In a confusing press release this morning, the Parents & Friends of Ex-gays (PFOX) claimed victory in a discrimination appeal to the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. However, in fact, their claim was denied. The National Education Association did not discriminate against them in 2002 when they denied PFOX exhibit space at the NEA national convention.
Here is the PFOX release:
Court Rules that ‘Sexual Orientation’ Laws Include Former Homosexuals
WASHINGTON, Aug. 25 /Christian Newswire/ — In a precedent setting case, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia has ruled that former homosexuals are a protected class that must be recognized under sexual orientation non- discrimination laws. The Court held that, under the D.C. Human Rights Act, sexual orientation does not require immutable characteristics.
“We are gratified that the ex-gay community in Washington D.C. now has the same civil rights that gays enjoy,” said Regina Griggs, executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX), which had filed the lawsuit against the District of Columbia government for failing to protect former homosexuals in the Nation’s Capital.
In 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.'”
“All sexual orientation laws and programs nationwide should now provide true diversity and equality by including former homosexuals,” said Greg Quinlan, a director of PFOX. “I have experienced more personal assaults as a former homosexual than I ever did as a gay man.”
“PFOX calls on the NEA to add ex-gays to its sexual orientation resolutions which favor gays, bisexuals, and transgenders while denying equality to former homosexuals,” said Griggs. “The NEA must also stop its bias against the NEA Ex-Gay Educators Caucus by appointing an ex-gay caucus member to the NEA Sexual Orientation Committee. This committee is staffed with members of the NEA’s gay and transgender caucus, although the ex-gay caucus has asked for inclusion.”
The NEA successfully argued before the Court that it was not guilty of sexual orientation discrimination because its gay caucus would have protested the presence of PFOX’s ex-gay exhibit at the NEA’s annual conference. “Gay activists demand equality while denying it to others,” said Griggs.
This statement of Griggs is accurate but confuses the matter: “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.'”
On that point, the court said
Therefore, the Court reverses the OHR’s ruling that exgays are not protected from discrimination under the HRA because it directly contravenes the plain language and intent of the statute.
However, the court found that the NEA did not discriminate against PFOX. The way the press release reads, it sounds like a victory for PFOX against the NEA. Not so.
In fact, the DC court said that the DC Office of Human Rights did err by saying a protected class must demonstrate an immutable characteristic. Originally, the NEA did not want to give PFOX space because they felt their message was offensive to gays. PFOX claimed sexual orientation discrimination and appealed to the DC Office of Human Rights. The OHR said no discrimination occured because ex-gayness was not immutable (by definition I suppose). However, as Judge Ross pointed out the DC Human Rights Amendment protects many practices and preferences which are mutable.
the HRA [Human Rights Amendment] clearly does not limit itself only to immutable characteristics. The premise of the HRA is simple: to end all discrimination based on anything other than individual merit. Numerous protected classes listed in the HRA include mutable traits. Furthermore, the definition of sexual orientation defines an individual’s sexuality as a “preference” or “practice.”
The conclusion of the decision provides the real scoop. In fact, the main event was a denial of the discrimination claim.
PFOX asks the Court to reverse OHR’s final decision finding no probable cause that NEA discriminated against PFOX on the basis of sexual orientation when it denied public accommodation services to PFOX by refusing to provide PFOX with exhibit space at EXPO 2002. As a matter of law, OHR erred in determining that ex-gays are not a protected class under the HRA. Regardless of whether or not OHR erred in its classification of ex-gays, it correctly found that PFOX’s exhibit booth application was rejected for non-discriminatory reasons. Furthermore, while EXPO 2002 was held in Texas, OHR did have jurisdiction over the charge because the rejection of PFOX’s application occurred in D.C., where NEA was headquartered. Therefore, Petitioner’s request to reverse the OHR’s decision, the requested relief, is DENIED. An order denying PFOX’s request will be concurrently issued with this Memorandum Opinion.
The approach of PFOX is interesting. They want ex-gays to be a protected class in the same way gays are a protected class. However, many social conservatives might quarrel that gays are not (or should not be) a protected class. Has PFOX conceded this point?
At one time in the past, I defended PFOX in their fight to exhibit at the NEA convention. I regret that now. Not because I do not believe in free speech or the right to speak about identity change. I do. However, I know PFOX as an organization better now than I did then. I am not interested in supporting misleading messages such as today’s press release.
I was then and am now interested in defending a right to live in line with one’s values and beliefs. At heart, my interest in the ex-gay concept has been much more about congruence with values than about change in orientation, evolving since 2005. That is what I liked about some of the groups I supported at that time. At least I thought that is what they were about. In 2003, I saw the NEA as trying to stifle the message that people who did not want to affirm same-sex attraction were inferior in their life paths. It is the right of the NEA to do so. It is the right of PFOX and other groups to protest that decision but the government cannot compel the NEA to host a message they believe to be at odds with their mission and message. The problem with PFOX is not so much that they advocate for people who want to live in contrast with their homosexuality but the way they promote that idea. The NEA looking at those facts continues to defend their right to keep that approach away from delegates.
As the result of the protests back in 2003, the ex-gay educator’s caucus was created among NEA members. The NEA allowed this because it came from within the organization. I believe they met again this year and while I am not directly involved with the group, I am told that they promoted the congruence approach and not the change model at their booth.
If ex gay is not an orientation then that means somone is SSA is still a protected class – does not matter what they call themselves – does it?
Debbie,
It is sort of a done deal – Ex-gay is NOT an orientation – at all! However, I appreciate the rest of what you wrote 🙂
Warren–
Thank you. Re Tim: I’ll hold my tongue (or restrain my fingers)…
But when you think about it ….if the APA has stated that sexula orientation cannot be demonstrated to change then – ex gays by the very definition put out by the APA is a minority group.
I was thinking this is good advice for us all in our commenting. Speaking chiefly for/to myself, of course. I ought to have stopped commenting before my last post. I know there will be some productive and interesting discussions here. There is a time for self-restraint, however. Going there now.
Tim – tone it down some. Read the commenting guidelines and try it again.
Debbie:
“As iron sharpens iron,
so one man sharpens another. ”
Prov. 27:17
Sorry to hear that, according to inerrant biblical standards, you and Lisa are carrying on like men. I suppose any of us can have a relapse.
Eddy,
So years ago you went swimming with Amish boys. There were no girls present. And what, they all confided in you that the thing that attracts them most to women is a hearty smile and kind eyes?
You hung around and “observed” Amish men. OK, leaving aside the creepiness, how did you determine from this that Amish men are more interested in eyes and smiles than breasts and vaginas? Did they say anything to support that, or is your broad conclusion about Amish sexuality based on the fact that these specific men, when observed by you, didn’t stare at T&A? You do understand that, among the Amish (and for that matter in polite mainstream society and in any workplace) it may be socially unacceptable to stare at a woman’s ass, but perfectly socially acceptable to look into a woman’s eyes, especially when conversing. That doesn’t mean that Amish have a completely different understanding of what heterosexuality is.
Maybe you should define heterosexuality as the love of the same sex, and then you’ll be instantly cured.
No one has made a reference to PFLAG in their response yet. Yet, what’s fair for the goose is fair for the gander. Here is just one objectionable tidbit from one of their press releases a while back at their site:
This makes unsubstantiated claims, of course. LWO does not claim to “cure” GLBT people. Likewise, saying it was “cited as a harmful practice with long-term consequences” is a low blow. Anyone can “cite” whatever advances their claim. Now, we have APA making it more clear that another side exists. And “often forced to attend”? Come on.
I can’t defend PFOX’s continued use of statements like “Each year thousands of men, women and teens with unwanted same-sex attractions make the personal decision to leave homosexuality.” I tried once to get Regina Griggs or anyone from PFOX to tell me how one arrives at such a claim. I don’t support any tit-for-tat kind of strategy for an organization trying to counter false claims of another. It’s a no-win strategy. It’s the game of politics. If there is no strong affirmation to lead with, then give it up.
Pointing out disingenuous strategies of PFLAG is, of course, not intended to provide a smokescreen or excuse for PFOX.
Ex-gays as an “orientation” or protected class? Dunno. Those who attempt to write hate-crimes legislation will have to figure that one out.
Frankly, I wish someone would come up with an alternative to PFOX. That’s an encouraging thought. There does appear to be a mean-spirited or misguided motive there. They could advocate so much better.
PS – About this:
.
I wanted to make a point. They have no way of knowing this. I was involved in this group and know that they have no way of tracking this, no evidence, no surveys, nothing. It is just made up. If there is some evidence, then they should produce it.
Debbie: Here is what PFOX says about itself on their website:
This could be ok for an organization to do. I don’t agree with their ex-gay is a protected class strategy but sticking up for people who were once gay and want some respect for their course is an ok thing to do. However, then they also say they are a parent’s support group who promote outdated ideas of homosexuality that are offensive to gays. They want to promote those ideas in schools. This activity has little to do with respect for people who have made that choice. It also has little to do with providing parents with a faith based support and information resource.
Have a muddy or multiplied mission is one thing and lots of groups have problems articulating what they are. What is objectionable about PFOX is the way they go about their business. They go beyond spin. The press release on this issue is a good case in point. The whole ex-gay is an orientation is disingenuous. They don’t really believe gay is a protected class, they want to use the language of civil rights to gain visibility. At least this is how it looks to me and is one of the reasons I parted ways. In other words, a group could do any one of the things that PFOX claims to do and do in a way that would not be as offensive and objectionable.
I am aware of one group that may develop as a support for parents who believe in the traditional way that would not be so political and reparative. I hope it works out.
Err – sorry
Ex-Gays Not protected class
This is a great article on why Ex-Gays are not really a protected class because they are Ex-Gay – as it pertains to the earlier ruling. Ex-Gay is not an orientation!
Yes Debbie – when you are personally involved in a conflict you often aren’t able to be objective about the situation, I think that’s just a matter of common sense. That is what I was trying to say. Not that you’re a bad person, or that your friendship with one of the woman is wrong, just that it makes you even less able to be fair and balanced where this matter is concerned – that’s all. 🙂 I’m done now.
Personally, I think PFOX, like Exodus, are flawed by their involvement with politics – I think they have changes they need to make before they can be seen as legitimate.
This comment can speak for itself on a broader scale.
Yes, Warren, I have a question, actually, for you or anyone who wants to chime in about PFOX. Can they be a legitimate organization, and if so, how? Should they just style themselves as the cousin of PFLAG? Same modus operandi, but supporting those we call ex-gay, until a better term comes along? Are they fatally flawed by politics and the anti-gay polemic? Is there anti-ex-gay polemic?
Hyperbole (from either support entity) would be disingenuous, yet that seems to be the chief means of PR from either side of the culture divide. Is it fair to compare PFOX with PFLAG — especially in light of the protected-class ruling PFOX played up in their release?
Other than it was a non-victory, not really 🙂
Does anyone have anything else to say about PFOX’s non-victory?
Eddy,
Yes, but BEING THERE often means you may have an even more skewed view of the situation than if you were not. BEING THERE doesn’t count for much really, except that Debbie is able to provide friendship to one of the people involved in this mess – while that is commendable, it also means she may be even less fair and balanced than others who are not directly involved.
Hey, thanks for that, Warren. Good. “Christian world” covers a lot of territory, of course. You are in the interesting position of being an academic, a psychologist and a media observer and commentator, all within a Christian framework. That is a rare combination. As such, you touch and are in a position to influence in some ways the major pillars of society — the Church, the medical/health establishment, academia and the media.
Debbie said:
Here is an irony; I do that much more in the Christian world these days, where it is more needed. The APA report was really a breakthrough in so many ways that I think the APA right now is closer to the science than anyone else.
See this for instance…
I will take the last direction of this thread, not as an invitation to revisit the issue that Warren asked us to lay aside, but rather to point out that I am a journalist who has written and writes straight news reports, many features and many more commentaries. Commentaries are opinion pieces that take into consideration the facts as they can be determined by research, interviews or observing events firsthand., and then provide reasoned analysis from a particular point of view.
As all bloggers are “citizen-journalists” to some degree, examining how news and commentary are generated is germane to anything we discuss here. It’s what Warren is doing, frequently pointing to news stories, blogs, etc. He is a commentator in that he has the role of pointing out media biases and biases in the organizations that are making the news, from his perspective. The rest of us then are free to comment (like letter writers in a newspaper opinion forum). We the people are an arm of the fourth estate, providing checks and balances.
Journalism lesson for the day, from yours truly’s humble perspective. Of course, the other important aspect that shapes my writing is the ministry one. It is a communication tool that I pray both informs and exhorts. People who have any appreciable familiarity with what I write will see that I shine a light of self-examination on the Church and her people more frequently than on any other “establishment.”
Warren is doing that, as I see it, largely for the mental health establishment.
Timothy—
Debbie had been referencing the fact that rather than relying on any of the news/media sources, she was actually THERE. Of course, Tim S., who you heartily supported, read into that…that Debbie was there just to celebrate the demise of the still lesbian partner. Seems like if you have a different POV from you guys, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
Tim K. Darn.
Michael,
Thanks. But I probably won’t be participating much.
Debbie
Yep. That’s why I tend to read both secular press and conservative Christian press along with supplemental websites. It’s amazing how different stories sometimes are depending on who’s reporting.
Tim K: Glad to see you’re back. Ditto your comments about Tim S.
T-N-T!!! 🙂
Debbie–
I got what you were saying and agree completely. I’ll leave it there without revisiting the detour.
Debbie,
Yes – on that I agree with you – He does! 😉 HOWEVER, one of the great things that good journalism can do is to present us with all sides and help us decide for ourselves. The gift and the curse of course is that it does, and should at times, remove much of the emotion from conflicts like this, but that’s what objectivity is all about, right – and what good journalism should be about .
Thank you for pointing out the obvious. Don’t we wish we had a telescope big enough to observe all the facts. I guess God gets that honor.
Debbie,
Yes but having limited access to facts or having a bias when it comes to the situation, or only knowing one side of the issue, or getting your facts from one side, is not a balanced or objective view of the situation.
Tim–
Glad you asked that…especially glad that you didn’t just stop with “How does that work exactly, Eddie?” (Misspelled, BTW, it’s Eddy.) Your elaborations on your question say so much about you and your open mind.
How it works, Tim, is like this. I live close enough that I actually have opportunity both to interact and/or to observe. As a teenager, I swam with some at a nearby lake. (The girls were not permitted in the water… I still think that was cruel!!) I’m a yard sale, garage sale, flea market kind of guy…and, guess what, so are many of the Pennsylvania Dutch. So, I encounter them as vendors, as fellow shoppers and occasionally, at big events, watch them as they mingle with the crowds. I observe what ‘turns their heads’ sometimes…and what doesn’t.
Furthermore, I moved away from this area for a number of years and due to a fear of flying, my annual trips home were courtesy of Greyhound, Trailways or Amtrak. Guess who else likes to travel that way? Being a curious person fascinated by their ways, I’d elect to sit or to hang out (i.e. train station, lounge car) as close as I could without being too conspicuous.
As I suggested, you’d have been just fine leaving of with a valid question “How does that work exactly?” It would have been fair–even Christian.
I dropped the subject Warren asked to be dropped, Timothy and Jayhuck. Now you can. Reading press and knowing facts are not one and the same. That applies to all major news stories.
Debbie,
I’ll give you this, at least you put your biases out there – lol
Its good to know this about Miller Timothy, and about the case in general – I will google it now –
Oh, drats. So much is off-topic that I wanted to be snarky about in tone an manner.
Eddy,
Nope. Sorry. It wasn’t me. Your gift of discernment must be a bit rusty.
Jayhuck,
For more about the Jenkins / Miller case just google it. There’s been a lot of press and it takes a bit of a stretch to see Miller as the victor in this fight. It’s mostly a story of Miller refusing to follow court orders, local Virginia judges protecting “the Christian” from “the homosexual”, and higher up courts reversing their decisions.
Tim S.,
Great comments. Glad you’re doing the name proud.
PFOX said:
.
Warren also said:
Warren said:
Debbie said:
I think that’s putting it mildly. Both organizations lie. The way I understood Warren is that it’s more than the “impression” that he is upset about.
*a thing or three. Time to back away from the computer. Good evening to all.
Not wanting to be a total party pooper today and wishing to be fair to Warren, I think I need to make one important point before folding my tent tonight.
If there is one thing I can keenly observe about Warren, it is that he does not say one thing and do another. He means for us to take him as he is today and not as he may have once been. Fair enough. I believe what has him most riled about NARTH and PFOX is either they are talking out of both sides of their mouth or are creating the impression that they are. Warren has been honest about his views shifting to some degree, but I am willing to say his basic ideology remains intact.
Warren, I will forever support your right to bring your actions and words in line with your core beliefs and your observations. It’s identity integrity, is it not? I may not agree with it all, but who will? Frankly, this has to be the most devilish arena of issues to move in and write about. I think I might know a thing of three about that. 🙂
Write on. I will patiently wait for the next “bad boy” in line on your list.
It was about your interest in defending a right to live in line with one’s values and beliefs — but not supporting misleading messages such as the PFOX press release, right?
The mention of the Amish made my mind wander. I still have very fond memories of a family trip to beautiful Lancaster County. OMG — the food!
There I go again. Must be lunchtime.
Sorry. 🙂
Yes, it was totally off topic.
Totally off topic, but for what it’s worth, from Growing Up Amish:
http://blog.growingupamish.com/?p=93
Where you fully stand on the issues you raise in this thread is not yet clear to me, Warren. I am probably not alone in feeling that way. I do understand that one’s position may evolve over time. I’ve changed slightly in some of my thinking over the years. But it does make for confusion when the public record holds so much information that competes with what you are currently saying. You have created a bit of a conundrum for yourself.
Has the landscape changed that much or have you?
I have seen the need to be careful about my alliances — especially anything construed as political — and I presume you feel that way now. I am free, as you are, to like or dislike an entity, but I typically don’t join “causes” or affiliate with organizations. I don’t want to be under compulsion to any. Yet, people will automatically associate me with some cause or another. I did help launch one earlier this year for the first time ever. Most unusual for me.
The point is we can’t just be somewhere in the middle with no defined positions on the major issues of the day. Not if we are public commentators. I feel that you are a swinging pendulum that has not yet settled. I don’t want to sound offensive. But it has bothered me. Is it not a fair question to wonder about?
You don’t like that PFOX does overt and messy PR with its press releases. Neither do I. But is that the reason that you are now bent on sullying them? At least, it appears you are. I can handle your NARTH rants more easily. I could suggest some other organizations that could do with such a brush stroke from you, as could others.
You said, “the government cannot compel the NEA to host a message they believe to be at odds with their mission and message.” Their mission is to support teachers who teach children. You know that is not much of what they actually do. You are an educator, so you could say some compelling things that might carry some weight in an education-related thread. You have done it to a greater degree with other education-related topics.
Oh, and let’s be clear that Amish sexual habits are far more off-topic than a related legal case. You allow comments to run all over the place here. But it is your blog, so I guess you’re entitled.
RE: PFOX. The post is about PFOX and describes a current event which reminisces similar situations I was involved in. Also, at one time I defended PFOX and it is necessary to clear any confusion that my current stance and past actions may create.
Thanks for getting those comments on the record, Warren. I will not say another word about Miller v. Jenkins in this thread, and hope others will let it go, too. I do hope you talk about it down the road as it is only going to get bigger.
I guess I do have to wonder why you can’t just let your PFOX animosity go, then. Why bring it up here in the context you did?
The Miller-Jenkins case is off topic so I do not want this thread to turn into a debate over it. It is an interesting case and one which does test legal theory on parenting, custody and the interface of different marriage laws in different states. While I may post about it in the future I am not prepared to now.
RE: the NEA. I am no fan of that organization. I attended one NEA convention and that was enough for me. My problem with PFOX does not mean that I like the NEA now. Both groups do things I don’t agree with. However, in this case, the NEA can discriminate just as the Boy Scouts can. Opposing groups protest it and in this free speech society, that is expected.
The Ex-gay Educators Caucus was initiated by Jeralee Smith, however, for awhile she was the only ex-gay educator in the caucus. The NEA did not cause that, there simply was next to no interest. Possibly it was due to fear, I am not sure but I was there the first year and the behavior of the gay caucus toward the people at the EGEC booth was terrible. They were intimidating and rude. I am not excusing anything the NEA did by reporting the misleading activities of PFOX.
I was a bit reluctant to bring up the Miller v. Jenkins case here, but given Warren’s visibility in the press and his influence in the realm of the greater national dialogue, I realized it was appropriate to make the comparison I did. I know some folks, like Tim, won’t like it. Sorry. There”s lots not to like in this life.
As Eddy broached the matter of my relationship with Lisa and Isabella Miler, I will clarify that I am close friends with them. That’s why I went up to Winchester for the hearing Tuesday. I have stood in prayer and solidarity with them as a Christian friend and journalist who also knows how widely misreported the facts of this case have been. Jayhuck gave an example of those incorrect perceptions in his comments.
I likewise know that Janet Jenkins and her attorneys are strongly agenda-driven and that she, by her known actions or lack thereof, has no love for Isabella nor real desire to raise her responsibly. Those facts were clearly brought out in Tuseday’s hearing. A trip to Liberty Counsel’s Web site can easily verify them.
This case is a matter of significant relevance to the future of how marriage is viewed in this country. This blog has already dealt with those issues, and will continue to because those who gather here will have no choice. It’s that important.
Tim, I never identified as a lesbian in my former life. I struggled mightily with same-sex attractions, but the L-word is an identity that never fit me. Lisa Miller’s amazing Christian testimony of a transformed life gives us all the more reason to be close friends. We sharpen each other, as “iron sharpens iron.”
Hey, Eddy –
As long as you raise the issue of divining and presuming peoples’ motives, let me ask you a question about something you posted:
You posted here a couple of weeks ago about the specific attributes that heterosexual Amish males found attractive in women. Your general point was that heterosexual Amish men did not care about, or did not place the same emphasis on, certain female physical attributes, which are considered significant by hetero males in the wider, sexualized culture. To put your point in a nutshell, you asserted that Amish men loved women’s eyes and smiles, whereas men in mainstream America were all about T&A. Your ultimate point, I presume, was that your failure to respond sexually to women did not mean you were not becoming heterosexual, so long as you could define “heterosexual” to mean “men who admire women’s eyes”.
You didn’t cite any surveys or studies, nor any empirical data about Amish men. You didn’t even indicate that Amish men had confided in you. The basis of your claim was, according to your post, that you live in Pennsylvania, near Amish country. How does that work exactly, Eddie? Is it sort of the way Sarah Palin gained foreign policy experience by virtue of living near Russia? Did you receive some special word of knowledge about Amish male sexual proclivities from the Holy Spirit? Or is it that you just make things up in order to relieve some of the tension and guilt you may feel over failing to respond sexually to women?
In Christian love,
Tim S. (not the other Tim who posts here)
Jayhuck–
What in my post suggested paranoia? My gift is discernment…in the vernacular, I see through crap and expose it as crap.
Not at all paranoid. Was more going with “Gee, I hope Timothy isn’t trying to get away with blogging under a different blog name, because they can get feisty about that here.” Hell, I blogged under ‘Anon’ or something like that and incurred the wrath of Roberts. Here, though, we only hold the one side to standards…the other side gets away with all manner of improprieties.
Debbie,
I think it should say something about both women that they care more about who gets custody of this child than of the child’s welfare – I can’t imagine the he!! that this child has been put through because of these two parents. Its awful They couldn’t strike a deal where both women who have cared for this child get to see her?
I think the big outcome of the ruling though, was, as Warren noted – not Really in PFOX’s favor:
Debbie,
LOL – I love how equal rights are equated with liberal political causes – although perhaps that is not so far off since it has been liberals who have been at the forefront of many battles regarding minorities and equal rights.
Tim–
I believe you can drop the “In Christian Love” tag from your comment to Debbie. There wasn’t any present.
1) She suggested that following a custody case involving two lesbians, one of whom became ex-gay, might be a good topic here; you suggest that she’s trying to control the blog and have us discuss Virginia marriage laws.
2) You presume her motives for attending the trial and judge her by your presumptions. Gee…what if she actually knew Ms Miller or something? Gee…what if she’d heard of the furor and wanted to show some sort of support. Ah, but you, a wise and knowing judge, know that she had come to gloat!!!
3) You accuse her of revelling in the loss of the other side…and further lambast her with insinuations that she would have wanted to see more visible anguish…please, sir, find even a hint of that. The only thing Debbie said was that she noticed the agitated look on the attorney and knew that boded well for her client. (Yes, she celebrated Ms Miller’s victory but that does not mean she celebrated Ms Jenkins loss.)
4) You accuse her of blogging ‘excessively here’. I believe sir that she wouldn’t even qualify for the top ten…and, as for obsessive, we have a few who post 3, 4 or 5 times in a row without even waiting for anyone to respond in between.
It does seem that your bias is showing.
You give the impression that you are speaking for more than just yourself. “Some of us like the blog just the way it is.” But I don’t recall seeing your blog handle “Tim” in previous comments. You’re style, tone and snarky manner are quite reminiscent of another Timothy here who has always gone by his full name.
Debbie:
Some of us like this blog the way it is. If you want to start a blog extolling the “strong marriage laws” of Virginia (in the fine tradition of Loving v. Virginia), the please do so. Maybe in that blog, you can cast out some of the demons that drive you to obsessively comment here and to go out of your way to attend a court hearing in order to personally witness and take great pleasure in a lesbian’s “defeat”. Too bad Ms. Jenkins wasn’t crying; that would have made your day.
I don’t know what you were like when you were a lesbian, but you seem to be troubled, angry, and obsessed now.
In Christian love,
Timothy
Oh boy. Big, big can of worms, this report. I may not agree with the way PFOX goes about all its business, but I disagree far more with the NEA’s clearly objectionable manipulation of its members dues for liberal political causes, including gay rights proliferation. Warren, you are glossing over some pretty objectionable stuff here.
PFOX was discriminated against, regardless of the decision.. Yes, it was a poorly written press release. PR is about spin, but there is an acceptable way and an unacceptable way to do it. The OHR’s new position, however, establishes the basis for future changes, which is important and newsworthy. The Ex-Gay Educator’s Caucus was discriminated against in its early years by the NEA, too, remember. Not sure exactly where the NEA stands on them at the moment.
This reminds me of the spin the media are putting on the latest Virginia hearing in Miller v. Jenkins yesterday. I was outside the courtroom (the judge allowed no spectators, as usual) when the ACLU attorney for Vermonter Janet Jenkins (Miller’s lesbian former civil union partner) stormed out with a very agitated look on her face. We knew that meant good news for Lisa Miller, the Christian (and “ex-gay”) mom of the 7-year-old daughter who has been at the center of this nearly six-year firestorm over custody and visitation since the civil union ended.
One of the local newspapers that had been following the case for years insisted on stating that the ACLU attorney thought she had achieved a victory because Miller was once again ruled to be in civil contempt and will have fines imposed for future missed court-ordered visits. So what?
The clear four-part victory in the hearing was (1) the ACLU had to withdraw its/Jenkins’ request for jailing Miller, (2) the ACLU lost its request to have Miller pay their attorney fees, (3) the ACLU lost its vigorous argument against having the court venue changed to Miller’s home county instead of forcing her to drive 3-4 hours for every Virginia hearing, and — the biggest victory — (4) the judge finally ruled that appeals can move forward on Virginia enforcement (as opposed to recognition or registration) of the Vermont visitation order. Given Virginia’s very strong marriage laws and constitutional amendment, this is very big news that can change the course of this case and get it back to the original merits.
Vermont still has a ruling to issue on Jenkins’ continued request for full custody of this child, of course.
This case is a big deal, Warren. It is clearly the one that will set precedent for the many that will follow. Do you ever plan to blog on it?
It seems to me that PFOX just got a decision which completely supports the rights of gays and lesbians…. but they’re too full of themselves to understand that point.
That means ex-gayness can be changed. How ironic.
PFOX misleads. NARTH misleads. Sounds like a good idea not to associate with either group. Good move, Warren.
Hope others who support the “ex-gay concept” and which promote “congruence with values” more than “change in orientation” will follow your example.