Wednesday, May 09, 2012
Even though much better funded, opponents to North Carolina’s ‘Amendment 1’ lost their bid to defeat the ban on homosexual marriage by a large margin, 61% to 39%. North Carolinians turned out in droves in support of banning homosexual marriage in their state with a constitutional amendment that would stop any activist judges from declaring the legislated ban “unconstitutional” should any homosexual group challenge the previous ban in courts.
Sure to anger Progressives who are intent on undoing the long held traditions of the United States, much credit for the defeat is being given to the Churches in North Carolina who supported the constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage.
Voters ignored opposition from former President Bill Clinton and his former chief of staff Erskine Bowles as the launched record telephone messages urging voters to oppose the amendment. Even a statement from Obama opposing the amendment failed to dissuade voters from approving what they know is right, marriage is and was intended to be between one man and one woman.
Opponents ran “television ads that focused on weakened domestic violence protections for unmarried couples, and loss of health insurance for children of same-sex couples,” in the normal hyperbole often seen by supporters intent on undoing our long held traditions and in some areas, legal definition of marriage.
Claiming an “unprecedented coalition,” and “appearing on television as much as they wanted,” their hype failed to convince North Carolinians of any need to redefine marriage to include homosexuals marrying each other.
After acknowledging the strong support of Churches, the Rev. Mark Harris, president of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina said, “The string of national amendment victories supports arguments for amending the U.S. Constitution to allow only heterosexual marriages.”
Over half of the states now have similar bans now denying homosexuals marrying someone of the same sex.
Meanwhile, California, who previously saw their activist court legalization of homosexual marriage overturned by a vote of 52% to 48% in Proposition 8 that added a constitutional amendment stating that that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” only to see some of those same activist judges now ruling that their constitutional amendment is itself unconstitutional, are seeing their legislature seeking to ban gay teen ‘conversion’ therapy.
Supporters of the religiously based psychotherapy claim such a ban “would interfere with parents’ rights to seek appropriate psychological care for their children,” and such a ban “would prevent people from recovering from trauma of sexual abuse.”
“Any counselor worth his salt knows that homosexual feelings commonly occur in boys as a result of abuses,” said Marriage and Family Therapist David Pickup. “I should know because I was one of those boys.”
Democrat Sen. Ted Lieu, author of the bill to ban the therapy called the therapy “dangerous” adding “treatments can cause extreme depression and guilt that sometimes leads to suicide.”
“The bill would prohibit so-called reparative therapy for minors and obligate adults seeking the treatment to sign a release form that states that the counseling is ineffectual and possibly dangerous.”
I also see it as a move that would deny those who may question whether they truly are homosexual or not from receiving the completely voluntary therapy.
In spite of claims by homosexuals that the therapy is “ineffective,” interest has grown in recent years as referral networks have grown to over 260, up from only 100 a decade ago, claims Exodus International the world’s largest referral group who’s stated mission is, “Mobilizing the body of Christ to minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality.”
The American Psychological Association, who once offered similar therapy to homosexuals, now discourages therapists from referring homosexuals to seek “conversion therapy,” citing “research suggesting that efforts to produce the change could lead to depression and suicidal tendencies, and that no solid evidence exists that such change is possible.”
That numerous individuals claim to have come out of the homosexual lifestyle seems not to be considered evidence, even to the point that in some areas efforts to block & censor their message is seen.
From where I sit, I have to wonder why, if the therapy is “ineffective” would there be a need to legislatively ban it?
The APA, as is usual when no solid evidence is available only makes the claim that in their opinion it “could” lead to depression and suicidal tendencies, not that it does.
Other counselors making claims of homosexuality “could” lead to similar psychological problems are scoffed at.
But to me, as ineffective as they claim the therapy is, it obviously is much more effective than admitted and the real danger lies in if the public sees that homosexuality can be converted with such therapy, it blows the claim of “born that way” clean out of the water.
The therapy is not mandated or required, it is strictly voluntary as it should remain.
Banning it, though, denies people who may be troubled with their homosexuality treatment to make any change they desire to.
On the other hand, no one seeks to deny troubled teens who question their sexuality from being treated to confirm and make them comfortable in realizing they are indeed homosexual.
Posted by Lew Waters at 3:07 PM