From Wayne Besen:
Press Release
Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2005
AFA’s Video Features ‘Ex-Gay’ Leader Caught In HIV Scandal, Says Wayne Besen
NEW YORK – Author Wayne Besen called on The American Family Association today to immediately stop selling a video featuring an HIV positive “ex-gay” leader who allegedly had unsafe sex with several Virginia men.
The video, “It’s Not Gay,” features Michael Johnston who once said he had gone from gay to straight through the “power of Jesus Christ.” The “ex-gay” leader stepped down in 2003 after credible allegations that he was meeting men online and having unsafe sex.
After the incident, AFA spokesman Buddy Smith called Johnston’s failure a “moral fall.” With the AFA publicly acknowledging that they were aware of Johnston’s failure as an ex-gay and his unsafe behavior, it is shocking that they would continue to promote “It’s Not Gay” on their website.
“The American Family Association is blatantly committing fraud by suggesting that Johnston is heterosexual and they are promoting the spread of HIV by continuing to use him as a spokesperson,” said Wayne Besen, author of Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth. “This episode suggests a stunning lack of integrity on the part of the American Family Association and utter contempt for the truth. If they have a shred of decency and morality, they will immediately stop selling the tape and apologize for their disgraceful behavior.”
In 1998, a coalition of conservative religious groups launched a high-profile national print and television ad campaign preaching that gays can change. Johnston appeared with his mother, Frances Johnston, in a controversial print ad under the headline “From innocence to AIDS.” A similar television commercial also appeared in 1998, dubbed “Mom.” Johnston also worked with Rev. Jerry Falwell and was the founder of National Coming Out of Homosexuality Day.
Johnston’s moral fall in 2003 wasn’t the first time he acknowledged having sex with men without disclosing his HIV status.
“I continued to live as a homosexual for two years after I knew I was HIV-positive,” Johnston said in a 1998 speech to a California church, reported in POZ magazine. “And I am ashamed to say that in those two years not once did I ever tell any of my partners that I was carrying this deadly disease.”
“The American Family Association ought to be ashamed that they continue to use this scoundrel as their spokesperson and shamelessly plug his products even though they are well aware of his past,” said Besen.
I agree that if they are still using this tape featuring him as an ex-gay, they should definitely be held accountable. But, I’m not sure that using the video is promoting the spread of HIV. Where is that connection?
The connection is that AFA is willing to present someone who definitely is spreading HIV as an exgay. And failing to point this out. Had they just dumped the tape and quit releasing it, that would be acceptable. If they had inserted a warning, that also would be a slight improvement. But letting it go when it is clear that Johnston represents a failrue in the program, and a very major health risk, is irresponsible.
Well what I find odd is the fact that the AFA essentially has abandoned Johnston.
If he had recovered from his “slip” and became a “sucessful ex-gay” once again, the AFA would have been shouting it from the rooftops.
As of late, I’ve not heard a single word about how Michael is doing now. How is his health? How is the health of the people he misled?
Outside of the announcement of his “moral fall” you’ve not heard a single thing about Michael Johnston.
Focus on the Family did the same thing to John Paulk when he slipped. They claimed they’d never “shoot their own” but in the end they did.
It seems like standard operating procedure for these groups to hustle their offenders offstage as quickly as possible and not extend any sort of “Christian help” when their presence becomes politically inconvenient.
Re: “Well what I find odd is the fact that the AFA essentially has abandoned Johnston.”
Except, of course, for selling videos.
Scott,
I suspect that’s because the political religous groups aren’t particularly interested in helping anyone. They are trying to affect policy and that isn’t advanced by acknowleding the existance of someone who threatens their “Change is Possible” mantra. He hurts their campaign and has to disappear.
At isn’t about God, it’s about votes.
Posted by: Timothy at December 6, 2005 04:43 PM
Bingo! If they were just helping those who truly did not want to identify as gay, I could go along with that (with a few caveats). After all, people do have that right. But they are just using the issue and the people along with it to push their agenda into civil life.
And yes, I would have to consider having unsafe sex while infected with HIV (if that is correct) a “moral fall”, though the more skeptical part of me tends to believe the ex-gay to gay “fall” is what bothers the AFA most.
David
I also have a hard time understanding how the video “promotes HIV.” Maybe I need to order it and judge for myself. Bound to become a collector’s item anyway.
I did some online searching for Michael Johnston, and I can’t find any information on what happened to him after he folded up his ministry. Also John Paulk seems to have dropped off the face of the earth since leaving Focus on the Family in 2003.
The latest news I can find about Paulk is this press release from FoF saying that he and his family are relocating to “the Pacific Northwest.”
Anybody have any idea what’s become of these guys?
Seriously, where do you go professionally after working for one of these ex-gay ministries?
I wish I knew what happened to Michael. While I have always thought what he did was wrong, and his ads were wrong, there was something very lonely and sad about him. I never cared much for Paulk or Bennett, but I always felt some sympathy towards Johnston. Why? I don’t know. It was not attraction, but he always seemed to have a secret story. I would like to know what happened to him.
John Paulk told Ex-Gay Watch in 2004 that he was attending graduate school full-time.
Timothy:
At isn’t about God, it’s about votes.
It’s also about money. According to an article posted on IndeGayForum, these political Religious Right groups learned long ago that rhetorical gay bashing was good for fund-raising. Among straight people of course.
One thing that is ironic is that they argue on the one hand that gay people are a very small percentage of the population (to depricate the fight for equal civil rights), yet on the other hand they argue that we are bringing down Western civilization. I’m exaggerating, of course, but that’s essentially what they are saying.
It’s also about money. According to an article posted on IndeGayForum, these political Religious Right groups learned long ago that rhetorical gay bashing was good for fund-raising. Among straight people of course.
Although lest we become too smug, exaggeration for the sake of fund raising is hardly restricted to the Right.
David
Raj, that’s no exageration, its an accurate summary of the stances typically taken by anti-gay religious people. They usually claim extreme exagerations properly characterize reality. They’ll characterize a situation in one extreme if that makes gays looks the worst and characterize the same situation in the opposite extreme when that can be used to portray gays in the worst possible way. I.E. when it comes to characterizing how many gays are child molesters they use minimumally inclusive definition for the total population of gays and then (illogically) take the maximumally inclusive definition for number of gays when they examine sexual activity with children in foster homes. Which exteme exageration is made is dependent on what makes gays look the worst. I don’t see “progressives” doing this to anywhere near the extreme that the anti-gays do.
“I don’t see “progressives” doing this [exaggeration] to anywhere near the extreme that the anti-gays do.”
I don’t have time to research this, but I suspect it depends on which progressives you’re talking about versus which conservatives you’re talking about. I don’t doubt for a minute that for every conservative exaggeration, manipulation, and out-of-context quotation, someone could match him/her up with a “progressive”, tit for tat. OF course, to do this we’d be talking about extremists on both ends of the political spectrum.
Raj:
re: “they argue on the one hand that gay people are a very small percentage of the population (to depricate the fight for equal civil rights), yet on the other hand they argue that we are bringing down Western civilization. I’m exaggerating, of course, but that’s essentially what they are saying.”
I’d say that depending on who you’re talking about, there’s only a little bit of exaggeration in that statement. It’s part of the core arguments many take that we are exceedingly influential far out of proportion to our numbers.
It’s part of the core arguments many take that we are exceedingly influential far out of proportion to our numbers.
I’ve tried to understand the argument that so few could have such an impact on civilization. While I don’t subscribe to it, I think it is the accomodations made by the majority that they believe will cause this negative impact. That is those who actually believe this is true and are not just fundraising.
David
ReasonAble at December 7, 2005 05:43 AM
Although lest we become too smug, exaggeration for the sake of fund raising is hardly restricted to the Right.
This is true, but I have yet to see gay operations stirring fearmongering of straights who do not attack equal rights for gay people for purposes of fund-raising.
Apparently you missed my point. It was directed to the antics of the political Religious Right. The “pRR” is a term of art that I picked up from the old Bridges-Across web site that is often referenced here my Michael Airhart.
Jim Burroway at December 7, 2005 03:49 PM
It’s part of the core arguments many take that we are exceedingly influential far out of proportion to our numbers.
Note, however, that at least some made substantially the same core arguments regarding Jews in US society in decades past. The percentage of gays seems to be about the same if not a bit higher than Jews. It became impolite in the US to make overt anti-semitic remarks, so the emphasis of the political Religious Right has shifted to overt attacks on gay people.
To its credit, the Anti-Defamation League has addressed those attacks as well.
As an aside, it should be noted that conservative christians in the US have long used euphemisms to covertly attack Jews–euphemisms like “NY bankers” and “Hollywood.”
ReasonAble at December 8, 2005 02:40 AM
I’ve tried to understand the argument that so few could have such an impact on civilization.
It is an extension of the attack on multi-culturalism that I hear so often on AM talk radio that caters to conservative audiences. I will give you merely one example. Talk show radio hosts (who are often nothing more than disk jockeys from AM top 40 radio, doing another gig–Rusty Limbaugh comes to mind) oftentimes bash the creeping incorporation of Hispanic culture and language into the US culture. And that is not limited to the issue of illegal immigrants–it is also an issue of language.
But, one might sincerely ask, what is one to ask for when one wants to get a taco at a restaurant? That’s a spanish word. Or a fajita? This anti-multi-culturalism in the US is ridiculous. There are Italian festivals here in Boston’s North End, generally in August, and nobody (certainly not the local talk-show hosts) lets out a peep against them.