Dr. Spitzer's conclusions, not surprisingly, came under vicious attack and reference has been made in the NARTH Bulletin to some of the criticisms
of Spitzer, and the very weak foundations upon which those attacks are based.
But the APA Gay-Lesbian Caucus has moved on from fighting Spitzer to campaigning for support for same-sex marriage, and won an initial vote on
this topic at the May 2006 meeting of the Assembly of the APA.
What Happened?
It is unlikely that most NARTH members are aware of how that vote came about and what steps will follow. As I am a member of the Assembly of the
APA, I am taking this opportunity to share how this particular vote was achieved.
The APA is a large organization; it has 35,000 members, and as is true of most organizations of that size, and even larger, it has a professional staff
to carry out its numerous and complicated daily activities. That professional staff is accountable to and overseen by a lay board and executive
elected from the general membership.
The lay leadership is mainly made up of about 300 members of the parliament or "Assembly" of the APA. These are representatives from each state
or district branch over the U.S. and Canada, plus representatives from various allied and affiliated groups.
But a 300-member group cannot supervise the professional staff on a close and immediate basis, therefore, from the Assembly is elected a much
smaller Executive group in the APA, which is called the "Board of Trustees." It usually makes the final decisions for or against any new initiatives.
Early in 2006, the Gay-Lesbian Caucus had been proposing a motion that the APA support same-sex marriage.
The Board asked some of its sub-committees to examine the proposal, and to some people's surprise, those committees emerged quite divided, and
in some cases rather strongly negative to the proposal.
The Gay-Lesbian Caucus nevertheless wanted to push on with its proposal and to take that to the next meeting of the larger Assembly, which was
being held at the time of the general business meeting of the APA. This is held just before the much broader annual academic meeting of the
organization, which in May 2006 was in Atlanta, Georgia.
When we, the members of the Assembly, gathered in Atlanta at the opening of the conference on a Friday afternoon, we were told that debate and
discussion on the proposal would take place on the following Sunday before the conclusion of the Assembly, and that the press would be in
attendance.
Various plenary and caucus group meetings take place on Friday and Saturday, and in at least one of these, one of the largest groups within the
APA, psychiatrists from Massachusetts, indicated their intention to offer an alternative proposal, a proposal that they claimed was more scientifically
based rather than the political proposal put forth by the Gay-Lesbian Caucus.
On the Sunday morning when the great debate was supposed to take place, a representative speaking on behalf of the Gay-Lesbian caucus
introduced their proposal, and then the chairpersons of the main geographical areas into which the assembly is divided-there are seven of them-was
asked to indicate how their particular area viewed this proposal. Most indicated that their area had been in favour, though in some cases, there was
Easily create high-quality PDFs from your web pages - get a business license!
From the Assembly, the matter went to the Board of Trustees. The Board is aware that there are a number of members very much opposed to the
motion. It is seen as highly divisive, as going against the current trend in American society, and as dragging what should be a professional scientific
organization into supporting a controversial political social issue and thus harming the reputation and credibility of the organization.
But on the other hand, the Gay-Lesbian caucus has been very successful in its endeavors in recent years. Many of its members are individually nice
and decent people and many of their colleagues don't want to upset or offend them in any way. Therefore, they are willing to grant Gay-Lesbian
members what they demand because they are nice people - without really thinking through the possible consequences of such a move.
Dr. Joseph Berger is a Psychiatrist in Toronto. He is a Past President of the Ontario District Branch of the American Psychiatric Association and an
Assembly Representative to the APA. He has contributed a number of articles to the NARTH Bulletin.
Easily create high-quality PDFs from your web pages - get a business license!