A Washington Post columnist's incredible comparisons

Before he began one of the longest terms in the history of the United States Senate, Arizona's widely beloved Carl Hayden was sheriff of Maricopa County, during territorial days.

One day, a delegation of concerned church ladies came to his office to report their discovery that the chief of a neighboring Indian tribe had four wives.

TRENDING: Biden offers grants to teach children U.S. 'inherently racist'

They wanted Sheriff Hayden to do something to enforce the laws against bigamy and polygamy. So, he rode out to the reservation to see the chief, whom he knew – and who welcomed him – along with all four of his wives.

Sheriff Hayden explained the law requiring that he have but one wife.

The chief thought about that for a moment. Then he replied: "You pick which one!"

As the four wives focused their attention on him, Sheriff Hayden replied: "I'll have to take that under consideration." And he rode back to Phoenix.

When the church ladies arrived to find out what he had done, Hayden explained. And echoing the chief, he advised the ladies: "You pick which one!"

That ended the matter.

The same tolerance has been extended by the Anglican (Episcopal) Communion of nearly 80 million African converts to Christianity who had – before their conversions – engaged in polygamy.

Rather than obliging a convert to divorce all of his wives but one, he was obliged to marry no more – in a gesture of Christian tolerance. And there was no suggestion that any such polygamist be consecrated a bishop.

This, however, has been cited by the Washington Post's Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Colbert King – in a guest column for the New Hampshire Union Leader.

Mr. King tries to compare this tolerance of pre-conversion lay polygamy, with the majority of New Hampshire's 15,000 Episcopalians electing a practicing sodomist as bishop. King compounded this absolutely incredible comparison by adding another. While a slim majority of American Episcopal bishops approved a sodomist prelate for New Hampshire, none of the bishops of the Church of England have expressed public objection to the adultery, followed by fornication, in the queen mum's palace by the prince of Wales – who may someday head the Church of England.

I can remember a news conference at Washington National (Episcopal) Cathedral of all of the archbishops or presiding bishops who lead the world's Anglican (Episcopal) provinces.

I asked the archbishop of Canterbury: "Since the prince of Wales has not only learned Welch, but has served in the British Fleet and has even parachuted, what is he doing to prepare to become head of the church and defender of the faith?"

His grace seemed startled, but replied: "Well, he attends church and has been present at church meetings."

Then the archbishop went swiftly to another reporter – before I could ask about how many millions of others do those things, and how many thousands spend years in theological seminaries to become clergy – not heads of the church.

For Washington Post columnist King to suggest that the same degree of morality is expected by Englishmen from their monarchy as from their bishops is astounding. For the most theologically involved king in English history – who received from the pope the title "defender of the faith" for his disputation of Rev. Martin Luther – was Henry VIII. He had six wives, one after another, two of whom he had beheaded.

Perhaps only Queen Victoria had as much interest in the Church of England as Henry VIII. But while she did not in any way emulate his sexual misbehaviors, no one can accurately claim that her son, King Edward VII, was faithful to his marriage vows.

The title of the Post's King column is Al Franken-like: "DON'T EPISCOPAL BISHOPS HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN WORRY ABOUT SEX?"

To which could be added the question: Does the Washington Post never publish anything about sex? – like presidential preferences for Lewinsky thongs in the Oval Office?

I have been informed by Talk Radio Network that they contacted columnist King at the Post and invited him to appear on the air with me to discuss his column and my critique.

They report however, that Mr. King replied – "I know who he [Kinsolving] is – and I won't be available."

That is of course, his prerogative. Big-time columnists are never obliged to face any critics – as we talk-show hosts have to do everyday.

But doing so provides us a much closer touch with the American people than those Big Media celebrities whose public contacts are largely confined to lunching with each other.

Colbert King's unwillingness is more clever than courageous.