Another talking point against the Metro ordinance bites the dust

The American Psychological Association hammered another nail in the coffin of the Family Action Council's talking points on the Metro non-discrimination ordinance today. The press release dealt a blow to the idea that therapists can or should try to change the sexual orientation of their clients:

"Contrary to claims of sexual orientation change advocates and practitioners, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation," said Judith M. Glassgold, PsyD, chair of the task force. "Scientifically rigorous older studies in this area found that sexual orientation was unlikely to change due to efforts designed for this purpose. Contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates, recent research studies do not provide evidence of sexual orientation change as the research methods are inadequate to determine the effectiveness of these interventions." Glassgold added: "At most, certain studies suggested that some individuals learned how to ignore or not act on their homosexual attractions. Yet, these studies did not indicate for whom this was possible, how long it lasted or its long-term mental health effects. Also, this result was much less likely to be true for people who started out only attracted to people of the same sex."

One of the talking points used against the ordinance by advocacy groups and picked up by some Council Members is the idea that sexual orientation shouldn't be covered because it can change. For example, one Councilman made that argument in a NewsChannel 5 piece:

"How do we identify them? How do we know if they're telling the truth? What if they want to change in the middle? And it's something... you choose this way of life," said Metro Council Member Robert Duvall.

Unfortunately, such misinformation fed to our elected officials has negative policy consequences. But a thorough review of the literature and the studies makes it clear that there is no evidence for change in sexual orientation. Even if there had been evidence, it doesn't mean people wouldn't discriminate based on real or perceived sexual orientation. So the argument falls on two counts.

Times Free Press writes glowing piece on reparative therapy

Geesh, I hope they got paid to write this. I just love how they describe mainstream psychological practice as "traditional." There is no proof that reparative therapy works. Furthermore, it is harmful to individuals and to the GLBT community as a whole because it bolsters a weak argument that people can and should change their sexuality.

The problem is not someone's sexuality. The problem is legal discrimination and social intolerance that conspire to keep people in the closet or pressure them to be something they aren't.

I know people who tried to "pray the gay away" and endure years of bizarre "therapies." They wanted it to work. They tried to be straight. It failed. These efforts to change sometimes lead to suicide because as time goes on and nothing works, people become hopeless.

Sarah Palin's Church and GLBT issues

The Associated Press is reporting that Sarah Palin's Church is promoting Focus on the Family's Love Won Out conference that advocates for gays and lesbians to change their sexual orientation. The campaign has not commented on whether Palin supports the conference or the concept behind it.

It's the rare American who agrees 100 percent with everything his or her house of worship says or does. I despised the way people drove a wedge between the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama and I don't think we should automatically assume guilt by association with the Palins. I don't think Joe Biden is answerable for every encyclical that comes from Pope Benedict XVI.

What the press and what activists ought to focus on are policy questions that are within the purview of the federal government--Don't Ask/Don't Tell, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Matthew Shepard Act, etc. No politician and no citizen should have to give a detailed account of his or her faith tradition for the public. So what if she's advancing faith and family in her campaign? It doesn't mean we have to enable that kind of politics by attacking her on those grounds. If you believe that there are no religious tests for office in this country, then act like it and go after her on policy.

Asking Palin how she might break a tie vote in the Senate on hate crimes legislation, for example, is entirely appropriate. There is no need to pit her against her Church or explain her in terms of her Church. The tough questions about the issues must not be lost in the cheap shots. My own guess is that she either won't answer them or won't answer them in a way that affirms the basic rights of GLBT Americans.

A focus on Palin's policy positions would also help avoid the sexist and anti-Pentecostal bigotry that we're already seeing in the blogosphere. If you're trying to attack her politics as bigoted by spewing comments about her Church or through references to her hair or her family, guess what, you're a bigot and a hypocrite.