Parsing The Words Of A ‘Happily Married’ Gay Mormon Who May Or May Not Practice Ex-Gay Therapy

By Zack Ford on Jun 16, 2012 at 1:56 pm

Josh Weed and the wife he is 'happily married' to.

Yesterday, ThinkProgress reported that the “happily married” gay Mormon, Josh Weed, may actually practice ex-gay therapy as part of his profession. On his own bio, he describes helping those “with sexual identity issues and unwanted sexual attractions and/or behaviors.” Gay.net contacted Weed regarding this controversy and he told them, “I don’t believe that a gay person can or even should change their sexual attraction.” He responded further in an email reply:

I do not practice, nor do I believe in, reparative therapy or change therapy. Quite the opposite, my therapeutic stance is one that favors (but does not depend on) the idea that sexual orientation is immutable.[...]

Given my background, I feel especially adept at helping clients who feel that their attractions are “unwanted” because of cultural or religious contexts. I work with them to help them accept their sexual orientation for what it is, so that they can move forward into the decision making part of their life.

I help them get to the point where the question becomes something like, “This part of me is real, and I am totally okay. Now what?” I then help them as they navigate the difficult waters of decision.

My clients make extremely varied choices for their lives and futures. My role is to help them do so in a way that is authentic and true to what they want for themselves, and not to appease outside sources of pressure (like family, church or culture at large).

This leaves the situation in murky territory. The harms of ex-gay therapy are as much the result of denying or refusing to act on one’s sexual orientation as of actually trying to change it. Consider the Catholic Church’s Courage ministry, which counsels gays and lesbians to practice a life of chastity, denying themselves the right to love. It may well be true that Weed always affirms clients’ sexual orientation and encourages them to embrace and accept it, but if he is using his own story as an example — as he claims — then this still raises serious questions.

Weed may have personally found happiness as a gay man living a heterosexual life, but that by no means certifies him as a model example for others. The language of “unwanted sexual attractions and/or behaviors” is uniquely used by those who advocate ex-gay therapy, as it implies that a person’s sexual orientation is somehow separate from the core of their identity and can be treated as such with behavioral adjustment. Weed’s consistent use of this rhetoric is conspicuous, as is the absence of words like “affirmation” to describe how he responds to clients’ identities. He also leaves unclear what the “extremely varied choices” are that they make, and he leaves plenty of room for not appeasing “outside sources” on the opposite side of the debate, like the LGBT community or mainstream psychology, sociology, and medicine.

If Weed is truly affirming sexual identity in his clients, then there is no controversy to discuss. But in the original story, he explained that the entire reason he was coming out and telling his story is because he was already sharing it with his clients to help them. If Weed is using his own choices as an example for how individuals can conform to heterosexist ideals by simply ignoring the sexual orientation that is part of who they are, then he is advocating harm and reinforcing internalized stigma. Weed’s apparent happiness with his unique life choices in no way justifies suggesting the same choices for others.

()

Climate Progress

Sex Is Better With Energy Efficiency

By Climate Guest Blogger on Jun 16, 2012 at 12:31 pm

by KC Golden, via the GRIP Blog

Something must be done about the abysmal marketing of energy efficiency. Never has such a big energy story received so little love.

In the pie-throwing contest that passes for energy dialogue in our political culture, Solyndra gets the ink, while the biggest story by far goes unreported. Keystone dominates the headlines, while new fuel economy standards languish in obscurity — even though they’ll save far more oil than Keystone will deliver and create more jobs, at a fraction of the cost. Clean energy naysayers offer a rhetorical choice between a “Keystone economy vs. a Solyndra economy,” when the actual economy is running more and more on the energy we save through better codes, standards, and efficiency programs.

Here in the Northwest, for example, we have saved over 4600 average megawatts of electricity since 1980. That’s more than enough to continuously power 4 cities the size of Seattle – and the Northwest only has one city the size of Seattle! If we let the east side of the region have all the good stuff, these energy savings could power the entire states of Idaho and Montana. But we would never do that, of course, because that would make Seattle and Portland dramatically poorer; that conserved energy, harvested from the whole region, is a gold mine, saving consumers about $2.5 billion-with-a-b annually on our power bills.

This is by far the biggest energy story in the Northwest over the last 30 years. The saved energy has met more than half of the growth in demand, at a fraction of the cost of the power we would have otherwise bought. It has extended the value of our regional hydropower system, squeezing more work – more cold beer, more hot showers, more data crunching – out of every drop of water in the system.

But there’s plenty more squeezing to do. The Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Sixth Plan lays out a cost effective strategy for meeting the vast majority of new energy needs with efficiency over the next 20 years. Oregon’s new draft 10 year energy strategy aims to go all the way – meeting all load growth by wasting less of the energy we’ve got.

And even that’s not the limit. We’ve got coal plants to replace too, and huge power plants of wasted energy – squandered Grand Coulees, Dalles that dribble away – in our existing building stock. Thousands of megawatts of available, cheap energy savings. Thousands of jobs for the people who harvest them…. A robust, irresistible, smoking hot energy future, powered by renewables and juiced by efficiency.

KC Golden writes for Grip on Climate. This piece was originally published at the GRIP blog and was reprinted with permission.

Messaging 101c: Energy efficiency and sex

Photo: minds-eye via Flickr

Justice

Special Interests Kill Proposal For Merit Selection Of Judges In PA

By Josh Israel on Jun 16, 2012 at 10:00 am

Pennsylvania State Rep. Bryan Cutler (R)

Pennsylvania is one of 39 states in which voters elect state appellate court judges. An effort to change the state’s process to one of gubernatorial appointment is apparently dead for the year, after encountering significant opposition from outside interest groups. The move comes just weeks after Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin was indicted for ethical violations.

A constitutional amendment proposal by State Rep. Bryan Cutler (R), tabled earlier this month on a 13-12 Judiciary Committee vote, would have created a commission to select potential nominees for the state state’s appeals court and allow the governor to choose nominates, with the consent of the state state. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the proposal failed in large part because of opposition by anti-abortion activists and other interest groups:

A pivotal development occurred June 1, when the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation, an anti-abortion group, informed members of the House Judiciary Committee that it opposed the measure and would weigh members’ votes when making endorsements in the next election. A few days later, the committee voted to table the proposal.

“The pro-life movement in Pennsylvania has been historically opposed to so-called merit selection of judges, and that position has not changed,” federation legislative director Maria Gallagher wrote in an e-mail to members of the committee. “So-called merit selection is an elitist system which places too much power in the hands of very few.”

The anti-abortion group spends money in support of judicial candidates it believes will oppose abortion rights, so the current system allows it — and its donors — a great deal of influence as to who fills the state’s judicial branch.

One of the most troubling aspects of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 Citizens United ruling is that outside special interests are now free to spend as much as they want on ads for or against candidates not just for those running for legislative and executive offices, but also for judicial positions. In North Carolina, a Super PAC is raising funds to back the re-election of a pro-corporate conservative state Supreme Court Justice. Since these groups cannot coordinate with candidates, a company or interest could either create a conflict-of-interest by making sizable contributions to an independent-expenditure effort in favor of a judge likely to rule their way — or could create the appearance of a conflict-of-interest by donating to a judicial candidate otherwise likely vote rule against them.

()

NEWS FLASH

U.N. Suspends Syria Observer Activities | With both Bashar al-Assad’s forces and Syrian rebels stepping up their attacks, the U.N. team assigned to observe the crisis there ceased its activities, including patrols. “Violence over the past 10 days has been intensifying willingly by both parties, with losses on both sides and significant risks to our observers,” said Maj. Gen. Robert Mood, the head of the mission. Earlier this month, rebels withdrew from a ceasefire — largely ignored by the government — put in place by former U.N. Secretary-General Koffi Annan’s faltering peace plan.

Climate Progress

More Protective Soot Standard Will Save Lives, Protect Fragile Environments

By Climate Guest Blogger on Jun 16, 2012 at 9:31 am

by Sam Edmondson, Jeff Billington, and Mary Havel

Soot. (Chris Jordan-Bloch / Earthjustice) WASHINGTON – June 15 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally proposed updated clean air standards that will prevent thousands of premature deaths and take steps toward clearing hazy air. The EPA’s proposal comes in response to legal action filed on behalf of the American Lung Association and the National Parks Conservation Association by Earthjustice. The groups called upon the EPA to adopt final protections against particle pollution that follow the Clean Air Act’s requirements to protect public health and iconic national parks.

The groups are pleased that the EPA has at last proposed new limits on fine particulate matter or PM2.5, one of the deadliest and most dangerous forms of air pollution. Breathing particle pollution can cause premature death, heart and lung damage, and potentially even cancer and developmental and reproductive harm. This pollution also harms plants and wildlife inside protected natural sites, such as national parks, and negatively impacts the health of the hundreds of millions of people who visit these sites every year. The EPA will take public comment on a range of annual and daily standards, which are set to protect against long- and short-term exposure to particle pollution. EPA proposed choosing either 12 or 13 μg/m3 for the annual standard and 35 μg/m3 for the daily standard. The groups urge an annual standard of 11 μg/m3 and a daily standard of 25 μg/m3.

The agency is also proposing separate standards to limit the visible haze caused by particle pollution in many communities and national parks. The proposal includes two possibilities for daily standards, either 28 or 30 deciviews (a measure of “haziness”). To adequately combat the visibly filthy air pollution that mars vistas throughout the nation, the groups urge a stronger standard, no higher than 25 deciviews.

“Particle pollution kills—the science is clear, and overwhelming evidence shows that particle pollution at levels currently labeled as officially ‘safe’ causes heart attacks, strokes and asthma attacks,” said Albert Rizzo, MD, Chair of the Board of the American Lung Association. “The Clean Air Act gives the American public the truth about pollution that is threatening their lives and health—just as they would expect the truth from their doctor.”

“This proposal is long overdue,” said Paul Cort, the Earthjustice attorney who represented the Lung Association and NPCA in legal proceedings. “The fact that the EPA has been put back on track by the courts is an important first step in this process, but now the agency needs to set strong final standards to protect people from this deadly pollution. The law requires it, and the millions of Americans who live in areas made filthy by particle pollution desperately need it.”

“Every year, millions of people visit our national parks expecting clean air and clear views,” said Mark Wenzler, NPCA Vice President of Climate and Air Quality Programs. “But they instead find their health compromised and the beauty of these sites degraded because of lax controls for particle pollution. The EPA has the authority to correct this, and for the health and welfare of our national parks and the many people who visit and enjoy them, it needs to act now to correct this problem.”

Soot or particle pollution—a microscopic mixture of smoke, liquid droplets and solid metal particles released by sources such as coal-fired power plants, factories and diesel vehicles— causes thousands of premature deaths, heart attacks and asthma attacks every year. The particles are small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs and into the bloodstream, making soot one of the most dangerous forms of air pollution. The particles also contribute heavily to the haze that enshrouds many of our cities and national parks. Read more