Ex-Gay Watch

I don’t understand the tendency among some partisans to defend someone only because they claim to be fighting the same enemy.

The religious right’s defense of an enemy of gays — who also happens to be an enemy of compassionate Christian conservatism — is a case in point.

Pat Ware is the African American head of the presidential advisory commission on AIDS. She was placed on the commission by President Bush in recognition of her ties to a conservative AIDS policy think tank, the Family Research Council, and other conservative family-policy groups.

An oddity among the colorblind Bush administration, Ware reportedly believes that white gay men are responsible for the spread of AIDS among African Americans, and she has used her position to promote that racial viewpoint among her colleagues. Ware’s viewpoint not only misrepresents the origins of HIV in heterosexual Africa; it reduces mature African American males into helpless sexual pawns of whites. It’s a mindset that says, “Don’t blame black men; they can’t help themselves.” I find this perspective insulting to black men as well as whites.

In selecting potential nominees to the commission, Ware sought to balance out the doctors, Democrats and gays on the commission with conservatives and heterosexuals. A sensible goal for a Republican. The administration eventually nominated seven conservatives besides Ware to serve on the commission. The Democrats were not pleased.

One of the preliminary nominees, Jerry Thacker, was a graduate and former faculty member of the segregationist Bob Jones University, a religious-right activist with no professional credentials in HIV/AIDS and no political experience. Thacker is a marketing consultant. But for a marketing consultant, he showed little ability to defend himself in the rough-and-tumble of Washington.

Thacker first sought to cover up his past use of offensive language, then like Trent Lott, he ineptly defended himself. Instead of apologizing for grudges of the past, he explained that “gay plague” was once in vogue. Unfortunately, that phrase was never in vogue among anyone who tried to approach the subject professionally, accurately, or compassionately. Thacker also failed to defend the utility, compassion, and marketability of words such as “deathstyle” in AIDS education and prevention programs.

When the White House press corps, doctors and gay advocates pointed out Thacker’s medical ignorance, segregationist ties, unmarketable language, and poor management of this political situation, senior Bush administration officials blasted Ware’s unsavvy nominee.

Exodus, the network of ex-gay organizations, does not appear to understand Washington conservatives. Its press release depicts a Bush administration so liberal that it caves in to “gay pressure groups.” It defends Thacker’s nomination, but offers no documentation of Thacker’s compassion or professional qualifications.

In fact, Bush administration conservatives saw Thacker’s paper trail of rhetoric for what it was: weak on medicine, lacking in compassion, inappropriate among Christians, and no more tenable among conservatives than Trent Lott’s remarks about Strom Thurmond or Pat Ware’s white-bashing.

Pat Ware and Jerry Thacker have embarrassed conservatives on both sexual and racial grounds. Exodus need not defend them. The Bush administration has nominated seven other conservatives to serve on the commission, in addition to Ware. Two of them have close ties to the ex-gay movement.

The Charlotte World interviewed two people:

• one who, as previously noted, felt homosexuals should not be permitted to use public pools, and
• another who felt no club should identify itself as gay, since any mention of “gay” is “in your face.”

No doubt the second individual feels the same way about ex-gay groups. Achhem.

At any rate, the World interviewed no other sources offering less extreme points of view. One may surmise the newspaper feels it has presented a balanced “Christian” viewpoint.

The Charlotte World, a self-described Christian newspaper in Charlotte, N.C., published an article suggesting that a gay group shouldn’t be allowed to use a local public swimming pool because of health and moral concerns.

This sounds like a great opportunity for North Carolina ex-gays to educate their conservative allies about the modern miracle of chlorine, the demographics of STD rates, and the ugly American legacy of discrimination in public facilities.

Revised Feb. 16, 2005

The Washington Post ran an article Jan. 24 (2003) depicting the state of affairs in colleges’ recruitment of student athletes.

Some antigay coaches for women’s teams are apparently running amok, telling prospective students that rival coaches are lesbians bent on "recruitment" of the non-sporting variety.

Parents in some cases are lapping up the propaganda, exerting heavy pressure on their 18-year-old children to avoid — or quit — schools with coaches who are alleged to be lesbian.

Unfortunately, the head of a division of Campus Crusade for Christ is quoted as if to encourage parents’ preoccupation with coaches’ private lives:

Parents have a responsibility to their daughters to learn everything they can about a coach, says Dennis Rainey, president of faith-based FamilyLife, a division of Campus Crusade for Christ dedicated to promoting traditional family values.

"Every parent who sends his son to play for Bobby Knight knows who he’s
sending his son to play for," said Rainey. "A coach has a significant
influence in a player’s life. I just interviewed John Wooden for two hours,
and I can promise you character does count. To me, as a parent of six
children, sexual preference and practice are a reflection of a coach’s
character. They do matter."

Rainey’s interference in the private sexuality of others prompts some skeptical reflection upon his own character. Young athletes and their coaches already confront serious injustices and ethical dilemmas, including cheating, academic neglect, poor sportsmanship, and steroid use. Witchhunts against coaches who behave professionally — that is, they keep their private lives reasonably private — are a prurient distraction from legitimate priorities in sports.

Coaches should be hired and retained for their sportsmanship and skill, not because they conform to different parents’ arbitrary sexual agendas: One parent may favor male coaches, another may favor heterosexual coaches in covenant marriage, yet another may favor heterosexuals who swear to having daily sex with the spouse, and still other parents may frown on coaches who have sex for any reason other than procreation. With due respect, my suggestion to all is focus on sports and mind their own private business.

From The Washington Post:
Going Behind the Back: College Recruiters Raise Issue of Sexual Orientation
By Greg Sandoval
Friday, January 24, 2003; Page D01

When someone asks why gays would be attracted to Christianity, I have to ask: Which Christianity? Which gays?

Same-sex-attracted folks who reject their sexual status-quo are attracted to fundamentalist and conservative Catholic institutions. (Though some very satisfied gays are also attracted to those churches’ traditions and authority.)

Spiritually and socially inclined gays are attracted to the healing, social service, peace, and contemplation churches — Catholic hospitals, Catholic Charities, United Church of Christ, Quakers, Thomas Merton.

Activists seeking to liberate church and society from authoritarianism and economic violence are attracted to Catholic Worker houses and the Maryknolls — those are the folks who toss their own blood on nuclear missiles and Pentagon doors, or who start liberation movements in the shantytowns of Colombia and Brazil.

There is a common denominator, I suppose — a feeling that the antigays running certain denominations are rendering themselves irrelevant. The gays feel they will either outnumber or outsmart the bigots. In some cases, they may be right.

In asking why gays are attracted to Christianity, does one assume Christianity is inherently antigay, antimodern, or antirational? I think that depends again on one’s perspective. Some parts of the religion are, some are not. Some parts are reactionary, some are revolutionary. Some are legalistic, some are poetic. All Christians — especially the fundies — play the cafeteria game, selecting what fits for them and deferring on the rest.

Great stuff from the Real Live Preacher blog:

If you want to know about the Taliban, ask an Afghani woman. If you want to know about Christian fundamentalism, ask a Christian. Fundamentalists are more than interesting television for us. They are people with real power who harm our churches, destroy good ministers, and sully our name.

We’ve been in the cages with these cats, and they go for the jugular. They are always on the prowl, circling the campfires of the followers of Christ, howling the name of Jesus and splattering our heritage across their banners of hatred.

Watching fundamentalism do its work is like watching the crucifixion over and over and over again.

Never confuse fundamentalism with a particular set of beliefs. Fundamentalism is a methodology. It is a way of relating to people. There are fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, and don’t forget the politically correct zealots. You will meet fundamentalists in every walk of life.

Fundamentalism’s method is confrontation and its fuel is anger. There can be no dialogue and no mutual respect. There will only be winners and losers. They are right. You are wrong. End of discussion.

Fundamentalist Christians also carry a terrible, secret burden. Your soul is their responsibility. If you go to hell, they will answer to God for their lack of witness. Imagine carrying THAT load around all day. …

With such hellish stakes, extreme measures are called for. The end justifies the means. This is why so many Christian fundamentalists want to use the government to push their agenda.

I agree with many of Preacher’s observations, and yet I’m concerned about the tone. I hear a pessimistic, judgmental finality that mirrors fundamentalist Michael Johnston’s statements at his Kerusso Ministries web site. Johnston states matter-of-factly that Christians who disagree with him are satans in sheep’s skins, bereft of good will toward anyone, patently untrustworthy, incapable of being listened to.

Is there a means by which blind and deliberate intolerance — fundamentalism’s habit of slamming doors shut — can be analyzed without slamming more doors shut? This is difficult.

But unlike the finality of Michael Johnston’s condemnations, Preacher does offer an approach that leaves doors open.

You cannot follow the way of Christ and walk in the way of anger.

You just cannot.

The way of Christ is for those with nothing to prove and nothing left to lose. It is not anger and conquest that sustains you on “The Way.”

What sustains you is the simple placing of one foot in front of the other, all The Way to the end.

1. Acts 11:26

2. Acts 9:2

Comment submitted to Ex-Gay Watch’s former blog comment system

I tried to be careful in saying that fundamentalism is not a set of beliefs. I bear no anger to those who differ from me, nor will I treat them unkindly. Fundamentalism is a way of relating to people who do not share your beliefs.

Fundamentalism is that very attitude that says, “I am right, you are wrong, and I WILL confront you and condemn you.”

It is that way of relating that DOES make me angry.

After 20 years of fighting this, I’m afraid I have slammed the door shut on relating to fundamentalists. I can relate to VERY conservative Christians – “some of my best friends are…”, as they say. Some would call me a conservative Christian. That’s a relative term. I can enjoy relationships with atheists and pagans and the whole spectrum of belief and unbelief.

I cannot relate to fundamentalists because at it’s core fundamentalism is a refusal to engage in an honest relationships with me.

—Real Live Preacher • 1/26/03; 3:36:24 AM

“For religious reasons, I no longer have sex with men and don’t plan to. … Homosexuality is a choice.”

–David Bianco, founder of the gay-press syndication service Q Syndicate, in his “Over The Rainbow” column, Dec. 16.

Source: Rex Wockner

Comments about this message, submitted to Ex-Gay Watch’s former blog location:

What Bianco should have said is “homosexual behavior is a choice,” just as heterosexual behavior is a choice. No one knows all the determinants of sexual orientation. There is strong evidence for at least a significant, genetic, inheritable component to sexual orientation. As far as I know, there is no scientific evidence at all to suggest that sexual orientation is something that people choose, in any ordinary sense of the word “choose”.

—Duane Williams • 1/26/03; 11:00:27 AM

Duane, the column in question argued that sexual orientation itself as a category is not the most useful way of thinking about homosexuality. Rex (who’s a friend of mine) in this case strung together two pieces of my column (which you can find in its entirety at http://www.planetout.com/pno/news/feature.html?sernum=440) that I hadn’t linked in the column itself by proximity or logic. As for “no scientific evidence at all” that people have can choose homosexuality, that can only be true if you dismiss the thousands of people who have spoken out from the left (see queerbychoice.com) and the right (see peoplecanchange.com) who assert that their own homosexuality or bisexuality was or is a choice.

If you take a look at my column as a whole, or even better, my “bullseye” column offering a new way of thinking about sexuality (http://www.qsyndicate.com/ov_rainbow.htm#bullseye), you’ll get a fuller sense of how I view choice and sexuality.

—David Bianco • 4/30/03; 10:07:41 AM

Randy Thomas is a friendly, good-natured, nonviolent fellow who happens to be a spokesperson for Exodus International.

His personal weblog offers a frank view of the disarmingly ordinary activities at Exodus offices in Orlando. It’s worth a look.

Recently, Randy said:

Now, to be sure with all the great things happening at the office, the adversary of our souls is not at rest either. Of course satan seeks to stop all of this so please support Exodus with prayers for protection and wisdom. This is definitely trench warfare in some aspects and it must not be forgotten that we win the war in Jesus, but in this present age it is still a war!

Randy is talking about a literal Satan here, but I hope he’ll understand when people in general, and gays in particular, think he’s talking about them.

We vs. them. “I’m on God’s side. Therefore I fear my rival is not. If he is not on my side, then, he is working for Satan. I am at war with him.” Simple logic understood by people who hear Exodus talk about its war against Satan.

Randy’s blog is looking a bit sparse at the moment, so I offer some food for future thought. Here’s an idea worth a blog spot or two:

Satan does not assault Exodus; Exodus assaults itself. Ex-gay ministry leaders periodically present themselves to the public not as spiritual healers, but rather as warriors against the jobs and family ties of people who struggle with same-sex attraction. They base their harsh position on flawed logic and inaccurate news sources.

1. The head of Exodus, Alan Chambers, defends Christian employers in Florida who fire workers whom they perceive to be gay or effeminate.

2. In the Jan. 23 CitizenLink, John Paulk — an Exodus speaker and former board member — favorably cites an article in Rolling Stone boasting that 25 percent of people newly infected with AIDS (a percentage including thousands of ex-gays) actually tried to become infected. But even before Paulk spoke, the article had been publicly disavowed by its sources. The cited experts said the opposite of what the author had quoted. The fact checker didn’t check some facts. The author didn’t record his interviews. Paulk endorsed the article anyway.
3. An Exodus press release opposes anti-discrimination policies on the illogical premise that someone might misuse antidiscrimination policies to engage in reverse discrimination. In the case cited by Exodus, however, these same First Amendment-based policies have upheld the rights of all sides and resisted the forces of reverse discrimination. Exodus shows a selective recognition of the facts.
4. The same press release cites an Agape Press article about Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly that falsely portrays O’Reilly’s position on gay rights; conceals ex-gay activist Stephen Bennett’s on-air profanities; and implies that, in contrast to Bennett oft-cited Christian faith, O’Reilly isn’t Christian. Exodus damages its credibility by relying on others’ false reporting and judgmentalism.
5. Another press release overgeneralizes about gay viewpoints on the Boy Scouts. The press release illogically concludes that the Boy Scouts must be acting Biblically, simply because they’re under fire from gay-tolerant people of faith and from agnostic parents. Admittedly, a goal of some gay activists has been to withhold taxpayer funding from private religious organizations, like the Boy Scouts, that use taxpayer money to discriminate against gays and non-Christians. Many gay activists defend the Boy Scouts’ right to discriminate, provided they don’t bill the taxpayers for it.
6. The press release goes on to note Michelangelo Signorile’s intolerance for ex-gay advertising. Duly noted. In the interest of balance, Exodus might have noted that Signorile is a gay progressive whose views on freedom of speech are a bit self-serving. Unlike Signorile, many if not most gays support equal opportunity in advertising.

If Exodus is battling Satan, that battle is not apparent in these ongoing missteps. If anything, Exodus seems to be battling itself.

Randy Thomas’ blog could be a sign of light at the end of this tunnel. In time, besides showing us that Exodus leaders are human and likable, it may anecdotally explain the rationale for Exodus’ approach.

Here are some longstanding questions that I’ve had:

• Precisely where does Exodus see Satan — in battles against what or whom? What exactly does Exodus see Satan doing?

• How does job discrimination by Orlando Christian employers help workers who are struggling with their sexuality, or protect their coworkers?
• How do efforts by NARTH to scapegoat fathers for their sons’ sexuality help mothers avert family breakup?
• The active members and moderator of PFOX’s online discussion group advise mothers that their gay sons eat feces, sleep with 10,000 men, abuse drugs, fantasize about children, promote leftism, and die by age 35. PFOX is a regular participant in Love Won Out. In what respect does Exodus feel that PFOX’s approach helps families understand one another truthfully and lovingly?

Randy, at your convenience, please help me out here.

Best wishes to gays and ex-gays alike…

“I don’t hate you. I just think that you’re being a pervert … God is angry with your kind of moral behavior.”

–The Rev. Jerry Falwell to U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., Dec. 2 on CNN. Falwell receives his training in Christian hospitality toward gays from the ex-gay Kerusso Ministries.

Source: Rex Wockner

From the Interfaith Working Group:

The Orlando City Council passed a non-discrimination ordinance 4-3. As part of its coverage, the Orlando Sentinel published a long article about Alan Chambers, the President of the ex-gay umbrella organization Exodus International and a leader in People for a United Orlando, the organization opposing the ordinance. The article says Chambers “became involved in the City Hall fight as an individual, not as a representative of Exodus,” but a prominent note on the Exodus web site encouraged people to write to the Sentinel for a copy of the article.

The Orlando Sentinel article by Nancy Imperiale ran Nov. 24, 2002. It’s available at the Sentinel website for a fee. The article pursued a “day in the life of Alan Chambers” sort of approach that talked about Chambers’ family and said little about his politics. It was a nice story about Alan and his family, and I told that to Exodus spokesman Randy Thomas. Of course, if Alan’s family had been headed by two gay people, Exodus would have opposed its existence.

In July 2002, I compared one Exodus speaker’s apolitical approach to violence in the schools, with an Exodus press release taking a very political approach toward the Catholic pedophilia and abuse-of-authority scandal. Here’s what I said.