See if you can find any rational reason for the disparate treatment of Howard Daniel, whose situation is discussed in today’s column.

A gutsy column by a moderate conservative, one this red state needs to hear from a leading newspaper. I don’t know why I’m surprised, you have shown reason and restraint many times in liberal-conservative battles.

This was a great column. Geez...you are good when you’re not doing satire…

Matters like this deserve the thought and attention of the overall populace. Hopefuly this will be a start. I am no fan of homosexual behavior and I could never be sold on the lifestyle—but I don’t like to see people ‘done dirty’ like that. Dirty, filthy politics done in the name of “values”. Few things in life are lower than that.

But I feel I should correct your implication that Manassas is part of Progressive Northern Va. I briefly lived near there. Manassas is more akin to a Fried-Green-Tomatoes hick town.

Thanks for calling our attention to this issue.  You’re right—if he wanted to set up any other type of business or if he was straight this wouldn’t be of concern to the “neighbors.”

In answer to Mr. Mitchell above, I do not believe there is any such restriction as to the sex or sexual orientation of the massage professional and the customer.

I would vote in favor of Mr. Daniel getting a license, even though he is gay. Unlike granting him and his partner a marriage license, granting him a business license to practice legitimate massage therapy makes no value judgment about his homosexuality or their homosexual relationship. It’s totally neutral on those issues, so I see no problem here … assuming that massage therapists are allowed to perform their services on both sexes.

I’m not familiar with relevant local and state laws, but if there is any kind of restriction stating that his type of service can only be performed on members of the same sex, then I would have a problem with him getting a business license. Here’s the reason: We would be saying on one hand that sexual attraction is an issue for heterosexuals (thus that hypothetical restriction), but, on the other hand, it is not an issue for homosexuals. Does everyone see where I’m coming from here?

Post Your Comments: