Mike Haley, chairman of the board of Exodus International and a spokesman for Focus on the Family, fumed at CBS Aug. 21 for “The Amazing Race,” a show that had the gall to include among its contestants a gay couple that considers itself married for life.
Haley wrote:
“Why can’t they say they’re married?” a CBS spokeswoman said when conservative activists protested the show’s premiere. “What’s the difference?”
The difference, of course, is that they aren’t really married. At least not in any sense that any U.S. court or state recognizes. Despite Vermont’s civil-unions law, despite some outside-the-mainstream churches that perform “commitment ceremonies” for gay and lesbian couples, the fact is that honest-to-goodness marriage remains reserved for one man and one woman in this country.
Haley’s comment demonstrated considerable disrespect for church-based definitions of marriage and a contempt for gay monogamy.
Haley’s resentment toward gay couples quickly turned to outright distortions of history:
You’ve heard, no doubt, that 10 percent of the population is gay or lesbian, right? A fabrication born when a study by sex researcher Alfred Kinsey was misquoted. In fact, in a brief filed in the U.S. Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, a challenge to the state’s sodomy law, a coalition of 31 pro-gay groups admitted that “the most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States,” the National Health and Social Life Survey, “found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.”
Some gay activists have been quoting percentages in the vicinity of 3 percent for years. Does Haley actually listen to activists before criticizing them?
So why do gay activists continue to quote the larger number? Ask one of them, Bruce Voeller….
A colleague points out to me that Voeller died in 1994. Haley’s suggestion that we ask Voeller is, well, morbidly curious.
Ask one of them, Bruce Voeller, who wrote in his book, “Some Uses and Abuses of the Kinsey Scale”: “After years of our educating those who inform the public and make its laws, that concept that 10 percent of the population is gay has become generally accepted as ‘fact.’ … As with so many pieces of knowledge and myth, repeated telling it made it so.”
Another colleague points out that Voeller wrote no such book. There is a seven-page article of that title in an anthology published by the Kinsey Institute — “Homosexuality/Heterosexuality: Concepts of Sexual Orientation” — but no book.
It would appear, at best, that Haley did not actually read the article that he quoted. And in fact a misquote is just what it was. In the above excerpt, Haley removes parentheses and part of two sentences.
Here is what Voeller originally said:
“In any case, after years of our educating those who inform the public and
make its laws, the concept that 10% of the population is gay has become a
generally accepted “fact.” While some reminding always seems necessary, the 10%
figure is regularly utilized by scholars, by the press and in government
statistics. As with so many pieces of knowledge (and myth), repeated telling made it
so — incredible as the notion was to the world when the Kinsey group first put
forth its data or decades later when the Gay Movement pressed that data into
public consciousness.”
My colleague reports that, as the author repeatedly made clear in his article, Voeller himself accepted the 10 percent figure as accurate, but that it was repeated insistence of the fact by gays that made the media accept it as a fact.
Haley proceeded further into his tangle of strawman arguments:
Will repeated telling it make gay “marriage” so? That’s the activists’ hope.
Haley’s remark diminishes the value of religious same-gender marriages, selectively consigning religious values and covenants to a disrespected second-class status behind civil marriage.
How so? Gay religious marriages exist, whether Haley likes it or not. They have existed for decades — in some faith traditions, for centuries — regardless of what Haley wants people to say. Haley hopes that civil authorities will continue to favor some faith traditions over others indefinitely.
Moving on from his misquotion of Voeller, Haley expresses bitterness that gay people are achieving more social and religious respect than, say, polygamists. After all, if gay couples can live long, committed, monogamous lives, honor the religion of their choice, and live relatively free of discrimination in jobs and housing, then where’s the pressure to join Haley’s ideological pressure groups?
From his disappointment at the sight of gay couples surviving in America without Focus on the Family, Haley meanders into a character attack against the star of Bravo’s “Boy Meets Boy.”
There has been no mention of the lack of monogamy so prevalent in the gay culture. No mention of the devastating physical consequences that so often accompany such promiscuity. There have only been lots of good-looking, smiling men embracing the fun and frolic of the gay lifestyle.
This, of course, is a bald misrepresentation of the show, which depicts a man selecting — through the course of televised dating and relating — one other man to be his mate. Aside from the TV cameras, this is a rather ordinary thing among many gay men. Haley seems to be upset that so it was so ridiculously easy for Bravo to find gay men who are not “promiscuous.”
Haley’s closing quote ironically describes his own reaction to gay social equality, demographics, and media coverage:
“Yet another half-truth crafted to promote a political agenda.”
Haley was speaking on behalf of Focus on the Family. Nevertheless, it is surprising that Exodus permits its chairman to publicly get his facts so wrong, and to express a public mood of unhappiness and resentment euphemistically described as “ministry.”
It continues to disgust me just how far right-wing Christians are willing to go to spread misinformation and falsehood about GLBT people. “Thou shalt not be gay” is not in the Ten Commandments, but “Thou shalt not bear false witness” is. No one was struck dead for being gay in the New Testament church, but two married liars were. Why, then, is lying an acceptable practice when supposedly “combating evil”? The Bible is patently clear that the ends do NOT justify the means, yet over and over and over we see this type of behavior from leading right-wing Christian organizations. If truth is Focus on the Family’s ultimate concern, then they wouldn’t use the fraudulent Paul Cameron’s “research” as scientific support for their position on homosexuality. It’s mind-boggling. Clearly, the issue is one of political power and control, not truth.
It is so obvious to outsiders, both people of faith and those who are not, that right-wing Christianity has been co-opted by decidedly non-Christian values (greed, power, avarice) that drive most man-made political structures, with the end result representing nothing of what Jesus actually taught. Yet, like lemmings on their way over a cliff, most American Christians just follow along without giving any rational thought to what it is they are being told, or what their own faith actually teaches. That’s sad… and yes, dangerous, too. That is why organizations like FOTF must be vigorously opposed.
Chris
I’ve always been intrigued by the quarrel from right-wing Christians over the percentage of the population that may be homosexual. Do they fear that a minority comprising 10 percent of the population may have a more valid claim on equal rights that a minority of only 2 to 3 percent? How large must a minority be to receive equal constitutional rights? The unfortunate reality may be that a 10 percent minority may really have a greater claim because they can deliver more money and votes to politicians. Tyranny of the majority really is the ugly side of democracy and right-wing Christians try to exploit it to the greatest extent possible.
And, if homosexuals are only 2 to 3 percent of the population, doesn’t it increase the absurdity of right-wing Christian’s claim that homosexuals are the greatest threat to the survival of heterosexual marriage and indeed to western civilization itself?
I’ve always been intrigued by the quarrel from right-wing Christians over the percentage of the population that may be homosexual. Do they fear that a minority comprising 10 percent of the population may have a more valid claim on equal rights that a minority of only 2 to 3 percent? How large must a minority be to receive equal constitutional rights? The unfortunate reality may be that a 10 percent minority may really have a greater claim because they can deliver more money and votes to politicians. Tyranny of the majority really is the ugly side of democracy and right-wing Christians try to exploit it to the greatest extent possible.
And, if homosexuals are only 2 to 3 percent of the population, doesn’t it increase the absurdity of right-wing Christian’s claim that homosexuals are the greatest threat to the survival of heterosexual marriage and indeed to western civilization itself?
The numbers being quoted here come from a few studies done by psychologists. The method usually is calling people up, asking questions about sex and doing the math. This tends to give a gl population of at most 5 million adults. Psychologists seem to find very few gl people. And the ones they do actually locate seem always to have horrendous problems.
Other more inquisitive people find many more gl’s. Marketers who sell things to gl’s have come up with a figure of upwards of 15 million people who are gay. This seems like a much more plausible number, one that is compatible with attendence at public events, number of gl oriented venues, and other readily availble information.
For the small number Exodus likes to be true, certian things must happen. New York and SF have their PrideParades on the same day most years. Each draws over 1 million people. Events are held thru out the country on the same weekend. The Exodus number would say that between 40 and 66 percent of the gay population attends these two event. Since there are other Pride events in other cities for the number to work, huge migrations from event to event occur. Or the number is bullshit.
When ShowTime targeted the gay community with ads for QAF. the result was 3 million new subscribers. Here again, the Exodus number requires between 80 and 60 percent of all gl’s signing up.
How anyone can put forth a number that is clearly incompatible with readily observable phenomena is beyond me.
What I find so interesting about the use of Kinsey’s statistics in the debate about homosexuality is how much of his data is ignored when the 10% claim is made.
From what I have read, he found that only 4% of the population expected to be exclusively homosexual for life, but 10% of males were predominately homosexual for three years or more and 37% of men had at least one homosexual experience leading to orgasm. In a strange way his 10% figure is more supportive to the ex-gay cause than they know since most of the men who had homosexual relations at one time were not doing so now or not expecting to do so for life!
I think the true reason why they feel the need to bash Kinsey is because his figures did a lot to end the uninformed intolerance they like to call traditional values. Instead of preaching adherence to “tradition values”, Kinsey dared to ask how much of the population is living up to the standard of sex only in monogamous heterosexual marriage and got results. Now, no one can preach adherence to those values without hearing that x% is not doing. In short the family values folks hate him for the same reason why the church hated Galileo, because they asked questions that shook at the power of the church.
So can I ask which “faith traditions” have had gay “marriages” for centuries?
Haley’s bloviating notwithstanding, what is the relevance of the percentage of adults who are–or who are perceived to be–homosexual to their being accorded equal treatment under the law?
BTW, self-reporting–which is how these statistics are generated–is always suspect. Last fall, in a California newspaper article about arrests of men for having same-sex sex in public bathrooms and parks, a police spokesman said that 80% of those arrested were married–many with children. I wonder–if they were queried, how many of them would be honest about being at least bisexual if not homosexual. I doubt that many would be.
Eric, actually same gender marriage does exist in some cultures. In Africa, the sotho and several other Bantu-speaking groups allow women to marry one another provided that one of the women in the coupling is goes through a ceremony that legally declares her to be a male. She then can have other women as wives. Anthropologist are not sure that both women are lesbians, but then on the other had you can not be sure that both parties in a Christian marriage are heterosexual either.
In our own culture there was the “Boston Marriage” which was common in the early part of the 20th century. A “Boston Marriage” is where a gay man and a lesbian get married. They both had guys and girls on the side, but the marriage allowed them to pass as straight. Bram Stoker, the creator of Dracula had a similar arrangement. It is not known if his wife was a lesbian, but she sure didn’t mind his boyfriend.
Also given the fact that the church didn’t get involved in marriage till the 9th century (and even then it was only a blessing of the marriage), I wouldn’t be too surprised if they had other ceremonies that at least recognized a special friendship between people of the same gender. Gay sex might not have been expected in this arrangement, but it would have been a way for people to show their love for one another.
Jason,
I guess I was looking for a religion that conducted same-sex marriages for the purpose of gay sex (blessing it, as it were), as opposed to marriages or unions that were arranged under other pretexts. The sotho account is interesting, but is it a civil or a religious event, and anyhow if one person is considered male, doesn’t that somewhat damage the claim that they considered this a same-sex marriage, at least in the sense it is being proposed today? And the fact that anthropologists can’t determine whether they were lesbians or not again doesn’t support the idea that this was a marriage for the purpose of gay sex (which again is the context of gay marriage today).
I’m familiar with the adelphopoiia rites, and I think they are great opportunities for friends to affirm their non-sexual love for one another. Love between friends (philo in Greek philosophy) is an underrated, undersupported, and underexercised virtue in today’s culture, and there is no reason why two people can’t love and be committed to each other in this sense. But it doesn’t have to be sexual.
By the way, I’m not sure what your sources are, but I don’t believe the notion that the church didn’t get involved in marriage until the 9th century is a correct one. In 110 A.D., St. Ignatius bishop of Antioch wrote St. Polycarp (bishop of Smyrna), “It is proper for men and women who wish to marry to be united with the consent of the bishop, so that their marriage will be acceptable to the Lord, and not entered upon for the sake of lust.” (Epistle to Polycarp, 5,1) So from the very earliest point, the Church was involved in regulating marriages. (This quote also points out something lost on most people today: that not even heterosexual marriages are, from a Christian perspective, supposed to be entered for the sake of “lust”, that is, inordinate sexual enjoyment or sexual pleasure sought for itself apart from authentic, self-giving love.)
“So can I ask which “faith traditions” have had gay “marriages” for centuries?”
What does this have to do with state recognition of same-sex relationships (so-called “gay marriage”)?
In point of fact, “marriage” existed long before the catholic church came around. In the Roman tradition, marriage was something akin to what today we would call common law marriage.
Raj,
My point was merely that, given the original post (Michael?) attempted to discredit Haley’s statements and bolster the case for same-sex marriage by appealing to centuries-old “same-sex marriage faith traditions”, we should nail down our facts and talk about what these faith traditions were and confirm what kind of marriages we were talking about. Michael seemed to think the U.S. is disparaging certain faith traditions by not affirming same-sex marriage. If there are such faith traditions, and if they practice in the United States (thus involving their First Amendment religious rights), and if we are talking about unions involving sex truly analogous to marriage, then fine, that argument is valid.
Steven O Murray’s ‘Homosexualities’ documents a number of sg marriage situation. Off the top of my head, he finds Shinto, Native American, Buddhist and Daoist traditions to have practiced gay marriage. Additionally, The ancient Celts, Tuetons and Romans also recognized such marriages. So, if you accept Wicca as the continuation of these religions, which I do, there is a sizable body of religion open to gay marriage. Another author, whose name I have forgotten, has documented the acceptence by the US government of sg marriages among southwestern tribes.
Also, another point is that marriage same gender, different gender, gay or straight is less about sex than it is about property, responsibilities, and rights. It isn’t a society’s or religion’s blessing on sex, and it isn’t always about love. It is purely a practical matter. Somewhere in the past someone figured out that two or more people working together could do more than a person working alone, marriage is just a result of that.
For the sheer fact that this got the right’s panties in a twist, I’m glad Reichen and Chip won. It doesn’t take too firm a touch to make the poison spew out, does it? I mean, God forbid that kids who watch this show walk away with the impression that not only are gay men not nervous nellies who dither when faced with challenges, but that they care about each other and want marriage for life!
It galls me, it really does, that the right thinks it can tell the rest of us what constitutes a marriage. I don’t approve of two evangelical twenty-year-olds getting married after a four-month “courtship”. Does that mean I get to put their “marriage” in quote marks? Seriously, there are many instances where we don’t necessarily approve of another’s marriage or relationship, but we respect the people involved enough to at least acknowledge its worth to the participants.
Jason and Chris, thank you for the great points. I know that when I was in the emergency room a few months ago, it would have saved us a whole lot of trouble could my girlfriend have been my wife. However, Jason, I’ve always heard a marriage between a gay man and a lesbian called a Lavender Marriage. A Boston Marriage was between two women, during the Victorian and Edwardian days.
Eric, in a secular republic, why must we all live in a way that is acceptable to Christians, and be pushed into it by law?
When love is outlawed, outlaws will love…
Eric, many people what to demand that homosexuality is based on nothing more than sexual lust – it simply isn’t true. Of course, the sexual dynamic is a part of it, as it is in heterosexual relationships/marriages, but so too is the affectual aspect of any relationship/marriage.
Those who demand that homosexuality is nothing more than lustful behaviors have already lost the argument because homosexuals know that not to be true, and as straight people are witness to their lives, they too know it not to be true.
Are there those whose lives are controlled by lust? Sure, there are and both gay and straight people can be added to the list. Because of working on a college campus for 20 years, I can tell you that straight guys are as lust prone as gay guys, but lust is lust whether gay or straight and love is love whether gay or straight. Homosexual people experience the sexual and the affectual in the same way heterosexuals do, despite what many heterosexuals want to believe.
Oh, and in Ignatius’ statement to Polycarp, as you have quoted, there is no definition of “marriage.” This is a primary problem in exegetical and hermeneutical work – placing back on the original authors/cultures our present day understandings. From my understanding of history of the time, both secular and religious, I don’t think the notion of marriage being a one-woman one-man arrangement predicated on love was the norm, although examples are sure to be found.
I confess I was in a hurry with the original post in this discussion; as a result, I oversimplified the history of same-sex unions among various indigenous cultures and religions. Yes, things get complicated.
Thank you, folks, for holding me to higher standards.
A reader pointed out that I got my TV networks mixed up in a concluding paragraph. I’ve corrected the text:
Haley seems to be upset about a lot, given many of his recent writings, including this one.
It must be an absolute strain on one’s body to constantly be having to work up outrage. No wonder some people leave these posts after a few years.
From 365Gay:
https://www.365gay.com/NewsContent/090203gayMoney.htm
‘Based on several population samples, the analysis conservatively benchmarked 6 percent to 7 percent of the adult U.S. population as gay, lesbian or bisexual — or between 14 to 16 million individuals over the age of 18. The estimate assumes that average income patterns within the GLB population generally reflect those of the population as a whole over the age of 18, that the population may be adjusted to take into account a higher proportion of males, and based on same-sex household Census data, that gays and lesbians appear more likely to live in metropolitan areas than the population as a whole.’
This seems like sensible, validated research. And the number they come up with is not that far from Kinsey’s.
The 10 percent figure is shear propaganda intended for heterosexual consumption. The fact gay propagandists continue to use it shows how little regard they have for honesty.
The ends justify the means.
John,
It appears that you did not read this page before posting.
What gay propagandists still use the 10 percent figure? Please provide the names of specific activists.
Offhand, I don’t know of any well-known or knowledgeable gay activists in the past eight years or so who have used that statistic.
The only activists I know of, who use the 10 percent number these days, are antigay activists like Mike Haley.
John, you would represent your beliefs better if you stated facts, instead of issuing strawman arguments and conspiracy theories.