Are the Suers Planning to Do It Again?
Wednesday night at the citizens advisory committee meeting we finished up with the 8th grade curriculum. Nearly sixty changes had been proposed, and we spent a lot of time on every one of them. It was a long, exhausting meeting, but we got through it.
One change, near the end, was proposed by Peter Sprigg. A chart on a handout shows sexual orientation: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual. Peter, who represents PFOX -- the Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays -- submitted the suggestion that we should add "former homosexual," with a definition "Someone who once experienced same-sex attractions, but now chooses not to act on those feelings, not to embrace a homosexual identity, and/or chooses to affirm and develop his or her heterosexual desires."
The committee has three members who vote together on almost everything: the CRC rep, the PFOX rep, and another person who does not represent a group but describes herself as a Republican. The CRC member sits directly to my left, the other two are to my right, one seat away. Wednesday night there were lots of 10-to-3 and 9-to-3 votes (one person had to leave before we were finished).
We discussed Sprigg's proposed change, and voted on it. The vote was 9 to 3 against it.
Immediately the Republican turned to him and said, under her breath, but everybody heard: "There is the lawsuit."
So ... they lost a vote and now they can go crying to the courts.
The committee voted not to include the fake category "former homosexuals" in a list with authentic forms of sexual orientation.
Imagine that you could go to a hundred professors who publish papers on the psychology of sex. Say a thousand, it doesn't matter, you'd get the same answer. And you asked them, What are the varieties of sexual orientation?
First, if they took you seriously, they'd hem and haw about the nebulosity of the definition of a concept like "sexual orientation," probably mention some different aspects of it, something about measurement, self-report, consensus in the field, et cetera. Then they'd say: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual.
I guarantee, if you asked the top I-don't-care-how-many people in the field, it would not occur to a one of them to mention "former homosexuals."
For one thing, it's not a sexual orientation. If you used to be gay and now you're straight, then your sexual orientation is ... heterosexual. No problem, you fit in the box, it's got a label on it, let's move on to something else.
Of course the proposal was voted down: it was not a good proposal. It's nothing personal, it's nothing political or ideological, it's just that "former homosexual" is not a form of sexual orientation.
One change, near the end, was proposed by Peter Sprigg. A chart on a handout shows sexual orientation: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual. Peter, who represents PFOX -- the Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays -- submitted the suggestion that we should add "former homosexual," with a definition "Someone who once experienced same-sex attractions, but now chooses not to act on those feelings, not to embrace a homosexual identity, and/or chooses to affirm and develop his or her heterosexual desires."
The committee has three members who vote together on almost everything: the CRC rep, the PFOX rep, and another person who does not represent a group but describes herself as a Republican. The CRC member sits directly to my left, the other two are to my right, one seat away. Wednesday night there were lots of 10-to-3 and 9-to-3 votes (one person had to leave before we were finished).
We discussed Sprigg's proposed change, and voted on it. The vote was 9 to 3 against it.
Immediately the Republican turned to him and said, under her breath, but everybody heard: "There is the lawsuit."
So ... they lost a vote and now they can go crying to the courts.
The committee voted not to include the fake category "former homosexuals" in a list with authentic forms of sexual orientation.
Imagine that you could go to a hundred professors who publish papers on the psychology of sex. Say a thousand, it doesn't matter, you'd get the same answer. And you asked them, What are the varieties of sexual orientation?
First, if they took you seriously, they'd hem and haw about the nebulosity of the definition of a concept like "sexual orientation," probably mention some different aspects of it, something about measurement, self-report, consensus in the field, et cetera. Then they'd say: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual.
I guarantee, if you asked the top I-don't-care-how-many people in the field, it would not occur to a one of them to mention "former homosexuals."
For one thing, it's not a sexual orientation. If you used to be gay and now you're straight, then your sexual orientation is ... heterosexual. No problem, you fit in the box, it's got a label on it, let's move on to something else.
Of course the proposal was voted down: it was not a good proposal. It's nothing personal, it's nothing political or ideological, it's just that "former homosexual" is not a form of sexual orientation.
posted by JimK at 11:56 AM
15 Comments:
How about "straight"?
Well, you're wrong, Jim. There is a difference between acquiescing to a desire and resisting it. There need to be different labels for these two types of sexual players. That keeps the kids fully informed so they know that resistance is not futile. One of the many regrettable notions circulated by the gay advocacy movement is that gay desires are unavoidable are irresistable in some people. There are few other desires we'd say that about.
BTW, I can think of many other potential grounds for litigation but the process hasn't yet run its course. The CAC's not done yet and it's also possible for the Board to make changes once it gets a final product.
"resistance is not futile"
Your top guy couldn't resist his homosexual desires...and yet you want the rest of the world to?
The Republican National Committee accepts money from a producer of gay "army porn" yet preaches about "family values"?
Yous guys are a riot.
"Your top guy couldn't resist his homosexual desires...and yet you want the rest of the world to?"
Believe it or not, people have resisted sexual temptation. Calling him my top guy is a bit much. I don't have anything against him and I had heard statements quoted by him in the paper but I didn't know anything else about him and never even knew what he looked like until yesterday.
You TTFers really have a strange reverence for associations. You seem to have a bad case of Washington-itis.
I'm straight. I haven't had sex for a year (been resisting temptation.)
Am I gay now?
Your arguments are beyond ridiculous.
"BTW, I can think of many other potential grounds for litigation"
How soon they forget. Bush received a "mandate" in 2004 so what the hell do you need "grounds" for? Remember this comment from the RECALL message board (emphasis and [COMMENTS ADDED])?
"I agree Mary with your post in the media section. There is a place for focused anger here. Lets not forget that this "quasi" elected board, immediately after the nationwide election which trounced the homosexual agenda, instituted a profoundly pro-gay curriculum. What they did was, and still is, outrageous.
This board is NOT going to recant anything because of "supplicant" appeals to listen to our position. The only thing that is going to get their complete attention is:
1. Continuing outrage streaming in to their castle headquarters [MAIL TO THE BOE RAN 4:1 IN FAVOR OF THE REVISIONS]
2. John Garza proceeding immediatley with his lawsuit. (Lawsuits tend to get peoples attention - merit or no merit because it forces them to deal with their legal team on a continuing basis)
3. 50,000 plus signatures between the paper petition and the on-line petition. [46,000 SHORT]
4. Tabulation of all the outrageous things said about us and this issue, and posted on both web sites. [YES, CRC AND RECALL WERE ONE AND THE SAME]
5. Massive email campaign to inform and INFLAME.
In other words, aggressive tactics.
[Date=01-13-2005] Name:ADMINISTRATOR support@recallmontgomeryschoolboard.com, [Msgid=763681] "
Hmm let's see "resisting temptation" = "No dessert for me tonight!"
Changing sexual orientation = "I think I'll switch to loving the other gender now!"
Do these two items seem equivalent to you, Anon?
Anonymous at November 03, 2006 1:20 PM said "There is a difference between acquiescing to a desire and resisting it. There need to be different labels for these two types of sexual players. That keeps the kids fully informed so they know that resistance is not futile."
That's ridiculous. Heterosexuals become priests and resist their heterosexual desires, the commensurate idea that this makes them former heterosexuals is laughable - no one sees a need for different labels in this situation and its the same for gays.
The fact that Narth could only come up with 50 people claiming to have changed orientations out of an estimated 250,000 clients strongly suggests it is almost always futile to try to change same sex desires into opposite sex desires. We shouldn't be teaching kids that they owe it to anyone or any religion to suppress their sexuality. Everyone has a right to express their natural born sexuality as long as they aren't hurting others.
WHAT DO YOU ALL CARE IF X-GAYS ARE IN THE LIST WHAT DOES IT MATTER TO YOU? THIS IS SURPRESSION OF A MINORITY BIGGOTS
They could have put "mashed potatoes" on the list, or "granite," or "fingernails," for that matter. None of those things are types of sexual orientation either.
Guess that makes the committee potatoists, granitists, fingernailists, terrible biggots, surpressing those minorities.
Merle
anonymous YELLED, WHAT DO YOU ALL CARE IF X-GAYS ARE IN THE LIST WHAT DOES IT MATTER TO YOU?
There is no such thing as an "X-Gay" and you know it.
"X-Gay" = straight and they are included.
Ted
Last February, I posted the following regarding the idea that CRC/PFOX could use a decision by MCPS to decline to include “ex-gay” material to challenge a curriculum:
“. . . take a look at the court decision cited Judge Williams in support of his view that the revised curriculum constituted unconstitutional "viewpoint discrimination." Court’s opinion at p. 20. That case was Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995), which did not involve a school’s choice of curriculum but, rather dealt with UVA’s policies on funding student publications. Under UVA’s rules, any student publication that met certain neutral criteria could get funding. Rosenberger met all the criteria, but the University turned him down because the publication was Christian-themed. The University feared that if it funded the publication, it would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled otherwise, finding that the University’s decision constituted viewpoint discrimination in violation of the freedom of speech portions of the First Amendment. I agree with the majority in Rosenberger. But there is a huge difference between a public forum – which was the case in Rosenberger – and curriculum choices, which is what last year’s lawsuit was about. The BOE stood its ground on that issue. If CRC/PFOX did not like it, they could have declined to sign on to the settlement agreement. They agreed to withdraw the lawsuit, it seems to me, because they knew the ground upon which they stood legally was quicksand.”
Last summer, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (the appellate court to which the federal district courts in Maryland must answer) confirmed that the “public forum” requirements in Rosenberger circumstances simply to not apply to curriculum decisions. See Child Evangelism Fellowship of Maryland v. Montgomery County Public Schools, 457 F3d 376 (4th Cir. 2006). There the Fourth Circuit stated unequivocally that "when the government alone speaks, it need not remain neutral as to its viewpoint. See Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 833 (1995) ( 'When the University determines the content of the education it provides, it is the University speaking, and we have permitted the government to regulate the content of what is or is not expressed when it is the speaker or when it enlists private entities to convey its own message.' )."
As I noted last February, Rosenberger was the case upon which Jerry Falwell's Liberty Counsel relied upon for its argument, accepted by Judge Williams, that if the MCPS health education curriculum was to say anything about sexual orientation (there, the viewpoint of the mainstream medical and mental health professional associations), then "the other side" (there, the contrary viewpoint of Falwell, Dobson, etc., that homosexuality is a disorder and can be "cured") would have to be presented. See Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum v. MCPS, 2005 WL 1075634 (D. Md. 2005) at p. 12.
The Fourth Circuit's statement in Child Evangelism Fellowship now makes it crystal clear to all judges within the Fourth Circuit (including Judge Williams, should a later MCPS curriculum case reach him) that no First Amendment doctrine requires MCPS, in order to add to its health education curriculum the wisdom of the mainstream health associations, to also include "dissenting views" of the Falwell/Dobson-related groups. Statements essentially identical to that of the Fourth Circuit have been made by the Fifth and Ninth Circuits, in decisions written by appointees of President Reagan. See Chirac v. Miller, 432 F.3d 606, 612-12 (5th Cir. 2005); Downs v. Los Angeles Unified School District, 228 F.3d 1003, 1008, 1012-16 (9th Cir. 2000).
The "viewpoint discrimination" holding by Judge Williams was directly contrary to the Supreme Court’s statement in Rosenberger, and that is why the settlement agreement ending the lawsuit included that statement that MCPS retained the right to decide what would be in the curriculum. Now that the Fourth Circuit (of which Maryland is a part)has confirmed that curriculum in public schools is not within the "public forum" arena, as to which "all sides" of an issue must be given a platform, any attempt on the part of Liberty Counsel or anyone else to derail the upcoming curriculum revisions on a "viewpoint discrimination" ground not only will fail (that was clear even prior to CEF), but might even subject counsel raising it to sanctions for the filing of a frivolous lawsuit. See Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Anonymous at November 03, 2006 6:32 PM said "WHAT DO YOU ALL CARE IF X-GAYS ARE IN THE LIST WHAT DOES IT MATTER TO YOU? THIS IS SURPRESSION OF A MINORITY BIGGOTS".
Anonymous, if there were any people who truly were "exgay" they'd be heterosexual and the heterosexual majority most certainly does not suffer from any discrimination. The only reason anyone wants to introduce the idea of "exgays" is to oppress gays by creating the impression that they shouldn't exist and don't deserve equal treatement. The "exgay" term and the entire "exgay" movement is a disingenous cloak, an excuse for anti-gay discrimination. Those who are conned into attempting to supress their sexuality to appease others are simply being used by the anti-gay bigots.
Anon, a kindly suggestion. Learn to spell.
Spelling is the least of what anon needs to learn.
Ted
Post a Comment
<< Home