I’ve always had civil relations with Bennett; and he has never shown any personal animus. But when I read his writing, it is filled with fear and loathing of gay people as an alleged threat to the very families we love and belong to. So which is it, Bill? The same goes with someone like Pat Buchanan, who has always treated me with great affection and respect. And yet, in print, he regards my commitment and love for my fiance as a danger to civilization. At some point, these people are going to have to decide. And now is as good a time as any. ~Andrew Sullivan

This makes about as much sense as Niall Ferguson’s remark about the reason why “liberal Tories” have no problem with “civil partnerships” and suchlike: they have gay friends, so obviously they couldn’t take a position on a question of social policy that would inconvenience their friends!  In other words, you cannot be friendly with such people unless you buy their political agenda, and you cannot oppose someone’s political agenda without treating him with disrespect and hostility.  What a charming world these people live in, in which you always agree with your friends and are rude and obnoxious to your opponents.  Rather an odd view for someone who goes on and on and on about the “Coulterization” of conservatives and the supposed inability of his critics to be civil and respectful.  Talk about wanting it both ways! 

Presumably Sullivan would not be satisfied if Bennett and Mr. Buchanan acted more “consistently” with what he thinks is their “fear and loathing” of gay people.  Since he assumes, almost certainly wrongly, that those who reject homosexuality and a political agenda tied to normalising and approving of homosexuality loathe the people in question, he has a hard time understanding how these people who, deep down, hate his guts can be so pleasant and personally agreeable around him. 

Of course, if they started treating him personally with contempt because they allegedly “loathe” gay people, he would denounce them as bigots.  If they treat gay people with respect and civility but denounce and oppose measures that would normalise or enshrine such behaviour that they regard as immoral and wrong, he would also denounce them as bigots, and hypocritical bigots to boot (we are eagerly awaiting someone to write In Defense of Hypocritical Bigotry–it should be a big hit!). 

It seems to me that civility, decency and toleration are a pretty good deal.  Anyone who expects full approval of homosexuality with all the trimmings of legally recognised “unions” will be waiting for a very, very long time.  Hastening a “reckoning” in GOP ranks will almost certainly make that wait even longer.  Sullivan should not want the time of reckoning to come, because the reckoning will almost certainly not be in favour of his folks.  All other points aside, this sort of “reckoning” talk does a real disservice to the people whom Sullivan allegedly wants to support and defend (i.e., the apparently myriad gay Republicans who are simply overflowing in Washington), since I assume these folks have gotten where they are and work for the party that they work for because they do not want to define their identity around sexuality and probably do not buy into most of the agenda of those who do so define their identity this way.  Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems to me that a “moment of truth” where the GOP is forced to decide for or against having any homosexuals among its staffers would be the last thing these folks would want to have.  Whether the core supporters of the party will continue to delude themselves into thinking that their leaders substantially share their “‘values” on these sorts of questions remains the far more interesting and politically significant question.