Exodus International executed a political stunt in July when it asked an Orlando city councilwoman to proclaim July 21 “Exodus International Day.”
When some Orlando council members — one of whom, Patty Sheehan, was lesbian — protested, Exodus executive director Alan Chambers singled out the lesbian councilwoman and accused her of exploiting the proclamation for political purposes.
The proclamation was indeed an affront to gay Orlando residents, because Mr. Chambers and Exodus national chairman Mike Haley use their positions in Exodus to promote discrimination against gays in employment, housing, and government services, among other categories.
To be sure, Ms. Sheehan’s effort to associate Exodus with the KKK was reckless: The KKK has murdered hundreds, perhaps thousands, of African Americans; Exodus, on the other hand, does not encourage physical violence against gays.
While Ms. Sheehan stoops to namecalling, Mr. Chambers and spokesman Randy Thomas resort to unsubstantiated allegations of their own.
In the past year, Mr. Chambers publicly lobbied the Orlando city government to protect and affirm antigay discrimination as if it were a Christian duty. Now, apparently counting on its readers to be forgetful, Exodus says:
Exodus and our member ministries have never attempted to force people to embrace our opinions. We are here for those who want our help. A few in gay leadership roles are willing to use their influence against us by lying and defaming. They have successfully done so for so long that many of good hearted and well intentioned people in the gay or pro-gay communities basically view rational, intelligent and serious “ex-gays” as cartoons. When in reality most seeking freedom from homosexuality are average people just trying to live a content life under the radar of volatility surrounding this politically over dramatized issue.
As a source of public criticism against Exodus, XGW welcomes the presentation of evidence that we have lied or defamed Exodus.
I believe it is Messrs. Chambers, Haley, and Thomas who have, sadly, made Exodus the subject of political cartoons.
Most ex-gays do just want to live a content life below the public radar. But Exodus’ political activities in support of discrimination, exclusion from church, and selective sex laws make the wish for anonymity futile for those ex-gays who fall victim to Exodus’ own public-policy positions and stereotypes.
XGW recommends that Mr. Chambers stop playing politics with people’s lives. Both he and the Orlando city council should refrain from wasting time and taxpayer money promoting any “Day” other than official holidays.
Yes, it is terrible when groups and individuals say untrue things about another group. I certainly wish no one would say untrue things about Exodus. I also wish Exodus would not say untrue things about the GLBT community.
Exodus does not encourage physical abuse of gays, to be sure. Personally, and speaking from experience, I find emotional abuse far worse than physical. And too many gays have told me of emotional abuse they received at the hands of exgay ministries — some affiliated with Exodus, some not. I don’t doubt that these ministers do not intend to harm others (as the KKK surely did; shame on Patty Sheehan), but intention does not mitigate the harm done.
What has always troubled me is that as “compassionate” as ex-Gay ministries wish to be perceived as, they take public policy positions that are far from compassionate.
These people are supposed to be “formerly” Gay. So at least they should be aware of the fact that to be Gay or Lesbian in Middle America is often a tough row to hoe, right? Even if they claim to have abandoned what they see as a “sinful lifestyle,” at least they would have some empathy toward those of us for whom hatred and discrimination are very real, correct?
Yet this doesn’t seem to be the case. In their overriding desire to toe the conservative Christian, theologically correct line, they pretty much fall in behind Dobson and Sheldon and Falwell and all the usual suspects in reiterating the same mantra:
Gays must not be protected by discrimination laws.
Gays must not be protected by hate crimes laws.
Gays must not be allowed to serve in the military.
Gays must not be allowed to teach in public schools.
Gays must not be allowed in the Boy Scouts.
There must be no legal or financial support for Gay partnerships.
Allowing Gay couples to marry would destroy marriage.
Allowing Gays to adopt would destroy children and families.
Hate the sin but love the sinner, MY ASS.
Exodus has a history of getting into politics and being surprised that others are there. Politics is a rough, tough business. Those who disagree are likely to fight back. So, what else did they expect? Exodus has gotten linked with and lumped in with the long list of those who oppose civil rights initiatives. The KKK is only one of them, but one of the best known. Being put into this condition is painful. This pain might cause some sort of reflection on just what Exodus is doing. Instead it seems to inspire running to the teacher and calling others ‘unfair’. Not very impressive in terms of ethical and moral reasoning.
From the post
“To be sure, Ms. Sheehan’s effort to associate Exodus with the KKK was reckless…. While Ms. Sheehan stoops to namecalling…”
Um, frankly–unless you have information beyond what was in the Exodus press release–you have no idea what Ms. Sheehan said. In point of fact, the post appears to suggest far more than even Exodus’s press release. Exodus’s press release alleges that “Sheehan dismissed the almost 1000 nationwide and local attendees encouraged by the proclamation. Sheehan did so by comparing Exodus to the KKK.” (Something of which there appears to be no mention in the Orlando Sentinal article linked to in the Exodus press release.)
On the other hand, the post seems to suggest that Ms. Sheehan, by attempting to associate Exodus with the KKK, is suggesting that there is some link between the two. This is far more than her suggesting that there is some comparison (I prefer to use the word “similarity”) between the two.
Frankly, I’m amazed that a single city council member can issue a proclamation in the name of the city of Orlando. Which appears to be the case from the Sentinel article.
For the record, Patty Sheehan was singled out because she is the only one who objected publicly. Additionally, at the September 15 council meeting where I shared my comments all of the commissioners and the mayor said that they wouldn’t be for the mayor having final approval over the proclomations that they give out. Patty SHeehan then realized that she wouldn’t want this either. The Mayor said, “As long as the commissioner giving the proclomation isn’t signing the names of the other commissioners then there isn’t a problem. If the constituents of a district don’t like the proclomations that their commissioner gives they can use their voting power to elect a new commissioner in the next election.”
Additionally, I didn’t ask for a proclomation from the city, I asked for my commissioner to welcome the Exodus delegates.
Lastly, Patty Sheehan equated Exodus to the KKK on the local NBC news.
Just wanted to clarify all of that.
One more thing…
Chuck, I do have empathy for the majority of gay and lesbian people who I believe are just like the rest of other middle Americans. I have a number of gay and lesbian friends and other than the fact that we might disagree on the morality of homosexuality, we share very similar views on a variety of things.
My beef isn’t with the gay community at large as much as it is with the pro-gay leadership in this country (media, politicians, etc). Honestly, I don’t see that the gay elite (A Tammy Bruce-ism that I find enlightening) are speaking the language of the moderate gay/lesbian person. Of course, that is for the gay and lesbian community to protest, not me.
I think that the gay elite have turned a respectable battle for civility and fair treatment into a war that seeks to silence any opposition. I honestly believe that we are approaching a time when the legality of me expressing my opinion on the morality of homosexuality will be questioned. I saw it in Canada this weekend and it frightened me.
And, Natalie, I agree with you, there have been abuses committed by ex-gay organizations and I for one won’t permit that within Exodus. I am always open to valid criticisms brought to me for the purpose of making things right.
OK, Alan, try this one on for size:
“I think when people say, well, no, that is not enough, it is not enough that you accept me for who I am, you have to agree with and condone my choice. That to me is religious bigotry and I believe that is intolerance and I think they are the ones who are crossing a line here…”
That’s a quote from Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican National Committee. Problem is, I’m really not sure WHO it is he’s referring to. Lesbians & Gay men, and more specifically Gay couples, aren’t asking him to condone or agree to anything. Frankly I don’t care if he wants to preach against homosexuals until the cows come home.
If Pat Robertson wants to believe that God is going to hurl a meteor at Orlando because of “Gay Days” at Disneyworld, he’s entitled to his silliness. When Trent Lott compared Gay people to kleptomaniacs, it reflected only on his own personal prejudices and said nothing about my qualities as a human being.
What Gay people are seeking, Alan, is fairness, pure and simple. You think that makes US intolerant? My partner and I are law-abiding, taxpaying citizens (not to mention relentlessly monogamous), and as such we are paying into the same financial support structure for marriage that we are forbidden from taking part in, but wish to. And according to Ed Gillespie, that makes US intolerant?
This is truly amazing! For decades Gay people have been vilified and stereotyped as being hopelessly promiscuous and incapable of relationships based on love an respect. Yet NOW, when some of us wish to settle down and make that solemn commitment to each other, in the presence of our friends, families and God, suddenly that makes us even worse villians than before!
If you were Gay, how on Earth do you think YOU would feel?
Valid criticisms? I’ll start with Chuck’s above, which regards pRR meddling in secular law:
“In their overriding desire to toe the conservative Christian, theologically correct line, they pretty much fall in behind Dobson and Sheldon and Falwell and all the usual suspects in reiterating the same mantra:
Gays must not be protected by discrimination laws.
Gays must not be protected by hate crimes laws.
Gays must not be allowed to serve in the military.
Gays must not be allowed to teach in public schools.
Gays must not be allowed in the Boy Scouts.
There must be no legal or financial support for Gay partnerships.
Allowing Gay couples to marry would destroy marriage.
Allowing Gays to adopt would destroy children and families.”
In my mind, that criticism is more than valid; it is damning.
As far as the valid criticisms of those who have been hurt by those in your line of work — again, some from exouds-affiliated organizations — many of these people are happy and healthy without you and are not likely to want to come within 50 yards of you to lodge a complaint. They, like I do, believe that what you do is dangerous and wrong.
Please don’t take that as a personal condemnation of you. You have the right to take whatever positions you will, however horrid and immoral I find them.
What I do not understand is how in any meaningful sense of the word, the gay leadership can be called an ‘elite’. Looking at the visible agencies of the LGBTQ2S community, I observe that each and every one of them is subject to a veto by its supporters. The Human Rights Campaign which has hundreds of thousands of supporters regularly consults with its members about policy. I receive about 3 of these a month. HRC takes political positions that are endorsed by its members after open and public discussion throughout the glbq2s media. The leaders are chosen in an open and visible fashion. So it is with the NGLTF and every other mainline group I can think of apart from the miniscule clique around the Independent Gay Forum.
Looking at the situation, only the ultra-conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan is self appointed. And he and the positions he has publically espoused on HIV prevention are denounced by every glbtq2s group I am aware of. Only the right wing IGF tries to drown out dissent. All the other groups, and the gay media, show a wide spread of thought and opinion on all issues.
So, I am not sure just in what sense, these constitute an ‘elite’. The only persistant complaint I have heard about these groups is that they are not confrontative enough. Not that they do not speak for mainstream gays.
Even ACT-UP in its day was a group with widespread support. And with a democratic, consensus method of decision making.
So, why are these ‘elites’?
Because that is the popular right-wing put-down for anyone they consider liberal. Limbaugh, Coulter, Carlson, Hannity, etc. use it; I suppose it’s trickling down.
I appreciate Mr. Chambers’ sincere effort to clarify and explain his position.
At the same time, I continue to believe that “gay elite” is a vague and unsubstantiated overgeneralization. Therefore, it is counterproductive. I believe Exodus should eschew sloppy stereotypes and name the specific organizations or people with which it disagrees.
In my opinion, NGLTF overgeneralizes about nonprogressives; Tammy Bruce overgeneralizes about nonconservatives. HRC’s support base is diverse; NGLTF’s is not.
IGF’s reach may be limited, but it is perhaps a bit more moderate than the 25-30 percent of gays who voted for George W. Bush in 2000. And unlike the other groups, IGF acknowledges dissent in its letters-to-the-editor section — and its writers frequently disagree with one another on key issues.
I’m speaking only for myself, of course.
Mike says:
“In my opinion, NGLTF overgeneralizes about nonprogressives; Tammy Bruce overgeneralizes about nonconservatives. HRC’s support base is diverse; NGLTF’s is not.”
In gay terms, NGLTF represents the liberationist part of our movement. HRC is the accomodationist part. As the older org, NGLTF stands for a very hardline on gay issues. And has been involved in making alliances with other groups for a long time, long as I can remember in fact. What appears to you as a false idea of ‘nonprogressives’ looks to me like experience on who folds and stabs us in the back and who doesn’t. This comes from long and bitter experience. HRC takes a variation of the old Mattachine line, with a positive spin. That is the idea that there are ways we can adapt ourselves to social expectations. This is an old split in gay circles. And I feel one that has to be understood to comprehend how gay politics work. How two such opposite groups can be considered ‘elite’ is really not at all clear. And as Exodus, and Alan, have a long history of throwing charges and epithets without explanation, one that will probably never be cleared up.
Mike says;
“IGF’s reach may be limited, but it is perhaps a bit more moderate than the 25-30 percent of gays who voted for George W. Bush in 2000. And unlike the other groups, IGF acknowledges dissent in its letters-to-the-editor section — and its writers frequently disagree with one another on key issues.”
Once one finds the IGF letters page, which is not easy, I find a series of letters expressing minor quibbles about their articles. Perhaps it would not be necessary to have a letters page if IGF participated in the general discourse of the glbtq2s community. As far as I can tell, gay ‘moderates’ do not do so. Andrew Sullivan is reduced to putting up his own blog as the general forums of our community are not very receptive to his ideas. Nor to those of gay ‘moderates’ in general. My impression of IGF is that the authors there simply do not use the terminology or understanding developed by our community over the last century. Instead they dismiss this achievment as ‘identity’ politics.
Dale writes: “My impression of IGF is that the authors there simply do not use the terminology or understanding developed by our community over the last century. ”
Another way of looking at it is that IGF does not represent a politically orthodox way of reasoning and perceiving the gay movement. Is there no room for diverse voices within this movement? I think every argument must be taken on its own terms and each position or argument put forth by IGF must be examined one by one to see what is good in them and what to reject. Otherwise we are simply using the same analyses and tactics over and over again without subjecting those tactics and analyses to criticism and revision. I think IGF serves a purpose and wish more would read it.
I am not informed about HRC. I assume their primary objection is to pass legislation, especially at the federal level. Can someone tell me what legislation they have passed at the national level?
“Another way of looking at it is that IGF does not represent a politically orthodox way of reasoning and perceiving the gay movement.”
This is a joke, right? Steve Miller is an embarrassment. I hesitate to call him a joke, but it’s clear that he’s an embarrassment. Or the people at IndeGayForum should consider him one.
More in the next day or so.
No Raj it is not a joke.
Not every gay person shares every one of your political assumptions or beliefs.
DW asks:’Another way of looking at it is that IGF does not represent a politically orthodox way of reasoning and perceiving the gay movement. Is there no room for diverse voices within this movement?’
Well, it always looks to me like IGF takes rather ordinary libertarian type articles and inserts the word ‘gay’ here and there. Which is why frequently it is difficult for me to figure out just what the argument has to do with gay people and our issues.
Yes there is a need for diverse voices in our community. It helps though to speak the local language, which IGF tends not to do. Which probably accounts for the widespread lack of influence that ‘moderate’ gays have.
Personally, the notion of “orthodoxy” frightens me. People — even queer people — have individual points of view and they have the same right to express themselves in whatever way they want as does anyone else. And those who read those expressions have the option of agreeing or disagreeing.
Dale, good summation on the differences between HRC and NGLTF. I wonder if the latter organization has retained its more populist/progressive flavor under the leadership of Matt Foreman. I recall that when he took the top job there, HRC types hailed the move as one that would make NGLTF more like HRC.
Thanks for the kind words Natalie, glad you find them accurate.
On IGF, there was a piece denouncing the lesbians in OR whose daughter was denied a place in an RC school. Think it was Miller who ran on and on about the evils of group think and identity politics. Standard vulgar, low level libertarian rhetoric.
What he neglected to mention was the the lesbians were members of the parish. Had been active in supporting and funding the school. Which school had promised places for the children of all who supported it. The situation is not one of the ‘group think’ hooha. It is one about contracts and keeping promises. Does he really advocate that a church can extract time, work and money from gay people and then turn them away when they take up the promise of benefits? Utterly disgraceful.
“Does he really advocate that a church can extract time, work and money from gay people and then turn them away when they take up the promise of benefits?”
Hey, that’s how the US government operates.
This was sent by IWG to the Orlando Sentinel. I don’t know whether they ran it.
— Mike A.
September 16, 2003
Orlando Sentinel
633 N. Orange Ave.
Orlando, FL 32801
Dear Editors:
Thank you for your September 14 article about the Exodus International proclamation. Any level of government entanglement with religion is problematic, but the Exodus endorsement, unlike the other examples you cited, is a specific endorsement of a particular set of religious ideas.
Even if Exodus were a purely political organization and not quasi-religious in nature, government endorsement of the work of an anti-civil-rights rganization is incredibly inappropriate and even frightening.
Sincerely,
Barbara Lamond Purdom
Christopher Purdom
Interfaith Working Group Coordinators
The above letter was sent on IWG letterhead listing 22 congregations and religious organizations and 72 clergy from 17 religious traditions. Read our introduction to religious liberty.
i nresent this site coz i like handbags