THE APPROVAL OF same-sex “marriage” by a tiny Washington State Indian tribe is the occasion for extravagant appreciation of Native Americans in today’s New York Times. We are told tribes “never excluded people” and homosexuals had higher spiritual status in tribal culture. (All of which, if it were true, would serve to suggest that socially-approved homosexuality is characteristic of primitive cultures.)

However, we are not given the relevant historical facts. These details skirt the main issue. Did Indians of the same-sex actually marry each other in wedding ceremonies and raise children together? Of course, they didn’t. Native Americans weren’t that degenerate.

                                        — Comments —

Michael S. writes:

“Yet people involved in the process say the new law was an important act of self-determination.”

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up: “self-determination.”

Now, I’m not an expert on the Suquamish Indians, but that young woman in the photo looks rather white to me, unlike the woman pictured here.

Laura writes:

Her father is Suquamish and her mother is white. She says she has now been finally accepted for who she is: a half-breed lesbian. The tribe had to redefine marriage in order to make her feel good about herself.

Michael S. writes:

That woman’s mixed provenance should have been noted in the caption. I admit that I didn’t read that far; I was pressed for time, and in any event my tolerance for the filth the Times publishes has decreased greatly of late. My initial reaction was to assume that they were lying. Obviously they will tell any lie, no matter how outrageous, to advance their perversities. It would not have surprised me in the least if they had brought in someone from outside the tribe and passed her off as an Indian.

Please follow and like us: