Box Turtle Bulletin

Exodus Co-Founder: “There Were No Real Standards For Training Or Methodology”

Even today Exodus ministries are somewhat of a free-for-all.  Operating under the guise of “pastoral counseling” lay ministry leaders at Exodus programs are free to engage in pseudo-therapy as well as a slew of religious exercises from distributing testimonials at gay bars to exorcisms.

In today’s video Exodus International co-founder Michael Bussee explains that at the time of Exodus’ founding he had the most formal mental health training of anyone in the organization… he was in a masters program.  Bussee admits his program at Exodus was successful at creating a safe, confidential, therapeutic environment but he never successfully found the secret to making people straight.

Lastly, Bussee details what he believed went on at Exodus’ various other member ministries across the country.

[full transcript after the jump]

Read the rest of this entry »

Montana’s GOP Gets To The Point

The Texas GOP needed 632 words to talk about all the many ways they want to legislate against LGBT Texans, including the reimposition of laws to throw gay people in jail. Which just goes to show what we’ve always known about Texans: they’re full of hot air. Montana’s GOP essentially says the same thing, but displays the directness and economy of words that the folks in Big Sky country are known for:

Homosexual Acts
We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal.

There’s a silver lining though. They don’t seem interested in jailing anyone who conducts a same-sex marriage ceremony. But looking at the bigger picture, those mere twenty words are still saying the same thing. They want your gay butt in jail.

NOM joins forces with virulently vile anti-gay activist

It seems that the National Organization of Marriage has been gradually slipping off message. Long pretending that “we don’t hate homosexuals”, NOM tried to keep up the image that they were just opposed to same-sex marriage (for the children, you know). But it seems that Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown have found the effort of appearing pleasant to be daunting (or perhaps less financially fulfilling) because recent comments seem to be veering closer and closer to plain old anti-gay animus and playground meanness.

Now Jeremy at Good_As_You has (along with blogger Matt Algren) identified an affiliation between NOM and their new strategist, anti-gay activist Louis J. Marinelli III. The language and claims of Mr. Marinelli bring NOM into a whole new category. Here are a few of the tweets that Marinelli has recently made on NOM’s behalf.

Those who wish to promote homosexual behaviour are encouraging people to shorten their life spans. Homosexuality is not a healthy lifestyle.

(We debunked the “shorten lives” claim)

#nevertrust activists of the homosexual agenda – they are deceitful people who care only about themselves and not what’s best for society!

It is clear that Maggie and Brian have decided to link their organization to the most radical and extreme segments of the anti-gay movement. They are now taking on the tone of spiteful slurs and villification of the gay community.

But really, is it all that surprising?

When someone dedicates their life to fighting against your rights, freedom, liberty and equality, it isn’t out of love. It just isn’t

Court rules that law school need not recognize anti-gay Christian group

From the Chronicle

An ideologically split Supreme Court ruled Monday that a law school can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that won’t let gays join, with one justice saying that the First Amendment does not require a public university to validate or support the group’s “discriminatory practices.”

The court turned away an appeal from the Christian Legal Society, which sued to get funding and recognition from the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law. The CLS requires that voting members sign a statement of faith and regards “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle” as being inconsistent with that faith.

I have mixed feelings about this decision, partly because the SCOTUS agreed with the Ninth Circuit that

The parties stipulate that Hastings imposes an open membership rule on all student groups—all groups must accept all comers as voting members even if those individuals disagree with the mission of the group. The conditions on recognition are therefore viewpoint neutral and reasonable.

In reading the decision, we must keep in mind that this is not a ruling on CLS’ policies, but on whether Hastings’ policies are constitutional.

On the one hand, I strongly object to the gay students at Hastings having to pay student fees which are in turn funneled to an organization that excludes them from membership. I am troubled by the growing sense of entitlement which many anti-gay religious groups seem to be adopting from which they demand that society not only follow the rules of their sect but be required to fund them as well.

And this decision confirms the right of a school – even a public school – to establish and uphold non-discrimination policies. An opposite ruling might lead to assumptions that schools cannot make any restrictions on anti-gay discrimination.

But, on the other hand, I fear that broad interpretation may lead to an inability for any organization to control its own identity.

Would, for example, the Clara Foltz Feminist Association be subject to a take-over by religious conservatives who can then vote that the club take positions which oppose reproductive rights and assert that a woman is to be subject to her husband? Could the Hastings Jewish Law Students Association become the missionary arm of Jews for Jesus – or of the Scientologists, for that matter? Can the new motto of the Environmental Law Society become “Drill, baby, drill”.

While this may seem unlikely, it is not unheard-of for a student organization to be hijacked for petty school politics, or even as a lark. The court, however, did not think that such concerns were reasonable.

CLS also assails the reasonableness of the all-comers policy in light of the RSO forum’s function by forecasting that the policy will facilitate hostile takeovers; if organizations must open their arms to all, CLS contends, saboteurs will infiltrate groups to subvert their mission and message. This supposition strikes us as more hypothetical than real.
…
Students tend to self-sort and presumably will not endeavor en masse to join—let alone seek leadership positions in—groups pursuing missions wholly at odds with their personal beliefs. And if a rogue
student intent on sabotaging an organization’s objectives nevertheless attempted a takeover, the members of that group would not likely elect her as an officer.

I have personal experience which contradicts the court’s assumption. And Justice Alito’s dissent does not find the idea to be nonsensical.

But from a practical perspective, the greatest impact of this decision will be limited to those religious campus organizations who eject, reject, or limit gay students. The national Christian Legal Society will have to choose to go off-campus at many law schools (those with non-discrimination policies) or to revise its policies.

But other organizations may be immediately impacted as well, if to a lesser extent. As I recall, my fraternity required that its members believe in God, though that was interpreted broadly, could be “acknowledged symbolically”, and seemed to have no measurable influence on daily life. But it would seem that this “religious belief” requirement could also be a reason for exclusion of this group from meeting on campus or having recognition of any form.

Although in minority, Alito argued that a policy demanding that all organizations ‘accept all comers’ (whether or not selectively enforced) places a great burden on those who meet based on commonly shared religious beliefs, regardless of where they exist on the religious spectrum.

There are religious groups that cannot in good conscience agree in their bylaws that they will admit persons who do not share their faith, and for these groups, the consequence of an accept-all-comers policy is marginalization.

But, other than its immediate impact on this one Christian group and other similar groups, the court’s decision may also tell us a few more things than simply what is allowable school policy. And while I have some concerns about the court’s interpretation of freedom of speech and association, they are countered by concerns about compulsory fees being withheld and distributed to organizations that some students cannot join. So, for me, the most interesting aspects of this case can be found in the way in which justices view gay people.

1. This decision may give us clues as to whether the court is sympathetic to religious exclusion of gay people from society. In this match up of non-discrimination policies v. the religious liberty to exclude gay people, the court chose not to let religious belief trump orientation.

2. The case was closely decided, 5-4. Justice Ginsberg wrote the decision and was joined by Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Breyer, and Sotomayor. The dissent was written by Alito and joined by Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas.

Much of Alito’s objection focused on the distinction between whether Hastings’ refusal to offer Registered Student Organization status was based in an “accept all comers” principle or a Non-Discrimination Policy. He asserted that (irrespective of stipulation) at the time of rejection the school did indeed “permi[t] political, social, and cultural student organizations to select officers and members who are dedicated to a particular set of ideals or beliefs” and only decided that this was an “accept all comers” policy after the fact.

Alito noted that many organizations limited members to those who agree with their positions (e.g. the pro-life group, the Democratic Caucus) and at least one had race-based restrictions (La Raza). They were required to change these provisions only after CLS was rejected for membership, illustrating that “that Hastings had no accept-all-comers policy until this litigation was well under way.”

3. The court contrasted this decision from that which allowed the Boy Scouts to exclude members.

CLS may exclude any person for any reason if it forgoes the benefits of official recognition. The expressive-association precedents on which CLS relies [as opposed to limited public forum], in contrast, involved regulations that compelled a group to include unwanted members, with no choice to opt out. See, e.g., Dale, 530 U. S., at 648 (regulation “forc[ed] [the Boy Scouts] to accept members it [did] not desire”
…
Application of the less-restrictive limited-public-forum analysis better accounts for the fact that Hastings, through its RSO program, is dangling the carrot of subsidy, not wielding the stick of prohibition.

This would suggest that cities who wish to limit their public subsidies to only those organizations that do not discriminate are free to do so. Indeed, this seems to directly contradict the decision of the jury in Philadelphia.

In his rebuttal, Alito found this case to be exactly similar to Dale in that the policy forces organizations to accept members with whom it does not wish to associate. He dismissed the funding possibilities as inconsequential and only a small part of the case.

4. The court confirmed its position that attempts to differentiate between behavior and identity (in religious terms, “love the sinner, hate the sin”) as distinctions without difference:

To bring the RSO program within CLS’s view of the Constitution’s limits, CLS proposes that Hastings permit exclusion because of belief but forbid discrimination due to status. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 18. But that proposal would impose on Hastings a daunting labor. How should the Law School go about determining whether a student organization cloaked prohibited status exclusion in belief-based garb? If a hypothetical Male-Superiority Club barred a female student from running for its presidency, for example, how could the Law School tell whether the group rejected her bid because of her sex or because, by seeking to lead the club, she manifested a lack of belief in its fundamental philosophy?

This case itself is instructive in this regard. CLS contends that it does not exclude individuals because of sexual orientation, but rather “on the basis of a conjunction of conduct and the belief that the conduct is not wrong.” Brief for Petitioner 35–36 (emphasis deleted). Our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context. See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 575 (2003) (“When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination.” (emphasis added)); id., at 583 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment) (“While it is true that the law applies only to conduct, the conduct targeted by this law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual. Under such circumstances, [the] law is targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class.”); cf. Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U. S. 263, 270 (1993) (“A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews.”).

Here, interestingly, Alito dismisses the majority’s logic as “because it is easier to enforce.” He does seem to accept distinction between identity and behavior, but not in a way which argues that gay people are only “folks who engage in certain behavior.” Rather, he seems to agree that gay people, as such, exist but that they, like Muslims, Atheists, and those Christians who believe significantly different doctrines than those of CLS, should be able to be excluded by a club which is based on certain shared religious beliefs.

In fact, while Alito questioned (in a footnote) what might possibly be meant by religious status (as opposed to religious belief) in terms of immutable characteristics, he seems to have no question about what sexual orientation status may mean. Nor does the dissent suggest that orientation is mutable or inconsequential.

While it may be premature and reaching to draw such a conclusion, it appears that the court seems to be in agreement that sexual orientation is a matter of people and not a matter of behavior.

5. The dissent was not homophobic. Indeed, Alito seemed far less interested in why CLS was excluding members than he was in their right to do so without being marginalized based on their viewpoint. His was a freedom of expression argument rather than an upholding of morals and standards argument.

As Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia did not write separate dissents, we cannot know their motivations. However, this is in tone far from that of Scalia in Lawrence v. Texas, and to me hints as a certain mellowing that may be occurring on the conservative end of the bench. Or, at least, I hope that is what it suggests.

6. And finally, the justices illustrate that legal findings need not be boring or dry. Stevens, in his concurring opinion, gets points for the best quote:

“In the dissent’s view, by refusing to grant CLS an exemption from the Nondiscrimination Policy, Hastings violated CLS’s rights, for by proscribing unlawful discrimination on the basis of religion, the policy discriminates unlawfully on the basis of religion.”

NY Catholics March Despite Ban

Marchers from St. Francis Xavier, a gay-welcoming Catholic church which had been participating in New York City’s Gay Pride parade for several years, were forbidden by NYC Archbishop Timothy Dolan from marching with a banner identifying their parish’s name in last weekends parade. Their response? They marched with a blank banner. Here’s CNN’s coverage:

WV Sen. Robert Byrd Dead at 92

The senior statesman of the U.S. Senate, West Virginia’s Sen. Robert Byrd (D) has died at 3 a.m. this morning. The conservative Democrat was the longest serving member of Congress. He was elected to the Senate in 1958 for the first of nine terms. He had served six years in Congress before that.

Sen. Byrd was hospitalized last week for what was thought to be heat exhaustion, but his health continued to decline over the weekend.

According to the New York Times obituary:

But the post that gave him the most satisfaction was chairman of the Appropriations Committee, with its power of the purse — a post he gave up only last year as his health declined. A New Deal Democrat, Mr. Byrd used the position in large part to battle persistent poverty in West Virginia, which he called “one of the rock bottomest of states.”

He lived that poverty growing up in mining towns, and it fueled his ambition. As he wrote in his autobiography, “Robert C. Byrd: Child of the Appalachian Coalfields” (West Virginia University Press, 2005), “it has been my constant desire to improve the lives of the people who have sent me to Washington time and time again.”

Byrd’s commitment to improve the lives of LGBT West Virginians, however, was considerably lower in priority. President Clinton wrote in his autobiography, “My Life, that Byrd’s 1993 opposition to gays in the military was stronger than that of Sen. Sam Nunn, the man who is credited for being the driving force behind institutionalizing the ban in federal law. In the 109th Congress, Byrd scored a 22% on the Human Rights Campaign scorecard. In the current 110th Congress, Byrd’s score increased to 60% with his votes for the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act and the his support for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

According to West Virginia law, Byrd’s successor will be appointed by Gov. Joe Manchin III (D). Ambiguities in the law make it unclear as to whether a special election will be required before Byrd’s term ends in 2012.

Iceland Prime Minister marries

From asiaonenews

Iceland Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir married her long-time partner on Sunday as a new law legalising homosexual marriages came into force.

Sigurdardottir, in her late 60s, formally married writer Jonina Leosdottir after the couple submitted a demand for their civil union to be transformed into a marriage, the RUV broadcaster said.

Iceland’s parliament on June 12 unanimously adopted legislation allowing gay marriage, in a law that came into force on Sunday.

Gee thanks, Kansas City Star

Is Peter LaBarbera working for the Kansas City Star?

Seems like it. For some reason, the KC Star decided that an article about today’s Gay Pride parade in New York City should be accompanied by this photo, from last year’s pride parade in San Francisco.

And, of course, this is the photo that pops up on Google News to illustrate the 973 news articles about Gay Pride events around the world. Stanley Cup? nope. Ernie Banks? not a chance. The elected officials or PFLAG or health services or even baton twirlers or drag queens? un-uh. This year’s image for Gay Pride is a year old picture of a nude man on a bike.

Oh goodie.

UPDATE: The picture appears to have disappeared from the KC Star website.

Reformed Church makes nuanced response to Lutherans

When the Evangelical Church in America decided to give congregations the authority to be accepting of gay ministers, some outside partners were not pleased. And some feared that this would impact the church’s alliances with other Christian denominations.

But at least one, the Reformed Church in America, has decided that this is not an issue that is significant enough to sever relationships. (Christian Post)

“Cutting ties with the ELCA over their Assembly’s narrow decision would witness to the world that Christians will fight and divide themselves from one another, and break the bonds of Christian fellowship, over such an ethical difference,” RCA spokesman Paul Boice told The Christian Post last year.

Still, the RCA voted to express concern with the actions and to direct a panel to discuss and explore the ELCA’s human sexuality statement with representatives from the ELCA “in the spirit of ‘mutual affirmation and admonition’ called for in the Formula of Agreement.” The panel will report on the progress of the dialogue to the General Synod in 2011.

RCA delegates also approved a resolution that invites the ELCA, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the United Church of Christ and the Christian Reformed Church to join in a “consultation on the interpretation and use of Scripture in moral discernment and ethical decision making.”

This may be an indication that the Reformed Church may be moving further and faster than I imagined. The UCC is proactively supportive of our community and the ELCA is cautiously accepting (and perhaps more now that those who define their faith in terms of their opposition to gay people have packed up and stomped out). And as the Presbyterian Church (USA) seems to be moving closer each year, this alliance may prove to be the beginning of a unified Christian repudiation of homophobia within the faith.

Pennsylvania Lutherans confirm pro-gay positions

Last August the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America voted to revise its policy on sexuality to allow member congregations freedom to decide for themselves whether they would now accept ministers in committed same-sex relationships. Conservatives predicted schism.

To date only a few dozen churches have left the denomination over the decision, but the “conflict” is enticing to news sources so each disgruntled congregation receives breathless coverage. Less dramatic, but no less important, was a decision this week by the Northeastern Pennsylvania Synod. (readingeagle.com)

Delegates failed to approve a resolution that would have petitioned the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America churchwide assembly at its next meeting in 2011 to rescind actions of 2009 relating to persons in “publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships.”

An exact vote tally was not yet available, but the Rev. Catherine A. Ziel, executive associate of synod Bishop Samuel Zeiser, said the resolution was resoundingly defeated.

Russian Police Arrest LGBT Advocates at St. Petersburg Pride

Defying a ban on gay rights marches by city authorities, several LGBT advocates were arrested at a Pride demonstration in front of the State Hermitage Museum. According to Reuters, two to three dozen advocates showed up in front of the famous landmark with banners and chanted, “Homophobia is the country’s shame.” At least five people were arrested (six, according to the Associated Press).

St. Petersburg authorities had denied permission to hold a Pride demonstration for five different locations. In order to try to get around the ban, LGBT advocates used stealth tactics similar to those used in Moscow last month in an attempt to avoid the police. The media were not informed until the very last minute.

Immediately following the march’s breakup, a small group of ultra-right activists arrived at the square to attack the protesters. A small number of them were arrested for “hooliganism” as well.

Chilean politician introduces civil unions legislation

From InfoSurHoy

Chilean Sen. Andrés Allamand of the Renovación Nacional Party said he plans to introduce legislation creating civil unions for unmarried couples – regardless of whether they are of the same sex – and give them the same rights as married couples. The series of laws, called Acuerdo de Vida en Común (AVC), would enable homosexual couples to have the same social security rights that are only granted to heterosexual couples but does not legalize gay marriage.

The importance of Ernie Banks

Sports Illustrated writer, Jeff Pearlman, writes about the message that the Chicago Cubs are making by sending their most iconic symbol to Chicago Gay Pride.

The team could have enlisted any former player without a peep of complaint from the community. Here’s Dwight Smith waving to the crowd! Or Ray Burris! Or Mike Maksudian! It could have just sent the float along with Biff, the 19-year-old eager-to-please PR intern. Hell, the Cubs could probably get by merely contributing the float and a box of donuts. But by putting forth Banks, an iconic Hall of Famer and one of the classiest men to ever grace the diamond, the Cubs have made a bold and powerful statement that, even in the oft-closed-minded world of professional team sports, homophobia no longer has a place.

Judge: anti-gay activist can’t be kept out of pride event

In a truly mind-boggling decision, a judge in Minneapolis has decided that an anti-gay activist must be allowed to distribute anti-gay literature within the park which the gay pride event has rented from the city.

A federal judge ruled Friday that a restraining order would violate Johnson’s First Amendment rights.

The city’s park system fought Pride Fest in court.

Since the Fest is held in a public park, attorneys for the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board argued on Johnson’s behalf, although they insisted they were merely trying to clarify the rules and were not advocating one viewpoint over another.

To recap, just so we know the law,

• The Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade, which marches down public streets, has the right to exclude gay people from marching so as to protect its “message”
• The Boy Scouts of America, who recruit in public schools, have the right to exclude gay people because they have a freedom of assembly right
• The Boy Scouts have the right to insist that their discriminatory policies can’t be used to deny them taxpayer-funded free rent

BUT

• The Twin Cities Pride Fest doesn’t have the right to deny entry into a park that they rented to someone who is there for the sole purpose of working against their message.

Yeah. And we’re the ones who they say want “special rights.”

UPDATE: WCCO provides additional information:

In a footnote, Tunheim proposed a compromise in which Twin Cities Pride could designate content-neutral “free speech zones” where anyone could distribute literature or display signs.

Pragmatically, they may be smart to allow such a zone. It would minimize disturbances and confrontations and would allow those who are there to seek a space where they can feel safe and free from hostility can avoid the area.

Johnson, of course, doesn’t want to be restricted in any way.

Hawaii Business Roundtable may have inadvertently helped civil unions

When Greg Kai sent a letter on Hawaii Business Roundtable letterhead asking Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle to veto the state’s civil unions bill, he probably thought that he was giving the impression that he was speaking for the state’s business community. But his letter did not go unchallenged. (Star Advertiser)

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay civil rights group, which is based in Washington, D.C., sent two activists to the islands to help respond to the Roundtable’s veto request.

Tony Wagner, the Human Rights Campaign’s western regional field director, said the group had initially targeted contacts at national companies that are members of the Roundtable. Five national companies — including Starwood, Time Warner and Marriott — publicly broke with the Roundtable last Thursday.

“Once the snowball starting rolling, then we started hearing from a number of other companies that were represented on (the Roundtable),” Wagner said.

In all, more than 20 companies and executives responded. (Pacific Business News)

After that letter circulated, at least 20 HBR members distanced themselves from the HBR’s veto recommendation, including Time Warner Cable and Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc.

Now Kai is trying to assert that the Roundtable “opposes any form of discrimination, including based on race, religion, political or sexual orientation” and has taken no position on civil unions. It’s all about the “technical issues”, he’s still trying to claim, but the organization members aren’t happy that Kai’s technical concerns are giving them a PR nightmare.

I think it will be a long time before Mr. Kai again attempts to use his employment with the Hawaii Business Roundtable to engage in anti-gay activism.

And in the meanwhile the public perception is that, unlike Mr. Kai, the business community in Hawaii has no problem with HB444, the civil unions bill.