Ex-Gay Watch

 

Current PFOX president Greg Quinlan appeared for an interview recently on a local D.C. station.  While the interviewer, Mark Segraves (WDCW-TV), was better prepared than most, it doesn’t seem he understood the depth of misinformation Quinlan is willing to put forth.  It would take a week to tease through the factual errors in this short interview, and much of it has been covered before.  For example, claims that PFOX won a suit in D.C to have ex-gays considered a protected class have been confronted before.

Quinlan goes on to accuse noted geneticist Dean Hamer of lying about his research, Dr. Robert Spitzer of not knowing what his own research says on the possibility of sexual orientation change,  and claims that AIDS is a “homosexual disease.”  This is not the first time Quinlan has been accused of distorting a researchers work.

Most astounding were Quinlan’s claims that Truth Wins Out director Wayne Besen wanted someone to run him over with a bus, or inject him with AIDS:

Truth Wins Out if you look further, including Wayne Besen. He’s asked for people, you know, somebody needs to run Greg over. He needs to be hit with a bus. Somebody should inject him with AIDS. Those are the things that Wayne Besen and Truth Wins Out says about me. That’s pretty hateful rhetoric.

These are serious allegations and demand a solid source for confirmation.  For the record, Besen denies ever making the comments and we join him in challenging Quinlan to produce evidence of this claim.  It’s worth reviewing the video in full just to see how fast and lose Quinlan plays with the truth.

Greg Quinlan is listed as president of the anti-gay PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays), and also claims to work full-time for the New Jersey Family Policy Council, a conservative lobbying organization.  One can only wonder what he tells lawmakers.

Full Video Here

The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer and ex-gay activist Greg Quinlan, of PFOX, present a litany of myths and half-truths in this AFA Radio interview:

But one particularly prominent and consistent theme in the segment, as Jeremy Hooper at Good As You points out, is the PFOX claim that “ex-gay” is an orientation comparable to gay or straight. The primary reason for this bizarre notion is that anti-gay, ex-gay activists like Quinlan and Fischer want to claim that ex-gays are victims of hate crimes on account of their orientation, and therefore if anyone deserves so-called “special protection,” it’s ex-gays.

This is familiar territory. In 2010, PFOX tried to coerce the Walt Disney Company into including ex-gays in its anti-discrimination policy. I concluded:

If it were about sexual orientation, PFOX would have to concede that ex-gays are already protected. Are ex-gays same-sex attracted? Then they are homosexual, and are therefore protected. Have they overcome same-sex attractions to become opposite-sex attracted? Then they are heterosexual, and are therefore protected. Do they now have heterosexual relationships? Marriages? Then they have the same rights as every other person in a heterosexual relationship or marriage. Do they have no sexual relationships at all? Then they have the same rights as every other celibate person.

What unique attraction or relationship is the ex-gay trying to protect by insisting he be included in a sexual orientation policy?

But that was over a year ago. Since then, research has suggested that men in mixed orientation marriages — that is, married ex-gays — remain just as gay in orientation. And the data comes from an unlikely source: Mark Yarhouse, a social scientist at Pat Robertson’s Regent University and one of conservative evangelicalism’s foremost researchers into sexual orientation change.

Yarhouse, best-known for the 2007 Jones-Yarhouse study with Stanton Jones, drew his latest conclusions from a survey of 106 husbands and 161 wives in mixed orientation marriages. The men had an average age of 45 and had been married 16 years. Conservative Christian therapist Warren Throckmorton summarizes the findings for us:

[The data] demonstrates that the Kinsey scores shift more toward the heterosexual side when the participants were asked about their sexual behavior but when asked about their attractions, fantasies, and emotional attachments, there was no change. The Kinsey Expanded scale included an average of participant Kinsey assessment of behavior, attractions, fantasies and emotional attachments. … At any rate, the results are consistent with what I am finding as well. People adapt their behavior to their beliefs and commitments but their orientation does not shift, on average.

This is consistent with what we’ve seen and claimed here at Ex-Gay Watch, too. Sexual orientation cannot be made to change; behavior can. (Incidentally, Throckmorton says his own research suggests that men in mixed-orientation marriages actually tend to become more gay over time.)

The honesty of this research is welcome. It does, however, raise an ethical issue for Yarhouse, according to Timothy Kincaid at Box Turtle Bulletin. Yarhouse is something of a darling of the Christian Right for his previously published studies on sexual orientation change. So will he let himself continue to be used as a propaganda tool for anti-gay religious conservatives like Fischer and Quinlan? Or will he speak unambiguously to such ideologues about the reality of ex-gays and the myth of “change”?

Ex-gay group Parents & Friends of Ex-Gays has announced a plan to subvert the pro-equality Day of Silence by encouraging conservative Christian students to distribute anti-gay literature.

LGBT students and their supporters will draw attention to homophobic bullying, prejudice and discrimination by spending Friday, April 15, in silence. In a press release sent out today,  PFOX Executive Director Regina Griggs urged anti-gay students to take advantage of the event:

“We invite schools to distribute our ex-gay brochures year round,” said Regina Griggs, PFOX’s executive director, “but this Friday is especially important because it is considered a ‘day of silence’ by homosexual school clubs. This means that members of gay student clubs and their allies will purposely remain silent all day in school to protest intolerance against homosexuals and cross-dressers. … The day of silence enables students to distribute ex-gay literature without harassment since opponents are obligated to remain silent that day (italics mine).”

Sneaky at best, pernicious at worst.

Griggs also tries to peddle the myth that PFOX’s mission is about so-called “ex-gay equality”:

Because homosexual activists try to censor the ex-gay point of view, PFOX asks students to distribute ex-gay literature to their friends in support of equality for the ex-gay community.

Griggs would love America to believe that her message is one of simple tolerance for ex-gays, but this is a blatant deception. As I’ve demonstrated before, for Griggs and PFOX, “ex-gay” is not an orientation, as they claim, but an ideology. After all, if PFOX’s hardcore views are true, ex-gays are simply heterosexuals that used to be homosexuals. How, then, is an ex-gay different from any other straight person? How is being ex-gay a category, orientation or identity uniquely targeted for discrimination or deserving of protection? It’s clearly the ideology of gay hate and inequality that PFOX really wants to protect.

Check out the Ex-Gay Watch archives for more on PFOX’s history of hate — and look out for more news and analysis of the organization’s anti-gay activities in the next few months.

The California Senate approved a bill to end a law passed in 1950 that classifies gays as sexual deviants and potential child molesters. The 60-year-old piece of legislation requires the Department of Mental Health to research the causes and potential cures for homosexuality. The bill, AB2199, was carried by Sen. Roy Ashburn, a Republican from Bakersfield. Ashburn came out as gay earlier this year after he was cited for driving drunk while leaving a gay bar.

The measure passed 36-0 without debate.

PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays) objected to the bill, and reportedly called the repeal effort “offensive.”

Virulently anti-gay organization Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX) were jubilant earlier this week as they announced that Executive Director Regina Griggs had received a ‘certificate of appreciation’ from the District of Columbia:

The certificate, signed by D.C. mayor Adrian Fenty, recognizes Griggs for her “dedication, commitment, and outstanding contributions as Executive Director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays.”

“Regina’s award is well-deserved,” said Greg Quinlan, President of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays. PFOX presented the award to Griggs last week in honor of her ten years of volunteer service to parents and the ex-gay community.

“Regina has served as executive director without pay. Instead, she prefers that donations be used to develop resources for families and teens, to promote unconditional love for all regardless of sexual orientation, and to seek equal access and protection for the ex-gay community,” said Quinlan. “Her dedication is unparalleled.”

PFOX has been instrumental in ensuring civil rights to all District of Columbia residents. PFOX’s lawsuit against the D.C. Office of Human Rights last year resulted in ex-gays being recognized as a protected class under D.C.’s Human Rights Act. The Office of Human Rights had refused to extend the sexual orientation non-discrimination law to former homosexuals. The court held that the Human Rights Act does not require immutable characteristics for sexual orientation status so that ex-gays are entitled to the same legal protections that gays currently enjoy.

Truth Wins Out immediately called on Washington DC Mayor Adrian Fenty to explain why he handed out an award to a hate group that smears gays and lesbians and promotes “junk science.”

The Mayor’s Office was quick to revoke the certificate,* blaming it on a “staff level error” and apologizing for honoring a group that “runs contrary to the Mayor’s vision of a more open and inclusive city.”

Quite right, too.

For more on PFOX, see Ex-Gay Watch’s previous coverage of the groups extreme activities here.

*Correction: As of 05/01/10, Mayor Fenty has yet to officially revoke the certificate, though he has apologized and admitted it was issued in error.

PFOX’s attempt to make the Walt Disney Company include ex-gays in its anti-discrimination policy is not about sexual orientation – it is about ideology.

If it were about sexual orientation, PFOX would have to concede that ex-gays are already protected. Are ex-gays same-sex attracted? Then they are homosexual, and are therefore protected. Have they overcome same-sex attractions to become opposite-sex attracted? Then they are heterosexual, and are therefore protected. Do they now have heterosexual relationships? Marriages? Then they have the same rights as every other person in a heterosexual relationship or marriage. Do they have no sexual relationships at all? Then they have the same rights as every other celibate person.

What unique attraction or relationship is the ex-gay trying to protect by insisting he be included in a sexual orientation policy?

The fiercely anti-gay PFOX complains thus:

Disney’s exclusion of ex-gays from its sexual orientation policy and programs reinforces the second-class status of ex-gays, and contributes to the negative perceptions and discrimination against former homosexuals.  Disney’s exclusion also disregards diversity and the basic human right to dignity and self-determination.  Adding ex-gays to Disney’s sexual orientation policy and programs, which already include gays and bisexuals, will increase diversity, assure equality in the workplace, and be inexpensive for the Company to implement.

PFOX claims that ex-gays are victims of intolerance, discrimination, unfair treatment and hostility. It even claims to have “documented numerous incidents of intolerance against the ex-gay community.” But it is blind at best, disingenuous at worst to say that hostility or intolerance towards ex-gays is due to their sexual orientation. It is about ideology. In the public square, the ex-gay message is rarely heard without accompanying slander of gays and their relationships. If indeed this is a sexual orientation, it is a tragedy – not to mention an anomaly – that it is an orientation defined overwhelmingly by hatred of and opposition to another sexual orientation.

As a gay man, I am oriented primarily towards other men. My sexuality has nothing to do with opposing other people’s sexuality. I do not need to destroy heterosexuality to be able to love someone of my own gender. I do not need to slander straight people in order to affirm my own orientation.

Yet this novel ex-gay “orientation” proposed by PFOX rarely exists without setting itself explicitly in opposition to the lives, loves and relationship of gay men and women.

It is obvious that PFOX’s bid for protection is about the ex-gay ideology, not an orientation. With so little substance, this campaign is little more than a transparent ploy for publicity for a dying and increasingly desperate ex-gay movement.

Re: “New Jersey State Senator and NAACP’s Bond Support Genderless Marriage While Rejecting Ex-Gay Rights” [12-9-09]

“…major scientific studies and mental health associations have stated homosexuality is not innate,” said Regina Griggs, director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX). “No scientific evidence has found a ‘gay gene.’ No DNA or medical test can determine if a person is homosexual. Sexual orientation is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration…”

“Sexual orientation is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration.”

Try it like this:

Human sexuality is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration.
—
Apparently you’re not human until you say so in public.

PFOX stands for ‘Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and Gays’–despite the fact that the organization is not run by ex-gays, and repeatedly and openly expresses a vituperative disdain for all things gay.

One of their more outlandish claims is that there are twice as many “ex-gays” as there are gays. In census terms, that’s about 18 million ex-gays.

You can read about their latest escapade below (For recent coverage, see Google):

Shareholders ask Walt Disney to Include Ex-Gays in Company’s Non-Discrimination Policies:

“It is about time Disney treated ex-gays with the respect they deserve,” said Bobbie Strobhar, the stockholder who submitted the shareholder resolution. “Former homosexuals are true models of courage who have been vilified by gay activists.”

Dr. Michael Brown weighs in on the matter via Focus on the Family’s Citizenlink, to assert that ex-gays are some of the most discriminated against in America:

Disney Stockholders Mull Resolution to Protect Ex-Gays
–
“If you’re going to have these discrimination laws in policies, then by all means include these as a special class of people,” Brown said.

I think it’s worth noting that Brown refers to those who identify as formerly-gay as “these.”

That succinct little bit of bluster is in light of an email in which he steers readers to an article—written by NARTH’s Prof. Robert Gagnon—that Brown describes as “exposing the very real dangers of the [then] proposed “Employment Non-Discrimination Act””–>

Gagnon’s article on the evils of ENDA is dated Oct. 23, 2007.

<–Brown’s Coalition of Conscience email (no longer in service), is dated 10-25-07, two days later.

The screen cap of the cached email above would seem to concur with those dates.

Here’s a snippet of Gagnon’s article that Brown links to:

Don’t ENDAnger Your Liberties in the Workplace

The bill will virtually codify you as a bigot so far as the federal government is concerned if you oppose homosexual practice on moral grounds.
–
If you are not convinced that this will be the outcome, try including “pedosexuality” (i.e. pedophilia), a sexual orientation toward children, under the rubric “sexual orientation” [emp mine]

Given that Mr. Brown is still a fan of Robert “pedosexuality” Gagnon, yet supports the inclusion of “ex-homosexuals” in anti-discrimination policies, are we then to assume he also supports ex-pedophiles being included in anti-discrimination policy?
–
Further, and on a much lighter note, if Disney’s “ex-gay” employees are afforded non-discrimination protections, will they then hold ex-gay days?

The celebration of Gay days at Disney is traditionally marked by the wearing of red.

So what’s the color of ex-red?

Despite their rather up-beat press release (and more than a few blog headlines), The Superior Court for the District of Columbia handed Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays, Inc (PFOX) a defeat today. PFOX had asked for a review of an earlier decision by the DC Office of Human Rights (OHR) which has jurisdiction over cases involving the DC Human Rights Act (HRA). That decision, prompted by a complaint filed by PFOX in 2003, found that the National Education Association (NEA) was within it’s rights to deny PFOX a booth at their annual convention in 2002. The DC Superior Court denied the relief requested by PFOX:

PFOX asks the Court to reverse OHR’s final decision finding no probable cause that NEA discriminated against PFOX on the basis of sexual orientation when it denied public accommodation services to PFOX by refusing to provide PFOX with exhibit space at EXPO 2002. As a matter of law, OHR erred in determining that ex-gays are not a protected class under the HRA. Regardless of whether or not OHR erred in its classification of ex-gays, it correctly found that PFOX’s exhibit booth application was rejected for non-discriminatory reasons.

Furthermore, while EXPO 2002 was held in Texas, OHR did have jurisdiction over the charge because the rejection of PFOX’s application occurred in D.C., where NEA was headquartered. Therefore, Petitioner’s request to reverse the OHR’s decision, the requested relief, is DENIED.

The confusion upon which PFOX has been able to claim this a victory stems from what appears to have been some sloppy statements in the original ruling by the OHR. While the HRA is written to be extremely broad in it’s interpretation of what might comprise a protected group, the OHR ruling upheld the claim that a group, in this case “ex-gays,” could be excluded as a protected category if it’s distinguishable trait is mutable. Immutability is not mentioned as a requirement in the HRA and so the DC Supreme Court found that the OHR erred in it’s determination as a matter of law.

It is important to note that the court did not make the determination that ex-gays do or do not constitute a protected group under the HRA, only that immutability could not be used as an exclusionary factor. PFOX has carried this, and the entire ruling, way beyond any proportion of fact.

The DC Supreme Court made a clear case for NEA’s right to do what it did:

The Court affirms OHR’s ultimate determination that PFOX’s application was denied
legally. In NEA’s judgment, PFOX is a conversion group hostile toward gays and lesbians.
Thus, even though PFOX vehemently disagrees with NEA’s characterization, it is within NEA’s right to exclude PFOX’s presence at NEA’s conventions. NEA cites Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), to support it’s jurisdictional argument, but the Court also finds it helpful in the analysis of whether or not NEA’s reasons for rejecting PFOX’s application were proper. In Hurley, the Supreme Court reversed the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in a unanimous opinion because the state court misapplied the Massachusetts public accommodations law to require private citizens who organize a parade to include among the marchers a group imparting a message that the organizers do not wish to convey. In Hurley, South Boston Allied War Veterans Council (the “Council”) denied defendant GLIB’s request to march in the Council’s St. Patrick’s Day parade. Hurley at 557-58. The Supreme Court agreed with the Council’s argument that it had no prohibition against homosexuals marching in the parade, rather the Council objected to the message GLIB sought to express in the parade. Id. at 572. The Supreme Court reversed the state court because the state court’s interpretation of Massachusetts’s public accommodations law essentially forced the Council to alter the message of its parade. Id. at 578-579.

Furthermore, NEA persuasively argues that its rejection of PFOX’s application was
proper in light of the facts and Hurley. Indeed, the HRA would not require NEA to accept an
application from the Ku Klux Klan or a group viewed by the NEA as anti-labor union or racist.
Int’s Br. 8-9. Similarly, military organizations and the Boy Scotts of America are excluded from renting exhibit space at the NEA Annual Meetings because of the positions those organizations take with regard to gay and lesbian rights. The analogy is persuasive because NEA rejected PFOX’s application not based on their personal traits, but rather because of PFOX’s mission and message. Certainly, other exhibitors at EXPO 2002 were homosexuals or heterosexuals, like the members of PFOX, but they were distinguishable from PFOX because the other exhibitors presented exhibits the NEA deemed to be agreement with its policies. Thus, PFOX’s arguments miss the point. The NEA did not reject its application because PFOX’s members include ex-gays, homosexuals, heterosexuals, or members of any other sexual orientation. Rather, NEA rejected PFOX’s application because PFOX’s message and policies were, in NEA’s opinion, contrary to NEA’s policies regarding sexual orientation.

The case document is not long and makes it abundantly clear that this was not a win for PFOX but for the NEA. While it could be said that the original opinion was lacking, the court has determined that any errors of law did not affect the outcome of the decision and so it stands as it did before the appeal.

In fact, if the issue of immutability as presented here does anything, it is to counter some extreme, right-wing arguments against the inclusion of homosexuality as a protected class. Certainly there should be more than a few conservative pundants less than enthusiastic about PFOX today.

We encourage other blogs to review the case before helping to sustain the rather energetic spin placed on it by PFOX, an organization which has never been too concerned with the facts.

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX) has emailed an “action alert” from Mission America to their subscriber list.  Recipients are asked to “help keep the activists accountable” by reporting the web site “Prop 8 Maps” to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a hate group.

Subject: Protect Heterosexuals

Help Keep the Activists Accountable: One simple thing you can do

Please do one simple thing to keep rabid homosexual activism accountable.

Go to this page of the Southern Poverty Law Center web site:

http://www.splcenter.org/center/contact.jsp

Send them a complaint about a hate group. In the selection box, click on “Report hate activity in your community.” This should work even if you are not in California. Then just compose a quick message about the following group:

The group is this web site,

http://www.eightmaps.com/

This site identifies the physical addresses of the Prop 8 donors–those who contributed to the successful California measure affirming traditional marriage.

Here’s a suggested text for your message:

Please list among your hate groups the organization responsible for the web site, http://www.eightmaps.com/ . This site has made it easy for anyone who wants to physically target a person who contributed funds to support the Proposition 8 marriage initiative. This is a direct incitement to possible violence, and the site needs to be taken down. In addition, please list under your “hate incidents” all the pro-homosexual, anti-marriage violence that occurred following the passage of Prop 8. Right now, there seems to be nothing listed on your site. Please be objective and list ALL types of “hate” incidents.

Thank you.
———
Please pass this along message to as many people as possible.
If the SPLC really monitors hate and incitement to violence, they need to identify these folks as a hate group and also, list the virulent actions of the anti-marriage activists.

Mission America

Mission America is one of the more extreme anti-gay “ministries” in the US, founded and led by an equally extreme and anti-gay Linda Harvey. Most recently they have backed the Walk Out on the Day of Silence, but XGW has a record of years worth of behavior that leaves little doubt about their stance on GLBT issues, or the rights of just about anyone who does not share their own particular sect of Christianity.  Their home page is titled:

Mission:America – Learn the Truth about Homosexuality, Witchcraft, Changing Christian Church, Radical Feminism, and the Youth Culture

Prop 8 Maps (EightMaps.com) has taken publicly available campaign donation records, in this case concerning those who donated one-hundred dollars or more in support of Proposition 8 in California, and made the information easily searchable on a Google Maps mashup.

As we understand it, posting this information is legal and complies with transparency laws in that state. Mission America and some other pro-Proposition 8 groups believe instead that this is an attempt at intimidation. An attempt to persuade a judge of the latter was unsuccessful.