Candidate Objects to an Implication

This may be the only letter you will ever get from a political candidate who objects to being called a heterosexual--at least by implication.

I refer to your West Hollywood coverage (Times, Aug. 18) in which you declared that one of the other candidates is “the only homosexual” in the City Council race.

The real point is, in West Hollywood sexual orientation is not only not an issue, it’s no more proper a question to raise than religion. If West Hollywood considers sexual orientation as a factor--favorable or otherwise--why shouldn’t Jerry Falwell and Lyndon LaRouche?

Any candidate who runs on the basis of “keeping a gay majority” is ultimately an enemy of the rights of every gay and lesbian--and bisexual, and asexual, and yes, heterosexual. He is playing into the hands of those who preach that they don’t have to grant equality to those whose bedroom practices they disapprove of.


For my part, I will not allow my intimate private life to be made public business, whether I would gain from it or not. To do so would betray my most basic principles.


West Hollywood