As Britain continues its conversations about advancing marriage equality, the Mormon Church has chimed in, requiring all its congregations to hear a message condemning same-sex couples for the “negative implications” and “deep consequences” from allowing them to marry.  The letter suggests that excluding them from marriage is “good for society” and somehow promotes the wellbeing of all humankind:

The promotion and protection of marriage – the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife – is a matter of the common good and serves the wellbeing of the couple, of children, of civil society and humankind. We join together with others to affirm that marriage in its true definition must be protected for its own sake and for the good of society.[...]

The interference with the religious freedom of those who continue to affirm the true definition of “marriage” – warrants special attention within our faith communities and throughout society as a whole. We believe that changing the definition of marriage would have far‐reaching negative implications for the nation, both legal and social.

In case it needs repeating, there is nothing to validate the absurd fears the Mormon Church is stoking here. What’s at stake in Britain, as in the U.S., is making sure that same-sex couples have the same protections for each other and their families as all other couples do. As a new study points out, there are likely not unique benefits to having a mother and a father, but there are unique consequences to not having a stable and secure household.

Last week, the Family Acceptance Project released new literature encouraging Mormons to be more accepting of LGBT youth. The 25-page booklet, part of the “Supportive Families, Healthy Children” series, blends aspects of the Mormon faith with research about how best to support the mental and physical health of young people questioning their sexuality or gender identity. Unfortunately, the LDS-run Deseret News couldn’t resist inviting ex-gay therapists Ty Mansfield and Laurie Campbell to critique the guide:

MANSFIELD: The pamphlet’s assumption of a predetermined and rubber-stamped ‘LGBT’ identity is problematic… Those who take their religion seriously also understand the sacred responsibility of nurturing values and identities that are more in harmony with the deeply held spiritual beliefs from which they arise – and they’ll continue to look for guidance primarily from church leaders as opposed to ‘LGBT’ research institutes to help them in that regard.

CAMPBELL: What about those LDS youth who are attracted to the same gender yet do not want to identify as gay and hope there might be an opposite-sex relationship for them later in life? To label them as ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ can be harmful… They may have a deep, spiritual sense that their attractions do not define them, but are confused by what the world has to say. If LDS parents depart from gospel truths and rush to define attractions as being a permanent ‘orientation’ when that is not necessarily the case, it can worsen the child’s distress and confusion.

These comments reflect a growing new approach to opposing LGBT identities that tries to distinguish itself from ex-gay therapy. Rather than telling young gay people to not be gay, these anti-gay therapists are simply telling them not to act on their gay identity. The distinction between self-identification and whether a person allows that identity to be an authentic part of their lives is negligible.

Campbell’s comments are the most telling — and flagrantly wrong. The obvious implication of promoting an opposite-sex relationship “later in life” is to convey that a same-sex relationship is inferior or wrong. What’s harmful to young people is discouraging them from identifying with their actual sexual orientation or communicating in any way that their family would be less accepting if they did. That’s the overarching point of the new guide.

The misguided way these therapists responded echoes the controversy over the unique case of Josh Weed, the “happily married” gay Mormon who may be advocating similar approaches in his own work as a therapist. If anti-gay activists continue to embrace this artificial distinction between orientation and identity, it must be called out as the harmful ex-gay repression that it is.

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.

Last month, Dr. Robert Spitzer, the psychologist who helped declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder, disavowed a study he published just a decade ago suggesting that ex-gay therapy could be effective. Acknowledging the many flaws in his research, he apologized “to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy.” He even published these remarks in a letter to the editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior, essentially retracting the study to the fullest extent he can.

Nevertheless, ex-gay organizations have continued to use his study and previous remarks defending the study against his wishes. The Mormon ex-gay group Evergreen International insisted it will still use the study, calling it “good science,” regardless of Spitzer’s admissions to the contrary. Another ex-gay organization, PFOX, is still using video of Spitzer defending the study, as well as the study itself. In a new interview with Truth Wins Out, Spitzer specifically addressed the PFOX video, but admitted it’s unlikely ex-gay groups will ever subside in their “hateful” efforts:

SPITZER: I ask that PFOX stop showing this video. This is quite misleading. I had no way, really, of knowing when I examined any particular subject whether they really had changed or whether they were deceiving themselves or even outright lying when they claimed that they had changed. So, please don’t show this [video] to anyone. [...]

The people who are pushing the ‘ex-gay’ idea are so full of hatred for homosexuality, really, that I don’t think they can respond in an ethical way.

If people can recognize that being a homosexual is something that cannot be changed and that efforts to change are going to be disappointing and can be harmful, if that can be more widely known that would be very good. If somebody is troubled that they are homosexual, what they ought to do is face up to that and so something so they are more comfortable living with the way they are, because any attempt to change is misguided.

Watch the full interview:

Spitzer’s study may have been faulty, but the 80-year-old researcher seems to be doing everything he can to make amends for it. Any organization that claims his prior work as valid proof that sexual orientation can be changed is lying with malicious — and harmful— intent.