March 7, 2006

Does being “born gay” carry an inability to comprehend the written word? That question arises after another letter from resident homosexual activist Mark Thomas. I reported on a previous letter recently, in which Thomas misrepresented what other letter writers had said.

Well, he’s at it again. He starts off his letter thusly:

Ken Plog’s letter states hate crime legislation only applies to victims who are gay/lesbian. That’s untrue. …

You, having a resource (this page) that most other Poughkeepsie Journal readers don’t know about, can enter the author’s last name in the form above, and find what Ken Plog actually wrote, and it isn’t what Mr. Thomas says.

The only reference Plog makes to the applicability of “hate crime” legislation is in this sentence: “Ironically, where ‘hate crime’ legislation applies the Shephard case would qualify for hate-crime status and the Dirkheising case would not.” (Jessie Dirkheising was a 13-year-old boy in Arkansas was bound, homosexually raped and killed by two homosexual men.) Plog makes his meaning clear in the next sentence: “What is the difference if one is assaulted or murdered for sex or because someone hates him for any reason?” That is as close as he gets to saying that hate crime laws“ only apply to victims who are gay/lesbian,” and that’s not close at all.

Mr. Plog made a good point, one to which Mr. Thomas had no good response, so he fell back on the tried-and-true method of attacking the messenger. He ends his diatribe by calling Plog’s letter “hateful”. I challenge anyone to read it and explain how anyone could come to that conclusion.

(Posted Tuesday, March 7, 2006 )