For the past few decades conservative evangelical leaders have become increasingly focused on politics. And while there are some from this branch of Christianity are starting to question why the election of politicians should take priority over feeding the hungry or caring for the sick, the ex-gay movement remains at the forefront of anti-gay political activism.
This is currently being demonstrated by anti-gay religious activists in New Jersey. They are not happy that the Supreme Court of that state determined that their constitution requires that rights and benefits cannot be denied to citizens based solely on their sexual orientation. The Court stated that the legislature devise a scheme – either marriage or by another name – that would allow same-sex coupled citizens the same access to the protections and requirements of the government as opposite-sex coupled citizens.
Opposition to civil rights or civil equality for gay people is supposedly based on the idea that many evangelicals view gay people as willful sinners.
However, there is no logical reason why gay sinners should have less rights than Tony Soprano (or any other philandering non-fictional heterosexuals). But the culture war mentality of many conservative evangelicals requires that gays and lesbians be viewed as enemies of Christianity. So churches in New Jersey have banded together to decry the court’s decision and to raise as much dissent and discord as possible.
This is not – as anti-gay activists like to claim – an attack on Christian faith or on religious individuals or institutions.
…several major faith groups have backed gay marriage, including the Episcopal Diocese of Newark, the Union for Reform Judaism, the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Association. About 251 clergy members signed a petition in favor of gay marriage.
Newark Episcopal Bishop John P. Croneberger said the court didn’t go far enough.
“In my view, the marriage of two men or two women in no way diminishes the marriage of one man and one woman,” Croneberger said in a statement. “I pray that one day all of God’s people could have the opportunity to name as well as claim the benefits of marriage.”
All sides agree that there is little to no chance of an anti-gay constitutional amendment getting much traction in the state. Polls indicate that civil unions have significant support and by the time such an amendment could be initiated they will already be well established. Nonetheless they will do what they can to stir up anti-gay animus. And Focus on the Family has pledged support.
As reported by NorthJersey.com, their tool of choice for getting out the anti-gay message is ex-gay Greg Quinlan.
Several area churches recently hosted Greg Quinlan, an Ohio-based conservative activist and self-described former homosexual.
“My mission is to explain that homosexuality is a changeable behavior,” Quinlan said in an interview. “It shouldn’t be the policy of the state to enable a changeable behavior.”
Quinlan is a lobbyist through his Pro-Family Network (which seems to be Greg’s personal show) and one of the more extreme anti-gay ex-gays and has made claims that go far beyond reason. He also was featured on Dr. Throckmorton’s video I Do Exist.
It is not possible for Quinlan to actually believe the things he claims. One of his more hateful screeds includes:
There is quantitative scientific research on the subject and thousands of individual case studies that proves that persons with homosexual ideation’s can and have changed through clinical therapy and counseling. There is no biologic evidence, not one repeatable study, not a single genetic test that gives any validity to homosexual behavior as a “born” trait. Homosexuality is a emotional disorder, a pathology that can be effectively changed.
Well, it hardly needs to be said, but:
* There is not quantitative (or qualitative) scientific research on reorientation that has ever proved that all persons (as he implies) can change their orientation through any manner. That’s simply a false statement.
* There is much scientific evidence that orientation is impacted by biology. That’s simply a false statement.
* No mental health organization (not even NARTH) claims that homosexuality is a pathology. That’s simply a false statement.
Earlier this fall, Quinlan put himself under the guidance of his “master”… Stephen Bennett and went to Jerusalem with him on an “evangelical outreach” to protest Jerusalem WorldPride in August.
Quinlan is not a good man or a nice man. He claims that his reorientation was due to his Christianity, but his “witness” appeals only to the hateful and extreme (he favors the enforcement of sodomy laws) or to the vicious (see his catty exchange).
Sadly, Quinlan is not an exception. It seems that the only remaining public function of Exodus and other ex-gays is their role as the face of anti-gay activism. They have sacrificed any message of compassion or care on the alter of partisan politics.
Isn’t Richard Cohen of the tennis racquet fame?
I don’t want to go too far on the tennis racquet tangent, but I don’t think anybody has swung a racquet as many times as Martina Navratilova. She is still a lesbian. The only thing it did for her was turn her into a champion.
sorry guys, momentary brain fart
I removed the incorrect reference
Timothy: I know nothing of Quinlan nor his past encounters with Besen, however from reading the exchange the latter looked more “catty” to me than the former did. Perhaps there was more to that wasn’t in the link, but from what I saw Besen came across negatively.
It just sounded like an old-fashioned cat fight to me. Too many tieras on all involved. And Quinlan was the first to get hissy with “…what qualifies you…”
John:
It sounds like both of them got out of line, both making comments about someone “appearing” homosexual, etc. However, that’s banter between people who really don’t like each other at all and could have been much worse. Quinlan, however, not only starts the real tirade but makes a genuinely telling comment when he said:
When you were on MSNBC you failed miserably in your attempts to justify your existence as a homosexual. [emphasis mine]
Or so it seems to me.
Eh, maybe Quinlan did start the apparently inevitable ball a-rollin’ but it seemed to me reading the exchange that Besen went immediately personal after the former sniped at his credentials. It would have been far classier to either ignore Quinlan’s remark or respond in kind concerning his own credentials rather than go straight to the personal attacks. Heck, for all I know Besen is right about Quinlan sneaking out to gay bars, or maybe not. Not very relevant without more context. All I know is I certainly wouldn’t put up such an exchange where I looked just as much if not more of an ass as the person I was criticizing. Well unless I was giving a mea culpa I suppose. I presume there is more history between the two which led to this exchange but the emails themselves are nothing to be proud of for either man (not that I’m perfect myself, far from it).
John, I don’t think Timothy is making a comment about Besen one way or the other. Even if you wish to see Besen as catty and vicious in that exchange, it doesn’t change what Timothy said and for support of which he posted the link, i.e. Quinlin claims to be a Christian and uses that as a basis for his alleged change but his actions and comments are not in line with that assertion.
Quinlin’s comments about how Wayne didn’t properly “justify [his] existence as a homosexual” are, for me, the most important tell in the entire thing.
1) The “bad blood” between Quinlan and I started in 1998. Quinlan falsely claimed that he was part of HRC when he was not. I called him out on it and he got angry.
2) My exchange with Quinlan was for the intent of shaking him up to get important information for the GLBT movement. It is a technique I have used many times and it works. I got what I needed and it helped us against a right wing campaign. This is a battle, not a ballet and at times we must get tough. No apologies.
3) Quinlan, in my view, is quite disturbed and has issues with the truth.
Regarding the claim that NARTH does not regard homosexuality as a pathology: if you read Nicolosi’s pathetic text “Reparative Therapy …..”
he states in the very first sentence that all of the pioneers of psychiatry, Freud, Jung, and Adler regarded homosexuality as a pathology, – which is complete hogwash. The rest of the book carries on as if it was a pathology.
Don
Wayne,
Thanks for clarifying.
Quinlan still claims that he “started an HRCF branch in Dayton”. I would LOVE to have an official response that either refutes his claim outright or shows his wild exageration.
By the way, I love that Quinlan is the one who posted the exchange on the net. It always amuses me when “ex-gays” go into stereotypical queeny bitchy behavior. Isn’t that what they are supposed to have found freedom from?
And I’m with David on how this exchange clearly shows Quinlan’s dark hateful side.
There’s a place for evenhanded debate and documented assertions, and there’s a place for snarkiness.
Timothy Kincaid and his fellow contributors are always fair and polite. I love Wayne but I especially love Wayne when he’s at his snarkiest.
As it happens, I lived in Dayton, Ohio, through the mid-1980s. There was no HRC or HRCF branch office there then — and no reason to form one.
But one cannot prove that something does not exist, only that it does exist.
So ultimately, it is Quinlan’s responsibility and moral obligation to prove his claims — or else to admit his attempt at deception and to repent of his sin.
Moreover, it is a moral obligation of the religious-right media who reprint Quinlan’s claims (or the claims of anyone else) to require proof. If Quinlan cannot prove his claim, then it is a moral responsibility of those media to tell their audience the full truth — that Quinlan bases his ministry upon false claims and non-existent credentials.
So ultimately, it is Quinlan’s responsibility and moral obligation to prove his claims
Yes, true. But I’d still love to post a letter from HRC saying “we’ve checked our board minutes and we have never had a Dayton branch” or something like that (they haven’t responded yet).
I just somehow doubt that HRC ever opened a branch in Dayton (no offense, Daytonians) or that if they did they ever put Greg Quinlan in charge. (Does HRC even have “branches”?) He probably raised a few dollars and passed out some pamphlets and has pumped that up into “started a branch”. But I’d love to know for certain.
Timothy,
Wayne Besen was working for HRC in 1998 and so I gather Wayne’s response at that time was the official response of HRC. Are you asking for a transcript of the 1998 discussion?
Good point.
From Wayne Besen, July 2006:
Even if you wish to see Besen as catty and vicious in that exchange, it doesn’t change what Timothy said and for support of which he posted the link, i.e. Quinlin claims to be a Christian and uses that as a basis for his alleged change but his actions and comments are not in line with that assertion.
There are many people here who hold to the Christian faith and I doubt any of them would be able to say that they have always acted and spoke in ways that would make Christ ‘proud’.
Quinlin’s comments about how Wayne didn’t properly “justify [his] existence as a homosexual” are, for me, the most important tell in the entire thing.
Well of course, he was speaking with the jawbone of an ass.
The “bad blood” between Quinlan and I started in 1998. Quinlan falsely claimed that he was part of HRC when he was not. I called him out on it and he got angry.
Ok, so there IS some history behind this. I had a feeling reading the exchange, but it still isn’t something to be proud of. I dunno, perhaps if he more along the lines of Phelps but I digress…
My exchange with Quinlan was for the intent of shaking him up to get important information for the GLBT movement. It is a technique I have used many times and it works. I got what I needed and it helped us against a right wing campaign. This is a battle, not a ballet and at times we must get tough. No apologies.
Oh there is some precedence for rattling one’s opponents, for example St. Paul in Galatians 5:12 or just about any of St. Jerome’s amusingly snarky writings. Yet I have to wonder that when we engage in such tactics so much for the “cause” whether we lose perspective, deny the human dignity everyone of us has as a child of God, and 1 Peter 3:15-18. A lot of the exchanges between ‘pro-gay’ and ‘anti-gay’ sides is hardly in keeping with the Gospel. I dunno, I’m not trying to preach after all I certainly fail quite a number of times and Emily Post I am not. I’d just like to see some of the personal exchanges ratcheted down a bit.
From Wayne Besen, July 2006:
I must admit, bald-faced lies do deserve some measure of snarkiness.