Last week I discovered these comments by Andrew Sullivan inferring that Mark Levin is anti-gay. Sullivan refers to the March 26, 2006 Brian Whitman show when Sean and Mark called in to confront Alec Baldwin on the air.
Responding to a reader’s comments, Sullivan said this:
Mark Levin anti-gay? I listened to the exchange. Levin called Baldwin a “butt-boy” as well as “Brokeback Alec.”
I emailed Sullivan telling him he left out Baldwin’s original comment, “cabin boy”, which was thrown at Mark first. That omission was in fact lying about Mark Levin.
Sullivan replied to my email with this:
cabin boy means, and i checked, someone low down on the totem pole. it doesn’t have gay connotations.
does levin support marriage rights, and open service in the military for gays?
if so please give me citations and i wil gladly link.
andrew
I responded suggesting he do a web search for “cabin boy” and “homosexuality” and see how many hits he gets! I told him using that logic one must be for gay marriage and gays serving openly in the military, to not be anti-gay. What kind of twisted logic is that? It’s obvious he just wants to smear Mark Levin and won’t let the truth get in his way!
Then Sullivan sent this final response:
yes if you do not allow gay couples the same rights as married straight couples withut children, you are anti-gay.
and if you oppose open gay service in the military you are anti-gay.
got that?
andrew
That means most Americans and most politicians are anti-gay according to him! Without children? That is not in the definition of gay marriage, is it? Something tells me his interest in the military has more to do with his loathing of the military and the desire to disrupt it. I doubt it has that much to do with the open status of gays serving in the military.
I have been listening to Mark Levin daily since October 2004. Levin is NOT anti-gay. If he were, trust me, I would not listen. Now, if people were to say he was anti-Alec Baldwin, they may have a case. LOL! It’s one thing to disagree with Mark’s politics, but it is far more serious to suggest he is anti-gay.
Sullivan is as radically liberal as can be! It’s no surprise that he refuses to correct his blog post!
.jpg)
The Stalinists are so pathetic! Is this all they have got?
This is so assinine, it’s not WORTH comment … so I WON’T!!
Mark Levin is no gay-basher. I don’t believe in gay marriage. “Marriage” is for the promotion of family production etc. Not simply making any one feel better about themselves. I have a gay son and he’s always been gay.ÂÂ ÂÂ I love him but I will never stand up for his “right” to marry. I think it’s wrong. He knows how I feel. That stands me apart and more honest than some in my perspective.
Well said, Twiggy. This Sullivan character may not be a leftist in general-I happen to believe he’s just another Beltway conservative, which is to say NON-conservative-but he’s playing himself into the category Larry Elder calls “Victo-crats”. Sullivan is free to commit to his relationship; there are plenty of clergy who will perform such ceremonies. I have no problem with that, and I doubt anyone else here does either. But I don’t believe that any benefit of my tax dollars should accrue to those who engage in something I consider unnatural, and that would be the effect of legalized same-sex marriage-Social Security survivor benefits for just one example. The other drivers involved (right of survivorship, hospital visitation issues, end-of-life decisions) can and should be decided by the elected representatives of the respective states-and/or the people thereof-not any COURT! Gee…yhello democracy!
To the good Dr! (this from your friend Twiggy) I totally agree with you. None of our tax dollars should be spent to check this out…I think churches that challenge this should also be made to relinguish their tax exemption. You don’t get to make these decisions…WE do. And I DO have problems with these ceremonies. I think any same-sex partners should be allowed legally to be with their loved ones in crisis situations..If I want YOU to have my benefits whoever you are…I should be allowed to say that. My say-so should determine that! Not a court decision.
One other thing…the military service issue is a trojan horse in this construct. If what I’ve heard in the past is correct, homosexuals tend to be more well off financially and better educated as a demographic group, and hence less likely to find the enlistment incentives attractive. Never mind the fact that most align themselves with the political left, most of which despises our military. These activists want the RIGHT to join rather than the ABILITY to join. It’s chipping away, a foot in the door. When is it okay to enact a policy which in reality would benefit only a relative few?
I would prefer to do this in private…this last comment is all over the place. Wow! Very enlightening and upsetting all at the same time..not to mention unexpected.
I am anti-special rights for married couples or for anyone else. including gays, for that matter. We are all human beings with Constitutional rights that, I believe, do not permit one person’s property to be confiscated any differently than another person. I guess I could be construed as anti-heterosexual on that basis.
When it comes to raising children traditional marriage very probably has a biological/social basis and children have the right to have parents that parent within that context. People do not have the right to make human beings without the ability and motivation consistent with what Homo sapiens, the biological animal that he is, requires for development. It is about children not parents.
Marriage begun largely as a RELIGIOUS ceremony. In that, it was one man and one woman. Then the government got it’s hands into it with marriage licenses. So, if the government wants to change the definition of marriage, then they are passing a law messing with religion.
Bottomline, they are looking for SPECIAL rights. They have equal rights. hey have equal rights in that they can MARRY anyone they want, within the definition of marriage.
As a former soldier and unit commander, I have seen what open homosexuality in the military can do to unit cohesion and morale. This is the liberal way of destroying our military.
Andrew Sullivan is an idiot. Mark does not bash gays. Mark, however, does not want the goverment (specifically the Supreme Court) to endorse a particular lifestyle when it comes to the point of endorsing sodomy (Mark wrote a chapter in Men In Black that talked about the goverment taking sides on the gay marriage issue).
I am against gay marriage because, like twiggy said, marriage is for reproduction and to create families (which is an obstacle for same sex couples since you need someone of the opposite sex to create life). I also don’t like it when the government tries to endorse an unnatural practice.
The people who take gay bashing to the extreme are Fred Phelps and his Westboro Church of Hate (he and his family spits on our soldiers at funerals and attacks this country in the name of gay bashing and a faith in predestination) and Weiner Nation, who we know compared VP Dick Cheney’s lesbian daughter child announcement with the problems with our country.
Another worst case of gay bashing would be the liberal left themselves.
Sullivan says – “an actor who was married to, and had children with Kim Basinger, who has had any number of relationships with any number of starlets”
Of course Mr.Levin is not anti-gay.
More importantly, this statement by Sullivan is suggesting to me that Alec Baldwin as a man whore.
Just thought I’d make some light of this idiot’s comments.
Sullivan can hope and pray about it all he wants, but men are never going to stop using terms like that to belittle other men. I doubt there is a straight man alive today, who hasn’t used such a term such as that to describe another man he didn’t like. Does that make us all anti-gay?
They say us men need to get more in touch with our femine side. I say Sullivan needs to get more in touch with his masculine side, and just shrug this one off and get over it.
You’re so right,MC! Sullivan is a Wuss!
There used to be some shred of respect for Mr. Sullivan and his writings before he became unhinged. His “conservative” mantle actually was a nice bridge on how a homosexual could and should use their mind and talents instead of their genitals to integrate with society. He showed some restraint and compassion for the philosophical and religious beliefs of others even when he disagreed. Then when the “marriage” issue started to work against the gay movement it became appararent that he was just a wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing pretending to be conservative. And because they couldn’t get their way, he started with horrible anti-catholic rants and then turned on republicans and conservatives also. Now he’s nothing more than a whiney bigot and a poster-boy of why the gay agenda is harmful.