Alex Blaze

Ex-gays want in on the ENDA

Filed By Alex Blaze | October 14, 2008 3:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Fundie Watch, Politics
Tags: employment discrimination, ENDA, ex-gay, LGBT, regina griggs, Washington D.C.

And they want in on DC's human rights ordinance:

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.

Wait, if they actually have stopped all their same-sex attraction, then wouldn't that mean that they're straight? And I thought heterosexuality was already a sexual orientation.

They also want in on the ENDA:

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."

Well, that would make for some interesting Congressional debates.

And why just Obama? I don't think McCain's said anything one way or the other when it comes to ex-gay civil rights either. Why are they letting the Republican off the hook?

This group of people is absolutely ridiculous, and that's half their goal. They're hoping to make all this legislation seem ridiculous so that people throw up their hands and say, "Gay, ex-gay, I just don't get it, but if you can switch everything around then employment protections don't matter."

The other half is to demonize gays:

"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."

Even though they can't provide a single example of an ex-gay being assaulted or fired....


Recent Entries Filed under Fundie Watch:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


These nutcases are obviously (1) trying to get attention for themselves (kind of like the homeless man who crosses the street at a snail's pace just for the pleasure of holding up traffic), (2) they are using this as a ploy to get out the assertion that "sexual orientation can be changed" and (3) as you say, Alex, they are just trying to confuse people generally.

But they are screwed, screwed, screwed! If the ENDA were to get tested in a court, I'm confident the court would say that "sexual orientation" covers both homosexuals and heterosexuals, and also covers former sexual orientations. Under ENDA, an employer couldn't fire an employee for being "ex-gay" any more than the employer could fire someone because they were formerly a Roman Catholic, formerly a Muslim, formerly a Wiccan, etc.

This is pure BS. Let's hope they get ignored, which is exactly what this deserves.

Fired from their jobs for what? Not being gay? I've never even seen a gay organization require an employee to be gay.

Creating an identity based on what you aren't seems odd, especially when you're theoretically seeking 'normalcy'. It's like being neither fish nor fowl.

Maybe I should start a bar association for people who aren't lawyers.

I'm just thinking aloud, but are there some moderates with some sort of Christian bent that could be convinced into logrolling trans inclusion into the ENDA in exchange for 'ex-gays'?

I doubt it. The ex-gays are an exceedingly small sector of the anti-gay industry with their main org (PFOX) pulling in a fraction of what even a single-issue, state-level gay org would be making. They have very little power to broker any sort of deal other than releasing bizarre press releases.

Also, the Religious Right in general is against anti-discrimination measures for anyone, which makes this statement even more bizarre.

I'm just thinking aloud, but would logrolling 'ex-gays' back into the bill allow us to peel enough centrist votes back to re-include trans protections in the ENDA?

Ah, they're not straight OR gay. You can't change your sexual orientation, right? They didn't. It is my strong opinion that EX-GAYS ARE REALLY BISEXUALS WHO ARE MADE TO BELIEVE THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE SAME SEX ENCOUNTERS ANYMORE.

They don't believe in or understand bisexuality, almost as much as gays and lesbians don't believe or understand bisexuality. So, ex-gays scream, "I'm not gay anymore!" and gay people scream, "Yes you are!" Bisexuals are saying, "What the fuck?"

As bisexuals, or faux straight/faux gay people, they are already covered in ENDA. They got a lot of balls for bitching about "not being covered."

I wonder about that. From what I've read of the very, very small group of people that say they're ex-gay, they generally admit that they have no attraction to the opposite sex, but that they've learned to control their desire for the same sex.

I agree with Monica. At least, the healthy ones who still engage in some sexual desire. The LOONS you're talking about Alex who claim to suppress their desire in its entirety are NUTZ and unworthy of further discussion.

As I opined over at Pam's (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=C6846B217A0D963C5AB654D0BCDC7A02?diaryId=7564):

1. I can't say (at least with the certainty with which christianists tend to speak) that it has never happened, but I can say that I've never heard of a (so-called) ex-gay being fired (or never hired in the first instance) solely for (a) being (so-called) ex-gay; (b) being outed as being (so-called) ex-gay; or (c) ceasing a same-sex relationship either to be in an opposite-sex relationship or to cease sexual activity entirely. It does, of course, seem that an abnormally high number of (so-called) ex-gays get sucked into the (so-called) ex-gay lifestyle via substance abuse problems - which may be the real reason that certain (so-called) ex-gays have employment issues.

2. Solely as to the question of being (so-called) ex-gay, (so-called) ex-gays ARE covered under "sexual orientation," given that, irrespective of whether T is included or not, the definition of such almost universally includes heterosexuality in addition to homosexuality and bisexuality.

3. As for "assaulted"...I thought the official (so-called) ex-gay line was that 'all crime is hate crime.' If so, in terms of intellectual honesty, I ask: Why should you care about whether you're covered or not?

4. If you don't believe the 'all crime is hate crime' canard and you do want to be covered by hate crime law, then why don't you get an attorney (a real one, not a Liberty or Regent grad) to explain to you why those 'sexual orientation' laws that you're fighting against actually will cover you?

Regina Griggs is a perfect example of why everyone needs health insurance. I'm assuming she's out of her meds when she pulls these stunts quarterly.

*yawn*

They started this when they faked up the charge of an attack at that fair in 2007. Just to have a beef at ENDA. Now they don’t even understand the meaning of the words/phrases, gender or sexual orientation. How stupid can you get, just for more publicity? And what dunce of a lawyer did they get to file their frivolous lawsuit?

*yawn*

Ex-gays will be protected under ENDA as it now stands. ENDA will protect homosexuals, heterosexuals, and bisexuals, and since ex-gays are now heterosexuals, then they will be protected if an employer refuses to hire them because they are heterosexual. No worries.

That was the first thing I thought too, Marc. "Uh, ex-gay would be covered under sexual orientation. Straight or gay, we're both in there - even those somewhere in the mushy middle!"

Wow. Is this some sort of joke? The right-wingers get nuttier and nuttier.

First off, ok, you say you're heterosexual. Great. You're covered.

Second. You considered yourself at one time to be homosexual. You're covered for that too.

What more can you want? Sheesh.