Ex-Gay Watch

Exodus chairman and ex-gay activist Mike Haley runs the antigay politics division of Focus on the Family.

Today, Focus reminded its CitizenLink newsletter readers that Focus and its Christian Right allies are the sole defenders of marriage.

Focus notes that an antigay coalition presumes to “educate the public about the societal benefits of marriage and the liberal-led attacks to redefine it” during Marriage Protection Week, Oct. 12-19.

But the public already appreciates the societal benefits of marriage, perhaps more so than Focus on the Family. And it is not “liberals,” “conservatives” or homosexuals who have undermined or redefined marriage, either now or numerous other times in the past several centuries.

The coalition misstates both the goal and the effect of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which would permit conservative judges to undemocratically abolish domestic partnerships in every state and make it difficult for private companies to provide any benefits to the unmarried partners or extended family members of employees.

Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission within the Southern Baptist Convention, is quoted mocking the Christian marriages of gays performed in tolerant churches and in Canada. He also ridicules the “activist judges” who uphold freedom of religion for all (not merely for the Christian Right).

“I really believe this is the poster-child issue for whether or not we can turn back the tide of neo-paganism
in this country,” Land said. “The only way that we’re going to be able to stop that is through a Federal
Marriage Amendment.”

Land once again falsely equates expressions of marriage, other than Christian Rightist ones, with an undefined and undocumented “neo-paganism.” Even if such a thing existed, it is apparent Land does not respect the faith’s Constitutional right to co-exist with all of America’s other faiths.

One wonders why Exodus chairman Mike Haley participates in such mockery of Americans, their faiths, and their families. Whatever the reason, it is not merely a desire to lovingly and truthfully encourage homosexuals to become heterosexual.

This afternoon, Concerned Women for America removed from its web site an article, discussed at XGW here, that described a gay Canadian couple as “domestic terrorists” for attempting to cross the U.S. border as a couple.

Google has a cached copy of the CWFA article.

Here is the complete text of the article:

Homosexuals Pose New Threat to U.S. Border Security
9/24/2003
By James Kimball

Canadian homosexual couple fails to cross Canadian-U.S. border as a “family.”

For years now, many have feared that lax border security would allow terrorists to easily enter the United States from Canada. However, U.S. Customs officials at Pearson International Airport in Canada were able to stop the latest pair of “domestic terrorists.” Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell attempted to enter the United States Thursday as a married couple, filing a joint form, when they were informed by a U.S. Customs official that they would have to file individual forms.

Claiming a human rights violation, the two men decided not to continue on their trip rather than comply with U.S. law. “We certainly could not enter the United States in good conscience as singles, hiding behind forms,” said Bourassa to the Associated Press (AP). “We’re looking for the recognition of equal marriage abroad.” Bourassa, who claims that on three other occasions last year he and his partner had entered the United States using joint forms, works as a full-time activist for same-sex marriage and was headed to Braselton, Georgia, to speak at a conference.

Beth Poisson, press attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa, told the AP that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as a union between “one man and one woman as husband and wife,” is the law of the land, and, “The Customs officers were upholding U.S. law.”

This latest story is only a small part of the larger effort by many radical activist groups to force their harmful homosexual marriage agenda on the United States. Numerous medical studies link homosexual sex to severely increased risks of AIDS, hepatitis A, B, and C, syphilis, gonorrhea, substance abuse, domestic violence and emotional, psychological and social consequences.

“Given what we have learned about the dangers of sex outside marriage, why aren’t we talking about how to roll back the depredations of the sexual revolution instead of how to institutionalize them?” asked Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women for America’s Culture and Family Institute. “Why aren’t we treating homosexuality as preventable and treatable, which it surely is?”

While homosexual marriage gained legal status in many provinces of Canada, it has not fared so well in the United States, where the federal government and a majority of the states have passed DOMAs. However, many conservative family groups are concerned that provisions found in many state DOMAs preserve marriage only in name, while allowing same-sex couples to gain all the legal benefits of marriage.

In the meantime, Canada’s most celebrated homosexual couple plans to attend their human rights conference via video conference, leaving their lawyer to sort out the details of their border dispute. “We can’t force the U.S. to change its laws on same-sex marriage,” said Doug Elliott, the couple’s lawyer. “But we can insist that … Canadian law regarding family recognition gets respected.”

James Kimball, an intern at Concerned Women for America, attends Patrick Henry College in Virginia.

One suspects that Mr. Kimball’s days at CWFA are numbered, but it might be more prudent for CWFA to fire the manager who neglected to monitor a CWFA intern or who approved the article for release.

Addendum: Natalie Davis of All Facts and Opinions comments further.

Is it terrorism when a gay couple from Canada wishes simply to cross the border as a couple?

Concerned Women for America now labels them “domestic terrorists.”

CWFA appears to have stooped to a new low in the trivialization of terrorism.

However, a Google search finds countless examples of isolated gay or antigay threats of violence being counted as “terroristic.”

For example, on Sept. 2, Exodus described angry gay individuals’ death threats against Dr. Laura as “terrorist.”

At a glance, none of the examples found by Google seem (to me) nearly as trivial as CWFA’s desperate rant against gay foreigners.

But until dictionaries — and the public — opt for a more specific definition of “terrorist,” we are likely to see culture warriors continue to exploit and trivialize terrorism.

How long will it be, before the act of waking up is considered a terrorist threat by one’s rivals — or before cash-deprived gay and antigay culture warriors attempt to raid the federal antiterrorism budget?

From a message posted to the Silt blog, and mentioned briefly in comments at XGW some time back:

John Paulk called into Mike Signorile’s radio talk show last week. It was truly amazing radio. Paulk said he was a fan of the show. He went on to make some startling admissions about still fighting gay lust and disagreeing with many on the Christian Right. He even said that the Christian Conservatives need to “admit they don’t love gays and start from there.” He made other comments about when he went to the gay bar in DC and said he felt more comfortable around gay people because they are more understanding, compassionate, intelligent, etc. The way Paulk was going on and on it was like a gay recruitment ad.

I don’t feel sorry for John’s wife, Anne, if John publicly admits experiencing same-sex attraction. So what if he does? I don’t see how that reflects on her, or their marriage. I assume that all marriages experience some degree of external attraction, and that sexual desire within some marriages might be significantly lower than the spouses’ sexual temptations from outside the marriage.

Contrary to the assertions of the Christian Right, marriage is not solely about one penis and one vagina. It’s about building a family.

“Conservative” Christian church leaders occasionally boast that their churches are growing like gangbusters while so-called “liberal” denominations (mainline and orthodox Christian denominations, or any denomination that veers from the given church leader’s ideology) are shriveling due to the non-conservatives’ alleged accommodation with the broader culture.

The Associated Press cites an internal report by the Southern Baptist Convention that finally admits what some mainline churches have known all along: The unbridled growth of conservative churches may be a myth — financially speaking, at least.

Since 1968, donations by Southern Baptists to the church have steadily decreased to just 2.03 percent of their income — far below the 10 percent that some Biblical literalists expect of donors.

The report cites the same reasons for the decline in SBC finances that, until now, conservatives have attributed to the alleged decline in mainline Christianity. One additional factor: The rise of fundamentalists has generated a churlishness toward the denomination’s shared missions program and a refusal among moderate and conservative local churches to support one another’s activities.

Exodus International executed a political stunt in July when it asked an Orlando city councilwoman to proclaim July 21 “Exodus International Day.”

When some Orlando council members — one of whom, Patty Sheehan, was lesbian — protested, Exodus executive director Alan Chambers singled out the lesbian councilwoman and accused her of exploiting the proclamation for political purposes.

The proclamation was indeed an affront to gay Orlando residents, because Mr. Chambers and Exodus national chairman Mike Haley use their positions in Exodus to promote discrimination against gays in employment, housing, and government services, among other categories.

To be sure, Ms. Sheehan’s effort to associate Exodus with the KKK was reckless: The KKK has murdered hundreds, perhaps thousands, of African Americans; Exodus, on the other hand, does not encourage physical violence against gays.

While Ms. Sheehan stoops to namecalling, Mr. Chambers and spokesman Randy Thomas resort to unsubstantiated allegations of their own.

In the past year, Mr. Chambers publicly lobbied the Orlando city government to protect and affirm antigay discrimination as if it were a Christian duty. Now, apparently counting on its readers to be forgetful, Exodus says:

Exodus and our member ministries have never attempted to force people to embrace our opinions. We are here for those who want our help. A few in gay leadership roles are willing to use their influence against us by lying and defaming. They have successfully done so for so long that many of good hearted and well intentioned people in the gay or pro-gay communities basically view rational, intelligent and serious “ex-gays” as cartoons. When in reality most seeking freedom from homosexuality are average people just trying to live a content life under the radar of volatility surrounding this politically over dramatized issue.

As a source of public criticism against Exodus, XGW welcomes the presentation of evidence that we have lied or defamed Exodus.

I believe it is Messrs. Chambers, Haley, and Thomas who have, sadly, made Exodus the subject of political cartoons.

Most ex-gays do just want to live a content life below the public radar. But Exodus’ political activities in support of discrimination, exclusion from church, and selective sex laws make the wish for anonymity futile for those ex-gays who fall victim to Exodus’ own public-policy positions and stereotypes.

XGW recommends that Mr. Chambers stop playing politics with people’s lives. Both he and the Orlando city council should refrain from wasting time and taxpayer money promoting any “Day” other than official holidays.

The Exodus national office displayed a selective respect for freedom of speech and self-determination in its news release for Sept. 16.

Exodus promotes “freedom from homosexuality,” without defining what that means, and it defends freedom of speech — for ex-gay advocates, but not necessarily for gay people of faith.

To be fair, Exodus spokesman Randy Thomas shows respect for Mormons despite pressure from judgmental Christians. So, one naturally wonders, where is the respect for gay people — specifically, their homes, jobs, families, and places of worship?

Mr. Thomas tries to explain his perspective on freedom, but not very successfully:

For some seeking freedom it very well could be internalized homophobia but for most it is the realization that the life promised as defined by “gay” is not fulfilling but rather isolating and in many cases destructive. It’s not a phobia; homosexuality is found by many to be unfulfilling and incongruent with God’s will.

“The life,” singular, is an insulting generalization, and Mr. Thomas neglects to point out that he has redefined “gay” in order to make it fit his understandably unfulfilling profile of compulsive sex, loneliness, separation from God, low self-esteem, rejection from family members, and social contempt. To his credit, however, Mr. Thomas at least admits that homosexuality is not found by “most” or “all” to be unfulfilling or contrary to a faithful walk with God.

Mr. Thomas adds:

The Lord is pleased when we unconditionally seek to equip and minister, rather than bullying or division. As long as we participate with all the cards on the table and at the Lord’s discretion, the Lord will honor the effort.

Hold on a minute: Mr. Thomas omitted several “cards” in the news release. He neglected to remind his audience that Exodus national leaders favor discrimination in employment, housing, government services, and worship. He reminds us of Exodus’ affiliation with PATH but neglects to mention that Exodus and the other PATH member organizations continue to violate PATH’s core principles.

Texas Rangers Gay Day received a modest turnout of gay sports fans — but Concerned Women for America apparently has its cities mixed up: It greets gay sports fans with a Bronx cheer.

CWFA said:

The 8 by 4 foot neon green sign outside the Texas Rangers’ Arlington stadium near Dallas on Sunday night proclaimed the outcome: “Christians 300, ‘Gays’ 200, Jesus wins.”

That was the final score as Christians rallied outside the stadium in protest of what was billed in the media as “Gay Day at The Ballpark.”

Those 300 protesters included members from two local churches on hand to pray and witness and 100 who bused in from Heritage Baptist Church in Mount Enterprise, Texas, 180 miles away.

Despite claims from the Resource Center of Dallas that they would draw 1,000 homosexual baseball fans to Sunday night’s game, the group was able to sell only 200 tickets for the special roped-off section.

“This is a victory,” Rick Warden told CWA’s Culture and Family Institute. “This was a larger victory than simply protesters outnumbering homosexuals.” Warden heads www.protestgayday.com, an organization formed to speak out against the tide of homosexual acceptance.

For all CWFA’s bluster, the antigay turnout amounted to just three inhospitable, not-very-Christian churches possessed by an odd desire to bully gay sports fans.

CWFA neglects to mention that the game received only modest turnout overall — and that many gay sports fans in Dallas-Fort Worth would rather just go and watch the game, not sit in a roped-off section and be jeered at and threatened on TV.

Alliance Defense Fund cited the CWFA article in its Alliance Alert last week, and Exodus International cited it in its Media Synopsis for Sept. 22.

The Exodus synopsis states, “Exodus International, North America (EINA) does NOT support or endorse any of these particular articles unless specifically noted.” Yet Exodus declines to reprint any propaganda from gay-tolerant groups in its Synopses as a matter of policy. And the synopsis for Sept. 22 did not cite any mainstream media coverage of Texas Rangers Gay Days. Based on Exodus selective coverage, I believe it is safe to conclude that Exodus is a bit more sympathetic to CWFA’s inhospitality than toward organizations seeking to advertise the fact that, gasp, some gays like sports.

Other propaganda cited without criticism by Exodus in its “media” synopsis:

AgapePress News Summary (September 19, 2003)
COUNTY HEALTH DEPT. AMONG SPONSORS OF ‘GAY PRIDE’ EVENT
A county health department in Pennsylvania is under fire for sponsoring a homosexual pride celebration. But the department is defending its decision to sponsor the event that many local citizens found offensive.

GUEST COMMENTARY: PRAY FOR CANADA, PRAY FOR U.S.
Radical homosexual activists who demand public approval for their behavior have mounted another significant legal attack on the Dominion of Canada. If you think this has no effect on us here in the United States, think again. Canadian law influences us more than we realize.

Focus on the Family: CitizenLink, September 18, 2003
Senators Endorse Federal Marriage Amendment

TVCNews – TVC’s National Newsletter – Vol. 6, Issue 36 September 19, 2003
San Diego College Group Wants ‘Unisex Restrooms’ on Campus
Summary: The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Student Union (LGBT) at San Diego State University is pushing for unisex restrooms on campus to cater to so-called “transgender” students.

Kansas Attorney Fears Sodomy Case Will Abolish Protection For Children
Summary: An ACLU law suit against a Kansas sodomy law will be used to destroy state laws on marriage and children, says the Kansas Attorney General.

Lawyers Seek To Abolish Laws Against Teen Sex
Summary: A Wisconsin lawyer defending a 14-year-old boy charged with having sex with a 14-year-old girl is arguing that children have privacy rights that should be respected.

Canada On Verge Of Criminalizing Bible As ‘Hate Speech’
Summary: Legislation passed on September 17, 2003 in Canada will add “sexual orientation” to the nation’s genocide and hate crimes legislation. This new law will be used by homosexuals to suppress religious freedom.

WorldNetDaily, Art Moore, 9/18/2003
Canada: Bible as Hate Speech Measure Passes

XGW recommends:

1. that Exodus separate the antigay propaganda from its so-called “media” synopses, and place the propaganda in a separate “Paranoia Synopsis”;

2. that if Exodus does not share a fanatical organization’s viewpoint on, say, optional unisex restrooms, then it should say so — or else balance the organization’s propaganda with propaganda from opposing sides.

As for CWFA, we respectfully recommend that Robert Knight purchase a copy of “Good Sportsmanship for Dummies.”

Anti-gay-marriage advocates commonly portray marriage as unitary and monolithic, capable of being nullified if stretched too far. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), for example, describes it as:

faithful, exclusive, and lifelong… intimate partnership of life and love… a living image of the way in which the Lord personally loves his people… a relationship of persons and an institution in society… a unique, essential relationship and institution…

If the real-life experience of couples preparing for it are any indication, though, it defies stereotypes.

Pastor Richard Seim, of Trinity Baptist Church in Renton, WA told the Seattle Times:

The vast majority of couples he marries — as many as four out of five, he said — have committed to do nothing physical besides kiss and hold hands before their weddings. About one-third kiss for the first time at the altar, he said. And when he gave his own daughter away at her wedding, he felt sure he was placing her hand into her husband-to-be’s for the first time ever.

Jill Merry and Adrian Burwell, parishioners at Seim’s church, were profiled in the article:

They got engaged in May. But the first time they kiss will be Aug. 16 — at the altar, in front of more than 600 people.

For the couple, who met at a Southern Baptist evangelical church in Renton, not kissing, not hugging and not having sex before they are married is an avowal of purity.

From another perspective, Marshall Milller relates:

This weekend, D and I attended the Exeter, Rhode Island wedding of our friends M and D (no relation), and last weekend we were in Denver for the wedding of T and E. Two great couples, two fun weddings. I am biased, of course, but I can’t help but think as these couples walk down the aisle that they seem so right for each other in part because they know they are– they’ve already been living together for nine years and four years, respectively. It seems so clear that more years of happiness will surely follow.

Miller and his partner Dorian Solot, co-founders of the Alternatives to Marriage Project, offer Ten Ways To Improve Your Chances for a Good Marriage After Cohabitation.

At the bottom of this page they note that studies have shown that over 70% of straight cohabiting couples plan to get married, and here they mention that 55% of all cohabiting couples marry within 5 years. In answer to the question of why people live together before marriage, they quote Frank Furstenberg, sociologist at University of Pennsylvania, from Newsweek May 28, 2001:

Paradoxically, more people today value marriage. They take it seriously. That’s why they’re more likely to cohabit. They want to make sure before they take the ultimate step.

Marriage can be everything the USCCB suggests, everything that Jill Merry and Adrian Burwell hope for, everything that Miller and Solot’s newlywed friends expect. And yet for some, it lives up to few of the ideals set by bishops or spouses.

In the end, the primary unifying characteristic of marriage is that, like engagement, it is defined by its participants.

Matthew Limon was convicted of having consensual but criminal sex with a nearly-15-year-old boy when he was 18 and both lived at a group home for the developmentally disabled. He was sentenced to a 17+ year prison term despite a Kansas “Romeo and Juliet” statute — which sharply reduces penalties for sex between a sub-16-year-old and a partner within 4 years of his/her age — because it applies only to opposite-sex activity.

Limon’s case has been returned to the Kansas Court of Appeals in the wake of Lawrence v. Texas, where Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline held a news conference to publicize his arguments in support of Limon’s sentence. As reported by the AP:

Kline said today that if the state loses a sodomy case currently before a state appeals court, Kansas marriage laws and laws against sex with children will be nullified.

Kline said the American Civil Liberties Union is attacking the state’s prohibition of same-sex marriages as well as laws against polygamy, incest, bestiality and sex between adults and children.

The ACLU described his statements as distortions and acts of desperation.

As if oblivious to the ACLU’s specific actions, Kline continues:

“I’ll tell you what: I would be deeply offended if, when my daughter turns 13, she walks out the door to meet her 30-year-old boyfriend, and I say ‘no,” and she says, ‘I’ve got a 1-800 number for the ACLU; it’s my constitutional right,”‘ Kline said. “That’s their argument. They have to live with it.”

In fact, the ACLU isn’t challenging the Kansas law which makes sex between someone under 16 and anyone else a crime. If Kline’s 13-year-old daughter aggressively pursued a 16-year-old boy for sex and got it, the ACLU isn’t impeding his ability to charge the boy with unlawful sexual relations with a sentence of up to 15 months. If the boy was was 4 years and a day older than her, he could get the same 17-year sentence Limon got.

It’s enough to leave a person thinking that Kline is employing the same strategy that Al Franken ascribes to right-wing media (parenthesized examples mine):

They “concoct an inflammatory story that serves their political goals.” (The ACLU is pro-child-sex.) “They repeat it.” (The ACLU wants my 13-year-old to have sex with 30-somethings!) “They embellish it.” (Will the ACLU stop at incest? Polygamy? Bestiality?) “They try to push it into the mainstream media.”

Early headlines about Kline in mainstream Kansas news outlets emphasized Kline’s fears; their focus seemed to shift to conflicting claims by him and the ACLU:

• KCTV5 News, Kansas City MO and Dodge City Daily Globe:
  Kline Says Marriage, Consent Laws in Danger; ACLU Disputes Claim
  (Earlier headline at KCTV5: “Kline: KS Marriage Laws Could be in Danger”)
• Topeka Capital-Journal:
  Kline: Kansas marriage laws could be in danger
  (Headline later changed to “Kline, ACLU dispute marriage, consent laws”)

Phill Kline may not be an inflammatory fear-monger, but he seemed to relish that role yesterday.