Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Republican Party of Texas - Platform for 2014 - please pray and help, if you can

I would like to share with you this resolution which I drafted and submitted for consideration to be added as a plank in the Republican Party of Texas 2014 Platform. I've drafted resolutions and lobbied the legislature for conservative causes in the past, but never for such a personal issue.  

Here is one news article explaining the situation:  

As you know from my other blog posts, I lead a ministry based here in Texas, but with national outreach and we and many others have already being impacted by this new law that liberals are pushing in all 50 states.

Reparative Therapy and this type of ministry work played a significant role in saving my life and I have been blessed to help many others over the past four years. Recently though, this ministry work has been under attack across the country and in some states Republican legislators and Governors have been silent or complicit in passing these laws. 

After California and New Jersey passed these laws last year, I began reaching out to Republican State Legislators and State Senators to discuss the law. In Washington State, the bill flew through their House without any opposition from Republicans, but once we talked with the GOP state senators and they came to understand the full story, they stood up and blocked this awful bill. The same has been the case now for eleven other states. 

In each case, it took significant efforts to educate GOP legislators and rally grassroots support before their GOP lawmakers realized the importance of this issue to religious freedom. Since this bill is being introduced in all 50 states, it is a critical and unique addition to the State GOP which is not fully covered by the current language.  I presented the resolution and my explanations to the Texas Republican Assembly and the Eagle Forum and they both agreed and endorsed this resolution. I would have asked for other endorsements as well, but I wasn't sure who to contact.

Anyway, I have been told that this issue is one that many people have additional questions about so I drafted this brief packet to supplemental information explaining the reasons behind this platform amendment.

If (by chance) you are a delegate or alternate to the upcoming Republican State Convention here in Texas this weekend, please take a moment to review. This was approved unanimously by the Platform Committee and will be presented for approval by the full convention this coming Saturday. I will be there and I really hope I can count on your support for this important platform amendment. If you are in another state (or party), I would love to talk with you about how you can adapt this for your upcoming state convention and party platform. This shouldn't be only a GOP or Texas issue. Hopefully, we can ALL agree on the importance of protecting Free Speech and the Freedom of Relgion for ALL. 
2014 RPT Platform Amendment Resolution Supporting the Right to Reparative Therapy / SOCE
1)       Proposed Platform Amendment
2)       Why this platform amendment is crucial for protecting free speech and religious freedom in Texas.
3)       What is “Reparative Therapy” and “SOCE” (Sexual Orientation Change Efforts)?
4)       Original (long version) of the resolution – includes additional “whereases” intended to inform
5)       Letters from Psychologists and therapists in Texas and California.
6)       Final version endorsed by the Texas Republican Assembly and Eagle Forum (same “Therefore” fewer “whereases”)

1)       Proposed Platform Amendment
We call upon all elected officials in the State of Texas to ensure that licensed therapists, psychologists and counselors in the state of Texas cannot be forbidden or penalized by any licensing board for practicing reparative therapy and supporting clients of any age with sexual orientation change efforts. 

We support the rights of self-motivated teens and urge the passage of laws to protect the right to self-determination by those who experience Unwanted Same-Sex Attraction and seek to live out their values of chastity and/or restoration to heterosexuality.”

2)       Why this platform amendment is crucial for protecting free speech and religious freedom in Texas.
Activists have drafted a bill to be introduced in all 50 states which will ban or severely restrict access to Reparative Therapy and all other SOCE (Sexual Orientation Change Efforts) including religious counseling.  A similar bill is currently under review in the British Parliament which goes much further. A version of the bill will be introduced in the Texas legislature during the next term.

The motive appears to be a perception among gay rights activists that the existence of “Ex-Gays” (individuals who experience Same-Sex Attraction but who choose chastity and/or change due to their personal beliefs and values) have been pointed to as evidence that homosexuality is “changeable.” This is perceived to be a threat to gay rights.

Even those who support Gay Marriage and other gay rights initiatives should recognize these issues have nothing to do with the rights of other individuals who experience Same-Sex Attraction to choose to live a chaste life and/or pursue healing and change.

Republicans in California, New Jersey, and Washington State have been reluctant to fight this bill largely due to misinformation, but also due to a perceived lack of interest among the GOP base. California first passed the law last summer and New Jersey soon followed. Governor Chris Christie signed the bill into law and the Washington State House initially voted to pass the bill there. (Fortunately Republicans in the State Senate killed it last week after the information below was presented to them).

It gets worse:
These laws take away religious rights of individuals since the specifically state that this law applies to all licensed therapists. Therefor, this would apply to church sanctioned therapists who are employed by churches to practice their religious beliefs concerning homosexuality.

The clients’ right to self-determination is taken away by these laws. This means that a child, or his parents, will have no right to receive the therapy that fits for the emotional health of the client. They will not be allowed to sign a release form. SOCE will be against the law.

The SOCE therapist will be subject to removal of licensure and legal prosecution if he participates in SOCE.

These laws have been based on only two issues. They attempt to recognize that homosexuality is naturally inborn for everyone, and that all SOCE causes harm to minors. There primary “proof” of harm comes from the very document that disproves this. The media and gay lobbyists will tell you that the American Psychological Association has condemned SOCE, and that it causes depression and suicide. This is a lie. On page 42, 82-83 of the APA Task Force Report concerning SOCE, the APA states there is no proof of harm, and there is nowhere in the document that a condemnation of SOCE is written.

The APA does give a warning, but this is the standard warning that is essentially the same as is given for Prozac, a commonly used drug in the world today. Essentially, the gay lobbyists and the media are using false and misleading statements concerning SOCE to win their political battles. Battles which they knowingly ignore the issues above. We know this because this is in the record of legislative committees in the states above that have passed these laws.

This resolution does not state that a person cannot be gay, nor does it try to intimidate gay persons. It only seeks to protect the rights and health of  self-motivated individuals in the state of Texas.

3)      What is “Reparative Therapy” and SOCE (Sexual Orientation Change Efforts)

The public has been lied to and mislead about the nature of same-sex attractions and how they can be changed, and because the rights of sexually abused children to get the therapy they need are being taken away this year in several states. Please listen to the evidence below.

Thousands of children, men and women in our country, and around the world, experience same-sex sexual attractions. They are not Gay. These feelings have a cause/effect nature and are not naturally inborn for them.

For example:
Homosexual feelings have long been known to arise in children and adults because of childhood or adolescent sexual abuse by pedophiles and hebephiles. Every good psychologist knows this happens. One only needs to look at the many cases of male sexual abuse that have occurred via the likes of Jerry Sandusky and religious leaders in the past several years to know this is an egregious issue.

The governors of California and New Jersey have just signed into law that a minor may not receive SOCE by any licensed therapist for the purpose of “reducing or eliminating homosexual feelings.” (See state websites for bill numbers. These cases are being appealed.) This means that if the same law were instituted in Texas that the effects of sexual abuse onto minors by these perpetrators would, by law, be allowed to continue. In other words, it would be illegal for any licensed therapist, (even if employed by churches), to conduct successful therapy for children who want and desperately need to resolve this aspect of their sexual abuse.

SOCE, commonly known as Reparative Therapy, is disparaged by gay lobbyists through vicious attacks on its nature and efficacy. NOTHING that the media or these lobbyists have stated about the nature of RT is true. They have gone on record as saying RT is about shaming children, abusing them with physically torturous aversion techniques, telling them they are sick and need to be cured.

NOTHING about the above is what AUTHENTIC RT is all about. There may be some individual stories of therapeutic incompetency that resulted in harm done to some children. However, there is not one ethical complaint in the past 30-40 years filed in any licensing board in any state of the US for any harm done to a child experiencing SOCE. If there is so much harm, why hasn’t anyone filed a complaint, even later when they were adults?

This is what authentic Reparative Therapy truly is:

1.        It removes any and all shame for having homosexual feelings.
2.        It decreases depression and anxiety.
3.        It heals the wounds that have resulted in homosexual feelings, which are severe cases of gender identity inferiority and severally unmet male emotional needs of affirmation, approval and affection (usually from childhood).
4.        It raises the level of self-esteem of clients, especially in terms of gender identity.
5.        As a result, clients experience an automatic, spontaneous reduction or dissipation of homosexual feelings. They report relief from suicidal feelings and great hope in discovering their true heterosexual selves and maximizing their heterosexual potential.

Please review the above at and in the ground-breaking work of RT creator Dr. Joseph Nicolosi as seen in his latest book: Shame and Attachment Loss: The Practical Guide to Reparative Therapy.

Please do not listen to those who do not fairly present both sides of this issue. A hallmark of bigotry is silencing the voices of adults and children who simply do not agree with the gay agenda. We do not silence anyone’s voice, but our voices are about to be silenced in Texas.

See below for further insight from NARTH Board President, Dr. Christopher Rosik. The letter below is a letter of protest about these matters to the legislative committee of state heath in the state of Washington, which was part of what helped defeat a similar bill there just last week. You will find much more documented evidence of truth of these issues. You will also find many, many authentic stories of authentic therapeutic change that the media and gay lobbyists are trying to keep from you on

3)       Original (long version) of the resolution – (includes additional “whereases” intended to inform)
Resolution in Support of the right to practice Reparative Therapy and Sexual-Orientation Change Efforts by licensed therapists, psychologists, and counselors.
Whereas:  Laws have recently been passed in California and New Jersey to severely restrict the free speech rights of licensed therapists who support clients with same-sex attraction who are seeking to live lives in accordance with their religious values and choose not to embrace a “gay” identity.
Whereas: The laws passed in NJ and CA and introduced in many other states, restrict the rights of self-motivated minors (under the age of 18) from receiving any therapy or counseling that does not condone homosexual behavior and reinforce a “gay” identity.  The laws go to the extreme of preventing any counseling that would be aimed at changing or reducing any form of sexual expression or behavior.
Whereas:  The ONLY evidence cited to support claims that Reparative Therapy and “SOCE” (Sexual-Orientation Change Efforts)  could be “potentially harmful” is the American Psychological Associations’ Task Force Report, “Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation” (2009).1
Whereas: The APA’s Task Force consists of only seven members and SIX of these SEVEN members are openly gay long-time political activists.1
Whereas: None of the seven APA Task Force members had any experience with or in-depth knowledge of Reparative Therapy and based their recommendation on the a priori assumption that homosexual behavior and the embrace of the “gay” identity was the ONLY healthy choice for individuals who experience any degree of same-sex attraction. While there are many individuals who have this belief, it is not a scientific “fact” (as the Task Force asserted).
Whereas: In 2008, the American Psychological Association (APA) stated: “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.” 2
Whereas:  Reparative Therapy and other Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) are based on the understanding that healing emotional wounds and reducing shame will reduce same-sex attraction and empower individuals to live in accordance with their own faith and values.3
Whereas: SOCE and Reparative Therapy is not a separate modality, but instead uses solid time-tested psychological therapy modalities to reduce shame and enhance self-esteem; benefiting all clients regardless of the choices they may make in the future. 3
Whereas:  Persons and families affected by unwanted same-sex attractions have the right, under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, to not engage in homosexual behavior because of their religious and/or spiritual values.
Whereas: Families with children who experience unwanted same-sex attractions have the right to seek out a mental health care provider that aligns with their values, faith, and/or spiritual/religious affiliation.
Whereas: Individuals with unwanted same-sex attraction seek alternatives to the mainstream medical and psychological association’s scientifically unsubstantiated opinion that they should live as LGBT-identified persons.
Whereas: Scientific research has not demonstrated a simple genetic, hormonal, or otherwise biological and/or innate pathway to homosexuality, and in fact, such theories published in the scientific literature are seriously flawed and lack corroboration from replicated studies. 4
Whereas: The APA’s principal of self-determination applies not only to persons who identify as LGBT but also to individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions. Principle E of the APA’s Ethics Code’s General Principles states: “Psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all people, and the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality and self-determination.” Throughout the code are examples of how psychologists respect their clients’ right to self-determination. These examples include services provided to individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions who seek to change their sexual orientation.5
Whereas: The APA and other allied health professional organizations agree that sexuality is fluid, not fixed, and that a person may experience change in their sexual orientation along a continuum during their lifespan.6
Whereas: Psychological and spiritual counseling, have been well documented in the scientific and psychological literature over the last 100 years to help individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions reduce and/or eliminate their unwanted homosexual feelings. 7
Whereas: Thousands of self-motivated individuals have benefited from Reparative Therapy and other Sexual-Orientation Change Efforts from licensed professional counselors in the US and across the Globe.8 and 9
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that licensed therapists, psychologists and counselors in the state of Texas cannot be forbidden or penalized by any licensing board for practicing reparative therapy and supporting clients of any age with sexual orientation change efforts.
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be sent to the  ____________ Senatorial/County Convention Resolutions Committee form Precinct #______of the _____________County ________________Party, with the recommendation that it be passed and sent to the State Convention Platform Committee of the _______________ Party of Texas.
We further call for a plank in the State and National Republican platforms calling for a full repeal of the recent laws passed in California and New Jersey which have banned SOCE for self-motivated teens and for laws to protect the right to self-determination by those who experience Unwanted Same-Sex Attraction and seek to live alternative lifestyles such as Chastity or restoration to heterosexuality in accordance with their own values and religious beliefs.
3.             Shame & Attachment Loss: ThePractical Work of Reparative Therapy by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi
4.             See:
5.             See page four at:
6.             “Labels may oversimplify sexual identity, experiences.” Greer, M. (2004).  Monitor on Psychology, 35, 9, p.28
7.             Journal of Human Sexuality (Vol 1): “What Research Shows”
8.             See:

4) Letters from therapists in Texas and California:

Honorable Washington State Legislators,

                I am speaking today to urge you to vote NO on HB2451. As a licensed psychotherapist, I can inform you from years of personal and professional experience that this bill will unquestionably be  destructive to abused children if you do not vote down this bill. I want to give you scientific and anecdotal evidence of the destruction this bill will cause.

                I am also speaking to you because I was a child who experienced sexual abuse by a young man when I was 5 years old. I know the horrific experiences of this first hand. One of the abuses that I experienced was the rise of homosexual feelings as a result of what this man did to me. I was born a heterosexual, but when I reached puberty around 13, I was severely repressed and confused concerning my gender and sexuality. I didn’t have a therapist to help me deal with these issues. My sense of masculinity was severely shamed and underdeveloped. I suffered greatly for many years. Thankfully, later in life, I experienced the transformative power of authentic Reparative Therapy. I am now a Reparative Therapist who is helping children and adults from all over the country deal successfully with these issues. I was trained under the direction of Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, the creator of real Reparative Therapy. Please know that every detail of the harmful things this bill calls Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) is certainly not authentic Reparative Therapy.

                I do not believe that Gay persons should be demeaned, discriminated against, or mistreated. In fact, it might surprise you to know that I have Gay clients who are minors and adults, and I do not coerce them or treat them in any other way but with unconditional positive regard. They know what I do, and they trust me as we work on other issues besides sexuality. I help to insure their safety as a matter of fact.

SOCE practitioners do NOT use aversive treatments such as shame, electric shock or nausea inducing drugs. Aversive treatments were common for a wide variety of psychological conditions in the 1960s and 1970s. They have not been used since, and none of the many SOCE therapists I know would ever think of using these methods. And if by some incredible chance they do, they should be prosecuted. The American Psychological Association’s 2009 Task Force Report on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to SOCE will confirm this. 

The linking of SOCE practitioners with aversive and shock treatments is a favorite smear of SOCE opponents, but it has not had any basis in fact for well over 30 years. That this factual inaccuracy is highlighted so prominently in HB2451 certainly lends credence to the suspicion that the primary aim of the bill’s sponsors is to demonize SOCE, licensed clinicians, and parents whose children need and ask for therapy that truly works.

HB2451 states that SOCE can be harmful or carry some risk of harm and that SOCE practitioners supposedly deny this. SOCE, as is the case with all forms of psychological care, carries some risk of harm.  No professional therapist engaged in SOCE would deny this. The question is whether SOCE carries an exceptionally greater risk than all other forms of psychological intervention, and the answer is that no studies exist that can truly speak to this issue.  The studies cited by the APA Task Force (2009) concerning harm are unable to be generalized beyond their specific samples, and the Task Force concluded, “Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE” (p. 42). Therefore, for the sponsors of AB2451 to use the APA as a means of casting aspersions on all SOCE is an act of scientific dishonesty.

HB2451 claims this bill will protect minors from the potential, harmful effects associated with SOCE, including severe mental or emotional problems including suicide. In fact, there is reason to believe that this bill will likely increase harms to minors through its unintended consequences. Here’s how. It would appear quite likely that the majority of parents who bring their children to therapists for SOCE are conservatively religious.  HB2451 sponsors assume that with SOCE prohibited among licensed mental-health professionals, these parents would then bring their children to clinicians who would only provide care aimed at encouraging their children to embrace GLB identity and behavior. I think the more likely scenario is that these parents, many of whom are already suspicious of the mental health professions, will simply pursue SOCE for their children with unlicensed, unregulated, and unaccountable religious counselors that do not fall under the jurisdiction of this bill. The vast majority of anecdotal accounts of harm to minors from SOCE seem attributable to these types of counselors and to religiously oriented programs. Parents who receive professional care by SOCE clinicians whom they sense are understanding of and sympathetic to their worldview will be receptive to their guidance, especially when their child is not interested in SOCE. It is highly unlikely that the average unlicensed conservatively religious counselor will be as sensitive to the contextual and motivational considerations licensed therapists must assess when determining if change-oriented intervention is appropriate for a minor client. This is a prescription for an increased risk of harm.  It would indeed be a tragic but foreseeable irony if the sponsor’s zeal to ban SOCE for minors via SB 1172 ends up actually increasing the harm these youths experience.                                                                                    

One wonders what the sponsors of HB2451 would say about a widespread intervention for minors that carries the following warning: [This intervention] “… increased the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in short-term studies in children, adolescents, and young adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders.” This is the warning for the antidepressant Prozac. You can check out the potential side effects for other medications at

Former APA President Dr. Nicholas Cummings observed that while unsuccessful attempts have been made in the APA to ban SOCE, the APA refused to take a stand on “rebirthing therapy,” which resulted in the suffocation death of one child when the birth process was simulated with tight blankets (Cummings, 2008).  Cummings then concluded, “If the APA rushes to judgment in the matter of sexual reorientation therapy while remaining derelict in its silence toward proven harmful techniques, therapists will be intimidated and patients will lose their right to choose their own treatment objectives. The APA, not the consumer, will become the de facto determiner of therapeutic goals” (p. 208). This sentiment is equally valid for HB2451, only in this case Washington politicians, not the California consumer, will dictate which goals for psychological care are acceptable.
It is clear that this legislation is playing fast and loose with its assertions about SOCE. It would be a travesty of immense proportions if the Washington legislature allows these falsehoods and inaccuracies to be enshrined into law.  It would also constitute a manipulation of the political process by activists that certainly would invite a legal challenge as it has in four other states.                                                                                        
I would further note that, to their credit, the Task Force also acknowledged that the gay affirmative therapeutic approach “ has not been evaluated for safety and efficacy” (p. 91). Additionally in the same APA Task Force Report that HB2451 that sponsors claim proves SOCE causes harm and suicide, is the same document that states there is no proof that SOCE causes harm on pg. 82-83.
Considering the egregious errors of AB2451, this bill would restrict the rights of parents to determine the appropriate psychological care for their minor children and hinder adults’ ability to make informed choices regarding their childrens therapeutic approach.

HB2451 represents a usurping of the role of mental health organizations and licensing boards to provide oversight in psychological care. HB2451 transfers the oversight of proper psychological care from mental health professionals and licensing boards into the hands of politicians.  In short, the state licensing board already has ethical and legal recourse to suspend or revoke any clinician who dares to coerce a minor into any kind of therapy. Also, consider this, did you know there has not been one complaint to the state board in decades of anyone who stated they were harmed by SOCE? Additionally, did you know that there are websites in existence that you can see for yourself the good that Reparative Therapy does? and

It needs to be pointed out that an unmistakable implication of HB2451 is that the Washington licensing agencies and mental health associations are so derelict in their protection of LGBT youth that politicians must step in and do their work for them.  How else should we understand the complete absence of licensure revocations among therapists who provide SOCE when suicides and severe mental anguish are so presumably widespread among LGBT youth and attributable to this form of psychological care?         

Christopher Rosik, PhD

(Below added by David Pickup, LMFT – Texas)                                                                                                 
Honorable legislators, with all due respect, you will become unintentionally complicit in the furtherance of sexual abuse of children, especially if abused heterosexual minors cannot receive sound, science-based, effective therapy for unwanted homosexual feelings that have arisen because of their same-sex sexual abuse. I am certain that the name Jerry Sandusky will familiar to all of you. I am certain that you will recall the many cases of sexual abuse of boys by religious clergy that have come to the nation’s attention in the past few years. God help these boys if they ever move to the state of Washington. Can you imagine a wonderful little boy or adolescent coming into a therapist’s office in tears and expressing he is hurt and confused because of the homosexual feelings he’s experiencing because of his sexual abuse? Can you imagine that all anyone can tell him is, “I can’t help you reduce or eliminate your homosexual feelings because it’s against the law, and you’ll just have to try your best in life.” Can you imagine? I’m certain that many of you have children. What if this situation came to your family, to your little girl, to your little boy?

In my opinion, based on my years of experience, there will be no question that if you let this bill pass into law by trying to help one group of children, another group of children will be irreparably harmed if they are not allowed the kind of SOCE that helps this particular population.

I can tell you first hand that I greatly benefited from authentic Reparative Therapy. RT helped save my life. This is what authentic RT really does:

It eliminates any and all shame for having homosexual feelings no matter how they arose. It allows boys and men to experience a decrease in depression and anxiety. It allows them to grow into great self-confidence in their own genders. It raises self-esteem. It demonstrates how boys and men can get their emotional need for affirmation, approval and affection from other males; needs that they simply didn’t experience in their early lives. And…this results in a spontaneous, automatic lessening or dissipation of their homosexual feelings. In short, they maximize their heterosexual potential. Please look at and for testimonials of authentic, therapeutic change that the media, the APA and Gay therapists are trying to keep from you at all costs. This is not really about helping children, especially when you consider there has not been one ethical complaint taken before any licensing board in the past few decades about Reparative Therapy. I’m sure there have been individual incidents of wrongdoing just like there has been in all other forms of therapy. However, this is a problem that is not germane to Reparative Therapy.

Thank you for your consideration. Please stop this irresponsible bill that is trying to appear as though it saves little children. I humbly ask you to please regard your own legacy in history when making your decision regarding this bill.
David Pickup, LMFT

Articles compiled and edited by David H. Pickup, M.A., Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist in Dallas, Texas (SD 16, delegate)
American Psychological Association (2009). Report of the APA task force on appropriate therapeutic response to sexual orientation.  Retrieved from
Beckstead, A. L. (2001). Cures versus choice: Agendas in sexual reorientation therapy. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 5(3/4), 87-115.

Bell, A. P., Weinberg, M. S., & Hammersmith, S. K. (1981). Sexual preference: Its development in men and women. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Cummings, N. A., & Donohue, W. T. (2008). Eleven blunders that cripple psychotherapy in America: A remedial unblundering. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
Dreger, A. (2012, April 11). How to ex an “ex-gay” study.  [Web log post]. Retrieved from

Jones, S. L., Rosik, C. H., Williams, R. N., & Byrd, A. D. (2010). A Scientific, Conceptual, and Ethical Critique of the Report of the APA Task Force on Sexual Orientation. The General Psychologist, 45(2), 7-18.  Retrieved from

NARTH Task Force on Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Unwanted Same-Sex Attractions and Behavior (2010). Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Unwanted Same-Sex Attractions and Behavior, Journal of Human Sexuality, 2, 5-65.  Retrieved from  Shidlo, A., & Schroeder, M. (2002). Changing sexual orientation: A consumer’s report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(3), 249-259.

Ryan, C., Huebner, D., Diaz, R. M., & Sanchez, J. (2009). Family rejection as a predictor of negative health outcomes in white and Latino lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults. Pediatrics, 123, 346-352.

Shidlo, A., & Schroeder, M. (2002). Changing sexual orientation: A consumers’ report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 249-259.

Spitzer, R. L. (2003a). Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 participants reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32(5), 403-417.

Spitzer, R. L. (2003b). Reply: Study results should not be dismissed and justify further research on the efficacy of sexual reorientation therapy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32(5), 469-472.

Spitzer, R. L. (2012). Spitzer reassesses his 2003 study of reparative therapy of homosexuality [Letter to the editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s10508-012-9966-y
Wakefield, J. C. (2003). Sexual reorientation therapy: Is it ever ethical? Can it ever change sexual orientation? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32(5), p. 457-459.

Vonholdt, C. R. (2001). Interview with Robert L. Spitzer: Homosexuality and the reality of change. Bulletin of the German Institute for Youth and Society, 1, 33-36. Retrieved from

Yarhouse, M. A. (2003). HowSpitzer’s study gives a voice to the disenfranchised within a minority group.Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32(5), 462-463

5)      Final Resolution Endorsed by the Texas Republican Assembly and Eagle Forum

SUPPORT REPARATIVE THERAPY                                                                
WHEREAS Reparative therapy and other Sexual Orientation Change Efforts are based on the understanding that healing emotional wounds and reducing shame will reduce same-sex attraction and empower individuals to live in accordance with their own faith and values;                      
 WHEREAS, psychological and spiritual counseling have been well-documented in scientific and psychological literature to help individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions reduce and/or eliminate their unwanted homosexual feelings;                                                               
WHEREAS, laws have recently been passed in California and New Jersey severely restricting the free speech rights of licensed therapists who support counseling/therapy to change or reduce homosexual behavior in individuals who seek their help;                                                                                                                 
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that licensed therapists, psychologists and counselors in the state of Texas cannot be forbidden or penalized by any licensing board for practicing reparative therapy and supporting clients of any age with sexual orientation change efforts.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be sent to the  ____________ Senatorial/County Convention Resolutions Committee form Precinct #______of the _____________County ________________Party, with the recommendation that it be passed and sent to the State Convention Platform Committee of the _______________ Party of Texas.

P.S.: Here is a short playlist I put together of videos that will explain more about real Reparative Therapy:

1 comment:

  1. Tonight, I'll be hosting a screening with others from Joel 2:25 at a church in the Fort Worth Diocese.

    This short film may provide more context than the news articles. This is NOT exclusively about "change" "curing" anyone's attractions, although I wouldn't rule out that possibility. I personally have experienced significant healing and change, but that's not what's most important. What is most important is freedom from shame and discovering REAL love and TRUTH.

    Pax Christi,