Surely in a civilized society people can disagree politically without disagreeing hatefully. If not, the logical contrary to gay militants' insistence that all opponents to their agenda "hate gays" must be true: that "gay rights" advocates all hate their political opponents (a conclusion wich has perhaps more evidence to support it than gay extremists' name- callings).

Calling names or merely attributing evil motives to opponents cannot establish -- or discredit-- truth. The Greek roots of the word homophobia mean "fear of men." Responsible opposition to granting protected class status on grounds of "sexual orientation" has nothing to do with fear or hatred of male or female genders, nor fear of "gayness." Why should we in any way fear people whose preoccupation with the sole, nebulous attribute of "sexual orientation" is so obsessive that it drives them to make only irrational claims, on none but specious grounds? How can we hate people whose identity is so fragile, and so totally defined by sexuality, that they are obviously terrified at what they imagine to be the slightest threat to its unbridled expression? Attributing negative characteristics to others without proof is the essence of bigotry. We have offered no proof of either hatred or bigotry toward gays. We think it is clear on which side of this issue the real bigotry lies.

What accounts for gays' personal misery? Can their unhappiness be wholly blamed on a "repressive" straight society? Blaming others only for one's woes is characteristic of classic psychological denial. And supposed repression by straight society in no way satisfactorily explains the persistent misery of gays. Certainly not in our era, which has, in fact, been enormously tolerant of gay behavior. Gay militants themselves must accept responsibility for the consequences of their behavior. Whether gay extremists like it or not, sharing personal responsibility is the price all must pay who wish to exercise personal freedom in our society.

We hope it is clear that, while gays in America should retain every fundamental right guaranteed to all citizens by the U.S. Constitution, "gayness" as defined by gay militants themselves does not afford a rational basis on which protected class status may be awarded; gays by their own admission are far too advantaged in every way to qualify for suspect status under established U.S. Supreme Court criteria; and gay militant arguments for protected or suspect status may be dismissed as rooted in non sequitur.

We hope these findings will enable all Americans to make a fully rational choice on the volatile question of protected or suspect class status for gays.