Ex-Gay Watch

When Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992, he made the mistake of assuming that this meant the country, and it’s elected officials, had endorsed the gay positive position upon which he ran. This was not the case.

Upon beginning his term in 1993, Clinton began the discussion of lifting the ban of gay and lesbian servicepersons – only to find that he was almost alone in that position. The discussion quickly became one of “compromise” wherein deeply closeted gay people could theoretically serve in the military without harassment. The compromise soon came to be know by half of it’s promise: Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell (or DADT) – and don’t harass, don’t pursue dropped from the public conscience.

In recent months there has been increasing criticisms of this policy. Even those initially responsible for establishing it now say they find the restrictions to no longer be necessary.
On January 2 of this year the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1993, John Shalikashvili, wrote, “I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces.” He was joined later that day by William Cohen who served as Defense Secretary from 1997 to 2001.

Read more…

In an article on the Christian webzine Boundless, Exodus Youth’s Mike Ensley offers advice to those who “struggle with same-sex attraction” but who do not find themselves turning into heterosexuals.

While some of what Mike spouts is parroting dogmatic nonsense (“Homosexuality is an experience you have, it’s not a thing that you are”), he also gives some practical advice that would be useful for avoiding anything that you find a temptation. And Mike broaches a subject that I believe is too often hidden from the public face of ex-gay ministries.

Stop obsessing about how much you will (or won’t) enjoy heterosexual sex

You’ve thought about it, and so have I. What if I don’t enjoy sex with my spouse? What if I still want to have sex with other men (or women, if you’re a woman)? The skeptics certainly say all the time that we “ex-gays” only have sexually frustrated lives ahead of us.

I believe this is an important question for those pursuing change to consider. Unfortunately, I think that Mike gives advice that displays immaturity and self delusion.

People often ask me if I have sexual fantasies about women now, because that’s what the world would consider change. But God wants me to change not into a man who still wraps himself up in self-absorbed fantasy, but one who’s ready to put my wife before myself — and put Him first.

Afraid you won’t enjoy the sex? Well, if your priority is your own satisfaction and the living out of your overly-developed obsessions, no, you won’t enjoy the intimacy of sex within marriage. You know what? Neither would an “ever-straight” with the same mindset. They might be able to marry according to their worldly desires, but it will never fulfill the endless hunger of selfishness. Real closeness grows out of commitment to a person, and following God’s will.

Don’t worry; sex God’s way will be the best.

In other words, don’t worry that you aren’t attracted sexually to the opposite sex. Just think of sex as a duty to God and this will fulfill you sexually.

I know many who read here have tried exactly that approach. Perhaps some of you can share whether Mike’s advice is likely to lead to happiness… or to broken homes and devastated lives.

The Catholic World News brings us a story of a former homosexual in Italy.

He says that his sexual impulses were healed as a result of reading the Bible and the works of St. Josemaria Escriva, the founder of Opus Dei, as well as praying the Rosary three times a day.

Surely Exodus – an organization that relies so heavily on the testamony of former homosexuals as inspiration for how others should live their lives – will readily welcome this new approach. And, of course we can expect that Love Won Out will soon introduce special seminars on appealing to St. Josemaria Esciva and on praying the Rosary.

Or perhaps not.

On Wednesday, in their infinite wisdom, the state legislature of Utah has passed a law intended to shut down clubs that teach tolerance of other students, regardless of sexual orientation.  On Thursday it was reversed on a technicality and didn’t have the votes to pass Thursday’s revote.

The bill would have required all sorts of additional hoops for non-curricular clubs to jump through for starting up including requirements that parents sign permission slips. While the authors of the bills claim that they want to protect children, absolutely no one believes that this is intended to do anything but shut down gay-straight alliances.

The key provision of the legislation bans any clubs that — quote — -”involve human sexuality” or threaten the “moral well-being” of students.

The authors of the bill claim it bill stand up to the Federal Equal Access Act because it applies to all clubs equally. Pretending for a moment that we actually believe this claim, we wonder exactly which clubs a clever school board could ban had the bill made it to law.

I would recommend the Fellowship of Christian Atheletes because they promote the notion that God favors MY team which may well threaten the moral well-being of students.

And I’d ban the homecoming committee for involving human sexuality.

Those who claim to speak for “American Values” would often have us believe that a core American value is discrimination against gay people. Increasingly, however, this “value” is becoming an anachronism.

Another evidence that gay people are beginning to be recognized and valued as a part of the American family is a new poll from the folks at Gallup.

Between now and the 2008 political conventions, there will be discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates — their education, age, religion, race, and so on. If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be homosexual, would you vote for that person?

Of those polled, 55% said yes and 43% said no.

Interestingly, even among conservatives, a gay candidate could receive 36% of the vote. Liberals found the idea of a gay presidential candidate less concerning than a septuagenarian, a Mormon, or a thrice married heterosexual. Everyone preferred a gay President to an atheist President.

There was no mention as to whether an ex-gay presidential candidate would fare well.

The San Francisco Chronical has an article about a protest of ex-gay ministry Desert Stream and their seminar in the heart of San Francisco.

An evangelical Christian minister from Missouri, who came to a San Francisco church to teach gays and lesbians how to become straight, was greeted Saturday by a protest led by a gay theology student who said the preacher’s conversion therapy was so psychologically damaging that he twice attempted suicide when he tried it.

The Bay Area Reporter also covered the seminarians and ex-ex-gays that came to protest the message of brokenness.

Maria Caruana and Todd Ferrell of San Francisco’s Freedom in Christ Evangelical Church came out to join the protesters, wearing purple “Christian + Gay = OK” T-shirts. Ferrell was there, he explained, “To let people know that there are people out there that have found freedom and have a great relationship with God. I don’t think that he intended my life to be in a quandary about change for 40 years. What happened is that I found freedom just by accepting myself and accepting the gift that God gave me as a gay man and suddenly peace and joy and all of the things that I didn’t have before that I was fighting, finally came.”

Additionally, there is video here of the effort.

Here’s a story about Cheryl and Keri.

Once upon a time they met and fell in love and decided to get married, start a family, and spend the rest of their lives together.

So Cheryl and Keri went to Vermont and had a civil union. And they used artificial insemination to have a daughter. Cheryl was the birth mother. And all was good.

Then, as too often happens in such stories, things went sour. Cheryl found out that Keri had been unfaithful and their relationship ended with remorse and recrimination. Keri moved out.

But though they were no longer a couple, Keri continued to see her daughter. Even after Cheryl moved from Utah to Texas, Keri would drive to see her child. This did not make Cheryl happy. So she stopped Keri’s access. And became ex-gay. And used the resources of the anti-gay movement to punish Keri and drive her away from her child.

The Supreme Court of Utah just decided in favor of Cheryl.

This sickens me not only because of the immorality of placing anti-gay bigotry ahead of all of the intentions of the couple, but also because ex-gay conversion was used to gain support from anti-gay activists and because the anti-gay religious community is rejoicing in one woman’s pain.

For me this raises a number of questions.

First, is there any moral reasoning that can justify separating Keri and her daughter? Perhaps one could argue that the law was what it was and that this is a sad conclusion. But morally?

Here’s what the Alliance Defense Fund had to say:

“Protecting the well-being of a small child trumps the desire of a legal stranger to usurp the care and protection of that child’s mom,” said the group’s Joe Infranco. “The Utah Supreme Court ruled correctly in affirming Cheryl Barlow’s right as a natural parent and putting an end to visitation with a woman who has no legitimate legal relationship to the child.”

And I’ve yet to see anyone from the ex-gay community condemn this action. Which makes me wonder whether they favor this cruel decision.

Second, what else could Keri have done to protect her family? Utah refused to recognize the steps she did take and did not allow her to take others solely because she was part of a same-sex couple.

And yet the ex-gay movement continues to claim that gay couples don’t need protections afforded by civil unions or marriage and is actively involved in efforts to prohibit same-sex adoptions.

I know that many ex-gay advocates read our comments here. And many will tell us that they are not vindictive or hateful or in favor of discriminatory or punitive treatment towards gay people. Some of you claim that you wish to treat others the way that you want to be treated.

My challenge to you ex-gay ministers is this:

Is there anyone involved in the ex-gay movement that thinks this is a morally unjustifiable result?

Is there anyone in the ex-gay movement brave enough to say, “I don’t want my children taken away from me so I find it unacceptable that Keri’s daughter was taken from her”?

Is there anyone willing to admit that using the ex-gay movement as a tool to be spiteful and vindictive is inappropriate?

Is there anyone willing to say that same-sex couples should be empowered to make decisions about their family and take protections – either through adoptions or civil unions or partnerships – that cannot be vetoed at the whim of an ex-partner?

In short, is there anyone involved in the ex-gay movement that is willing to take a stand for fairness, humanity, decency and basic morality?

By Timothy Kincaid

One aspect of war is dealing with enemies, those who seek to do you harm. And we all know that in war, enemies are to be destroyed without compassion or hesitation before they do the same to you. Millennia of warfare have shown that the best way to keep your troops willing to fight is to dehumanize your enemy. Don’t let your troops sympathize or see theirselves in the enemy or they may not be so ready to slaughter him.

Sadly, these rules of engagement also apply to culture wars.

We can readily see this tactic of dehumanization in the language adopted by ex-gay ministries and their anti-gay political allies. They portray gay people as unhappy, unhealthy sex fiends incapable of love who operate under an agenda to destroy the family and Christianity. It is easy to deny the depraved the same rights and priveleges you share.

Unfortunately pro-gay participants in this debate too often employ these tactics as well. We may stray from criticism of the message (and there is plenty to criticize) and begin to criticize the messenger. Such an instance occurred recently when Wayne Besen discussed the comments of Chad Thompson.

Not only does Chad dress like a slob and look like he needs to take a bath – he also speaks out of both sides of his hypocritical mouth.

This is, unfortunately, not the first time that Wayne had gotten a bit too personal about Chad. He has also said,

In his world, God judges a man by his pecs, not his prayers. If you are too old, fat or not cool enough, it appears you can’t get in his Bel Ami Bible Club.

and

You know what irritates me about Chad? On the front page of his website he dresses like he is a teenager at a rave. But if you go deeper into his website one can view crowsfeet on his face. He clearly is no longer a teenager. His fake rave boi act is just a cheap and tawdry way to recruit confused young men into his troubling ministry.

I do not agree with Chad Thompson’s theology or his ministry. To me, his idea of Loving Homosexuals as Jesus Would includes social/cultural activism that is contrary to the teachings of Jesus. And it seems to me that this “loving” consists of little more than putting a pretty face on hateful anti-gay attitudes and behaviors.

Nonetheless, this does not warrant attacks on Chad’s friends, person, or appearance.

Chad’s sense of style may be more grungy than mine, but comments about his clothing choices are not appropriate. And perhaps I’m reaching the age where such comment rankle, but jibes about crowsfeet are just tacky.

Perhaps it seems that I’m picking on Wayne here. That’s not my intent. Wayne has probably been no more guilty of this than I have been at times.

But in this ongoing discussion about sexuality, freedom, equality, religion, values, and how they all impact the efforts some people make to change their orientation, I believe we are best served when we cease warring and begin communicating. And that is better accomplished when we challenge the message, and not the messenger.

We have long noted the fondness that Exodus President Alan Chambers has for claiming that “hundreds of thousands of us have found freedom from the isolation and emptiness we experienced in gay life through the power of Jesus Christ”.

This Sunday the New York Times ran an article about persons who are unhappy with their same-sex attractions. While the story provided a good synopsis of services available in the NYC area, there was not much new to us. Except this:

It is unclear how many people participate in these programs, but a leading Christian organization in the movement, Exodus International, estimated in 2003 it had 11,000 in its affiliated ministries.

Hundreds of Thousands v. 11,000

hmmmmmmmmm. I think it’s time for More Math Magic

Let’s see…. with about 125 ministries, that’s about 88 per ministry (though new reports tend to mention lower numbers of attendees)… and assuming 1/3 drop out, and that the average person who doesn’t drop out fairly soon lasts about 2 years (just a guess), oh that would be about 3,700 freedom finders per year. And if we assume that “hundreds of thousands” is, let’s see, at least 200,000 then we can see that Exodus reached its number after only

54 YEARS

Oh that can’t be right.

Sigh. Now it’s your turn.

Charlene Cothran, the publisher of Venus, a magazine targeting black same-gender-loving people, recently determined that she was no longer a lesbian and has changed the message of her magazine. While Cothran wants to target the same audience (people of African descent In The Life), her new theme is how God can deliver you from being gay. This has left some of her readers – and former writers – somewhat perplexed.

Amy Wooten of The Windy City Times discussed Cothran’s conversion and the new direction of her publication as well as Cothran’s intention to continue targeting a gay audience. She quotes Cothran as saying,

“… I know that there is a connection in the African-American and gay community at large. … The responsibility that I now have is that those people that are connected to it receive a different message. I will not change the name. I have not changed the distribution points. I have not changed the subscribers who have paid for it in the past but are still getting it. We built this business over 13 years to target Black, gay households and communities and outlets. That is still where we are going, but with a new message.”

Cothran became rather unhappy with Wooten’s article, especially with Wooten suggesting that Venus had now become a voice for the ex-gay movement. Cothan rebutted on her website:

Reporter Amy Wooten and others try to have VENUS shut down by attempting, in this article, to define VENUS as a magazine re-established by and ‘now a voice for the ‘Ex-Gay’ movement,’ then using the article as reference in a letter to VENUS advertisers. I personally have nothing against the work of Exodus and other organizations like them, but VENUS clearly DOES NOT REPRESENT THEM. Wooten’s opening statements are clearly meant to harm VENUS. I have no control over the ‘Ex-Gay’ movement’s celebrating my new life, if indeed they are, I don’t know.

Yet Venus’ latest issue includes a cover article about former lesbian Carla Thomas Royster and a reprint of the article Redeemed: 10 Ways to Get Out of the Gay Life, If You Want Out.

Wooten did a follow-up story about the attitudes and opinions resulting from Cothran’s conversion and the new purpose of Venus.

Two things impressed me in looking at Wooten’s article and the feedback on the Venus blogsite. First, though in some cases dismayed, many gay people expressed support for Cothran’s right to her personal choices and decisions. The other was this within this comment:

Affinity, a non-profit organization that provides programs and services for Chicago’s Black lesbian community, is also upset by the direction the publication has taken. “This isn’t a part of why we connected ourselves to that publication,” Chris Smith of Affinity told Windy City Times.

Smith said that for years, Affinity only received one copy of Venus each quarter. But just last week, 200 copies of the most recent issue were sent to the organization.
…
Smith said they intend to send back all 200 copies, along with a letter of response. “We cannot support the direction of the publication,” Smith said.

It struck me as odd that a gay organization that had previously received only a single copy now received 200. I am curious whether this is simply a shifting of distribution points (something Cothran has said she did not do) or whether this is the result of a ramping up of production.

For a magazine of Venus’ size, the largest expenditure – by far – is printing cost. If there was an increase in production in proportion to the increase of magazines received by Affinity, this clearly would have required a huge investment of funds.

Another item of note is that on the Venus blogsite a person identified as “Editor” is DL Foster, an ex-gay activist best known for his hostile hateful attitude (some here may recall the meep-meep comments) and his stirring up of anti-gay attitudes in the Carribean. Foster is also listed as one of Cothran’s spiritual mentors.

Should Wooten follow up further on this story, she might want to inquire whether Cothran has received new funding as a result of her new-found ex-gay identity and also inquire as to her relationship with this speaker for Exodus Global. It is possible that such questioning may expose a conflict with her claim not to be a voice of the ex-gay movement.