Comments on: Ex-Gay Question to be Central to Federal Lawsuit

By: FlexSF

FlexSF — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:14:35 +0000

Who would a judge take more seriously, an “ex-gay,” or a psychologist? The latter, I would expect!

Do ex-gay’s speak for gay people as a whole? NOT!

I hope they do use “Jesus Christ” as their reason for changing their behavior, or sexuality. That pathetic argument will be refuted so fast!

By: Penguinsaur

Penguinsaur — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:18:17 +0000

“Asking whether gay civil marriage will destabilize heterosexual marriages involves predicting the future, so good luck on that”

Or visiting Canada.

And I bet they will have a handful of people with their anecdotes about how they prayed the gay away, they only have those because the people running these ’scientific’ groups conveniently forget to keep any records on any patients who aren’t paid employees.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:15:57 +0000

Lilo,

Being bisexual is not the same thing as mutibility. Your personal attractions may vary by person, but that does not say anything as to whether you will become heterosexual or lesbian rather than bisexual.

CPT_Doom,

Under the California Constitution, sexual orientation is a suspect class. That is one item that makes CA a unique situation.

Whether you or I think mutability is an issue doesn’t matter in the slightest. The judge has asked the question and I don’t think that Olson and Boies will say, “Your honor, your question is irrelevant so we’re not going to answer.”

By: CPT_Doom

CPT_Doom — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:47:33 +0000

I agree with GreenEyedLilo that gender, rather than sexual orientation, would be a stronger argument, not the least because gender is already legally a “suspect class” and therefore suitable for non-discrimination laws and rulings.

But I have to disagree on mutability being unimportant here. Although certainly religion is protected even though it is mutable, it is also specifically designated in the Constitution as being one of the most important rights, making it somewhat a special case.

On the other hand, if something is not changeable, like gender, then there is absolutely no rationale for discrimination. So “proving” to the court that sexual orientation is immutable makes it something of a slam dunk.

And though, like gender, sexual orientation does exist along a continuum from 100% het to 100% homo, with someone at every option in between, I think the evidence is clear that, for the individual, sexual orientation is set and immutable.

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:41:22 +0000

GreenEyedLilo said “As a 50/50 bisexual woman, I am certainly “mutable,””.

I disagree. I am bisexual as well and while we can choose which gender we want to be involved with we can’t stop being bisexual and become unisexual – you’re still going to have attractions to the sex you’re not with regardless. I’ve tried to become unisexual and it simply doesn’t work.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:46:43 +0000

@GreenEyedLilo – I agree. The idea of immutable sexuality flies in the face of every bisexual person in the world.

@Désirée – I agree here also. Another example, the currently law of the land also protects people from discrimination based on military service which is another voluntary choice. “You should have chosen not to enlist if you wanted this job.”

By: Désirée

Désirée — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:06:48 +0000

The “mutability” argument should be tossed immediately since all that is required is counter with the religion angle. “religion” is a protected class and is in no way a fixed condition. Any person can choose any religion at any time. Claiming that sexuality is mutable therefore it’s OK to discriminate against gay folk is like saying it’s ok to discriminate against Jews because they could just become Christians to escape the persecution. Obviously an absurd argument and one hopefully the court will see the ridiculousness of.

By: GreenEyedLilo

GreenEyedLilo — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:41:48 +0000

@ AJD & Quo: Thank you. As a 50/50 bisexual woman, I am certainly “mutable,” but I am solidly in love with another woman. I loved the idea of the federal lawsuit, but this argument is terrible, and not just for bisexuals. The issue isn’t whether sexuality is mutable, it’s whether gender should be a qualification for two adults to care for each other through marriage.

On the other hand, merry Christmas to Exodus and their sympathizers!

By: Quo

Quo — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:45:14 +0000

Whether sexual orientation is immutable or not should have nothing to do with same-sex marriage and it’s regrettable that Walker so much as raised the issue.

Incidentally AJD, there’s no consensus that sexual orientation never changes. Scientist Simon LeVay states in Queer Science that sexual orientation sometimes does change (it’s on page 55).

By: AJD

AJD — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 06:09:41 +0000

That’s such a ridiculous question because we already guarantee equal rights for people without regard to religion, which is totally a mutable characteristic.

Not only that, but whatever ex-gays and their organizations say, the consensus among social science and mental health experts and professionals is that, no, sexual orientation is not mutable.