NOW I GET IT

John Ashcroft has pledged that he will “not make sexual orientation a matter to be considered in hiring or firing” at the Department of Justice. (In case you’re wondering, I’d still vote to confirm him, because I think more is to be gained by holding him to his current promises than rehashing the ugly past.) But what does he mean by ‘sexual orientation’? I bet he means someone who may be gay but would never admit it. An openly gay person would qualify as someone pushing the “gay lifestyle,” whatever that’s supposed to mean, not someone who simply has a sexual orientation. This distinction is probably what Ashcroft was referring to in talking about his opposition to James Hormel’s ambassadorship – it wasn’t Hormel’s orientation he objected to, it was his honesty about it! And maybe Ashcroft’s Senate testimony wasn’t therefore perjury, since even Paul Offner said he was asked about ‘sexual preference,’ not ‘sexual orientation,’ implying a choice to pursue an openly gay life rather than merely being gay. All this would give Ashcroft some leeway on the question of perjury. But I cannot help but be reminded of another person who escaped conviction on charges of perjury because of his clever use of language. Altogether now: Bill Clinton. What a legacy the man has. We’ve gone from a man who carefully parsed the words ‘sexual relations’ to one who can play havoc with the words ‘sexual orientation.’ The question is: has John Ashcroft simply chosen the ‘Clinton lifestyle’ or is he just an unusually good dissembler from birth?