We want to thank you for your participation in the chapter's recent marriage equality e-mail survey. The SCV-CAMFT board was aware that this is a difficult and potentially divisive issue. However, we were asked to contact our members for their opinion, and felt that it was very important to do so. The survey method is a way to capture a reasonable number of members' opinions in a timely manner. We understand that this was an imperfect survey, and that some of the questions may have appeared slanted. Since we had very little time to formulate the survey questions, have them e-mailed to you, and get the results forwarded to CAMFT, we had to make rapid decisions on what we included.
The board is very grateful that so many of you responded. We welcomed the well thought through and heartfelt feedback that we received. We truly appreciated hearing all voices on this topic.
The survey did not reflect the personal interests of the board, nor indicate what any of our responses would be to the questions that were included. We voted to do this survey, so that we could give you the opportunity, should you choose it, to let CAMFT know what you are thinking about the issues involved in marriage equality and whether you would want the state board to take a position on this or other issues in the future. We sent every item of SCV-CAMFT chapter member feedback to CAMFT including member comments.
You may view the the results of the survey.
These results have been forwarded and presented to the board of directors of CAMFT. We have also included the comments we received about the survey below so you may review the feedback we collected from our members.
Thank you again,
The SCV-CAMFT Board of Directors
Members' Comments/Feedback from Marriage Equality Survey
- I find this survey biased and contrary to every ethical concern known to our profession. We provide therapy for everybody, regardless of race, ethnicity or sexual preference. Topics like this should be left to the politicians and to the voting public and, like it or not, the voting public has spoken. Let's not politicize SCV-CAMFT with this kind of stuff!
- I believe CAMFT needs to be clear with its members that we do not discriminate. I don't think it is our place as an organization to contribute money or "march" for it, necessarily.
- I personally am attending and supporting efforts in my personal life, to weigh in as a straight, married woman to support the rights of all citizens to be married. I believe that if gay and lesbian people can have the dream to marry their loves and receive similar tax breaks and Social Security benefits as straight couples, we may have more successful couples openly contributing to harmony and stability in our country.
- This issue is probably like abortion in that many in our society see it as a moral/religious issue. I'm glad you are polling our members to see how we all feel about this subject. But it's one thing to see that we as MFTs should not discriminate against clients who are in a same-sex marriage and another thing to say that we, as an association, should use our influence in support of same-sex marriage. I personally support the idea of two people of the same sex marrying, and would be glad if there were no law against it. But I'm not so sure that we, as an association, should push for it. I guess the action I would like is that we discuss it more.
- While I believe wholeheartedly in gay marriage, I am concerned about using CAMFT's resources and alienating members by taking a stand on any political and sociological issue that does not directly affect our ability to make a living as MFTs. I do not want to lose conservative members, just as I would hate to see CAMFT be asked to take stances on other emotional topics of our time (couldn't CAMFT be asked to take an anti-abortion stance by a subset of members?). And how would we choose which issues to take on and what to support and say? I feel we have other avenues to fight against social injustice. But — Having said all that, I know that MANY members in the SF-CAMFT chapter and East bay (and perhaps our chapter and elsewhere) perceive the State organization as unresponsive and deaf to their pleas for issuing a public statement against gay marriage, such as the APA did. I know members are resigning over this issue. It may be worth opening up public discussions at a state level so that members feel heard and represented. I think the discussions should be around the issue of — should CAMFT retain it's classic neutrality stance in all cases? Or do our members want this to change? What are the pros and cons for our organization? We need to show members what the potential losses are, or at least how the organization views it. I recommend a written response from Mary R. or our State Board pres. in the Therapist about this issue. No matter what the conclusion, I recommend dialogue.
- I believe that publishing the result of a large enough poll of MFTs, regarding that issue so that the results of the poll become public, in order to preserve the diversity of opinion within CAMFT and prevent polarization.
- Thank you for doing this; my "other" is that our Board join with the other local boards to demand that they issue the supporting statement ASAP (vs. requesting...re-opening the topic)
- Support current law chosen by voters.
- It is hard at times to understand the paradox that exist between religious and secular issues. In my heart this is my religious feelings and yet I 'pain' for how this affects others.
- We are relationship counselors-the issue of semantics should not be involved. If a couple presents as a couple who define their relationship as a marriage we work with that as their reality and the basis of ours.
- Provide a public organization "statement" claiming that the rescinding of same-sex marriage rights is discrimination.
- I would like to address the fact that number 3 cannot be answered since same-sex marriage does not legally exist in California. I would like to see CAMFT take a stand in favor of same-sex marriage.
- Solicit statements of support from CAMFT members in favor of allowing same sex couples to marry in California, for submission to our government leaders.
- Refrain from political influences not related to our profession!
- Report not only the "majority" response to the petition to State CAMFT, but also the PERCENTAGES in favor & opposed. For State CAMFT to be guided by its members, the State Board needs to know the pro-con BALANCE with the membership on this issue. A close "split" would suggest (to me) that State CAMFT should NOT "take a position."
- Through lobbying, etc., participate in legislative efforts to legalize same sex marriage if the Supreme Court does not overturn Prop 8.
- The action I'd like SCV-CAMFT to take is to rewrite this survey so it reflects objectivity, which it does not. The bias is obvious. For example, why does #6 only state specific options for supporting same-sex marriage, aside from "other" or "none"? Why is #4 worded as "rescinding the right of same sex couples to marry" instead of "supporting the voter-passed constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman?" You may not like reading this, but CAMFT has a large and diverse constituency, and if your survey itself isn't even objective, how can you be trusted at all?
- Respecting our clients that believe marriage is between a man and a woman is also our responsibility. Although we as professionals must accept our clients and their lifestyle and educate about tolerance, we are not called to change the ruling of the majority which on this issue is to keep the definition of marriage between a man and a woman. As a therapist I will support my gay clients and find resources for them, but as a member of my community I believe the foundation of society rests on families. To me family can be defined many ways, and people understand that. Public policy is best kept traditional in its definitions, man and woman and children make families as the unit that is fundamental to our society. Other forms of family, be it gay partners, group homes, adopted kids, they are still accepted as families within the policy we have that does define marriage as between a man and woman. Changing the definition in our public policy will not make "coming out" any easier or more accepted, only more easy to press charges against anyone standing up for traditional marriage, such as religions, leading to further discrimination against traditionalists.
- SCV-CAMFT should take a position that ensures rights (aside from marriage) are upheld for same-sex couples.
- Insist that "do not condone... discrimination" means just that. If the therapist is countertransferred and feels disgust with his patients, he shouldn't treat them.
- A public statement re-affirming that all couples have the right to assistance from Marriage and Family Therapists and that the title of our license does not bar us from providing services to same-sex couples or individuals. Our license and ethical standards do not require us to take sides in the legal dispute, and doing so may jeopardize our ability to help by alienating a portion of our client base. P.S. Question #2 is worded poorly and is leading; that's why I didn't answer it.
- The letter should be about non discrimination, not same sex marriage. I am for same sex marriage but I am not sure my professional organization should be getting involved in this issue, but rather the issue of discrimination.
- I'm not sure...
- "Non-discrimination" does not mean support for an issue/group. We need to be advocates first for all kinds of healthy relationships — marriage, co-habitate, same-sex, parent-child, interracial, etc.
- CAMFT to advocate for civil unions which would be the legal vehicle for all contractual relationships. Marriage would then be an optional religious ceremony in accordance with individual belief.
- Participate in educating members about GLBT issues educating members about heterosexism and how it impacts their clinical work. Education about religious homophobia and social sanctioning of gays as second class citizens in California and in State CAMFT. Educating State CAMFT Employees, like Mary Riemersma in customer service would be a good idea. So many people that I have spoken with are appalled by the offensive and dismissive tone that she has taken with members on the state listserve. Helping to shift the tone of the discussion so that GLBT people would not be treated so badly by this organization. Educating the chapter membership about the organizing that has been happening in response to CAMFT's silence and the impact of this on the membership. As you know, this has been affecting quite a few members who are refusing to sit down and be quiet while the organization and it's employees takes gay money and treats them badly. I'm so glad that they are not able to be silenced, and that so many members see CAMFT's response as covertly abusive and collusive.
- CAMFT should definitely support equal rights for legally-recognized domestic partners (which CA law already grants) and therapists should treat all clients to the highest standard, regardless of sexual orientation, legal status, etc. However, CAMFT should not advocate changing the definition of marriage, legal or otherwise, without a close look at all that changes for therapists legally, long-term effects on families and children, and the social ramifications of such. If CAMFT takes a stance and supports same-sex marriage, I will seriously consider leaving the organization.
- Don't call it "Marriage". Support individual rights in same-sex "UNIONS."
- I think the wishes of California voters should be respected.
- Support changing definition of marriage between a man and a woman to define legal contract as "civil union" between two consenting adults.
