Introducting a New Contributor

Hi there. My name is Sharone Belt. Some of you have read comments that I've written on this blog in the past few years.

I am writing today to introduce myself as a new contributor to this blog. Thank you, Jim, for inviting me to be more involved in the blog. I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts and ideas with your readers.

I am 41 years old and live with my partner of 14 years, Erica. We have been living in Texas, but will be moving back to the Washington, DC area in the next few months and are happy to be "coming home". We are renewing our membership at Believers Covenant Fellowship when we return. We were members of the church for about 7 years before leaving almost 2 years ago to move out of the area.

Jim and I became fast friends when his then girlfriend, Brenda, introduced us at church. He has a big heart and a quick wit, so we had a lot in common. Our shared vision for sharing God's love to GLBT people in particular was something that helped us bond early on. We both have a passion for writing our thoughts when we have strong emotions about a news story, personal situation, etc.

While Jim is an awesome advocate for us, I think that I can bring a different sensibility to this blog since I am gay myself. I also have some beliefs and convictions that are unique. For one thing, I was a Republican most of my life. I only became an Independent last year out of disgust for the Republican Party's constant problem with integrity as well as it's catering to the religious right. I am also a person who believes abortion on demand to be detrimental to the women, men, and children involved. It's not a real popular view, especially with my GLBT friends!

Well, that's about it for now. I just wanted to share a little bit about me. I'll write more as time goes on. I hope that you enjoy my take on things.

God bless.

Sharone

Sharone has spent time working with Equality Virginia and was a GLBT activist well before I even addressed those issues. I'm happy to have her as part of this blog and looking forward to her contributions.

Gays in Singapore Can't Be In the "Mainstream Way of Life"

That appears to be the official position of the Singapore government, which according to this article from PinkNews is just now getting around to legalizing oral and anal sex between two consenting opposite-sex adults in private. Needless to say, any sexual activity among homosexuals is against the law in that nation.

At the forefront of keeping the status quo in that area is Ho Peng Kee, a Law and Home Affairs Minister:

Mr Ho said yesterday that the ban on "gross indecency" will remain in place and male homosexuals still face up to two years in prison for gay sex.

"Repealing section 377A will be contentious and may send a wrong signal that the government is encouraging and endorsing the homosexual lifestyle as part of our mainstream way of life," he said, according to AFP.

He added that the push for decriminalisation of homosexual acts in the city state of nearly five million people had been contentious and that the majority find them "offensive and distasteful."

The authorities have not brought anyone up on charges of gross indecency for several years and the country has an active gay scene.

Based on that last statement, the Singapore government's actions appear to be mainly symbolic, but it is some really nasty symbolism.

Mr. Ho is probably right saying that the majority of resident of his nation find homsexual acts offensive and distasteful. I believe that is true in the United States--I find the mental image of two men having sex very distateful. That being said, however, I will fight for their right to do so, and the fact that they can has ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT ON MY LIFE.

The PinkNews article shows that scare tactics predicting the end of civilization as it is currently known if GLBT people are granted more legal rights is not restricted to the U. S. I am sure it is as big a load of crap over there as it is here, and I suspect more of the citizens of Singapore know it just as most Americans do.

Nations like Singapore will continue to stick to their rigid restrictions of GLBT people's legal rights, but they won't be able to control their behavior. Laws like that are just about as effective as prohabition was in American back in the 1920's. Fortunately, our leaders knew enough to repeal those laws, and eventually wiser, more accepting people will abolish these types of laws in other nations too.

Most Christians Left of Right-Wing

Despite their best efforts to marginalize people not like them, the religious right is slipping toward becoming marginalized itself. This column from the Washington Post's "On Faith" series expresses the view that most Christians, not to mention the general population, have political views well to the left of the religious right.

It should come as no surprise that a recent opinion poll among younger people shows great skepticism if not outright resistance to Christianity. Given the preponderance of mainstream media reporting on a minority of U.S. Christians such attitudes make sense.

I suspect these young opinion poll takers are responding to what I call a political philosophy masquerading as gospel that is wrapped in religious rhetoric and painted red, white and blue.

One of its chief cheerleaders is Ann Coulter. She has dismissed most of the Bible and the words of Jesus defending the poor, the widow, the prisoner—the least among us—and spewed her venom that has little or nothing to do with orthodox Christianity. But Ms. Coulter and her ilk are the ones to whom the media gives most of its attention.

The majority of faithful Christians in the U.S. have nothing to do with James Dobson and his Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins and his Family Research Council or John Hagee and his Christians United for Israel.

Most American Christians struggle each week to apply Biblical truths in their daily lives. They seek to follow the words and actions of Jesus reminding his followers about taking care of the widow and the orphan, the hungry, welcoming the stranger, clothing the naked and visiting the prisoner.

What really threatens the extreme right is our member churches' ability to disagree on many issues yet come together on such matters as living wage, racism, health care, justice for women, and an unjust war in Iraq. It is a multi-partisan organization that threatens those who are “triumphal dominationalists” such as Ms. Coulter. Those who are convinced they’re right and everyone else is wrong feel undermined when people who differ are able to cooperate and collaborate.

But isn’t that what America was supposed to be about? Weren’t we founded to offer freedom of religion and not be dominated by one particular group? There are some signs that the toxic message of the extreme right of American Christians may be faltering. I hope so.

So do I. No religion and no individual has all the answers. It's only by listening and sharing with others that we learn. Education, however, is the enemy of the black and white world religious right zealots live in. It's a very small world, much smaller than the one me and most people I know live in.

"For The Bible Tells Me So"

I have not seen this movie, but I've heard many wonderful things about it. Here is information from the official website.

Can the love between two people ever be an abomination? Is the chasm separating gays and lesbians and Christianity too wide to cross? Is the Bible an excuse to hate?

Winner of the Audience Award for Best Documentary at the Seattle International Film Festival, Dan Karslake's provocative, entertaining documentary brilliantly reconciles homosexuality and Biblical scripture, and in the process reveals that Church-sanctioned anti-gay bias is based almost solely upon a significant (and often malicious) misinterpretation of the Bible. As the film notes, most Christians live their lives today without feeling obliged to kill anyone who works on the Sabbath or eats shrimp (as a literal reading of scripture dictates).

Through the experiences of five very normal, very Christian, very American families -- including those of former House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt and Episcopalian Bishop Gene Robinson -- we discover how insightful people of faith handle the realization of having a gay child. Informed by such respected voices as Bishop Desmond Tutu, Harvard's Peter Gomes, Orthodox Rabbi Steve Greenberg and Reverend Jimmy Creech, FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO offers healing, clarity and understanding to anyone caught in the crosshairs of scripture and sexual identity.


From PageOneQ, here is the video and a transcript of former Congressman Dick Gephardt and his daughter Chrissy who both appear in the movie.


I don't know when I will get a chance to see this movie myself and offer a review, but I would encourage any of my readers who do get a chance to view it to share their opinions in the comments section of this post.

Thoughts on the "Values Voters" Concept

Last weekend, an all-star team of right-wing bigots gathered in Washington DC at the "Value Voters Summit" to swap stories and plan strategy on how to gain more political power, or at least avoid losing more than they have the last couple of years. It was ironic that this event was held concurrently to the incredible worship and celebration weekend we had at my church with GLBT ministers from around the nation and Canada.

Anyway, I saw a couple of essays about the whole "Values Voter" concept that I thought were worth sharing. The first one is from the Chicago Tribune:

The right's hold on "values" is now so strong that most news coverage I saw and heard about last weekend's second annual "Values Voter Summit" of Christian conservatives didn't even bother to nestle the word dubiously inside real or implied quotation marks. Fewer than 1 in 10 recent accounts of the summit I found in a national news database bothered to put "so-called" in front of the first reference to "values voters."

It's galling. I mean, sure, the activists who assembled in Washington vote in accordance to their values. So do I. So do you, reader, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum.

Anyone who casts a ballot is a "values voter." And to allow one group to squat on that title is to concede without a fight that their values are, if not superior to others' values, then at least stronger and more important to them than the flimsy ethical whims of their ideological foes.

There is clearly an air of superiority and arrogance when folks like James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and Gary Bauer get together to chew the fat. Love and compassion for people not cut out of the same mold as them, however, is scarcer than a liberal gay person.

I also ran across this piece from the Roanoke Times:

As Bishop T.D. Jakes has observed, good political leaders don't have to be Christians, and good Christians don't always make good leaders. But if someone campaigns under "Christian values," I'm looking for kindness, respect (even for the opponent) and faith -- not fear.

Maybe these values are difficult to maintain in the heat of politics today. Chuck Colson, on a recent "Focus on the Family" radio broadcast, noted that values voters "have lost respect for the people in politics -- and rightly so."

But that disrespect can begin long before an election, when glossy campaign ads hit our mailboxes attacking the opponent as a contemptible villain and featuring the most demeaning photo obtainable -- usually from video footage and blurred, like a bank-robber caught on somebody's security camera.

But there are hidden costs in yoking this kind of derision to the term "Christian values."

First, it denigrates not just the opponent, but the voter, who is assumed to be unintelligent, ignorant of the actual Christian message and as mean-spirited as the ad's creators. Hence, I've heard many people, disgusted by a season's attack ads, declare they would not vote. Others, like me, are pleased to go vote for the candidate who ran a respectful campaign.

As for "Christian," the cost of hinging that word to derisive personal attacks doesn't enhance Christian values, but in fact devalues the Christian message.

If Jesus was running a political campaign, He wouldn't be tearing anyone down. He wouldn't be lecturing on restricting people's rights. He wants people's live to have more, be fuller, not to limit them or take things away. He came to Earth to give people hope.

How many politicians, especially ones wearing the "Christian Values" mantle, do that for you these days?

Religious Leader With a Big Mouth

As I train for the pastorate, I am reminded that one of the important things that a pastor, a leader of the faithful, needs to know is when to keep his mouth shut.

According to this article from Ethics Today, that is a fundamental lesson that Frank Page, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention, either forgot or never learned:
Unless presidential candidates want a spiritual smack down, they should avoid talking to Southern Baptist Convention president Frank Page, who failed to retain the pastoral confidentiality of two conversations and then boasted to other pastors about his soul-winning ways. In both cases, Page elevated his own evangelistic credentials and degraded the spiritual character of candidates.

The SBC leader bragged to a gathering of Southern Baptist fundamentalist pastors in Oklahoma that in a private, two-hour meeting with Rudy Giuliani, a Roman Catholic, that he "shared Christ with him."

Page's perception about Giuliani's lack of Christian faith was so strong that at the end of the meeting he recounted: "Rudy, I'm not going to leave this place unless I give you an opportunity to pray with me to receive Jesus as your savior. Would you do that with me Rudy?"

Page said Giuliani rejected his invitation to salvation: "He said, 'No, Frank, I'm not ready to do that. My daddy knows Jesus like that, but I'm not ready for that.'"

Undeterred, Page, the pastor of First Baptist Church in Taylors, S.C., said he gave Giuliani his cell phone number and encouraged him to call when he was ready to talk about Jesus.

Baptist theological exclusivity also found expression in Page's recollection to the Oklahoma preachers of his face-to-face question to Sen. John McCain, a professing Episcopalian who attends a Southern Baptist church that leans towards moderation. Page claimed he asked, "Who owns your soul, John McCain?

Folks, this is not about sincerely seeking a spiritual breakthrough for these candidates. This is a leader of a large Christian denomination going out of his way to show everyone how important he is. "Look at me, look at me," his actions and words shout. How would you like to be a member of his church and need pastoral counseling, where confidentiality is at least as strong a requirement as psychological counseling, if not more so?

A person would probably be safe going to Page if they weren't famous, but it is very disturbing to see a leader violate pastoral ethics, not to mention failing miserably to display the humility of Christ.

More from the article:

As the Christian Right leaders haggle over whether the Republican presidential nominee needs to be a real Christian, Christian pastors should prioritize the confidentiality of private spiritual discussions over the potential for political gain.

Power does corrupt, and political power is one of the most tempting mistresses. For what a person gains from power in the world, that and more is usually lost in spiritual power and the ability to be a true, effective, servant for Christ.

Especially when you can't keep your mouth shut.

Christians Need to Think Like a Gay Fish

I saw an essay from Rick Warren, the Purpose Driven Life author, that really resonated with me:

If you’re going to be good at fishing, you’ve got to learn to think like a fish. If you’re going to be an effective fisher of men, you’ve got to think like a lost person. Here’s the problem. Unfortunately, the longer you are a Christian, the less you think like an unbeliever. I don’t think like a non-Christian; I think like a Christian. In fact, I think like a pastor. That’s even worse! It’s two generations removed from the people I want to reach.

You can tell just how differently pastors think than lost people when you look at church advertisements in the newspaper. You’ll see advertisements like, “Preaching the inspired, inerrant Word of God.” Who will that appeal to? I know what the inspired, inerrant Word of God is. In fact I believe in it. I’d die for the inspired, inerrant Word. But non-Christians don’t care about your view of inspiration.

Or you’ll see a church advertise “Holy Spirit services.” That’s going to scare people away! Non-Christians don’t know what you mean by the Holy Spirit. Is that Casper the Friendly Ghost? You must learn to think – and communicate – like a non-believer if you are going to communicate the Gospel to them.

In their attempts to reach unchurched homosexuals, most mainline churches not only refuse to even attempt to think like the fish they're catching, they insist the fish (lost GLBT people) think like a fisherman, jump up into the boat, and open wide so they can get a hook slipped into their mouths. Now what fish with any sense would do that? Only one with a death wish.

So often the few gays who do submit to the teachings of fundamentalist churches want to die, or at least the gay part of them. If they don't want it to die, they feel the need to hide who they really are to gain at least a superficial level of acceptance.

So why is it that these churches can't reach more gay people?

Because they don't try. They expect gay people to reach for them. Given the terms that are usually set, it is irrational to think many of them would. Of course, that assumes churches are sincerely open to homosexual members, even ones who are closeted or trying to "change". I don't think that is a safe assumption--some do, many don't.

It's churches like mine who think like a (sometimes gay) fish that catch some. I have already run across a lot of GLBT people who were astonished that there are actually open and affirming churches available to them.

There are lots of gay fish out there to catch for Christ, lost lives to save. As Rick Warren wrote, we just need to remember what our lives were like before we knew Him and meet people where they are. The power of the Gospel will do the rest.

Philadelphia Stands Up to Discrimination, AFA Has a Hissy Fit

This is an excerpt from the latest American Family Association e-mail blast:

The city of Philadelphia has decided to punish the Boy Scouts of America because it will not allow homosexuals to serve as Scout Leaders. City officials said they will charge the Cradle of Liberty Scouts Council $200,000 a year to use the city-owned headquarters. The Council was paying $1 per year (since 1928). The city owns the land on which the Council's 1928 Beaux Arts building sits.

The city says it is charging the scouts $200,000 a year because the scouts discriminate against homosexuals. But the city finds nothing wrong with their discrimination against the scouts because of the scouts' belief.

First, kudos to the city of Philadelphia for not subsidizing discrimination. The Boy Scouts (of which I was a member many eons ago) or any private organization has no entitlement to a rent subsidy by a local government. I have no problem if a city decides to give one to an organization considered to benefit the community, which the Boy Scouts does in numerous ways, but a government should NOT subsidize discrimination, also something the Boy Scouts do. It bothers me that the city of Philadelphia let this go on as long as they did, but at least that mistake has been corrected.

The last line of the quote from the AFA just floors me. They twist this action of not funding discrimination by the city of Philadelphia into a form of discrimination itself. Sadly, this is just another example of the warped sense of reality leaders of the religious right have acquired. Also, this was not a snap decision as AFA's e-mail would imply. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, there have been discussions going on between the city and the Boy Scout chapter since May.

Taking a stand against an organization because they exclude a group of people from their activities is not discrimination--it's taking an admirable moral position and standing up for equality for ALL people. The Scouts have won their legal right to discriminate in a 2000 Supreme Court decision, but they do not have the right to have it supported by taxpayers.

Could There Be Wide-Spread Homosexuality Among Catholic Priests

I give you a moment to get over the shock of the premise of that question. Seriously, though, a recent scandal in Rome has prompted a new inquiry into investigating gay priests according to this report from Newsweek.



The case has raised questions about the extent of homosexuality in the Vatican. Those who dismiss Stenico's explanation believe the priest may be part of a small "underground" gay community of Vatican officials. Some officials readily admit such a community exists, but according to one, "it's not a formal network through which they are able to protect themselves." Others have long regarded Rome as a haven for gay priests, sent to the Vatican because they would not survive in a parish. "Rome's famous for it," said one parish priest in Italy who asked not to be named. "They've got to go somewhere, and so are given something innocuous to do in Rome." For some, that perception was underscored last year, when a senior ranking monsignor was involved in a high-speed police chase after being pulled over in a Rome district known for male prostitution.



Ultimately I suspect this will only result in more unwanted publicity for an organization that really didn't need any more, the Roman Catholic church. Let's face it, the church has trouble attracting priests these days anyway, and given their requirement of celibacy, who do you THINK would be most likely to sign up for that? Not anyone who wants to have sex with women, that's for sure. If they start outing priests, the church's doctrine would require them to be removed from the priesthood, and one would think there would HAVE to be an awful lot of open spots they would be unable to fill.



I just don't see it happening, but either way there there will probably be yet another black eye for the Roman Catholic church to deal with.

Do Open and Affirming Churches Want to Be "Gay Churches?"

That's something I've been curious about ever since the first time I walked into my church nearly three years ago. When Pastor Brenda first invited me to Believers Covenant Fellowship, knowing that it was predominantly made up of gay and lesbian people, I wondered how they would accept a straight guy. From the first moment, I was shown nothing but love and acceptance, but I then wondered if they were an exception or if that was common among similar type churches.

I had an opportunity to discuss that with several people in GLBT ministry last night in preparation for our church's special Fall Renewal weekend (check out our website if you live near Northern Virginia--it will be a truly special spiritual experience). We have a number of guest ministers visiting from across the nation and Canada, and several of us met for dinner last night. As always at Apostle Dale's home, he wound up at the piano leading us in a spirited round of old time hymns and contemporary worship songs, but there was also some informal sharing time where we were swapping stories and sharing our different perspectives.

Pastor Brenda and I spent some time with Pastors Debbie and Sue from Living Water Fellowship in Kenmore, Washington (we are also happy to have them as our houseguests this weekend) and Pastor Dylan of Rainbow Community Church in Vancouver, British Columbia. Along with being wonderful people of God, they have also led their churches to be among the first affiliates of the Affirming Christian Network Internet ministry that Pastor Brenda and I have started.

At one point, the discussion turned to the makeup of our churches, and one point really jumped out at me.....no one there wanted to have a "gay church." Open and affirming to GLBT people, of course, but not one that excluded straight people either. I was really struck by the passion of their desire to have their congregations more inclusive of straight people. There was no interest of developing a sub-culture, which from my distant perspective it appears many African-American churches have done. I believe that does exist among some gay-affirming churches (I'm told of some experiences of straight people being unwelcome in Metropolitan Community Churches), but our group of Pentecostal style, Charismatic bible believing churches does want everyone to share worship together and share the love of Jesus on equal footing.

It was just more affirmation that I'm with the group I need to be with, the group that God wants me to be in ministry with. Funny how God works that way, isn't it?

I'm sure I have more to share from our Fall Renewal over the next few days. We've been anticipating this event for months and are expecting excitingspiritual revival to pour over us.

Healing from Hurts Administered by "The Church"

Allow me to take a moment to add my perspective to one of the points I frequently hear from GLBT people—“I’ve had such a bad experience with the church.” I understand that and have heard some real horror stories. Many GLBT people would not allow you to drag them into a church at gunpoint. At the PFLAG convention Pastor Brenda and I attended last week, you could even see some of the straight family members veer away from our table when they noticed we were from a church.

It is critical to make this point. “The church” does not truly exist. Christianity has been splintered off to where there are very few basic concepts that all denominations would agree on. I listened to a recorded presentation from a Billy Graham Evangelistic Association Evangelism Training Conference that was very illuminating. The speaker broke down doctrine into three categories; foundation, conviction, and preference.

The list of items under foundation, those indisputable facts taken directly from scripture, were very short and did not venture much past Jesus being the Son of God and being resurrected from the dead. Convictions were beliefs that, while biblically based, were not indisputable. Preferences are mostly differences in how to approach worship; styles of music, types of prayers, etc.

The speaker pointed out that most conflict in churches (and he was speaking to an audience identified as being comprised of people from 59 different denominations) was caused by differences in conviction and preference. More importantly, he stated that it was the foundational beliefs and ONLY those that determined a person’s eternal destination—whether they would go to heaven or hell.

I bring that up here specifically for those who have been deeply wounded by their church experiences. If someone has told you that you would go to hell because you acted upon your homosexual experiences, they were speaking on their convictions, and convictions, being subject to interpretation of the scripture, can be wrong. If someone has called you an abomination, that was also from their convictions; how they read a passage from the Bible.

Ultimately, you relationship with narrow-minded people spewing judgment and condemnation in God’s name is just that, a relationship with people. All that ultimately matters is your relationship, and it is exactly that, a relationship, with Jesus Christ. If you have been in a church where people, even a pastor, told you that you could not have unless you renounced your homosexuality, they did that based on a conviction, not a fundamental fact.

There are churches like mine that, instead of pushing you away from God or requiring you to change, will teach you how to draw close, how to feel His love, and find the peace you have been seeking your entire life. Only Christ can heal the scars that hateful people have administered to your psyche, perhaps down to your very soul. I assure you, from first hand experience, that there are people in other churches that will love you as you are, where you are, and show you the path to receive the love that Jesus is so eager to give you.

The next time you hear someone state “the church’s” position on homosexuality, remember they are speaking only for THEIR church. There are others who will love you, nurture you, and accept you as God made you.

If you are seeking a church like that, I would be glad to help. Drop me a note at straight_notnarrow@yahoo.com.

Can Right Wing Operatives Gain Just a Touch of Perspective?

Here is the latest push from the Liberty Counsel, the right-wing legal activist organization spawned by the late Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. From One News Now, the reporting arm of the American Family Association:


A Christian legal organization has launched a petition drive asking Radio Disney to stop censoring the word "God" from advertising promoting the new movie, The Ten Commandments.


Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver says he recently received a copy of an email from a Radio Disney advertising executive that instructed that the phrase "chosen by God" be omitted from ads playing on the network. The animated movie by Promenade Pictures opens this Friday in theaters nationwide.


During the previews to the movie, Staver appears in a three-minute video promoting the film, talking about the importance of the Ten Commandments to the modern legal system. He says it is shocking that Radio Disney would censor the word "God" from ads promoting the movie.


"This movie is an epic. It is obviously part and parcel that God is part of this movie, that God chose Moses to lead His people out of bondage and gave him the Ten Commandments that have profoundly influenced our notions of right and wrong," the attorney states. "Yet to censor God from the Ten Commandments is actually just unbelievable. So we are asking people around the country to make their voice known."


Staver encourages people to sign the online petition, found on the Liberty Counsel website, and to call Radio Disney to protest the policy. He says his organization plans to flood Radio Disney's email with the petitions and that the quicker people sign the petitions, the quicker they will be sent.


Are you kidding me? I will grant that it does seem odd to promote a movie about the Ten Commandments without using God, if that is indeed the case. Fair enough.


It sickens me, however, that whenever the religious right has their very sensitive senibilities offended, their tender feathers ruffled, they have to become a nuisance to whoever they deem to be the offending party. The AFA is also famous for doing this, and have already sent out e-mails about "defending Christmas."


Is God truly diminished by His name being omitted from the advertising of a movie about, well, Him? Is he that easily offended? I doubt it, but apparently there are plenty of people willing to take offense in His name and defend His honor.


I just wish they could take all of that energy and put it toward something constructive like collecting coats for the homeless with the cold weather coming up soon, or working to expand health care for children in this nation instead of fighting to restrict it.


You know, the kind of work Jesus would be doing if he walked the earth right now.

"Ex-Gay Harm: Let Me Count the Ways"

One of the most contentious points in the ongoing debate regarding the concept of becoming an "ex-gay" is that of the amount of harm the process can do to someone seeking to be changed but not realizing any perceptible difference after going through counseling, sometimes after spending years of their life and thousands of dollars trying to rid themselves of homosexual attractions. They are often motivated by familes or churches telling them they are "aborations to God" or sexual deviants, among other lovely things.

I have not come across anyone who has provided a more intimate, up-close, and personal view into this than Peterson Toscano. Peterson is an entertainer, blogger, and activist who journeyed through a personal hell trying to get to the point where he could be comfortable living as a straight man. That effort failed miserably, and he has devoted much time and energy to helping others avoid the pain he went through. He cofounded the organization "Beyond Ex-Gay" to reach out to more people than he could individually.

I share this with you because Peterson has posted a blog entry titled, "Ex-Gay Harm: Let Me Count the Ways" and was kind enough to share it with me:

In the past 4.5 years I have been in contact with over 1000 ex-gay survivors. These are people who pursued ex-gay experiences, either on their own, or more often, assisted by others like a therapist, minister, ex-gay program. They attempted to change or suppress their sexual orientation and may have referred to themselves as ex-gays or simply strugglers or by some other name.

Through hearing their stories (some of which are posted on Beyond Ex-Gay--bXg) and in unpacking my own ex-gay journey, I have begun to understand the many ways people can be harmed by their ex-gay experiences. Many of us also received certain benefits from our ex-gay experiences, but in most cases the harm outweighs the good.

I realize that the ex-gay experience is not the only culprit in bringing harm. The anti-gay church and a homophobic society and in many cases one's own family contributes to the damage. But what the ex-gay experience does is deepen that harm by offering hope for some sort of change or freedom. Led by sincere and caring people, our ex-gay programs, therapists and ministers encouraged us and because of their kindness and sincerity, we often pressed on long after we realized the it was not working. Only afterwards did we began to understand the trauma we introduced into our lives as a result of submitting to ex-gay experiences.

Below is a list of categories outlining areas of harm along with brief descriptions for each. I invite ex-gay survivors to leave comments with specific examples and further explanations for any of the categories that resonate for them. They can even add new categories.

(warning: this can be heavy stuff to look at, so before you do, make sure you feel somewhat prepared and aware that this might bring up stuff for you)

If you are confused about how to handle same-sex attractions you are experiencing and have considered pursuing the "ex-gay" route, it is imparitive that you click through to Peterson's blog entry and not just read it, but study what he writes and decide if you really want to subject yourself to some if not all of the damaging issues that can manifest during that therapy/counseling.

If you are someone who has encouraged a person to take this path, or if you have supported an ex-gay ministry in the past, I emplore you to carefully review Peterson's post and reconsider your approach.

Religious Right Flexing Its Muscle in Australia

America is not the only nation where the religous right is working to influence policy and elections. Focusing on a campaign against gay equality, there is a like minded group, the Australian Christian Lobby, rising down under that is trying to influence the upcoming general election.

From PinkNews

The Australian Christina Lobby is committed to fighting gay equality.

"We reject HREOC's attempts to normalise same-sex relationships by extending the definition of de facto marriage and redefining parenthood.

"Such a move plays directly into the hands of activists whose long-term aim has been to redefine marriage and family," the group said in a pre-election statement.

That phrase, "normalis(z)e same-sex relationships", always pisses me off, with the clear implication that people with same-sex orientations are abnormal, which in the minds of religious right zealots means not like them.

It's sad to see that bigotry in God's name is not limited to this continent. Hopefully GLBT advocates in Australia will be able to push back and not let this organization gain an even stronger foothold than it appears they already have.

This Just In: Christians Considered Judgemental and Anti-Gay

The Barna Group has released results of a survey conducted among people ages 16-29 that reveals a very negative perception of Christians and Christianity in general.

From the USA Today:

Majorities of young people in America describe modern-day Christianity as judgmental, hypocritical and anti-gay. What's more, many Christians don't even want to call themselves "Christian" because of the baggage that accompanies the label.

A new book based on research by the California-based research firm The Barna Group found that church attitudes about people in general and gays in particular are driving a negative image of the Christian faith among people ages 16-29.

"The Christian community's ability to take the high road and help to deal with some of the challenges that this (anti-gay) perception represents may be the ... defining response of the Christian church in the next decade," said David Kinnaman, Barna Group president and author of the book, UnChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity.

"The anti-homosexual perception has now become sort of the Geiger counter of Christians' ability to love and work with people."

This is a very strong final statement and one that I strongly agree with. Christ did not show any indication of witholding his love from someone based on their sexual orientation, yet many Christians do just that under the guise of "hate the sin, love the sinner." Guess what part of that comes across the most clearly to people? I've said this before but it bears repeating; we are a LOT better at hating than loving, and if try to combine the two, hate will invariably rule the day.

If people can not clearly see the light of Christ in the life and through the actions of a Christian, that is way off the mark from the example Jesus set for us to live by.

Apparently people notice that.

Has Gay Inclusiveness Gone Too Far Too Fast?

That provocative question is the topic of a column at Salon.com by John Aravosis, a longtime gay rights advocate and editor of Americablog.



I have a sense that over the past decade the trans revolution was imposed on the gay community from outside, or at least above, and thus it never stuck with a large number of gays who weren't running national organizations, weren't activists, or weren't living in liberal gay enclaves like San Francisco and New York. Sure, many of the rest of us accepted de facto that transgendered people were members of the community, but only because our leaders kept telling us it was so. A lot of gays have been scratching their heads for 10 years trying to figure out what they have in common with transsexuals, or at the very least why transgendered people qualify as our siblings rather than our cousins. It's a fair question, but one we know we dare not ask. It is simply not p.c. in the gay community to question how and why the T got added on to the LGB, let alone ask what I as a gay man have in common with a man who wants to cut off his penis, surgically construct a vagina, and become a woman. I'm not passing judgment, I respect transgendered people and sympathize with their cause, but I simply don't get how I am just as closely related to a transsexual (who is often not gay) as I am to a lesbian (who is). Is it wrong for me to simply ask why?



No, it's not wrong to ask the question. Actually, it's a very good one.



I support transgendered rights. But I'm not naive. If there are still lingering questions in the gay community about gender identity 10 years after our leaders embraced the T -- and there are -- then imagine how conflicted straight members of Congress are when asked to pass a civil rights bill for a woman who used to be a man. We're not talking right and wrong here, we're talking political reality. Our own community is still grappling with this issue. Yet we expect members of Congress, who took 30 years to embrace a gay ENDA, to welcome the T's into the bill in only five months.



That's why James Dobson, Tony Perkins and the men at the Concerned Women for America are so hell-bent on defeating ENDA. To the religious right, ENDA without gender identity isn't a weak, meaningless bill fraught with loopholes. Our enemies know that passage of any federal gay civil rights legislation is a legislative and cultural milestone that would make it that much easier for all of us -- gays and lesbians, bisexuals and eventually even the transgendered -- to realize all of our civil rights in our lifetime.



I agree with Aravosis about the political reality of ENDA (as I've previously written here), but there is another important question that he does not address--if transgender people can't partner up with gays and lesbians, then who WILL advocate for them? I fear the answer is no one, and, if left to fend for themselves, they wouldn't even register a blip on the political radar.

Now wouldn't that be a step BACK for civil rights?

"Are Christians Contributing to Unbelief?"

That's the question asked in this article on The Christian Post by conservative writer S. Michael Craven.

Could it be that our own actions are causing the religiously-inclined but nonetheless lost to doubt the existence of God? Is it possible that the Church is pushing people toward unbelief by virtue of its approach to culture and the world? Has Christianity become so politically defined that true faith and the person of Jesus Christ is obscured in the minds of many? Is it possible that Christians are conducting themselves in such a way that the spiritually seeking are looking anywhere but to Christ? I don't know for sure but I certainly think it is possible and that is enough to make me examine my self in light of these questions. It should cause us all to examine ourselves.

From the balance of Mr. Craven's article, I would surmise that his idea of corrective action is quite different from mine, but I do take some consolation that someone of the conservative ilk is even asking those questions.

I firmly believe the hatefulness and judgementalism of right-wing, anti-gay Christians is a big factor in the recent trend of atheisim becoming cool. If people are going to accept the existence of God, not to mention take him as their Lord and Savior, they need to see the light of Christ through people's lives. If they see something different on a consistent basis, then I can understand how they come to believe that God either does not exist or is impotent and of no value to them.

In Matthew 5:16, Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount:

.....let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

If the light is not there in our lives, yet we claim to follow Jesus, then what is there for others to praise?

Not much, and that's a serious problem. If you profess to be a Christian, let me suggest you take a look in the mirror and try to understand how others see you. If they aren't seeing the light of Christ through your life, it's time to change the bulb and let it shine brightly.

It DOES make a difference.

"Gay Animals out of the Closet?"

That's the title of an article from MSNBC (thanks to the Washington Blade for the tip).

I am firmly convinced our cat, "Cuddles," is gay, so it's nice to see that he has plenty of company in the animal kingdom.

From male killer whales that ride the dorsal fin of another male to female bonobos that rub their genitals together, the animal kingdom tolerates all kinds of lifestyles.

A first-ever museum display, "Against Nature?," which opened last month at the University of Oslo's Natural History Museum in Norway, presents 51 species of animals exhibiting homosexuality.

"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them," said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition.

Positive Movement on ENDA

There is some encouraging news on the status of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act today. This from the Human Rights Campaign:

The Human Rights Campaign has collaborated with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to craft a solution to the controversy surrounding the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Today, in a meeting with HRC and other gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender advocacy groups, Speaker Pelosi took an unprecedented step and committed to giving H.R. 2015, the fully-inclusive version of the bill, a floor vote in the House once enough support for it to pass has been secured. This commitment by the Speaker of the House is an unprecedented departure from the usual delays seen in Congress on an issue that will have already been considered by the full House.

Additionally, as the community continues to advocate and educate Members of Congress to secure enough commitments for final passage, the inclusive version of the legislation will receive committee hearings.

Although H.R. 3685, the version of the bill that provides workplace protections on the basis of sexual orientation only, will move to committee mark-up next week, Speaker Pelosi has given HRC her word that as soon as the commitments to pass a fully-inclusive ENDA are acquired, she will move that bill ahead.

“Speaker Pelosi’s promise to put a fully-inclusive ENDA to a vote continues to underline HRC’s passionate advocacy on behalf of the entire GLBT community,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “Our strategy throughout has been to stay at the table and fight for the ultimate goal that we all share. Today, that strategy has proven to be successful. With this commitment, the inclusive ENDA bill will continue to receive legislative action as it moves through the committee hearing process during the time HRC, and other coalition organizations, continue to advocate directly with Members to support this critical inclusive workplace protection bill.”

Solmonese continued, “Since the introduction of a sexual orientation only ENDA, HRC has ramped up its efforts to push for a fully inclusive ENDA that protects our whole community. Through calls to action to our supporters and frequent visits to Capitol Hill by our staff, Board of Directors and volunteers, HRC has fought hard to receive the kind of commitment that Speaker Pelosi gave us today.”

HRC has generated more that 80,000 calls, e-mails, letters and visits to Capitol Hill—more than any other GLBT or allied organization.

“Now the real work begins,” continued Solmonese. “We must maintain the momentum we have built up to persist in educating members of Congress and the public about issues facing the transgender community. HRC will continue to lead the lobbying and education campaign until we reach the goal we all share—workplace protections for the entire GLBT community.”

If Dear Abby Says It's OK, Then It Must Be

From The Advocate:

For years rumblings have surfaced on the Internet, conjecture about her casual references to ''sexual orientation'' and ''respect.''

Now Dear Abby is ready to say it flatly: She supports same-sex marriage.

''I believe if two people want to commit to each other, God bless 'em,'' the syndicated advice columnist told the Associated Press. ''That is the highest form of commitment, for heaven's sake.''
What Jeanne Phillips, a.k.a. Abigail Van Buren, finds offensive and misguided are homophobic jokes, phrases like ''That's so gay,'' and parents who reject or try to reform their children when they come out of the closet.

Her views are the reason she's being honored this week by Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, a national advocacy group that provides support for gay people and their families. The original Abby, Phillips's 89-year-old mother, Pauline, helped put PFLAG on the map in 1984 when she first referred a distraught parent to the organization.

Jeanne Phillips, who formally took over the column when her mother was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease five years ago, has continued plugging the group, as well as its affiliate for parents with children who identify as transgender, and a suicide hotline aimed at gay teenagers.

''I'm trying to tell kids if they are gay, it's OK to be gay. I've tried to tell families if they have a gay family member to accept them and love them as they always have,'' she said Friday.

If you're going to solicit advice from someone, a person who is accepting of EVERYONE is a pretty good choice. Kudos to Dear Abby and congratulations on receiving PFLAG's first "Straight For Equality" award.