Skip to comments.Why a 'Gay' Activist Columnist at The Washington Times?
Posted on 12/19/2002 1:56:27 PM PST by Remedy
As a pro-family conservative and former reporter for The Washington Times, I am one of that newspaper's biggest boosters. To appreciate the thoroughness of the Times and the balance it provides to the liberal Post, one need only travel to another big city and read the shallow and biased fare that passes for "news" and commentary in the local newspaper. Americans owe a debt of gratitude to the Times.
So I was stunned one recent morning to open up the Times and read that it had added a weekly column by Andrew Sullivan to its Friday editorial pages. Sullivan is a gifted essayist and cultural critic, to be sure, but he is also one of the world's most effective propagandists for the homosexual cause. He tirelessly advocates for "gay marriage" - an oxymoron if there ever was one. And he regularly posits a moral equivalence between normal male-female relationships and unnatural homosexual couplings. Worse, he claims to do so as a practicing Catholic.
Like countless fellow "gay" activists, Sullivan wrongly assumes that his homosexual "orientation" is natural and criticizes the Church's age-old Biblical stance that homosexual behavior is sinful. Rather than examine his heart and repent of his own errors, Sullivan - who has AIDS and who was discovered last year to have posted a solicitation on a homosexual "barebacking" (condomless sodomy) Web site - questions the Church and its teachings.
Not surprisingly, Sullivan is using his Friday "Weekly Dish" column in The Washington Times column to advance his favorite cause. In his November 6 column, he hails several "gay" election victories and works in yet another pitch for "gay marriage." He also welcomes the growing homosexual support for Republicans and ends with an appeal to President Bush to support a federal pro-homosexual "law against workplace discrimination" as a means of winning further support. Funny, I recall reading that Sullivan once bucked the "gay" lobby by opposing expansive "gay rights" laws as unnecessary and a potential threat to liberty. It appears that his "gayness" has trumped his "conservatism" once again.
It's a sad commentary on our times that today a person is probably more likely to be fired or disciplined at his job for opposing homosexuality than for being homosexual. Take Eastman Kodak, which imposes a misnamed "diversity" code on its employees - regardless of their religious or moral beliefs. Kodak recently fired a 23-year employee, Rolf Szabo, who bristled at a memo ordering workers to support homosexual coworkers who "come out" as "gay," lesbian, bisexual or "transgendered." Szabo copied his reply, "Please do not send this type of information to me anymore as I find it disgusting and offensive," to all the Kodak employees who had received it, and then refused to issue an apology. The leading "gay" lobby group, Human Rights Campaign, organized a letter-writing campaign in support of Kodak's action.
This is not "tolerance;" it's mandatory groupthink, and the Corporate Thought Police will only get bolder, and meaner, if "conservative" Sullivan gets his way and the federal homosexual bill he is touting - the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) - becomes law. You can bet there would be more Rolf Szabos thrown out on the street under ENDA, all in the name of "gay" tolerance.
There has never been a time when the media - led by The Washington Post and The New York Times - have pushed the pro-homosexual line harder than they do today. The Washington Times is different. It gives voice to traditional viewpoints that so often are shut out by today's journalists, who are like so many lemmings jumping off a moral cliff. Andrew Sullivan has plenty of media outlets with which to hawk "gay marriage" and other misguided homosexual causes. The last thing we need is for a self-described "family" newspaper - "America's newspaper" - to lend its respected pages to his immoral crusade.
He tirelessly advocates for "gay marriage" - an oxymoron if there ever was one.
And he regularly posits a moral equivalence between normal male-female relationships and unnatural homosexual couplings.
Worse, he claims to do so as a practicing Catholic.
It appears that his "gayness" has trumped his "conservatism" once again.
wrongly assumes that his homosexual "orientation" is natural and criticizes the Church's age-old Biblical stance that homosexual behavior is sinful
Sullivan - who has AIDS and who was discovered last year to have posted a solicitation on a homosexual "barebacking" (condomless sodomy)
The last thing we need is for a self-described "family" newspaper - "America's newspaper" - to lend its respected pages to his immoral crusade.
So why all the hub-bub over the need for special protections? Not long ago, the Oregonian ran a Lifestyles Section front page story on a couple that was having a great deal of trouble finding housing...because they had two cats. The photos and text made it abundantly clear that they were homosexuals, but their biggest problem in finding housing was the two cats.
If the Washington Times were not a conservative publication then I would feel they SHOULD carry someone with Sullivan's liberal social views. It's only right to have balance. But this is different.
IMHO, this is an employment issue. No question about it, biologically and statistically homosexuality is not normal and the gays and the lesbians dispute this. Even my own professional association, American Psychiatric Association, disagrees with my convictions. But is preventing Sullivan from writing for a newspaper a way to solve the argument? I think not.
I think the homosexuals want to be accepted as they are in society. Unfortunately, their in-your-face-I-am-as normal are has resulted in an identity "politics" war. In the meantime, homosexuals are going to need jobs, places to live, religious institutions and everything else we desire and need. Neither the Constitution or common sense leaves much of an alternative
the Times must be totally monolithic in its approach
No. More along the lines of the Anti-Defamation League hiring Joseph Goebbels as a public relations specialist, i.e., The Poisoned Stream. "Gay" Influence in Human History. Volume One. Germany 1890-1945.
Neither the Constitution or common sense leaves much of an alternative
Sect. XIV. Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy* with a man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least.
* Paragraph 25. H. 8. C. 6. Buggery is twofold. 1. With mankind, 2. With beasts. Buggery is the Genus, of which Sodomy and Bestiality, are the species. 12. Co. 37. Says, "note that Sodomy is with mankind." But Finch's L. B. 3. c. 24. "Sodomiary is a carnal copulation against nature, to wit, of man or woman in the same sex, or of either of them with beasts." 12. Co. 36. Says, "it appears by the ancient authorities of the law that this was felony." Yet the 25. H. 8. Declares it felony, as if supposed not the be so.... B. Fleta, L. i. c. 37. says, "pecorantes et Sodomitae in terra vivi confodiantur." The Mirror makes it treason. Bestiality can never make any progress; it cannot therefore be injurious to society in any great degree, which is the true measure of criminality in foro civili, and will ever be properly and severely punished, by universal derision. It may, therefore, be omitted. It was anciently punished with death, as it has been latterly. Ll. Aelfrid. 31. and 25. H. 8. c. 6. see Beccaria. Paragraph 31. Montesq.
Peterson, Merrill D. "Crimes and Punishments" Thomas Jefferson: Writings Public Papers (Literary Classics of the United States, Inc. 1984) pp. 355, 356. The penalties for violating sodomy laws in the USA:
The penalties for violating sodomy laws in the USA:
Idaho, 5 years to life
Oklahoma, 20 years
Michigan, 15 years
Mississippi, 10 years
Puerto Rico, 8 - 20 years
Louisiana, 5 years/$2000
South Carolina, 5 years/$500
North Carolina, 3 years
Virginia, 1-5 years
Alabama, 1 year/$2000
Missouri, 1 year/$1000
Kansas, 6 months/$1000
Utah, 6 months/$299
Florida, 60 days/$500
It might be just as simple to buy the newspaper and choose not to read the column you don't like. I don't agree totally with anybody I have yet met and certainly not with any newspaper.
Of course if you ask my wife and kids they'll tell you that I am a bit hard to get along with now and then
The Washington Times is not aiming to be a conservative publication. They're aiming to be a mainstream newspaper that's balanced, unlike the competition. So they have columnists like Nat Hentoff and Andrew Sullivan. Makes it more interesting to read than reading 15 conservative columnists saying the exact same thing.
Your laws, like your hatred, are obvious
Violence and Homosexuality The top six U.S. male serial killers were all gay.
How about a gay publication that carried Jerry Falwell? Would you subscribe? The WTimes is not balanced on any other issue; why this one? I will not help anyone promote this immorality. It is a matter of conscience to me.
when and where have these laws been enforced?
when and where have these laws been enforced?
when and where have these laws been enforced?
"They have objected to my behavior as a judge because I reference the moral foundation of the law when we talked about sodomy, when we talked about adultery, when we talked about separation of church and state. I go back to the legal history that we have here in Alabama, our court case precedents, and the foundations of law to show that these things comport with the Scriptures from which we get our moral foundation."
Gay rights organizations in Alabama and Washington, including Equality Begins at Home of Central Alabama, are calling for Moore's resignation, accusing him of using "right-wing rhetoric and far right religious dogma to justify homophobia and execution of homosexuals."
The effort is in response to the Alabama high court's unanimous decision to reject a lesbian mother's child custody petition. Moore wrote a separate concurring opinion, repudiating homosexuality on religious grounds, calling it "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God."
when and where have these laws been enforced?
Because of the nature of the crime, the penalties for the act of sodomy were often severe. For example, Thomas Jefferson indicated that in his home state of Virginia, "dismemberment" of the offensive organ was the penalty for sodomy. 7 In fact, Jefferson himself authored a bill penalizing sodomy by castration. 8 The laws of the other states showed similar or even more severe penalties:
That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . shall be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead. 9 NEW YORK
That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death. 10 CONNECTICUT
Sodomy . . . shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labour in the penitentiary during the natural life or lives of the person or persons convicted of th[is] detestable crime. 11 GEORGIA
That if any man shall commit the crime against nature with a man or male child . . . every such offender, being duly convicted thereof in the Supreme Judicial Court, shall be punished by solitary imprisonment for such term not exceeding one year and by confinement afterwards to hard labor for such term not exceeding ten years. 12 MAINE
That if any person or persons shall commit sodomy . . . he or they so offending or committing any of the said crimes within this province, their counsellors, aiders, comforters, and abettors, being convicted thereof as above said, shall suffer as felons. 13 [And] shall forfeit to the Commonwealth all and singular the lands and tenements, goods and chattels, whereof he or she was seized or possessed at the time . . . at the discretion of the court passing the sentence, not exceeding ten years, in the public gaol or house of correction of the county or city in which the offence shall have been committed and be kept at such labor. 14 PENNSYLVANIA
[T]he detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that the offenders being hereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their goods. 15 SOUTH CAROLINA
That if any man lieth with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they both shall suffer death. 16 VERMONT
8. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson M emorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, pp. 226-227, from Jefferson's "For Proportioning Crimes and Punishments."
9. Laws of the State of New-York . . . Since the Revolution (New York: Thomas Greenleaf, 1798), Vol. I, p. 336.
10. The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1808), Book I, p. 295.
11. A Digest of the Laws of the State of Georgia (Milledgeville: Grantland & Orme, 1822), p. 350.
12. Laws of the State of Maine (Hallowell: Goodale, Glazier & Co., 1822), p. 58.
13. Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: John Bioren, 1810), Vol. I, p. 113.
14. Collinson Read, An Abridgment of the Laws of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1801), p. 279.
15. Alphabetical Digest of the Public Statute Laws of South-Carolina (Charleston: John Hoff, 1814), Vol. I, p. 99.
16. Statutes of the State of Vermont (Bennington, 1791), p. 74.
Well, it is the Season to don our gay apparel...
Which of these states has imposed these draconian penalties and when? That is the question. Your personal views are important but they aren't the law of the land.
Seems more like a way of increasing the Times's circulation by appealing to gay readers.
How is this rant different than the gay's effort to keep Dr. Laura off TV.
All in all, the gay activists are largely anti-Christianity. Having a half a dozen or so verses in the Bible that speak against homosexuality is the primary reason. The agenda by these gay acivists here is to neutralize Christian belief and moral implementation. The Christian ethic is the biggest single factor for America being Great and that is what they are attacking.
Which of these states has imposed these draconian penalties and when?
The Christian ethic is the biggest single factor for America being Great and that is what they are attacking.
Sept. 2, 2000 ,Volume 15, Number 34 WORLD ON THE WEB, Marvin Olasky
...For example, the word homophobia smogged up the air over the Democratic convention in Los Angeles last week, as we learned once again that a man who criticizes homosexuality on biblical grounds is trying to repress his true desire to plant a big sloppy kiss on the dude next door.
...That's why Rabbi Lapin's fearless statement makes sense: "Those of us who venerate freedom, be we Jewish or Christian, be we religious or secularized, have no option but to pray for the health of Christianity in America. No other group possesses both the faith and the numbers sufficient to hold back the ever-encroaching, sometimes sinister, power of the state."
Rabbi Lapin always make sense. He makes me think so hard that it makes my brain hurt.
And I am sure it keeps you very regular too.
But it's the MIND we are talking about here. It is like any other muscle in the body. If you don't exercise it, not only does it not grow, it atrophies.
Held: The Georgia statute is constitutional. Pp. 190-196 .
(a) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. Pp. 190-191 .
(b) Against a background in which many States have criminalized sodomy and still do, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious. Pp. 191-194 .
(c) There should be great resistance to expand the reach of the Due Process Clauses to cover new fundamental rights. Otherwise, the Judiciary necessarily would take upon itself further authority to govern the country without constitutional authority. The claimed right in this case falls far short of overcoming this resistance. Pp. 194-195 .
(d) The fact that homosexual conduct occurs in the privacy of the home does not affect the result. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 , distinguished. Pp. 195-196 .
(e) Sodomy laws should not be invalidated on the asserted basis that majority belief that sodomy is immoral is an inadequate rationale to support the laws. P. 196 .
Let me know if you want to be included or removed in future pings of this type.
To view all FR Bump Lists, click here
I see it like Fox news, fair and balanced, and hold my nose when Alan Colmbs is on. Except Alan isn't mentally ill.