A group called Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) claimed a victory when the Superior Court of D.C. ruled that former homosexuals are a protected class that must be recognized under sexual orientation non-discrimination laws.
But a leading Gay-Lesbian site says “hold on a sec’ Fernando,” claiming what the court actually did was disagreed with DC’s Office of Human Rights, which had said that ex-gays are not covered under the D.C. Human Rights Act, because a protected a group must show immutable characteristics.”
According to a PFOX press release, “a discrimination complaint filed by PFOX against the National Education Association (NEA) for refusing to provide public accommodations to ex-gays, the D.C. Office of Human Rights (OHR) had agreed with the NEA that sexual orientation protection did not extend to former homosexuals. “By failing to protect former homosexuals, the sexual orientation laws gave more rights to homosexuals than heterosexuals who were once gay,” said Griggs. “So PFOX asked the Court to reverse OHR’s decision, which it did. The Court held that ex-gays are a protected class under ’sexual orientation.’”
What really seems to be going on here is someone thinks they tricked the court into establishing legal precedent that does not recognize “immutable characteristics” of “gay-ness” used to justify special status like race.
Compare this wild hair to other recent conservative efforts likeFocus on the Family and its agreement with the American Pyschological Association and professional consensus—that one’s sexual orientation is a natural, enduring disposition—
“We do not believe anyone chooses his or her same-sex attractions.” Focus adds that, for men and women who struggle with the issue, the aim is “to steward their impulses in a way that aligns with their faith convictions.” Focus on the Family has not reversed its encouragement of sexual-reorientation efforts, but it is passing off sponsorship of its money-losing “Love Won Out” seminars on “leaving homosexuality.”
It’s sad to see movement toward open discussion on sensitive issues be made into a gotcha legal game by yahoos.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I understand. My point, I think, was that there are in fact some genuine discussions and progress taking place mentioned further down in the post. Unfortunately, these must be contrasted with the gotcha legal games by, as you say, yahoos throwing shit at passersby, or some other Swift epithet.
“It’s sad to see movement toward open discussion on sensitive issues be made into a gotcha legal game by yahoos.” Does this apply to the recent legal moves within the GOP in Contra Costa and Alameda. Oh wait you did say there was a movement toward open discussion first, so my bad. Forget it.