Box Turtle Bulletin

Ex-Gay Survivor’s Initiative Goes To Memphis

Three former Love In Action clients will be in Memphis tomorrow to present personal artwork depicting their experiences at the residential ex-gay program.

David Christie is a former Love in Action client who spent 13 years in ex-gay therapy before accepting himself as a gay man at the age of 28. Brandon Tidwell completed Love in Action’s adult residential program in 2002, but ultimately rejected the organization’s theology and reconciled his sexual orientation with his Christian faith. Lance Carroll was forced to endure an ex-gay therapy at Love In Action’s Refuge program, the same teen program that “Zach” was forced into during the summer of 2005. You can read more about Lance’s story here.

And speaking of “Zach,” you may remember that one of the last things he did before his parents forced him into the Refuge program was to post the rules of that program. While the program no longer exists, the rules are still an important part of how Love In Action operates. They provide just a small glimpse into the tremendously punitive programs at Love In Action, and what these young men had to endure during such an important time in their lives.

Senate To Vote Soon on Hate Crimes Bill

When the US House took up the “Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007,” we saw anti-gay activists launch a massive disinformation campaign in an attempt to derail this legislation.

We saw them completely make up bogus hate crime statistics out of thin air to try to prove that gays and lesbians aren’t hate crime victims. But they won’t tell you that sexual orientation is the third most common motivation for hate crimes, running a virtual tie with religious bias. Further, the Justice Department’s National Crime Victim Survey (NCVS) shows that 58% of hate crimes based on sexual orientation go unreported.

We saw them falsely claim that the legislation would “punish some crimes more severely against gay people than they would against any other person,” even though it would cover everyone — gay or straight — regardless of sexual orientation. Otherwise, the FBI’s own hate crime statistics would not have bothered to count 935 anti-White, 58 anti-Protestant, or 23 anti-heterosexual hate crime incidents in 2005.

We saw them falsely claim that the bill would create a class of “thought crimes,” even though the proposed legislation only deals strictly with actual violence or direct and credible threats to violence.

And, in the most common theme lately, we saw anti-gay religious groups falsely claim that the proposed hate crimes legislation would “muzzle our pulpits,” even though the First Amendment — the same First Amendment that protects the Klan and neo-Nazi hate groups — will protect ministers and allow them to say virtually anything they want. If the Christian Identity Movement can preach racists beliefs under the First Amendment, then certainly James Dobson will still be allowed to call gays and lesbians sinners. Nothing can change that.

Last week, the Senate filed the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act as an amendment (SA 2067) to the Defense Authorization bill (HR 1585). This amendment is likely to come up for a vote any day now. And Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council are flooding the airwaves and filling email inboxes of their constituents with the same lies about hate crimes that we’ve been seeing for the past several months.

And yes, they are lies. Why should you trust me when I say that?

Well, last month, I challenged opponents of the hate crimes legislation to post the text of the bill on their web sites and show where it threatens their their speech or religious freedoms, or elevates one citizen’s protection over another’s under the law. Nobody has taken me up on the challenge — and they won’t either. Because if they did, you’d be able to read the bill for yourself and know that everything they’ve been saying about it is a complete lie.

So who do you believe? Someone who makes it easy to find out for yourself what the bill actually says? Or someone who asks you to just trust them without reading it yourself?

Would you buy a car that way?

I’m not asking you to believe me. I’m asking you to read the bill yourself. I’ve copied it again below after the jump. And after you’ve read it, call your Senator. He or she is already being inundated with calls and emails from anti-gay constituents. They need to hear from you now more than ever.

Click here to read the text of Senate Bill 1105

Peter LaBarbera: Despicable Coward

Peter LaBarbera is upset that Dr. James Holsinger’s nomination for Surgeon General hasn’t gone the way he had hoped. In his latest shrieking screed, parts of which are directed toward me, LaBarbera withdraws his support for Holsinger’s nomination, and blames Holsinger’s shortcomings on “homosexual activists (who) threw everything but the kitchen sink at the doctor’s 1991 paper,” singling out yours truly by name.

But instead of trying to rebut my findings that Dr. Holsinger’s “scientific paper” is not scientific, LaBarbera uses his disappointment with Dr. Holsinger to do something that Dr. Holsinger himself would never do. He cynically exploits this young man’s untimely death in his lead:

Russell Groff, 1978-2004

Russell died at age 26 of HIV/AIDS after living in a homosexual relationship. How many future men will die young if the politically correct silence on homosexual health risks is not broken? Groff’s mother wants to use his life to warn other parents and children about the perils of embracing a “gay” lifestyle.

Further down in the post, LaBarbera picks up on Russell’s story this way:

Statistics are easier to dismiss than the human victims of homosexuality: just ask Carolyn Groff, whose son Russell died at age 26 from AIDS after getting involved in a homosexual “relationship.” (I suppose “gay” apologists like Burroway would ascribe Russell’s premature death to “unsafe sex” — anything to avoid implicating homosexual behavior as especially risky.)

LaBarbera is wrong about me. I do not ascribe Russell’s premature death to “unsafe sex.” I ascribe it to a staph infection following gall bladder surgery. Whether his HIV status had anything to do with it one way or the other, I have no idea. Nor does it matter. Unlike LaBarbera’s characterization of me, I don’t speculate about any aspects of anyone else’s life, not even LaBarbera’s. I go only by the facts as they are reported. I’ll leave the speculations to those who have nothing else to offer.

But this really isn’t about me. Instead, what I want you to do is go to that link that LaBarbera so helpfully provided in the previous quote. Do you see what I see? As of Sunday morning (July 15th), it said this:

I have deleted content from my web page because I learned that someone was using it to further a cause I DO NOT believe in. I will not allow my love and compassion to be twisted into anything else. I will no longer add anything to this site for fear of its misuse. Thank you.

Just last night, that page had an obituary posted as a loving tribute to Russell Groff by a friend of his. It was certainly not provided by his mother, as LaBarbera says in his lead.

Russell Groff’s parents have been virulently anti-gay. They participated in what’s describe as a “Fred Phelps-like protest” during Knoxville, Tennessee’s LGBT “Come Out Knoxville” celebration, where their Baptist Church carried signs saying that gays are destined to hell. Russell’s mother never accepted his relationship with his partner, Kevin-Douglas Olive. She was estranged from her son during his adult life.

Russell died November 23, 2004. Kevin was with him throughout his illness, emptying Russell’s bed pan and attending to his needs. Now Russell’s parents are engaged in a legal battle with Kevin to overturn Russell’s legally-written last will and testament, in which he expressed his wish to be buried in a Quaker cemetery outside of Knoxville, Tennessee. His parents want him dug up — two years after his death — and moved to a family cemetery against Russell’s expressed wishes.

Russell’s brother, Walter Groff, joins Kevin in defending Russell’s last wishes. But the expensive legal battles have sapped Kevin’s finances. He’s had to put his car up for sale and raise funds to ward off his continuing legal battles. His legal fees are currently running $22,000, of which he has raised only $5,000. I would encourage you to contribute to the cause:

Kevin Olive Defense Fund
c/o Homewood Friends Meeting
3107 N. Charles St.
Baltimore, MD 21218

LaBarbera says, “We live in a cowardly and confusing age,” but he engages in a very cowardly act by not telling the full story. He expresses great wailing and gnashing of teeth because Dr. Holsinger didn’t turn out to be the great anti-gay standard bearer he had hoped for. He’s angry that I demonstrated that Dr. Holsinger’s 1991 “scientific paper” is not scientific. But since he can’t address the arguments I put forth on its merits, he cynically demeans the memory of Russell Groff and hides behind a dead man.

Coward. Despicable coward.

Hat tip: Alvin McEwen and Scott H.

Update: Jeremy, at Good As You, knew Russell personally back in his Knoxville days, and posted a beautiful remembrance.

PBS Frontline Examines True Cause Of Uganda’s Success In War On AIDS

Religious right groups often point to success in Uganda in fighting the AIDS epidemic claiming a religiously based abstinence-only campaign is the cause of such dramatic results. PBS’s Frontline program takes a look at the impact of American policy on Uganda’s war on AIDS. Click here to watch the entire segment.

LaBarbera Withdraws Support

Peter LaBarbera apparently looked around among his friends and decided to withdraw his support for Holsinger after all. No word on whether he’s doing this because he fell victim to the “media distortions” of Holsinger’s hearing, or because he now believes the media’s account of the hearing.

He’s also sending God my way to have a chat with me. ‘Cuz, you know, he and God are tight like that.

Update: I have much more to say about this.

Holsinger’s Nomination Hearing: More Opposition Than Before

I was just sitting down to write this observation about yesterday’s Senate committee hearing on Dr. James Holsinger’s nomination for Surgeon General when I saw that Frank Lockwood’s observations run very similar to mine.

Frank, at Bible Belt Blogger, compares Holsinger’s nomination to that of Harriet Myers’s failed nomination to the Supreme Court. Her nomination was immediately opposed by the political Left, and the more the Right learned about her, the less enthusiastic their support for her became. It looks like Dr. Holsinger’s nomination may be following a similar trajectory.

Dr. Holsinger had already raised flags with the Family Research Council over his previous support for stem cell research. And so during the nomination hearing he backed away from that stance and implied that his position is now more in line with the Bush administration’s.

But he also backed away from his 1991 paper, “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality”, saying, “That paper doesn’t represent where I am today, who I am today. It is not a published paper. It was not meant to be a scientific paper, not meant to be published.”

Frank noticed that this did little to endear Holsinger to the Christian Right. Concerned Woman Matt Barber responded, “We’re left not knowing whether Dr. Holsinger will put scientific substance over political correctness in dealing with the issue of homosexual behavior.” And the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins complained that Holsinger is “changing his tune”:

Dr. Holsinger’s confirmation should not fail because of his views, but because of his seeming lack of conviction on any of them.

But Peter LaBarbera’s not giving up on Holsinger yet. While he’s disappointed that Holsinger gave what he called “artful non-answers” when asked about his 1991 paper, he chalked that up to Holsinger’s political handlers in the White House. He and Matt Barber also smell a media conspiracy:

Enter the Mainstream Media. They are widely reporting that Holsinger has “disavowed” his belief that homosexuality is “unnatural” and “unhealthy.” They’ve apparently made that extrapolation based upon Holsinger’s above referenced quote (quite a stretch I think). Brit Hume, reporting on the Fox News Channel, said, “Holsinger also told senators in a confirmation hearing that he no longer holds the views about homosexuality that he expressed in a controversial paper in 1991, in which he called it unnatural and unhealthy.” Unless I totally missed something, he never even came close to saying that. [Emphasis in the original]

At any rate, it looks like Holsinger emerged from the confirmation hearing with less support than when he went in.

Update: Peter LaBarbera joined the rest and threw in the towel.

Oops!

You know things are weird when they show up in, well, News Of The Wierd:

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network activists told reporters in June that at least 59 U.S.-trained Arabic speakers have been ejected from the military because they’re gay (and in each case despite being a native English-speaker who completed intense, expensive military language school). But a month before that, as symbolic of the government’s shortage of Arabic speakers, an official of the U.S.-funded Al Hurra Middle East television service admitted that it had recently, inadvertently, broadcast several pro-terrorist programs (including an hour-long tirade encouraging violence against Jews), attributing the error to the fact that no senior Al Hurra news manager speaks Arabic.

BTB Mentioned in “Bay Windows”

Bay Windows, New England’s largest LGBT newspaper, published an op-ed this week by Richard J. Rosendall mentioning the work we do at Box Turtle Bulletin. (It’s also reprinted at IGF.) Citing an article about Paul Cameron, Rosendall bemoans the fact that reporters often aren’t very diligent in getting to the root of a story:

One advantage enjoyed by phony experts is that those who interview them and report their published claims are seldom prepared to challenge either their claims or their professional credentials…

We are fortunate that groups like GLAAD, Box Turtle Bulletin and SPLC are active in refuting anti-gay propaganda disguised as news, but there are far more news outlets than they can handle, in an expanding array of media. All of us who are consumers as well as subjects of the news must be vigilant. When you find a reporter giving credence to the work of an anti-gay “expert,” call the reporter and the editor on it. Instead of merely berating them, use the occasion as a teaching moment. First, though, be sure to do more careful homework than the reporter.

See also:

Paul Cameron’s World: to learn more about Cameron’s “solution” for gays and lesbians.
Paul Cameron’s Collaborators: A running list of people who use Cameron’s “statistics.”
Paul Cameron’s Footprint: to learn about Cameron’s latest “lifespan study.”
Paul Cameron vs. Professional Ethics: to learn about Cameron’s censures by professional organizations.

Maybe they Needed Robo-Johns

The other day I referenced that Ft. Lauderdale’s mayor wanted automated bathrooms to cut down on “homosexual sex”.  Now perhaps we know where he got the idea.

State Rep. Bob Allen (R-Merritt Island) was arrested Wednesday afternoon at a local park after offering to perform a sex act on an undercover officer [in a bathroom stall] in exchange for $20, police said.

Those wacky Floridians. And because hypocrisy and irony dance a tango:

Allen, who sponsored a failed bill that would have tightened the state’s prohibition on public sex, scheduled a news conference at his lawyer’s office to discuss Wednesday’s arrest.

UPDATE: Allen has held his press conference wherein he claimed he was not guilty – but said some peculiar things:

It is not true. It is unaccurate, and it is therefore not guilty…and I will be standing strongly for that.   …

And there are many details that they will lose the burden of proof.

In other words, Allen will try to claim that the cop was lying and that you can’t prove otherwise. I have doubts that this will be very convincing either to the court or to his constituents. My predictions: plea to some lesser charge, leaving office to pursue other ventures, claims that he’s doing so to shelter his family from scrutiny.

Holsinger’s Nomination Hearing Is Underway

Frank Lockwood is keeping close tabs on Holsinger’s nomination hearing, and he’s just posted this from today’s hearing:

The surgeon general nominee, facing tough questioning from Sen. Kennedy, has distanced himself from his own 1991 paper, “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality.”

The paper, which called homosexuality unhealthy and unnatural “does not represent where I am today. It does not represent who I am today,” Dr. James Holsinger said.

I anticipate that Frank will be providing frequent updates throughout the day since he’s been the most on top of this story from day one. You can see the live feed of that hearing here.

See also:

A Closer Look at Dr. James Holsinger’s “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality”

Bill O’Reilly Broadcasts Cameron’s “Lifespan” Statistic Unchallenged

A few weeks ago, Bill O’Reilly’s program became something of a laughingstock for raising the specter of 150 lesbian gangs wreaking havoc in Washington, D.C. O’Reilly’s guest, Rod Wheeler, who gave that scenario, has since apologized and O’Reilly has had to eat crow over it.

Just last night, O’Reilly’s program became a platform for another bogus statistic, this one from discredited “researcher” Paul Cameron, whose comparison of homosexuality to smoking made it on the air without challenge.

The segment on O’Reilly’s program focused on the San Diego Padres’ decision to hold a Gay Pride Night while giving away hats to children. Sandy Rios, formerly of the Concerned Women for America and currently of the Culture Campaign, took the anti-gay side. Ron Deharte of San Diego Pride defended the Padres’ decision. During the three-way interview, the screen showed numerous scenes of gay couples, some holding hands, hugging and kissing. O’Reilly exploded near the end of the segment, calling those scenes “exhibitionistic.” This was clearly the case of two against one, with the calm-spoken Deharte trying to make his points between the shouting.

Sandy Rios complained about the “mixing” of children with gay couples, saying it sent the wrong message:

Sandy Rios: But let me just give you another way to think about this. What if the San Diego Padres decided to celebrate a “smoking is fun” night, and they had a smoking men’s chorus performing. Now there are a lot of people that come to the game and they have a pack of cigarettes or whatever, maybe they can’t smoke there. But that’s different than celebrating smoking because we all know is that smoking is really harmful to your health. Well, what people don’t understand is that the homosexual lifestyle, especially for men, is deadly. It takes their life ten to twenty years earlier than straight men. That is not what we should be promoting before of our children… [Emphasis mine]

Bill O’Reilly: But that’s their decision…

The connection of homosexuality to the dangers of smoking and a reduced lifespan comes directly from discredited researcher Paul Cameron. He first claimed that gay men die at the average age of 42 and lesbians die at 44 in 1993. That claim, based on his “obituary study,” has been roundly discredited.

More recently, Cameron claimed that official statistics from Denmark and Norway show that gays and lesbians die twenty-four years earlier than their straight counterparts. When he released that self-published study, he issued a press release comparing that statistic to smoking:

Studies have shown that years of smoking shortens the lifespan of the smoker from 1 to 7 years. But analysis of the age of death in Norway and Denmark for gays who are legally married suggests that engaging in homosexual behavior reduces the lifespan by 24 years.

That study was also based on faulty science. Not only that, but Cameron claimed that he presented the paper to the Eastern Psychological Association. That claim earned him a rebuke from the EPA’s president, Phil Hineline. That EPA censure comes after rebukes by three other professional organizations during the course of Cameron’s career.

His problems don’t end there however. Cameron advocates a draconian agenda for gays and lesbians in this country, and points to Nazi Germany for evidence on how to “deal” with gay men. His Family Research Institute web site makes no bones about the fact that everything he does is driven by his goal to recriminalize homosexuality in this country as a felony, and he continues to defend his call to quarantine everyone who is HIV-positive.

There are no current valid studies to suggest a reduced lifespan for gays or lesbians. O’Reilly, of the “we report, you decide” network, allowed a false statistic to air unchallenged. As he did for the lesbian gang story, Bill O’Reilly needs to correct the misinformation that aired on his program and apologize to the gay community for Sandy Rios’ slander. The Rampaging Lesbian Gang story was funny; death isn’t.

Hat tip: David Roberts

Update: Sure enough, Culture Campaign cites Cameron on their web site. That’s another one added to the list.

Holsinger’s Qualifications: Do Religious Views Matter?

Mark Tooley, of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, said this about Dr. James Holsinger’s nomination as Surgeon General:

Dr. Holsinger’s nomination should be evaluated based on his qualifications in the fields of medicine and public health. …Opposition to any nominee based exclusively on his church activities and traditional Christian beliefs sets a dangerous new precedent.

I think Mr. Tooley has it exactly right. Opposition to Holsinger’s nomination shouldn’t be based on his religious beliefs or church activities. Dr. C. Everett Koop was a conservative evangelical Christian who became an outspoken advocate for common-sense and science-based HIV/AIDS prevention, research and treatment programs. (Update: By the way, Dr. Koop endorses Dr. Holsinger’s nomination.) On the basis of religious beliefs alone, there’s no reason to believe that Holsinger can’t be a similarly principled advocate — assuming, of course, this administration would let him.

And so the real question centers around his qualifications as an impartial scientist and the nation’s chief health advocate. The only published evidence we have for his view of science is his sixteen-year-old paper, “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality,” a paper which presents his “scientific opinion” on homosexuality. What do you think? Does his paper qualify as science?

Contrasting National Ex-Gay Hype with Local Ministries

For years we’ve heard tales of “former homosexuals just like me” touted by national spokesmen with a sincere delivery, a confident smile, and a wife and children hovering just within view of the cameras. That is the public face of the ex-gay movement, the one presented when politicians seek justification for denying civil equality to gay individuals or couples.

The Miami New Times featured a story today on their local ex-gay ministry, Worthy Creations. Those familiar with the movement will not read much new; it covers the history of the movement and its many embarrassments along with its wishes, dreams, and claims. But these stories that sporadically appear around the nation which highlight local ministries give a flavor that seems miles from the slick image that Exodus’ national office sells.

Although Exodus’ Randy Thomas claims an informal study in 2003 resulted in 11,000 weekly attendants at their 150 ministries (an average of 73), at the meeting attended by the reporter, there were only six strugglers – a number far more consistent with what we read in other local reports. And unlike the happily married ex-gays that show up to press conferences and White House events, the local ex-gay seems to be more like those described in this article:

Bowing his clean-shaven head, he flutters his dark eyelashes and nods reassuringly toward the effeminate, lanky Miami Beach man seated across from him.

“Exactly!” [Joe] Alicea beams, palms open, arms outstretched toward the heavens. “You are not homosexual.”

Lowering his hands, he purses his lips, raises a tweezed eyebrow, and pensively taps a manicured finger on his cheek.

“You’re not homosexual,” Alicea repeats, in the same stupefied tone an astronomer might use if someone suggested the Earth were flat. “You are just s-e-n-s-i-t-i-v-e.”

It’s immediately clear that the journalist wasn’t impressed or convinced by Worthy Creations. Yet even considering bias, it’s hard to dismiss the anxious hope, but obvious futility that was evident behind the bright claims of those she interviewed:

In the half-decade since joining the ex-gay ministry, Sarah has not had any sexual contact with a man. She hasn’t felt an urge to kiss one yet, either. In fact she hasn’t even reached the point of wanting to go out on a date with a guy. But she is convinced she will someday.

“I’m not there yet, that’s all. It’s a process; it takes time,” she says with a half-hearted smile. “Am I attracted to men? Of course,” she adds. Asked what kind of physical traits she finds attractive in men, she repeats the question and then pauses. “It’s more about who the person is inside.”

Or that of the leader

“When I left the gay lifestyle after 13 years, I wasn’t struggling. I was gay, period. I had a boyfriend,” Alicea recalls. That was five years ago. Like Sarah, he tells his flock, he has yet to embark on a heterosexual relationship. Like Sarah, he says he isn’t ready yet.

Instead he is celibate. But he is happy — happier than he has ever been.

Or even of some in national leadership

“My sexual orientation shift isn’t alleged. I assure you it’s real,” says Thomas, who “left” the gay lifestyle in 1992. “I have dated women over the years and I’ve had two very serious relationships…. I won’t have sex with a woman until I’m married, though, because of my Biblical sexual ethic.”

All in all, the article leaves the reader with a deep sense of sadness. And your heart can’t help but go out to those who, like Sarah and Joe, struggle on and on, year after year, in the hopes attaining an easy celibacy and seek that point where – perhaps after 15 years or so – they too can have sexless “serious relationships”.

“Pedophilia Tag” Discourages Male Volunteers

Anti-gay activists often equate homosexuality with child sexual abuse, either by accusing gay men of being more likely to abuse children, or by claiming that virtually all gays and lesbians themseves were abused. Just this week, we’ve seen Peter “Porno Pete” LaBarbera breathlessly repeat unfounded allegations that roving bands of lesbians “forcibly seduce” girls through “lesbian rape.”

Although LaBarbera’s hyperventilations are too ludicrous for rational people to take seriously, accusations like these can have a chilling effect, especially where much-needed charity, and educational, and mentoring work is concerned.

A new survey in the U.K. shows that many British charities are having trouble recruiting men to work with children, out of fear of being labeled a pedophile:

In all, 13% of the men questioned said they would not choose to volunteer to work with children due to fear of being perceived as a paedophile.

… The NCH’s chief executive, Clare Tickell, said: “Many children, especially boys, are desperately in need of a male mentor, which is why we urgently need men to come forward despite any fears they may have about public perception. We work hard to ensure volunteers are checked by the police, trained and monitored, which we hope encourages men to come forward and helps assuage the public’s concern.”

If 13% of men in general are reluctant to volunteer, there’s every reason to believe that gay men are likely to be more so. The “blood libel” of gay pedophilia continues to harm not just gay and lesbian adults, but children themselves who can benefit from positive male role models. For more information about the false link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, please see our report, “Testing the Premise: Are Gays a Threat to Our Children?”

American Public Health Association Opposes Holsinger Nomination

This just in from Reuters:

The American Public Health Association, founded in 1872 and made up of 50,000 U.S. public health professionals, said it is “very concerned with Dr. Holsinger’s past writings regarding his views of homosexuality, which put his political and religious ideology before established medical science.” It was the second time ever, and the first in 26 years, that the group has opposed a U.S. surgeon general nominee.

The HIV Medical Association, made up of 3,600 HIV/AIDS health care professionals, opposed Holsinger on Monday. Dr. James Holsinger’s Surgeon General nomination hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee is tomorrow, July 12 at 10 a.m. (EDT) in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

See also:

A Closer Look at Dr. James Holsinger’s “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality”