‘Keep It Private’

Funny how unimportant matters cause The Times’ staff so much grief. Your editorial “Gay Bashing and the GOP” (March 17) opines that the California Republican Party can now “get on to more important matters” after the party had opted to affirm the heterosexual ethic, while Dianne Klein writes (March 18) that she “has far more important things to take up (her) time.” No doubt, Dianne--but then, why write about it?

Could it be that the public policy issue of homosexuality is only interesting to The Times’ staff in direct proportion to the political successes of the homosexual movement?

I feel confident that if homosexuals would have carried the day in Santa Clara it would have been front page news, bold headlines and all. The fact is that the Times’ staff writhes in pain every time the homosexual movement takes a political beating (remember Irvine, Concord, San Francisco and now UC Irvine?). Assurances of disinterest cannot hide the frustrations.

All people are welcome in the Republican Party under at least two conditions. First, all members should support party platforms. And second, all members should check their sexual preferences at the door.

Klein takes umbrage that I define the homosexual quest for social acceptability as seeking “special privileges” rather than “civil rights.” Homosexuals have the same civil rights as other Americans. What they do not have are special social privileges that many other Americans have.

For instance, two men do not have the special privilege of a legally recognized marriage. They do not have the special privilege of adopting children. They do not have the special privilege of unlimited military service. They do not have the special privilege of filing a joint tax return. Most significantly, and fortunately all Americans lack this privilege, they do not have the right to be grossly offensive in public.

The message which fails to penetrate the homosexual pathology is: Keep it private, keep it consensual, keep it among adults and nobody will bother you. The rest of the world seems able to live by these rules, and they are stigmatized when they don’t. Why should homosexuals have the “special privilege” to forgo these rules?

WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER

Member of Congress

39th District

Fullerton