Washington Post's homosexual agenda

Here we go again.
Yet another op-ed or article in the Washington Post
supporting the homosexual agenda:

Even though the Supreme Court struck down DOMA, it’s still hurting gays every day
By Stacey Schuett
Washington Post web site, 2014-10-03
[Author information on the web site:]
Stacey Schuett is a proud mother of two,
author and illustrator living in Sebastopol, California.
Her wife Lesly died in June 2013.

Yeah, right.
The article title gives its point of view right away.

When have you ever seen anything in WaPo critical of the homo agenda?
They call themselves "objective".
They're as objective as the grossly misnamed "Human Rights Coalition".
What's the difference?

Let's get to a central issue:
The sexual orientation of the "leading ladies" of the Washington Post:
Katharine Graham
and her grand-daughter, Katharine Weymouth.
Both of them were married long enough to give legitimacy to their children,
but not much longer.
Surely women with their social and economic status
could have found highly desirable husbands,
if they had the slightest interest in sex with men.
I think the fact that they did not remarry suggest very strongly that
they had no interest in sex with men.
(And Katharine Graham certainly had a well-publicized close relation, of some sort,
with the never-married Meg Greenfield.
Meg's Wikipedia biography, as of 2014-10-03, says:
"She never married, something she came to regret."
Well, let me suggest that if she was interested in sex with men,
it would not take until old age for her to decide
she was missing out on something by not being married.)
But of course I could be wrong.
So prove me wrong, if I am.

As to the propriety of asking this question,
I certainly agree that for the average Joe or Jane,
the people you encounter in your daily life,
their sexual orientation is nobody's business but their own,
and those to whom they care to divulge that information.

But the Katharine's, Graham and Weymouth,
are most certainly not that average person.
They had immense power, of the sort available to only a handful of others,
to influence American opinion.

And influence American opinion the Post certainly has,
in a strongly pro-homosexual direction.

My opinion is that,
for those people in America who either influence or determine public policy
(e.g., high-ranking elected officials and members of the judiciary
and the various opinion leaders in the media),
that their sexual orientation is very much "fair game" for inquiry.

Labels: ,