Sponsor of Constitutional Amendment: “We Need to Get [Homosexuals] to Change their Lifestyle to the One We Accept”

Sep 10, 2011   //   Tolerance

The proposed NC Constitutional Amendment that would ban same-sex marriage is being considered at a special legislative session on Monday, September 12.  I refer readers to an article I posted within the past day  describing the agenda as being one of hatred borne of ignorance and political manipulation (ref).  However, after reading statements made by Senator James Forrester, NC Senate Deputy President Pro Tempore, as reported in the press, I issued a response to him today with copy to multiple legislators in the General Assembly.  That response is provided below.

Should anyone wish to send their opinion of this Amendment to legislators, I provide the following e-mail addresses: Senator Forrester  James.Forrester@ncleg.net, Senate President Pro Tempore Phil.Berger@ncleg.net, House Speaker Thom.Tillis@ncleg.net, Speaker Pro Tempore  Dale.Folwell@ncleg.net, House Majority Leader Paul.Stam@ncleg.net


Senator Forrester:

I note that you are a physician.  I obtained my research degree at the Medical College University of Arizona and spent my career largely involved with clinical research studies of therapeutic agents, progressing to executive ranks in the pharmaceutical industry.

I came across a piece in the Gaston Gazette that reported on a meeting you attended and spoke at regarding the proposed NC constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage http://www.gastongazette.com/news/marriage-60684-state-one.html.  In that article the following statement is attributed to you:

“We need to reach out to them [homosexuals] and get them to change their lifestyle back to the one we accept”.

My belief is that you must have forgotten the medical dictum ‘First do no harm’, for the statement you made in public is reckless and may actually cause harm.

Both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association have taken positions that efforts to change sexual orientation have no scientific credibility and may cause psychological damage to patients.

The following is excerpted from the American Psychological Association’s Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx

From their Research Summary:

Although sound data on the safety of SOCE (Sexual Orientation Change Efforts) are extremely limited, some individuals reported being harmed by SOCE. Distress and depression were exacerbated. Belief in the hope of sexual orientation change followed by the failure of the treatment was identified as a significant cause of distress and negative self-image (Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002).

From their Resolution

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association affirms that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality regardless of sexual orientation identity;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association reaffirms its position that homosexuality per se is not a mental disorder and opposes portrayals of sexual minority youths and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation;

Additionally the following is excerpted from the American Psychiatric Association’s position statement regarding Therapies Focused on Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation (Reparative or Conversion Therapies http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200001a.aspx

1.     APA affirms its 1973 position that homosexuality per se is not a diagnosable mental disorder.  Recent publicized efforts to repathologize homosexuality by claiming that it can be cured are often guided not by rigorous scientific or psychiatric research, but sometimes by religious and political forces opposed to full civil rights for gay men and lesbians.  APA recommends that the APA respond quickly and appropriately as a scientific organization when claims that homosexuality is a curable illness are made by political or religious groups.

2.     As a general principle, a therapist should not determine the goal of treatment either coercively or through subtle influence.  Psychotherapeutic modalities to convert or “repair” homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable.  Furthermore, anecdotal reports of “cures” are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm.  In the last four decades, “reparative” therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure.  Until there is such research available, APA recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals’ sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to First, do no harm.

Sometimes it helps to put a face on the matter.  Robbie Kirkland was a 15 year old who was continually subjected to negative ‘homophobic’ social pressures regarding his sexual orientation.  He took a key from his father’s key chain, unlocked his father’s gun and put the keys back.  He climbed up to the attic where he lay down on a mattress.  Then he shot himself in the head.  The suicide note was found in a notebook at his mother’s.  “I am sorry for the pain I have put everyone through…I hope I can find the peace I couldn’t find in my life”.

Robbie Kirkland Picture

It is time that we stop discriminating against our diversity, for real lives are at play.  I ask that this legislature vote down the constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.

Recent Posts

Gun Violence and Human Rights: Welcome to the Family

With two separate human rights committees declaring this year that rampant gun violence in the United States constitutes a violation of our government’s duty to protect life, gun violence finds itself as being but one member in a family of related disorders in our country. It is beyond coincidence that all disproportionately affect the same victims and that all are fostered by the same hateful and discriminatory ideology held on the political right. Although other members of this family claim far more lives than does gun violence, it is the dramatic and highly publicized nature of major gun violence events that raises public outrage as well as tens of millions of dollars in funding. Our country now has the demography to weaponize human rights in our political process. And gun violence prevention, with its resources and political connections, can accomplish much more than just its own cause, and far more quickly, by simply changing its focus.

Gun Violence Prevention and the Democratic Party: A Tactical Abyss

Is the gun violence prevention movement really taking head-on an issue that is held by as little as 2% of the American public as being the most important factor in voting for Congress? Both Democratic candidates and gun violence prevention advocates ignored the market while failing to energize important segments of their customer base this past election. Until the gun violence prevention movement re-positions its product into one that better resonates with what is driving voters during elections, the issue will continue to be a largely inconsequential one in shaping Congress. But the movement also needs the help of Democratic candidates to light the fires.

Placing Gun Violence into a Human Rights Framework: Our Moral Imperative

Today’s gun violence prevention movement has developed the organizational structures, political connections and deep financial pockets to impact both Congress and public opinion. The use those resources to inject human rights into our political dialog, along with the voices of Congressional allies, becomes a moral imperative for our leaders.

Featured Article

The Year the GOPs Con Game was Exposed

The GOP’s decision to reinstate tax cut policy in 2001 exposed their hand. It was not about deficit reduction, growing the economy, or job creation. It was about ideology and, no doubt, special interests. It was a backdoor approach where government revenue was cut in an attempt to curtail spending on popular programs they otherwise could not take head-on. This while obstructing the work of Congress, spinning a web of deceit about the benefits of their policy, and weakening our country’s financial standing. It’s time to play hardball during ‘fiscal cliff’ negotiations and force them to be specific about what spending cuts they are talking about to offset the tax benefits they wish to preserve for the wealthiest. They wouldn’t have the nerve.