LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS

H.R. 2232: The ‘Clarification Of Federal Employment Protections Act’

U.S. Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Tom Davis (R-VA) have introduced H.R. 2232, the Clarification of Federal Employment Protections Act.

This legislation will amend United States Code dealing with discrimination against federal employees by adding “sexual orientation” to 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(10). Yet, “sexual orientation” is not defined either in this legislation or in federal law generally.

Once “sexual orientation” is added to 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(10), homosexuals, cross-dressers, transsexuals and anyone else with a different “sexual orientation” can demand special access to restrooms and shower facilities. They can demand that other employees deemed not sufficiently supportive of their “orientation” be forced to attend diversity training programs that will affirm homosexuality, cross-dressing, transsexualism and other gender confused behaviors as normal.

Congress’ refusal to define “sexual orientation” creates the prospect of legal protection for every form of sexual perversion recognized by the psychiatric profession. By its silence, Congress is effectively endorsing such deviant and criminal behaviors as beastiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia as “sexual orientations” protected by federal law.

5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(10) protects federal employees from discrimination on the basis of their conduct. The section prohibits federal employers from “discriminat[ing] for or against any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the employee or the applicant or the performance of others.”

Once “sexual orientation” is added to 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(10), anyone with a bizarre sexual orientation will have total protection for his or her activities by claiming that Congress sanctions their appearance, behavior or attitudes.

Inevitably this will negatively affect the performance of co-workers who are forced to work alongside of individuals with bizarre sex habits. Imagine working next to a person who gets sexual pleasure from rubbing up against a woman (Fronteurism) or enjoys wearing opposite sex clothing. These are “sexual orientations.”

30 Sexual Orientations Effectively Gain Federal Protection

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has published 30 such sexual orientations that, because of Congress’s failure to define “sexual orientation,” will arguably be protected under this legislation. These 30 orientations are listed in the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), which is used by physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, and psychiatrists throughout the U.S. It is considered the dictionary of mental disorders. Those 30 sexual orientations include behaviors that are felonies or misdemeanors in most states or can result in death.

Among those sexual orientations are:

  • Fronteurism -- which involves a man approaching an unknown woman and rubbing up against her buttocks. This is criminal behavior.

  • Incest -- which is a crime (sex with a daughter or son).

  • Necrophilia -- a crime (sex with a corpse).

  • Pedophilia -- a crime (sex with an underage child).

  • Prostitution -- a crime in most states.

  • Zoophilia -- (beastiality) which is a crime in numerous states.

  • Voyeurism -- which is a criminal offense in most states.

Non-criminal sexual orientations include such behaviors as:

  • Autogeynephilia -- the perception of a man as being a woman;

  • Apotemnophilia -- sexual arousal from the stumps of an amputee;

  • Coprophilia -- sexual arousal from feces;

  • Urophilia -- sexual arousal from urine

  • Transvestic Fetishism -- intense sexually-arousing fantasies, sexual urges, and behaviors involving cross-dressing.

To protect a “sexual orientation” under federal law – while leaving that term undefined -- is to protect this whole range of bizarre sexual behaviors. It is to normalize by federal law what are still considered to be mental disorders (paraphilias) by the American Psychiatric Association.

The Ever-Expanding Definition Of ‘Sexual Orientation’

Currently, the only place in federal law where “sexual orientation” is defined is in the 1990 “Hate Crimes Statistics Act.” In that law, “sexual orientation” is defined as “consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality.”

Over time, homosexual activists have expanded this definition to include bisexuals and transgendered individuals (cross-dressers, drag queens, transsexuals and she-males). The term LGBT (Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender) is the acronym currently used to describe this expanded definition.

Why This Law Is Being Pushed

H.R. 2232 is being pushed by Representativees Waxman and Davis and the homosexual/transgender/anything goes lobby in an effort to legally embed the term “sexual orientation” in federal personnel policies.

A little history is in order. President Clinton signed an Executive Order (13087) (EO) in May, 1998 that amended the 30-year-old EO 11478 dealing with discrimination. The Clinton EO added “sexual orientation” after “age” as a protected category. It authorized the expansion of coverage only “to the extent permitted by law.”

Clinton appointee Elaine Kaplan is openly lesbian and a political activist who stayed in office until 2003. While in this post, Kaplan—without any Congressional authority—interpreted Clinton’s Executive Order to mean that “sexual orientation” was to be a protected class.

In 2004, the Office of Special Counsel was attacked by homosexual/transgender activists when it investigated the legality of a Clinton appointee adding “sexual orientation” as a protected behavior for federal employees. The office removed “sexual orientation” from the personnel rules because there was no legal authority to support its inclusion.

Homosexual activists have routinely used terms like “interpretation,” “long-standing interpretation” and “uniformly interpreted” to claim that the Civil Service Reform Act protects sexual orientation.

GLOBE (a homosexual group of federal employees) falsely claims that the Civil Service Reform Act also provides “sexual orientation” protection.

One homosexual group stated: “Sexual orientation discrimination is prohibited in the federal workforce for civilian employees. The primary basis for this prohibition comes from more than 25 years of interpretation of the Civil Service Reform Act which makes it unlawful to discriminate against a federal employee or applicant ‘on the basis of conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the employee or applicant or the performance of others.”

The current Office of Special Counsel (OSC) has ruled that “sexual orientation” is not a protected category for federal employees because it has never been a federally-protected category in law. This places the federal executive branch at odds with homosexual activists, who have routinely claimed that properly “interpreted,” the Civil Service Reform Act protects sexual orientation despite the lack of language anywhere in the statute supporting this “interpretation.”

Granting express protection for the “sexual orientation” of federal employees under this statute will have impact throughout society, far beyond just the federal workforce. As the nation’s largest employer, the federal government can force contractors to enact pro-homosexual/cross-dressing policies. The federal government sets an example for other employers that so-called “discrimination” against sexual orientations is unacceptable. If “sexual orientation” becomes federal law, it will inevitably be used against private employers to force them into enacting “sexual orientation” policies. Private litigants will file claims against private parties, arguing that their “sexual orientation” is protected under the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution according to the history and traditions of our nation, as evidenced by this federal statute.

By their own rhetoric, it is clear that homosexual/transgender/anything goes lobby and their Congressional allies know there is no legal authority to claim that Civil Service Reform Act covers sexual orientation. But after falsely claiming that the act does cover sexual orientation for all these years, they are now complaining that their “special rights” to engage in these 30 orientations is being taken away.

Office Of Special Counsel Has Authority

The Office of Special Counsel has the authority to investigate any allegations of discrimination, but the authority only extends to enforcing rules governed by “civil service law, rule or regulation.” In the absence of such legal authority, the OSC cannot act.

This fact was confirmed in March 2007 when the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) issued its decision in Craig Mahaffey, v. Department of Agriculture Agency.

Mahaffey had sued the Department of Agriculture over his being fired for poor performance. He claimed he had been a victim of religious, age, and sexual orientation discrimination. His claims were found to be without merit.

In issuing its ruling against him, the MSPB stated: “There is no Board precedent covering allegations of discrimination involving sexual orientation under this section [2302(b)(10)]. Nor do we find it necessary to establish such precedent in this case, where there is insufficient evidence to support a violation under any view of the statute.”

Mahaffey had claimed he was the victim of sexual orientation discrimination, but failed to provide any concrete proof of this to the investigators – other than his feelings.

The Merit System Protection Board has ruled that “sexual orientation” is not a protected category under federal law.

A 1994 Supreme Court decision (Farmer v. Brennan) and a ruling from the Seventh Federal Circuit Court from 1985 (Ulane v. Eastern Airlines) dealt with transsexualism and sexual orientation policies.

The Supreme Court defined a transsexual as “one who has a rare psychiatric disorder in which a person feels persistently uncomfortable about his or her anatomical sex and who typically seeks medical treatment…”

The Seventh Circuit Court also dealt with a sexual orientation discrimination case under the Civil Rights Act and found little evidence that Congress intended on providing special rights for transsexuals, cross-dressers or drag queens.

What Are The Effects Of H.R. 2232?

By adding “sexual orientation” to federal law, Congress will be legalizing and normalizing the whole range of sexual orientations as listed in the APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). This list, of course, is subject to endless change as individuals decide they wish to push the envelope and engage in an ever-growing number of perverted behaviors.

Congress will, in effect, be protecting behaviors that are currently illegal in most states and will open up a Pandora’s Box of potential lawsuits and sexually bizarre behaviors in the workplace.

  • How will federal employers deal, for example, with a pedophile whose sexual orientation will effectively be protected under H.R. 2232?

  • What about the man who is sexually aroused by the stumps of an amputee (Apotemnophilia)? Will he be protected from “discrimination” if he wants to work at a Veteran’s Hospital?

  • What of the man who enjoys having sex with animals? Can he claim federally-protected status under H.R. 2232 as a Park Ranger? Will his conduct be protected?

  • What about the man who engages in Transvestic Fetishism and wants to wear a dress to work and use the women’s restroom in the Department of Commerce building? Will he be protected under H.R. 2232? If so, why? If his sexual orientation is wearing opposite sex clothing, he would have absolute protection under this law.

  • What about the man who is a Fronteurist? This is a sexual orientation. Will a man who approaches a woman and rubs up against her buttocks be protected?

Since “sexual orientations” are really thoughts, they can change frequently. How can federal employers handle the person who decides he’s a woman one day, and a man the next day? A recent story out of Fort Worth, Texas illustrates this dilemma. A 15-year-old boy named Rodney Evans has decided he’s really a girl and now wears girl’s clothing to school. School officials must address him as “Rochelle” even though he’s still genetically a boy and has had no sex change operation.

According to Evans, “There was never a day when I was Rochelle for the whole day. I love makeup. I started wearing makeup because it helped to complete me more. It made me feel more like a girl. With the help of makeup, you can create your own kind of life.”

Evans had been suspended previously from school for wearing fake wigs, fake breasts and wearing short skirts to school.

Under H.R. 2232, it is likely that men like Evans will be free to wear fake wigs, fake breasts and short skirts to work – as long as their job performance is not affected.

And, how will federal employers deal with she-males. These are men who deliberately undergo only a partial-sex change operation. These gender confused individuals have female breasts and male genitalia. This, too, could be considered a “sexual orientation,” although it is not specifically listed as such by the APA. The Internet has literally hundreds of web sites displaying these individuals in lewd poses. What restroom or shower stall will she-males use? These individuals need help, not federally protected jobs.

‘Restroom Activists’ Want Federal Protection

The passage of H.R. 2232 will be a victory for the Transgender Law Center, which has actually published a 44-page document titled, “Peeing In Peace: A Resource Guide For Transgender Activists And Allies.” This document, promoting “gender neutral restrooms” throughout American culture, was published in association with People In Search Of Safe Restrooms (PISSR).

“Peeing In Peace” describes how transgender activists should overthrow all previous business policies dealing with privacy for males and females in restrooms. The document claims that cross-dressers and transsexuals should have “safe restrooms” for their bodily functions. According to the Transgender Law Center, “Bathrooms have long been a place where people with authority, power, or wealth have denied access to other people.”

Thus, this transgender activist group is demanding that all public restrooms be changed to accommodate them. But what about the 99.9% of Americans who are not confused about their sexual identity? Why must they endure the embarrassment and horror of having to deal with cross-dressers or she-males in restrooms?

The goal of “Peeing In Peace” is to promote the idea that a so-called transgendered person should be free to use the restroom that corresponds to his “gender identity.” This means that if, for example, Rodney Evans’ “gender identity” is female, he should be free to use the girl’s restrooms at high school. Evans, of course, has admitted he’s only Rochelle part of the day, so on those days that he decides he’s Rodney, he can use the boy’s restrooms.

This is clearly insanity, but those pushing to overturn business policies on restrooms are deadly serious. H.R. 2232 will provide these sexually confused individuals with federally-protected class status.

The fact that U.S. Representatives Henry Waxman and Tom Davis are pushing for passage of H.R. 2232 is evidence that “sexual orientation” has not been protected in federal law prior to this. If it were protected by previous laws, there would be no need for H.R. 2232.

This bill must be soundly defeated!

Traditional Values Coalition, 139 “C” Street S.E., Washington, DC 20003; 202-547-8570;
Email: tvcwashdc@traditionalvalues.org