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.