That Was a Short Honeymoon

For those who favor traditional marriage as the law of the land, we got a little glimpse of our futures. Adrian Peterson gave an interview to a radio show on Sirius XM, where for some reason the interviewer asked him about gay marriage. Here was Adrian's response:

Said the reigning league MVP: “To each his own. I’m not with it. But I have relatives that are gay. I’m not biased towards them. I still treat them the same. I love them. But again, I’m not with that. That’s not something I believe in. But to each his own.

“I’m sure the Vikings organization did not release him based on that. They know Kluwe. They’ve been knowing him for a long time. And they know he’s outspoken. But it hurt me to see him leave. He was a good friend of mine and a really cool guy, man. Probably one of the smartest guys I’ve ever been around, man. Different.”

Seems innocuous enough. But not for the PC enforcers at the Star Tribune. Dan Wiederer, a sports columnist, thought it was worth a column questioning Peterson's thoughts on gay marriage. Just a couple of weeks after "Gay marriage doesn't threaten my marriage" and "all we want is to be treated equally" and other such expressions, we find out that thinking marriage is between a man and a woman is a thought-crime worthy of being reported on. This weekend, "Adrian Peterson gay marriage" has been trending in the top 10 on Yahoo.

For those Minnesotans who went along with gay marriage because they thought it would bring an end to an uncomfortable topic of conversation, I think they need only look at the recent Adrian Peterson kerfuffle to know that for the true leftists, gay marriage is not an end to a political hot potato, but the beginning of a most unAmerican effort to hassle traditionalists.

Traditionalists will see their institutions, churches, and places of business hassled by leftists who seek to narrow people's freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association.

They Can't Help Themselves

I have a desk calendar at work that is published by the History channel. Each day has a paragraph describing a historical event that took place on that day. For April 22, the year is 1889, and the event is the Oklahoma land rush. On that date, settlers lined up at Fort Reno, and at noon were allowed to rush out and stake claims to land. For the most part, it is an interesting item about an event that I've heard of, but not read much about. But the last sentence of the paragraph had me shaking my head:

It was an extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land.

Where did those last six words come from? Most Americans do love this land, and they love the place that they call home. But in using the word lust, I think the writer tips his hand. This "lust for land" is a bad trait of Americans. I have two guesses why that phrase appears: my first guess is that ending the paragraph with "extraordinary display of the pioneer spirit" would be considered too "American-centric" for a liberal, so there was a need to temper the reader's admiration for our ancestors' pioneer spirit by shaking our collective heads at his greedy lust. My second guess is that the image of tens of thousands of Americans racing to plant stakes in the ground and claiming some of this country as their own is just too much for a lefty to let go without comment. Either way, it seems to me that this is another small (but constant) example of the little ways so many of our "educators" see themselves as indoctrinators.