Southern Voice released an article yesterday highlighting Jerry Falwell’s newfound support for equal housing & employment rights for gays & lesbians, as shown on “The Situation with Tucker Carlson.”
Says Falwell:
FALWELL: But civil—civil rights for all Americans, black, white, red, yellow, the rich, poor, young, old, gay, straight, et cetera, is not a liberal or a conservative value. It‘s an American value that I would think that we pretty much all agree on.
Southern Voice credits Soulforce‘s long-term lobbying of Falwell for the turnaround. Falwell says he still “doesn’t agree with the lifestyle,” but supports antidiscrimination laws protecting gays & lesbians. The argument in the past has been that since gays & lesbians do not exist (only heterosexuals with “SSA Disorder”), no laws should exist to protect them. Now, Falwell eschews that position, favoring the right to privacy instead.
I guess those really were pigs I saw flying by my house today. It will be interesting to see if he back peddles. Otherwise, it seems like a positive thing.
It’s not April 1st is it?
That’s incredible!!!
Now, Falwell eschews that position, favoring the right to privacy instead.
This plaint might be persuasive if those on “his side” respected privacy. They don’t. Jerry Falwell, Alan Chambers, Randy Thomas and James Dobson and Diamond Pat Robertson do not respect privacy, so why should we respect their privacy?
How do “civil rights” not include the right to civil marriage?
I’m thankful for Jerry Falwell’s slightly softening position. It shows that Soulforce and the other gay rights groups who interact with the Religious Right are slowly making an impact.
The more the Religious Right gets to know us as gay people, the more they come to understand that there are a LOT of gay Christians out here, the more difficult it will become for them to maintain their intolerant position.
FloridaSon Rick
I’m sure it was a slip of the tongue.
FloridaSon Rick – the Religious Right knows us very well. Many of us are their children, and that hasn’t changed their minds. As Zach’s experience this summer has shown, they’re now trying to pack us off to re-education camps – hardly a more tolerant position.
Geez. C’mon folks. Yeah, it’s not the whole enchilada. He didn’t come out and say “You know what? I think that gays and lesbians should be able to marry and adopt kids.” But really, does anyone expect him to? Can we be at least grateful that he is making an attempt to look at these issues?
We put him in this can’t win situation, and I think that’s unfortunate. Instead of giving him kudos for at least taking a look in the direction we want him to, and tentatively stepping out in that direction, we slam him for not lining up lock, stock, and barrel in support of our civil rights.
The fact of the matter is that he will get a lot of flak over this from his supporters. Every time he does anything deviates from the absolute disdain for gays that is the norm in that section of Christianity (like when he apologized to gays and lesbians for harmful rhetoric) he gets a huge firestorm of a response and people withdraw their financial support of him. Let’s face it – they gay community is not exactly lining up to support his ministry in the place of those he will lose with what he says. He’s got a lot more to lose than he does to gain by saying something like this.
For information about the 1999 Soulforce action that took place at Fallwell’s church, see this link for some info about what happened there and how his supporters took things. These are people that don’t even believe you should eat at the same table with a gay person. So this is a big thing, imo, no matter how small we might think it is in terms of what we would ultimately like to see.
For me the clue lies in what the discussion was really about.Falwell was defending Bush’s nominee to the Sup.Court. > issue of prior work on gay rights case pops up > Falwell says this isn’t a problem because, well, basic rights are basic American Values right…Falwell cannot lie straight in bed.
Falwell must have some real estate somewhere he’s not able to move.
Maybe the only people around who might be able to buy it are some gay folks.
I wouldn’t trust him as far as I can throw him.
Crumbs from his table is all this statement is. Gay folks deserve much more and better than that.
The only thing that would make Falwell let any gay people partway into the fold is money or tithing somewhere.
That happened with the Mormon Church at one time with blacks entering the LDS.
LDS really went through a tough patch financially at one time during the 70’s recession and that’s when they let blacks into the church.
But blacks still cannot hold any offices or jobs within LDS. Just show up and tithe.
Some religious institutions and leadership will spend a lifetime dissing you, until they need a hand up somewhere. Soon as they are back in business, they try to think of ways to kick you back.
Falwell might be close to meeting his maker. His health isn’t good.
If he has a change of heart anywhere….he’s years too late and the damage is done.
The fact of the matter is that he will get a lot of flak over this from his supporters. Every time he does anything deviates from the absolute disdain for gays that is the norm in that section of Christianity (like when he apologized to gays and lesbians for harmful rhetoric) he gets a huge firestorm of a response and people withdraw their financial support of him.
I agree with you Annika, but like many others posting, I am wary. If he actually gets criticism and does not back down, or does not in the future make comments that reneg on these, I will cut him a break. But too many of these “religious” leaders have backtracked the minute they face any opposition for me to be doing a jig of happiness right now.
Regan you must understand. Jerry Falwell, like all of the itinerant Baptist preachers (and there are a plethora of them) has a gig. He’s an entertainer. He undoubtedly knows it. He’s playing to an audience. I noted that kind of thing when we went to a fundamentalist Baptist church when I was a mid-teen–at my insistance by the way–in a suburb of Cincinnati.
I was appalled. And I have rejected pronoucements from posters purporting to speak for “establishments from religion” ever since.
Oh, this in Cincinnati was in the mid 1960s. The only Televangelist at the time was Billy Ghraham. Falwell and Robertson came much later.
Guardian article on LIA
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1556636,00.html
1. This IS as step in the right directions. I believe in rewarding improvement not screaming about how its not enough. So, though I’ll remain cynical, I’ll applaud the improvement. I don’t really care whether or not Falwell personally believes it.
2. Falwell is still enough of an influence that his words have impact beyond himself. The “gays deserve basic rights” idea will sit in the minds of some of his followers. And that is a good thing.
Sometimes I think some folk are so fond of being the victom that it threatens them when an enemy makes concessions. Rather than see the results of what they fought for, they see that their battle may end and then what would they do.
Not an accusation to anyone, just a thought.
Thank you Timothy. That’s exactly how I feel. I do understand the history of Jerry Fallwell and what he says/does, and I think a healthy dose of skepticism is good. But at the end of the day, my thoughts are…Good for you, Jerry. But then we keep watching, praying (for some) and working toward more change (like Soulforce and Mel White) and see what happens next.
I will second what Timothy and Annika said.
A few months ago, we took in a stray dog. This dog, let’s just say, has “trust” issues. It doesn’t trust me or my partner. It is by no means a perfect dog. It is not what we were looking for in a dog, but it is the dog we have.
We slowly were able to house train the dog, and we have slowly been able to get it to follow simple obedience commands. He won’t heal, he won’t come, he will only sit for a second and a half. And once, I caught him peeing in the house when he thought I wasn’t looking. But each measure of progress, while not what we want, is progress nevertheless, no matter how small, and no matter the setbacks.
So, yes, I just compared Jerry Falwell to a stray dog. And perhaps he’s not quite as innocent as Buster, but still. He’s not the dog I would prefer to have, but he’s the dog we have nevertheless. And this baby step is progress. Maybe he can take another baby step again, sometime. And like Buster, he deserves praise, even though it’s not enough in the long run. Otherwise, if all he gets is condemnation all around, why would he bother?
I can’t argue with you, raj.
You have far more experience with the matter than I do.
I sure love your posts here, folks.
Tim,
I get what you’re saying. But Falwell has used everything and all kinds of occasions to bash gays or attribute innocuous things (Tinky Winky’s head antenae and magic bag) to the ‘homosexual agenda.’
He’s spent a LIFETIME doing it.
And many lives were compromised because of it.
I won’t forgive him for what he said about the cause of the 9/11 attacks.
Particularly because a gay couple I cared about and their three year old son were killed that day.
Falwell is a pig. He’s always been a pig.
It’s hard to trust his concessions, as you call them.
He has to earn trust to get it. And so far, he’s never been one to be trusted.
Can you really document what positive and discernible changes have been made since this new comment?
It’s too fleeting to call it a commitment of any kind.
Regan DuCasse,
you are mistaken relative to the current status of black members of the LDS Church. Blacks have always been able to be members, but were historically not allowed to hold the priesthood. In 1978 a change was made ending this restriction. Since then, blacks have served and continue to serve as local and general officers of the LDS Church.
Mark Butler at October 1, 2005 02:29 AM
This post is correct, but I’ll put it a bit more cynically. Prior to 1978, the LDS were willing to take blacks’ money (by allowing them to be members) but they weren’t willing to hire them as priests.
The hypocrisy should be evident.
No no no Raj, prior to 1978 black bodies were the repositories of spirits who did not fight as well as they could have for God during Satan’s rebellion. However, in 1978 God ran short of white molds and so he had to start putting righteous spirits into non-white bodies. Jeez, don’t you know your LDS theology?
Boo, I hope that is a joke.
Boo at October 1, 2005 10:32 PM
I know that you’re being facetious, but just to let you know, I don’t give a tinker’s damn (no, that is not an epithet) for LDS theology. The LDSers wanted black peoples’ money. That’s why they allowed them membership in the LDS “establishment of religion.”
That’s the long and the short of it. And it was only after the LDS was embarrassed because of their discrimination among the hierarchy that they allowed blacks into their hierarchy.
Btw- my comment above was not a joke. It was apparently something they actually taught at BYU:
http://www.exmormon.org/whylft71.htm