The League of Conservation Voters has pulled out of a forum on climate change that was to be co-hosted by The New Republic after the magazine ran (and then deleted) a “homophobic” hit-piece on 2020 candidate Pete Buttigieg — by a gay writer, no less.

As Twitchy has observed, the narrative that it’s conservatives who oppose a gay candidate just isn’t playing out; criticism of Buttigieg is coming from lefty outlets concerned that the South Bend mayor isn’t the right kind of gay.

TIME ran a cover of Buttigieg and his husband, Chasten, but their home life seemed so straight that critics called their relationship a display of “heterosexuality without women.” Slate’s Christina Cauterucci wrote a piece exposing Buttigieg as not only gay but also “white, male, upper-class, Midwestern, married, Ivy League–educated, and a man of faith” — all bad things, of course.

Then The Outline published a piece entitled, “Why Pete Buttigieg is bad for gays: Mayor Pete might be the most palatable gay man in America. That’s precisely the problem.”

To progressives, Buttigieg might be gay, but he’s not GAY. And that seemed to be the problem writer Dale Peck touched on in his piece for The New Republic, “My Mayor Pete Problem.” CNN reports that Peck continually referred to Buttigieg as “Mary Pete” and satirically suggested that the married Buttigieg “would be sexually promiscuous” in the White House.

The New Republic owner apologizes "to Mayor Buttigieg, as well as to our readers…" details here https://t.co/A8onKi8U0y — Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) July 13, 2019

Full statement from @NewRepublic owner Win McCormack apologizing for the offensive Mayor Pete piece: pic.twitter.com/iNHch7QNlJ — Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) July 13, 2019

It’s interesting that the first major instance of a media organization crossing the line in discussing Buttigieg’s sexual orientation & having to self-correct came from the left, not the right — John Sacrimoni (@Sacrimoni2John) July 14, 2019

It is interesting, it’s certainly not the first, and it’s been exclusively from the Left as far as we’ve seen, unless you consider Slate and TIME conservative outlets.

Too late. The damage is already done. Shame on them for calling themselves journalism. #NewRepugnant — Cᵣₐₙₖy Gᵣₐₙdₘₐ (@BeeHiveKicker) July 14, 2019

It was so appalling. I don't think any apology can begin to address that. So I suppose keeping it brief is prudent. ? — Warren Kinsella is punk like Nickelback (@OneAcmeMan) July 13, 2019

Way too little. Way too late. I can't conceive of a comparable article they would have had the nerve to publish about any other candidate. That the writer is himself gay–bitterly, unhappily, meanly gay–is utterly immaterial. The @NewRepublic is dead to me. — Christy Bishop (@artfulhome1) July 13, 2019

Editor should be fired. This is beyond a slip-up. — Ginger Gaebe (@vgaebe) July 14, 2019

Good. They deserve to lose all sponsors. — olga (@olsaenz) July 13, 2019

I unfollowed them after their article. Not likely to refollow – once you see what’s behind the door — — (@Szy_Sefton) July 13, 2019

The apology is worth nothing. They spewed their garbage. Can't take that back. They are not a medium who can be trusted anymore. — MichelleELanthier (@cintigal51) July 13, 2019

They keep calling this a poor attempt at satire. What exactly was it attempting to satirize? What was the topic that needed lampooned? Gay mayors? Slutty Marys? Maltese presidential candidates? TNT tell us what the editorial thinking was. — Melania’s Pre-Nip Agreement (@86_RSK) July 13, 2019

They printed it. Apology is too late for such a vile article. — Diana Viola (@DianaViola16) July 14, 2019

And why is the word offensive in quotes on your website?! This article doesn’t deserve ANY journalistic neutrality. Even though the offending writer is gay, it still makes it homophobic & disgusting. If this was a anout a PoC politician, New Republic would be deservedly lambasted — SeanMcG (@MaxwellEdwin) July 13, 2019

The original article was disgusting and I cannot even guess what the magazine was thinking in publishing it in the first place. — lynn akin (@lakin1013) July 14, 2019

But for real, how was it allowed to be published in the first place? — WeWantPete (@WeWantPete) July 13, 2019

It was horrific…..? — Peg Haws (@Peg77) July 14, 2019

Screw their apology! Whoever was involved in writing this piece and whoever made the decision to publish this piece should be fired immediately! This publication should be shunned and driven out of business! — G. Patrick Nagel (@Geepnagel) July 14, 2019

So is the writer and editor going to be disciplined or fired?! — SeanMcG (@MaxwellEdwin) July 13, 2019

“So Peck disgraced himself once, and his editors disgraced themselves twice”. Seems like the standard — Niccolo (@donbarry_) July 14, 2019

Too late. Already blocked them even though it was an opinion piece. Seems like they’re trying to have it both ways. Publishing it in the first place displayed an extreme lack of judgement. Apology/retraction doesn’t mean much unless whoever gave it the green light is fired. — Sydney ?? (@Sydney843) July 14, 2019

I think it is safe to say that Dale Peck will be persona non grata in many gay and liberal circles after this. — Dave R (@Cyclist44130) July 13, 2019

Should be the final nail in the coffin for this already largely moribund publication that has long since been a punchline. — Martin Rayner ??? ?? ?️‍?⚛ (@Martin_Rayner) July 15, 2019

Maybe progressive gays should look in a mirror and figure out what it is about Democrat candidate Pete Buttigieg makes them so hostile.

Related: