Presentation to Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists, 5/21/06

 

THE RADICAL RIGHT’S ANTI-LGBTQ CHALLENGE TO COMPREHENSIVE SEXUALITY EDUCATION -- CASE STUDY: MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

David S. Fishback, May 21, 2006
Symposium of the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists, Toronto, Ontario

1. Introduction ......................................................................... 1

2. Drafting of the Revised Curriculum .................................... 2

3. CAC Consideration of the Draft Curriculum ....................... 3

        A. Holmes .............................................................................. 4

        B. Corporate Resource Council .............................................. 5

        C. Seligman ............................................................................. 6

        D. Throckmorton and Nicolosi ................................................ 6

        E. Why analysis of these materials resulted in their rejection .. 7

4. Dissenters’ Attacks Outside of the CAC ................................... 8

5. CAC Completes Its Work and the Board Adopts Its Recommendations .. 9

6. The Lawsuit and Settlement ...................................................... 12

7. The Debate Continues .................................................................12

8. The CurrentSituation....................................................................14

Attachment: Letter published in the Gazette of Business and Politics, May 12, 2006 ......................................................................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...................... 15

I. INTRODUCTION

Montgomery County, Maryland, is the most liberal suburb of Washington, D.C. It voted for John Kerry by a 2-1 margin. When, a few years ago, the County Council voted to provide domestic partner benefits for County employees, a petition drive to have that decision overturned by referendum could not get enough signatures to get it on the ballot.

In November 2002, the County Board of Education voted, with only one dissent, to instruct the school system staff to develop revisions to the 8th and 10th Grade Health Education courses to include information on sexual orientation. At that time, there was no mention whatsoever of sexual orientation in the curriculum, and antiquated regulations prevented health teachers from mentioning homosexuality, except in response to a direct question – and then the question could only be answered perfunctorily, with no further discussion.

This decision was covered in the local press. There was no public outcry.

The process for developing and presenting the curriculum revisions took two years. Shortly after the 2004 election, the Board unanimously voted to approve the revisions for piloting. This time, there was some vocal opposition, but, as I will describe later, the political opposition did not get much traction.

However, a federal court lawsuit brought by groups associated with James Dobson and Jerry Falwell in May 2005, just days before the piloting was to begin, resulted in a Temporary Restraining Order. In response, rather than engage in protracted litigation, the school system decided to scrap the curriculum revisions and start the revision process anew.

I was chair of the Board’s Citizens Advisory Committee that was given the 1

responsibility, in 2002, for overseeing the curriculum revisions. In that role, I learned quite a bit about how the right-wing uses its homophobic approach to matters of sexual orientation to attack comprehensive sexuality education. They use misrepresentations, half-truths, lies, and the hope that not enough people are paying sufficient attention in order to delegitimatize LGBT people and destroy any effort to present basic factual information regarding sexual orientation in health education curricula.

II. DRAFTING OF THE REVISED CURRICULUM

In Maryland, a Board-appointed Citizens Advisory Committee – CAC – must review all sex education materials before they are brought to the Board for approval. In January 2003, I was elected chair of the CAC.

The School System’s plan was to draft the curriculum in the Summer of 2003, and then present it to the CAC that autumn. The CAC would then present its recommendations in an annual report the following June, followed by the Staff response and presentation to the Board in the Autumn of 2004. Not exactly a precipitous process.

The CAC itself was quite diverse. It included representatives from both PFLAG and PFOX, from reproductive rights groups and groups campaigning against pornography, from the Catholic Archdiocese and a Unitarian Church, and at-large members with diverse backgrounds, including physicians and other health care professionals and some students.

In Spring 2003, the CAC did its normal work of reviewing videos for the sex ed units. As Chair, I went out of my way to foster a spirit of cooperation and the finding of common ground, knowing the potential contentiousness of the issues we would face in the Autumn.

MCPS Staff established a Writing Group to draft the sexual orientation curriculum revisions in Summer 2003, made up of health teachers, school nurses, school psychologists, school counselors, and a staffer from the County Mental Health Association. Staff also thought it wise to have input from the CAC and asked for two members to be a member of the Writing Group. One of the most socially conservative members of the CAC, one Henrietta Brown (representing the Montgomery County Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution)

2

immediately volunteered, as did PFLAG representative Sheron Rosen. I thought is wise to have both, and I appointed them. Sheron was unable to attend all the meetings, so she and I shared that slot.

I initially was not surprised when Ms. Brown presented materials stating that homosexuality was a disease. Having learned that, a generation ago, the medical profession had concluded that homosexuality is not a disease or a mental disorder but, rather, is simply another way to be, I expected that her argument would be that some people’s homosexuality was caused by childhood abuse, that such experiences might have had an impact on them sexually, and that therapies could help them find their true natures, just as other therapies help other trauma victims.

Ms. Brown, however, brought to our attention materials from a group called the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). She told us that NARTH was not a religious group, but rather was purely secular in its approach. The more the Writing Group read the NARTH materials, the clearer it became that the NARTH view was the polar opposite of every mainstream American medical and mental health organization: The position of NARTH was plainly that ALL homosexuality was mental illness and could be “repaired” through intensive therapy. No one else on the Writing Group was persuaded by Ms. Brown, and one teacher expressed the concern that including any materials on reparative therapy could expose the school system to legal liability in the event a student tried it and came to a bad end.

III. CAC CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAFT CURRICULUM

That autumn, a draft of the curriculum revisions was presented to the CAC. Both Ms. Brown and Jackie Rice, the representative of PFOX, strenuously argued against what they asserted would be a “legitimization” of homosexuality, They urged that if homosexuality was to be discussed at all, the “other view”should be presented. They presented hundreds of pages of documents from NARTH and other groups, along with “excerpts” from sources they said demonstrated that all homosexuality is dangerous and unhealthy and that people should and could change their orientation. The CAC reviewed those documents and discovered that the purported “secular” nature of NARTH was tenuous at best. We discovered that the “reparative therapy” organizations ultimately based their positions not on science or comprehensive clinical experience, but on their own theological beliefs.

3

And we discovered that much of the material presented by those groups misquoted and misrepresented statements by legitimate health care professionals and often sought to cover up their agenda to lure people into their programs.

A common tactic used in the meetings was to present an isolated quote from a seemingly reputable source, and then argue that it supported views that were the opposite of the positions of the mainstream medical and mental health groups. It often took a lot of time and effort to track down the original sources and determine the context. Essentially, I spent hours fact-checking Ms. Brown’s and Ms. Rice’s sources.

Here are three examples:

A. Holmes

Ms. Brown sent to the CAC members the following statement:

“Some causes of homosexuality: A paper in the American Medical Association journal that was written in 1998 and is a review of 150 medical reports over 12 years says that abused adolescents that are victimized by males are up to 7 times more likely to identify as gay or bi-sexual. (William Holmes and Gaily Slap, “Sexual Abuse of Boys,” 280 J.Am.Med.Ass’n 1859 (1998).” This was part of a series of assertions by Ms. Brown that homosexuality was nothing more than the result of predatory actions by male homosexuals – and bad parenting generally.

I went to the internet, and found that The Weekly Standard and some right- wing cites had been using that very statement. I wrote to one of the authors, Dr. Holmes of the University of Pennsylvania Medical School, I informed him of the use to which his article was being put and asked to speak with him.

Dr. Holmes telephoned to tell me that he was very concerned that his article was being used by those asserting that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder. He said that there were many possibilities for the results cited – notably that predators are more likely to seek out young people who seem to be gay and that gay youth may go to places where they are more likely to be abused. In any event, Dr. Holmes explained, abuse, whether heterosexual or homosexual, could have bad impacts on children – but that was simply not relevant to the proposition the right wing was setting forth: That all homosexuality is the result of abuse or bad

4

parenting. He noted, in particular, that the only study he found that dealt with the self-identified sexual orientation of male perpetrators of same-sex abuse of children revealed that the vast majority of the perpetrators did not identify themselves as homosexual. In other words, it is not the “out” gays who are doing the abuse. It is healthier for gays to be “out.” For “out” gays, the mental health impacts of suppression and being closeted do not manifest themselves in pedophilia – and that this was an aspect of the problem the Catholic Church was dealing with.

I wrote up a summary of the conversation and sent it to Dr. Holmes, who confirmed that I had it right. When Ms. Brown presented her excerpt from Dr. Holmes’ article, I responded with Dr. Holmes’ response. You could have heard a pin drop. Except for her handful of like-minded allies, no one else on the Committee accepted her argument, and the materials were rejected.

B. Corporate Resource Council

Another resource presented by Ms. Brown was a article from a group called the Corporate Resource Council, entitled The Health Risks of Gay Sex. The article listed dangers of promiscuous same-sex activity, and presented the message that the employment of homosexuals was problematic for business because of disease risk. This was part of a pattern in materials presented by Ms. Brown – stressing health risks of promiscuous same-sex activity, without reference to risks of promiscuous heterosexual activity; and without reference to the proposition that the marginalization of gays makes stable, monogamous relationships more difficult.

The article looked to be from a management consultant. I discovered, however, that the Corporate Resource Council was affiliated with the Alliance Defense Fund, which was founded by James Dobson of Focus on the Family. I explained these connections to the CAC, and quoted the Focus on the Family position on homosexuality: “Are people born gay? Shouldn’t we be tolerant of everyone? Can people change? Should they? Amidst the barrage of questions, we must first turn to God’s Word – our ultimate authority – for answers. While the Bible clearly states that homosexuality runs contrary to God’s plan for relationships, those who struggle with homosexual feeling are still God’s children, in need of his forgiveness and healing. Therefore, parents, families and churches have a responsibility to love the homosexual while clearly denouncing his

5

lifestyle.”

I reported my findings to the CAC and noted that the Health Curriculum already discussed the health risks of all kinds of sexual activity ad nauseum. The CAC overwhelmingly rejected the Corporate Resource Council resource.

C. Seligman

A final example. Ms. Brown presented a NARTH document that cited a book by a Dr. Martin Seligman entitled What You Can Change and What You Can’t, saying that Seligman “is optimistic about change for those who have had fewer homosexual experiences and/or some bisexual feelings.” I tracked down Seligman’s now out-of-print book in our public library. First, I discovered that the book was not, as NARTH implied, about reparative therapy. Rather, the subtitle was The Complete Guide to Successful Self-Improvement. Nothing in the book was remotely like what NARTH attributed to it. Seligman did say a few things about homosexuality, but they were all in OPPOSITION to the views asserted by NARTH, stating specifically that homosexuality is not a “problem.”

D. Throckmorton and Nicolosi

These discussions came to a head when Ms. Rice extended an offer from Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College (an aggressively fundamentalist school) to address the CAC. In advance of that meeting, I examined Throckmorton’s writings. Since Throckmorton cited NARTH President Joseph Nicolosi as the leader of the reparative therapy movement, I did further investigation into Nicolosi’s views, as well. Ms. Rice and Ms. Brown continued to insist that their approach was scientific and not theologically based.

After Ms. Rice made her case for having Throckmorton come and enlighten us, I responded that my research demonstrated that Throckmorton’s entire pitch was that no one should live their lives as a homosexual because, in his theological view, homosexuality is sinful, contrary to "God's plan." All of Throckmorton’s materials began with the proposition that homosexuals should be "healed." Healed, because they are ill. I explained to the CAC that this proposition conflicts with the conclusions of every mainstream medical and medical health professional group in the United States.

6

I further noted that Throckmorton cited NARTH founder Joseph Nicolosi, as the principal proponent of reparative therapy, and I presented Nicolosi’s unequivocal statement that "[t]here is no such thing as a homosexual. We are all heterosexuals. Some of us have a homosexual problem." I then quoted Nicolosi’s statement that "homosexuality is a gender identity disorder," and his assertion that male homosexuality is simply the result of rejection by the person's father.

I observed that Throckmorton tried to soften this a bit, writing in What Is Reparative Therapy that "[r]eparative therapists usually see same sex attraction and homosexual identification as the results of poor parenting in the formative years," but went on to say that there are other theories. He concluded by saying that “[w]hile theories of cause are quite varied, the common factor is that all approaches have some explanation and then impart that understanding to the clients. . . . An implication of this observation is that the actual causes might matter less than the fact that a person has an explanation and that in itself is comforting."

In other words, I pointed out to the rest of the CAC, it doesn't matter whether the theory of causation is correct, just that there is someone or something to blame. Not only are Nicolosi's and Throckmorton's fundamental approaches and statements directly contrary to the considered findings of every mainstream medical and medical health professional group, but they are affirmatively dangerous – destroying families and hurting children.

At bottom, they assert that no one is really homosexual, and that if they think they are, they should blame their parents. At bottom, they tell the homosexual that he or she MUST be "healed" to be happy, even if that means rendering assunder their families, and denying who they are.

To satisfy non-scientific assumptions about homosexuality, people like Nicolosi and Throckmorton are prepared to destroy families and make people who may be healthy into mental cases.

The CAC declined to have Warren Throckmorton visit with us.

E. Why Analysis of These Materials Resulted in Their Rejection

7

It is important to remember that all I have described so far was in the context of a series of meetings in which I and others had ample opportunity to investigate and rebut the assertions and suggestions put out by the right-wingers. Unfortunately, that is not always the case in general public discourse.

IV. DISSENTERS’ ATTACKS OUTSIDE OF THE CAC

When it became clear to the dissenters that they were not going to be able to convince the rest of the CAC, they began complaining to the School Board, and then to the local newspapers. In March 2004, CAC member Michelle Turner (who later became president of one of the two groups that brought suit against the Board) wrote to the Board, accusing me of denying those who were in the minority the “opportunity to present materials contrary to what others thought should be considered.” This was simply a lie, for they had spent hours of CAC time doing just that. Ms. Turner then began what would be an underlying theme of their attacks: “This situation was exasperated by the fact that the chair of the committee is the father of a child who has chosen the homosexual lifestyle.”

A few days later, Ms. Brown wrote to the School Board, falsely accusing the CAC of ignoring official government materials on sexually-transmitted diseases, and misrepresenting mainstream resources upon which the CAC did rely in approving the draft curriculum.

The Board, to its credit, did not dignify these screeds with a response. So the opposition turned to the Gazette – a free local weekly paper that has wide readership. Ms. Brown, Ms. Turner, and Ms. Rice sent a letter to the Gazette alleging that “The Committee is controlled by pro-gay activists (and include the chairman) who continually vote for factually incorrect information that puts students’ health at risk. These biased activists shut out factually correct information (i.e., from medical journals and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control) and other viewpoints (i.e., those of individuals who have successfully left the homosexual lifestyle.)”

Fortunately, the Gazette is a responsible newspaper, and rather than publish the letter, they sent it to me for my comments. I responded with a detailed six-page letter (which I copied to the Board’s Staff Director) rebutting their assertions.

8

The Gazette published an article on the disagreements, accurately setting forth the dissenters’ accusations and setting forth rebuttals from me and other CAC members. When the article was published, I also sent a detailed discussion of the accusations and our response to the School Board.

That seemed to settle things down, for it was clear that the Board was not being pushed around by people who, I think, they saw as plainly out of the mainstream. This happened, I believe, for several reasons:

We had rebutted the attacks clearly with supporting evidence.

The only local media outlet to cover the issue acted responsibly.

The Board members were progressive individuals.

Consequently, the dissenters were unable to create doubt and confusion by half-truths, misrepresentations, and lies.

V. CAC COMPLETES ITS WORK AND THE BOARD ADOPTS ITS RECOMMENDATIONS

As the CAC completed its work on the curriculum revisions and background teacher resources, which would culminate in its annual report to the Board. I offered the dissenters the opportunity to file a dissenting report, so that the MCPS Staff could see their side of the argument, and the Board would see it, as well. But, as I will now relate, they chose not to do so. Instead, they decided to lie in wait until after the Board approved the recommendations and then engage in misleading attacks. And when those misleading attacks did not secure anywhere near enough public support to persuade the Board to change course, they brought a lawsuit in a context in which MCPS had virtually no opportunity to effectively respond before the judge ruled.

MCPS staff reviewed the CAC’s recommendations over the next few months, and in November 2004, the Board unanimously approved the proposed curriculum revisions for pilottng in three high schools and three middle schools in Spring 2005.

This time, it appears, the opposition had already planned its response. 9

Within hours of the Board’s vote, local right-wing talk radio – something I did not even know existed in our area – began screaming that Montgomery County was about to do terrible things, misstating much of what was in the curriculum and falsely charging that MCPS was ignoring the risks of sexually transmitted diseases. A group formed to recall the Board. The dissenting members of the CAC pretended that all of this had simply been sprung with no opportunity for community input. They ignored the fact that they were involved in the discussions and that development of the curriculum had been widely reported in the local press for the previous two years.

Then something quite extraordinary happened. Typically, people write or

telephone the school system only when they are angry about what the school system has done. But this time, community responses ran IN FAVOR of the Board’s decision by a margin of five to one. The public understood that what the Board had done was the right thing to do. A parent group, calling itself Teachthefacts.org, spontaneously emerged to counter the assertions of the right- wing group, which quickly morphed itself from “recallthemontgomeryschoolboard.com” to Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum or CRC.

CRC asserted it was a grass-roots organization, and it sent materials all over the county – particularly to evangelical and Catholic churches attacking and misrepresenting the curriculum. We later discovered, from e-mail discussions that someone discovered had not been secured, that the CRC people were in early contact with attorneys planning a lawsuit, even though they publically disclaimed any intention to sue.

A new free D.C. newspaper, the Washington Examiner, began printing letters from the Executive Director of PFOX, alleging that the Board was inserting religious bigotry into the curriculum. The Examiner published my response that the only discussion of particular religions’ viewpoints on sexual orientation was in background teacher resources, that teachers know not to discuss in class. But the Examiner then published misleading rebuttals from PFOX.

The Washington Times gave ample coverage, constantly spinning it to the dissenters’ advantage. The Times never actually misquoted, but the spin was unmistakable. One of the more despicable things the Times did was to take out of context statements made by the Catholic Archdiocese’s representative on the CAC,

10

suggesting that the Archdiocese believed the process was flawed and that minority viewpoints were unfairly dealt with. I knew that the Archdiocese’s representative – who had been the only truly responsible conservative voice on the CAC -- had been misrepresented, and I wrote to tell him so. He agreed with my assessment, and told me he would never speak with the WashingtonTimes.

The Washington Post gave only perfunctory coverage. The Gazette – which had editorially endorsed the curriculum revisions – continued with responsible reporting.

Attacks on the Board started showing up on right-wing websites across the country. Those attacks rarely failed to mention that the Chair of the CAC had two adult homosexual sons. Just said that – leaving lingering, of course, the idea that therefore all of this was a homosexual conspiracy. At one point, a CRC, on its website, referred to me as a “homosexual activist.” I found it quite amusing that somehow CRC had done a “reverse reparative therapy” on me, turning me gay.

Of course, this was picked up on other blogs and websites. When I saw it on a website covering “Jewish Delaware” – this was picked up because CRC, in surfing web, discovered that my wife and I worked by LGBT inclusion in our synagogue and tried to use that to somehow discredit me – I wrote to the webmaster and explained that while there is nothing wrong with being gay, I am not, and made light of CRC’s sexual orientation change approach. The Delaware webmaster printed my e-mail to him, and then pulled the report.

In March, CRC held a “town hall meeting.” This meeting featured professional anti-homosexuals, including some from James Dobson-funded groups, like Peter Sprigg and Robert Knight, and a notoriously homophobic keynote speaker named Donald Dwyer, a first-term member of the Maryland House of Delegates from a different part of the state. The speakers’ hateful statements were so extreme that even the CRC organizers half-heartedly tried to distance themselves from them. But that effort was to no avail, because the speakers’ public positions were already very well-known when CRC invited them. One attendee – a gay man who lives in Montgomery County with his long-time partner and their two children – was quoted in the local newspapers as feeling like a Jew in Munich in 1938.

11

In the meantime, MCPS’s preparations for piloting the revised curriculum proceeded. Not surprisingly, an overwhelming majority of parents with students in the pilot classes granted permission for their children to take the unit.

VI. THE LAWSUIT AND SETTLEMENT

But then, in early May, just days before the piloting was to begin, CRC and PFOX, represented by Jerry Falwell’s Liberty Counsel, filed a lawsuit in federal court to block the implementation. The court gave the Board only three days to respond to 80 pages of legal and factual arguments, and then immediately issued a Temporary Restraining Order stopping the revised curriculum.

Plaintiffs convinced the Court that the curriculum assessed the merits of different religious viewpoints on homosexuality – a violation of the separation of church and state – even though that factual assertion was false. The most chilling part of the Court’s opinion was its statement that if MCPS was to say anything about sexual orientation, it had to present “all sides” of the subject. Sort of like saying that if a school system is to teach evolution, it must also teach creationism. That ruling could never have withstood an appeal, even in the most conservative federal courts.

Still, the Board was faced with a problem: If it fought the lawsuit, the matter

likely would have been tied up in litigation for years, preventing the Board from implementing the needed revisions.

So MCPS decided to scrap everything, including the existing CAC, and start

over. By making the matter moot, it forced Liberty Counsel to agree to dismiss the lawsuit. Significantly, the settlement made it clear that the Board retained the right to decide what would be in any future curriculum changes.

VII. THE DEBATE CONTINUES

1. Over the summer, the right-wing brought in a series of speakers to the Board’s public comment period. One of their principal themes was that any health curriculum revisions must include the “ex-gay” point of view.

An alleged “ex-gay” testified that he existed and that his experience should

12

be part of the curriculum.

PFOX President Richard Cohen came to the Board and testified, with a straight face, that PFOX believed it was OK to by gay, but just wanted to offer another approach.

People from Teachthefacts.org and other community members also came to Public Comments to expose the lies being told to the Board. One Teachthefacts.org blog discovered that the “ex-gay” speaker was a paid ex-gay organizer from New Jersey. I presented to the Board the fact that Richard Cohen had been expelled for life by the American Counseling Association. At that time, I also presented to the Board a 44-page compendium of policy statements on sexual orientation from the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Adolescent Psychiatry.

2. In addition, an effort was made to use the local County public access cable channel as a platform. A woman (who we later discovered was involved with the CRC people) started a news feature show on the local cable access station, which was pretty benign. Then, after the show was on for a month or two, she invited CRC President Michelle Turner and PFOX’s Richard Cohen to provide a discussion of the sex ed controversy. The show was billed as informational, and sought to leave the impression that it would not be one-sided. Fortunately, a School Board member who received the informational packages from the cable access station noticed what was going on, and an uproar ensued. The guest host of the program – a politically active lawyer who was not aware of who the players were – disinvited Cohen and then called a lesbian member of the General Assembly to provide another view. Delegate Kaiser then called me to participate. I agreed. Within a day of the public announcement of my participation, CRC pulled out of the program. This was the second time Michelle Turner backed out of a joint television appearance with me.

3. In September, Teachthefacts.org held a community forum, which included a presentation from the American Medical Association’s point person on GLBT issues, Dr. Paul Wertsch. Dr. Wertsch noted that the AMA “opposes the use of ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy that is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation.” The Post, Times,

13

and Gazette covered it, quoting Michelle Turner as asking, “where’s the science?” Of course, if she had come to our forum, rather than being in St. Louis addressing Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, she would have heard the science. Not that that would have mattered.

VIII. THE CURRENT SITUATION

We are now in the midst of the revision process. By virtue of the settlement of the lawsuit, PFOX and CRC each have a member on the Advisory Committee. The PFOX representative is Family Research Council Vice President Peter Sprigg. We anticipate that he will try the same tactics – perhaps more artfully – as Ms. Brown. But the rest of the community will be ready. The new Chair of the CAC is a respected pediatrician, and other members include the President of Teachthefacts.org, representatives of the County PTA’s Health Committee and Maryland Pro-Choice/NARAL who are strong supporters, and a representative from Metro DC PFLAG.

The School Superintendent consulted with experts from the American Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics – people we encouraged to offer their services – to help develop the new curriculum. In their report, the pediatricians said that the old curriculum did not go far enough, and recommended the use of curriculum materials from Glencoe and Holt. The Glencoe and Holt materials cover the essentially the same points made in the earlier proposed revisions, but go into greater depth. While there may be more delay as the School System’s lawyers go over the staff proposals with a fine-tooth comb to be ready for the next lawsuit, it appears that, at the end of the process, we will have a good curriculum.

We hear that CRC is trying to get candidates to run against the four Board incumbents who are up for reelection this year, but the filing deadline is July and no one connected to CRC has yet filed.

The opposition will continue to lie. And they will be forced to argue that the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association are wrong in their positions that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and that reparative therapy notions are condemned as dangerous. They will be forced to make that

14

argument, because we will continue to let everyone know what the issue really is: A battle between the mainstream medical and mental health professionals who place our children’s health first and the ideologues who would demonize GLBT people to fit their view of the way they wish the world would be, regardless of the evidence.

Now this will not be easy. The Right-Wing has put a bulls-eye on liberal Montgomery County. The lies, misrepresentations, and fear-mongering have continued. (My most recent response, published earlier this month, is attached.) The dissenters will try to use broadcast media – with its short attention span and sound-bite approach to local news – to create fears and doubts.

At some levels, the tactics are every-shifting, as people like Throckmorton seek to put a “friendly face” or an “objective” gloss on their arguments. The arguments must be confronted and debunked, over and over. Most people do not pay much attention to debates over sexual orientation, because they do not think they are directly impacted. The Right-Wing – which sees homosexuality as the wedge issue through which they can succeed with their entire agenda – is relentless in blaming homosexuality for all of society’s real and perceived ills. The argument is in the public square. Confronting it with truth, reason, and simple humanity is a vital responsibility of the medical and mental health community.

******************************************************************

ATTACHMENT

THE GAZETTE OF BUSINESS AND POLITICS (Maryland), May 12, 2006) http://www.gazette.net/stories/051106/policom210605_31978.shtml

In one of a group of letters on April 28 (‘‘People must care about gay lifestyles’ consequences”), Michelle Turner asserts that Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum ‘‘filed a successful lawsuit in May 2005 opposing a Montgomery County Public Schools attempt to present homosexuality as happy and healthy to students,” and implies that the MCPS curriculum does not provide adequate information on sexually transmitted diseases.

The fact is that the CRC lawsuit — filed by Jerry Falwell’s Liberty Counsel and in a context in which MCPS did not have an adequate opportunity to respond — attacked health education curriculum additions that would have provided the following accurate information:

15

*”All major professional mental health organizations affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.”

*”Most experts in the field have concluded that sexual orientation is not a choice.” *”Fleeting” same-sex attraction ‘‘does not prove long-term sexual orientation.”

*”Different religions take different stands on sexual behaviors and there are even different views among people of the same religion.”

*”Having homosexual parents/guardians does not predispose you to being homosexual,” a conclusion reached by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

*There are families in our community headed by same-sex couples.

The curriculum revisions also provided definitions of sexual orientation from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association.

Because of the CRC lawsuit, this information is not currently being provided in the secondary school health education curriculum.

Contrary to CRC’s repeated assertions, the MCPS health curriculum does provide comprehensive discussion of the disease risks of sexual activity, information our children need. CRC’s position has been that any mention of homosexuality must repeat those risks in an effort to demonize homosexuality. CRC has not sought to repeat those risks any time heterosexuality is referenced.

In fact, CRC’s goal is to legitimatize ‘‘therapies” that purportedly ‘‘cure” people of homosexuality. But the American Medical Association has condemned such approaches as dangerous, stating that it ‘‘opposes the use of ‘‘reparative” or ‘‘conversion” therapy that is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his9her homosexual orientation” (AMA Policy Number H-160.991).

Fortunately, MCPS is in the process of developing new revisions to the health education curriculum, with the assistance of experts from the National Children’s Medical Center and the American Academy of Pediatrics. CRC may well bring another lawsuit when the process is completed. This time, our school system will be prepared to combat CRC’s guerrilla warfare legal tactics. Our community is not being intimidated by those who would marginalize and closet our children who happen to be gay.

Likewise, Lynn Brite’s statement that ‘‘Gay lifestyle is a choice regardless of attraction” makes the error of equating a so-called ‘‘gay lifestyle” with living life

16

as a gay person. Anyone, straight or gay, who engages in promiscuous sexual activity places himself or herself at much greater risk.

Our goal as a community should be to encourage stable, monogamous relationships — relationships that strengthen our society and certainly lessen disease.

David S. Fishback, Olney

The writer is former chairman of the Montgomery County Board of Education’s Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development.

17