On the day after President Bush’s superb speech in London’s Whitehall Palace, two of America’s largest daily newspapers’ lead editorials embarrassed the United States by endorsing sodomist matrimony.
The New York Times and the Washington Post did not, of course, use the term sodomist matrimony. Instead, their headlines read in the New York Times: “A VICTORY FOR GAY MARRIAGE” and in the Washington Post: “THE MERITS OF GAY MARRIAGE.”
If any of their editorial writers remember John F. Kennedy’s close friend Arthur Schlesinger’s statement on this use of the word “gay” – they surely did not either mention nor profit from it: “The use of the word ‘gay’ to designate sodomy is literary piracy.”
These two editorials are also both sex-deviantly discriminatory. For while they both support matrimony for what are by far the nation’s leading spreaders of AIDS, neither editorial provided any support for other sex deviants who have no record of spreading AIDS.
Neither the Times nor the Post advocated similar matrimony for sadists who want to marry masochists (however compatible that would be) or for human males or females who enjoy having sex with freely consenting beasts. (Dogs which copulate with human legs are examples of the freely consenting)
Neither the Times nor the Post, in their support of matrimony for AIDS-spreaders, proposed any such support for those into “intergenerational love” – like the just-arrested Michael Jackson, who announced on television that “many children” enjoy sleeping in his bed, where: “It’s not sexual. We’re going to sleep. I tuck them in. It’s very charming. It’s sweet.”
Since one of Muhammad’s wives was 9-years old when he consummated their marriage, can we expect the Post and the Times to endorse matrimony for the North American Man-Boy Love Association?
Let’s curb the kangaroo court of anonymous sources
Tim Graham