By: Mary Mostert, Analyst,
For those of you out there who just arrived from outer space, the news story that is consuming America is about the President of the United States, sex, Monica Lewinsky, what constitutes a lie and a renewed debate over whether oral sex is sex or something else. A form of "sexual orientation" perhaps?
One group, who in general support the president and whatever it is he has done with Monica, staunchly declare that it is a private matter between two consenting adults and is none of our business.
This group, by and large, is also the same group that insists upon laws to protect something called "sexual orientation" and, in fact, were sending me press releases gloating over the fact that "the conservative right failed in its efforts to overturn President Clinton's Executive Order 10387 which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation for all Federal Employees."
In a vote of 252-176, the House of Representatives defeated an Amendment to HR 4276, the Departments of Commerce, State and Justice Appropriations sponsored by Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO) which would prohibit any funds to be used to implement or enforce Executive Order 13087 of May 28, 1998 or Executive Order 13083 of May 14, 1998.
President Clinton rescinded Executive Order 10383 on Tuesday, after the House voted 417-2 to cancel it and every Governor rose up to protest its federal power grab.
Executive Order 10387 expands the so-called "affirmative action" Executive order 11478 which prohibits "discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap or age and to promote the full realization of equal employ opportunity through a continuing affirmative program in each executive department and agency. This policy of equal opportunity applies to and must be an integral part of every aspect of personnel policy and practice in the employment, development, advancement, and treatment of civilian employees of the Federal Government."
The words added by Clinton's Executive Order 10387 amend 11478 to read as follows:
* Section 1 It is the policy of the Government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in Federal employment for all persons, to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age or sexual orientation, and to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a continuing affirmative program in each executive department and agency. This policy of equal opportunity applies to and must be an integral part of every aspect of personnel policy and practice in the employment, development, advancement, and treatment of civilian employees of the Federal Government.
* Section 2. The head of each executive department and agency shall establish and maintain an affirmative program of equal employment opportunity for all civilian employees and applicants for employment within his jurisdiction in accordance with the policy set forth in section 1.
* It is the responsibility of each department and agency head, to the maximum extent possible, to provide sufficient resources to administer such a program in a positive and effective manner; assure that recruitment activities reach all sources of job candidates; utilize to the fullest extent the present skills of each employee; provide the maximum feasible opportunity to employees to enhance their skills so they may perform at their highest potential and advance in accordance with their abilities; provide training and advice to managers and supervisors to assure their understanding and implementation of the policy expressed in this Order; assure participation at the local level with other employers, schools, and public or private groups in cooperative efforts to improve community conditions which affect employability; and provide for a system within the department or agency for periodically evaluating the effectiveness with which the policy of this Order is being carried out to the extent permitted by law.
The press release I received from the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Employees of the Federal Government (GLOBE) stated, "Although supporters of the Amendment claimed that the Executive Order would require Federal Managers ask employees to identify their sexual orientation, and establish hiring and promotion quotas, this is patently false and misleading."
Actually, that is exactly what it means. In 1969, when Executive order 11478 was issued I was a building Contractor in Rochester, New York and had just won a contract to rehabilitate a house in the inner city in with the War on Poverty program. All bids were tossed out and I was told to write an affirmative action program that would include 10% black employees and sub-contractors by trade. That is, 10% of my electricians and plumbers HAD to be black.
Since I only needed one electrician and one plumber I asked the obvious question, "How do I made 10% of my one plumber or electrician black and is it OK if I used an unlicensed plumber or electrician since there were no licensed black plumbers or electricians in the whole city.
This so upset the Federal enforcer of the program that he saw to it that I didn't win the contract when it was re-bid.
So, quite definitely affirmative action is an integral part of the new "sexual orientation" requirement. In fact, by adding the words to Section 2 "to the full extent permitted by law" Clinton has given sexual orientation even more force of law than the affirmative action order had previously. What the Hefley Amendment would have done would be to stop tax money from being spent on utterly absurd "sexual orientation" workshops in federal departments.
We now have a situation in which we are told on the one hand that any kind of sex activity is OK, but it is private and none of anyone's business, except federal office employers and, eventually they hope, ALL employers must affirmatively and actively "assure that recruitment activities reach all sources of job candidates."
How can an employer comply with that executive order without asking a perspective employee what their sexual orientation is? And, exactly what is the definition of "sexual orientation?" Does it also include bestiality and child sex? Those of us who grew up on farms where we could observe from early childhood the behavior and results of sexual activity in the barnyard assumed until recently that we understood what sex is. Now, apparently, we are told that we don't know what sex is and need to learn about homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, and whatever people who idea of sex is oral sex are called these days so we can abide by Bill Clinton's Executive Order.
Only, from conversations on the TV talk shows last night, I understand that a possible Bill Clinton defense against perjury in the Monica Lewinsky matter is that he claims oral sex is not sex and, I presume, his own Executive Order would not protect him and Monica by bringing a claim against Kenneth Starr based on discrimination for his sexual orientation.
Does this make sense? I could understand the demand for privacy, and I guess I could try to understand people who want to make their sexual perversion a matter of public display and discussion - but I sure don't see how you can do both simultaneously. Except, that's about what Bill Clinton is doing. He says unnatural, dangerous and life-shortening sex practices must be affirmatively approved and taught, while his own sexual perversion, which is tearing the nation, is none of our business.
How would you explain that us older folk, your children or a visitor from outer space? How do you reconcile the notion that sex should be a private matter with an executive order or law which requires people to discuss this kind of weird, perverted sex in on-the-job training?
The GLOBE folks promise to come to our rescue. GLOBE's purpose, they say, is to "eliminate prejudice and discrimination in the federal workplaces based on sexual orientation by (1) developing and providing education programs and materials which address the distinctive concerns and problems of Gay men, Lesbians, and Bisexuals in the federal govern; and (2) educating all members of the Federal workforce about issues of concern to Gay men, Lesbians, and Bisexuals."
Lest you think in those "education" sessions who might help your co-workers who have adopted a life style that shortens their life on an average of 40 years, forget it. Clinton's "Religion Guidelines" limits your First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and speech with the following words: "using religious expression to verbally attack other employees or a specific employee;" is prohibited. Quoting the Bible on the subject of homosexuality, for example, could undoubtedly qualify as "using religion to attack other employees."
It's hard to believe that 252 members of a Republican congress would support such expensive utter confusion.
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com