Thursday’s Washington Post contained comprehensive
coverage, three stories no less, of Barack Obama’s
presidential memorandum that decrees in these dark days of
recession new “benefits to partners of federal workers.” But
don’t worry, your scarce hard-earned tax dollars won’t go to all
domestic lovers. Just homosexual ones.
The memorandum “does not cover domestic heterosexual partners,”
reports the Post. And who largely drafted the
memorandum? John Berry, director of the Office of Personnel
Management, who is “the highest-ranking openly gay person in the
administration.”
Heterosexual sinners need to hire better lobbyists, or hope that
Obama soon finds in his impressively massive heart a new and
richer understanding of their attempts at semi-committed love.
Again I ask: Are we witnessing the quiet spread of heterophobia?
Why should a Carrie Prejean not enjoy the ample protections of
Obama’s hate-crime laws? Why should the girlfriends of
fornicating federal workers not receive, as homosexuals now do,
“long-term-care insurance benefits” for their short-term
relationships?
As I don’t need to tell you, this president is deeply committed
to “competitiveness” and released his memorandum with the
efficiency of the federal government at the very top of his mind:
“Extending available benefits will help the Federal Government
compete with the private sector to recruit and retain the best
and the brightest employees.” But doesn’t he see that by denying
benefits to the heterosexually shacked-up he is risking the loss
of their abundant talents too?
This nation cannot afford to lose a single one of the federal
government’s 2 million civil servants. Remember how impossible
life became after Bill Clinton shut the federal government down
due to Newt Gingrich’s recalcitrance and sent, I’m sorry to use
this cruel term but it was the state-of-the-art phrase at the
time, “unessential workers” home? No one wants to go through that
again.
What, you may be wondering, are the benefits in Wednesday’s
memorandum that will make the federal government a little more
brisk? One apparently is that gay federal workers can now take
time off to care for “children not related by blood or adoption.”
Say a child is struggling with “LGBT” issues of one kind or
another; that federal worker could now take the afternoon off and
sooth the youngster by reading with him or her President Obama’s
proclamation, addressed in part to “LGBT” youth, that declared
June “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.”
Gay activists seemed a little surly after Obama went to the
trouble of signing an order that elevates them and snubs
heterosexuals. What gives? Unlike Republican pols, who find the
pro-lifers to whom they have to hurl bones from time to time very
boring and tiresome, Obama actually likes and agrees with his
ideological base. He has made it clear to gay activists, via his
wife, that his nominal opposition to gay marriage is political,
not philosophical, and that once the coast is clear he will
endorse it in every state.
Why the impatience? Well, at least Candy Holmes has things in
perspective. A veteran of the Government Accountability Office,
she
told the Post that the words “hopeful” and “excited”
describe her mood. She wants “to believe this is the beginning of
equality.”
Holmes and her lesbian partner, by the way, “are both ordained
clergy with the Metropolitan Community Church,” so perhaps in the
near future they will have a little more time for troubled youth
and some freed-up money, otherwise used on niggling insurance
plans, for more affirming purchases, such as the
memoirs of Milwaukee Archbishop Emeritus Rembert Weakland.
