Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel

California Gov. Jerry Brown just signed into law a ban on ex-gay therapy for people under the age of 18, and conservative groups are already threatening to sue on behalf of the harmful treatment. Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel claimed today that the suit is necessary because he believes the law will harm children:

STAVER: The California governor and legislature are putting their own preconceived notions and political ideology ahead of children and their rights to get access to counseling that meets their needs. A number of minors who have struggled with same-sex attraction have been able to reduce or eliminate the stress and conflicts in their lives by receiving counseling of their choice which best meets their needs and religious convictions. This bill will harm children, stress families, and place counselors in a catch-22, because they will be forced to violate their licensing ethical codes.

Not only is there no research to support his claim that children benefit from ex-gay therapy, which actually adds to the stigma LGBT youth experience, but there is an epidemic of homeless youth because of family rejection, which the false promise of conversion therapy reinforces. Christopher Rosik, president of the ex-gay professional network NARTH, has promised the organization will support the legal challenge:

ROSIK: NARTH is saddened but not surprised by this unprecedented legislative intrusion and will lend its full support to the legal efforts to overturn it. [...] We fully anticipate that activist groups like Equality California will be back next year to see what further erosions of parental rights and professional judgment politicians and mental health associations will authorize in California and other states. Counselors adhering to traditional values cannot be blamed for wondering what other practices disliked by these activists are going to be targeted as “unprofessional conduct” in the future, particularly in states that have legalized same-sex marriage.

Incidentally and unsurprisingly, Staver is the featured speaker at NARTH’s convention next month. Contrary to NARTH’s delusions, offering ex-gay therapy is already “unprofessional conduct” according to psychotherapy professionals. Parents are not entitled to the right to subject their children to harmful, stigmatizing treatments; California lawmakers have made the right decision to protect young people.

Liberty Counsel's Mat Staver

The Liberty Counsel, an anti-gay legal group affiliated with Liberty University, is concerned about the recently passed California bill that would prohibit licensed therapists from offering ex-gay therapy to minors. Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel’s founder and chairman, explained that the group believes the government should not do anything to protect the health of its citizens:

STAVER: If the bill is signed into law, Liberty Counsel will sue on behalf of counselors, parents, and minors who provide, refer, or who receive and have found change therapy to be beneficial.

If the governor signs this law, mental health professionals will find themselves in a catch-22. Therapists have an ethical obligation to help clients deal with conflict. If a counselee is experiencing conflict between religious beliefs and same-sex attractions and wants to prioritize these beliefs over such attractions, the counselor is ethically obligated to directly help the client or refer for help. Under this bill, the counselor will be forced to disregard the client’s religious beliefs or change them. This bill will harm minors, undermine parental rights, and interfere with the rights of counselors. This bill and the ethical codes of all of the licensing boards in California are on an inevitable collision course.

The implications of the government determining what counseling treatments are acceptable should concern every counselor and citizen. That decision should be left to the patient, the parents, and the doctors. The government has no place in that conversation.

The government has every responsibility to ensure that people are protected from harmful, unscientific medical practices. Just as the FDA regulates prescription drugs so that individuals’ health is not compromised, so too does it make perfect sense to regulate therapeutic treatments. A religious belief does not entitle an individual to controlled substances that would be harmful, and so neither should it entitle parents to force their children to endure the harmful junk therapy of trying to change their sexual orientation. It would be no different if a patient demanded a doctor treat her with bloodletting or leeches — the patient’s belief does not determine the effectiveness of the treatment.

As Box Turtle Bulletin has noted, the California bill only applies to licensed therapists. Religious ex-gay ministries, unlicensed pastors, counselors, or “life coaches” could reinforce the stigma and self-hatred Liberty Counsel believes in as much they wanted.

Mixed messages from Matt Barber (Liberty Counsel) and Peter LaBarbera (Americans For Truth About Homosexuality).

The most vociferous opponents of LGBT equality are now railing against the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate group” designations, accusing the group of inciting the shooting that took place last week at the Family Research Council. But as Joe.My.God. noted yesterday, many of these same anti-gay leaders condemning the SPLC originally — and even quite recently — wore the label as a “badge of honor,” arguing that any group not demonizing gay people enough to earn the label was falling short of its goals:

MATT BARBER (2010): Like any bully, the SPLC only goes after those it believes it can push around. But really, it confers a badge of honor upon every legitimate Christian and conservative organization it so disingenuously mislabels ‘hate group.’ I’d like to officially request that the SPLC add my name to its spurious ‘anti-gay hate list.’ It’s good for one’s conservative and biblical bona fides.

PETER LABARBERA (2010): We are one of the rare groups that is opposed single-mindedly against the homosexual activist movement. The so-called gay lobby has reached the zenith of its power. They are everywhere. I don’t feel like a homophobe; as one guy said, I’m homo-nauseated. If you are not on the SPLC hate list, you are not doing enough.

SCOTT LIVELY (2012): When a Riverside County, CA area journalist asked the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center what it would take for me to be dropped from their list of hate groups, they said ‘Recant The Pink Swastika.’ Frankly, I don’t want to be dropped from that list, because, considering who they are, it is a badge of honor to be so designated.

MICHAEL BROWN (2012): I am flattered to be on the SPLC’s hit list and I wear it is as a badge of honor. And being associated with a ‘radical’ cause is hardly an insult to me if that cause be a righteous one. The more radical, the better. I want to publicly thank the SPLC for making my day and bringing a real smile to my face. I am overflowing with thanksgiving and appreciation.

That these same anti-gay talking heads are now attacking the SPLC shows that their entire argument is a rhetorical scam seeking to politically exploit a violent tragedy. They want to characterize themselves as victims to further marginalize the actual mistreatment of LGBT people that they propagate. With motives so obvious, they’re going to have to do more than complain if they want to have that “badge of honor” removed.

On Friday, LGBT students and their allies will participate in the GLSEN-organized Day of Silence as a form of protest for the anti-gay and anti-trans bullying abuse that takes place in schools every day. Tomorrow, however, is the conservative Christian response, Focus on the Family’s ironically-named Day of Dialogue (formerly “Day of Truth”), which encourages students to express God’s condemnation of homosexuality to their gay peers. Over the past week, various anti-gay groups have promoted the Day of Dialogue’s harmful message while decrying the Day of Silence as anti-Christian intolerance that children shouldn’t be exposed to. Here are some examples:

• A coalition of anti-gay groups promote a Day of Silence Walk Out because “homosexuality and cross-dressing are immoral.”
• The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins said the Day of Silence should be banned because it’s a “cover for the promotion of homosexuality.”
• The Liberty Counsel encourages parents to remove their students from school on the Day of Silence, and the group’s chairman, Mathew Staver, described the day as “a radical and forced agenda of homosexuality.”
• The American Family Association sent out an alert to its subscribers, encouraging parents to pull their students from school because GLSEN promotes “controversial, unproven, and destructive theories on the nature and morality of homosexuality.”
• Truth in Action Ministries described GLSEN’s efforts as using bullying to “promote and essentially indoctrinate children” into the “deadly lifestyle” of homosexuality.
• Barb Anderson (Minnesota Family Council), Peter LaBarbera (Americans for Truth About Homosexuality), and Laurie Higgins (Illinois Family Institute) condemned the Day of Silence as”evil propaganda,” “brainwashing,” and “child abuse” comparable to the Nazi Party and slavery.
• The Manhattan Declaration, a document committed to anti-gay values even if it means violating laws, promoted the Day of Dialogue as a mean for students to “express a Biblical viewpoint in a loving and Christ-centered way.”
• The Alliance Defense Fund hopes the Day of Dialogue “shatters the silence,” countering messages that homosexuality is unchangeable.
• Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) is encouraging students to hand out fliers encouraging students to believe their homosexuality can —and should — change.

Indeed, all of Focus on the Family’s materials on the Day of Dialogue encourage students to use the Bible to condemn homosexuality as “broken” and promote ex-gay therapy that is known to be traumatic and ineffective. Given the overt antipathy encouraged against any LGBT-inclusive information, the day is perhaps better described as a Day of Monologue. This is a concerted effort to paint blatant in-school evangelism as welcome free speech and the stark silence of LGBT awareness as indoctrination, intolerance, and an unprotected disruption to school activities.

The Day of Dialogue is nothing short of encouragement to bully. Even if DoD participants do not attack or harass their targets, the stigma they encourage through condemning homosexuality helps maintain an unsafe climate for students with consequences that can last a lifetime. Students who have experienced prejudice-motivated bullying and victimization are more likely to attempt suicide, become clinical depression, or contract a sexually transmitted disease by early adulthood. In fact, simple exposure to stigma can increase the chances that LGBT teens experience suicidal thinking throughout the rest of their lives. Even living in a community that generally has socially conservative anti-gay attitudes can increase the suicide risk not just for gay, lesbian, and bi teens, but their straight peers as well. Minority stress also contributes to higher rates of substance abuse in the LGBT community, one of many negative consequences that can be mitigated by having gay-straight alliances in schools.

The Day of Dialogue is a direct attack on our nation’s youth, a campaign to impose not just religion in schools, but harassment, shame, and a lifetime of consequences. Not only do social conservatives oppose visible day of silence, they don’t want there to be a place in our schools for LGBT students at all.

GLAAD’s new Commentator Accountability Project (CAP) has one goal: ensure that the dastardly anti-gay comments social conservatives have made in the past are not ignored or forgiven when they make mainstream media appearances. Blogger Jeremy Hooper, a significant contributor to CAP, has pointed out that many of these individuals have been allowed to play “split roles,” railing against the LGBT community on conservative talk radio, then playing the part of “buttoned-up conservative” pundit on cable or local news. And in the day since the project launched, many of its targets have proven exactly why this accountability is necessary:

• The Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber called CAP an “Orwellian blacklist” established by “homo-fascists” trying to “silence Christian warriors.”
• Focus on the Family claimed that GLAAD was trying to “intimidate the media into forfeiting their constitutional right to freedom of the press.”
• Kevin McCullough railed against CAP as a guest host on American Family Association radio and told Politico that GLAAD is trying to “shut people’s voices down.”
• The Alliance Defense Fund claimed that CAP “targets free speech.”
• Ex-gay activist Randy Thomas defended the several individuals on the list, claiming they “would never say anything offensive for the sake of simply being offensive.”

In every case, these anti-gay voices are claiming to be victims, but they are only victims of their own quotes. In a way, the Commentator Accountability Project represents a culmination of the work LGBT bloggers have been doing for years, capturing the vitriolic rhetoric of equality opponents for all to see. The mere fact that they feel the need to respond by condemning GLAAD’s effort validates the value of this project. Now there is an accessible hub for these quotes — albeit not a full archive (by design) — to ensure that pundits don’t get away with being conservative standard-bearers without taking responsibility for the many dangerous lies and offensive values that define them. The jig is up.

The genius of CAP is that it creates a lose-lose situation for these would-be pundits. They can try to compensate by doubling down on their most offensive talking points and how loudly and widely they share them. Or, they can proceed with their typical media appearances and attempt to use the victim mentality to obfuscate responsibility for their own views. Either way, they stand to lose public favor, and no matter how they condemn GLAAD, that’s surely why they’re so perturbed.

Conservatives are not happy about the Obama administration’s new effort to promote LGBT freedom across the globe, trumpeted by State Sec. Hillary Clinton in an historic speech to the United Nations yesterday. Most opponents of the new plan have couched their comments in the assumption that homosexuality is wrong and not something we should “export,” directly contradicting Clinton’s point that “being gay is not a Western invention; it is a human reality.” Here’s a round-up of the various responses from the Religious Right:

• Rick Perry: “This is just the most recent example of an administration at war with people of faith in this country. Investing tax dollars promoting a lifestyle many Americas of faith find so deeply objectionable is wrong. President Obama has again mistaken America’s tolerance for different lifestyles with an endorsement of those lifestyles.”
• Rick Santorum: “Obviously the administration is promoting their particular agenda in this country, and now they feel its their obligation to promote those values not just in the military, not just in our society, but now around the world with taxpayer dollars.”
• Matt Barber (Liberty Counsel): “[President Obama] feels compelled to export American culture’s decline in morality, and export that immorality to other nations that are trying to adhere to traditional principles relative to human sexuality.”
• Peter LaBarbera (American For Truth About Homosexuality): “Reading Hillary’s UN #gay rights speech. The arrogance of modern liberalism is astounding: redefining sin as a *human right.*“
• Pat Robertson (The 700 Club): “Isn’t it appalling that the United States of America would try to force the acceptance of homosexuality on other nations but at the same time we would not force them to take care of their religious minorities and they would permit discrimination and persecution of Christians?”
• Vic Eliason (Voice of Christian Youth America): “The inmates have taken over the asylum.”
• Mat Staver (Liberty Counsel): “[The Obama administration] is forcing foreign countries to fund and liberalize… the radical sexual anarchist agenda.”
• Janet Mefferd (radio personality): “Other than the fact that you have African countries that have policies like Nigeria, criminalizing homosexuality, are they not a sovereign nation? Can’t they make up their own minds about these things? If they want to pass a law we’re going to play bully over this issue?”

No one has responded as negatively as the Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg, however, who has already spoken out multiple times against the new policy in the 24 hours since it was rolled out. After condemning President Obama for promoting the “radical ideology of the sexual revolution,” Sprigg unloaded all of his anti-gay vitriol on Christian Broadcast News:

These type of human rights and civil rights protections are usually granted for characteristics that are inborn, involuntary — you can’t choose them, immutable — you can’t change them, and innocuous — they do no harm to anyone. All of those things are true of race and sex. None of them is true of the choice to engage in homosexual conduct.

In many African countries, such as Uganda, Ghana, and Nigeria, homophobia is proliferated through Catholic or Protestant Christian groups, often with American ties. They promote the insidious lies Sprigg mentioned and spread fears that homosexuality will literally destroy society. The Obama administration’s new effort to end persecution abroad is a battle to fight on our own shores as much as on theirs.