« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
02/06/2008
Mukasey finds Pride; Tony still shameless
As you might've already heard, new Attorney General Michael Mukasey recently broke ranks with the Bush administration by reversing a ban on the activities of the Dept. of Justice's gay centric group, DOJ Pride. Under Mukasey's newly revised equal-employment-opportunity policy, DOJ Pride is to be treated like all other employee organizations, and to be allowed to use the e-mail, bulletin boards and meeting rooms.
Nice, right? But of course where there is increased tolerance and understanding of 'mos, there is a supposedly "pro-family" person seething with rage. And this time that person in the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins, who responded to the news by saying:
In his statement, Mukasey notes that his goal is to create "an environment that's free of discrimination." What the DOJ's new boss fails to understand is that it's possible to treat all employees fairly without elevating homosexuals to a special status. Rather than invoking unique privileges for a group that most consider controversial, Mukasey should have made it clear that celebrations of anyone's sexual behavior do not belong in the workplace--particularly at taxpayer expense!
Oh, there's that "special" rights code-wording that folks like Tony love so much. Never mind that the Mukasey order only grants DOJ Pride the same access as every other employee organization. And never mind that gay people are also taxpayers. Since it's an organization meant to show people how queer lives are not really all that "controversial," it comes across to those who create the controversy in the first place (i.e people like Tony) as outside the lines of acceptability. So they make it sound like the group is wasting (a) the funds that they'd like used to serve only heterosexual Christian conservative lives, and (b) the heterosexism that they want in place so as to keep their anti-gay work from being widely recognized for the mean-spirited, biased endeavor that it truly is.
Sorry, Tony -- the uber-conservative error era seems to be coming more and more to an end with every passing day. You "pro-family" kids were given a national stage and the most receptive White House in recent memory, and what it rendered were off-base, queer-stigmatizing policies like the one initiated by Ashcroft. Now for the rest of history, the society-weakening measures for which you and your pals have pushed will be intertwined with the most society-weakening presidency of the modern era. And with even your own party desperate for a change, it would seem that a majority of people are hungry to heal the sorts of wounds that came from the fallout of supporting a Bushy mindset. Anti-gay antipathy is far from the only wound, but it is not an insignificant one.
With his order, Mukasey took a small step towards becoming a Band-Aid. Tony, here's hoping that folks like yourself will wise up and stop trying to pick at the scab.
Justice Scales Tip in Homosexuals' Favor [FRC]
Your thoughts
"...and stop trying to pick at the scab." ??
Posted by: dave b. | Feb 6, 2008 2:07:55 PM
Confused -- Is that a question, Dave B?
Posted by: G-A-Y | Feb 6, 2008 2:14:56 PM
Oops, Dave -- nevermind. I see the mistake now. Thanks.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Feb 6, 2008 2:34:35 PM
Just how did Mukasey break "ranks with the Bush administration"? Did the rest of the Administration make Ashcroft and Gonzales do what they did?
Posted by: David | Feb 7, 2008 6:32:36 PM
Oh come on, David. Ashcroft epitomize(s/d) the Bush administration! And when he enacted the policy, Ashcroft specifically cited an unwritten Bush administration policy that only events that received a presidential proclamation could be held on govt. property!
Posted by: G-A-Y | Feb 7, 2008 7:01:46 PM
I'm sorry, but I still don't see how Ashcroft's actions epitomize Bush's administration. Instead of making vague anti-Bush accusations why don't you be specific?
There is nothing wrong with the unwritten policy about events, nor anything wrong with Ashcroft upholding it so long as he did so evenhandedly. The fact that Ashcroft's decision cited the policy is no reflection on the president whatsoever.
Posted by: David | Feb 7, 2008 11:23:24 PM
David: Ashcroft, in the pocket of the Bush administration, initiated a policy that treated DOJ Pride different than other employee orgs, and he cited a BUSH ADMINISTRATION POLICY when he did so. Gonzales upheld the policy. But now Mukasey, seemingly working on his own regard, has gone against the BUSH ADMINISTRATION POLICY that Ashcroft cited. I really don't know how to be more specific about this!
Posted by: G-A-Y | Feb 8, 2008 8:40:02 AM
Jeremy: We seem to have a real failure to communicate here.
The unwritten policy about events (if there really is such an unofficial policy in the Bush administration) has no bearing here except in the way that Ashcroft (and later Gonzales) used it. Such use reflects on these two Attornies General, not on President Bush.
Simply repeating that Ashcroft cited the events policy when he decided to treat DOJ Pride differently does not demonstrate that he was acting at Bush's behest. (Being in Bush's 'pocket' was how you phrased it.) When I ask you to be specific about how Ashcroft's unfair treatment of DOJ Pride epitomized the Bush Administration I am looking for evidence that Bush and his other officials routinely single out gay employees for different treatment.
Posted by: David | Feb 9, 2008 7:41:29 PM
Evidence that Bush and his officials routinely single out gay employees for different treatment isn't coming, is it?
Posted by: David | Feb 19, 2008 3:50:56 AM
comments powered by Disqus
