Monthly Archives: July 2014

Ex-Gay Educators Caucus Report from the 2014 NEA Annual Conference


NEA Ex-Gay logo
Given the controversy over the homosexual issue in recent years and previous experiences of tense interactions at NEA’s Annual Meeting and EXPO over the past 10 years, I was anticipating a rough 2 days at this year’s NEA EXPO in Denver. I knew I would be alone at the exhibit for periods of time as my only other help, Sissy Jochmann (Chair of the Conservative Educators Caucus) needed to fulfill other responsibilities in addition to assisting me at the EXGAY EDUCATORS EXHIBIT. I was happily wrong!

When I arrived to set up the exhibit on Monday, I found our assigned spot in the back corner. The backdrop curtain was wrapped around a high railing and our “NEA EXGAY EDUCATORS CAUCUS” sign was entangled in the curtain hanging by one hook. A rack of clothing belonging to the dress shop exhibit next to me blocked the view of our exhibit from anyone walking down the isle. I climbed up on a chair to unravel the curtain but could not reach high enough to re-hang our sign. A young man who working as a convention staff offered to help. He finished with a hearty, “God bless you!” My anticipation began to change.

We had a wide choice of materials to share, thanks to PFOX, Dr. Raney, Rosaria Butterfield, and others. Our materials addressed bullying in schools; children being raised in same sex homes; health concerns of homosexuals; results of research studies; and other related issues.

During the next two days, teachers trickled by our exhibit, most with expressions of puzzlement and some with disgust. A few stopped to talk about the issue. The question was usually, “So what is an ‘Exgay?’” Our answer, “A person with unwanted same gender attractions who does not want to embrace a homosexual identity. Here are the personal stories and research which support our viewpoint.” I would usually make it more personal making sure the person knew this was my own history. Conversation rarely went deeper than that. People would pick up a few items, especially “EXGAY IS OK” buttons or bookmarks and perhaps a few brochures or research articles. A few returned to purchase Rosaria Butterfield’s book, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert.

The conversations that made our efforts seem worthwhile were few but important. Several openly gay people came by to respectfully engage discussion of recent events such as John Paulk’s article in Politico, “From Gay to Straight and Back,” or the dissolution of Exodus. Such conversations always attracted a group of listeners. We affirmed the right of people to make those choices but said, “We are here to stand for the right of individuals with unwanted same gender attraction to pursue other avenues besides embracing a homosexual identity and way of life. We are not here to coerce anyone to make changes they don’t want to make.” I also was able to explain that the caucus was founded when I realized that I could be forced to teach something on this issue that was contrary to my own personal experience. We also pointed out to several that CA and NJ now have laws that prohibit mental health professionals from assisting youth to resolve their same gender attraction issues in any other way than by embracing homosexuality and we believe that is a violation of our right to pursue happiness. Many were surprised that such laws exist and seemed to agree that it infringes on freedom, even when they disagreed with our views.

We had a libertarian teacher stop by to ask if we had an exhibit last year. He had missed us and was in the habit of stopping by for any new info. He affirmed our right to be there and was supportive of our theme of personal freedom.

After a group of people walked by, a convention staff young woman stopped and asked, “Tell me about this.” Before I could get out a complete sentence, she said, “That’s me.” I replied, “It was me, too.” As I explained a bit more, she listened briefly appearing to be cautious to avoid being seen at our booth. She took some resources and promised to watch the online video by FAMILY WATCH INTERNATIONAL and slipped away as she said, “I think God is talking to me.”

All of these conversations which had a measure of reasonableness to them, were well worth the effort and expense of being there. By placing ourselves in the pathway of people who have opposing views, we are showing that we are real people representing a view that is not malicious to personal freedom but rather dignifies individual choice. It is very important that we hold the place we have carved out inside the NEA in future years as long as we are able. We deeply appreciate the support of the many individual and groups who have provided us with materials and moral support through the years. And we welcome participation at future exhibits by anyone who feels the calling to be there or feels impressed to help financially.

Jeralee Smith is the Founder of the NEA Ex-Gay Educators Caucus 


What Is Truth? Ten Myths Propagated By Gay Activists Debunked


My truth can say that stealing my neighbor’s tools is not wrong because I need the tools and my neighbor can afford to get a new set of tools. I have rationalized and even legitimized my stealing as good because it works for me. I can manipulate the truth to be subjective. But let’s look at another scenario objectively.

Today, I could get in a plane, fly to any spot on Earth, and parachute down in the midst of any tribe on the planet.  If I were to run to the nearest person and take something out of his hands and call it mine, it would objectively be called stealing.  Anyone on the planet would say, in his language, that I stole.

“My truth” can say that leaving work early without docking my pay is okay as long as the boss doesn’t find out. My truth can say that my computer is really a toaster.  But no matter how much I believe it is a toaster, and even if though I really believe it, it is still a computer.  Believing it does not make it so. Truth is objective.

So let’s look at what gay activists define as truths (here named ‘myths’) and see what the objective realities are.

Myth #1:  People are born gay.

There is very little credible scientific evidence that people are born with a “gay gene” or even a “pre-disposition” to become homosexually attracted.

Objectively, scientists have confirmed that identical twins [who share the same DNA] are not always both heterosexual, nor are they both homosexual. If there were a gene to determine sexual orientation, or “gay gene,” this would occur. In fact, Meta analysis of studies examining identical twins yield percentages (of identical twins being both gay) as being less than 12%. This means that about 88% of the time, they are not both gay! Therefore, there must be a variety of post-natal factors that contribute to homosexual feelings.

Objectively, researchers have concluded that sex awareness does not even develop until the age of 18 months. Between the ages of 18 months to 36 months, a child becomes aware of differences in their sex and identifies more with the same or opposite sex.

Objectively, among other factors, theorists believe that sex confusion may first result (subconsciously) when a child’s same-sex parent is absent, [emotionally and/or physically], or when the same-sex parent and/or peers cause(s) the child to experience negative emotional reactions/trauma when they are together.

These factors, among others, may contribute to the later development of same-sex attractions. But if you don’t believe me, read Dr. Neil Whitehead’s My Genes Made Me Do It! A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation.

Myth #2:  The only definition for a change in same-sex attraction is to never be attracted to the same sex again.

Objectively, using this definition does not make sense. Anyone who uses his brain makes memory paths, and sooner or later will find him/herself remembering. Using the “…never attracted to the same sex again” definition of “change” would really alter the definition of “change” in many instances. For example:

“Gee, I haven’t had a cigarette for 10 years, but I still think about it and I even crave one every once in a while. But now that this definition says I can’t ever crave a cigarette to be cured, I must still be a smoker. According to this definition, I’ll never be a non-smoker, even if I live to be 100 and never have another puff.”

“Gee, I haven’t had a drop of liquor in over 30 years, but today, I thought about having a tall one. So I guess I’m not really sober. As long as I think I might like a drink, I’ll always be a hopeless drunk.”

“Gee…. Even though I’ve realized that I was treated like a girl from day one, was constantly raped by the men next door, and was taunted by my same-sex peers, and I’ve come to understand that I had physical and emotional childhood wounds… and even though I have worked hard to deal with them and have moved on with therapy…. and even though I am now really turned on by my wife…. and am happily married with four children…. if I ever have a passing thought about a man looking good, I’m still obviously gay and have not changed.”

Using such a narrow definition of change, as many gay activists do, would result in many individuals who struggle with a variety of issues to admit they have not indeed changed. This would include any type of addiction, where relapse throughout the recovery process is a reality. However, when one takes into account that change means reducing, decreasing, or diminishing the frequency and intensity of same-sex attractions, and increasing opposite-sex attractions (in some cases, this change might be even more dramatic since there may have been none before therapy) then tens of thousands have changed.

Myth #3:  Any same-sex attracted person who says he or she has “changed” is in denial, is lying, and is sure to come back to his gay lifestyle.

Let’s look at the objective evidence. Testimonies from ex-gays prove otherwise. Check out a few from the following websites:

Myth #4:  Not making LGBT support, counseling, and books available is tantamount to discrimination, bias and censorship. Yet, not making ex-gay support, ex-gay counseling, and ex-gay books available are morally responsible acts. We must not allow our children to be exposed to “hurtful” stories of change.

In their efforts to “protect” youth, gay activists routinely censor literature that presents an alternative to the “born that way” theory. While they promote equality for LGBT individuals, they deny equality to anyone with an opposing viewpoint. The old Orwellian theme: “All animals are equal except some animals are more equal than others” is their modus operandi.

Objective Truth: Censorship is censorship. No matter how much an individual or group might dislike an opposing viewpoint does not give that individual or group the rights to censor. Sexual Orientation Change Effort (SOCE) therapy has helped thousands of individuals to overcome, reduce, and/or diminish their unwanted same-sex attractions. For more information, see: Successful Outcomes of SOCE Therapy by Dr. James Phelan.

Myth #5:  If you speak in favor of SOCE therapy or speak against homosexual behavior, you are attacking a protected minority group (LGBT) and should be sued, because after all, science has determined homosexuality is hard-wired, and therefore, offering or supporting SOCE therapy to help those with unwanted SSA change is impossible and therefore criminal.

The idea that my attacking an issue is attacking a minority group is propaganda at its best. George Orwell said: “Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Objective Truth: Discussing an issue such as sexuality and presenting logical and reasonable viewpoints is not attacking a person (argumentum ad hominem). For example, many people are atheists. If I give reasons why I believe in God, does this attack atheists personally?  Should they sue me or put me in jail?  No, they should say what they think, and I will defend their right to say it. I certainly won’t sue them for their views.

But that is exactly what the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is doing to a small non-profit organization, Jews Offering New Alternatives to Healing (JONAH). Claiming that their coaching and therapeutic services are tantamount to Consumer Fraud, the SPLC recruited several former unsuccessful clients of JONAH and brainwashed them to believe they had been “harmed” by their therapy because they did not experience the change they were supposedly promised. For more information, visit the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund online.

Freedom of speech and conscience is guaranteed by the Constitution and allows us to put all the cards on the table. We are all entitled to believe what we want, and debate those ideas in the free marketplace of ideas. May the truth win out!

Myth #6: Since gays can marry in many states and have equal status under the law, their families are equivalent to heterosexual families.

Objective, biological truth: Only a man and a woman can co-create another human being and can give a child the benefit of having a male father and a female mother. Gay marriage does not provide all of the advantages to children as heterosexual households. While gay activists will point to a recent Australian study that supposedly shows that children of homosexual couples fare the same, or actually better, than those of straight couples, this study was actually based on a convenience sample, not a random sample, such as that produced by Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas, whose study found that among every outcome studied, children of homosexual parents were worse off than children of heterosexual parents. For more information, click here.

Myth #7:  It’s not OK to bully gays; but it’s OK to bully, slander and ridicule ex-gays.

Objective Truth:  It’s not OK to bully, slander, or ridicule anyone. Because gays are very vocal and quite prominent and over-represented in the media, their voices are very loud and strong. This results in gay media personalities often promoting gay causes, such as anti-bullying, tolerance, and outright promotion of LGBT causes in schools and in the workplace. For example, a recent survey at Chase Bank asked employees to check a box (yes or no) if they were an “ally” of the LGBT community. Who knows what may happen to employees if they don’t check the box. Perhaps they’ll end up like recently fired former Mozella Corporation CEO Brendan Eich, who donated $1,000 to California’s Proposition 8 law in 2008, only to be pressured to resign years later because of his unpopular political views. For more information, click here.

At the same time, it is unthinkable for schools to promote tolerance for ex-gays or promote materials that present many sides of the sexual orientation issue. For example, two school districts in Maryland have been openly hostile to ex-gay views. Montgomery County denied flyers from Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) to be distributed to students under their non-profit distribution program, yet allowed gay-affirming organizations to promote LGBT causes in their district.  Similarly, officials at Prince George’s County in Maryland removed the Acception: Bullying Prevention Film and Health Curriculum after being pressured from gay activsts because it contained information that supported students with unwanted same-sex attraction who desired to change their sexual orientation.

Myth #8:  The Bible Approves of Homosexuality.

Objective Truth:  Having same-sex attraction is not a sin. According to the Bible, acting on it is. You can’t be lukewarm about this. Jesus said that He would spit you out of His mouth. Let’s look at the bible.

Corinthians 6:9-11 says: “Can you not realize that the unholy will not fall heir to the kingdom of God?  Do not deceive yourselves: no fornicators, idolaters, or adulterers, no sodomites, thieves, misers, or drunkards, no slanderers or robbers will inherits God’s kingdom. At such were some of you; but you have been washed, consecrated, justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the spirit of our God.” (NAB)

While many gay activists have tried to justify homosexual behavior by reinterpreting scripture, Biblical scholars have rejected such theories. For more information, read: “Welcoming But Not Affirming: An Evangelical Response to Homosexuality” by Stanley Grenz.

Myth #9:  Anyone who disagrees with the LGBT philosophies is a bigot or homophobe.

Objective Truth: Name-calling is another propaganda technique. Anyone who disagrees with the LGBT philosophies is an individual with different views, but this does not make their views hate speech. However, the SPLC continues to label organizations that oppose homosexual behavior, including Family Resource Council, American Family Association, and Liberty Counsel, as “Hate Groups” on their website. Until recently, the FBI used the SPLC as a resource to identity legitimate hate groups, but has now dropped the group from its resources.

Myth #10:  You Can’t “Pray Away the Gay.”

Objective Truth:  Agreed! You can’t pray away the gay.  You have no power. You can pray that God shows you the meaning of your same-sex attractions so you can resolve the issues that lead to their development. If God desires you to change, it can happen! There is hope. John 10:10 says:  “I came that they might have life and have it to the full.”  You also can be led by the Spirit to find grace, peace, chastity, and healing. God alone changes hearts. May His will be done! This article was originally published on July 14, 2014 at:

Gisele Roy is a parent of a son in his twenties who has unwanted SSA and is a member of the Advisory Board of Voice of the Voiceless. Christopher Doyle is a Licensed Clinical Professional Counselor and President of Voice of the Voiceless. For more information, visit:


D.C. May Join California and New Jersey in Denying Ex-Gays Therapy


Watch the video on the hearing and press conference from the Christian Broadcasting Network by clicking here.

On Friday, June 27 the Washington, D.C. City Council held a hearing on Bill 20-501, legislation that would prohibit minors from receiving counseling to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions. As a part of my work with Equality And Justice For All and Voice of the Voiceless, I have been following this legislation across the United States and working hard to form a coalition of ex-gays to meet with legislators and educate them on the facts of Sexual Orientation Change Effort (SOCE) therapy.

After California and New Jersey passed laws in 2012-2013 to prohibit SOCE therapy for minors, we began a grass roots campaign to educate state legislators and federal lawmakers on the actual facts. While gay activist groups have received scores of free publicity (for example, most recently a lesbian rights group who launched a campaign called #BornPerfect to end “conversion therapy” that was publicized in Time Magazine) our campaign, #TherapyEquality, has largely been unreported by the mainstream media.

But it’s not for lack of results. So far in 2014, our work has assisted in the defeat of at least thirteen bills proposing to ban SOCE therapy for minors, including: Virginia, Washington, Maryland, Illinois, Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Hawaii, New York, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Simply put, when ex-gays show up and tell the truth about SOCE therapy, how it helped them, and in some cases, saved their lives, legislators have listened.

Stated another way, gays cannot speak for ex-gays. This is what we have been trying to get across in our work. But some legislative bodies still lack the desire to even listen to our stories of change. Friday’s hearing in Washington, D.C. was a prime example. Eight courageous individuals sat before a biased committee and testified about their sexual orientation change. The vast majority of these individuals testified as to having been sexually abused as children and arriving at a homosexual orientation as a result, and then doing the hard work to heal those wounds and come out of homosexuality.

panel_at_conversion_therapy_ban_hearing_in_DC_insert_c_Washington_Blade_by_Michael_KeyYet, councilmembers failed to even recognize the term “ex-gay” – even when the Washington, D.C. Office of Human Rights has explicitly stated that former homosexuals, or ex-gays, are protected against discrimination under the D.C. Human Rights Act (see: PFOX vs. NEA, 2009). It was beyond offensive to listen to one councilmember state: “There is no such thing as an ex-gay,” when eight of them were sitting before them testifying. It felt like an episode of The Twilight Zone.

Even worse, one Councilman in particular, David Catania, had the audacity to lecture the ex-gays testifying and bully one client of the International Healing Foundation, who testified as to overcoming unwanted same-sex attractions through therapy. Catania stated that we are here today not to debate whether homosexuality is an illness, but rather, confront the illness of “superiority” and illness of “internalized hatred.”

Yes, he actually said that those seeking to leave homosexuality, pursue their own self-determination, and receive therapy to remain faithful to sincerely held religious beliefs, are mentally ill. Catania, who is now running for Mayor in Washington, D.C., used his ten minutes of time not to gain insight or ask questions to the many highly qualified experts in attendance who practice SOCE therapy, but rather, felt it necessary to demean, bully, and disrespect a young man who had the courage to speak about his sexual orientation change. Catania actually told this young man that there is no reason why he should want to change “a fundamental core part of who he is” and to stop hating himself. So much for tolerance!

At the end of the day, the marathon hearing saw a grand total of 32 witnesses testify on this bill. Probably the most surprising testimony of all came from Dr. Anthony Jimenez, a psychologist in the District of Columbia who spoke in favor of the ban. When questioned by Councilwoman Alexander after giving his testimony, as to whether he had ever counseled clients who has been sexually abused and were homosexual, he said “yes” and that he had helped some of these clients who were uncomfortable with their same-sex attractions, and didn’t want to identify as gay, work through the sexual abuse and unwanted same-sex attractions.

What was baffling to the entire room was the underlying notion that had not been confronted, that people are not simply born homosexual, and that some individuals who develop homosexual feelings do so because of sexual abuse. In his answers to the Councilwoman, Dr. Jimenez confirmed that in his professional experience, the fact that people are not simply born homosexual, was in fact true, and that sexual abuse certainly plays a factor for some who are same-sex attracted.

If this line of questions and answers wasn’t a nail in the coffin for gay activists trying to shut down the freedom of children, and their parents, to pursue counseling to heal sexual abuse and the homosexual feelings that result, then nothing will change the Council’s minds on this legislation.

On Monday, June 30 (three days later) the Supreme Court of the United States passed on hearing Pickup vs. Brown, a lawsuit challenging California’s ban on SOCE therapy for minors. While there is an appeal still pending on New Jersey’s SOCE therapy ban in the 3rd Circuit Court, it seems unlikely that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will decide to hear Pickup vs. Brown (since it already declined to hear an appeal of its original ruling earlier this year) and thus, seal the fate of California’s children who experience unwanted same-sex attraction and desire therapy to overcome.

Let’s be really clear on this fact. Parents in the state of California whose children have been sexually abused by the likes of a Jerry Sandusky and later develop homosexual feelings now will be raped a second time by the system.

It’s really hard for me, a victim of sexual abuse who had the opportunity to see a licensed counselor to heal those wounds, which ultimately helped me to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions, marry my wife of eight years, and father my three beautiful children, to convey the sense of injustice I feel by these decisions.

Indeed, our country stands at a critical point in history. Are we going to deny Christians and people of faith the right to pursue their religious convictions and freedom of conscience, or are we going to instead, bow to secularism and every manner of evil possible in our society? Are we going to turn our heads the other way when a child is raped and pretend that he is perfectly fine and that he was just “born that way” or are we going to confront the sexual abuser, demand justice, and allow that child an opportunity to heal?

Not long ago, Oprah Winfrey had on her television show over one hundred sexually abused men to discuss the effects of molestation on their lives. But the big fat lavender elephant in the room was ignored. She never asked the question: How many of you developed homosexual feelings as a result of this abuse? This article was originally published on July 2 at The Christian Post:

Christopher Doyle is a Licensed Clinical Professional Counselor and the Director of the International Healing Foundation, a non-profit organization that has helped thousands of SSA and LGBT individuals, and their families, since 1990. He is also the President and Co-Founder of Voice of the Voiceless.