Letters

This is not a political issue; it is sexual. It is not a human rights issue; it is a public-relations issue. People want laws to handle every concern or problem, and Greg Baldwin is leading the "PAC." The gay community wants special consideration or additional rights under law for rights already guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. Why? Because of their already given free choice of sexual orientation.

People don't like the biologically incorrect (gay) for the same reason I despise other deviant sexual orientations such as sex with animals, children, or dead humans. They're all disgusting, period. So march and parade, organize and picket all you want, but you'll never fit in. Robin Buhrke, associate professor at the University of Miami, is spending a lot of time harassing our police force because of alleged name calling. Obviously the problem with the biologically incorrect being called "faggot" is a deeper problem associated with self-acceptance. They want sex to be the issue, but when someone calls a spade a spade, it's time to form a PAC.

As stated in Tom Finkel's article, homosexual couples have a higher combined income (maybe county commissioners should consider a gay tax). Under the proposed domestic-partners registration act, which should be renamed the sex-with-the-same-sex act, a biologically incorrect couple could receive the same benefits as you and I, simply because they engage in a sexual act of their own free will. Nobody forces a homosexual behind a closed door to engage in anal sex; that is a free choice made by that person. How can human rights be involved in a free-choice decision made in the privacy of one's own home? How can you pass a law that protects a sexual orientation which is illegal in most states, i.e., anal sex?

The article points out that the biologically incorrect - or in this case, reproductively confused - do not have children, which may explain the free time available to devote to the campaign of supremacy concerning this deviant "sexual orientation." The massive amount of time and responsibility normally reserved for upbringing and care of children in a family setting is covertly used by the biologically incorrect community to organize on behalf of their freedom of sexual choice. They want all of this attention and consideration and benefit simply because they engage in a certain sexual act. It's a slap in the face of every family unit in America and tantamount to the analogy of our pitiful criminal justice system in America, which gives more rights to criminals than decent citizens.

I'm sure there were faggots on the Mayflower and faggots probably signed the Declaration of Independence. I just disagree totally with the concept that gays want additional rights or consideration. I'm a human being who just happens to be a heterosexual. Baldwin will have you believe you're a gay first who just happens to be a human being. Don't be confused by gay supremacists trying to make a sexual issue political.

T.J. Callahan
National Organization of Families Against Gay Supremacists
Davie

THE GOODNESS OF GUBER
I want to thank and congratulate New Times for its article in the August 14 edition concerning Dade Action PAC ("Politics and Power"). Your report was accurate, fair, and informative.

One point mentioned in the article deserves elaboration, and that relates to State Rep. Susan Guber, House District 117. As you reported, Susan Guber was extremely responsive and helpful in supporting the gay and lesbian community's legislative agenda for the 1991 session. In addition, however, she continues to be one of the most responsive and responsible state representatives in South Florida. She has gone out of her way to learn about our concerns and problems, and she approaches all of our issues with an open mind and a fair attitude.

Susan Guber has opened effective working lines of communication with the lesbian and gay community, and we only wish that more of our Dade County legislators would follow her example.

Gregory A. Baldwin, chair
Dade Action PAC

SUZANNE GETS A B MINUS
In response to statements made by Suzanne Migdall of Summers with regard to Caesar the Dancing Bear ("Program Notes," August 14), I feel a need to enlighten her just a little. She seems satisfied, having been told by a fire marshal, a veterinarian, and game control that one performing bear was treated better than most children and lived in an air-conditioned bus.

However, if she were to look up "B" for bear in her encyclopedia, she would soon learn that bears do not appreciate being treated like human children, nor do they exist in air-conditioned buses. They live in the woods and do not spend their nights in smoke-filled, noisy nightclubs. She says she loves animals but insists that this muzzled, declawed, deprived, and desensitized animal is in no way being harmed!

She thinks it's a shame for a child not to be able to see a circus. I know it is a shame some circuses use animal acts. It will be a great day when a child won't be able to see animals in circuses even if he wants to. The whips, electronic prods, fires, beatings, and hot and overcrowded containers for thousands of miles of travel are just some of the backstage elements involved in the lives of circus and entertainment animals. But let us not forget that Suzanne Migdall "loves" animals - enough to eat them and enough to make a profit from their suffering.

If Suzanne wants to settle the score with the Animal Rights Foundation of Florida, why doesn't she suit up in a bear costume herself? I'd dance on their behalf and on behalf of unfortunate animals like Caesar. Donate the money to charity - animal charity. Please let the live-animal-acts idea remain in perpetual hibernation.

Caren Lesser
North Miami Beach