 |
| Peter Sprigg |
In an August 18 post for the FRC’s blog, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies Peter Sprigg compared the late actor’s struggles with addiction and depression to people struggling with “unwanted same-sex attractions.” Noting that states like California and New Jersey have banned so-called “sexual reorientation therapy” – which is opposed by the American Psychological Association and has been associated with psychological damage in patients – Sprigg asked why social liberals aren’t also trying to “outlaw rehab”:
In the wake of Williams’ suicide, many TV commentators and friends of the late star talked about the challenges of mental illness (Williams suffered from depression), addictions — and rehab. I saw comedian Andy Dick say, “I’ve been to rehab seventeen times.”In light of this history, I have only one question for socially liberal political activists — why aren’t you trying to outlaw rehab?I ask the question because such activists are trying to ban a form of mental health treatment — not drug and alcohol rehabilitation, but “sexual orientation change efforts” (“SOCE”), also known as “sexual reorientation therapy.” Such therapy involves assisting people with unwanted same-sex attractions to overcome them.
Why would someone want to change their sexual orientation? Some such individuals are simply disillusioned by their experiences in homosexual relationships. Some have legitimate concern about the well-documented health problems associated with homosexual conduct (especially among men), such as high rates of sexually transmitted diseases, of which HIV/AIDS is only one example. Others may seek help in conforming their behavior and lifestyle to the teaching of the religious faith to which they are committed. Some may aspire to a traditional family life, raising children in a home with both their mother and father present.Whatever the motivation, there are those who have simply made a choice to walk away from the homosexual lifestyle, without clinical help — much like how Robin Williams simply stopped using drugs and alcohol in the 1980’s. Others have sought professional help, perhaps at the urging of family members, in the form of “sexual reorientation therapy” — much like when Williams entered a formal alcohol rehab program in 2006. Whether simply through personal development, religious counseling, or with the help of a licensed or unlicensed counselor, thousands (if not millions) of people have experienced significant changes in one or more of the elements of their sexual orientation (attractions, behavior, or self-identification). [emphasis added]
The Tampa Tribune has pulled a controversial column that alleged Disney is indoctrinating children with its "pro-gay agenda." The column, which was highlighted by Media Matters, had also drawn criticism from gay rights activists and Florida journalists.
. . . Prior to the column's removal from the Tribune website, several gay rights activists and journalists expressed concern to Media Matters about its stereotypical and offensive arguments. Among them, Nadine Smith, founder and CEO of Equality Florida and a former Tribune reporter.
"The first time I read it I thought it was satire," said Smith, who worked at the Tribune from 1989 to 1993. "It's absurd. He's so fixated on this bizarre, paranoid fantasy that he's actually missed the larger story. Businesses are speaking up and being very visible and speaking out quite publicly for equal rights."
She also called it an embarrassment for the newspaper.
. . . Jason Parsley, president of the Florida Pro Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists and associate publisher of South Florida Gay News, agreed.
"It's just typical right-wing propaganda, the word indoctrination is not one we see much anymore," he said. "I guess he is against tolerance and acceptance, I don't understand the idea. It is a ridiculous, repugnant disgusting view. It really reminds me of 90's rightwing antigay propaganda. Because of social media today and because of 24-hour news, I think the backlash ends up bringing so much awareness that it just completely discounts and diminishes the negative effect."
Back in June, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said that gay rights advocates are “going to start rolling out the boxcars to start hauling off Christians,” and yesterday he agreed with a caller named Janet who predicted on his “Washington Watch” radio show that anti-Christian violence will erupt in America.
After the caller wondered if we are “going to find ourselves being loaded in cattle cars like it was when the Nazis took over before we realize we are in such terrible danger,” Perkins hailed her claim as an “excellent point.” “You’ve just hit the nail on the head,” he exclaimed, warning that “isolationist” and “libertarian” politicians like Rand Paul are leaving America’s national security vulnerable and that violent anti-Christian persecution taking place in the Middle East could soon find its way here.
 |
| Matt Barber |
 |
| Linda Harvey |
Linda Harvey is not happy that an Ohio Republican group is welcoming attendees to this year’s Gay Games, the event for LGBT athletes that is taking place in Cleveland and Akron. The Ohio-based activist, who hopes to ban LGBT Pride Parades, denounced both the Gay Games and the Cuyahoga County Republicans today on her “Mission America” radio commentary: “Why do we need events like this which give legitimacy to a deviant and harmful lifestyle? The purpose of the Gay Games may well be to try to create a different impression and disguise the truth, which is that homosexuality is associated with much higher health risks and it is not life-honoring and life-giving behavior but the opposite.”
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council:
Tony Perkins
At W.W. Bridal Boutique, it isn't unusual to see two women shopping for wedding dresses. What is unusual is two women shopping for wedding dresses for the same ceremony. That's the predicament Victoria Miller found herself in as the owner of the Pennsylvania shop. When a lesbian couple contacted the store for an appointment, Victoria explained that she couldn't help the women find gowns for a ceremony that violates her Christian faith. Right now, an employee explained, the Bloomsburg store doesn't service same-sex weddings. Instead of showing the tolerance their movement claims to practice, the women turned to social media to bully the shop -- trashing its online reviews and sparking a city-wide firestorm. Miller, whose orthodox beliefs are in the bulls-eye, isn't backing down. "We feel we have to answer to God for what we do," she told reporters, "and providing those two girls dresses for a sanctified marriage would break God's law." Obviously, W.W. Bridal Boutique isn't the only wedding dress shop in town. These women could have easily taken their business elsewhere -- but chose to retaliate instead. That's because, at its core, this isn't about accommodation. It's about forced acceptance. When religious liberty clashes with homosexuality -- as it has from bakeries to flower shops -- the storylines are all the same: conform or be punished.
Brian Brown, National Organization for Marriage:
Brian Brown
Target and other companies need to be forced to realize that it is their alignment with the radical cause of redefining marriage that is "bad for business"—not states' marriage laws that uphold and protect the common-sense idea that kids do best with a mom and a dad! So I'm announcing a new boycott today, against Target, for insulting consumers like you and me. The brief they signed in court this week insinuates that people like you and me, who would vote to uphold traditional marriage, as akin to segregationists and racial bigots. Would you want to shop at a place that viewed you in that way? I'm not exaggerating. Take a look at this description, from the brief, of the marriage laws in Wisconsin and Indiana: [A law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman] requires that… we single out colleagues with same-sex partners and treat them as a separate and unequal class as compared to employees with heterosexual partners. Target also complains that such a law "upsets our business philosophy and prevents [us] from reaching our full economic potential because it dissuades employees from living and working in the jurisdictions where we do, or want to do, business."
