Personal and Professional Discord: Examining Religious Conservatism and Lesbian‐, Gay‐, and Bisexual‐Affirmative Counselor Competence

Only recently has there been an effort to include, examine, and address lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) mental health disparities (Krehely, 2009). There are urgent reasons to enhance these efforts. According to the National Institutes of Health-commissioned Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: Building a Foundation for Better Understanding (IOM, 2011), LGB individuals experience disproportionally higher occurrences of serious mental health and psychosocial problems across the developmental spectrum. These can include mood and anxiety disorders, substance abuse, homelessness, harassment and violence, school bullying and educational inequalities, and suicidal ideations and behaviors. Moreover, an LGB sexual orientation does not exist in isolation, but intersects with other multicultural aspects of human diversity. Such interconnectedness of identities can amplify disparities. Thus, being LGB "may be complicated by additional dimensions of inequality such as race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, resulting in stigma at multiple levels" (IOM, 2011, p. 1.2). Even with a seismic attitudinal shift in society's acceptance of LGB people, legal policies, and social issues (Altemeyer, 2001; Pew Research Center, 2011), many in the general public and counseling profession continue to hold negative attitudes about LGB people and issues (Herek, 2009; Miller, Miller, & Stull, 2007; Rainey & Trusty, 2007; Satcher & Leggett, 2007; Satcher & Schumacker, 2009). LGB sexual orientations can trigger strong responses, often based on conservative religious and sociopolitical ideologies that stigmatize LGB individuals as immoral, aberrant, and/or socially deviant (Altemeyer, 2003; Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992; Herek, 2009; Hunsberger & Jackson, 2005; Poteat & Mereish, 2012; Whitley, 2009). LGB-affirmative counselor competency is now uniformly accepted as the ethical standard of care for all LGB and questioning clients (American Psychological Association [APA], 2012; Association for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues in Counseling, 2012; IOM, 2011). Yet, some conservative religious beliefs can seemingly contradict these standards. This contradiction is central to the current special section's focus and to the legal actions by two counseling students against their counselor education programs {Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, 2010; Ward v. Wilbanks, 2009). To date, no published counseling research has examined the link between sexual orientation counselor competency and religious conservatism. The purpose of this study was to address this gap in the literature by examining two primary research questions concerning (a) the relationship between religious conservatism and self-reported LGB-affirmative counselor competency, when controlling for possible covariate variables; and (b) the predictive relationship of religious conservatism, LGB interpersonal contact, and multicultural and LGB education on LGB-affirmative counselor competency. In the current study, religious conservatism refers to an individual's religious orientation along a continuum that ranges from liberal or nonreligious to fundamental or conservative. My use of LGB versus LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) in this article is purposeful. Although related, sexual orientation and gender identity focus on different aspects of an individual's identity. Moreover, the main dependent variable assesses competency respective of minority sexual orientations and not gender identity; using LGBT would imply an inaccurate encompassment of transgender content. * Stigmatization of LGB People Although many factors influence LGB mental health disparities, "contemporary health disparities based on sexual orientation are rooted in and reflect the historical stigmatization of LGBT people" (IOM, 2011, p. 2.6). Stigma is conceptualized as the appropriation of subordinate status; prejudicial attitudes and behaviors; detrimental regard; discriminatory exclusion; and diminished power by society to groups associated with specific attributes, such as members of the LGB community (Dermer, Smith, & Bario, 2010; IOM, 2011). …