Too many are dying from gun violence

Another day, another shooting. Tragic stories about gun violence abound. However, a recent tragedy unfolded in my own backyard.

On Jan. 12, a 73-year old Cincinnati father dropped his son off early at the bus stop, due to snowy weather, and returned home. Later he texted his 14-year-old son again to make sure he was on the bus. The son responded with a phone call assuring his father he was on the bus to school. However, unbeknownst to his father, Georta Mack circled back to his house and hid in the basement.

According to The Cincinnati Enquirer, soon after 6 a.m., his father heard noises coming from the basement and grabbed his .45-caliber gun. After going to the basement to investigate, he opened a closet door and Georta jumped out and yelled “Boo!” His father fired, striking him in the neck and killing him. The transcript of the father’s anguished 911 call is heartbreaking. Prosecutors announced on Jan. 13 the father would not face charges for killing his son.

Earlier this month, the statistics for 2015 were released: Shootings in Cincinnati were up 28 percent over 2014; homicides increased 13 percent. These tragedies happen on a daily basis. In October 2015, The Washington Post reported that, as of the 274th day of 2015, there had been 294 mass shootings. Mass murders due to gun violence occur most often in metro areas. Since 2013, Austin, Texas, is the only city in the U.S. with a population of 100,000 or greater that has not had a mass shooting. However, only 2 percent of overall gun violence deaths occur in mass shootings.

According to the TheTrace.org, as of Dec. 23 there had been 12,942 deaths in 2015 due to gun violence, an average of 36 deaths every day. While the news was dominated by reports of European and domestic terrorism in 2015, in the previous 10 years only 71 people died in the U.S. from terrorist incidents. There were 301,797 deaths in America due to gun violence during the same period.

Every traumatic death is a tragedy, but why do we as Americans not have a better sense of perspective? This means that people in the U.S., from 2005 to 2015, were more than 4,000 times more likely to be killed by guns than in a terrorist incident. These statistics represent mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, children, aunts, uncles, grandmothers, grandfathers and friends. Each death has created a ripple effect in our communities, such that many lives are changed forever.

Many of these shootings kill individuals under the age of 18, snuffing out the unlimited promise and potential of these young lives. In 2015, an average of two children were killed every day by a shooting; 75 percent of these children were under the age of 12. Scarier still, in an average week in 2015 a toddler under the age of 3 shot someone, often him- or herself, after accessing an unsecured loaded gun. Many times the toddlers injure or kill themselves, but they also have killed other people as well.

According to The Cincinnati Enquirer, the Transportation Security Administration announced recently that 2,653 guns were found at security checkpoints at U.S. airports in 2015. More than 82 percent (2,198) of these guns were loaded. Unloaded guns are allowed in checked baggage, but must be declared. Loaded weapons are forbidden, as are guns in carry-on baggage. The ramifications of these statistics are startling. These only represent guns that were detected by the TSA. As might be expected, two of the top five airports with the most confiscated guns were in Texas: Dallas (1st) and Houston (3rd). Airports in Atlanta (2nd), Denver (4th) and Phoenix (5th) rounded out the top five.

So consider this: The next time you are on a domestic flight, imagine that some of your fellow passengers are carrying a loaded weapon. If that makes you feel safer, perhaps you should work to change the current laws regarding guns and air travel. However, for many of us, the thought of fellow passengers carrying a loaded weapon on our flights is a sobering and scary thought.

Let us not pretend that racism is not at the heart of this issue. While black men comprise about 6 percent of the U.S. population, they account for 50 percent of deaths through gun violence.  Reflect upon this: What would the response be if 150,898 white men had been killed by guns from 2005 through 2015? Would the response have been different?  I think we all know in our heart that it would be quite different. The news media would be full of stories about the hunting of white men and Congress would be drafting and passing legislation on gun control to stem these predators stalking the most powerful members of our society.

There are no easy answers. Historians point to the founding of this country and the role guns played in doing so. Early American settlers were able to steal land from the Native Americans due to the advanced weaponry of guns. As Americans traveled westward during the expansion, often guns were the difference between life and death, useful both for killing animals for food and warding off animal and human predators. Gun violence has played a large role in our collective American DNA.

Our attitudes toward life and death are different than other first-world countries, as evidenced by our continued use of the death penalty in many states. Meanwhile, our counterparts around the world shake their collective heads and wonder when Americans will finally wake up and decide that too many people have died because of gun violence.

Recently, I have read of conservatives railing against any form of gun restrictions and proclaiming that owning guns is “a God-given right.”  Really?!  I will never understand why it is that many of the same people who claim to be “pro-life” are often also the same ones who claim there should be no limits on military spending or gun rights.

There is also a Constitutional argument for gun control. The founders specified in the Second Amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

I know my opinion is not a popular one, but I believe the Second Amendment provides the right to bear arms only in the context of belonging to a state militia. This opinion is shared by some scholars as well.

Regardless of one’s belief about the right to bear arms, I think we can all agree too many people are dying due to gun violence. I encourage each of you to think about what your responsibility is to help address this issue.

Porter, N. (March 2016). Too many are dying from gun violence. The Gay Word, 24(8), 11. http://thegayword.com/many-dying-gun-violence/

Reaction to anti-conversion bill a surprise

A Conversation with Cincinnati Councilman Chris Seelbach

By Natalie Porter

According to his biography on the Cincinnati City Council website, Councilman Seelbach was a key player in the effort of repeal Article XII in Cincinnati. Article XII denied legal protection to gays and lesbians in the City and led many gay men to leave Cincinnati (http://www.npr.org/2014/04/30/307967244/gays-in-cincinnati-from-second-class-citizens-to-fully-accepted). This anti-gay law cost the City over $25 million in lost revenue, an estimate provided by the Visitor’s bureau. Councilman Seelbach grew up in Kentucky and began advocating for LGBT rights as a college student at Xavier University in Cincinnati. He became the first openly gay City Council member in Ohio in 2011.

On February 9, 2016, I sat down with the City Councilman in his office in City Hall to discuss his personal experiences with conversion therapy, how he became involved in local politics, and the process of getting this bill passed.

You can link to the article here: http://thegayword.com/reaction-anti-conversion-bill-surprise/

Part two of this interview (in the April 2016 issue) will focus on the process of getting the anti-conversion therapy bill passed in Cincinnati.

Porter, N. (April 2016). Reaction to anti-conversion bill a surprise. The Gay Word, 24(9), 18. http://thegayword.com/reaction-anti-conversion-bill-surprise/

Official experienced 'conversion' attempt

A Conversation with Cincinnati Councilman Chris Seelbach

By Natalie Porter

In an article published in the January issue of The Gay Word, I reported that the Cincinnati City Council voted to ban conversion therapy tactics for individuals under the age of 18, in a 7-2 vote on December 9, 2015. City Councilman Chris Seelbach introduced this bill to the Council. As a new Ohio resident (and resident of the Midwest), I wanted to learn more about Councilman Seelbach, his experiences with conversion therapy, and how the passage of this bill came about.

According to his biography on the Cincinnati City Council website, Councilman Seelbach was a key player in the effort of repeal Article XII in Cincinnati. Article XII denied legal protection to gays and lesbians in the City and led many gay men to leave Cincinnati (http://www.npr.org/2014/04/30/307967244/gays-in-cincinnati-from-second-class-citizens-to-fully-accepted). This anti-gay law cost the City over $25 million in lost revenue, an estimate provided by the Visitor’s bureau. Councilman Seelbach grew up in Kentucky and began advocating for LGBT rights as a college student at Xavier University in Cincinnati. He became the first openly gay City Council member in Ohio in 2011.

On February 9, 2016, I sat down with the City Councilman in his office in City Hall to discuss his personal experiences with conversion therapy, how he became involved in local politics, and the process of getting this bill passed.

You can link to part one of this conversation here: http://thegayword.com/official-experienced-conversion-attempt/

  Part two of this interview (in the April 2016 issue) will focus on the process of getting the anti-conversion therapy bill passed in Cincinnati.

Porter, N. (March 2016). Official experienced ‘conversion’ attempt. The Gay Word, 24(8), 35. http://thegayword.com/official-experienced-conversion-attempt/

Cincy bans conversion therapy

While suicide is the second leading cause of death for 10- to 24-year olds, LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning) youth are at particular risk for suicide.  According to The Trevor Project (www.thetrevorproject.org), LGB youth commit suicide at a rate that is four times higher than their peers, while questioning youth commit suicide three times as often as their heterosexual counterparts.  The danger is even greater for transgender individuals.  Over 50% of transgender youth have reported serious thoughts about suicide and 1 in 4 have attempted to kill themselves.  The danger is enhanced for LBGTQ individuals who come from family backgrounds that reject non-heterosexuality and demand gender conformity.  These individuals have a suicide risk that is more than eight times higher than their LGB peers who come from families that accept non-heterosexuality and gender non-conformity.  Therefore, transgender individuals are at the highest risk of committing suicide.

In a case that made national and international headlines, Leelah Alcorn, a transgender teen from Ohio, committed suicide on December 28, 2014.  Leelah grew up in a very conservative Christian household in Kings Mill, Ohio.  Kings Mill is about 30 miles Northeast of Cincinnati.  Leelah requested that she be allowed to begin the transition process from male-to-female, but her family refused.  Instead, they forced Leelah to go to conversion therapy, removed her from her high school and limited her access to social media.  In short, they tried to arrange a living environment that was completely rejecting of non-heterosexuality and which demanded gender conformity.  Leelah killed herself by walking into traffic on a busy Interstate highway, three days after Christmas, and arranged for her suicide note to be publicized after her death.  Within hours of her death, her story made national and international headlines.

The stated aim of conversion therapy is to make non-heterosexual individuals deny their sexuality and only practice heterosexuality and gender conformity.  Therapists proclaim that individuals chose to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender and since it is a choice, individuals can choose heterosexuality and gender conformity.  Generally, conversion therapists are closely tied to religious organizations or churches and is based upon the belief that homosexuality and gender non-conformity is inherently sinful or evil. 

Conversion therapy as a legitimate form of therapy is widely rejected by the medical and mental health communities.  Fourteen years ago, the Surgeon General of the United States proclaimed that there was no scientific evidence that sexuality can be changed.  All of the mainstream medical (i.e., American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and American Academy of Physician Assistants) and professional mental health associations (American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy, American Counseling Association, American Psychological Association, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers) have denounced the practice of conversion therapy.  In general, these associations have declared that not only is the practice of conversion therapy not based upon science, but it can actually cause harm to the individual receiving the “therapy.”  Medical associations have declared conversion therapy to be in violation of the Hippocratic Oath because it can cause harm to the individual.  In 1998 (17 years ago), the American Psychiatric Association stated that efforts to change an individual’s sexuality was in opposition to professional standards and in 2000 clarified that it was unethical to attempt to change sexual orientation.

The American Psychological Association, the professional association for psychologists and many master’s-level therapists, released guidelines in 2011 for working with LGBTQ clients.  Therapists who are APA members and practice conversion therapy are in direct violation of these guidelines (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/guidelines.aspx) and in violation of the code of ethics (http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx).  Therefore, a member of the APA who participates in conversion therapy is in danger of sanctions or losing membership in their professional association.

Exodus International, a leading proponent of conversion therapy in the United States, discontinued activities supporting conversion therapy and closed in 2013, after operating since the mid-to-late 1970s.  In 2012, the President of Exodus International issued an apology to conversion therapy participants for the harm the organization had caused them and stated unequivocally that conversion therapy does not work. 

On December 9, 2015 in a 7-2 vote, the Cincinnati City Council voted to ban conversion therapy within the city for individuals under the age of 18.  This bill was championed by Chris Seelbach, a City Council member who was himself subjected to conversion therapy.  Cincinnati joined the District of Columbia, California, Illinois, New Jersey and Oregon in prohibiting conversion therapy.  Protestors, including one City Council member, have vowed to overturn the ban and have threatened a lawsuit to end the ban.  They portend that the conversion therapy ban will have a chilling effect on free speech and freedom of religion.  They also argue that it takes away parental rights and the rights of LGBTQ youth who want to change their sexual orientation.

Free speech has constitutional limits.  An individual is not allowed to yell “fire” in a crowded building when no such danger exists, because it has the potential to harm individuals.  Think about that for a moment.  It has the potential to harm individuals.  Does conversion therapy have the potential to harm?  Absolutely, it does.

There is also legal precedent for limits to freedom of religion. Since 1982, there have been more than five dozen criminal cases prosecuted against parents who did not provide their child with appropriate medical treatment.  The government has an inherent interest in protecting the rights of children.  I propose that the government has a strong interest in preventing conversion therapy, because not only is it not scientifically-based but also has been shown to be harmful in many cases.  Causing harm to children is, by definition, child abuse.  Therefore, parents who force their children to attend conversion therapy and therapists who practice conversion therapy are guilty of placing a child in a potentially harmful situation, which is tantamount to child abuse.

The Constitution provides for specific freedoms of individuals in the United States.  However, by exercising those freedoms, one does not have the right to harm others.  If adults wish to participate in conversion therapy, that is their choice.  However, forcing a child who is already at tremendous risk of suicide due to LGBTQ status into a type of therapy that promotes the idea that the child is evil and must change is child abuse.  Conversion therapy can be dressed up as a matter of freedom of speech or religious freedom or parental rights by those who believe in it, but that is not the truth. 

The truth is that years of scientific research have not provided support for the usefulness of conversion therapy.  The truth is that none of the medical or professional associations believe that conversion therapy is helpful.  The truth is that even the leading Christian organization in this country that was dedicated to conversion therapy for more than 35 years has admitted wrongdoing.  The truth is that conversion therapy is harmful.  The truth is that parents who force their children into conversion therapy are committing child abuse. The truth is child abuse is not a parental right.  The truth is the government has every right to stop child abuse.

Porter, N. (January 2016). Cincy bans conversion therapy. The Gay Word, 24(7), 30. http://thegayword.com/cincy-bans-conversion-therapy/