Thursday, January 06, 2005
Katz v. Sullivan
No, that's not an obscure court decision. It's about an article in the Dec 31 issue of NRODT (available online only by subscription) in which Justin Katz picks Andrew Sullivan's position(s) on homosexual marriage apart piece by piece. Over three and a half pages Katz carefully shows how Sullivan's ever-shifting positions and arguments culminate simply in being nothing more than advocacy for the imposition of acceptance of homosexual behaviour by any means available. Sullivan's hypocrisy on this issue is what causes me not to have interest or trust in his arguments on other issues. If he cuts corners here, why not elsewhere? If he can't be consistent and honest with himself and others on this, why on anything else?