Conservatives need to come up with better theories, especially when the topic is sexuality. As most of you know the Values Summit happened this past weekend (the attendees went gaga over Ms. Prejean). Michael Schwartz, chief of staff for Sen. Tom Coburn, held a session on the evils of pornography. Here is what he opined:

“All pornography is homosexual pornography,” said Schwartz, repeating what an ex-gay friend told him, “because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards.”

You read right. According to Schwartz’s ex-gay friend (we all know that queen is at the sex club with his booty in the air….not that there is anything wrong with that) all porn is touched with the homosexuality. But hold on peoples because it gets better. Schwartz is convinced one way to keep 11 year old boys from loving show tunes is by telling them Dad’s Playboy will transform them into sodomites.

“And if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he’s going to want to get a copy of ‘Playboy’?” he said. “I’m pretty sure he’ll lose interest. That’s the last thing he wants!”

I hate children, but I know this much: Playboy’s hold on the imaginations of 11 year old boys is tenuous at best. When was that magazine last relevant? Forty years ago?

While I’m ranting, this is problem 423 about minority life. The majority will always point to some goofiness uttered by a tribe member (good morning Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson) to uphold their bigotry. Who better else to quote than some “ex-gay” nitwit for the juicy dirt on gay living?

What the thief or thieves had gotten away with were early versions of some books a friend had asked me to review: Three Buddhist manuscripts.

The mental image of the thieves – for some reason I always pictured three hardened criminals, but in sort of a Bowery Boys style – excitedly ripping open their sudden, ill-gotten bounty only to find page upon closely printed page on the futility of desire kept me giggling for days.

Every now and then I still wonder if one of the Bowery Boys actually picked up the manuscripts and started reading, and if he was at all changed as a result.

I bring it up because an intriguing press release made its way to my in-box today.

PFOX, or “Parents and Friends of ExGays and Gays” has won a case in the District of Columbia’s Superior Court. PFOX sued the National Education Association for “failing to protect ex-gays” in its anti-discrimination policies.

The ruling is that “former homosexuals” must be treated as a sexual orientation under the District’s non-discrimination laws.

In other words, ex-gays are now in the same protected category as gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered, at least in the District.

While I certainly don’t think any group should be singled out for discrimination, the language PFOX is using about the case is a little maddening.

Their case, essentially, is that suppressing your natural sexual orientation is in itself an orientation.

If a straight man becomes a monk and takes a vow of celibacy, does he become a new orientation called ex-straight?

Regina Griggs, the executive director of PFOX, claimed, in regard to the case, that “the ex-gay community is the most bullied and maligned group in America, yet they are not protected by sexual orientation non-discrimination laws,”

(I would link you to PFOX’s statistics to back up that statement, but for some reason I couldn’t find that page on their website.)

PFOX is now demanding that the NEA add a member from the Ex-Gay Educators Caucus to its Sexual Orientation Committee. Greg Quinlan, one of the directors of PFOX, expanded on the idea by saying “All sexual orientation laws and programs nationwide should now provide true diversity and equality by including former homosexuals.”

Isn’t that kind of like demanding that every swim team includes at least one housecat?

The language PFOX uses about themselves tests my tolerance limits as well.

Sure, there are basic dishonest rhetorical techniques such as taking totally unsupported, broad assumptions as facts, as in the section heading “Why do gays hate ex-gays so much?”

But what really got me was how much language they’ve taken directly from the LGBT community and tried to turn on its head:

“Former homosexuals are the last invisible minority group in America.  The ex-gay movement ensures the safety and inclusion of former homosexuals in all realms of society, and supports the ex-gay community’s equal access to all public venues.  Ex-gays and their supporters should not have to be closeted for fear of other’s negative reactions or disapproval.  They do not think something is wrong with them because they decided to fulfill their heterosexual potential.”

Or:

“Why would anyone choose to leave homosexuality when there is so much discrimination against the ex-gay community?”

Or this:

“Many ex-gays are afraid to come out of the closet because of the harassment they will receive.  The tactics of gay activists are to go after anyone who comes out publicly as ex-gay, force them back into the closet, and then claim that ex-gays don’t exist because there aren’t any out in public.”

I know: It’s hard to read those without whacking yourself in the head with a breadboard. I should have put in a warning.

An exact reversal, of course, doesn’t quite work. As even PFOX’s own site can’t help but acknowledge at points, someone who is gay, bi, lesbian, or trangender is dealing with an innate orientation. Someone who is ex-gay has made a conscious decision to try to suppress unwanted feelings.

But the failings in logic are for another time. I don’t need any fish out of that particular barrel right now.

And I certainly don’t mean to suggest that any group should be singled out for discrimination. If members of PFOX have been bullied or harassed, that’s terrible. It shouldn’t happen.

(That said, reading PFOX’s own site suggests to me that they don’t quite get what discrimination is. Freedom of expression is a wonderful thing worth protecting, but it doesn’t mean that you get to say whatever you want and then nobody ever takes issue with it.)

What interests me about the PFOX site – and what made me think about my thieves and their possible Buddhist conversion – is that they’ve appropriated enough of our language to paint themselves into a corner.

In using our language to demand tolerance, they’ve made the key tactical error of coming out in support of tolerance.

Language like this shows up throughout:

“Gay activists cannot claim sympathy as victims when they victimize their own.  We should all be tolerant of each other regardless of our sexual orientation.”

In addition to acknowledging that people in the ex-gay movement are people who are, um, gay, their stolen language says, over and over, that no one can know someone else’s heart and mind, and that’s why we have to respect and accept a wide range of human variation and experience.

Like my doorstep thieves, I can’t help but wonder if they’ll actually start reading what they’ve stolen and accidentally learn something.

I’ve tried to stay away from the train wreck known as RNC chair Michael Steele, but one thing is becoming clear in his brief tenure. He really doesn’t want the gig.

Whether it’s using language that was in style 30 years ago or going after Rush Limbaugh (and then going on Rush’s show to kiss his ring), Steele has stumbled around and done very little in making a viable opposition. Now he’s stepped in it again by going after the GOP’s main anti-abortion plank. In an interview in GQ magazine, Steele seems to suggest that abortion should be left to the states.

Sure Steele went crazy in a previous interview when he was asked about civil unions, but with GQ he says something that will need to be explained to a number of his Republican peers.

“Um, you know, I think that there’s a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can’t simply say, oh, like, ‘Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.’ It’s like saying, ‘Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.’”

Pause for a moment and listen please. The sound you just heard were the Exodus folk throwing a hissy fit.

While there are many Republicans who are pro-choice and have no issues with gays or lesbians, the base of the party isn’t there yet. And they are not going to get there with their leader thinking out loud in a national magazine. Steele’s musings are not going to garner him any good will at the GOP and it wouldn’t surprise if he were gone in the next few weeks. Or he’ll make another apology. Or blame the media for taking his words out of context. Or say his troubles are Obama’s fault.

UPDATE:  Steele is already on the apology tour.

The DC Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays, or PFOX, says in its suit that the Office of Human Rights does not recognize “ex-gays.”

The suit asks the DC Superior Court to direct the Office to include former homosexuals under the sexual orientation law.

“The ex-gay community is the most bullied and maligned group in America, yet they are not protected by sexual orientation non-discrimination laws,” said Regina Griggs, PFOX executive director, in a statement.

“Shouldn’t ex-gays enjoy the same legal protections that gays enjoy?” asked Griggs in the statement.

“Former homosexuals and their friends have been fired from their jobs, repeatedly ridiculed, assaulted, and intimidated. This harassment is most often perpetrated by the same groups who demand protection under sexual orientation laws but work to deny ex-gays the same respect.”

Griggs also said that the group wants protections for “ex-gays” in federal legislation – specifically the Employment Non-Discrimination Act known as ENDA.

“PFOX is especially concerned because Presidential candidate Barack Obama has failed to answer PFOX’s Aug. 25th letter asking if ex-gays will be included in sexual orientation legislation which Obama says he will sign into law as President,” said Griggs.

ENDA has passed the House but has yet to be taken up by the Senate.  It would outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, credit and housing.

“Former homosexuals should have the right to be out, open and safe in society,” said Griggs. “On his website, Senator Obama says he supports gay and transgender rights because he supports civil rights for all persons, but does that include ex-gays? Americans need to know where Obama stands on the issue of ex-gay inclusion because his pledge to pass homosexual and transgender legislation as President will affect all of us. We urge Senator Obama to end his silence.”

The conference, which claims homosexuality can be “cured” through prayer, was promoted by Gov. Sarah Palin’s church, along with other conservative churches in Alaska.

“Love Won Out” is part of Focus on the Family, the national Christian fundamentalist organization. About 300 people attended the conference.

Demonstrators were made up of members of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays and Truth Wins Out, an organization fighting the ex-gay movement.

“People should accept people for who they are, and they shouldn’t use bigotry concealed in the name of God’s love to pass hatred on to others, and to create a culture where discrimination against someone is ok, because it’s not,” said protestor Mike Mason.

Critics of the so-called “ex-gay” movement say groups like “Love Won Out” use outmoded medical theories and radical religious beliefs.

Mainstream psychiatrists and psychologists have discredited the group’s assertion that homosexuality is learned and can be reversed. In 1990, the American Psychological Association (APA) stated that scientific evidence does not show that conversion therapy works and that it can do more harm than good.

The conference, which claims homosexuality can be “cured” through prayer, is being promoted by Gov. Sarah Palin’s church. “Love Won Out” is part of Focus on the Family, the national Christian fundamentalist organization.

Mainstream psychiatrists and psychologists have discredited the group’s assertion that homosexuality is learned and can be reversed.

Gay rights advocates call the conference “dangerous.”

“Families never win at Love Won Out,” said Jane Schlittler, president of PFLAG’s Anchorage, Alaska chapter.

“The conference’s organizers maliciously target often well-meaning parents who are dealing with a difficult issue in their lives, and in the process put their kids’ well-being at risk. Make no mistake: There is far more ‘preying’ than ‘praying’ taking place at these meetings, and far more harming than healing in the doctrine of Love Won Out,” she said.
Critics of the so-called ex-gay movement say groups like “Love Won Out” use outmoded medical theories and radical religious beliefs.

In 1990, the American Psychological Association (APA) stated that scientific evidence does not show that conversion therapy works and that it can do more harm than good.

“Programs like Love Won Out are dangerous for kids and divisive for families,” said PFLAG National executive director Jody M. Huckaby.

“Every bit of evidence available suggests that children who grow up in homes that accept them – and not try to change them – are far happier and healthier than those subjected to these anti-family tactics. It is nothing short of extremist to imply that families should do anything other than love their children as they are, and nothing short of outrageous to infer that LGBT kids aren’t fine just the way they are.”

Saturday’s event in Anchorage has sparked widespread attention and protest following reports that Wasilla Bible Church, where Republican Vice Presidential nominee Governor Sarah Palin is a member, has endorsed the Love Won Out conference. The McCain/Palin campaign has not said whether the governor supports the “ex-gay” ministry and she has no record of advocating the program.

Palin has, however, spoken out against gay marriage.

“Palin, and lawmakers of both parties, should seize that opportunity,” PFLAG said in a statement, “and stand up as boldly and outspokenly for all of our kids as much as they do for their own.”

This convention proved that the GOP does not run on actual persons or positions, but manufactured personas and plot lines. The phony dog and pony show began with the enormously wealthy Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, who oddly condemned the snooty northeastern elite. This pampered pretty boy was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, yet he haplessly works to fool blue-collar conservatives into believing that that the shiny utensil is aluminum. Has any politician ever been more “Full of Mitt?”

The most fantastical fiction of the week was the Cinderella story of “Sarah Palin.” The only White House anyone ever thought she would live in was an igloo, yet there she was on America’s largest political stage. The joyous thrill from her two main constituencies — the religious right and the tabloids — was palpable.

Palin portrayed herself as a reformer, even though she was for the infamous, “Bridge to Nowhere” before she was against it. She touted her experience as head of Alaska’s National Guard, until it was shown that she had not made one executive decision in this capacity. Then, she was lauded for her anti-corruption efforts in Alaska, even as she was under serious investigation for abusing her power. Most disturbing, Palin described herself as an advocate for special needs children, as she cut the state’s Special Olympics budget in half.

It is scary to think that McCain believes Palin has enough foreign policy know-how to run this nation during a time of war. Indeed, his vice presidential pick did not get a passport until 2007. There are literally college-age backpackers traipsing around hostels in Europe with more overseas experience.

As for McCain, convention speakers endlessly recounted his time as a POW. It truly was inspiring the first twenty-seven times I heard it. I suppose reliving the past is what a candidate, no matter how heroic, must do who has no plan for the future. McCain’s speech was as empty as the vault used to hold the national surplus after eight years of Republican rule.

It was also fascinating to watch McCain portray himself as an agent of change. His message essentially was to re-elect Republicans to reform America from the mess that the same Republicans got us into. This was highlighted by the GOP’s Herculean efforts to render George W. Bush invisible. If they had shoved Bush any deeper into the closet, he would have bumped into Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID).

Cheering on the sidelines was baroness Cindy McCain, wearing an outfit that Vanity Fair priced at $300,000. Republicans went bonkers when John Edwards got a $400 haircut — yet seemed ambivalent about her majesty’s opulent costume. I suppose the GOP is the party of the working class, if you count the minions toiling on Cindy’s dress, jewelry, make-up and hair, as well as tending to McCain’s private jet plane.

The convention’s most pleasant surprise was its lack of overt gay bashing. Perhaps, attacking gays is not polling as well as it did only a few years ago. Or, maybe “Family Values” was an inappropriate theme considering Palin’s “Family Vaudeville.”

But, gay Log Cabin Republicans had little time to rejoice before Palin’s church said that being gay was a choice. The Wasilla Bible Church was caught promoting Focus on the Family’s Love Won Out conference, with a Bible insert that said, “You’ll be encouraged by the power of God’s love and His desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality.”

It is imperative that Palin answers whether she agrees with the views of her church. If she does, Log Cabin should immediately withdraw their endorsement of McCain. Unfortunately, Palin will not talk to reporters until the GOP believes she is ready to go without her training wheels. The smokescreen her campaign is using to justify her silence is that she should not have to discuss her religious beliefs. Interesting, how a woman who recently asked Alaskans to pray for a natural gas pipeline now believes religion is off limits.

If Palin says that she endorses Love Won Out, it could cost McCain the election. Consider this: In 2000, national exit polls put the gay vote at 4 percent, with 25 percent saying that they voted for Bush. This translated into one million gay votes for W., which may have cost Gore Florida and New Hampshire.

While homosexuals can’t be turned into ex-gays, Palin’s support of such ministries could create enough ex-Republican gays to swing the election in favor of Obama.

“You’ll be encouraged by the power of God’s love and His desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality,” according to the insert in the bulletin of the Wasilla Bible Church, where Palin has prayed for about six years.

Palin’s conservative Christian views have energized that part of the GOP electorate, which was lukewarm to John McCain’s candidacy before he named her as his vice presidential choice. She is staunchly anti-abortion, opposing exceptions for rape and incest, and opposes gay marriage and spousal rights for gay couples.

Focus on the Family, a national Christian fundamentalist organization, is conducting the “Love Won Out” Conference in Anchorage, about 30 miles from Wasilla.

Palin, campaigning with McCain in the Midwest on Friday, has not publicly expressed a view on the so-called “pray away the gay” movement. Larry Kroon, senior pastor at Palin’s church, was not available to discuss the matter Friday, said a church worker who declined to give her name.

Gay activists in Alaska said Palin has not worked actively against their interests, but early in her administration she supported a bill to overrule a court decision to block state benefits for gay partners of public employees. At the time, less than one-half of 1 percent of state employees had applied for the benefits, which were ordered by a 2005 ruling by the Alaska Supreme Court.

Palin reversed her position and vetoed the bill after the state attorney general said it was unconstitutional. But her reluctant support didn’t win fans among Alaska’s gay population, said Scott Turner, a gay activist in Anchorage.

“Less than 1 percent of state employees would even apply for benefits, so why make a big deal out of such a small number?” he said.

“I think gay Republicans are going to run away” if Palin supports efforts like the prayers to convert gays, said Wayne Besen, founder of the New York-based Truth Wins Out, a gay rights advocacy group. Besen called on Palin to publicly express her views now that she’s a vice presidential nominee.

“People are looking at Sarah Palin as someone who might feasibly be in the White House,” he said.

I have no objection to them in principle because I believe we should give others the same respect that we ourselves demand. That includes giving people wide latitude about living their lives as they see fit. If you really believe that you’re heterosexual deep down, and you want to take steps to help realize that identity, far be it from me to insist otherwise. I’ll let you be the expert on what you feel deep down, as long as you show me the same courtesy.

In fact, many ex-gays do not show me the same courtesy. I’ve had several tell me, “C’mon—deep down you know that being gay is wrong.” I know no such thing, and I resent it when other people tell me what I know “deep down.” So let’s make a deal: you don’t tell me what I know deep down, and I won’t tell you what you know deep down.

I’m not denying that people are capable of deep self-deception; indeed, I know it firsthand. For years I insisted that I was “really” straight, even though (1) I had gay feelings, (2) I had no straight feelings, and (3) I knew that people with gay feelings but no straight feelings are gay. (This, from someone who would later teach elementary logic.) Somehow, by not letting my thoughts “touch,” I could avoid drawing the feared conclusions from them.

Maybe ex-gays are engaged in similar self-deception; maybe not. The point is that it’s their feelings, their life, their decision to make. So I won’t oppose their efforts in principle.

In practice, I have at least three serious problems with ex-gay ministries.

The first is their tendency to promote myths about the so-called “homosexual lifestyle” by generalizing from some people’s unfortunate personal experiences. Ex-gay spokespersons will often recount, in lurid detail, a life of promiscuity, sexual abuse, drug addiction, loneliness, depression, and so on. “That is what I left behind,” they tearfully announce, and who can blame them? But that experience is not my experience, and it’s by no means typical of the gay experience. To suggest otherwise is to spread lies about the reality of gay and lesbian people’s lives. (The best antidote for this is for the rest of us to tell our own stories openly and proudly.)

The second problem is the ex-gay ministries’ abuse of science. Many of its practitioners are engaged in “therapy” even though they are neither trained nor licensed to do so; some of that “therapy” can cause serious and lasting psychological damage. Ex-gay ministries tend to lean on discredited etiological theories—domineering mothers, absent fathers, and that sort of thing. They also tend to give false hope to those who seek such therapy. By all respectable accounts, only a tiny fraction of those who seek change achieve any lasting success. Even then it’s unclear whether feelings, or merely behaviors, have been changed. While we shouldn’t reject individuals’ reports of change out of hand, nor should we pretend that their experience is typical or likely.

The third and related problem is that many ex-gay ministries promote not merely a “change,” but a “cure.” “Cure” implies “disease,” which homosexuality is not. Insofar as ex-gay ministries promote the long-discredited notion that homosexuality is a psychological disorder, I oppose them. (”Spiritual” disorders are another matter, but then we’ve left the realm of science for that of religion. Ex-gay ministries have an unfortunate habit of conflating science, religion, and politics.)

I am not at all threatened by the notion that some people can change their sexual orientation, if indeed they can. In reality, it seems that at best only a small number can do so, and only with tremendous effort. But if they can, and that makes them happy, good for them. I’m confident enough in my own happiness that I need not doubt theirs.

Nor do I feel the need to insist that I was “born this way.” Maybe I was, maybe I wasn’t. What I can say with confidence is that these feelings are a deep and fulfilling part of who I am, and I see no reason to mess with them. Quite the contrary.

So when ex-gays announce, from billboards and magazine ads, that “Change is possible,” I say: Possible? Maybe. Likely? No. Desirable? Not for me, thanks.