"Not that there's anything wrong with it, but there seemed to be a lot of news on the alternative lifestyle front last week of particular note. Homosexuality poses a dilemma not only for civil society but for newspaper stylists who don't fancy using the word "gay" as a catch-all adjective for the people, the lifestyle or the political agendas of those left or right of the issue.

But, frankly, the term "homosexual" is just a tad cumbersome. Risking the wrath of style purists out there, The Observer will use the terms interchangeably and as best fits the context of the story or column.

In this case, we're going with the term "gay," not as an endorsement of how or why gay activists co-opted the word's original meaning but as an acknowledgement that it was a successful campaign and that "gay" will never mean "happy" again, except in Christmas carols.

First up is the proliferation of gay images in local media. It seems a sudden move for a town that has such an either disorganized or non-existent gay community. Sure there are "sections" in the bookstores and a modestly displayed pride flag here and there, but if Charlottesville is the liberal Mecca of Virginia, the gay presence has been, to date, a little underwhelming.

There have been surprises, like an openly gay school principal and several activist dorm door decorations along the U. Va. lawn. Following behind some self-guided tourists, you might even overhear a reaction to the yellow equal marks in a blue background - the symbol for the Human Rights Campaign.

It's a lesser-known symbol than the horizontal rainbow stripes running red to purple, but it can still raise an eyebrow among conservatives. In some circles, the Human Rights symbol is seen either as a cop-out for gays who want to stay in the closet or the equivalent of a "straight but not narrow" bumper sticker.

But as a trademark symbol, the Human Rights Campaign logo can give a buyer assurance that his or her money is going toward legal battles for gay rights instead of to the bank accounts of an entrepreneur cashing in on the rainbow-flag market.

So what are the legal battles for gay rights, and how did they play out last week? There was some confusion over a Republican Senator's comments on a Supreme Court case that prompted harsh rebukes, but he didn't back down.

The Senator was right. Without a Constitutional amendment, sodomy laws are the prerogative of state and local governments, not the federal courts. The 10th Amendment clearly applies to some degree, which leaves to the states any jurisdiction not spelled out in the Constitution.

And the Senator had a point - preventing a state from keeping a sodomy law on the book based on the argument that such acts are between "consenting adults" does leave the door open for other laws to be struck down. Courts don't write laws, and gay activists should stop wasting court time trying to circumvent our government.

The way to change a law is through elected officials. (This sounds familiar; see the April 16 edition of The Spur.) You get your state leaders to bring legislation to change the code; let representatives debate it in the fashion the leadership determines, and you live with the outcome.

There's no reason that can't happen in Texas or Virginia. It's just a much more unpleasant process then going through the anonymity of court battles. Instead of cryptic "equal-marks" bumper stickers or rainbow-colored Star of Davids, why not print a slogan like "repeal the sodomy law" and bear testimony to the anguish an intrusive law can cause, when not properly worded.

The way such laws are worded now is sometimes haphazard and a little dated. But in practice, there are few in law enforcement who exploit their power and harass gays with threats of sodomy law violations.

Sodomy laws are rarely applied to consensual gay relationships, most often used as charges to guarantee jail time for sexual offenders who might be hard to convict on the more heinous aspects of their crimes. That's a useful tool for prosecutors that would need a suitable replacement if sodomy laws were repealed." (Editorial, The Observer, April 30, 2003)