Alert reader Timothy brought my attention to a very ugly article published at the Agapepress today regarding events last December. (As if the fundamentalist media recycling favorite anecdotes as news is uncommon…) The article is about local parent David Williams who fought the establishment of a GSA at Eisenhower High School in Lawton, Oklahoma by distributing ex-gay literature.
Williams, however, used [the equal access] policy to his advantage. He argued that, if homosexual students were free to establish a club that normalizes their lifestyle, then students who believe that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation must also be allowed to start a club.
“I approached it from an equal access [perspective],” Williams said. “If they were going to promote one view of the gay agenda and not include the ex-gay agenda — which means that people can change their perspective — then that would be unfair.”
The strategy succeeded. After the equal access push, the student government itself voted not to have a GSA. “To make a long story short, after hundreds of e-mails, phone calls, prayers, [and] actually getting some ex-gay literature through churches into the hands of students at the school … it was voted down by the students,” he said. “We have to praise the Lord for that.”
AgapePress writer Ed Vitagliano fails to address the apparent hypocrisy of Williams’ claim to have embraced equal access, for this is the same right Williams seeks to deny gay children.
Anyone seeking clarification on his reasoning may contact local parent David Williams here.
Interestingly, I found a press release at PFOX from January encouraging ex-gay students to celebrate equal-access by forming their own clubs. PFOX is generally more rhetorically inconsistent than FOTF and the AFA combined but in this case has chosen to go with a moderate stance advocating schools present both sides of sexuality issue. PFOX took this same stance of “giving students both sides” when it showcased Warren Throckmorton’s sex-ed curricula at it’s education conference last weekend.
However on PFOX doesn’t hesitate to pull a logical-back-flip and essentially stated any promotion of homosexuality in schools is unacceptable and cannot be presented as a two sided issue as they have advocated on other occasions.(*)
Let’s review the myriad positions held by the religious right in the course of this post:
1) Ex-gay should be able to have a club so let’s deny that same right to gay students.
2) Ex-gays AND gays should both be able to have clubs because both sides of the issue need to be presented and allow students to choose how they handle their sexuality.
3) Absolutely nothing positive about homosexuality should be presented in the public schools.
Anyone recall Lubbock GSA v Lubbock ISD?From early 2004, it was argued (successfuly) that equal access was not required because the Board had a specific policy promoting abstinence until marriage. They still do. However, it ostensibly also flies in the face of other expressed policies.The judge’s verballing in the opinion was IMO quite stunning, and took a plainly obvious approach to the matter (if you weed out the extraneous commenting on side issues). The virulence directed at the few individuals who wished to start the GSA was quite phenominal, something the judgement took into account as indicating the “standards in the community”. I know it’s Texas and not Maryland, but the opinion also claimed that“Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from insisting that certain modes of expression are inappropriate and subject to sanctions. The inculcation of values is truly the work of the school, and the determination of what manner of speech is inappropriate properly lies with the school board.”So what’s prevailing here? (never mind the specific judgement).A School Board can decide abstinence-until-marriage and now be able to intentionally discriminate against straight kids talking about tolerance (let alone gay kids wishing equal access to relevant sexuality education)?Does this mean a school board could also decide tolerance is a primary aim, and ban ex-gay material as contrary to that aim because it — of itself — acts to reduce tolerance?Taking reasonableness and consequence into account (which I do not see fairly determined in Lubbock, but anyway…), I suspect this may be one factor working behind the low$ settlement and withdrawal of PFOX from the Montgomery District sex education debacle. When the reference to any religious material — it alone (IMO) inappropriate — was withdrawn, I suspect PFOX and it’s (perhaps) pro-ex-gay but (definitely) anti-gay material barely had a leg to stand on.Contrast that to PFLAG’s pro-gay AND pro-straight approach. Even where they do comment on ex-gay issues, these comments are directed at the low/nil possibility of change rather than a value judgement about ex-gays themselves. PFLAGs aim seems to be to end parental etc harrassment of gay kids, not to prevent (per se) whatever choice a gay person may make in this matter.PS: Dan, hope that was enough referencing to content you 🙂 And I’ve even worked out why the HTML href code wasn’t working before…
I don’t understand why the two clubs couldn’t just co-exist and students decide for themselves which one they wanted to belong to. I mean, if a student wants to have a go at changing their orientation and being supported in that, I say, let them try and fail earlier rather than later!
If the students voted down the GSA on the basis of the ex-gay material, rather than allowing both sides, there must have been something libelous in the XG handouts, smearing those who wanted a GSA. The situation just doesn’t make sense. Why not a FCA (Fellowship of Christian Athletes) and an Atheist Club on the same campus? No one is forcing anyone to join one or the other!
Good morning, students. We have a new organization meeting on campus. It’s for all you ex-gay students. So all interested students please come forward for a sign-up form.
umm… ex-gay students? come forward.
hello… hello… is this thing on?
Stopped a GSA? That strikes me as a violation of the “equal access” law.
Stupid
If ex-gays are ex, then by definition, they are straight, so there for, they don’t need a ‘support group’.
If their methods were so damn successful, they wouldn’t need support – all it tells me is that their methods are based off old wives tales “your son is gay because you mothered him” – “your daughter is a lesbian because of bad relationships with men”.
Then again, when I was at college (equivilant of US highschool), we never had a GSA, but then again, the issue of ‘gay’, ‘straight’ and special clicky groups never occured; there were greater things they council were worried about, like getting better drinking fountains, better food selection at the tuckshop, more vending machines around the school etc.
ck — I can give 2 good reasons, for starters :-)GSA: gay & straight people, here to support gay/bi/questioning peers feel better about themselves and their futureExGSA: ever-straight people, here to make gay/bi/questioning peers feel worse about themselves and their future.Philosophically, the point can be made for both to be present. In practice, a support group is very different to an attack group.
My thoughts too, Raj.I guess that’s why neither of us have been elevated onto a Texas bench.Uurrrh, I mean, in terms of administration of the law of course.
GrantDale, just to let you know, the texas judiciary is elected. And it is widely known as being the best judiciary that money can buy.
NB: I’m a lawyer.
Yep –it does seems a peculiar way to ensure an expert, experienced and cold-blooded judiciary; but I guess it probably works really well because Texas has never had a problem with discrimination, bias or bigotry toward uppity minority groups etc. Texas Courts only have to deal with boring adminstrative matters, so it really doesn’t matter who’s a judge. And I know that the heavy campaign expenses would never, ever, ever influence a matter of law.P.S. ever notice it’s difficult to type while holding a crack pipe?