If you can read above grade school level, you have no excuse for your deceptive and feeble response.
First of all, it is plain as day that Laura Schlessinger did not write the aforementioned article -- excerpts of the commentary (written by Dr. Gerald Rowles, Ph.D) were included in her newsletter.
Secondly, Dr. Rowles' editorial does not deal with Michael Swift's stomach-churning homoerotic fantasy in the least; he is narrowly focused on the ridiculous study Deconstructing The Essential Father, which took aim at "neoconservative" ideas about the nuclear family. It concluded that not only is the father's importance to the family vastly overrated, but because of alleged tendencies toward violence, gambling, and -- get this -- smoking, fathers may do children more harm than good. On the other hand, two lesbian "mothers" were better for children than a married mother and father, the authors suggested.
Finally, there is a link to the DA*DI site's reprinting of Gay Revolutionary as a sidebar to Rowley's article. The webmaster doesn't suggest that the reprint is due to its enclosure in Dr. Laura's newsletter, and the page on which it is fully published cites the source thusly: "Reprinted from The Congressional Record. First printed in Gay Community News, February 15-21 1987."
So your attempt to slime Dr. Laura has failed, foiled by the truth. I knew that she had never cited Gay Revolutionary because what she has to say about homosexuality has never been hysterical and hateful, like Fred Phelps' rantings and ravings. There is no logical comparison of the two to be made -- they are a study in contrasts.
By stretching the truth to make Dr. Laura seem like a bigot, you have proved yourself to be no different than lying weasels like John Aravosis, Michelangelo Signorile, Cathy Renna and others who know that Dr. Laura is not guilty of "hate" -- she's only guilty of being in the way of implementation of pro-homo agendas in courthouses, legislatures, and most of all, public schools.