But if that's the case, why was the language changed?

They're deliberately murky with the exact conditions for security clearances, but it's widely believed that while being gay isn't sufficient reason for being rejected, being closeted could be. They don't want you to be blackmailable, which is why they also reject gambling addicts, people having affairs, etc. So they may be changing the language to reflect that: you can't lose out solely for being gay, but gay+closeted is an acceptable reason. If so, they're changing the language to better reflect the practice.

I'm not saying I agree with it; I find the existing system to be capricious, ponderously slow, and ineffective. Good people are rejected for security clearances for dumb reasons, and that probably costs more lives to Americans because the work isn't getting done than any damage that could be done by blackmailing closeted clearance-holders. I'm just trying to explain what they meant.

In regard to Tim Grieve's comment:

"So far as we know, Hadley isn't gay -- he's married with two kids"

Helloooooo! Didn't you see Brokeback Mountain?

This is sad, but kind of cute at the same time. Considering how often we use our faerie powers to cause hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis and a variety of diseases, you poor heterosexuals must be scared to death. Even the Four Horsemen tend to cross the street when they see us coming.

Incidentally, I was over at my Homosexual Recruiter's office the other day and a plague of locusts was all the buzz. You might want to consider buying stock in Raid.

It seems designed to give Jeff Gannon security clearance on a need by need basis.

I won't address the breathtaking hypocrisy demonstrated by the White House in setting any guidelines whatsoever for granting security clearances; events of the last three years have already made that case better than I ever could. I would like to point out, though, that consideration of homosexuality in the granting of security clearances is not a new phenomenon. Traditionally spy organizations have tried to steer clear of gays for what could be considered a pretty good reason: closeted gays are at risk for being blackmailed with threats of exposure into revealing secrets. This isn't new to this White House.

As a gay man who spent 30 years in the closet, I can tell you that fear of exposure is a powerful lever. I was never married to a woman, but having lived openly in the gay community for 10 years I'm very aware that there are many, many closeted, married gays out there with wives and children. Millions. Most of them equate exposure with the loss of everything they have. Sure, it can be argued that in today's world being exposed as gay isn't that big a thing. Tell that to the guy who genuinely loves his wife and kids but secretly meets men to satisfy his same-sex attraction. He'll do just about anything to protect his secret; its exposure could destroy everything he's built. Spy services know this well, and they have good reason to be leery of giving security clearance to someone so vulnerable. It's not pc, of course, but that's the way it is. And as long as our culture remains so hypocritically "moral" and anti-gay (just the way the right likes it), being gay continues to be potentially life-destroying, perpetuating the necessity for this sort of discrimination.

This is SO Karl Rove.

Wake up. folks. They do this kind of stuff to both rally their fundie base, and in hope that we will take the bait and expose ourselves as anti-God gay lovers (umm.. wait, that doesn't sound right...).

Anyway, let's get this straight (pun not intended): We lost the 2004 election, and are now losing our country, our constitution, our environment, our standing in the big world, and our last vestiges of personal freedom over the fake issue of gay marriage. Are we really stupid enough to let that happen again?

We need to do what THEY did -- that is, get a president and congress elected on bullshit "moderate" positions, then ram through every last bit of legislation that they find offensive, including all our favorite leftie causes. Let's not blow that opportunity before it's ours.

M.B.

This is SO Karl Rove.

Wake up. folks. They do this kind of stuff to both rally their fundie base, and in hope that we will take the bait and expose ourselves as anti-God gay lovers (umm.. wait, that doesn't sound right...).

Anyway, let's get this straight (pun not intended): We lost the 2004 election, and are now losing our country, our constitution, our environment, our standing in the big world, and our last vestiges of personal freedom over the fake issue of gay marriage. Are we really stupid enough to let that happen again?

We need to do what THEY did -- that is, get a president and congress elected on bullshit "moderate" positions, then ram through every last bit of legislation that they find offensive, including all our favorite leftie causes. Let's not blow that opportunity before it's ours.

M.B.

The government cannot give security clearances to individuals with "secret lives" - whatever that might mean. But to say that security clearances for openly homosexual individuals should be treated any differently than clearances for openly heterosexual individuals strikes me as an indefensible position. Unfortunately, homosexuals involved in defense related issues generally cannot lead open lives regarding their sexuality. Individuals in active military duty are generally dismissed for being openly homosexual. While non-military contractors might enjoy more job security as openly homosexual individuals, I think we can all agree that their upward mobility is going to be seriously limited. Therefore, homosexuals are stuck in a classic Catch 22 - can't be fully part of the system if they are gay, but people who keep secrets can't be trusted with security clearances.

Hopefully this will sort itself out over time as more homosexuals bravely come out and demand equal treatment. While the current administration is working hard to turn back the clock, it is my sense that the views of the average individual American are turning in the opposite direction.