Exodus Vice President Randy Thomas Links Civil Rights for Gays to Wealth
Gays are too wealthy and successful to be discriminated against, according to Randy Thomas’ January 14th blog post.
I think everyone deserves the same basic set of civil rights across the board. However, many gay activists proclaim that they deserve special civil rights protections for just about any legislative battle that they pitch. The Civil Rights act of 1964 lays out three criteria for protected class status: [emphasis mine]
1. Immutable Characteristics
2. Proven widespread pattern of discrimination
3. Economic DisenfranchisementHomosexuality is far from proven immutable. There isn’t a proven widespread pattern of discrimination for those who identify as gay either. But the point of this post and [the statistics presented in the post] are proof that not only do those who identify as gay compete for good salaries very well… they get them. The gay identified community is the most prosperous, median salary wise, community in the country.
Believe what you will about what the gay identified community deserves or needs but the truth is that using “civil rights” language is disingenuous in that they do not meet the criteria set forth in The Civil Rights Act. It is not I saying this but the act itself. [emphasis mine]
Another XGW writer and I read through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and could find no such explicit criteria spelled out. However, we wanted to be absolutely certain so we decided to consult a professional concerning Randy’s conclusions on the fine points of Constitutional law. We asked Robert Crook, an attorney based in California (and Senior Associate at his law firm), to provide his opinion as to the legal conclusions set forth in the post. Here is what we were told:
The current version of the Act is found at 42 USCS § 2000e et seq.
Randy is incorrect when he says that the Act “lays out three criteria for protected class status. Quoting from a portion of the Act at 42 USCS §2000e-2:
“Unlawful employment practices
(a) Employer practices. It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer–
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;”
There is no mention of the three “criteria” that Randy states. The “religion” prong, for example, would not fit into any of the criteria if Randy was correct.So where does this “criteria” come from? As you know, as individuals we are protected by the U.S. and State Constitutions, a number of state and federal statutes (including the Voting Rights Act set forth at 42 USCS §1973), and case law interpreting this body of law. “Immutable Characteristics,” “Proven widespread pattern of discrimination,” and “Economic Disenfranchisement” are terms that are used in the large body of case law that analyzes a variety of statutes and codes. They are not specific to any one statute.
Here is the bottom line: There is no Amendment to the Constitution, no case, and no statute that limits civil rights protection to Randy’s three criteria. Civil rights legislation is drafted to be applied broadly in favor of protection, not in limiting it. If Randy’s criteria were true, it would strip away virtually everyone’s civil rights protections.
Mr. Crook also had something to say about Randy’s use of statistics:
Randy is quoting “statistics” from two or more sources, and making conclusions, without citing how the data was obtained. This is flawed methodology. Statistics are only as reliable as the methodology in obtaining the data.
“. . . according to this article using statistics from Rivendell Media and Absolut . . .”
– Randy does not cite what methodology was used in this study, and where the study was taking place. I believe Absolut makes vodka. I imagine that any statistics would be gathered with the intent of selling liquor rather than providing a reputable cross-section of the U.S. population.
“. . . according to US census data . . .”
The census never inquired about sexual orientation, although some have tried to extrapolate data from the most recent census to determine the number of gay households.
Randy also ignores the fact that untold numbers of GLBT persons remain in the closet, petrified of the consequences they might face should they come out – consequences that legally include workplace termination.
In 1998, the Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies issued a joint study entitled “Income Inflation: The Myth of Affluence Among Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Americans,” which was later published in the May 2000 issue of Demography. The study found that gays come from all walks of life, including low economic status, and that discrimination they face on the basis of their orientation has affected this population’s earning power. In addition, the NGLTF’s article on the study presents us with a familiar situation:
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia cited misused market research statistics on gay and lesbian people when he wrote that “high disposable income” gave gay people “disproportionate political power,” and that Colorado voters should be permitted to rein in that power by banning anti-discrimination protections for lesbian, gay and bisexual residents.
Randy, too, misuses market research in an attempt to “reign in the power” gays allegedly have. He also fails to mention that such criteria would automatically disqualify others – people of faith for instance – from civil rights protections.
Let’s take an example with which I am familiar, the Jewish people. According to the National Jewish Population Survey (2000-2001), we have been quite successful as a people in this country and our income is above the median. We are also statistically counted among the more educated Americans. But according to Randy’s logic, any hateful actions taken against us Jews are really just society’s way of keeping us “in check”- we’re too wealthy to really feel it when the “K word” is hurled at us, or when swastikas are spray painted on our family gravestones.
Never mind the fact that there are impoverished Jews – and gays – who don’t have money to make them feel better when they’re put down. In addition, while a case could be made for immutable characteristics in certain Jewish populations, Christian sects most certainly lack this trait. And again, if we follow his argument, Christians like Randy should also be stripped of their protected status as well.
While researching the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Randy’s explicit criteria, the only other document I could find that supported Randy’s view was a pundit piece put out by the Liberty Council’s National Liberty Journal. The piece is entitled, “Homosexual Behavior Should Not Be Accorded Special Protection” by Mathew D. Staver [1]. Is it a coincidence that both Randy and Staver use the same argument to push the same viewpoint on the same topic? Probably not, considering the latter gave this glowing endorsement of the organization in which Randy serves as vice president:
Exodus [International] provides an indisputable voice of reason backed by a chorus of voices whose changed lives. As Exodus celebrates its 30th year of the freedom Conference, its hand of compassion is needed now more ever [sic] before.
For good measure, I looked up “civil rights” in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
the nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially : the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress
The only qualification someone needs to be afforded civil rights protection is to be a United States citizen. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not give new rights to anyone per se. Instead it addressed through law the serious inequities experienced by certain minorities which prevented them from freely and fairly experiencing those rights which our Constitution recognizes as “self evident” and a gift from our Creator.
As someone who, in his own words, does not identify as a homosexual, Randy does not need to be concerned about being denied employment, or being the victim of hate by the non-gay community, or being denied recognition and rights associated with marrying his long-term partner.
The bottom line is that his use of the act is merely a Red Herring. Exodus is no longer primarily a religious organization ministering to those who want help; they are a political powerhouse backed by James Dobson’s Focus on the Family who actively lobby to deny the GLBT population equal standing as citizens. It is in Randy’s best interest to further that cause whenever he can, even if it means distorting the language and intent of the United States Constitution.
[1] We should note that Mathew D. Staver is the same Liberty Counsel attorney who threatend XGW with legal action on behalf of Exodus in 2006.
DM, I asked you something.
Would you mind answering me please or even addressing what I said?
I can think of lots of reasons for him to be angry. All speculation, of course, as I don’t know the man, and don’t wish to.
He’s angry for giving up who he is for he whom he clearly appears not to be. He’s angry because he wants not to be gay but here he is hanging around with a bunch of fags anyway. He’s angry because he’s hanging around iwth a bunch of fags and he’s not enjoying himself. He’s angry because he appears to be lying for a living and that doesn’t seem quite right to him. He’s angry because he is hanging around a bunch of fundamentalist Christians, and they’re no fun to be around. He’s angry because 30 pieces of silver is all Mrs. Dobson is paying him, and isn’t paying him enough. He’s angry because no man will date him because he’s ‘not gay’, and no woman will date him because they can see what they’re getting.
Any or all of these could be true. but it’s not hard to imagine even more.
We wouldn’t need to speculate if Randy Thomas would converse with people, speak plainly, answer questions, and preserve his past writings so that others may link to his historical work.
He does not converse, he dictates.
He does not speak plainly, he parrots political correctness.
He does not answer questions; he deletes them, rewords them, evades them.
He does not preserve his past writings; he deletes blogs several times per year, relocates pages, moves content off-limits, and occasionally blocks incoming traffic.
Randy is frankly incapable of having an honest exchange with anyone, in my experience. Just like with this silly set of “rules” about discrimination, he embarrasses himself every single time he opens his mouth.
That’s why he HAS to erase all his past comments and blogs. It’s a recurring pattern I’ve observed with him over the years. I cannot even begin to count the number of discussion boards he’s created and erased, blogs he’s created and erased or speeches he’s given that he’s had to retract.
I actually do like the guy, having known him for many years, but he is not the most informed person on the planet. Nor is he able to interact with people who don’t view him as some kind of “expert” on being gay. His personal vanity overwhelms his ability to be taken seriously.
Bingo, I see this as well Steve. This would also explain an observation by another party, who said Randy changes considerably when he is in a room full of aspiring ex-gays. That would make him the expert, the wise person in the room who made it through that awful sin and has stories to tell about it.
And who wants to leave evidence of exchanges around where one has had to resort to bullying or just plain nonsense to “win” and take the risk of having those same people see you, not as a wise ex-gay, but a cranky, immature pundit.
He also loves to be the “only gay” in a room full of straight Christians who need an “expert” to tell them how to think. To his credit, he always tells them to embrace their gay neighbors and to not be hateful or to reject their friendship.
But in his position at Exodus, he comes out with silly, uninformed political positions because he forgets he really isn’t an expert on anything.
Steve, Michael and Dave…that’s what I mean. There’s this pathological need for attention. Being the only one in the room, the only one who will validate what those people want to hear.
And not quite being authentic, one way or the other.
Pam and I are not with our husbands any more for different reasons. Talk about broken relationally.
Being heterosexual isn’t all it’s cracked up to be by the ex gay industry. Neither is celibacy…it sucks when you haven’t really had a choice. Any one can have sex for the sake of having sex. That’s not hard.
It’s having a love relationship that matters, with someone that loves you back that’s harder and means something.
So changing from someone that has sex for sex, to someone that has sex for love, can and should be done by a person. Gay or not.
But I think the most important thing here is that finding love is so, so personal. One size DOES’NT fit all.
One can be counseled, but ultimately it’s a surprise to any of us when we realize we’re in love.
I think Steve and Jim are one of the most wonderful couples I know. Who have overcome adversity and are talented guys.
Those of us who have really, REALLY loved someone will recognize it in others.
So it’s unfair for the ex gay industry to judge gay people in the negative regarding the strength and validation being a gay couple CAN give you.
It IS the same as heterosexual couples.
The important thing is being ones self in any relationship. Period.
That’s how you KNOW you’re with the right person.
And I think that speaking as a person with a wealth of gay friends from all over the world, from all walks of life….being ex gay isn’t defined to clearly.
It seems more about who you want to get along with more, rather than who you are.
I just thought of something. I think I mentioned Chad Thompson before. I’ve had long talks with him. And he really didn’t seem to understand how it goes with attraction. The rules of it and what a person really feels when the real thing happens.
I listened to him regarding his expectation of finding a woman and what it’ll mean to be with her.
I kept thinking how naive and uniformed he was, despite all the work he’s done in support of changing homosexual attraction.
I live with two gay men now. We are close friends. One is black, shy, from a church going family in TX. The other is from Riverside, CA…he’s white, charming and artistic as well.
They are both attractive, unaffected. They have the same birthday.
Now, many times when I’m with either of them, we are mistaken for a couple.
I can imagine that a gay man, working his ex gay instructions could have that woman best friend. Who loves him unconditionally, is exceedingly comfortable with him and it could feel like the right situation if you’re a gay man in need of proving to yourself and the community watching you that you’re no longer gay.
And although it’s been a dry spell for me, I’d rather die than come onto or think for a second that no matter how many fine gay men I have in my life, it would be right to play folks like that because of my own needs or assumption of theirs for me.
I’m sure that many ex gays are encouraged and believe they’ve arrived if they have that willing straight spouse or at least opposite sex spouse who is ex gay as well that has become the best friend and confidante.
Whether they know of the former orientation or not.
There IS something sacred and special about having the gay friend who can anticipate all your needs, but doesn’t and won’t sleep with you ‘just to see’ or ‘just to please those who want it to happen’.
There are tremendous insights to be had from the opposite sex, but without all the sexual tension and temptation. It’s a needed education and breather. I have all the benefits of a man in the house, but none of the will he or won’t he speculation.
The honesty between us all is profound and the trust deeper than I had with my own husband.
I think the ex gay industry exploiting such relationships is disgusting and it’s unfair and often, as what happens in platonic heterosexual relationships, having sex destroys the friendship.
Even the squeamish straight women that I know that understand I have close relationships with lesbians can’t fathom how well I get along and how to navigate a really easy situation that’s all about being a woman and orientation doesn’t matter.
Women ARE different in how they emote, communicate and support each other. Sometimes I’ve been the only straight woman in several situations and I get tested on my sensitivity and get asked some interesting questions.
I know it’s about establishing trust.
But it’s being established because I”m not there to judge, control or admonish the lesbian women I’m privileged to hang out with. But if they want to be sure about me, I understand why we are communicating that way.
I’ve seen gay people betrayed as profoundly as my white in laws betrayed me…and a prejudice they didn’t know they had.
So, again I reiterate the issue of honesty and why we have to be authentic to each other. I do not, absolutely do not go around and pretend that I know more about being gay because of my experience, nor to I perpetrate anything other than I have a lot of love in me for all kinds of people.
What the ex gay industry demands is COMPLETE trust and control of a gay life. A real loving friend wouldn’t do that.
A real loving friend would EARN itrust and be trustworthy in return, and that’s really hard to do with someone who says they are ex gay.
As hot as one of my roomies is, his trust is precious to me. And I’m not desperate, nor would I be so undignified as to make ANY man think that I was.
This is why who we sleep with cannot be dictated by the irrational terms put forth by the ex gay industry. Gay folks, and straight folks together aren’t even wired that way.
I see a greater purpose in gay folks being authentic to their identity, we all need to be educated about who our best friends can be, without them having to BE us or sleep with us.
Fair?
Regan: Well said! Authentic friendships are worth gold! yes!
Mike Airhart wrote:
I would throw back the question, has Randy ever been harsh towards us? As for the personal being I am, I find it hard to not be harsh against him for his comments regarding transgenders. He and Mike Ensley are of the same kind, both talks a lot about transgenders, but do not really understand what transgenderism is, and totaly refuse to be educated and understand its subsets cross dressers, transvestites and transsexuals.
And when someone like me tries to talk to them, they seem to think they as ex-gays knows more about transgenders than transgenders themselves. In any case, back to the topic, IF he is reading this… Randy, I am a poor transsexual female that is currently supported by my husband and can hardly get a job to survive here, along with hundreds of thousands of us sisters in Asia… Can you call upon Exodus Asia Pacific to fight for our civil rights then?….
Another thing, by the criteria that Randy presented:
In a logical frame of mind in comparison to gays, should ex-gays be denied civil rights then? Is Randy for it too?
@Yuki
Nice observation.
Does anyone else notice that when Exodus wants straights to be afraid of gays, they say gays are wealthy and powerful but when they want gays to be afraid of homosexuality, they say gays can’t hold a job or have enough power to handle their own life? They could at least pick a stereotype and stick with it.
Ephilei said:
What I want to know is, why are they not going after this alleged lifestyle with full force (the drug addicted lifestyle, casual sex, etc) for the heterosexual community? Shouldn’t there be an Exodus for heteros as well? After all, this lifestyle they are depicting knows no sexual orientation. Maybe they could call it “Exit-Us” so its sounds like Exodus but not quite.
Amazing.
Regan:
Regan, I was working through the comments in order, trying to finish thinking through Emily’s question before getting to yours. I have since ended up taking care of a sick husband and trying to help a severely depressed friend get through the weekend. So I appreciate your patience, especially given the length and broad scope of your statements. I have responded below. I am going away for much of this week, and I do not think I will have internet access. So if you reply to me, please do not get upset if you don’t hear anything for several days.
Your initial comment to me seems to be little more than a laundry list of things you dislike about exgays. I’m not sure what 95% of it has to do with my original comment or with me at all. I was neither defending Randy Thomas nor attacking XGW–I was just saying that I think analysis is more persuasive than speculation. So I do not see how your litany of what you consider to be the personal faults of exgays as well as the faults of what you call the “exgay industry” is relevant.
Regan, how am I supposed to respond to this? Why would I even bother trying? I am stunned by the sheer number of insulting assumptions, overgeneralizations, and stereotypes in your comment. According to you, we exgays are dishonest, suckers for every stereotype, programmed to lose all our individuality, “pathologically in need of attention”, distant, and afraid of being “detected” by others, especially gay people. You know, I consider myself exgay, and I just don’t feel that’s an accurate picture of me. At all. Honestly, your comments make me feel the same way I felt back in the day as a young dyke when I heard homophobic bigots spouting off antigay stereotypes that had nothing to do with the reality of my life or who I was.
The same goes for your comments about the “exgay industry”–I don’t know what any of them have to do with me. I am in favor of better tracking and study of outcomes of exgay ministry and reparative therapy, but since I don’t actually DO exgay ministry or reparative therapy, there’s not much I can do about it. I have openly and repeatedly expressed my skepticism about the efficacy of certain exgay teachings and methods. Beyond voting straight Democratic tickets at election time, I am not involved in politics at all, and I am not an advocate of exgay presentations in public schools. (For me this is a religious path, and I believe that appropriate church-state separation means that therefore it does not belong in a public school curriculum. I do not know of any good non-religious reasons to pursue an celibate/exgay path.)
So I guess my question is: Why are you dumping all this on me? And why exactly should I be expected to reply at all? I don’t mind being called to account for my own beliefs, words, and deeds. But as far as I can tell, virtually nothing of what you say in your comment has anything to do with me or what I have said in this thread or anywhere else. It’s like you are talking to yourself, but demanding that I listen and respond anyway. What is up with that?
*************
To respond to your two questions (they are the only two questions I could find in your comment, so I assume they are the ones you are apparently angry at me for not answering yet) :
Well, again, I’m really not sure why I’m being expected to answer for someone else’s beliefs or actions, because I’m not pushing for exgay material/presentations in the schools. But my guess is that they probably believe that the kids will be better off in a number of ways if they pursue reorientation rather than “identifying as gay.” I think they also might believe that kids are being pressured or misled into thinking that they must be gay. In any case, I think you’d probably be better off asking the people who actually advocate what you are objecting to.
I don’t really understand this question at all–I don’t even think it’s a coherent sentence. And I don’t understand what “compatibility” has to do with anything. It would be helpful if you rephrased this question in a way that is easier to comprehend (I apologize for being dense), and I will do my best to respond when I get back.
******
Regan, If I have misunderstood you, I am sorry. I have had an awful weekend and am completely exhausted in every way, and am having a really hard time interpreting your unique communication style. But since you already seem to be pre-judging me as a Bad Exgay who is going to ignore you, it seemed unwise to make you wait another week for a reply.
dm
Emily K:
Ughhh…I usually try to avoid talking about this stuff. I think I can do the most good trying to encourage conservative Christians to think more sanely about exgay issues, without getting into politics. I’ve found that once they know my political views, I sometimes have a harder time getting them to take me seriously as a fellow Christian who really does believe that homosexual sex is a sin, who has anything to say worth listening to about homosexuality or the exgay experience. Either they think I’m tragically confused and still brainwashed by sodomite ideology, or they think I’m some sort of HRC plant, pretending to be a sincere believer to lead the innocent astray. Yeah, that’s right, I’m really some heathen gay activist who went through four years of exgay hell, two years of exgay purgatory, got married, and started breeding just so I could pose as a Christian! (grrrrrrrr…)
But, anyhow, in the interest of openness, here’s what I think:
I think sodomy laws were a bad idea and am glad that we’re done with them. I do not understand the view that “Okay, so it would be evil to enforce sodomy laws, but we should still keep them on the books.” I think that people should be protected against discrimination due to sexual orientation in employment and housing. (I would support some exemptions on the employment front for religious organizations.) I think sexual orientation should be treated like race and religion when it comes to hate crimes laws. (I would prefer it if there were no enhanced penalties for hate-based violent crimes at all, but if assaulting someone based on their race gets you extra time, so should assaulting someone based on their sexual orientation. I have no reservations about the other aspects of hate crimes laws.) I think LGB people should be able to serve openly in the military. I think there should be legalized adoption for same-sex couples, but I also think there should be religious exemptions for adoption service providers.
The civil unions vs. marriage question is harder for me. I definitely support a robust package of protections and privileges for committed same-sex couples–at this time, I don’t see why any particular legal privilege associated with marriage shouldn’t be extended to same-sex partnerships as well. But honestly, whether I think we should go beyond that to “full marriage equality” or whatever is a question I have never been able to solidly make up my mind on since my conversion in ’98. I have gone back and forth innumerable times on it, and currently I would neither actively support nor actively oppose it. I could muse aloud about all the considerations which keep pulling me in different directions , but that would make this comment more than three times as long as it is. I will say though that I am truly ashamed of how hysterical some Christians and conservatives have gotten over the issue.
Hope this helps. Like I said to Regan above, I may be without web access for a few days, so further replies may have to wait if there are any follow-up questions or remarks.
dm
Randy Thomas admits on his blog that he has romantic, emotional, sexual (even “lustful”) atttractions to both men and women. When I assked if if that wouldn’t meet the standard definition of a bisexual, he relied:
Yes, “…that would definitely be the current secular definition.” It made me wonder, is there a sacred defintion of bisexual? Or is EXODUS continuing its decpetive practice of redefining words to suit their pleasure?
For what it is worth, disputed mutability has never struck me as someone who followed lock step with Chambers, Thomas, Exodus or Focus on the Family on the ex-gay line. She seems far more like collegejay. They both seem to be trying to reconcile their religious views with their sexuality without trying to impose their beliefs on others. I think that dm’s response to Emily K was a pretty good example of that.
Pinning Randy Thomas down on ANYTHING is like trying to grab smoke. What Randy wants is to be loved and admired. So, he lashes out at “the gays” when he has an audience that wants to hear the bad stuff about “the gay lifestyle” which he knows nothing about since he hasn’t experienced it in 20 years.
And when he’s in a more public forum, he’s suddenly dripping with love and acceptance for us all so that the Christians will see him as this paragon of long suffering humility and compassion.
He equivocates when he is faced with someone who calls him on all the slippery, meaningless positions he takes — and he covers his tracks by erasing his past, as Michael Airhart has pointed out.
He’s gay, he’s straight, he bi, he’s an ex-gay, he’s not an ex-gay, he’s “called to celibacy,” then he’s dating someone, then he’s not dating someone.
Randy misunderstands Paul’s admonition to be “all things to all people.”
I’m not saying Randy a bad person or even insincere. I’m saying that Randy is a very confused, needy “attention whore” who lusts for admiration and the spotlight.
Since I’m in show business, and therefore an attention whore myself, I can see all the signs. The problem is that Randy has no discernible talent. Therefore, his only recourse is to be a politician and culture warrior.
But because being a culture warrior and politician is against his religious beliefs, he hides it all under the mantle of “ministry” where you can pretty much say anything or do anything, because you can blame it all on God.
More than anthing else, even more than my objection to EXODUS’s poilitics is their blatant dishonesty — dodging questions, redefining words, making up new words to suit their purpose — a verbal game of smoke and mirrors that is not “Christian”. Why can’t they let their “yes” be yes and their “no” be no?
Last year, Alan Chambers promised to clear this mess up. He wanted to do away with the term “ex-gay” and “see to it that it is never used again” because it was “more negative than anything” and “didn’t really explain what the change process was all about.”
So now Alan calls himself “former homosexual” instead (how is that an improvement?) — and Randy still calls himself “ex-gay” on his blog — even though he admits lusting after both sexes and admits he meets what he calls the “secular definiton” of bisexual.
As John Boswell pointed out so well: “Words are fundamental to Christianity. They are a basic means of expressing faith, and, as I pointed out, this is peculiarly characteristic of the Christian religion. You will now be able to see, if you think about it, that words can conceal as much as they reveal. In the Christian moral tradition, great difficulty has been occasioned by inattention to words and their precise meanings.”
Put it another way; As humpty dumpty said in Alice: “Words mean what I say they mean. nothing more. and nothing less.”
Usually, when people cannot say what they mean, when yes doesn’t mean yes and no doesn’t mean no, that means that there is an agenda beneath it, which may or may not be acknowledged.
Randy Thomas says he is ex-gay, but admits that he is attracted to both men and women. Since his agenda–whatever it is, religious, monetary, political, psycho or all of them– is what really is running the show, none of the words– gay, ex-gay, bi, straight, chaste, pure, sinful, not sinful– actually have the slightest bit of meaning that can be shared and understood by people who do not share his agenda.
On another thread in this blog, Michael brown practically insists that he really likes gay people and has nothing against us, just wants sodomy laws, DADT, and the closet, for a start. I am coming to the conclusion that it is perhaps possible that he really doesn’t see the inconsistency.
Thanks dm, that answers my question. I understand your ambivalence about the “marriage issue,” because for many that is tied into religion so sstrongly, but i appreciate your view on secular law – which, yes, should INDEED remain secular and separate.
Randy is like a spoiled child who never grew up. he censors the comments in his blog more zealously than the media of Soviet Russia, which is ironic, considering his current blog says something like “add your voice” in the comments area (but give that a week, he’ll probably move his blog again which purges his entries of the past). He thinks he “knows” about the “gay lifestyle” today because he “lived it” 20 years ago – and let me tell you, not even every gay man 20 years ago was cruising the bathhouses with nothing but lube in their back pockets. He thinks he knows what it’s like to be a young LGBT person today, yet justifies removal of support groups like Gay-Straight Alliances in schools that provide a safe place for discussion. As for the “labels,” he even calls himself straight at one point! usually that’s one that “ex-gays” avoid like the plague:
Well, good for you, Randy. Kudos for becoming “straight.” At least for that blog post, anyway. And yes, out of curiosity, what is the “sacred definition” for “bisexual?”
It’s funny, b/c this is precisely what makes Scripture study in Judaism so vibrant: the meanings of words. As a result, many interpretations have come about for what might be a two-word sentence in the Hebrew. In Genesis in particular, there are UNCOUNTABLE double-meanings and puns used to drive the point of the literature across (oy vey, the puns! Is it sacreligious to groan during Torah study??). Fortunately, Judaism has a built-in method of engaging this with the religion: the Talmud and Mishnah. For Fundamentalist Christianity, every word must mean “exactly this” or “exactly that” so a literal definition can be taken hold of, but ultimately, this is what causes tension and breaks to arise. And since the ex-gay movement is so deeply rooted in Fundamentalist Christianity, it will inherit the exact same problems.
BTW, I kid Randy. He knows I love him.
We have a little unspoken agreement. I get to call him an attention whore and he gets to attack my home and family.
Isn’t it great when friends get along?
Economist M. V. Lee Badgett has published research refuting the argument that gays are economically privileged. Check out her books on amazon.com – she has a new book out on sexual orientation discrimination (2007). See her public testimony from 2005 about sexual orientation discrimination for an overview.
http://nh.glad.org/LeeBadgettSB427Testimony.pdf
It’s kinda sick that Randy says MLK is his hero, considering that MLK worked with Bayard Rustin ( a homosexual who was out to King) and expressed concern for LGBT welfare before his passing.
His late widow, Coretta Scott King mentioned many times something to the effect of their being “room at the table of brotherhood for our gay and lesbian siblings.”
Of course, opponents of gay rights will basically call Coretta confused or (worse) a liar.
Ironic that those who fight to preserve the sanctity and purity of heterosexual marriage seem to have no problem trashing a black man’s widow and calling her a liar about her own husband. Who would’ve known his mind better than his own wife?
I made a comment on his blog about how ironic that is. But he only responded snarkily. He seems to enjoy ignoring the fact that MLK would NOT have lobbied against people’s freedoms, especially the freedom for two adults to love one another.
To understand Randy’s admiration of MLK, you have to see how Randy perceives himself.
MLK stood up against oppressors for a persecuted minority. Randy, against all logic, sees himself as part of a persecuted minority.
Pointing out that he’s actually part of the oppressors will not sit well with him. He needs to think that he’s a martyr for Christ, fighting against the evil doers and sympathizers with sin who are vastly stronger and vastly more numerous.
Or so I’m guessing.
There’s also this from the website that originated the Marketing Data that Randy used:
“”The Gay Consumer Index™ and Lesbian Consumer Index™ provide valuable guidance regarding the perceptions and opinions of ‘out’ lesbian and gay consumers; those who can be reached by marketers through gay and lesbian media channels. This unique, community-based methodology polls LGBT consumers who can be reached using print publications, direct mail and internet media,” said Tom Roth, President of Community Marketing. “It should be kept in mind, however, that the study’s findings profile those who read lesbian and gay publications and websites. These results should not necessarily be extrapolated to the entire gay and lesbian population, which we feel is impossible to do with surveys due to social, employment and political pressures,” added Roth.”
Gay Consumer Index Website