The following are excerpts from a recent interview with the Rev. Jerry Prevo, pastor of the Anchorage Baptist Temple, on the proposed city law to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation:

Q. Is this proposal different from ones you've opposed in the past?

A. Since then sexual orientation has taken on some legal meanings, through the court system, of course. But with that term and with their definition it includes what I would say, for this conversation, what I call "normal homosexuals," which most people think of: Here's a man, and a woman, they go to work, they look like heterosexuals, they just prefer a man, you know, same sex. This ordinance actually (empowers) transvestites, cross-dressers. It goes to provide protection for what I believe is really that aspect of the homosexual movement that probably even the normal homosexuals are not proud of.

Q. Is there any kind of middle ground, any room for compromise in this?

A. As a minister, it's hard for me to say that homosexuality is an acceptable alternative lifestyle, even what I would call normal homosexuals. Because it is a different lifestyle. Now, I'm trying not to have to do what I've done in the past and that is point out what that lifestyle is. I mean ... there are a few who are faithful to their partners but most of them are not. They have their own surveys (that) indicate that. ... I'll have to strongly oppose this ordinance if its sexual orientation is left in religious exemption, because it is no exemption.

Q. Explain why you think the religious exemption from the ordinance isn't good enough.

A. Here's the religious exemption: "It shall be lawful for a bonafide religion or denomination ..." We have trouble with that word bonafide, because then that places in the hands of a judge, a liberal judge, (to decide) what's bonafide. "To give preferential treatment ... to persons of the same religion or denomination that is reasonably calculated to promote the religious principles for which it is established or maintained." That's another one; who's going to determine what's reasonable, a liberal judge? (Proponents may say that means the church can refuse to employ homosexual ministers or associated ministers), but what about my bus drivers, what about my janitors? Am I going to have to have a homosexual walking around as a janitor or bus driver picking up boys and girls?

You know, in our church we try not to put a man with an all-girls class. We are trying to look out on the heterosexual side. We just think we ought to have women with girls and heterosexual men with boys. Because we're assuming heterosexual men are not attracted to boys. So we would not put a homosexual man with boys for the same reason we wouldn't put a heterosexual man with girls.

Q. Would you object to a homosexual who said he is a Baptist being a member of your church?

A. No. It would be that they could not hold a leadership position. They can attend. They could not hold a leadership position for the same reason that a heterosexual that is actively committing adultery, running around on his wife, could not hold a leadership position in our church. They could attend.

Q. How do you deal with this issue in your prayers, when you're looking for guidance?

A. I've tried to reason with these people. I don't want the issue to come up. I've just dealt with a couple. ... Their daughter, 19 years old now, is taking shots to make herself a man. These parents, their daughter never had any signs of being unsatisfied with her assigned sex, which is another terminology in here that's a legal term, assigned sex at birth, and what they feel like has happened, she just got with this crowd and has been brought over. ...

My problem is when I take this stand and I can't minister to these people. I can't tell them that Jesus Christ died for them and will forgive them just like he will an adulterer or a murderer and they can be changed. It makes it hard for them to listen to me, because they frame me as being hateful. ... But I see it as that I'm telling them the truth. ...