In March of 2008, Exodus International announced it was leaving the realm of public policy to focus on what they claim is the heart of their organization, ministering to troubled same-sex attracted people. XGW applauded this move as one in the right direction. But since that time, their actions have spoken very differently. This past week, Randy Thomas made clear why imposing their religious views on the rest of America is so important to Exodus.
Back in 1997-1998 I was complaining to some Exodus leaders about their involvement in public policy. They were very kind and heard me out. But one of them said to me, “Randy, do you know how many times I have defended the gay community in the meetings I go to in Washington DC?”
I looked shocked and haltingly answered, ” … uh … no.”
Then he asked, “Do you know how many bad ideas we have shot down, or tried to prevent, because of how awful and stigmatizing they would be to the gay community and ourselves?”
The specific “bad ideas that would be expoitative for us and them” are not mentioned. On the surface, it sounds like they could be talking about employment non-discrimination, religious freedom for gay-friendly places of worship, and respect for the privacy of an individual’s bedroom. The next paragraph is telling, however.
I hated to admit it but I hadn’t even thought they would be there for that reason as well. I just thought they went and simply parroted what the ” far right” wanted them to say. Then he went on to say that he was there because he genuinely believed in the issues they addressed. He believed that public policy afforded more opportunities for tragic consequences for those dealing with same sex attractions. He explained that with every pro-gay policy that is passed and implemented, the cost of repentance and the potential consequences rise considerably. [Emphasis added]
In a declaration that may leave Orwell turning in his grave, Exodus tells us that gays need to be saved from their own desire for freedom and equality under the law, by being denied those very things. Otherwise, gays will be less likely to feel ashamed that they are gay, and even perhaps turn to organizations like Exodus to facilitate their “repentance.” And of course, Randy immediately felt ashamed he had suggested otherwise.
It was so much easier to buy into the false assumption that public policy was somehow outside the realm of ministry in general and Exodus in particular. I felt convicted for wrongly judging him. I thought that I was “moderate” but in reality … I was more judgmental than he was. [Emphasis added]
So, it turns out that public policy is not outside the realm of ministry in general, and Exodus in particular. It is well within their purpose for existing. Randy expresses his strong personal connection to it, and his opinion that it is vital to stay involved in it. He then ties all of this into the Jenkins-Miller custody battle.
In his view, if Miller and Jenkins had not been allowed to enter into a civil union and then conceive daughter Isabella via artificial insemination, none of these troubling events would have occurred.
Public policy through civil union legislation and the court system facilitated this contract, now broken, between Lisa [Miller] and Janet [Jenkins]. The decisions they made as a lesbian couple are having consequences today even though they are not together and haven’t been for over almost a decade.
Like many families that go through divorce, all parties are devastated and going through a difficult time of transition. But Randy praises the true reason for the rift: Miller’s decision to identify as “ex-gay,” and beyond that, deny visitation and then custody to her former spouse. Instead he places the blame on the public policy of Vermont: if we let gays enter into legal relationships and raise children in those relationships, tragedy will inevitably occur. Same sex couples need to be saved from themselves by being denied the ability to legally declare their union.
All that aside, Miller’s decision to “repent” is not what has driven much of the recent controversy surrounding this case – it’s her decision to run into hiding with her daughter after years of breaking the law that has driven it.
Intimacy is not a commodity to be bartered or option easily discarded. It is an investment of one’s heart and soul. These type of investments always have consequences.
Randy writes this as though Jenkins and Miller obtained a civil union on a whim, as opposed to a mutual decision to commit for life. He fails to mention that it was Miller who broke the union by declaring herself “no longer gay,” and of course he leaves out the fact that these statements apply equally to all relationships, including heterosexual ones. As most are probably aware, half of all marriages in the US end in divorce.
That is why God is so specific and clear about His will concerning relationships in the scriptures.
And Randy and Exodus know exactly what that will is.
Perhaps the most disturbing part of the Exodus article is the confidence that Exodus has in their belief that they are “defending” the gay community. They say with the utmost sincerity that their views on public policy prevent the stigmatization of gays. This brings to mind a famous C.S. Lewis quote that has been posted here before:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Thomas isn’t alone in such thinking. Check out this letter from Catholic Bishop Larry Silva:
https://www.catholichawaii.org/filemgmt_data/files/LS-100112.pdf
or as Mark Twain put it;
nothing needs minding so much as other people’s business.
And whatever happened to “render unto caesar”? Of, that’s right. It went into the same place as “do as you would be done by” and “judge not” and “no divorce”.
or, as in the words of H.L. Mencken’s definition of Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
More and more, the arguments used are the same ones that were rolled out during the civil rights movement… patronizing, ridiculous arguments. And, they stunk then as much as they do now.
yeah right, and Hitler was a champion for the Jewish people.
Oh boy….
Reminds me so much of racist’s determined cluelessness, not understanding why blacks under Jim Crow weren’t happy.
Why they complained or dared to challenge that system of government that was ‘so agreed on mutually’.
Remember the pre Civil War era, Dr. Cartwright who created the mental illness “dropetomania”, the symptoms of which were attributed to blacks constantly running away, or planning to, from slave situations.
I’ve seen it myself, in articles at TownHall, and the responses they generate that gay people are just ‘so emotional’ or push emotional buttons to get their way.
Much of Randy’s attitude is couched in the same paternalistic arrogance that’s at the foundation of racism and sexism.
It’s his belief that gay people are children, and without the strong hand of God, in which ONLY heteros have entitled themselves to steer gay (and other) lives, it’s only by their rudder that gay people can find happiness.
I have to stop now. I nearly lost my breakfast.
for over almost a decade
Every English/writing teacher that ever taught Randy should line up to slap him for writing that phrase.
And while people may find it strange I’d point out this phrase’s absurdity rather than focus on the absurd logic of his premise, I’d like to suggest there’s a relationship between the two.
I used to go to a church that did that exodus bullshit. I rarely get a “word from god” but when I prayed about how to help gays god told me, “protect them” which basically means protecting them from churches and muslim sharia….sad. jesus, save me from most of your followers!!
http://www.whosoever.org
As an aside – there is one thought I have about Exodus and all the other ex-gay “ministries” that makes me chuckle: While they have an extremely low success rate for producing authentic ex-gays, I’d be willing to bet they are actually producing a sizable number of ex-Christians.
The goal of “ex-gay” groups is to exterminate law-abiding, taxpaying, gay Americans. They have started the process in Uganda. That will be used as a springboard for the rest of Africa and eventually the US. While we are being rounded up and executed in America one day, we will hear Exodus soothingly assuring us from the sidelines that it’s for our “own good.”
This justification occurs with every form of discrimination. I often see it regarding transgender people. Eg, “We should create barriers so that the people who aren’t transgender but are just confused won’t go thru with it.” “Changing one’s name/documents/body/whatever is ultimately harmful and we need to protect them.” It comes down to “We know what’s good for you better than you do.”
It’s difficult because sometimes that attitude is correct, like with children and the mentally handicapped. (Tho both groups are specified under the law as having fewer rights.) But this is beautiful irony because it’s an ex-gay making the claim. Which group is Randy in? Is he in the “gay” group because he still has gay feelings? Then he not qualified any more than pro-gay gays are. If he’s in the straight group because he identifies as straight, then I question the division of groups based on identity. What about allies? Are they in the gay group because of their ideology? Ideology is what the groups are based on. The argument comes down even more fundamentally to “We know what’s good for you better than you because I agree with us and you disagree.” It’s all about I versus You. “I am right because I am I. You are wrong because you are you.”
It’d be great to pull up some historical comparisons. White supremecists claiming that Africans were too stupid to manage their own life and slavery helps them. Chauvinists claiming that women are too immature to work and make decisions so their fathers and husbands must guide them. Catholics claiming that Protestants or Muslims need to be conquorered for their own salvation. Country X colinizing country Y in order to improve their economy and culture.
Hi Epilei,
Indeed, such comparisons are factual, easy to reference and compare.
And anyone who rejects such, is essentially incurious about whether they might be wrong.
That’s why I continuously bring up analogies to the way that gays and blacks or Jews are TREATED, how their intentions are distorted as always suspect and sinister.
Even though each group or minority might be different, have a different SOCIAL and POLICITAL context, that the similarities in the impetus, perpetuation and enforcement of hostility, paranoia and discrimination and dehumanization can’t escape similarity, nor scrutiny.
Segregation, above all things has the SAME motive and rationale. Discrimination is a requirement of segregation.
To convince the culture that it’s necessary, rational and most of all, right, to require so much media messaging and massive bombardment, is a telling symptom unto itself.
After all, if someone is the victim of theft, of violence, betrayal or witnesses the behavioral problems or results that say, addictions or mental illness display, requires no TEACHING on how to react.
Requires no early or constant preparation well BEFORE any such things occur.
Only in the case of maintaining distinct and harsh social hierarchy against gay people is it TRAINING someone to be paranoid and hostile or fearful is unique in the case of bigotry and prejudice.
It is a calculation, a persistent and irrational purpose to continue this teaching for the SOLE PURPOSE of complicating or taking the self reliant and contribution for society FROM gays and lesbians and the transgendered.
And to also coerce the fiction that homosexuality is or should be required to change.
Otherwise, doing so on condition of doing what anyone else can do legally and freely, doesn’t make sense.
Except that it’s THE most powerful incentive that tends to get results.
It does create a de facto disappearance of gay people.
Either to the closet, or ex gay status.
But such disappearance requires the assumption that it’s a healthy and desirable thing for society, and also for the gay person.
Of course, outsiders don’t care, nor are charged to be concerned with the cost of that, because THEY themselves have no sacrifice to make whatsoever.
But here’s where I get extremely frustrated by ex gays, and by heterosexuals who argue that gay people can and should change.
Ex gays on face, seem to require an extreme and unnatural amount of validation for what they’ve done. As if they are ‘proving’ to themselves and society at large that something has been accomplished and it’s been a GOOD thing.
But again, the opportunity for gays and lesbians, especially very young ones, aren’t given the most vital prospect necessary to order their lives: what life would be like without those VERY expectations that ex gays keep perpetuating.
What life would be like to simply be open, honest and accepted as a gay person and what life would be like when a gay person can live that way without being punished or vilified for it. Where and when such problems will occur, could be over the length of one’s lifetime and that is way to much to expect for any human being to endure it the way gays and lesbians exclusively have to.
And those exgays that especially engage in government enforcement of discrimination, also puts the closet front and center of any way to know the real numbers out there of gay people.
Even the census is going to have a hard time, if they can convince someone to tell them, of getting anything exact in that regard.
And I, as a person who is naturally curious, analytical and open to being educated and desirous of living in a working cooperative social network that’s inclusive of gay and transgendered folk, cannot stand bigotry keeping a wall of possibility between straight and gay folks.
It serves nothing but murderous intent at worst, and deceipt and ignorance at best.
How could that possible be called a righteous reason for maintaining such distance between gay and straight folks?
Even between gay children and their parents.
I have considered myself fortunate that I was never taught to be afraid or paranoid and my life is better for it.
Now, I think I can articulate and not kindly, that I think the anti gay are a bunch of lily livered cowards who say one thing, but their actions are so deserving of scorn because their actions have created such socially and politically problematic situations, that even children aren’t safe from anti gay sentiment. To the point of being murdered or committing suicide.
Does the opposition REALLY want that?
Are they so willing to continue such a thing that they feel the sacrifice of such tender lives is worth maintaining the fiction that heterosexuality has some divine superiority in our world?
Right.
What cowardice. That gets in the way of an honest, open and fairer integration that would foster deeper and NEEDFUL understanding of each other. And most hopefully of sensible cooperation.
I dare any of these cowards to point to societal benefit from segregation and discrimination of gay people.
I know there isn’t any.
Thanks for letting me vent.
Well put.
I’d be willing to bet they are actually producing a sizable number of ex-Christians
Richard, you’re correct – if not outspoken Atheists.