Okay... time to play "Did you know?" Did you know that the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fourth Edition), underwent a "text revision" (known as the DSM-IV TR), in the year 2000? Granted, the DSM-IV (and all of it's predecessors) is a relatively obscure publication to most (99.999%) of us - not nearly as well-known in the general public as any of Stephen King's works - it is, nonetheless, the premier volume relied upon by mental health professionals around the world. You may be muttering to yourself, "Get back on point, Gil... what did the text revision do?" What DSM-IV TR did was remove from homosexuality, lesbianism, bi-sexuality, trans-gender, and virtually all sexual lifestyle choices, the heading of "Sexual Deviations". Suddenly, after 47 years of documented case studies, indulging in aberrant sexual behavior is no longer "deviant". What happened to cause this reversal? It is not that the behavior is no longer deviant... it is that it is not officially classified as such - thanks to pressure from the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans-gender alliance. (Enter the Democratic Representative from Massachusetts Barney Frank - who probably spends more time on his knees than the Pope. Not praying... playing!)
Barney Frank, the Flaming Fag From the Fourth (Congressional District, MA), sponsor of the "Gay Bill of Special Rights" and the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009" (HR2981 ). There is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of ENDA. Everybody should be allowed an opportunity to work in their chosen field. HOWEVER - it is the employer who should determine what is or is not appropriate dress and behavior while on the job, not the applicant or the government. The employer is, after all, the sole entity responsible for production and marketing, establishing and maintaining a harmonious working environment, and providing appropriate compensation/benefit packages for their employees. What would be the outcome if say 65% of the sworn officers of the San Francisco Police Department decided they should be able to wear colorful dresses to work instead of those boring blue uniforms with badges on them. And, although those 4" heels would be a bit more difficult to run in while pursuing a fleeing suspect, the more fashion conscious officers may feel compelled to wear them. Should they be denied that "right"? At the risk of repeating myself from earlier blog postings - DAMN RIGHT THEY SHOULD BE DENIED! Employers must have the right to determine what type of person can best represent their company's interests in an appropriate manner - but only during working hours. When the employee is on his/her own time "he" can dress like the Queen of Sheba, and "she" can dress like a lumberjack if they so desire. But, at work... if you take the man's money, you must play by the man's rules.
"Equal protection under the law" is the main thrust of Amendment XIV to the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it provide for special protections for any individual or group, yet the Obama administration is working hard to establish special protections for radicals of any and all stripes, and he (and/or his minions) are unceasingly chipping away at the foundations of our Republic. THEY MUST BE STOPPED!!
