When she turned the Atlanta-area black gay and lesbian magazine Venus into an ex-gay publication, Charlene Cothran offended loyal subscribers and advertisers with antigay and antiwhite rhetoric that was written with the help of spiritual mentor, Venus blog editor, and ex-gay activist D.L. Foster.
Late last month, Venus got a boost — from an ex-gay contributor to Christianity Today and from an antigay activist in Illinois.
Antigay activist Peter LaBarbera, whose ties to the Constitution Party have raised alarm at Ex-Gay Watch in the past, printed a promotion for Venus magazine to his national religious-right readership.
LaBarbera’s promotion is uncharacteristically free of antigay rhetoric — apart from an insinuation that one cannot be “reborn in Christ” unless one pretends not to be same-sex-attracted.
Meanwhile, at Christianity Today, ex-gay activist Amy Tracy wrote up an interview with Cothran that avoids direct discussion of Cothran’s orientation.
[Question:] How do you view your sexuality now?[Answer:] I view myself as celibate. Â
The interview focuses instead on Cothran’s perception of herself as a victim of rejection by those friends whom she now preaches against.
(Tracy, the interview’s author, is a former spokeswoman, senior writer and co-worker of John Paulk at Focus on the Family. Following orders from above, and despite Tracy’s public statements against Phelps, Tracy allegedly sent an internal Focus e-mail in late 1999 that defended Fred Phelps and warned Focus employees not to protest against Phelps. In subsequent disciplinary action against a staff participant in the protest, Focus allegedly described Phelps as a “guest” of Focus on the Family. Christianity Today published an article promoting Tracy’s ex-gay conversion in January 2000.)
http://www.ctlibrary.com/2457
Mary, thanks for the link to the CT article by another author who echoes Amy Tracy’s public statements about Fred Phelps.
Nevertheless, Tracy’s public position is not consistent with the allegations of Brian Cooper, the former Focus employee who alleges that Tracy colluded with Focus on the Family management to warn Focus employees not to protest against Phelps on their own time. And when Cooper was disciplined for protesting against Phelps on his own time, there is no indication that Tracy took any action in defense of Focus employees’ freedom of speech.
If Cooper’s allegations are accurate, then those who sign on as employees of Focus on the Family effectively surrender their constitutional rights to James Dobson and Tom Minnery.
I would be skeptical if Cooper’s allegations stood alone, but they are consistent with the allegations of Focus co-founder Gil Moegerle in his 1997 book about the political rise and moral decline of Focus on the Family.
So, Ms. Cothran is now celibate? That’s not exactly straight, that’s not in a relationship at all.
I realized something, or maybe I’ve always been trying to figure this stuff out.
But this is reducing grown assed folks to the relationship status of children.
No sex, no marriage, no intimacy with another gay person of your same gender.
Meanwhile, the socio/political atmosphere is that of scolding parent.
However, children don’t have dependents, nor responsibilities that adults have, and they aren’t expected to.
Submitting your love life to the control of an entity…and institution that forces it on you whether you choose it or not, is STILL similar the status of children.
We’re all usually MADE to attend church or temple whether we want to or not, right?
Relationships can and will be difficult in the best of times. Interfering parent units tend to do more harm than good when it comes to their grown assed children.
And when it comes to grown assed gay folks, the church is DEFINITELY in the ‘interfering parent’, category.
Celibacy is that twilight zone of non engagement. I can understand any adults ‘time out’, from relationship fatigue. A spiritual and emotional regroup is and can be a healthy thing.
But this is a very different situation. This is terminal celibacy, with a march to reckless sexual engagement with straight people….who, if they know your history, may not trust you completely. Leading to another gray zone of placing the straight member of the couple in the role of parent to a child.
Or the one who is supposed to lead and keep gay person on The Path.
Yikes…
That is WAY too much inappropriate submission. Grown assed folks shouldn’t require that kind of treatment. And this treatment is exclusive towards gay folks.
You all can correct me if I’m wrong. I’m just calling it as I see it.
I feel however, like I’m in the wilderness.
I guess I”m different too. I see gay folks as grown assed folks, with the right to self determination, and the ability for it…and my role as a straight person is to just know that and respect that .
I’m just a grown assed woman that know other grown assed folks when I see them.
Should be enough for anyone to recognize, whether you church going folk, or not.
Interestingly, while I woked at HRC I wrote an op-ed against the ex-gay myth. The column was highlighted in big letters on the cover of her magazine. She had spoken to me several times saying how awful and dumb she thought the ex-gay stuff was. How bizarre it now is to see her shilling for these guys.
I must also add that she certainly never expressed discomfort with her religion in regards to her homosexuality. I feel a bit betrayed by her and now feel she was not entirely honest about her spiritual beliefs.
Mary, while a comment can certainly include links to support one’s statements, a link is not a comment.
Must you knit-pick over such trivial things David?
“So, Ms. Cothran is now celibate? Thatâs not exactly straight, thatâs not in a relationship at all.”
As we know, ex-gays are no longer required to be heterosexual, only celibate.
So does that mean asexuality?
And this may spark another debate, is asexuality an orientation, or is asexuality a lifestyle?
Franc:
Yes indeed. This site is about discussion, and people put a great deal of effort into both the posts and the comments. Dropping a link into the thread is not discussion or debate, and it forces one to begin addressing the writer of the linked article, not the commenter. If the link is given some context by the commenter, or is a direct reply to a request, that’s fine.
Mary may just have been in a hurry, but I would rather she understand for the future. Besides, we need to pick nits now and then or they spoil on the vine đ
By the way, it’s “nitpick” not “knit-pick.” Oh geesh, there I go again. It’s a curse, I know.
Yukichoe, I’m glad you asked that. Salon online had an extensive article, and 20/20 also did a report on asexuality.
It IS very different from celibacy.
Asexuals are people who have no sex drive or interest in sex at all. They struggle to engage in it at all. Out of the twenty or so people profiled on tv, only two were attracted to their same gender…a little, but this was a matter of social and emotional companionship, but not intense sexual feelings or desire to have sex.
One could argue that it well could be an orientation, but so far….there is no physiological aspect that one could point to.
Nor were these people necessarily dysfunctional on any level.
Perhaps if the asexual person was CONCERNED about it, or was discriminated against, or otherwise systematically bullied into believing they were destructive to civilization because they are sterile, than maybe they might become a more highly visible and vocal group.
But the fact is, they are an even tinier minority of people, they just aren’t subject to institutionalized discrimination.
No one really thinks of asexuality as a problem.
So here we are, heterosexual, homosexual, asexual. All of a kind.
Celibacy isn’t always a choice. It’s a state of being, but not a physiological condition.
The bigger point is, that it’s generally ACCEPTED.
As is heterosexuality, obviously as something no one plans for or chooses.
And the asexual doesn’t choose.
How very strange, that it’s argued that homosexuality is chosen, and that celibacy SHOULD be the preferred option for homosexuals ONLY.
When asexuality, and homosexuality has so little societal impact, when compared to heterosexuality.
At any rate, I think my point is…..the difference between what is accepted as ok, and normal…and what isn’t.
Prejudice and ignoring the normal standards of connection and results, obviously helps nothing.
Cothran has converted to Christianity, which doesn’t accept her. THAT was her choice.
Not whether or not she IS a lesbian.
I way past tired of the ex gay industry muddying the facts on that.
Wayne has a point about the betrayal of Ms. Cothran.
She has done a 360.
I think you’d all respect it if someone DID have relationship, or sexual fatigue.
Especially those of us who are older singles, too long on the dating mill.
You all might also understand (better than me) how especially difficult this is for gay folks in particular. I can imagine social relationship fatigue WITH STRAIGHT PEOPLE.
This is where the companionship with one’s own, other gay people would be most important as relief from this.
Something vigorously opposed and interfered with by straight folks…even well meaning ones.
So, if Ms. Cothran, herself was struggling with DATING or relationships within being a lesbian, THAT would be understandable.
But her taking the Kool-Aid, that this is a result of her being gay, IS a betrayal. It’s dishonest.
How many of us have wanted to bail on dating, period?
Or struggled with relationships that went nowhere?
This can, and does happen to us all at some point, gay or not.
So exploiting this as a part of the culture in gay folks, is really disgusting, and I can’t stand an ex gay…or straight people who support being ex gay, as saying that’s not what it is, or what they do.
Ms. Cothran lost her cred with gay folks, and took sides with the more destructive aspect to gay lives and social success.
I find it also strange when gay people do that, and then get maudlin about why they aren’t accepted by gay people…or the straight folks they are clearly sucking up to.
Believe me, I can tell them. And it’s not flattering and that’s too bad.
This may be a bit late.
One of the two exgay ministries in Malaysia as we all know, is the Real Love Ministry headed by Pastor Edmund Smith.
He has these things to say in regards to Cothran in his Friendster blog.
http://rlm.blogs.friendster.com/my_blog/2007/03/the_biggest_les.html
Is Cothran really the Biggest Lesbian in America?
“Celibate” huh?
Wow – that’s either a real bad lesbian break up or some really extreme case of menopause that Cothran’s got! Get that woman laid or get her some hormones, quick!
I’d guess that Rosie O’Donnell is more well known than Cothran. I can’t say I’d ever heard of Cothran before this controversy.
PDQ, please watch the language.
Some well-known lesbians:
Rosie O’Donnell
Elizabeth Birch
Urvashi Vaid
Kate Clinton
Ellen DeGeneres
Donna Brazile
Billie Jean King
Martina Navratilova
I had never heard of Cothran before she created this controversy.
Mike – Can you substantiate that Donna Brazile is a lesbian? From what I can find, a Washington Blade story mentions that Brazile was opposed to a proposal to assign a certain quota of gay DNC convention delegates because it might cut into the # of black delegates. The story also states:
Brazile has refused to answer questions about her own sexual orientation, even though she has a history of gay rights activism, including a seat on the board of the gay Millennium March on Washington for LGBT Rights in 2000.
She again declined to discuss the matter in a telephone interview this week, though she cited her past gay rights advocacy over many years within the DNC and within the DNCâs Black Caucus.
I suppose it doesn’t really matter, but I was just interested in that example because I hadn’t heard that rumor. I thought you’d mention Candace Gingrich or Christie Gephardt or Mary Cheney.
Minor (very minor) correction, I meant Chrissy Gephardt.
Brazile was a well-known and open lesbian in D.C. (where I was living) before joining the Clinton administration and Gore campaign. See The Village Voice, Oct. 13-19, 1999. She is identified as a lesbian in countless other articles online, the accuracy of which has not been challenged.
Around the time that she became Gore’s campaign manager, however, it became clear that she was re-closeting herself, much to the annoyance of The Washington Blade’s editor. Her firm’s current bio page mentions nothing about her years of lesbian activism. Like Exodus’ Randy Thomas, she now wants the public to overlook her orientation and just think of her as… Donna Brazile.
Kendall is correct that Candace Gingrich or Chrissy Gephardt or Mary Cheney are better-known and more recently open about their sexual orientation.
Huh, very interesting, I suppose from a political standpoint it made sense for her to deemphasize that aspect of her life when she became Gore’s campaign manager, kinda sad though but I definitely understand the impulse to not be known as just a gay person but as a person.
Its almost a reverse of what Suze Orman is experiencing really.
I don’t get it.
The Supreme Court said a woman controls her own body. Liberals love that. Lesbians love that.
So if she controls it to the point of not wanting a woman, what is the problem?
Jeff, I have no problem with someone deciding not to have sex, or even suppressing their attractions if that’s their choice.
I do have a problem with identity politics that imply to the public that one is no longer same-sex-attracted when one is still predominantly attracted to the same gender. Choosing to change one’s self-label is not equivalent to God freeing oneself from one’s sexual orientation.
I have a problem with the act of playing both the victim card and the race card to sidestep the consequences of one’s tirades against loyal advertisers and subscribers.
And I have a problem with the act of scapegoating other same-sex-attracted persons for one’s own past choices as a same-sex-attracted person.
As a conservative, I’m sure you understand the importance of personal responsibility. Neither Cothran nor her current mentors appear to be true conservatives.
It would be interesting to witness the development of a nonpartisan magazine that emphasizes personal and sexual responsibility, freedom for all, and mutual affirmation among gays and ex-gays. I think that would be healthier for all concerned, than a magazine and blog that consist of weasel words, the politics of resentment, and smug religious judgment.
Mike,
Most gay men and women lived a great portion of their young lives as straight, given the obvious restrictions imposed by family and community.
To think that someone with a gender identity issue lived as lesbian when they were really straight is wrong denies the fact that gay men, lesbian women, and women as men or men as women did not do the same thing at some point.
If a man can come out as gay at 25 or 30 then a lesbian can come out as straight at those same ages.
Without being a weasel, resentment focused, or smug.
What’s good for the gay goose is good for the straight gander.
Jeff, I have no problem with people whose orientation changes to the opposite sex at midlife. I’ve met such people, though not many.
Cothran makes no such claim to be opposite-sex-attracted.
Mike,
According to Roe v. Wade Cothran doesn’t have to claim why she doesn’t want a woman touching her that way.
She only needs to say she doesn’t want it.
Likewise she doesn’t have to claim to be straight to justify it.
She only needs to assert it.
You wouldn’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade just to make a celibate woman a lesbian again, now would you?
Jeff Barea:
Interjecting Roe vs Wade into this discussion is a red herring. We are not debating what Cothran can or cannot legally do, but the validity of statements she has made in the public eye for the purpose of persuading others. To argue from this position is pointless and disruptive.
To equivocate these two statements is not valid. There is no pressure, societal, religious or otherwise, on someone who is straight to deny that fact until age 25 or 30 as in your example. One may, for various reasons, delcare themselves straight later in life, but not for the same reasons which keep gay men and women in the closet.
David,
Roe v. Wade established a woman’s ability to do with her body as she wished. Fact. Not red herring. Therefore if a woman did not want to have sex with women (regardless of her reasons) that, technically – given that nature or nurture has not been proven – makes her no longer a practicing lesbian. It’s the chicken or the egg thing. If a woman doesn’t have sex with a woman then she’s not a lesbian. Just a human woman that has no sex. Current events: Imus is in trouble for injecting his manhood over women – like they did in the middle ages and modernity in some cultures, not that I think your name being David makes you a man commenting on women’s rights.
Go back and argue on the asexuality vein if you want. Homosexuality means having sex with same gender. Heterosexuality means having sex with opposite gender. No sex at all? Well, does my swimming 10 years ago make me a swimmer or an ex-swimmer? Ah!!! We begin to understand.
Pointless only if this site wants to change the laws of english.
Disruptive only if this site refuses to allow true debate.
As to your second point… I merely point out, humbly, that as Kinsey – the only scientific research done – established, to this point without any scientific opposition, that sexuality is fluid and not absolute. Simple point, ne c’est pas?
Nothing new has been added to the debate (unless you seriously think I need to address the difference between sexual orientation and a sport), see my post here.
Jeff, I am a transsexual female sexually attracted to both men and women. And I have to sleep with both a man and a woman at the same time to be a bisexual? Would that not be odd?
But then I am glad you quoted Kinsey… after all, he is the one who stated that:- Human beings are NATURALLY bisexuals. Religious bigotry and prejudice forces people into chastity, heterosexuality and monogamy.
An interesting truth claim.
If perhaps – remember I said IF – homosexuality, adultery, pre-marital infidelity are “wrong” then for someone to call them “wrong” is not to engage in Religious bigotry or prejudice but rather to simply declare – in the same way as the above declaration is made – the truth of the proposition.
Why is a statement as the one above somehow free from “irreligious bigotry and prejudice”
The real question is which truth claim is actually TRUE…
Of course some irrationalist will will say they both are. I don’t dispute with irrational people it’s — đ — irrational to do so.
Until we determine who holds the TRUTH then we must be willing to admit our own position suffers from “bigotry and prejudice”
Sorry, Monk, but I don’t agree with your moral relativism.
My disagreement with Charlene Cothran is not over her opposition to sexual sin. To call sexual behaviors sinful does not qualify as bigotry or prejudice.
My disagreement with Cothran is over her false statements and unsupported gross generalizations about same-sex-attracted persons — how they came to be SSA, how they behave, what they believe, Who they worship.
When Cothran and her new spiritual mentor commit character assassination against strangers, that is undeniably a form of prejudice (prejudgment of others). Sweeping generalizations about groups of people are, by definition, a form of bigotry.
When Cothran or her magazine/blog make sweeping statements about “white” people, that action is (by definition) racist. And when she accuses large groups of people of racism but declines to identify any specific individuals or specific incidents to support her argument, that is called hypocrisy.
The Truth is, Cothran projects her own unhappiness, hostility, political correctness, and prejudice onto others. And then she hates that which has sadly become truest about herself. She has become her own worst enemy.
As the Bible warns us, Judge not, lest you be judged. For the standards by which you judge others, will be used in judging you.