Ex-Gay Watch

From the Washington Post:

A Pentagon study group has concluded that the military can lift the ban on gays serving openly in uniform with only minimal and isolated incidents of risk to the current war efforts, according to two people familiar with a draft of the report, which is due to President Obama on Dec. 1.

More than 70 percent of respondents to a survey sent to active-duty and reserve troops over the summer said the effect of repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy would be positive, mixed or nonexistent, said two sources familiar with the document. The survey results led the report’s authors to conclude that objections to openly gay colleagues would drop once troops were able to live and serve alongside them.

Mr. President?  Congress?  Courts?  Anyone?

If this ban is finally lifted soon, the United States will be the 26th major military power to do so.  Our allies did this years ago, including Israel (nearly 20 years ago!).  No one can seriously challenge their military prowess.  None of these countries reported any problems with the move.

That we are so far behind on this, the chief champions of human rights for so many years, attests to the enormous fear certain groups have been able to instill for nothing more than the extension of their own petty prejudices.

Please America, stop being afraid.

Case in point:

“fairness and equality, those are ok to talk about in the abstract… but this is real life here”

Edit: added video (Hat Tip: Towle)

Source: Blabbeando

The high court ordered changes to 42 norms that range from Criminal, Civil and Disciplinary Codes, to the special health plan available to military forces.

The Magistrates embraced a position paper submitted by their peer, Rodrigo Escobar Gil.

They ruled that the challenged dispositions did not justify the discrimination they instituted, or that the variances with regards to same-sex couples placed these people in a position of vulnerability before the law.

And in both cases, the Constitutional Court held that the right to equality was violated.

Hence, provisions such as those contained the Disciplinary and Penal Codes, which establish the right against incrimination by a spouse, should also be applied to heterosexual (sic) partners.

Another instance is that of crimes related to domestic violence; victims can be same-sex partners or aggravation imposed by law for crimes against the person.

This includes cases where reparations are made to victims of heinous crimes.

According to an update on the Blabbeando post, this also means that “gay Colombian citizens can grant foreign same-sex partners immigration rights in the same way that married heterosexual partners can sponsor their spouses for immigration purposes.”

It continues to amaze us how countries which many might consider less progressive at first glance — certainly Colombia has been rocked by the instabilities and violence of that region and it’s drug wars — are recognizing the need for equality under the law for GLBT citizens.

I like Wendy Gritter, and I like New Direction. She’s a sweet and Christ-focused woman and I think New Direction is one of the most Christ-centered ministries for people that deal with same-sex attraction. I was upset when I read her recent blog post about a colleague that has been claiming New Direction “doesn’t offer hope anymore.”

Now, I’m not going to refute that statement here. Ms. Gritter has already done extremely well with that in the linked post, and I highly suggest you read it. I will offer my own personal story, though. I’ve never been involved with New Direction (sadly, I’m not Canadian), and the only contact I’ve had with Ms. Gritter is through comments on her blog. However, I think out of all these types of ministries, New Direction’s philosopy most closely resembles my own, and even I have been accused, in a round-about way, of not having enough hope.

Usually when someone makes that kind of snarky remark about hope, what they mean to say is that I’m not falling over myself in an effort to be straight. I’m comfortable and happy as I am. I’m not comfortable with my sins or my temptations, mind you, but at the same time I’m not stressed about how I dress, or how I talk, or how I express my emotions, or whether or not a pretty young woman turns my head. The way some of the ex-gay ministries talk, you’d think that a “normal” heterosexual existence with a dog, yard, and three kids was a Biblical mandate.

Quite simply, it’s not. Ms. Gritter mentioned how her critics said they saw heterosexuality as part of God’s redemption plan. “Everyone is on a journey towards heterosexuality,” they said, “but some people only go a little way down that road.” That’s their excuse for the same-sex attracted men and women who don’t experience change in their attractions (which I would say is most likely the majority of SSA folks). Oh sure, according to them we’re not sinning by being content celibates, but we’re not whole either. We haven’t completed our “journey towards heterosexuality.” Read more…

Yesterday, I noticed a post from Peter LaBarbera concerning The Marin Foundation. I remembered hearing Andrew Marin’s story on a podcast from The Gay Christian Network (GCN) and something didn’t click. Marin was a self-confessed “bible-banging homophobe” brought up in the Assemblies of God. His life was changed by the coming out stories of his three best friends in college. It led him to immerse himself (Marin is straight) in the gay community to understand and identify with the struggles so many have.

He has a passion to be a genuine, unconditional representation of God’s love to both the gay community and the traditional evangelical community. These and similar terms he uses are not meant to express a false dichotomy, but simply to make it easier to describe his concepts. He now lives in Boystown, Chicago, with his wife and has formed The Marin Foundation.

I had always been under the impression that Marin was one of those few success stories, one of the truly “good guys” who is affected by the honesty and truth of the GLBT people in his life and changes because of it. To see him described on LaBarbera’s site as “the other side of the same coin” caught me off guard. I wrote Marin and told him this, and asked him if he had given the only real quote that LaBarbera used. He replied quickly, and sincerely, and it led to a conversation which you may hear below.

My own assessment of what I have heard is that LaBarbera has co-opted the good will and reputation of another for himself. He already has the idea that someone is spending millions of dollars just to counter his fringe voice, so there is no doubt that he is self-absorbed. But it would appear he is willing to negatively impact both friend and foe in his struggle to be noticed.

In matters of faith there is little agreement, but one does not need to agree with Marin to sense his sincerity. I found him willing to listen and teachable. Like Wendy Gritter, he had a profound sense of the hurt LGBT’s have suffered because of the actions of the Church. But he wants nothing to do with ex-gay anything; his work, concern, and love are unconditional. You can decide what you like about Marin, but I hope you will listen to the conversation and see what you think of LaBarbera’s actions toward him.

The first part is a quick background on Andrew Marin, then his description of the issue with LaBarbera.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

After XGW discovered information indicating that Exodus International is a member of the prominent religious conservative political organization, The Arlington Group (AG), we asked President Alan Chambers to respond on the record. He replied that Exodus was indeed a member, and they planned on maintaining that membership.

Co-founded by Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association, AG is an attempt to unify the efforts of religious conservative political groups. It is politics and policy in overdrive, and when you hear powerful religious conservatives speak in unison, it probably started in a huddle at AG.

Now the obvious question; how does this fit in with Chamber’s recent announcement that Exodus has “decided to back out of policy issues,” concerned that they “might be alienating people that simply wouldn’t call [them] for help because of the perception that [they] were becoming a partisan and political organization rather than a ministry for all”? If anything, this will guarantee just that – and it will be true.

XGW has tried to be reasonable about the difficulties surrounding such a major change. We understand, for instance, that one can’t always disassociate from a board member immediately, depending on the issues. There may be contracts to be fulfilled, etc. However, membership in a group like AG is not a gray area, and not only are they still members, but Chambers has says they will remain so.

This really is an intolerable situation if Chambers is to ever be believed in the future. We call on him as president of Exodus International to stand by his pledge and cancel Exodus’ membership in this purely partisan, political group.

Addendum: The Arlington Group website was taken off-line in early 2007. See comments below for more info.

Hat Tip: Emily for finding the membership info.

Claiming a new focus on ministry, Exodus president Alan Chambers confirms that they have left the political arena. Seeking to verify a rumor, XGW asked Chambers to respond for the record today. His answers may be particularly significant considering the recent discussions (both here and on Warren Throckmorton’s blog) with Wendy Gritter, leader of Exodus member ministry New Direction.

XGW: We’ve heard that changes have been made regarding Exodus’ direct involvement in politics. Can you confirm and explain what these are? What changes have been made, i.e. what were you doing and what are you doing now in this realm?

Chambers: It may sound nuanced but we weren’t really involved in “politics.” We never worked for the direct election or defeat of a candidate.

We did get involved in “policy issues” on a federal level with regard to hate crimes legislation and marriage. We considered getting more involved than that. In fact, as you know, we hired a Director of Government Affairs in March, 2007.

Since the first day we entered into policy discussions and activism it was a struggle for us. I felt strongly about the issues we were defending, but conflicted about the fact that we might be alienating people that simply wouldn’t call us for help because of the perception that we were becoming a partisan and political organization rather than a ministry for all.

In August, 2007 after a lot of prayer, deliberation and listening to friends and critics alike — but mostly the Lord — we decided to back out of policy issues and our Director of Government Affairs took a position with another organization.

I believe strongly in all of the initiatives that we were involved in, but believe we must focus on our two greatest contributions: 1) helping the Church balance grace and truth where homosexuality is concerned and 2) connecting people who seek our help with a community of believers that can love them as they journey towards Christ.

XGW: What prompted these changes? Read more…

Over 100 Christian ministers will be showing their support for Australia’s gay and lesbian community by marching in this year’s Sydney Mardi Gras parade. The multi-denominational group, which calls itself 100 Revs, has issued a formal apology for the Church’s mistreatment of gays, confessing that Christians have been “profoundly unloving” towards homosexuals:

As ministers of various churches and denominations we recognise that the churches we belong to, and the church in general, have not been places of welcome for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) people, For these things we apologise. We are deeply sorry and ask the forgiveness of the GBLT community.

Author and former Assemblies of God evangelist Anthony Venn-Brown applauded the move towards reconciliation:

This wonderful act reminds me of the time the NSW Police marched in the parade for the first time. It was a sign of progress when the very organisation that had imprisoned the first marchers in 1978, joined the parade as participants, 20 or so years later.

He added that it was “a way forward of healing for us all.” Venn-Brown believes that those who sign the 100 Revs statement may become the targets of anger and hostility, even ostracized for their willingness to admit the wrongs. “Thank you for standing with us and welcome to our world,” he concluded.

The Bishop of Liverpool has apologized for his part in opposing the proposed appointment of openly gay cleric Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading. The Right Reverend James Jones – perhaps the Church of England’s most prominent evangelical bishop – has also drawn attention to God-sanctioned same-sex relationships in the Bible, describing the story of David and Jonathan as a “witness to love between two people of the same gender,” and signalling an openness to more dialogue on the subject.

Jones was one of nine Anglican bishops to put his name to a letter publicly opposing Jeffrey John’s consecration in 2005. The Very Reverend John, currently Dean of St Albans, has been in a civil union with his long-time partner since 2006, but has always said the relationship is celibate, in keeping with Church rules. Writing of the controversy, the Bishop of Liverpool now says:

I deeply regret this episode in our common life. … I still believe that it was unwise to try to take us to a place that evidently did not command the broad support of the Church of England but I am sorry for the way I opposed it and I am sorry too for adding to the pain and distress of Dr. John and his partner. I regret too that this particular controversy narrowed rather than enlarged the space for healthy debate within the church.

In the essay, which was published last month in A Fallible Church: Lambeth Essays (ed. Kenneth Stevenson), the Bishop goes on to talk about the Old Testament story of David and Jonathan: Read more…

The UK evangelical ministry Courage lent its support to a new anti-discrimination campaign this past weekend.

Courage began in 1988 as an ex-gay ministry, but announced it was gay-affirming in 2001. Now the pioneering organisation is among the supporters of Would Jesus Discriminate?, a campaign being run by the Metropolitan Community Church in Bath, England. Other UK Christian organisations backing the initiative include Ekklesia and Accepting Evangelicals.

At the heart of the campaign is an appeal to Scripture, with a call to look again at the biblical teaching on homosexuality, beginning with an examination of Jesus and the Gospels:

The gospels are clear. Jesus refused to be bound by cultural prejudice. Repeatedly, he took up the cause of the oppressed and defended them against narrow-minded religious leaders. Unfortunately, the Church has often failed to live up to Jesus’ example.

Perhaps most significant is that the majority of the campaign’s proponents are evangelicals. Ekklesia challenges the perception that the gay debate is simply a liberal-vs-evangelical issue (as Exodus’s Randy Thomas recently argued):

Since the current sad argument within the churches over human sexuality and the status of LGBT people is mainly presented in the media as a fight between ‘liberals’ and ‘evangelicals’, Ekklesia has given priority, once more, to voices who wish to challenge this simple and misleading polarity.

The UK campaign follows the MCC’s recent high-profile campaign of the same name in the US.

XGW previously reported that the Love In Action Refuge youth program had been discontinued. In a recent press release, Love In Action reported that it has returned with a new name, Family Freedom Intensive. Unlike Refuge, this new incarnation will not be residential.

The Family Freedom Intensive involves a four-day schedule of group interaction and individual family meetings designed to help parents better understand the sexual issues their teen is experiencing while equipping them with healthier and more effective communication tools. Should a teenager decide they would like to be included in their parents’ process, we will work to faciliate [sic] that request.

The removal of the live-in aspect mixing of youth and adult attendees appears to be a follow through on a promise by Exodus president Alan Chambers. In a post to his personal blog from March of this year, Chambers responded to an issue brought up in his appearance on the Montel Williams Show.

I hate that [Lance Carroll], a 16 year old with no prior homosexual (or sexual for that matter) experiences was put into groups with adults, especially an adult that was a convicted sex offender. I stated on air that I believe that is wrong and I will follow through on seeing that a policy is enacted and enforced within any Exodus Member Ministry that works with youth.

The statement “should a teenager decide they would like to be included…” from the LIA press release seems to indicate that they will no longer take youth against their will. While this does seem to be a positive step, one must ask how free a teenager would feel to object. We know all to well, some from personal experience, that some of these kids are threatened by their parents with losing privileges, college funding, even shelter and their love.Will LIA make an effort to determine if this kind of coercion has taken place even if the youth seems to be willing?

Correction (3:06 pm):

As Peterson Toscano pointed out, Refuge, though often reported as such, was not residential. It was, however, and intensive 2-8 week program aimed at teens under 18 who attended sessions with adult members of the LIA residential program (now called “The Source”). It was during this intermixing of youth from Refuge, and adults from The Source which led to the problems (brought to light by Peterson Toscano earlier this year) to which Alan Chambers was responding in his blog quoted above.

From the archived version of the LIA/R site:

Refuge was developed to coincide with The Source, our 3 month residential program for men and women who struggle with sexual addiction and obsessive relationships. Therefore, the same tools and skills will be used in this group that have proved to be such an asset in the adult program. Some joint sessions will occur with the clients of The Source to allow additional input and perspectives into the lives of these young men. In addition to group sessions, participants in Refuge will be offered individual sessions as necessary, recreational opportunities with the other clients, as well as an atmosphere of accountability and support. [Emphasis Added]

Family Freedom Intensive can’t be accurately called Refuge with a new name, because the former is only a 4 day program, aimed mostly at parents, and apparently only involves the youth if they so desire (caveats listed above still apply).

The title of this post has been changed to correct the inaccuracy. The original title was “Ex-Gay Boot Camp Youth Program Returns, No Longer Residential.” We apologize for these errors.