Time for another tour of the right-wing blogosphere
As usual, our tour guide is the incomparable Roy Edroso.
This time, for your convenience, our excerpt from Roy’s Village Voice column includes his links to nutty stuff from the wingnut netherworld:
Last week the Supreme Court heard a couple of gay marriage cases and, with so many politicians and even some conservatives running to grab the rainbow flag, it seemed as if a corner on the contentious issue had been turned.
How went the rightbloggers? Most continued to — paraphrasing Buckley — stand athwart history, crying “Please be gentle!” But others tried to accommodate their new gay-married overlords in ways that preserved for themselves some sliver of Right Pride.
However the court rules, things do look sunnier for marriage equality than they did even a year ago. Polls now show slightly more support for than opposition to gay marriage. And some top Republicans have been doing the rats/sinking ship routine. Rob Portman switched on account of his son; a number of Republicans signed a legal brief on behalf of gay marriage; Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) said a pro-gay-marriage GOP Presidential candidate was not only possible but “inevitable,” etc.
But don’t worry — most real conservatives are holding the line; Mike Huckabee’s even willing to lead the Bible belters out of the GOP over it. And despite some maudlin well-I-guess-this-is-it capitulations, most rightbloggers are on the line with them — though there is some (pardon the expression) diversity as to tactics.
At rightwing flagship National Review, for every yes vote from the likes of Michael Potemra, there have been at least half a dozen hard nays — most of them, it seemed, written by a frantic Kathryn J. Lopez. Some authors offered anti-gay-marriage Deep Thoughts; Nicholas Frankovich, for example, told us, “The sexual revolution is now a tall tree with far-flung branches. The fruit over here, abortion, may be a long walk from the fruit over there, same-sex marriage, but the clearly toxic nature of the former affirms for me my wariness of the latter.” Were we Frankovich, we’d be more wary of the hallucinogenic mushrooms.
Other Review writers just went with snarls. “Look at it from the leftist point of view,” wrote Michael Walsh. “This is in fact the reductio non absurdum of what they’ve been fighting for since the late Sixties and arguably since the Wilson administration: their wish for kings.” (Queens, we should have thought; don’t they have editors over there?)
As for legacy pledge Jonah Goldberg, he brushed the issue off with a distracting fart and a dash for the exits — “I think the argument over whether or not to call civil unions ‘marriage’ has been all but lost, though there’s a glimmer of hope the decision might eventually be left to the states (which I favor)” — so we’ll put him down as an “abstain,” or some kind of stain anyway.
There’s lots more good stuff in the rest of Edroso’s column. Read the whole thing HERE.