Ex-Gay Watch

-David Link looks at the Prop 8 trial from a more personal angle.

-Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov reiterates his belief that gay pride events are “satanic.”

-Rob Tisinai debunks the myth that gays are more likely to molest children.

-State Rep. Alfred Baldasaro claims that New Hampshire sold children to gay couples.

-Michelle Obama invites a gay businessman to be her guest at the president’s State of the Union address.

-British Conservative Party leader David Cameron calls for schools to teach equal treatment for gay people.

-President Obama advocates the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

-An Oklahoma State Representative wants to make it a crime for ministers to preside over same-sex weddings.

-Maine’s ethics committee moves forward with its investigation of the National Organization for Marriage’s finances.

-Conservative pundit Don Imus voices support for marriage equality.

The co-author of a major ex-gay study is a key figure in the controversy over the direction of Wheaton College, Illinois.

In the article Whither Wheaton?, appearing in the SOMA Review, Andrew Chignell names Dr Stanton L Jones, Provost of Wheaton College, as a force in the increasingly authoritarian approach to doctrine at the flagship evangelical school:

Still, when one spends time talking with Wheaton faculty, students, and supporters, alongside real appreciation one is also likely to hear expressions of deep concern about the unusually pro-active roles that [President] Litfin and his provost, Stanton Jones, have assumed as the definers and defenders of orthodoxy across the college.

Chignell notes how under Liftin the school has come to adopt a “magisterial” model, where firm doctrinal positions are imposed from the top down. So, for example, any member of faculty who took a less-than-literal view of Adam and Eve was deemed unfit for employment. Those who were not sure would be given a year to bring their doctrine in line or leave. The President eventually softened, allowing those in the second category to remain.

It appears that Stanton Jones, with responsibility for all undergraduate and postgraduate studies, was Liftin’s second-in-command when it came to implementing these changes. Chignell recounts the following episode involving Jones:

A few years later, Alex Bolyanatz, a tenure-track anthropologist who taught about human origins, decided that it might be wise to invite the new provost to sit in on his lectures: “I had no doubt that hearing my version of a Christian view of integrating the evolutionary model with a faith perspective would make anyone say, ‘This guy is just fine; does exactly what we want here.’ I now know, of course, that this was somewhere between stupid and naïve. I invited Provost Stan Jones to attend my class and he did for six sessions. I believed that I was ensuring that I would spend a long and satisfying career there. Wrong! I was, in fact, digging my own professional grave at Wheaton.”

He also relates the story of Christina Van Dyke, now a member of the philosophy faculty at Calvin College, whose appointment process was abruptly halted because of her hardly remarkable views on homosexuality and Scripture. Van Dyke signed the Wheaton Statement of Faith and its “Community Covenant,” but added the proviso that “it isn’t clear to me that the Bible unambiguously condemns monogamous same-sex relationships.”

She did not deny the traditional teaching, but expressed a view about interpretation of Scripture a little more nuanced than that of many evangelicals. Again, Jones intervened. Van Dyke recalls:

I got a call from Stan Jones, asking me a number of questions about my reservations. I kept saying that I was not claiming to have figured this out, but that it was not at all clear to me from my own research and study that the Bible’s position on homosexual behavior was unambiguous. We talked about how I would handle students who came to me to talk about questioning their own sexuality, and I said I would be willing to send them elsewhere. He sent me a whole stack of reading material (much of which he’d written) arguing that the Bible’s position on homosexual behavior was, in fact, clear. I read it all. . . . I didn’t change my mind. … [At] about 5 pm the day before my interview was scheduled, [the chair] called in tears to tell me that he’d just finished talking to the provost, and that I was no longer a candidate for their position.

Stanton Jones and the Jones-Yarhouse Study

It is unsurprising to find Jones coming in for criticism for toeing such a hard line on conservative evangelical doctrine, especially homosexuality. With Dr Mark Yarhouse of Regents University, Virginia, he authored the 2007 study Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation. The study was severely limited, with questionable methodology and negligible results – even when judged generously. Dr Patrick Chapman critiqued Jones-Yarhouse for Ex-Gay Watch here.

Ironically, it has been observed that Jones was the more outspoken of the two in trumpeting the results of the study, despite Yarhouse coming from a traditionally more conservative college. For an essentially academic work, the book is notable for its evangelistic flavour. Chignell’s revelations about Wheaton College confirm that Jones in particular has a partisan interest in the homosexuality debate.

Someone didn’t want the Wheaton story published

This website is the author’s own account of his difficult battle to get the piece published. It was written to coincide with the eve of the appointment of a new president for Wheaton College, and was originally commissioned by John Wilson, editor of Books & Culture, an often-thoughtful evangelical publication under the Christianity Today banner. It was accepted “enthusiastically,” Chignell says, in mid-September 2009.

It was due to be published last year, but was unexpectedly pulled by Harold Smith, CEO of Christianity Today International, a day or two before it was to go to press. Wilson told Chignall that “this sort of editorial control had never been exercised in the fourteen-year history of Books and Culture.”

Smith insisted that several issues with the article be addressed before it could be published. It was taken away and revised, and a few meetings later it was again scheduled to run. Just a few days after this confirmation, however, the piece was pulled for a last time. Chignell writes:

The following Monday, Smith called Wilson in and told him that the piece was irrevocably dead. In a note to me, Smith expressed sympathy but gave no explanation, except to say that “new hurdles” had arisen. He did promise that no one from Wheaton College had directly intervened.

Evangelicalism’s battle of the generations

At the heart of Chignell’s piece is a conflict between generations of evangelicals. He graduated from Wheaton himself, and recalls the effect on the school of Bill Clinton’s election as US President in 1992:

At Wheaton in the fall of 1992 (my freshman year), there was intense soul-searching about why God had denied the victory just as change on key issues like abortion seemed within reach. The night after the election, students held a massive vigil, heads bowed and leaders speaking anxiously about the coming liberal onslaught.

He compares that to the reaction to Obama in 2008:

At Wheaton in the fall of 2008, by contrast, the predominantly African American Gospel Choir took the chapel stage the morning after Obama’s election and gave a rousing performance of “God Bless America.” That night there was a panel discussion in which Litfin, too, emphasized that future evangelicals “cannot afford to be seen as in the hip pocket of any particular polity or political entity.”

These are changing times. Many younger evangelicals identify with the political progressives and liberals of the Democratic Party, rather than the social and moral conservatives of the Republicans and their evangelical forebears. In 1993, Wheaton was a place where “the culture wars were hot, with many students (presciently) advocating a hard-right turn as the path to Republican recovery,” Chignell tells us. At Wheaton in 2010, party politics has waned, with students “far more concerned with the relationship between their faith and social justice than with political affiliation,” according to Juliana Wilhoit, the head of what she calls “the most anemic College Democrats organization north of Bob Jones.”

The Jones-Yarhouse study was a valiant attempt to rescue an ex-gay movement whose once-popular claims are fading.  Likewise, the attempts of the outgoing Wheaton President Duane Liftin and his number two to instill by force on Wheaton a hardline “orthodoxy” seem to be last-ditch efforts to salvage the remnants of an increasingly threatened socially conservative evangelicalism.

In March of 2008, Exodus International announced it was leaving the realm of public policy to focus on what they claim is the heart of their organization, ministering to troubled same-sex attracted people. XGW applauded this move as one in the right direction. But since that time, their actions have spoken very differently. This past week, Randy Thomas made clear why imposing their religious views on the rest of America is so important to Exodus.

Back in 1997-1998 I was complaining to some Exodus leaders about their involvement in public policy. They were very kind and heard me out.  But one of them said to me, “Randy, do you know how many times I have defended the gay community in the meetings I go to in Washington DC?”

I looked shocked and haltingly answered, ” … uh … no.”

Then he asked, “Do you know how many bad ideas we have shot down, or tried to prevent, because of how awful and stigmatizing they would be to the gay community and ourselves?”

The specific “bad ideas that would be expoitative for us and them” are not mentioned. On the surface, it sounds like they could be talking about employment non-discrimination, religious freedom for gay-friendly places of worship, and respect for the privacy of an individual’s bedroom. The next paragraph is telling, however.

I hated to admit it but I hadn’t even thought they would be there for that reason as well.  I just thought they went and simply parroted what the ” far right” wanted them to say. Then he went on to say that he was there because he genuinely believed in the issues they addressed.  He believed that public policy afforded more opportunities for tragic consequences for those dealing with same sex attractions.  He explained that with every pro-gay policy that is passed and implemented, the cost of repentance and the potential consequences rise considerably. [Emphasis added]

In a declaration that may leave Orwell turning in his grave, Exodus tells us that gays need to be saved from their own desire for freedom and equality under the law, by being denied those very things. Otherwise, gays will be less likely to feel ashamed that they are gay, and even perhaps turn to organizations like Exodus to facilitate their “repentance.” And of course, Randy immediately felt ashamed he had suggested otherwise.

It was so much easier to buy into the false assumption that public policy was somehow outside the realm of ministry in general and Exodus in particular. I felt convicted for wrongly judging him. I thought that I was “moderate” but in reality … I was more judgmental than he was.  [Emphasis added]

So, it turns out that public policy is not outside the realm of ministry in general, and Exodus in particular. It is well within their purpose for existing. Randy expresses his strong personal connection to it, and his opinion that it is vital to stay involved in it. He then ties all of this into the Jenkins-Miller custody battle.

In his view, if Miller and Jenkins had not been allowed to enter into a civil union and then conceive daughter Isabella via artificial insemination, none of these troubling events would have occurred.

Public policy through civil union legislation and the court system facilitated this contract, now broken, between Lisa [Miller] and Janet [Jenkins].  The decisions they made as a lesbian couple are having consequences today even though they are not together and haven’t been for over almost a decade.

Like many families that go through divorce, all parties are devastated and going through a difficult time of transition. But Randy praises the true reason for the rift: Miller’s decision to identify as “ex-gay,” and beyond that, deny visitation and then custody to her former spouse. Instead he places the blame on the public policy of Vermont: if we let gays enter into legal relationships and raise children in those relationships, tragedy will inevitably occur. Same sex couples need to be saved from themselves by being denied the ability to legally declare their union.

All that aside, Miller’s decision to “repent” is not what has driven much of the recent controversy surrounding this case – it’s her decision to run into hiding with her daughter after years of breaking the law that has driven it.

Intimacy is not a commodity to be bartered or option easily discarded.  It is an investment of one’s heart and soul.  These type of investments always have consequences.

Randy writes this as though Jenkins and Miller obtained a civil union on a whim, as opposed to a mutual decision to commit for life. He fails to mention that it was Miller who broke the union by declaring herself “no longer gay,” and of course he leaves out the fact that these statements apply equally to all relationships, including heterosexual ones.  As most are probably aware, half of all marriages in the US end in divorce.

That is why God is so specific and clear about His will concerning relationships in the scriptures.

And Randy and Exodus know exactly what that will is.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of the Exodus article is the confidence that Exodus has in their belief that they are “defending” the gay community. They say with the utmost sincerity that their views on public policy prevent the stigmatization of gays. This brings to mind a famous C.S. Lewis quote that has been posted here before:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

-Nepal’s new constitution to institute marriage equality.

-Fox News commentator Margaret Hoover joins the fight for marriage equality.

-Cindy McCain, wife of Sen. John McCain, poses for a NOH8 ad.

-David Link argues for a distinction between prejudice and hatred.

-Peter LaBarbera defends Uganda’s “kill gays” bill.

-The Indiana Senate Judiciary Committee clears an anti-gay referendum for a full senate vote.

-A new study confirms that same-sex couples can parent as effectively as opposite-sex couples.

-The city of Miami Beach expands its anti-discrimination ordinance to include transgender individuals.

-California pastor Miles McPherson tries to quietly erase anti-gay statements from his church’s website.

Following a hearing yesterday, several members of Congress have written to the Presidents of the US and Uganda to protest the latter’s impending legislation to make homosexuality an executable offense.

The US Government’s Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission heard evidence and testimony against the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill yesterday afternoon. Congress has responded by petitioning Presidents Barack Obama and Yoweri Kaguta Museveni on this “international human rights issue,” calling the bill “reprehensible,” and “the most extreme and hateful attempt by an African country to criminalize the LGBT community.”

Addressing President Museveni, they wrote:

This egregious bill, which represents one of the most extreme anti-equality measures ever proposed in any country, would create a legal pretext for depriving lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Ugandans of their liberty, and even their lives. We respectfully urge you to take swift action to prevent this law, which we are concerned could have a chilling effect both on human rights and on bilateral relations between our countries.

The full text of the letters, along with a press release, can be found at the website of Wisconsin Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin.

The Advocate is a well-known magazine that caters to the Queer community. It runs serious articles that inform readers of issues facing gays, and lighter fair for when you’ve read enough about Uganda’s legislative genocide for one day. One such piece is entitled “The Advocate’s 15 ‘Gayest’ Cities.” Randy Thomas, who is no longer “gay-identified” but for some reason still reads this prominent gay publication, has taken issue with the piece. Mike Albo, billed in the piece as an “intrepid amateur sociologist,” gives us his findings, with certain points emphasized by Randy Thomas:

Intrepid amateur sociologist Mike Albo searches for America’s 15 gayest burgs—based on a finely tuned (if totally arbitrary) calculus.

Long ago, gay people settled in our nation’s largest cities. There they spruced up all the property, created every art and fashion movement, and taught entire populations how to dance. They created gayborhoods like WeHo, Chelsea, South Beach—and pretty much queered all of San Francisco until even Laundromats had rainbow flag decals in their windows. About 10 years ago everyone else moved back into these nicely gentrified metropolises, and the lavender diaspora began. Now a slew of secondary cities are becoming gay epicenters.

This admittedly subjective search reveals spots that are much more pink than you might think. Determined by a completely unscientific but accurate statistical equation, these gayest cities may surprise you.

Of course, these are obviously cultural stereotypes, and Randy objects.

I hate math but it doesn’t take a mathematician to see that this “arbitrary calculus” has some highly questionable variables.

Is the criteria above for such a “lavender diaspora” truly what The Advocate thinks being a gay epicenter is about?  By the criteria above it appears they are saying that being gay is about political power/redefining marriage, gay activist data contextualizing the census, anonymous sex/online dating, gay bar culture and people who like to watch Brokeback Mountain or Birdcage.

You’d think that far right political activists wrote this article as a cultural meme to reinforce simplistic, and a couple of campy, stereotypes.

Mr. Albo includes zero criterion about gay centered or pro-gay churches/religious centers, no gay support groups, no attempt to study attitudes of the not gay neighbors … what about people who are in homosexual relationships but don’t identify as gay? … or with gay culture?

And lest anyone think he was reading The Advocate for anything other than investigative reporting:

Not that I affirm any of that or would presume to know what makes a “gayborhood … lavender diaspora.”

Apparently Randy’s obsession with being able to declare himself “free” of anything that might label him “gay” (or “gay-identified,” to put it in his terms) has limited his ability to understand satire. This article is a clear example of defensive humor, in which a cultural or ethnic minority forms a joke based on stereotypes used against them in order to diminish the stereotypes’ power. This is commonly seen in Jewish humor, among others. But no joke is too silly to be over-analyzed.

Plus, what good does it do to try and quantify the “gayest” cities? Regardless of the answer to that and even with the obvious satire the article could have been more thoughtful in trying to make its case.

Granted, Mr. Albo does say it is subjective and not scientific.  He obviously meant to deliver this article with a sense of humor.  He seriously doesn’t think the only creative dancing people in the world identify as gay … right?

The resulting list makes for an odd mix of cities that brings serious doubt about the accuracy of the results being truly reflective of the title of the article.  It also makes the purpose of publishing such an article suspect.

It “makes the purpose of publishing such an article suspect?” I suspect that the purpose of publishing the article was to make the predominantly gay readers of the magazine chuckle.

So, Randy Thomas and indeed all of Exodus can relax. Gays are no less committed to finding pro-gay places of worship, getting to know their gay neighbors, and entering into long-term loving relationships.

The US Government’s Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission will hold a hearing on the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill this afternoon.

Over the course of 90 minutes, the TLHRC will hear evidence and testimony on the legal and humanitarian aspects of the proposed bill, which as it stands at the moment will see the execution of practicing homosexuals, and sentences up to life imprisonment for lesser offences such as promoting and aiding homosexuality.

LGBT POV has posted an illuminating video edited by Bruce tracing the connection between certain American evangelicals and the current legislation in Uganda. It focuses on “spiritual warfare” experts George Otis, Jr, and Ed Silvoso, with prophets and “prayer warriors” such as Cindy Jacobs, and their disturbing message of Christian dominionism. There is no doubt they have directly encouraged Ugandans, including President Museveni and other powerful political figures, to impose conservative moral values in the belief that God has given them spiritual and moral authority.

Disturbing aspects revealed in the video include claims to miraculous healings from HIV and Aids, and the dangerous pushing of an abstinence-only agenda, bolstered by myths and scaremongering about condom use.

In other Uganda news, NTV reports that the Ugandan Cabinet have rejected a proposed withdrawal of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

From The Guardian’s Comment is free this morning:

Writing in the Times earlier this week, Patrick Muirhead describes “the day I decided to stop being gay“. Even allowing for its firmly tongue-in-cheek tone, the problem with his article is that he really seems to believe the half-truths he presents about homosexuality.

He talks of his increasing attraction to women, or more pertinently his attraction to the idea of a wife and children – though in fact, when his decision was made, no woman was even in the picture. It was the sight of a father playing with his child that persuaded this one-time “fully fledged homo” to pursue a traditional, heterosexual family life. This is a spectre that cannot be avoided throughout the article: has the author really changed, or is he just enamoured of the idea of “normality”?

In common with many others who have given up the supposedly hedonistic lifestyle of the modern gay man, Muirhead cannot resist taking a parting shot at homosexuals. It’s a familiar pattern, especially in the US, where the religious, rightwing “ex-gay” movement thrives on myth-making about the dangers of same-sex love.

Read the full article, by Ex-Gay Watch’s David L Rattigan, here.

-Portugal’s parliament enacts marriage equality.

-Former Rep. Harold Ford (D-TN) has a change of heart in favor of marriage equality.

-Nate Silver points out that divorce rates have, on average, risen in states with an anti-same-sex marriage amendment and declined in states without one.

-Margaret Talbot takes a closer look at the players in the Prop 8 trial.

-The Gay Christian Network’s 2010 conference draws a record attendance of nearly 400 participants.

-The National Institute of Health solicits public comment on plans to undertake the largest study of LGBT health issues conducted to date.

-A District of Columbia superior court judge rejects a lawsuit demanding a public vote on the marriage equality bill passed by the DC city council.

-Lawyers for the Pentagon recommend a one-year delay in any efforts to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

-Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Convention joins Pat Robertson in declaring that the earthquake in Haiti was an act of  God’s wrath.

The President of Uganda appears to have distanced himself from the Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009, which would effectively introduce the death penalty for gays.

President Museveni told members of the National Resistance Movement that the bill had not been proposed by his party, nor by the Ugandan Government, but by a private member, David Bahati. He said he had received phone calls from several foreign leaders, including the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Canadian PM Stephen Harper, and all they wanted to talk about was “gays.”

He described the Anti-Homosexuality Bill as a “foreign policy issue,” and proposed a meeting between his cabinet and Bahati to find a solution.

Dr Warren Throckmorton posted a full audio recording (unfortunately a little hard to hear at times) of Museveni’s speech, as well as the following video from NTV Uganda:

There is no reason to think the President has been swayed by moral arguments against the bill, but evidently he fears the international repercussions that its adoption into law might trigger. While he did not announce any concrete decisions, this is an indication that if the bill goes through at all, it will not be in its present format.