There was the expected wailing and gnashing of teeth from the left when New York's state Court of Appeals ruled against installing so-called "gay marriage" by judicial fiat, as they had in the People's Republic of Massachusetts. The New York Times, as expected, was stunned that the judges could find a "rational basis" for traditional marriage, and that judges would defer to elected legislators.

This outrage was plastered at the top of the Times with two "news" stories. One was a front-page editorial (they call it a "news analysis") by Patrick Healy, who focused on the "gay rights advocates" and their disappointment. "Nowhere did gay marriage seem more like a natural fit than New York," he complained, where "a history of spirited progressivism" should have made the victory of the marriage-manglers inevitable.

Inside the Times, the slant continued with two large photographs of gay activists protesting and consoling one another arm in arm about the court decision. Why not a photo of a traditional marriage supporter celebrating the ruling? Because it seems to be in every national-media rulebook that the "gay marriage" story must be accompanied by gay activists protesting, kissing, cheering, or "marrying." Only one side matters.

This Gray Lady slant to the libertine left is no surprise. After all, then-Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent stunned insiders with a column two years ago that publicly admitted the Times was a liberal newspaper, and on the social issues, like gays, guns, and abortion, "if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed."

But the Times isn't just rooting for the homosexual revolution on the outside and inside of the newspaper. It has actively spread the gay gospel by funding the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, and adorning its conventions with recruitment booths. The Times also is a proud corporate sponsor of New York's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center, a gay-activist hub which boasts of being the birthplace of both the radical ACT UP and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

This month, The New York Times has taken another dramatic corporate step toward taking sides in America's culture clash. The newspaper is a "global sponsor" of the seventh "Gay Games" taking place in Chicago from July 15 to 22.

Yes, you read that correctly. The Gay Games.

Who would sponsor this stupidity? The New York Times is not alone; it is joined by other "objective" news outlets. The Chicago Sun-Times and WMAQ-TV, the local NBC-owned and operated affiliate, are also "global sponsors." They share the Gay Games goals, to "foster and augment the self-respect of lesbians and gay men throughout the world and to engender respect and understanding from the nongay world."

Got that, nongayers? Whatever happened to "objective" media outlets at least pretending to avoid taking sides? This is the essence of political correctness: it is better to violate openly your commitment to journalism standards than assist the "bigots" by attempting to appear fair and neutral.

And it gets zanier still. The New York Times is not only sponsoring the Gay Games, it's having a pro-gay event there as well. As part of the "Times Talks" series, the newspaper will host a panel discussion on July 17 at the Chicago Public Library titled (so help me, I'm not making this up) "Brokeback Locker Room." Times contributor Robert Lipsyte will discuss with a panel of six gay athletes (and no opposition) how the "climate of acceptance" has changed in professional sports, and "What can be done to reduce the level of homophobia in the locker room and the media?"

These gay-friendly "Times Talks" are nothing new. They've been a regular series since 1999. The Times has attracted corporate sponsors like Audi to support the chats in New York as well as San Francisco.

Just a few weeks ago, a "Times Talks" panel on the 25th anniversary of the first New York Times article on AIDS included radical activist Larry Kramer, who distributed his wild remarks in advance, claiming among other things that "the gay population of the world has been and continues to be targeted for extinction." His written remarks also called for "Nuremberg trials" to hold not only the late Ronald Reagan, but the owners and editors of - how's this for gratitude?- The New York Times to be tried like Nazi war criminals for the AIDS holocaust.

That's just crazy. But by placing its famous name squarely on the side of the gay left, the New York Times is sending a message to America's solid majority against putting thousands of years of tradition through the shredder. It says: you're all intolerant bigots on the wrong side of history. And you will be defeated, even if we have to make utter asses of ourselves in the process.

Voice Your Opinion!
 Write to Brent Bozell