President Obama declares June to be Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month :
LGBT Americans have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life. From business leaders and professors to athletes and first responders, LGBT individuals have achieved success and prominence in every discipline. They are our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters, and our friends and neighbors. Across my Administration, openly LGBT employees are serving at every level.
I would really like to hear more from the President on this topic. Perhaps he could explain how bisexuals—because of the their bisexuality—have enriched America and how transgendered—because or their transgendered orientation—have have strengthened the “fabric of our national life.” In other words, maybe he could explain why alternative forms of “gender identity or sexual orientation” are something we should celebrate at the national level.
Also, I’d really love to see a few names of the transgendered folks—people who may identify as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, polysexual, or asexual—who are “serving at every level” of his administration. By my count he has exactly one example .
Lest you think this is a much ado about nothing, I recommend Hadley Arkes latest article in First Things , ” Vast Dangers in a Small Place “, to get a better idea of where this orientation fixation is heading:
[T]he groups defined by homosexual acts or “sexual orientations” are marked as groups precisely by the acts they commit. People are described as “arsonists,” for example, when they commit arson, and the recoil from arsonists is a recoil from the crime of arson.The problem here is that any activity we could name could be directed to a hurtful or wrongful end. Sexual acts, whether heterosexual or homosexual, can be deployed as assaults to injure and degrade. Some people may be “oriented” to rape, or to sadomasochism or bestiality. Even gay and lesbian activists will argue over the question of whether they regard members of the Man–Boy Love Association as standing legitimately in their circle, with a “sexual orientation” they respect.
Would even the most liberal among us not have serious reservations if they had to judge whether a man committed to sadomasochism or bestiality had the maturity to act as an adoptive father? Which is to say, there may be many instances in the law in which even liberals think it legitimate to draw adverse inferences about people, and their legal claims, based on their “sexual orientation.”
