First, he titles his piece "Freedom or Power?" At first read, it appears to be a critique of gay rights activists' criticisms of President-Elect Obama over the Rick Warren Affair. Sullivan writes:

[T]his Rick Warren flap at its core, I think, is about the difference between those who see a civil rights movement as a means to wield power and those who see it as a means to spread freedom.

What a strange statement. Perhaps Sullivan is not capable of seeing a civil rights movement as an exercise of power as a means to spread freedom. A truly singular view. And as a defense of Obama, a community organizer (one assumes Obama was organizing a community in an attempt to empower it) it becomes even less coherent. Especially when one considers that Sullivan's support for the use of American power in Iraq was based upon, at least rhetorically, the supposed goal of spreading freedom.

Sullivan's strange ramble continues:

I want to live in a free society alongside people who genuinely believe I am a sinner destined for hell - and I want to get along with them. I am concerned (but not obsessed) with changing their minds, but totally repelled by the idea of coercing or pressuring them to do so.

(Emphasis mine.) Coercing or pressuring them to change their minds? What in Gawd's name is Sullivan talking about? Does he mean the way Martin Luther King, Jr. "coerced and pressured?" Does he oppose activists generally? Is not all activism "coercion and pressure" at its heart? Again, Sullivan's arguments are not coherent to me.

He continues:

I am simply interested in having the government treat me as it would treat them. Once we establish that, we can all believe and say and argue for precisely what we want. May a thousand theologies bloom.

Hmmm. Is there someone arguing for something different? The point of the "pressure and coercion" is to in fact achieve a state where "the government treat me as it would treat them." What the heck is Sullivan talking about?

So I oppose hate crime laws because they walk too close to the line of trying to police people's thoughts. I support the right of various religious associations to discriminate against homosexuals in employment. I support the right of the most fanatical Christianist to spread the most defamatory stuff about me and the right of the most persuasive Christianist to teach me the error of my ways. I support the right of the St Patrick's Day Parade to exclude gay people - because that's what freedom of association requires. In my ideal libertarian world, I would even support the right of employers to fire gay people at will (although I am in a tiny minority of gays and straights who would tolerate such a thing). All I ask in return is a reciprocal respect: the right to express myself freely and to be treated by the government exactly as any heterosexual in my position would be treated.

Set aside the hate crime law part and replace the words "homosexual" and "gay" with African American, Latino or women. Thus written, let's reread Sullivan's paragraph:

I support the right of various religious associations to discriminate against [African Americans, Latinos, Asians and women] in employment. . . . I support the right of the St Patrick's Day Parade to exclude [African Americans, Latinos, Asians and women] - because that's what freedom of association requires. In my ideal libertarian world, I would even support the right of employers to fire [African Americans, Latinos, Asians and women] at will (although I am in a tiny minority of gays and straights who would tolerate such a thing). All I ask in return is a reciprocal respect: the right to express myself freely and to be treated by the government exactly as any heterosexual in my position would be treated.

The concept of public accomodation seems foreign to Sullivan's thinking. He seems to be opposed to, like the Southern Segregationsits MLK fought against, the civil rights laws of the 1960s. But indeed, logic is also foreign to Sullivan's thinking. Consider this:

[T]he notion of the president stigmatizing someone because of his religious views, and the gay movement pressuring to ban such a person from a civic ceremony, strikes me as coming from precisely the wrong place. A president is president of all the people.

According to Sullivan, not beinging invited to deliver the invocation at the inauguration is stigmatizing to all the reverends in the United States. By choosing Warren, Obama has stigmatized all the others. Of course this is ridiculous. By choosing Warren, Obama has ELEVATED Warren and his beliefs to respectability. For no good reason. This is a poor use of the bully pulpit of the Presidency.

What's truly funny about Sullivan's piece is how he ends it. After extolling his fight as one for freedom and condemning the fight of others as one for power, Sullivan then has the gall to write:

Much more important, with Obama's election, power has shifted. Gay people helped win this election. We will be part of this administration in ways that we would never be under a McCain or a Bush.

You see why gay rights activists should calm down? They have more power under Obama, NOT more freedom. He has just undermined his entire strawman thesis. It becomes an appeal to power, not to freedom. The incoherence here is manifest.

I am not gay so I can not walk in the shoes of gay rights activists, but if they are indeed up in arms about someone like Sullivan, I can hardly blame them. He writes:

this is why I think gay people of faith have a central role to play now. In the battle between a frightened fundamentalism and a wounded gay community, we are called to be healers and bridge builders. This is our Christian obligation, the part we have to play. The dynamic between the short-term pleasure of power and the long-term argument for freedom affects all civil rights movements. The central element in the success of black civil rights was the role of Christianity in tempering and guiding and restraining the temptations of power in favor of the deferred promises of freedom and charity. Gay Christians are needed now as much as ever to help in that task, however hard it can be to swallow the spiritual hurt and to rise above it in charity. I know how hard that is, and I haven't met the standard always myself. I'm not preaching; I'm just saying what I've learned - in prayer and in action.

(Emphasis supplied.) MLK learned his nonviolence from his Christian principles? Um no, MLK is not Sullivan's model. MLK did not advoacte for powerlessness as Sullivan seems to believe. History tells us otherwise:

Prior to becoming a civil rights leader, King entered a theological seminary in 1948 where he began to concentrate on discovering a solution to end social ills. He came to the conclusion that the while the power of love was a compelling force when applied to individual conflicts, it could not resolve social problems. He believed the philosophy of "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies" applied only to conflicts between individuals and not racial groups or nations.

While at the seminary, King also read about Gandhi and his teachings. King was struck by the concept of satyagraha, which means truth-force or love-force. He realized that "the Christian doctrine of love operating through the Gandhian method of nonviolence was one of the most potent weapons available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom.” King, however, was still not convinced that nonviolent resistance was a viable method in the United States. His acceptance of nonviolence would come years later during his involvement in the Montgomery bus boycott. It was at this time that King's earlier intellectual realization about the power of love was put into action. As nonviolent resistance became the force behind the boycott movement, his concerns were clarified. He recognized that nonviolent resistance was a powerful solution, and he committed himself to this method of action.

Boycotts and resistence. The power of nonviolence:

[King] argued that even though nonviolence may be perceived as cowardly, it was not. In fact, it was a method that did resist. According to King, a nonviolent protester was as passionate as a violent protester. Despite not being physically aggressive, "his mind and emotions are always active, constantly seeking to persuade the opponent that he is mistaken.”(2)

Nonviolent Resistance Awakens Moral Shame

Second, the point of nonviolent resistance is not to humiliate the opponent, but instead to gain his friendship and understanding. Further, the use of boycotts and methods of non-cooperation, were the "means to awaken a sense of moral shame in the opponent.”(3) The result was redemption and reconciliation instead of the bitterness and chaos that came from violent resistance.

. . .

(Emphasis supplied.) It seems quite clear that Sullivan does not understand the history of the black civil rights movement, the theory of nonviolence or Martin Luther King. Indeed, I would argue he does not understand his own thinking on this issue. In any event, I was struck by the utter incoherence of his piece and thought I would share my thoughts with you.

Speaking for me only