The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

Video from Wonk Room:

A few activists are holding on - good for GOProud - but the outlook is grim. Why? Look at what even GOProud supports: civil marriage equality, military service, and no federal constitutional amendment barring marriage equality. There are virtually no openly gay Republicans supporting Republican policy on gay rights. This is not true of any other minority. This has changed for the worse over the last two decades, in direct opposition to what has happened in every other Western country, especially the British Tories. Here's my attempt to explain why the old conservative politics of ...

A reader writes: As a young boy I attended a Catholic elementary school.  In the confessional I struggled with my sexual urges and same-sex attractions.   When I asked my priest why this was happening to me, I was told that God gives all of us challenges in life and this was my cross to bear.  The path to salvation for boys like me, was to pledge my life to God by becoming a celibate priest.   He recommended that I attend a pre-seminary for my high school education.  I attended Quigley Preparatory Seminary in Chicago for my freshman year.  Struggling with same sex attractions, I was ...

Wendy Kaminer, who supports marriage equality, chides the ACLU:Not surprisingly, the right wing, anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund is perhaps the primary defender of First Amendment rights in cases involving the anti-gay speech and belief of conservative Christians.  ADF receives (and perhaps desires) little assistance from the ACLU, an increasingly unreliable defender of speech and belief that conflict with its gay rights agenda: while the ACLU aggressively defended the rights of students to wear t-shirts to school celebrating gay rights, for example, it stayed out of an important federal ...

"You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage -- now get this -- it defined marriage as simply, 'the establishment of intimacy.' Now how dangerous is that? I mean, I don't mean to be absurd about it, but I guess I can make the point of absurdity with an absurd point -- I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse. It's just the wrong way to go, and the only way to protect the institution of marriage is with that federal marriage amendment that I support," - ...

Guess who: [W]hat if we don't build in an exception for the so-called "liberal no's" -- that is, simply take every vote at face value? It turns out, then, that [Artur Davis of AL-7] is no longer the least valuable Democrat. Instead, it is Dennis Kucinich, who voted against health care, the hate crimes bill, the budget, the cap-and-trade bill, and financial regulation -- all ostensibly from the left -- in spite of coming from from the strongly Democratic Ohio 10th district near Cleveland.

An Air Force sergeant is discharged under DADT after civilian police officers outed her to her commanders upon seeing her Iowa marriage license.

Here's part of my Princeton speech that helps explain why I and the Human Rights Campaign and the Democratic Party do not quite get along on the subject of homosexual politics. I also emphasize the vital task of protecting religious freedom - even when, and especially when, it means discrimination against gays within religious institutions. Their conscience matters as much as our conscience, their freedom as much as our freedom. Extra: a defense of ACT-UP!:

Hitch gives it a go: From his article on the subject:It’s difficult to take oneself with sufficient seriousness to begin any sentence with the words “Thou shalt not.” But who cannot summon the confidence to say: Do not condemn people on the basis of their ethnicity or color. Do not ever use people as private property. Despise those who use violence or the threat of it in sexual relations. Hide your face and weep if you dare to harm a child. Do not condemn people for their inborn nature—why would God create so many homosexuals only in order to torture and destroy them? Be aware that ...

Here's the beginning of my talk on the politics of homosexuality at Princeton. It's in two parts, one just below, and continued after the jump. It's an attempt to take the arguments of both Protestant Biblical literalists and Catholic adherents of natural law on their own terms and to show how they make no internal sense; how they are internally incoherent even on their own terms. My same dissections on the delusions of the queer left, middle-of-the-road moderate conservatism and Human Rights Campaign liberalism, will be posted in the next few days. The entire speech, if you have the time ...