Republican Party Chair Insists 2016 Platform Not Anti-Gay
Become a patron of breaking LGBTQ newsChip in $4 go
Reince Priebus says the 2016 Republican Party platform does not support conversion therapy, yet language in the official platform posted on the Republican party's official website shows otherwise. He also claims it does not suggest same-sex couples are inferior, which it does.
“There’s two things in the platform that – I’m curious if you’re comfortable with it,” NBC News' Chuck Todd asked the Party Chairman in an interview earlier this week. “One, it says ‘conversion therapy.’”
“No, it doesn’t,” Priebus insisted. “That’s out – There’s an amendment on that issue. It has been taken out. It’s not in the final platform.”
Priebus is lying. While language that uses the words "conversion therapy" is not in the final platform, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, who was responsible for the original conversion therapy language, won in the end.
The section titled, "Protecting Individual Conscience in Healthcare," includes the statement that "America’s healthcare professionals should not be forced to choose between following their faith and practicing their profession," and goes on to read: "We support the right of parents to determine the proper medical treatment and therapy for their minor children."
Unless the Republican Party comes out with a statement that says conversion therapy is harmful, as has nearly every major medical association across the country, including many international organizations have, it's undeniable the 2016 Republican Party Platform clearly supports parents forcing their LGBTQ children into harmful and dangerous conversion therapy, reparative therapy, faith-based anti-LGBT counseling, or other sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE).
California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom on Facebook this week wrote that Priebus "knows that when people find out what conversion therapy is and that he allowed this to move forward in a backroom negotiation that any decent minded person will be horrified. That's why he lied."
The Human Rights Campaign on Wednesday, pointing to that line in the platform, agrees it "means continuing to allow this harmful practice to be lawful."
Watch Chairman Priebus:
In that same interview, Chuck Todd read portions of the final platform, challenging Priebus on those parts that talk about the "truths about traditional marriage: Children raised in a two-parent household tend to be physically and emotionally healthier, more likely to do well in school, less likely to use drugs and alcohol, engage in crime or become pregnant outside of marriage."
"The data and the facts lead to an inescapable conclusion: Every child deserves a married mom and dad," the platform continues.
Priebus might wish to believe his comments, that, "the best scenario for kids is a loving mom and dad," but that is demonstrably false. Same-sex parents have been proven to raise children who are at least as healthy and happy and well-adjusted as those raised by different-sex couples.
Priebus goes on to claim, falsely, that "the facts" are that only a married mom and dad are best. He also goes on to deny the intent of the platform, which also states:
"Our laws and our government’s regulations should recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman and actively promote married family life as the basis of a stable and prosperous society. For that reason, as explained elsewhere in this platform, we do not accept the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states."
"Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court’s lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges..."
In yet another example of journalistic malpractice, Chuck Todd did absolutely nothing to push back on Priebus' lies.