<p>Neither allows someones sexual orientation to be used by itself, Duhnke said, but in both cases some other behavior must give the government pause. If someone were trying to hide the fact that they are gay, for instance, he or she could be susceptible to coercion or blackmail.</p>
<p>And if they are s afraid of blackmail because someone is hiding they are gay, one has to think WHY someone would feel the need to hide their orientation from their bosses and friends and peers</p>
<p>Its ignoring the fact that if there was no prejuduce against gays and lesbians, and if people knew they wouldn’t get fired, or shunned, or harrassed, or even killed, that they wouldn’t need to hide.</p>
<p>But hey, lets put a lavender flower on all gays so we can spot them quickly, or a scarlet A, or whatever would make them people feel “safer”</p>
<p>Living in my city, I don’t get the hatred people feel towards LGT etc people</p>
<p>Am I the only one who noted the inconsistency between
and
</p>
<p>It seems to me that the less “private” and “discreet” you are about being gay, the less susceptible you’d be to blackmail. I mean, it’s not like Barney Frank is going to divulge national secrets because he’s afraid someone will “out” him, is it?</p>
<p>It has nothing to do with Bush or any other administration. Security clearances have been limited to those with nothing to hide for at least 60 years. For my generation, smoking pot in college was a litmus test. If you confessed all and weren’t a current user, you usually got a clearance (nothing to hide, not blackmailable). If you lied and were found out, no clearance. The assumption has always been, if you hide anything, you are subject to blackmail. </p>
<p>If some of you would take your “Bush” blinders off, you might find the world has not really changed much in the last 6 years.</p>
<p>The policy is not based on religious dogma. It’s based on the fact that security clearances are a privilege, and are critical to our national defense.</p>
<p>And the fact that the administration supports a ban on gay marriage has no relation to this, right? Being gay must mean being in cahoots with Iran and North Korea…</p>
<p>*
In a reversal of policy, the United States on Monday backed an Iranian initiative to deny United Nations consultative status to organizations working to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, a coalition of 39 organizations, led by the Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights Watch, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, called for an explanation of the vote which aligned the United States with governments that have long repressed the rights of sexual minorities. *</p>