- For Survivors
- Resource Center
- Make a Difference
This blog is maintained by the Ruth Institute. It provides a place for our Circle of Experts to express themselves. This is where the scholars, experts, students and followers of the Ruth Institute engage in constructive dialogue about the issues surrounding the Sexual Revolution. We discuss public policy, social practices, legal doctrines and much more.
Posted on: Monday, November 23, 2020
“In striking down bans on Sexual Orientation Change Efforts to lessen same-sex attraction, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals sided with First Amendment free speech against LGBT dogma,” said Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., Founder and President of the Ruth Institute.
The court overturned local ordinances of the City of Boca Raton and the county of Palm Beach, Florida. These ordinances prohibited licensed counselors from offering counseling to minors who voluntarily seek their help to “reduce same-sex behavior and attraction and eliminate what they term confusion over gender identity.” (pg. 4)
Morse noted, “Sexual Revolutionary activists, and the professional associations they control, have successfully persuaded local governments to adopt these bans. The activists argue that this type of therapy, based solely on conversation between therapist and client, are psychologically harmful. I am especially pleased that the Court’s majority considered the evidence on this point.”
The Court stated: “[The Defendants] present a series of reports and studies setting out harms of SOCE. But when examined closely, these documents offer assertions rather than evidence, at least regarding the effects of purely speech-based SOCE. Indeed, a report from the American Psychological Association, relied on by the defendants, concedes that ‘nonaversive and recent approaches to SOCE have not been rigorously evaluated.’” (pg. 21)
“Without conclusive evidence, LGBT organizations insist that homosexuality is innate, and that individuals with same-sex attraction must accept their fate -- that they are condemned to be ‘gay,’ whether they like it or not,” Morse explained.
In fact, the majority decision pointed out that the ordinances contain an exception for “counseling that provides support and assistance to a person undergoing gender transition.” But the Court goes on to observe, “No such carveout exists for sexual orientation. The ordinances thus codify a particular viewpoint—sexual orientation is immutable, but gender is not—and prohibit the therapists from advancing any other perspective when counseling clients. That viewpoint may be widely shared in the communities that passed the ordinances, but widespread agreement is beside the point; the question is whether a speaker’s viewpoint determines his license to speak.” (pg. 12)
Morse congratulated Liberty Counsel, which provided representation to the therapists in this case. “I agree with Liberty Counsel President Mat Staver when he said that ‘This is a huge victory for counselors and their clients to choose the counsel of their choice free of political censorship from government ideologues.’”
The Ruth Institute is a global non-profit organization leading an international interfaith coalition to defend the family and build a civilization of love.
To schedule an interview with Dr. Morse, contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
Posted on: Friday, October 16, 2020
October 16, 2020
For Immediate Release
“Judge Barrett did not have to apologize at all for using the expression ‘sexual preference,’” said Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., “Homosexuality is not innate.”
Morse was commenting on an exchange in the course of Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) objected to Barrett’s use of the expression (in regard to Obergefell v. Hodges) which she said was “offensive to the LGBT community,” whereupon Barrett apologized.
Morse remarked: “The LGBT community, so-called, can take offense at anything they want. We certainly can’t stop them. However, science has now proven beyond doubt that there is no ‘gay gene.’ Whatever combination of nature and nurture, choice and chance, may be at work for any particular person’s situation, hard genetic determinism is certainly not correct.”
She added: “Self-identifying as ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ or ‘transgender’ is certainly a choice. Living a sexually active life with partners of the same sex is a choice, in fact, a whole series of choices.
“Unfortunately, we now have science by interest-group intimidation,” Morse charged.
In a commentary on a study in the August 30, 2019 issue of the publication Science, Fr. D. Paul Sullins, Ph.D., the Ruth Institute’s Senior Research Associate, remarked that the study “explodes the false narrative that being gay is an innate condition that is controlled or largely compelled by one’s genetic makeup.”
Sullins explains: “Rebutting decades of search by LGBT scientists for a ‘gay gene,’ the study’s first author flatly concludes ‘it will be basically impossible to predict one’s sexual activity or orientation from genetics.’” http://www.ruthinstitute.org/ruth-speaks-out/born-this-way-no-gay-gene
Morse added: “But this false narrative of gay at birth, or homosexuality as an innate condition, was the basis for the Supreme Court’s decision mandating same-sex marriage in Obergefell. That’s why the LGBT movement and its apologists become hysterical at the suggestion that homosexual behavior is a choice, implied in the expression ‘sexual preference.’ For the Sexual State, there’s so much at stake here.
“Ironically, the same politicians who say ‘listen to the scientists’ when it comes to COVID, are saying ‘Don’t listen to the scientists; listen to us,’ when it comes to homosexuality,” Morse remarked.
On June 5, 2020, Morse interviewed Dr. Walter Schumm of Kansas State University on efforts to silence research on gay issues.