April 13, 2004

The Post & Courier
134 Columbus St.
Charleston, SC  29402 

Dear Editors,

Thank you for your April 4 article regarding the plight of gay, 
lesbian, bisexual and transgender workers.  We do, however, 
have two small quibbles.  

We disagree with the statement that anti-gay groups “fear gay 
anti-discrimination laws would force heterosexual workers to 
tolerate behavior of which they don't approve.”  The word “gay” 
refers to an orientation and/or an identity, not to any specific 
behavior, and even if it did, it is hardly the case that all 
heterosexuals find same-gender sexual behavior objectionable.  
It would have been more accurate to say that heterosexist and 
homophobic workers would be forced to co-exist with people 
they despise and fear.  

We also disagree with the assertion that “proponents of gay 
rights assert that homosexuality is an inborn trait, programmed 
by genetics.”  While it is true that many of us do believe 
that orientation and identity are innate, the notion that this 
is the sole basis for equal protection under the law is an 
argument most often repeated by organizations like the Southern 
Baptist Convention, which enjoys legal protections afforded 
on the basis of religious belief and practice, neither of 
which are claimed as innate or genetically programmed traits.

Sincerely,
Barbara Lamond Purdom	
Christopher Purdom
Interfaith Working Group Coordinators