"Homophobe" is an epithet commonly used by gay activists to describe anyone who objects to the practice of homosexuality or the gay rights movement. On the other hand, the term is routinely dismissed by people who consider it to be part of the ranting of the small minority who engage in homosexuality and want to force society to accept homosexuality as normal.

The term grew out of the word "homophobia," which -- if broken down to its root words -- means fear of sameness. Homophobia is an ambiguous term. It has no agreed-upon definition. The 1989 book, "Sex and Morality in the U. S.," put out by the Kinsey Institute, referred to the term as "erroneous" (page 294). The book goes on to say that "the assumption that 'anti-homosexuality' is a phobic response, (is) a conclusion that lacks convincing support."

According to Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, who has practiced psychoanalysis and psychiatry for more than 23 years, "It was coined to mean both a worry about being homosexual as well as to refer to an opinion that homosexuality is not good." Satinover, a former Fellow in Psychiatry and Child Psychiatry at Yale University, says that in recent years the word has appeared in some federally funded studies without being satisfactorily defined as a medical condition. "This use is a pure corruption of the medical process," said Satinover, "Opinions are not diseases except to dictators."

Unfortunately, that is about to change. The Centers for Disease Control, the official health arm of the federal government, used the word for the first time last month with an implied definition that would please the most radical members of the gay community.

Dr. Paul Cameron, the psychologist who heads the Family Research Institute in Colorado Springs, stumbled upon this passage in the CDC 's "Morbidity and Mortality Report" for the week of Jan. 14. On page 10 of this publication, under the heading "HIV/AIDS Among Racial/Minority Men WhoHave Sex with Men," we have this revelation:

Race/ethnicity itself is not a risk factor for HIV infection. However, among racial/ethic minority MSM (men who have sex with men) social and economic factors, such as homophobia, high rates of poverty and unemployment and lack of access to health care, are associated with high rates of HIV risk behavior. The definition of homophobia, as it is used here, came farther down in the passage: Within racial/ethnic minority communities, the stigma attached to acknowledging homosexual and bisexual activity may inhibit racial/ethic minority MSM from identifying themselves as homosexual or bisexual and they may be more likely to identify with their racial/ethnic minority community than with the MSM community.

When you put these two paragraphs together, you have the complete picture the CDC is presenting here: Those with homophobia do not accept homosexuality.

Homophobic people, therefore, present a health risk. This is not the first time this term as been used or implied by a federal agency. During the seven years of the Clinton administration, we have seen it pop up now and then, but this is the first time it has been used by the Centers for Disease Control, which has dictatorial powers on life and death matters.

The implication for churches, religious broadcasters and faith-based groups like the Boy Scouts, which hold to traditional Judeo-Christian morality, are huge. Robert H. Knight, director of Cultural Studies at the Concerned Women For America in Washington, D.C., believes the problem is two-fold: "If conservatives don't pick up on this assertion that homophobia is a private and public health problem, churches could lose their tax exempt status, religious broadcasters could lose their licenses.

The CDC also is paving the way for making mere opposition to homosexuality to be deemed a hate crime." Legislation is also under consideration in Canada to add sexual orientation to the list of grounds on which hate crimes can be committed.

Look at what happened at Bob Jones University. The IRS revoked its tax-exempt status because of the school's policy on interracial dating. This shows that a religious exemption can be overridden for any reason the government finds compelling. What could be more compelling than a health risk?

More recently, a D.C. court ordered Georgetown University to fund homosexual clubs on its campus. Georgetown made the religious freedom case but the court rejected it, choosing instead to elevate the D.C. gay rights law as the binding authority. Knight points out that the law often has to choose between competing rights. In fact, every civil rights claim is made against someone else's claim of equal justice under the law. "For over two centuries, religion was accorded the highest respect, because this right was considered inalienable, but that is changing," said Knight. "With the advent of gay rights laws,including hate crime laws, gay activists assert that their claims trump religious freedom and they are starting to make headway."

Dr. Satinover characterized this move by the CDC as utterly absurd: The CDC is looking at minority poor homosexuals and they are saying that the addition of homophobia in that small group increases members risk of AIDS. In that case, we also should look at "homophobia" in the population as a whole. We'll find a lower incidence of AIDS in the "homophobic" group than in the "non-homophobic" group. So by their own reasoning, the CDC ought to report that for the general population homophobia protects against AIDS. Then, following what is a routine epidemiologic procedure, we should be inculcating the opinion "homophobia." After all, we give polio vaccine to protect the general population, even though it seems a small percentage of people who receive the vaccine develop polio from it.

What the CDC is trying to do is characterize anyone who has an objection to homosexuality as disturbed and a public health threat. This is a bullying tactic. The important thing to remember is that most bullies are cowards. These people back down when there is an appropriate amount of outrage.

We saw it last summer when the American Psychological Association backed off a study that said sex between adults and children might be positive for "willing" children.

We witnessed it just two weeks ago when the Federal Communications Commission reversed a December ruling that threatened religious broadcasting.

This threat is every bit as dangerous as the other two and may be more far-reaching, having been initiated by the Centers for Disease Control.