Stanley Kurtz has a brief, incisive and shrewd analysis of where we stand on the Iraq debate here. It's hard to disagree with him. I'm afraid that the case for many more troops might have made sense two years ago, but makes much less sense today. But Kurtz's post is excellent because it simply analyzes lucidly what's going on. And then I read his post on marriage equality. Can this be the same guy? He writes:
After all, until a moment ago, same-sex marriage was itself considered a radical idea pushed by a bunch of college professors and marginal activists. That was before gay marriage was taken up as a cause by weighty mainstream institutions like The New York Times.
I think Stanley must know this is historically absurd. The first big mainstream article for gay marriage was written by me in 1989 from a conservative perspective. The left's unwavering position on the subject until the Bush administration was deeply hostile. I remember having to go through a lesbian picket line for a book-reading of "Virtually Normal" in 1995, because my argument for marriage was deemed "patriarchal," "fascist" "heterosexist." etc. The "marginal activists" opposed marriage equality for much of the 1990s and so did the Human Rights Campaign, as well as the Democratic leadership and Bill Clinton. No mainstream gay group would back the first marriage case in Hawaii; and HRC did all they could to kill the issue for years. From the beginning, it was gay conservatives who pushed for this, egged on by many actual gay couples. I understand why Stanley disagrees; and he is entitled to his opinions. But he is not entitled to rewrite history.