Replies

>>Shouldn’t have clearances

As everything, it depends on the individuals. The women I know and the men I know in same-sex relationships are stable, good people because I don’t associate with creeps. But I’m sure there are at least as many weirdos who are gay as there are in heterosexual pairings and people of poor character should not have clearances. Now that the closet door is open, the relationship isn’t the issue because blackmail isn’t an issue. It’s down to the character of the people, and that’s an individual matter. But being gay shouldn’t PREVENT someone from being thoroughly investigated and denied a clearance if they aren’t of trustworthy character. The gay mafia tries to use gayness as a blanket to prevent looking deeply at a person’s character, and that isn’t right.

Back in the day, early 90's I did background investigations for DSS (Defense Security Service) as a contractor. Homosexual behavior was a huge red flag. As I didn't do the adjudication, just the investigation my job was to question and expand on insufficient or contradictory statements.

are stable, good people

They may be 'good' as far a folks can be, but their stability was questionable. Something as innate, as genetically programmed as sexuality, to have it confused isn't normal. Only recently has it been removed from the DSM as a mental disorder.

Now that the closet door is open, the relationship isn’t the issue because blackmail isn’t an issue.

No it is worse since being 'gay' can be as transient. So now any type of 'sexual' activity becomes fair game for blackmail, either to the straights or members of whatever program you had claim to be before.

It’s down to the character of the people, and that’s an individual matter.

Agree 100%, but unless someone possesses an unusual skillset, or some other unique attribute, giving a clearance to a 'outed gay' is just asking for trouble and isn't worth the risk when there are others without that attribute. The 'gay mafia' to use your words may contend otherwise for parochial reasons, but there are enough recent examples to put that behavior back on an basis that they aren't worthy of a position of trust. Too much @ stake.