We are unlikely to see ex-gay activists call for that.
Because, despite the desire of Exodus leaders and the religious right to see the nation’s homosexuals made prosecutable on sodomy charges, it appears they do not wish for their own activists to be held accountable to the same laws.
(Nor do Exodus and the religious right apparently wish to see Johnston prosecuted under a Virginia law that forbids the intentional transmission of HIV. According to The Washington Blade, such an act would constitute a Class 6 felony, punishable by imprisonment of between one and five years, and a fine of no more than $2,500.)
A couple months ago, I personally warned Exodus spokesman Randy Thomas that sodomy laws threaten ex-gays. Thomas did not listen. Shortly thereafter, Exodus publicly defended sodomy laws and criticized the Supreme Court.
Thus far, the Exodus national office, Coral Ridge Ministries, and the Culture and Family Institute have avoided the implications of their public policy positions when they are applied to Michael Johnston.
I don’t believe sodomy laws make good civil policy for anyone, but if Exodus and the religious right believe otherwise, then they should advocate for equal enforcement. Ex-gays are not above the law.
Forgot to mention, nice blog, love the improvements Mike.
As for call for his prosecution, well what do you expect? People generally only support the enforcement of laws when they feel it is to their advantage. I can not see any advantage to the ex-gay movement by calling for the prosecution of one of their own. I can see some advantage to the gay rights movement since a prosecution would generate negative publicity and weaken the ex-gay movement (turning the very weapons they sought to use against us against them). If you get information that they knew more, did more or that he wasted church funds, then roast them alive mike, but don’t blast them for not wanting to roast one of their own (yet…).
Actually, I recall seeing religous right and evangelicals calling for imprisoning people with AIDS. At the beginning of the epidemic there were many people arguing for mass imprisonment of gay men. Some seemed to feel that all gay men should have been rounded up and put into camps. A few novels of the period dealt with this. As well as the regular gay press.
It was the fundies who pressed for all the contact tracing laws which they were unwilling to fund, on and on. So, the company that Exodus now keeps has a long history of advocating the most draconian methods imaginable.
By which methods, Michael Johnston should be immediately imprisoned.
I believe Michael should be held accountable for his wrongdoing (IF he indeed willfully withheld his HIV status to his sex partners), but NOT to promote gay rights or to hurt the ex-gay movement. I believe that holding him accountable is the right thing to do.
If one or more of his victims wishes to file a criminal complaint with the police (I suspect it would be for something like reckless endangerment, but I’m not sure), the prosecution should be encouraged to take the complaint seriously. Other than that, I’m not sure what anyone else can really do.
Yes, victims would be the appropriate word. Thanks, Raj.
I hope one of them has the strength to come forward and press charges. As the ex-gay movement notes, accountability is very important.
For a while I have watched this site veer from trying to objectively evaluate ex-gays to deliberately assuming the worst.
This train of thought concerning Michael is further proof of the straying off course. I have lost many friends to AIDS. I have more close friends living with the virus and I was appalled to hear the allegations. I support prosecution of those who are proven to knowingly pass the virus. Therefore, I find this murmuring and slander reprehensible and discrediting to your goal.
As for Exodus, we are an international organization. Michael has publicly denounced us and it has been a long time since he was ever among our ranks. We didn’t even have to say anything. We did so only because we felt it would be wrong to be silent on this tragedy.
Our statement “Michael failed and is no doubt reaping a portion of the grievous consequences of his actions” is pretty direct and is easily understood to include that come what may, Michael walked into the situation and he will have to face consequences even if he is repentant.
Christians in general are accused of shooting their wounded, you are saying we are wrong for not doing so by calling for Michael’s prosecution. We aren’t in the loop and our sources are basically the gay media reports, we would be un-wise to call for his prosecution not knowing concrete details even though we feel comfortable expressing our sadness and even anger of the situation.
And equating this with the Supreme court case, which I wrote about in December of last year as well, is bizarre. Allegations of sexual assault does not equal a constitutional crisis or redefinition of marriage (our concerns.) If you had truly read all that I had written about that you would know that I thought sodomy as a criminal statute was going to far. Just because I didn’t put a gay activists advice on the top of my “to do” list doesn’t mean you weren’t heard…just not agreed with.
I won’t visit this site anymore. Early on I found the feedback constructive and even when I didn’t agree it was understandable. It is no longer that way.
In Him in spite of myself,
Randy
Randy, while I found your clarification on your position to be helpful, I still found some of your statements puzzling.
While I discovered this blog only recently through gaychristian.net, I have spent time reading through the archives and found it to be very balanced in its approach to the “ex-gay” movement, one that I am thankful for which I was never a part. I don’t think Michael’s recent statement was at all slanderous or unfair. While you may not have had all the facts at your disposal, either, he was nevertheless calling upon Exodus to be consistent. And to make the allegation that Exodus has not been consistent in regards to accountability from those currently or formerly in leadership is not “assuming the worst,” it’s being truthful.
And quite frankly, one *can’t* be truly “objective” on this issue. You’re either in favor of ex-gay thinking or you’re not. As an openly gay man, I’m obviously not. But as a Christian, which I also am, I agree that we should approach everyone with the same amount of mercy and compassion that we have received from Christ Himself. At the same time, Jesus showed righteous anger and cleaned out the temple with a whip, and there is a time to be righteously angry, too. And if that anger is directed at your organization, well… sorry. You may have a lot of well-meaning people who work under the Exodus umbrella, but that doesn’t mean that ex-gay work is a benefit to society or is necessarily even something of which God approves (speaking as an outsider who knows a number of people who have been through those organizations, I don’t think it’s either, quite frankly).
Michael Johnston… John Paulk… (and if the stories one of my friends told me about his interactions with Joe Dallas are accurate, then I’d include him, too)… I mean.. .when will it end? All your so-called leaders are falling, and yet you and others of your ilk insist on promoting your party line as truth. At this point, who *shouldn’t* assume the worst? Especially when Exodus-sympathetic organizations like Focus on the Family use people like Paul Cameron (a fraud) or Judith Reisman (another fraud) to give “scientific” heft to the ex-gay point of view. With the constant falling of ex-gay leaders, combined with the use of fraudulent research posing as science, the ex-gay emperor has been clearly shown to have no clothes, and yet those of us cast in the role of the little boy who speaks up are categorized as not being “objective.” I find that level of denial to be mind-boggling.
Finally, the end of your post smacks of a small child saying, “I’m taking my marbles and going home.” If you choose not to participate or lurk here, fine. That’s your choice. But I think you’re cutting off your nose to spite your face. I’m sorry that one of your own has fallen in the most spectacularly damaging fashion possible, but we weren’t the ones who constructed the house of cards which eventually collapsed underneath him.
Chris
I wrote the above post in haste, and I regret that some of what I wrote may have tarred some individuals with the same brush. I do not consider Michael Johnston’s behavior to be anywhere near in the same category as John Paulk (or what I heard about Joe Dallas, which may or may not be true–and I should not have mentioned his name). Some ex-gay leaders like Johnston have truly fallen off the wagon… others like Paulk have acted in a questionable fashion that have discredited the ex-gay position. While both actions undermine that position, they are not in the same league. I have no desire to cast aspersions, and If it read otherwise, I apologize.
Thanks for both your postings, Chris.
Wow, great comments! I stumbled into this site by accident and what a find! Keep it up. Nice work Christopher!
.
I’m sorry that John didn’t say anything. Perhaps he was speechless. At least this answers the question of what he has been doing since leaving Focus on the Family earlier this year. His statement then: “I will always have a heart for men and women struggling with homosexuality, but after working 16 years on this contentious issue, it’s time for me to pursue other endeavors.” Turns out he is now a project coordinator at Exodus-affiliated exgay ministry Portland Fellowship (where he was on the payroll before moving to Colorado and FOF in the mid-90s), or in other words, continuing his work on “this contentious issue.” Hey, everyone needs a job, and working with struggling homosexuals is what he knows. I hope all is going well for him, Anne and the boys.