I appreciate the compliment from Dana Parsons ("Primary Offers Chance to End Dannemeyer's Career," Feb. 27) that, "There are no trick mirrors and trapdoors with Dannemeyer--what you see is what you get." Such a compliment paid to a politician should be grounds for support. Unfortunately, what Mr. Parsons sees he does not like.
Equally unfortunate is the reason why: my view of homosexuality as public policy. And what of this view? In a government run by a handful of dreaded Dannemeyers, true privacy would be enshrined in these matters. What consenting adults do sexually in their own domicile would be their own business. Yet, homosexual sodomy would be illegal as a matter of public interest. But who would know what went on behind closed doors unless participants wanted it known?
A government run by Mr. Parsons would make private sex acts everybody's business. There would be no tolerance for differing opinions.
Are these views fiction? Mr. Parsons is already stumping for AB 101, a bill stating in Section 2 that "sexual orientation is hereby recognized as and declared to be a civil right."
I believe the traditional family is so vital to the positive progress of our society that I am willing to carry its political banner. Mr. Parsons' attitudes, such as "homophobic elements must be politically removed so the earnest dialogue can begin," make me wonder what banner he is carrying. A pluralistic, tolerant America allows all viewpoints.
Voters deserve clear choices in candidates seeking public office. This is why I announced for the Senate seat of John Seymour. Mr. Seymour believes I am "narrow-minded" because I do not want tax dollars used to promote or encourage homosexuality and because I refuse to say that a homosexual sex act is a bona fide civil right. He talks of the politics of inclusion, which term is inherently divisive despite its salutary tone. Inclusion is a buzzword for elitists who see people only as votes. They will say anything, even in contradiction, if it means more votes.
It is no wonder why I am a thorn in the side of Mr. Parsons, Sen. Seymour, and other elitists. Their true colors shine through as when Sen. Seymour announced that I ought to find a home outside the Republican Party or when Mr. Parsons seeks to "invalidate" me as a public servant. What happened to inclusion?
Homosexuality is a public policy issue for two reasons. First and foremost, because homosexuals seek public approbation for their sexual behavior, and secondly, because elitist politicians seek the votes and money of homosexuals.
I will be more than happy to forget the issue whenever militant homosexuals and their elitist friends do. Until then, Mr. Parsons, you and your friends will have your hands full attempting to send me "back to the Stone Age."
WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER, U.S. Congressman