Does HRC have any policy analysts watching the threat ex-gay “ministries” pose to civil equality of gay Americans? Using HRC’s search page with keywords “exgay” or “ex-gay” didn’t turn up a single document more recent than 2000.
H
Dan,
I have to respectfully suggest that this isn’t a productive direction.
I’m not sure that ex-gay ministries really fall within the goals that HRC has set for theirselves. I wasn’t able to find a concise mission statement but this is from their website:
“Founded in 1980, HRC effectively lobbies Congress, provides campaign support to fair-minded candidates, and works to educate the public on a wide array of topics affecting GLBT Americans, including relationship recognition, workplace, family, and health issues. The HRC Foundation — an HRC-affiliated organization — engages in research and provides public education and programming”
Although they take on a “wide array of topics” they primarily serve as a bi-partisan national lobby group which, when combined with the Stonewall Democrats and Log Cabin Republicans, serves to be our voice in Washington. They also lobby businesses to have gay positive policies and track those who do. (It does bother me that they have two main projects that are not particularly closely related but so far they are doing OK at this dual purpose).
I’m not sure how ex-gays would become a primary interest to them. If some bill came up that gave some preference to ex-gays, then I suppose they would track or study the ministries. If PFOX starting trying to get business to do something or other that might bring them into play.
I find that often gay people with a particular interest are angry or offended that some group or other (often GLAAD or HRC) isn’t supporting them. But if they have a mission and a purpose, we have no right to demand they change it to be something else, even if it is gay related.
That’s part of the reason that the Gay and Lesbian Task Force has become irrelevant, they spread their focus so wide that they became a generic leftist group for gay people but didn’t have any specific action that they do well. Consequently about the only time you hear from them is in a bitchy press release.
Perhaps we just have to realize that HRC does their thing, GLAAD does their thing, Lambda Legal does their thing, and if our thing isn’t theirs, then we have to do our own.
As far as a national group taking on ex-gays, probably the closest we have is Soulforce.
I agree with Timothy. I had the chance to interview Joe Solmonese about a month ago for my local LGBT paper and asked him about ex-gays. He had been on CNN with Dr. Throckmorton, if you remember. While I didn’t ask him why HRC wasn’t focusing one ex-gays, I did ask him about their lack of response to the NY Times article on bisexuality which was released a while ago (but the Gay and Lesbian Task Force sent out a press release condemning it).
His response was that there are certain things which don’t fall within the purview of HRC’s focus. If that article which I cited had some hard science behind it, or was really impacting legislation, then HRC would have responded. As it is, they have enough on their plate.
I thought that was a fair response. Some of the ex-gay agenda can be answered through the religious task force that HRC has recently set up, I would imagine, at a more grass roots level of dialogue. THAT might be an avenue to explore/encourage.
I’ve often thought that this should be the natural work of GLAAD. You know, the folks with “against defamation” in their name. But they only go after stuff that appears in the popular media, and then, not very effectively.
I did a search on “Ex-Gay”. The most recent stuff is around 2001.
It appears they see their job this way: issuing press releases condemning news stories, TV episodes and other portrayals that believe to be unbalanced or inaccurate. But they don’t have a repertoire of information they can make available to counter the information. So when a major urban newspaper like the Washington Times reports false information about gay promiscuity, claiming that it comes from a “Dutch Study”, it goes essentially unchallenged.
It seems that if GLAAD really wanted to be a service to the mainstream media, they’d tear apart the anti-gay rhetoric and make their findings available before it gets picked up by the MSM. That way, if it shows up in the media, GLAAD can do more than stamp their feet and cry foul. They could point reporters to the factual information and demand a retraction.
But unfortunately, that sort of effort doesn’t involve swanky parties attended by beautiful actors.
So again, instead of complaining about the focus of other groups (who don’t have ex-exgays or science researchers on staff in any case), let’s work to make XGW, or Wayne Besen, or Peterson Toscano, the go-to people for journalists writing a story on deadline.
In order for XGW to be such a resource, we need nicely researched comments like grantdale’s; some new volunteer writers; some folks with merchandising ideas to cover costs; and folks (especially ex-exgays and former fundamentalists) willing to talk briefly with journalists on deadline (often midday, or overnight via e-mail).
Mike, I agree.
Jim, I think GLAAD would be overjoyed to refer the media to such a group of knowledgeable ex-gay experts. They don’t have research teams (outside of media) and just can’t be the ones to go through Alan Chambers’ comments and refute them point by point.
While I know they aren’t your favorite group, I’m pretty familiar with what they do on the budget they have and they are truly amazing. Most of GLAAD’s activism is so effective that you never see it.
When the nutcase right blames hollywood and the mainstream media for “pushing the homosexual agenda”, it’s mostly because of what GLAAD has been able to do. Before they came around hollywood’s (and television’s) image of gays in America was pretty much restricted to drag-queens and pedophiles. So if you think it’s all swank parties, that’s because that’s the only thing you see; the rest is the behind the scenes work-your-butt-off tedious drudgery that changes the world.
Truthfully, the sad truth about all of the above comes down to money. FOTF is tax exempt and VERY generously funded. HRC, GLAAD, NGLTF, etc., while adequately funded are not the cash cow the the other side is.
Secondly, fighting the right is a huge task requiring huge amounts of money, and the mainstream left and centrist groups have a big job on their hands right now.
Ex-Gay ministries are on their radar but are not a priority.
My suggestion is to build a panel of experts (which XGW has been doing an excellent job of), credential it, and agressively promote it as a resource to sympathetic organizations that might have a need for it periodically.
It’s a project that will take some work, has few tangible rewards, but desperately needs to be done. No one is going to be able to get rich, or even to make a living off of it, but it’s a start.
Well… I cannot say why the subject has gone off the boil.HRC did begin to pull together some projects — albeit only after the infamous Paulk(s)/Johnston/White campaign (launched by 15 anti-gay groups, including Exodus, in 1998) had hit the fan and been splattered all over the print and broadcast media.Apart from a series of countering adverts and answering the fallout from that deceiptful anti-gay campaign, the report “Mission Impossible” was produced.HRC launched the “Ray of Light Project” shortly afterward, part of which — if I recall — was the publishing of a set of personal testimonies with “Finally Free” (pdf file). Earlier they had produced a report on the impact of religion with “Mixed Blessings”. (that’s a honker of a download btw).I have no idea why all this dates to 1998-2000, and comes to a grinding halt. Maybe HRC need another huge campaign promoting Exodus before they will again crap themselves and move into action. Or maybe they have decided to support other activities that indirectly counter the exgay messages, rather than tackle it head-on.A quick look through the list of publications shows, opaquely, where the priorities have been moving.It’s probably significant — though maybe not, and I wouldn’t know why in any case — that THE major work that followed the 1998 Exodus campaign was a private effort by someone who had departed HRC … Besen’s book.
Oh cringe. I just noticed Mike’s comment.OK, it’s accepted with all humility 🙂 but I swear we are simply trying to counter our chronic insomnia. It’s either do this, or stare at hour after hour of awful U.S. infomercials.(“I’m not an insomniac — I only need 3 hours of sleep. And not every day.”)
“effectively”?
The take among my friends is that HRC is overstaffed and riddled with overpaid executives who are singularly ineffective. I refuse to send them any money. Maybe if they stepped out of the box a little and took on the ex-gays they might actually be more effective.
Re: So again, instead of complaining about the focus of other groups (who don’t have ex-exgays or science researchers on staff in any case), let’s work to make XGW, or Wayne Besen, or Peterson Toscano, the go-to people for journalists writing a story on deadline.”
Excellent. I think that’s a great start.
Re: In order for XGW to be such a resource, we need nicely researched comments like grantdale’s; some new volunteer writers; some folks with merchandising ideas to cover costs; and folks (especially ex-exgays and former fundamentalists) willing to talk briefly with journalists on deadline…
I think we all do what we can. I’ve written stuff, Grantdale’s work is excellent. But really, we’re all doing this with other full-time jobs (as I know you are, Mike). I do this when I really should be doing other things, if you know what I mean. 😉
It’s hard work, and it’s much easier and takes less time to kvetch, which I presume professionals wouldn’t do. This is, I fear, an awful huge job for random, relatively unorganized volunteers, although not an impossible one. It seems to me that it takes an editor capable of defining priorities for articles and areas of research based on the direction of news events and anti-gay activities. Marching orders, if you will.
Speaking of merchandising. Dan Gonzales is a whiz with his infographics. Has anybody thought of starting a CafePress store for Ex-gay Watch? I looked it over and it looks pretty easy. They also do publishing on demand, so maybe a collection of articles for low-cost handouts and booklets could be an avenue for getting the word out.
What we need, I feel, is a site where we can do threads on specific topics. Like: Stephen Bennett’s past; Exodus finances; connections between the various players; a census of public exgays over a long period of time; tracking those who leave the groups; a history of the groups showing which have folded. Some of this, I believe, has already been done. This is referenced at the Exodus site under the title: are exodus ministries flaky. They respond to a study on closed ministries, and point out the source of the study. A great deal of this is tedious nose counting. Which is easy to do in UBB but not typepad. A permenent, easily accessed thread on any one topic can allow ready access as new data come to light. The threads at Bridges Across will already contain much of this information, and the links. My guess is that first we need to assemble what is already known. Then go after what is not.
OK… Let me sign on right now. I’ll help in whatever way I can. I can research, “count noses”, analyze and comment, even speak (somewhat) intelligently in public – and I’m fluent in the language of the religious right. But I’m neither capable nor willing to captain the project.
And I know that many of us are far too busy to take on heading up another project. And though I am soooooo grateful to Mike for starting this site, I doubt he has the energy/time to create/head an organization.
So what do we do?