Thursday, May 06, 2010

President of ex-gay group stretches truth in letter to Washington Post

Apparently there is a small controversy brewing in Washington, D.C.

The mayor there, Adrien M. Fenty, accidentally gave an award of appreciation to the former president of the ex-gay group PFOX, Regina Griggs.

After a lot of outcry, Fenty said the award was given by accident.

Naturally, the "professional ex-gays" are crying foul, such as the now president of PFOX, Greg Quinlan. In a letter to the Washington Post, he said:

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) should not apologize for recognizing Regina Griggs, executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) and a family advocate who has been instrumental in ensuring civil rights to all D.C. residents.

The lawsuit filed last year by PFOX against the D.C. Office of Human Rights resulted in ex-gay men and lesbians being recognized as a protected class under the District's Human Rights Act. The office had refused to extend D.C.'s sexual orientation nondiscrimination law to former homosexuals. But the court held that the Human Rights Act does not require immutable characteristics for sexual orientation status, so ex-gay men and lesbians are entitled to the same legal protections that gays enjoy.

But like so many things Quinlan has said in the past (such as when he distorted the words of Dr. Francis Collins), this is a serious stretching of the truth.

The law suit happened because PFOX sued the NEA for denying it an exhibit booth at the groups's national convention in 2002 and PFOX actually lost this case.

According to the web site Box Turtle Bulletin:

PFOX sued in the District of Columbia under the District’s very inclusive Human Rights Act claiming discrimination against ex-gays. On May 24, 2005, the Office of Human Rights issued stated that PFOX had no probable cause because ex-gays are not members of a protected class under the HRA based on the plain language of the statute and even if PFOX was part of a protected class, NEA rejected PFOX’s application for non-discriminatory reasons.

PFOX appealed in federal court and on June 26, 2009, Federal Judge Maurice Ross issued his opinion.

The basis for OHR’s finding that ex-gays are not protected was that because PFOX denies that orientation is immutable, therefore they by definition were not discriminated against due to an immutable characteristic. In other words, those who believe orientation to be innate are protected by non-discrimination laws while those who believe it is transitory are not.

While that is an amusing and ironic position, it didn’t fly with the judge. Because the case was tried under D.C.’s HRA, there is no requirement for immutable characteristics.

Indeed, the HRA lists numerous protected categories such as religion, personal appearance, familial status, and source of income, which are subject to change. The HRA’s purpose is “to secure an end in the District of Columbia to discrimination for any reason other than that of individual merit….”

Furthermore, according to Box Turtle Bulletin:

. . . most importantly, the judge found that it is perfectly reasonable for the NEA to exclude PFOX. Because the NEA did not exclude them for being ex-gay, but rather because they have a disruptive political agenda that is contrary to that of the NEA.

The NEA did not reject its application because PFOX’s members include exgays, 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.

Jeremy Hooper of Goodasyou.org broke it down like this and I agree with his assessment:

The court in NO WAY said that "ex-gay" classification is anything right, valid, scientific or rhetorically sound, or in any way deserved of every last right specific classification that LGBTS people receive -- especially since, of course, "ex-gay" people ALL fall into one of those scientifically recognized categories (or asexuality, alternately)! The court in no way denied that PFOX's mission is hostile to others. And of course the court in no way said that PFOX is deserved of any kind of honor, especially from a city that so richly values respect -- something that PFOX (whose spokesman recently tagged the awesome and peaceful PFLAG organization as a "hate group") refuses to show you to happy, healthy LGBT people and the credible, peer-reviewed information that supports them!



Bookmark and Share

No comments:

Post a Comment