BCT Editorial – 6/1/08

This page was last updated on June 1, 2008.

Moving along; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 1, 2008.

A few excerpts from this editorial are precious.

In the fifth paragraph we read, “More and more Americans are coming to the conclusion that government in the United States — federal, state, county and municipal — has no business treating homosexuals differently than anyone else.” I have no problem with that. Neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals of the same sex should be allowed to marry. If members of the same sex – whether heterosexual or homosexual – want to enter into legal agreements similar to marriage, that’s fine. Likewise, if members of different sexes – whether heterosexual or homosexual – want to get married, I have no problem with that. I simply believe a marriage should be solely between a man and a woman. I wonder what the Times position is on affirmative action programs. You know, the programs that treat fill_in_the_name_of_a_group “differently than anyone else.”

The penultimate paragraph says, “Providence Journal columnist Froma Harrop noted that the ‘more time passes since Massachusetts legalized same-sex nuptials (four years ago), the less people care about them.’” Once again we have a Times editorial using an opinion column as if it were a credible source of fact. The Times failed to note Ms. Harrop is a member of the Providence Journal’s editorial board and consistently supports leftist positions on issues. Read Ms. Harrop’s column and you find she cites no factual sources for the opinion quoted by the Times.

Finally, the editorial concludes with, “Same-sex marriage is becoming more accepted with each passing day. Only those on the right who continue to use it as a political wedge issue don’t grasp that.” As the editorial “A gay time” in March 2008, this one also tries to promote the myth that only some on the right oppose same-sex “marriage.” As I wrote in my critique of that editorial, “The Times and its fellow travelers would like us to believe only the evil right supports so-called ‘defense of marriage’ amendments/bills, but the facts tell a different story. As I noted in a 2004 critique, ‘In the 2004 election, 11 states had ‘defense of marriage’ amendments on the ballot. All 11 amendments passed with significant majorities (maximum of 86%, minimum of 57%, 8 passed with 66% or greater), even in ‘blue’ states. Amendments don’t pass with these majorities without significant Democrat voter support.’”