Ex-Gay Watch

Proposition 8, the law that bans same-sex marriage in California, has been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The announcement, made just before 10am PT today, is another nail in the coffin of marriage inequality in the US. The fight for LGBT equality is still far from over, however. According to Andrew Gumbel in The Guardian (UK), the ruling “will not put an end to the argument about the rights of same-sex couples in the United States, but it will be a vital stepping stone toward the inevitable final showdown in the Supreme Court in Washington.”

Speaking as neither a resident nor a citizen of the US, I find it bizarre that a nation that makes so much of its commitment to freedom of expression should have such a problem granting so many of its citizens the right to make one of the most beautiful human expressions of all. Here’s to more victories in a battle whose final outcome I think we all, despite the pains and frustrations of the wait, can predict.

We’re a few days behind, but better late than never in wishing long-time Ex-Gay Watch friend and ally Wayne Besen, of Truth Wins Out, the very best with his new husband, Jamie Brundage. The happy couple married in Burlington, Vermont, on December 8.

Congratulations!

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

full transcript / msnbc video

—

Ron Reagan Jr. was filling in for Chris Matthews last week on Hardball. In the “Let me finish” portion at the end of the show, Ron refutes (fmr. Sen. (R)) Rick Santorum’s (et al), claim that gay marriage will lead to polygamy — the “slippery slope” fallacy/argument.

The pith of it is this:

Ron Reagan Jr.: “Santorum and many of his anti-gay colleagues can do a lot better than paper towels. They’re fond of claiming that if gay people would be allowed to wed, we’d also have to allow polygamy, incest and bestiality. This assertion is so absurd some people find it difficult to argue against.

If you find yourself similarly flummoxed, just point out this very simple distinction. Laws against polygamy are non-exclusionary. Whether you are gay or straight, black or white, Christian or Muslim, you can’t be married to more than one person at a time. Preventing gay people from exercising the same right as their fellow straight citizens creates a separate unequal class of people, it is exclusionary. That is the only meaningful distinction you need to keep in mind when arguing with people like Santorum.”

Not so slippery a slope after all.

Now let’s add some glue to that slope:
Read more…

New Yorkers Celebrate Marriage Equality - Voice of America

In a major victory for gay rights, the New York Sate Senate voted 33 to 29 to approve same-sex marriage in the state, becoming the sixth state to do so.  The debate lasted for days and followed a previous attempt in 2009 which fell through at the last moment.  Governor Cuomo, who had promised to pass this legislation during his election campaign, signed the bill before midnight.  Same-sex marriages can begin in 30 days.

The deciding vote was cast by Republican Stephen Saland who had voted no last time.  He credits this change to a “change of heart” and a desire “to do the right thing.”  Bravo, Mr. Saland.  Anti-gay forces will most certainly be brought to bare in order to defeat his re-election.

It was certainly a wonderful surprise to wake up to this news rather than the gut punch of Prop 8.  And we understand that New York has no residency requirement, so they should expect a great boost in tourism dollars in the months and years to come as gay couples travel to the Empire State to tie the knot and experience the wonders of that great city.

We at XGW would like to send congratulations and our appreciation to those who worked tirelessly against some truly vile opposition to make this happen.  Well done!

Read more at the Voice of America.

In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker has found that Proposition 8 violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice.  While this is undoubtedly the first step in successive legal battles over this issue, the unlikely team of Ted Olsen and David Boies is proving to be a formidable foe of those who wish to deny marriage equality.

Readers can get a copy of the final ruling here, but the main thrust of it comes in the remedy section:

Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result,see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

There is sure to be more analysis as people get a chance to digest the details.  Feel free to note your feelings and opinions here in the mean time.

Congratulations!

Hat Tip: GoodAsYou

Exodus International President Alan Chambers jubilantly noted on Facebook this morning that a lesbian couple of 22 years had finally broken up in response to prayers:

Heard from a couple this morning who have been praying for their daughter and her partner to come to Christ for 22 years. Both accepted Jesus, broke off their relationship and are pursuing a life in Christ. God is faithful and answers prayers. Be encouraged no matter your circumstances!

This rejoicing should tell you all you need to know about Exodus’s family values, and those of the Christian Right. They proclaim the importance of monogamy, faithfulness, commitment and love, but those values end when families fail to fit their narrow mold.

Alan’s fans are equally happy with the news, describing it as “amazing,” “awesome,” and testimony to Exodus’s ex-gay mantra that “change is possible.”

Ex-ex-gay and former Assemblies of God minister Anthony Venn Brown reflects on the elements of sexuality, and discusses how ex-gay men maintain heterosexual marriages:

‘Situational heterosexuality’ is a term I’ve used for several years when people have asked how I could have been married for so many years and yet be gay. This term has also helped people gain a clearer understanding of what really happens when someone who is homosexual marries someone of the opposite sex and claims change. Confusion about what really happens in these situations still exists and often wrongly reinforces the ‘homosexuality is a choice’ and ‘homosexuals can change’ concept.

How often have you heard someone say something like this ‘They couldn’t be gay, they’re married’. When someone says that to me, I just remain silent for a while with a smile on my face (having been a gay man in a heterosexual marriage) and wait for what I’m actually thinking to sink into the consciousness of the person who made the naïve statement.

Read the full article here.

If only grown-ups could learn from this child’s easy-going acceptance of others:

Andrew Sullivan reports on the Cato Institute‘s forum addressing the question Is there a place for gay people in conservatism and conservative politics?, a debate that featured Sullivan alongside Catholic anti-marriage equality campaigner Maggie Gallagher and openly gay British Conservative MP Nick Herbert.

Gay Cato employee Jason Kuznicki was also in attendance (he can be seen on the video at about the 73-minute mark here). Kuznicki writes:

… I got to ask Maggie Gallagher the question I’ve always wanted to ask her: What do you think that am I supposed to do with my life?

Suppose I found myself in agreement with her. Suppose I concluded that same-sex marriage was corrosive to society. Do I leave my husband? Do I send my adopted daughter back to the state? Enter ex-gay therapy, which isn’t likely to work? Tell my whole family that I’m single now, and that Scott shouldn’t be welcome at family events? Live my whole life alone, and loveless? Hide? Where is the life I’m supposed to live?

I probably wasn’t so articulate at the Cato event, but I do recall Gallagher’s very simple answer: “I don’t know.”

She certainly doesn’t, and that’s the whole problem with gay conservatism — there’s hardly a life to be lived within it. There’s no breathing room. Until social conservatives offer us a better answer than “I don’t know,” until they offer us a way to be gay, and conservative, and respectable in their eyes, they’re not going to find many gay conservatives.

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.