Box Turtle Bulletin

GOProud Showed Up. Which Is Very Good, But…

This commentary reflects the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect those of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin

Jim Burroway

February 20th, 2010

Alexander McCobin, at Students for Liberty, welcomed GOProud to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) amid cheers and boos.

Ryan Sorba, of the Young Conservatives of California, responded by denouncing CPAC amid boos and cheers.

For some reason, it’s often the gays who start the hottest trends in this country. The Republican Party’s acrimonious split between the traditional followers of John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine and other believers of individual freedom, and the emerging purer-than-thou wing who today would be loudly lamenting the absence of a “real Republican” if Ronald Reagan himself were alive and running for office — like so many popular trends in America — is just an imitation of what the gays had already started. It was just last April when a group of Log Cabin Republican dissidents split off to form GOProud over the former group’s perceived lack of ideological purity.

But despite GOProud’s purer-than-pure stance, it’s still regarded as being outside the mainstream among other purer-than-pure ideologues who are, in addition, also non-believers in individual freedom. But that didn’t stop GOProud from becoming sponsors of that annual purer-than-pure ideological love-fest known that is CPAC in Washington, D.C. This marks the first time a gay group has been a co-sponsor of the event. It also marks the first appearance of the John Birch Society as a co-sponsor, which had always been excluded for being too extremist.

But while the Birchers were allowed to parade around in their tinfoil hats, the GOProuders would not have a platform to to speak about gay issues at the conference. Outside of their booth with the other exhibitors, their only planned contribution that I’ve been able to discern was a talk about “Using Technology to Mobilize Conservatives.” Other than that, their message was limited to their booth.

Silence appears to be the price of admission. GOProud’s Twitter stream and web site have been uncomfortably silent over the wacky news conference at CPAC over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Okay, there hasn’t been complete silence, at least not when a good opportunity for spin comes along. Bruce Carroll, aka GayPatriot, giddily twittered, “Nation’s most vocal supporter of gay marriage & removing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell speaks at #CPAC10 – DICK CHENEY! HA.” Except Cheney didn’t utter a single peep about gay marriage or DADT. Chris Crain responds, “Gentlemen… please… we can hold the bar higher than this, can’t we?”

But as we all have come to know, it’s not enough for the purest of the purer-than-pure crowd to have us agree to shut up about our issues and rah-rah conservatism in general. It’s our mere presence, and even our very existence, that many find so horribly offensive. And that offense was on display yesterday when Ryan Sorba decided to go after CPAC for GOProud’s quiet existence. When he was boo’ed, Bruce Carroll (aka GayPatriot) celebrated, saying that this “shows that most mainstream conservatives don’t have much stomach for such nasty rhetoric.” But I have to wonder whether it’s the rhetoric they can’t stomach or the embarrassment over the fact that CSPAN cameras were capturing a dissenting speech live on national television.

Think about it. Sorba’s remarks weren’t that much nastier than those mouthed at the DADT news conference. Sorba just didn’t follow agreed-upon talking points and he compounded that by openly dissenting with fellow CPAC attendees. The boo’s started when he said he was denouncing CPAC before he even said why he was denouncing them. Was it the rhetoric they were booing? Or was it the open dissent — complete with calling people out by name — on nationwide television that garnered the boos (and cheers)?

(By the way, some are saying Sorba was boo’ed off the stage. It looks to me that he left the stage when he finished saying what he wanted to say.)

But just showing up is all it takes for GOProud to excite the purest of the purer-than-pure element, then even GOProud’s most ardent critics would have to concede that their mere presence served, at least, as a small but important measure of community service for LGBT citizens. Besides, anyone who makes life unbearably uncomfortable for the National Organization for Marriage, which found its booth located just a few short steps away from GOProud’s, is worthy of respect. Jimmy LaSalvia’s “Who’s the pansey?” line by itself is worth GOProud’s sponsorship and travel costs.

Playing rope-a-dope, which GOProud has evidently done, is a very useful role to play. The more dopes we can rope, the better. But at some point we ought to see something other than blind cheer-leading among gay conservatives. I mean please, tying Cheney’s standing ovation over his opposition to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and support for gay marriage? Not uttering a single peep over the ridiculous news conference supporting DADT? That just looks pathetic, especially when compared to the open revolt among gay Democrats over their party’s failure to deliver on promises. I’m glad that GOProud decided to stake out a presence at CPAC, but a presence with a clear eye and critical voice would be more helpful still. Woody Allan said that 90% of life is just showing up, but he’s a moviemaker. What does he know about politics?

Why This Black Gay American Still Supports President Obama

This is a guest commentary, and does not necessarily reflect the views of other authors or contributors at Box Turtle Bulletin.

Earl D. Fowlkes, Jr.

February 19th, 2010

(Editor’s note: When President Barack Obama took the oath of office, the LGBT community was hopeful that significant change would be coming on our issues. This hope was felt by supporters and non-supporters alike. Since then, there has been considerable disappointment over the pace of action (or inaction, as some would say) on DADT, ENDA, and DOMA. We offer this guest commentary as a counter-argument and point of discussion. — Jim Burroway)

In late August 2008, I had the opportunity to attend the Democratic National Convention. I listened carefully to the speeches of Michelle Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and President Bill Clinton. On August 28, 2008 , I listened to Senator Barack Obama outline his soaring vision for America. I heard him speak on how he would address the sinking economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan , health care reform, clean energy technology, and job creation. I felt like Senator Obama was speaking directly to me when he said, “I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in a hospital and to live lives free of discrimination”. In my opinion that statement was his promise to millions of LGBT Americans that we were part of his plan to make America a better place and that eliminating those vestiges of discrimination would be an important part of his agenda. Like millions of Americans, I decided that I would work hard to help elect Barack Obama President of the United States .

Fast forward to today, a little over a year since Barack Obama was sworn in as our President; and there has been much discussion in some quarters of LGBT communities questioning whether or not his administration has the stomach to move “our” agenda forward. There are those who believe he is moving too slowly on the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) and the Defense of Marriage Act, and that he has not done enough to push the passage of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA). Many of those same voices have called for the LGBT community to withhold support and money from the Democratic Party, based on their belief that President Obama has not kept his word to our communities. But for this Black Gay American, this rhetoric contrasts greatly with the reality of the Obama Administration’s accomplishments on LGBT issues during his first year in office.

In only one year in office, the Obama Administration has extended benefits to same-sex partners of Federal employees; signed into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which expanded the existing US federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and/or disability; lifted the HIV Entry Ban; extended the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act; reversed an inexcusable US position by signing the UN Declaration on Gay Rights; has spoken out forcefully on Uganda’s repressive treatment of its LGBT communities; endorsed the Baldwin-Lieberman bill; hired and appointed a record number of qualified LGBT Americans, including over ten Senate confirmed appointments; and in the summer of 2009, the Administration released the first Presidential PRIDE proclamation since the year 2000. In addition, the Obama administration has sought out input from the LGBT community on hundreds of proposed policy changes affecting all levels of the Federal government.

Recently Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Senate Armed Services Committee, ”Speaking for myself, and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is the right thing to do. No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape the … facts that we have a policy that forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens”. Anyone who understands how the Pentagon operates must realize that the Obama Administration had a strong hand in moving the military establishment to support the repeal of this odious law.

I believe that advocacy and applying political pressure for the LGBT agenda on both the Obama Administration and Congress are fundamental tenets granted to all citizens of this Republic. While our great nation still has a far ways to go before LGBT Americans will enjoy all of the promises and benefits made to us in the Constitution, I do believe that the Obama Administration has been subject to unfair criticism from parts of the LGBT community, who, for whatever reasons, refuses to acknowledge the many accomplishments in the first year of this administration. I have faith that our President will continue to make good on the promises made that warm summer evening in Denver , Colorado and, this Black Gay American will continue to support the Obama Administration as one of our best hopes to bring about equality for LGBT Americans.

Earl D. Fowlkes, Jr. is a resident of Washington, DC and is a Member at Large on the Democratic National Committee.

Heterosexual Menace: mother, toddler, pit bull

Timothy Kincaid

January 30th, 2010

Not all heterosexuals molest children. And some can even be trusted alone around children (though a wise parent will be very careful and do a thorough background check before ever allowing an unsupervised practicing heterosexual around their vulnerable children).

Because it’s heterosexuals like the one we read about in Ontario that warn us just how dangerous the heterosexual lifestyle really is. Without getting too graphic about heterosexual sex, just think mother, two year old boy, and pit bull. (msnbc)

The woman had pleaded guilty to five of 12 charges, including sexual assault, making child pornography and possessing child pornography. An earlier charge of bestiality was dropped.

The admitted heterosexual woman was using the internet to broadcast her perversion to another heterosexual. Fortunately the heterosexual man felt shame and turned her in to authorities.

Officers found images and video in which the woman engaged in live sex acts both with herself and her toddler. In other instances, the woman involved her pet pit bull in the acts, and in many of the cases the child is seen walking around in the background and using sexualized language with his mother. The videos were broadcast live to the man who eventually turned the woman in to police.

As I stated earlier, we must love the heterosexual and hate the sin. But we must fight against the heterosexual agenda which is so closely linked to pedophilia, incest, and bestiality.

Satire aside, this is a serious crime against a small child. Fortunately, this woman will never again see the little boy and his foster parent say that he’s doing well.

But I find it disgusting that every single instance of bad behavior on the part of any single gay person is blown up into an indictment on all members of the community. Were this a gay man, it would be covered by every “family” advocacy group in the nation as a warning about “the homosexual agenda”.

There’s more heterosexual shenanigans here and in our report, “The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing the Myths.”

(hat tip to reader Respect)

LaBarbera Award: Pat Robertson

Jim Burroway

January 13th, 2010

Pat Robertson richly deserves the LaBarbera Award for this one:

“Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French … and they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, ‘We will serve you if you will get us free from the French.’ True story. So the devil said, ‘OK, it’s a deal.’”

“Ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after another,” Robertson said, referring to the country’s poverty.

Robertson was speaking on the Christian Broadcast Network during a drive by the network, which he founded, to raise money for disaster relief.

Usually, when we award someone with the LaBarbera Award, we post commentary explaining why the winner merits the honor. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then here’s a far more eloquent essay than I could ever hope to write:

BTB Podcast Now Available on iTunes

Gabriel Arana

January 13th, 2010

Box Turtle Bulletin’s Weekly Podcast is now available on iTunes here (or by clicking on the image below). Subscribe to our channel and have the episodes downloaded automatically to your iPod or mp3 player.

Box Turtle Bulletin Podcast, Listen In!

Gabriel Arana

January 12th, 2010

This is the inaugural episode of what we hope will be a regular podcast at Box Turtle Bulletin. The format we’ve tentatively agreed upon is a discussion of three topics that are prominent in the news. If our readers can think of topics they’d like to hear about, or have any other suggestions or comments, please let us know.

We are also working on making the podcast available on iTunes so that you can subscribe to the feed and have the episodes downloaded automatically on your mp3 player.

For this installment, you have Timothy, Jim and me (Gabriel) discussing the Prop. 8 trial, the Uganda situation, and the Portugal marriage decision:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Mixed Messages Can Lead to Violence

Jack Drescher, MD

January 11th, 2010

Uganda’s government is now considering the passage of antigay laws that would, among other punishments, impose life imprisonment or even the death sentence on those who engage in homosexual behavior.

Equally disturbing, and as reported in Box Turtle Bulletin and now in the mainstream media, was the role played by American evangelical Christians, including members of a so-called ex-gay movement that believes homosexuality can be “cured.”  As noted in a New York Times editorial last week, these Americans were part of a process that initiated this hateful legislation by giving a series of talks in Uganda last March to “thousands of police officers, teachers and politicians in which, according to participants and audio recordings, [they claimed] that gays and lesbians are a threat to Bible-based family values.”

The evangelical Christians who went to Uganda are now saying, somewhat disingenuously, that they had no idea their condemnatory words might lead to such a violent outcome.  What could they have been thinking?

Typically, many antigay activists, while condemning homosexuality, claim they actually love the sinners (gay men and women) but hate their sins (the act of engaging in homosexual behavior).  For example, Focus on the Family for many years sponsored a series of antigay workshops around the country called “Love Won Out” where motivational speakers claimed that homosexuality could be “changed.”

For gay people, whose same sex attractions feel like an essential part of who they are, this is not a loving message. For most gay people, hating “homosexuality” means hating gay people.  Similarly, not all heterosexuals who hear the mixed message of love and condemnation can psychologically separate “homosexuals” from their homosexuality. Violent gay-bashers, for example, often attack people who they believe “look gay” or who may just be walking around a gay neighborhood. This unitary frame of mind appears to have shaped the legislation being considered in Uganda:  Want to stamp out homosexuality?  Stamp out the “homosexuals.”

Is antigay violence an inevitable outgrowth of moral condemnations of homosexuality?  Not always.  In the wake of a growing international outcry, many American evangelicals who oppose gay civil rights in this country are now condemning the Ugandan legislation’s harshest measures.

However, one lesson “traditional values” advocates might take from this experience is that claims of “loving” gay people while condemning their homosexuality can lead to the kind of violent responses being contemplated in Uganda.  Do the preachers of a mixed message of love and hate bear responsibility for the hateful acts that may ensue?  Now that they have seen some of the consequences of such messaging, they do from now on.

The author, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, is Emeritus Editor of the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health.

Is ‘Principled Opposition to Homosexuality’ Different From Bigotry?

Gabriel Arana

January 6th, 2010

This commentary reflects the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of Box Turtle Bulletin’s other subscribers.

The proposed bill in the Ugandan Assembly prescribing the death penalty for homosexuality, which was broadly condemned in a Times editorial yesterday, has highlighted the link between American evangelical Christianity and anti-gay extremism in Africa.

Many Christian groups that oppose homosexuality have spoken against the bill (they say it goes too far) and have resisted being grouped with “extremists.” But it’s only a difference in degree. Anti-gay groups may not be calling for gays to be murdered, but Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren and members of groups like Exodus International (Scott Lively, Caleb Lee Brundidge, Don Schmiere) have been instrumental in bringing virulently anti-gay forms of Christianity to Africa, and have been loath to criticize the Ugandan “kill gays” bill.

The underlying assumption to their defense is that a difference exists between anti-gay bigotry and “principled opposition to homosexuality.” But there is no such thing as principled opposition to homosexuality: It is always an axiomatic assumption — a fiat – which is why it’s so tough to argue with those with anti-gay attitudes.

Despite pseudo-scientific claims that homosexuality is medically and psychologically harmful, major medical and psychological organizations have all condemned these propositions. Homosexuality has never been shown to be a threat to society. Without any concrete evidence, anti-gay activists are left with only the veil of religion to cloak their prejudice.

It has always struck me that both anti-gay and anti-choice activism are premised on a contradiction. If abortion really is murder, why does the anti-abortion movement condemn the murder of Dr. George Tiller? In the same way, if homosexuality really is bad for society and those involved, and if it’s deeply immoral like pedophilia (anti-gay activists love to make this comparison), why shouldn’t it be criminalized? If it’s a threat to society and children, why don’t we imprison people who have gay sex? When most of society agreed with our “principled” opponents, we did.

But thankfully our understanding of the science and psychology of sexuality — along with our social mores — have evolved to the point where society won’t brook anti-gay activists calling for homosexuality to be criminalized. So while they hold the same retrograde views as their Ugandan counterparts, they are restrained from putting their prejudice into action.

Cross-posted at TAPPED

LaBarbera Award: Cliff Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid

January 5th, 2010

Cliff Kincaid is not, to my knowledge, a relative. But he is the editor of Accuracy in Media, a watchdog group that “critiques botched and bungled news stories and sets the record straight on important issues that have received slanted coverage.” What that means is that anything that isn’t presented from the perspective of an ultra-conservative worldview is denounced and “corrected”.

Cliff is not one to mince words. He is bold, he is strong, and at times so extremist that he makes good comedy.

Take, for example, this “un-slanted” description of the Stonewall Riots.

What they did was attack the police when officers conducted a lawful raid.

The police raided the bar because it was operated by the Mafia and illegally serving alcohol. It was a “Mafia-run, Christopher St. bar,” noted the New York Daily News. This information is easily ascertained through a basic Google search.

But Obama and his homosexual backers in and out of the media want to perpetuate the myth that Stonewall is a symbol of an unprovoked police attack on homosexuals, not a symbol of a sleazy lifestyle.

Hmmm. No slant there.

Or consider the bias he observed in the 2004 media coverage over the failed attempt to pass a federal amendment to the US Constitution to bar gay couples from obtaining equal protection under the law:

A supporter of the proposal says, “A two-thirds vote is a difficult margin to achieve in the current Senate on anything even remotely controversial.” But if and when it goes down to defeat, the outcome should be attributed at least in part to a vicious and nasty “outing” campaign against closeted gays in the House and Senate, including members and staffers.

The Washington Post ran a matter-of-fact story about this campaign, never once using the terms “bribery” or “blackmail.”

As the LaBarbera Award is given for the most outrageous, offensive, malevelent, crazy or excessive statement or claim, Cliff’s comedic rants should have long since earned him recognition. Bizarre statements about how gay Republicans (included elected officials) might be “a Democratic Party dirty trick” or that George W. Bush was a pseudo-socialist.

But it is not the wacky or the laughable that has earned Cliff Kincaid our attention. Rather it is a claim that is shocking in both its irrationality and in its callousness.

Cliff has been for months now waging a mostly-ineffective war of smear, accusation, and insinuation on Kevin Jennings, the gay Department of Education official currently being targeted by the right wing. Cliff has been stating the litany of accusations (most proven false) and ranting and wailing when main stream media doesn’t run with his conspiracy theories or claims of guilt by association by association.

But now he has crossed the pale.

Today in an article titled, NAMBLA-gate: The Strange Case of Kevin Jennings, Part One, Cliff concocts a reason why he thinks that no one is giving any attention to his efforts to connect Kevin Jennings to NAMBLA by means of mention of admiration for Harry Hay: too much attention is given to the Anti-Homosexuality bill in Uganda.

But the controversy over Jennings, which had been growing since his appointment in May, has been skillfully deflected by some journalists and commentators who have been attacking the government of Uganda for considering a law that would toughen laws against homosexual behavior that threatens public health and children. “Uganda wants to execute people for being gay,” lesbian commentator Rachel Maddow asserted on her MSNBC program on December 2. She called it the “kill-the-gays bill” and demanded that Christians in the U.S. denounce it.

Jumping on the story, the New York Times has claimed the bill would “impose a death sentence for homosexual behavior.”

These claims are flat-out disinformation.

Dr. Scott Lively, who visited Uganda in March of 2009 to encourage efforts to protect traditional family values, says the proposed death penalty in the bill, just one of many provisions, is for “aggravated homosexuality,” which is actually pederasty, pedophilia, homosexual parent/child incest, homosexual abuse of a disabled ward, and knowingly spreading AIDS. Dr. Lively is the author of The Pink Swastika and the president of Abiding Truth Ministries.

You’d think that someone interested in correcting slant and bias would bother to read the bill. Either Cliff Kincaid couldn’t be bothered or he has no regard for accuracy. Yes the death penalty is but one provision but it targets more than he claims. It also sends a “repeat offender”, so broadly defined as to include anyone who has had a relationship with more than one person or who had sex with the same person more than once, to death by hanging.

So yes, the provisions included in this bill would be a death sentence for virtually every gay man or woman were this the law in the Western World.

But not content to broadcast flat lies about the Ugandan bill, Cliff Kincaid makes an arrogant assertion that is staggering in its presumptions and callous disregard for life.

It would appear that the purpose of the orchestrated controversy over the proposed law in Uganda is to divert attention from the real scandal involving Obama Education Department official Kevin Jennings and his praise for the founder of the modern gay rights movement, Harry Hay, a supporter of adult-child sex.

No. Our efforts to stop gay men and women from being slaughtered in Uganda are not in response to Cliff Kincaid’s attacks on Kevin Jennings. Indeed, Box Turtle Bulletin has been following the Uganda situation since before Jennings was appointed or his slur campaign began.

The Jennings stories have no legs because they a weakly constructed weapons in a Culture War and the public, saturated by radical extremism, sees through them. The Uganda story, on the other hand, is a reporting of true evil. And unlike Cliff Kincaid, decent people are less concerned about contrived baseless controversies than they are about an attempt to scapegoat a subset of the population and threaten them with death.

Exodus Board Members Plays The “Dupe” In Uganda

This commentary is the opinion of the author, and does not necessarily reflect those of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin.

Jim Burroway

January 3rd, 2010

The New York Times has finally taken notice of the anti-gay pogrom that has been brewing in Uganda for nearly a year now. In Monday morning’s edition, Jeffrey Gettleman provides a brief overview of events over the past year that has led up to Uganda’s current attempt to legislate gay people out of existence, beginning with that infamous anti-homosexuality conference put on last March by three American anti-gay activists:

The three Americans who spoke at the conference — Scott Lively, a missionary who has written several books against homosexuality, including “7 Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child”; Caleb Lee Brundidge, a self-described former gay man who leads “healing seminars”; and Don Schmierer, a board member of Exodus International, whose mission is “mobilizing the body of Christ to minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality” — are now trying to distance themselves from the bill.

“I feel duped,” Mr. Schmierer said, arguing that he had been invited to speak on “parenting skills” for families with gay children. He acknowledged telling audiences how homosexuals could be converted into heterosexuals, but he said he had no idea some Ugandans were contemplating the death penalty for homosexuality.

“That’s horrible, absolutely horrible,” he said. “Some of the nicest people I have ever met are gay people.”

What Schmierer has yet to acknowledge is that he had every opportunity not to be “duped,” as he put it. BTB’s Timothy Kincaid sent a warning via Exodus International president Alan Chambers before the conference took place, explaining exactly what he was getting into. Chambers either didn’t pass the warning on to Schmierer, or Schmierer chose to ignore it. The aggravating thing is that this could have been avoided — or, at the very least Exodus International’s implicit participation in the conference.

And of course, let’s not forget Exodus’s first attempt at “fixing” the problem they created — their hamfisted attempt to put a positive spin on Schmierer’s talk by “applauding” his being there.

Schmierer’s behavior in all of this is beyond appalling. He has yet to man up to his responsibility for his actions. Instead, his only public response has been to behave as a befuddled grandfather wondering what the fuss is all about. Charming in some quarters I’m sure, but of absolutely no use whatsoever to the people of Uganda who now stand to fear the midnight knock on the door  — and possibly even the gallows. We’ve already seen arrests and blackmail, as well as  accusations of homosexuality used as a political and sectarian weapon this year. This Times article provides further illustration of what people in Uganda have gone through:

Human rights advocates in Uganda say the visit by the three Americans helped set in motion what could be a very dangerous cycle. Gay Ugandans already describe a world of beatings, blackmail, death threats like “Die Sodomite!” scrawled on their homes, constant harassment and even so-called correctional rape.

“Now we really have to go undercover,” said Stosh Mugisha, a gay rights activist who said she was pinned down in a guava orchard and raped by a farmhand who wanted to cure her of her attraction to girls. She said that she was impregnated and infected with H.I.V., but that her grandmother’s reaction was simply, “ ‘You are too stubborn.’ ”

…“What these people have done is set the fire they can’t quench,” said the Rev. Kapya Kaoma, a Zambian who went undercover for six months to chronicle the relationship between the African anti-homosexual movement and American evangelicals.

Mr. Kaoma was at the conference and said that the three Americans “underestimated the homophobia in Uganda” and “what it means to Africans when you speak about a certain group trying to destroy their children and their families.”

“When you speak like that,” he said, “Africans will fight to the death.”

This, of course, is nothing compared to what we will see should the Anti-Homosexuality Bill become law.

If Shmierer feels “duped,” then he needs to put a stop to his helplessness act and behave like a responsible adult. He has no problem traveling extensively around the world when it suits his purposes. This might be a good time for him to return to Uganda, to go on radio and television and talk to newspaper reporters — to try to fix what he helped break. He’s a world traveler, and he’s been to Uganda before; he knows the way.

But since the Exodus gang has no track record whatsoever in accepting responsibility for any of their actions, I predict that Schmierer, Chambers and the rest of Exodus will sit on their hands and pretend that nothing’s wrong. They’ll point to their solitary letter which got no play whatsoever in Ugandan media, and pretend that this small act was sufficient.

Having said that, I keep hoping that someday someone over there will seize the opportunity to prove me wrong. Sure, they’ll grumble about how mean we “militant homosexual activists”  are. (That’s Exodus vice-president Randy Thomas new euphemism for this blog.) But their own engagement in the culture war blinds them from seeing the win-win two-fer that’s before them: they can take the bold steps necessary to correct their egregious mistakes and simultaneously make all of us “militant homosexual activists” look like idiots. All in one fell swoop.

But since they’ve been so entirely predictable, I’ll stick with my prediction. Schimierer will continue with his helplessness act, Chambers will pretend that his letter is enough, and Exodus will go on its merry way and pretend that nothing went wrong on their watch.

The ball is in their court to prove me wrong. I’ll even sweeten the pot: if they can prove me wrong, I’ll wear a dunce hat, publicly proclaim how wrong I was, and issue an apology of my own. Because I’m a man who stands behind my principles.

Click here to see BTB’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Heterosexual Menace: Father forces sex on son

Timothy Kincaid

December 22nd, 2009

An Australian father decided that his son was too gay and that he was going to indocrinate him into heterosexuality:

During a family barbecue around Christmas time in 2007, the dad allegedly phoned a prostitute and arranged to meet her at a motel on Yaamba Road, North Rockhampton.

The father drove his son to the motel and paid the prostitute in $50 notes.

The prostitute took the boy into a motel room while the father waited on a balcony.

The dad walked in and out of the room to check on his son and told him he wanted to see a used condom as proof that they’d had sex.

It seems like the cure didn’t exactly fix Dad’s suspicions, because later he called the police with suspicion that the boy was abusing his younger brother.

The police were not impressed with Dad’s home remedy. He’s on trial for rape.

There’s more heterosexual shenanigans here and in our report, “The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing the Myths.”

Carrie Sans-jean

This commentary is the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect those of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin.

Gabriel Arana

November 17th, 2009

I dislike Carrie Prejean as much as anyone. She’s stupid, bratty, and immature. I want to throw a pie in her face. But the response to her CNN interview and her comment in Christianity Today — “I don’t see anywhere in the Bible where it says you shouldn’t get breast implants” – has me questioning the tone of the  attacks from the gay community (and liberal folks).

Many gays call her a “slut” because of the sex tapes she made, the pictures, and her boob job. But should we? At the heart of the “slut”-bomb we keep dropping on Carrie is the assumption that women should be pure, that having too many sex partners makes you a skank and that all this behavior makes her bad. But I don’t think that. I don’t think sex outside of marriage is wrong, or that sex with many people — even at the same time! — is wrong. I might not personally videotape myself in sexual poses or take racy pictures (maybe I just need some confidence?), but I see these things as natural expressions of sexuality. She’s a bad person because she’s a bigoted fame-monger, not because she rubbed herself the wrong way.

You might say it’s about hypocrisy, but if so, let’s call her a hypocrite.

This brings me to another point: Carrie’s right when she says the Bible doesn’t say you can’t get implants. Despite being a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, I’ve often wondered why being Christian means, for some, that you repress sexual desire and abandon all concern for your appearance. Technical terms: vanity, lust. Carrie’s certainly a hypocrite when it comes to the Christian values of people she’s representing, but aren’t there there are versions of Christianity that make room for you to be human?.

Sunday Driver: New York to DC and Back Again

Gabriel Arana

November 15th, 2009

GLAAD Asks ‘South Park’ To Dumb Down Show

This commentary is the opinion of the author and may not reflect the opinions of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin

Daniel Gonzales

November 9th, 2009

Here’s a clip from last week’s South Park, titled “The F Word,” in which the boys attempted to redefine the word “fag” to mean inconsiderately loud and attention seeking motorcycle riders:

Fans of South Park, including myself, often view the show as one of TV’s most intelligent outlets for artistic cultural commentary.  “The F Word” episode was no exception as it examined the power of the word “fag,” its constantly changing definition throughout history, and lastly the ability of a community to reclaim an insult into a badge of honor and identity.

GLAAD sees things differently and issued a Call To Acton.  Poor GLAAD couldn’t even bring themselves to using the word “fag” in their Call To Action:

The creators of South Park are right on one important point: more and more people are using the F-word as an all-purpose insult. However, it is irresponsible and wrong to suggest that it is a benign insult or that promoting its use has no consequences for those who are the targets of anti-gay bullying and violence. This is a slur whose meaning remains rooted in homophobia. And while many South Park viewers will understand the sophisticated satire and critique in last night’s episode, others won’t [emphasis added] – and if even a small number of those take from this a message that using the “F-word” is OK, it worsens the hostile climate that many in our community continue to face.

Let me establish my credibility as a creative professional;  I’m a licensed architect, I create films and interviews for my gay activism, and I’m a paid blogger for a community events group in Denver.  There are a variety of ways to criticize creative works, some of which are stronger than others.  Here’s how I see things…

Examples of valid and strong criticisms:

• The theme of your work is offensive to gay people
• Your work exploits gay people
• Your work presents ugly stereotypes as truth
• Your work is uninteresting or uncompelling
• Your work failed to make its point
• Your work is unoriginal

Examples of weak criticisms:

• Stupid people won’t understand your work
• You didn’t fit our talking points into your work
• You didn’t articulate your work’s message the way we wanted

It’s like saying contemporary art superstar Damien Hurst shouldn’t create works of art like the image below because someone might not understand the piece and think it’s OK to go out and spear an animal dozens of times with arrows.

The only thing I find offensive about “The F Word” is GLAAD asking other creative professionals to cater to the lowest common denominator in their audience because someone, somewhere might not understand it.  The weak and invalid argument GLAAD presents would dumb-down America’s great cultural landscape for all of us.

The full episode can be viewed on South Park’s website until Wednesday night when the next new episode airs.

Maine, Gay Rights, and Religion: Can Gay Rights Groups Overcome Their Achilles Heel?

Guest Commentary

Justin Lee

November 4th, 2009

[Justin Lee is Executive Director of The Gay Christian Network, an interdenominational nonprofit organization serving LGBT Christians and changing attitudes in the church. The opinions expressed in this article are solely his own.]

Last night, gay marriage advocates suffered yet another defeat in Maine, in spite of tremendous efforts and optimism.

Today, many of them are asking, “What went wrong?”

The legislature had already passed a bill allowing same-sex marriage, and the governor campaigned in favor of it. Gay marriage supporters, motivated by last year’s defeat in California, had outspent their opponents and worked hard to get out the vote and keep the message positive. Voter turnout was higher than expected, and everyone was optimistic.

So why, in a progressive state like Maine, in a country that so values civil rights, in a world where gay people are highly visible in the media and daily life–why did people turn out in droves to vote against what so many in our community see as a basic civil right?And why have they done so every other time it’s been on the ballot, in 30 other states across the nation?

There’s no single answer, but the simplest one can be summed up in one word: religion.

Religious organizations have poured millions of dollars into campaigns against same-sex marriage. Pastors preach against it every Sunday in churches across America. Ask people who oppose gay marriage why they do so, and you will regularly hear religious arguments and Bible quotes. In the aftermath of Prop 8 in California, much was made of the apparent racial divide in how people voted, but more telling was the impact of the Mormon Church and other religious groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council. Already, pundits are noting that 37% of Maine’s population is Roman Catholic, a statistic that likely influenced the outcome.

Frankly, anti-gay religious beliefs are the number one obstacle to almost every measure gay rights groups tackle. The single skill that could turn the tables in their favor is the ability to effectively reach people of faith.

So why are so many gay rights groups so shockingly ineffective on matters of faith?

Part of the problem is that many of us in the LGBT community have been so beaten down by religion that we now want nothing to do with it. Worse, some of us have come to see religious faith itself as the enemy.

But even if you have no faith of your own, if you think you’re going to take on American organized religion and win, you’re dead wrong. The vast majority of Americans believe in God, most subscribing to some version of the Christian faith. For many of them, their faith is deeply ingrained and a major influence in their lives. If we allow any issue to be set up as a contest between people’s faith and fair treatment of LGBT people, then we’ve lost already.

The Human Rights Campaign recognized this in 2005 when they created a “Religion and Faith Program” following crushing defeats in 11 state constitutional-amendment battles. Other LGBT groups have also reached out to faith communities in recent years. But it’s not enough. For real change to happen, there are four things the LGBT community must do.

1. Engage people of faith.
Anti-LGBT faith leaders want us to think this is a contest between faith and us. Don’t believe them. There are plenty of devoutly religious Americans who support the LGBT community, and we need to engage them and make sure they’re part of the discussion. Avoiding the subject only hurts us.

And it’s not just our supporters we need to engage, either. We must reach out to those who disagree with us. Remember Stephen Covey’s aphorism, “Seek first to understand, then to be understood”? Even those who condemn gay relationships as sinful may still find common ground with us on civil issues if we take the time to understand them and help them understand us.

I should know. I grew up Southern Baptist, came out of the closet, and have spent over a decade building bridges with conservative evangelical Christians, a group many of my LGBT peers have written off as a “lost cause.” The truth is, they’re not homophobic monsters. There are many good, intelligent people in even the most conservative faith groups, and interacting with LGBT people is the only way they’ll grow to understand us.

In his 1993 book A Place at the Table, gay author Bruce Bawer wrote of some gay activists, “They think that their enemy is conscious oppression and that their salvation lies in the amassing of power, when in fact their enemy is ignorance and their salvation lies in increased understanding.” Sixteen years later, the observation is just as true.

2. Think beyond politics.
Yes, some LGBT rights groups are already reaching out to supportive faith communities as part of their overall strategy. But it’s not good enough to simply start with a political goal (say, a piece of legislation) and then shoehorn the faith community in. Those of us in the faith community are good for a lot more than just helping get out the vote.

Think for a moment: If the LGBT community truly has an “agenda,” isn’t it really for current and future generations of LGBT people to be treated fairly, able to live as we see fit, without fear of harassment, violence, and discrimination? That’s a big goal, and achieving it will take more than political action.

To be sure, legislation is an important part of changing the future for the better. But no bill or ballot initiative can eliminate homophobia, hate, or prejudice. Increasing the penalties for hate crimes won’t stop them if churches are preaching hate. And federal marriage rights won’t stop a gay kid from being pressured into a loveless straight marriage by his parents or church.

If we want to make the world a safe place for the next generation, we must do more than change the laws. We must change the culture. So instead of thinking of people of faith as just another voting pool, we need to think about all the ways that faith impacts culture, and how supportive people of faith can help make those changes. Because even if your goals are exclusively political, it’s worth noting that culture shapes the political landscape in big ways.

3. Listen to faith leaders.
As executive director of an LGBT-supportive Christian nonprofit, I’m often in contact with supportive faith leaders from across the country. Over and over again, I’ve heard stories from faith leaders who want to make a positive difference for the LGBT community but feel that their input or support somehow isn’t valued by leaders in the broader movement. But if anti-LGBT religious beliefs are one of the biggest obstacles we face, shouldn’t these supportive faith leaders be some of our top advisors?

Too often, we treat faith leaders as pawns in a political chess game, bringing them out for a photo opportunity or asking them to sign a letter in support of a cause. They are capable of so much more. They have insights into how people within their faith group think, and they could help us build strategies to reach those people. In some cases, they may already have strategies in place that need our help to be implemented. We just need to ask them and sincerely listen to what they have to say.

4. Tailor the message.
A politician running for office doesn’t just give the exact same speech over and over; he or she tailors it to the audience. A union representing blue collar workers in the deep South has different concerns from a group of wealthy business leaders in Los Angeles.

The same holds true for people of faith. Different faiths, denominations, and sects have different beliefs and different concerns. Reaching each of them requires learning to understand them and speak their language.

A common mistake many LGBT groups make is to simply put together an interfaith “panel” of leaders to represent many different faith traditions, then have them give a joint statement of some sort and think they’ve reached the faith community. But this approach is most likely to appeal to those who already supported the cause in the first place, not to win new converts.

Instead, it’s important to work within different faith traditions individually. A devout Mormon needs to hear from other devout Mormons, not from a Catholic priest. Even within the same faith, people care much more what leaders in their particular sect have to say; not all rabbis are equally influential with all Jews, for instance. This is why it’s so important to work directly with many different people of faith, because each can change minds that others can’t.

Yes, the world is changing. And we can build a brighter future for the next generation. But among other things, it’s going to take a more deliberate effort by the LGBT community to reach people of faith.

Heterosexual Menace: Child Raping Couple Send Kiddie Porn To Child Molester Suspect

Jim Burroway

October 29th, 2009

This one boggles the mind:

A Kent man and his estranged wife have been arrested after authorities say they filmed themselves raping a 4-year-old girl and sending photos of the abuse to a man facing child-molestation charges in Southern California.

Brian Beston, 36, and ex-wife Hollie Beston, 31, of Burien, were arrested by Seattle police last week after the FBI learned of the couple from a child-molestation suspect in Southern California, said charging documents filed Wednesday in King County Superior Court. The California man, 38-year-old Richard Hockaday, told federal investigators that he met the Bestons over Craigslist.

There’s more heterosexual shenanigans here and in our report, “The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing the Myths.”

The Maine Message

This commentary is the opinion of the author and may not reflect the opinions of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin

Jim Burroway

October 29th, 2009

Stand For Marriage Maine’s “positive” feel-good approach didn’t last long. They have a new ad out:

Notice how it’s loaded with all the bad stuff that you care about – out of state militant activists corrupting your values, gay teachers pushing their agenda on your children, militant gay activists in your schools and even your daycare centers. “IT’S ALREADY HAPPENED HERE! DON’T BE FOOLED!”

Here’s Protect Maine Equality’s response:

 

In a nutshell: please help someone else.

I’ve expressed some concerns about Maine’s pro-marriage messaging and I’ve taken some flack for it. But this example crystallizes my concerns perfectly. 

Frank Schubert, who is running the Stand for Marriage Maine campaign has recognized something that is very fundamental in all politics. Former U.S. House Speaker Tip O’Niel famously said that all politics are local. Schubert recognized that politics aren’t just local, but personal. It hinges on the question, “How will this affect me?” Karen Ocamb’s brilliant analysis of the California campaign which Schubert ran, which should be mandatory reading for everyone, describes very carefully how Schubert came to this conclusion:

During the Prop 8 Case Study workshop, Schubert said he, Flint and their team spent hours “looking at where people were and what we needed to do to reach them.”

What they found was that most Californians were very tolerant of same sex relationships. Schubert said:

“They didn’t see how gay marriage effected them, per se. It wasn’t their issue. It wasn’t something they cared to think about. It wasn’t something they wanted to talk about. It was an uncomfortable subject generally for them event to get their arms around.”

If we really want to win these battles, we need to begin with an understanding of this important truth:

Nobody Cares About Same-Sex Marriage

Oh, sure, people care about it. Everyone has an opinion about same-sex marriage. But nobody cares about in the sense that it is something that just doesn’t affect them.

Sure, virtually everyone who is gay and out cares. That’s about 4% of the population, and maybe not even that much in Maine. And the anti-gay religious right cares about it also, for whatever personal stake they’ve managed to take in it. That’s a much higher percentage, but it’s not even close to being a majority.

For everyone else, same-sex marriage is just not on their radar. And if they do care, it doesn’t rise to the level of other things they care about more and are willing to invest more of their attention to: education, taxes, health insurance, the economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are the things people care about and are willing to invest their own personal attention and energy to. They care enough to learn more about these things because one way or another, they all touch on them personally. As Schubert’s research revealed:

“At the end of the day, people vote on issues based on how they think it will impact them and their families. We spent a great deal of time trying to understand what impacts could we develop that would work. Communication has to be aimed at and appeal to those self interests of the electorate.” [Emphases mine]

And people don’t see how same-sex marriage will impact them and their families — especially not enough to pay attention to the issue and go out and vote in an off-year election on someone else’s problem. This, by the way, is just as much a problem for the “Yes” side as it is for the “No” side. So how do you fix it?

Change the topic from something nobody personally cares about to something everyone cares about.

That’s right. In California (and in Maine), it meant taking an election about something nobody cares about (gays being allowed to marry) and making it about something that everyone cares about (for example, education). Again, Karen quotes Schubert with the a-ha moment:

“What the research showed was that we could not win by simply affirming traditional marriage. People said, ‘Yeah, OK – but what’s the problem here. How does this impact me?’…. This forced acceptance [by the court] that gay marriage was now mandatory was a big deal – the consequences – specifically regarding religious freedom, religious expression and teaching of gay marriage in schools – and the education consequences become the most powerful in the course of the campaign.

We bet the campaign on consequences – especially on education. Education from the beginning – while it was one of three consequences – it was the one that was the most emotionally charged and the most powerful. And I remember testing an ad in focus groups in Southern California….[One ad was} with the Wirthlin couple from Massachusetts. She’s telling the story of her son Joey - about he’s being taught how a prince can marry another prince – and he’s in second grade.

There's an African American gentleman in this group watching the ad [who] just shakes his head. So I [told the researcher to] ask him what he meant. And the guy says, ‘I’ll tell you what, if that happened to me – I would be pissed.’

And that was the moment that we decided that the campaign would rely on education.”

You could argue, then, that California’s Prop 8 wasn’t about same-sex marriage, but about education. And it worked. People don’t care personally one way or another about same-sex marriage, but everyone cares deeply about education. And so Schubert made it about education; education is what people discussed and debated, and on election day people voted about education because that was what the election came to be about because it is what they personally cared about.

And it should come as no surprise that Stand for Marriage Maine is working precisely the same strategy in Maine. They are making the election about education, a subject that everyone cares about.

Protect Maine Equality running a masterful grass-roots effort and one of the best get-out-the-vote campaings I’ve ever seen. Their success in earned media (op-eds, television and press coverage) has been outstanding. As of Monday, they are also enjoying a lead in the polls (Update: But this new poll shows them at a dead heat). There is so much that they’re getting exactly right, and win or lose, they have a lot to teach other campaigns. 

But in their messaging, they are responding by trying to get people to care about something that fundamentally doesn’t affect them one way or another. That worries me in the closing days of the campaign. I really hope they know what they’re doing.

CNN “A ‘Congressional Spouse’ Breaks Barriers”

Daniel Gonzales

October 26th, 2009

(crossposted on ELEMENT, a Denver gay blog I’m paid to write for)

A few days ago I read an article on CNN.com about what life is like for Jared Polis (D-Boulder) and his partner in Congress. Polis’ spouse writes:

Rarely has anyone seen me for what I actually am. I don my “Congressional Spouse” lapel pin proudly and hope each time not to be questioned, yet I still receive sideways glances and orders to produce an official ID. It is as if my story is too unbelievable to be true, that I am an interloper, someone in a place I do not belong.

I believe the focus of the article is supposed to be about brave dear Polis is for shrugging off dirty looks and overcoming stereotypes. Yet, time after time the article mentions a spousal privilege that Polis should be denied because the Federal Defense of Marriage Act and how special exceptions have been made.

The stench of elitist privilege overwhelmed me by the end of this obnoxious article thinking about all the hassles “ordinary” gays get from their government every single day and how that same government pulls aside the velvet rope for Polis.

I don’t see how we can expect leaders, who aren’t subject to the same laws as the employees in their district, to be motivated to change them in a timely fashion.

LaBarbera Award: The Archbishop of Guam

Jim Burroway

October 23rd, 2009

Recently the Guam legislature introduced legislation that would create same-sex domestic partnerships. That move prompted this response from the Archdiocese of Agana (Guam) (PDF: 261KB/3 pages):

The culture of homosexuality is a culture of self-absorption because it does not value self·sacrifice. It is a glaring example of what John Paul II has called the culture of death. Islamic fundamentalists clearly understand the damage that homosexual behavior inflicts on a culture. That is why they repress such behavior by death. Their culture is anything but one of self-absorption. It may be brutal at times, but any culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers (women as well as men) is a culture that at least knows how to value self-sacrifice. Terrorism as a way to oppose the degeneration of the culture is to be rejected completely since such violence is itself another form of degeneracy. One, however. does not have to agree with the gruesome ways that the fundamentalists use to curb the forces that undermine their culture to admit that the Islamic fundamentalist charge that Western Civilization in general and the U.S.A. in particular is the “Great Satan” is not without an element of truth. It makes no sense for the U. S. Government to send our boys to fight AI Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, while at the same time it embraces the social policies embodied in Bill1SS (as President Obama has done). Such policies only furnish further arguments for the fundamentalists in their efforts to gain more recruits for the war against the “Great Satan.”

[Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan]

Does Exodus Support Criminalizing Homosexuality?

Jim Burroway

October 16th, 2009

Scores of Human Rights activists around the world have publicly denounced Uganda’s proposed anti-homosexuality bill which, in addition to lifetime imprisonment for those convicted of homosexuality, adds the death penalty for those who are HIV-positive. It also criminalizes all advocacy on behalf of LGBT citizens in Uganda, and contains an extra-territorial clause which extends the long arm of Ugandan “justice” to LGBT Ugandans abroad. Reading the text of the bill, it’s hard to imagine anyone crafting a worse piece of legislation.

The three Americans who kicked off this latest spasm of anti-gay hostility have really outdone themselves. This whole thing started last March when Exodus board member Don Schmierer, Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, and Caleb Lee Brundidge of Richard Cohen’s International Healing Foundation conducted a three-day anti-gay conference in Uganda. Schmierer was there as the “ex-gay expert.” The result of that conference was the initiation of an anti-gay task force calling for strengthening Uganda’s already draconian anti-homosexuality laws. It also unleashed a wave of anti-gay vigilantism which led to arrests, torture, blackmail and ruined careers. According to Sexual Minorities Uganda, it has also led to several deaths, including the death of Brian Pande at Mbale Hospital as he awaited trial. And it has led to where we are today, with Parliament Wednesday giving first reading to this new proposal to effectively ban all freedoms — even the freedom to exist — for LGBT people and those who would support them and provide safe haven.

While human rights activists around the world have been quick to raise their voices for the defenseless, one might ask where’s Exodus in all this? Early signs indicate that you needn’t bother looking. Exodus Vice President Randy Thomas left a comment on Warren Throckmorton’s blog in which, speaking strictly for himself and not on behalf of Exodus, he condemned the proposed bill. It’s interesting that he can only say this speaking strictly for himself. Would Exodus be willing to say the same thing officially? Will they try to tamp down the wildfire their own board member helped to ignite? Thomas says don’t count on it:

Not sure that a statement from Exodus will happen. As for the past, Don never needed our permission to spend his own money to attend a non-Exodus conference to talk about topics from his books. He is one of the most caring people I have ever met and am glad those folks had a kind person to minister to them. That said I’ll be praying for doors to open for ways to try and speak love and redemption into what is obviously a very hostile environment.

This is a cop out. They knew about the conference long before it took place, when it was still possible to do something about it. And since then, they’ve tried every way they knew how to wash their hands of their board member’s handiwork. And they’ve refused to address the situation in Uganda where it really matters — in Uganda. This isn’t beyond their facility to do so. Uganda media has telephones, fax machines and email just like everyone else, and Don Schmierer has contacts over there. Exodus is not helpless or without resources.

And Exodus leaders certainly aren’t incapable of raising their voice when they want to. Anyone following Exodus International knows that this is not a shy outfit. We know well that they are very eager to have their voices heard on issues they really care about. They quickly went on record as being “troubled” by the ELCA’s vote to affirm same-sex relationships. On something like that they have no problem whatsoever finding their voice, loud and clear. Obviously, the decisions of a church to minister to those who are comfortable with their same-sex attractions — a decision which has no impact to conversion therapy or ministry to those who are “struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions” — is something that Exodus nevertheless cares deeply about.

But ask them to take responsibility for their own handiwork in Uganda, and we get unofficial excuses, denials, and crocodile tears. But no official statement, even though, according to Sexual Minorities Uganda, Exodus already has blood on its hands. And Exodus may well end up with more blood on their hands when the first HIV-positive gay person is executed by the Ugandan government.

Does Exodus Support Criminalizing Homosexuality?
Exodus’ silence is puzzling. But as disturbing as this silence is, it is in keeping with Exodus’ pattern of saying one thing to one audience and saying something else (or keeping silent) for another audience. And we see this whenever the subject of criminalizing homosexuality comes up.

For example, Alan Chambers told the American publication The Christian Post that Exodus doesn’t support Uganda’s policy of criminalizing homosexuality. He added that “neither Schmierer nor the ministry agrees or endorses Uganda’s criminalization of homosexuality law, imprisonment of homosexuals or compulsory therapy.”

That’s great as far as it goes. But this statement appeared in one specific forum to one specific audience concerning one specific set of circumstances. Uganda’s current law, which provides for lifetime imprisonment for those convicted of homosexuality, ought to be an easy law to denounce. So good on them for doing so. But they did it to that limited American Evangelical audience only, addressing only this particular set of circumstances. There was no attempt to make their position known to leaders in Uganda, not even to the evangelical Ugandan leaders who hosted the conference where the three Americans spoke. That’s where the message counts, not on the pages of the Christian Post.

So what if someone who hadn’t seen the Christian Post article wanted to know if Exodus supports criminalizing homosexuality? One would hope that the simple answer is no. And to find that simple answer, a natural place to look might be on Exodus’ own web site. But it turns out that the answer is not that simple, and perhaps not that “no” we were hoping for. It turns out that when one searches Exodus’ web site, one is left with the distinct impression that Exodus actually supports criminalization — at least as it existed in the U.S. before the Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas.

I have found only two statements on the Exodus web site related to criminalizing homosexuality, and both are reactions to the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision. In this “News Media Highlights,” Randy Thomas posted excerpts from “one who believes sodomy to be a sin and is directed to people who share that belief.” Thomas quotes the reaction of that unnamed writer with no further comment:

If the Supreme Court does repeal these laws, it will rob citizens, of all beliefs, the opportunity to enter their voice into the public record over this issue. Yet on the same hand it is this writers conviction that sodomy laws work against our redemptive witness.

So clearly that unnamed writer that Thomas quoted was against the Lawrence v. Texas ruling. But what about Exodus themselves? The only other statement I could find, this one quoting Alan Chambers, is equally negative:

As a result of today’s ruling, young people will be led into further confusion. Alan chambers [sic] states, “Our young people are not going to grow up under the same teachings about morality that we did. The school books will simply state that homosexuality was legitimized by the Supreme Court on June 26, 2003. We are risking the moral upbringing of all the generations to come. …”

Unfortunately, the political pendulum could swing harshly the other way. Americans of all conservative faiths are facing a serious problem; now that this decision damages the traditional view of sexuality and relationships, progay initiatives across the country will gain momentum. People of faith could potentially experience marginalization if we do not implement loving concern and active civic involvement.

Why won’t Exodus Speak Up Where It Matters Most?
So the question remains: What is Exodus International’s position on the criminalization of LGBT people? And if their position is any different from these two examples posted on their official web site – as Alan Chambers implied in the Christian Post — then why can’t they just say so on their own web site?

And more pressing, why can’t they raise their voice in Uganda? They ought to be able to do that pretty easily. After all, their own board member has some pretty powerful contacts over there.

One possible explanation for Exodus’ silence — and if this is true, then it means that they are far more petty than anyone can imagine — is that they don’t want to be seen as caving to “gay-identified activists.” But look at what’s happening. This isn’t some comparatively petty culture war over employment non-discrimination legislation or Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. We’re talking about a very real and imminent matter of life and death in Uganda. At some point, if Exodus had an ounce of integrity or a smidgen of conscience, they would have to see that it’s time to suck it up, drop the defensive ego trip, screw whatever the “gay-identified activists” might say and do what they know in their hearts what needs to be done to try to fix what Schmierer helped break.

But so far — and you don’t know how eager I am to be proven wrong in this! — it looks like they have neither the integrity nor conscience. Their silence — or their actions; it’s their choice — will tell us everything we need to know about their character. Everything.

Click here to see BTB’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.