There is something seriously wrong with our media, and our society, when America’s two most influential newspapers, the New York Times and the Washington Post, can endorse a U.S. Supreme Court that rules that the U.S. Constitution justifies racial discrimination against whites and the right to homosexual sodomy. It would be nice if our mainstream media would point out that, in fact, none of this is actually justified or articulated in the Constitution, and that the majority on the Court simply made it up, thereby making a mockery of the Constitution and subverting the idea of constitutional self-government that our founders gave us on July 4, 1776.

The Times and the Post editorialized in favor of the court’s ruling for the homosexuals, with the Times noting that Justice Antonin Scalia said the ruling may provide a basis for upholding homosexual marriage. The Times is in favor of that, too, even though the majority of Americans are not.

The elite media create the atmosphere that enables the “governing caste,” as Scalia put it, to destroy traditional values, overturn state laws, and find rights in the Constitution that don’t exist because of what the majority of the court calls “an emerging awareness.” Scalia noted that the Court majority had overturned one of its own decisions, the Bowers case, in which it had declared no constitutional right to sodomy. The court said that the Bowers decision had been strongly criticized over the years. Scalia found that to be a very weak basis on which to overturn a previous decision. The criticism, of course, had come from the militant homosexual lobby and its allies in the legal profession and the media.

In contrast to the editorials in the New York Times and the Washington Post, the Washington Times editorial page found something seriously wrong in the Supreme Court claiming a right to homosexual sodomy in the Constitution. The court “turned the Constitution upside down,” said the Washington Times. The paper said the ruling had violated states’ rights. More than that, however, Scalia said the rationale for the decision could lead to the invalidation of state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution and bestiality. “Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision?” said Scalia.

The Washington Times editorial reflects an amazing turnaround for Tony Blankley, editor of the editorial page, who had said he didn’t regard the homosexual assault on family values as any kind of threat. On CNN’s Crossfire, Blankley had said he disagreed with Senator Rick Santorum’s point that the Supreme Court could not legalize the homosexual lifestyle without approving other strange sexual behaviors practiced in the privacy of a home, such as incest, bigamy, polygamy, and adultery. Santorum’s remarks generated a controversy among journalists and the homosexual activists, with some saying he should resign.

“I disagree with almost everything he said,” said Blankley. “I’m confident the Supreme Court can distinguish between consensual conduct by gays and lesbians in private and incest, which is not consensual, by definition of the relationship. So I don’t buy his argument. I don’t buy his argument that American families are in danger from the one percent to two percent of homosexuals in the country. We’ve had that population since the beginning of time, and American families are fine.”

At least Blankley didn’t recite the phony figure of 10 percent usually cited by the media. But his statement helps explain why the Times op-ed page is now carrying a column by open HIV-infected homosexual Andrew Sullivan that is devoted, in part, to advancing the homosexual agenda and gay marriage. Indeed, Sullivan used his column in the Times to attack Santorum. But Santorum has been proven correct. It turns out that the court did not make the distinctions that Blankley said they would.

Blankley is correct that homosexuals have always been with us, but for most of our history their unnatural lifestyle was considered a symptom of a mental illness, and sodomy was outlawed. History shows?and our founders knew?that the open and approved practice of homosexuality is a sign of a society in decline.

Echoing Santorum, columnist Linda Chavez had written, “If the Constitution prohibits a state from regulating consensual sexual activities between adults of the same sex, why should it allow states to regulate such activities between adults of the opposite sex, which anti-incest, anti-bigamy, anti-polygamy and anti-adultery statutes certainly do? Her column appeared in the Washington Times before the court ruling. Blankley should have taken it more seriously.

Share This

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

About the author