According to the Florida-based Liberty Counsel, a recent email from the U.S. Department of Justice is pretty aggressive in directing DOJ employees to affirm homosexual behavior. All employees reportedly received an email that included a brochure called “LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers.” The 7 Habits include “Use Inclusive Language” (significant other or spouse rather than husband or wife), “Acknowledge and Engage with LGBT Employees” the same way you do with “non-LGBT employees,” “Come Out,” by attending LGBT events at the DOJ, “Ensure that Advancement, Development & Mentoring Opportunities are Fair and Effective,” by encouraging the employee to participate in LGBT-focused professional development opportunities, and “Know How to Respond if an Employee Comes Out to You,” by asking respectful questions and thanking the employee for trusting you. “Silence,” it goes on to say, “will be interpreted as disapproval.”
The brochure was prepared by the “Association of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Employees of the U.S. Department of Justice and their Allies.” Liberty Counsel called the email a “directive” and I can understand how an all-employees email would carry a bit of authority to it. A wise employee might consider the brochure as describing a standard by which promotions and retention could be granted to managers within the Department of Justice. It certainly goes beyond “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and well beyond tolerance all the way to encouragement. Is it possible for a biblical Christian—one who can kindly grant others personal liberty—to be a manager in the DOJ? If in fact managers are required to affirm self-destructive behavior in the employees they supervise or promote men who “self-identify” as female without considering this behavior aberrant, the answer seems to be “no.” If you can’t honestly say “hurrah” and you can’t by policy say “oh dear” or even nothing at all when an employee feels compelled to tell you of his sexual desires, you can’t be a supervisor.
I understand that elections have consequences, and we have that driven home daily. But a political election cannot overturn ex cathedra social and scientific realities. Neither a president, nor an attorney general can mandate that there is no substantial difference between male and female, but they might be able to force those who wish to continue in their employ to mouth just that absurd lie. To do so is not about justice, science, or even kindness. This directive, if used as we expect, is nothing short of state-established religious dogma.