rss-sidebar
twitter-sidebar
mobile-sidebar
mobile-sidebar
Subscribe! Follow! Mobilize! AND make AKA William 100% SFW with one green click!
gayblogadslogo
Check out all the
Guys
on AKA William.

D.C. Court Rules That “Ex-Gay” Is A Protected Sexual Orientation?

Tue, Aug 25, 2009

I don’t fully understand the logic of this.
pfox

In a case with potentially far-reaching implications, the superior court of the District of Columbia has ruled that individuals who formerly identified as gay or lesbian are a protected class that must be recognized under nondiscrimination laws pertaining to sexual orientation, reports the Fox Business network.

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) brought the lawsuit against the National Education Association for failing to provide public accommodations for people who formerly identified as gay. The D.C. office of human rights sided with the NEA that sexual orientation protections do not extend to “ex-gays,” but the court held that under the D.C. human rights act, sexual orientation does not require immutable characteristics.

PFOX is also calling on the NEA to allow ex-gays on the to the NEA Sexual Orientation Committee, which is currently staffed with members of the NEA’s gay and transgender caucus.

My question is: if the ex-gay therapies that claim to turn gay people straight are successful, then how is “ex-gay” different from straight?

And if the therapies don’t result in straight people, then what are they good for?

As much as this seems like a victory for the anti-LGBTs, isn’t it really a confession that their efforts to turn gay people straight are, in fact, fraudulent?

UPDATE: Something about this just didn’t make sense, and it turns out that’s because it didn’t make sense. PFOX distorted the court’s ruling, and PFOX’s distortion of that ruling is what’s been making the rounds today.

To clarify, the “precedent-setting” ruling that PFOX misquoted was, in fact, just an affirmation by the court that protected classes do not need to demonstrate immutable characteristics. The undistorted view of the ruling is that the judge ruled that it was perfectly reasonable for NEA to exclude PFOX. Wayne Besen of Truth Wins Out writes:

The court’s decision stated the obvious and the spin from PFOX’s loss is downright bizarre. I think PFOX has furthered its reputation as a group that distorts the truth and exaggerates the facts to further its strange political agenda. This is a group that has no sense of reality and lives in a parallel universe devoid of reason and logic.

And a very big thank you to Nelson G. for pointing me in the right direction with this.

And check these out:
Share the Love:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter
, , , ,

1 Comments For This Post

  1. Nelson G. Says:

    Some problems here: The Advocate is citing as its source, a press release from PFOX. As others are noting, PFOX is misinterpreting a court decision they lost.

Comments

(Comments are moderated so there might be a slight delay in seeing the very first comment you post on AKA William. But once your first comment is validated, you'll be able to immediately see any subsequent comments you leave.)