Box Turtle Bulletin

How Hate Crime Laws Can Protect Everyone

It appears that a hate crime may have been committed in Colorado Springs Tuesday night.

You may remember a few months back when the Gill Foundation kicked off an ad campaign featuring a dog trying to “moo” as a humorous illustration that being gay is not the result of a choice. Focus on the Family countered with a “No Moo Lies” campaign. Christina and Brandon Sewall of Briargate, CO., participated by placing “No moo lies” signs in their yard.

Since then vandals have damaged or stolen the signs, to which the Sewalls responded by just putting even more signs in their yard. They also started running a video security camera overnight. Tuesday evening, someone was caught on tape piling the signs, trash, and patio furniture onto the Sewall’s front lawn and setting it on fire.

The investigation is continuing. If it turns out that whoever did this was motivated by bias against the Sewall’s position against homosexuality, it may fall under Colorado’s hate crime laws protecting its citizens against bias crimes based on sexual orientation.

You read that right. You see, lost behind all of the rhetoric of “special rights”, it turns out that hate crime laws which include sexual orientation really do protect everyone. According to the FBI’s most recent hate crime report, there were thirty-three anti-heterosexual hate crime incidents affecting thirty-six victims in 2004. And I noted in our report, Federal Hate Crime Statistics: Why the Numbers Don’t Add Up, there are many reasons to believe that this is an undercount. In fact, the undercount may be quite substantial since most people assume that hate crime laws only protect the minority.

I don’t know the specifics of Colorado’s hate crime law, nor do we know what the outcome of the investigation will wind up being. But it may well be ironic that a law that has been vigorously opposed by Focus on the Family for “promoting the homosexual lifestyle” may, in fact, serve to protect a participant in a Focus on the Family action.

And while it would be ironic, it would nevertheless be appropriate, depending on what the investigation finds. Because it turns out that anybody can be a victim of hate. And everyone deserves the protection of hate crime laws.

Why Activism?

I wonder sometimes if activists have lost sight of the purpose of activism.

Is it to try to convince the general public to listen to your views and consider your arguments, so they can form well-informed opinions which (hopefully) come close to reflecting yours?

Or is it to make a lot of noise so you can feel better afterwards?

I think we saw a little of both this past weekend in Palm Spring, CA, where Focus on the Family sponsored a “Love Won Out” conference, highlighting their programs for gay men and women who wish to try to change their sexual orientation. The conference took place on Saturday at Southwest Community Church in nearby Indian Wells.

I joined Daniel Gonzales and Timothy Kincaid of “Ex-Gay Watch (along with Ex-Gay Watch readers and frequent commenters Regan DuCasse and Scott) for a morning vigil to greet the 1,400 participants as they arrived at the church. (You can read Daniel’s description of the events here. He also provided the pictures for this post.)

We arrived bright and early at 6:45 in the morning and staked out our corner next to the entrance. From there, we smiled and waved and offered a cheerful “Good morning!” to everyone who arrived for the conference. Most smiled and waved back, others were more determined to ignore our presence. Only a few passersby yelled anything unfriendly, but only one was a conference participant. Out of 1,400 who attended, that’s pretty good.

Daniel observed that this is pretty common. When he attended other vigils, it wasn’t unusual for some participants to walk over to where they were gathered to engage in a friendly conversation with them. And sure enough, one very nice young lady came over to introduce herself and welcome us to Indian Wells. She commented on how great it is that we can all gather peacefully to offer our own perspectives on any subject, no matter what side of the debate we’re on – and no matter how strongly we may disagree.

On that point, at least, we were in agreement. Which is terrific, because all conversations have to start somewhere.

We were there to show by our own examples that gays and lesbians are not the disturbed, disease-ridden, depressed, lonely, intolerant, maladjusted malcontents that conference organizers would portray us to be. On that note, I think our mission was successful. And as a bonus, I’d have to say that we felt better afterwards.

Things were a little different with the “official” Unity Rally protest.

For the morning demonstration, their buses arrived late, some half-hour after the conference check-in had begun begun and the parking lot was nearly half full. They marched around in circles while the leader with the bullhorn prohibited anyone from stopping or engaging in any conversation.

I don’t know much about the rally organizers, but given that this was an ex-gay function we were there to greet, they didn’t appear interested in taking advantage of our backgrounds and knowledge. They did invite us to get in line and walk around in circles with them. We declined, and maintained our positions at the curb next to the entrance, where we could continue to offer our cheerful “Good Mornings!”, waving and smiling to everyone who approached the entrance. We felt that was the best message to send: a warm greeting, a smile, and a welcome.

The rally protestors left after about an hour, even though conference check-in was scheduled to continue for another half-hour. Timothy joked that if he were attending the conference, he probably wouldn’t arrive until about a minute before the official starting time. Me, I’m nearly always running about ten minutes late for just about anything. So we stayed and welcomed the stragglers.

The Unity Rally that was held later that morning at a park in Palm Springs was rather self-congratulatory – lots of speeches about who called whom to organize the community to do something, and about how proud they were that they had pulled it all off, and that it was a local effort.

Which, as far as that goes, is as it should be. They did a wonderful job with the logistics and organization of a mass-demonstration. It takes a lot of very committed local people to pull off a tremendous undertaking like that. The congratulations were well-earned.

But it could have been better. The rally organizers didn’t use this as an opportunity to educate themselves — let alone the larger community — on the specific issues facing those who are being drawn into the ex-gay movement. They barely had an awareness of what the ex-gay movement was even all about. And they didn’t seem to be much interested in learning. Ex-Gay Watch offered their assistance, but in end the rally organizers chose not to avail themselves of XGW’s background and knowledge.

Instead, they were satisfied to simply portray the participants at the Love Won Out conference as being motivated by hatred and bigotry — which is a pretty easy thing to do. In fact, “hate” was tossed around with remarkable frequency.

I think this was a tactical error to characterize these parents in this way, but I also think it was an error because for the most part, it just isn’t true. The parents who attended Love Won Our are not motivated by hatred or bigotry.

Think of it this way. Imagine if you are told that there is a group of people out there who molest children, spread disease, corrupt society, impose their will on others through non-democratic means, are depressed and suicidal, and are profoundly unhappy and incapable of experiencing true love and fulfillment. And imagine that your child may become a part of that group.

The emotion these parents are feeling is not hate. It is fear. Terror, to be exact. If the things that these conference organizers said were true, then what decent parent wouldn’t move mountains and swim raging rivers to protect their children from such a terrible fate?

Our society is not well educated on why people enter the ex-gay movement, or why parents are motivated to attend Love Won Out conferences. Nor is our society even much aware that there is such a thing as “ex-ex-gays.” And it turns out that gay people aren’t very well educated on these points either.

My first reaction was disdain for the Unity Rally organizers for their arrogance. (And yes, I do believe there was a certain amount of arrogance on their part — perhaps, ironically, a reflection of some arrogance on my part.) But now, after more reflection, my reaction is a bit more nuanced.

So this means that we really have a lot of work to do. We need to figure out how to educate our fellow LGBT organizations, the press, and the broader culture. We need to learn how to formulate our messages that convey real meaning to everyone we talk to. We need to leave aside words like “hate” and “bigotry”, which divide one side from another and put an abrupt halt to all attempts to persuade those parents caught in the middle of all this.

We won’t change many minds at Focus on the Family, nor will we reach any of the leaders who put on the Love Won Out road show. That’s not our purpose.

Instead, we need to change the minds of the many parents who attended the conference out of a genuine fear that their child may be gay. And we need to do this quickly.

I say this because of who I saw sitting in the back seat of a few of those cars (a very few) that drove into the conference that morning. There, slouched in the back seat, by himself or herself, sat a dejected or frightened teenager. A few looked out the window at us, but mostly they just looked down. I don’t think many of the Unity Rally marchers got a chance to look at these kids’ faces. They all wore that expression that I knew all too well, because I wore that same expression for so many years: an expression of deep, abiding shame.

And fear. Because, you know, they don’t want to grow up to molest children, spread disease, corrupt society, impose their will on others through non-democratic means, be depressed, or commit suicidal, or be incapable of experiencing true love and fulfillment., like the folks with Love Won Out say they will.

We really need to reach those parents.

Our aim is to reach them with a different message — one based on accurate facts, living examples, and most importantly, hope. Our objective was not to get something off our chests. Instead, over time, we wanted lift a burden from those parents shoulders. We didn’t go on this vigil so we would feel better at the end of the day. We did it because we wanted those kids to feel better now.

But if we want to be successful, we have to begin to use language that these parents can understand. Accusing them of hatred is not going to accomplish anything.

Paul Cameron on The Daily Show

Journal of Biosocial Science author and NARTH source Paul Cameron appeared as the anti-gay foil on last night’s The Daily Show segment featuring Bleu Copas, the Arabic translator who had been kicked out under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

I just can’t understand how anybody can take Paul Cameron seriously. I’m talking to you, JBS! Where is that retraction?

I’m also talking to you too, NARTH. You’re using his discredited lifespan statistic here. (Our examination of that so-called “study” can be found here.)

NARTH again cites Cameron’s lifespan statistic along with another flawed study claiming that gays are responsible for one-third of all child sexual abuse. What’s even more egregious is this: That article purports to offer suggestions for “ethical” care in conversion therapy. Another NARTH author repeats the same child sexual abuse claim, but no matter how many times you repeat that lie, it’s still a lie. For a more accurate reading of the statistics behind child sexual abuse, see our report, Testing the Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

If NARTH ever wants to attain any kind of scientific repectability, they really have a long way to go to clean up their act.

Barbara McPherson Doesn’t Want Gay Parents To Be Good Parents

Guess what? Focus on the Family, the same group that encourages parents to be deeply involved with their children’s education, doesn’t think gay and lesbian parents should be involved with theirs:

Gay-activist group Family Pride has produced a pamphlet to guide homosexual parents in introducing themselves to their children’s schools.

“Building Family Equality in the Classroom” suggests parents attend the first PTA meeting together and introduce themselves as a couple.

Barbara McPherson, legislative affairs coordinator for the California Family Council, told Family News in Focus such activism doesn’t belong in school.

Isn’t it amazing? James Dobson, the head of Focus on the Family, made his mark by offering some often persuasive advice on raising children. And he knows quite well (as we all do) that one of the keys to good parenting is for parents to get involved with their children’s education. This means meeting with your child’s teachers and principal, meet some of the other parents of your child’s classmates, get involved in extra-curricular activities, volunteer your time and talents whenever you can — all of this is common-sense advice for all parents.

Because as we all know, parents who take an active interest in all aspects of their child’s life raise children who are less likely to get in trouble, drink, do drugs, get pregnant, and all of those other nasty things we want our children to avoid that can mess up their lives.

But according to Barbara McPherson, the California Family Council, and Focus on the Family, gay and lesbian parents are “activists” when they do the same things that good straight parents do — the same things that all parents should do. But when gay and lesbian parents do these things, they’re not parents but “activists.”

Okay. On second thought, maybe that’s not a bad choice of words. After all, if a parent won’t be an activist for own child, then what kind of a parent is he or she anyway?

You can download Family Pride’s thoughtful brochure here (PDF: 112 KB/2 pages).

Two Real Fathers

Here is something making the rounds from Dutch television, via YouTube.

For all the real fathers out there, and their kids.

Welcome Out, CNN Anchor Thomas Roberts

CNN Headline News anchor Thomas Robert decided to come out of the closet at this year’s Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association conference in Miami.

Roberts said that participating as a panel speaker at the gay journalists conference was the biggest step he took to really being out and public. He also told the audience that he’s proud of his partner and how he has gradually come out at work over the years. And he offers this observation about being closeted while everyone else around you is speculating:

“When you hold something back, that’s all everyone wants to know,” he told the audience.

Welcome out, Thomas Roberts

Stop the Presses! In what has to be the worst possible case of bad timing on CNN’s part, Thomas Roberts’ newscast has been canceled. I’m sure we’ll see an adamant disclaimer from CNN soon.

Another update: A reader tipped me to Thomas Roberts’ extensive interview that was just published (Friday) in After Elton. He denies any connection between his “coming out” and CNN’s rescheduled newscasts. He points out that news programs get shuffled all the time. Also, he has been out to his co-workers for several years, so that shouldn’t have been a big deal to anyone.

NARTH Exfoliates

The wide-ranging condemnations of Dr. Joseph Berger, the NARTH Scientific Advisory Committee member who recommended “ridicule” as an effective treatment for young children with variant sexual identity and expression, has had an effect. Warren Throckmorten notes that not only has Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, President of NARTH disavowed Dr. Berger’s advice, NARTH pulled the offending post from their blog and offers this statement:

We have pulled the discussion on gender variant children in Oakland. The article contained comments that were deemed offensive to many readers and failed to accurately express the overall views of the physician who expressed them.

We apologize for publishing the article without getting proper clarifications first about how children with gender identity disorders should be treated by parents, teachers, and counselors.

NARTH President Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D. has issued the following statement related to gender variant children and remarks made by Dr. Joseph Berger:

“NARTH disagrees with Dr. Berger’s advice as we believe shaming, as distinct from correcting, can only create greater harm. Too many of our clients experienced the often life-long, harmful effects of peer shaming. We cannot encourage this.”

Here is the original text of Dr. Berger’s comments which has been removed from NARTH’s website. (Thanks to Pam Spaulding for finding it.)

I think that a lot of this is nonsense and is being pushed by people who have an agenda to disrupt society in order to further some perverted goals such as the acceptance of pedophilia, and, of course, the attempted “normalization” of homosexuality.

From a medical/scientific perspective, the notion of a child of five being “transgendered” is absolute garbage. This is a child wanting attention and wanting to play “dress-up,” with an added layer of unhappiness.

That essentially is the issue for most of these children. They are unhappy. They don’t have a “biological” based “gender identity disorder.” They are unhappy; they have an envy of certain aspects of the opposite sex role — and wish to pursuit it for as long as they can.

Tolerant parents, tolerant schools, tolerant societies, might let them get away with it. No one should be surprised that avant-garde California or sun-drenched Florida should be places where the tolerance is highest.

The notion that a person is really someone of the opposite sex “trapped in the wrong body” is poetic stupidity. It doesn’t exist in reality. A person wishing to change their external manifestations to appear to be a person of the opposite sex is someone very unhappy with being their “real” sex and/or believing in some idealized fantasy of how much better it is to be of the opposite sex.

We don’t treat distorted fantasies with mutilating surgery.

Here in cold Canada, I often talk with mothers of small children who routinely complain about how difficult it is to get their children dressed in the winter in the multiple layers of clothing they need to go off to school. I suggest to them that they make it clear to their children that they will leave home — or that the school bus will come — at such-and-such time, and they will go whether they are ready or not. I suggest that going just one day in their pajamas or underwear will be enough to “cure” them of their procrastination.

I suggest, indeed, letting children who wish go to school in clothes of the opposite sex — but not counseling other children to not tease them or hurt their feelings.

On the contrary, don’t interfere, and let the other children ridicule the child who has lost that clear boundary between play-acting at home and the reality needs of the outside world. Maybe, in this way, the child will re-establish that necessary boundary.

It is a mistake for various interfering, ignorant, and biased busybodies to try to “counsel” the other children into accepting the abnormal. It is very healthy to be able to draw the line between what is healthy and what is sick.

I am sure that if we looked carefully, we could find some significant personal issues and aberrations in the parents of these children. These children don’t have such problems without there having been some groundwork laid by their parents in some way.

Dr Joseph Berger, FRCP, DABPN, DLFAPA

No word yet on whether NARTH intends to maintain Dr. Berger’s position on their advisory committee. It seems that following his advice can lead to a lot of hot water.