<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[ON GANNON-GUCKERT]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>I haven&#8217;t written about it because I agree completely <a href="http://instapundit.com/archives/021373.php" target="_blank">with Glenn</a>. The substantive case against Gannon is trivial; the irrelevant case against him (the one that&#8217;s fueled this story) is that he&#8217;s gay, has allegedly been (or still may be) a prostitute, and may not agree with everything the gay left believes (although I agree with <a href="http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&amp;pid=2219" target="_blank">David Corn</a> that the evidence that Gannon has written anything even remotely &#8220;anti-gay&#8221; is laughable). The real scandal is the blatant use of homophobic rhetoric by the self-appointed Savonarolas of homo-left-wingery. It&#8217;s an Animal Farm moment: the difference between a fanatic on the gay left and a fanatic on the religious right is harder and harder to discern. Just ask yourself: if a Catholic conservative blogger had found out that a liberal-leaning pseudo-pundit/reporter was a gay sex worker, had outed the guy as gay and a &#8220;hooker,&#8221; published pictures of the guy naked, and demanded a response from a Democratic administration, do you think gay rights groups would be silent? They&#8217;d rightly be outraged. But the left can get away with anything, can&#8217;t they? Especially homophobia. </p>
<p><span style="color:#7c7ca6;font-weight:bold;">HOW I SOMETIMES FEEL: </span>Yes, I&#8217;m the one <a href="http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=18597" target="_blank">in the glasses</a>. </p>
<p><span style="color:#7c7ca6;font-weight:bold;">THE POPE&#8217;S LIFE: </span>We have been informed that the pontiff&#8217;s current suffering and persistence against multiple illnesses and debilities is sending a message about the dignity of suffering and the importance of life. There is indeed a great truth to that. But there is also a point at which clinging to life itself becomes a little odd for a Christian, no? Isn&#8217;t the fundamental point about Christianity that our life on earth is but a blink in the eye of our real existence, which begins at death and lasts for eternity in God&#8217;s loving presence? Why is the Pope sending a signal that we should cling to life at all costs &#8211; and that this clinging represents some kind of moral achievement? Isn&#8217;t there a moment at which the proper Christian approach to death is to let it come and be glad? Or put it another way: if the Pope is this desperate to stay alive, what hope is there for the rest of us?</p>
]]></html></oembed>