I made the mistake of reading this New York Times editorial on the nomination of Dr. James Holsinger to be surgeon general.

I just want to make two points.

First, the title: "A Nominee's Abnormal Views." The "abnormal" apparently applies to the belief that male-female sexual relationships -- you know, the kind that can actually produce offspring and feature complementary physical characteristics -- are normal. Only in the far-left la-la-land that is the Times editorial page.

Second, this paragraph:

What’s troubling is the view he once expressed — and may still hold — on homosexuality, through his activities as a lay leader in the United Methodist Church. On the church’s judicial council, he supported a minister who refused to allow a gay man to join his congregation and argued that a lesbian minister should be removed because church doctrine deems the practice of homosexuality to be “incompatible with Christian teaching.” His supporters say these rulings should not be read as his personal views because the council can’t change church doctrine. However, some council members opposed his views, and the bishops later rejected one decision.

Quiet! *listens intently* Is that a (anti-)religious test for office that I hear? I would warn senators who will question Dr. Holsinger to avoid the impulse to use the Times editorial as a template for their questioning.