Dannemeyer and the Irvine Rights Law

Two comments in the letter (April 23) of Rep. William Dannemeyer should not go unanswered. He says, first, that the Irvine ordinance on human rights bestows “special privileges” on gays. If the ordinance outlaws discrimination based on age, sex, color, religion, national origin, or any other group difference, what “special privileges” does the inclusion of sexual orientation--an acknowledged group or minority difference--bestow?

The only questions reasonable, unbiased lawmakers should ask are: (1) Are gays discriminated against? (2) Should any legal group of citizens be so treated under American law?

The other demagogic comment by Dannemeyer is his statement: “I do not deny Irvine’s right to become a modern-day Sodom if it so chooses.” He thus deviously implies that by retaining a law adopted by many American cities, Irvine risks becoming that bugaboo of religious fanatics, whereas all it would really do would make Irvine a symbol of municipal justice to all fair-minded people.

Dannemeyer maintains that he prefers a free nation, but everything he says indicates that he does not believe that gays, too, should enjoy that freedom.

One hopes that the City Council and the people of Irvine will not be misled by the glib verbal machinations of such a man but will follow the example of the voters of California, who have repeatedly rejected other homophobic initiatives he sponsored, rather than that of his misguided constituents who, sadly, elect him to the Congress he does not distinguish.

ARNOLD T. SCHWAB

Westminster