Box Turtle Bulletin

An Anthropologist Critiques Focus on the Family’s “Anthropological” Report on Marriage

Editor’s Note: The following is a guest post by Patrick M. Chapman, biological anthropologist and author of the forthcoming book, “Thou Shalt Not Love”: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays (Haiduk Press: 2008).

I was honored when Glenn Stanton, Director of Family Formation Studies at Focus on the Family, asked me to provide a critical review of his recent Focus on the Family report, “Differing definitions of marriage and family: comparing and contrasting those offered by emerging same-sex marriage advocates and classic anthropologists.” (PDF: 80KB/10 pages) I have had previous positive encounters with Mr. Stanton and appreciate his openness to professional criticism. I am also grateful that Box Turtle Bulletin offered to make our discussion public.

As indicated in the title, Stanton’s report compares and contrasts the anthropological understanding of marriage with definitions provided by various same-sex political advocates, apparently to undermine the case for same-sex marriage. I find the report significant for several, presumably unintended, reasons:

• The appeal to anthropologists as the authority in understanding marriage;
• The appreciation that marriage is primarily a social and economic institution, not a religious one;
• The acknowledgment that same-sex marriage is traditional;
• The recognition that Focus on the Family’s “one biological man with one biological woman” definition of marriage is flawed;
• The admission that gay males are capable of stable, long-term relationships.

Allow me to elaborate on these points.

Appeal to anthropological authority
It is true that the same-sex marriage advocates quoted in the report do not use anthropological definitions. However, they do not claim to be experts and do not use their definitions to restrict other people’s access to marriage. As such, I am not very concerned with their definitions, particularly because the anthropological understanding of marriage, which is based on how it is expressed cross-culturally and over time, is inclusive of same-sex marriages. This is demonstrated in that many of the quotes Stanton provides avoid specifying the biological sex of the spouses. For example, Stanton references George Peter Murdock’s 1949 definition, suggesting marriage is “between a sexually associating pair of adults.”

While Stanton highlights that many same-sex marriage advocates do not employ an anthropological understanding of marriage, he neglects to mention this is also the case for those who oppose same-sex marriage. For example, Focus on the Family’s definition of marriage is contrary to anthropological reality. Many cultures throughout the world traditionally accept same-sex marriage; opposite-sex marriages are often arranged, not based on love, and polygamous. Polygyny, one man with more than one wife, is by far the most commonly preferred form of marriage; polyandry, one woman with more than one husband, also exists. In many societies that prefer polygyny to monogamy, the wife is often viewed as the husband’s property. This helps explain why polygyny is considered immoral in Western society: it often reduces women to the level of property.

What is particularly important with Stanton’s report is the recognition that anthropologists are the experts when it comes to understanding and defining marriage. As such, it increases the importance of the American Anthropological Association’s 2004 official statement condemning marriage amendments that exclude same-sex marriages from official recognition. Anthropologists recognize that same-sex marriage is one of the many legitimate forms of marriage practiced in cultures throughout the world. Stanton’s selective application of anthropology suggests to me that he is more concerned with Focus on the Family’s political agenda than promoting an honest, accurate, and representative definition for marriage.

The non-sanctity of marriage
In his summary of how anthropologists define marriage, Stanton states they are “informed by how marriage is largely universal, transcending culture, law, religion, time and social development” (I presume he refers to technological complexity here – all societies have a high development of social complexity, although not all are technologically complex). Marriage is largely universal, “transcending” the various aspects and dimensions of culture, but it is constructed differently by different societies. The forms marriage takes are varied, ranging from monogamous to polygamous, from same-sex to opposite-sex, and from same-states of being to differing-states of being: some cultures recognize “ghost marriages” where a living individual marries a dead one. Marriage often involves sexual activity, although this is obviously by no means a requirement. Anthropologists recognize marriage is primarily a social and economic union that serves many and varied purposes, evidenced by the various quotes Stanton provides.

I find it significant that Stanton specifies marriage “transcends” religion. Although marriage is sometimes incorporated into religious traditions and practices, it is not religious in nature, evidenced by religion’s omission in the definitions provided by Stanton. Thus, arguments promoting the “sanctity of marriage,” suggesting it is a religious institution with an inherently religious quality, are not supported anthropologically. This is a refreshingly honest acknowledgment from Focus on the Family.

Same-sex marriage is traditional
In the report’s appendix Stanton highlights one form of the same-sex marriages found in many traditional African cultures. The marriages are modeled on heterosexual ones in that one of the individuals performs the tasks of the other gender, and is often recognized as being the other gender by society. This situation is a common expression of traditional same-sex marriages throughout the world. Significantly, the cultures recognize the marriages as equal, using the same term for both same-sex and opposite-sex marriages.

However, Stanton argues the same-sex marriages “are not similar in nature or spirit of same-sex families being proposed today,” primarily because of the gender transformation component. Gender transformation is often necessary because traditional societies usually sharply delineate gender roles: men perform one set of activities while women perform a separate set. Thus, in order to have a properly functioning household in a same-sex marriage, a biological male must often perform the activities of a woman, or a biological female those of a man: same-sex households mimic opposite-sex ones. However, although an individual may perform the tasks of the opposite sex, and may even be identified as the other gender by society, the individual may retain gender qualities considered to be consistent with his or her biological sex: a male performing the tasks of a woman may remain masculine in other ways, and a female performing those of a man may remain feminine.

Modern American society does not strictly delineate gender roles: it is common in opposite-sex marriages and relationships for both men and women to contribute economically, attend to the needs of the children, manage the household, and so forth. Thus, modern American same-sex marriages and relationships once again mimic opposite-sex ones. Importantly, as historian Stephanie Coontz indicates in “Marriage, a History”, there are few precedents for the modern American expression of opposite-sex marriage. Therefore, if lack of historical precedent is to be used as justification for banning same-sex marriage, as Stanton seems to imply, then modern opposite-sex marriages should also be banned. Regardless, it is refreshing to have Focus on the Family finally admit that same-sex marriage is not a new phenomenon.

Gender and children
I assume from other Focus on the Family literature that Stanton raises the argument about the gender transformation because of the belief that children need parents of different sexes to become properly socialized: a belief that is flawed for several reasons.

First, gender does not inherently correspond to biological sex. Stanton acknowledges this in his discussion of the gender transformation in some same-sex marriages. A biological male is able to perform the gender of a woman and a biological female is able to perform the gender of a man. Of relevance, the Bugis of Indonesia recognize five genders: two of which are masculine, two feminine, and one androgynous. The Bugis allow marriage between two masculine individuals, two feminine individuals, a masculine with a feminine individual, two biological males, two biological females, and a biological male with a biological female, always provided the spouses belong to different gender categories: the androgynous gender is excluded from marriage.

Second, gender expression, as opposed to gender norms, is highly varied within a society and between societies. Gender is not binary: masculinity and femininity exist on a continuum. Even in American society there are some fathers who are masculine and some who are feminine, some mothers who are feminine and some who are masculine. Thus, there is no guarantee that opposite-sex parents will express the differing gender norms, or that same-sex parents will express only one gender norm. Furthermore, cross-culturally, gender norms for males and females demonstrate tremendous variation, highlighting that men can be protectors, providers, and nurturers, as can women.

Third, a child is neither socialized by, nor learns gender from only the parents. As acknowledged in Stanton’s report, marriage is an important component of a family, but the family includes more than just parents and children: there are also grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, and sometimes even co-wives or co-husbands and their relations. In other words, families include both male and female. As such, children raised by parents in a same-sex, same-gendered marriage still have family members of different sexes and genders. Furthermore, the society at large plays a significant role in socializing a child into its gender norms. For example, any child who watches Disney movies learns the traditional American gender expectations for a male and female: a society’s gender expectations and instruction are impossible to avoid because gender is so strongly infused into society. Finally, in traditional societies that allow same-sex marriage, the couples raise children who demonstrate no social or developmental problems.

Interestingly, as demonstrated by his discussion in the appendix, Stanton effectively changes Focus on the Family’s “one biological man with one biological woman” definition of marriage to “one gendered man with one gendered woman.” However, once again this definition is not inclusive of the varied forms of marriage found cross-culturally. Regardless, I find it significant that because of the anthropological evidence, Stanton apparently recognizes that Focus on the Family’s definition of marriage is flawed.

Long-lasting relationships
In footnote 11 Stanton provides biographical information on the famous anthropologist Colin Turnbull. Turnbull, a “British-American” as Stanton calls him, had a 30-year homosexual relationship with an African-American man, both of whom died of AIDS-related complications. I find Stanton’s admission that Turnbull and his partner had a long-lasting relationship to be important because Focus on the Family often uses the supposedly “transient nature” of gay male relationships to justify banning same-sex marriage.

However, I ask of what relevance is the biographical information to Stanton’s report? The differing ethnicity of Turnbull and his partner is irrelevant: if the partner had been white or Turnbull black, I doubt Stanton would have mentioned it. That they died of AIDS-related complications is irrelevant: had Turnbull been a heterosexual who died of AIDS-related complications, I doubt this would have been mentioned. Certainly Stanton does not provide marital, racial, or death-related information for the other anthropologists he quotes. Turnbull’s sexual orientation is also not relevant. Perhaps Stanton mentions it because he incorrectly presumes that Turnbull’s argument implies the sole validity of opposite-sex marriages, and having a homosexual say this would supposedly add credence to Stanton’s unanthropological view of marriage.

However, this is not the case. Turnbull is correct in his assessment that being an adult normally includes making a living, being married, raising a family, and assuming “ritual” responsibilities that benefit society, the family, and the individual. Turnbull is also correct in stating that marriage has been an important or essential component in the continuity of societies and social orders. However, none of Turnbull’s comments indicate that only heterosexuals and opposite-sex marriage serve these purposes to the exclusion of homosexuals and same-sex marriage. So I ask again, of what relevance to the argument is Turnbull’s sexual orientation, long-term and interracial relationship, or manner of death? Regardless, I find refreshingly honest Focus on the Family’s admission that gay men are capable of having relationships lasting 30 years.

Concluding remarks
Finally, I would like to address the summary of the anthropological view of marriage provided at the start of Stanton’s report. All eight itemized points apply to both same-sex and opposite-sex marriages. Both types of marriage provide for the continuation of a people and culture. Both pair-bonds serve the good of the nuclear and extended families, and the larger community. Both focus on the rights and responsibilities of the family members. Both provide for the needs of children and adults. Both represent the complex relationships found in a community. Both are included in the near universal, yet varied expressions of marriage that transcend culture, law, religion, and time. Finally, the remaining two items on the list, which focus on the male and female components – issues related to gender, not biological sex – are as equally relevant for modern opposite-sex marriages as they are same-sex marriages.

As more cultures have been studied and data gathered, the anthropological understanding of marriage has altered over the past century, becoming more generalized and more inclusive. Drawing upon the available evidence, the American Anthropological Association condemns efforts to restrict marriage solely to opposite-sex couples.

I welcome Glenn Stanton’s report. In it Focus on the Family finally acknowledges anthropological authority in defining marriage, that “sanctity of marriage” arguments are not valid, the existence of same-sex marriages in traditional societies, that biological sex is not an important consideration in defining marriage, and that gay males are capable of long-lasting and stable relationships.

As an addendum, I call upon Focus on the Family to acknowledge they deceived their readers when they recently said anthropologists agree with the so-called “traditional definition of marriage” and issue a public apology and correction. They must honestly inform their readers that the American Anthropological Association has previously and publicly condemned attempts to exclude homosexuals from marrying, declaring that marriage, as defined cross-culturally, is inclusive of same-sex marriages. A failure to do so simply reaffirms the view that Focus on the Family is more concerned about its political agenda than its Christian identity.

See also:
Round 2: Stanton Replies to Chapman
Round 2: Chapman Replies to Stanton
Glenn T. Stanton Responds to Professor Patrick Chapman
An Anthropologist Critiques Focus on the Family’s “Anthropological” Report on Marriage

A Reason to Hate

There is no reason anyone should like billy he’s a little bitch. And a homosexual that NO ONE LIKES

That was the heading of a Facebook page called “Every One That Hates Billy Wolfe.”

The NY Times tells us that Billy “likes girls”, but that matters little to those looking for a reason to beat him. And they have beat him. Badly. And repeatedly.

So his family is suing one of the bullies. And they are considering suing his public high school in Fayetteville, Ark.

The school has a tolerance program. But somehow this didn’t stop Billy from being beaten. Nor did it stop some administrators from blaming Billy first (only to have to retract their accusations when presented with videotape). I don’t know if their policies specifically include tolerance lessons based on sexual orientation or if bullies and administrators just chose not to take them seriously.

Anti-gays tell us that kids get picked on for lots of reasons: wearing glasses, being a little heavy, or just no reason at all so we shouldn’t have anti-bullying policies that specifically protect gay kids. But it sure seems to be the gay kids – or those like Billy who are labeled “homosexual” by their tormentors – that end up bloody or dead.

A Young Man Fights Back Against The Christian Counselor He’s Sent To By His Parents

When Jeff Williamson of Denver came out to his parents a year ago they sent him to see Christian counselor [name removed] whom they had been referred to through Focus On The Family. Jeff, who knew there’s nothing wrong with being gay, researched the ex-gay movement and pro-gay theology before his appointment, during which he ceded no ground to his counselor’s agenda. Jeff’s story is presented as a triumphant model for all too many youth who are sent, by their parents, against their will to ex-gay programs.

Update 03/26/08: After realizing the ramifications of having certain aspects of his story in the public domain Jeff has requested I pull his video with the intent of re-shooting a more focused version of his story this weekend. My editorial concerns with pulling content are far outweighed by my desire to respect Jeff’s right to control the way in which his own story is told.

Update 03/31/08: As promised Jeff and I re-shot the video this weekend. This new video appears above in place of the old one. Per Jeff’s request I have removed the name of the counselor he saw from the post.

Easter Wishes

My great-grandmother was born on April 10, 1898. That just happened to fall on Easter Sunday, which is why her parents named her Easter Mary Nash.

Easter was a very important person in my life. I called her “Easter” and not grandma because she said she wasn’t old enough to be a grandma. She was pushing seventy when she said that. She also hated to be defined by any label, which may be another reason I called her Easter instead of grandma.

Yes, she was a remarkable woman. She was a working woman in the 1920’s and an entrepreneur throughout the rest of her life — at a time when women simply didn’t do these things. Living in Appalachian Ohio, this was doubly unusual. She hated being told that she couldn’t do something. More often than not, she’d take such a statement as a personal challenge and she’d go out of her way to prove the challenger wrong. She took up oil painting and she got a short story published, all because someone told her she wouldn’t be able to do it. The only challenge she didn’t meet is that she never learned to drive. It didn’t bother her though — that was my long-suffering great-grandfather’s job. And besides, she was a great story-teller and she loved to regale her audience with the hilarious misadventures of her lone spin (literally) behind the wheel.

But that small failure didn’t slow her down. Easter took pride in being an independent and shrewd business woman. She operated shoe stores, and she owned a grocery store and rented houses all over town — all on her own. She was also told that women couldn’t do these things, but she proved them wrong as well. You’d be tempted to say that she was a feminist but she’d just scoff at you for it. Remember, she didn’t like labels. And furthermore, I never heard her talk about politics. The only political statement I ever heard her offer was that she thought JFK was very sexy. Other than that, she regarded feminism as silly and politics boring. She just couldn’t be bothered. Her only interest was in the things that she wanted to do, and she was determined never to allow anyone to stand in her way.

I guess you could say that Easter was a post-feminist woman in a pre-feminist world.

Easter also loved the age in which she lived: 1898 to 1990. We lived just a few blocks from her house, and I’d often go over there and ask, “Easter, tell me about the olden days.” That would always get a laugh out of her. She’d tell me about her childhood and the many things she did and saw. Her stories were as captivating to me as any movie. And she’d always end with the observation that she couldn’t have been born in a more fascinating time. “I’ve seen us go from the horse and buggy to the moon. No one will ever witness a greater span of progress than that.”

My Easter was very special to me. She’s been gone for eighteen years and I can still hear the sound of her chuckle. As I grow older, I appreciate and honor her more and more. I hope your Easter is just as precious.

Dangerous Mercies

The Sydney Morning Herald has published the results of an investigation into the secretive Mercy Ministries in a series of articles this past week. Mercy Ministries is connected with the controversial Hillsong Church, Australia’s largest pentecostal mega-church with more than 25 individual churches. Mercy Ministries in Australia is a branch of the Nashville-based program by the same name.

Mercy Ministries’ programs are intended to help young women between the ages of 16 and 28 with a number of psychological issues, including “lesbianism.” Their web site says the group offers these women support from “psychologists, general practitioners, dietitians, social workers and career guidance addressing each of the young women’s individual issues.”

But the program has drawn fire for its secretive and unorthodox ways. According to the Sydney Morning Herald investigation:

Three former ministry residents have blown the whistle on the program, claiming they were independent young women when they entered, but came out broken and suicidal, believing – as ministry staff had told them – that they were possessed by demons and that Satan controlled them.

These women have since been forced to undergo years of intense psychological and psychiatric care to overcome their treatment at the ministry.

Mercy Ministries claims to help young women deal with “life-controlling issues” — many of them legitimate psychological problems including bipolar disorders, addiction, depression, anorexia and self-harm. It also includes a “condition” that is not a recognized disorder — homosexuality:

…Mercy Ministries is keen to ensure there is no lesbianism under its roof. It issues “separation contracts” to young women who make friends with each other and prevents any form of physical contact between residents.

“While I was there, we received much teaching on the evils of gay and lesbian lifestyles,” said Naomi Johnson, who spent nine months in the ministry’s Sydney house.

As someone with no issues about her sexuality, she was perplexed by the ministry’s continuing focus on the issue.

“In particular, there was an ongoing teaching video series by Sy Rogers an ‘ex-gay’ – now reformed – married Christian,” she said.

Mercy Ministries’ application form used to ask prospective applicants if they had been involved with lesbianism next to a question about prostitution:

Another former resident, who did not wish to be identified, said: “Girls were asked on the application form, as well as in a telephone interview, if they have ever had lesbian or bisexual relationships. They asked if I had been involved in drug abuse, witchcraft, or lesbianism. They bunched them in together like that.”

Mercy Ministries, much like Memphis-based Love In Action, operate a residential pseudo-psychological program without the benefit of oversight which comes with regulation. And another similarity to Love In Action is Mercy Ministries’ lengthy and bizarre rules which clients are required to follow. Some of those rules stem from Mercy Ministries’ obsession with homosexuality: No physical contact, no supportive hugging, no shoulder to cry on. The residential program housed three women to a bedroom, but they were not allowed to change clothes if another person was in the room.

But the bizarre rules didn’t end there. Clients were not allowed contact with their families. They weren’t allowed to see their doctors by themselves. A Mercy Ministries staff member had to be in the room with the doctor and patient at all times — which is a gross violation of the Australian Medical Association’s patient-client confidentiality standards. Clients even required specific permission to go to the bathroom or brush their teeth. One former client was denied her asthma medication:

Every time I had an asthma attack they told me to stop acting … I was punished, I had to do an assignment about why God believes that lying is wrong.”

I was told, ‘You still have demons to battle with. Satan still has a huge control over your life. That is when the exorcism and the prayers over my life started.”

One former client described the oppressive rules this way:

“One major issue that I struggled with throughout the duration of my Mercy stay was complete submission; being told how to dress, when to sleep, when to shower, when to wash your clothes, when to eat, how much to eat, when to change your sheets, what music you were allowed to listen to, what shops you could and couldn’t go into.”

The slightest infraction of the rules could mean instant expulsion — a very dangerous move given the psychiatric state of some of the clients and the overly depended condition the rules placed them in:

Naomi Johnson, Rhiannon Canham-Wright and Megan Smith (Megan asked to use an assumed name) went into Mercy Ministries independent young women, and came out broken and suicidal, believing, as Mercy staff had told them repeatedly, that they were possessed by demons and that Satan controlled them.

Only careful psychological and psychiatric care over several years brought them back from the edge.

Naomi Johnson entered Mercy Ministries for anorexia and self-harm. Before she entered the program, she was functioning as a full-time student and she was living independently. The effects of her sudden expulsion were particularly dramatic:

The situation came to a head when Johnson returned to the Sydney house after spending Christmas with her family in Perth. She was told she had been seen smoking at the airport and that she was being expelled from the program. Naomi phoned her mother in tears, and the staff informed her they were putting her on the next plane back to Perth.

“She was distraught; she was an absolute mess; her life was in danger. I could hear it, she was capable of anything, the anxiety was so extreme … she was just out of control,” Julie Johnson said. “I said to them, ‘There is no way you are going to send her back on her own, she is suicidal. You will deliver her to me at the airport when I can get a flight over’.”

Mrs. Johnson flew to Sydney to collect her daughter.

“She went into that place as a young lady and came back to us as a child. She was very confused, like she was 12 or 13. She shut herself in the bedroom and thought she was nothing but evil. Her self-esteem went down. She thought, ‘I may as well die.”‘

While some women have come forward to say they were helped by Mercy Ministries, psychologists have voiced concerns about what they describe as Mercy Ministries’ highly unconventional and “cult-like” practices:

What an organisation like this is doing is quite high risk – high risk for the young women and high risk for these [Bible college] students to be taking on these complex cases,” said Louise Newman, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Newcastle and a former director of the NSW Institute of Psychiatry.

“There is always the potential of self harm and possible suicidal behaviour.”

Placing young women with mental health issues in an isolated house with little contact with their families or qualified medical and psychiatric care could exacerbate, rather than alleviate, their symptoms, she said.

“[It sounds] very similar to the … old psychiatric facilities that were isolated, disempowering places where people very rapidly lose their sense of identity, where the focus is compliance, there are high levels of surveillance and where contact with people close to them is limited.”

The effects of that isolation and total control can be devastating:

Nine months without medical treatment, nine months without any psychiatric care, nine months of being told she was not a good enough Christian to rid herself of the “demons” that were causing her anorexia and pushing her to self-harm. After being locked away from society for so long, Naomi started to believe them. “I just felt completely hopeless. I thought if Mercy did not want to help me where do I stand now?

“They say they take in the world’s trash, so what happens when you are Mercy trash?”

Two months after she had been expelled from Mercy’s Sydney house (her crime was to smoke a cigarette) Johnson ended up in Royal Perth Hospital’s psychiatric unit. From there she started seeing a psychologist at an outpatient program two to three times a week.

“Even now, three years on, I don’t socialise widely, I don’t work full time, I don’t study full time. Even now there is still a lot of remnants hanging around from my time at Mercy.

Many former clients were told that they were forbidden to share their experiences at Mercy with the outside world. That isolation also extended to family members. Naomi Johnson’s mother recalled:

“They told me that what happens in Mercy stays in Mercy, that what happens between the staff and Naomi stays at Mercy. It is not let out to the family,” Julie Johnson said. “We were isolated, we were not involved in her progress at Mercy, we were just excluded and yet we were a family that wanted to be behind her and they wouldn’t allow us to be.”

While Mercy Ministries sought to help young women with a huge variety of problems, from bipolar disorder to suicide ideation to anorexia — and lesbianism, don’t forget that one — the proposed solutions were all the same: pre-scripted prayers and exorcisms:

“Most of the staff were current Bible studies or Bible college students, and that is it, if anything. You just cannot play around with mental illness when you do not know what you are doing. Even professionals will acknowledge that it is a huge responsibility working in that field, and that is people who have six years, eight years university study behind them.”

…Johnson had grown up in a Christian family; her belief in God was not the issue; anorexia and self harm were. “A major sticking point was when they told me I needed to receive the holy Spirit in me and speak in tongues, to raise my hands in worship songs and jump up and down on the spot in fast songs. I told them that I really didn’t understand how jumping up and down to a fast song at church was going to fix the anorexia, and yet that was a big, big sticking point, because it showed I was being resistant, cynical and holding back.”

Clients reportedly sign over months of their lives over to a program that uses exorcisms to treat mental illnesses rather than medical or psychiatric care. Residents are also required to sign over their Centrelink payments (i.e. social security, unemployment and other relief benefits) over to Mercy Ministries. This allegation has prompted the federal Minister for Human Services, Joe Ludwig, to announce that the government would launch an investigation.

Since the revelations about Mercy Ministries hit the Australian press, several corporate sponsors, including Rebel Sport and LG Electronics Australia, have cut their ties to Mercy Ministries. But Mercy’s biggest sponsor, the Gloria Jean’s Coffees chain, said it has no plans to change their sponsorship despite the allegations. Peter Irvine is on the Board of Directors of Gloria Jean’s Coffees and is a director of Mercy Ministries.

The Sydney Morning Herald Investigations:
Women ‘mistreated’ by secretive ministry — March 17, 2008.
They sought help, but got exorcism and the Bible — March 17, 2008.
Lives at risk when vulnerable patients taken in by cult-like groups — March 17, 2008.
Ethics, financial probity for review — March 18, 2008.
Why Mercy Ministries was godsent for Hillsong — March 18, 2008.
Corporates move quickly to cut ties — March 18, 2008.
The business of giving Mercy — March 18, 2008.
No mercy for transgressions — March 19, 2008.
God’s cure for gays lost in sin — March 19, 2008.

Hat tip: Mike Airhart at Truth Wins Out.

Nigerian Gay Rights Leader Narrowly Escapes Brutal Attack

UK Gay News is reporting that an unnamed Nigerian gay rights leader narrowly escaped being killed in a mob attack during a funeral for the sister of Davis Mac-Iyalla, a leader of Changing Attitudes Nigeria (CAN). The unnamed victim of the attack recounted what happened on the CAN web site:

“I am in total shock and living in fear while feeling the pains I suffered in the hands of a mob group that attacked me at the Service of Songs for Davis’s late sister. While hymn singing was going on a muscular man walked up to me and asked me for a word outside the compound.

“The next thing I saw was a mob group who were there to attack me. They started slapping and punching me, kicked me on the ground and spat on me. I have never known fear like I knew when they were brutalizing me. I thought they were going to kill me there and then. While beating me they were shouting: ‘You notorious homosexual, you think can run away from us for your notorious group to cause more abomination in our land?’ Those who attacked me were well informed about us so I suspect an insider or one of the leaders of our Anglican church have hands in this attack.”

We’ve reported before on statements by Nigerian Bishops intended to foment hatred against gay people. Nigerian Archbishop Akinola has been the leader of the emerging schism in the Anglican Union over the acceptance of gays and lesbians in the church. He has also publicly endorsed legislation which would strengthen Nigeria’s already draconian anti-homosexuality laws, which provide for imprisonment for up to fourteen years. According to Human Rights Watch, the proposed legislation would have:

provide[d] for five years’ imprisonment to anyone who “goes through the ceremony of marriage with a person of the same sex,” “performs, witnesses, aids or abets the ceremony of same sex marriage” or “is involved in the registration of gay clubs, societies and organizations, sustenance, procession or meetings, publicity and public show of same sex amorous relationship directly or indirectly in public and in private.” Any priest or cleric aiding or abetting such a union could be subject to the five-year prison term. The law would also prohibit adoption of children by lesbian or gay couples or individuals.

Changing Attitude Nigeria calls on the Church of Nigeria to denounce the recent attacks.

Maryland Balances Budget by Taxing Gay Widows

Although marriage equality, civil unions, and full domestic partnerships have been blocked from consideration by the Maryland Senate, three bills that would offer some protections for gay couples have been allowed out of committee.

Medical Decisions: would allow domestic partners to make medical and funeral decisions for each other, share a nursing home room and visit at their hospital bedsides.

This bill has received preliminary approval. Thank you.

Joint House Ownership: allow domestic partners to avoid paying recordation and transfer taxes when adding each other to home deeds.

This bill has received preliminary approval. However, it was first amended to remove commercial property.

But not everyone thinks that this is a good idea.

“Do you really want to encourage people to shack up and not commit to each other?” Sen. Alex X. Mooney, a Frederick County Republican, asked his colleagues. “This whole bill is a loophole.”

No, Senator Mooney, we WANT people to commit. That’s why we support marriage for gay couples – rather than oppose it like you do. Comments like this make you seem like a blithering idiot.

Inheritance: exempt domestic partners from inheritance taxes.

This one isn’t likely to pass.

The reason?

Sen. Ulysses Currie, chairman of the Budget and Taxation Committee and a Prince George’s County Democrat, said the inheritance tax would be a harder sell because it affects the state’s budget, which has been strained by deficits and a waning economy.

OK. Let me understand this, Senator Currie.

The reason that Maryland cannot treat gay couples like straight couples is because it needs the greiving gay widows to pay for the government’s budget problems.

Really?

You can’t treat gay people equally because you want gay people to pay higher taxes?

You have got to be kidding me!

See also:
Blade Asks What Happened In Maryland
Maryland Passes Limited Rights for Gay Couples
Maryland Balances Budget by Taxing Gay Widows
Maryland Senator Muse Champions Bigotry
Maryland AG Endorses Marriage Equality
Maryland Legislator Calls Anti-Gay Bluff
Maryland Introduces Bill to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage – Are Democrats Committed to Equality?
Maryland Marriage Poll

Watchman On the Walls’ Domain Name Expired

It looks like hating gays can be a full-time job. Someone forgot to renew the Watchmen On the Walls’ web site.

Sex-Crazed Heterosexuals Defile Church Altar

Can you imagine the headlines over at Porno Pete’s if this couple had been a gay couple?

Police: Couple broke into church to have sex

SANDERSON, Florida — Deputies in Baker County arrested a couple caught having sex in a church.

Baker County Sheriff’s Deputies say they received a call about a suspicious person outside the Mount Zion Primitive Baptist Church, on the night of March 11th.

Deputies say they found a red Toyota pick-up truck and went inside the church.

“Her drawers [were] in the stands. Her brazier (sic) was over on the outside the stands,” Deacon Lonzie Altman recalled from his conversation with deputies.

According to the offense report, deputies found Crystal Rowland, 24, behind the altar.

Rowland was taken into custody. She told deputies that Matthew Pearce, 28, was still inside.

Deputies found him underneath the church, partially dressed.

Red tea candles were also collected from the church. Deputies say there was splattered red wax all over the altar.

You know, every culture that has completely embraced heterosexuality has eventually come to an end. Is this a sign that ours is doomed?

Hat tip: Pam Spaulding.

McCain’s Pastor on Homosexuality

In recent days there has been much attention given to views expressed from the pulpit by the pastor of one of the presidential candidates. People can legitimately debate whether or not the views of a spiritual leader can be presumed to be held by a faithful and devoted congregant. But in either case, such views are worth noting.

Unlike many Republican candidates, John McCain has not been over-quick to insert his faith into every facet of his election efforts – or not more so than his rivals. And there is even some question as to his denominational association.

John McCain was raised Episcopalian. However, McCain’s family – and the candidate when he is in town – attend North Phoenix Baptist Church. Curious about this church’s theology, I set out to find what, if anything, it had publicly expresses about homosexuality. I was surprised to find that the pastor, Daniel J. Yeary, had written an article about his beliefs.

Yeary does not find scriptural support for sexual expression between persons of the same sex.

The entire canon of Scripture precisely teaches that sexual expression is intended for and restricted to the confines of heterosexual marriage. Jesus never affirmed, permitted, or condoned homosexual expression or practice. He clearly taught that God’s intention was heterosexual marriage (Matthew 19:1-9). The apostle Paul emphatically opposed the practice of homosexuality. Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 detail condemnation of homosexual expression with the view that such is unnatural.

And although he does give a brief recitation of pro-inclusive theology (second hand from Stanton Jones), he does not find it convincing.

None of these arguments can nullify the reality that, without exception, every time homosexual practice is mentioned in Scripture, it is condemned.

Yet there is within Yeary’s article none of the fire-and-brimstone condemnation of evil agendas and destruction of society. His discussion was initiated by his confusion and uncertainty when a family called about a gay son, a situation that seems to have first challenged his preconceptions.

I was stunned. I had known this boy as my friend. His family was healthy, balanced, and in no way dysfunctional. The son was, by testimony and lifestyle, a Christian. His confession did not make sense to me. But the parents were convinced. They urgently needed to provide a compassionate and intelligent reaction.

I wish that his research had not relied so heavily on the message of anti-gay religious activists, but I do appreciate that he does not push the myth of reorientation or get caught up in repudiating science. Ultimately, however, Yeary endorses a “solution” that I find as neither consistent with Christ’s message nor the overall theme of Scripture.

Outside the bonds of heterosexual marriage, the proper use of sexuality is to honor God by obedience. Celibacy is a gift from God, and a chaste life is God’s expectation. Only God can provide the spiritual strength for this difficult commitment.

Yet I cannot help but note the sharp contrast between Mike Huckabee’s baptist theology and that of Daniel Yeary. I did not observe any call for culture war or for political repudiation. Yeary does not seem to be ready with a quick condemnation nor is he willing to let the church off easy for its attitude and responsibilty.

A significant key to hope for the homosexual is the response of Christians. Repulsive acts must not be permitted to cause us to reject persons. We must minister with grace to all who need love, respect, and forgiveness. We must repent of our arrogance and intolerance and learn to love the sinner convincingly while condemning sin clearly.

I have no illusions that candidate McCain or a president McCain will be an unwaivering ally of gay equality. Nor (being a pastor’s son) do I read too much into the fact that someone’s butt sits in the pew of a particular church. And I would much prefer to find that his pastor has endorsed gay unions like Hillary Clinton’s onetime pastor, or has at least some ambigious pro-gay positions like Barrack Obama’s. But I am comforted that McCain does not appear to have subjected himself to a regular stream of Sunday morning homophobic rantings.

A Happy Dilemma for Gay and Lesbian Jews

Sometimes you come across a problem that seems more of reason for celebration than a reason for concern: My raise put me in a new tax bracket; My friends are throwing me a birthday party on the day of American Idol results; All the candidates for my congressional district are supportive of my rights, have great ideas about the economy and local jobs, and all have a creative solution for Iraq.

What’s a guy to do?

The Jewish Daily Forward reports just such a dilemma for gay Jews. In the 70’s, the major branches of Judaism were not supportive of their gay members so separate synagogues were established.

But since that time our Jewish brothers and sisters have achieved incredible support from the leaders of their faith. The Reconstructionist and the Reform branches both endorse marriage equality (under civil law) and the Conservative branch allows rabbis to determine whether they will perform same-sex ceremonies. Only Orthodox leaders are not supportive of gay equality.

But now gay synagogues face a serious question:

As the mainstream Jewish world has increasingly accepted gay and lesbian Jews, gay-and-lesbian-founded synagogues like Bet Haverim have grappled with questions that go to the core of their identity: How accepting should they be of straight members? Can they accept straight members and still remain distinct? Is there still a future for gay and lesbian synagogues, or will they slowly merge into the mainstream?

You see, it seems that straight Jewish families like the friendliness of gay synagogues and want to join. They aren’t worried about what the neighbors may think nor are they squeamish that someone may look at them funny. In fact, some seem more at home than in a more conventional synagogue.

Oy vey!

Now I do recognize that this is a genuine issue of concern. It truly does continue to be of vital importance that gay Jewish kids growing up in non-supportive families have models to look to.

“There are people who reach out to us from all over the world — from phone booths in [the ultra-Orthodox Brooklyn enclave of] Boro Park, e-mails from Kansas and Pakistan,” Cohen said. “The fact that there is a gay synagogue gives people hope in an incredible and lifesaving way.”

But, nonetheless, too much support and inclusion is a problem I’d gladly welcome in the Christian faith.

So to our gay Jewish readers I say, “Congratulations on your terrible problem. And thank you for creating within the Jewish community in America some of our strongest allies.”

Today In History: A Russian Gay Icon Is Born

On March 21, 1903, one hundred and five years ago today, the great Russian tenor Vadim Alekseevich Kozin was born in St. Petersburg. In the 1920’s he was celebrated throughout the Soviet Union for his recordings and concerts, specializing in gypsy romances and love songs. It was those love songs that he wrote and sang with such passion and tenderness that garnered him the title of the “Russian Orpheus.” He once gave a concert with American Paul Robeson and is said to have performed for Winston Churchill, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin at the Tehran conference in 1943.

But in those precarious days during Stalin’s rule, Kozin’s illustrious career ended all too abruptly. He fell out of favor with the Kremlin and was arrested in 1944. He was sent to a prison camp near Magadan in the Russian Far East for five years for political offenses, “corruption of youth” and homosexuality. From that moment on, his songs disappeared from the radio and his public concerts came to an end.

After his release in 1950, Vadim resumed performing in local theaters in the Russian Far East and Siberia, but he was prohibited from performing in Moscow and Leningrad. It was during this period when Vadim began to keep a diary, portions of which were published in Moscow just last month:

In one of the diary’s few romantic passages, Kozin described a man whose name is not given. “How I would like even just once, even for one instant, to look into the depth of those green eyes,” he wrote in August 1956. “Why does it happen like this? One person appears, and there is nothing else sacred in the world. He has filled it all himself. Who that person is, no one will ever find out.”

While he may have avoided physical details, Kozin often used the diary to express his impatience with the official attitude toward homosexuality. “There is nothing unnatural in the life I want to live. There is real, good friendship and complete mutual trust,” he wrote in one entry. In another, he criticized actors with their “demonstration of fictional family values” and waving of party cards. “Do I have the moral right, with my defects, to see them that way?” he asked himself. “After torturous and long thought, I have realized that I do. They are much more rotten people.”

Nevertheless, Kozin was acutely aware that he risked another sentence. He was unnerved by the open gay affairs of an actor on the same tour. “His behavior will lead him to the camp,” he wrote. “I must tell him that his sexual motives shouldn’t affect me at all. … I don’t want people to think about me like that again. I will try to suffer alone.”

Kozin’s fears were well-founded. He was arrested again in 1959 for homosexuality and was forced to write a humiliatingly detailed confession. Despite a brief revival in the 1980’s when his records were reissued, he was never officially rehabilitated. He died in Madagan in 1994 at the age of 91.

Since his death, Vadim Kozin has become an icon in Russia’s gay community. One of his most famous songs is one called “Friendship” which, he later confided to a friend, was dedicated to another man:

“We are so close that words do not have to be repeated. Our tenderness and our friendship are stronger than passion and greater than love.”

Vadim Kozin with friends in Madagan in 1993:

LaBarbera Award: Peter Sprigg

These awards have been coming fast and furious lately. It must be spring fever or something. Or Sprigg fever.

Current immigration laws which deny the foreign partners of gay Americans the ability to immigrate to the U.S. A bill is stalled in Congress which would address this problem which forces families apart. The Family “Research” Council’s Peter Sprigg was asked about it and said this:

I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States because we believe homosexuality is destructive to society.

This “kick them out” kind of sentiment is definitely worthy of the LaBarbera Award. And today, we get a two-fer. Spriggs is also a Certified Cameronite for citing Holocaust revisionist Paul Cameron’s discredited research in his and Timothy Dailey’s 2004 book, Getting it Straight: What the Research Shows About Homosexuality.

See also:
Family Impact Summit: A Lesbian Shows Peter Sprigg How To Debate

Sally Kern: Out of Context? The Complete Transcript

Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern has claimed that her anti-gay rant was carefully edited and taken out of context. Well now we have her entire talk, in context.

Uh. . .well first, I have gotten some bills passed in to law, and secondly I was talking with Bill Graves once and he said I think you’re doing a good job and you kinda took up my program and I said, well Bill, thank you, but I’d like to think that it’s somebody bigger than you’s program that I’m doing. But anyway, I am thankful to be here today and I am going to share a number of things so I hope your ears are turned on fast because I want to get through this quickly and I do have. . .the teacher in me didn’t pass these out in advance because I know you’d look at them and read them and not listen to me and I want you to listen to me but I have some information you want to be sure to get, three handouts over there.

I like to call myself a social conservative, okay, and for me a social conservative is more than just being pro-life, and wanting smaller governments, and spending less. It’s whole lot more than that. To me, being a government teacher and a history teacher for about 20 years and loving the beginnings of our nation , I believe being social conservative you have to embrace the principles upon which this nation was founded if you’re going to be a true social conservative.

Now I’d like to start by asking you a question and I’m not going to give you time to answer because I’ll probably, I’ll try to finish before one so if you have any questions you’ll have time to ask me. I have no trouble talking being a school teacher and a minister’s wife, talking just comes with the territory.

But if I were to ask you what is the one thing that has made America great, that makes us unique, what would it be? And then if I were to ask you what is the one thing that is actually destroying this nation, what would be your answer? Now I’m not going to let you give me an answer, Charlie’s already got his hand up. But I’m not going to let you give me an answer, ’cause I’m just going to tell you what I think the one thing is. Actually what made us great and what is destroying is just like a coin, it’s a flip side. What made us great is that we were a nation founding on Christian principles. Okay, that’s just the bottom line. If you go to the primary sources and read our founding fathers, what they had to say, they gave preferential treatment to Christianity.

They believed, I’m going to share with you in just a minute, five practical benefits of Christianity. So what’s destroying this nation, the fact that we’re leaving the roots upon which we were founded. We are crumbling from within because of the bankruptcy that we have in the moral fiber of this nation and leaving the principles of our founding fathers. Now I’m going to give away this little book, and I don’t know how were going to do it, but you know I’ll let Tom figure that out. It’s by David Barton, “The Practical Benefits of Christianity”. It’s awesome.

I’m briefly going to go through the five practical benefits. You see the thing about religion, religion isn’t just spiritual, it’s practical. What we have in our society today is a dichotomy. If you’re a religious person, that’s personal beliefs and that’s kind like in, you know, private, that’s in the upper story. But if you’re in government, if you’re in school, business, that’s where facts are and you don’t mix the two. Well, you guys, truth is truth. It doesn’t matter what realm of society you are in, truth is truth, there’s cold truth. If you’ve never read the book by Nancy Pearcy called “Cold Truth” you need to read that book. Awesome book. “Cold Truth”, Nancy Pearcy. (transcriptionist Note: actually “Total Truth”)

But there are practical benefits to Christianity. Our founding fathers knew that and that’s why they chose Christianity, the principles of Christianity and most of our founding fathers were believers in Jesus Christ. That’s documented, it’s not just hearsay. It’s documented.

What are the five practical benefits? First is, a civilized society. And civilized, according the Webster’s Dictionary, 1828 dictionary, ‘civilized’ means decent, respectful, moral behavior. That’s what civilized means. And we can stop and look at our society today and we don’t have a very civilized society because we can see all kinds of depravity all the time. Our founding fathers believed that our government was a self-government and you can only have self-government if you have individual governance in your own life. And the less people are controlled by any restraints the more government you have to have to control them. That’s just. . .we see that happening all the time. So they believed that we needed a civilized society. They also believed that Christian principles were the very reason for the way that our society was going to exist is because, and it goes back again to, you have to have self-governance.

One of our first Speakers of the House, and I never can remember his name, but he said men will be governed either by internal restraints or external restraints. Either by the bayonet or by the Bible. So we need to have the principles of Christianity for our society to exist.

Another practical benefit of Christianity is just good citizenship. Good citizens, okay. You know it doesn’t matter if we live next door to an atheist, an infidel, or whatever, if they believe in a basic principle of right and wrong, which used to always be the ten commandments, if they’re not going to come over and kill me or steal my stuff, or go after my husband and things like that, I can live next to them. No problem. People used to know what was right and what was considered wrong. Today, it’s left up to anybody’s, you know, discretion and that won’t work.

Another practical benefit of Christianity was the elevation of knowledge, of learning, of science, okay, of the arts. They believed, matter of fact, Thomas Payne who wrote “Age of Reason” where he tried to say you don’t need religion, you should keep it out of the public sector. Ben Franklin wrote him a letter and Ben Franklin, arguably is one of our lesser considered religious leaders, but he said to Thomas Payne don’t write that book, don’t publish that book. He said it will do you harm, it will do our nation harm. You know, he believed that we needed to have a society that was based upon Christian principles because elevation of science, elevation of knowledge is very important if you’re going to have an informed public. And I believe it was Thomas Payne also said, you know, you can look at a picture and it makes you think of the artist, you can look at some kind of invention and you think of the inventor. Why is it that we look at the creation and we don’t think about the creator. You know, we don’t do that. And if we really had Christian principles our educational system would not be in the mess it is in today. I could give you lots of quotes about, oh Benjamin Rush and Noah Webster and Fisher Ames who actually penned the first amendment, the things they had to say about the main book in school should be the Bible. There’s a lot of stuff about that that’s really important and we certainly got away from it.

Another practical benefit, the last one, of Christianity is a cohesive value system. A cohesive value system. We don’t have that today. And you know we think, we hear this all the time, we are such a large society today, we have such diversity in all these different religions and ethnic backgrounds and everything, you can’t have a cohesive value system. Well, we didn’t just have that right now. You can go back read some of the writings of John Adams, and he talks about the diverse society that they had back at the beginning of this nation. So Christian principles are very important in order to have a cohesive value system. So regardless of what your faith is you can live together. We have gotten away from these principles and it is affecting our lives today.

One of the main ways, and this is something I’m going to talk about a lot today, that is affecting our lives, is in the gay agenda. Now I’m not a gay basher, okay. When I taught school three doors down from me was one of the most obnoxious gay people that you can mention. If I named him you probably have seen him. He writes in the paper all the time and everything. But you know, he has the right to practice that life-style if he chooses but he does not have the right to indoctrinate his classes. You know, that’s not what education is about. But what we see happening today is the homosexual agenda is destroying this nation. Okay, it’s just a fact. If you’ve never read, here’s another book, “The Criminalization of Christianity” by Janet Folger. Every Christian ought to read that book, “The Criminalization of Christianity”. It is an awesome book and if that doesn’t scare you and motivate you, something’s wrong.

And here’s the problem, the gay people are motivated. If we as, whether you’re a Christian or not, if you’re just a good conservative, if we were as motivated as the gay people were, the contest would be over. That’s just all there is to it. It would be over. But we aren’t motivated. I think we’ve been suckered by this lie of separation of church and state. But there is a new phenomenon going on, has been going on since the last four years in the gay movement and it’s been headed by a gentleman by the name of Tim Gill. He’s a software mogul guy who sold his Quark, Q-U-A-R-K, however you say that, he sold it for billions of dollars. He contributed 30 million dollars in ’06 to races. He contributed that money to local races, state races and governor races. He gives money, yes to, on the federal level but primarily it’s on the local level because his philosophy is this: if we’re gonna really make changes, we’re going to have to do it locally. And what’s the saying we always hear and we know, all politics is local. And he along with a lot of other gay activists are very disappointed in the national democratic party because they’ve not, you know they say, they promise all this stuff, you know we’ll acknowledge gays and etc., etc., but when it comes down to really doing policy in Congress, what’s always the first to go? The gay agenda stuff, because those democrats, they don’t want to alienate their base. So Tim Gill along with a bunch of other people, some other millionaires, billionaires have decided that the way to handle it is on the local level. And they contributed last year over 30 million dollars to state races. They targeted 13 states. They targeted 70 local politicians. They took out 50 of them. Tim Gill’s goal is within 10 years to change the face of politics to make to where there is equality to all people, all lifestyles.

Now, I don’t know about you, but the book that I base my life upon is God’s word. And it says to love everybody and I try to love everybody but not everybody’s lifestyle is equal. Just like not all religions are equal. Okay. All money isn’t equal. You know, we have this dumb idea now days, that tolerance means that everything is equal. Well, everything is not equal. We see that in many areas of our lives. You know, all things are not equal. All religions are not equal.

But, uh, let me just read you some things. Tim Gill along with four other, three other people, let me find this here. I’ve got so much information, there’s no way I can get all of this to you today, but I have it for you to read yourself. Along with a woman by the name of, I think it’s Pat Stryker, and then her brother John Stryker. . .I know I’ve got them right here, I’ll try to fish them out. . .Pat Stryker, Jared Polis and Rutt Bridges, they all right now are in Colorado and they have changed the face of Colorado. For 40 years Colorado’s legislature was in the hands of Republicans in ’06 it changed to hands of the Democrats. And the main reason is because they’re pushing, these four people, along with other people, and I have a list of them here, the top ones, that you can see, , , and this is important because when you start looking at who’s contributing to races, say that particular statewide race we’re all concerned about, look for some of these names. They don’t give more than a 1000 dollars because they don’t want to draw attention, okay, but they will give up to a 1000 dollars and so you start looking for these names. And what they do, their strategy is very under-the-table, very stealth, and their goal is to find state legislatures that are very tight in their, you know, republican/democrat, and if just a few races can make the difference to switch it from republican to democrat, they’re going to target that. And their goal is, in doing that, to intimidate republicans.

Now the problem we have, I think it’s a problem, we’ve got some moderate republicans who think it doesn’t matter what your lifestyle is, it doesn’t matter if you’re gay, it doesn’t matter if you’re for civil unions, you know. And you notice, the goal is, they’re pushing civil unions right now. That used to be unheard of, but now that’s pretty much acceptable. A lot of republicans are going for civil unions, okay. So you know what’s going to happen next, 10 years from now, it’s going to be gay marriage. Okay, they’re taking little by little, they’re taking ground little by little but they’re doing it quietly, under-the-table. They’re going into states where the races are close; they’re putting in lots of money; and not only that, they’re putting people on the ground. Let me read you this. Here this was really, I thought really interesting, I just want to read it. The key, this is from a guy by the name of Ted Trimpa, he’s kinda like the Karl Rove for Tim Gill. “They key to success is real grassroots, organizing, knocking at the doors, and knock on them again and don’t go turn out the gay vote, go knock on the swing doors as well,” he says. “Knock on every door and knock day, after day, after day.”

They took out in Iowa a guy by the name of Danny Carol who was the speaker pro-temp in the house. He thought his race was safe. He lost, a surprise loss. They put people on the ground, young college kids with their ipods going from door to door. Not just democrats, though, also republicans, trying to find those swing voters but they do it time and time again. They say it’s expensive and time consuming but it is the absolute right way to do real grassroots politics, door to door, talking to the voters, having gay people go to them, allies of ours go to each of them, walk them through and you flip votes one by one. It’s a strategy that works both in the legislature and in the field. They quote Tim Gill on another aspect of their political strategy. Tim says “you have to turn down the volume of opponent’s ‘anti’ rhetoric. They can’t just say and do everything with license. They have to know beforehand that it’s going to cost them some votes and some serious money to play like that. It certainly doesn’t stop it, but it turns it way down, and then when they do spew any ‘anti’ rhetoric, they look extreme. You have to create an environment of fear and respect,’ said Tim Gill . “The only way to do that is to get aggressive and go out and actually beat them up politically. Sitting there crying and whining about being victims isn’t going to get us equality. What is going to get us equality is fighting for it.”

What they’re trying to do is send a message of intimidation to those people who are taking a stand for traditional marriage and against the homosexual lifestyle. They want to silence us, is what they want to do. And it’s happening all over the state. You know, the very fact that I’m talking to you like this, here today, puts me in jeopardy. Okay, and so, so be it. Okay, and I’m not ‘anti’, I’m not gay bashing, but according to God’s word that is not the right kind of lifestyle. It has deadly consequences for those people involved in it. They have more suicides and they’re more discouraged, there’s more illness, their life spans are shorter. You know, it’s not a lifestyle that is good for this nation. Matter of fact, studies show no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it’s the death knell for this country. I honestly think it’s the biggest threat even, that our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam, which I think is a big threat, okay. Because what’s happening now, they’re going after, in schools, two year olds. You know what they’re trying to get early childhood education? They want to get our young children into the government schools so they can indoctrinate them. I taught school for close to 20 years and we’re not teaching facts and knowledge anymore, folks, we’re teaching indoctrination. Okay? We’re turning out a citizenry who are learners but not thinkers. By that I mean, they take whatever is thrown at them. They don’t question it. A thinker listens to what’s given to them and then goes and researches and reasons about it and figures out is this right or wrong. We aren’t developing students like that today. We’re developing students who will do whatever the elites want. That’s what we’re headed toward and they’re going after our young children as young as two years of age to try to teach them that the homosexual lifestyle is an acceptable lifestyle. And there are programs they’re going after in school. It just, uh, I’m not going to say anymore about that because I have the material over there. You really need to read this article, seven pages, but read it. It has some interesting stuff in it. It will show you their strategy and we need to be forewarned.

Okay, now, where are the social conservative billionaires? I want to suggest to you that they are few and far between. Okay. We’ve got some, but they don’t give money the way the gay philanthropists are giving their money, okay. And unfortunately I see a lot of our millionaire conservatives are really bought into big business and even big government and they don’t support social conservatism. And I think that’s a mistake. But in 10 years time our whole landscape, political landscape, could be changed if we don’t start giving money, we social conservatives, people who have it, start giving money to candidates who will stand up for what is right, instead of buckling under this. So, it’s just happening to us right and left.

You know gays are infiltrating city councils. Did you know, Eureka Springs, anybody been there to the Passion Play? Have you heard that the city council of Eureka Springs is now controlled by gays. Okay. There are some others, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Tacoma, Maryland, Kensington, Maryland, in Vermont, Oregon, West Palm Beach, Florida and a lot of other places in Florida. What’s happening? The homosexuals are getting involved politically on the most local level there is, city council, city government and they are winning elections and the first thing they’re doing is passing, uh, laws, anti-discrimination laws and hate laws and things like that and, uh, you know, one of the things I deal with in our legislature is, I tried to introduce a bill last year that would notify parents, schools had to let parents know what clubs their students were involved in. And the reason I did that bill, primarily, was this, we have the gay/straight alliance coming into our schools. And we had parents say, if I knew my child was involved in that group I wouldn’t let them. Kids are getting involved in these groups, their lives are being ruined, their parents don’t know about it. So I introduced a bill that said you have to notify all clubs and things. And one of my colleagues said, ‘well you know we don’t have a gay problem in my community and that’s why I voted against that bill.” Well, you know what? To me that is so dumb. If you got cancer or something in your little toe, do you say, well you know, I’m just going to forget about it because the rest of me is just fine. It spreads, and this stuff is deadly and it’s spreading and will destroy our young people and it will destroy this nation.

But they’re going after city councils, they’re influencing schools sex-ed at schools. Respect for differences in human sexuality is a big sex-ed program they’re trying to get into all the schools. And basically what is, it’s teaching that you have to be tolerant, you have to accept homosexuality.

This brings in our libraries. Okay, you know I believe in the principle as a person thinks, as a man thinks, so is he. That’s why we have to be careful about what we read, what we watch, things like that, what music we listen to and stuff because what goes in is what comes out. Garbage in, garbage out. We know that with computers. You know, what you put in is what you get out. Okay. You take our young minds and the garbage that they’re reading in our libraries and I mean it’s garbage. I should have thought and brought you some excerpts of some of the stuff that, uh, I mean there’s no literary value to it at all. It is pure filth. The language, the acts, the things that are going on and yet our kids are reading it, I mean, they are reading in the droves. Okay. Kids go home and I see some high school kids couldn’t wait to get out so they could go home and see their favorite soap opera. And I tell them, look, that is not real life. They do anything they want and don’t suffer consequences. In real life you got consequences.

So, uh, hate crimes, this leads to hate crimes. If we have hate crimes our free speech will be silenced. Okay. You know I’m not a lawyer, but I think I know enough about this. Law should be dealing with our actions, not with what we are thinking. Nobody can read my mind; nobody can read your mind. Okay. If two little old ladies are both murdered, you know, and one’s gay and other isn’t, why should the one that was gay, her murderers receive a harsher crime than the one’s who murdered the other little old lady? They’re both dead. You know, murder is murder. So we’ve gotta watch; they are coming after these kinds of bills.

Another thing that I’m real big on that is a real detriment to this society is evolution. Evolution undermines Christian principles. Period. That’s all there is to it. You either believe there is a creator or you believe there isn’t. Some people say well I believe there is a creator and he used evolution. There’s a lot of problems there folks. When does sin come in, when does the spirit come in? You know, it’s evolution. You read God’s word and you will see the word creation all through it, old and new testament. And it undermines people’s faith. They have trouble reading or believing the Bible.

See also:
Sally Kern Is a Little Confused
Sally Kern’s Economic Fallout
Sally Kern’s Meeting with PFLAG on Tape
Exodus’ Local Ministry Aligns with Sally Kern
Certified Cameronite: Sally Kern
Kern Speaks to College Republicans
Sally Kern: Out of Context? The Complete Transcript
We Be Jammin’
Muslims and Gays United
OK State Rep. Sally Kern’s Son is “Straight and Not Gay”
Sally Kern Exaggerates Death Threats
A Letter to Sally Kern
LaBarbera Award: Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern

Ex-Gay Watch Corrects Stanton’s Error

Last Tuesday, Focus On the Family’s Glenn Stanton explained to us why CitizenLink unceremoniously changed their entire “anthropologists agree” article. Given what we know now, it appears that CitizenLink’s thin veil of  “professional journalism” has utterly disintegrated. I know of no professional news service that completely re-writes their article. In fact, I know of at least one blogger who makes its own corrections very public for all the world to see.

Stanton also said this:

Ex-Gay Watch insinuated that the paper was cobbled together quickly to answer the complaints generated from the first article. Not quite. I worked on this research for quite a few weeks.

Ex-Gay Watch’s David Roberts and David Rattigan both disputed Stanton’s charge in comments left here at Box Turtle Bulletin. Rattigan also set the record straight on Ex-Gay Watch:

Ex-Gay Watch in fact made no reference (even indirectly) to the paper, and focused solely on the Citizenlink article. A commenter made the suggestion Stanton refers to, which may have confused him.