Just How Gay Is the Right, an OP-ED piece on the war on gays, appeared in the May 15th New York Times. I thought I’d take a look and see what some of the reactions have been in the blogosphere.

What they’re saying…

Seeing the Forest: I’ll say it a little clearer: The rabidly anti-homosexual wingnuts are obviously gay and ashamed of it.

Why else would they be insisting that the presence of gay people risks “luring” straight people to become homosexual? This wouldn’t even occur to a person who is not fighting such urges…

Nick Lewis: This isn’t about “gay rights” folks…. Our obligation — and I do mean that — is to finally crush, and humilate this movement of hypocritical, sexually retarted, scat munching, sociopathic bigots who are so arrogant as to call themselves the “moral majority”; their goal is no less than deficating upon the world’s oldest democracy with thier disgusting orgy of hypocrtical hate. Our inability to stop this movement of hate mongering toddlers will one day be a mark of shame on all Americans. The tide must turn now. We, those of us who know that hate, ignorance, love of war, greed, and hypocracy go not only against the teachings of Jesus, but even our veru evolutionary heritage… where have we been?

Power Line: Throughout his long column, Rich associates Allen Drury’s point of view with his own, and he suggests that Drury–a fan of the “the constitutional checks and balances that ‘Advise and Consent’ so powerfully extols”–would have been on the Democrats’ side in the current battle over the filibuster.

This perspective is so strange that it requires a moment to untangle. First, for those unfamiliar with Drury’s novel, its villains are liberals, and its heroes conservatives. At the height of the cold war, the President, a supreme politician in declining health, nominates as Secretary of State an an appeaser named Robert Leffingwell. A bipartisan coalition favoring a strong defense against Soviet expansionism forms against Leffingwell in the Senate, and ultimately defeats his nomination. Along the way, the liberals learn that Brig Anderson, a rising star in what is clearly the Republican Party, had a brief homosexual experience while in the Army during World War II. The liberals use this fact to blackmail Anderson, trying to force him to vote for Leffingwell. Anderson commits suicide instead, and his death galvanizes the conservatives’ opposition to the far-left nominee and his unprincipled liberal allies…

What’s your take?

*New York Times registration may be needed to view article.