Leave a Comment Sagesse
Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) introduces Congressional resolution targeting anti-LGBT ‘conversion therapy’
November 28, 2012
By Scottie Thomaston
Today, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) is introducing a ‘Stop Harming Our Kids’ resolution to fight anti-LGBT ‘conversion therapy’ – efforts to ‘change’ a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. Conversion therapy has been condemned by all the reputable mental health organizations, and the psychiatrist who wrote the study backing the practice has since repudiated it and apologized.
California has since passed a law banning conversion therapy and Governor Jerry Brown signed it. (The law is facing court challenges from organizations that practice this form of ‘therapy’.) And yesterday, the Southern Poverty Law Center announced a lawsuit against one organization that practices conversion therapy, alleging fraud.
At a press conference in Washington DC this morning, Rep. Speier will discuss “the resolution and her efforts to investigate whether taxpayer funds have been used to reimburse therapists for this discredited and ineffective practice through the federal Medicaid or TRICARE healthcare programs” according to a press release received by Prop 8 Trial Tracker.
The text of the resolution has not yet been released, but it is inclusive: aimed at curbing efforts to change both sexual orientation and gender identity.
At the press conference with Speier will be survivors of this practice as well as representatives of LCSW, Southern Poverty Law Center, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Human Rights Campaign (HRC).
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
32 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Reformed | November 28, 2012 at 11:00 am
off topic, but, the NOM blog is pushing this line.
"…A society where marriage is divorced from its procreative purpose within a stable union is a society that neuters its ability to prevent predatory men from impregnating women and abandoning them and to ensure that men take responsibility for their offspring.
Wow, is this not the most articulate expression of the Republican's rape problem? Are they unaware that "society's" mechanism for "predatory men impregnating women and abandoning them" is child support enforcement?
2.
bayareajohn | November 28, 2012 at 11:17 am
Wow! So gay marriage will cause straight infidelity. That's about as believable as causing hurricanes and earthquakes.
3.
RepublicanLutz | November 28, 2012 at 11:44 am
Of course, even using a straights-only definition of marriage, people can get pregnant without marriage betting involved at all. Biology is funny that way. NOM fail.
4.
Ed Cortes | November 28, 2012 at 11:50 am
Also, since when is a 50% divorce rate contributing to stability?
5.
RepublicanLutz | November 28, 2012 at 11:52 am
Betting= being. Damn you, autocorrect
6.
Phillip K | November 28, 2012 at 11:55 am
Didn't you know that marriage is to reign in the immoral ways of straight men? I mean come on.
/sarcasm off
7.
Steve | November 28, 2012 at 12:42 pm
People can also get married without having children *gasp*
8.
_BK_ | November 28, 2012 at 12:49 pm
Butbutbut… it's true!
9.
davep | November 28, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Spin faster, NOM.
10.
Nancy | November 28, 2012 at 2:33 pm
@Reformed: WTF am I reading?!? Sounds like Todd Akin's concession speech
[youtube CC-mRSciJ-U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC-mRSciJ-U youtube]
11.
Bob | November 28, 2012 at 2:35 pm
I love it. According to NOM, marriage equality causes rape. Keep effing that chicken nombies
12.
Paul | November 28, 2012 at 3:22 pm
Is there a discrimination suit here:
CatholicVote deleted this comment:
Being prolife requires more than just protecting unborn children. It requires protecting all life. Why did you argue against the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, which simply provided needed legal rights to protect gay people from being murdered, beaten. and raped because of who they are? There was a young woman In Alabama who was beaten to near death over the holiday because of who she was. Why have you not posted her story? Because she was gay and doesn't rate as highly as an unborn fetus? This website continually exploit gay people and runs stories to increase public prejudice against them. This inevitably leads to increased bullying and increased discrimination against gay people. These efforts lead to bullying, suicide, and murder of gay Americans. This isn't a prolife position, but is anti-life. Why do you let it continue? Why do you refuse to acknowledge it? Why do you continue to perpetuate it?
But allowed this comment:
Blah, blah, blah, liberal hogwash, blah,blah. It's so awful your prejudice and these poor gay kids..blah blah…these aren't Catholic values..wah wah wah…I'd like to be nice but it's people with that whiny overly sentimental attitude that have led so many people astray. Catholicism is a faith for men and women of courage, not wimpy people who need to please everyone and'go with the flow'. Homosexuality is a terrible sin and those who willingly practice it without regard to God are headed for destruction, but then again so are fornicators, liers, idolaters and a whole bunch of others. Life is a struggle, God has given us the tools. Use them or stop pretending to be a luvy duvy Catholic and just join the world and have your fun now.
They seem to be on a tirade today by blocking and censoring anyone that dares defend gay people today. I have screen grabs of everything today.
13.
davep | November 28, 2012 at 4:06 pm
It's their web site, and they are free to delete what they want and post all sorts of stupid crap if they want. It's probably best to look at the big picture and keep in mind that they are on the losing side of history and will be regarded the same as the KKK. Of course you're free to keep trying to post stuff there, and maybe some of it will stay, but it may be a better use of your energy to talk to the folks on other sites who are in the movable middle rather than trying to convince anti-gay extremists who will never listen to your side.
14.
Paul | November 28, 2012 at 4:27 pm
So McDonalds could refuse to serve me a chicken sandwich if I wear a "legalize gay" shirt while they serve the lady behind me that has a "legalize Jesus" shirt? I'm not sure that's the case.
15.
Steve | November 28, 2012 at 5:12 pm
Public accommodation is something else entirely from a private website. And even then, political expression is not necessarily covered.
16.
Paul | November 28, 2012 at 5:31 pm
I'm pretty sure a website is public, not private.
17.
Eric | November 28, 2012 at 5:41 pm
Maggie knows all about that.
18.
Eric | November 28, 2012 at 5:44 pm
What do the terms of service that you agreed to say?
19.
W. Kevin Vicklund | November 28, 2012 at 5:45 pm
And you'd be wrong. Just because you can see what's in my front yard, doesn't make it public property.
20.
RepublicanLutz | November 28, 2012 at 6:05 pm
My initial reply to you was sent to moderation. (Probably because I used a word for part of the male anatomy to refer to those anti-gay people. )
Basically, the others are right on this one , you're wrong. Nothing to sue over on this one.
21.
davep | November 28, 2012 at 7:31 pm
Paul, there is a difference between a web site saying what they want to say and a business that sells things to the public. Now if the CatholicVote web site is selling things and they refuse to sell to certain people for reasons that are not legal, then you may have a case. But if course, if they DID sell to you, that would mean you are giving those jerks money, and it would certainly be better not to do that.
I know that the bigoted language and sleazy tactics used by anti-gay extremists is really aggravating but this is one of the prices of living in a free society. The good news is WE get to say what WE want to say as well, and since our message is actually true and logical and rational and based on concepts of fairness and equality, more and more people are coming to understand our point of view.
22.
Fran | November 28, 2012 at 9:23 pm
If you open your front gate and put a welcome sign it is. And a website that invites comments is no less a public accommodation as a someone that rents out their home.
23.
_BK_ | November 28, 2012 at 9:32 pm
No, your front yard would still be private property, just with the gate open and with a welcome sign.
24.
James | November 28, 2012 at 9:39 pm
The following indicate that CatholicVote does not censor comments and is a public accommodations business:
"However, we cannot, nor do we, control the information provided by users or content providers which is made available through the Site."
"The Site is only a site for electronic marketplace activities."
None of these appear to have been broken, so it is unclear on what basis they would have banned this user: "Without limiting other remedies, we may immediately, without notice, temporarily suspend, indefinitely suspend, or terminate any or all of your rights of use if you breach any term or condition of this Agreement (or the documents it incorporates by reference), or if we are unable to verify or authenticate any information you provide to us or if we believe that your actions may cause liability for you, our users or us."
25.
W. Kevin Vicklund | November 28, 2012 at 9:46 pm
If I leave my front gate open and stick a welcome mat on my doorstep, it does not mean that I am waiving all private property rights. I can still have you arrested for trespassing. Opening my gate is not the same thing as renting out my house. A website that permits comments is not a public accommodation.
26.
Mike in Baltimore | November 28, 2012 at 10:06 pm
If the rules do NOT state political expression are prohibited, then expressions of political expression cannot be deleted unless they break other rules.
I have been a moderator of several web sites where the rules state "NO politics, NO religion is to be discussed. Any post discussing such can and will be deleted, and you will receive an emailed notice as to why. Continued violation of such rules will be cause to cancel your membership and/or ability to post" (or similar wording).
And on some of those sites, the ban on religious/political discussions was set in place AFTER the site was set up and running.
27.
fiona64 | November 29, 2012 at 8:39 am
Nope. You agree to the terms of service of a website, and that includes the understanding that the WEBSITE owns the content, not you. That means that they can delete whatever the hell they want.
28.
Reformed | November 29, 2012 at 9:53 am
Paul,
Monitoring these websites and making note of what gets deleted is a great way to document the bias and agenda of these organizations. Case in point, NOM screams hate speech just for supporting marriage equality. Presenting a logical counterpoint to their arguments will surely get you deleted if you make a habit of it. Their 5 or 6 regulars who post evidently compete with each other to work as many derogatory epethets as possible into their rants, yet . . .
tells you something about the oragnization. But its their website, and its their slip that is showing.
29.
Fran | November 29, 2012 at 12:16 pm
I didn't say a welcome mat, I said a sign.
30.
W. Kevin Vicklund | November 29, 2012 at 12:25 pm
So what?
31.
Reformed | November 29, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Interesting. however, rules and law are different. he who holds the moderration mouse will likely make the rules regardless of what the rules actually say. if he breaks the rules and moderates all desent our of existence, he might have to answer to the person who set the rules for moderation, but not to the government or a court. contract and jurisdiction come into play, neither of which favor actions based on websites being apublic accomodations.
Now church burildings are public accomodations, right
32.
Mike in Baltimore | November 30, 2012 at 12:20 am
"Now church burildings are public accomodations, right
"
Was that a question? Or was it your opinion?
And for your information, church buildings are NOT public accomodations unless they are open to ALL.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.