Gays have suffered emotional torment and physical consequences because society disapproves of their "orientation." Therefore, society should grant gays special ethnic status and advantages -- to redress their injuries and make them feel better.

This writer has investigated some 35 cases from gay legal defense fund files, alleged to represent the dismissal of employees "just because they were gay." He is not satisfied that a single case in point did not involve dismissal for compelling, job-related cause. In case after case, "gayness" seemed to become a factor only after the dismissal was finalized. Also, in many states, Colorado included, gays are protected from "wrongful termination" by tort law. (Incidentally, during a most recent three-year period, the Colorado Springs, Colorado, Human Relations Division recorded a total of two complaints related to either sexual discrimination or ethnic harassment -- neither in any way related to homosexuality.)

Second, injured feelings per se offer no compelling reason to bestow special ethnic status and privileges on a special interest. Should all unhappy millionaires (Sen. Ted Kennedy's recent woes come to mind) be granted special protected status simply because they're miserable? Should all criminals serving sentences for bad behavior be released and given protected status simply because they're unhappy behind bars?

In a variation of their sympathy ploy, gays mourn things like "my inability to simply take a walk in the evening hand-in-hand with the one I love." Besides pointing out that claims like these seem less than credible in today's climate of tolerance toward homosexuals, we remind gays of something all adults know -- that behavior has consequences. Bestialists, necrophiliacs, pedophiles, practitioners of incest and autoeroticists are also not able freely to publicly exhibit their "sexual orientations" without suffering consequences. What makes how homosexuals practice sex more worthy of special protection than these other behaviors?

Celebrities often complain about the loss of privacy that accompanies their public status. But the fact that celebrities are stared at and approached for autographs, etc., in no way compels passage of laws against "starism" or autograph-hounding. Gays' decisions to pursue what they admit are "divergent" lifestyles bring with them self-induced consequences of all kinds. But the fact that gays may subjectively perceive value in these lifestyles does not compel non-gay individuals to share gays' assessment of "gayness as good" -- or compel society to overlook the potentially perilous effects of granting the special interest of "gayness" special protection, advantages and subsidies.