Okay, I realize that gender and sexuality and how an individual chooses at any given time to express those aspects of themselves exist on a kind of continuum. But, at the very least for the purposes of this argument (for lack of a better word), unless someone is asexual or bisexual, their sexual orientation is either straight or gay. Between those two options (which I realize are limited, but just go with me for now) identifying as gay puts you in the statistical minority when it comes to sexual orientation. That’s not a judgment; I’m just saying that there are fewer gay people than straight people. Now, many states have non-discrimination laws which include sexual orientation. This is a good thing, because in a country where “majority rules” so often acts as its name implies, a minority can get overlooked or taken advantage of, among other things.

However, I believe I have found one situation where non-discrimination laws based on a sexual orientation is a bad thing- and that is when that orientation is “ex-gay.”

Late last month, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia ruled that people who identify as “ex-gay” must now be recognized as a sexual orientation protected under their non-discrimination laws.

Apparently, this is how it happened. PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays) filed a discrimination complaint with the D.C. Office of Human Rights (OHR) against the National Education Association (NEA) “for refusing to provide public accommodations to ex-gays.” When the OHR decided that being “ex-gay” did not qualify someone for protection under sexual orientation laws, PFOX brought the case to the Superior Court, which reversed the decision.

I was pretty shocked when I heard this. I was also angry for two reasons. To start, let me share a few quotes with you from PFOX’s press release on the decision:

(Please Note: “Griggs” is Regina Griggs, PFOX’s executive director)

Quote 1: 

 "By failing to protect former homosexuals, the sexual orientation laws gave more  rights to homosexuals than heterosexuals who were once gay," said Griggs. "So  PFOX asked the Court to reverse OHR's decision, which it did.”

Quote 2:

 "We are gratified that the ex-gay community in Washington D.C. now has the  same civil rights that gays enjoy," said Regina Griggs

Quote 3:

 "PFOX calls on the NEA to add ex-gays to its sexual orientation resolutions  which favor gays, bisexuals, and transgenders while denying equality to former  homosexuals," said Griggs. "The NEA must also stop its bias against the NEA  Ex-Gay Educators Caucus by appointing an ex-gay caucus member to the NEA  Sexual Orientation Committee.”

Now I’d like to reference back to the point I made (with disclaimer) earlier: If you’re not gay, then you’re straight. If you are “formerly gay” that means you aren’t gay anymore which means you are now straight. It also means you have moved from minority to majority.

Now let me point out that Quote 1 says that gay people having more rights than straight people is wrong and must be stopped. I believe that all people should have equal rights, but that is not the feeling I get from this quote. This quote says to me that gay people having more rights than straight people is something bad that gay people don’t deserve. That gay people aren’t good enough to deserve not just equal rights, but more rights. Maybe it doesn’t give you the same impression, but that’s what it gives me.

Quote 2, on a level, is ridiculous. There are over 1,100 civil rights that gay people currently are legally barred from enjoying, and those are just federal rights. In many states, same-sex couples cannot get legally married or adopt children together or share insurance or social security benefits. So, what are these civil rights that gays are “enjoying” so much?

Quote 3, for me, has a similar feeling as Quote 1. It implies, “How dare gays, bisexuals, and transgenders be favored over straights?” which implies “Gays, bisexuals, and transgenders aren’t as good or as worthy as straights.” It also insults the purpose of having a Sexual Orientation Committee, because the Committee was formed to look out for the rights of a minority. Straight people are not a minority. If “ex-gay” people were so sure that they weren’t gay anymore, they would be straight, which would put them in the majority, which would mean that there would be no justifiable reason to have their needs watched over by such a committee. Yet, we find ourselves in the current situation.

My second reason for being angry and in objection to this court decision is that it legitimizes the “ex-gay” movement. It has encouraged PFOX to continue promoting and encouraging a “lifestyle” which consists of, at its core, self-denial and the inability to accept yourself as you are. If “ex-gay” is officially and legally recognized as a legitimate sexual orientation, that legitimizes the actions taken by ex-gay “therapists” to convince people that being gay, being who you are, isn’t the best way to live your life. I think that this was a very dangerous decision for the court, especially in the aftermath of the APA’s statement that “ex-gay therapy” is harmful and ineffective.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you think that “ex-gay” people deserve or require the protections that come along with being included in non-discrimination laws under sexual orientation? What do you think this means for the future of the “ex-gay” movement?

For more about PFOX, take a look at my previous posts:

What “Distinguished Service” Looks Like to PFOX

PFOX Part 1: Lost in Translation


~ Samantha