–Melissa Etheridge and ex-evangelical Frank Schaeffer endorse Obama’s pick of Rick Warren to pray at his inauguration.
-Jim Johnson of Straight, Not Narrow comments on the current decline of the Southern Baptist denomination.
-The Yes on 8 campaign moves to get 18,000 same-sex marriages invalidated, despite previously insisting otherwise.
-Pope Benedict XVI puts emphasis on “keeping human ecology clean,” declaring that upholding “God-given” rigid gender dichotomies and narrow sexual definitions is as important as protecting the rain forests.
-David Alex Nahmoud has posted a follow-up to his recent reports of an anti-gay family stealing away his long-term partner, convincing him to live with them, where they “exploit his disabilities” to control his life. Included in the post are relevant documents that David has scanned in proof of their actions.
-PFOX is demanding a share of United States Federal Bailout money, apparently confusing the word “bailout” with the word “handout.”
-Randy Thomas posts about an insulting government-sponsored drag queen and leather man version of the Christmas Creche in Amsterdam. He admits that such extremists do not represent the whole of any community, but still found it worth drawing attention to.
-The AFA has a new boycott target: Campbell’s Soup. The company placed an ad in The Advocate featuring a lesbian couple and their son. Campbell’s replied that they are proud of their decision, and will not cave to the AFA’s demands.
-Timothy Kincaid offers clarity and perspective on the lawsuit over the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association’s refusal to allow a same-sex marriage to take place on property owned in its name.
Humbly I wish everyone at XGW a Happy 2009. The one resolution I will try to incorporate into my life this next year: Be as wise as King Solomon and learn to take advice from my friends. (Actually, that’s two resolutions.)
Happy New Year my dear friends. May it be a busy and fruitful year.
I’m happy that Melissa Etheridge found Mr. Warren so charming. But I’m not willing to give him a pass until he’s willing to come out publicly and speak on record the things he told her.
Thank you, Emily K, for getting my story posted here again.
There were some skeptics when my story first appeared here: I don’t blame them. My claims are highly unusual albeit deeply disturbing.
I hope the scanned documents in my latest post convinces people how real these claims are.
What was done to Beecher & I is a stunning example as to why we need the legal protections of gay marriage, and why we need better LGBT mental health care.
Right now I’m talking to a fairly well known gay activist group about possible mainstream press coverage for this story.
I hope people at Ex Gay Watch will help to spread my story around.
Happy New Year to All.
Re: Randy Thomas being offendedly offended by these offensive offenders:
So, when it comes to the rights of an outspoken ignorant anti-christ loud mouth, he’s willing to defend it, but when it comes to laws that may help deter actual physical violence against gays, that’s off limits?
And he’s offended?
In the past, on this very site, I harshly criticized a San Francisco porn festival’s mockery of the Last Supper.
However, a drag-queen and leatherman version of Mary and Joseph is neither a mockery nor insulting — it is ironic, imho.
What exactly is sinful about being a drag queen or wearing leather?
Did Jesus of Nazareth come to redeem and welcome outcasts, or to pander to puritans like Randy Thomas?
It seems to me that Randy Thomas wants the church to consist of white Protestants wearing showy business suits — not real people of faith from different and individual walks of life.
What is very interesting about the whole Christ birth story is just how much of an outcast Mary could easily have become if Joseph didn’t stand by her, marry her and raise this son that he did not father.
According to the customs of the time, Mary would have been publicly stoned if Joseph rejected her and pointed out that he had nothing to do with the pregnancy. So, in some ways Mary had somehting in common with a modern day fetishists. Both could become very vulnerable to those enforcing the public morals.
I wonder how Randy would have treated Mary 2000 years ago, if he knew that Joseph wasn’t the father of her newborn son?
Wow, there’s a thought.
John,
While I cannot speak for Randy, the practice of stoning had fallen out of “style” with the Jewish people by the turn of the first millenium. Per Wikipedia:
It’s an honest mistake; I myself have only recently learned these things from independent study. And this isn’t to say that women who bore children out of wedlock in that era would not greatly suffer social consequences. I have a theory that the reaction to a woman in Mary’s position at that time might be similar to a reaction today – there would be people who thought she was a harlot, undeserving of pity, or that she should only be pitied, or maybe admired for raising her son instead of trying to terminate the pregnancy, even going so far as to find a man that was loyal to her and would be a father to the child. In Judaism of the time, there were such a variety of sects that I’m sure there were a TON of opinions on the matter; perhaps there were many who favored a literal unforgiving biblical punishment – but without a doubt there would be many differing viewpoints. The old saying “Two Jews, Three Opinions” guarantees this.
I still think it’s a valid thought. I would wonder what side many modern “Christians” would have fallen on.
Emily K said,
Stoning!
I first heard the Campbell’s Soup story on the rather excellent blog Slap Upside the Head.
Apparently the AFA thinks that to be truly “neutral” one must pretend that gay people don’t exist. This is seemingly some strange new meaning of the word neutral which I was not previously aware of.
TRiG.