A word on Andrew Sullivan. Mr. Sullivan -- a fake conservative -- recently penned his displeasure with the GOP bill that (barely) repeals and replaces ObamaCare. I know -- no one should be surprised that an HIV-positive unrepentant homosexual who’s “married” to another man, and who once advertised for multiple-partner unprotected sex, is displeased with Republican legislation on health care. Sullivan’s criticisms aren’t anything new, but he does provide an interesting look into the liberal mindset when it comes to the role of government and what is “decent.”

Sullivan -- in spite of living a life that is quite contradictory to both -- has long claimed to be a conservative and a Christian. After the GOP-led House took the first steps toward officially giving ObamaCare its well-deserved legislative funeral, Sullivan wrote,

You might think Obamacare would violate my generally conservative principles, but it didn’t. In fact, it seemed to me to be an effective marriage of conservative principles and, well, human decency.

I know well the hypocrisy of those corrupted by liberalism, but Sullivan’s efforts warrant an award, or perhaps even to have an award named after him: the Sullivan Award -- for hypocrisy above and beyond usual liberal standards. Talk about defining decency down! Seriously, how does a man so selfishly devoted to perversion, and who has worked harder than most at destroying the oldest institution in the history of humanity -- the foundation upon which virtually every other human institution rests -- make implicating complaints about the lack of “human decency?”

How “decent” is it, not only to deceive when it comes to the hedonistic and dangerous homosexual lifestyle, but to shamelessly promote such a lifestyle? How “decent” is it to deprive helpless children of a mother or a father? How “decent” is it to support a healthcare law that attempts to force coverage of abortion and “transgender” services upon those who want nothing to do with such horrific acts?

In touting the “decency” of ObamaCare, Mr. Sullivan notes how Obama’s signature legislative achievement allowed him (Sullivan), a man “living with the preexisting condition of HIV… far more independence and freedom.” The independence and freedom Sullivan celebrates surrounds his career. He writes,

[Obamacare] gave me the confidence to quit a previous job and start my own little media company -- my blog, the Dish. It gave me peace of mind when I subsequently shut that business down and was able to stay on the same plan. It allowed me to be a freelance writer without fear of personal bankruptcy. I got no subsidy, but I was glad to pay the premiums for me and my husband because it gave me a sense of control over our finances and our future.

How ignorantly ironic. As in the case in the same-sex “marriage” debate, the “independence and freedom” touted by Sullivan comes at the expense of the independence and freedom of others. As has been chronicled for years now, Christians across the U.S. have been harassed, sued, fined, lost their jobs, lost their businesses, and so on, because they wouldn’t tow the liberal line on marriage and Obamacare. Just how “free” or “independent” is anyone when the government is forcing you to participate in something you want no part of or to purchase something (often very expensive) that you don’t want, don’t need, and in many cases, will never use? 

In addition, Mr. Sullivan adds, “The decency part comes from not blaming or punishing the sick for their condition.” Of course, this is an indirect reference to the oft-repeated -- but almost always incorrect -- “republicans don’t care about those with pre-existing conditions” argument. It should go without saying that all “pre-existing conditions” are not equal. (Why can the companies that insure our automobiles factor in our “pre-existing” speeding tickets or traffic accidents?)

In other words, the pre-existing condition (HIV) that plagues Mr. Sullivan, is strictly due to his promiscuous and perverse sexual activity.

In further support of ObamaCare, and with more stunning ignorance and hypocrisy, Mr. Sullivan asserts that “mandating individual coverage” -- as does Obamacare -- “insists on personal responsibility.” In other words, it’s okay to insist on personal responsibility when it comes to purchasing one’s ObamaCare plan, but not when it comes to personal behavior that might reduce one’s need for medical care. Just how much are we encouraging “responsibility” if we allow people who regularly engage in unhealthy behaviors to force the rest of us to supplement their health care costs?

And no one can be considered “responsible” when their actions are “mandated” by the full force of the federal government. Otherwise, those guys in the white or orange uniforms often seen picking up trash on the side of the road would be considered some of the most responsible people in our society. For a man willing to redefine decency, I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised at a redefinition of “personal responsibility” as well.

Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com