fsYsusY1ALQ
Update: Here are some clips of what did air.
From Peterson Toscano’s A Musing:
One thing that got cut during Montel’s interview of ex-gay survivor Lance Carroll was Montel’s reaction to Lance’s story of being forced by his parents to attend Love in Action/Refuge. Montel stopped Lance, pointed to the American flag folded up behind them, and said something like, “I fought for this country for the right of all Americans, not just straight Americans.” No doubt Montel is opinionated, but as a quirky queer guy seeing that from backstage, I felt affirmed and, well, American.
Peterson remarks a bit about his recent appearance on the Montel Williams Show with Alan Chambers, Richard Cohen and Lance Caroll. As with all TV shows, a lot of what was taped did not make it to air. Peterson explains, for instance, why Donna and Tom Cole didn’t appear and why Montel was frustrated with the lack of clarity in some of Alan’s replies.
Donna expressed that Montel was not giving them a chance to tell their story and that he was heavy-handed against ex-gays. I wondered to myself at the oddness of the conversation as the Coles were just about to tell their story and had every chance to counter Montel’s words.
With military men in my family, I have seen something similar like this around the dinner table. Be it about politics, family drama or the firmness of the pasta, they can project a rigid sense of right and wrong then get impatient with anything they perceive as waffling or invalidating their conclusions. (My Marine dad expressed these very feelings during and after yesterday’s show).
Check out the entire post here.
Frankly, I’m Montelled out.
In the end did the show have any real meaning? I say that not because of what was said, as much that was said was meaningful, especially Peterson’s spot, but because of the obvious agenda which Montel had. He should have been a sponge, soaking up what was said and understandably dealing with it. Instead, Montel was a stone, albeit a gay stone, but it likely was of no help to us as he turned off as many people as he… well.
But as I said on his blog, great job Peterson!
To be honest, I almost always ask such a questions (did the show have any real meaning) of daytime talk shows. Perhaps that is due to the sheer volume of them over the years, the absurdities of a Jerry Springer or the dearth of subjects unmolested by at least one of them sometime, somewhere.
However, considering the subject matter and venue, I think it went ok. Peterson and Lance were able to calmly and intelligently tell their story and we got to see the disconnect between the different ex-gay organizations. The one thing that is a loss for all involved (save one) was the appearance of Richard Cohen as the most reasonable ex-gay in the room.
Here’s what I said about the Montel Show on Warren Throckmorton’s blog:
Former ex-gays offer a variety of constructive responses to the failed therapies and hostile spiritual warfare of Exodus, Focus on the Family and NARTH. Those responses include affirmation of one’s sexual orientation and a variety of mature, healthy and responsible decisions regarding one’s choices of faith and behavior.
But some people simply are not going to affirm their own same-sex attraction, and they are not going to affiliate themselves with organizations or movements that exist far outside their own religious and social background.
People in those situations need accurate information and guideposts. They need to make sound decisions without fear of being harassed out of a job, church or family by the culture warriors of Exodus, NARTH and Focus on the Family. And they shouldn’t feel that they have to chain their own social, spiritual, and sexual welfare to small progressive movements that sometimes have their own agendas.
I suspect the part when Alan states emphatically that Exodus “can’t change anyone” is a bit of doublespeak, meaning that God does the changing (wink wink, nudge nudge). If he meant that, however, he should have said so rather than use it as a defense against Montel’s quote from the Exodus website.
I thought it was rather odd that Richard Cohen was introduced simply as “Richard” — no last name. His affiliation wasn’t brought up either as far as I could tell. He was just another “ex-gay”, presented as if he was just a counterpart to Lance Caroll, which he clearly is not. Was this an oversight? Or were there some shenanigans going on?
. . . . or did I just miss something?
I was just able to watch a piece of this now that it’s been linked to here on XGW. It’s almost difficult to watch; all of the double-speak, downplaying of contradictions, the saving of face, etc.
These organizations count so heavily on the ambiguity of the verb “change” in the context of their ministry that it’s interesting to see how they unravel when you challenge it on a specific level, unraveling both in a sense of not being able to clearly defend themselves against said challenge, but also in a sense of seeing how un-unified the movement is as a whole on the concept of “change.” I suppose that’s how relying on ambiguity can come back later to bite you.
I suppose only time will tell if “liberate” will be removed from Exodus’ website.
The Montel Show was wonderful. Montel was absolutely incredible. We should all be celebrating.
1) Montel nailed Chambers to the wall on the meaning of change. Chambers dissembled and looked absolutely lost. Selling “freedom” or “liberation” from homosexuality does, in fact, mean change. Period. For Chambers to say it does not was a losing arguement. Montel should get a medal. For those of you who say he wasn’t fair, I guess you don’t watch “Meet the Press.” Each week Russert nails guests with their own statements. It is god journalism and it is fair. I applaud Montel for such high journalistic standards. It is a shame that much of the mainstream media is so awful, that we must rely on a daytime talk host to do solid journalism.
2) Chambers statement that his sexual orientation had nothing to do with his honeymoon problems was laughable. When he said he could not figure out what to do with the parts he looked utterly bizarre. I’m not saying this to be mean, but to stress the point that your average 13 year old knows what to do with his parts. For straight people, Chambers really undermined the illuison that he is now a heterosexual man.
3) We should applaud our spokespeople. Peterson did a fantastic job. He was articulate and clean. Wait, that is Biden’s line. He was eloquent and represented us well. Alecia Salzer was really good and was formidable as our expert. Lance told an emotional story and had the wisdom to bring up the fact that he was there against his will and that he was placed in therapy groups with molesters and other pervs. In short, I am proud of the way our team performed and they did a superior job to Cohen and Chambers, who looked like they were befuddled and selling snake oil.
4) The video clips highlighted the harm of these groups. This will turn off many Americans.
5) Finally, the show did have real meaning. It left a terrible impresion of the ex-gay myth. This will likely keep some people from ruining their lives or parents from taking their children to these scary places. That is what I call a real victory and the reason why many of the people here do the work that they do. Each person that we can help avoid the awful “ex-gay” trap, and instead come out, is much more likely to be happy and live a fulfilling life.
So, pop the cork and celebrate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The show was beautiful. God Bless Montel Williams.