Updated to reflect the location of WeAreThinking PAC.
There has never been just one civil rights movement; there have been numerous movements: for Jews and other religious minorities, for blacks, for women, for Japanese-Americans after World War II, and for gays since approximately the 1950s.
Nevertheless, it has become a mantra among the religious right that certain groups are “hijacking” the one solitary civil rights movement. Meanwhile, in the small universe of web sites that advertise the existence of “former homosexuals,” there are many exgay sites that join the religious right in opposing promoting antigay discrimination — but few sites that offer sound, clinically proven advice to people who strive to overcome or moderate unwanted sexual attractions and behaviors.
The year-old exgay web site WeAreThinking.com is marketed via Wikipedia as “Ex Gay Political PAC, Focused on Ex Gay Civil Rights.” But WeAreThinking PAC has no declared owners, operators, or sponsors, no specific entity to accept responsibilty for its online content. In short, the public is not intended to know the identity of “We” in the site name “We Are Thinking.”
Here’s another irony: The site does not support exgay civil rights; it undermines existing civil-rights movements.
The site’s linked articles target existing religious, ethnic, and gender-based civil rights movements, turning each movement’s members against one another by inflaming some members’ off-topic antigay sentiments. Let’s briefly examine how WeAreThinking does this.
The front page loads an animation featuring dramatic music and a threatening voice that sets African-Americans against gay Americans:
“Today in America, civil rights are being hijacked. Civil rights are being hijacked. Think about it.”
A closer examination of the site’s interior uncovers a series of rhetorical ploys and evasions by people who appear not to be the blacks, feminists and Democrats that they suggest themselves to be. Furthermore, the site is designed using Adobe Flash in a manner that not only precludes external links to its internal pages, but also prevents search engines and web archives from properly recording and promoting its content. A question arises: If the PAC web site is not designed to be found via search engines, then Is the site intended for public consumption, or is publicity for the site being directed to specific volatile interest groups or potential donors?
As questions begin accumulate, it would be nice to know whom to consult for answers.
But unlike most sites’ About pages, this site’s About page does not identify the organization’s leaders. The About page instead profiles two young writers — proxy “representatives.” One writer, Ashley Perryman, claims to be a “women’s rights activist” and yet asserts that “the gay agenda” harms women by allegedly blurring gender identity. This is a common argument of gender conformists and religious rightists, not liberty-affirming women. The other writer, Shaun Kurian, claims that “gay rights” (his quotes) harm the Democratic Party. A Google search of Kurian turns up nothing to suggest Democratic political affiliation or even past writing samples.
The Facts page of WeAreThinking consists of a series of opinion pieces that:
- encourage schism among Jewish congregations and moderate churches that have sought to balance spiritual tradition, sexual realism, fidelity, compassion and justice;
- accuse unspecified media of overlooking a 2004 Atlanta antigay black protest (a linked article fails to substantiate the charge); and
- steer black Democrats toward the GOP.
An Exgay topical page opens not to a constructive profile or knowledge base for exgays, but rather to a four-year-old assertion by religious rightists that a Chicago woman, Mary Stachowicz, was murdered because of her supposedly exgay Catholic identity. The Illinois Family Institute and other religious rightists equated Stachowicz’s death with that of Matthew Shepard of Wyoming, who was killed in 1998, allegedly because he was homosexual.
Whatever one’s views might be toward hate-crime laws, the facts did not support the religious-rightists’ accusation that Stachowicz was killed for being Catholic or exgay. The crime was reported locally and in gay and antigay media in 2002: Stachowicz was attacked after she preached the sinfulness of homosexuality at the office janitor, who then reacted violently to memories of his mother’s condemnations of homosexuality. Stachowicz was not killed because she was Catholic or exgay, she was killed because she reminded a deranged individual of his mother. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that Stachowicz even identified as exgay. Same-sex-attracted conservative Catholics — in particular, those affiliated with Courage, an antigay support group for same-sex-attracted Catholics — generally do not identify as exgay. Disliking the misleading political and sexual connotations of “exgay” that have been fostered by Protestant evangelicals, they identify instead as “chaste” or as celibate gay or lesbian.
Other articles that are linked from WeAreThinking’s Exgay page accuse generic “gay activists” of menacing, attacking, and stifling generic exgays. But details are left sketchy, some supporting links have broken, and the site’s news section is more than two months out of date, suggesting either a financial crunch or an apathy toward the notion of supporting documentation.
Oddly enough, for all the ill-documented talk of censorship, the allegedly suppressed message of exgays is not conveyed by this pro-exgay site, either. A question naturally arises: Are exgay activists suppressed, or are they devoting so many resources to antigay discrimination and to religious-right efforts to deter civil rights for others, that a positive message about exgays never emerges? Are exgays really suppressing themselves?
The website’s Exgay page links to the following exgay organizations: the reparative-therapy advocacy group NARTH, the antigay Catholic group Courage, the pseudo-Jewish/evangelical group JONAH, exgay activist D.L. Foster’s “Powerful Change” nameplate, the nonreligious People Can Change, and the exgay network Exodus International. More questions arise: Did these organizations assent to an affiliation with the WeAreThinking PAC, is WeAreThinking truly a political action committee or affiliated with a PAC, do the exgay groups know the identity of the site’s operators, and why would they wish to be associated with a site that seeks to splinter other civil rights movements?
These unanswered questions draw us full circle, back to the identity of those working behind the scenes at WeAreThinking.
The WeAreThinking PAC web site’s Contact page lists as its address 2020 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 816, Washington. But there is no suite 816. In fact there are no suites at all at 2020. That location is a UPS Store located in the lobby of a prestigious D.C. office building, in a neighborhood that hosts some of the city’s leading lobbyists. Like the About page, the Contact page offers no phone number and no names of officials or employees. A UPS Store employee declined to disclose the boxholder’s identity to Ex-Gay Watch.
An examination of the website’s domain name registration turns up no useful information, either — just a proxy name, e-mail address, and false street address in the Northern Marianas Islands of the western Pacific Ocean. The name, phone number and e-mail address each turn up zero results via Google.
If there are some actual antigay same-sex-attracted persons in existence who really hope to form a genuine and constructive civil rights organization for themselves, then this site poses a threat to that hope. Veteran civil rights activists know that:
- A group that fails to promote a positive message and identity for itself does not win many friends,
- A group that undermines the rights of others will lose support among civil-rights allies, and
- A group so surreptitious that it cannot identify its principals, lacks the visible constituency that is necessary to grant it legitimacy.
Related articles:
Wikipedia summarizes the Mary Stachowicz case. Jody Wheeler and Good As You discuss the exploitation of Mary Stachowicz and similar cases by the religious right. The pro-tolerance religious group Soulforce reacted to the murder by saying that if Stachowicz was murdered in an attempt to intimidate all Christians, then the case should qualify as a hate crime.
Even better- their hompage has a link to the satirical “Michael Swift” piece and treats it like it’s serious.
Apparently We Are Thinking isn’t Thinking too much.
Their donation page indicates that they are a PAC, however they are not showing up in the FEC PAC database. Accepting contributions to a PAC without registering with the FEC is a violation of federal campaign finance laws.
It is possible that they have registered but that their registration has not yet been entered into the FEC database. But I doubt it. The FEC is pretty on top of things in an election year.
If they have been accepting PAC donations for a year as may be the case judging by the age of the site you indicated, I’d say an FEC complaint is warranted.
Good job posting while I’m away.
Visiting the WeAreThinking.com web site, I noticed that in their link “donate” they ask that donations be made to PATH, Positive Alternatives To Homosexuality:
https://pathinfo.ihostsites.net/
This in turn is a a coalition of about a dozen familiar groups (including PFOX, Exodus, Courage, NARTH). This suggests that WeAreThinking.com is an initiative of these. We can’t be sure of that, but WeAreThinking.com must be done in cooperation with these groups; someone in those groups must know what’s going on. Whoever is behind WeAreThinking.com clearly is well-financed, because the web site itself is very slickly produced, and because it mentions a television campaign. I would guess that this thing is an initiative of the GOP to influence the outcome of what promises to be a hotly contested midterm election.
Great job Mike – I’m floored by the hypocrisy
Terrific analysis Michael.
I am OH SO OVER how this Mary Stachowiscz case gets disseminated into and anti Christian hate crime.
The woman took a lot for granted that tends to be typical of some of not only her age and generation, but those of strong faith.
At best this woman was inconsiderate for these reasons.
1. Unsolicited advice on prayer and God and discipline, without regard to her killer’s own culture, family and situation or religious philosophy.
2. His cultural background as well as sexual orientation might have brought considerable abuse to him physically and mentally.
3. Churches are prominent buildings, and if he’d wanted help in a religous sense, he knew where to go.
4. Well meaning people can blunder into situations they are not qualified for. And this woman should have respected this young person’s privacy and situation before lecturing him on what she thought he should do.
5. Bible study doesn’t give one license to decide how another person should live. Religious belief especially doesn’t give another the right to tell another what to believe in.
6. Mary S. killer didn’t do it to make a statement to ALL Christians. It didn’t occur to Mary S. that many Christians spend a lifetime attacking the mental and physical well beings of gay people directly or indirectly and have for centuries.
ONE gay person attacts and physically kills a Christian…and all of a sudden, it’s a political statement. As if any gay people cheered, and never condemned this horrible incident.
In fact, I was accused of cheering this incident by just such a certain knuckleheaded person we all know.
Ex gays who are now living straight, shouldn’t be looking for accolades.
It’s not a big deal to claim being straight and taking full advantage of all the privileges being straight provides.
It’s not like being straight is a matter of character or virtue.
As for the Mary S. incident, it was isolated and anecdotal.
It’s not and never was any part of what gay people and their goals stand for.
But for another movement, they sure are making hay out of it at gay people’s expense.
And THAT is dispicable.
Regan,
I can understand some of what you are saying from a practical point of view. However, anti-gay people could say the same thing. If only the gay man hadn’t been “behaving that way” he wouldn’t have been bashed. If he hadn’t “come on to me”, I wouldn’t have killed him. If she hadn’t been so butch and turned down my advances, I wouldn’t have raped her.
It is never, ever acceptable to murder or be violent against anyone. And no amount of provocation on the part of Mary S. can excuse what happened to her.
However, it is untruthful to say that she was killed because she was ex-gay or because of some culture that tells gay people to be violent against ex-gays. It is simply a lie. The circumstances (which are known) just don’t support that claim.
And to inflame anti-gay sentiments this way is not simply dishonest, but is evil. It is a deliberate effort to stir up fear and hatred towards a group of people while knowing full well that the incident was singular and unrepresentative.
Ironically, the people who seek to demonize in this way seldom recognize that any just God would surely never reward them for this evil act.
what makes me upset is the fact that this was an isolated incident and they make it seem as though this happens all the time. Never were they this way about gwen aroujo or brandon teena or danny overstreet or billy jack gaither or matthew sheppard or any other glbt person attacked and killed for who they are. That is what is wrong with their response.
Has someone turned in this group to the Federal Election Commission? I’ve just sent an email of complaint to the Inspector General of the FEC (oig@fec.gov). Hopefully someone will look into this more closely and shut them down if they are illegally collecting money.
My thought is that we are going to see more and more of this garbage out there in the media and online the closer we get to the November elections. There is a tremendous amount at stake for the Republicans here and they are counting on bigotry and fear to get them reelected and to keep the majority in Congress.
We really need to expose the lies and share the truth with our neighbors, friends and families regarding the reality behind the ex-gay mythology and how they are using this for political gain in order to take away our civil rights as GLBT Americans.
Timothy, I remember this response coming when I raised this opinion before.
You’re right, the ‘gay panic’ defense, so to speak has been used.
And it’s used regardless of how ludicrous the situation in which a gay person was attacked.
What I’m trying to say is there IS political action against gays and lesbians based mainly on religious belief.
And there are street attacks on gay people with at least the belief that the gay person is unworthy and dangerous and unequal to who ever attacks them.
Women like Mary S. went to her attacker with the confidence that she could and should try to make him listen to her.
Or that she could turn him.
He didn’t necessarily or hadn’t been taught that she was a worthless or dangerous person BECAUSE she was Christian.
Indeed, quite the opposite, she was likely to have been attacked because she was a woman, and not because she was Christian.
The fact remains that SHE went to HIM. She was acquainted with him.
Whereas those who gay bash, most often find victims they don’t even have to really know, just suspect, are gay.
In fact, if Mary S. was attacked more because she was a woman and a mother figure….what would Richard Cohen have to say about that?
Just a thought. But your point is well taken.
Kevin, you have to file a sworn and notarized complaint in triplicate to the FEC to initiate an investigation. I have a couple of election lawyers checking into the legality of this PAC and am planning on filing just such a complaint if it is warranted.
“In fact, if Mary S. was attacked more because she was a woman and a mother figure….what would Richard Cohen have to say about that?”
OK, my mind went there. I pictured the tennis racket. I’m not proud of it.
It seems the spirit of Josef Goebbels lives on at WeAreThinking.com
The attack on Mary S. is being spun as their Reichstag fire.
[Comment deleted by the moderator for the following reasons:
1. It contained live links to the armyofgod.com hate site.
2. It repeated a long list of Bible verses without providing any original commentary about the verses.
3. It failed to take the original post or any subsequent comments into consideration; it exhibited troll-like behavior in simply repeating unsubstantiated accusations that were previously discussed.]