In his blog today, Wayne Besen attacks Brenna Simonds, leader of a small Boston exgay ministry, the name of which he does not give. That ministry’s name is is Alive In Christ and is unlucky enough to be based out of a church located a block from the capital building. In Besen’s eye by virtue of the fact Simonds ministers to exgays and is located near the capital she is surely involved in anti-gay politicking. Mr. Besen provides no substantiation of these accusations Simonds is politically involved. Googling “Brenna Simonds” turns up little more than mention of her ministerial work and a couple Amazon.com book reviews of rather benign Christian books. I question if Besen’s unsubstantiated accusations on Ms. Simonds and inflammatory commentary on Randy Thomas’ sex-life later in his post serve any constructive purpose.
P.S. Fun new infographic Monday! (But it’s on a different subject, not Wayne.)
Daniel,
Thank you.
We harp about the ex-gay movement’s outrageous statements and wild claims. If we expect to continue to do so with any credibility, we have to hold our own to the same standard.
Full disclosure: XGW is based in a house located 15 blocks from the U.S. Capitol and White House. Two of its active writers live in Washington, D.C.
Of course…this is part of the problem that Exodus has. They (Exodus) are actively involved in anti-gay politicking, but most Exodus affiliated ministries actually don’t seem to be. I wonder when all these individual ministries are going to divorce themselves from the Exodus political machine in order to get away from the guilt by association. I personally think it’s bound to happen at some point.
Timothy, I agree with your comment completely. Dan, thanks for pointing this out. Hopefully Wayne will be able to substantiate his accusations, or he’ll post a retraction or apology.
Mike, how dare you engage in politics like that! Oh and did I mention I work a block from Long Beach City Hall and live next to a Methodist Church. That’s why the Methodists are turning all gay friendly all of a sudden.
While Wayne Besen’s post about the Boston Globe article comes across as presumptuous, Randy Thomas is in fact evasive about his own sex life; misleading about the unhappy and sometimes unsafe sex lives of exgays; and intentionally dishonest about Exodus’ stated mission to free the world from homosexuality.
Thomas lies about several things in the article, including this: “Thomas said he doesn’t understand why Massachusetts gay activists are so hostile to his group’s message.” Thomas and Alan Chambers both have been politely told why, hundreds of times, through their participation in an online bridge-building project with pro-tolerance and gay-affirming individuals from 1997 onward. Until 2001, I was among the people detailing for Chambers and Thomas (with the civility that was required in the project) the hundreds of things factually wrong with their claims about gay persons’ upbringing, behaviors, and political and religious values. Year after year, Chambers and Thomas pretended to listen.
A balanced news article would have printed Thomas’ views, but it would also have pointed out Thomas’ dishonesties by noting Exodus’ stated mission; interviewing the gay people who have repeatedly told Thomas why his bigotry prompts retaliatory hostility; and by examining the sex lives and fantasies of those at Love Won Out who claim to be free of homosexuality. I believe the sexual behavior of antigay activists is on-topic, though Besen could have done a better job of explaining why.
But the Globe article did not do any of that. It also overlooked Focus’ political battles in favor of prejudice and discrimination; neglected to note that Anne Heche has repudiated the antigay activism of her mother, who is mentioned in the article; and allowed the lie that Love Won out is merely “here for people who are not happy with their lives” to go unrebutted.
As for Brenna Simonds, she is financing Focus on the Family and Exodus through her ministry’s sponsorship of Love Won Out and through its application to become an Exodus ministry. That makes her political, no matter how recklessly ignorant she chooses to be regarding her support for antigay bigotry and discrimination.
I believe Simonds’ financial connection to antigay politics is much clearer than the geographic one, unless Wayne has additional information that we’re not aware of.
Thomas (and I believe Simonds) have no excuse for not understanding the criticism of Love Won Out. They simply have chosen, year after year, not to listen, nor to repent of their sins, nor to confront the immoral consequences of their actions.
My disagreement with Besen’s post isn’t that Thomas and Simonds are undeserving of criticism, but rather that the reasons for criticism and hostility could be better explained. I also think it’s not a good idea to be as hateful toward antigay activists as they’ve been toward gay people. But I’m not exactly a role model in that respect, as my contempt for Thomas indicates.
As Raj alluded to many posts ago,
You do seem to have some latent, homo-erotic attraction for RJ.
Was the he the boy with the bulging crotch who got away?
Past homo boy-toy now turned ex-gay devil?
-Elvis
Mike, you have a valid point that discusses things I never touched on. Why don’t you do a post on the original article in question.
And have you considered that perhaps Simonds only is a member of Exodus because they refer the vast majority of her clients and by paying their modest fee she takes care of pretty much all the advertising she cares to trouble herself with.
At the risk of straddling a barb-wire fence…Besen’s link of the adddress with (therefore) proof of political lobbying is ree-dick-you-lass. Without looking anything up: Alive In Christ, Simonds, or “Bill Taylor, Keith Johnston, Cliff Gardner, and Hugh Rutledge” may well be doing that… but the street address is no evidence of anything. A reason for someone to go “Hmmm, that sounds suspicious”, perhaps, but that’s all.However, that said… any group that joins Exodus and hosts a “ministry booth” at Love Won Out is indeed involved in two highly political and deceitful organisations — whether they know it or not. To say otherwise is about as believable as people who say they read Playboy for the articles…
C’mon guys!!
Mike A:
“As for Brenna Simonds, she is financing Focus on the Family and Exodus through her ministry’s sponsorship of Love Won Out and through its application to become an Exodus ministry. That makes her political, no matter how recklessly ignorant she chooses to be regarding her support for antigay bigotry and discrimination.”
I’m more than certain that I’ve spent money in conferences that supported causes I opposed. I seem to recall at one point going to some dinner honoring someone that was put on by the Workers Party (I think I met author Paul Monette in the bathroom). Needless to say, I’m not a communist.
In fact, I would not want to be judged on how HRC or GLAAD or Log Cabin spends every dollar and I’ve been to events hosted by each.
I find it entirely possible that some participants at Love Won Out are truly non-political and are just there “cuz they gots a burden ta spread the gospel to the gays”. Some are honestly trying not to be anti-gay in the process.
Lets not paint them all with the same brush.
I live in the Boston area (actually Wellesley) and have never seen anything in the gay papers here (BayWindows, primarily) referring to Brenna Simonds or Alive In Christ. Maybe Wayne has found an itch that he should not consider scratching. He may be giving them more publicity than they deserve.
Regarding
As for Brenna Simonds, she is financing Focus on the Family and Exodus through her ministry’s sponsorship of Love Won Out and through its application to become an Exodus ministry.
I find that a bit odd. She is financing FOTF and Exodus? Where is she getting the money to finance them from? It is more likely that FOTF and Exodus are financing her in hopes of building a following in MA. She’s just a front person. Will their strategy work? I do not know, but I will tell you that Mitt Romney’s strategy of increasing the Republican representation in the MA legislature (and spending millions of dollars in the effort) in 2004 left a net gain of minus five. And all the legislators who supported gay marriage were re-elected, some who did not (even some Democrats) were defeated by candidates who did.
At least Bill Weld had enough Republicans in the state Senate to sustain a veto. Romney does not. He is not running the state–the Dem leadership in the state legislature is. And the leadership in both houses has an excellent working relationship.
Raj, I haven’t ever known Exodus or FOTF to finance individual ex-gay ministries. The individual ex-gay ministries pay a fee to Exodus (basically in exchange for referrals). It’s the individual ministries (in addition to FOTF and donations) that keep Exodus afloat. From what I’ve seen, read, and heard, it’s not the other way around.
I’ve said this before and I don’t mind saying it again. I don’t know why people think that ex-gay ministries are rolling in the dough. Most that I’ve been aware of are not. The leaders either have other full-time jobs, or they exist on the donations from group participants or concerned parents/supporting churches. Many are not making what we would consider to be a good income. Most are doing this based on their convictions. It doesn’t mean what they’re doing is right, but when we talk about them getting rich off of it, or FOTF bankrolling them, it just makes us look silly.
I’m not saying that FOTF doesn’t make money off of the gay thing – I think they do (by using fear tactics to get people to donate). But just because that is true of FOTF, doesn’t mean it is true for individual ministries out there. Again, this shouldn’t be construed as me supporting these ministries, or trying to make them seem more sympathetic. Just saying that if we want them to speak the truth about us, I think we should try to speak the truth about them.
Christine,
You’re right, Dobson has insisted LWO events cost more to put on that they bring in but w/ regards to politics, FOTF definitly exploits fear of gay people to gather support and money.
raj
not to veer way off onto politics, but…
Romney ran as a “Weld Republican”. But, alas, he’s not. When it came to our community, Weld lobbied the legislature to support gay marriage (I believe he even officiated at one) and Romney fought gay marriage with every tactic he could find. It isn’t surprising (considering the political bent of Massachusetts) that the citizens didn’t find Romney’s grow-the-party efforts compelling.
Even the top Republicans find it safer to support gay marriage now.
Unfortunately, Weld may not be as much of a “Weld Republican” as he used to be. Running for governor of New York, he is now in favor of civil unions rather than gay marriage. I can kinda, almost, sorta understand his point (NY isn’t ready yet, especially upstate – and civil unions is a good compromise) though I disagree with him and find it very disappointing.
Timothy at October 29, 2005 07:12 PM
Actually, Timothy, it’s not clear what Romney ran on. In the primary, Romney ran on an “I’m not Jane Swift” platform. Swift had taken over the governorship after Paul Cellucci became US ambassador to Canada (why?) for the GWBush administration. Romney also ran on his supposed business expertise regarding the 2002 winter olympics, which were heavily subsidized by the state and federal taxpayers (placing great doubt on his business expertise) during both the primary and general election. During the general election He also ran on the “I’m not Shannon O’Brien” theme–O’Brien was his opponent in the general election.
Romney has grown to be fairly unpopular here in MA since he became governor and it is unlikely that he would win re-election. Indeed, it is unlikely that he will stand for re-election. His Lt. Gov Kerry-Healy (or something like that) is reported to be raising funds for a run, but I cannot imagine her being elected. As I noted above, Romney’s quixotic and very expensive effort in the 2004 mid-term elections to get more Republicans elected to the state legislature provided a net gain of minus-five.
Weld is turning into something of a flake. He’s not going to win an election to be governor of NYS–their next governor will be Eliot Spitzer, the AttyGen. Weld’s coming out in opposition to gay marriage is somewhat odd–he attended a (real) gay marriage here in Boston a few months ago involving one of his aids when Weld was governor here, and he spoke approvingly of it. The next governor of MA will likely be the MA AttyGen, Tom Reilly. He’s OK, but I despise what he did in the Amirault/Fells Acres Day School case in the 1980s.