Pedantic Political Ponderings: California

Showing posts with label California. Show all posts

25 June 2012

25 June 2012: Marriage News Watch

11 June 2012

11 June 2012: Marriage News Watch

05 June 2012

5 June 2012: Marriage News Watch, Prop 8 Rehearing Denied

04 June 2012

4 June 2012: Marriage News Watch

28 April 2012

Praise: Ted Lieu Protecting California's Children

In February California State Senator Ted Lieu introduced senate bill 1172, to prohibit licensed psychotherapists from doing "sexual orientation change efforts" on children. That is,

a physician and surgeon specializing in the practice of psychiatry, a psychologist, a psychological assistant, ~~a psychiatric technician,~~ a marriage and family therapist, a registered marriage and family therapist, intern, or trainee, an educational psychologist, a licensed clinical social worker, an associate clinical social worker, a licensed professional clinical counselor, or a registered clinical counselor, intern, or trainee

cannot attempt to change a person's sexual orientation, sometimes known as reparative therapy or pray away the gay. This is the sort of therapy that the ex-gay groups like PFOX promote.

The reason that "psychiatric technician" is struck out above is because the bill was amended to remove it. In California, a psychiatric technician is defined as persons (licensed in California by the Board of Vocational Nursing & Psychiatric Technicians) must practice under supervision in settings such as hospitals, correctional facilities, and residential care facilities; they cannot practice independently. Since psychiatric technicians are under supervision, one hopes that they are also covered by sb 1172.

The wording of the rationale for the bill is particularly good.

SECTION 1.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) An individual’s sexual orientation, whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual, is not a disease, disorder, illness, deficiency, or shortcoming. The major professional associations of mental health practitioners and researchers in the United States have recognized this fact for nearly 40 years.

(b) Sexual orientation change efforts pose critical health risks to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, including confusion, depression, guilt, helplessness, hopelessness, shame, social withdrawal, suicidality, substance abuse, stress, disappointment, self-blame, decreased self-esteem and authenticity to others, increased self-hatred, hostility and blame toward parents, feelings of anger and betrayal, loss of friends and potential romantic partners, problems in sexual and emotional intimacy, sexual dysfunction, high-risk sexual behaviors, a feeling of being dehumanized and untrue to self, a loss of faith, and a sense of having wasted time and resources. This is documented by the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation in its 2009 Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.

(c) Recognizing that there is no evidence that any type of psychotherapy can change a person’s sexual orientation and that sexual orientation change efforts may cause serious and lasting harms, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the American Academy of Pediatrics uniformly oppose efforts to change the sexual orientation of any individual.

(d) Minors who experience family rejection based on their sexual orientation face especially serious health risks. In one study, lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults who reported higher levels of family rejection during adolescence were 8.4 times more likely to report having attempted suicide, 5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression, 3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs, and 3.4 times more likely to report having engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse compared with peers from families that reported no or low levels of family rejection. This is documented by Caitlyn Ryan et al. in their article entitled Family Rejection as a Predictor of Negative Health Outcomes in White and Latino Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Young Adults (2009) 123 Pediatrics 346.

(e) California has a compelling interest in protecting the lives and health of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.

Interestingly, this was written at least two months before Truth Wins Out published the letter from Dr. Robert Spitzer "officially invalidating his infamous 2001 study which claimed that some “highly motivated” homosexuals could go from gay to straight."

I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy. I also apologize to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that I had proven that reparative therapy works with some “highly motivated” individuals.

My speculation is that bisexuals can enter into "therapy" and "change", but that change is still within the parameters of their original orientation. As indicated in point (d), above, forcing this on someone who does not want to change, particularly a young person who is still trying to understand what their sexual orientation is, can be quite dangerous. Telling a young person that they are wrong and must change who they feel like they are can lead to depression and sometimes to suicide.

Of course, hate groups like the Pacific Justice Institute are upset.

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, is not mincing words. "I can honestly say this is one of the most outrageous, speech-chilling bills we have ever seen in California-and that's saying a lot," he said.

The main purpose of the bill, SB 1172, is to limit the ability of psychologists, therapists and other counselors to assist adult or minor clients with sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE). SB 1172 flatly bans SOCE for minors-regardless of the parents' or minors' wishes-and requires a new consent form for adults containing statements about sexual orientation that many counselors would dispute. The bill then creates significant liability for professionals who proceed with SOCE.

That liability strikes me as a good thing. Protecting young people from destructive practices, like reparative therapy (SOCE) is what we should be doing. The bills definition of SOCE is quite good.

(d) “Sexual orientation change efforts” means psychotherapy aimed at altering the sexual or romantic desires, attractions, or conduct of a person toward people of the same sex so that the desire, attraction, or conduct is eliminated or reduced or might instead be directed toward people of a different sex. It does not include psychotherapy aimed at altering sexual desires, attractions, or conduct toward minors or relatives or regarding sexual activity with another person without that person’s consent.

The bill isn't perfect. Unlicensed therapists in California aren't covered at all. But, it is a good start at limiting an industry that makes money by harming people.

By the bye, Senator Lieu has a very nice set of progressive achievements on his campaign website. Lest one assume otherwise, he appears to be a heterosexual with a wife and two children.

Ted Lieu and family from his campaign website.

02 April 2012

2 April 2012: Marriage News Watch

27 March 2012

26 March 2012: Marriage News Watch

12 March 2012

12 March 2012: Marriage News Watch

23 February 2012

21 February 2012: Marriage News Watch Special Episode

20 February 2012

20 February 2012: Marriage News Watch

13 February 2012

13 February 2012: Marriage News Watch

06 February 2012

6 February 2012: Marriage News Watch

28 January 2012

FollowUp 4: California's SB-48

The Bay Area Reporter notes that attacks on California's SB-48, The Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful (FAIR) Education Act are continuing. While Richard Rios, who had filed petitions for two separate ballot propositions to remove the effectiveness of FAIR, has dropped his efforts, Lou Sheldon is picking up the slack.

The proposal, submitted by Lou Sheldon of the anti-gay Traditional Values Coalition, repeals SB 48′s requirement that instructional materials recognize those contributions.

Sheldon also wants to undo the law’s provision that prohibits instructional materials that reflect adversely on people based on their sexual orientation and other characteristics.

Backers of Sheldon’s initiative have until June 25 to collect the 504,760 valid signatures needed to get the proposal on the state ballot.

Fortunately, unlike the bigotry of Mr. Rios and Mr. Sheldon, there is level-headed news.

One measure (SB 48), requiring public schools to include the contributions of LGBT individuals and “other cultural groups” in social studies courses, could take years to implement. That’s because schools review and approve textbooks years in advance.

The law has stirred controversy, but officials say it promotes inclusion. Maureen Latham, assistant superintendent of instructional support services for the Beaumont Unified School District, told the newspaper, “Just as we look for balance in represented groups like the Hmong culture or the Morongo Indians, we will be sure to include any contributions to society of all groups. Maybe textbooks that highlight the accomplishments of Harvey Milk (the state’s first openly gay politician who was killed in 1978) will be appropriate.”

The last article also has information on three other new laws in California that seek to treat all Californians, including those in the LGBTQ Community, fairly.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

12 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

23 October 2011, FollowUp 1.

28 November 2011, FollowUp 2.

9 December 2011, FollowUp 3.

20 December 2011

Praise: Diane Feinstein, Jerrold Nadler, and the Respect for Marriage Act

The effort to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) from 1996 has been slowly gaining momentum. On 15 March 2011, California Senator Feinstein introduced the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) to do so. At this time, she has thirty co-sponsors (twenty-nine Democrats and one Independent).

Respect for Marriage Act of 2011 - Amends the Defense of Marriage Act to repeal a provision that prohibited a state, territory, possession, or Indian tribe from being required to recognize any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a same sex marriage.

Amends the federal rules of construction added by such Act concerning the definitions of "marriage" and "spouse" to provide that, for purposes of any federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the state where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any state, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a state. Removes the definition of "spouse" (currently, a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife).

The news this week is that New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez, who once voted for DOMA, is now supporting RFMA. Sadly, it does not matter if this is voted on in the Senate as it is languishing in the House.

Since New York Representative Nadler introduced the RFMA in the House of Representatives, he gained 134 co-sponsors (133 Democrats and one Republican, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida). It has been sent to the sub-committee on the Constitution where it is likely to stay until it is re-introduced in a future Congress.

09 December 2011

FollowUp 3: California's SB-48

Here we go again. Social conservatives are again trying to get rid of California's SB-48, The Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful (FAIR) Education Act. I wrote about the details of this law which mandates inclusion and respectful teaching of various minority groups. There was an attempt to put a repeal of SB-48 on the November 2012 California ballot which failed.

Now Stop SB-48 is trying yet again to put a repeal of SB-48 on the November 2012 California ballot.

Capitol Resource Family Impact along with other pro-family individuals and organizations remain committed to the goal of reversing SB 48, California’s so-called “gay history” bill. Today, a broad coalition of sponsors filed an initiative with the California Attorney General designed to reverse the overreaching aspects of that legislation.

When he signed SB 48 into law this past July, Governor Jerry Brown rationalized his actions with the claim that “History must be honest.” But the bill he signed specifically required an incomplete and inaccurate presentation in all social science classes in our public schools.

No. That was not just a rationalization. There is no requirement that history be taught in an incomplete or inaccurate way.

Senate Bill 48 required curriculum that is positive toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and other minority figures. But it also prohibited curriculum that reflects adversely on the same groups. The Los Angeles Times condemned the new law by noting, “Real history is richer and more complicated than feel-good depictions.”

No, that's not what the bill says. It says that texts and instruction shall not contain any matter reflecting adversely upon persons on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.

By way of a parallel example, a text can be critical of a church for instigating a particular war but cannot use that example in a way that reflects adversely upon members of that religion. In specific, a text can cite the Roman Catholic Church as causing many deaths in the Crusades, but cannot do so in a fashion that reflects adversely on Christians or Catholics.

In contrast, the initiative presented today assures that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and other minority figures are not excluded from inclusion in California curriculum while requiring accurate historical portrayals of all individuals.

No. The initiative to repeal SB-48 removes the requirement of inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender figures as well as Pacific Islanders, persons with disabilities, and other cultural minorities.

Jack Hibbs, one of the sponsors, noted SB 48 simply went too far. “We all know that the issue of homosexuality is controversial. It is unacceptable to require that our schools shine a spotlight on this lifestyle on the one hand and then demand that history books and teachers censor shortcomings on the other.”

This is one of the reasons that SB-48 is so important. Homosexuality should not be controversial. People are whatever sexuality they are and it is part of who a person is. If homosexuality is the course of study, then it is reasonable to look at shortcomings, but that is not what SB-48 is about. It is about acknowledging that great people in history, like Alan Turing and Oscar Wilde, are presented as whole people including that each was a homosexual. There is no need to slur homosexuals when talking about individuals who are of that group.

Kevin Snider of Pacific Justice Institute Center for Public Policy believes the proposed initiative provides an appropriate balance. “We drafted an initiative that responds to the perception that some want to ignore the contributions of certain individuals. This initiative prohibits history book exclusion of anybody based on their membership in a protected class. But it requires an accurate, historical portrayal of any individual.”

Accuracy is good. There is nothing in SB-48 that prevents accuracy. It prevents a lecture on the supposed evils of homosexuality when discussing historic figures who were homosexual. Mr. Hibbs and Mr. Snider are upset because they cannot use history as a launching ground for religious-based bigotry in public classrooms.

They will have twice as many times to gather signatures this time as they had in their first petition attempt. Despite what they say, this is about repeal of a bill that brings fairness and balance into textbooks and into history and social studies curricula.

The State of California has put up an SB-48 FAQ webpage. I'm sure those who are opposed to equality will not both to read it. Why let a short page of facts get in the way of a bigoted rant.

12 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

23 October 2011, FollowUp 1.

28 November 2011, FollowUp 2.

28 January 2012, FollowUp 4.

30 November 2011

Praise: University of Georgia on Sex Education

For a long time there has been a push by Republicans for abstinence-only sex education in schools. Early results were not promising, despite the common sense that if one abstains from sexual activity one will obviously avoid sexually transmitted diseases and creating children. So, by 2009 it seemed that most schools and most states were moving toward more effective sex education.

A notable exception has been recent legislation in Wisconsin to return to abstinence-only sex education. Mother Jones has an extensive article on the history of sex education in Wisconsin and the current legislation.

Wisconsin has done a fairly good job of holding down teen birth rates. According to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, the state has 47 births per 1,000 young women between the ages of 15 and 19—seventh-lowest in the country. But teen pregnancy rates in some parts of the state, like Milwaukee, are much higher. More disturbingly, the rate of sexually transmitted infections has shot up rapidly. Between 1997 and 2007, the rate of infection for four common STIs increased 53 percent among Wisconsin teens, according to the Cap Times.

The law Republicans want to repeal "was seen as an incredible public health victory in the state," says Sara Finger, executive director of the Wisconsin Alliance for Women's Health. "We were finally in line with medical standards around human growth and development." Under the law, schools can still teach that abstinence is the best way to prevent pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections. But schools are also required to inform kids about condoms and birth control. If school districts do not want to provide sex education, the law requires them to let parents know that it's not part of the curriculum.

If Walker and the state GOP get their way, the new standards will be trashed, after just taking effect this school year. Schools would once again be able to teach abstinence-only sex ed.

Repealing the Healthy Youth Act fits into the "extreme pro-life agenda" that Walker and allies in the Statehouse have been pushing all year, Finger says. Pro-Life Wisconsin lists repealing the "sexualization of our children" as a top legislative priority for this year. "Government-funded birth control, whether provided directly or promoted educationally, encourages sexual promiscuity and with it a host of social pathologies including underage pregnancies, chemical and surgical abortions, and sexually transmitted diseases," the group argues.

This was news in early November. Late November finds a new scientific study, Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S., by Kathrin F. Stanger-Hall and David W. Hall, both professors at the University of Georgia. Quoting from the abstract.

Using the most recent national data (2005) from all U.S. states with information on sex education laws or policies (N = 48), we show that increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates. This trend remains significant after accounting for socioeconomic status, teen educational attainment, ethnic composition of the teen population, and availability of Medicaid waivers for family planning services in each state. These data show clearly that abstinence-only education as a state policy is ineffective in preventing teenage pregnancy and may actually be contributing to the high teenage pregnancy rates in the U.S.

In March 2011, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Representative Barbara Lee of California, both Democrats, introduced the Repealing Ineffective and Incomplete Abstinence-Only Program Funding Act in their respective houses. Sadly, the bill has gone nowhere so far.

Education should be based on science and on results, not on hopeful thoughts and religious dogma. Kudos to the University of Georgia for producing the study of the data. Also to Mr. Lautenberg and Ms. Lee. Mr. Walker on the other hand appears to be making every mistake he can, which may explain part of the extremes his party is going to in order to avoid his recall.

28 November 2011

FollowUp 2: California's SB-48

Social conservatives are again trying to get rid of California's SB-48, The Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful (FAIR) Education Act. I wrote about the details of this law which mandates inclusion and respectful teaching of various minority groups. There was an attempt to put a repeal of SB-48 on the November 2012 California ballot which failed.

Last week the Christian Coalition of California's Chairman, Richard Rios, filed two petitions to effectively undo FAIR, each sponsored by a separate organization. Talking Points Memo discusses the petitions. The first removes inclusion language for the LGBTQ Community.

The Committee to Repeal SB48’s initiative would eliminate the part of the law that mandates lessons about the contributions of “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans,” because, as the filing says, “the public school system is responsible to educate our children in the basic education of reading, writing, and math and not to promote political and sociology dogma to students as young as five.”

The second is an opt-out for families.

The one submitted by the Committee for Parental Rights for Education would allow parents to write a note that excuses their kid from lessons if it conflicts with “religious training and beliefs.”

The Bay Area Reporter includes an interview with Mr. Rios.

Rios said the committees behind the ballot proposals, on which he sits – the Committee to Repeal SB 48 and the Committee for Parental Rights in Education – have just started raising money. He said they have about 400 distribution centers committed to their effort, for activities such as distributing petitions, but he wouldn't share any details, such as where they are.

He also wouldn't say much about their fundraising plans. However, he said, "We've got commitments in the six figures right now." Rios estimated each campaign around the proposals he submitted would cost about $13 million to win approval from voters in November.

This round of defending FAIR may be complicated because Equality California is struggling with new leadership and endeavoring to regain its footing (see the bottom of the Bay Area Reporter article). There is an online effort to protect FAIR.

This is very important as the anti-equality groups are going to do their best to eliminate FAIR. For example, Political Vel Craft writes

SB 48 mandates positive teaching of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender lifestyles to children of ALL ages. That means that any child attending public school starting with kindergarten on, in the state of California will be indoctrinated to accept lifestyles that God refers to as being an ‘abomination’ and punishable by death; Lev. 20:13 (God’s words, not mine).

According to them that which does not "reflect adversely" must be positive. SB-48 is not about indoctrination, but that highly charged word will scare some people. And Leviticus 20 includes prohibitions of worshiping Molech, witchcraft, cursing one's parents, adultery (hello Mr. Cain and Mr. Gingrich), incest, sex during menstruation, being naked with relatives, bestiality, psychics, and necromancers. Nearby chapters include prohibitions on eating shrimp and bacon, wearing clothing of blended materials, tattoos, and much more that are commonly violated by those who only remember prohibitions against the LGBTQ community.

FAIR is about equality, not brainwashing and not indoctrination. It is going to take a lot of effort to get the truth out there and prevent the half million signatures from being gathered. There are going to be even more lies this time.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

12 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

23 October 2011, FollowUp 1.

9 December 2011, FollowUp 3.

28 January 2012, FollowUp 4.

Various Direct Links