You had to see this coming.
Parents and Friends of Ex-gays issued a press release today touting a certificate of appreciation given to Regina Griggs by the Mayor of the District of Columbia for her work as PFOX director. The certification lauded Griggs’:
dedication, commitment, and outstanding contributions as Executive Director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays.
Call me a prophet. When I saw that news, I immediately figured that the Mayor’s office would issue a clarification or denial before the end of the day. And lo, and behold, as has been reported elsewhere, Mayor Fenty’s office released a statement apologizing for the certificate, saying in full:
A staff level error was made when the request for the certificate in question was fulfilled. We apologize for the error as it runs contrary to the Mayor’s vision of a more open and inclusive city.
The Mayor is proud of his ardent support of the LGBT community as illustrated in his championing of the Marriage Equality legislation which he signed into law on December 18, 2009.
This full statement, courtesy of Mayor Fenty’s Director of Communications, Mafara Hobson, blames a staffer for the error and indicates he did not know what he was signing.
Some of the confusion could be the inclusion of “gays” in their title. The certificate mentions PFOX as being the Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and Gays. However, their 2008 990 form confirms that the legal name of the organization does not include the gay part.
Another interesting point on the 990 is that PFOX reports to the IRS that it is a “Christian Support Ministry.” However, on the Path coalition website, they portray themselves as a non-religious group.
The blog is run by the organization and there is a link promoting it on the right side of the front page of their website.
Just for future clarity…are the terms ‘Webpage’ and ‘Blogspot’ interchangeable? I went to what I thought was called their Webpage and didn’t notice any links to a Blog page. I’ll check again in the morning…still learning my way around the web.
Well – looks like Warren gave the evidence I did not.
Thanks Eddy – I appreciate the information. It was my observation long ago that their concern and focus was in supporting and encouraging those individuals who experienced dissonance with their homosexuality. I also know parents and friends who are hurting deeply and have nowhere else to go for support or encouragement have found it with PFOX. I don’t think anyone who is content with their homosexuality need to worry about them as they are not their focus. I am sure mistakes have been made, as with other organizations or people, however, there are ways to communicate this to them so there is civility instead of exploiting a perceived wrong that validates a confirmation bias.
Ann–
LOL. On your behalf, I visited the PFOX website and can’t find all of this ‘Anti’ rhetoric that supposedly dominates the site. It’s not on their home page.
I followed the ‘Equal Rights’ link and found 26 topics with 0 speaking against gay rights. Predominantly, they were consistent with PFOX’ stated goal of defending the right of the ex-gay message to exist and demanding equal time.
I followed the ‘Articles’ link and found 21 articles…2 of them were related to the gay marriage issue. If someone could point out which of the others were ‘anti-gay’ and why, I’d appreciate it.
I followed the ‘News’ link and found nothing for 2010. Again, if someone could point which were ‘anti-gay’ and why, I’d be ever so grateful.
I also followed the ‘Brochures’ link and again came up with zip.
In short, there were only 2 anti-gay family postings that I found. And, as we’ve often said on this site, the term ‘anti-gay’ tends to be both inflammatory and generalized. (LOL. I was actually a bit surprised by these results…based on all the criticisms I’ve heard, I honestly thought there would be a bit more substance to be found on their site.)
It appears that the bulk of their articles and comments are in defense of ex-gay rights and aren’t focussed on taking away the rights of anyone–with the notable exception of gay marriage which had the two postings.
PFOX does not support equal rights for gay people and that includes gay marriage – Their web site is chock full of anti-gay and anti-gay-family information. They most definitely can’t be called an inclusive or accepting group
Ann,
I think this is wrong Ann. As far as I know PFOX is not accepting of gay families and gay people, and if I remember right, they don’t believe gay people deserve the same rights, ie gay marriage, as other people. They definitely can’t be called inclusive.
I have not looked at the PFOX web site or blog in a long time (years) so I am not sure what there current position is, however, I do not think the above description is fair or completely accurate. To be sure, it can be said that the gay advocates generally have only one answer for homosexuality – accept it and come out and live as a gay man/woman. Also, one would be hard pressed to find inclusiveness for those who have chosen to respond to their homosexuality in a different way. All things considered, there is an imbalance of inclusiveness and acceptance and tolerance and it is not coming from those who people call exgay.
There are at least two threads going on the PFOX certificate controversy. I just realized, Ann, that at least a portion of my recent post on the other thread, was in answer to your questions. I agree with you that this situation is evidence of discriminatory attitudes and practice and I also wonder why the mayor can’t be supportive of all his law-abiding constituents. I’m beginning to think that ‘celebrate diversity’ is just another meaningless phrase.
I do not know Regina, however, why would she question the mayor at all? Is there a reason why he wouldn’t be supportive of gay families and gay people as you call them (I would rather say people and families), as well as individuals like the man in the video who is now married to a woman? Why wouldn’t the mayor be supportive of both? To be otherwise is discriminatory, isn’t it?
What is so humorous about this event is that it was accepted and lauded by PFOX without question – from a Mayor that has been nothing short of supportive of gay families and gay people – LOL – did Regina not think to question this at all?
I suggested that perhaps they wanted to be inclusive of people who didn’t necessarily share their Christian faith; you use the same term ‘inclusive’ but then redirect towards those who hold to a different viewpoint about homosexuality. I don’t see them as portraying themselves as something other than they are…read the caption from PATH…they advocate for the ex-gay community, they educate on sexual reorientation, they support the availability of info that h is not genetic, inborn or immutable. I realize that you disagree with their point of view but the charge that they aren’t being straightforward about where they stand is lost on me. They clearly believe in ‘ex’…in reorientation…and in mutability; they clearly don’t feel it’s genetic or inborn. As for not declaring ‘Conservative Christian’ on the PATH page…why throw in a label that is easily misinterpreted (as is evidenced by many discussions on this site)? It sounds like anyone who might follow the link provided by PATH would find out within minutes about their Christian roots and beliefs.
Eddy – But they are not inclusive, that is the point. In my experience, they portray themselves as something they are not. They want to appear inclusive and secular but they are a far right Christian group who has one answer to homosexuality – repair it. – Not even live with it, view it as a cross or bear or some other congruence view. I was involved with PFOX from 2003-2006, I regret to say and I heard in public we are not religious but know the back story.
Warren–
I KNOW that you don’t hide your Christian faith. I was just trying to make the point that we don’t always announce it everywhere. The PATH page wasn’t even PFOX’s own page. They were likely asked to ‘write something up’ for a referral page. We simply don’t know if the omission of a Christian reference was intentional or an oversight. Even if it was intentional, until we know why they omitted it, it’s all speculation on our part.
I can envision PATH saying “look, we’re trying to compile a list of varied resources for people touched by this issue”…and then PFOX starts drafting their statement and someone says “wait, are we really ONLY for Christians? Do we withhold our support and resources from people who aren’t–including people of other faiths? Do we exclude Jews, for example?” And after minimal debate, the lead-in catch phrase “PFOX is a Christian organization” is modified to be more inclusive.
Eddy: /about/
I find this story both amusing and tragic on several levels.
1) Without actually knowing anything about the group requesting the certificate, the certificate applauds (in basic ‘form letter’ speech) ‘dedication, commitment, and outstanding contributions as Executive Director’.
2) It pretends to come from the mayor but actually hasn’t even garnered even more than a moment’s attention from a staffer.
3) People actually request these evidently meaningless certificates.
4) A ‘staff level error’ is the explanation.
5) The certificate pretended to applaud the Exec Directors ‘dedication, commitment and outstanding contributions’…how does finding out that they are dedicated, committed and contributing in an outstanding manner to a cause the Mayor can’t endorse alter the actual dedication, committment and contribution?
Warren notes that they identify themselves as a Christian ministry on their IRS form while they omit the Christian identification on the PATH website. I find this observation just a touch ironic…if you scroll to the top of THIS page, you’ll find that Warren omits his own Christian identification…yet, I’m fairly certain, that to the IRS the Christian link is clear.
I’m not accusing Warren of duplicity…I’m merely saying that sometimes it happens…there may be a conscious reason or it might be accidental or circumstantial.
Yeah – I read about this this morning and knowing only a little about the DC Mayor figured it was a mistake.