|
from Social Issues
Coalition Sponsoring Legal Challenge
to Gay Affirmative Message
By Roy Waller
PATH (Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality), a diverse group of 11 national
and international non-profit organizations that serve people conflicted over
unwanted homosexual attractions, has announced the formation of a legal strategy
dedicated to assuring equal access in public forums for the message that no one
is born gay, and that homosexuality is modifiable.
In addition, cases will be brought to court where physical or emotional harms
were caused to individuals because of the narrowly gay-affirmative message.
Arthur Goldberg, President of PATH, said that this legal support is available
both to member organizations and individual clients and to others whose lives
are likewise affected. Part of the strategy is to bring class-action lawsuits.
"The attorneys are eager to find and litigate...a series of legal cases...to
challenge the notion that people are born gay," Goldberg said. Adding that this
legal assistance is being offered throughout the United States, he further
commented that this new branch of PATH's work will be a springboard for
furthering the message that reorientation therapy is an available option for
people wanting to explore the possibility of modifying their sexual orientation.
According to Mr. Goldberg, PATH's attorneys are "looking for fact patterns where
a patient's right to treatment may have been violated, or equal access for the
ex-gay message has been denied, or tort cases where a physical or emotional harm
occurred to a client because of the fraudulent message that people are born that
way."
Mr. Goldberg then delineated a number of examples of such fact patterns,
including:
- HMO Discrimination, where the client of a qualified therapist is denied
insurance coverage for reparative therapy, even though the same insurance
company covers therapy that is gay-affirmative.
- Emotional and Physical Harm-- such as an individual contracting sexually
transmitted diseases like Hepatitis C, HIV, or similar illnesses, as a result of
encouragement by school counselors, psychologists and others toward
participation in same-gender sexual activity. Over and above this scenario, if
death were to follow, the family or other legal guardians could be the
appropriate plaintiffs, according to Goldberg.
- Emotional and Physical Harm-- where legal action can be brought against the
purveyors of sexually-oriented literature (whether it is specifically gay-themed
or not), where engagement in gay sex is encouraged and the plaintiff can be
shown to have placed reliance on such advice.
- Other Emotional and Physical Harm, including where the plaintiff was
encouraged to undergo sex-reassignment surgery, and where the individual later
regrets the decision.
- Endangerment of Minors cases where inner-city children and other at-risk
youth were advised to engage in homosexual activity, and then a suicide attempt
or lesser emotional and physical harm ensued. This category is also an option
in situations when sex-education classes have dispensed the inaccurate advice
that the use of condoms guarantees safety for the receptive partner in anal sex,
and a student acting on such instruction contracts any one of the STD's which
are medically traceable to such behavior.
- Further Endangerment of Minors-- actions on behalf of children who are
placed with either a gay or lesbian couple, or a single foster parent engaged in
the homosexual lifestyle, when an opposite-sex couple was available for adoptive
purposes. Also, inappropriate mentoring of young children in Big Brother/Sister
programs where specific harm to the child has resulted.
- Undue Economic Burden placed on private businesses by requiring them to
provide domestic partnership benefits to same-sex partners.
- Equal Access Denied cases, where equal protection of the law is not extended
to proponents of both sides of the gay agenda, but is provided only to the
pro-homosexual speakers and other activists, such as occurs in public schools.
An example of the latter circumstance is seen in the case of Elizabeth Jenson, a
student at the University of Minnesota. Jenson reports that in her
Intercultural Communications class, she was forced to spend some two hours
listening to a pro-gay message delivered by a lesbian lecturer. When the
politically conservative Jenson requested that the teacher present the opposite
side of the question in a future class, she was refused outright, even though
Jenson says upwards of 80% of the students were in favor of hearing a balanced
message.
Jenson, who is a Christian, states that her religious beliefs were also
condemned and ridiculed by the teacher, Kathryn Kelley. Jenson is currently
considering legal action for discrimination.
Another example involves the recent landmark case of Hansen et. al vs. Ann Arbor
Public Schools, et. al where federal district court Gerald E. Rosen ruled that
"refusing to permit the presentation to students of an 'unwelcomed' viewpoint on
the topic of homosexuality and religion" was unconstitutional when the
"competing view" solely involved a gay-affirmative message as presented by the
school's Gay/Straight Alliance. The Judge pointed out that such a practice of
"one-way diversity" was troubling both constitutionally and ethically. He
offered the recent example of a public high school that celebrated diversity
week but refused to permit the viewpoint that homosexuality was against the
religious beliefs of the plaintiff (a Roman Catholic) and that alternatives to a
gay lifestyle exist.
"The above are only illustrative examples," says Goldberg. "If someone has an
idea for a case or an issue they feel may be appropriate, please do not hesitate
to contact me, either by phone or email. Initially I am willing to serve as a
liaison to the attorneys. It is important to note that they will be working pro
bono (on an unpaid basis) on these cases."
Arthur Goldberg can be reached at jonahhelp.org or by calling (201) 433 3444 and
leaving a message.
PATH contact information: www.pathinfo.org
Updated: 8 February 2008
|
