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.

NARTH Advisory Committee Member Advocates “Ridicule”

From Ex-Gay Watch and Pink News comes this startling report:

A coalition of organisations monitoring groups claiming to convert gay people back to heterosexuality, have criticised the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuals (NARTH) after a member advocated teasing transgender children to “re-establish that necessary boundary.”

NARTH Scientific Advisory Committee member Joseph Berger said on a blog in reaction to a San Francisco Chronicle article on gender identity issues, “I suggest, indeed, letting children who wish go to school in clothes of the opposite sex – but not counselling 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.

You can find Dr. Berger’s original blog comment here. (Update: The blog post has been removed. You can read about it here.)

As one who has experienced this sort of peer “therapy” myself while growing up (and I can’t think of any gay or lesbian friends who haven’t), I find it utterly outrageous that this advice should come from someone who purports to be a mental health professional. I can say from personal experience that the efficacy of this “therapy” was poor, but the harm great. But you don’t have to take my word for it. Independent research backs that up:

• “Being bullied at school and childhood family discord predicted a variety of adulthood disorders in both sexes.” (Pirkola, S, et al., “Childhood adversities as risk factors for adult mental disorders” Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology (2005) Abstract)
• Based on a National Probability sampled survey, youths reporting same-sex or both-sex attraction are more likely to experience extreme forms of violence.(Russel, S.T., et al., “Same-sex romantic attraction and experiences of violence in adolescence” American Journal of Public Health (2001) Abstract)
• Youths who had experienced more victimization and who had lost friends due to their sexual orientation reported more mental health symptoms. (D’Augelli, A.R., “Mental Health Problems among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youths Ages 14 to 21” Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry (2002) Abstract. Full Text (PDF: 24 pages/107 KB))
• Gay and bisexual male teens reported strong negative attitudes from parents and friends toward their sexualities. Discrimination, verbal abuse from peers, and physical assaults were frequently cited problems. (Remafedi, G., “Male homosexuality: The adolescent’s perspective” (1987) Abstract, Full Text (PDF: 7 pages/590 KB))
• Socially isolated children are at significant risk of poor adult health compared with nonisolated children. (Caspi, A., et al., “Socially Isolated Children 20 Years Later: Risk of Cardiovascular Disease” Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine (2006) Abstract)

Given what we know about the effects of the sort of peer-pressure that Dr. Berger advocates against LGBT children, it is important to hold him and NARTH accountable for this dangerously irresponsible advice.

Update: Wayne Besen, at Truth Wins Out has issued a press release about Dr. Berger’s comments. Wayne contacted the Ontario APA and the Canadian Human Rights Commission to inquire about filing a complaint.

Doing Violence to Domestic Violence Statistics

Focus on the Family released another whopper today. Alan Chambers, president of the “ex-gay” group Exodus, claimed that gays and lesbians are far more likely to be raped or assaulted by their partners than heterosexuals:

“It’s something that we knew would come to light more as the issue of gay unions began to be on the radar screen of the American public.”

In fact, according to the National Violence against Women Survey, 39- percent of homosexuals report being raped, physically assaulted or stalked by their partners. Chambers says many gays grew up in a home where they were abused and that transfers into their relationships later in life.

Well, it’s true, sort of. Thirty-nine percent of women with a history of same-sex partnership report being raped, assaulted, or stalked by their partners. For men with a history of same-sex partnership, the figure is “only” 23%. For couples with a history of opposite-sex partnership, the figures are 21.7% for women, and 7.4% for men.

But the real question is who is doing the raping, assaulting, and stalking?

Getting to that answer is simple. But before I begin, I’d like for you to download the report for yourself directly from the government website so you don’t have to take my word for it. Go right ahead (PDF: 62 pages/1,475 KB).

Now, go to page 29 and look at Exhibit 8 at the bottom of the page. You will see that these figures I mentioned are all right there. It doesn’t look good for our side, does it?

But like I said, the real question is who is doing the raping, assaulting and stalking? For that answer, all you have to do is go to the very next page. In exhibit 9, you will see that —

Among women with a history of same-sex partnership:

• 30.4% were raped, assaulted or stalked by their husband/male partner
• 11.4% were raped, assaulted or stalked by their wife/female partner.

And among men with a history of same-sex partnership:

• 10.8% were raped, assaulted, or stalked by their wife/female partner.
• 15.4% were raped, assaulted, or stalked by their husband/male partner.

So here is what it all means. Many women with a history of same-sex partnership also have a history of opposite-sex partnership. Because of that, they are far more likely to report being raped, assaulted or stalked because it is the men in their lives who are doing the raping, assaulting or stalking. Not the women. Same-sex cohabiting women were nearly three times more likely to report being victimized by a male partner than a female partner.

And here is where the statistic gets really interesting: 20.5% of women in opposite sex relationships were raped, assaulted or stalked by their husband or male partner. That compares to 15.4% of men who were raped, assaulted, or stalked by their male partners. In other words, gay men are safer around their same-sex partners than straight women are around their husbands or opposite-sex partner.

But Alan Chambers blindly clings to his off-kilter interpretation and offers this gem of an explanation:

Chambers blames the violence on an extreme sense of unhappiness that often leads to addictive behaviors.

If that’s the case, then it looks like the straight men need to get over their unhappiness so the rest of us can live in peace.

GOP Candidate Opposes Arizona’s Marriage Amendment. Sort of.

Opponents to a proposed marriage amendment to Arizona’s constitution have gained some unlikely allies: Republicans.

Republican Tucson Mayor Bob Walkup, Democratic Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon have joined Republican gubernatorial candidate Mike Harris to oppose Prop 107, which would ban gays from marrying. It would also prevent anyone, gay or straight, from entering into civil unions or from receiving domestic partner benefits.

“As a Reagan Republican, I want government out of our private lives,” Harris said.

It also may prove a case of a group thinking it has a winning issue and over-reaching.

Instead of writing a clean proposition defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Christian conservatives went the extra step and proposed banning men and women from civil unions.

Gay-rights groups shrewdly jumped all over that.

Arizona’s primary isn’t until September 12, and Harris lags behind two other Republicans in a four-way race to unseat the popular Democratic incumbent, Janet Napolitano. One of these front-runners is Len Munsel, the former president of the Center for Arizona Policy which put the amendment on the ballot. The other front-runner is Don Goldwater, nephew of the late Barry Goldwater.

That’s why it’s way to early to call this a positive sign, especially since Harris has been extremely coy about making his views known.

Informed Consent

As reported more than two weeks ago, the APA released this statement directed at NARTH and Focus on the Family:

“For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA’s concern about the positions espoused by NARTH and so-called conversation therapy is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.”

This apparently sparked some controversy at the APA meeting in New Orleans. On first glance, many took it to be a repudiation of conversion therapy — which would mean a change in the APA’s official policy statement. But a closer reading gives what I believe to be a more accurate understanding, that the APA is concerned about how NARTH and Focus on the Family (which sponsors Exodus) uses conversion therapy — and misrepresented science — to nonscientific (political) ends. At least that’s how I read it. Yes, it calls into question conversion therapy’s efficacy, but the APA does not prohibit it. In my opinion at least, it’s the only way to read this statement without throwing away the APA’s official policy on conversion therapy altogether, which a statement like this does not have the capacity to do.

Neither NARTH nor Focus on the Family responded to the APA statement directly. Instead, they claimed a sort of victory by reporting on a Town Hall Meeting between the APA leaders and members. According to NARTH’s rendition of events, APA President Gerald Koocher said this about conversion therapy:

Highlighting the importance of client autonomy and self-determination, Dr. Koocher stated, “APA has no conflict with psychologists who help those distressed by unwanted homosexual attraction.”

He emphasized that —

1. The choice to enter therapy to diminish homosexual attractions and to strengthen heterosexual potential must be respected.

2. The choice to enter therapy must be voluntary and not coerced in any way.

3. Treatment options must be discussed by the therapist.

4. Treatment goals must be mutually agreed upon.

5. The “iterative process” must be a part of therapy. That is, client choice regarding treatment goals must be reiterated throughout the treatment process.

Focus on the Family issued a statement claiming credit for Dr. Koochers’s “endorsement” of conversion therapy, calling it a “policy change”:

Koocher’s response was simple: “APA has no conflict with psychologists who help those distressed by unwanted homosexual attraction.”

Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, a network of ministries for those struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction, said it was an unexpected turn of events.

“Given the APA’s track record of the last two years,” Chambers told CitizenLink, “it is very unusual that the president would come out and state our case for us, that people have a right to self-determination — to determine their own path for their mental-health status.”

Chambers said he believes a protest organized by ex-gays and their therapists outside the convention hall had an impact.

Let’s stop here a moment and review what happened. First, Exodus organized a protest by “ex-gays” at the APA convention in New Orleans. The APA responded by issuing a statement denouncing the particular practices of NARTH and Exodus (via Focus on the Family). NARTH and Focus in the Family respond by describing a meeting where Dr. Koocher appears to “endorse” conversion therapy, and Focus goes so far as to claim this “policy change” as a victory brought on by their protest.

First, let’s be clear of one thing. There was no policy change. The APA does not prohibit conversion therapy. Go ahead and read the APA’s policy statement.

But read the whole thing. I’ll wait.

Notice that the APA insists that homosexuality is not a disease, and that all members must refrain from disseminating false information about homosexuality, about gays and lesbians themselves, and about treatment options and success rates. Therapists are required to ensure that the client understands the likelihood of change, what change may mean or may not mean, and the possible negative consequences of pursuing therapy to try to change sexual orientation. This is essential if “informed consent” is to be achieved according to the APA’s policy statement:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that “psychologists do not make false or deceptive statements concerning … the scientific or clinical basis for … their services,” (American Psychological Association, 1992); and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that “psychologists attempt to identify situations in which particular interventions … may not be applicable … because of factors such as … sexual orientation” (American Psychological Association, 1992); and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that “psychologists obtain appropriate informed consent to therapy or related procedures” [which] “generally implies that the [client or patient] (1) has the capacity to consent, (2) has been informed of significant information concerning the procedure, (3) has freely and without undue influence expressed consent, and (4) consent has been appropriately documented”

Maybe due to the free-wheeling nature of the discussion, the issues surrounding informed consent didn’t come up at the town hall meeting. Or maybe they did and NARTH and Exodus neglected to mention them. But Warren Throckmorton posted this follow-up statement from the APA’s Public Affairs office to clarify the importance of informed consent:

One: The therapist has an obligation to carefully explore how patients arrive at the choices they want to make. Therapists must determine whether patients understand that their motives may arise purely from the social pressures of a homophobic environment. No type or amount of individual therapy will modify societal prejudices.

Two, informed consent: Patients must understand the potential consequences of any treatment, including those intended to modify sexual orientation. Patients must understand that such treatments lack a validated scientific foundation and may prove psychologically harmful.

Finally, I would add that our patients ought to know from the very start that we as their therapists do not consider homosexuality a mental disorder. In fact, the data show that gay and lesbian people do not differ from heterosexuals in their psychological health. By that I mean that they have no greater instance of mental disorders than do heterosexuals.

This is critical, because NARTH and Exodus both are flagrant violators of many components of the APA’s policy on sexual orientation conversion therapy, especially in those areas concerned with ensuring that informed consent is truly “informed.” And for that, they deserve to be singled out for criticism.

Briefly Noted

The GOP finds a tax cut they don’t like • Traditional Values Candidate lobbyist fired from California GOP • Unmarried straights in Washington state want domestic partner benefits • A Utah state senator considers Brown v. Board of Ed. a mistake • Gay bashing in St. Maartin is “not good promotion”.

• A debate over a bill that would allow registered domestic partners in California to file joint state tax returns broke down in a volley of personal attacks. The bill finally passed the state House 44-28, mostly along party lines. Gay Republican Boifromtroy laments that Republicans finally found a tax cut they didn’t like.
• Speaking of California Republicans, the California GOP fired Ben Lopez, who had been the chief lobbyist for the Traditional Values Coalition before being hired by the state GOP to do evangelical outreach. He was let go following calls from progressives to cut all ties to the virulently anti-gay organization. Some in the Schwarzenegger camp put it this way: “Why would they want to give the Democratic Party and Phil Angelides a gift on a silver platter?” Lopez, by the way, denies he was fired. He claims he was told his job was “complete.”
• An unmarried straight couple in Washington state filed a lawsuit claiming that the state’s new gay civil rights law discriminates against unmarried heterosexuals. They claim that straight people should be entitled to the same domestic partner benefits as straight people (who, it should be pointed out, are actually allowed to get married if they want those benefits so badly).
• Utah state senator Chris Buttars, who had co-sponsored that state’s gay marriage ban, claimed that court intervention to end school segregation was wrong. “I think Brown v. Board of Education is wrong to begin with,” he said on a radio talk show interview. He later clarified “I don’t think there’s a racial [sic] bone in my body. … I don’t see black and white. I see people. I always have.” Uh huh. And some of his best friends are gay.
• The gay-bashing trial in St Maartin will be postponed, giving the government time to fly Ryan Smith, one of the victims, to the island to testify. He and Richard Jefferson, both CBS employees, were severely beaten after leaving a bar April 6. Because Smith cannot afford to fly to St. Maartin to testify, the prosecutor’s office will help foot the bill. “The government of St. Maarten has also stated its willingness to assist. After all, this case was not good promotion for the island.”

Briefly Noted

A “Family Values” candidate left out two members of his family • One less gay on television • Arkansans strongly oppose gays as foster parents • Wal-Mart joins Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.

• Randall Terry, of Operation Rescue fame, is running for a seat in the Florida state Senate as the “family values” candidate. But his own family portrait leaves out two members of his family: his gay son and his single-mother daughter. I guess they’re not “valued.”
• The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is clutching its collective pearls now that there is one less regular openly gay character on broadcast television from last year. Will and Grace have left the building.
• After the Arkansas state supreme court overturned the policy barring gays and lesbians from serving as foster parents, a new poll shows that 55% of residents strongly oppose allowing gays to foster-parent.
• But there’s also good news from Arkansas, the home of Wal-Mart. They are joining the Bentonville Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, with a company vice president serving on the chamber’s advisory council. The American Family Association is not happy.

Briefly Noted

“Girls Gone Wilding” • Cincinnati anti-gay group investigated for fraud • The “former” head of the Oregon Christian Coalition admits to fondling underage family members (“Former” because he’s still signing checks on behalf of the group) • Four charged in New Mexico’s “Beaten Straight” case • Protests against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

• He said, she said: Dwayne Buckle complimented a woman in New York’s West Village. She and her friends were lesbians and said they weren’t interested in men (using words that many ladies from New Jersey use). He responded in kind, a fight broke out, Dwayne was stabbed, seven women were arrested. Both sides allege a hate crime was committed and the New York Daily News gets to use the headline, “Girls Gone Wilding“.
• Speaking of wild antics: The Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor is investigating fraud allegations against the group Equal Rights Not Special Rights. The group tried to force a ballot measure to overturn Cincinnati’s anti-discrimination law which was recently amended to add sexual orientation. Unfortunately, almost half of the 14,000 signatures were fraudulent, including Fidel Castro’s signature. Says one city council member, “It’s a shame that some in this community, who claim to provide some kind of moral consciousness, would stoop to such lows.”
• Lou Beres, the former head of the Oregon Christian Coalition and former chair of the Multnoma County Republican Party has admitted to sexually touching underage girls, including family members. While he’s identified as the “former head” of the Oregon Christian Coalition, records show that as late as last week he signed a $50 check on the Oregon Christian Coalition checking account to renew the group’s business registration with the state.
• A grand jury in New Mexico handed down indictments in the case of the 18-year-old man who was held captive overnight and “beaten straight”. Cecily Gonzales, Leroy Segura, Uriah Smith and William York were charged with kidnapping, aggravated battery, conspiracy and false imprisonment. If a jury finds that a hate crime based on sexual orientation was committed, an additional year can be added to the penalty.
• Soulforce staged peaceful sit-ins at military recruitment offices to protest its “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Eleven were arrested in separate incidents in Minneapolis and Philadelphia. More protests are planned in more cities next week.

Two Republicans Do The Right Thing

The editors of the Kalamazoo Gazette observed that “After what happened to a couple of Kalamazoo County commissioners this week, it’s a wonder any Republican lawmakers have the nerve to support equal rights for homosexuals.”

Last Tuesday, two GOP Commissioners joined seven Democrats to include “a person’s political affiliation, sexual orientation or gender identity” in the county’s non-discrimination policy. Immediately before the vote, more than six thousand residents started getting automated phone calls with recorded messages from the American Family Association denouncing GOP Commissioners Bob Brink and Joe VanBruggen. Despite all this, the two stuck to their guns and passed the measure.

The editors congratulate their courage:

So we know that the AFA has a long memory and is more than willing to try to punish elected officials for years after a vote the organization doesn’t approve of.

That does put a target on Brink’s back if he decides to run for the 61st House District seat in two years.

Sometimes, it isn’t easy to do the right thing when one knows that the penalty might be the end of a political career.

Bob Brink and Joe VanBruggen showed a lot of courage Tuesday night.

Contact information to congratulate the Board is available via this web site.