I have been hoping that what some others have observed — that is, a more liberal turn for The Advocate following a change in ownership — would not actually be true. But your choice of feature columns in the Easter Sunday edition appears to support the claim of the critics.
http://theadvocate.com/columnists/8941709-55/james-gill-if-louisiana-family">Mr. James Gill again demonstrated that he must be a very angry man as well as an intellectually dishonest one. Yes, one could debate what the right thing would have been to do regarding the recent consideration of the “sodomy” law. However, to declare that any rational being should be against anything that Louisiana Family Forum is for is absurd hyperbole, or something even worse. Is Mr. Gill saying that desiring to protect life of an unborn person is irrational? By the way a life that is often ended with excruciating pain to the “little one” who is unable to protect itself. Is Mr. Gill saying that giving parents greater rights and focusing on their responsibilities regarding the education process is irrational? Is Mr. Gill saying that anyone who supports what is believed to be the God-defined definition of marriage as between one man and one woman to be irrational? And what about his example of the Science Education Act? I can provide Mr. Gill the names of numbers of well-respected scientists who believe in intelligent design, many of them believing the scientific facts agree with the biblical account.
Are these scientists irrational?
I suggest that the extremism of a man like Mr. Gill does not belong in “our” Advocate. His intellectual dishonesty is obvious and unworthy of inclusion.
Then I noted the column by Ms. Grimsley Johnson. I usually enjoy her columns. But there, as a featured article in the Easter Sunday paper, she committed the common error of equating the “rights” of gays to enter into a “marriage” relationship with the “rights” of black minorities. Every black person in the U.S. ought to rise up and shout “no.” I suggest to say they are the same is highly disrespectful of “blacks.” It is an example of redefining or misusing terms so as to provide stronger support for a preferred position, a favorite play of so many today. And further I noted that she referred to the Southern Law Center’s description of the Family Research Council as a “hate group,” as though she agreed. Wow!
I assert that the people of southeast Louisiana deserve better treatment from your editorial board.
Larry E. Miller