Lawmakers seek protectionfor homosexual employees

A group of 11 representatives in the House want Congress to add "sexual orientation" to the list of protected characteristics used in regulating workplace discrimination in federal employment.

Government employment discrimination and whistleblower-protection issues are handed by the Office of Special Counsel, which is empowered to prosecute managers believed to have violated the law. During the Clinton administration, Special Counsel Elaine Kaplan – an avowed lesbian, according to Concerned Women for America – incorporated "sexual orientation" under the "conduct unrelated to the job" portion of the regulation, thus elevating homosexuality to a protected status.

TRENDING: Caught red-handed

Last year, Scott Bloch, who now heads the OSC, removed the words "sexual orientation" from a portion of the OSC's website dealing with protected categories since Congress had never authorized the addition.

In recent testimony before a Senate panel, Bloch explained why he believes the law is clear and that Congress' listing of categories necessarily limits his jurisdiction.

In response to Bloch's action and testimony, 11 members of Congress, including openly homosexual Reps. Barney Frank, D-Mass., Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., introduced H.R. 3128, the Clarification of Federal Employment Protection Act. The chief sponsor is Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who represents West Hollywood, a homosexual enclave in Los Angeles County. Waxman is the ranking minority member of the House Government Reform Committee.

Other co-sponsors include Reps. Mark Foley, R-Fla., Christopher Shays, R-Conn., Danny Davis, D-N.Y., Eliot Engle, D-N.Y., Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., Steny Hoyer. D-Md., and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C.

"Someone needs to tell these congressmen that creating a special civil-rights status for federal employees based on bedroom behavior is an insult to true minorities," said Jan LaRue, Concerned Women for America's chief counsel. "Who are next, adulterers? And why should federal employees have greater civil-rights protection than ordinary, hard-working Americans?"

RELATED: Scott Brown now boasting of Obama ties

Bloch told the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Subcommittee in May: "We do not see sexual orientation as a term for class status anywhere in the statute or in the legislative history or case law, in fact, it is quite contrary to it."