Rev. Paul Scalia

Now that the Supreme Court will be weighing in on the issue of same-sex marriage, the Justices’ biases on the basic principles of sexual orientation are under scrutiny — none perhaps moreso than Justice Antonin Scalia. Recently, he defended his comparison between homosexuality and murder, arguing simply that either can be morally condemned. He obtusely couldn’t understand why the gay Princeton student who asked the question wasn’t convinced by his response.

Insights into Scalia’s understanding of homosexuality (or lack thereof) can perhaps be found through his son, Rev. Paul Scalia, a Catholic priest in Arlington, Virginia. The younger Scalia has worked with the Church’s Courage ministry, which promotes “chastity” for gay Catholics using principles from ex-gay therapy. He has also spoken openly on the topic, and though he’s proven quite capable of reiterating the Church’s anti-gay teachings, a 2005 article reveals just how distorted the family’s view on homosexuality may be.

Writing about labels, Rev. Scalia compares identifying as gay to other school stereotypes like “preps,” “jocks,” and “geeks,” and argues that it’s unhelpful to young people to encourage them to embrace such labels. Challenging the notion that homosexuality even exists, he tries to distinguish between having “homosexual inclinations” or identifying as “a gay,” suggesting that some kids are “just confused.” Of course, his intention is to reduce homosexuality to “behaviors,” inferring that people with same-sex orientations are simply heterosexuals inclined to a special kind of sin. His true goal with this wordplay is to find a way to justify parents’ rejecting their gay children:

Granted, the more accurate phrases do not trip easily off the tongue. But what is lost in efficiency is gained in precision. Terms such as “same-sex attractions” and “homosexual inclinations” express what a person experiences without identifying the person with those attractions. They both acknowledge the attractions and preserve the freedom and dignity of the person. With that essential distinction made, parents can better oppose the attractions without rejecting the child. And as the child matures, he will not find his identity confined to his sexuality.

Further, opposition to homosexual attractions and actions makes sense only when it is rooted in the full truth of human sexuality. Gay school groups gain approval and support partly because heterosexual unchastity (contraception, masturbation, premarital sex, adultery, and all the rest) has compromised so many. Our culture’s deliberate separation of sex from procreation has destroyed our ability to articulate a coherent explanation of sexual ethics. Parents and educators have damaged the tools that would allow them to explain why homosexual activity is wrong.

For the Scalias, moral condemnation of homosexuality is just assumed, and the consequences of that judgment are par for the course. The consequences of family rejection for LGBT youth have been thoroughly documented, but for these men, rejecting “homosexual inclination” takes priority. Rev. Scalia relies on genetic uncertainty to conclude that homosexuality is not a “fixed, inborn orientation,” even though science does not doubt that is exactly how sexual orientation presents, regardless of its causes. He seeks to reject people for something that is wholly part of who they are and how they will lead their lives, ignoring that such an approach unquestioningly deprives them of life’s most basic sources of happiness and support: a loving partner and the opportunity to raise a family.

The phenomenon of “coming out” only exists because a culture that shuns homosexuality has demanded gay invisibility. The concept of “gay pride” came about not as flamboyant flaunting, but to counter the expectation of “gay shame.” These unique aspects to gay identities reflect the consequences of condemnation, not an impetus for them. Moral condemnation is not inherent; in the court of law, it must be justified beyond tradition and religious belief. Unfortunately, it seems Justice Scalia is not interested in such intellectual justice.

A new study shows that marriage significantly lowers psychological distress for people who are gay, lesbian, and bisexual. Researchers note that marriage provides the same “higher perception of social integration and support” for same-sex couples as it does opposite-sex couples. According to the study’s abstract, the benefits of legally recognizing same-sex couples were indistinguishable from the benefits for heterosexuals:

Results. Same-sex married lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons were significantly less distressed than lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons not in a legally recognized relationship; married heterosexuals were significantly less distressed than nonmarried heterosexuals. In adjusted pairwise comparisons, married heterosexuals had the lowest psychological distress, and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons who were not in legalized relationships had the highest psychological distress (P < .001). Psychological distress was not significantly distinguishable among same-sex married lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons, lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in registered domestic partnerships, and heterosexuals.

Conclusions.Being in a legally recognized same-sex relationship, marriage in particular, appeared to diminish mental health differentials between heterosexuals and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. Researchers must continue to examine potential health benefits of same-sex marriage, which is at least in part a public health issue.

According to study author Allen LeBlanc, the research suggests that policies banning same-sex marriage “may indeed harm sexual minority populations.” Conservatives often boast the importance and benefits of marriage for opposite-sex couples, but it seems gay couples can expect the same from their marriages.

A new report from the Legacy Foundation highlights the lack of structural support within the public health community to combat the disproportionately high rates of smoking among LGBT individuals. Despite the fact that members of the LGBT community are about twice as likely to smoke as their heterosexual counterparts — largely due to minority stress, but also because the tobacco industry has specifically targeted LGBT Americans in their marketing campaigns over the past decade — Legacy notes that mainstream anti-smoking campaigns still tend to lack adequate LGBT representation to ensure their messages are having an impact on that population.

And the LGBT community itself doesn’t have enough infrastructure and capacity to address issues of tobacco use either, partly because LGBT leaders often don’t cite smoking as a pressing health concern for the members of their community. But high rates of smoking — and the subsequent increased risks of asthma attacks, lung cancer, and heart disease — is putting a strain on the well-being of LGBT Americans. According to some estimates, tobacco use causes at least 30,000 gay and lesbian deaths each year (PDF).

“It’s very likely that smoking is the single greatest health issue stealing years off the lives of LGBT people,” Dr. Scout, the director of the Network for LGBT Health Equity, explains in video that Legacy produced to accompany the report. “More LGBT civil rights leaders’ voices have been silenced by tobacco disparities than any other single thing. For me, tobacco is one of the biggest social justice issues.”

Legacy’s video also features Bil Browning, editor of The Bilerico Project, who chronicles his personal struggle to quit smoking. Watch it:

Although the CDC has directed a few of its anti-smoking advertisements at LGBT populations, Legacy’s report recommends that public health organizations can continue to improve their engagement with the LGBT community by focusing more of their research specifically on LGBT smokers and designing their smoking cessation campaigns with LGBT-inclusive messages. And since Big Tobacco currently targets LBGT individuals partly by sponsoring campaigns and events in the community — cultivating a false sense of being allied with LGBT causes — Legacy notes that the public health sector could also step up by providing the LGBT community with alternatives to tobacco industry funding.

Julea Ward

Eastern Michigan University has agreed to settle a suit with counseling student Julea Ward who insisted that she could not counsel somebody who was gay without condemning their sexual orientation. When the program expelled her for violating counseling ethics, she sued (with support from the anti-gay Alliance Defending Freedom), and though a district court originally dismissed her complaint, the 6th Circuit ruled in her favor. EMU has agreed to pay a settlement and remove the expulsion from her record.

Ward argued that it was a violation of her religious beliefs to affirm a gay or lesbian client’s sexual orientation, but claimed she could counsel them on anything else. When such a client sought relationship counseling, she insisted that she should be able to refer that client to another counselor. EMU faculty argued that this constituted two ethics violations: “imposing values that are inconsistent with counseling goals” and “engaging in discrimination based on sexual orientation.” The 6th Circuit argued that “tolerance is a two-way street” for religious beliefs and that there was no negative impact on the client because the client never knew of the referral.

Unfortunately, the circumstances of the artificial counseling environment that benefited Ward in this case do not reflect the negative impact her approach could easily make in reality, which in turn would reflect on the university’s reputation. The American Psychological Association explains that sexual orientation defines an “essential component of personal identity” for many people. A gay client could start therapy with Ward for a different issue and face her rejection should his concerns arrive at an intersection with his gay identity. If Ward simply avoided serving gay and lesbian clients to prevent this from happening, then she would be engaging in discrimination based on sexual orientation.

This summer, a federal judge in Georgia ruled against a student who faced a similar conflict in the counseling program at Augusta State University. Judge J. Randal Hall took more careful note of the counseling impact of condemning homosexuality and accused student Jennifer Keeton of conflating “personal and professional values.” By the same standard, Ward is equally guilty of imposing her personal values over what the professional ethics of counseling demand on the question of sexual orientation. Unfortunately, conservatives will now champion her victory to further obfuscate the psychological importance of affirmation for gays and lesbians.

Kelley Winters has been an outspoken advocate for GID reform.

A number of ThinkProgress readers have expressed concern over Monday’s widely-shared post, “APA Revises Manual: Being Transgender Is No Longer A Mental Disorder,” about the American Psychiatric Association’s decision to revise the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) to reclassify “Gender Identity Disorder” (GID) as “Gender Dysphoria.” A prominent LGBT scholar called the headline “erroneous,” noting that as long as a designation exists in the DSM, trans identities are still treated as a disorder. One trans advocate pointed out that “Gender Dysphoria” still stigmatizes trans people because there’s no exit clause to the diagnosis. Another activist shared a letter (Ansara, et al) that she and others submitted to the APA criticizing much of its framing around trans identities and providing possible alternatives. One other trans health activist called the article “a bit of a pinkwash” — essentially an attempt to give the APA more credit than it deserves.

As a cisgender (not trans) gay male who edits ThinkProgress’s LGBT vertical, I assume a heightened responsibility to report on trans issues effectively and thoroughly. For all members of the LGBT community, there are many issues that impact us in very personal and unique ways, resulting in many seemingly-conflicting points of view that all have validity. Many of the points submitted by readers have such merit, and the continued discussion seems an apt opportunity to further explore the complexity of anti-trans stigma and the potential impact of the APA’s decision.

For what it’s worth, ThinkProgress was not alone in its framing. Slate similarly reported “Being Transgender Is No Longer a Disorder.” The AP also compared this change to the 1973 removal of homosexuality as a disorder. Other LGBT outlets, like GLAAD, reported that “Gender Identity Disorder” had been removed from the DSM and that the idea trans people are disordered is now antiquated. Indeed, this was the intention behind yesterday’s post: to emphasize the value of the rhetorical change while acknowledging that complications remain.

Read more