies on the other "side."

Andrew Sullivan typifies the mindset of the former.

I mentioned the American Family Association, and Americans for Truth About Homosexuality as among the strange allies of gay activists, and to that list I would now add Matt Barber (who was once again kind enough to email me and let me know how strongly he feels).

Writing in (where else?) WorldNetDaily, he argues that lesbianism is a relevant factor in considering someone "for any public service," because it's a character issue, and homosexuality is immoral:

Media, here's your question: "Solicitor Kagan, do you identify as a lesbian?" Ms. Kagan, your answer is simpler still: "Yes" or "no."

Pipe down, lefties. Yes, it is relevant. Most liberals would disagree, but despite "progressive" protestations to the contrary, character does, in fact, matter. A majority of Americans still consider sexual morality - or a lack thereof - a pertinent factor in contemplating one's fitness for any public service - chiefly, perhaps, a lifetime appointment to our most supreme earthly court.

Notice that by conflating lesbianism with immorality and bad character, he creates the impression that a majority of Americans consider lesbians unfit for public service. Barber, of course, thinks they are, and he considers lesbians (and all homosexuals) to be inherently immoral people who should therefore not be allowed to hold office. He has a right to his beliefs, but his attempt to impute them to the majority of Americans is simply delusional.

But as to caring deeply about the sexuality of others, he finds common ground with Andrew Sullivan, whom he cites with approval:

Although the mainstream media refuse to do their job, some in the homosexual-activist press are stepping-up to fill the vacuum.

Homosexual blogger Andrew Sullivan, for instance, writing in The Atlantic, opined: "In a free society in the 21st century, it is not illegitimate to ask [whether Kagan is gay]. And it's cowardly not to tell."

Andrew Sullivan and those who think like him care deeply about whether people are gay, and so do those in the Matt Barber brigade.

It seems to me that as fewer ordinary Americans care deeply about these things, the people who do care deeply will become ever louder.

What I can't decide is whether I should keep deeply ignoring them in the hope they'll go away.

posted by Eric on 05.21.10 at 02:54 PM


Andrew Sullivan has it wrong, but only because he focuses on her "immorality" making her unfit for the position. It is not her character I would be concerned about, it is whether her homosexuality would bias her decisions on gay issues (which it really can't help but do). Gay marriage, for example, or gay adoption. These issues strike at the fundamental institutions of our society, and we cannot predict the repercussions.

A. Goldstein   ·  May 21, 2010 10:11 PM

Lesbians? Yummmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

M. Simon   ·  May 21, 2010 10:26 PM

Megan Fox + Penelope Cruz = Yum.

Elena Kagan + anyone = Trauma blindness

Um, no   ·  May 22, 2010 12:41 AM

Post a comment

April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Search the Site


Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link


Recent Entries


Site Credits