May 12, 2001
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.
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: firstname.lastname@example.org )
( http://www.freep.com/ )
Local comment: Assault on beliefs
Royal Oak vote would force homosexual acceptance on those who condemn
BY RICHARD THOMPSON
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
legal one. Should Proposal 2 be enacted, homosexual activists will have
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
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
to most citizens and businesses since the exemptions apply to only a
few. The mere filing of a complaint with the city manager triggers
investigations. The burden will be on the accused to prove they are
or that their actions are constitutionally protected as a religious belief.
Not only will such investigations add to the cost of doing business in
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
though such behavior violates their most deeply held beliefs.
The Boy Scouts, a special target of homosexual activists because
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
Amazingly, Section III declares Proposal 2 supreme over state and
federal law, paving the way to circumvent Michigan's law banning
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
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
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
lawsuits for which taxpayers will have to foot the bill.
Richard Thompson is chief counsel of the Thomas More Center for
& Justice and a former prosecuting attorney of Oakland County. Write to
in care of the Free Press Editorial Page, 600 W. Fort St., Detroit, MI