Peter, this is silly. Seriously, what do you think the Left is trying to make of this, if anything? I think Yoest (she’s new to me) is being rather paranoid. She’s treating a tiny ripple in the blogosphere as a tidal wave of attacks against Roberts. As she said, "it was only one silly post." And then that theory about the Times article trying to make him look gay?? Please. Yoest herself has probably done more, inadvertently, to make people consider the possibility than the Left has. And yeah, I DON’T care if the guy is left. I see him as another judge who is rather conservative who Bush likes. He probably is NOT gay, but even if he is a closeted gay, so what? I really don’t care, and I can’t prevent the Right from working themselves into fits over some obscure whispers. It’s funny that she says "Well, that’s just the point: they think we do [care whether he’s gay or not]" Well, when she devotes a dozen or so paragraphs to it, it kind of looks like she DOES care. As for Mary Cheney, I think most Americans knew about her sexual orientation long before Kerry made his innocuous remarks. She certainly wasn’t closeted about it.

You see, during the last few years, the Republican party, on the whole, hasn’t exactly established itself as friendly to the concerns of gays, with the President talking about a constitutional amendment and all that. The irony comes in when this same political party has friends like James Guckert/Jeff Gannon (a gay prostitute), and even members, like Spokane mayor Jim West, who push anti-gay legislation while they themselves are gay. In other words, he was in favor of discrimination against a group of which he was a member, albeit a closeted member. We can put psychology aside, I suppose, and just chuckle about how ironic it is.

I don’t think Yoest gets it.

And just for the record, I don’t think that the fact that he "studied French and Latin in high school, was on the wrestling team, and participated in the choir...and wore plaid pants" means anything at all. Snickering over this stuff might be a bit juvenile, yes, but it’s hardly homophobic. I’ve known many gays who would themselves laugh about things like this, knowing full well that it doesn’t provea thing.

It’s a strange tactic. The Republicans get upset because the Dem’s are trying to insinuate something that would bother a lot of the Christian Coalition people. Why even start picking a fight over something this silly?

So all it takes to be a member of "the Left" is to put up a web site somewhere and say something that right-wingers in the blogosphere get upset about? Who knew joining would be so easy! Move over, Robert Putnam. Let’s call it "virtual social capital."

This seems a bit precious, especially given the following post (above) by your own Steven Heyward:

It would seem, however, that the Times has to lower its standards dramatically to include announcements of gay partnerships. Today, for example, includes a notice for the nuptuals of Anthony Brown and Gary Spino. Brown is "of counsel" to a law firm in East Rockaway (not exactly Fifth Avenue white shoe territory), having earned his law degree from Brooklyn Law School, and Spino is an office manager for an osteopath.

Not likely that a hetero couple with such credentials would make the wedding page. The Times former "public editor," Daniel Okrent, criticized the paper’s coverage of gay marriage for its "cheerleading" tone, which extends, so it would seem, to its wedding notices.

Posted by Steven Hayward | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 7/24/2005 1:53 PM

I love this: On the one hand, you folks on the right are throwing up your hands in false horror and righteous indignation, while you feed the fires of homophobia with the other. Sinking low, indeed.

HI you h’v very usefull site! thank you and yahoo for mail.
if you like it you can add my homepage to your link menu.
https://intellect-news-search-tool-watson-63660xse.okweb18.org