Ex-Gay Watch

The faith-based, gay-affirming organization Soulforce is gearing up for a May 1 vigil at Focus on the Family headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colo.

Soulforce contends that Focus on the Family resorts to numerous untruths against gay and lesbian people and their families. Soulforce has created deardrdobson.com to advocate nonviolent opposition to James Dobson’s antigay bigotry.

Soulforce invites concerned people of faith to travel to Colorado Springs and join in the vigil.

A few weeks back, I got fed up with Scattered Words’ repeated insertion of duplicate trackbacks, or links to Scattered Words, into pages at Ex-Gay Watch.

I eventually went back and deleted Scattered Words’ old link insertions on XGW pages. I also blocked Scattered Words from posting new links, and last week I complained to SW blogger "Ben."

As readers will see from the linked discussion, I indicated to "Ben" that his duplicate link insertions were unwelcome. But if he had any objections to Ex-Gay Watch posts, I said, he was welcome to comment on-site at XGW.

Instead of responding constructively, "Ben" retorted smugly that "smart website owners" switch from TypePad to a blog host that is capable of blocking his buggy duplicates.

Instead of overhauling Ex-Gay Watch for the sole purpose of blocking Ben’s inept linking, I have unblocked Ben’s trackback spam for the time being. This not only will permit XGW readers to decide whether "Ben" is a capable and responsible user of the trackback feature of blogging, but also will allow readers to determine whether Ben’s frequent criticisms of XGW are rooted in balanced, comprehensive analysis and sound logic — or counterproductive cynicism and the isolated potshot.

In a Feb. 15 American Family Association article that is reprinted as a Feb. 18 press release, exgay umbrella group Exodus accuses unnamed "homosexual activists" of intolerance toward Focus on the Family’s "Love Won Out" exgay road show this weekend.

Chambers quotes no actual gay activists; instead, Chambers offers strawman arguments, claiming that unidentified gay people view Focus on the Family’s ideology as "hateful" and alleging that "many people involved in or supportive of the homosexual lifestyle don’t want the truth to be told."

But Chambers offers no evidence of an effort to obstruct the event. He seems unable distinguish between repressive intolerance — what Exodus practices when it promotes discrimination and opposes free speech for tolerance advocates in the schools — and principled public disagreement, which is what the Houston Voice reports finding among pro-tolerance advocates protesting "Love Won Out."

It turns out that many of the "homosexual activists" are Christian church-goers. Far from obstructing the event, many of them plan to quietly engage event attendees in discussion about moral alternatives to exgay ideology, while others will stand peacefully at a distance.

Chambers claims in the article to have left "the homosexual lifestyle" in 1991. But his lifestyle wasn’t "the" homosexual lifestyle back then, nor does Chambers live a heterosexually charged lifestyle now — his marriage, unfortunately, is infertile, and awaiting an adopted girl.

According to the Houston Chronicle, Focus on the Family spokesman Christopher Norfleet believes the conference will help teach people "to interact with the gay community." But Chambers’ rant suggests that Exodus is a poor resource for constructive communication. And activist Ray Hill asserts that the event instead drives an unnecessary wedge between gay people and the conservative Christians — mostly antigay parents — who attend "Love Won Out."

Mike Haley, who is both Exodus board chairman and a policy wonk employed by Focus on the Family, says the event simply promotes freedom of choice. But, as it happens, both Exodus and Focus on the Family support legal bans on private homosexual behavior and public discrimination against gay people in housing, employment, and family law. Haley’s idea of "choice," in other words, is the choice to either adopt Focus on the Family’s ideology — or be fired, evicted, and separated from loved ones.

Addendum: Regarding Chambers’ infertility and adoption:

I believe it is Chambers, not I, who made his sex life an issue when he frankly discussed his unsuccessful struggles to conceive last year in Exodus publications — while at the same time Chambers was using the Exodus soapbox to lobby Florida to ban gay adoption.

Given the following:

• Chambers’ public disclosures about infertility,
• his refusal to clearly define "change" (and its scope, or lack thereof),
• his broad insinuations about the "lifestyle" of gay people as a class, and
• his opposition to adoption by any gay individual or couple, no matter their values or qualifications,

I believe that that the procreative capacity of Chambers’ marriage is on-topic, as is his level of sexual arousal during intercourse. To what extent has Chambers "changed" since leaving "the" homosexual lifestyle, and to what extent can his marriage generate the children that he understandably believes are essential to marriage? These are pertinent questions, in my opinion.

Also on-topic: A comparison of the welfare of children raised under intolerant and sexist branches of fundamentalism, with the welfare of children raised in households that are tolerant of religious and sexual differences of opinion. Chambers wants states to ask subjective questions such as this one, when granting adoption. So, by all means, I say, let’s ask the question.

To repeat: It is Chambers who has linked his "lifestyle," his claim to have changed, and his marriage’s procreative capacity to his right to adopt.

At the same time, I realize that I may sound unreasonably harsh or intrusive, and some readers may support a selective right to intrusion — that is, fundamentalists are entitled to intrusive politics but not may not be questioned in return.

I welcome feedback about whether I have been unduly intrusive or rude toward Chambers, and whether it is appropriate to respond to fundamentalist intrusions of others’ privacy with pointed, on-topic questions about the intruder.

A member of Southern gospel singer Kirk Talley’s exgay restoration team sang backup on a song Dolly Parton recorded a few years back, when he worked for her at Dollywood in eastern Tennessee.

Parton has since given that song, Sugar Hill, which appeared on her 2002 project Halos and Horns, to the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign for a Valentine’s Day compilation CD for sale on the HRC website.

Read all about it from Southern gospel music blogger Averyfineline.

There’s no indication that Parton’s backup singers approve of HRC family values — and exgay Melissa Fryrear of Focus on the Family joins the mini-controversy over the CD, warning Christians not to believe tolerance activists when they talk or sing about (gasp) "love" and commitment.

David Fishback, chairman of the Montgomery County (Maryland) Board of Education’s Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development, responds in the Washington area’s new Examiner newspaper to exgay movement claims against the school district’s comprehensive sex-ed curriculum.

The misinformation was reprinted, apparently without fact-checking, in a Feb. 7 Examiner editorial.

Re: "Even Kinsey fans value different ideas" editorial, Feb. 7.

Welcome to Washington. It’s good to have another newspaper in the area. But before characterizing the actions of local governments, it’s essential The Examiner check the facts — not simply rely on press reports or Internet blogs.

Unfortunately, the editorial does not meet this standard when it states that when the Montgomery County School Board decided "to add a new pilot program on sexual identity," it concluded that "a how-to video and discussion of fruit-flavored condoms published by gay activist groups was OK."

This appears to refer to a condom demonstration video prepared by school staff for use in 10th-grade health classes at the request of the board and health ed teachers who concluded that lack of information on correct condom use was leading to unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections.

The video, which repeatedly stresses that abstinence is the only sure way to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, makes no mention whatsoever of "fruit-flavored condoms." A commercially produced video on birth control (which also stressed the risks involved in sexual activity) that did briefly mention such condoms has not been approved.

The condom video that was approved is separate from the proposed health curriculum revisions, which mention some basic facts on sexual orientation for the first time. Neither video was "published by gay activist groups."

The further suggestion that the absence of "ex-gay" materials in the health curriculum was a bad idea also misses the mark. The proposed revisions simply present the conclusions of every mainstream American medical and mental health professional association that homosexuality is not an illness — and most experts do not believe it is a choice.

Since an underlying premise of "ex-gay" advocacy groups is that homosexuality is a disease that can and should be "cured" — a proposition mainstream science does not accept — it would be improper to present it in MCPS’s fact-based health curriculum.

It would be horrific and dishonest to tell students who may be gay that they are diseased. Yet insertion of "ex-gay" materials in the curriculum would do just that.

Another underlying premise of "ex-gay" groups is that all homosexual activity is sinful, even among committed adult couples. Some religious denominations accept this view; others vigorously reject it. But such theological debates have no place in a public school health curriculum.

Antigay aggrieved-parents group PFOX and pro-exgay pundit Warren
Throckmorton (PDF file) are among those assisting in a religious-right recall
effort against the school board for approving an abstinence-plus
curriculum. Local residents are mounting a counter-campaign to defend the board and the district’s sex-education program.

Allan Johnson wrote to Ex-Gay Watch with an update to the original post that appeared on this page. I have deleted the earlier comments, simply because they were based on older information.

Allan Johnson is working on a documentary series entitled "Thirty Days" with Morgan Spurlock, the producer/writer/star of "Super Size Me," which is currently nominated for an Oscar. The project also includes R.J. Cutler, who won an Oscar for his documentary, "The War Room."

For one segment of the documentary, Johnson seeks pairs of brothers — one brother gay, the other antigay. The intent is to move the antigay brother into a living situation with a homosexual roommate for 30 days.

Earlier, the documentary had sought an antigay father and gay son. At the time, Johnson said, "We have no specific expectations in reference to the homophobia of the father, nor do we intend to disrespect or discredit the views of him. We simply wish to explore whether any common ground can be discovered and see whether or not it can’t lead to a changed relationship betwen the father and his homosexual son. The father’s act would be an attempt on his part to reach out to his son despite his own personal beliefs."

The same underlying goal applies to the pair of brothers.

While a press release about "30 Days" was copied here last autumn at a reality-TV site, the intent is not a "reality TV" approach but rather a documentary by award-winning producers.

Persons who know of brothers divided in both belief and identity regarding sexual orientation, who might be interested in participating, may contact Johnson at (310) 202-1272 ext. 160 or via e-mail.

Demanding free speech for themselves, antigay parents in inland California on Feb. 11 angrily protested free expression by high school students who chose to support gay marriage by acting out such ceremonies as a form of political protest.

While many may view the students’ tactic as counterproductive, it is arguably less offensive — and more solidly protected as a form of free speech — than Michael Marcavage’s efforts to shout down speakers and disrupt celebrations at a gay entertainment festival in Philadelphia.

Years ago, Exodus official Randy Thomas might have counseled such parents to reflect the love and compassion of Jesus instead of anger, contempt and rejection. No longer: Now an antitolerance advocate, Thomas follows the example of the California parents in his blog.

Thomas joins fellow blogger Peter Ould in accusing moderately gay-tolerant Canadian Anglican church authorities of being in "denial" about inclusivity, after the officials rejected ex-gay efforts to inject off-topic remarks into a discussion about same-sex blessings. Thomas should be more careful with such accusations: His blog entry seems to be in denial about his church’s exclusion of gay believers in Jesus.

Should ex-gays have a voice — one among many — in the churches? Certainly.

Are the resentments and word games of ex-gay activists like Thomas pertinent in the lives and blessings of Christian gay couples — particularly when Thomas has expressed a desire to silence openly gay believers within the church? Perhaps not.

Thomas, Ould, Prof. Warren Throckmorton, and others are understandably upset when people tell them to "shut up." Unfortunately, Thomas has in recent years developed the unflattering habit of telling "liberals," "elites" and Christian gay couples to do just that.

In an interview with Marvin Olasky for World magazine, longtime exgay movement pundit Dr. Jeffrey Satinover argues that because:

1. homosexuality is not a uniform attribute across individuals,
2. sexual attraction fluctuates, and
3. homosexuality cannot easily be measured

therefore sexual orientation is a fiction and it is, Satinover argues, ludicrous to allow civil rights for a group of people whose condition does not exist.

Satinover asserts that some homosexuals’ attractions drift in a heterosexual direction, but does not acknowledge that the opposite also happens.

Satinover also injects his own political biases into a recollection of the American Psychiatric Association, and accuses the professional community of rampant corruption because it tolerates gay people:

The mental-health organizations have submitted briefs to courts at
every level, and have profoundly corrupted our understanding of human
sexuality tacitly via their general influence. They influence judges’
understanding before they become judges so that when a man or woman
becomes a judge he is, for all purposes, an ignoramus with respect to
homosexuality, full to the brim with sentimental platitudes.

Satinover illogically assumes that heterosexuality is "stable" whereas homosexuality is not; all homosexual persons are called "broken," while heterosexuals are not.

Considering the inflammatory tone of Satinover’s remarks about clinical professionals and the rights of gay Americans, the ensuing discussion on World magazine’s blog is remarkably civil.

(Hat tip: Dan Gonzales)

Some 69 times, the web site of exgay movement marketer and financier Focus on the Family promotes antigay politician and commentator Alan Keyes.

So did this cached page from exgay activist Stephen’s Bennett’s web site — until someone very recently deleted the page.

And Keyes was the keynote speaker for the 1999 conference of aggrieved-parents group PFOX.

Yesterday The Washington Post confirmed that Keyes and his wife have kicked 19-year-old daughter Maya out of the house, denied her support for college, and stopped talking with her, due in part to Maya’s decision to be publicly honest about her sexual orientation.

Money quote by Maya, who shares some of her father’s conservatism:

"They say most parents would be thrilled to have a child who doesn’t
smoke, have sex, do drugs, hardly drinks…, does well in school,
gets good grades, gets into the Ivy League…, goes regularly to
church, spends free time mentoring kids."

Alan Keyes and his wife apparently disagree.

Will either Focus on the Family or PFOX publicly urge Alan Keyes to set a better example? Or will they respond with the same silence that has followed news about PFOX president Richard Cohen’s lapses in professional conduct?

Uniform Hate Crime Statistics Are Not So Uniform

By Jim Burroway
Updated version, March 29, 2005 

"Gay-slaying verdict: guilty."

This was the top story on the Jan. 28 front page of the Arizona
Daily Star. It was good to see another blow for justice, and it
makes me proud to live in a community that takes these things seriously.

□■□

Anti-gay activists are eager to point to the FBI’s annual
Hate Crime Statistics as evidence that gays and lesbians are not particularly "oppressed"
compared to anybody else. But as is always the case in such contentions, there
is more to the story than meets the eye.

Federal law requires that the FBI solicit quarterly hate
crime statistics from local law enforcement agencies, which the FBI compiles and
releases in annual reports. The categories for which the FBI is responsible for
tracking include race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity and disability.
Congress requires the FBI to track sexual orientation even though there are no
provisions in federal law for prosecuting hate crimes based on sexual
orientation. So at least on a federal level, this exercise is purely
informational as far as sexual orientation is concerned.

The most recent report for 2003 was released last November (PDF: 14MB/166 pages). The breakdown
of hate crime incidents by category for all states looks like this:

Keep in mind that each incident may include more than one
crime. For example, an attack against two victims constitutes two crimes but
may be counted as one incident. A rape and assault against one victim would
count as two crimes against one victim, yet is counted as only one incident.
There were a total of 8,715 individual hate crimes reported for 2003.

In this ranking, sexual orientation was the third largest
category for reported hate crime incidents. But on closer look, it quickly becomes
apparent that this report doesn’t tell the full story.

When Congress directed the FBI to collect hate crime
statistics in 1990, they neglected to make it compulsory for local law
enforcement agencies to report hate crimes to the FBI. This means that local
participation in the data collection and reporting is completely voluntary and uncompensated.
Consequently, a number of jurisdictions did not file reports for all four
quarters and data from Hawaii missing altogether. Furthermore, only 16.5% of those
law enforcement agencies which did participate reported any hate crime activity.

To add further confusion to the mix, state laws are not consistent
in hate crime categories and definitions. According to the Anti-Defamation
League, only thirty states provide any sort of penalty (civil
or criminal) for crimes based on sexual orientation. Furthermore, only fourteen
states require the collection of hate crime statistics for sexual orientation.
Interestingly, Maryland and Michigan require jurisdictions to collect hate
crime statistics based on sexual orientation despite the fact that their state
laws do not provide for penalties based on sexual orientation — a
situation which mirrors federal law.

So it’s fair to ask: does the absence of a requirement or
penalty at the state level influence participating law enforcement agencies’
reports to the FBI at the federal level? After all, if there are no additional civil
or criminal penalties attached to a crime based on sexual orientation, where is
the impetus to perform the extra detective work needed to determine whether a crime
was a hate crime solely for the sake of compiling statistics for the FBI? And
if state law does not require tracking of hate crimes based on sexual
orientation, how much care is taken in keeping records for a voluntary federal
program?

When I examined the FBI’s 2003 statistics and excluded those
states which 1) do not have any penalties for hate crimes based on sexual
orientation and 2) do not require reporting statistics based on
sexual orientation at the state level, the data for the twelve remaining states
[1] look very different from the national aggregate.

Compare this to the nineteen states [2] which neither 1) provide
penalties for crimes based on sexual orientation nor 2) require their reporting
at the state level:

Note the wide divergence of the sexual orientation category data
from the national aggregate. It is clear that state requirements have a
dramatic affect in reporting hate crimes based on sexual orientation at the
federal level. States which criminalize bias crimes based on sexual orientation
and require reporting of the data at the state level are much more likely to
report a hate crime at the federal level. Where states don’t have such laws in
place, many agencies may simply overlook evidence that a crime is a hate crime
when there is no prosecutorial imperative to prove it as such.

There are many other reasons to cast a suspicious eye on the
national Hate Crime Statistics. The Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines (PDF: 71KB/27 Pages)
states on page 10 that the 1930s-era Summary Reporting System (the system used
by most states use to report overall crime statistics to the FBI) only requires
reporting of property crime (vandalism, arson, etc) after an arrest is made. The
guidelines caution jurisdictions that for reporting hate crimes, they are to go
ahead and report it regardless of whether an arrest is made. It is impossible
to know how many law enforcement agencies are careful enough to note this
difference in reporting requirements between ordinary crimes and hate crimes.
This may not only impact reports of crimes based on sexual orientation, but
religion as well. Many synagogues and mosques, like gay and lesbian
organizations and businesses, suffer graffiti, broken windows and other
property damage for which no arrest is ever made.

Finally, many communities are loathe to be associated with
hate crimes. There is tremendous economic, social, and political pressure to
avoid the stigma, especially in areas where such reporting can be particularly
sensitive due to historical circumstances. Alabama and Mississippi only
reported a single hate crime incident each for all of 2003. Meanwhile North
Dakota, the least populous state with the nation’s lowest crime rate — a
quarter of Alabama’s and Mississippi’s overall crime rate — managed to come up
with 18 incidents. This is despite the fact that North Dakota, like Alabama and
Mississippi, has no hate crime laws on the books for sexual orientation.

It often only takes a missing wallet for police to classify
a crime as an ordinary robbery and assault rather than a gay bashing,
regardless of the threats and epithets used during the crime.

Conservatives accuse GLBT anti-violence activists of
inflating their numbers whenever they report hate crime statistics higher than
the FBI’s. But given the deficiencies of the FBI’s own data, it is clear that
the true story behind the official statistics is worse than we know. How much
worse, no one can say.

NOTES:

1. According to the Anti-Defamation League,
states which provide penalties and require reporting based on
sexual orientation as of 2003) are: Arizona, California, Connecticut, District
of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Texas,
Washington.

2. According to the Anti-Defamation League,
states which do not provide for penalties and do not require
reporting based on sexual orientation as of 2003) are: Alabama, Alaska,
Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah,
Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming.

— Jim Burroway