Exodus International Lays off Staff, Cuts Benefits
Minutes ago, Exodus President Alan Chambers announced the following on the organizations Facebook page:
Dear friends, please pray for us at Exodus. We have experienced an unexpectedly low giving season this summer coupled with much higher expenses (insurance, utilities, etc). Sadly, we have had to let several staff go. Your prayers are appreciated. For those who are also having to endure this unfriendly economy, our prayers are with you!
On his own page, Chambers adds that they have cut benefits as well. Exodus left a modest set of leased offices in the Spring of 2008 in favor of their own building, complete with million dollar mortgage. Servicing that debt can’t be helping now that funds are scarce and the demand for ex-gay referrals appears in decline. The first indication of financial difficulties came with the layoffs of two staff members late that same year.
Where does one go with such a resume?
—
Edited 8/23/2010 to include archived image of Facebook entry which was blocked from general view after post.
@Thom Hunter
Well, Thom… I AM active. Very. It’s been for most of my life. I picked my battle and I will stay with it until it accomplishes more or until I don’t have to anymore.
I am an intense person, because I have to be. I’ve had my share of rejection for my color and gender, but I’m not going to stand by, and let things happen to other people even if they don’t share the same difference.
This fight for gay equality NEEDS intensity, needs serious consideration and analysis of the strategy of the opposition.
You not down for it.
Cool, it’s not for everyone and not everyone is good at it.
So stay out of it.
But don’t call me arrogant or attacking you because my purpose is different and REQUIRES checking you for cracks.
But you did it again, made this issue about the singular you as having no issue or connection to the collective who shares your background. Crack.
And you hate it being pointed out. Crack. So reject it, deny it. Crack. Doesn’t mean it isn’t TRUE.
There tends to be some exceptional hyperbole from the anti gay with their perception of who is being attacked, who is being hostile, who is a liar, who can’t be trusted and who is being persecuted. They have taken on the role of the injured party, and the victimized by all the big bad gay people.
A familiar refrain. Even to you.
We’re onto this issue in the deepest way Thom. We rarely deal in the superficial aspects of any of it.
We’re ESPECIALLY onto Exodus and PFOX and so on. Another reality of what we do here and elsewhere.
We are a mix of people who went through the ex gay process, straight allies, gay people living honestly and openly. Straight spouses affected by being married to gay ones.
We’ve had years of serious observations, sharing intense personal situations, and we lost a young friend and frequent contributor earlier this year to a car accident.
Few anti gay sites can say that. If at all. You can go look and see for yourself who has no opportunity or option of dissent.
Anyway, I’m glad you’re apolitical and have no specific wish to harm gay people.
We know millions of people who are. They are in the legislature, the courts, the schools, they are in the military and Boy Scouts…just to name a few.
THAT is who we are talking about.
And most of us, in some way or other, ARE in the trenches fighting a monumental war, with only a few victories in small battles everywhere.
So okay, you’re not contributing in that way. So don’t.
It’s absurd to laud someone for affecting heterosexuality. There is nothing praiseworthy about it, Thom.
It’s a sexual orientation, not painting the Sistine Chapel or inventing the vaccine for HPV…or the Civil Rights Act.
When it’s all said and done, what would help gay folks the most, is equal access and equal treatment under the law.
The way it’s helped so many others. Even more than the Bible too.
@Regan DuCasse
Regan, perhaps the key here might be to limit your responses for a bit to one or two concise points. As long as Thom then addresses those points in his comments this may more resemble the type of debate we try to foster here.
And Thom, you need only review past material and discussions on XGW to realize that your comments concerning Regan and this site are absurd to anyone familiar here. In this case she is just the only one who took a serious interest in engaging you the second time around.
Let’s also try to remember that just because something is part of one’s personal life story does not make it off limits to debate. Extraordinary claims demand serious proof. Otherwise we end up with what I somewhat flippantly referred to as an “ouldian loop” a few comments back, named after the common end of debates with Peter Ould.
Now, does anyone want to make a clear point?
Anne,
Thom may live his life as he pleases. He can say whatever he pleases. When he says something, others can respond how they please, and others can live their lives as they please. He can have freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion, but he can’t expect freedom from criticism (none of us can).
This site monitors ex-gay groups. Ex-gay groups are renowned for their dishonesty. They have their own language, where they define words like “change” “struggle” “overcome” “ex-gay” “post-gay” “gay” “sexual identity” “same sex attraction” “sexual addiction” “acting out” to mean virtually the opposite of what the rest of English speaking America understands these words to mean.
They have historically claimed people can change their sexual orientation through exgay efforts. They still essentially imply this and attract people to their organization with this lie. They have never been able to demonstrate any significant change in sexual orientation through their efforts despite having decades to do so, yet still sell their snake oil.
So Exodus has this dishonest language, with dishonest claims and a long history of working politically to deny gay and lesbian Americans equal rights and equal protections in America.
So, when someone comes hear claiming to have been cured of homosexuality, or walking away from homosexuality, or extolling the virtues of Exodus and other groups, they can expect to be vigorously challenged. If they hold themselves up as an example for others, we are so familiar with the dishonest false hope of sexual orientation change that is peddled by Exodus to those desparate to fit into the demands of their social group, then we will respond vigorously.
If they use the dishonest language of Exodus with all the deliberately misleading buzz words, they will be vigorously challenged. Thom has done all of that. So there is no reason to be surprised by Regan’s response or others (like me) on this blog.
You may be surprised to know that there are a few exgay folks who have posted on this site who have been treated quite well, because they speak honestly. They don’t make dubious claims about change in sexual orientation. They just talk about trying to live their lives as best they can for them selves.
By the way, when it comes to buzz words, I would strongly encourage you not to use the phrase lifestyle when talking about gay people. That term strongly implies that being gay is a choice, and that gay lives conform to some sort of stereotype. I am assuming that you didn’t mean any offense by it, given your reported support of equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans. Just a word to the wise. Openly gay people live their lives in all sorts of different ways, just as straight people.
@David Roberts
Done. No problem, Dave. I’ll try…and thanks.
Definitely had no idea that the word “lifestyle” is a buzz word or that it connotes choice. (I certainly didn’t mean it that way.)
Anyway, this discussion has been enlightening. Regan, I appreciate your responses to me and I read them carefully. Same goes for everyone else’s posts.
I don’t really have anything else to say, except: I hope there’s more peace surrounding this issue in the future. I guess ultimately everyone can agree on that!
@anne
It not only implies choice, but that all gays live a common, stereotypical lifestyle, i.e. party constantly, obsessed with appearance, shallow, promiscuous, etc. There simply is no one gay lifestyle, as there is no one straight lifestyle. Since so many anti-gay people use the term as a pejorative, you may want to avoid it. That may seem politically correct, but there is a valid reason for the sensitivity many feel at it’s use, mainly that it most often does signify a conscious effort to marginalize and demean.
Feel free to comment in the future, but you may want to read through some of the archives to get a better idea of how things normally go here.
Excuse me?
I wasn’t aware that this was the military.
anne,
he said “to get a better idea of how things normally go here.” NOT “to get a better idea of how things are supposed to go here.” Chill.
… or a cult.
What a way to dissuade open discussion.
guys, i’m going to suggest ignoring the troll from now on.
Anne,
Do you really want an open discussion? Calling people who post at Ex-Gay Watch a cult did some serious damage to any goodwill that has been extended to you. Also, those of us who are actually familiar with Ex-Gay Watch know about the pointed discussions that have taken place openly on this blog. Like I said before, Thom (or in this case you) may be free to say whatever you want, but you are not free from criticism.
I am increasingly thinking that you are just a concern troll who is showing her true colors. My responses to you are likely to be far less generous than the slack that I (probably mistakenly) extended to you over your “lifestyle” comment. I guess the sheep’s clothing slipped a litte there.
Ha! The funny thing is: you are SO wrong!! I arrived on this scene out of total curiosity and nothing else. My politics are totally liberal on every social issue. And maybe because I am such a bleeding heart, I felt bad for what I saw was an attack on an individual here. I think the danger of liberalism is that people get so open-minded that they become close-minded. I wrote in for no reason other than that.
Troll? Sheep’s clothing? My heart started racing when I read that. I am truly offended, even though you are strangers and I shouldn’t care!
I want to thank Regan for giving me the benefit of the doubt. None of you know me at all, but Regan was the closest to getting me. Because she saw that I tried to be thoughtful.
These are my mistakes:
1. Not knowing that “lifestyle” is a loaded word (and I accepted the information presented to me, but geez, you were pretty harsh, John, in enlightening me).
2. Being frustrated with the demeaning way John spoke to me, and responding emotionally to that.
I think of all people, you guys could accept that one might respond emotionally when offended!
I will try my best not to return here. The only reason I am writing now is because I feel some need to restore my name. Even though this is the internet. Because I am a way-too-sensitive person who apparently cares what you think.
I will stick to real life interactions from now on– people who meet me can see who I am.
(Now I feel like you’ll retaliate with something like, “Oh, Anne is protesting too much. She’s probably a troll.)
Emily K, I had read some of your stuff before and actually really enjoyed it and agreed with it.
Oh well, wish you guys the best. I actually do. If we met in real life, we’d probably agree on 99% and disagree on 1%. But I think you’re determined to disbelieve me.
I went back to the first comment I left to respond to Thom, and he threw out the first insult at me. I was wondering why my responses devolved the way they did. And figured it out. His response to my analogy to the struggle of blacks was one such insult.
I suppose that’s when I decided I didn’t have to be respectful to his disrespect. Nothing sets me off more than someone telling me I don’t know anything about the civil rights movement and how mentioning the gay struggle with it cheapens it.
Yeah, he earned what I gave him. Just sayin’.
guys. troll. do not feed.
Stick around Anne. Misunderstandings are common and easy to happen. And hopefully as easy to correct. This is a very intelligent, experienced and informative group. I came here to learn, and get involved and try and understand the mindset of ex gays, or ex ex gays…and we’ve had the good fortune of having a straight woman married to a gay man give us a very intimate and intelligent account of the experience with her church community. It’s always welcoming in the essential way.
As I just said, my first comment ever, to Thom, didn’t warrant his disrespect at all. I gave a resume in such a way to understand my interest in gay equality. And he insulted the subject of my resume. So I responded in a not so patient way.
I don’t especially like a comment thread to come down to just me and a dissenter, it calls attention to the wrong thing.
But it kept things lively for a minute there.
You don’t have to go. I’ve been coming here for YEARS and I love it. I’ve also been going to a very conservative, homophobic site for YEARS. I’m intense, I’m also very thick skinned.
Testing the skin of an ex gay promises a failure at some point. And I see no need in kid gloves. We’re adults here, not babies.
Civil rights activism requires a warrior spirit. We have no one or thing to hide behind and don’t want to.
I won’t apologize for it. Nor take anything off of someone not in the trenches themselves for it.
I know that ex gays feel themselves embattled, that’s obvious. But their perception of who they are battling, is flipped to anyone who knows what to look for.
And that’s what we analyze here in XGW.
@Regan DuCasse
You’ve got a great heart, Regan. Your posts were very helpful in understanding you and the discussion here. Your second post made me smile big: your stick-to-it spirit is something I hope to have more of myself one day. I appreciate, truly appreciate, that you’re willing to engage me without branding me a troll, and that you’re reminding me of the value of thick skin. Your “warrior spirit” is inspiring. You’re right. I’m glad there are people like you in the world, fighting out loud to make it better.