Brad Dacus, Pacific Justice Institute

The Pacific Justice Institute, a California-based Christian legal defense organization, has partnered with groups that promote ex-gay therapy like NARTH to oppose a California bill that would limit how the dangerous treatment could be provided in the state. In an interview on Friday, the Institute’s Brad Dacus told talk show host Janet Meffered that discredited ex-gay therapist Joseph Nicolosi has been effective in over 80 percent of cases, arguing that homosexuality is a “path of death and destruction”:

MEFFERD: Brad, is there overwhelming evidence that reparative therapy is a fraud?

DACUS: Actually it’s contrary, there’s overwhelming evidence that reparative therapy actually works. It’s not 100% because you have individual will and every person has their own issues. But Dr. [Joseph] Nicolosi and other famous psychiatrists who have treated this, thousands and thousands of patients, report a very high success rate, I know it’s at least over 80 percent, I believe it’s 80-85 percent success rate. These are people who leave the lifestyle, get married to people, have children, and enter heterosexual relationships. It’s a big mass of deception that they are trying to carry out at the expense of many hundreds of thousands or millions of youths who will be led down a path of death and destruction, unfortunately, if they get away with this.

Listen to it:

Dacus, an attorney, went on to explain that “the homosexual lifestyle gives…boys an average lifespan of the age of 40″ and is “worse than being a chain cigarette smoker.” He also suggested that being gay is the consequence of sexual abuse or poor bonding with their father.

Equating homosexuality with “death and destruction” presents a hefty bias to Dacus’ other claims, and it’s unsurprising that his “evidence” carries no weight. When the American Psychological Association resolved that ex-gay therapy is ineffective and harmful, it was only after a systematic review of the available literature. One of the most prominent studies used to support ex-gay therapy was just disavowed by its primary researcher, who apologized to the gay community for promoting its faulty results. Even anti-gay researchers at Pat Robertson’s Regent University admitted in their research that the “ex-gays” they studied who were now in opposite-sex marriages still had the same same-sex orientation as before their therapy.

There is no data to support any claim of sexual orientation change success, let alone 80-85 percent. Such “results” are likely hearsay from Nicolosi himself, who is probably afraid that the California legislation will impede his ability to continue profiting off of internalized anti-gay stigma.

Last week, Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) told ThinkProgress that he opposes LGBT nondiscrimination protections, like those that would be afforded by the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, because he believes it should be legal to fire people for their sexual orientation. He explained that he believes being gay is a choice that is simply “behavior-related and preference-related.” Since then, Lankford has embarked on a press tour attacking ThinkProgress for misrepresenting him, choosing to ignore video that confirms his position was quoted and described accurately.

He continued that effort today in two radio interviews with anti-gay hate group leaders, the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins and American Family Association’s Tim Wildmon. Perkins described provisions like ENDA as “special protections” and Lankford maintained that employers should have the legal right to fire someone for their “sexual behavior”:

PERKINS: The idea there is they’re looking for special protections; your point is that everybody should be treated equally. No one should be fired or denied employment based upon their sexual orientation — in the ideal world we won’t even know about it, why would we even ask that question?

LANKFORD: Right. But neither should you have a situation where no one can fire you because of your behavior outside of the workplace. We also should not be in a situation where there are special protections extended to say ‘if I have a certain sexual behavior then you can no longer fire me, I’m a protected class and I can do whatever I want in the workplace.’ That’s not true either. So we are trying to be able to keep that balance. When you say you create special rights you also create special privileges and protections to say that they are untouchable in the workplace and they can have any kind of work conduct they choose to on that, that’s not correct.

Listen to it (via RightWingWatch):

Lankford seems to believe that policies like ENDA would create an invulnerability, preventing people who are gay or trans from ever being fired for any reason, as opposed to merely protecting them from anti-gay and anti-trans discrimination in the same way race, sex, and other dimensions of identity are already protected. But it’s also clear that despite Perkins’ claim that “everybody should be treated equally,” both he and Lankford are building a misleading pro-gay narrative around their distorted understanding of sexual orientation.

Lankford and Perkins both believe that sexual orientation is a choice, but more precisely, that it’s defined only by behavioral choices. Neither comprehends (or acknowledges) that sexual orientation is an innate identity that individuals experience regardless of how or if they act upon it. From this discussion, they make clear that they don’t have any problem with somebody saying they’re gay, but if they “act” on their identity — whether it’s starting a family with a same-sex partner, campaigning for marriage equality, or even attending a drag show at a gay club — then they’re in violation of moral principles and shouldn’t be protected. What they are essentially promoting is a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” mentality for the workplace, which they believe would be the same as being “treated equally,” not unlike what Rep. Steve King (R-IA) recently proposed.

Groups like FRC and AFA defend ex-gay therapy for a reason: it’s part of the foundation for all their anti-gay positions. Only if sexual orientation is voluntary can they justify the discrimination they promote, and they ignore over 35 years of science to believe just that.

Today, the Pan American Health Organization, the Regional Office for the Americas of the World Health Organization, condemned ex-gay therapy in a new position statement, calling it a “serious threat to the health and well-being — even the lives — of affected people.” Not only does the PAHO statement identify the therapies as ineffective and a threat to personal autonomy and personal integrity, but concludes that those who offer such therapies are reinforcing stigma and should be penalized:

Health professionals who offer “reparative therapies” align themselves with social prejudices and reflect a stark ignorance in matters of sexuality and sexual health. Contrary to what many people believe or assume, there is no reason — with the exception of the stigma resulting from those very prejudices — why homosexual persons should be unable to enjoy a full and satisfying life.

The task of health professionals is to not cause harm and to offer support to patients to alleviate their complaints and problems, not to make these more severe. A therapist who classifies non-heterosexual patients as “deviant” not only offends them but also contributes to the aggravation of their problems.

“Reparative” or “conversion therapies” have no medical indication and represent a severe threat to the health and human rights of the affected persons. They constitute unjustifiable practices that should be denounced and subject to adequate sanctions and penalties.

PAHO also offers numerous recommendations to limit the impact of ex-gay therapy:

• Governments should ban ex-gay therapy for its violation of human rights and sanction clinics that offer it.
• Schools should train health professionals about sexuality and sexual diversity to combat stigma.
• Professional associations should reject ex-gay therapy and continue to educate members about it.
• The media should expose homophobia as “a threat to human dignity and human rights” and reject any positive publicity for ex-gay therapy.

This condemnation for ex-gay therapy is appropriately bold and unwavering. Ex-gay therapy is a stain on society that serves no purpose but to encourage internalized stigma and perpetuate falsehoods about the nature of sexual orientation. PAHO should be applauded for its defense of LGBT health and human rights.

Cartoon via SlapUpsideTheHead.com.

The National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is rabidly fundraising in an attempt to block a California bill that would limit how ex-gay therapy could be offered in the state. The bill, SB 1172, would prevent minors from receiving ex-gay therapy and require all interested adults to sign an informed consent form that describes how the therapy is harmful and ineffective. NARTH’s latest email today features a list of legal “concerns” from the anti-gay Pacific Justice Institute that are incredibly easy to debunk:

‘CONCERN’: This bill strictly bans counselors from telling young people that it is possible to overcome same-sex attractions and feelings–even if the minor or their parents seek out this type of counseling.

REALITY: Given that it’s not possible to “overcome same-sex attractions and feelings,” the bill simply requires that counselors not lie to clients in order to sell them a bill of goods.

‘CONCERN’: It mandates a new government form that adults must be given before a counselor or therapist can talk to them about “changing” their sexual orientation. The form would strongly discourage anyone from attempting such a change.

REALITY: Discouraging people from harmful therapy by accurately informing them about it is a good thing.

‘CONCERN’: It imposes an absurd government orthodoxy that insists it is possible to change one’s gender, be bisexual, or go from straight to gay, but it is dangerous and not really possible for an LGBT person to become straight.

REALITY: That “absurd government orthodoxy” happens to also be reality. People who are trans don’t “change” their gender — they actualize it, bisexuality exists, and nobody has ever posited the idea that sexual orientation can change in other directions. People just come out.
Read more

Ex-gay fringe group Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) has filed a complaint with Maryland’s Montgomery County Board of Education against School Superintendent Joshua Starr over alleged sexual orientation discrimination. The group charges that Starr engaged in “hate speech” when he publicly criticized PFOX for distributing offensive ex-gay flyers to high school students:

STARR: I find the actions of PFOX to be repressible and deplorable. We are bound by law… to enable nonprofits to distribute flyers [...] This group has figured out a way to use that law to spread what I find to be a really disgusting message, quite frankly.

Watch it:

The problem with PFOX is that the group places being LGBT on par with being plagued by a mental illness that can be treated with therapy, a theory that has been disavowed and disproven time and time again. The organization’s entire premise is built on the belief that being gay or transgender is mainly a matter of gender confusion, and that “no one is born gay” and “same-sex attractions can be overcome and gender identity disorder reversed.” Such messages have a harmful stigmatizing effect on all LGBT students, and parents swayed by the pamphlets might force their children to endure the bogus therapy.

While the PFOX flyers never explicitly mention the use of a harmful and ineffective practice most commonly referred to as ‘reparative therapy,’ the group’s website does include a referral directory for obtaining ‘ex-gay’ counseling, as well as Christian prayers for those “tired of living a gay life and wants a fresh start and a new life.” As reparative therapy has been ruled dangerous by numerous medical experts, California is currently pushing through legislation that would ban the practice.

– Fatima Najiy

Today, the California Senate will consider SB 1172, a bill that prevents children from being sent to ex-gay therapy and requires all adult clients of the therapy to sign an informed consent form outlining its harms and ineffectiveness. The legislation is the first of its kind, but could serve as important model to protect children in all states from the stigmatizing trauma of trying to repress their sexual orientation.

On Friday, CNN did some excellent reporting on the bill and the therapy in question. One segment featured the bill’s sponsor, state Sen. Ted Lieu (D), as well as American Prospect’s Gabriel Arana, who himself is an ex-gay survivor. Then, Anderson Cooper 360 highlighted another ex-gay survivor, Ryan Kendall, and confronted his therapist, the infamous Joseph Nicolosi.  Nicolosi claimed he couldn’t even remember having Kendall as a patient, even though Kendall has been a very vocal proponent of gay rights, including testifying against Proposition 8. Watch the segments:

These two reports are worth noting because they both avoided significant pitfalls that plague much of the media coverage around ex-gay therapy. One major problem, as epitomized by a poorly defended NPR report last year, is that reporters often create a false balance, calling ex-gay therapy “controversial” and treating the topic like it’s still open for debate. The other significant problem is that the voices of ex-gay survivors are often not included. In both of these reports, CNN included survivors and avoided false balance by focusing on the scientific reality that the therapy is harmful and ineffective.

Legislation like Sen. Lieu’s bill, supported by appropriately framed reporting like CNN’s, could be the key to closing the book on this ugly anti-science invention of anti-gay activists.

Robert Spitzer

In 2001, Robert Spitzer — a prominent psychiatrist who led the charge to declassify homosexuality as a mental condition — released a controversial study showing that some gay people could change their sexual orientations and become straight. Spitzer’s findings bolstered the ex-gay movement and helped advocates find acceptance in the heart of conservative anti-gay politics. But earlier this month, the 80-year-old scientist dealt a devastating blow to his loudest proponents. In an interview with The American Prospect, Spitzer retracted his own ex-gay study, noting that “The findings can be considered evidence for what those who have undergone ex-gay therapy say about it, but nothing more.”

Last night, Rachel Maddow examined the consequences of Spitzer’s denunciation of his own reparative therapy study on the Proposition 8 case, which relied on its conclusions to argue that gay people are not entitled to marry someone of the same gender because sexual orientation is a mutable characteristic. NYU constitutional professor Kenji Yoshino explained the significance:

YOSHINO: I think it`s a big deal. So, first of all, the reason immutability is important is because under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, there’s a standard called heightened scrutiny. And there are certain classifications like race, national origin, sex, nonmarital parentage, lineage (ph) that get that scrutiny. The $64,000 question of this case is whether or not sexual orientation is going to be added to that list. And one of the criteria that`s been looked at to determine whether or not a group gets heightened scrutiny is immutability, as you mentioned. So, the fact that Spitzer retracting this and the fact that the testimony in the Prop 8 trial was overwhelming for the fact that sexual orientation is very hard to change could figure into that analysis.

Watch it:

Yoshino also suggested that Spitzer’s apology could impact Defense of Marriage (DOMA) litigation, which relies on a similar gays-can-change claim.