Thirty year ago, homosexual acts were crimes. The Supreme Court has since discovered sodomy to be a constitutional right. State courts are discovering another new right -- of homosexuals to marry.
To call homosexuality unnatural, immoral or a mental disorder will soon constitute a hate crime in America.
Once we cast aside morality rooted in religion -- as the "Humanist Manifesto II" insists we do -- who draws the line on what is tolerable in the new dispensation?
Upon what moral ground do we stand to deny a man many wives, should he wish to leave behind many children, and the wives all consent to the arrangement? Biblically and historically, polygamy was more acceptable than homosexuality.
The second is now a constitutional right. Why not the first?
Are we not indeed headed "inevitably to utter irrationality and eventually political, as well as moral, chaos"?
Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. Hillary Clinton marched in gay pride parades with the North American Man/Boy Love Association. Anyone doubt that NAMBLA will one day succeed in having the age of consent for sex between men and boys dropped into the middle or low teens?
The Federal Drug Administration has approved over-the-counter sales of birth control pills to 11-year-old girls. High schools have been handing out condoms, pills and patches to students for years.
If sex among teenagers is natural and normal, and homosexual sex is natural and normal, upon what moral ground does liberalism stand to deny teens the right to consensual sex with the men and women they love?
Is denying this not age discrimination? What liberal can be for that?
Years ago, Dr. Judith Reisman exposed the fraud of Dr. Alfred Kinsey.
The only way Kinsey could have gathered the data for his "Sexual Behavior and the Human Male," on how children and even infants supposedly enjoy and benefit from sex, is by interviewing perverts and child abusers, or conducting the perversions themselves. Yet, sex with sub-teens is surely on some future progressive agenda.
One suspects the Times does not really have any moral objection to what Weiner is up to on his cellphone.
The Times just does not want the city it celebrates as America's citadel of progressivism to be made a staple of late night comedians -- and a running joke for the rest of us out here in Cracker Country.
However, as America needs to see where progressivism is leading what we used to call God's country, perhaps it might be well if New York came out of the closet by electing the ticket of Carlos Danger and Client No. 9.
To borrow a political slogan from '72 : "Weiner & Spitzer -- Now More Than Ever!"