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.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.