Could You Repeat The Question?

Tommy Thompson can't remember from one moment to the next whether he hates queers or not. We understand. Sometimes we forget where we put our keys, our lighter, and the good porn we hide too well when Grandma comes to stay. These things happen.

When, during the Republican candidates debate at the Reagan Library (how many redundancies can you spot in that clause?), Thompson was asked whether gay people should be allowed to work in the United States, Thompson effectively said, "Not if you don't want them to." Less than 24 hours later, he said he was mistaken and meant to say, "Of course!" We see how easily it is to confuse those answers when you've only been in politics for 30 years.

For you nitpickers, the question was, "If a private employer finds homosexuality immoral, should he be allowed to fire a gay worker?” Let's dissect for a moment.... The question deals with every employer that isn't The Government. The underlying principle is whether or not it should be OK to deny gay and lesbian people (I'm sorry, I came of age before the Alphabet Soup Movement of LGBTQRAMXLYBN) employment because of who they are.

You still live in an age where it's worth asking the question whether employment should be offered to people whose bedrooms house an activity that is entirely outside the purview of their careers. We live in a time when, on national television, the question is posed whether people who love differently should be able to have a job. There will never be a time in this land when it is again OK to ask the same question of African-Americans, Jews, Catholics or women - though they've all had their turn in the spotlight. Today, it is only permissible to ask the question about gay folks and a healthy number of Latin-Americans.

You still live in an age where politicians can get tongue-tied and not have the correct, moral answer engraved on their brain. It's an age where a note card with the proper answer is still helpful. And it's a topic (gay employment) that no one bothers to take to its logical conclusion after their knee-jerk response.

Despite Thompson's retraction (which caused his house to be destroyed by three B-1 bombers and a small platoon of Operation Rescue personnel with rifles), it is worth knowing the consequences of the widespread denial of employment to gay folks. Without jobs, we have no income. Without income, we have no food. Without income, we have no housing. Without housing, we are homeless. Homeless people with no food don't live long. They die, in fact. Quickly. Denial of employment based on sexual orientation is not a benign action as a logical extension of someone's misguided morality.

When gays and lesbians are denied employment, it is absolutely a statement that the employer would rather have us dead. Because their morality would not support the guy next door hiring the people that they've just turned away, they are compelled to activism against the hiring of gay and lesbian people (see, for example, activism against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act - ENDA). This is step one to killing off the gay folks. For those who think this is hyperbole, you explain to me what the logical conclusion of this behavior would be.

Tommy Thompson's momentary confusion is a symptom, not the problem. Gov. Thompson may embrace gay people like no one since Anna Nicole Smith, for all we know. But that he could form his mouth around the wrong answer says that the wrong answer is still in the realm of consciousness... Just like "nigger", "kike", "gook", "spic" and "fag" don't accidentally roll off the tongue of someone who's never said them.

And it's probably the answer he and others would give if no cameras had been present.