RECENT  POSTS:  » POTUS believes in fifty-state equality, happy with way it's playing out » But your subjective view of 'real' marriage is factually irrelevant, Ryan » Flip Benham (yes, their dad) reportedly protesting outside NC weddings » TV's Duggar family continues anti-LGBT activism » Caught ya: Far-right's latest marriage 'victim' edited website to make more solid legal case » Read: Wyoming to become our 32nd marriage equality state » GLAAD: Victory is what happens while you're busy making other plans » What fake victimization sounds like in Arizona » Federal judge strikes Arizona's discriminatory marriage ban; marriages should begin today! » NOM's latest desperation: Relying on hearsay James O'Keefe video to smear Democrat for 'secretly' not opposing equality  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

05/04/2010

Forget the fox we have in this hunt -- PFOX's constant half-truths & misreps are reason enough to rescind D.C. honor

by Jeremy Hooper

On multiple occasions, we've told you about a supposed DC court "win" that PFOX (Parents and Friends of 'Ex-gays') likes to claim. Essentially what happened: A Superior Court last year found that "ex-gay" people cannot be discriminated against, in general, because they identify as "ex-gay," any more than they could be if they identified as "ex-hungry," "ex-straight," or "ex-[insert just about anything one could say for political purposes]." The court didn't say "Yes, 'ex-gay' is in fact a class in an of itself" -- it simply said that "ex-gay" is not specifically ex-cluded. In fact, the court (which focused on the concepts of "preference" and "practice") specifically cited things like "religion, personal appearance, familial status, and source of income" as the other kinds of mutable qualities that could be likened to "ex-gayness" or "ex-straightness" or "ex-had-some-form-of-sex-once-iness." And as far as that goes, this site, like most LGBT sites, will be the first to say both "GOOD!" and "DUH!" on that one. "Good," because none of us want to see anyone discriminated against for any reason; "Duh," because it's a no-brainer that "ex-gays" should not and cannot be targeted for discriminatory treatment anymore than someone who thinks that they've changed from a human into a piece of farfalle pasta. Virtually no gay activist wants a target on "ex-gay" people on the basis of however they identify, even if they vocally oppose the "former homosexual' community's typically harmful, most-always-faith-based agenda. Most of us want ALL people, even our staunch opponents, protected from discrimination. But nondiscrimination does not equal credence! Nondiscrimination against people who've practiced one sexuality but who now prefer to anecdotally identify as existing in a flux state does not mean that that chosen anecdotal label holds any kind of water.

And beyond that: PFOX actually lost their case. Here's how our pal Timothy Kincaid summed it up:

And, 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.
...
So PFOX lost.

And their only “victory” was one that most gay folk would be willing to concede: that ex-gays should not be subject to discrimination just for being ex-gay but ex-gay political groups can be excluded because of their message.

FULL: PFOX Declares Victory in Court Defeat [Box Turtle Bulletin]

Yes despite/because of these facts, PFOX continues to aggressively push the idea that a prominent court has declared "ex-gay" to be a credible movement. Something that's coming out even more in light of D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty's recent blunder in mistakenly issuing a "Certificate of Appreciation" to PFOX's Regina Griggs. This comes from One News Now, the subject being Fenty's declaration that they PFOX "honor" was a "staff-level error":

[PFOX's Greq Quinlan] suggests that Fenty is actually going against a DC court, which ruled that former homosexuals are a protected class under the local human rights law. Even so, the mayor's apology stated that honoring Griggs runs contrary to his vision of a more open and inclusive city. [Source]

This from WorldNetDaily:

Last year, PFOX sued the D.C. Office of Human Rights for refusing to extend the District's sexual-orientation, non-discrimination law to former homosexuals, a case PFOX won.

"The D.C. Superior Court ruled against the District government and held that ex-gays are protected under D.C.'s sexual orientation law," the organization states. "For that alone, PFOX deserves thanks from the mayor. He is there to represent all of his constituents, and not just those that he prefers."

Furthermore, PFOX President Greg Quinlan says, Griggs' ten years of selfless service are worthy of recognition.
[Source]

And this from PFOX's own press release:

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. [Source]

So what they're doing is taking the one court finding -- that immutability is not a requirement for nondiscrimination (an argument that anti-gays and "ex-gays" have, Pee,Foxironically, used in reverse to oppose LGBT nondiscrimination laws) -- and extending it to suggest that the court lent credence to "ex-gay" as apolitical movement. When in fact, the court actually was careful to note the political agenda of "ex-gay" groups like PFOX, saying flat-out that organizations like the NEA have every right to deny them space on the basis of the "ex-gay" movement's "disruptive" political agenda. 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!

***

**SEE ALSO: Facebook group with further demands for Fenty: Un-Invite Mayor Fenty from Capital Pride Unless he Meets These 3 Demands [F'book]

**SEE ALSO: The time Regina flipped the D.C. ruling so as to say that "a Washington judge has ruled homosexuality is not immutable."

**SEE ALSO: The time Regina flipped CDC stats about HIV infections in males so as to outrageously claim "that "71% of men having sex with men are HIV positive" (a claim she's made more than once).

**SEE ALSO: The full D.C Superior Court ruling:


Judge Ross' Memorandum Opinion

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails