National Review (NR) is a semi-monthly magazine based in New York City which was founded in 1955 by the late author William F. Buckley, Jr. It describes itself as “America’s most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion.”

The managing editor of NR is Jason Lee Steorts. In a very, very long 7,000-word article in National Review on May 19, 2015, “An Equal Chance at Love: Why We Should Recognize Same-Sex Marriage,” with a quaint Victorian-era pic of a cupid (see below), Steorts — and therefore National Review — comes out in favor of homosexual marriage.

Cupid's Arrows

take our poll - story continues below
Completing this poll grants you access to DC Clothesline updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Steorts’ argument, briefly, is that marriage is no longer about procreation because many heterosexual couples don’t have children. Instead, marriage today is about “love” and, as such, should not be denied to homosexuals who “love” each other. In Steorts’ words:

Civil marriage was instituted, let us concede, to safeguard the interests of children by endorsing and protecting the kind of stable, committed relationships that produce them and are suited to their upbringing….

We can realize that a law that once seemed well designed could, in fact, be fairer. Reexamining marriage laws with this possibility in mind, we should register the following facts. First, civil marriage already includes a group of people — married, childless men and women — who are irrelevant to its child-centric purpose. Second, there is another group of people — committed same-sex couples who wish to marry — who have just as much reason to want the law’s recognition and protection of their relationships as married, childless men and women do. (Some same-sex couples are also raising children, much to traditionalists’ horror, but we leave this aside.) Third, couples belonging to either of these two groups have the same reasons and motivations, rooted in their love for each other, to abide by the standards of conduct that we traditionally associate with marriage, namely exclusivity and fidelity subsequent to a vow of permanent commitment. In light of all this, it is a matter of simple fairness to treat the two groups the same way, and legislators and voters should favor doing so.

There’s just one thing wrong with Steorts’ argument. For homosexuals, who are notoriously promiscuous, marriage isn’t about a commitment to exclusivity and fidelity.

Outspoken public homosexual Andrew Sullivan admits that gay marriage does NOT mean monogamy. As Sullivan puts it: “there is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.”

A January 28, 2010 article by Scott James in the New York Times says the same thing:

When Rio and Ray married in 2008, the Bay Area women omitted two words from their wedding vows: fidelity and monogamy. […] Love brought the middle-age couple together — they wed during California’s brief legal window for same-sex marriage. But they knew from the beginning that their bond would be forged on their own terms, including what they call “play” with other women. […]

A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many. […] New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

There are homosexuals who are honest enough to admit that promiscuity is inherent in being a gay man. An example is John Blair Linn, who describes himself as “an active member of the Washington, DC, gay scene for 25 years” who is now “disillusioned with the ‘homosexual lifestyle’.” In a searingly candid article for, “Insider: Gay Marriage is a ‘Total Farce’,” Sept. 5, 2012, Linn writes:

All that most homosexuals really care about is sex.  Very few are in actual committed relationships, and those that are almost always have open relationships, and these are widely accepted in the gay community.

The gay bar is really the center of life for most homosexuals. They classify themselves as either “tops” (the one who screws) or “bottoms” (the one who gets screwed) and that is how they have structured their entire culture.

Unlike a man and a woman, two men need to know who plays the role of male, and who plays the role of female – set sexual positions – and homosexual relations are truly a hooking up arrangement.  The public is so brainwashed to blindly accept gay relationships.

There is generally no stigma about any sexual behavior and those who belong to the S&M crowd are widely accepted by the general community.

Sexual perversions are widespread among gay men and involve urine, feces, and painful sex. Most gays are empty voids and fill their lives with sex and drugs. There is also a lot of anger among gay men. They are angry at their disorder, and display their anger by lashing out at normal healthy society. […]

I believe that homosexuality is almost always a birth defect. Some people are born crippled or with mental illness; the same goes for most homosexuals.

Homosexuality revolves totally around sex, pure and simple. Few homosexual men ever form relationships, and nearly all homosexual men are attracted to much younger men. Homosexuality is truly a compulsive disorder.

[…] homosexuals really love straight men.  They would do anything to get at an attractive straight man.

Otherwise, most homosexual men prefer younger homosexual men by about 20 years and after about age 45, they start to get depressed and end up hiring young male prostitutes and risking their lives for sexual thrills.

Read the rest of Linn’s confessional here.

“All that most homosexuals really care about is sex” and “homosexuals really love straight men”. That is the real truth about homosexuals, which is readily evidenced by reading Michael K’s blog, Dlisted, in which the openly-gay penis-obsessed blogger lusts after straight men such as Prince Harry and the actor Jon Hamm.

Back to Scott James of the New York Times. James writes that “gay nuptials are portrayed by opponents as an effort to rewrite the traditional rules of matrimony. Quietly, outside of the news media and courtroom spotlight, many gay couples are doing just that” — which is to “rewrite” the traditional institution of marriage into a meaningless institution of open promiscuity, devoid of the emotional commitment of fidelity.

Writing for OUT magazine, Michelangelo Signorile admits as much:

A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to…radically alter an archaic institution. [Legalizing ‘same-sex marriage’] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.

Back to Jason Lee Steorts and National Review.

Very little is known about Steorts. Although he is NR‘s managing editor, there is no biographical information on him, other than what I can glean from his NR author’s page that he began working at NR in 2003. The only other information I found on Steorts is a page of links to his essays for The Harvard Crimson, which presumably means that he had studied at Harvard University.

Nor can I find a picture of Steorts.

I’ll bet you $25 that Jason Lee Steorts is a homosexual.

You Might Like

So long, National Review. If I wanted to read a screed by a liberal/Progressive, I would go to an authentic leftwing site, instead of a pseudo-conservative magazine that sells the same tripe, dressed up as a pretentious, tedious, long-winded 7,000-word essay written by a man more girly than a girl, with his head in a puff of icky-sweet Victorian cupids.

See also:


Dr. Eowyn’s post first appeared at Fellowship of the Minds.