-The Montana Republican Party joins its Texas counterpart in calling for the reinstatement of sodomy laws.
-The National Organization for Marriage aligns itself with anti-gay activist Louis Marinelli.
-The US Supreme Court refuses to grant legal immunity to the Vatican in child sexual abuse lawsuits.
-Henry Schalizki and Bob Davis get married in Washington, DC after 62 years together.
-The US Supreme Court rules that a California law school can legally deny recognition to student groups that discriminate against gays.
-A group of doctors experiment with a treatment they think can prevent homosexuality in female babies.
-TWO’s Evan Hurst reports from a rally hosted by anti-gay evangelist Lou Engle.
-The Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously upholds the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.
-Members of the Marin Foundation practice reconciliation at the Chicago Pride parade.
-Google to compensate gay and lesbian employees for the taxes they have to pay on domestic partner benefits.
-The Irish government passes a civil partnership bill.
-The British Medical Association recommends that the National Health Service not fund conversion therapy.
RE: the Marin Foundation and reconciliation….
I’ve read one of Marin’s books – it looks to me like a slicker/more subtle brand of heterosexism/homophobia. I’m not the only one who thinks Marin us up to no good (and this was the topic on Friday’s Michelangelo Signorile show on Out Q radio as well):
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/07/01/re-christians-protesting-at-pride
At this point I am very skeptical of Signorile’s piece on him (it all stems from one article in 2006). He does some good reporting, but my attempts to verify anything from that original article were a failure. And this was during a time when I was still quite skeptical, hoping to get at the truth one way or the other.
I ended up communicating with one of the principals of the story and they would only say they had nothing to add — they really didn’t want to get into it. But I still have been unable to verify any of the claims of deception concerning GLBT agencies. In fact, the only negatives I have found from anyone lead back to the Signorile story, either the original or a rehash. The orgs that know of him seem to really like him.
Michelangelo seems to hold a certain animus toward all things religious (certainly Christian), so I can see why that might have gotten the best of him concerning Andrew. This idea of “unconditional surrender” may feed the ego, but it’s not practical as a strategy. Many will continue to believe differently than I concerning scripture. I am satisfied if they simply recognize that I have the same rights. To that end, Marin seems to be helping a great deal.
@David Roberts – is there a link you could post? (For the 2006 article.)
Thanks in advance.
@e2c
Here is our post from 2008. You can find important links in the comment thread, including some rebuttals. And here is the 2006 article in the Advocate by Signorile.
I do appreciate your thoughts, David, thank you.
I found Marin’s book, Love is an Orientation, heterosexist (and religiously supremacist) several months ago when I read it. Despite his unwillingness to answer the question directly (and his advise to others to not do so), it is clear if you read carefully that he thinks homosexuality is sinful (and that if he can get gays to convert to his brand of Christianity, they will be led by their new belief to see it this way too). UGH.
My opinion is not based on what was reported in the article or on Michelangelo’s show last week.
If you read through all the comments on the “I hugged a guy” post, you’ll find a few sceptical ones, including one or two from me. At least he’s letting them through.
TRiG.
@David Roberts
David Roberts: I’m curious who you spoke with because I have now spoken with most of those quoted in my article and they back up what they said, particularly those who knew Marin. Furthermore, the article was fact-checked at the time by Advocate fact-checkers. The gay groups, understandably, might not want to revisit the embarrassing incident. But that doesn’t mean anything in my piece was inaccurate.
Please don’t imply such or besmirch my reputation and try to accuse me of journalistic malpractice, a serious charge, without some facts behind it. And to imply that somehow I did this because I don’t like Christianity is outrageous and should retract that. Speak from facts, not conjecture.
Here are some more facts about Andrew Marin, who is a liar.
http://www.signorile.com/2010/07/more-of-that-false-prophet.html
A Christian fundamentalist here in the UK who claims to be ex-gay and who runs a counselling service which, among other things, aims to “help” gays to become heterosexual has written a review of Marin’s book Love is an Orientation in which he describes the book as “A Dangerous Trojan Horse”.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/0830836268/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar
I haven’t read the book myself, but having heard the recording of a seminar “How to Answer LGBT Qs” which Marin gave to youth pastors in 2008 (thank you for the link on your web-site, Michelangelo), I have to conclude that Marin himself certainly sounds like a dangerous Trojan horse in the gay community – at least where those struggling to reconcile their faith with their natural sexual orientation are concerned.
@Signorile
I guess I could have worded my comment differently but I certainly wasn’t trying to “besmirch [your] reputation” or “accuse [you] of journalistic malpractice.” I was simply giving my candid thoughts on why my questions were getting such different answers than yours. I am still open to any verifiable facts on the issue, but I qualified my suppositions or impressions above as such. No insult was intended.
I do not agree with Andrew Marin on everything he says. If he indeed believes that homosexuality is a sin, I would disagree with that. But I also can’t deny that he appears to be helping evangelicals see GLBTs as normal human beings despite the hatred that has been driven into them by others. That seems to be a good thing to me. Our own efforts with evangelicals have been less than effective to say the least.
It looks like Marin has responded to the recent questions about his work. Thank you for providing the link to the full audio. I will listen to the entire thing tomorrow.
We may want to add this to the list… Marin’s third go at it.
(Along with One and Two for completeness. No need to thank me.)
Two things.
One — OK, so it’s a he said she said it is? Did Marin have those comms with the people? Or did Signorile? Who is accurately stating what was said?
STOP!!! There’s a third possibility, you know. Those people may have said different things to both Marin and Signorile. Some evidence from either would be helpful. Or better, both.
Two — I’m sorry but that third response from Marin mow raises whopping big red flags.
The statements about his 2008 “How to Get at Teh Gays” talk to a conservative Christian audience are flat out, deliberately, misleading. Marin’s words were perfectly clear, and his motives were crystal clear. I don’t need to rely on his repackaged words today to understand what he said — the recording exists and I’m quite capable of listening to it. I’m not going to go through it all line by line, I have a life of sorts, so we can leave it a few.
Marin advocated deliberate intervention into the lives of 13 – 15 year old gay teenagers to disrupt their own sense of self as gay. It’s Exodus Youth 101. He didn’t tell that audience to do it to protect gay teenagers from gay-bashers, as he now claims… he told them to do it to (hopefully) prevent the target from becoming a gay adult. His words then simply do not match what he now claims he was trying to do.
Marin also told that audience that Teh Gays had left the churches, but that they were also ripe for the picking if you were a clever enough anti-gay evangelical to present yourself the right way. This wasn’t a talk to a gay friendly church or audience — it was a recruitment lesson for anti-gay evangelicals. That’s worth repeating: he wasn’t at the local Quakers helping them find ways to bring people to a gay friendly church… he was addressing an anti-gay church audience, and telling them to disguise that fact by doing things like… well, like all the things that Marin claims he does that prove he isn’t anti-gay.
I managed to get all the way through, but I’ll end on the part that caused a little bit of sick to rise up and coat my mouth.
“Skeptic”? Sure, I’ll take that label. But I think “not that gullible” would suit even better.
I don’t care if he would bake me a cheesecake after my dog died. Nice guys don’t mislead people who are scalded by their conservative religious upbringing but still carry a need to re-connect with that familiar old sense of self. Friends don’t use you: carpetbaggers do.
———————–
ps David R: but… it could be the case that Marin has simply not allowed himself to get cornered again, as he did in the Signorile 2006 interview. That the Signorile interview is all that there is could show it to be an aberration, or it could indicate an ability to learn from a bad experience. I do see Marin as very evasive at times, with a pat answer if the questions persist.
Urgh, I hate when you do that David! All that work waiting on Response 3, and you go scoop me.
I perhaps should add, considering, that I do prefer someone being evangelical creepy with a cheesecake after my dog died… than flaming paper bags of dog-poo on the porch or Phelps type ranting. But that’s not really a debate point, is it? 🙂
@David Roberts
You have still provided no names. I provided facts, journalism: on the record sources. Until you do, my story stands, and your claims are merely gossip, prattle, conjecture. Nothing more. Names some names David. Your only reason for suspecting the piece seems to be that you don’t like what it reveals. Not good enough. Name names.
And now we see Marin caught in a big lie: Claiming my Advocate piece was retracted when it was not. And he has now addressed this new lie in a laughable way on his blog. The facts are in David — the states from his seminar are clear too and people, including professionals, commentating on my blog are seeing his comments for what they are. Take off the blinders.
And let me point out, responding to grantdale as well, that Marin has not named any names either re: sources who refuted the article. Do you just BELIEVE the person who is the subject of a critical article when they tell you they heard from four unnamed people that they were misquoted? Come on people! No, is not a he said/he said — it is many said/he said. All of my sources, when I just reached out to them, stand by, on the record, what they said. You need to name names, you need to get them to write letters — otherwise, they don’t exist. I had on the record sources.
Also, I note that most here and my site for sure are HIGHLY suspect of Marin , so I find it curious that David Roberts defends him. David, have you listened to the audio on my site?
i’d like you to go through it, point by point, and do a defense of Marin and his rhetoric there. And while you’re at it, name all the names of those who vouch for him and who think he has been horribly maligned. And while you’re at it, please explain how he came to lie about the Advocate piece being retracted, because his excuse is not good enough. And while you’re at it, please go back and find on the record sources to refute the article.
You see, if some horrible injustice has been done to Marin, then you need to stand up for him and set the record straight. You need to bring forth these sources. You need to help this poor man who was maligned. If not, you should keep your mouth shut or speak out against him, as you’re coming off as a curious apologist, one with no facts to back up your claim of refuting facts. We all await your full-blown defense of the man, with sourcing, as none of what to see someone maligned. And you do believe he’s been horribly maligned, at least from what you are saying.
Okay I have commented on all of these blogs in defense of Andrew, you want names Signorile maybe you should go back to the original people who alerted you to the story in the first place and went on record with their side of the story. Plus all the crap you are spreading about the Drake employees never occured and your person in the article who claimed to be Andrew’s boss was a lie. She was never his supervisor. I know the people who Andrew speaks of in his book and although two have broken ties with Andrew outside of the situation with the Marin Foundation when it occured the one remains very close to Andrew, but is not ready to make any statement. Furthermore, as you like to print and discuss rumors claiming they are fact, during that time the three women who were quoted in your story were also looking to move their businesses foward and their names within the Chicago LGBTQ community. I have myself attended a couple of their events and enjoyed them, but know when this all occured their motives were quite clear. They had revenage on a friend they once loved because of something personal that happened totally seperate from the Foundation. So asking David to name names is not fair because it is a total he said she said piece of crap. And yes, I would say your journalist abilities on this one were probably clouded by your judgement on Christianity.
Sorry my above quote is @Signorile
@Signorile
Also why did Steve Forst from dignity feel that he needed to send a letter to The Advocate clarifying his statments because you sho misrepresented them. Sure The Advocate let you response and are we surprised that you would say you stand by what you reported on as if Steve Forst and what he really said meant nothing. Maybe in your interpretations clouded again by your own agenda and desires you chose to write what you wanted about Steve…so yes thank goodness that you use the old journalistic statment “Oh I stand by what I reported on” maybe it should read oh I don’t care that I might misquote, misreport, misrepresent people I got my point across, my agenda is presented, my shock jock gay persona is intact. We all have a purpose and you are showing yours.
All I can say is that I have reconcilled my sexuality and faith and know exactly how Andrew and his work has affected me and so many others I know in my community. You can spew as much crap as you want and you can say as many nonfacts, rumors, and even skeptical analysis of Andrew. The bottom line is you have nothing to say over the work of Andrew Marin that is in God’s hands and he I promise will continue to bless Andrew Marin.
@Signorile
It is important to remember that I didn’t post an article on this, I made a comment in reply to another on a thread attached to a digest of headlines. Comments are full of opinion and speculation, which may or may not lead to more investigation. People are free to object to Marin on any grounds they care to.
I am generally skeptical, which is why I checked further into Marin after reading your original article. I did this for me, not for a post and certainly not as a challenge to your piece — I would have done it anyway at some point. What I found was a lot of positive experiences and commentary on his work from people on both “sides” (false dichotomy included for convenience), and nothing negative turned up from 2008 to 2009. If it had, I would not have felt comfortable endorsing his book (which is directed toward evangelicals).
If and when we decide to post again on Marin, and it touches on these issues, you can count on it being sourced as every other such post we produce has been.
I am retracting this part of my comment above. While I don’t think anyone is above this, including myself, the statement contains more conjecture than I am comfortable airing even in this venue.
@Signorile
I’m not sure why you could possibly need to respond to me like that. This is what I said:
Does that sound like I accept Marin’s nebulous claims about four unnamed people?
I think I made it perfectly clear what I thought about Andrew Marin’s activities, and about his distinct lack of forthrightness. I described his latest words about his 2008 speech as being “flat out, deliberately, misleading”. There is much more to go on, but even based only on Marin’s latest comments about his 2008 speech I would see him as slippery and untrustworthy: just one more in a long line of deceptive evangelicals who disguise their intentions and their ambitions behind flaccid words about loving everyone, a ready hug even for complete strangers and a stupid grin.
(All he needs is an oversized Hawaiian shirt and his role model would be clear to everyone.)
At the same time, you’ve made this statement: “I have now spoken to several of the people quoted in the article and they stand by it completely.”
Well, OK. I’ll list below everyone mentioned in your article. Who are you referring to?
Andrew Marin doesn’t get a free pass, but neither do you. At the moment it’s simply your word against his about whether people have retracted or confirmed their statements to you.
Any evidence you can produce to show Marin is being misleading on this alone would — I can assure you — be more than welcomed. For one thing it would indicate that Marin has been a slippery little weasel since at least 2006, and continues to be to this day.
I can vouch for David Roberts: give him the evidence, and he’ll act accordingly.
———————————————————-
– Harry Knox
– Melissa Garvey
– Emily Webster
– Christina Wiesmore
– Steve Forst
– Gay Men’s Health Crisis
– Neil Giuliano
– Cindi Creager
– Kate Hawley
– Empire State Pride Agenda spokesperson
– one Christian interviewer
– Several gay Chicagoans I spoke with
– Officials at HRC, GLAAD, and GMHC
Nahlia, you seem to be in fantasyland.
Far from being “something personal that happened totally seperate from the Foundation”, the story about those women are an essential part of Marin’s creation myth about the foundation. Marin claims he became a good guy because of them. They were, he claims, not just good friends but the closest of his friends. Marin claims his experience with them — and one other — is what motivated him.
As you should well know, the closest of friends of gay people don’t go and out them without their permission. Let alone by shoving their photo on your for-my-own-profit foundations website for the entire World to read.
If someone had done that to me… ‘revenge’ wouldn’t even come close to what they’d have coming to them. But, rest assured, it would be a dish served stone cold.
@Naliah
I did go back to all the people I quoted and they all stand by their quotes (and those quotes and their jobs/positions/relationships to Marin were fact-checked by the Advocate.
You are a pretty hilarious apologist Nahila — you come and say you want names, then you don’t provide any. You want to refute my article YOU will have to do the work. Sorry, but this weak response does not cut it.
Also, you wrote the other day that you never said the Advocate article was retracted and that neither did Marin. But now he admits he said it and has apologized. So, you were wrong, just making stuff up. Come back with facts, otherwise you are just lashing out and attacking people and name-calling, angry that your savior was exposed yet again.
No Grantdale — I don’t need to do my story again. I did the story, with on the record sources! It is his — her anyone else’s — job to now get on the record sources saying they refuted it.
It is not my word against his — it is their word against his. You are creating an equivalency here that doesn’t exist. Marin has NO ONE on the record saying they retracted it. I have on the record sources saying the original comments, and I checked back with a few just randomly and none retracted. I don’t need to produce anything — he is the one who must produce something beyond gossip. I didn’t produce gossip, I produced on-the-record sources — so no, I owe NOTHING now. It is up to him or you or Naliah or whoever to refute the story beyond Marin claiming retractions but with no names.
Grantdale — I realize you are as critical as I am, so this was not a challenge to you. I am just explaining that no, I owe nothing — I did a story, and he claims, like everyone who is a subject of a negative story or expose, that it is wrong and that people were misquoted, though has given no names (It’s a classic claim). Okay then, produce the names — it’s his job, not mine.
@David Roberts
Well, well — thank you very much David Roberts for revealing a critical piece of information here re: your defense of Marin. You endorse his book, and I’m glad to know this information now. You now have a vested interest in defending Marin, as it affects your own reputation — if he’s exposed, you look foolish for having endorsed him, so you defend him. Unfortunately, it’s done already — go look at the comments on my blog, including from professionals — and Marin has been further exposed (and mark my words, he will continue to be. And yes, I’m sorry, but it does reflect poorly on your judgment and reputation, and unfortunately in Ex-gay Watch’s reputation.
And btw, you still have not comments on the audio, which people on my blog are finding in defensible. How do you, someone who endorsed his book, explain the audio?
http://www.signorile.com/2010/07/more-of-that-false-prophet.html
All this posturing and you never even read his book? It’s hardly a secret.
This is a one-dimensional caricature. Only the most arrogant among us would pretend to be infallible. But I need a lot more than you offer to trash a man’s life.
No one asked you “trash a man’s life,” so don’t create a straw man. But the article should have prevented you from giving him full-fledged support, and no, reading his book is not the answer: the man is a liar (the Advocate non-retraction story), who sold out his own friends and who had all the gay groups drop ties with him. And certainly you needed to refute it — with names — to be sure. Otherwise, you’re just going on gossip, conjecture and a will to believe that is sadly desperate. You still have not named names. You still have not provided any proof. By all means David, if Andrew Marin has been horribly maligned, please clear it up — it would be a terrible injustice if true. But how could you jump aboard without refuting it — not only for yourself but for the people who read this site and expect due diligence?
And again, you still have not commented the audio that most people now see has more damning evidence. Again, here is the link to the audio, where you can also read the comments of educated — and practicing Christian — people who are appalled by the audio.
http://www.signorile.com/2010/07/more-of-that-false-prophet.html
Signorile, why don’t you use your energy to fight actual enemies of the Queer community, who are calling for our deaths, criminalization of our existence, and legislation against our lives, instead of against a guy running a blog who made ONE COMMENT about you on ONE POST?
Are you really that petty that if a single person says a single thing about you that you just can’t stand, you have to hack away at that person or that person’s outlet until they come at you with tears in their eyes, begging for forgiveness?
In the mean time, NOM just teamed up with virulently anti-gay people trying to hide their association, FOTF advocated use of the word “Faggot” on one of their videos, and the Texas Republican Party called for the punishment of anybody who even tries to HELP a queer person.
Stop fulfilling the gay male narcissistic drama queen stereotype and go back to fighting for our equality and dignity under the law.
Actually, that’s exactly what it’s about. The only question is whether or not it is justified.
I’ve never expressed “full-fledged support” for Marin. I had some issues with his book — the gay people in it seemed to be in very desperate shape when he met them, and the idea of ex-gay was mentioned more than I cared for. I would have written it differently but it’s not my book. And I don’t believe Marin himself has reached what we would call a position of total acceptance of GLBTs. I think he wants to, but his beliefs appear quite orthodox and I think many here can relate to the mental loop that can lead to.
That said, Marin seems to be doing some good work, especially with evangelicals. Regardless of his personal end-game hope (whatever that may be for sure), he has no control over what actually happens. A lot of evangelicals who listen to him are questioning their own hard-line attitudes towards us, and that can lead to good things. The jury is still out but I am hearing good things and hoping for more.
If I turns out I was duped, I’ll be in good company. It is the price one pays for occasionally going out on a limb. So far I don’t see that.
@Emily K
Oh please Emily, I fight those people every day. I can do many things at once. And I believe Andrew Marin is a fraud and that Ex-Gay Watch is on the wrong course here. If that makes me fulfill some sort of stereotype you have of gay men then you are the one with the problem, and the stereotypes.
@David Roberts
It’s interesting how you have changed the subject, much the way Marin has. You have been asked about five times to address the audio and you have not. You have been asked about his lies, his claim of an Advocate retraction, his friends, lesbians, who he outed. You’ve not answered any of this. You’ve been asked to come forward with these people who vouch for him and who refute all previous on-the-record negative reports about the man — the unnamed people that gave you enough confidence to trash (and that is what you are doing to me, trashing my work) an entire story about him — and you do not. What does Marin mean when he says youth pastors can reach kids at 13 who have same-sex attraction, before they “integrate” into the gay community, that there is a window to reach them — a window to do what? Please answer that and other questions.
I would also like to know, Is this the official position of Ex-Gay Watch. Is this the position of Eugene Wagner, Emily and the others on Ex-Gay Watch? Does Ex-Gay Watch see Marin as a force for good — to the point of endorsing him — like David Roberts does?
I would like to know because in the past few days I’ve spoken to several prominent ex-ex-gay activists who are very concerned with this embrace of Marin by David Roberts.
I’d also like to hear from readers of Ex-Gay Watch as well. You can email me at: mike@signorile.com
I believe, Signorile, that it is our enemies who believe the stereotypes – and believe them even more so when you fulfill them. I’m sure the next time you interview Brian Brown he’ll ask how your “san francisco relationship” is working out for you, and if you’ve kicked your “tina” habit yet. But then, if you spent more time trying to fight their misconceptions, rather than protect your fragile ego, you would know this.
So.. you ARE going to continue to waste your energy here. Wow. I guess that’s supposed to make us feel flattered that someone so prominent in the gay media scene is even bothering. Gee, I hope you don’t go around to all your valuable sources and try to dig up dirt on me. Gosh, I’d hate for people to say mean things about me behind my back. Oh no. I’ll never work in this town again. Might as well turn in my lesbian membership card.
These are the people we have on the forefront of our media presence? Seriously? No wonder it’s taken this long to get people to see us as more than drama queens and butch/femmes.
Emily, why do you see these issues — and a discussion you are involved in — as somehow below me? These are important issues and of course I would “bother” to discuss issues here — don’t be so self-loathing, don’t look at yourself and this blog as a “waste” of “energy.” You really should have more self-esteem than that. You and this discussion are worth more than that.
I really don’t know what you mean when discussing Brian Brown — I have interviewed him and no, he didn’t ask those questions, and believe me I treated him in a tougher manner than anyone here — go look for it on my youtube page.
I won’t address your personal attacks except to address this silly cheap shot about a “fragile ego.” It’s not my ego I’m protecting, it’s my reputation and my professional work. If you cannot see the difference, then, again, you don’t think very highly of yourself and have not engaged in any professional work. Have you ever worked on something very hard, only to see someone, based on absolutely nothing — a comment on a blog — attempt to discredit you? This is what Marin and then David Roberts did. No, I won’t watch my work attacked and my story discredited based on nothing but a biased account of the subject of the story — who has unnamed sources — because, yes, I worked very hard on it. More importantly, there is a larger issue: This man lied, and he is still trying to trick 13-year-olds. I won’t have any of it. Now, shouldn’t YOU be dealing with more important things than me? (Just kidding, but you see, anyone can play that game). I am finished here for now but I will continue to monitor Marin as much as Brian Brown. Thanks for engaging, your personal attacks and nasty barbs notwithstanding.
As a contributing author and editor at Ex-Gay Watch, I’d like to make a few early observations (though I may add more when I have chance to examine the thread and the surrounding issues in much more depth).
First, no single author on Ex-Gay Watch speaks for all of us who contribute. While we have a general ethos that binds us, we often express opinions, in both blog posts and comments, that we disagree on among ourselves.
Second, from what I read on this thread, David made some (heavily qualified) positive remarks about Andrew Marin, and this has been interpreted as an “endorsement” that apparently disqualifies him from being honest with the evidence. That is grossly unfair.
Third, David made some informal comments about Signorile’s piece that seem to have been blown out of all proportion. Look at it again: David says he is “very skeptical” of the piece, and that he did some research and was “unable to verify any of the claims.” He did not say Signorile lied, or made things up; only that he couldn’t find the evidence himself to back it up. David then made an ill-judged speculation about Signorile’s perceived animosity towards Christians – which he later retracted. For these crimes Signorile charges him with trying to “besmirch [his] reputation … [and] accuse [him] of journalistic malpractice, a serious charge.” Certain comments are “outrageous,” and ought to be retracted – which David duly did.
Basically, this started with David saying he was skeptical of Signorile’s claims and had done his own digging and not found the evidence. And this is supposedly some outrageous slander of Signorile’s journalistic credentials? And enough to warrant, if I’m not mistaken, a concerted effort to discredit Ex-Gay Watch and prepare the ground for some sort of exposé of Ex-Gay Watch? This seems to me a bizarre overreaction, and very defensive.
When I’ve had chance to do some reading around, I’ll see if I can address some of the issues we should be talking about (ie related to Andrew Marin, not David Roberts).
Thanks Dave, but saying he was skeptical of the piece slapped at the credibility of all those named sources — lesbians who were outed by Marin, others who disassociated themselves from him — and I’m sorry, it was not enough. David Roberts, as an editor here, has a responsibility to put up or shut up. If you can’t find on the record sources — or even addresses specific quotes in the piece — you should not be commenting on it, not until you get them, considering how highly charged it is and that Marin is claiming people refuted it as well, but with no named sources, and has lied. So, I’m sorry you are missing a lot of context here and the weight of Ex-Gay Watch as not just any website in this discussion — take responsibility: you’re earned it.
Now again, I’d like to know what YOU — and Emily — and David think of the Marin quotes on my site (I’ve asked David five times, but he has refused to answer). Yes, let’s talk about Marin.
Signorile, I don’t know enough about Marin to HAVE an opinion about him. I’m not the one who has been researching him. And no, I won’t grace your site with my presence, which despite “not having a fragile ego,” you have managed to advertise in every single comment posted. Once is enough. But hell, one comment was just the url ALONE, and that was posted after providing it TWICE BEFORE.
So, what would I do if some “mean person” said something mean about something I wrote (or, more aptly, a comic I published or a piece of artwork I created) on a blog somewhere? I’d take the barb like a big girl and suck it up. I may be hurt. I might even try to correct a point, if something truly untruthful is said. But here’s what I WOULDN’T do: go around whining to every other artist I knew in the art community, asking them questions like “don’t you think what they did makes them MEAN? Don’t such attacks make them BAD ARTISTS? Yes or no!” and trying to dig up dirt on them just to spite them for making me, for one brief moment in my life, feel bad. Because you know what? It’s happened to me before. Boo freakin’ hoo. People say mean nasty things about everybody all the time. Get over it, stop obsessing, stop giving them this strange imaginary evil power over you, your life, and your career, and get back to work. I’m going to get back to mine.
And David, no one, certainly not I, is preparing some groundwork for expose of Ex-Gay Watch. You’re an important site, and you do good work. That is the only reason I would engage here. I was contacted by several concerned activists in the past week as the Marin stuff went public, . This is the place where the discussion about Marin should take place, rather than a one-sided defense, which certainly was coming from David Roberts. I know you’re feeling criticized but I do appreciate your addressing this and I hope this has been a launching off point for more discussion here.
@Emily K
Very mature Emily. Won’t even listen to the audio, stick your head in the sand (you don’t need to know anything about Marin — just listen to the audio, your readers deserve that). What the hell are you doing as contributor to this site?
I have been suspicious of Andrew Marin since David Roberts and I first had a discussion about him on the phone about the time Marin’s book came out. My sense is that Marin is an opportunist capitalizing on current state of confusion in many Evangelical and Pentecostal churches about the “gay issue.” He, like other voices that have emerged over the past few years, offers a kinder, gentler message that to some sound like light years away from the fire and brimstone homophobia we grew up with, but to my ears, Marin’s message (and former Love in Action director, John Smid) boils down to “Heterosexuality and heterosexuals are superior to all others-sexually, morally, spiritually and socially.” Lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people are less than and inferior and as such are welcome in a church like Marins but never affirmed.
I say give me the Old Time Religion when homophobes let you know exactly where you stand and not this backhanded type of acceptance that ultimately amounts to very little.
In reading the comments above, particuarly by David Roberts, I see that he has taken time to consider Marin deeply and is not duped by him as I thought was the case. David is much more generous and long-suffering with folks like Marin than I can be at this point in my life. I am glad to hear that David’s willingness to assent that Marin is not yet where he needs to be in order to truly to be a friend to LGBTQ folks. Perhaps “change is possible” for someone like Marin who may yet surprised us and truly demonstrate the love of Jesus.
Peterson, I couldn’t agree more with this statement:
I believe that as the “arc bends toward justice,” the “kinder gentler” homophobes and homophobic organizations begin to crack that facade as they see their cause get more and more lost. Their true anger and malice comes to the surface. Examples recently are Focus on the Family’s endorsement of the slur “faggot,” and NOM’s alliance with a virulent, hateful man.
I’ve just spent a couple hours reading the relevant articles and listening to the relevant audio clips. I’ll listen soon to the entire seminar audio to get a better idea of Marin’s remarks in their context.
I have my opinions, as I suggested earlier, about Signorile’s response to David Roberts, but I think all the arguing about it has been a distraction, blown out of all proportion and ultimately and a waste of time. I think we can draw a line under that.
There’s lots of cause for concern in the stuff from Marin, but I hope to address that later this week on XGW (assuming Other Dave doesn’t have plans to address it himself in an article).
Re: Emily K, cut us some slack. All of us here volunteer to contribute to this site. None of us is a full-time activist. We don’t have time to get involved equally in every argument, or to give equal weight to researching every issue. It’s just taken me two hours to familiarize myself with the relevant documents, even cursorily. So Emily had a few minutes to chime in and defend David. Perhaps she didn’t also have the two hours I had to listen to everything, read the articles and form a considered opinion. We all have to choose our battles.
So, I digress.
Look out later this week for some proper coverage of the current issues with Marin.
By the way, thanks for chiming in, Peterson.
And also, thanks Grant and Dale for your contribution. I was just remarking to David that I rather like how, despite being perhaps a tad more radical than us fairly mellow XGW lot (something to do with my hailing from the land of tea and crumpets, I think), you’re still a consistent voice in the discussions here. You do your bit to stick up for us when needed, and I sense a real respect (which is mutual). It’s appreciated, guys!
@Dave Rattigan
I appreciate your now focusing on the audio and look forward to the discussion. Let me offer what I hope will be my last words on the other issues in the hopes you can understand my strong reaction and certainly see my intentions here..
Regarding David Roberts: I deal with people criticizing my opinions, observations and analysis every day, across all media — and calling my show and telling me directly that they believe I am wrong on this or that issue. And everyone is entitled to their opinion and to disagree. I encourage it and ask for those callers, because dialogue is important. So disagreement and criticism is something I encourage and thrive on. But if you charge that I am factually incorrect, that I am doing bad journalism — and I’m sorry, but saying you are “very skeptical” of a story with a dozen on-the-record sources (and no unnamed sources), some of whom it took a lot of courage to go public, conveys that — then I am going to demand you prove it. Because it then is not about disagreeing with my work; it is calling my work flawed, without the proper proof. And I’m going to demand that proof whether it was in a blog comment or article, and certainly if coming from someone with any authority on an issue who then speculates on the reason I did such journalism, sounding very much like the Pope deflecting criticism of journalism of the child abuse scandal — “oh, they’re just non-believers trying to hurt us”. (He retracted that part, but only after I launched my criticism). And if you don’t prove it, but just float it out there as some fact you have determined secretly, then you are trying to defame me (or, in this case I believe, trying to protect/defend someone else at the expense of defaming me). You are in essence calling me a liar or deceiver. That I will not accept.
Re: Emily: She came on very strong, with personal attacks and name-calling. I understand you are all volunteers and I commend you for doing the work you do. But she didn’t say she couldn’t listen to the audio because she didn’t have time. She said she wouldn’t listen to it because she wouldn’t grace my web page or some such thing. This just seemed childish, and came on top of her nasty, defensive attacks on me. Nonetheless I’m grateful to all of you, including Emily and David Roberts for doing important work here. I think David Roberts especially has done great work on Exodus. But on Marin, my opinion is that he was attempting to protect the man — and perhaps himself, since he’d endorsed him — by throwing dispersions on my work, without sourcing. You may see this as trivial. I do not. I will always protect my work from smears or biased dismissals, and you should protect yours. Also, another thing that was tough to take: Seeing my own people protecting this liar whose ideas should concern us, again, with no proof.
I hope you understand my strong reactions. I am not perfect either and meant to insult no one. Again, thank you for addressing the important issue of Marin.
Oh, don’t get me wrong. I also have no time to delve into the issue. So even if somebody send-spaced it to me as an audio file not hosted by the original site, I wouldn’t have listened to it. It’s really not my issue of choice.
FYI: To refute Marin’s lie that my Advocate article had been “retracted,” The Advocate has reposted the original piece, back up on the website.
http://advocate.com/Politics/Commentary/The_Preacher_Lied/
From 7/15/10: Marin: “I was under the impression that The Advocate article was retracted. Please take my sincerest apology for publicly saying that it was retracted when it wasn’t. I want to thank The Advocate for going on the record and clearing that up. In regards to the article in question, I received two phone calls, one email and one letter from four different people quoted in that article who all stated they did not say any of what was quoted in the article by the author. To me, even today, that is enough to be satisfied whether the article was retracted or not.” FWIW
And who are those people? They must be on the record, named sources for you to be credible at this point. Sorry Andrew, but you have a track record of lying.
And what does that mean anyway — because people supposedly called you, you decided it should be retracted, therefore you decided it was? Do any of you actually believe this clap trap?
… so this thread is still alive?
Not the 1st time someone pulled a threadjack here, and I’m sure it won’t be the last. 🙁
I appreciate all you have done, Michelangelo, to expose Andrew Marin’s true intentions/agenda. I’ve learned of some new resources and information here that further validate my assessment of his book.
David and Emily – I respect your opinions very much – I’ve read your posts on many topics.
I did wince, David, at your characterization of Michelangelo having “animus” toward all things religious (and I also think if Michelangelo didn’t respect ExGay Watch, he wouldn’t have bothered to defend himself here). I’ve been a fan of his ever since he was first outing people years ago and never got that sense at all. Michelangelo has focused a lot on religion, because the source of (and/or the excuse for) most of animus against our community is religion.
Emily, I also think that Marin (and other more subtle anti-gay figures) is worthy of paying attention to, as much as those who are more overtly anti-gay, because they are actively seeking (and possibly getting) the endorsement of some members of our community, who are being misled into thinking they aren’t anti-gay. They are also way more effective than overt homophobes in preying on vulunerable people who are struggling with reconciling their sexual orientation and their religious beliefs (and I think many in the ex-gay movement are using his model as their playbook – in fact, I learned about Marin because his book was endorsed by an ex-gay therapist).
If you look at how some anti-gay organizations have changed over time, they are taking lessons from this model (the book really lays it out – the steps of engaging with the gay community) so they appear less hateful – the ex-gay movement teaches these things too. This makes them more effective in “reaching us” because they are teaching/learning how to talk to LGBT people so that our guard doesn’t go up and they can have influence on us. This is what makes them especially dangerous.
I’ve been very disappointed when I see Marin (and others who are doing or promoting ex-gay therapy) getting even lukewarm approval from some in our community. I don’t think the Marins are any less dangerous than the Gallaghers or even the Phelpses. They’re all dangerous in different ways.
One more post on this subject and then I’ll shush about it for now. There was a June Associated Press article on Bill Henson, founder of Fish on the Other Side (FOTOS). He’s described in the article as having a similar approach to Andrew Marin (except Henson is described as a “former homosexual”).
Here’s what the head of Wheaton College’s student LGBT advocacy group, The Alliance, (yeah, I was surprised that Wheaton had an LGBT advocacy group too) had to say about Henson, the former homosexual:
Excerpt from the AP article:
Peter Szabo [the student head of the LGBT group] … said he doesn’t believe homosexuality is sinful, and was encouraged by Henson’s ministry because it can open up faith to gays who reflexively see evangelicals as hostile. “Some evangelicals would be like ‘We’ll accept you even though you are so low,’ Szabo said. “But he says… in the eyes of God we’re on the same level.”
This young man is a perfect example of what these groups are trying to do. The “we’re on the same level” idea *still means* that these groups think that homosexuality is sinful. They will not say it in a hostile way – in fact, like Marin, they may not say it all (at first). And the young man is correct – unfortunately, this strategy will indeed “open up faith to gays” – the anti-gay kind.
Also in the article, Alan Chambers and Bob Stith – praise this approach (they’re now using it too).
Moderator Edit: The article referenced can be found here.
Team Signorile on this one.
Btw, folks, we haven’t forgotten about the Marin story. There’ll be some more coverage soon.
@Evan Hurst
Well you certainly have the same..uh.. “style” when it comes to “calling people out.” But at least he doesn’t bring last year’s memes out of the annals of /b/ into his posts.
@Emily K
Really not sure what you’re talking about, but whatev.
Would everyone please think twice before posting anything else to this already sour, old thread? Thank you.
@David Roberts
you’re right David, people should think before posting comments along the lines of “U SUCK MY SIDE RULZ” without a shred of critical explanation to back it up in some way. But “whatev.”
I’ve discussed it thoroughly, elsewhere. And who said “U SUCK”?
Hey all, whatever happened to all the promised reporting on Andrew Marin? Looks like the 700 Club beat you to it, they love the guy! How nice, huh?
Right Wing Watch and Truth Wins Out both have a lot to say on it.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/when-does-700-club-profile-gay-friendly-ministers
http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2010/08/10549/
—
Moderator note: moved to appropriate thread.