Like The State Department, DoJ Policies Discriminate Against Gay And Lesbian Employees
Like The State Department, DoJ Policies Discriminate Against Gay And Lesbian Employees
As ThinkProgress noted yesterday, Michael Guest — the first openly gay man to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as a U.S. Ambassador — resigned from the State Department last month, “in order to protest rules and regulations that he believes are unfair to the same-sex partners of Foreign Service officers.” Guest said he chose to resign after “absolutely nothing…resulted from” his direct appeals to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for policy changes.
The State Department is not the only branch of the Bush administration that explicitly discriminates against gay and lesbian employees. In 2003, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft barred DOJ Pride, an organization of almost 200 gay and lesbian employees of the Justice Department, from holding “an annual event celebrating ‘gay pride month’ at the agency’s headquarters” while allowing other employee groups to do so.
Though the decision was eventually reversed after pressure from gay rights groups and members of Congress, the Department has continued other discriminatory policies. During his confirmation hearing, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) asked Attorney General Michael Mukasey if he would “stop the disparate treatment of gay and lesbian employees” at DOJ:
The department sponsors commemorative events to recognize the contributions of various minority groups, but under Attorney General Ashcroft and Gonzales, in contrast to Attorney General Reno, it has refused to do so for the GLBT Americans.
In addition, while DOJ Pride, an organization of GLBT employees, is permitted to use department space to hold events, it is prohibited from advertising those events on public billboards, in department buildings, again, unlike organizations for minority employees at the department.
Similarly, the department refuses to recruit at job fairs aimed at GLBT attorneys but sends recruiters to job fairs aimed at other minority groups.
Responding to Feingold, Mukasey said that he couldn’t “understand the reason for that treatment” and that he was “going to” do something about it. But Mukasey is unlikely to feel pressure from the President to follow through on his promise.
Not only has the administration threatened to veto legislation barring employment discrimination based on sexual identity, but President Bush has refused throughout his tenure to even observe June as Gay Pride Month.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
and this surprises anyone why?
December 5th, 2007 at 3:43 pmNow why would this be a surprise? This is the branch stuffed with Jesus freaks and loyal Bushies. Meaning, there are probably many closeted gay people working in the department but they hate themselves and others like them except when they want some action.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:45 pmBigots of the world, unite behind BushCo!
December 5th, 2007 at 3:47 pmthis is a known fact without even having to print it.
anything republican = BAD BAD BAD for the USA
December 5th, 2007 at 3:50 pmIn addition, while DOJ Pride, an organization of GLBT employees, is permitted to use department space to hold events, it is prohibited from advertising those events on public billboards, in department buildings, again, unlike organizations for minority employees at the department.
—-
Yes, we wouldn’t want anyone to decide to turn gay because of a posting on a billboard.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:51 pmJesus was gay, and so were his disciples.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:58 pmAhmadinejad says gays dont exist in Iran
Bush says gays have no rights to exist
December 5th, 2007 at 4:02 pmThe only rationale I can think of is that discriminating against gays will make them want to go get ‘cured’…
December 5th, 2007 at 4:09 pm#6… Now be serious — that was only mentioned in the Gospel of Darryl and biblical scholars consider that one to be apocryphal.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:11 pmNot surprised at all. This the hypocrite Administration occupying Pennsylvania Avenue. Bush is denying gay rights yet his same buddies on Capitol Hill that are denying gays their rights are coming out the woodwork and caught toe tapping, soliciting same sex cops for blowjobs, cross-dressing, soliciting minor pagers on the internet, etc.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:11 pm#6. You wouldn’t dare say that about Mohammed, would you?
Comment by cold_hard_left
Why are you defending mohammed? cold_hard_on is an islamofacist!
December 5th, 2007 at 4:15 pmMohammed is as gay as Dumbledore. They are characters in storybooks.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:18 pmYes — if we close our eyes and pretend they aren’t there, maybe they’ll all just go away!
/sarc off
December 5th, 2007 at 4:18 pmBe careful methune, coldhardweiner will declare a jihad on your butt.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:20 pm15 – yer crackin’ me up here!!
Yeah – the CHL fatwa!!
December 5th, 2007 at 4:23 pmWTF are you babbling about, CHL…?
Did your nurse forget to medicate you?
December 5th, 2007 at 4:24 pmWait a sec. CHL wants to help the jihadis? Hmmmm. The world will be better off when they realize that they are killing and dying over characters in books. They are words. They do what the author makes them do. Rhett told Scarlett that he didn’t give a damn so I’m going to start a world war.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:32 pmOf course Condi would be unsympathetic–she’s hetero and in love with her husb …, whoops President.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:34 pm#6. You wouldn’t dare say that about Mohammed, would you?
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 5, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
####
Mohammed was even more gay than Jesus. He was way up there in the flaming Larry-Craig-osphere of gayness.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:51 pmWhat kind of other events by other groups are being celebrated over at the DoJ? Are they things like employees of Irish ancestry celebrating St. Patrick’s Day and employees of Mexican ancestry celebrating Cinco de Mayo? Black employees doing something for African American Heritage month? Are employees who aren’t members of the celebrating ethnic group welcome at these events?
If this is the case, then gay employees should be allowed to celebrate Gay Pride Month, breast cancer survivors should be allowed to hold an event during Breast Cancer Awareness month, etc. Either that, or ALL employees should celebrate their own holidays and observances on their own time.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:53 pmThere is no such thing as “gay rights” under the Constitution.
There are EQUAL RIGHTS for all people under the Constitution.
By using the term “gay rights,” the perception of “special rights” for GLBT people is promulgated. Words have an effect.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:56 pmOK — I’m confused. How in the world is the sexual orientation of religious prophets relevant to this topic?
December 5th, 2007 at 4:56 pmAs usual, Miss Molly, you make very good sense.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:57 pmThe comments about the sexual orientation of religious figures is satirical, I think.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:57 pmUh oh. Comments are satirical.
I really did pass 8th grade English.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:58 pmOK — I’m confused. How in the world is the sexual orientation of religious prophets relevant to this topic?
Comment by missmolly — December 5, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
####
Sorry, I just wanted to make C_H_L’s head explode.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:03 pm23 – Hmmmm. That’s rather a sophomoric argument, there, Don.
There are no references to handicapped people in the Constitution either, but THEY have “the perception of special rights”…and that is a sign that our society is civilized enough to acknowledge the need for such.
Our society ought to be civilized enough to NOT legislate bigotry or tolerate it. A person’s sexual orientation ought to have absolutely NO bearing on anything, including their right to employment, to fair treatment, and their civil rights.
Unfortunately, here in Jesusland, the Christian bigots are running the show – and they are NOT civilized.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:04 pmMore precisely ‘openly gay’ employees are not OK.
‘Caught gays’ like Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Jeff Gannon (Guckert), Ted Haggard, … and many more may or may not be OK depending on political correctness.
‘OK gays’ like Dick Cheney’s daughter and and her partner are still OK.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:15 pmThere is no such thing as “gay rights†under the Constitution.
There are EQUAL RIGHTS for all people under the Constitution.
By using the term “gay rights,†the perception of “special rights†for GLBT people is promulgated. Words have an effect.
Comment by Don in Texas — December 5, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
You have a point about the possible effect of the words “gay rights” — although it’s been my experience that the people who have the most visceral reaction to that term are the ones who wish to deny gays the same rights the rest of us enjoy. Myself — I always interpreted the term to mean “gays getting the same rights as straights”, but I can see a possibility for other interpretations.
What, in your opinion, would be a less ambiguous term? The term in the TP item refers to groups whose objective is to ensure gays receive the same rights as everybody else. What would be a reasonable way to refer to such a group?
December 5th, 2007 at 5:42 pmDon’t you just love these photos of aWol looking at one of his minions with his head cocked like that? There must be dozens of such pics out there. Maybe all that blow affected his inner ears.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:33 pm#13. Mohammed is as gay as Dumbledore. They are characters in storybooks.
Comment by Menehune — December 5, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
i though mohammed was a teddy bear living in sudan….???
December 5th, 2007 at 10:33 pm#16 – “Who needs directions?” Comment by cold_hard_left — December 5, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
I do!
Where do you work? I’ll need your work address and the directions from South Salem, NY.
Or do you only support terrorists by giving them addresses and directions? ;-)
December 6th, 2007 at 8:29 am#38 – “Have the CAIR protesters shown up at TP HQ yet? (corner of 13th Ave. and H Street in the NW quarter of DC). They’ll be expecting you.” Comment by cold_hard_left — December 6, 2007 @ 9:04 am
__________________________________________________
What a ridiculous comment.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:48 am