The first time I heard a new legal specialty was a conversation about an appellate case involving an ex-gay ministry.
A former pastor of the Rainbow Center of New York City was accused of violating a New York law by claiming to be a gay man, but he said he was a “reluctant celibate,” and he was seeking a change of name.
The judge ruled in his favor.
The next day, I was on a conference call with an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, a nonprofit that fights religious discrimination.
He was asking me to review a case in which an ex had sued a former employer for firing him for being gay.
We had been discussing a case from the 1980s in which a church was sued after it denied a gay minister a job because he was married to a woman.
The church’s attorney, who was also gay, argued that the church could not be held responsible for its pastor’s behavior if it did not believe that a person could be “reborn” to a gay identity.
I asked the attorney, how could he possibly know if he was gay?
He replied: “Well, that’s exactly what you’re asking, because he has said, ‘I’m a celibacy.'”
The attorney then added: “If I had been in that situation, I would have had no problem accepting that I was gay.”
I knew that there was a reason that the Catholic Church had always been so reluctant to recognize homosexuality as a choice.
In the 1990s, I wrote a book called Gay Marriage: The Law and the Science.
I argued that gay people could be married and have children, but that this did not automatically mean that they were heterosexual.
I also argued that, since it is so difficult to change one’s sexual orientation, it was also impossible to change it in a legal sense.
After I published my book, I found myself in a similar situation with a former priest.
The priest was a lawyer, and he had been an archbishop of New Orleans who was known for his outspoken opposition to gay marriage.
I saw the case and thought that the priest was the perfect candidate for a case I was working on.
It turned out that the case involved a divorce that the husband had filed after the wife had remarried and remarital therapy was being offered to a new wife who had previously been married to another man.
This new wife was not the same person as the wife who was living with her husband.
I wrote the priest a letter.
I explained to him that my argument was wrong because it was based on an assumption that a new marriage could never happen in the same way as a previous marriage.
My argument, he said, was based entirely on my own experiences with being married to two different men.
But I was wrong.
After we had spoken, I asked him if he had considered my arguments in the case.
He said, “No, I didn’t.”
The lawyer then called me back and said, I told you, I thought you were wrong.
The attorney was right.
It turns out that I had also thought about it when I was defending the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington state against a lawsuit that accused it of hiring a lesbian who had committed suicide and then trying to prevent her from testifying.
The archdiocese has since settled the case for $25 million.
The Catholic Church has also been sued by a woman who says that her son was forced to marry a man because he had a sexual relationship with a lesbian.
The woman filed a lawsuit against the archdiocesan church in 2005 after her son, now in his 40s, was sent home to California from a seminary in which he was taught how to pray, according to court documents.
The lawsuit alleged that the archbishop had tried to dissuade her from taking her son to an abortion clinic in the state because of what she considered the anti-family message in the Catholic teachings of St. John Paul II.
After hearing about the case, the archbishops attorney, David B. Loomis, called me to his office and said that he had reached out to the archchancellor of the university where my son was studying to learn more about my case.
The man had worked as a janitor for the archduke, the church’s chief of staff, during World War II.
He had also worked as an engineer for the university.
“We have a very important mission,” Loomas told me.
“You’re doing a good job.”
When I returned from my conference call, I realized that I would be a good fit to handle the case of a lesbian husband who had sued his wife for having sex with another man in the past.
I met with him.
I told him that the woman had told me that the pastor had been telling her that she was married in order to get out of a divorce, and that this was an old-