Box Turtle Bulletin

Mid Friday Washington Count Update

As we go into our weekend, it will be on a positive note. The verification of signatures collected to stop the legislature’s enhancement of domestic partnerships is not going well for Washington’s anti-gays. As of 10 pm last night, the signatures were yielding a 13.25% fail rate.

I am going to be reporting the numbers slightly differently than most. This is due to the way in which I will be considering those which are currently considered invalid due to a missing signature in the state’s database. Currently 89 signatures have been rejected for that purpose. However, the state will consult with counties regarding these signatures and, according to the Secretary of State’s website, most of these will be considered valid when the signature is recovered from the county. We already know that they are not duplicate on un-registered; the only way they could remain invalid is if the signature does not match the one on the voter registration card once the state recovers that comparison signature.

After yesterday’s swing-shift, the fail rate for the day was 14.11%. The state now has inspected 21.7% of the signatures submitted with a cumulative fail rate of 13.41%. To be a successful petition, the remaining signatures would have to have a fail rate lower than 12.21%.

UPDATE:

There appears to be confusion over the invalidated signatures. It appears that some of them (perhaps 409) were later determined to be valid by supervisors.

Unfortunately this is not at all clear. And unless un-registered voters were later found to be registered, then this seems to be mathematically impossible.

If this new declaration is correct, then the fail rate is currently at about 11.64% and this is not at all good news for those who are in domestic partnerships in Washington.

NARTH Responds To APA Resolution On Change Therapy

The National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) has issued a press release in response to the American Psychological Association’s Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses To Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts. That APA resolution concludes that there is “no evidence” that therapy to change sexual orientation actually works, and calls on therapists to refrain from promising otherwise. NARTH didn’t like that one bit:

NARTH appreciates that the APA stressed the importance of faith and religious diversity. Unfortunately, however, the report reflects a very strong confirmation bias; that is, the task force reflected virtually no ideological diversity. No APA member who offers reorientation therapy was allowed to join the task force. In fact, one can make the case that every member of the task force can be classified as an activist. They selected and interpreted studies that fit within their innate and immutable view. For example, they omitted the Jones and Yarhouse study, the Karten study, and only gave cursory attention to the Spitzer study. Had the task force been more neutral in their approach, they could have arrived at only one conclusion: homosexuality is not invariable fixed in all people, and some people can and do change, not just in terms of behavior and identity but in core features of sexual orientation such as fantasy and attractions.

This is pretty rich. First, NARTH complains that the APA Task Force engaged in “a very strong confirmation bias” and gives a definition for conformation bias that is completely wrong. This is what confirmation bias really is:

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.

Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study.

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.

NARTH instead offered a definition for confirmation bias that has nothing to do with confirmation bias, and everything to do with launching an ad hominem attack against the APA’s Task Force members.

But the charge that the APA Task Force engaged in confirmation bias is even more laughable considering the wholesale confirmation biases evident in NARTH’s own pre-emptive report on conversion therapy. We have already provided evidence that NARTH carefully selected studies for  their report based on purported successful outcomes, while omitting studies which ran counter to their pre-determined hypothesis. That, of course, is the very definition of confirmation bias. And in trying to find as much evidence to support their position as possible, they hoovered virtually every confirming “study” they could find regardless of scientific merit, including unpublished dissertations, non-peer reviewed books, (specifically, the Jones and Yarhouse book and the Karten dissertation they pointed to in their press release), pop-psychology paperbacks — you name it.

They even referenced the 1979 Masters and Johnson book Homosexuality in Perspective.  This is how NARTH’s report described that book:

In Masters and Johnson’s (1979) treatment of 90 homosexuals, a 28.4 percent failure rate was reported six years after treatment. Masters and Johnson chose to report failure rather than success rates to avoid vague, inaccurate concepts of success; however, by implication, more than 70 percent of their patients achieved some degree of success toward their self-identified goal of diminishing unwanted homosexuality and developing their heterosexual potential.

Of course, the most important thing that we now know about the Masters and Johnson book is that it was faked. There were no records for any of those reported patients and their supposed success stories. Co-author Virginia Johnson was later so embarrassed by it, she referred to it as a “bad book.”

The APA Task Force, in sharp contrast to the NARTH report authors, established a very rigorous criteria to determine what studies they would review before reviewing them. That criteria was this (PDF: 1,092KB/136 pages, see page 9):

Initially, we reviewed our charge and defined necessary bodies of scientific and professional literature to review to meet that charge. In light of our charge to review the 1997 resolution, we concluded that the most important task was to review the existing scientific literature on treatment outcomes of sexual orientation change efforts.

We also concluded that a review of research before 1997 as well as since 1997 was necessary to provide a complete and thorough evaluation of the scientific literature. Thus, we conducted a review of the available empirical research on treatment efficacy and results published in English from 1960 on and also used common databases such as PsycINFO and Medline, as well as other databases such as ATLA Religion Database, LexisNexis, Social Work Abstracts, and Sociological Abstracts, to review evidence regarding harm and benefit from sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE). The literature review for other areas of the report was also drawn from these databases and included lay sources such as GoogleScholar and material found through Internet searches.

…The task force received comments from the public, professionals, and other organizations and read all comments received. We also welcomed submission of material from the interested public, mental health professionals, organizations, and scholarly communities. All nominated individuals who were not selected for the task force were invited to submit suggestions for articles and other material for the task force to review. We reviewed all material received. Finally, APA staff met with interested parties to understand their concerns.

In other words, the APA Task Force defined the criteria before hand and reviewed every study that met that criteria, studies that purported to show change in sexual orientation, and studies which showed failures to change — including many studies that NARTH pretended never existed.

Conversely, there’s no evidence that NARTH’s review was in any way systematic. Given the studies that we know NARTH omitted, we know there was nothing systematic about their approach other than to confirm their predetermined outcome. And given the fraudulent material they did include — as well as the abundance of material that never met the scientific gold standard of having been peer-reviewed — it is clear that NARTH’s report is the very definition of confirmation bias. And their press release is the very definition of irony.

Sad Day for Washington Anti-Gays

The Washington Secretary of State is now using two shifts to validate signatures for Referendum 71, the petition drive to halt the expansion of domestic partnership rights and place them on the ballot.

The Washington Secretary of State has compiled the results for the first shift for today (ending at 3:00 pm). Of the 3,831 signatures reviewed, 573 were rejected, a rate of 14.96%. This brings the total rejection rate up to 13.54%. Unless there is a drastic change in results, this petition is on its way to failure.

Rainbow Lounge Investigation Reveals 19 State Policy Violations

The Texas Alcoholic Beverages Commission has released the results of its internal affairs investigaton on the June 28 Rainbow Lounge raid in Ft. Worth, Texas. That report finds that two TABC agents and their supervisor committed a total of 19 policy violations during that raid. The Dallas Voice has the details:

Violations committed by the two agents include participating in a joint operation with Fort Worth police without approval from a supervisor; failing to submit a complaint card against the Rainbow Lounge; conducting bar inspections in unapproved attire; failing to follow bar inspection procedures; failing to report the use of force and injuries involving Chad Gibson, a Rainbow Lounge patron who sustained serious head injuries; and disrupting business during a bar inspection.

The violations committed by [Sgt. Terry] Parsons, who was not at the scene of the raid and has since reportedly retired form the agency, involve failing to take appropriate action against Aller and Chapman; failing to ensure Aller and Chapman filed the necessary reports; and failing to notify the sergeant\’s supervisors of the raid.

The Dallas Voice has the full TABC press release.

Washington Count – Day Four

The Washinton Secretary of State has now counted 17% of the signatures submitted to block the legislature’s enhancement of domestic partnership rights.

Yesterday, an additional 6,140 signatures were reviewed with 14.2% rejected.

As it stands, of the 23,457 signatures reviewed, 20,335 were verified and 3,122 invalidated, a 13.31% fail rate. The remaining signatures will only result in a valid petition should they have a fail rate of 12.26% or lower.

Exodus International Responds to the APA Resolution on Change Therapy

Exodus International has issued a a strange press release in reaction to the APA’s resolution against sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE). In it, Exodus actually claims a bit of vindication:

While Exodus does not fully agree with the APA’s criticisms of clinical techniques such as reparative therapy and its view of sexual orientation change, the report does recognize that some choose to live their lives in congruence with religious values. The report also encourages therapists to avoid imposing a specific outcome on clients.

As I noted earlier, the APA resolution cautions Exodus, NARTH and other proponents of change therapy against “distortion and selective use of scientific data about homosexuality.” So where does the phrase about “imposing a specific outcome on clients” come up in the APA report? (PDF: 1,092KB/136 pages) You don’t have to go far; it’s on page v in the report’s abstract:

Even though the research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, regardless of sexual orientation identity, the task force concluded that the population that undergoes SOCE tends to have strongly conservative religious views that lead them to seek to change their sexual orientation. Thus, the appropriate application of affirmative therapeutic interventions for those who seek SOCE involves therapist acceptance, support, and understanding of clients and the facilitation of clients\’ active coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, without imposing a specific sexual orientation identity outcome.

The APA report goes into more detail on page 88:

Self-determination is the process by which a person controls or determines the course of her or his own life (Oxford American Dictionary, n.d.). LMHP [Licensed Mental Health Professionals — ed.] maximize self-determination by (a) providing effective psychotherapy that explores the client\’s assumptions and goals, without preconditions on the outcome; (b) providing resources to manage and reduce distress; and (c) permitting the client herself or himself to decide the ultimate goal of how to self-identify and live out her or his sexual orientation. We were not persuaded by some accounts that suggest that providing SOCE increases self-determination, because these suggestions encourage LMHP to offer treatment that (a) has not provided evidence of efficacy; (b) has the potential to be harmful; and (c) delegates important professional decisions that should be based on qualified expertise and training—such as diagnosis and the type of intervention. Rather, therapy that increases the client\’s ability to cope, understand, acknowledge, and integrate sexual orientation concerns into a self-chosen life is the measured approach. [Emphasis mine]

In other words, the report was very clear that by encouraging therapists to avoid imposing a specific outcome on clients, the APA was not giving a license to Exodus and others to promote therapies that are unproven or potentially harmful. In fact, throughout the report, the APA emphasises the importance of allowing the client chose the path, and for the therapist to provide affirming and positive support.

As long as the client wants to try to suppress his sexuality, then what Exodus offers is in line with the APA’s recommendations — as long as Exodus doesn’t promise a change in sexual attractions as a likely outcome. But somehow I doubt that Exodus-affiliated therapists will be willing to follow this advice if the client decides to fully embrace rather than suppress his sexuality.

So unless Exodus is signalling that they are ready to step in a new direction, their press release is disingenuous at best and a “distortion and selective use of scientific data” at worst. Either way, it looks like more of the same ol’ same ol’.

Dr. Throckmorton Pleased with APA Report

Dr. Warren Throckmorton was, at one time, a supporter of efforts to revise one’s sexual orientation. He even produced a video, I Do Exist, which presented the testimonies of some people who claimed to have changed their sexual orientation.

Since that time at least one testimonial came to understand his sexuality in a light different than was presented on the video. And, as time passed, so did Dr. Throckmorton.

I have witnessed an evolution in his thinking to where I now think it is now accurate to say that Dr. Throckmorton, though still religiously conservative and not inclined to find same-sex behavior to be pleasing to God, no longer believes that efforts to change the sexual attractions of same-sex attracted men are likely to be effective. He is particularly critical of “reparative therapy” – efforts to become heterosexual by “repairing” the damage done by a distant father and smothing mother – the pet theory of NARTH and others in the ex-gay movement.

Instead, Dr. Throckmorton is a proponant of Sexual Identity Therapy, a therapy that “seeks to aid people in conflict over sexual identity to integrate and live out a valued sexual identity.” Throckmorton seeks to support those whose religious beliefs and values are not consistent with accepting the identity, or sexual expression of a gay person – yet without trying to change them into an opposite-sex attracted person.

Throckmorton finds much within the APA Report to applaud. He praises the rigor, honesty, and nuance of the report along with the APA’s recognition that a client’s own religious can impact psychotherapy. Check out his response here.

APA Passes Resolution Against Ex-Gay Therapy, Finds “No Evidence” Change Therapy Works

The American Psychological Association, meeting at their annual conference in Toronto, adopted a resolution today calling on mental health professionals to stop telling clients that they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments. And in a direct challenge to NARTH and Exodus International, the resolution further calls on patients, guardians, families and other clients to avoid conversion therapy programs which portray homosexuality as a mental illness or developmental disorder. Tha APA advises instead that people who are troubled by their sexual orientation should seek therapy, social support and educational services “that provide accurate information on sexual orientation and sexuality, increase family and school support and reduce rejection of sexual minority youth.”

The resolution, approved today by the APA’s governing Council of Representatives, is the result of a comprehensive 130-page study by the APA’s Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. That study looked at all peer-reviewed, English language studies published in the professional literature since 1960, and determined that:

There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE (Sexual Orientation Change Efforts) do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation. Scientifically rigorous older work in this area … found that sexual orientation (i.e., erotic attractions and sexual arousal oriented to one sex or the other, or both) was unlikely to change due to efforts designed for this purpose. Some individuals appeared to learn how to ignore or limit their attractions. However, this was much less likely to be true for people whose sexual attractions were initially limited to people of the same sex.

The Task Force noted that some studies indicated that patients were able to change their identity, but that is the easy part. Simply saying “I’m not gay” is far different from actually changing sexual orientation:

Although there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation, some individuals modified their sexual orientation identity (i.e., group membership and affiliation), behavior, and values (Nicolosi et al., 2000). They did so in a variety of ways and with varied and npredictable outcomes, some of which were temporary (Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002). Based on the available data, additional claims about the meaning of those outcomes are scientifically unsupported.

The complete resolution is attached at the end of this post. It is also available on the APA’s web site, along with the full report and press release.

I’m only about a quarter of the way through the APA’s accompanying 130-page review, but I’m very impressed with what I see so far. Unlike NARTH’s so-called study, the APA took a very disciplined approach in determining what studies to look at. They began be establishing clear standards to determine what studies to include in their review (all peer-reviewed English-language studies published since 1960), which is very unlike NARTH’s approach, which was to ignore studies and obfuscate data that didn’t fit the message they wanted to present. And unlike the APA’s report, NARTH relied heavily on references which were not peer-reviewed, including pop-psychology books from the 1960s and 1970s which promoted such fads as “primal scream” therapy and advising readers on how to “be your own best friend.”

The latest APA resolution does not ban conversion therapy outright — it doesn’t say, for example, “from here on and henceforth no therapist shall perform SOCE — but given the resolution’s comprehensive conclusions, it’s hard to see how conversion therapy as currently practiced by NARTH and other major ex-gay organizations can continue to be regarded as ethical or acceptable. These points appear to be particularly relevant to change efforts overall:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association encourages mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation when providing assistance to individuals distressed by their own or others’ sexual orientation;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association concludes that the benefits reported by participants in sexual orientation change efforts can be gained through approaches that do not attempt to change sexual orientation;

And this one, which is especially relevant to NARTH, Exodus International, and other anti-gay organizations pushing change therapies:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association opposes the distortion and selective use of scientific data about homosexuality by individuals and organizations seeking to influence public policy and public opinion and will take a leadership role in responding to such distortions;

The resolution also recognizes that:

Those operating from religious/spiritual traditions are encouraged to recognize that it is outside their role and expertise to adjudicate empirical scientific issues in psychology, while also recognizing they can appropriately speak to theological implications of psychological science

With this resolution, it now appears that NARTH, Exodus International, Courage, Evergreen International, and other groups are now firmly outside the accepted practices of the APA. I expect that their reaction will be just what we’ve seen before: “the distortion and selective use of scientific data about homosexuality by individuals and organizations seeking to influence public policy and public opinion.”

Click here to see the complete APA resolution

After Third Day of Counting, Washington Signature Fail Rate is 13%

Todays validation of signatures submitted to halt a bill that enhanced domestic partnerships proved to be bad news for anti-gays. Today there was a fail rate of 14.4%, bringing the average fail rate over three days to 13.0%. Although it is difficult to establish a trend over just three days, this does seem to validate the assumptions that as time goes on more errors will be revealed – especially duplicate signatures.

The petition will be valid if it keeps its cumulative error rate below 12.4%.

Washington Signature Validation – Close

Anti-gay activists seeking to block the domestic partnership enhancement bill from being enacted needed to collect 120,577 valid signatures. They submitted 137,689, which provides a cushion of 17,122 for invalid signature or errors.

Thus, as long as fewer than 12.4% of signatures are erroneous, they will have enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. The average error rate is 18%

So far, the signatures are being validated with few errors. (Seattle PI)

As of Monday state election workers had checked 11,502 signatures, and 10,087 have been OK’d with 1,415 rejected, mostly because the person does not show up on the voter rolls.

This reflects an error rate of 12.3% and if this continues the validation check could be so close as to be suspenseful to the end. It might even qualify.

However, only 8% of signatures have been checked and we cannot expect that the signature validity is homogenous. We will know more as the count goes on.

UPDATE: The Washington Secretary of State has provided some additional information which may shed light on why the signatures appear at this time to be so clean. It could all have to do with duplicate signatures.

The total duplicates found on Friday were 7. Yesterday they were 16. Logically, this number should grow significantly as the count proceeds. And here’s why:

On Friday there were 5,646 signatures reviewed. So each new signature inspected was compared to a total database of about 5,000 other signatures instead of the total of 137,000. The odds are that if the party signed twice, the signature being inspected would be the first count of that signature and thus not show up as duplicate.

Yesterday, the database doubled in size. Now the odds are about twice as high – but still pretty low – that they’ve already seen the signature. And, indeed, the duplicate error rate doubled.

As the count goes on, the duplicate rate should continue to increase. Even if the missing, invalid, or non-register signatures stay consistent, the increase in duplicates may well kick this petition out of validity.

Clinton Portis Does Not Come Out Of The Closet

Washington Redskins running back Clinton Portis wants you to know that he is not gay. In case you had any doubts, be assured that he’s not because he used 141 words and a photo to prove his point:

“Why did I go blond?” he repeated. “I just felt like doing something different. You know, I think even with that, from what I hear, now I’m gay? I don’t think there’s a woman in the United States of America that would say I’m gay. So, you know, I don’t hang around men, I don’t live a private life, there’s constantly people around me. You know, I did it because that was something that I felt like doing. At the moment it was like, ‘Ohhh, I want to do something weird and different,’ and that’s what I did, I dyed my hair blond. You know, it wasn’t an attention seeker. I actually was out of the country, I left the country after I did it, so I wasn’t even over here once I did it. So it was just an experiment.”

He said when he left the country, it was to go to Berlin. I asked why.

“Just to see the Berlin Wall,” he said.

NFL Fanhouse can’t find anyone saying that Portis might be gay. But just in case someone does, he’s not gay. And the Berlin Wall is still standing. Just so you know.

[via Towleroad]

Speaking of Condemnations of Tel Aviv Shootings

We would be remiss if we didn’t also point out that Charlotte, NC-based pastor Michael Brown was first out of the box with this statement early Sunday morning while most of Americas were waking up to the news:

Brown, himself a Jewish follower of Jesus, says he was “shocked and saddened” to hear the news of the killings, especially in Israel. “We don’t have the details yet, but this has all the markings of an act of raw hatred, and as such it must be utterly renounced. Whatever differences any of us may have with any sector of society, be those religious differences or ideological differences, we must maintain those differences with civility and respect. The moment we resort to violence, especially in God’s name, we become agents of destruction and bring reproach to the God we claim to serve.”

The press release is pretty good, at least from his particular point of view, until you get to the last paragraph. There, he claims that Prop 8 supporters have gotten death threats, while providing no substantiation for the claim. We’re aware of “I hope you die and rot in hell” or “I’m armed and not afraid to defend myself if you come after me” variety, but unfortunately we all get those. I don’t see those as threats though. That’s the price we pay for expressing viewpoints in a sometimes uncivil society. I’m interested in knowing about actual threats. So far, we’ve heard no such reports.

That said, I do know that LGBT community centers have well-practiced procedures in place to deal with actual threats to harm and property. I don’t doubt that anti-gay groups do as well. We’ve deleted comments from both sides on this web site that has advocated violence, and we continue to see such comments remain unmoderated on other anti-gay web sites and on YouTube. The crazies really are out there.

Linda Harvey’s Non-Condemnation of Tel Aviv Anti-Gay Violence

Linda Harvey of Mission America is one of those anti-gay activists that live at the extreme end of bias and animus. There are few things which Harvey would find too vile or outrageous to say. Nor would she ever let basic decency stay her hand or common sense slow down her all-encompasing need to spew bile and venom on gay people.

Today decent people in Israel and around the world are mourning a horrible crime, a mass murder that seems at this time to likely be based on hatred towards gay people. While the world seeks to discover whether this attack on gay youth was a terror message based on the murderer’s homophobic religious zeal, Linda thinks this is a good opportunity to spout her own religious anti-gay rhetoric.

Now Linda knows that she can’t exactly say, “They deserved what they got.” That wouldn’t sit well with even her most ardent supporters, none of whom like to think of themselves as motivated by hatred. So Linda starts her press release saying, “We are deeply saddened by this violent act and the deaths of these young people, and pray for the perpetrator to be found and brought to justice.”

Now I’m sure she thinks no one will notice that she didn’t exactly condemn the action. She’s “saddened” and prays for justice, but doesn’t quite say that what was done was deplorable. What she does find deplorable, however, she’s not slow to state:

At the same time, it is deplorable this incident is already being used by the homosexual community to blame this act on those holding a traditional moral viewpoint.

These are Linda’s values: machine gun attack on gay youth, “saddening”; condemnation of homophobia, “deplorable”.

She also defends “those who bravely stand up against the deviance of homosexuality” and considers it bigotry to blame them for crimes like the one in Tel Aviv. And her sadness for the two who died extends only to the fact that they will now have no chance to be ex-gay (though one wasn’t even gay).

She doesn’t mention those who were wounded. She speaks of not wanting harm to come in the lives of the young people, but a closer look reveals that to Linda “harm” is not bullets, but homosexuality.

I will not call Linda’s statement an “endorsement.” She does not commend the shooter – specifically – or call for more violence. But the consistent message in Linda’s press release is that the kids at the center shouldn’t have been there, they were engaging in deviancy, and that those who oppose such deviancy are brave and moral.

It doesn’t take much imagination to know where Linda’s sympathies lie.

Self-Centeredness – An Example

One of the common claims of anti-gays is that “the gay lifestyle is selfish”. Mostly, their argument is based on the idea that we selfishly demand to be treated with equality and dignity instead of generously giving in to their demands that we not exist.

But on the Family Research Counsel site, I found what I think may be one of the most blatant examples of selfishness and self-centered demands:

It\’s not that unusual for me to have fellow worshipers come up to me after church, over coffee. Normally, however, we swap family stories, talk about children, grandchildren, hobbies, and common interests in our town. Yesterday, however, two friends sought me out with some urgency.

My first friend of the coffee hour was in anguish over his daughter\’s decision to live the gay lifestyle. He and his wife had raised two daughters in their loving Christian home. Their younger daughter married and has blessed them with grandchildren. Their elder daughter pursued an academic career. He described this daughter as a brilliant scholar, a Ph.D. candidate in philosophy at a major university. But he and his wife are heartbroken over their daughter\’s decision not only to live in a lesbian relationship with another woman, but also her plan to change her sex. Their daughter is beginning hormone treatments soon. Distraught over their daughter\’s choices, he appealed to me for help.

I referred him to PFOX—Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays. There, my sorrowful friend would learn that parents can give unconditional love to their children—even as they hold out hope they will exit the gay lifestyle.

My friend was especially concerned that his lesbian daughter would take the extra step—sex change surgery—seeking to alter forever her sexual identity. Will “gender reassignment surgery” be covered under President Obama\’s health care takeover, he asked, explaining that his daughter does not currently have the money to cover such expenses. I told him I cannot see how such surgery would not be included in the Obama plan. And if the President or Congress does not include it, activist judges surely will. He pleaded for consideration of parents. “Our wills give our entire estate to the two daughters we gave birth to” he said poignantly. “Now, we will have only one daughter. Where are our rights?”

Census to Release Marriage Information

We reported that the President was looking into the possibility of counting same-sex marriages in the 2010 census. Now it’s official: (WaPo)

The Census Bureau will for the first time publicly release the number of gay marriages reported in a decennial census, as it plans to release raw data about same-sex relationships in the 2010 headcount, according to new guidelines released today.

The decision reverses a Bush-era policy that prohibited the release of the data. In a legal opinion published last week, Commerce Department lawyers concluded that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act does not prohibit the Census Bureau from publicly releasing the data, contrary to the conclusions reached by Bush administration lawyers.

It appears, however, that the data will be “released” but not “counted” so as to be compliant with Congress’ Defense of Marriage Act. Evidently there is no assumption that DOMA will have been reversed any time before 2010 or 2011.

Continuing current policy, the new guidelines state that software used by Census enumerators will recode answers given by same sex-partners who mark their relationship status as “husband or wife,” to “unmarried partner.” But then, in late 2011, Census officials will for the first time release the raw state-by-state data on same-sex couples that marked their relationship status as “husband or wife.”

Statisticians (and politicians) need not wait until 2011 for census information about same-sex couples.

The Census will first report same-sex marriage data later this year when it releases the 2008 American Community Survey. The results of the annual housing and population survey will include unedited responses regarding relationship status.

This is all good news. And a great step. And will inject valuable information into the national discourse. And for this moment we celebrate.

But if we step back a moment to look at the big picture, we see same-sex couples who have legally married in the eyes of their state, their church, their families, and their communities who truthfully report this to their government, only to have that government change their answers. And considering that the purpose of a census is to provide accurate information so as to allow for informed decision making, it is hard to fathom the logic of beurocrats and politicians deliberately deceiving themselves just so that they may refuse to acknowledge what their constituents are trying to tell them.

Some day we will all look back and marvel at the blatant discrimination with which our nation has abused its gay and lesbian citizens.