This commentary begins with an apology: I have been guilty of colluding with bigotry.

I observed the machinations of the State College Borough Council last year in failing to protect citizens from discrimination in housing and public accommodations. I read many of the letters in favor of the original version of the law, the version that mentioned the dreaded words "sexual orientation," as well as the letters that objected to allowing lesbians, gay men and unmarried couples to rent apartments in the neighborhoods of the borough.

Most of the objecting letters reflected religious and moral distaste about lesbians and gay men at odds with mainstream religious perspectives.

One can only wonder how families would suffer if Leonard Bernstein wanted to rent an efficiency apartment nearby. Nor should Martina Navratilova try to move in! Perhaps local children might be so unfortunate as to become innovators in American music or become world-class tennis stars!

Like most people astonished to see bigotry alive and well in my own "backyard," I had hoped that time and a somewhat different council would allow a more compassionate law to emerge.

I, like many others, did not relish more arguments, more hostility and more simple ignorance paraded in public settings by elected officials. I had hoped that Mayor Addison's moral leadership would influence the tenor of these deliberations.

Though the details have not been clarified in the press, the proposed ordinance revolves around lack of money: only inability to pay can be used to deny housing or public accommodations. Reports on the proposal include nearly uniform agreement that this resolves the problem and protects people from discrimination.

There is no state or federal protection from discrimination for lesbians and gay men in any aspects of their lives, at least in Pennsylvania (though the cities of Harrisburg and Philadelphia do have formal ordinances, and the mayor of Pittsburgh, after conspiring to kill a city ordinance, has protected lesbians and gay men in public employment by an executive order).

Any landlord would be fully able to throw out a person from an apartment under the new ordinance and simply appeal the borough's verdict (discrimination due to sexual orientation) to a state court for immediate redress.

This compromise is morally unsupportable unless one has total assurance that the resulting law will actually protect someone like Leonard Bernstein when he gets evicted from his apartment, or will enable Martina Navratilova to force her landlord to treat her fairly.

There's no doubt that a landlord evicting Bernstein because he's Jewish would have little hope; federal and state law make this discrimination clearly illegal. The tennis star could not legally be harassed because she's a woman; for this too there are clear prohibitions.

If, however, these landlords decided that being lesbian or gay was wrong and that they would not rent to "those kind," the local ordinance would have no greater authority to fall back on. Without the inclusion of sexual orientation, there is no way that this generally-unprotected status can be a basis upon which to file a complaint.

The planned ordinance is nothing less than legal invisibility for lesbians and gay men, a shoving back into the closet. The antics of the council last year make the need for explicit protection obvious; no good will can be assumed.

The current process has all the signs of entrapment used to co-opt groups subject to discrimination and bigotry in the past -- "You'd better take this, or you may get nothing!"

For a minority group used to getting nothing, this seems reasonable to lesbians and gay men, sadly enough. On the surface, it seems like bigotry and prejudice is prohibited, but the real message is homophobic: "We don't want to mention you in our ordinance, and we will do everything we can do not to say the words."

Saying the words -- being explicit about the citizens who are protected by law -- is the only way to protect civil rights.

The evidence is clear, both from local hearings and from even a casual eye on the news, that lesbians and gay men are subject to the worst kind of violence, harassment and discrimination. Even the federal government has produced documentation of that, in a 1987 Department of Justice report on bias crimes.

Campus research has consistently shown lesbians and gay men to be the prime targets of hatred, and last spring's computer murder incitement by James Whitehead is simply a grotesque high-tech example of the daily annoyances that lesbians and gay men must live with if they are open about themselves.

What other group that has been shown to be severely victimized could be deleted from a list of protected groups as if they could assume people would remember them? How would state and federal law operate if these simply said that discrimination in housing is prohibited except on the basis of income?

Or, how would employment statutes have operated had they simply read, "Only inability to perform the job can serve to be a factor in denial of employment?" Can anyone truly believe that women and other minorities would have made the progress they have under detailed protective class law?

To include a group of people within a set of protected classes involves government officials deciding that there is sufficient reason for protection and that the common good is served by extension of this protection.

The need was documented by courageous women and men telling the council of incidents of harassment or eviction due to sexual orientation, and of others telling of hiding their personal lives due to fear.

Obviously most lesbians and gay men have housing; how many hide from landlords because of this is unknown, but surely high. Common sense tells one that one hides something that will lead to eviction from one's home!

Sexual orientation is distinctly helpful in this regard; contrary to homophobic stereotypes, one cannot identify lesbians or gay men visibly. However, information suggestive of the problem has been ignored by council members.

In Philadelphia (which, remember, does protect people on the basis of sexual orientation), 13 percent of discrimination incidents reported were related to housing within the city, and 4 percent were reported to have occurred elsewhere in Pennsylvania.

I cannot in good conscience support this compromise housing bill. It comprises the wrong thing -- lesbians' and gay men's existence. I would prefer to have the Borough Council known for its moral cowardice and bigotry than for this collusion with prejudice.

This is not a compromise forged in mutual respect, based on affirming diversity, and intended to promote a vibrant community. It is a compromise of hatred, silence and duplicity. I feel much remorse that I was nearly sold on this cheap deal.