I want to clarify what I wrote yesterday about Andrew Sullivan. One reader e-mailed me, in part:

What I’ve managed to glean from [Sullivan’s] writing is that the basic middle-class, monogamous, law-abiding model that has been handed down to us as the American ideal is pretty much the only way to go, as long as same-sex couples are allowed to participate in it as fully as heterosexual ones. In this, Sullivan is deeply conservative, and I’m a little surprised that you write with unreserved approval of someone who spouts the Republican party line in so many other matters.

Let me make clear that I don’t necessarily agree with everything Sullivan says — I was mainly writing about Virtually Normal. I’m not sure how I feel about the rest of his views, including his views on foreign policy, the White House, etc. And setting aside his views, I still think he’s a terrific writer, aesthetically speaking.

Here’s a quick summary of Virtually Normal. It’s a political treatise, not a social one. Sullivan begins with the premise that homosexuality exists, that it’s not a choice (which, true, is not necessarily relevant to the argument), and, most importantly, that it’s not going anywhere. Given that there will always be gay people, how should society deal with them? In the next four chapters he summarizes four different positions on the matter, and he discusses why each of them has problems. Then, he sets forth his thesis: government should permit gay marriage, allow gays in the military, abolish sodomy laws, and generally treat gays equally, but it should not take any role in the private sector — i.e. no antidiscrimination laws, etc. His ideology is very taut and elegant. It’s the last part that I’ve had problems with — no antidiscrimination laws in employment, housing, etc. But after reading his book, I see that he does have a point. I’m not completely convinced that antidiscrimination laws are wrong — but he has at least made me confront the question.

I want to distinguish his political views from his social views. He might believe that monogamy and marriage are the best way to go, but he makes it clear that these are his personal views and should not be imposed on everyone. That’s part of his point — the government should guarantee equality in the public sphere and leave everything else up to us, all the choices about how we live our lives. Marriage should be available for those who want it, but he’s not trying to force all gay people to get married. He’s not spouting the Republican party line, if the Republican party line is one of an activist government encouraging a single moral and social value system. I find Sullivan more of a libertarian — more of a classical liberal, actually.

So what I find appealing are not necessarily his social views (not that I necessarily find them unappealing, either), but rather his political thesis, which makes a variety of social views possible.

Not that everyone has to agree with this. In fact, after Sullivan spoke at UVA a few years ago, a friend of mine wrote a spirited response.