A modification of language governing security clearances andsexual orientation by National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley has gayswondering whether the policy has changed. Some say yes, others are not so sure.

The revised guidelines are contained in a memo datedDecember 29, 2005 as part of the Bush administration's efforts to tighten upleaks to the media, and were first reported on the liberal blog Raw Story onMarch 13.

Guidelines issued as an executive order by the Clintonadministration in 1995 said that sexual orientation "may not be used as abasis for or a disqualifying factor in determining a person's eligibility for asecurity clearance." That section was replaced by language stating that asecurity clearance cannot be denied "solely on the basis of the sexualorientation of the individual."

"Recently, the administration decided to revise rulesfor obtaining security clearances in cases involving sexual misconduct, butthese new rules offensively also include sexual orientation in the samepolicy," Frank said in a statement. "Use of the two terms onlyconfuses the issue, as employees' sexual orientation has nothing to do with howthey do their jobs."

Frank acknowledged that sexual misconduct "can begrounds" for denying a security clearance "no matter who youare." He objects, however, to including sexual orientation in the same policydirective.

The Human Rights Campaign called the revision "asubtle, yet potentially substantial change for gay, lesbian, bisexual, andtransgender Americans." HRC President Joe Solmonese charged, "Thisadministration continues to roll back the clock on the most basic ofprotections that were granted by the last administration."

"The minor language change did not and was not intendedto alter the way sexual orientation is treated. The U.S. government policy hasnot changed in any way," Jones said.

"If the National Security Council did not intend tomake a consequential change by altering existing language, why did it changethe guidelines at all?" wondered Sharra E. Greer, director of law andpolicy at the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. It vowed to continue tomonitor the situation.

"My hope is that this language change is merebureaucratic tinkering; or has some benign explanation," opinedconservative gay blogger Andrew Sullivan. "But my fear is that some withinthe administration made this change and did it for a reason." Heencapsulated the distrust that increasing numbers of people have of the Bushadministration.

But longtime gay activist Frank Kameny is not so sure thelanguage constitutes a change. The man who many consider to be the father ofmodern gay activism began fighting the security clearance issue in the 1960s.In the late 1980s and early 1990s, although not a lawyer, he was an invitedparticipant in the American Bar Association committee that recommended changesin this area, which were incorporated into Clinton's 1995 executive order.

Drawing upon his experience over countless securityclearance investigations, Kameny said, "Once homosexuality is on thetable, then every 'intimate' question asked must be countered with a proceduralone to the interviewer as to whether that same question is routinely asked ofall applicants. The answer is invariably 'no,' and then you are on soundgrounds in refusing to answer. I had to force that on them for years beforeequality was achieved."

"With the erosion of sodomy laws and finally Lawrence [the Supreme Court decision that threw out allremaining sodomy laws] the issue of criminality, once a major antigay weapon inthese cases, has faded," he added. "It seems to me that the basicfavorable situation of recent years on security clearances has not changed, butwe are going to have to monitor the situation to make sure there is nobacksliding."

Kameny agreed with others that situations that leave aperson open to potential blackmail – and that may include certain aspectsof conduct associated with sexuality, gay or straight – may be groundsfor denial of a security clearance.

This is cache, read story here