Some of the best news coming out of “pride month” is that Andrew Sullivan wants a divorce. Sort of. He wants the LGBs to dump at least the most radical portions of the Ts. And we cannot let him.
In a “pride month” Substack essay, he laments the abandonment of what he calls the “settlement” between Left and Right over the rights of LGBTs. [For years, I have tried to avoid using the acronym for their sexual proclivities, but for reasons below, I am going to start insisting on it]. The “settlement” was that LGBTs would be allowed to get married and serve in the military, and we would never be forced to accept LGBT marriages in our churches and could still go around criticizing them.
First, there was never any such “settlement” where both sides sat down literally or metaphorically and agreed to this. In fact, our side won 32 statewide elections enshrining man-woman marriage into state laws or constitutions that explicitly rejected same-sex marriage. These votes occurred even in Democrat states like California and even during Democrat-only primary battles like in Missouri. This should have been very nearly the end of it. But the LGBTs took it to the courts that happily imposed the ideology on a reluctant populace. And though there was never a vote, it was clear that no one wanted “out” LGBTs in the military.
Orthodox. Faithful. Free.
Sign up to get Crisis articles delivered to your inbox daily
Sullivan says the LGBT movement should have ended with Obergefell in 2015 and Bostock in 2020. He begins his essay by explaining that all they wanted was marriage and military service, but then he salutes what he calls “trans equality enshrined in law.” And this rather gives the game away. Sullivan argues that all they wanted was marriage and the military. But we knew all along—and what Sullivan admits here—they wanted much more. This is not merely “liberalism” that Sullivan applauds, it is sexual leftism. It always was leftism. He denies there was a slippery slope, as many of us argued, and then he praises the slippery slope that went from marriage to trannies in sports, which he criticizes and then defends.
It is a muddled essay.
The good news is that there is a civil war going on among the alphabet rainbows. Division and confusion among our opponents is always a good thing, something to be encouraged. The lesbians and gays have never really gotten along. I suspect that none of them really care for the lukewarm Bs. After all, choose a side, mate! And now we have the trannies going after the lesbians and the feminists. We have had homosexual writers lament that sissy boys are no longer encouraged to come out as homosexual but, rather, are psychologically maneuvered into puberty blockers, transsexual hormones, new pronouns, and surgery. The good news is that there is a civil war going on among the alphabet rainbows. Division and confusion among our opponents is always a good thing, something to be encouraged.Tweet This
Andrew Sullivan and others are saying this is not what we meant; this is not what we meant at all.
But it is, whether they admit it or not. The enemy is the sexual revolution in all its particulars. And this is why we cannot allow the LGBs to divorce the Ts. After all, LGBT is their acronym not ours. They forced it on us, and we must insist they keep it. I do not recall that Andrew Sullivan ever objected to the acronym.
It was so revealing two years ago when our local grocery store, part of a huge chain, erected a massive “pride” display. Local moms went to the manager and complained on the grounds that the T erases women. The manager was befuddled. He was taken aback. Here were women making a feminist argument against the rainbow acronym. This poor liberal guy had nowhere to hide. The display was reduced and never came back in subsequent years. See how we can use the T so effectively against the entire rainbow edifice? Andrew Sullivan knows this.
It should be understood that historically the T has always been welcomed by the LGBs. Drag shows have been part and parcel of the homosexual world from the very beginning. In the wonderful television series about cultural icon cookbook author Julia Child, there is a scene where she spends time with legendary chef and writer James Beard in San Francisco. Beard was gay but not then “out.” He took her to a gay club that featured drag queens, one of whom was dressed up as Julia Child. This would have been in the early 1960s. Those guys have always loved this kind of thing. One of the most popular gay-world television shows is RuPaul’s Drag Race. It is not only a television show, he also takes it on the road to packed houses.
I am sure Sullivan does not want that kind of thing to disappear. But he wants us to believe this is not a part of his movement. Or at least he wants to draw back some of the ickier aspects of it, like indoctrinating kids in it, policing pronouns, etc. And to a certain extent, that is a good thing. But Sullivan is not our ally. He is part of the problem.
Our fight is against the sexual revolution in all of its particulars, including the pill, pornography, no-fault divorce, and the ideology centered not just around the Ts but the rest of the acronym, too. No matter how reasonably he presents himself, Andrew Sullivan is a sexual revolutionary. Let the SexRevs fight, but do not let them divorce.