• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

“Marriage is a constitutional right” headlined the lead editorial in the Aug. 5 edition of the New York Times.

This editorial saluted federal Judge Vaughn Walker, who ruled that the 52 percent majority of California voters who supported Proposition 8 in 2008 were guilty of discrimination because they oppose same-sex marriage.

This editorial claimed:

  • “the decision was “an instant landmark in American legal history, a stirring and eloquently reasoned denunciation of all forms of irrational discrimination, the latest in a chain of path-breaking decisions that permitted interracial marriages and decriminalized gay sex between consenting adults.” (Question: Do all participants in interracial marriages appreciate this New York Times’ comparison of themselves to Sodomists?)

  • “The judge easily dismissed the idea that discrimination is permissible if a majority of voters approve it; the referendum’s outcome was ‘irrelevant,’ he said, quoting a 1943 case, because ‘fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote.’” (Question: How about instances when amendments to the Constitution of the United States are submitted to the votes of three-quarters of the nation’s state legislatures that approve them? Such as the votes that supported Prohibition – the 18th Amendment – and years later, the votes that repealed Prohibition, the 21st?)
  • “‘Moral disapproval alone,’ he wrote in words that could someday help change history, ‘is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians.’”

Think about that.

Surely there is an enormous majority of the United States that has very strong moral disapproval of the Massachusetts-based NAMBLA – the North American Man/Boy Love Association.

If the adult males in this organization can demonstrate to Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco that their young boyfriends are with them in bed by choice, why should moral disapproval be any proper basis to deny rights to adult pedophiles and their (often younger than teenage) lovers?

Will the New York Times also endorse a constitutional right for polygamy?

Polygamy’s practitioners are so often arrested and imprisoned, though polygamists have nothing of the AIDS and syphilis rates of this nation’s homosexuals, who co-habit with multiple partners.

Another alternative sexual orientation with none of the AIDS and syphilis rates of homosexuality are the zoophiliacs, or practitioners of bestiality.

Should this alternative orientation also be tolerated if the human practitioner can demonstrate that his animal lover did not resist or run away but willingly participated?

And when will there be such tolerance for that sexual orientation called necrophilia, or the sexual attraction to corpses?

Or for those who engage in incest? Does the New York Times editorial department believe that if marriage is a constitutional right for two men or two women that there also is a constitutional right of brothers to marry brothers (or their fathers) and sisters to marry their sisters (or mothers)? And if not, Times people, why not?

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.