Last week I posted about the homophobic pastor at the Tuscon (AZ) Community Church and how he is misleading his congregation with bogus "research" about what claims to be the consequences of the homosexual "lifestyle."
My friend and faithful reader Sharone Belt saw that post, became angry and, as she usually does in those situations, channeled her anger into a well-written letter. She has given me permission to reprint her letter to Pastor David McAllister:
Dear Pastor McAllister,
I was appalled and shocked at your website’s section on “homosexual sex”. While you may discount what I have to say, I must say it. You may think of me as an activist, which is fine with me. However, I am not a Godless humanist or some kind of child molester or pervert. I simply am in love with another woman.
I would like to speak to a few of the issues raised on your site:
Homosexual sex activists have tried to convince our society that 10% of our population practices homosexual sex to give it credibility, yet study after study continues to consistently come up with only 1-2%.
You cite study after study, but as we all know, studies are usually one sided. Studies on the side of homosexuals usually quote 10% while studies by the other side quote 1-2%. Most true experts believe the figure is more like 5%. Either way, if the incidence of homosexuality was less than 1%, it wouldn’t matter. The point isn’t legitimacy…it’s tolerance. Most of the mainstream church has decided that homosexuality is a behavior and not a sexual orientation. I disagree.
Contrary to what homosexual sex activist have tried to convince us, there is no medical or scientific evidence that people are born homosexual; it is a choice of sexual behavior.
There’s no medical or scientific evidence that people are born heterosexual either. There are a lot of things that medical science doesn’t understand yet. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Take the disease Lupus. Years ago, medical science said it didn’t exist. Today, they know better. That has happened with a great many medical breakthroughs. That’s why they are called “breakthroughs”.
Virtually every STD increases astronomically among homosexuals compared to the general population, as do violence and the various addictions – practicing homosexual sex is a risky, dangerous choice.
Again, studies can be, and are, skewed to show a certain point of view. Straight people and gay people alike engage in reckless behavior. To say that one group is more promiscuous than the other is just irresponsible. I would also ask you what hundreds and thousands of years of being told you’re evil will do to your self-esteem and judgment too. Many homosexual people have been told they are evil for their orientation for so long that they believe it and start acting like it. It doesn’t make that right, I’ll grant you, but it also doesn’t make what the Church has done to us over the years right either. Jesus hung out with sinners, remember??
Practicing homosexually - even taking out the issue of AIDS - reduces the life expectancy of a person by OVER 30 YEARS.
This figure has been scattered around for a long time. Again, there are reasons for those numbers. Homosexual teenagers, for instance, run a much higher risk of committing suicide due to discrimination and bullying than straight kids.
While the average number of sexual partners in a lifetime in the heterosexual community is around 10, in study after study, the average number of partners in the homosexual community is consistently in the hundreds with over ¼ claiming over 1,000 partners, many of these encounters anonymous, one time events.
I guess I don’t have to talk about studies anymore since I covered that before. Suffice it to say that people are people. Some sleep around and some don’t. Gene Simmons, who prides himself on being a “ladies’ man”, has openly and consistently bragged about sleeping with thousands of women.
In light of the total farce of what they call “gay marriage”, studies show that less than 2% of practicing homosexuals could be referred to as being in a monogamous relationship.
I can only speak from experience on this one. My partner and I are monogamous and have been for 14 years. I know many gay and lesbian relationships that are monogamous. In my circles, which admittedly are full of Christian gays and lesbians, non-monogamous relationships are rare and are not celebrated by any stretch of the imagination.
People who participate in homosexual sex are extremely more likely to suffer psychological disorders and consider or attempt suicide and have a less happy, satisfying life than the general population.
Why do you think that is?? You would be depressed too if your parents kicked you out of their home and lives for being who you are. You’d probably want to attempt suicide if you were called a faggot every day of your life. You’d probably take up drinking or drugs to feel better if you lived life knowing that the majority of churches wouldn’t allow you to be a part of their worship experience.
Here's what God says in the Bible.
God also says in the Bible that He loves us. He also says that if anyone causes the “least of these” to stumble, it would be better if he had a stone tied around his neck and be cast into the ocean. He also says that whosoever calls upon His name will be saved. Whosoever. It doesn’t say whosoever is straight. I am a whosoever.
"Is homosexuality healthy for society?" (recent articles – 2002/2003)
If you asked most folks, they might say that religion was unhealthy for society. It’s religious folks who judge everyone else and tend to blame others when they themselves do wrong. How many Christian leaders have been caught in sexual or financial wrong over the years? Remember that Jesus said, “Let him who knows no sin, cast the first stone.”. That’s a paraphrase, of course, but I think you get my point. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, much less condemned it. Jesus hung out with the outcasts of society. I believe that if He lived in modern day America, He would count homosexuals among His inner circle of friends, much like he did the prostitutes and tax collectors in Biblical times.
In conclusion:
I find it really disappointing that people who call themselves Christians would use language such as “homosexual sex activists”. I don’t advocate for homosexual sex. I advocate for myself and others like me who love differently. If I never had sex with my partner again, I would still be a homosexual. I love her as you love your wife, if you have one.
The pastor of the church that I call home has been in a monogamous relationship with his partner for over 30 years. He’s a mighty man of God and preaches to a congregation of about 80% gay or lesbian. He is uncompromising in his defense of the Bible as God’s word to us, even though many gay and lesbian congregations have turned their backs on the Bible because of what straight Christians have put them through. The Bible is an offense to them, not because of them, but because of what they’ve been told by the Church.
I truly hope that you will one day come to understand that this issue is not unlike the civil rights struggle of African Americans in the 60’s. Many churches back then refused to allow blacks into their churches. They believed that God taught us in the Bible that blacks were less than human. One minister in particular, Jerry Falwell, had to later confess that he was wrong in that belief and now the church that he founded has many black members, as well as other racial diversity. Whether you ever understand the revelation that God loves homosexuals as we are, I think you will be surprised at how many of us you will meet in Heaven. I count myself among the sheep, not the goats. How about you?
Sincerely,
Sharone Belt
July 08, 2007
July 07, 2007
Report from the MCC Global Conference
The affirming Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) recently held it's annual global conference in Scottsdale, Arizona, and the stories featured in this Arizona Republic article was global and moving.
Garfield Mullings prays in secret. He worships while looking over his shoulder because he is a member of what is called the "gay church" in Jamaica. And that association could cost him his life.
"Living as a member of the community there is something that has to be done with the utmost care and utmost caution. People have to be very, very careful," said the parishioner of the Metropolitan Community Church. He goes by the name Mullings to protect his true identity, and potentially his life, from his countrymen.
But this week, Mullings said he prayed without fear. He was one of roughly 1,450 worshippers attending the Metropolitan Community Church global conference in Scottsdale.
"It's been overwhelming. To be able to be in an affirming place - where we can worship without having to look over our shoulders - is psychologically lifting," Mullings said.
The Rev. Rowland Jide Macaulay said he recognized that same thirst in Nigeria, where he began a branch of Metropolitan Community Church in the country about 10 months ago.
"The presence of the church is making a difference in the community," Macaulay said. "We have a lot of gay and lesbian people coming out because we're reaching out."
In Nigeria, families often will disown children who come out as gay, said Macaulay, who has dual citizenship in Nigeria and the United Kingdom.
"Coming out in Nigeria equals either suicide or death. We're working around that because we want coming out to be liberating," Macaulay said.
Homosexuality is against the law in Nigeria. Consensual homosexual conduct between adults is punished by 14 years in prison, according to Human Rights Watch.
I think it's good to hear these stories every now and then to keep a proper perspective on the fight for GLBT equality in the United States.
I did not know that MCC had an international reach. Good work on their part creating a safe place for worship in unsafe part of the globe.
Garfield Mullings prays in secret. He worships while looking over his shoulder because he is a member of what is called the "gay church" in Jamaica. And that association could cost him his life.
"Living as a member of the community there is something that has to be done with the utmost care and utmost caution. People have to be very, very careful," said the parishioner of the Metropolitan Community Church. He goes by the name Mullings to protect his true identity, and potentially his life, from his countrymen.
But this week, Mullings said he prayed without fear. He was one of roughly 1,450 worshippers attending the Metropolitan Community Church global conference in Scottsdale.
"It's been overwhelming. To be able to be in an affirming place - where we can worship without having to look over our shoulders - is psychologically lifting," Mullings said.
The Rev. Rowland Jide Macaulay said he recognized that same thirst in Nigeria, where he began a branch of Metropolitan Community Church in the country about 10 months ago.
"The presence of the church is making a difference in the community," Macaulay said. "We have a lot of gay and lesbian people coming out because we're reaching out."
In Nigeria, families often will disown children who come out as gay, said Macaulay, who has dual citizenship in Nigeria and the United Kingdom.
"Coming out in Nigeria equals either suicide or death. We're working around that because we want coming out to be liberating," Macaulay said.
Homosexuality is against the law in Nigeria. Consensual homosexual conduct between adults is punished by 14 years in prison, according to Human Rights Watch.
I think it's good to hear these stories every now and then to keep a proper perspective on the fight for GLBT equality in the United States.
I did not know that MCC had an international reach. Good work on their part creating a safe place for worship in unsafe part of the globe.
Apparently They're Just Born That Way
No, this post is not about what you might think from that title. It is a wickedly clever essay from Ethics Daily writer Miguel De La Torre. I'm posting it here in it's entirety without further comment.
A recent study released by the Baptist Journal of Behavioral Science concluded that conservatism is not a choice, but rather a genetic trait.
Dr. Quack is quoted as saying: "For centuries, liberals have imposed their views upon science, insisting that being a conservative was a lifestyle, a choice made by an individual. Now, beyond a shadow of doubt, we have proven that conservatives are simply born that way."
The scientific announcement sent shockwaves throughout the country. Church ministers were among the first to dismiss the study.
"The Bible is clear about this issue," said Rev. DoGood. "Engaging in conservative issues is just so unnatural. Why, even Jesus tells the rich young conservative ruler to give everything to the poor, and then to follow Him. The problem is that conservatives refuse to read the Bible literally."
When questioned about the numerous incidents of conservative bashing taking place within the church, Rev. Dogood shot back: "Look, I'm no conservaphobic. Some of my best friends are conservatives. I just love the sinner, but hate the sin."
For years, organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union have led self-help courses to get conservatives to renounce their evil ways and embrace liberalism. They would force the attendees to read The New York Times and expose them to tax-and-spend fiscal policies.
For those who appeared hopelessly lost to conservatism, coordinators applied tough love by tying them to a chair and making them watch countless hours of former presidential candidate John Kerry's campaign speeches. But most never renounced their conservatism. In fact, many just started dating each other. "This was disappointing," said Ms. Loveless, a coordinator with the ACLU. "It just proves how these types of people cling to their wickedness, refusing the truth of liberal policies."
Others insist that one can still be a conservative and a Christian. A handsome young man with a long and thick mustache who was interviewed for this survey refused to give his name for fear that it would devastate his very liberal parents.
He said: "In Jeremiah, God says that He knew us in our mother's womb. God, who predestines everything, made me a conservative, and that should just be OK." His companion, with whom he has engaged in several profitable joint ventures, went on to say: "The church constantly taught that being a conservative was a sin. Man, I felt that it was the only thing the Bible ever spoke about. I finally came to believe that as long as I did not engage in social issues, I was not sinning. But now, with this new study, I am free from the guilt trip placed on me by the church."
One mother, who took her child for counseling after discovering photos of Cheney and Rumsfeld under his bed mattress, was relieved. "I always blamed myself," she said. "His father was very domineering, and I refused to work outside the home. I felt so guilty for creating an environment that led him to become a conservative. But now I realize it's not my fault. God made him a conservative and I must learn to accept that."
She now plans to join the local chapter of the Friends and Family of Conservatives, a support group that teaches liberals to accept their conservative children.
But much work still needs to be done, especially in academia. "We expect to keep the liberal in a liberal arts education," said president Smart of Leftwing U. But students at that college are beginning to organize to fight what they say is an unjust bias. "I've had students lean out of car windows and call me a 'Bushie.' It was so humiliating."
Some students have spent years petitioning the school to allow them to begin the Conservative/Liberal Alliance. "They finally gave in," said a founding member of the student-run organization, "but they still insisted that the president of the alliance could not be a conservative."
When we consider that one in seven individuals have had a conservative experience, the release of this study can have profound effect on explaining human behavior.
"OK," said one of the study's researchers. "It's true. One election day when I was very young I got drunk and voted for Reagan. I felt so dirty and ashamed afterwards. But that youthful indiscretion shouldn't label me a conservative for life!"
A local minister, who refused to give his name for fear it might lead to a split at the church, confessed that every so often he wakes up in a cold sweat--having had a fantasy dream about Pat Buchanan.
Experiences like these appear more common then most are willing to admit.
But the study raises some profound questions that can have a long-term impact upon the overall culture. Specifically, can conservatives legally marry?
A recent study released by the Baptist Journal of Behavioral Science concluded that conservatism is not a choice, but rather a genetic trait.
Dr. Quack is quoted as saying: "For centuries, liberals have imposed their views upon science, insisting that being a conservative was a lifestyle, a choice made by an individual. Now, beyond a shadow of doubt, we have proven that conservatives are simply born that way."
The scientific announcement sent shockwaves throughout the country. Church ministers were among the first to dismiss the study.
"The Bible is clear about this issue," said Rev. DoGood. "Engaging in conservative issues is just so unnatural. Why, even Jesus tells the rich young conservative ruler to give everything to the poor, and then to follow Him. The problem is that conservatives refuse to read the Bible literally."
When questioned about the numerous incidents of conservative bashing taking place within the church, Rev. Dogood shot back: "Look, I'm no conservaphobic. Some of my best friends are conservatives. I just love the sinner, but hate the sin."
For years, organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union have led self-help courses to get conservatives to renounce their evil ways and embrace liberalism. They would force the attendees to read The New York Times and expose them to tax-and-spend fiscal policies.
For those who appeared hopelessly lost to conservatism, coordinators applied tough love by tying them to a chair and making them watch countless hours of former presidential candidate John Kerry's campaign speeches. But most never renounced their conservatism. In fact, many just started dating each other. "This was disappointing," said Ms. Loveless, a coordinator with the ACLU. "It just proves how these types of people cling to their wickedness, refusing the truth of liberal policies."
Others insist that one can still be a conservative and a Christian. A handsome young man with a long and thick mustache who was interviewed for this survey refused to give his name for fear that it would devastate his very liberal parents.
He said: "In Jeremiah, God says that He knew us in our mother's womb. God, who predestines everything, made me a conservative, and that should just be OK." His companion, with whom he has engaged in several profitable joint ventures, went on to say: "The church constantly taught that being a conservative was a sin. Man, I felt that it was the only thing the Bible ever spoke about. I finally came to believe that as long as I did not engage in social issues, I was not sinning. But now, with this new study, I am free from the guilt trip placed on me by the church."
One mother, who took her child for counseling after discovering photos of Cheney and Rumsfeld under his bed mattress, was relieved. "I always blamed myself," she said. "His father was very domineering, and I refused to work outside the home. I felt so guilty for creating an environment that led him to become a conservative. But now I realize it's not my fault. God made him a conservative and I must learn to accept that."
She now plans to join the local chapter of the Friends and Family of Conservatives, a support group that teaches liberals to accept their conservative children.
But much work still needs to be done, especially in academia. "We expect to keep the liberal in a liberal arts education," said president Smart of Leftwing U. But students at that college are beginning to organize to fight what they say is an unjust bias. "I've had students lean out of car windows and call me a 'Bushie.' It was so humiliating."
Some students have spent years petitioning the school to allow them to begin the Conservative/Liberal Alliance. "They finally gave in," said a founding member of the student-run organization, "but they still insisted that the president of the alliance could not be a conservative."
When we consider that one in seven individuals have had a conservative experience, the release of this study can have profound effect on explaining human behavior.
"OK," said one of the study's researchers. "It's true. One election day when I was very young I got drunk and voted for Reagan. I felt so dirty and ashamed afterwards. But that youthful indiscretion shouldn't label me a conservative for life!"
A local minister, who refused to give his name for fear it might lead to a split at the church, confessed that every so often he wakes up in a cold sweat--having had a fantasy dream about Pat Buchanan.
Experiences like these appear more common then most are willing to admit.
But the study raises some profound questions that can have a long-term impact upon the overall culture. Specifically, can conservatives legally marry?
Why We Need Workplace Discrimination Protection for GLBT Employees
From the Gay City (New York) News:
Stating that nobody can use their First Amendment religious rights as "a cloak for acts of discrimination or as a justification of practices inconsistent with the protection against invidious discrimination," a state Supreme Court justice has ruled that a "Christian" employer must answer questions about his religious beliefs concerning homosexuality during the discovery phase of a sexual orientation bias case.
According to the June 28 opinion by Justice Carol Robinson Edmead, John Fairchild, a gay man, was hired in May 2005 by Ted Doudak, the president of Long Island City-based Riva Jewelry Manufacturing, Inc., to be vice president of sales and marketing. At the time, Doudak did not know Fairchild's sexual orientation.
According to Fairchild's complaint, Doudak frequently expressed explicitly Bible-based homophobic views in the workplace and directed him to deal with two gay representatives from Tiffany's, because Doudak did not want to have direct contact with them.
When Fairchild picked up a "lesbian magazine" for his daughter who is lesbian, Doudak noticed it on his desk and questioned him about it. Fairchild explained that his daughter is a lesbian and "Mr. Doudak immediately began to denigrate homosexuals and lesbians," according to Edmead's summary of the civil complaint. When Fairchild insisted he is proud of his daughter, Doudak allegedly opened up a Bible and began quoting verses indicating that gays and lesbians are "doomed to eternal damnation."
Doudak fired Fairchild the next day, purportedly for "poor work performance." Fairchild maintains he was an exemplary employee and Doudak had never complained prior to this incident.
If Fairchild's claims come anywhere near representing the truth, and if Doudak does not have Fairchild's "poor work performance" documented out the wazoo, Fairchild has an excellent chance of winning his case.
Fortunately for Fairchild, he worked in a state where Doudak could be held accountable for his bigotry. In many other states across the nation, he would have had no recourse.
This is why there needs to be federal legislation protecting employees from discrimination due to their sexual orientation. It shouldn't be okay to discriminate in Virginia but not okay in New York. Put simply, it's either wrong or it isn't. The right wingers love to hang on to "states rights" because they know there are still many states where this kind of protection would not pass the legislatures.
That still doesn't make it right.
Stating that nobody can use their First Amendment religious rights as "a cloak for acts of discrimination or as a justification of practices inconsistent with the protection against invidious discrimination," a state Supreme Court justice has ruled that a "Christian" employer must answer questions about his religious beliefs concerning homosexuality during the discovery phase of a sexual orientation bias case.
According to the June 28 opinion by Justice Carol Robinson Edmead, John Fairchild, a gay man, was hired in May 2005 by Ted Doudak, the president of Long Island City-based Riva Jewelry Manufacturing, Inc., to be vice president of sales and marketing. At the time, Doudak did not know Fairchild's sexual orientation.
According to Fairchild's complaint, Doudak frequently expressed explicitly Bible-based homophobic views in the workplace and directed him to deal with two gay representatives from Tiffany's, because Doudak did not want to have direct contact with them.
When Fairchild picked up a "lesbian magazine" for his daughter who is lesbian, Doudak noticed it on his desk and questioned him about it. Fairchild explained that his daughter is a lesbian and "Mr. Doudak immediately began to denigrate homosexuals and lesbians," according to Edmead's summary of the civil complaint. When Fairchild insisted he is proud of his daughter, Doudak allegedly opened up a Bible and began quoting verses indicating that gays and lesbians are "doomed to eternal damnation."
Doudak fired Fairchild the next day, purportedly for "poor work performance." Fairchild maintains he was an exemplary employee and Doudak had never complained prior to this incident.
If Fairchild's claims come anywhere near representing the truth, and if Doudak does not have Fairchild's "poor work performance" documented out the wazoo, Fairchild has an excellent chance of winning his case.
Fortunately for Fairchild, he worked in a state where Doudak could be held accountable for his bigotry. In many other states across the nation, he would have had no recourse.
This is why there needs to be federal legislation protecting employees from discrimination due to their sexual orientation. It shouldn't be okay to discriminate in Virginia but not okay in New York. Put simply, it's either wrong or it isn't. The right wingers love to hang on to "states rights" because they know there are still many states where this kind of protection would not pass the legislatures.
That still doesn't make it right.
July 06, 2007
Time Magazine On Gay Adoption
Time magazine covers the issue of same-sex couples adopting children, what they call gay adoption, this week. The article points out the growing acceptance of this practice and the momentum in state legislatures across the nation to make this clearly legal--up to this point most states had not addressed the issue, making same-sex adoption a veritable crap shoot than is subject to winding up in court.
But the gay adoption boom may be less about support for gay rights than it is about the urgency of finding homes for abandoned children. There are as many as 120,000 in the U.S. waiting to be adopted. After Congress ordered states in 1997 to move faster to find more families willing to take in these kids, "child-welfare organizations banded together to get legislatures to allow any qualified parent to adopt, irrespective of sexual orientation," says Rob Woronoff, gay and lesbian program director at the Child Welfare League of America in Washington. The movement got a boost in 2002 when the American Academy of Pediatrics said the "health, adjustment and development" of kids adopted by gay parents were no worse than those of kids placed with heterosexuals. By 2006, a Pew Center poll found, support of gay adoption had risen from 38% in 1999 to 46% and opposition had fallen from 57% to 48%.
While adopted children in gay and lesbian homes were scarce a couple of decades ago, they now number 65,000, or more than 4% of adopted children in the U.S., according to a new study by the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Washington's Urban Institute. Almost 2% of the nation's 3 million same-sex households include adopted children--and that growing pool, the UCLA study estimates, currently saves U.S. taxpayers as much as $130 million a year in costs for, say, keeping children in foster or institutional care and recruiting adoptive parents for them.
While adopted children in gay and lesbian homes were scarce a couple of decades ago, they now number 65,000, or more than 4% of adopted children in the U.S.
Can anyone tell me what the problem with this could be? Oh yeah, there's always the regressive folks at Focus on the (Straight) Family:
Bill Maier, Focus' vice president and chief psychologist, insists the practice "hurts children because it intentionally creates motherless or fatherless families," and he accuses child-welfare agencies of "a real biased push to normalize same-sex parenting." He adds, "I don't see any shortage of heterosexual parents willing to adopt."
Intentionally creates motherless or fatherless families? I believe that's already happened, Mr. Maier, that's why these kids need to be adopted! Are you stupid or just a bigot?
Don't see any shortage of heterosexual parents willing to adopt? If that's true, what's the deal with the 120,000 kids waiting to be adopted? Are they just waiting for a better offer or perhaps they like not having ANY parents, which Mr. Maier and his group believe is preferable to having two parents of the same sex.
The religious right likes to put civil rights up for a vote, why don't we let those 120,000 kids vote on which they would like, two mommies or two daddies vs. no mommies or no daddies.
Kids aren't stupid and they're less bigoted than grown ups, so I'm pretty sure how that vote would go.
But the gay adoption boom may be less about support for gay rights than it is about the urgency of finding homes for abandoned children. There are as many as 120,000 in the U.S. waiting to be adopted. After Congress ordered states in 1997 to move faster to find more families willing to take in these kids, "child-welfare organizations banded together to get legislatures to allow any qualified parent to adopt, irrespective of sexual orientation," says Rob Woronoff, gay and lesbian program director at the Child Welfare League of America in Washington. The movement got a boost in 2002 when the American Academy of Pediatrics said the "health, adjustment and development" of kids adopted by gay parents were no worse than those of kids placed with heterosexuals. By 2006, a Pew Center poll found, support of gay adoption had risen from 38% in 1999 to 46% and opposition had fallen from 57% to 48%.
While adopted children in gay and lesbian homes were scarce a couple of decades ago, they now number 65,000, or more than 4% of adopted children in the U.S., according to a new study by the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Washington's Urban Institute. Almost 2% of the nation's 3 million same-sex households include adopted children--and that growing pool, the UCLA study estimates, currently saves U.S. taxpayers as much as $130 million a year in costs for, say, keeping children in foster or institutional care and recruiting adoptive parents for them.
While adopted children in gay and lesbian homes were scarce a couple of decades ago, they now number 65,000, or more than 4% of adopted children in the U.S.
Can anyone tell me what the problem with this could be? Oh yeah, there's always the regressive folks at Focus on the (Straight) Family:
Bill Maier, Focus' vice president and chief psychologist, insists the practice "hurts children because it intentionally creates motherless or fatherless families," and he accuses child-welfare agencies of "a real biased push to normalize same-sex parenting." He adds, "I don't see any shortage of heterosexual parents willing to adopt."
Intentionally creates motherless or fatherless families? I believe that's already happened, Mr. Maier, that's why these kids need to be adopted! Are you stupid or just a bigot?
Don't see any shortage of heterosexual parents willing to adopt? If that's true, what's the deal with the 120,000 kids waiting to be adopted? Are they just waiting for a better offer or perhaps they like not having ANY parents, which Mr. Maier and his group believe is preferable to having two parents of the same sex.
The religious right likes to put civil rights up for a vote, why don't we let those 120,000 kids vote on which they would like, two mommies or two daddies vs. no mommies or no daddies.
Kids aren't stupid and they're less bigoted than grown ups, so I'm pretty sure how that vote would go.
A Law Professor Looks at Marriage as a Trademark
What if the concept of marriage was trademarked, like "Coke "? How would allowing same-sex couples affect the value of that trademark? An essay by a law professor on Slate.com asked and answered those questions.
But the objection snaps into focus when you look at marriage as a form of intellectual property (as my colleague Carol Rose, an expert in property law, encouraged me to do). The law of trademark, particularly the doctrine of tarnishment, is particularly illuminating here. A trademark is a mark a person or business uses to brand its products or services. A "tarnishment" claim arises when a competitor uses that mark in a way that diminishes its cachet.
But tarnishment analysis cannot justify the objection it illuminates for at least two reasons. First, intellectual property law seeks to protect intangible goods that belong to people because they have created and built up good will for them. No such claim can be made about state-sponsored marriage, because no individual invented marriage, and no individual owns it. Second, and probably more importantly, the tarnishment analogy reveals the homophobia in Hyde's claim. Tarnishment claims arise only when the mark is being associated with something uniformly deemed unsavory. The paradigm case is a famous mark used in a sexually explicit context, like the 1996 case in which the game manufacturer Hasbro successfully barred a sexually explicit Web site from using "Candyland" as part of its domain name. To say that marriage would be tarnished by including gays is an oblique way of saying straight marriage is sacred while gay marriage is profane.
The fear of tarnishment is why some believe gay marriage will negatively affect straight marriage. But it is also the reason they should not be allowed to prevail. If marriage is changed to include all couples who subscribe to its values, the institution will not be tarnished, but burnished.
Rather than same-sex couples diminishing the institution of marriage, I have grown to believe that in fact excluding them diminishes it. Any straight couple that believes their marriage would be devalued by allowing same-sex couples the same legal rights probably has issues of their own they should be focusing on and leave others alone.
But the objection snaps into focus when you look at marriage as a form of intellectual property (as my colleague Carol Rose, an expert in property law, encouraged me to do). The law of trademark, particularly the doctrine of tarnishment, is particularly illuminating here. A trademark is a mark a person or business uses to brand its products or services. A "tarnishment" claim arises when a competitor uses that mark in a way that diminishes its cachet.
But tarnishment analysis cannot justify the objection it illuminates for at least two reasons. First, intellectual property law seeks to protect intangible goods that belong to people because they have created and built up good will for them. No such claim can be made about state-sponsored marriage, because no individual invented marriage, and no individual owns it. Second, and probably more importantly, the tarnishment analogy reveals the homophobia in Hyde's claim. Tarnishment claims arise only when the mark is being associated with something uniformly deemed unsavory. The paradigm case is a famous mark used in a sexually explicit context, like the 1996 case in which the game manufacturer Hasbro successfully barred a sexually explicit Web site from using "Candyland" as part of its domain name. To say that marriage would be tarnished by including gays is an oblique way of saying straight marriage is sacred while gay marriage is profane.
The fear of tarnishment is why some believe gay marriage will negatively affect straight marriage. But it is also the reason they should not be allowed to prevail. If marriage is changed to include all couples who subscribe to its values, the institution will not be tarnished, but burnished.
Rather than same-sex couples diminishing the institution of marriage, I have grown to believe that in fact excluding them diminishes it. Any straight couple that believes their marriage would be devalued by allowing same-sex couples the same legal rights probably has issues of their own they should be focusing on and leave others alone.
July 05, 2007
Former GLBT "National Role Model" Changes His Tune
From the AFA's "news" arm, One News Now:
For years, Michael Glatze was a prominent spokesman in the homosexual rights movement. In fact, at age 22, he became editor of Young Gay America magazine. He also has received a number of awards, including the "National Role Model Award" from the Equality Forum, an organization that promotes "gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender civil rights."
But in an article published today by WorldNetDaily, Glatze says he began to question his purpose and role in life two years ago -- and that led him to God's truth about homosexuality, sin, and forgiveness. "Now I know that homosexuality is lust and pornography wrapped into one," he writes. "I'll never let anybody try to convince me otherwise, no matter how slick their tongues or how sad their story. I have seen it. I know the truth."
To say that homosexuality is "lust and pornography wrapped into one" is purely imbecilic. That totally dismisses the thousands upon thousands of long-term loving relationships same-sex partners have enjoyed. How about that couple from New York I recently posted about that had been together 62 years? That a lot of lust and porn, and the idea of that is a large steaming pile of stupid.
I hope Glatze, who has fallen under the mentorship of notorious ex-gay Stephen Bennett, keeps to that extreme view because that will make it very easy to negate his message of hate and self-loathing to any rational person.
I also hope you will join me in praying for him, that he can find peace and ask the Lord to help him understand and accept himself for whatever he may truly be. I also pray that Bennett doesn't succeed in using Glatze to lead more confused, struggling GLBT people into the dark, deep hole of denial, one that is extremely difficult to climb out of.
For years, Michael Glatze was a prominent spokesman in the homosexual rights movement. In fact, at age 22, he became editor of Young Gay America magazine. He also has received a number of awards, including the "National Role Model Award" from the Equality Forum, an organization that promotes "gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender civil rights."
But in an article published today by WorldNetDaily, Glatze says he began to question his purpose and role in life two years ago -- and that led him to God's truth about homosexuality, sin, and forgiveness. "Now I know that homosexuality is lust and pornography wrapped into one," he writes. "I'll never let anybody try to convince me otherwise, no matter how slick their tongues or how sad their story. I have seen it. I know the truth."
To say that homosexuality is "lust and pornography wrapped into one" is purely imbecilic. That totally dismisses the thousands upon thousands of long-term loving relationships same-sex partners have enjoyed. How about that couple from New York I recently posted about that had been together 62 years? That a lot of lust and porn, and the idea of that is a large steaming pile of stupid.
I hope Glatze, who has fallen under the mentorship of notorious ex-gay Stephen Bennett, keeps to that extreme view because that will make it very easy to negate his message of hate and self-loathing to any rational person.
I also hope you will join me in praying for him, that he can find peace and ask the Lord to help him understand and accept himself for whatever he may truly be. I also pray that Bennett doesn't succeed in using Glatze to lead more confused, struggling GLBT people into the dark, deep hole of denial, one that is extremely difficult to climb out of.
July 04, 2007
Scepticism About Latest "Ex-Gays"
That's Wayne Besen's take on the newest poster children for the "ex-gay" movement.
Charlene Cothran (Venus magazine) and Michael Glatze (Young Gay America magazine editor) were gay niche publishers who discovered that peddling fiction is much juicer (and potentially more profitable) than selling straight news on gay life. The newly minted "ex-gay" stars tell us they have seen the light - unfortunately, it appears to be the spotlight - as they now parade themselves in the Christian media, pawning their terrific tales of transformation. Cothran and Glatze explain that they are simply offering a small snapshot of their new lives, but it sure seems like a full-blown photo shoot.
Interestingly, both Cothran and Glatze found God and renounced homosexuality shortly after they split up from what they once considered their spouses. In a sense, it seems like these break-ups caused nervous breakdowns where the embittered party tried to punish an "ex" by becoming ex-gay.
Check out the rest of Wayne's column, where as usual he supports his points with some interesting detail.
Charlene Cothran (Venus magazine) and Michael Glatze (Young Gay America magazine editor) were gay niche publishers who discovered that peddling fiction is much juicer (and potentially more profitable) than selling straight news on gay life. The newly minted "ex-gay" stars tell us they have seen the light - unfortunately, it appears to be the spotlight - as they now parade themselves in the Christian media, pawning their terrific tales of transformation. Cothran and Glatze explain that they are simply offering a small snapshot of their new lives, but it sure seems like a full-blown photo shoot.
Interestingly, both Cothran and Glatze found God and renounced homosexuality shortly after they split up from what they once considered their spouses. In a sense, it seems like these break-ups caused nervous breakdowns where the embittered party tried to punish an "ex" by becoming ex-gay.
Check out the rest of Wayne's column, where as usual he supports his points with some interesting detail.
A Prayer For Freedom on Independence Day
We Americans are celebrating our independence today on the aptly named Independence Day, also aptly known as the Fourth of July (to my friends over in the U.K., no hard feelings, okay?).
We here a lot of prattling on in what passes for political discourse these days about what our founding fathers had in mind for this nation, but there is one indisputable truth; they wanted freedom. This is ironic, of course, since most if not all of them owned slaves. but over the centuries our society has learned more about what the idea of freedom truly is.
From my point of view, the United States is set up for individuals to live in whatever manner they see fit as long as that does not infringe on another person's ability to do the same.
We've still got some work to do on that, because there are many GLBT Americans who do not enjoy that freedom and the civil rights that go along with it.
I saw this prayer on Ethics Daily that I thought would be appropriate to share with you. It is a prayer that thanks God for our nation's freedom that also asks for His leadership to exercise that freedom responsibly. I'm posting it in its entirety below. Have a blessed Fourth everyone!
Gracious God, as we celebrate our nation's Independence Day, we approach you with hearts that are simultaneously brimming with gratitude and weighted with concern.
We are grateful for the privilege of living in "the land of the free and the home of the brave." We are thankful for specific liberties that allow us to freely choose our vocation, our community of worship, our place of service and our venues of recreation. And we are indebted to generations of veteran servants who risked life and limb in the pursuit and protection of these liberties. From the "mountains to the prairies" we are inspired by some of the most diverse and beautiful terrain on our planet. From "sea to shining sea" we are privileged to access a mother lode of the world's natural resources. We have access to prime healthcare, comfortable housing, diverse modes of transportation, more than adequate clothing and an abundant selection of food. We are blessed far beyond our deserving.
But during this season of celebration our grateful hearts are heavy with concern. From our many different perspectives and ideologies we are concerned about things like the threats of terrorism, the brutalities of war, the abuse of political power, the divisiveness of harsh and misleading political rhetoric, a lack of civil discourse, a growing sense of moral anarchy and the possibility of an approaching storm or natural disaster. These concerns lead to heightened anxiety about the stability of the market, the costs of insurance and the tenure of our employment. And these anxieties often divert us from our mission to "minister to the least of these" and to "love mercy, act justly, and walk humbly" with you.
These concerns and anxieties also remind us of our need to confess our sins, personally and corporately. We confess that we have too often taken our freedom for granted and we have too frequently been slack in our citizenship. We confess that at times we are too quick to criticize naively and too slow to intercede prayerfully. We confess that our self-interests have too often taken priority over the best interest you have in mind for our nation and for our world. We confess that we have been irresponsible in our stewardship of "our space and our stuff," often consuming and storing compulsively without conscious regard for sharing. We confess that we have too often trusted in our own initiatives and ingenuity more than we have trusted in you.
You tell us in time-tested Scripture that, "If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land." (II Chronicles 7:14)
As we approach this Independence Day, we ask you to forgive our sin and to heal our land.
On this day, we pray for the leaders of our nation, our state, and our community that they will lead with wisdom and discernment.
We pray for the men and women who serve in our nation's military that they will fulfill their mission with courage and return home safely and soon.
We pray for our enemies that their swords will also be "turned into plowshares."
We pray for the churches, cathedrals, and temples of our nation and our community that we will be lighthouses of grace and mercy, ever pressing toward the mark of our high calling.
Because you are the freedom-loving God, lead us to exercise our freedom responsibly and to pursue "liberty and justice for all" of your children around the globe.
We pray in the strong name of the one who came to set us free. Amen.
We here a lot of prattling on in what passes for political discourse these days about what our founding fathers had in mind for this nation, but there is one indisputable truth; they wanted freedom. This is ironic, of course, since most if not all of them owned slaves. but over the centuries our society has learned more about what the idea of freedom truly is.
From my point of view, the United States is set up for individuals to live in whatever manner they see fit as long as that does not infringe on another person's ability to do the same.
We've still got some work to do on that, because there are many GLBT Americans who do not enjoy that freedom and the civil rights that go along with it.
I saw this prayer on Ethics Daily that I thought would be appropriate to share with you. It is a prayer that thanks God for our nation's freedom that also asks for His leadership to exercise that freedom responsibly. I'm posting it in its entirety below. Have a blessed Fourth everyone!
Gracious God, as we celebrate our nation's Independence Day, we approach you with hearts that are simultaneously brimming with gratitude and weighted with concern.
We are grateful for the privilege of living in "the land of the free and the home of the brave." We are thankful for specific liberties that allow us to freely choose our vocation, our community of worship, our place of service and our venues of recreation. And we are indebted to generations of veteran servants who risked life and limb in the pursuit and protection of these liberties. From the "mountains to the prairies" we are inspired by some of the most diverse and beautiful terrain on our planet. From "sea to shining sea" we are privileged to access a mother lode of the world's natural resources. We have access to prime healthcare, comfortable housing, diverse modes of transportation, more than adequate clothing and an abundant selection of food. We are blessed far beyond our deserving.
But during this season of celebration our grateful hearts are heavy with concern. From our many different perspectives and ideologies we are concerned about things like the threats of terrorism, the brutalities of war, the abuse of political power, the divisiveness of harsh and misleading political rhetoric, a lack of civil discourse, a growing sense of moral anarchy and the possibility of an approaching storm or natural disaster. These concerns lead to heightened anxiety about the stability of the market, the costs of insurance and the tenure of our employment. And these anxieties often divert us from our mission to "minister to the least of these" and to "love mercy, act justly, and walk humbly" with you.
These concerns and anxieties also remind us of our need to confess our sins, personally and corporately. We confess that we have too often taken our freedom for granted and we have too frequently been slack in our citizenship. We confess that at times we are too quick to criticize naively and too slow to intercede prayerfully. We confess that our self-interests have too often taken priority over the best interest you have in mind for our nation and for our world. We confess that we have been irresponsible in our stewardship of "our space and our stuff," often consuming and storing compulsively without conscious regard for sharing. We confess that we have too often trusted in our own initiatives and ingenuity more than we have trusted in you.
You tell us in time-tested Scripture that, "If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land." (II Chronicles 7:14)
As we approach this Independence Day, we ask you to forgive our sin and to heal our land.
On this day, we pray for the leaders of our nation, our state, and our community that they will lead with wisdom and discernment.
We pray for the men and women who serve in our nation's military that they will fulfill their mission with courage and return home safely and soon.
We pray for our enemies that their swords will also be "turned into plowshares."
We pray for the churches, cathedrals, and temples of our nation and our community that we will be lighthouses of grace and mercy, ever pressing toward the mark of our high calling.
Because you are the freedom-loving God, lead us to exercise our freedom responsibly and to pursue "liberty and justice for all" of your children around the globe.
We pray in the strong name of the one who came to set us free. Amen.
July 03, 2007
People Actually Believe This Crap!
An aggressive enemy of the GLBT community is flourishing in the Tuscon, Arizona area. The Tuscon Community Church bills itself as "The Cool Church." Apparently they believe preaching horrendous lies about homosexuality is cool, and plenty of people are buying it.
From the front page of the Tuscon Star:
Leaders of a growing local congregation that advertises itself as "The Cool Church" are telling their parishioners that being gay will take 30 years off a person's life, prompting accusations that they are perpetuating "really uncool, deeply homophobic" lies.
(Pastor David) McAllister was particularly upset with the characterization of his church being uncool.
"I can't imagine anything more uncool than supporting a lifestyle or behavior that would be detrimental to the people who practice it," he said Saturday.
In addition to saying that homosexuals will have shortened lives, the Tucson Community Church's Web site says that gays and lesbians are more likely than heterosexuals to be involved in violence and become addicts of various sorts. Also on the site, the church's leaders, who say being gay is a choice, urge their worshippers to "fight" what they call an onslaught of homosexual-sex activists.
The church, which caters to young families and has more than 2,000 members, recently opened its fourth location in Midtown and calls itself "one of the fastest-growing churches in America."
Here's the part that really frosts me:
"Pastor David is just incredible in the way he presents God's word, and he always does it with love," said parishioner Parks Rinehart, 52, an automation equipment assembler who joined the church seven years ago with his then-teenage son. He had tried other churches, but until he found the Tucson Community Church, he never found answers about the Bible that made sense.
Rinehart has seen the church's claims about the life spans of gay people on its Web site, and though he found the numbers to be startling, he said he had no reason to believe they were not true.
"They don't realize the destructive lifestyle they are living," he said.
No reason to believe the church's claims were not true!? Here's one reason--you and millions like you have a brain and need to use it!
I get very angry when I read about churches like this and people like Mr. Rinehart that mindlessly follow along with what they are told. It's easy to do because it doesn't directly affect their lives, but I don't understand how anyone claiming to be a Christian can live with a belief system like that.
When Jesus was on the earth, he didn't have to lift a finger to help anyone. He could have lived like a king without a worry in the world. In fact, He could have even BEEN king. After all, he was the Son of God. He didn't do that, however. He obeyed His Father's wishes and allowed Himself to be crucified to establish the path to salvation. He acted outside of His best interests, putting litteraly everyone on Earth and all those to follow ahead of Him.
We are told in the Bible that we should live like Jesus. How do church people reconcile following the preaching of hatred like sheep with that?
I sure can't.
Thanks to Box Turtle Bulletin for the tip.
From the front page of the Tuscon Star:
Leaders of a growing local congregation that advertises itself as "The Cool Church" are telling their parishioners that being gay will take 30 years off a person's life, prompting accusations that they are perpetuating "really uncool, deeply homophobic" lies.
(Pastor David) McAllister was particularly upset with the characterization of his church being uncool.
"I can't imagine anything more uncool than supporting a lifestyle or behavior that would be detrimental to the people who practice it," he said Saturday.
In addition to saying that homosexuals will have shortened lives, the Tucson Community Church's Web site says that gays and lesbians are more likely than heterosexuals to be involved in violence and become addicts of various sorts. Also on the site, the church's leaders, who say being gay is a choice, urge their worshippers to "fight" what they call an onslaught of homosexual-sex activists.
The church, which caters to young families and has more than 2,000 members, recently opened its fourth location in Midtown and calls itself "one of the fastest-growing churches in America."
Here's the part that really frosts me:
"Pastor David is just incredible in the way he presents God's word, and he always does it with love," said parishioner Parks Rinehart, 52, an automation equipment assembler who joined the church seven years ago with his then-teenage son. He had tried other churches, but until he found the Tucson Community Church, he never found answers about the Bible that made sense.
Rinehart has seen the church's claims about the life spans of gay people on its Web site, and though he found the numbers to be startling, he said he had no reason to believe they were not true.
"They don't realize the destructive lifestyle they are living," he said.
No reason to believe the church's claims were not true!? Here's one reason--you and millions like you have a brain and need to use it!
I get very angry when I read about churches like this and people like Mr. Rinehart that mindlessly follow along with what they are told. It's easy to do because it doesn't directly affect their lives, but I don't understand how anyone claiming to be a Christian can live with a belief system like that.
When Jesus was on the earth, he didn't have to lift a finger to help anyone. He could have lived like a king without a worry in the world. In fact, He could have even BEEN king. After all, he was the Son of God. He didn't do that, however. He obeyed His Father's wishes and allowed Himself to be crucified to establish the path to salvation. He acted outside of His best interests, putting litteraly everyone on Earth and all those to follow ahead of Him.
We are told in the Bible that we should live like Jesus. How do church people reconcile following the preaching of hatred like sheep with that?
I sure can't.
Thanks to Box Turtle Bulletin for the tip.
July 02, 2007
Why We Need Hate Crimes Legislation
From 365gay.com:
Nearly four in 10 gay men and about one in eight lesbians and bisexuals in the United States have been the target of violence or a property crime because of their sexual orientation, according to a new study.
"This is the most reliable estimate to date of the prevalence of anti-gay victimization in the United States," said University of California, Davis, psychology professor Gregory Herek who conducted the study.
"The data demonstrate that crimes against sexual minority adults, especially gay men, are disturbingly widespread."
There's a lot more statistical analysis in the article, and it's well worth reading, but the high level view in the excerpt I posted should be enough to convince any rational person that hate crimes against GLBT people, especially gay men, are a serious problem.
Anything happening to 40% of any minority needs to be taken seriously and stopped!
Duh!
People can not be forced to accept or respect GLBT people, but they need to be held accountable when they act upon their hatred and bigotry.
Anyone who is not full of that hatred and bigotry should be able to see that very clearly. To state that in a form that even the folks on the religious right can understand, Jesus would not abuse GLBT people! What is so difficult to understand about that?
Of course, hatred and bigotry has a way of clouding people's judgement so they have trouble seeing much beoynd that.
Nearly four in 10 gay men and about one in eight lesbians and bisexuals in the United States have been the target of violence or a property crime because of their sexual orientation, according to a new study.
"This is the most reliable estimate to date of the prevalence of anti-gay victimization in the United States," said University of California, Davis, psychology professor Gregory Herek who conducted the study.
"The data demonstrate that crimes against sexual minority adults, especially gay men, are disturbingly widespread."
There's a lot more statistical analysis in the article, and it's well worth reading, but the high level view in the excerpt I posted should be enough to convince any rational person that hate crimes against GLBT people, especially gay men, are a serious problem.
Anything happening to 40% of any minority needs to be taken seriously and stopped!
Duh!
People can not be forced to accept or respect GLBT people, but they need to be held accountable when they act upon their hatred and bigotry.
Anyone who is not full of that hatred and bigotry should be able to see that very clearly. To state that in a form that even the folks on the religious right can understand, Jesus would not abuse GLBT people! What is so difficult to understand about that?
Of course, hatred and bigotry has a way of clouding people's judgement so they have trouble seeing much beoynd that.
Huge crowds celebrate Euro Pride
From The Advocate:
Hundreds of thousands of people from across Europe packed into Madrid on Saturday and joined in a gay pride parade that saluted Spain's socialist government for introducing legislation that has turned this once deeply conservative nation into a bastion of gender equality.
For days, buses and airplanes had arrived in Madrid loaded with people set on taking advantage of a four-day annual gay festival, which started Wednesday in the Spanish capital's colorful Chueca neighborhood as a prelude to Saturday's bigger, continentwide Euro Pride events.
Around 200 cultural, festive and sporting events were organized around Madrid, where organizers estimated as many as 2.5 million people were taking part.
While there's nothing wrong with just gathering for a big party, there was also a serious nature to this event. Many of the floats and participants in the parade carried signs promoting an issue pertaining to GLBT rights, and plenty of them were supportive of the beleagured GLBT community in Poland. There was even an organized protest in front of the Polish embassy Madrid calling for equality for the gay community in that nation.
I'm glad to see that the revelers did not lose sight of those less fortunate, who couldn't even dream of having a Pride celebration in their home country.
Hundreds of thousands of people from across Europe packed into Madrid on Saturday and joined in a gay pride parade that saluted Spain's socialist government for introducing legislation that has turned this once deeply conservative nation into a bastion of gender equality.
For days, buses and airplanes had arrived in Madrid loaded with people set on taking advantage of a four-day annual gay festival, which started Wednesday in the Spanish capital's colorful Chueca neighborhood as a prelude to Saturday's bigger, continentwide Euro Pride events.
Around 200 cultural, festive and sporting events were organized around Madrid, where organizers estimated as many as 2.5 million people were taking part.
While there's nothing wrong with just gathering for a big party, there was also a serious nature to this event. Many of the floats and participants in the parade carried signs promoting an issue pertaining to GLBT rights, and plenty of them were supportive of the beleagured GLBT community in Poland. There was even an organized protest in front of the Polish embassy Madrid calling for equality for the gay community in that nation.
I'm glad to see that the revelers did not lose sight of those less fortunate, who couldn't even dream of having a Pride celebration in their home country.
July 01, 2007
Love in Action Shuts Down Youth "Refuge"
Good news from Box Turtle Bulletin:
Remember Zach, the 16-year-old whose MySpace blog revealed that he was about to be involuntarily committed to Love In Action’s youth live-in program “Refuge” in 2005? He was committed to a two-month stay in the residential program, and his plight spawned international outrage along with unprecedented protests in Memphis. It also inspired filmmaker Morgan Fox to begin filming the documentary, “This Is What Love In Action Looks Like.”
This evening at the Ex-Gay Survivor Conference in Irvine, California, we screened short excerpts of several documentary films including Fox’s unfinished work. Just before Fox’s extended trailer was shown, we learned that he had to make a very quick last-minute change to the ending today. And when we saw that ending, the crowd erupted in both cheers and tears as we saw that Love In Action Director John Smid confirmed that the “Refuge” youth program has been “dissolved.”
There were many cathartic moments at the Ex-Gay Survivor Conference, but for me at least, this surprise announcement was the most satisfying. I hope this will finally bring to an end any ideas that holding youth against their will for counseling they neither need nor desire is acceptable in a civilized country. This is a great step forward.
I echo that sentiment. Any evidence of a retraction in the efforts of groups like this is a good thing for GLBT people and gives them a better chance to discover at their own pace how God made them and who they truly are.
Remember Zach, the 16-year-old whose MySpace blog revealed that he was about to be involuntarily committed to Love In Action’s youth live-in program “Refuge” in 2005? He was committed to a two-month stay in the residential program, and his plight spawned international outrage along with unprecedented protests in Memphis. It also inspired filmmaker Morgan Fox to begin filming the documentary, “This Is What Love In Action Looks Like.”
This evening at the Ex-Gay Survivor Conference in Irvine, California, we screened short excerpts of several documentary films including Fox’s unfinished work. Just before Fox’s extended trailer was shown, we learned that he had to make a very quick last-minute change to the ending today. And when we saw that ending, the crowd erupted in both cheers and tears as we saw that Love In Action Director John Smid confirmed that the “Refuge” youth program has been “dissolved.”
There were many cathartic moments at the Ex-Gay Survivor Conference, but for me at least, this surprise announcement was the most satisfying. I hope this will finally bring to an end any ideas that holding youth against their will for counseling they neither need nor desire is acceptable in a civilized country. This is a great step forward.
I echo that sentiment. Any evidence of a retraction in the efforts of groups like this is a good thing for GLBT people and gives them a better chance to discover at their own pace how God made them and who they truly are.
CNN Feature on Homosexuality
Yet another piece about homosexuality is up on CNN.com this morning, this one covering the issue of whether it is a choice or not. Citing the study I posted about yesterday, for the first time a majority of Americans believe it is NOT a choice, it is something people are born with.
For the Rev. Mel White, the founder and president of faith-based gay rights group Soulforce, the poll results were a "tremendous relief."
"The poll is such good news," White said Thursday. "Over half of America thinks we don't have to be healed from a sickness; suddenly we are OK as we are."
The change in thinking among Americans can be attributed to more and more people getting to know gays and lesbians as they come out, White said.
"Once they know us, they will support us," he said, adding that the idea extended to faith-based organizations that currently oppose gay rights, White said.
"Until the church changes, this debate will go on and on and on," he said. "Once the church changes, it'll be over."
Of course, not everyone is happy, particularly the folks at Focus on the (Straight) Family:
This "shows that our reach is not as great as the mainstream media and entertainment industry," said Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy for the Family Research Council.
"People are believing what they are hearing, and it's not the truth," he said, adding that it was disappointing Americans had succumbed to what he called a "myth" that gays and lesbians cannot change. They can change, but it is difficult, he said.
Melissa Fryrear, director of gender issues for Focus on the Family, said she found the results unfortunate -- not only because they run counter to the beliefs of her group but to her personal experience as well.
"I know that homosexuality can be overcome because that's the story of my life," she said. Fryrear said she lived as a lesbian for nearly a decade before becoming a Christian and later "overcoming" her homosexuality through a long process of change and self-examination.
"I'm changed. I'm a heterosexual woman now. I'm not sexually attracted to women. I am romantically and sexually attracted to men."
I believe that since God can heal cancer from our bodies, he is capable of changing someone's sexual orientation, but my studies tell me that there is an enormously greater chance that Ms. Fryrear either was never actually a lesbian or else she is in deep, deep, denial. Regardless, I hope that she and those who would agree with her either accept the fact that they weren't truly homosexual in the first place, or understand that God did not make us to deny a big part of the essence of who we are.
After five years of trying to date girls and to conform and conceal his sexuality, 18-year-old Steven Field told his friends and family that he was gay.
"I wasn't being honest to myself," Field, now 25, said of his closeted high school years in the suburbs of Chicago, Illinois.
Being gay was natural for him, Field, who lives in Washington, said in a Thursday phone interview. "I didn't choose to be gay anymore than straight people choose to be straight."
"I think it's important for everyone to be true to themselves," he said. "This is who I am and I'm proud of it."
Amen! God not only wants us to love Him, he wants us to be able to accept and love ourselves.
For the Rev. Mel White, the founder and president of faith-based gay rights group Soulforce, the poll results were a "tremendous relief."
"The poll is such good news," White said Thursday. "Over half of America thinks we don't have to be healed from a sickness; suddenly we are OK as we are."
The change in thinking among Americans can be attributed to more and more people getting to know gays and lesbians as they come out, White said.
"Once they know us, they will support us," he said, adding that the idea extended to faith-based organizations that currently oppose gay rights, White said.
"Until the church changes, this debate will go on and on and on," he said. "Once the church changes, it'll be over."
Of course, not everyone is happy, particularly the folks at Focus on the (Straight) Family:
This "shows that our reach is not as great as the mainstream media and entertainment industry," said Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy for the Family Research Council.
"People are believing what they are hearing, and it's not the truth," he said, adding that it was disappointing Americans had succumbed to what he called a "myth" that gays and lesbians cannot change. They can change, but it is difficult, he said.
Melissa Fryrear, director of gender issues for Focus on the Family, said she found the results unfortunate -- not only because they run counter to the beliefs of her group but to her personal experience as well.
"I know that homosexuality can be overcome because that's the story of my life," she said. Fryrear said she lived as a lesbian for nearly a decade before becoming a Christian and later "overcoming" her homosexuality through a long process of change and self-examination.
"I'm changed. I'm a heterosexual woman now. I'm not sexually attracted to women. I am romantically and sexually attracted to men."
I believe that since God can heal cancer from our bodies, he is capable of changing someone's sexual orientation, but my studies tell me that there is an enormously greater chance that Ms. Fryrear either was never actually a lesbian or else she is in deep, deep, denial. Regardless, I hope that she and those who would agree with her either accept the fact that they weren't truly homosexual in the first place, or understand that God did not make us to deny a big part of the essence of who we are.
After five years of trying to date girls and to conform and conceal his sexuality, 18-year-old Steven Field told his friends and family that he was gay.
"I wasn't being honest to myself," Field, now 25, said of his closeted high school years in the suburbs of Chicago, Illinois.
Being gay was natural for him, Field, who lives in Washington, said in a Thursday phone interview. "I didn't choose to be gay anymore than straight people choose to be straight."
"I think it's important for everyone to be true to themselves," he said. "This is who I am and I'm proud of it."
Amen! God not only wants us to love Him, he wants us to be able to accept and love ourselves.
June 30, 2007
A Majority of Americans Say Homosexuality is Not Changeable
From the Christian Post:
Former leaders of the nation's largest evangelical referral ministry on homosexual issues made a public apology on Wednesday for the harm they say they caused in their gay conversion efforts.
"Some who heard our message were compelled to try to change an integral part of themselves, bringing harm to themselves and their families," said Michael Bussee, Jeremy Marks and Darlene Bogle, who formerly helped lead Fla.-based Exodus International, in a joint written statement. "Although we acted in good faith, we have since witnessed the isolation, shame, fear and loss of faith that this message creates."
Their statement at a news conference in Hollywood reflects the opinion of the
general American public on homosexuals and change as the latest CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll revealed that same day. For the first time in a CNN poll, the majority of Americans (56 percent) said they do not believe sexual orientation can be changed. That statistic jumped from the 45 percent that a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found in 2001. In 1998, the number was 36 percent, according to a CNN/Time poll.
There is plenty here to comment on. First, kudos to the former Exodus leaders for stepping up and taking responsibility for their actions, which although well-intentioned unquestionably hurt people. You don't see people stand up and be accountable for their mistakes very often these days, so for these folks to do so was refreshing and lent more credibility to their message.
The poll numbers show that people are learning that the whole "ex-gay" concept is bogus. This will help people be more accepting of GLBT people and willing for them to have equal rights. It will hopefully diminish the ability of orgainzations like Exodus to lead people down a path to deny who they really are.
Further down in the Christian Post article, Exodus' president Alan Chambers was quoted as saying:
"There are thousands of people like me who have overcome this. I think there's room for more than one opinion on this subject, and giving people options isn't dangerous," said Chambers, according to The Los Angeles Times.
I very strongly disagree with that statement. After Chambers' recent comments about not being to lead people to a total "cure" from homosexuality, I believe his organization should be renamed "Exodus Lite." Regardless, giving people false hope IS VERY dangerous.
Let's face it, someone who is seeking or being pushed to change or deny their sexual orientation is in a bad place in their lives. This would make them particularly vulnerable to the "opinion" that they can change their lifestyle.
Just ask Wayne Besen, the expert on this issue, how many people actually sustain this type of change, and how many of those are not on the payroll of an ex-gay organization. In general terms, the answer is not very many. It clearly didn't take for the three people who apologized for their actions.
While I support Alan Chambers right to free speech, it is important to support people like Wayne Besen who refute his dangerous, misleading "opinions" with cold hard facts.
God didn't make anyone in a way that they would have to deny who they are. To say anything different would be saying God made a mistake. He receives us all as we are through the sacrifice of Jesus as long as we give our hearts and souls, be they heterosexual or homosexual, to Him.
As Pastor Brenda wondered earlier this week, what could people like Alan Chambers do with the energy they have to spend fighting off their homosexual desires? How much more could they use their gifts to serve the Lord if they weren't so busy denying who they really are?
Former leaders of the nation's largest evangelical referral ministry on homosexual issues made a public apology on Wednesday for the harm they say they caused in their gay conversion efforts.
"Some who heard our message were compelled to try to change an integral part of themselves, bringing harm to themselves and their families," said Michael Bussee, Jeremy Marks and Darlene Bogle, who formerly helped lead Fla.-based Exodus International, in a joint written statement. "Although we acted in good faith, we have since witnessed the isolation, shame, fear and loss of faith that this message creates."
Their statement at a news conference in Hollywood reflects the opinion of the
general American public on homosexuals and change as the latest CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll revealed that same day. For the first time in a CNN poll, the majority of Americans (56 percent) said they do not believe sexual orientation can be changed. That statistic jumped from the 45 percent that a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found in 2001. In 1998, the number was 36 percent, according to a CNN/Time poll.
There is plenty here to comment on. First, kudos to the former Exodus leaders for stepping up and taking responsibility for their actions, which although well-intentioned unquestionably hurt people. You don't see people stand up and be accountable for their mistakes very often these days, so for these folks to do so was refreshing and lent more credibility to their message.
The poll numbers show that people are learning that the whole "ex-gay" concept is bogus. This will help people be more accepting of GLBT people and willing for them to have equal rights. It will hopefully diminish the ability of orgainzations like Exodus to lead people down a path to deny who they really are.
Further down in the Christian Post article, Exodus' president Alan Chambers was quoted as saying:
"There are thousands of people like me who have overcome this. I think there's room for more than one opinion on this subject, and giving people options isn't dangerous," said Chambers, according to The Los Angeles Times.
I very strongly disagree with that statement. After Chambers' recent comments about not being to lead people to a total "cure" from homosexuality, I believe his organization should be renamed "Exodus Lite." Regardless, giving people false hope IS VERY dangerous.
Let's face it, someone who is seeking or being pushed to change or deny their sexual orientation is in a bad place in their lives. This would make them particularly vulnerable to the "opinion" that they can change their lifestyle.
Just ask Wayne Besen, the expert on this issue, how many people actually sustain this type of change, and how many of those are not on the payroll of an ex-gay organization. In general terms, the answer is not very many. It clearly didn't take for the three people who apologized for their actions.
While I support Alan Chambers right to free speech, it is important to support people like Wayne Besen who refute his dangerous, misleading "opinions" with cold hard facts.
God didn't make anyone in a way that they would have to deny who they are. To say anything different would be saying God made a mistake. He receives us all as we are through the sacrifice of Jesus as long as we give our hearts and souls, be they heterosexual or homosexual, to Him.
As Pastor Brenda wondered earlier this week, what could people like Alan Chambers do with the energy they have to spend fighting off their homosexual desires? How much more could they use their gifts to serve the Lord if they weren't so busy denying who they really are?
Homophobes Take a Stand in San Diego
You've just got to shake your head when you read headlines like this from the AFA's "news" arm, One News Now:
A Christian activist says homosexuals in San Diego are hijacking a family event at a Major League Baseball game to introduce their immoral behavior to children. According to James Hartline, a group of Christians are planning a counter-protest in support of children and families.
The event that has their undies all twisted up is a GLBT Pride gathering for the Padres game that night and the Gay Men's Chorus of San Diego singing the national anthem. The leader of the protest, who is identified as a "former homosexual," points out that some of the concession stands are run by Christian groups as fund raisers.
They have all voted and decided that they could not, as Christians and in good conscience, participate in their jobs on the same day that all these children are going to be indoctrinated into homosexuality. And they are willing to take the loss and they are going to walk off the job in protest."
Indoctrinated into homosexuality? Is there going to be a "recruiting drive" like bigots often accuse GLBT groups of having? Of course not. You can disagree with a professional sports team having a pride event, but to go off the deep end like this is purely homophobia. In this case, I suspect since the leader identifies himself as a "former homosexual" that there is a large dose of self-loathing mixed in.
Fortunately, most rational people see this for what it is, which is really a lot of noise over nothing. In fact, the attention this will receive in San Diego could lead more GLBT people to attend the game than might have otherwise. Often times homophobes do a better job promoting GLBT events than anyone else.
Ultimately, though, most people will just show up, enjoy the chorus, and root for the Padres. The crowd will probably just be a bit more fabulous than normal.
A Christian activist says homosexuals in San Diego are hijacking a family event at a Major League Baseball game to introduce their immoral behavior to children. According to James Hartline, a group of Christians are planning a counter-protest in support of children and families.
The event that has their undies all twisted up is a GLBT Pride gathering for the Padres game that night and the Gay Men's Chorus of San Diego singing the national anthem. The leader of the protest, who is identified as a "former homosexual," points out that some of the concession stands are run by Christian groups as fund raisers.
They have all voted and decided that they could not, as Christians and in good conscience, participate in their jobs on the same day that all these children are going to be indoctrinated into homosexuality. And they are willing to take the loss and they are going to walk off the job in protest."
Indoctrinated into homosexuality? Is there going to be a "recruiting drive" like bigots often accuse GLBT groups of having? Of course not. You can disagree with a professional sports team having a pride event, but to go off the deep end like this is purely homophobia. In this case, I suspect since the leader identifies himself as a "former homosexual" that there is a large dose of self-loathing mixed in.
Fortunately, most rational people see this for what it is, which is really a lot of noise over nothing. In fact, the attention this will receive in San Diego could lead more GLBT people to attend the game than might have otherwise. Often times homophobes do a better job promoting GLBT events than anyone else.
Ultimately, though, most people will just show up, enjoy the chorus, and root for the Padres. The crowd will probably just be a bit more fabulous than normal.
June 28, 2007
Are Republicans Becoming GLBT Friendly?
It's a bit too early to say that, but the rank and file of the party is, like the general population of the United States, moving toward acceptance of GLBT people and their rights.
A study conducted of 2,000 self-identified Republican voters showed some interesting nubmers:
77% believed an employer should not have the right to fire an employee based solely on their sexual orientation.
49% believed gays and lesbians should be able to serve openly in the military.
43% support either marriage equality or civil unions.
53% of respondents agree that “the Republican Party has spent too much time focusing on moral issues such as abortion and gay marriage and should instead be spending time focusing on economic issues such as taxes and government spending.”
When asked “What issue do you think best defines the Republican Party today?” only 5% said “traditional marriage/family values.”
It appears, at least relating to GLBT issues, that the leaders of the Republican Party are starting to lose touch with their base.
Perhaps they should spend less time spewing about discrimination and more time listening to the people.
Tony Perkins from the notorious right-wing (straight) Family Research Council, had a different take. This was from one of his e-mail blasts:
Results of a new poll on the priorities of Republican voters are causing quite a commotion in today's headlines--and considering the survey's findings, it's no wonder. Funded by four of the most liberal GOP organizations, the survey is a masterpiece of political manipulation. According to the results, U.S. Republicans now support gays in the military, universal health care, special rights for homosexuals, and 60% of them would vote for a presidential candidate who disagreed with their position on abortion. Is the new message of the GOP to write off social issues altogether? An in-depth look at the polling questions suggests not. Most of the survey was crafted to produce a conditioned response. Here's one example. Participants were asked to agree or disagree with leading questions like this one: "The Republican Party has spent too much time focusing on moral issues." Fifty-three percent concurred, despite the fact that moral issues have historically been the winning issues on Election Day and the moral issue of corruption in office saddled a number of GOP candidates with defeat last November. Groups like the Republican Main Street Partnership may have succeeded in engineering some phony support for their issues, but we'll see how reliable those findings are after the ultimate polls at the ballot box.
Isn't that just typical! They use facts and figures (some of them fabricated) that serve their purpose and find some way to refute ones that don't.
A study conducted of 2,000 self-identified Republican voters showed some interesting nubmers:
77% believed an employer should not have the right to fire an employee based solely on their sexual orientation.
49% believed gays and lesbians should be able to serve openly in the military.
43% support either marriage equality or civil unions.
53% of respondents agree that “the Republican Party has spent too much time focusing on moral issues such as abortion and gay marriage and should instead be spending time focusing on economic issues such as taxes and government spending.”
When asked “What issue do you think best defines the Republican Party today?” only 5% said “traditional marriage/family values.”
It appears, at least relating to GLBT issues, that the leaders of the Republican Party are starting to lose touch with their base.
Perhaps they should spend less time spewing about discrimination and more time listening to the people.
Tony Perkins from the notorious right-wing (straight) Family Research Council, had a different take. This was from one of his e-mail blasts:
Results of a new poll on the priorities of Republican voters are causing quite a commotion in today's headlines--and considering the survey's findings, it's no wonder. Funded by four of the most liberal GOP organizations, the survey is a masterpiece of political manipulation. According to the results, U.S. Republicans now support gays in the military, universal health care, special rights for homosexuals, and 60% of them would vote for a presidential candidate who disagreed with their position on abortion. Is the new message of the GOP to write off social issues altogether? An in-depth look at the polling questions suggests not. Most of the survey was crafted to produce a conditioned response. Here's one example. Participants were asked to agree or disagree with leading questions like this one: "The Republican Party has spent too much time focusing on moral issues." Fifty-three percent concurred, despite the fact that moral issues have historically been the winning issues on Election Day and the moral issue of corruption in office saddled a number of GOP candidates with defeat last November. Groups like the Republican Main Street Partnership may have succeeded in engineering some phony support for their issues, but we'll see how reliable those findings are after the ultimate polls at the ballot box.
Isn't that just typical! They use facts and figures (some of them fabricated) that serve their purpose and find some way to refute ones that don't.
Now THIS Is a Committed Relationship
Well, so much for gay men always being in short-term relationships. That us, unless you consider 62 years to be a short term. That's how long Gus Archilla (now 92 years old) and Elmer Lokkins (89 years lod) have been together. They met after World War II and, since they got legally married in Canada in 2003, have been working with Marriage Equality New York, join them in the Pride March, and lobby for marriage equality at the state capital in Albany.
Click here to read the New York Blade story on this amazing couple.
Click here to read the New York Blade story on this amazing couple.
June 27, 2007
Ex-Gay Warns of the "Gay Gospel"
The Christian Post had a somewhat balanced report on the dueling conferences going on in California this week, the Exodus International Freedom Conference and "The Ex-Gay Survivor Conference: Undoing the Damage and Affirming Our Lives Together."
The reason I post that here is that there were a couple of remarks made by Joe Dallas, a featured speaker at the Exodus conference, that I wanted to address.
"I believe that the pro-gay theology ... is a symptom of the problem of people wanting to believe something and then imposing that desire on the Bible. Rather than reading the Bible for what it says, they interpret it for what they want it to mean," Dallas explained.
Here's another thought. Anyone who has studied the Gospels knows that Satan used scripture when he tempted Jesus out in the desert. I strongly believe that Satan uses the "clobber passages" to shame people like Joe Dallas into not only denying part of the very essence of how God made them but to try and lead others to do the same.
"We are all in this life wrestling with a struggle between the flesh and the spirit," said Dallas. "I think that what God requires of all of us is to live a disciple's life where we recognize that our primary goal in life is not our own satisfaction but rather what we can do to please our Master. And the great irony is in doing that, we find the greatest satisfaction."
There is truth in that, but from the contact of Dallas' statement, he implies that wanting to live as a homosexual is some kind of selfish, fleshly desire. Of course, one can adopt a lifestyle where they give in to the temptations of the flesh and both heterosexuals and homosexuals are pretty good at doing just that. Living life in a committed same-sex relationship is not any more selfish than using a beautiful voice to sing or using an analytical mind to design the next technological wonder.
All of those situations are examples of people using gifts that God blessed us with, not denying them like Joe Dallas and the folks at Exodus International want you to do.
Few things please God more than using the gifts He gave us to serve him, and I'm proud to stand beside GLBT people who have devoted their lives to do that.
The reason I post that here is that there were a couple of remarks made by Joe Dallas, a featured speaker at the Exodus conference, that I wanted to address.
"I believe that the pro-gay theology ... is a symptom of the problem of people wanting to believe something and then imposing that desire on the Bible. Rather than reading the Bible for what it says, they interpret it for what they want it to mean," Dallas explained.
Here's another thought. Anyone who has studied the Gospels knows that Satan used scripture when he tempted Jesus out in the desert. I strongly believe that Satan uses the "clobber passages" to shame people like Joe Dallas into not only denying part of the very essence of how God made them but to try and lead others to do the same.
"We are all in this life wrestling with a struggle between the flesh and the spirit," said Dallas. "I think that what God requires of all of us is to live a disciple's life where we recognize that our primary goal in life is not our own satisfaction but rather what we can do to please our Master. And the great irony is in doing that, we find the greatest satisfaction."
There is truth in that, but from the contact of Dallas' statement, he implies that wanting to live as a homosexual is some kind of selfish, fleshly desire. Of course, one can adopt a lifestyle where they give in to the temptations of the flesh and both heterosexuals and homosexuals are pretty good at doing just that. Living life in a committed same-sex relationship is not any more selfish than using a beautiful voice to sing or using an analytical mind to design the next technological wonder.
All of those situations are examples of people using gifts that God blessed us with, not denying them like Joe Dallas and the folks at Exodus International want you to do.
Few things please God more than using the gifts He gave us to serve him, and I'm proud to stand beside GLBT people who have devoted their lives to do that.
What a Family is Really About
The folks at Family Pride were kind enough to invite me to contribute to their blog, and I was delighted to accept. I'll be posting over there roughly once a month.
Here is my first contribution:
If I hear one more right-wing zealot prattle on about “preserving the traditional family” I’m going to puke. Back in October, 2004, I learned once and for all what the word family meant, and it didn’t resemble the “traditional” model that some people believe is the anchor of our society.
My wife Bette passed away suddenly on October 11, 2004. It was at that time, the lowest point of my life, that two gay men showed me what being family was truly about.
Click here to read the rest of the post.
Thanks to Page One Q for linking to this story!
Here is my first contribution:
If I hear one more right-wing zealot prattle on about “preserving the traditional family” I’m going to puke. Back in October, 2004, I learned once and for all what the word family meant, and it didn’t resemble the “traditional” model that some people believe is the anchor of our society.
My wife Bette passed away suddenly on October 11, 2004. It was at that time, the lowest point of my life, that two gay men showed me what being family was truly about.
Click here to read the rest of the post.
Thanks to Page One Q for linking to this story!
June 26, 2007
CNN Feature on Gay Adoption
CNN has been paying some attention to GLBT issues recently, and fortunately my friend Sharone has been paying attention to CNN and let me know about it.
I'm linking here to a feature they posted on gay adoption. One of the interesting things they point out in the article is the fact that only three states have laws on the books that prohibit same-sex couples from adopting a child. On the other side, there are only 13 states that explicitly allow it, so there is a lot of gray area most gay couples have to navigate as they work through what is already a challenging process without that complication.
According to a March 2006 Pew Research Center poll, 46 percent of Americans support gay and lesbian adoption, up from 38 percent in 1999.
Some opponents argue that gay or lesbian households suffer from not having both a mom and a dad.
"Love alone is not enough to guarantee healthy growth and development," James Dobson -- the head of Focus on the Family, a socially conservative organization -- wrote in a commentary for Time magazine in December 2006.
"The two most loving women in the world cannot provide a daddy for a little boy, any more than the two most loving men can be complete role models for a little girl."
But there are millions of single heterosexual mothers and fathers and foster parents, legally raising children across the country. Some find it hard to see how children of same-sex couples or single gay parents are somehow worse off.
"There is no credible social science evidence to support that gay parenting -- and by extension, gay adoptive parenting -- negatively affects the well-being of children," said Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute.
"It's quite clear that children do fine in homes led by gays and lesbians. That's a pretty basic bottom line."
Pertman says his organization is not particularly involved in gay and lesbian issues - they support gay and lesbian parenting because it "serves children's interests."
Several organizations -- the National Adoption Center, the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics -- also say that having gay and lesbian parents does not negatively affect children.
Other proponents, like Rob Woronoff of the Child Welfare League of America, argue shutting off adoption and foster care to gays and lesbians adversely affects children because it narrows the pool of potential parents.
"There's no rational reason to exclude someone [who clears the vetting process]," he said.
"Anyone who clears all of those hurdles ... should be able to have a child."
As usual, Dr. Dobson takes a complicated issue and draws it down to its most simplistic form. If he is so worried about a child not having both a male and female influence, he should, dare I say, focus more on solidifying the "traditional marriage" he's so hepped up on preserving and not worry about diminishing the benefits of two men or two women raising a child in a loving home.
The critical point here is the one made by Rob Woronoff of the Child Welfare League. There are not enough people making themselves available to adopt all the children that need a home. How can it possibly be in the best interests of the kids to reduce that pool even further?
Of course, those kids don't offer financial support to organizations like Focus on the Family, do they?
I'm linking here to a feature they posted on gay adoption. One of the interesting things they point out in the article is the fact that only three states have laws on the books that prohibit same-sex couples from adopting a child. On the other side, there are only 13 states that explicitly allow it, so there is a lot of gray area most gay couples have to navigate as they work through what is already a challenging process without that complication.
According to a March 2006 Pew Research Center poll, 46 percent of Americans support gay and lesbian adoption, up from 38 percent in 1999.
Some opponents argue that gay or lesbian households suffer from not having both a mom and a dad.
"Love alone is not enough to guarantee healthy growth and development," James Dobson -- the head of Focus on the Family, a socially conservative organization -- wrote in a commentary for Time magazine in December 2006.
"The two most loving women in the world cannot provide a daddy for a little boy, any more than the two most loving men can be complete role models for a little girl."
But there are millions of single heterosexual mothers and fathers and foster parents, legally raising children across the country. Some find it hard to see how children of same-sex couples or single gay parents are somehow worse off.
"There is no credible social science evidence to support that gay parenting -- and by extension, gay adoptive parenting -- negatively affects the well-being of children," said Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute.
"It's quite clear that children do fine in homes led by gays and lesbians. That's a pretty basic bottom line."
Pertman says his organization is not particularly involved in gay and lesbian issues - they support gay and lesbian parenting because it "serves children's interests."
Several organizations -- the National Adoption Center, the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics -- also say that having gay and lesbian parents does not negatively affect children.
Other proponents, like Rob Woronoff of the Child Welfare League of America, argue shutting off adoption and foster care to gays and lesbians adversely affects children because it narrows the pool of potential parents.
"There's no rational reason to exclude someone [who clears the vetting process]," he said.
"Anyone who clears all of those hurdles ... should be able to have a child."
As usual, Dr. Dobson takes a complicated issue and draws it down to its most simplistic form. If he is so worried about a child not having both a male and female influence, he should, dare I say, focus more on solidifying the "traditional marriage" he's so hepped up on preserving and not worry about diminishing the benefits of two men or two women raising a child in a loving home.
The critical point here is the one made by Rob Woronoff of the Child Welfare League. There are not enough people making themselves available to adopt all the children that need a home. How can it possibly be in the best interests of the kids to reduce that pool even further?
Of course, those kids don't offer financial support to organizations like Focus on the Family, do they?
June 25, 2007
Supreme Court Upholds Federally Supported Discrimination
In one of several rulings by the U. S. Supreme Court today, the Court refused to strike down the Bush administration's bone tossed to their religious right supporters, officially known as the Faith-Based Initiatives.
The Court, voting 5-4 against a suit brought by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (it's a bad situation when a Christian is rooting for a group of athiests and agnostics), did not rule on the merits of the suit. Instead, they invoked a technicality, claiming private citizens could not challenge this particular type of funding action because it was taken by the Executive Branch. I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, but it seems that this will serve to validate and encourage the Bush administration's efforts to consolidate power in the White House, one of the few things they've proven to be quite good at.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation objected to government conferences in which administration officials encourage religious charities to apply for federal grants.
With the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, President Bush says he wants to level the playing field. Religious charities and secular charities should compete for government money on an equal footing.
Of course, Bush and his religious right cohorts want nothing of the kind. They want a playing field tilted toward their side, and the Faith-Based Initiatives are just that. In fiscal 2005, $2.1 billion was awarded through this plan, allowing (primarily right-wing fundamentalist) religious organizations to use funds without having to comply with federal regulations about discrimination toward their employees or those people who are supposed to benefit from the funds.
If a Catholic church is running a soup kitchen and wants to only hire practicing Catholics, or they don't want to serve homosexuals, or whatever rules they want to set up, I may disagree with their practice but I support their right, as a private organization, to hire or help whoever they see fit.
Where I take major exception is when my tax dollars support discriminatory policies, and I don't have a say on whether these organizations get any federal funding or not. I don't want any of my money to swell the coffers of groups that will preach ideas I don't believe in and exclude people I love.
The religious right, however, knows better than us all. They believe they know who is "deserving" of help and that it is perfectly allright to offer service with a string attached, like giving people an opportunity to convert them to their particular version of faith. They also believe that, with this enlightenment, they have earned a right to this financial support and should not be held accountable for how they use it or the quality of services they provide.
In his excellent book "Piety and Politics," the Reverend Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, quotes studies that show not only do these faith-based groups not provide superior services, there are numerous examples of sub-standard performance.
So who benefits the most?
The religious right groups that receive the majority of the money.
Who is watching to make sure they don't use any of these funds for, let's say, anti-gay campaigns?
Not the federal government, that's for sure. They just write the checks.
The Court, voting 5-4 against a suit brought by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (it's a bad situation when a Christian is rooting for a group of athiests and agnostics), did not rule on the merits of the suit. Instead, they invoked a technicality, claiming private citizens could not challenge this particular type of funding action because it was taken by the Executive Branch. I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, but it seems that this will serve to validate and encourage the Bush administration's efforts to consolidate power in the White House, one of the few things they've proven to be quite good at.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation objected to government conferences in which administration officials encourage religious charities to apply for federal grants.
With the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, President Bush says he wants to level the playing field. Religious charities and secular charities should compete for government money on an equal footing.
Of course, Bush and his religious right cohorts want nothing of the kind. They want a playing field tilted toward their side, and the Faith-Based Initiatives are just that. In fiscal 2005, $2.1 billion was awarded through this plan, allowing (primarily right-wing fundamentalist) religious organizations to use funds without having to comply with federal regulations about discrimination toward their employees or those people who are supposed to benefit from the funds.
If a Catholic church is running a soup kitchen and wants to only hire practicing Catholics, or they don't want to serve homosexuals, or whatever rules they want to set up, I may disagree with their practice but I support their right, as a private organization, to hire or help whoever they see fit.
Where I take major exception is when my tax dollars support discriminatory policies, and I don't have a say on whether these organizations get any federal funding or not. I don't want any of my money to swell the coffers of groups that will preach ideas I don't believe in and exclude people I love.
The religious right, however, knows better than us all. They believe they know who is "deserving" of help and that it is perfectly allright to offer service with a string attached, like giving people an opportunity to convert them to their particular version of faith. They also believe that, with this enlightenment, they have earned a right to this financial support and should not be held accountable for how they use it or the quality of services they provide.
In his excellent book "Piety and Politics," the Reverend Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, quotes studies that show not only do these faith-based groups not provide superior services, there are numerous examples of sub-standard performance.
So who benefits the most?
The religious right groups that receive the majority of the money.
Who is watching to make sure they don't use any of these funds for, let's say, anti-gay campaigns?
Not the federal government, that's for sure. They just write the checks.
June 24, 2007
Featured Organization: Human Rights Campaign
One thing I dragged my feet on was joining the Human Rights Campaign, something I rectified at Capital Pride a couple of weeks ago.
This organization, led by Joe Solmonese, is fighting for GLBT rights on several fronts. They are very active in the campaign for marriage equality, working toward ending the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the U. S. military, campaigning against the "ex-gay" advocate who has been nominated for Surgeon General. In his spare time, Solmonese hosts a weekly two-hour radio program on XM Radio titled, "The Agenda."
That's a brief overview of what they do, but what does the HRC believe? This from their website:
The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against GLBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.
HRC seeks to improve the lives of GLBT Americans by advocating for equal rights and benefits in the workplace, ensuring families are treated equally under the law and increasing public support among all Americans through innovative advocacy, education and outreach programs. HRC works to secure equal rights for GLBT individuals and families at the federal and state levels by lobbying elected officials, mobilizing grassroots supporters, educating Americans, investing strategically to elect fair-minded officials and partnering with other GLBT organizations.
This is an organization with over 700,000 members, and this page on their website goes into detail about the different areas the HRC is active in. Of particular interest to me is their faith initiative, where they are working with clergy across different religions to bring GLBT people into full and equal standing in the church along with obtaining rights in society.
You can certainly make a difference working with an organization that focuses on one specific issue pertaining to GLBT rights, and I'll be featuring some of them in the near future. However, if you're like me and are working toward overall equality, joining the HRC is definately worth your consideration.
This organization, led by Joe Solmonese, is fighting for GLBT rights on several fronts. They are very active in the campaign for marriage equality, working toward ending the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the U. S. military, campaigning against the "ex-gay" advocate who has been nominated for Surgeon General. In his spare time, Solmonese hosts a weekly two-hour radio program on XM Radio titled, "The Agenda."
That's a brief overview of what they do, but what does the HRC believe? This from their website:
The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against GLBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.
HRC seeks to improve the lives of GLBT Americans by advocating for equal rights and benefits in the workplace, ensuring families are treated equally under the law and increasing public support among all Americans through innovative advocacy, education and outreach programs. HRC works to secure equal rights for GLBT individuals and families at the federal and state levels by lobbying elected officials, mobilizing grassroots supporters, educating Americans, investing strategically to elect fair-minded officials and partnering with other GLBT organizations.
This is an organization with over 700,000 members, and this page on their website goes into detail about the different areas the HRC is active in. Of particular interest to me is their faith initiative, where they are working with clergy across different religions to bring GLBT people into full and equal standing in the church along with obtaining rights in society.
You can certainly make a difference working with an organization that focuses on one specific issue pertaining to GLBT rights, and I'll be featuring some of them in the near future. However, if you're like me and are working toward overall equality, joining the HRC is definately worth your consideration.
June 23, 2007
"Equality Itself"
That's the title of a stirring editorial in the Montpelier (VT) Times-Argus:
Democracy does not provide crisp, clean victories on issues involving clashing values and shifting attitudes. Real and lasting change does not come with the stroke of a pen.
The struggle for gay marriage has been under way for decades now, and only in recent years have public attitudes undergone the kind of transformation that would allow an elected legislature to side with their gay and lesbian constituents and their supporters seeking equal marriage rights.
Even the terms of the debate have shifted. Gay marriage is the common term for the goal of freedom-to-marry advocates. But advocates for gay marriage insist they don't want gay marriage — a special category of marriage for gay people. They want marriage. Over time it has become more widely understood that what the advocates of gay marriage are talking about is marriage equality or freedom to marry.
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick put the issue in a larger context on Thursday. "Today's vote is not just a vote for marriage equality," he said. "It was a vote for equality itself."
In Massachusetts, as in Vermont, supporters of marriage equality gained ground when they put a human face on their cause. Gay and lesbian residents told stories about the relationships that mattered to them, about family, loyalty, commitment. When confronted with the human reality of gay relationships, it happens again and again that fear recedes.
There is always fear. But the shadow fear casts has diminished as Massachusetts gave us a victory on Thursday for equality itself.
I want to elaborate on the point about putting a human face on the cause. Legislators and advocates can rail about all of the horrible things that will happen to society of two people of the same gender are allowed to marry, but I believe most people have a much harder time saying that to their face. After all, isn't that human nature; it's a lot harder to say or do something that will inflict pain on someone when you know them, when they're live, flesh and blood people.
That's why it is so important for people to put themselves out there, tell their stories, and put a human face on issues of discrimination.
Democracy does not provide crisp, clean victories on issues involving clashing values and shifting attitudes. Real and lasting change does not come with the stroke of a pen.
The struggle for gay marriage has been under way for decades now, and only in recent years have public attitudes undergone the kind of transformation that would allow an elected legislature to side with their gay and lesbian constituents and their supporters seeking equal marriage rights.
Even the terms of the debate have shifted. Gay marriage is the common term for the goal of freedom-to-marry advocates. But advocates for gay marriage insist they don't want gay marriage — a special category of marriage for gay people. They want marriage. Over time it has become more widely understood that what the advocates of gay marriage are talking about is marriage equality or freedom to marry.
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick put the issue in a larger context on Thursday. "Today's vote is not just a vote for marriage equality," he said. "It was a vote for equality itself."
In Massachusetts, as in Vermont, supporters of marriage equality gained ground when they put a human face on their cause. Gay and lesbian residents told stories about the relationships that mattered to them, about family, loyalty, commitment. When confronted with the human reality of gay relationships, it happens again and again that fear recedes.
There is always fear. But the shadow fear casts has diminished as Massachusetts gave us a victory on Thursday for equality itself.
I want to elaborate on the point about putting a human face on the cause. Legislators and advocates can rail about all of the horrible things that will happen to society of two people of the same gender are allowed to marry, but I believe most people have a much harder time saying that to their face. After all, isn't that human nature; it's a lot harder to say or do something that will inflict pain on someone when you know them, when they're live, flesh and blood people.
That's why it is so important for people to put themselves out there, tell their stories, and put a human face on issues of discrimination.
Which Biblical Marriage Do People Really Want?
That's the question asked in this piece on Ethics Daily. This is an article that's not just worth reading, it should be studied and perhaps even printed out and kept for reference by any advocate for same-sex marriage.
One of the catch phrases the religious right spews to support their discriminatory policies is the preservation of "biblical marriage." That would presume there was one clear example of what that was. As with most of the "insight" religous right leaders share with the unwashed masses, that is not true.
As Miguel De La Torre writes, there were numerous acceptable definitions of marriage throughout the bible, some of them allowing for multiple wives (but not husbands, remember women were like property in those days) and/or concubines. In my younger days the concubine idea would have been very attractive, but now I'm just too tired and I'd have to deal with Pastor Brenda's vociferous objections.
De La Torre even points out the acceptance of slavery throughout the Bible and mocks Paige Patterson, the head of the Southern Baptist Southwestern Seminary, about including courses on how to treat slaves along with their new cirriculum for training pastor's wives.
My point here is that those who insist on taking the Bible literally miss at least one vital point; God has more to teach us than is included in His written word. God has a way of spoon feeding us, not teaching us more than we can assimilate into our little minds or more than society can adapt to.
The United States wasn't ready to understand the sinfulness of slavery until the 19th century, and even then there were men from the pulpit preaching how slavery was part of God's will because it was in the Bible. You see, there's nothing new about religious leaders working to hold back progress in society because they are incapable or afraid of moving past what is written in the Bible. That's one of the reasons God gave us the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, to guide us beyond Jesus teachings and lead us to the continuing, gradual, revelation of His will.
I believe with all my heart that the complete acceptance of GLBT people into church and the society is another step in the revelation of God's will. He will never lead us to something in conflict with the Bible, but He will continue to build upon the basic foundation of faith he laid out for us.
In accounting, my vocation, I went through years of plowing through textbooks learning the basics, then continued to learn addtional skills in the workplace which bulit upon those fundamentals I learned in school.
For Christians, the Bible is our textbook, but our education is not limited to the written word. Through the Holy Spirit, He has more to teach us beyond His written word than we could ever hope to learn on this Earth.
We just have to be open to learning it.
One of the catch phrases the religious right spews to support their discriminatory policies is the preservation of "biblical marriage." That would presume there was one clear example of what that was. As with most of the "insight" religous right leaders share with the unwashed masses, that is not true.
As Miguel De La Torre writes, there were numerous acceptable definitions of marriage throughout the bible, some of them allowing for multiple wives (but not husbands, remember women were like property in those days) and/or concubines. In my younger days the concubine idea would have been very attractive, but now I'm just too tired and I'd have to deal with Pastor Brenda's vociferous objections.
De La Torre even points out the acceptance of slavery throughout the Bible and mocks Paige Patterson, the head of the Southern Baptist Southwestern Seminary, about including courses on how to treat slaves along with their new cirriculum for training pastor's wives.
My point here is that those who insist on taking the Bible literally miss at least one vital point; God has more to teach us than is included in His written word. God has a way of spoon feeding us, not teaching us more than we can assimilate into our little minds or more than society can adapt to.
The United States wasn't ready to understand the sinfulness of slavery until the 19th century, and even then there were men from the pulpit preaching how slavery was part of God's will because it was in the Bible. You see, there's nothing new about religious leaders working to hold back progress in society because they are incapable or afraid of moving past what is written in the Bible. That's one of the reasons God gave us the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, to guide us beyond Jesus teachings and lead us to the continuing, gradual, revelation of His will.
I believe with all my heart that the complete acceptance of GLBT people into church and the society is another step in the revelation of God's will. He will never lead us to something in conflict with the Bible, but He will continue to build upon the basic foundation of faith he laid out for us.
In accounting, my vocation, I went through years of plowing through textbooks learning the basics, then continued to learn addtional skills in the workplace which bulit upon those fundamentals I learned in school.
For Christians, the Bible is our textbook, but our education is not limited to the written word. Through the Holy Spirit, He has more to teach us beyond His written word than we could ever hope to learn on this Earth.
We just have to be open to learning it.
"Gay life: Challenge and change"
My friend Sharone sent me a link to this CNN article. There's not any new ground covered here, but I think any story in the mainstream media that puts a human face on GLBT issues is worth reading.
This article features a family with two mothers who moved to Massachusetts to get legally married but recently decided to move back home to Oklahoma and face serious discrimination issues.
The article also details the struggles of a gay soldier who, after serving in Iraq, came out to his commander and was discharged. To wait until AFTER his deployment to Iraq was complete speaks volumes to how committed he was to serve the nation. Yeah, those are the soldiers we want to have kicked out of the military.
Anyway, this was some good humanized coverage of some important GLBT issues and is worth checking out.
This article features a family with two mothers who moved to Massachusetts to get legally married but recently decided to move back home to Oklahoma and face serious discrimination issues.
The article also details the struggles of a gay soldier who, after serving in Iraq, came out to his commander and was discharged. To wait until AFTER his deployment to Iraq was complete speaks volumes to how committed he was to serve the nation. Yeah, those are the soldiers we want to have kicked out of the military.
Anyway, this was some good humanized coverage of some important GLBT issues and is worth checking out.
June 22, 2007
If You Think It's Tough for the U. S. GLBT Community.....
Check out these two stories:
From 365Gay.com:
Poland's LGBT community is fleeing the country as government sponsored persecution mounts an LGBT civil rights activist said on Wednesday.
Robert Biedron, head of the Polish Foundation Against Homophobia, said thousands of gays have packed up and left - many to Germany and the UK.
"It is incredible. The Polish gay community has just moved away because of the climate of fear and persecution," Biedron told The Daily Mail.
"Most of the people I know are now in England because of the current political situation. Not for economic reasons, but because of the persecution of homosexuals going on here.
From Reuters:
Israeli police detained an Orthodox Jewish man carrying a small homemade bomb in Jerusalem on Thursday, as thousands of Israelis marched in support of gay rights in defiance of religious protesters.
"Police stopped a 32-year-old religious Jew who was carrying a homemade explosive device," police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said of the arrest before the annual Gay Pride march began.
About 7,000 police officers had deployed inside and around Jerusalem to protect the marchers -- about 2,000 of them by police estimates -- after threats from religious Jews, who take exception to the event being held in a city they hold sacred.
At a separate event some streets away, blocked behind police barriers, religious Jewish men in traditional black and white garb held a separate rally, intoning prayers against the march.
One man evaded police to approach marchers yelling: "Filth! Get out of Jerusalem!." He was escorted away by police.
In 2005, an Orthodox Jew stabbed and wounded three marchers and fears of violence caused a march to be cancelled last year.
Did you catch those numbers, 7,000 police to protect 2,000 marchers? They were braced for a full-scale riot, weren't they? Kudos to the government in Jerusalem for protecting this peaceful gathering.
The Polish government, however, has taken the opposite approach and appears to be accomplishing its goal of driving GLBT people out of the country. I am confident the inhumane treatment the government condoned will come back and bite them at some point.
In the meantime, while there are important issues regarding GLBT equality to deal with here in the United States, I think it helps to place them in a global perspective every now and the.
From 365Gay.com:
Poland's LGBT community is fleeing the country as government sponsored persecution mounts an LGBT civil rights activist said on Wednesday.
Robert Biedron, head of the Polish Foundation Against Homophobia, said thousands of gays have packed up and left - many to Germany and the UK.
"It is incredible. The Polish gay community has just moved away because of the climate of fear and persecution," Biedron told The Daily Mail.
"Most of the people I know are now in England because of the current political situation. Not for economic reasons, but because of the persecution of homosexuals going on here.
From Reuters:
Israeli police detained an Orthodox Jewish man carrying a small homemade bomb in Jerusalem on Thursday, as thousands of Israelis marched in support of gay rights in defiance of religious protesters.
"Police stopped a 32-year-old religious Jew who was carrying a homemade explosive device," police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said of the arrest before the annual Gay Pride march began.
About 7,000 police officers had deployed inside and around Jerusalem to protect the marchers -- about 2,000 of them by police estimates -- after threats from religious Jews, who take exception to the event being held in a city they hold sacred.
At a separate event some streets away, blocked behind police barriers, religious Jewish men in traditional black and white garb held a separate rally, intoning prayers against the march.
One man evaded police to approach marchers yelling: "Filth! Get out of Jerusalem!." He was escorted away by police.
In 2005, an Orthodox Jew stabbed and wounded three marchers and fears of violence caused a march to be cancelled last year.
Did you catch those numbers, 7,000 police to protect 2,000 marchers? They were braced for a full-scale riot, weren't they? Kudos to the government in Jerusalem for protecting this peaceful gathering.
The Polish government, however, has taken the opposite approach and appears to be accomplishing its goal of driving GLBT people out of the country. I am confident the inhumane treatment the government condoned will come back and bite them at some point.
In the meantime, while there are important issues regarding GLBT equality to deal with here in the United States, I think it helps to place them in a global perspective every now and the.
June 21, 2007
"Ex-Gay" Throwdown
I just hate it when they fight, but there's a battle brewing withing the "ex-gay" industry.
As reported by the Christian Post, Stephen Bennett, who runs his own "ex-gay" ministry, has taken great exception to Alan Chambers' recent remarks that he had never met an ex-gay and that homosexuality was not completely "cureable." This carried a lot of weight since Chambers is the president of Exodus International, the most widely known "ex-gay" organization.
"Frankly, I am shocked that the president of the largest information and referral ministry in the world on homosexual issues, would ever make such irresponsible and false public statements," said Bennett in a statement Tuesday. "If Mr. Chambers, a married man and father who once engaged in homosexuality himself, says he's never met 'a former ex-gay' or one who has 'changed completely,' he's personally invited to our home in Connecticut to meet one. I'd also be happy to introduce him to numerous other individuals – all former homosexual men and women."
After 11 years of engaging in homosexuality with over 100 men, Bennett testifies that he was confronted with the gospel of Jesus Christ and has "completely changed," no longer struggling "whatsoever" with homosexual temptation.
But there are those who tried leaving the homosexual lifestyle, and failed after numerous attempts. Peter Toscano of Beyond Ex-Gay – a community for those who have "survived" ex-gay experiences – spent 17 years and over $30,000 on three continents attempting to address his same-sex desires. He tried filling himself with Jesus and enrolled in professional ex-gay programs but realized the process was slowly driving him insane. He now embraces himself as a gay man.
And then there are those who left the homosexual lifestyle, but still struggle with temptation, such as Chambers. He, however, chose to "live differently" and says his feelings have changed too.
"Today, I am a far different person. Not that I don't struggle, but my life has changed," he said, according to The Orange County Register. "I certainly don't have the desire to be involved in homosexuality. It has no power over me."
There's a lot of anti-gay propaganda in the article, not surprising given the source, but it does show a rift in what is already a very small community. Ultimately, anything that prevents them from putting forth a united front and weakening their message is good news for gay and lesbian people.
As reported by the Christian Post, Stephen Bennett, who runs his own "ex-gay" ministry, has taken great exception to Alan Chambers' recent remarks that he had never met an ex-gay and that homosexuality was not completely "cureable." This carried a lot of weight since Chambers is the president of Exodus International, the most widely known "ex-gay" organization.
"Frankly, I am shocked that the president of the largest information and referral ministry in the world on homosexual issues, would ever make such irresponsible and false public statements," said Bennett in a statement Tuesday. "If Mr. Chambers, a married man and father who once engaged in homosexuality himself, says he's never met 'a former ex-gay' or one who has 'changed completely,' he's personally invited to our home in Connecticut to meet one. I'd also be happy to introduce him to numerous other individuals – all former homosexual men and women."
After 11 years of engaging in homosexuality with over 100 men, Bennett testifies that he was confronted with the gospel of Jesus Christ and has "completely changed," no longer struggling "whatsoever" with homosexual temptation.
But there are those who tried leaving the homosexual lifestyle, and failed after numerous attempts. Peter Toscano of Beyond Ex-Gay – a community for those who have "survived" ex-gay experiences – spent 17 years and over $30,000 on three continents attempting to address his same-sex desires. He tried filling himself with Jesus and enrolled in professional ex-gay programs but realized the process was slowly driving him insane. He now embraces himself as a gay man.
And then there are those who left the homosexual lifestyle, but still struggle with temptation, such as Chambers. He, however, chose to "live differently" and says his feelings have changed too.
"Today, I am a far different person. Not that I don't struggle, but my life has changed," he said, according to The Orange County Register. "I certainly don't have the desire to be involved in homosexuality. It has no power over me."
There's a lot of anti-gay propaganda in the article, not surprising given the source, but it does show a rift in what is already a very small community. Ultimately, anything that prevents them from putting forth a united front and weakening their message is good news for gay and lesbian people.
June 20, 2007
"Rachel Maddow: Out on Air America"
Conceived and started in 2004 as a counter to the preponderance of right-wing rhetoric on talk radio, Air America has struggled to find success in the ratings or at the bottom line. That doesn't mean there the network doesn't offer quality programming, however. One example of that is "The Rachel Maddow Show."
PageOneQ profiles this host who happens to be a lesbian. She is out, but her show is not consumed with LGBT issues.
And while Maddow's sexual orientation is no secret to her regular listeners, she said she tends to discuss queer issues far less than her straight progressive counterparts "not by design, but just because of what I am interested in."
"I am really interested in war and foreign policy and electoral issues... I absolutely do tremendously care about HIV issues, and prison issues and gay issues -- but what I have found is that when I am really personally invested in a political issue, I do my least effective radio about those topics," she explained. "I talk about AIDS issues less than I should, given the importance of AIDS issues right now, and that's largely because I find myself ineffective at them, because I don't have good perspective about how to make it newsworthy for someone else. I know too much information about it, and so my perspective is not at all like that of an average Joe. And I therefore find it very hard to talk about it in a way that will draw other people in...when we get down to stuff that I am really, actively engaged in -- and that if I left radio I would go back to do full time activism on -- I am at my least effective."
Maddow added that while she has done some "gay specific-programming" through fill-in work at Sirius Satellite Network's LGBT station OutQ, she was "not very good at it.""I mean, yes, I am a gay person, but gay niche radio? They are straight hosts out there who are a lot better at that than me. I am good at explaining why the immigration bills never got passed, or doing cocktail recipes or talking about horse racing," she said with a laugh. "I may not be very good at it, but I am totally out. And that to me is even more radical. To say, 'Hey, I'm a big lesbian, and you can get your news from me instead of from NPR,' is to some extent a more radical statement... by the virtue of the fact that I am gay, every time I open up my mouth, what they hear me talking about is something gay."
Maddow is an excellent example of a person not being defined by his or her sexual orientation. Just as I don't focus my thoughts on how to express my heterosexuality, Maddow doesn't make her program all about being a lesbian.
Life is a lot more complex than that.
PageOneQ profiles this host who happens to be a lesbian. She is out, but her show is not consumed with LGBT issues.
And while Maddow's sexual orientation is no secret to her regular listeners, she said she tends to discuss queer issues far less than her straight progressive counterparts "not by design, but just because of what I am interested in."
"I am really interested in war and foreign policy and electoral issues... I absolutely do tremendously care about HIV issues, and prison issues and gay issues -- but what I have found is that when I am really personally invested in a political issue, I do my least effective radio about those topics," she explained. "I talk about AIDS issues less than I should, given the importance of AIDS issues right now, and that's largely because I find myself ineffective at them, because I don't have good perspective about how to make it newsworthy for someone else. I know too much information about it, and so my perspective is not at all like that of an average Joe. And I therefore find it very hard to talk about it in a way that will draw other people in...when we get down to stuff that I am really, actively engaged in -- and that if I left radio I would go back to do full time activism on -- I am at my least effective."
Maddow added that while she has done some "gay specific-programming" through fill-in work at Sirius Satellite Network's LGBT station OutQ, she was "not very good at it.""I mean, yes, I am a gay person, but gay niche radio? They are straight hosts out there who are a lot better at that than me. I am good at explaining why the immigration bills never got passed, or doing cocktail recipes or talking about horse racing," she said with a laugh. "I may not be very good at it, but I am totally out. And that to me is even more radical. To say, 'Hey, I'm a big lesbian, and you can get your news from me instead of from NPR,' is to some extent a more radical statement... by the virtue of the fact that I am gay, every time I open up my mouth, what they hear me talking about is something gay."
Maddow is an excellent example of a person not being defined by his or her sexual orientation. Just as I don't focus my thoughts on how to express my heterosexuality, Maddow doesn't make her program all about being a lesbian.
Life is a lot more complex than that.
GLBT Rights Struggle Part of Progressive Tradition
I ran across a wonderful column in the Baltimore Sun that places the current battle for GLBT equality in some historic, and positive, perspective.
The movement for sexual orientation-based equality is part of a proud, progressive tradition that includes abolition, women's suffrage, the ending of child labor, racial integration of the armed forces, the civil rights movement and anti-miscegenation reforms.
Three patterns hallmark this long tradition: a defiant insistence by conservative doom-and-gloomers that the proposed reforms will undermine the fabric of American life; the inevitable rally by progressive and altruistic-minded Americans to the cause of expanding to others the protections they already enjoy; and, finally, widespread agreement a generation or so thereafter that conservative hysteria was not only misplaced, but America was stronger for having ignored their pinched, wrongheaded warnings.
Sure enough, conservatives who bemoan the "radical homosexual agenda" again find themselves losing the debate - not because the homosexual share of the population is growing but because straight Americans are rallying to their defense in the same way whites pushed for abolition and men marched with suffragettes.
Of course, the reason right-wingers want "the voice of the people" heard by giving them the chance to vote on GLBT rights is the simple fact that, since the overwhelming majority of voters are straight, most of them would be inclined to vote against. Like many views from that side of the fence, it is simplistic and short-sighted. As the columnist points out, it has failed before and will fail again because, eventually, people will move beyond their perceived self-interest to support the right thing.
GLBT equality is the right thing. I support it, and more people like me are reaching that point any day. The religious right always wants to turn things back, but their attempts to discriminate against GLBT people are doomed to fail. Let's work to make that happen sooner rather than later.
The movement for sexual orientation-based equality is part of a proud, progressive tradition that includes abolition, women's suffrage, the ending of child labor, racial integration of the armed forces, the civil rights movement and anti-miscegenation reforms.
Three patterns hallmark this long tradition: a defiant insistence by conservative doom-and-gloomers that the proposed reforms will undermine the fabric of American life; the inevitable rally by progressive and altruistic-minded Americans to the cause of expanding to others the protections they already enjoy; and, finally, widespread agreement a generation or so thereafter that conservative hysteria was not only misplaced, but America was stronger for having ignored their pinched, wrongheaded warnings.
Sure enough, conservatives who bemoan the "radical homosexual agenda" again find themselves losing the debate - not because the homosexual share of the population is growing but because straight Americans are rallying to their defense in the same way whites pushed for abolition and men marched with suffragettes.
Of course, the reason right-wingers want "the voice of the people" heard by giving them the chance to vote on GLBT rights is the simple fact that, since the overwhelming majority of voters are straight, most of them would be inclined to vote against. Like many views from that side of the fence, it is simplistic and short-sighted. As the columnist points out, it has failed before and will fail again because, eventually, people will move beyond their perceived self-interest to support the right thing.
GLBT equality is the right thing. I support it, and more people like me are reaching that point any day. The religious right always wants to turn things back, but their attempts to discriminate against GLBT people are doomed to fail. Let's work to make that happen sooner rather than later.
June 19, 2007
"Evangelical Christians" Make Noise at Sacramento Pride Parade
From the Sacramento Bee:
Conversation about religion dominated much of Saturday's gay pride celebration. But the big question of the day seemed to be: Whose point of view was the right one?
And whose God?
That of the 150 or so evangelical Christians who marched along the Pride Parade route to protest what they claim is a sinful lifestyle?
That of the participants in the 20th annual Pride Parade?
Or that of the various religious groups that showed up in counter-protest of the evangelicals' outcry, proposing tolerance instead?
In a repeat of last year's event, the evangelicals were raucous. They blew noisemakers and carried signs that left no doubt as to what they believe is the nature of sin.
An equally vocal but more liberal and diverse group of the region's religious communities came to challenge the evangelicals' message with words of love and acceptance.
Members of A Church for All talked to passers-by about their congregation's inclusiveness -- acceptance of all regardless of race, class or sexual orientation -- and worship services.
"We believe God is a diverse God. He can meet all of us," said congregation member Christine Campbell of North Highlands. "When Jesus said, 'Whosoever believes in me shall have eternal life,' he wasn't making any distinctions."
Daniel Velici, 35, wore a T-shirt that quoted Scripture. It implied that those celebrating their day in the park would not inherit the kingdom of God.
"The movement ... of the community is now destroying this country, the family, moral values -- everything," Velici said.
That last statement is one of the stupidest I've read in the two years I've been writing this blog, and I've seen a LOT of people saying some very stupid things.
What's destroying the country? How about a war in Iraq that is draining billions upon billions of dollars from our economy, a war the military won't even let open gays fight in.
What's destroying the family? How about a divorce rate still hovering around 50% and parents who don't take time to even know their kids much less raise them, yet loving same-sex couples are often denied the chance to adopt and love children who need a home.
What's destroying moral values? How about hatred and bigotry spewed in God's name that drives seekers away from the church and is a boon to athiesm and other alternatives to religion, a hatred that focuses on the GLBT community and is more obsessed with gay people than gay people are themselves.
What's the answer? A relationship with God, not filtered through some right-wing bigot, but one that is born from reading the Bible and seeking Him for yourself, then finding a place where that love and understanding can be nurtured.
With our ministry initiative (still in its early days) the Affirming Christian Network, we're working to present an alternative to the hate and condemnation heaped on GLBT people from pulpits across the country. We're building a community with resources to help people understand that God loves GLBT people, why he does, and how that love can be experienced at a personal level. Check us out if you're seeking, or just need to be fed spiritually.
Conversation about religion dominated much of Saturday's gay pride celebration. But the big question of the day seemed to be: Whose point of view was the right one?
And whose God?
That of the 150 or so evangelical Christians who marched along the Pride Parade route to protest what they claim is a sinful lifestyle?
That of the participants in the 20th annual Pride Parade?
Or that of the various religious groups that showed up in counter-protest of the evangelicals' outcry, proposing tolerance instead?
In a repeat of last year's event, the evangelicals were raucous. They blew noisemakers and carried signs that left no doubt as to what they believe is the nature of sin.
An equally vocal but more liberal and diverse group of the region's religious communities came to challenge the evangelicals' message with words of love and acceptance.
Members of A Church for All talked to passers-by about their congregation's inclusiveness -- acceptance of all regardless of race, class or sexual orientation -- and worship services.
"We believe God is a diverse God. He can meet all of us," said congregation member Christine Campbell of North Highlands. "When Jesus said, 'Whosoever believes in me shall have eternal life,' he wasn't making any distinctions."
Daniel Velici, 35, wore a T-shirt that quoted Scripture. It implied that those celebrating their day in the park would not inherit the kingdom of God.
"The movement ... of the community is now destroying this country, the family, moral values -- everything," Velici said.
That last statement is one of the stupidest I've read in the two years I've been writing this blog, and I've seen a LOT of people saying some very stupid things.
What's destroying the country? How about a war in Iraq that is draining billions upon billions of dollars from our economy, a war the military won't even let open gays fight in.
What's destroying the family? How about a divorce rate still hovering around 50% and parents who don't take time to even know their kids much less raise them, yet loving same-sex couples are often denied the chance to adopt and love children who need a home.
What's destroying moral values? How about hatred and bigotry spewed in God's name that drives seekers away from the church and is a boon to athiesm and other alternatives to religion, a hatred that focuses on the GLBT community and is more obsessed with gay people than gay people are themselves.
What's the answer? A relationship with God, not filtered through some right-wing bigot, but one that is born from reading the Bible and seeking Him for yourself, then finding a place where that love and understanding can be nurtured.
With our ministry initiative (still in its early days) the Affirming Christian Network, we're working to present an alternative to the hate and condemnation heaped on GLBT people from pulpits across the country. We're building a community with resources to help people understand that God loves GLBT people, why he does, and how that love can be experienced at a personal level. Check us out if you're seeking, or just need to be fed spiritually.
The African-American Face of the Hate Crime Bills Opposition
Henry Jackson, an African-American preacher with a Harvard MBA who leads a church only a few miles away from me in College Park, Maryland, has emerged as the face of the religiouis opposition to the Matthew Shepard Law that would include sexual orientation as a protected minority.
I wrote about his campaign a few days ago when I linked to a USA Today article that mentioned him. There is much more about him in this article from The American Prospect.
But Jackson wasn't elevated just because of his preaching style, his popularity, or his voter registration. Because Jackson is black, his claim that granting rights to gay people amounts to discrimination against Christians is more emotionally charged -- and, in a sense, more credible -- than if it came from someone white.
Only in the rhetoric of the Christian Right can an effort to protect the civil rights of one's fellow Americans be turned into a war against Christianity. And that's exactly how Jackson and his allies have deceitfully framed the issue. The Matthew Shepard bill, they claim, will "criminalize" speech and thought, and in particular, make preaching the gospel a crime. Never mind that the bill deals only with crimes involving "bodily injury" and specifically exempts from prosecution "expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."
Jackson nonetheless maintains that the legislation could be amended in the future to "widen" the definition of a hate crime to include his preaching on "one man, one wife, for life," which he says is "appropriate biblical morality." And while he insisted to me that painting him as anti-gay is "terribly offensive" and "bigotry in reverse," to his audience in Virginia Beach, Jackson promised that "God is going to lift up a standard against this abomination that wants to take the freedom away from our nation."
The church has been "diminished," he claimed, and "the authority of the evil one in the nation has continued to ascend and get stronger and bolder. 'Til now we're dealing with the fact that if God doesn't move and you don't act, they're about to shut us down with a Hate Speech [sic] legislation." Somebody, he added, "needs to reverse the curse," and everyone in the audience could start by signing the petition in the church lobby.
The man obviously enjoys being a media attraction, and the religious right loves using African-Americans to do their bidding, a trend they've had a lot of success with in fighting LGBT rights.
Of course, it is preachers like Jackson who are actually diminishing the church by diminishing Jesus. People like him place restrictions on Him that are clearly filtered through their own prejudice. Trying to defend their right to preach hate and what they claim is God's word by misrepsenting the facts and playing to the lowest common denominator in people (fear) goes completely against the message of Jesus, who is the way, the TRUTH, and the light.
It does get Jackson and his ilk a lot of face time and air time, though, doesn't it?
I wrote about his campaign a few days ago when I linked to a USA Today article that mentioned him. There is much more about him in this article from The American Prospect.
But Jackson wasn't elevated just because of his preaching style, his popularity, or his voter registration. Because Jackson is black, his claim that granting rights to gay people amounts to discrimination against Christians is more emotionally charged -- and, in a sense, more credible -- than if it came from someone white.
Only in the rhetoric of the Christian Right can an effort to protect the civil rights of one's fellow Americans be turned into a war against Christianity. And that's exactly how Jackson and his allies have deceitfully framed the issue. The Matthew Shepard bill, they claim, will "criminalize" speech and thought, and in particular, make preaching the gospel a crime. Never mind that the bill deals only with crimes involving "bodily injury" and specifically exempts from prosecution "expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."
Jackson nonetheless maintains that the legislation could be amended in the future to "widen" the definition of a hate crime to include his preaching on "one man, one wife, for life," which he says is "appropriate biblical morality." And while he insisted to me that painting him as anti-gay is "terribly offensive" and "bigotry in reverse," to his audience in Virginia Beach, Jackson promised that "God is going to lift up a standard against this abomination that wants to take the freedom away from our nation."
The church has been "diminished," he claimed, and "the authority of the evil one in the nation has continued to ascend and get stronger and bolder. 'Til now we're dealing with the fact that if God doesn't move and you don't act, they're about to shut us down with a Hate Speech [sic] legislation." Somebody, he added, "needs to reverse the curse," and everyone in the audience could start by signing the petition in the church lobby.
The man obviously enjoys being a media attraction, and the religious right loves using African-Americans to do their bidding, a trend they've had a lot of success with in fighting LGBT rights.
Of course, it is preachers like Jackson who are actually diminishing the church by diminishing Jesus. People like him place restrictions on Him that are clearly filtered through their own prejudice. Trying to defend their right to preach hate and what they claim is God's word by misrepsenting the facts and playing to the lowest common denominator in people (fear) goes completely against the message of Jesus, who is the way, the TRUTH, and the light.
It does get Jackson and his ilk a lot of face time and air time, though, doesn't it?
June 18, 2007
Baptist Seminary Training Women for 1950's TV Shows
One of the the fundamental truths I've learned about the religious right is their focus on looking back, taking the church and society back to "a simpler time" when issues were viewed in black and white without all that, you know, thinking.
Speaking of black and white, the Southern Baptist Convention (pause to allow for cringing) wants to train the next June Cleaver. If you don't know who that is, you don't watch nearly enough TV reruns. This isn't a reality show, however. Much worse, it's part of the cirriculum being introduced at the Southwestern Baptist Seminary.
As reported by Ethics Today:
Paige Patterson (the seminary's president) announced at the SBC meeting in San Antonio that his school was offering an academic program to train women how to make a Christian home.
The chairman of the convention's Council on Family Life even wrote in a denominational magazine, "The wife should not be burdened with the necessity of working outside the home."
"We are moving against the tide in order to establish family and gender roles as described in God's word for the home and the family," Patterson told messengers in San Antonio. "If we do not do something to salvage the future of the home, both our denomination and our nation will be destroyed."
The so-called cultural crisis apparently necessitated the seminary's program which will require 23 hours of course work, including seven hours of "design and apparel" with a lab for clothing construction. Another seven hours of course study covers meal preparation and nutrition.
If anyone reading this is holding their breath waiting for the SBC to open their arms to GLBT people, you need to exhale and start breathing normally right away.
They've got to learn about color TV first.
Speaking of black and white, the Southern Baptist Convention (pause to allow for cringing) wants to train the next June Cleaver. If you don't know who that is, you don't watch nearly enough TV reruns. This isn't a reality show, however. Much worse, it's part of the cirriculum being introduced at the Southwestern Baptist Seminary.
As reported by Ethics Today:
Paige Patterson (the seminary's president) announced at the SBC meeting in San Antonio that his school was offering an academic program to train women how to make a Christian home.
The chairman of the convention's Council on Family Life even wrote in a denominational magazine, "The wife should not be burdened with the necessity of working outside the home."
"We are moving against the tide in order to establish family and gender roles as described in God's word for the home and the family," Patterson told messengers in San Antonio. "If we do not do something to salvage the future of the home, both our denomination and our nation will be destroyed."
The so-called cultural crisis apparently necessitated the seminary's program which will require 23 hours of course work, including seven hours of "design and apparel" with a lab for clothing construction. Another seven hours of course study covers meal preparation and nutrition.
If anyone reading this is holding their breath waiting for the SBC to open their arms to GLBT people, you need to exhale and start breathing normally right away.
They've got to learn about color TV first.
Is There Middle Ground For "Ex-Gay" Therapy?
Surprisingly enough, there is movement toward common ground by people representing both sides of the "ex-gay" issue.
As reported in this article in the Los Angeles Times, two key players in this debate are involved in finding some common ground regarding how to approach homosexuals seeking therapy regarding their sexual desires.
Alan Chambers, the director of Exodus International, the organization best known for saying "change is possible" regarding a person's homosexual inclination, is moderating that approach.
.....he's come to resent the term "ex-gay": It's too neat, implying a clean break with the past, when he still struggles at times with homosexual temptation. "By no means would we ever say change can be sudden or complete," Chambers said.
At this point that is a personal opinion, not one publicly stated by the Exodus organization.
On the other side is Michael Bussee.
"Something's happening. And I think it's very positive," agreed Michael Bussee, who founded Exodus in 1976, only to fall in love with another man — a fellow ex-gay counselor.
Now a licensed family therapist in Riverside, Bussee regularly speaks out against ex-gay therapies and is scheduled to address the Ex-Gay Survivor's Conference at UC Irvine at the end of the month.
But Bussee put aside his protest agenda recently to endorse new guidelines to sexual identity therapy, co-written by two professors at conservative Christian colleges.
He and other gay activists — along with major mental-health associations — still reject therapy aimed at "liberating" or "curing" gays. But Bussee is willing to acknowledge potential in therapy that does not promise change but instead offers patients help in managing their desires and modifying their behavior to match their religious values — even if that means a life of celibacy.
"It's about helping clients accept that they have these same-sex attractions and then allowing them the space, free from bias, to choose how they want to act," said Lee Beckstead, a gay psychologist in Salt Lake City who uses this approach.
I have mixed feelings about this approach, which is still being ironed out and has not been officially adopted by anyone. On the plus side, it's better than people being misled that they can lose their same-sex desires and driven to suicide when that does not happen, feeling that they have failed. It seems, however, that people are being counseled to deny themselves what most of think is a very important part of their lives.
It's hard for me to put myself in that position since I've never been told that my natrual desires were sinful. I'd be interested in getting feedback from someone who has.
As reported in this article in the Los Angeles Times, two key players in this debate are involved in finding some common ground regarding how to approach homosexuals seeking therapy regarding their sexual desires.
Alan Chambers, the director of Exodus International, the organization best known for saying "change is possible" regarding a person's homosexual inclination, is moderating that approach.
.....he's come to resent the term "ex-gay": It's too neat, implying a clean break with the past, when he still struggles at times with homosexual temptation. "By no means would we ever say change can be sudden or complete," Chambers said.
At this point that is a personal opinion, not one publicly stated by the Exodus organization.
On the other side is Michael Bussee.
"Something's happening. And I think it's very positive," agreed Michael Bussee, who founded Exodus in 1976, only to fall in love with another man — a fellow ex-gay counselor.
Now a licensed family therapist in Riverside, Bussee regularly speaks out against ex-gay therapies and is scheduled to address the Ex-Gay Survivor's Conference at UC Irvine at the end of the month.
But Bussee put aside his protest agenda recently to endorse new guidelines to sexual identity therapy, co-written by two professors at conservative Christian colleges.
He and other gay activists — along with major mental-health associations — still reject therapy aimed at "liberating" or "curing" gays. But Bussee is willing to acknowledge potential in therapy that does not promise change but instead offers patients help in managing their desires and modifying their behavior to match their religious values — even if that means a life of celibacy.
"It's about helping clients accept that they have these same-sex attractions and then allowing them the space, free from bias, to choose how they want to act," said Lee Beckstead, a gay psychologist in Salt Lake City who uses this approach.
I have mixed feelings about this approach, which is still being ironed out and has not been officially adopted by anyone. On the plus side, it's better than people being misled that they can lose their same-sex desires and driven to suicide when that does not happen, feeling that they have failed. It seems, however, that people are being counseled to deny themselves what most of think is a very important part of their lives.
It's hard for me to put myself in that position since I've never been told that my natrual desires were sinful. I'd be interested in getting feedback from someone who has.
June 17, 2007
Featured Organization: Americans United for Separation of Chruch and State
A new feature I'm starting here is featuring organizations, buth national and local, who are working hard for the same goals I write about here; GLBT equality in politics and the church. I wish I could belong to and financially support all of the groups I'll write about here, but since that is not economically feasable, at least I can give them a little free PR here.
Today, I'm focusing on Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
This organization, led by Rev. Barry Lynn, is engaged in fighting off the right-wing agenda of moving the United States toward a theocracy. I have seen Rev. Lynn debate Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, effectively demonstrating how one can be a devout Christian without trying to take over the government and rewrite the laws of the nation to reflect their denominaton's religious views.
They publish a monthly magazine titled Church and State, which is also posted online. It is an excellent summary of news items from across the nation that impact church and state issues and reports on specific events Americans United is directly involved in.
One of the primary focuses of Americans United is acting as a watchdog regarding churches crossing the line and becoming too directly involved in partisan politics. This is a violation of IRS rules governing non-profit organizations, and Americans United has investigated numerous cases that appear to be violations and reported them to the IRS.
Another major program of American united is called "First Freedom First." They describe it on the website:
Established in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, religious liberty -- the right of individuals to worship or not -- was and is a defining American value. Often referred to as the "first freedom," this constitutionally guaranteed right is the foundation for the separation of church and state. This separation protects us from undue religious influence in government and undue government intervention in religion and private decision-making. We recognize that the wall separating government and religion is being eroded, and so is our right to make personal decisions.
We invite you to join us! Be a part of First Freedom First. Protect our religious liberty and separation of church and state. Sign the petition and encourage others to join you. Together we can send a powerful, resounding message -- safeguard the first freedom!
There is also a blog tied in with that project which features a variety of voices. One of their supporters is Walter Cronkite, who is quoted on the Americans United website:
"This is a very important movement that has to get across to the American people. It is important to understand religious liberty and separation of church and state, and our right and duty to defend it."
If Uncle Walter thinks it's the right thing to do, I'm in!
Today, I'm focusing on Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
This organization, led by Rev. Barry Lynn, is engaged in fighting off the right-wing agenda of moving the United States toward a theocracy. I have seen Rev. Lynn debate Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, effectively demonstrating how one can be a devout Christian without trying to take over the government and rewrite the laws of the nation to reflect their denominaton's religious views.
They publish a monthly magazine titled Church and State, which is also posted online. It is an excellent summary of news items from across the nation that impact church and state issues and reports on specific events Americans United is directly involved in.
One of the primary focuses of Americans United is acting as a watchdog regarding churches crossing the line and becoming too directly involved in partisan politics. This is a violation of IRS rules governing non-profit organizations, and Americans United has investigated numerous cases that appear to be violations and reported them to the IRS.
Another major program of American united is called "First Freedom First." They describe it on the website:
Established in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, religious liberty -- the right of individuals to worship or not -- was and is a defining American value. Often referred to as the "first freedom," this constitutionally guaranteed right is the foundation for the separation of church and state. This separation protects us from undue religious influence in government and undue government intervention in religion and private decision-making. We recognize that the wall separating government and religion is being eroded, and so is our right to make personal decisions.
We invite you to join us! Be a part of First Freedom First. Protect our religious liberty and separation of church and state. Sign the petition and encourage others to join you. Together we can send a powerful, resounding message -- safeguard the first freedom!
There is also a blog tied in with that project which features a variety of voices. One of their supporters is Walter Cronkite, who is quoted on the Americans United website:
"This is a very important movement that has to get across to the American people. It is important to understand religious liberty and separation of church and state, and our right and duty to defend it."
If Uncle Walter thinks it's the right thing to do, I'm in!
Transgenders: Less Jerry Springer, More Mainstream Media
That's one of the conclusions in this piece from the Hartford (CT) Courant.
The article mentions transgender characters in popular television shows like "Ugly Betty" and "All My Children," the recent cover story in Newsweek (which I linked to on this blog), a new documentary that recently debuted at the Tribecca Film Festival, and the recent high profile stories of the Largo, Florida city manager who was fired and the Los Angeles Times sports writer who announce his transition to a her.
Mara Keisling, executive director of National Center for Transgender Equality, partially credits the Internet and medical advancements with allowing people to express themselves physically. That outlet, she says, has created a domino effect.
"There's so many trans people out that more and more people do have trans people in their lives, and that's going to cause more trans people in the media," she says . "... When the entertainment media stories happen, they really have a dramatic impact. When they're done sympathetically, they make people feel safe and more willing to come out.
Ryan Murphy, the creator of FX's "Nip/Tuck," is developing a new series for that cable network that will follow a male sportscaster and father's transition into a woman. The story is unrelated to Daniels' story. Fox and ABC also are developing shows that feature transgender characters, Romine says."
There will never be acceptance of an issue without visibility, and it's these kinds of representations of the transgender community that will ultimately make the unfamiliar familiar," he says.
I believe that's the key point of this article. People have a tendancy to, at best freak out, and at worst hate and discriminate toward people who are different in a way they don't understand. Bringing some attention to the humanity still alive and well in transgender people before, during, and after they transition can only help bring, if not understanding, at least acceptance.
Let's face it, there are probably a LOT of people in our lives we just don't get, but that doesn't mean we should stop loving them. The same concept applies to transgender people.
We need to remember that the fact they are changing physical gender doesn't make them stop being people, and Jesus commanded us to love one another, not just people who are like us or that we understand.
Thanks to PageOneQ for the tip.
The article mentions transgender characters in popular television shows like "Ugly Betty" and "All My Children," the recent cover story in Newsweek (which I linked to on this blog), a new documentary that recently debuted at the Tribecca Film Festival, and the recent high profile stories of the Largo, Florida city manager who was fired and the Los Angeles Times sports writer who announce his transition to a her.
Mara Keisling, executive director of National Center for Transgender Equality, partially credits the Internet and medical advancements with allowing people to express themselves physically. That outlet, she says, has created a domino effect.
"There's so many trans people out that more and more people do have trans people in their lives, and that's going to cause more trans people in the media," she says . "... When the entertainment media stories happen, they really have a dramatic impact. When they're done sympathetically, they make people feel safe and more willing to come out.
Ryan Murphy, the creator of FX's "Nip/Tuck," is developing a new series for that cable network that will follow a male sportscaster and father's transition into a woman. The story is unrelated to Daniels' story. Fox and ABC also are developing shows that feature transgender characters, Romine says."
There will never be acceptance of an issue without visibility, and it's these kinds of representations of the transgender community that will ultimately make the unfamiliar familiar," he says.
I believe that's the key point of this article. People have a tendancy to, at best freak out, and at worst hate and discriminate toward people who are different in a way they don't understand. Bringing some attention to the humanity still alive and well in transgender people before, during, and after they transition can only help bring, if not understanding, at least acceptance.
Let's face it, there are probably a LOT of people in our lives we just don't get, but that doesn't mean we should stop loving them. The same concept applies to transgender people.
We need to remember that the fact they are changing physical gender doesn't make them stop being people, and Jesus commanded us to love one another, not just people who are like us or that we understand.
Thanks to PageOneQ for the tip.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
