Simple: they don't like to see or hear the words, which are, to them "dirty" words. If children see words like "bisexual" the next thing you know they will be asking what they mean. That's not way to run a properly Christian nation.

Hmm...vulnerable populations. Does that mean they'll deal with children and the elderly and the poor, too?

There have been stories over the past few years about career employees in agencies like the NSF or NIH urging applicants for funding to avoid using hot-button terms in grant titles (like studies of sexual behavior, drug use, etc.). It's not that people in the NIH or NSF are trying to shut down the research, as much as realizing the potential for negative scrutiny from Congress, private groups, or the administration. They've all witnessed what happens to the NEA after a cross-in-urine art piece, or PBS for some controversial broadcast, etc. How many times have you heard a politician rail against using taxpayer money for "studying the sex lives of worms" or "teaching kids how to have premarital sex" or some other sillyness? The next step is drastic funding cuts.

I suspect the same thing is going on here -- the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration is basically just trying to protect themselves (and the recipients of the grant, too) from unnecessary heat. If it's like most of the other cases, the folks in that agency have their hearts in the right place and want to see the work done, but they are also realistic about where the funding comes from (i.e. Congress) and what happens when a grant title makes its way into a political fundraising letter. You can fault them for giving in to intimidation, but it's no conspiracy.

I too suspect that the primary interest among Federal staff is to avoid the use of words that right-wing others will pay attention to. They are being "practical." But in avoiding the short term conflict, they allow a deeper conflict to fester.

Paul, you say that "the folks in that agency have their hearts in the right place and want to see the work done, but they are also realistic about where the funding comes from (i.e. Congress) and what happens when a grant title makes its way into a political fundraising letter." On the other hand I've seen what happens when the truth is not spoken, and we are silent on the needs of our neighbors, family members and friends.

"I have come to believe over and over again, that what is most important to me must be spoken, made verbal and shared, even at the risk of having it bruised or misunderstood.

When I dare to be powerful, to use my strength in the service of my vision, then it becomes less and less important whether I am afraid.

Your silence will not protect you." -Audrey Lourde

It's almost as if GLBT people will disappear if we simply erase those offensive terms from our vocabulary, and from public discourse. Eventually, if we punish their us in even private conversation, maybe it will work.

This is not all that different from Margaret Spellings' attempt to keep America's children from possibly seeing lesbian moms on PBS. But what will she do about gay and lesbian teachers, administrators, parents and students. Can she somehow prevent children from any and all exposure to us while at school? Maybe they can make all schools a homo-free zone and post signs that require all gays to stay at least 1 mile from public schools.

It has been widely reported that one should not use the word "gay" when applying for a grant from NIH....

For example...

"Earlier this year scientists complained they were told by National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention not to use the words gay or sex when applying for grants because their applications could come under unusual scrutiny by the Department of Health and Human Services or by members of Congress. "

http://lgrl.sitestreet.com/news/article.asp?id=650

"Fascism"...America's new "F" word.