Several professional ex-gays made their political leanings very public post-election day. Specifically, Randy Thomas and Alan Chambers, who head Exodus International, the “ex-gay” organization that has “exited politics.” On Nov. 4th’s historic election night, he was jumping for joy over anti-gay amendments, as evidenced by multiple posts on his live blog session. Jay Holloman, a celibate same-sex attracted young man who frequently comments and occasionally writes for XGW, also participated in the live blog session. He had a centrist and often very tolerant tone, but found himself at odds with Thomas. Below are some examples of the messages that were posted. To give you a preview of what’s to come, here is this quip:
9:09 Randy Thomas: Democrats need to stop picking up Senate seats.
On anti-equality amendments:
9:00 Randy Thomas: Amendment 2 at 62% with 39% percent of precincts reporting!!! We have to have 60% to win….
9:01 Randy Thomas: In FL… you have to have 60%
10:49 Randy Thomas: Amendment 2 just dipped under 60%
…
11:36 Ellie: So we now have one state with legal gay marriage, one state with explicitly illegal. Hopefully we can add two more.
11:37 Randy Thomas: YAY!I think AZ’s 102 got less attention because it was doing so well.
…
11:37 Randy Thomas: CNN says that Amendment two is still at 62% with 87% of the precincts reporting in.
11:38 Randy Thomas: I JUST GOT AN EMAIL FROM THE AMENDMENT 2 CAMPAIGN SAYING THAT IT PASSED!
11:39 Randy Thomas: That’s a big wow. I will be honest… this is the second time I have gotten emotional tonight.
11:40 Randy Thomas:
How Christian of him to rejoice at the rejection of an entire community’s civil equality.
Several commenters seemed to agree that the rights of LGBTQ persons should be acknowledged legally, and that nomenclature gets in the way:
9:26 Jay Holloman: Even if Amendment 2 or Proposition 8 passes, it’s not something I can be excited about. At most, it’s more of a necessity thing, but you can’t deny these kinds of things will hurt people. Certainly not a “yay” kind of victory.
9:27 Jay Holloman: And yeah, I wish Christians would actually [throw] definite support behind civil unions, instead of just saying, “Well, we don’t mind.”
9:27 Randy Thomas: Jay, I almost had a meltdown yesterday looking at all the horrible things going on at the grassroots (on both sides.)
…
9:28 Randy Thomas: Jay, you won’t ever see me cheer for any public policy that binds same sex couples together. [emphasis added] 9:29 Jay Holloman: The policy doesn’t bind anyone together. It just gives people the option to live their lives as they see fit.
9:29 Jay Holloman: You won’t see me cheering when someone enters a mosque, but I’ll cheer for their right to enter one.
9:30 Randy Thomas: [in response to commenter “Lyle”] – Marriage is the whole kit and kaboodle. Civil Unions are the legal benefits. Jay – i am not arguing with you. It is policy that facilitates people binding themselves to another legally.
In other words, Randy will never extend an olive branch to the LGBTQ community if we’re given even the tiniest sliver of recognition by the law as legitimate, loving human beings who form loving, committed, enriching relationships just like heterosexuals. Jay calls for Christians to say more than “we don’t mind” – Randy is saying he indeed minds, in any situation.
Commenter “Ellie” seemed to agree with Jay on treating LGBTQ citizens like human beings:
9:34 Ellie: the reason I think we need to throw support behind something [of a different name from gay marriage] is that it can function to deflect charges of hate-mongering religious fundamentalism, it does address a real problem (eg the traditionally cited hospital visits), and it gives us a more legitimate platform to oppose marriage from.
9:34 Jay Holloman: Exactly, Ellie. I’m a little annoyed at Christians who support Proposition 8 and kind of see that as the be-all-end-all of their dealings with the gay community. It should feel a little more complicated than that.
A discussion of Hospital visitation ensued, with commenter “DM” also aligning with Jay:
9:44 Jay Holloman: I think whether or not people are able to make decisions is the key here. If the person is unconscious and their parents don’t want his/her partner there, there’s little to stop them in some places.
9:45 DM: Jay – that would lead me to think that making one’s wishes clear up front is important regarding whom you would want around you in a hospital setting should you not be able to have a say-so later on.
9:46 Jay Holloman: True, but not everyone can afford the lawyers to make that happen. Nor do they necessarily carry proof of their power of attorney with them everywhere they go.
9:46 Jay Holloman: Which is why I think domestic partnerships/civil unions/etc. are a good thing.
Randy largely ignored this discussion throughout, posting incidental off-topic comments instead. Towards the end though, he asked the participants to change the subject to something other than “partner benefits.” He did, however, make it clear that he was not prohibiting such talk but rather wanted to branch out the discussion.
It amazes me that a conversion from gay to “ex-gay” (or “post-gay,” whichever) never seems to stop at sexuality. Oftentimes there is a conversion to not only fundamentalist religious beliefs, but to hard-line right-wing politics as well. Since many people choose the “ex-gay” path because of their religion, the former should not be surprising. But the latter, which is often expressed with a need to quash the rights of others who don’t align with their own personal beliefs, is more alarming. The cry from ex-gays who want their personal choices to be “respected;” that they are not granted tolerance from those in the LGBTQ community who call for tolerance – is ironic, to put it mildly, as many of those individuals will simultaneously support amendments that curtail the freedoms of that same community.
Randy Thomas, Alan Chambers, and Jay Holloman (“College Jay“) all posted blog entries in response to today’s devastating results. Alan Chambers didn’t reveal any secrets:
…in three key states, one of which is arguably one of the most, if not the most, liberal in our nation, the people voted in favor of keeping marriage the union between one man and one woman. That, to me, further underscores my belief that we aren’t a liberal nation moving quickly towards liberalism more than we are one trying to do the right thing. I think there is some misguidedness in there, but the fundamentals of the American hearts are good.
Alan claims he knows what makes a heart “good.” But then he turns around, displaying a nagging conflict in his own heart:
Related to the wins for marriage as we know it, though, must come the realization that 18,000 marriage licenses are this morning deemed invalid in the state of California. Translated: 36,000 hearts that have to be absolutely broken. And, while I am thrilled with the vote in support of keeping marriage the way God intends it, I am truly heavy in heart for the men and women who saw same-sex marriage as an answer to their struggle for acceptance. I do not take any joy in seeing people’s dreams or hearts crushed even if I disagree with them. I pray this morning that the proponents of Arizona’s Prop 102, California’s Prop 8 and Florida’s Amendment 2 celebrate with these broken hearts in mind and with a desire to comfort those who need comfort in the wake of what has to be bitter disappointment. Truly this is what Jesus would do!
Alan calls for the proponents of this legislation, of which he is one, to “celebrate with [our] broken hearts in mind.” To me this sounds like a cruel sentiment. Legislation that attacks the rights of my community, a community that is weary of being treated as second class citizenry, may be seen by Chambers as necessary for “good” to be furthered. I ask, how can something truly be seen as “good” when 36,000 hearts are breaking? How can something be a cause for celebration when those 36,000 broken hearts need to be “considered?” These “broken hearts” are couples who committed no crime. They did nothing to anybody except themselves, by committing, joyously and as one, to a bond many consider sacred.
Randy expressed most of the same sentiments Alan did, adding, “I wish they had never been put in that position to begin with.” Apparantly, the “pro-family” political machine was only doing their “Christian” duty to “protect” marriage, and if gays had not have gained that right to begin with, there woudn’t be all of this heartbreak. It’s not our fault we’re so sad; gays wouldn’t get sad about losing rights at all if they weren’t given to us in the first place.
Jay Holloman’s post was the most excellent of the three. He addressed it to “all of the Christians who supported the initiatives in California, Florida, and Arizona to ban same-sex marriage” and at “the Christians in Arkansas who supported the initiative to ban adoption or foster-parenting by unmarried couples (which, of course, includes same-sex couples).” I reccommend XGW visitors read it in its entirity at his blog:
Heaven forbid you consider this the end of your dealings with the gay community. If you think, for even an instant, that your ballots consisted of a “victory” and you can rest easy now, you are an utter disgrace. Because all you did was pass laws; you did not change hearts.
…
You may disagree with their views or choices, but remember that you are both still human, and thus you both contain shadows of the other within you. Their pain is just like your pain, and right now, trust me, they’re in pain.
He pleads with Christians to make a true effort:
It’s not that these initiatives passed that really bugs me. It’s that they passed with seeming glee and joy from Christians … [b]ecause like it or not, hurt has been caused to the gay community. You might think it was necessary, but that does not take away your duty as a Christian to try to connect to others. And I mean really connect, people. See where they’re coming from; try to understand their pain, anger, and frustration. Don’t let your Christian witness end at the ballot box (though I am very discouraged right now, and I fear that it will).
Talk to gay friends and neighbors. Try to listen and engage and understand their pain. Show that you care. And if you actually find that you can’t do these things, because you don’t want to understand or because you don’t care, then pray, search your heart, and ask God to give you a heart for them.
As I was perusing the news online for the amendment results, a headline from an ABC affiliate struck me. It read: “Gay couples disappointed by Calif. marriage ban.” I couldn’t help but be shocked at how muted this statement was. I’m not even married, and my feelings can only be described as “devastated” and “heartbroken.”
The commenter called “DM” posted a remark in Randy’s Live Blog that I think can speak to all sides of an issue, although I’m not sure if they meant it to:
10:50 DM: Fortunately, social issues aren’t all determined by laws – God, the Holy Spirit, & Jesus work behind the scenes all the time in the hearts & souls of men, women, & children.
I am confident that there will be a time coming when I will be accepted as a full human being, without question. With each passing generation, the souls of children become more understanding.
Emily
You either don’t understand the dynamics of emotions in Christian theology or you’re ignoring it. In Christianity, it’s very possible, indeed necessary!, to feel one emotion and contradict it with your action. We feel greedy, but we give. We feel gluttonous, but we fast. We feel lust, but we refrain. We genuinely love, but we discipline. Jesus felt the desire to live, but gave up her life. Jesus was indeed meek and mild as America loves to emphasize, but Jesus also epitomized tough love. As a pro-gay, transgender person, I am not supporting Prop 8. But if I did, I would feel similar to Chambers and that feeling would be exactly proper within good Christian practice. I’m sure there are plenty of Christians with unfettered glee and Jay is right to shame them, but when Chambers says, “I am truly heavy in heart,” he doesn’t seem to be one of them. There are plenty of ways to criticize ex-gays and the anti-marriage movement, but this is not one.
BTW, while this is an awful blow to couples in the short term, I am not worried at all in the long term. Support for marriage is growing 1 or 2% or year and in 2012 I’m confident California and at least one other state will pass a pro-marriage proposition.
Ephilei, I am a Christian and I know what you are talking about. However, as with all those things you mentioned, this scenario usually involves choices one makes for ones own life, not someone else’s. There really is no analog in scripture for what is going on here — the power of the state over the lives of it’s citizens was never used by the Church to accomplish anything.
As for Alan’s comments about broken hearts, etc, I have a hard time not seeing the dual message there. On the other hand, I got an email from another ex-gay leader with whom I have had much less contact and she seemed quite genuine about her empathy with the sadness and defeat she knew I was feeling.
I will stop short of claiming that I can know their motivations, but I can’t ignore my experience with Exodus leadership either. Sincerity has never been one of their strong points.
Perhaps Prop 8 should be considered the Alamo of California for the gay community. It’s a horrible strike of narrow minded hatred, an attempt to dehumanize us. Is there a way it can be turned into a campaign to show the pain and damage that’s been caused to so many people?
I think this blog entry expresses my feelings far better than I could ever express them myself:
https://www.idrewthis.org/2008/11/memo-to-california.html
I don’t mean to insult any of my pro-gay Christian friends, but the fact is that this thing would have failed if only atheists/agnostics voted on it. Christianity has a long ways to go…
I have absolutely zero tolerance for bigotry and Randy Thomas or Alan Chambers do not deserve one whit of respect whatsoever. Giving those S.O.B.s respect is enabling the jerks. The ACLU and the Courts will weigh in on what this all means in California because bigotry is bigotry and it is the courts job to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. The powerful constitutions of the Eastern states were either founded by Founding Fathers or other patriots who inspired them. These constitutions have strong checks and balances that don’t allow for state constitutions to be changed at the whim of public opinion – in this case the tyranny of the majority. We have a great chance now (with the new progressive congress) along with more progressives in New York State to add New York to our column for same sex marriage.
The anti-gay folks may have won the battle for a few days (at least partially and the courts will make the final decision) but they have lost the war now that we have Barack Obama and the new Democratic congress at the helm of our Government. Gone are the days of mixing politics with religion. There will be a strong and solid wall between Church and the State.
You are joking, right?
@Robert
I assume you realize the Church has many, many times used politics to control others, so I presume you’re speaking that this never happened in Scripture. You’re right, but only because the Church was an enemy of the government. I could say that the Church never used the government to love others and I’d be right too.
In 1 Cor, Paul urges the Corinthian church to expel one of their members for his sin and the church does. I presume if they didn’t have emotional attachments to this man, they would have done it already. Does that satisfy as an example of the Church trying to force others to conform by using their power and majority?
Gays basically play defense when it comes to the debate. I believe we need to go on offense – we need to directly address a foundational assumption Evangelicals and Mormons use in their belief systems, particularly as it relates to their negativity toward homosexuality.
I believe the foundation to the “gay debate” is the creation-evolution debate – “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” if you will. We cannot ignore that and must directly attack it. Evangelicals and Mormons cannot reasonably defend their beliefs on this matter – they are completely unable to address the actual evidence for evolution, demonstrated by all the creation science arguments which simply attack straw man arguments and not the actual evidence. Unfortunately, too many in America are too ignorant about the anthropological evidence. It is time we educate ourselves and our compatriots.
I do not mean to say this should be the only approach. Rather, it should be one of many because some respond to reason and logic, some respond to emotion, etc. I also do not mean to say that all Evangelicals or Mormons disbelieve evolution, but from my experience the ones who accept evolution are also more likely to accept gays.
We can continue to try and treat the symptoms and continue to be defeated, or we can attack the actual disease and be done with this “debate”. This is why I spent a full chapter talking about evolution in my book “Thou Shalt Not Love: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays”. It is one important key if we are to win. We ignore the creation-evolution debate at our peril.
My message to the Roman Catholic Church and its hierachy, and to the Mormon Church and its hierachy, and to the Evangelical Churches and their hierachy, who encouraged, intimidated and manipulated their followers to vote for the allowance of hatred and bigotry into the California state constitution:
I hope one day the Lord does not say to you, “Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, because, I was hungry FOR JUSTICE, and you gave me nothing, I was thirsty FOR FAIRNESS AND EQUALITY, and you left me dry. I was a stranger, AN OUTSIDER OF SOCIETY, and you did not accept me. I was naked WITHOUT DEFENSE FROM THE MAJORITY, and you did not cover me and protect me. I was sick BY BEING VERBALLY AND PHYSICALLY ABUSED and in a prison OF FEAR OF REPROCUSIONS BECAUSE OF WHO I AM and you did not visit me.”
I hope you never have to ask Christ back and say, “Lord, when did we see you hungry FOR JUSTICE, or thirsty FOR FAIRNESS AND EQUALITY, or a stranger AND AN OUTSIDER OF SOCIETY, or naked WITHOUT DEFENSE FROM THE MAJORITY, or sick BY BEING VERBALLY AND PHYSICALLY ABUSED, or in a prison OF FEAR OF REPROCUSIONS BECAUSE OF WHO YOU ARE, and did not minister to you?”
Because Jesus will answer you and say, “Amen I say to you, as long as you did not do these things to one of the least of my brethren, neither did you do it to me.”
… Is there a way it can be turned into a campaign to show the pain and damage that’s been caused to so many people? … Nope. If any mainstream media source even tries, they will immediately be accused of “promoting the gay agenda,” so, as usual, they’ll just be silent.
Ephilei said:
No, because the United States is not the Church. Also, please note that my name is not “Robert.” I was confused at first about whether your comment was addressed to me.
There is much to be happy about. 8 years ago, people passed the gay marriage law at 61%. Prop. 8 barely passed (52%), and 4 million votes are still not counted–it is thought it will still narrow. Minds are changing, and that is good. Notice how Randy and Alan jump the gun–they think the already done marriages are not going to be valid, but the attorney general and many judges have weighed in saying laws can’t be retroactive. That is a basic component of our system. Obama is going to pick judges that most likely will favor us. I am disappointed, but life will go on, and we will win ultimately.
A couple of simple responses:
“Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”:
Do you always take your sexual mores from incestuous families?
At which point did God change His mind to make incest sinful?
Evolution vs. Intelligent Design / creationism:
Survival of the fittest / natural selection (evolution) is the process responsible for the design of the human race.
So why would an intelligent designer create the process after the fact?
___
For the record, I believe in an intelligent designer (a created evolutionary process), but I am loathe to use those words due to the religious right’s creationist abuse of the concept.
Here are my thoughts. This may be published next week in SF’s BAR, but i am also sending it wherever I can. these are the terms of debate as I see it, and these are the terms that must be changed.
Time. Energy. Money.
As a recently married gay man, I contributed a lot of each against Prop. 8. I’m sad that we failed to beat it. But I’m also angry– and not just about political campaigns fueled by bigotry, conservative religion, and way too much tax-free money– because I could see defeat coming with the inevitability of a slow-motion train wreck.
At the campaign kickoff, I asked Mark Leno personally if campaign leaders were going to do the liberal-tolerance-equality strategy again, pointing out that it has failed repeatedly. Or, were they going to show actual gay people, actual families, and actual lives. You know: reality. He said that focus groups indicated that everybody-make-nice and civil liberties were the way to go. This would move the undecided voters who were so crucial. I made the same point to HRC’s Marty Rouse and several campaign leaders, and got the same response. The approach would be political rather than human, in every sense of both words.
What a concept! Let’s ask straight people who are afraid of gay people about how to win gay rights, instead of asking gay people what has worked in their lives. You can see the result of focus group viewpoints. We have been focused over big-time.
Politics may move undecided voters, but the movement is only as valuable as the last person they spoke to. Human connections move hearts and minds, even minds that are made up. People who know gay people don’t usually vote against them. But it’s easy to vote against someone who is invisible, faceless, a menacing other, instead of friend or family, or even someone you just met on the street. And in No on 8, we were invisible. We saw the supportive, loving parents, but no gay daughter, no grandchildren. No on 8 was uninterested in a speakers’ bureau to reach out to community groups and churches; I gave up asking. They wanted volunteers for phone banking and sign waving, not personal contact with real voters. At a training we were told NOT to use words like children, because Pro-8 people had appropriated the issue. Because we refused to claim it– to claim reality– it was used against us. Likewise, we can’t talk about this ancient and deeply rooted anti-gay prejudice, either, because by calling attention to a reality in our lives, we might offend the very people who call us a threat to family, faith, and country. Newsflash! Our existence offends them.
This all may make sense to professional political people in their world and culture, but not in mine. It fails as a strategy because it embraces THE CLOSET, which is our real enemy. The closet is US. It is making ourselves invisible and unknown, rather than showing the simple fact and humanity of our lives. It is our consent to the lies, our silence in the face of naked prejudice. It is us not standing up for ourselves, and when we don’t, who else will stand with us? I absolutely praise and thank our leaders for their efforts and sacrifices and dedication. But frankly, if our leaders don’t know that we have to stand up for ourselves, as ourselves, then they shouldn’t be our leaders. Because here’s the result: we gay people were barely visible, and more people thought that the standard of living of California chickens was more important than the families of their fellow Americans.
Thirty years ago, I worked against the Briggs Initiative, which would have banned gay teachers. A much smaller group of people, with far fewer resources, in a far less accepting time, succeeded against great odds. Maybe I’m romanticizing, but I remember it was because all we really had to show were ourselves and our lives. We said NO to the closet.
I know this fight is far from over. We will be back. However, if future campaign organizations want to continue this losing strategy of focus groups, phone banking, invisibility, and cute but irrelevant ads that look good on political resumes but change nothing, the rest of us need a parallel campaign that comes out of the closet and presents us as who we are.
If you expect me to stay in the closet, then don’t–DON”T– expect one minute of my time, one iota of my energy, or one dime of my money.
We are glad you linked this through (sort of) to Randy Thomas.
And to be honest — the moment anyone TRULY wants to marry Randy and he realises it, or the moment the he TRULY wishes someone would marry him… is the day he will get it.
Until then, it’s all nonsense. Pure BS, floating in his lonely head.
Randy — yes, you — find someone willing to commit to you, and you to them, FOR LIFE, given your personality and circumstances … or shut-TF-up! You have no idea what you are dreaming of, because you’ve never achieved it. Ever. ‘Pair-bonded” — learn it. Live it.
QED Randy’s delight at keeping gay couples below the legal status of straight couples may then be viewed as the perverse desire that it is — the self-justification of failure.
We only wish we were good enough to feel sorry for him. Cannot.
Grantdale– i really have to say I like you and what you have to say, and the clarity and firmness with which you say it. I suspect we would be friends if we lived near each other.
There was a point to my posting my editorial in this section.
I don’t know RT, except by what I see online. But what I see is this. He represents the the closet. He wants gay marriage to go down, denying to others what he wouldn’t choose for himself, thus validating his choices in his life. (See, everyone thinks homos are bad. I must be right about this.) No surprise, becasue gay marriage represents a major step away from the closet, which would invalidate his choices in life. (That his choices stand or fall by someone else’s choices indicates the fragility of his choices, and how desparate he is for support in his self hatred. I say if you can’t hate yourself by yourself, without help, maybe you shouldn’t do it. but that’s just me).
Basically, the closet is a lie, the outward and visible sign of the inward and invisible self hatred. The closet, because it is based on a lie — that gay is bad and so shameful that it is not to be named among christians– twists and perverts everything it touches. Self-hatred and shame are lowest on the integrity scale becuase they represent a rejection of oneself and one’s value. The closet is its self-fulfilling prophecy.
And the twisted comments they make– 36000 broken hearts– well, it doesn’t really seem to bother them as much as they let on. crocodile tears, as we used to say.
But this is the point. the closet will allow any perversion– indeed, it insists upon perversion.
If we would all just go back into the closet and stop insisting that we have a right to end this prejudice, RT and AC could sleep a lot better at night.
And this is my point about the leadership of no on 8,. they decided to continue with the lie of the closet, and allowed the lies to be told.
Religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives.
Barry Goldwater
1964 Republican Presidential candidate
As with many of Goldwater’s views, I have to agree.
Randy Thomas just excreted this onto his blog:
In other words, since we’re not being subjected to violence the way African Americans were, we’re not allowed to say we struggle. And since we didn’t need to be whisked away to sweden to escape persecution, we’re not allowed to say we are being treated unequally. Oh, wait.
is this guy f***ing CRAZY?
I agree with what’s been said about his insecurity. Ben summed up my thoughts:
And Alan Chambers just recently made a statement that had gay marriage been legal, it would have been “too easy” for him to stay gay.
THESE are the ex-gays that every other ex-gay looks up to. THESE are the best Exodus International can do? People who are so insecure in their sexuality that they can’t bare to see anybody different from them thrive? Their jealousy is so transparent.
I’ve noticed this as well, that for the anti-gay crowd, civil rights seems narrowly described as the African American struggles in the US, and their gains in the 1960s. Unfortunately, bigots come in all colors and such feelings do exist among that community. Certainly the Prop 8 vote illustrates an issue there.
What bothers me even more, however, is how people like Randy exacerbate that difference of opinion for their own gains. The idea that one must go through the same hell that African Americans have in order to qualify as having ones civil rights denied, well that’s really sad.
To use the same analogy, would Randy have told blacks in 1964 to be happy with their lives because they now had it so much better than before? That they shouldn’t ask for more, for the right to marry outside their race, the right to jobs for which they are qualified at the same rate of pay as their white counterparts, and realistic expectations of serving in public office up to and including the Presidency?
Would Randy have told them to just be happy that they were no longer as likely to be strung up on a tree and could eat at the same lunch counter? The phrase “civil rights” does not belong to any one community or race. One of the greatest civil rights movements in history was the American Revolution, and it continues to evolve and fulfill itself over the years. Certainly the abolition of slavery and the civil rights protections which came (too much) later for African Americans were incredibly necessary and important steps, but they were not intended to be the end of the road.
In Randy’s world view, gays do not exist — only heterosexuals with homosexual problems. So for him, there is no civil rights issue here, which is fine for him and his life. But refer to the quote I posted above — he wants that to be the only view for society, as though all citizens are members of his church. But another Goldwater quote makes sense here:
A free society does not constrict the rights of others to conform to those with the most narrow views, but instead should expand rights to accommodate the broadest view while avoiding anarchy (the affects of which would ironically tend to narrow the rights of all). The anti-gay crowd seems to know this and so makes the rather specious case that society will crumble if gays can marry.
From what I see, the only use that the American Religious Right has for African Americans is as a fig leaf to cover for their anti-gay bigotry. I am surprised that so many African American preachers aren’t far more suspicious of fair weather friends like Randy Thomas. Talk about being used by people who don’t appear to have any real concern for the African American community.
I knew we had dealt with this before.
Funny how you never here Indians complaining that the US Civil Rights Movement stole its tactics from Ghandi.
Firstly, Wisdom can not be stolen and, secondly Ghandi got his Wisdom from others as well (Jesus, Bhudda, LaoTze, Kung Fu Tze (better known as Confucius as the Greeks messed it up)…(I guess I stole that bit of knowledge too, at least in your estimation). By your logic anyone who applies another’s philosophy or any knowledge is a thief …what a thoughtless remark. Ghandi would be proud of MLK and the rest. Oh, and a lot of Hindi’s didnt like Ghandi and they would take exception to you calling them “Indians”. Stop trying to be cleverly cynical unless you know what you are talking about. Its youre kind of tripe that has clogged up the whole internet with nonsense.
Satyrrific, I don’t know that you actually understood the point Boo was trying to make. It was a facetious point saying exactly what you’re saying, that these ideas are not anyone’s to own. Maybe you misunderstand the tone of this website: we aim to fight against such “tripe.”
So the site is called “ex gay watch”? Yet there seems to be many pro gays. Nice.
Emily K…you write :
“….see the similarity of the “gay” struggle to the civil rights movement.” But, I think you meant: …..see the similarity of the “gay” struggle to the civil rights movement? As noted in the Melissa Etheridge scenario, her lifestyle, talents and fame, seem to be anything but a struggle!
And so Emily, where did you stand, or sit, or ……on the Proposition 8 issue? Nice of you to point out the satire of Boo, but I do believe that writer may have been serious!
By this logic Louis Armstrong’s success proves there was no downside to being African American in the 40s. Clearly, there was, in spite of many success stories. I keep wondering why someone would want to make such a callous statement. With Randy, I think I know why — he fights every day against who he really is, but why do you want to denigrate the plight of so many GLBTs? How does that improve your life?
Ex-Gay Watch is here to keep track of ex-gay organizations and the claims they make which either have no basis in fact or are so distorted as to be untruthful. We have people from both sides of the issue read and comment, but it is hardly a surprise to find a lack of anti-gay attitudes here.
Perhaps after you read a bit you will understand how, just as for heterosexuals, even the money and fame garnered by a few such as Etheridge can not fix the pain of a family that rejects you and society which considers the recognition of the honest love of your life more dangerous than terrorism.
Stacia I think you have things confused. You were quoting text that I myself was quoting from “ex-gay” Randy Thomas, a man who opposes gay equality at every turn. Or were you correcting his grammar?
Where do I slouch on prop 8? Well as a gay woman, I would have to say against anti-gay legislation and anything that hinders equality.
This site is run by people who support the LGBTQ community; many of whom identify within one or more communities of sexual minorities. It watches the ex-gay movement, which claims to be a self-empowering community of people who want to “escape” being gay. But they are a political hinderance to equality, and need to be kept tabs on. This is what we do.