Showing posts with label american family association. Show all posts
Showing posts with label american family association. Show all posts

Monday, July 14, 2014

Western Pa. English Teacher Victimizes Two 18y.o. Males

"Hot English Teacher Victimizes Two 18-Year-Old Males
By Banging Them, Giving Them Beer"


from The Daily Caller - July 12, 2014:

A married, 26-year-old high school English teacher has been arrested for having sex with two 18-year-old male students and giving them some beer inside her home while her husband was out of town on business

The teacher, Tiffany Leiseth, was a long-term substitute teacher for the New Brighton Area School District in rural western Pennsylvania, reports Pittsburgh NBC affiliate WPXI.

According to police, Leiseth invited one of the two male high school seniors over to her house in Moon Township, Pa. on the last day of school. She gave him a beer. They had sex.

The very next day, police say, the second student went to went to her home. There was more sex and some more beer.

Prior to all the excitement, Leiseth had – of course – sent the two students nude photos of herself.

Under Pennsylvania law, Leiseth seems to have jumped the gun on the deadline for teacher-student sex by just a few days. She now faces charges of institutional sexual assault – a third-degree felony – because the students had not yet officially graduated.

The raft of charges against the teacher also includes furnishing alcohol to minors, notes CBS Pittsburgh.

“Regardless of your age, whether you’re an adult or not, if you’re a high school student, a teacher cannot have sexual relations with you,” Moon Township Police Chief Leo McCarthy told WPIX.

McCarthy added that the law originated in 2007 “to give people who are being supervised by others protection.”

Leiseth’s attorney, Mike Deriso, argues that the law doesn’t apply in this case.

“She was not their teacher at the time, and they were not her students,” Deriso told CBS Pittsburgh. “My client did not pursue those boys. They are adults. They make their own decisions.”

Police do admit that it was no crime when Leiseth sent nude images of herself to the high school students because they were 18 at the time they received the images.

According to the cops, one of the two teens said Leiseth warned him not to tell anyone about the illicit fling.

That plan apparently didn’t work out, though, because the school district superintendent Joseph A. Guarino called the cops after he had received a couple phone calls about the hanky-panky.

“They had a rumor that a school teacher was sending nude photographs of herself to two male students,” McCarthy explained to CBS Pittsburgh. “They followed up on that rumor and they found those students, and they found the nude photographs, and they identified the teacher.”

School district officials have sacked Leiseth since the alleged incidents came to light. She had been a district substitute for two years and was serving as a long-term sub in an English class this school year.

The school district issued a statement praising itself for providing “complete cooperation with all involved agencies” and declining further comment “in light of pending litigation.”

Local parents applauded the arrest.

“Set the example for any other teachers or administrators that have any thoughts of doing anything like that,” parent Howard Yellock told WPXI.

Saturday, September 21, 2013

Venango County's Diane Gramley (AFA of PA) Seems To Be A Scott Lively Wanna Be

Scott Lively, a pastor in Springfield, Mass., is facing an unprecedented lawsuit that alleges he persecuted gays in Uganda, committing a "crime against humanity," even as he takes credit for anti-gay legislation in Russia.


By Tony Dokoupil, Senior Writer, NBC News:

When President Vladimir Putin recently banned “homosexual propaganda” in Russia, he joined sides in a new global culture war: a struggle to stop the march of gay rights abroad even as advocates wave rainbow flags in America. Now, as the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics approach, both sides are bracing for unrest — and an American pastor is taking credit for the law that started it all.

Scott Lively is a hero to some, a demon to others and a joke to still more. From his home in Springfield, Mass., he runs Abiding Truth Ministries, a church dedicated to combating “the homosexual agenda,” and Holy Grounds Coffee Shop, where the faithful gather for java and Jesus. Lively also sermonizes overseas, promoting his books — most notably The Pink Swastika, which traces the Nazi Party to a gay bar — and portraying gay love as a “dark force” in human history responsible for the Inquisition, American slavery and the Holocaust.

Last month a federal judge allowed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit to proceed against Lively that alleges the pastor persecuted gays in Uganda and committed a potential “crime against humanity” — one that contributed to a bill that would have made homosexuality an act punishable by death. And yet the grey-haired 57-year-old has refused to quiet down.

On his blog this month, Lively praised Putin as “the defender of Christian civilization” for signing this summer a ban on information that treats being gay as valid or attractive — and traced the idea to his own tour of Russia in 2006-7. Last week, Lively suggested Russian officials foil gay activists planning to rainbow-bomb the Olympics by flying a rainbow banner over the games so “the global homosexual movement” would be reminded that “the rainbow belongs to God!”

In his first interview since a U.S. district court judge refused to dismiss the case against him, Lively shrugged off the lawsuit, touted his rising global influence and seemed to dare civil rights advocates to launch another assault on him. “Come what may, I will continue to advocate for the Biblical view of family until my final breath,” he pledged, because “we’re talking about civilization — good and evil being played out in the United States and all around the world.”

A global campaign against gay 'disorder'
Lively has reason to be a bit cocky. America may have “fallen to the gays,” he says, but much of the world still fears them and Lively is working to keep it that way.

In Moldova in 2011, according to Human Rights Watch, he helped several cities declare themselves “gay-free zones” and organized an “emergency” campaign to block a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine and Belarus he met with politicians and pastors, fostering talk of new curbs on gay rights. Every place he goes, Lively says, his goal is to block the open expression of homosexuality, keep discrimination legal and make pro-gay advocacy a crime.

To whip up support for such policies, Lively simply shares his beliefs about gay people: They’re dangerous predators, even killers. And they caught this gay “disorder” through “an evil game of tag,” a chain of abuse in which gays recruit kids into sodomy just as they were once recruited. In this way homosexuality spreads like “a social cancer,” he claims, until nothing remains of the Christian world.

It’s unclear where Lively gets his virulent science, since study after study suggests homosexuality begins with biology not abuse, but his political strategy is easy to trace. It’s an export straight from the American culture wars of the 1990s, when Lively was communications director of the Oregon Citizens Alliance, then the largest anti-gay political group in America. OCA pioneered the idea of criminalizing gay advocacy, convincing more than a dozen Oregon suburbs to forbid anything that may “promote, encourage or facilitate homosexuality” — much as Putin has done in Russia.

“Yes, I think I influenced the Russian law,” Lively said. While some gay rights activists still think he’s just a laughingstock, Boris Dittrich, the director of LGBT advocacy for Human Rights Watch, tends to confirm Lively’s claims. Russia was plenty homophobic before Lively’s arrival but the American pastor appears to have given shape to that free-floating hatred, Dittrich said. As he passed through Russia’s regions, Lively met with politicians and bans on homosexual propaganda followed, spreading to more than a half-dozen areas before Putin swept them into a national standard.

Lively — who calls himself the “father” of Uganda’s anti-gay movement — also shared the first sharp details of his work in Eastern Europe and responded to the rise in hate crimes that seems to follow him around the globe.

'It's a war between Christians and homosexuals'
In 2006, Lively served as California state director of the American Family Association in Sacramento and fought the “homosexualization” of public schools. He befriended Alexey Ledyaev, charismatic pastor of New Generation, a Latvian megachurch with more than 200 branches worldwide. Together they founded Watchmen on the Walls, a network of activists who pledged to guard the Kingdom of Christ against the siege of homosexuality — and by fall of that year Lively was on a Watchmen trip to Russia.

He landed in Vladivostok, Russia’s largest port on the Pacific Ocean, boarding a train for a 22-hour journey north to Blagoveshchensk, a river city on the border of China. He recalled feeling “just like Dr. Zhivago! Red velvet curtains, a samovar at the end of each car, passing through endless birch forests.” For 10 days Lively used “Blago” as a hub, shuttling in and out of nearby communities, shouting Paul Revere-like warnings of a gay invasion.

By February 2007 he was back in the States in high spirits, bearing a 45-minute highlight reel that he screened at an OCA reunion in Portland. It repeatedly referred to gays as “terrorists,” showed members of the Watchmen interrupting a pride parade in Riga (with bags of feces, according media reports), and included a cross-national howl from a Latvian member of the Watchmen. “Your generation beat the Nazis, and our country beat the Communists,” the activist said. “Together we will defeat the homosexuals!”

A month or so later, Lively was back on the circuit, speaking at the World Congress of Families conference in Warsaw before hopping to Riga, his base for the next several months. He preached in churches, lectured in universities, took the podium at conferences. He sat down with pro-family leaders, pastors and a few members of parliament.

Old videos from the now-defunct Watchmen website reveal some highlights. A stop in Riga in May 2007, where Lively called gay rights “the most dangerous political movement in the world.” A three-day conference in Novosibirsk, the capital of Siberia, in August. There Lively addressed an auditorium filled with 1,000 Christians, six ushers on hand to help with security and seating, the stage kitted out to look like a medieval wall. “There is a war that is going on in the world,” Lively said through a translator.

“There is a war that is waging across the entire face of the globe. It’s been waging in the United States for decades, and it’s been waging in Europe for decades. It’s a war between Christians and homosexuals.”  

Suit could decide fight to restore 'godliness to society' 
Regardless of whether Lively inspired Putin’s crackdown, he’s been accused of inspiring violence against gay people. He says he only preaches compassion – “love the sinner, hate the sin,” he likes to say – and although he gets blamed for it he didn’t actually support Uganda’s proposed death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality.” He believes gays should be pushed from public life, their “recovery” supported in private. And yet where Lively’s message goes, violence seems to follow.

In Oregon in 1992, a same-sex couple died when their house was firebombed during OCA’s campaign to declare homosexuality “abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse.” In Sacramento in 2007, a gay man was called a “faggot” and punched to death by a stranger in a park. In Uganda in 2011, the country’s first openly gay man had his skull caved in. And right now in Russia and in the former Soviet states, there’s been a surge in homophobic vigilantism, including a torrent of shaming videos, some depicting gay teens being tortured by skinheads. Lively has not been linked to any of these crimes but we asked: Couldn’t his talk of predatory gays, “good and evil,” and “war” have played a role?

“Wow, that’s a leap,” said Lively, who sees his work as advocacy in the public interest, no different from campaigning against drunk drivers.

Others don’t think it’s a leap. “Words have consequences,” said Mark Potok, an editor at the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights organization that gives Lively’s ministry a pin in its national map of “hate groups.”

Pamela Spees, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, the group pursuing Lively for alleged “crimes against humanity” in Uganda, said she is prepared to file a second lawsuit related to his work in Russia and the surrounding countries, assuming there’s evidence that Lively was “an architect of the persecutory program” there.

And that’s why the case against Lively is so important, gay-rights activists say. As the Olympics draw nearer and the boycotts and homophobic backlash continue, Putin will be the guy paraded down the world’s front pages and social media feeds. But Lively may be the secret agent to watch.

If he loses his lawsuit he could be prohibited from spreading his message abroad, a terrible precedent for other anti-gay crusaders. However if he wins, he emerges stronger than ever, the self-described “hero” of an expanding fight to restore “godliness to society,” as he puts it – or else “pull as many people as possible into the lifeboat before the ship goes down.”


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Monday, September 16, 2013

Is This What American Family Association Means By Traditional Family Values??

Twisted Mom & Dad's Deviant 'Parenting Plan' Was Plotted Before Kids Were Even Born

by Kiri Blakeley - The Stir - 9/16/13:


This is the most sickening "parenting plan" you can imagine. A couple started a family so that they could rape their own children. Yeah, it doesn't much worse than that. Jonathan and Sarah Adleta have been found guilty of child-sex charges and face many years, possibly life, in prison. The children involved? Their own daughter and son. And possibly the most twisted part of all of it? They reportedly began planning the sexual abuse long before the children were even born.

Sarah, who pled guilty to sexual exploitation of a minor and could serve up to 30 years in prison, reportedly testified that while she was dating her ex-husband, Jonathan, he would discuss sexual situations between fathers and daughters and even said he wanted "daddy-daughter sex." Jonathan reportedly said that he would only marry Sarah if she agreed to his plan.

While this would be enough to make most women run for their lives -- and call 911 on their way out the door -- Sarah went along with it because she wanted to "be with him." And a year after they were married, she gave birth to their daughter.

While it's unfathomable that any woman would agree to this, Sarah reportedly told jurors that she would do whatever it took to be with Jonathan. Because he was just that much of a winner, folks.

Sarah and Jonathan, who is reportedly a former Marine, eventually divorced. You think this would at least get the daughter away from her sick father, but Sarah reportedly continued to allow her ex to sexually abuse their daughter over Skype and during visits.

Sadly, even if Sarah had balked at Jonathan's horrific plan, he was intent on finding a child to victimize. In fact, after his divorce, his new girlfriend allegedly allowed him to abuse her young daughter.

The idea that a woman would willingly give birth to a child so that her child could become prey to a sexual predator is sickening to say the least. Hopefully these two won't see freedom for a very long time, maybe never again. It just goes to show you that giving birth doesn't mean you're a parent.

What could make a woman agree to this?

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Former American Family Association Attorney Says The Christian Right Is Paranoid And Perverse

How Homosexuality Ruined The “Religious Right”

By Joseph R. Murray, II

Longshoreman Eric Hoffer recognized that many great American movements were borne of a noble cause, grew up to be a lucrative business, and ended up becoming a racket. Such is the dangerous Catch-22 of public interest politics and such is the tale of America’s Christian Right lobby.

When students of political science study the demise of the Christian Right years from now, the focus will most assuredly be on gay rights.

After the Christian Right tapped out the pro-life issue, the captains of Christian industry needed a new sales pitch to keep the coffers filled. These folks thought they saw the light in 2003 when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared a fundamental right to same-sex marriage.

This decision was a god-send for a Christian right that was always giddy to portray the judiciary as an unelected, out-of-touch super-legislature that imposed its minority will on the majority of the people.

Shortly after Massachusetts made history, all eyes turned to then-San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom’s decision to permit same-sex couples to say “I do.”

I was on the front lines working with the American Family Association as a staff attorney when Newsom made history in the City by the Bay after he gave clerks the green light to issue same-sex marriage licenses. The Christian right was drooling with delight thinking the maverick mayor had gone off the proverbial cliff. History, however, would show it was the Christian Right that joined Thelma and Louise in the backseat of their convertible.

As a staff attorney, I was able to see firsthand how the Religious Right operated. I first worked with AFA after I was selected to be in the inaugural class of the then Alliance Defense Fund’s Blackstone Fellowship. The Fellowship was designed to select the best and brightest budding Christian lawyers to train them to fight the culture war in courtrooms across America.

Such training did not prepare me for the reality of how the Evangelical “Christian” political machine operated, especially when the battle over marriage erupted.

At the time Newsom and Massachusetts opened a new front in the culture war, polls suggested that opposition to gay rights, especially marriage rights, was a winning issue for the Christian machine. While “Will and Grace” entertained the nation, the concept of marriage equality still generated a lukewarm response.

Moreover, the Christian Right had invested heavily in a propaganda machine that specialized in promulgating unjust stereotypes. Instead of letting the flock see gay couples as the neighbors next door, the Christian Right made it a point to portray all gays with the wildest pictures they could find from the Castro.

It was a brilliant strategy, for if groups like AFA could scare the faithful with pictures that portrayed the gay community in the worst light, it could frame the debate as one of deviancy versus decency. There were two problems with this strategy, though:

First, in order for the campaign to succeed the Right had to forsake the very Christian principles it claimed to be protecting. In typical fashion, a few Ben Franklins made it much easier for them to put profit over principle.

Second, the strategy would only work if the Christian Right could force gays, as well as those Christians that supported them, into the closet. It was the second problem that would result in the demise of the Christian right.

Aside from the hypocritical tactics of these right-wing groups, competition and distrust erupted among the various groups themselves. Though they claimed to be united for a single cause, they often had internal disputes and rivalries, and rather than rally behind winnable legal cases being litigated by their peers, these groups often focused instead on outdoing each other.

Why? Because high profile cases meant high-volume dollars. It was morality driven by money.

When I worked at AFA there was an intense rivalry between the AFA and ADF. There was a belief that ADF was trying to strong-arm the various religious groups under its umbrella so it could control the money and the message. There was a real fear that ADF was poised to steamroll over every Christian Right group, which it largely did.

To demonstrate how paranoid and perverse the Christian Right machine became, I was booted out of ADF’s Blackstone Fellowship because I would not sign a loyalty pledge. Just two years after Blackstone was created, there was concern that ADF was using the images and stories of the Blackstone fellows without their permission and for fundraising unrelated to the Fellowship.

When confronted, ADF demanded that current fellows sign a loyalty pledge or face excommunication. This author, as well as a handful of other principled folks, gladly chose excommunication.

While these largely Evangelical groups fought with each other, there also remained a distrust between Evangelicals and Catholics. During an AFA devotional I attended, the organization’s spokesman talked about his recent mission trip to Spain. Specifically, he stated that mission work was needed in Spain because the country did not have many Christians, just a whole lot of Catholics.

Make no mistake: the Christian right was poised to bring “God’s work” to a whole new level at the beginning of this century, but the dysfunction and distrust ingrained into these groups, their greed, their envy, and their pride, got in the way. Also working against the “gay gold rush” they perceived was the fact that society was changing despite their efforts. Thank God for both of these things.

Recognizing its own colossal failure and the ever-growing acceptance of LGBT people in society, the Christian right is in a race against the clock, fighting against its own irrelevancy.

Look at the lunacy pouring out of the Christian right. Don Wildmon claims to defend marriage, but endorses twice divorced, three times married Newt Gingrich for president. Mat Staver and Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel are out there invoking Jerry Sandusky to support the medieval notion that you can “pray the gay away.”

And, of course, Bryan Fischer is like a drunken uncle at a wedding who must continually be outrageous in hopes that someone will pay attention.

Why is this happening? Because the Christian right doubled down on gay discrimination and lost.

Generations of new Americans are growing up in a nation in which their aunt or uncle is gay or their best friend has gay parents. The issue of homosexuality, thus, is no longer a Biblical billy-club detached from the human concept.

Moreover, scores of Christians from across the nation are tired of this small, but albeit loud, minority defining their faith for them in the public square. This is why the Not All Like That (NALT) Christians Project has the potential to be the final nail in the Christian Right’s coffin.

In order for the Christian Right to survive, it has to have a monopoly on morality. The debate has to be one of “us v. them.” This is how culture wars work.

NALT, however, will be a devastating blow the Christian Right. Frankly, all the videos pouring into NALT re-affirm one basic fact –- the Christian Right no longer can claim to have a monopoly on morality.

If you can be a strong Christian and still affirm the human dignity of gay folks, what relevance is there for groups like AFA? If gays are no longer the boogeyman, why should supporters send checks to fight what they no longer fear?

The answer is that they won’t and I welcome my former colleagues to a Waterloo of their own making. More importantly, I encourage others like me, LGBT and LGBT-affirming Christians from both sides of the political divide, to stand with me and speak in love by contributing videos to the NALT Christians Project. This project isn’t about “us vs. them.” This is about whether Christianity will be a force of division and hatred, or whether the voices of love, acceptance and inclusion will prevail.

Join me in making sure it’s the latter.

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

A Map of Human Dignity

by Frank Bruno - New York Times - January 21, 2013:

Seneca Falls, Selma, Stonewall. The alliteration of that litany made it seem obvious and inevitable, a bit of poetry just there for the taking. Just waiting to happen.

But it has waited a long time. And President Obama’s use of it in his speech on Monday — his grouping of those three places and moments in one grand and musical sentence — was bold and beautiful and something to hear. It spoke volumes about the progress that gay Americans have made over the four years between his first inauguration and this one, his second. It also spoke volumes about the progress that continues to elude us.

“We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths — that all of us are created equal — is the star that guides us still, just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall,” the president said, taking a rapt country on a riveting trip to key theaters in the struggle for liberty and justice for all.

Seneca Falls is a New York town where, in 1848, the women’s suffrage movement gathered momentum. Selma is an Alabama city where, in 1965, marchers amassed, blood was shed and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stood his ground against the unconscionable oppression of black Americans.

And Stonewall? This was the surprise inclusion, separating Obama’s oratory and presidency from his predecessors’ diction and deeds. It alludes to a gay bar in Manhattan that, in 1969, was raided by police, who subjected patrons to a bullying they knew too well. After the raid came riots, and after the riots came a more determined quest by L.G.B.T. Americans for the dignity they had long been denied.

The causes of gay Americans and black Americans haven’t always existed in perfect harmony, and that context is critical for appreciating Obama’s reference to Stonewall alongside Selma. Blacks have sometimes questioned gays’ use of “civil rights” to describe their own movement, and have noted that the historical experiences of the two groups aren’t at all identical. Obama moved beyond that, focusing on the shared aspirations of all minorities. It was a big-hearted, deliberate, compelling decision.

He went on, seconds later, to explicitly mention “gay” Americans, saying a word never before uttered in inaugural remarks. What shocked me most about that was how un-shocking it was.

Four years ago we lived in a country in which citizens of various states had consistently voted against the legalization of same-sex marriage.

But on Nov. 6, the citizens of all three states that had the opportunity to legalize gay marriage at the ballot box did so, with clear majorities in Maryland, Maine and Washington endorsing it.

Four years ago the inaugural invocation was given by a pastor with a record of antigay positions and remarks. This year, a similar assignment was withdrawn from a pastor with a comparable record, once it came to light. What’s more, an openly gay man was chosen to be the inaugural poet, and in news coverage of his biography, his parents’ exile from Cuba drew more attention than his sexual orientation. That’s how far we’ve come.

And the distance traveled impresses me more than the distance left. I want to be clear on that. I’m proud of our country and president, despite their shortcomings on this front and others. It takes time for minds to open fully and laws to follow suit, and the making of change, in contrast to the making of statements, depends on patience as well as passion.

But the “gay” passage of Obama’s speech underscored the lingering gap between the American ideal and the American reality. “Our journey is not complete,” he said, “until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law — for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”

He means the right to marry. As long as we gay and lesbian Americans don’t have that, we’re being told that our relationships aren’t as honorable as those of straight couples. And if that’s the case, then we’re not as honorable, either. Is there really any other reading of the situation?

Despite our strides, gay and lesbian couples even now can marry only in nine states and the District of Columbia. The federal government doesn’t recognize those weddings, meaning that in terms of taxes, military benefits and matters of immigration, it treats gays and lesbians differently than it treats other Americans. It relegates us to an inferior class.

The Supreme Court could soon change, or validate, that. There are relevant cases before it. For his part Obama could show less deference to states’ rights, be more insistent about what’s just and necessary coast-to-coast, and push for federal protections against employment discrimination when it comes to L.G.B.T. Americans. His actions over the next four years could fall wholly in line with Monday’s trailblazing words. My hope is real, and grateful, and patient.

Friday, January 11, 2013

The American Family Association: America's Bully says USA Today


by Bruce Kluger, Member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors - Jan 10, 2013:

While the rest of America celebrated the holidays by briefly escaping the workload that now, once again, dominates their lives, one unlucky group never got the chance to take a day off. And I'm not talking about the beleaguered clerks at the Big Box stores that never seem to close, but, instead, those valiant defenders of virtue at the anti-gay hate group known as the American Family Association (AFA). They were busy trying to stop elves from cavorting with a known lesbian.

Last month, One Million Moms, the inexplicably angry online village founded by the AFA, inveighed against J.C. Penney for a holiday ad featuring spokeswoman Ellen DeGeneres. "JCP has made their choice to offend a huge majority of their customers again," Moms said in a statement. "Christians must now vote with their wallets."

Hyperbole is nothing new for the AFA satellite army. When Penney first hired DeGeneres last February, Moms blasted the retailer for "jumping on the pro-gay bandwagon." Back then, the nasty broadside was wearying, though predictable. This time, it was just stupid. In the holiday spot, DeGeneres talked gift-shopping with a trio of Santa's elves. Scary, right?

Reasonable people can disregard the ramblings of a belligerent splinter group (as DeGeneres herself noted, you have to wonder about an organization that calls itself One Million Moms but can barely round up 50,000 Facebook followers). But I continue to be bewildered at the obsessive, mean-spirited activism of the American Family Association itself.

Since its 1977 founding by a Methodist pastor in Mississippi, the AFA (whose mission is to rid the nation of "ungodliness and depravity") has sprayed its venomous indignation like buckshot, boycotting any group that bears the faintest whiff of gay inclusion. Among its countless targets: the Walt Disney Co., for promoting "the homosexual agenda" by providing health coverage for employees in same-sex relationships; the American Girl doll company, for supporting the non-profit youth organization Girls Inc., which it called "a pro-abortion, pro-lesbian advocacy group"; Hallmark, for offering same-sex wedding cards on its racks; the Ford Motor Co., for advertising in gay publications and sponsoring gay pride celebrations; Archie comic books, for allowing its first openly gay character to marry another man in one of its stories; McDonald's, for joining the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce; and the Campbell Soup Co., for buying an ad in a gay magazine that featured a presumably lesbian couple and their son enjoying a bowl of butternut squash bisque.

These people must be exhausted.

(At left, Diane Gramley, President of the Venango County-based American Family Association of Pennsylvania.)

Though the AFA has largely gone after corporations that have the means to fight back, it crossed the line in late 2012 when it chose a new and more defenseless kind of victim: children. In October, National Bullying Prevention Awareness Month, it launched an offensive against Mix it Up at Lunch Day, an 11-year-old national program that encourages kids to seek out new friends in the cafeteria as a way of keeping cliques -- and bullying -- at bay. The AFA decried the program as "a nationwide push to promote the homosexual lifestyle in public schools," and it asked parents to file protests or keep their children home from school on that day.

Supporters of AFA's efforts argued that anti-bullying campaigns focus too heavily on protecting gay and questioning youths at the expense of non-gay bullying victims. But the fact is, numerous studies -- including a survey by researchers at Harvard -- have determined that gay kids are one to two times more likely to be bullied than straight kids, and between two to four times as likely to attempt suicide. It is a problem within a problem.

The AFA boycott was ultimately unsuccessful -- only about 200 of the 2,500 participating schools reportedly canceled the day's events -- but it underscored the shameful irony at the heart of the brouhaha: that the American Family Association has now, in effect, become the nation's reigning bully, preying on those who are different.

One would think that the AFA might learn a thing or two from the election season polls, which revealed that most citizens are turned off by negative attacks and, likewise, by those who would pry into their personal lives, including their sexual preferences. One would also think that the AFA might learn a lesson from last month's tragedy in Newtown, Conn.: that our children are not only precious to us but also frighteningly vulnerable, and undeserving of being anyone's prey.

It's time to ask the AFA to stand down. Despite its self-appointed, McCarthy-like crusade to transform this nation into its own image, America doesn't need its help, thank you.

Thursday, January 3, 2013

The Crazies at AFA, Surprise, Are Acting Crazy

The American Family Association, a conservative 'Christian' organization that sits atop the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of extremist Hate Groups, emailed members today with a dire warning that, within 50 years, Christians will be treated like African Americans during the Jim Crow era.

In an email entitled “What will religion look like in the year 2060?”, the AFA warned about the coming onslaught against Christians, who currently make up over three-quarters of Americans. The group’s predictions include that Christians will be brutally discriminated against like blacks in the Civil Rights Era, government will take children from parents at birth, and any city with “Saint” or other loosely-religious name will be forced to change.

The full email:

What will religion look like in the year 2060?

Conservative Christians will be treated as second class citizens, much like African Americans were prior to civil rights legislation in the 1960s.

Family as we know it will be drastically changed with the state taking charge of the children beginning at birth.

Marriage will include two, three, four or any number of participants. Marriage will not be important, with individuals moving in and out of a “family” group at will.

Churchbuildings will be little used, with many sold to secular buyers and the money received going to the government.

Churches will not be allowed to discuss any political issues, even if it affects the church directly.

Tax credit given to churches and non-profit organizations will cease.

Christian broadcasting will be declared illegal based on the separation of church and state. The airwaves belong to the government, therefore they cannot be used for any religious purpose.

We will have, or have had, a Muslim president.

Cities with a name from the Bible such as St. Petersburg, Bethlehem, etc. will be forced to change their name due to separation of church and state.

Groups connected to any religious affiliation will be forced out of health care. Health centers get tax money from the state, making it a violation of church and state.

Get involved! Sign THE STATEMENT.

Sincerely,

Donald E. Wildmon


As absurd as they may be, these 2060 predictions may not even rank among the AFA’s most extreme ideas. The group’s spokesman has called for kidnapping the children of same-sex couples through a modern-day “Underground Railroad” system. When one man heeded this advice and aided a woman in kidnapping the daughter of a lesbian woman, the group advised him to flout American laws and flee the country. AFA also organizes against any individual or company that shows the slightest tolerance for LGBT people, including Office Depot, Urban Outfitters, Home Depot, JC Penney, and Google.

The AFA’s ideas may be fringe, but their level of support is anything but. The group remains influential among both conservative grassroots and Republican politicians. The AFA’s former leader was heavily courted in the 2012 Republican presidential primary, ultimately endorsing Newt Gingrich and helping dissuade concerns about his multiple marriages and past infidelities.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Hate Groups Doin' What They Do Best: HATIN'

James Dobson, American Family Association Blame Shooting on Gays, Lack of God

The religious right leader said acceptance of gays contributed to the tragedy, while the likes of 
Mike Huckabee and Bryan Fischer said it's due to America's abandonment of God.

from The Advocate:


Several conservative Christian leaders across the nation are trying to make sense of Friday's deadly shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., which lead to the murders of 26 people — 20 of them children — and they're pointing the finger at a "Godless" nation that they believe is too accepting of liberal evils like abortion and marriage equality.

It all started with former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. Just hours after news of the massacre broke on Friday, Huckabee said the tragedy should come as no surprise to a culture that has "systematically removed God from our schools." Huckabee clarified his statements on his Fox News program Sunday, saying he didn't really think that prayer in schools would have prevented the massacre, "but we've created an atmosphere in this country where the only time you want to invoke God's name is after the tragedy," according to The Huffington Post.

The antigay American Family Association's Bryan Fischer (right) echoed Huckabee's claims, telling listeners on his AFA radio show that God could have protected the victims of the massacre but declined to do so because "God is not going to go where he is not wanted," according to video posted on LGBT blog Towleroad.

On Monday, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson took to the airwaves to blame America's acceptance of marriage equality and abortion specifically for the violence in Connecticut. Speaking on his morning radio show, Dobson outlined a litany of sins that he said have driven God away from America.

Right Wing Watch has the audio and transcript:

"Our country really does seem in complete disarray. I'm not talking politically, I'm not talking about the result of the November 6 election; I am saying that something has gone wrong in America and that we have turned our back on God.

"I mean millions of people have decided that God doesn't exist, or he's irrelevant to me and we have killed 54 million babies and the institution of marriage is right on the verge of a complete redefinition. Believe me, that is going to have consequences too.

"And a lot of these things are happening around us, and somebody is going to get mad at me for saying what I am about to say right now, but I am going to give you my honest opinion: I think we have turned our back on the Scripture and on God Almighty and I think he has allowed judgment to fall upon us. I think that's what's going on."



Never wanting to be outdone, the antigay haters at the Westboro Baptist Church took to Twitter on Friday to blame the gunman's actions on American acceptance of marriage equality. But when Westboro announced plans to picket Sandy Hook Elementary and the funerals of the victims, the "hacktivist" collective Anonymous hacked the group's accounts and posted key members' names and phone numbers online.

While right-wing "people of faith" find scapegoats for Friday's massacre, LGBT activists including the Human Rights Campaign expressed condolences and hopes for peace.

"We extend condolences, thoughts and prayers to the families of the victims as well as to the entire state of Connecticut which is still reeling from this senseless act violence," said HRC president Chad Griffin in a statement. "We note with sadness that it was less than a week since two innocent lives were lost at a mall in Oregon, and we offer our well-wishes and support to law enforcement officials investigating these truly heinous crimes.”

Friday, December 7, 2012

The Wedge Has Lost Its Edge, Except For Hate Groups Like The American Family Association Of Pennsylvania

Supreme Court and Prop 8 - A Longer Walk Down the Aisle

by Hank Plante for SFGate:

In the words of those other Supremes, You Can't Hurry Love.

After months of waiting, Friday's news that the U.S. Supreme Court will finally hear California's Proposition 8 case as well as the validity of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, means all this has dragged on longer than a Kardashian's wedding.

It was already bad enough for anxious Californians, as tens of thousands of gays and lesbians in this state were left at the altar on election night, when voters in four other states delivered what gay writer Andrew Sullivan called, "The biggest night for gay rights in electoral history."

But here in the state known as a trend-setter, we've been dealt a different hand: a four-year engagement in the courts that ultimately led to the U.S. Supreme Court now hearing the cases.

Californians watched from the sidelines as gay and lesbian marriages were approved for the first time by voters in Washington, Maryland and Maine (and an attempt to write a same-sex marriage ban into Minnesota's constitution failed). The November election results meant that 15 percent of Americans now live in states where same-sex marriage is legal. California same-sex marriages would double that figure if they're allowed to happen.

In addition to the Prop. 8 case, the Supreme Court will also act on DOMA, which denies federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Like Prop. 8, DOMA was ruled unconstitutional by federal appeals courts.

Much has been written about how DOMA denies more than 1,100 federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples, including the ability of one partner to inherit another's Social Security benefits.

But for a real-time glimpse of DOMA's impact, look at last month's news from Seattle. There, the Boeing Co. is saying it is undecided about awarding pensions to surviving gay spouses, despite the fact that Washington State voters just passed same-sex marriage.

It seems that pensions are covered under federal law, which trumps state law, and under DOMA there is no recognition of same-sex marriage. Boeing's spokesman told the Seattle Times, "This is obviously a new law and we'll take a closer look to see how it impacts us across the board."

But union negotiators at Boeing say the company has "no intention of providing such coverage."

Meanwhile, while all this excitement about same-sex marriage is thanks to the Supreme Court, it stands in stark contrast to how quiet the subject has been during the presidential election. Once President Obama endorsed same-sex marriage, it never seemed to dominate the campaigns. And there's a reason for that.

An important study from the Pew Research Center this year found same-sex marriage last on a list of voters' concerns. In fact, it was number 18 on that list, following issues like the economy, health care and terrorism. Gay marriage has lost its punch as a political issue, even for Republicans.

As Evan Wolfson of the group Freedom to Marry says, "The wedge has lost its edge."

Even young evangelicals are more accepting of gay peers than their elders. A 2011 poll by the Public Religion Research Institute found nearly half of young evangelicals favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.

None of this is any surprise to political analysts like Dan Schnur, former communications director for both McCain and California Gov. Pete Wilson. Schnur, who is now director of the Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California, says: "The age demographics on the same-sex marriage issue are almost unique in public opinion annals. I've never seen a generational trend so pronounced. Call it the 'Glee-ification' of America, but younger voters in both parties have been trending much more strongly in support of same-sex marriage than their older counterparts."

And the numbers bear that out.

A Field Poll released this year found 59 percent of California voters now support same-sex marriage, which is an exact reversal of the 59 percent who opposed it back in 1977, the first year Field polled on the subject.

Can we draw any clues from history on what the Supreme Court will do?

For an answer, look no farther than the U.S. Supreme Court's own history on gay rights: The court upheld Georgia's anti-sodomy law in the 1986 Bowers vs. Hardwick case. But then, in 2003, the court reversed itself and struck down a similar Texas sodomy law in the Lawrence vs. Texas case. With that, the court essentially decriminalized homosexuality in the United States.

No one exemplifies the evolution in thinking on gay rights more than Sen. Dianne Feinstein. When she was mayor of San Francisco in 1982, she vetoed a domestic partnership bill that the Board of Supervisors had passed. A popular joke in the gay community back then was, "Dianne must think 'domestic partners' is a housecleaning service."

Feinstein drew criticism from gays and lesbians again on the day after the 2004 presidential election, when John Kerry lost to George W. Bush. Standing on the front lawn of her Presidio Terrace home, Feinstein was asked by a reporter if San Francisco's premature issuance of same-sex marriage licenses hurt Democrats.

Her now famous reply: "I think the whole issue has been too much, too fast, too soon."

But fast-forward to 2012, and it was Feinstein who was the most prominent politician to speak out against Prop. 8, and who has been leading the charge in the U.S. Senate to repeal DOMA.

Prop. 8's passage is how it all wound up in the courts.

After the botched "No on 8" campaign, the backlash against its LGBT leaders was so strong that when Hollywood's Rob Reiner enlisted heavyweight lawyers David Boies and Ted Olson to take Prop. 8 to court, they refused to allow the gay groups from joining their case. All sides now say they have patched up their differences, but it remains ironic that some of the strongest voices for gay rights in California's court case have been three straight men: Reiner, and the two lawyers he raised money to hire: the odd couple of Boies and Olson. Boise is an old-fashioned liberal, and Olson is an old-fashioned conservative, from back in the days when conservatives believed the government should stay out of your bedroom.

The bottom line now is we will know something definitive from the highest court in the land, even if it means waiting a little longer. As Jon Davidson, from the pro-gay Lambda Legal Defense Fund puts it, "The tide is not turning; it's turned."


Hank Plante is an Emmy and Peabody-winning reporter who covered the Prop. 8 election and trial for CBS 5 TV News in San Francisco.


Monday, November 12, 2012

Wedge Politics and Racial Division No Longer Working for Hate Groups Like the American Family Association

African Americans and Latinos Spur Gay Marriage Revolution

from the Washington Post (11/12/12):

Last Tuesday’s election was a watershed moment for the gay marriage movement. Voters in three states voted to legalize it — something no state had done before — and a fourth state voted against a proposed ban.

And if the movement catches on in other states, African Americans and Latinos will be a big reason why.

In fact, exit polls now show a majority of both groups now favor gay marriage.

Maine, Maryland and Washington state all passed new gay marriage laws on Tuesday, while voters in Minnesota defeated a ban.

In some ways, the pro-gay marriage votes were a long time coming, with polls showing more and more Americans moving in support of gay marriage in recent years. But the fact that voters in multiple states signed off on gay marriage all at once on Tuesday suggests a significant leap forward, in addition to the incremental progress.

And while the usual suspects continue to favor gay marriage — young people and non-religious people — exit polls show the most important shifts in support among two key communities: African Americans and Hispanics.

Black voters, in particular, have been slow to embrace gay marriage, even as the vast majority vote Democratic and the rest of the party has embraced gay marriage. On Tuesday, though, they played a major role in passing Maryland’s new gay marriage law.

Maryland is heavily Democratic, which made it a likely candidate to be one of the first states to vote for gay marriage. But the state is also heavily African-American (29 percent) and has a significant Latino population (8 percent), which made passage something less than certain.

When California voted for a gay marriage ban in 2008, 70 percent of African Americans voted for it, and when North Carolina overwhelmingly passed a similar measure earlier this year, many cited the black vote as a big reason. (Shortly after the ban passed in North Carolina, President Obama came out in favor of gay marriage.)

On Tuesday in Maryland, though, 46 percent of African Americans supported gay marriage. And according to national exit polls, 52 percent of both black and Latino voters who turned out Tuesday said they support gay marriage in their states.

(The largest shift came from black women, of which 59 percent now support gay marriage, compared to 42 percent of black men — a huge gender gap.)

That’s a big turnaround from recent years. In 2008 and 2009, a Pew Research Center survey showed just 28 percent of African Americans and 39 percent of Latinos backed gay marriage. And by 2010, support in those communities was rising slower than it was among whites.

The exit polls suggest both groups have now moved in large numbers toward supporting gay marriage. Their shifts may not be bigger than other demographics, but the fact that they are shifting at all (after sticking to their opposition) is what’s really significant here.

And given their affinity for President Obama — 93 percent of African Americans and 71 percent of Latinos voted for the president — it’s not unreasonable to think that his support had an impact.

That said, the other three states (besides Maryland) that voted in favor of gay marriage Tuesday are among the whitest states in the country, with Maine being the whitest and Minnesota being 83 percent white.

That’s not surprising, as support has also increased among many other demographics, including Republicans and older people.

But the fact is that the states that are the most Democratic — and thus the likeliest candidates to pass gay marriage laws — tend to be more diverse (California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, etc.). And if African Americans and Latinos are as onboard with gay marriage as the exit polls suggest, the four states that voted in favor of gay marriage on Tuesday might be the first of many.

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Good News: Christian Right Spread Word; Fewer Voters Listened

by Laurie Goodstein for the New York Times:

Christian conservatives, for more than two decades a pivotal force in U.S. politics, are grappling with Election Day results that repudiated their influence and suggested that the cultural tide — especially on gay issues — has shifted against them.

They are reeling not only from the loss of the presidency but from what many of them see as a rejection of their agenda. They lost fights against same-sex marriage in all four states where it was on the ballot, saw anti-abortion-rights Senate candidates defeated and two states vote to legalize marijuana for recreational use.

It is not as though they did not put up a fight; they went all out as never before: The Rev. Billy Graham dropped any pretense of nonpartisanship and all but endorsed Mitt Romney for president. Roman Catholic bishops denounced President Barack Obama's policies as a threat to life, religious liberty and the traditional nuclear family. Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition distributed more voter guides in churches and contacted more homes by mail and phone than ever before.

"Millions of American evangelicals are absolutely shocked by not just the presidential election but by the entire avalanche of results that came in," R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Louisville, Ky., said in an interview. "It's not that our message — we think abortion is wrong, we think same-sex marriage is wrong — didn't get out. It did get out."

"It's that the entire moral landscape has changed," he said. "An increasingly secularized America understands our positions and has rejected them."

Conservative Christian leaders said that they would intensify their efforts to make their case but were just beginning to discuss how to proceed.

"We're not going away; we just need to recalibrate," said Bob Vander Plaats, president and chief executive of The Family Leader, an evangelical organization in Iowa.

The election results are just one indication of larger trends in American religion that Christian conservatives are still digesting, political analysts say. Americans who have no religious affiliation — pollsters call them the "nones" — are now about one-fifth of the population overall, according to a study released last month by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

The younger generation is even less religious: About one-third of Americans ages 18-22 say they are either atheists, agnostics or nothing in particular. Americans who are secular are far more likely to vote for liberal candidates and for same-sex marriage. Seventy percent of those who said they had no religion voted for Obama, according to exit polls conducted by Edison Research.

"This election signaled the last where a white Christian strategy is workable," said Robert P. Jones, chief executive of the Public Religion Research Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research and education organization based in Washington.

"Barack Obama's coalition was less than 4 in 10 white Christian," Jones said. "He made up for that with not only overwhelming support from the African-American and Latino community, but also with the support of the religiously unaffiliated."

In interviews, conservative Christian leaders pointed to other factors that may have blunted their impact in this election: They were outspent by gay rights advocates in the states where marriage was on the ballot; comments on rape by Senate candidates Todd Akin in Missouri and Richard Mourdock in Indiana were ridiculed nationwide and alienated women voters; and they never trusted Romney as a reliably conservative voice on social issues.

However, they acknowledge that they are losing ground. The evangelical share of the population is both declining and graying, studies show. Large churches like the Southern Baptist Convention and the Assemblies of God, which have provided an organizing base for the Christian right, are losing members.

"In the long run, this means that the Republican constituency is going to be shrinking on the religious end as well as the ethnic end," said James L. Guth, a professor of political science at Furman University in Greenville, S.C.

Meanwhile, religious liberals are gradually becoming more visible. Liberal clergy members spoke out in support of same-sex marriage, and one group ran ads praising Obama's health care plan for insuring the poor and the sick.

In a development that highlighted the diversity within the Catholic Church, the "Nuns on the Bus" drove through the Midwest warning that the budget proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, would cut the social safety net.

For the Christian right in this election, fervor and turnout were not the problem, many organizers said in interviews. White evangelicals made up 26 percent of the electorate — 3 percent more than in 2004, when they helped to propel President George W. Bush to re-election. During the Republican primaries, some commentators said that Romney's Mormon faith would drive away evangelicals, many of whom consider his church a heretical cult.

And yet, in the end, evangelicals voted overwhelmingly for Romney — even matching the presidential vote of Mormons: 78 percent for Romney and 21 percent for Obama, according to exit polls by Edison Research.

"We did our job," said Reed, who helped pioneer religious voter mobilization with the Christian Coalition in the 1980s and '90s, and is now founder and chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition.

He said that his organization outdid itself this year, putting out 30 million voter guides in 117,000 churches, 24 million mailings to voters in battleground states and 26 million phone calls.

"Those voters turned out, and they voted overwhelmingly against Obama," Reed said. "You can't just overperform among voters of faith. There's got to be a strategy for younger voters, unmarried voters, women voters — especially single women — and minorities."

The Christian right should have a natural inroad with Hispanics. The vast majority of Hispanics are evangelical or Catholic, and many of those are religious conservatives opposed to same-sex marriage and abortion. And yet, the pressing issue of immigration trumped religion, and Obama won the Hispanic vote by 44 percentage points.

"Latino Protestants were almost as inclined to vote for Mr. Obama as their Catholic brethren were," said Guth, at Furman, "and that's certainly a big change, and going the wrong direction as far as Republicans are concerned."

The election outcome was also sobering news for Catholic bishops, who this year spoke out on politics more forcefully and more explicitly than ever before, some experts said. The bishops and Catholic conservative groups helped lead the fight against same-sex marriage in the four states where that issue was on the ballot. Nationwide, they undertook a campaign that accused Obama of undermining religious liberty, redoubling their efforts when a provision in the health care overhaul required most employers to provide coverage for contraception.

Despite this, Obama retained the Catholic vote, 50 to 48 percent, according to exit polls, although his support slipped from four years ago. Also, solid majorities of Catholics supported same-sex marriage, said Jones, the pollster.

Bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento, Calif., who serves on the bishops' domestic policy committee, said that the bishops spoke out on many issues, including immigration and poverty, but got media attention only when they talked about abortion, same-sex marriage and religious liberty. Voters who identify as Catholic but do not attend Mass on Sunday may not have been listening, he said, but Catholics who attend Mass probably "weigh what the church has to say."

"I think good Catholics can be found across the political spectrum," Soto said, "but I do think they wrestle with what the church teaches."

Thursday, November 8, 2012

This Is What Equality Looks Like

The historic moment when supports of marriage equality in Maine learn that Question 1 will pass and equal marriage will become a reality in the state.

Monday, November 5, 2012

American Family Association of Pennsylvania Ignores Heterosexual Sex Crimes In Military

In efforts to oppose the repeal of the military's discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, the Venango County-based Hate Group known as the American Family Association of Pennsylvania spent years promoting viciously harmful and deceitful propaganda about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.  But this Hate Group never seems to be concerned about the true roots of sexual violence in the military, or society at-large, such as those described here.

Prosecutors Allege 5 Women In Army General's Sex Crimes

from the Associated Press:

FORT BRAGG, N.C. » U.S. Army prosecutors offered the first details of a rare criminal case against a general, alleging in a military hearing today he committed sex crimes against five women including four subordinates and a civilian.

A so-called Article 32 hearing on evidence in the case against Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair began today at Fort Bragg, a sprawling post that is home to the 82nd Airborne Division. Officials said it was expected to last at least two days.

Sinclair faces possible courts martial on charges including forcible sodomy, wrongful sexual conduct, violating orders, engaging in inappropriate relationships, misusing a government travel charge card, and possessing pornography and alcohol while deployed. He served as deputy commander in charge of logistics and support for the division's troops in Afghanistan from July 2010 until he was sent home in May because of the allegations.

The Army had kept details secret until now in the rare criminal case against a high-ranking officer. That is different from other high-profile case where Army prosecutors were quick to release charging documents.

In March, the Army quickly released charge sheets laying out evidence against Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, the soldier accused of gunning down 17 Afghan civilians during a massacre in southern Afghanistan.

The first Article 32 hearing in Bale's case also began today across the country in Washington at Joint Base Lewis-McChord south of Seattle.

There have been only two other court-martial cases against Army generals in recent years.

Prosecutors in Sinclair's case alleged at today's hearing that the crimes happened between 2007 and 2012 in places including Iraq, Afghanistan and Germany, as well as Fort Bragg and Fort Hood in Texas.

In one case, prosecutors also said that Sinclair threatened one woman's career, as well as her life and the lives of her relatives, if she told anyone about his actions.

Sinclair's attorney asked for the charges to be thrown out, arguing that prosecutors had read confidential emails between the general and his defense. Defense attorney Lt. Col. Jackie Thompson said this violated his client's rights and asked that new prosecutors be brought in to try the case.

The hearing officer called a recess until early this afternoon to give a legal adviser time to review the documents.

Saturday, November 3, 2012

Gay Pakistanis, Still in Shadows, Seek Acceptance

A glimpse of life for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in Pakistan, not terribly dissimilar from the world 'religious' extremists and local hate groups, such as the American Family Association of Pennsylvania, are trying to maintain in Venango County and throughout Northwesten Pennsylvania ... Though The Tide Is Undeniably Turning In Favor Of Dignity, Respect, Justice And Equality For All!
 
from The New York Times:

LAHORE, Pakistan — The group meets irregularly in a simple building among a row of shops here that close in the evening. Drapes cover the windows. Sometimes members watch movies or read poetry. Occasionally, they give a party, dance and drink and let off steam.

The group is invitation only, by word of mouth. Members communicate through an e-mail list and are careful not to jeopardize the location of their meetings. One room is reserved for “crisis situations,” when someone may need a place to hide, most often from her own family. This is their safe space — a support group for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Pakistanis.

“The gay scene here is very hush-hush,” said Ali, a member who did not want his full name used. “I wish it was a bit more open, but you make do with what you have.”

That is slowly changing as a relative handful of younger gays and lesbians, many educated in the West, seek to foster more acceptance of their sexuality and to carve out an identity, even in a climate of religious conservatism.

Homosexual acts remain illegal in Pakistan, based on laws constructed by the British during colonial rule. No civil rights legislation exists to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination.

But the reality is far more complex, more akin to “don’t ask, don’t tell” than a state-sponsored witch hunt. For a long time, the state’s willful blindness has provided space enough for gays and lesbians. They socialize, organize, date and even live together as couples, though discreetly.

One journalist, in his early 40s, has been living as a gay man in Pakistan for almost two decades. “It’s very easy being gay here, to be honest,” he said, though he and several others interviewed did not want their names used for fear of the social and legal repercussions. “You can live without being hassled about it,” he said, “as long as you are not wearing a pink tutu and running down the street carrying a rainbow flag.”

The reason is that while the notion of homosexuality may be taboo, homosocial, and even homosexual, behavior is common enough. Pakistani society is sharply segregated on gender lines, with taboos about extramarital sex that make it almost harder to conduct a secret heterosexual romance than a homosexual one. Displays of affection between men in public, like hugging and holding hands, are common. “A guy can be with a guy anytime, anywhere, and no one will raise an eyebrow,” the journalist said.

For many in his and previous generations, he said, same-sex attraction was not necessarily an issue because it did not involve questions of identity. Many Pakistani men who have sex with men do not think of themselves as gay. Some do it regularly, when they need a break from their wives, they say, and some for money.

But all the examples of homosexual relations — in Sufi poetry, Urdu literature or discreet sexual conduct — occur within the private sphere, said Hina Jilani, a human rights lawyer and activist for women’s and minority rights. Homoeroticism can be expressed but not named.

“The biggest hurdle,” Ms. Jilani said, “is finding the proper context in which to bring this issue out into the open.”

That is what the gay and lesbian support group in Lahore is slowly seeking to do, even if it still meets in what amounts to near secrecy.

The driving force behind the group comes from two women, ages 30 and 33. They are keenly aware of the oddity that two women, partners no less, have become architects of the modern gay scene in Lahore; if gay and bisexual men barely register in the collective societal consciousness of Pakistan, their female counterparts are even less visible.

“The organizing came from my personal experience of extreme isolation, the sense of being alone and different,” the 30-year-old said.

She decided that she needed to find others like her in Pakistan. Eight people, mostly the couple’s friends, attended the first meeting in January 2009.

Two months later, the two women formed an activist group they call O. They asked for its full name not to be published because it is registered as a nongovernmental organization with the government, with its true purpose concealed because of the laws against homosexual acts.

O conducts research into lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues, provides legal advice and has helped remove people from difficult family situations, and in one case a foreign-operated prostitution ring. The group has made a conscious decision to focus its efforts on the dynamic of family and building social acceptance and awareness rather than directly tackling legal discrimination.

Their current fight is not to overturn Article 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code, on “Unnatural Offenses,” but to influence parents’ deciding whether or not to shun their gay child. They see this approach as ultimately more productive.

“If you talk about space in Pakistan in terms of milestones that happen in the other parts of the world like pride parades or legal reform or whatever, that’s not going to happen for a long time,” the 33-year-old organizer, who identifies as bisexual, said. “Families making space — that’s what’s important to us right now.” Both women say their families have accepted them, though it was a process.

There are distinct class differences at work here, particularly when it comes to self-definition. Most of those actively involved in fostering the gay and lesbian community in Pakistan, even if they have not been educated abroad, are usually college graduates and are familiar with the evolution of Western thought concerning sexuality. Mostly city-dwellers, they come from families whose parents can afford to send their children to school.

Those who identify themselves as gay here are usually middle and upper middle class, the 33-year-old woman said. “You will get lower middle class or working-class women refusing to call themselves lesbian because that to them is an insult, so they’ll say ‘woman loving woman.’ ”

While the journalist lives relatively openly as a gay man, and says his immediate family accepts it, he understands that older gays have separated sexuality from identity, and he also recognizes that this approach is changing.

Still, he sees the potential for serious conflict for younger Pakistanis who are growing up with a more westernized sense of sexual identity.

“They’ve got all the access to content coming from a Western space, but they don’t have the outlets for expression that exist over there,” he said. “Inevitably they will feel a much greater sense of frustration and express it in ways that my generation wouldn’t have.”

That clash of ideologies was evident last year on June 26, when the American Embassy in Islamabad held its first lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender pride celebration. The display of support for gay rights prompted a backlash, setting off demonstrations in Karachi and Lahore, and protesters clashing with the police outside the diplomatic enclave in Islamabad. This year, the embassy said, it held a similar event but did not issue a news release about it.

“It is the policy of the United States government to support and promote equal rights for all human beings,” an embassy spokeswoman, Rian Harris, said by e-mail when asked about the backlash. “We are committed to standing up for these values around the world, including here in Pakistan.”

Well intended as it may have been, the event was seen by many in Pakistan’s gay community as detrimental to their cause. The 33-year-old activist strongly believes it was a mistake.

“The damage that the U.S. pride event has done is colossal,” she said, “just in terms of creating an atmosphere of fear that was not there before. The public eye is not what we need right now.”

Despite the hostile climate, both the support group and O continue their work. O is currently researching violence against lesbian, bisexual and transgender Pakistanis.

“In a way, we are just role models for each other,” the 30-year-old said. When she was growing up, she said, she did not know anyone who was gay and she could not imagine such a life.

“For me the whole activism is to create that space in which we can imagine a future for ourselves, and not even imagine but live that future,” she said. “And we are living it. I’m living my own impossibility.”

Friday, November 2, 2012

The "Ex-Gay" Myth in The New York Times

‘Ex-Gay’ Men Fight Back Against View That Homosexuality Can’t Be Changed
The New York Times - Nov. 1, 2012

A Response by Wayne Besen, Truth Wins Out:

In California, Gov. Jerry Brown recently signed SB 1172 that stops quack therapists from practicing dangerous “ex-gay” techniques on minors. This is great news, considering the American Psychiatric Association says that such practices can lead to “anxiety, depression, and self-destructive behavior.” Why would any responsible state allow children to be subjected to such child abuse that may lead to suicide?

Now that California has elected to protect kids from quacks, several states are considering passing similar measures in 2013. Stung by the California defeat and worried about their future, the lucrative “ex-gay” industry is launching a PR offensive to stop new laws from being passed in states and even at the federal level. The first shot in this PR war is the launching of the “ex-gay” website Voices of Change which is being promoted by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and People Can Change (PCC), an organization with close ties to discredited laughingstock Richard Cohen. This new, website contains a video from NARTH co-founder Dr. Joseph Nicolosi where he claims that half of all his clients are teenagers.

“We are getting more an more teenagers coming to our clinic,” said NARTH’s Dr. Joseph Nicolosi. “Years ago when I did this work, the average age of our clients was late 20′s and early 30′s…Today, I would say that 50-percent of the clients at our clinic, and we have 135 ongoing cases a week. We have seven therapists that only deal with homosexuality. Fifty percent are teenagers.”

If this weren’t disconcerting enough, Cohen’s International Healing Foundation (IHF) has received a huge infusion of cash to target desperate and vulnerable LGBT youth. More than $635,000 was donated to IHF in 2011, with most of the funds allocated for group’s “Special Schools Project.” This appears to be an effort to con school districts into believing that IHF is a pro-gay organization that stands for diversity and is opposed to bullying. However, the group’s dishonest materials cunningly try to steer LGBT youth to “ex-gay” organizations.

Today’s New York Times story written by reporter Erik Eckholm is set in the middle of this ongoing fight. It focuses on the marketing efforts of “ex-gay” activists to try to trick Americans into believing they have gone from gay to straight. Fortunately, it seems that some of the people who commented on the Times’ website today saw through the “ex-gay” charade:

It doesn’t seem like these men are ‘not gay,’ it just seems they are no longer sexually active with other men. If these were the best examples of people ‘cured,’ then the results speak for themselves. Celibacy is not the same thing as heterosexual. – Julia Pappas-Fidicia, New York City

As a Clinical Psychologist who has written on ‘reparative therapy,’ let me offer a suggestion. Those offering reparative therapy should no longer offer it as a therapy of any sort, but instead as a religious ritual or discipline. After all, that’s what L. Ron Hubbard did with Dianetics when he got into trouble offering it as a treatment. He simply turned it into a world religion. Scientology. Let ‘Gay Reparative Therapy’ be the Scientology of Christianity. — Jonathan C. Smith, PhD, Chicago

I feel a great deal of sympathy for these men, who are clearly suffering. I’m sure these treatments are not cheap…They are being taken advantage of by unscrupulous psychologists and ‘therapists.’ – Daisy, Boston

Before we look at this story, I want to share a few thoughts:

First, NARTH — which is the leading “ex-gay” organization — is to the study of sexual orientation what a mood ring is to the science of depression. Ex-Gay practices are a fringe PR gimmick designed to trick a majority of voters into believing that gay people can change so they can rationalize discrimination and justify poor treatment. Here are two very telling quotes that capture the real views of NARTH:

“Homosexuality is a psychological disorder, there is no question about it,” said NARTH co-founder, the late Charles Socarides. “It is a purple menace that is threatening the proper design of gender distinctions in society.” – Weiss, Rick (1997) Psychologists reconsider gay conversion therapy, The Washington Post, Aug. 14

“The most important message we can offer is that there is that there is such thing as a ‘gay child’ or a ‘gay teen.’ We are all designed to be heterosexual. Confusion about gender is primarily a psychological condition, and to some extent, it can be modified.” (p. 16) A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality, Joseph and Linda Ames Nicolosi (2002)

In the first quote, Socarides reveals NARTH’s true hostility by calling homosexuality a “purple menace.” Now, I’m not a psychiatrist, but I suspect that the phrase “purple menace” appears nowhere in the literature at top universities where future mental health experts are trained.

In the second quote, Nicolosi uses the phrase “designed to be heterosexuals.” Designed by whom? They are clearly talking about God. Reparative therapy is a discredited practice because of its theological origins masquerading as science. Where genuine science seeks to explore the natural world in hope of discovering answers, reparative therapy is the opposite because it starts with a prepackaged theological answer and gropes for verbiage to justify its preordained conclusion. The prospect for learning and observation are non-existent, since all results have to conclude that homosexuality is a purple menace caused by a mental illness that can be fixed. Clearly, reparative therapy is based on the Scripture Method, not the Scientific Method.

The often desperate and vulnerable clients featured in today’s NYT article are extremely susceptible to swaggering “ex-gay” therapists who appear to have all the answers. For many, if the therapy does not work, they will immediately become outcasts in the religious communities they grew up in. They can lose their family. If they are youth they can become homeless. In other words, there can be enormous incentives for claiming transformation, even when it is not true.

This is exacerbated by name it-and-claim it theology shared by many “ex-gay” ministries. The idea is that if you keep repeating something desirable and have faith in God, He will reward you for your faith. Much “ex-gay” testimony can be attributed to such theology which can be summarized as lying to please the Lord. This tradition is a Catch 22, because if you acknowledge not changing, the minister might say, “of course you aren’t changing, you don’t have enough faith.”

Finally, there is also the issue of conflict of interest or “ex-gay” for pay. Leading NARTH defenders, like David Pickup and James Phelan, have a business model they are defending. Because of clear financial incentives, what they claim about change is essentially meaningless — much like those selling products on late night infomercials. It should be noted that it is difficult to find many “ex-gays” who don’t have a conflict of interest, such as running a therapy outfit or a ministry.

Now, on to the New York Times article. It begins with the story of Blake Smith:

Mr. Smith, 58, who says he believes homosexual behavior is wrong on religious grounds, tried to tough it out. He spent 17 years in a doomed marriage while battling his urges all day, he said, and dreaming about them all night.

But in recent years, as he probed his childhood in counseling and at men’s weekend retreats with names like People Can Change and Journey Into Manhood, “my homosexual feelings have nearly vanished,’ Mr. Smith said in an interview at the house in Bakersfield, Calif., he shares with his second wife, who married him eight years ago knowing his history. “In my 50s, for the first time, I can look at a woman and say ‘she’s really hot.’ ”

I pity Blake and his family. How did it make his wife feel when he was pretending to be attracted to her for 17 years while dreaming about men all night? How does arranging such doomed marriages promote family values? It seems that Blake has wasted the majority of his life in denial, selfishly dragging down women into his self-induced shame hell. He deserves to find true love and physical satisfaction, and so do his two wives, past and present. Had he not been indoctrinated with anti-gay religious dogma, he likely would have been much happier, whole, and not viewed his sexuality as a cosmic battle between good and evil. Blake does not represent success, but the neurotic mess that homophobia can make of one’s life. Instead of liberating Blake, he’s in his 50′s still deluding himself at the expense of his family. I’ve seen this story before — where men finally come out in their 60′s and 70′s and ask, “where did my life go?”

I’m going to be blunt: I don’t believe that Blake finds women hot. When it comes to wild claims of creating a heterosexual attraction for homosexuals, “ex-gay” organizations have no credibility and shouldn’t be taken seriously. How many “ex-gay” posterboys have they put forward only to be revealed as frauds? Given the number of high level failures, one would have to be naive to take their tales of change at face value.

The story continues, pointing out two recent disasters for the “ex-gay” myth:

Reparative therapy suffered two other major setbacks this year. In April, a prominent psychiatrist, Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, publicly repudiated as invalid his own 2001 study suggesting that some people could change their sexual orientation; the study had been widely cited by defenders of the therapy.

Then this summer, the ex-gay world was convulsed when Alan Chambers, the president of Exodus International, the largest Christian ministry for people fighting same-sex attraction, said he did not believe anyone could be rid of homosexual desires

I’m a big proponent of using physical measures to test whether such people have gone from gay to straight. (No Lie MRI, polygraph, penile plethysmography). Relying on the tale of an “ex-gay” who often has a financial incentive or is under immense social pressure or religious duress to claim success is a waste of time. Since physical tests exist, why doesn’t NARTH use them? Is Blake willing to take one? If not, what is he hiding?

On the topic of genuine “change,” here is a revealing quote from former Brazilian “ex-gay” poster boy Sergio Viula:

“In fact, ex-gays don’t exist – it’s pure self-suggestion…What we ex-gay purveyors did was an act of violence against ourselves, as we had internalized the homophobia that surrounded us from early childhood, as well as against the others, because we reproduced that very homophobia which they had internalized by themselves long before. We just reinforced it even more.”

Next, the article states:

Mr. Smith is one of thousands of men across the country, often known as “ex-gay,” who believe they have changed their most basic sexual desires through some combination of therapy and prayer — something most scientists say has never been proved possible and is likely an illusion.

The New York Times article actually refutes the “ex-gay” claim that there are thousands of such folks by the people interviewed:

Aaron Bitzer, 35, was so angered by the California ban, which will take effect on Jan. 1, that he went public and became a plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the law as unconstitutional.

To those who call the therapy dangerous, Mr. Bitzer reverses the argument: “If I’d known about these therapies as a teen I could have avoided a lot of depression, self-hatred and suicidal thoughts,” he said at his apartment in Los Angeles. He was tormented as a Christian teenager by his homosexual attractions, but now, after men’s retreats and an online course of reparative therapy, he says he feels glimmers of attraction for women and is thinking about dating.

“I found that I couldn’t just say ‘I’m gay’ and live that way,” said Mr. Bitzer, who plans to seek a doctorate in psychology and become a therapist himself.


So the posterboy for success that the “ex-gay” industry provides America’s most prestigious newspaper says he feels “glimmers of attraction for women?” If this is the best they can do, it proves the entire “ex-gay” schtick is a public relations campaign, not genuine therapy that produces actual results. For all the boasting, bluster, and bravado, the “ex-gay” industry has virtually no success stories to highlight. For example, when Dr. Robert Spitzer asked NARTH’s Dr. Joseph Nicolosi for subjects to participate in his 2001 study on whether people could go from gay to straight, Nicolosi failed to deliver his allegedly “changed” homosexuals. In a video TWO filmed this year with Spitzer, the psychiatrist claimed:

He [Nicolosi] just didn’t have many patients who could really claim that they had changed.



With a lack of real success stories from actual clients, the “ex-gay” industry is forced to make the preposterous claim that “ex-gays” are invisible because they are afraid to come out of the closet, fearing that people like me might be mean to them. According to the Times story:

Ex-gay men are often closeted, fearing ridicule from gay advocates who accuse them of self-deception and, at the same time, fearing rejection by their church communities as tainted oddities…Many ex-gays guard their secret but quietly meet in support groups around the country, sharing ideas on how to avoid temptations or, perhaps, broach their past with a female date.

Here are a few facts:

The figures show that homosexuals are 2.4 times more likely to suffer a violent hate crime attack than Jews. Gays are 2.6 times more likely to be attacked than blacks; 4.4 times more likely than Muslims; 13.8 times more likely than Latinos; and 41.5 times more likely than whites, according to the FBI figures. Homosexuals are far more likely than any other minority group in the United States to be victimized by violent hate crimes.

Clearly, the consequences of coming out as a gay person can be very real, while there is zero evidence to show that coming out as heterosexual (which is what ex-gays presumably are) is dangerous. Despite the ominous figures, millions of gay people have still managed to come out, even in conservative or rural areas. My spouse came out in a Nebraska town of 700 people. Yet, somehow we are supposed to believe that so-called “ex-gays,” with no evidence that they are victims of hate crimes, are cowed into hiding? Such whining defies logic and is simply the irrational bleating and excuse making of “ex-gay” groups who can’t produce success stories to back their unsubstantiated claims.

Interestingly, the LGBT movement has no trouble showing survivors of such psychological abuse and there are even support groups, like Beyond Ex-Gay.

In short, the “ex-gay” industry is posing as victims when they are actually the victimizers. They are about enforcing rigid gender norms, restrictive stereotypes, and portraying homosexuality in the worst possible light. Far from open minded, the only acceptable outcome for clients in such intolerant programs is heterosexuality. Anyone who comes to a different conclusion is ostracized and stigmatized. It is most amusing that the “ex-gay” industry has recently adopted the liberal arguments of choice, exploration, and self-determination, when in reality these alleged choices are a mirage. What they really offer is heterosexuality or the highway. Who are they kidding?

The truth is, “ex-gay” abuse is about shame and blame. Virtually no one over the age of thirty felt comfortable growing up gay. Even in today’s more accepting society, there are large swaths of America where coming out can mean social death, rejection, and even violence. However, that has nothing to do with one’s homosexuality, but the way people react to it. Reparative therapy adds to the stigma, reinforces a client’s shame, and confuses stereotypes with science. Had the the people featured in this story been brought up in a more accepting environment, then they would have been more comfortable as gay. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, consists of sexual arousal and feelings of love — two beautiful elements that make life meaningful. The only way it is possible that homosexuality can make one unhappy is if it is portrayed as bad and leads to adverse social consequences. (which is why “ex-gay” groups are in favor of anti-gay laws) The idea that homosexuality on its own can lead to unhappiness is a bizarre and incoherent notion rooted in bias.

What we do know is that acceptance of LGBT youth makes a huge difference on whether they succeed or fail:

San Francisco State researcher Caitlin Ryan found that LGBT teens who experienced negative feedback from their families were 8 times as likely to have attempted suicide, 6 times as vulnerable to severe depression, and 3 times at risk for drug abuse. (Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Jan 2009)

Science is also beginning to show that because of social pressure, there are those who claim to be heterosexual — even homophobic — who are actually gay. Reparative therapy is just another variation of the conditions that strongly encourage false reporting. (We know at least two clients of Nicolosi who were asked to participate in Robert Spitzer’s study who were not transformed, which shows the strong degree of coercion used by the reparative therapy industry)

It is important to note that reparative therapy can temporarily make perfect sense intellectually to a lot of people who fit NARTH’s prefabricated model of what causes homosexuality. If one comes from a home with a distant same-sex parent or was sexually abused, or picked last on sports teams, their paradigm seems to explain everything in a neat and tidy manner. Except it really explains nothing at all and there is no evidence that such family dynamics cause homosexuality any more than an affinity for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches or the enjoyment of Hula Hoops. NARTH’s family model can also describe the experiences of countless heterosexuals. It also conveniently ignores the fact that a great number of LGBT people grew up in loving homes where they were close to both parents. For example, I’m very close to my parents who have been married for 43 years. I was never sexually violated. I grew up bowling, fishing, and playing football. I was the captain of my high school basketball team, MVP, and second team All-City in 1988. When I hear the theories of reparative therapists, I think they are bizarre and have little to do with reality. But, that’s easy for me to conclude, given my background. It’s not so easy for those to figure out who fit neatly into NARTH’s fabricated paradigm and are more easily exploited.

In terms of “ex-gay” industry opening up old wounds by discussing family dynamics, this can be terribly problematic. Unless the counselor is qualified (and many “ex-gay” counselors are not), such unwise actions can cause additional trauma to clients. This is one more reason that LGBT youth should never be subjected to the abuse of such charlatans.

I will also note that initially going to “ex-gay” therapy does bring a sense of relief for some clients. A good portion of them are deeply closeted and have had very little contact with openly gay individuals. Suddenly, they went from complete secrecy, loneliness, and silence, to having their sexual orientation out in the open — even if it is in a dysfunctional faux therapeutic setting. Whether one comes out as gay or “ex-gay” it is still a form of coming out and does bring a sense of peace. However, the same effect can be accomplished in a supportive setting and the glow eventually wears off “ex-gay” counseling when it fails to deliver on its false promise.

One defense for such therapy is this: “I don’t claim this is possible for everyone, but it works for me. What’s wrong with that?”

This is an old huckster technique used to bamboozle gullible people into buying snake oil. The idea is to use personal testimony to claim a product works knowing that such tales are difficult to refute. If one watches late night TV, countless infomercials — from weight loss products to face cream to muscle building formulas — make outrageous claims using personal testimony. The other appealing aspect is that when the product inevitably doesn’t work, the exploited customer can be blamed for not achieving the promised results. Reparative therapy is a con that uses the same tried and true methods of other swindlers. Of course, when it comes to “ex-gay” abuse, when the miracle or change doesn’t come, it can lead to depression or worse, as the victim can’t understand why they are failing. Often, they believe that they were abandoned by God, greatly exacerbating feelings of depression and low self-esteem.

Additionally, no one cares what an adult individual does in his or her private life. The problem arises when so-called “ex-gays” are paraded by political groups on national television and used to testify in an effort to pass anti-gay laws. For example, I started Truth Wins Out in 2006 after George W. Bush invited Exodus’ Alan Chambers to the White House to promote the Federal Marriage Amendment. The “ex-gay” issue only gained traction in 1998 when 16 anti-gay organizations launched the “Truth in Love” campaign with a full-page ad in the New York Times. Indeed, the “ex-gay” issue has never been about changing one’s sexual orientation, but using the idea of change to pass anti-gay laws. “Ex-Gay” activist Greg Quinlan, President of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX) is currently working to overturn a marriage equality in Maryland.

It is also worth mentioning that there is a growing body of science is beginning to show that sexual orientation has biological origins. In many cases, the brains of gay and straight people are subtly different. Anyone or group that makes a blanket statement that sexual orientation is caused by rape or poor parenting doesn’t have a very strong grasp of science, they are not informed on the latest research, or they are deliberately twisting the science for political gain. When groups like NARTH and PFOX makes such statements it reveals a level of ignorance so great that it virtually disqualifies them from even being in the room where serious scientific discussions occur.



I’ll end by featuring the testimony of Cameron Michael Swaim in today’s Times story:

Cameron Michael Swaim, 20, said he is in the early stages of his struggle to overcome homosexual desires. Mr. Swaim is unemployed and lives with his parents in Orange County, Calif., where his father is a pastor of the Evangelical Friends Church of the Southwest.

He tried the gay life, but “it just doesn’t settle with me,” he said, and ultimately decided “there’s got to be a way to heal this affliction.”

Through weekend retreats and participation in a Southern California support group Mr. Swaim has started to explore his family relations, he said, something that has been painful but seems to be helping.

“I’m building my confidence around men,” he said, “ and that has built my confidence around women.”

Five years from now, Mr. Swaim hopes, he will be engaged or married. In the meantime, he is trying to scrape together enough money to start seeing a reparative therapist.

It is a shame that Swaim had the misfortune of being born into a home where he was taught to despise his most intimate feelings and human needs. Had be been born into a better home — one that would have been accepting rather than rejecting — he would not be suffering though the obvious trauma he now endures. It is heartbreaking that he plans to drag a woman into his mess — a woman who surely deserves better than to live his lie. When this future marriage finally falls apart, I urge his ex-wife to contact the Straight Spouse Network. This is a support group for women and men who were often used as props and beards in the destructive game played by the “ex-gay” industry. There is also the book, Straight Wives, Shattered Lives by Bonnie Kaye.



Reparative therapy by nature is coercive. It takes vulnerable people and tries to scare the heck out of them. For example, this comes from pg. 16 of the Nicolosi book, “Preventing Homosexuality“:

There are life threatening health risks associated with the gay lifestyle

A gay lifestyle adjustment will be difficult and socially controversial

Dr. Nicolosi has also told clients: “I do not believe that any man can ever be truly at peace in living out a homosexual orientation.”

Make no mistake, the gross distortions “ex-gay” therapists promulgate about gay life are the key reason people, such as those featured today in the Times, want to change. The charlatans offering help are the ones causing the harm.

The sooner such wanton child abuse can be stopped, the better.


About the Author: Wayne Besen is the Founding Executive Director of Truth Wins Out and author of “Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth” (Haworth, 2003). In 2010, Besen was awarded the “Visionary Award” at the Out Music Awards for organizing the American Prayer Hour, an event which shined a spotlight on the role American evangelicals played in the introduction of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill.