|
|
Indiana Governor’s Memo Paves Way for Quotas for Homosexuals, Transvestites 6/17/2005 Adds ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ to special rights categories.
Indiana may soon begin hiring men in dresses in order to satisfy the governor’s affirmative action plan. That’s a possibility because of an April 26, 2005, policy statement issued by Republican Gov. Mitchell E. Daniels Jr.
After listing categories now covered by anti-discrimination law, Daniels’ memo said that:
[S]exual orientation and gender identity shall not be a consideration in decisions concerning hiring, development, advancement and termination of civilian employees.
Daniels also said, “We will comply with the spirit as well as the letter of applicable state and federal law.”
“What state and federal law?” said Jan LaRue, Concerned Women for America’s chief counsel. “There are no federal or Indiana employment laws that give special protection based on ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity.’ The governor is making up law, not complying with it. Executive activism is as bad as judicial activism.”
The practical effect may be that state agency executives cannot take into account anything regarding sexuality, including whether men wear dresses, makeup, high heels or other feminine garb, or act in an outrageously unorthodox manner. As a protected status, “sexual orientation” can justify conduct interpreted as being part of personal identity, or “who I am.”
It makes such behavior the problem of other employees, not the person flaunting his or her “lifestyle.” A few years ago in California, two homosexuals in an office were recounting how they had viewed explicit pornography over the weekend. When a fellow employee, an Orthodox Jew, asked them to refrain from subjecting him to the details, the two homosexuals reported the Jewish man to the human resources department, charging him with discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” 1
While the Indiana governor’s policy is limited to state government, it sets the tone and paves the way for the homosexual agenda, including demands for marital-type benefits for same-sex partners, “gay pride” celebrations, and school programs that affirm homosexuality. It also constitutes a government endorsement of bisexuality, which means having partners of either sex, behavior that is inconsistent with supporting the institution of marriage.
Gov. Daniels also vowed to oversee “ever more progressive affirmative action in state employment,” and said he was directing “all appointing authorities to place affirmative action on their list of agency priorities.”
Although the governor’s office strongly denies that he is backing quotas, state agency managers will have no choice but to create informal quotas in order to prove that they are not discriminating. This has been the practical effect of affirmative action for the past three decades in government and corporations.
By adding “sexual orientation and gender identity” to his statement, the governor ensures that hiring and promoting homosexuals, transsexuals and other sexually unorthodox applicants will be given priority over other employees so that managers won’t appear to be supporting traditional notions of sexual morality over any other expressions.
Because the wide-ranging term “sexual orientation” is used, the policy opens the door to a sexualized workplace, in which any expression of concern over overtly sexual identification will be considered actionable.
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV, published by the American Psychiatric Association, lists more than two dozen sexual behaviors as distinct variations. (See appendix.)
Litigants who practice any of the behaviors could seek special protections under the umbrella of “sexual orientation,” as has already occurred in various workplaces. In California, Shell Oil Company was fined $5.3 million for dismissing an executive who had used company equipment at a Shell subsidiary to produce and copy a flier advertising a “Safe Sex” party for homosexual men. His lawsuit charged Shell with “sexual orientation” discrimination.2
Companies and governments that have adopted “sexual orientation” policies often follow it with “diversity” programs designed to shame religious traditionalists, distort religious doctrine, redefine marriage, and to promote homosexuality as healthy and moral.
For example, diversity expert Brian McNaught has advised major corporations to remove all references to marriage, husbands or wives. “Heterosexist language can be changed. We can say, for instance, ‘partner’ or ‘significant other’ rather than spouse. We can say, ‘Are you in a relationship?’ rather than ‘Are you married?’” 3
During the Clinton administration, at least one federal agency adopted this policy, instructing employees not to refer to their spouses as “husband” or “wife.”
Finally, when a government offers incentives for people to remain trapped in homosexual behavior, it becomes that much harder for them to give it up. And there is a spiritual aspect to all of this as well. As Randy Thomas, a former homosexual who works with the Christian ex-gay ministry Exodus International, put it when discussing same-sex “civil unions,” they “raise the cost of redemption.”
Conclusion: Adding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to any corporate or government workplace policy opens the door to affirmative action for sexual behaviors, “diversity training” that violates the conscience of many employees, the degradation of the institution of marriage, and legal expenses for claims of discrimination not covered under current law. In the interests of protecting the rights of all of Indiana’s state employees, and to protect the institution of marriage, the governor should withdraw his policy memo and instruct agency employees to enforce only the categories specified in the law.
Take Action:
Write:
E-mail:
Call:
APPENDIX OF SEXUAL BEHAVIORS WARNING: Some of the descriptions may be offensive to readers’ sensibilities. [Page numbers are from "Paraphilias," Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 2000), pp. 566-582.] 1. Heterosexuality: the universal norm: sexual interaction with the opposite sex. 2. Homosexuality or "Gay": sexual interaction with persons of the same sex. 3. Bisexuality: sexual interaction with both males and females. 4. Transgenderism: an umbrella term referring to and/or covering transvestitism, drag queen/kings, and transsexualism. 5. Pedophilia: "sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). The individual with Pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with Pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account." (p.571) 6. Transsexuality: the condition in which a person’s "gender" identity is different from his or her anatomical sex. 7. Transvestitism: the condition in which a person is sexually stimulated or gratified by wearing the clothes of the other sex. 8. Transvestic fetishism: for males, "intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing." (p. 575) 9. Autogynephilia: the sexual arousal of a man by his own perception of himself as a woman or dressed as a woman. (p. 574) 10. Voyeurism: "obtaining sexual arousal through the act of observing unsuspecting individuals, usually strangers, who are naked, in the process of disrobing, or engaging in sexual activity." (p. 575) 11. Exhibitionism: "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving the exposure of one’s genitals to an unsuspecting stranger." (p. 569) 12. Fetishism or Sexual Fetishism: "intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving the use of nonliving objects (e.g. female undergarments)." (p. 570) 13. Zoophilia: becoming excited by and/or engaging in sexual activity with animals. (p. 576) 14. Sexual Sadism: "recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving acts (real, not simulated) in which the psychological or physical suffering (including humiliation) of the victim is sexually exciting to the person." (p. 574) 15. Sexual Masochism: "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving the act (real, not simulated) of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer." (p. 573) 16. Necrophilia: sexual arousal and/or activity with a corpse. (p. 576) 17. Klismaphilia: erotic pleasure derived from enemas. (p. 576) 18. Telephone Scatalogia: the compulsion to utter obscene topics over the phone. (p. 576) 19. Urophilia: sexual arousal associated with urine. (p. 576) 20. Coprophilia: sexual arousal associated with feces. (p. 576) 21. Partialism: "sexual arousal obtained through exclusive focus on part of the body."(p. 576) 22. Gender Identity Disorder: "a strong and persistent cross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is, of the other sex," along with "persistent discomfort about one’s assigned sex or a sense of the inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex." (p. 576) 23. Frotteurism: "touching and rubbing against a nonconsenting person." (p. 570)
End Notes
|
|
Concerned Women for America 1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 488-7000 Fax: (202) 488-0806 |
Feedback / Questions? || Problem with this page? || Archives
