Assault on Beliefs
Sent to Detroit Free Press in response to an editorial by former prosecutor Mr. Richard Thompson criticizing Royal Oak's Proposal 2, on May 12, 2001.
(jump to Mr. Thompson's letter)

May 12, 2001

Dear Editors:

Having used the word "homosexual" a total of 22 times in his editorial criticizing Proposal 2, Mr. Thompson clearly demonstrates his inability to separate the person from the acts, in his heart and in his mind.

Mr. Thompson believes that landlords shouldn't be forced to rent to homosexuals if they consider "such activity is a sin that they shouldn't be forced to facilitate." Would the sin in this case be the act of renting to homosexuals? I think it would be a sin NOT to rent to these people, according to my bible.

He further says that religious-based businesses shouldn't be forced to "recruit and hire individuals openly involved in homosexuality even though such behavior violates their most deeply held beliefs." Well now it's perfectly alright for religious-based organizations to recruit homosexuals into other activities, the heterosexual lifestyle being one. So why does he want to draw the line at employment or housing?

Mr. Thompson also fails to recognize that those openly involved in homosexuality aren't necessarily homosexuals themselves, when you consider some 80,000 households make up PFLAG's dalliances into homosexual activities. You can see them practically everywhere, these PFLAG folks, liplocking in line at the grocery store, feeling each other up in the public library, sneaking crotch grabs between sips at the local coffee shop. No doubt about it, these uncouth behaviours should be publicly banned indeed, and not just from homosexuals either. Let's be fair, all publicly active heterosexuals should shove it back in the closet too.

The funniest part about Mr. Thompson's letter was when he stated insurance premiums would skyrocket for everyone because of the looming, expensive diseases brought on by homosexual activities. Viagra, pregnancy, and cancer, not to mention flu-induced pneumonia and mad cow disease are doing a fine job at keeping medical costs both under control and fair across the board for ALL who pay into the system.

I can't decide if his issue should be with hospitals and pharmaceutical companies for their pricing policies, or with the breeders among us who are constantly denied access to adequate prophylactics, or with the work policies of all major employers requiring people to come to work with the flu. Pull another string, Mr. Thompson.

Lastly, the next time these homosexuals are in Mr. Thompson's company, show him exactly what homosexuality looks like. I myself engaged in some unabashed homosexual activity this past Sunday at church. You should have seen me, twiddling my thumbs for almost an hour, and yawning at least twice. Mr. Thompson just can't stand it to have all these homosexual activities slapping him in the face.

Chris Coggins
A lesbian in Macon, GA.

(Go Back to top of page)

in response to Mr. Thompson's letter, printed in the Detroit Free Press, 5/7/01

Detroit Free Press, May 7, 2001
321 W. Lafayette Blvd., Detroit, MI, 48231
(Fax: 313-222-6774 ) (E-Mail: )
( )
Local comment: Assault on beliefs
Royal Oak vote would force homosexual acceptance on those who condemn it


Anyone familiar with homosexual activists' political agenda recognizes Royal Oak's Proposal 2 as a thinly disguised attempt to stigmatize and silence religious beliefs that consider homosexual behavior immoral and a violation of natural law.

Disguised as an antidiscrimination effort, Proposal 2 is a Trojan horse which, if brought into the city, will threaten religious freedom and be used to intimidate every person, business and private group that doesn't embrace homosexual lifestyles.

Most would agree that the morality of homosexual conduct is a matter of intense debate. However, when homosexual activists attempt to squelch that debate and codify their sexual behavior into law, the dispute becomes a legal one. Should Proposal 2 be enacted, homosexual activists will have the legal authority to enlist the law enforcement apparatus of city government to force acceptance of their homosexual agenda.

Proposal 2 isn't about equal rights; it's about special rights. The civil rights of homosexuals are already protected under state and federal laws. However, the Constitution does not confer upon them a right to commit sodomy, considered a crime since ancient times and still a criminal offense in many states, including Michigan.

Consequently, homosexual activists cleverly attempt to change the focus from homosexual conduct to "sexual orientation" to gain legal status as a minority. Congress has consistently rejected such efforts, as have the federal courts. Thus, the goal of Proposal 2 is to obtain the moral approval and legitimacy of homosexual conduct that has eluded them at the state and federal levels.

The touted exemptions for religious institutions and private clubs, an obvious attempt to reduce institutional opposition, is little reassurance to most citizens and businesses since the exemptions apply to only a special few. The mere filing of a complaint with the city manager triggers investigations. The burden will be on the accused to prove they are exempt, or that their actions are constitutionally protected as a religious belief. Not only will such investigations add to the cost of doing business in Royal Oak, but they will cause an unacceptable intrusion into religious beliefs.

Businesses with a religious ministry such as religious book stores, counseling services, day care centers and private religious schools will be forced to recruit and hire individuals openly involved in homosexuality even though such behavior violates their most deeply held beliefs.

The Boy Scouts, a special target of homosexual activists because they prohibit homosexuals from leadership positions, will be banned from Royal Oak's public parks and facilities or participation in civic activities.

Owners of rental properties will be forced to rent to homosexual couples even though they consider such activity a sin that they should not facilitate.

Amazingly, Section III declares Proposal 2 supreme over state and federal law, paving the way to circumvent Michigan's law banning homosexual marriage and requiring the mayor to preside over civil marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples. Moreover, homosexual activists will use Proposal 2 to launch other initiatives: prohibiting police from investigating homosexual behavior in public parks and restrooms, and domestic partnership benefits for homosexual employees which -- because of expensive, life-threatening diseases resulting from homosexuality -- will inflate insurance premiums for all employees, increasing pressure for tax increases.

Should Proposal 2 be enacted, it will bring about the inevitable collision between so-called gay rights and the constitutional right of people to abide by their sincerely held traditional religious beliefs. By design or negligence, Proposal 2 is so poorly worded that, if implemented, it will violate such constitutional rights and invite a bonanza of expensive lawsuits for which taxpayers will have to foot the bill.

Richard Thompson is chief counsel of the Thomas More Center for Law & Justice and a former prosecuting attorney of Oakland County. Write to him in care of the Free Press Editorial Page, 600 W. Fort St., Detroit, MI 48226.