Some conservatives have noticed what they perceive as a rightward drift on the editorial page of the Washington Post. The paper did endorse the war against Iraq. But on matters of social policy, the paper is stridently liberal. The paper really shows its liberalism on the matter of homosexual rights.
In a June 27 editorial, the Post called the Supreme Court decision in favor of homosexual rights “remarkable and majestic.” It followed with a July 5 editorial on “Recognizing Gay Couples,” recommending formal legal recognition of homosexuals who marry. It said, “Society as a whole is made stronger when couples?whether opposite-sex or same-sex?cement their love and their commitment in legally sanctioned unions.” The Post urged Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to abandon support for a proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage as consisting of a man and a woman. President Bush has not endorsed the measure.
The editorials are under the supervision of editorial page editor Fred Hiatt. The Post position is strongly opposed by Robert Knight of the Culture and Family Institute, who says, “Marriage is the union of the two sexes, not just the union of two people. It is the union of two families, and the foundation for establishing kinship patterns and family names, passing on property and providing the optimal environment for raising children.” Rep. Marilyn Musgrave has proposed a Federal Marriage Amendment that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
As reported by the Washington Times, a recent study on homosexual relationships from Holland finds that they last one and a half years on average. The story added, “Among heterosexuals, by contrast, 67 percent of first marriages in the United States last at least 10 years, and researchers report that more than three-quarters of married people say they have been faithful to their vows.” But Fred Hiatt of the Post felt so strongly about the matter that he authored a July 14 column entitled, “Evolution on Gay Marriage?,” in which he compared treatment of gays getting married to old laws that banned blacks and whites from getting married.
Hiatt attacked Senator John Kerry, a liberal from Massachusetts running for the presidency, for opposing homosexual marriage. Kerry said that, “Marriage is an institution between men and women for the purpose of having children and procreating.” In a personal attack, Hiatt said, “(Kerry) himself is in a second marriage, to a woman in a second marriage, that appears unconnected to such purpose.” How does Hiatt presume to know whether the Kerrys are trying to have or raise children? He only said it “appeared” that way, which strikes us as a rather weak basis for making a charge about somebody’s personal life.
The Post is to the left not only of Kerry but most Democratic presidential candidates. Only three?Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun and Rep. Dennis Kucinich?have said that federal law should approve same-sex marriages. But the homosexuals are optimistic. The Gay & Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, D.C. has posted Hiatt’s column on their web site.