Category: General

Clergy Call

Clergy Call 2011 Banner

On May 22-24, join HRC’s Religion and Faith Program and hundreds of fellow religious leaders from across the country to build the faithful movement for LGBT justice. Now more than ever, we need religious leaders like you to keep equality at the forefront of our nation’s conscience.

Invite your friends, colleagues, local clergy or religious and spiritual community leaders to be a part of the 2011 Clergy Call!

REGISTER TODAY!

 

Barbara Bush Comes out for Gay Marriage

Barbara Bush has become the latest daughter of a prominent Republican politician to come out in favor of same-sex marriage.In a video recorded for gay-rights advocacy group The Human Rights Campaign, the 29-year-old daughter of former President George W. Bush says she believes gay residents of New York, where she lives, should have the right to get married.”New York is about fairness and equality. And everyone should have the right to marry the person that they love,” she says in the video, before imploring viewers to “join us.”

Meghan McCain, former of 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain, has also come out in favor of same-sex marriage, as has her mother Cindy. Dick Cheneys daughter Mary, a lesbian, also supports gay marriage, and her father does as well. And Laura Bush, the former first lady, said in May that couples that “are committed to each other and love each other” should have “the same sort of rights that everyone has.”"

Bushs advocacy shows that equality knows no party label and raises the profile of this timely fight for equal marriage rights in the Empire State,” the Human Rights Campaign said.As president, George W. Bush pushed for a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and Republicans depended on gay marriage referenda to drive out conservative turnout in election years.Barbara has had gay friends dating back at least to her time at Yale University, and her support for same-sex marriage comes as no surprise to her friends. She used to take one gay friend to the White House for dinner with her family when she was in Washington.

via Barbara Bush Comes out for Gay Marriage Video – Political Hotsheet – CBS News.

 

GCN Conference – An Honest Review

I had the privilege of attending the annual GCN (Gay Christian Network) Conference two weekends ago and have yet to write a full review.  I have struggled to write this post because, frankly, I don’t know where to begin.  It was so beautiful, so touching, so encouraging and inspiring in so many ways.  I spoke briefly about it previously (see loveboldly.blogspot.com) but I haven’t yet done it justice.  I think it might be best to  just break it down into some focused (hopefully) general topics:

An overall analysis
The general sessions
The workshops
The relationships
A summary of everything

An Overall Analysis
This was the first year I’ve attended the GCN Conference and I have vowed to never miss it again.  My attendance there was one of the most spiritually and personally significant experiences of my life.  I was a little hesitant going into the weekend, not sure what to expect or what I would experience.  I wasn’t sure how welcome I would be as a straight ally, if I would be able to build friendships easily, etc.  In reality, I was probably pretty concerned that people would demand to know my beliefs and stances on everything – conversations I don’t like to engage at a first point of meeting.  Another thing I was unsure about was whether the conference would be about indoctrinating everyone to think or believe one particular thing about homosexuality.  I don’t find those types of experiences to be particularly helpful personally, or for bringing reconciliation between the church and the LGBT community, so I was a bit hesitant, but very curious nonetheless.

To be brutally honest, I went into the weekend with a lot of prejudices.  It doesn’t matter that I’ve spent years hanging out in the LGBT community.  All of the reading and research in the world still sometimes leaves you with pockets of ridiculous unfounded beliefs and fears that hide in dark corners and wait for the right moment to slither out.  I laugh at myself now.  Oh my own bigotry!  I think there was a part of me that somehow expected that wild “gay agenda” to be a part of the weekend.  I expected people to try to change me, argue with me, tell me what to believe and why, and become offended when I would refuse to share my personal beliefs and convictions.  (Trust me, sometimes it is so darn TEMPTING to share my opinions.  It would make it so much easier that way, but easy doesn’t make it wise.)  So, in summary, I guess I was bracing myself for the possibility that people may 1) be offended by me 2) try to influence me to adopt their perspectives 3) reject me personally 4) be insincere in their desire to follow the Lord.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong!  I have never in my life been so wrong!  Instead of all of those things, I was encouraged, blessed, challenged, and embraced.  I was truly struck by the sincerity of sacrificial worship in our times together, the depth of relationships that developed (in just a short 48 hours), and the honesty, and wholeness, and holiness that marked the paths of those I came in contact with.

One of the things I hadn’t anticipated was that I’d be mistaken for a lesbian.  I’m pretty sure I should have expected that.  It seems logical right?  I’m at a gay conference – why wouldn’t people think I’m a lesbian?  It didn’t bother me at all – actually, it weirdly made me feel honored because people automatically assumed I “belonged” in a sense.  Throughout the weekend though, I’d refer to my husband naturally in conversation without even thinking about it, and then I’d realize that people were looking at me in utter confusion.  The conversation would go something like this…

“Wait…did you say your husband?”
“Yes, I’m straight.”
“Oh.  (pause)  Are you here with someone?”
“Nope.”
“So…why are you here?”
[Insert me sharing briefly why I love the LGBT community and my call to help the work of reconciliation.]

Dumbfounded silence.

What followed the silence was beautiful.  It was so emotional, a moment of pure holiness in our conversations.  People’s eyes would go soft.  I could literally see something inside of them turn towards me.  Some would ask me why I would care enough to do this – to travel all this way, alone, to come and be there with them for the weekend.  Some would wonder why I would paint a target on myself, take on the risk of rejection by my peers and faith community, by choosing to stand with them.  Some were lost for words – they would just say things like “You’re awesome” and then stand there with a look of hunger in their eyes, as if they just glimpsed something they had been looking for their entire lives.  All of them thanked me, with such sincerity in their voices, with such a humility, they thanked me profusely for caring, for being there, for speaking on their behalf to people and communities that they felt abandoned by.  I was forever changed by these conversations, and forever humbled.  Something was stirred deep within me.  Something was disturbed in me, that even this small gesture of love and support was so foreign to them.  They reached to me with their words, with their eyes, with their souls, with their arms.  They hugged on me and loved on me.  It was beautiful.  Something big happened in my heart through these conversations – something life changing,  something with the scent of God’s presence and transformation, something beautiful and terrible and terrifying and wonderful.

The General Sessions
The worship times at GCN were absolutely transformational for me.  The first one was on Thursday night.  I had the pleasure of meeting and conversing with three lesbian women that night.  We had such a great conversation and such a great connection that they invited me to sit with them for the worship.  I was glad to have someone to tag along with.  As I worshiped next to these women, and in the midst of 400 gay Christians, I was in awe.  These people were so sincere in their love for the Lord.  I could hear it in their voices as they sang.  In fact, I sensed a level of sincerity, surrender, and humility before the Lord in our worship times that I haven’t experienced in a church in years.  I was astounded!  Gone were all the stereotypes I had brought along with me.  It was an amazing thing to just worship God together.  The next morning God really shook me during the general session.  I sat alone, and I’m glad of it, because I wept and wept the entire time we sang together.  I wept because it became so clear to me as we sang (songs like “I could sing of your love forever” and “Blessed be your name” and “Nothing but the blood”) that this beautiful group of people knew what it meant to live a life of sacrifice for Christ that most of us never could understand.  So many of these people had been cast out of their churches and had experienced unspeakable pain in the name of Christ.  So many of them had tried to change their orientations for Christ.  They were willing to sacrifice everything to honor him.  So many of them had experienced such an extreme faith crisis that, had it been me, I likely would have thrown the towel in and told God to just forget it because the sacrifice and the confusion would be too much.  But they didn’t.  They kept going.  Their love for the Lord drove them to His feet.  God overwhelmed me with a sense of this during worship on Friday morning and I wept.  I wept because I have sacrificed so little for the Lord, and have been angry and bitter when he’s asked the little of me that he has.  I wept because I sensed God’s love and favor and mercy on a group of people who are trying to make sense of things.  I wept because these people didn’t choose their orientations, but they chose Jesus – and the church hates them for it.  I wept because even in the midst of all the painful experiences present in that room, those beautiful people chose to believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are deeply, truly, passionately indebted and bound to Jesus, no matter what.  It was magnificent.  Justin, the executive director of GCN, put it so well when he said “Many people reconcile their faith and sexuality by dialing back the faith.  That never seemed like a good option to me.  I was the kid with a Bible in my backpack all the time.”  Justin, like many others at the conference, has not sacrificed his love for the Lord, or for Scripture, in his quest to reconcile his sexual orientation and his faith.  And there were many more like him.

The speakers were great as well during the main sessions.  Philip Yancey was particularly inspiring.  He spoke of how one’s sin and temptation are the very thing that push us toward Christ, force us to rely on Him, even in our weakest of moments.  He spoke of God’s reconciliation and forgiveness and grace.  He gave voice to the reason I had spent the worship time in tears when he said, “There’s no advantage to you, as LGBT, to worship God.  You are just asking for hatred from your fellow believers.”

I have to share with you two more of my favorite quotes from the weekend:

Philip Yancey – “The greatest danger is not that you will fail, but that when you do fail, you will be cast down by shame, rejection, and a belief that you cannot reach God’s grace.”

Justin Lee – “What a horrible state of affairs if people can’t go to their churches when they’re feeling so alone that they want to kill themselves.”

The Workshops
The workshops were great, but honestly, I only went to two of them (and part of a third).  By Saturday, I really sensed the Lord showing me that I should focus more on building relationships than attending formal workshops.  The two I went to were excellent, however.  The first one was “Understanding and Supporting our LGBT Friends and Family.”  I was really touched to hear each person at that breakout session share why they were there.  Some of the stories were really heartbreaking.  Several people admitted they came just because they wanted to have hope that their straight friends and family members could love them again someday, or want to understand and support them.  I believe the leader of the session, Kathy Baldock, provided this insightful instruction (but forgive me Kathy if I’ve misquoted you):

“When you love and care for those on the edges of society, you will grow in mercy, and grace, and compassion.  And there is no better spiritual qualities to have.  You will look and smell like Jesus.”

I want to look and smell like Jesus.

The second workshop I went to was “Engaging the Evangelical Church” and it was fantastic.  I am still processing it.  There was quite a lot of education and evaluation that went on during this session – a really valuable time.  The thing that struck me the most during our time together was a discussion that took place in which the attendees examined with the workshop leader how they might be able to respond with Christ’s love to those in the church who had dealt them hatred and pain in the name of Christ.  I sat in my seat totally baffled.  This was the one and only “gay agenda” present at the conference.  The spirit of the people was strikingly, “How can we be more like Jesus, even when we are hurt and abused in his name?”  I was totally awestruck.  How often do I seek Christ like that, willingly wanting to respond in love when someone wrongs me?  The discussions during this workshop in particular, and in many of my personal conversations, centered on how to be more centered on Christ, more submissive to his authority, seeking his holiness ever more.  It was beautiful, and convicting.

The Relationships
This was the funnest part of the weekend, and one that I really truly miss.  In two nights I got 7 hours of sleep – total.  I couldn’t tear myself away from the people I had met.  The fellowship we had over meals and into the wee hours of the morning every night was incredible.  There was such a sense of acceptance and love in the friendships I made.  One of my fondest memories of the weekend was lunch on Friday, when I met several of the people I now count as dear friends.  We spent the first half of our time together laughing, bantering, joking, and having a good time.  The conversation took a turn as we got our food and I had the opportunity to share why I was at the conference, the calling I feel on my heart to develop non-threatening environments to talk about faith and sexual orientation, and the love I have for the LGBT community.  I was so humbled as one after another, each of them affirmed me, encouraged me, and spoke words of blessing, acceptance, love, and appreciation over me.  It was such a precious, holy moment as God knit our hearts to one another.  We shared openly about our struggles, our vulnerable spots, and our love for one another – no holds barred.  It was the kind of intimate conversation you usually only get the chance to experience with people you’ve known for years, not hours.  It was heart-warming and stunning.  The rest of the weekend was filled with conversations, one after another, about how we could grow to be more like the Lord, what we could do to reflect him better, and sharing with one another about the amazing work He’s done in our hearts and lives.

A Summary of Everything
As you can imagine, this conference was overwhelming.  The thing that was most striking of all though was that, although it was a gathering of LGBT individuals, the focus wasn’t so much about sexual orientation as it was about Jesus.  Everything was so centered on how to be faithful followers of Christ in all areas of one’s life, not just in sexual orientation.  These are the kinds of conversations I think are so important.  When we reduce a person to his/her sexual orientation, we miss the beauty of his/her personhood.  There is so much more to a person than orientation – there are hopes and dreams,  insecurities and fears, victories and passions, beliefs and convictions.  I suppose, at the heart of things, that is what I loved about the GCN conference – it did not diminish any person or any conviction.  Instead, it focused on the things that united us all – our faith in the almighty God, his Son who was sent to pay the price for our sins, His worthiness to be praised and honored, and His holiness that demands our lifelong gratitude, service, surrender, and allegiance.  It called on us to remember these things, and to take heed of them in our daily lives.  And it called us to them in a way that was affirming and challenging, generous and faithful, nurturing and open, with a dedication to living in the tension of disagreement with one another, in love.

That is why I will never miss another GCN Conference again.  I hope some of you will go with me next year.

 

In France, Civil Unions Gain Favor Over Marriage – NYTimes.com

In France, Civil Unions Gain Favor Over Marriage – NYTimes.com.

PARIS — Some are divorced and disenchanted with marriage; others are young couples ideologically opposed to marriage, but eager to lighten their tax burdens. Many are lovers not quite ready for old-fashioned matrimony.

Whatever their reasons, and they vary widely, French couples are increasingly shunning traditional marriages and opting instead for civil unions, to the point that there are now two civil unions for every three marriages.

When France created its system of civil unions in 1999, it was heralded as a revolution in gay rights, a relationship almost like marriage, but not quite. No one, though, anticipated how many couples would make use of the new law. Nor was it predicted that by 2009, the overwhelming majority of civil unions would be between straight couples.

It remains unclear whether the idea of a civil union, called a pacte civil de solidarité, or PACS, has responded to a shift in social attitudes or caused one. But it has proved remarkably well suited to France and its particularities about marriage, divorce, religion and taxes — and it can be dissolved with just a registered letter.

“We’re the generation of divorced parents,” explained Maud Hugot, 32, an aide at the Health Ministry who signed a PACS with her girlfriend, Nathalie Mondot, 33, this year. Expressing a view that researchers say is becoming commonplace among same-sex couples and heterosexuals alike, she added, “The notion of eternal marriage has grown obsolete.”

France recognizes only “citizens,” and the country’s legal principles hold that special rights should not be accorded to particular groups or ethnicities. So civil unions, which confer most of the tax benefits and legal protections of marriage, were made available to everyone. (Marriage, on the other hand, remains restricted to heterosexuals.) But the attractiveness of civil unions to heterosexual couples was evident from the start. In 2000, just one year after the passage of the law, more than 75 percent of civil unions were signed between heterosexual couples. That trend has only strengthened since then: of the 173,045 civil unions signed in 2009, 95 percent were between heterosexual couples.

“It’s becoming more and more commonplace,” said Laura Anicet, 24, a student who signed a PACS last month with her 29-year-old boyfriend, Cyril Reich. “For me, before, the PACS was for homosexual couples.”

As with traditional marriages, civil unions allow couples to file joint tax returns, exempt spouses from inheritance taxes, permit partners to share insurance policies, ease access to residency permits for foreigners and make partners responsible for each other’s debts. Concluding a civil union requires little more than a single appearance before a judicial official, and ending one is even easier.

It long ago became common here to speak of “getting PACSed” (se pacser, in French). More recently, wedding fairs have been renamed to include the PACS, department stores now offer PACS gift registries and travel agencies offer PACS honeymoon packages.

Even the Roman Catholic Church, which initially condemned the partnerships as a threat to the institution of marriage, has relented; the National Confederation of Catholic Family Associations now says civil unions do not pose “a real threat.”

While the partnerships have exploded in popularity, marriage numbers have continued a long decline in France, as across Europe. Just 250,000 French couples married in 2009, with fewer than four marriages per 1,000 residents; in 1970, almost 400,000 French couples wed.

Germany, too, has seen a similar plunge in marriage rates. In 2009, there were just over four marriages per 1,000 residents compared with more than seven per 1,000 in 1970. In the United States, the current rate is 6.8 per 1,000 residents, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

France is not the only European nation to allow civil unions between straight couples, but in the few countries that do — Luxembourg, Andorra, the Netherlands — they are not as popular. In the Netherlands in 2009, for example, there was just one civil union for every eight marriages.

If current trends continue in France, new civil unions could soon outnumber marriages, as they already do in Paris’s youthful 11th Arrondissement.

François Lambert, 28, and his girlfriend, Maud Moulin, 27, signed a civil union in 2007 for what he described as logistical reasons. Both public schoolteachers, they would be assured of postings to the same district only if they filed joint tax returns, which civil unions allow.

Sophie Lazzaro, 48, an event planner in Paris, signed a civil union in 2006 with her longtime companion, Thierry Galissant, who is 50. (She said she was drawn to a civil union largely for the legal protections and stability it offered.)

“I have two daughters, and if something happens to me, I want us to stay together as a family,” she said. “But without getting married.”

In addition to their practical advantages, she said, civil unions are ideologically suited to her generation, which came of age after the social rebellions of the 1960s. “We were very free,” she said. “AIDS didn’t exist, we had the pill, we didn’t have to fight. We were the first generation to enjoy all of this.” She added, “Marriage has a side that’s very institutional and very square and religious, which didn’t fit for us.”

Though French marriages are officially concluded in civil ceremonies held in town halls, not in churches, marriage is still viewed here as a “heavy and invasive” institution with deep ties to Christianity, said Wilfried Rault, a sociologist at the National Institute for Demographic Studies.

“Marriage bears the traces of a religious imprint,” he said, often anathema in a country where secularism has long been treated as a sacred principle. “It’s really an ideological slant, saying, ‘No one is going to tell me what I have to do.’ ”

For some, civil unions are simply a form of premarital engagement. Ms. Anicet, the student, said she and her boyfriend would probably be married were they not of different religions. She is Catholic, he is Jewish, and his mother disapproves of marrying outside the faith, Ms. Anicet said.

“We’re realizing that this is a test,” she said, “a way to get our families used to it.”

Though the two had considered a civil union for tax reasons, now “it’s a jumping-off point to getting married, later,” she said, adding after a pause, “I hope.”

 

10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked | Southern Poverty Law Center

10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked | Southern Poverty Law Center.

Ever since born-again singer and orange juice pitchwoman Anita Bryant helped kick off the contemporary anti-gay movement more than 30 years ago, hard-line elements of the religious right have been searching for ways to demonize homosexuals — or, at a minimum, to find arguments that will prevent their normalization in society. For the former Florida beauty queen and her Save Our Children group, it was the alleged plans of gays and lesbians to “recruit” in schools that provided the fodder for their crusade. But in addition to hawking that myth, the legions of anti-gay activists who followed have added a panoply of others, ranging from the extremely doubtful claim that homosexuality is a choice, to unalloyed lies like the claims that gays molest children far more than heterosexuals or that hate crime laws will lead to the legalization of bestiality and necrophilia. These fairy tales are important to the anti-gay right because they form the basis of its claim that homosexuality is a social evil that must be suppressed — an opinion rejected by virtually all relevant medical and scientific authorities. They also almost certainly contribute to hate crime violence directed at homosexuals, who are more targeted for such attacks than any other minority in America. What follows are 10 key myths propagated by the anti-gay movement, along with the truth behind the propaganda.

MYTH # 1 
Homosexuals molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.


THE ARGUMENT
Depicting gay men as a threat to children may be the single most potent weapon for stoking public fears about homosexuality — and for winning elections and referenda, as Anita Bryant found out during her successful 1977 campaign to overturn a Dade County, Fla., ordinance barring discrimination against gay people. Discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, the most ubiquitous purveyor of anti-gay junk science, has been a major promoter of this myth. Despite having been debunked repeatedly and very publicly, Cameron’s work is still widely relied upon by anti-gay organizations, although many no longer quote him by name. 

THE FACTS
According to the American Psychological Association, “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.” Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation’s leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.

Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because “he often finds adults of either sex repulsive” and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may “regress” to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.

The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.

MYTH # 2 
Same-sex parents harm children.


THE ARGUMENT
Most hard-line anti-gay organizations are heavily invested, from both a religious and a political standpoint, in promoting the traditional nuclear family as the sole framework for the healthy upbringing of children. They maintain a reflexive belief that same-sex parenting must be harmful to children — although the exact nature of that supposed harm varies widely.  

THE FACTS
No legitimate research has demonstrated that same-sex couples are any more or any less harmful to children than heterosexual couples.

The American Academy of Pediatrics in a 2002 policy statement declared: “A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.” That policy statement was reaffirmed in 2009.

The American Psychological Association found that “same-sex couples are remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation.”

Similarly, the Child Welfare League of America’s official position with regard to same-sex parents is that “lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents are as well-suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts.”

MYTH # 3
People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents.


THE ARGUMENT
Many anti-gay rights proponents claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder caused by some psychological trauma or aberration in childhood. This argument is used to counter the common observation that no one, gay or straight, consciously chooses his or her sexual orientation. Joseph Nicolosi, a founder of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, said in 2009 that “if you traumatize a child in a particular way, you will create a homosexual condition.” He also has repeatedly said, “Fathers, if you don’t hug your sons, some other man will.” A side effect of this argument is the demonization of parents of homosexuals, who are led to wonder if they failed to protect a child against sexual abuse or failed as role models in some important way. In October 2010, Kansas State University family studies professor Walter Schumm said he was about to release a related study arguing that homosexual couples are more likely than heterosexuals to raise gay or lesbian children. 

THE FACTS
No scientifically sound study has linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse. 

The American Psychiatric Association noted in a 2000 fact sheet on gay, lesbian and bisexual issues that “no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse.” The fact sheet goes on to say that sexual abuse does not appear to be any more prevalent among children who grow up and identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual than in children who grow up and identify as heterosexual.

Similarly, the National Organization on Male Sexual Victimization notes on its website that “experts in the human sexuality field do not believe that premature sexual experiences play a significant role in late adolescent or adult sexual orientation” and added that it’s unlikely that someone can make another person a homosexual or heterosexual.

With regard to Schumm’s study, critics have already said that he appears to have merely aggregated anecdotal data, a biased sample that invalidates his findings.

MYTH # 4
Homosexuals don’t live nearly as long as heterosexuals.


THE ARGUMENT
Anti-gay organizations want to promote heterosexuality as the healthier “choice.” Furthermore, the purportedly shorter life spans and poorer physical and mental health of homosexuals are often offered as reasons why gays and lesbians shouldn’t be allowed to adopt or foster children. 

THE FACTS
This falsehood can be traced directly to the discredited research of Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute, specifically a 1994 paper he co-wrote entitled, “The Lifespan of Homosexuals.” Using obituaries collected from gay newspapers, he and his two co-authors concluded that gay men died, on average, at 43, compared to an average life expectancy at the time of around 73 for all U.S. men. On the basis of the same obituaries, Cameron also claimed that gay men are 18 times more likely to die in car accidents than heterosexuals, 22 times more likely to die of heart attacks than whites, and 11 times more likely than blacks to die of the same cause. He also concluded that lesbians are 487 times more likely to die of murder, suicide, or accidents than straight women.

Remarkably, these claims have become staples of the anti-gay right and have frequently made their way into far more mainstream venues. For example, William Bennett, education secretary under President Reagan, used Cameron’s statistics in a 1997 interview he gave to ABC News’ “This Week.”

However, like virtually all of his “research,” Cameron’s methodology is egregiously flawed — most obviously because the sample he selected (the data from the obits) was not remotely statistically representative of the homosexual population as a whole. Even Nicholas Eberstadt, a demographer at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has called Cameron’s methods “just ridiculous.”

MYTH # 5 
Homosexuals controlled the Nazi Party and helped to orchestrate the Holocaust.


THE ARGUMENT
This claim comes directly from a 1995 book titled The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. Lively is the virulently anti-gay founder of Abiding Truth Ministries and Abrams is an organizer of a group called the International Committee for Holocaust Truth, which came together in 1994 and included Lively as a member.

The primary argument Lively and Abrams make is that gay people were not victimized by the Holocaust. Rather, Hitler deliberately sought gay men for his inner circle because their “unusual brutality” would help him run the party and mastermind the Holocaust. In fact, “the Nazi party was entirely controlled by militaristic male homosexuals throughout its short history,” the book claims. “While we cannot say that homosexuals caused the Holocaust, we must not ignore their central role in Nazism,” Lively and Abrams add. “To the myth of the ‘pink triangle’ — the notion that all homosexuals in Nazi Germany were persecuted — we must respond with the reality of the ‘pink swastika.’” 

These claims have been picked up by a number of anti-gay groups and individuals, including Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, as proof that homosexuals are violent and sick. The book has also attracted an audience among anti-gay church leaders in Eastern Europe and among Russian-speaking anti-gay activists in America.

THE FACTS
The Pink Swastika has been roundly discredited by legitimate historians and other scholars. Christine Mueller, professor of history at Reed College, did a line-by-line refutation of an earlier (1994) Abrams article on the topic and of the broader claim that the Nazi Party was “entirely controlled” by gay men. Historian Jon David Wynecken at Grove City College also refuted the book, pointing out that Lively and Abrams did no primary research of their own, instead using out-of-context citations of some legitimate sources while ignoring information from those same sources that ran counter to their thesis.

The myth that the Nazis condoned homosexuality sprang up in the 1930s, started by socialist opponents of the Nazis as a slander against Nazi leaders. Credible historians believe that only one of the half-dozen leaders in Hitler’s inner circle, Ernst Röhm, was gay. (Röhm was murdered on Hitler’s orders in 1934.) The Nazis considered homosexuality one aspect of the “degeneracy” they were trying to eradicate.

When the National Socialist Party came to power in 1933, it quickly strengthened Germany’s existing penalties against homosexuality. Heinrich Himmler, Hitler’s security chief, announced that homosexuality was to be “eliminated” in Germany, along with miscegenation among the races. Historians estimate that between 50,000 and 100,000 men were arrested for homosexuality (or suspicion of it) under the Nazi regime. These men were routinely sent to concentration camps and many thousands died there.

In 1942, the Nazis instituted the death penalty for homosexuals. Offenders in the German military were routinely shot. Himmler put it like this: “We must exterminate these people root and branch. … We can’t permit such danger to the country; the homosexual must be completely eliminated.”

MYTH # 6
Hate crime laws will lead to the jailing of pastors who criticize homosexuality and the legalization of practices like bestiality and necrophilia.


THE ARGUMENT
Anti-gay activists, who have long opposed adding LGBT people to those protected by hate crime legislation, have repeatedly claimed that such laws would lead to the jailing of religious figures who preach against homosexuality — part of a bid to gain the backing of the broader religious community for their position. Janet Porter of Faith2Action was one of many who asserted that the federal Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act — signed into law by President Obama in October 2009 — would “jail pastors” because it “criminalizes speech against the homosexual agenda.”

In a related assertion, anti-gay activists claimed the law would lead to the legalization of psychosexual disorders (paraphilias) like bestiality and pedophilia. Bob Unruh, a conservative Christian journalist who left The Associated Press in 2006 for the right-wing, conspiracist news site WorldNetDaily, said shortly before the federal law was passed that it would legalize “all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or ‘paraphilias’ listed by the American Psychiatric Association.” This claim was repeated by many anti-gay organizations, including the Illinois Family Institute.

THE FACTS
The claim that hate crime laws could result in the imprisonment of those who “oppose the homosexual lifestyle” is false. The Constitution provides robust protections of free speech, and case law makes it clear that even a preacher who suggested that homosexuals should be killed would be protected.

Neither do hate crime laws — which provide for enhanced penalties when persons are victimized because of their “sexual orientation” (among other factors) — “protect pedophiles,” as Janet Porter and many others have claimed. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation refers to heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality — not paraphilias such as pedophilia. Paraphilias, as defined by the American Psychiatric Assocation, are disorders characterized by sexual urges or behaviors directed at nonhuman objects or non-consenting persons like children, or that involve the suffering or humiliation of one’s partner.

Even if pedophiles, for example, were protected under a hate crime law — and such a law has not been suggested or contemplated anywhere — that would not legalize or “protect” pedophilia. Pedophilia is illegal sexual activity, and a law that more severely punished people who attacked pedophiles would not change that.

MYTH # 7
Allowing homosexuals to serve openly would damage the armed forces.


THE ARGUMENT
Anti-gay groups are adamantly opposed to allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces, not only because of their purported fear that combat readiness will be undermined, but because the military has long been considered the purest meritocracy in America (the armed forces were successfully racially integrated long before American civilian society, for example). If gays can serve honorably and effectively in this meritocracy, that would suggest that there is no rational basis for discriminating against them in any way.

THE FACTS
Homosexuals now serve in the U.S. armed forces, though under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy instituted in 1993, they cannot serve openly. At the same time, gays and lesbians serve openly in the armed forces of 25 countries, including Britain, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia, according to a report released by the Palm Center, a policy think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The Palm Center report concluded that lifting bans against openly gay service personnel in these countries “ha[s] had no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness.” Successful transitions to new policies were attributed to clear signals of leadership support and a focus on a uniform code of behavior without regard to sexual orientation.

A 2008 Military Times poll of active-duty military personnel, often cited by anti-gay activists, found that 10% of respondents said they would not re-enlist if the DADT policy were repealed. That would mean some 228,000 people might leave the military in that instance. But a 2009 review of that poll by the Palm Center suggested a wide disparity between what soldiers said they would do and their actual actions. It noted, for example, that far more than 10% of West Point officers in the 1970s said they would leave the service if women were admitted to the academy. “But when the integration became a reality,” the report said, “there was no mass exodus; the opinions turned out to be just opinions.” Similarly, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male Canadian service members and a 1996 survey of 13,500 British service members each revealed that nearly two-thirds expressed strong reservations about serving with gays. Yet when those countries lifted bans on gays serving openly, virtually no one left the service for that reason. “None of the dire predictions of doom came true,” the Palm Center report said.

MYTH # 8 
Homosexuals are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol.


THE ARGUMENT
Anti-gay groups want not only to depict sexual orientation as something that can be changed but also to show that heterosexuality is the most desirable “choice” — even if religious arguments are set aside. The most frequently used secular argument made by anti-gay groups in that regard is that homosexuality is inherently unhealthy, both mentally and physically. As a result, most anti-gay rights groups reject the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses. Some of these groups, including the particularly hard-line Traditional Values Coalition, claim that “homosexual activists” managed to infiltrate the APA in order to sway its decision.

THE FACTS
All major professional mental health organizations are on record as stating that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

It is true that LGBT people suffer higher rates of anxiety, depression, and depression-related illnesses and behaviors like alcohol and drug abuse than the general population. But studies done during the past 15 years have determined that it is the stress of being a member of a minority group in an often-hostile society — and not LGBT identity itself — that accounts for the higher levels of mental illness and drug use. 

Richard J. Wolitski, an expert on minority status and public health issues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, put it like this in 2008: “Economic disadvantage, stigma, and discrimination … increase stress and diminish the ability of individuals [in minority groups] to cope with stress, which in turn contribute to poor physical and mental health.”

MYTH # 9 
No one is born a homosexual.


THE ARGUMENT
Anti-gay activists keenly oppose the granting of “special” civil rights protections to homosexuals similar to those afforded black Americans and other minorities. But if people are born gay — in the same way people have no choice as to whether they are black or white — discrimination against homosexuals would be vastly more difficult to justify. Thus, anti-gay forces insist that sexual orientation is a behavior that can be changed, not an immutable characteristic. 

THE FACTS 
Modern science cannot state conclusively what causes sexual orientation, but a great many studies suggest that it is the result of biological and environmental forces, not a personal “choice.” One of the more recent is a 2008 Swedish study of twins (the world’s largest twin study) that appeared inThe Archives of Sexual Behavior and concluded that “[h]omosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors.” Dr. Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, said: “This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single ‘gay gene’ or a single environmental variable which could be used to ‘select out’ homosexuality — the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here — heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.”

The American Psychological Association (APA) acknowledges that despite much research into the possible genetic, hormonal, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no evidence has emerged that would allow scientists to pinpoint the precise causes of sexual orientation. Still, the APA concludes that “most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”

In October 2010, Kansas State University family studies professor Walter Schumm said he was about to release a study showing that gay parents produced far more gay children than heterosexual parents. He told a reporter that he was “trying to prove [homosexuality is] not 100% genetic.” But critics suggested that his data did not prove that, and, in any event, virtually no scientists have suggested that homosexuality is caused only by genes.

MYTH # 10
Gay people can choose to leave homosexuality.


THE ARGUMENT
If people are not born gay, as anti-gay activists claim, then it should be possible for individuals to abandon homosexuality. This view is buttressed among religiously motivated anti-gay activists by the idea that homosexual practice is a sin and humans have the free will needed to reject sinful urges.

A number of “ex-gay” religious ministries have sprung up in recent years with the aim of teaching homosexuals to become heterosexuals, and these have become prime purveyors of the claim that gays and lesbians, with the aid of mental therapy and Christian teachings, can “come out of homosexuality.” Exodus International, the largest of these ministries, plainly states, “You don’t have to be gay!” Another, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, describes itself as “a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality.”

THE FACTS
“Reparative” or sexual reorientation therapy — the pseudo-scientific foundation of the ex-gay movement — has been rejected by all the established and reputable American medical, psychological, psychiatric, and professional counseling organizations. In 2009, for instance, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution, accompanied by a 138-page report, that repudiated ex-gay therapy. The report concluded that compelling evidence suggested that cases of individuals going from gay to straight were “rare” and that “many individuals continued to experience same-sex sexual attractions” after reparative therapy. The APA resolution added that “there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation” and asked “mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation.” The resolution also affirmed that same-sex sexual and romantic feelings are normal.

Some of the most striking, if anecdotal, evidence of the ineffectiveness of sexual reorientation therapy has been the numerous failures of some of its most ardent advocates. For example, the founder of Exodus International, Michael Bussee, left the organization in 1979 with a fellow male ex-gay counselor because the two had fallen in love. Alan Chambers, current president of Exodus, said in 2007 that with years of therapy, he’s mostly conquered his attraction to men, but then admitted, “By no means would we ever say that change can be sudden or complete.”


 

“The View” Argues Over Gay Marriage

 

Hypocrisy shrouds the gay marriage debate

By Kirsten Powers
USA Today

The issue of same-sex marriage has receded into the background during this past election cycle, mostly because voters are overwhelmed by the state of the economy. But the recent spate of gay teen suicides has thrust the issue of anti-gay bigotry back into the spotlight.

Even some Christian leaders are re-thinking their approach to this issue. Exodus International, a Christian activist “ex-gay” group, pulled its sponsorship of the annual “Day of Truth,” where high school students are encouraged to express their disapproval of homosexuality.

But why did it take multiple suicides to make a Christian group realize that heaping condemnation and judgment on others is not its job? A reading of any of the Gospels would teach you that in about two minutes. Let’s remember, Satan wasn’t kicked out of heaven for being gay: It was pride. The people who really ticked off Jesus were the Pharisees, who were self- righteous and hypocritical, which could fairly describe many of today’s Christians.

The Bible or the Constitution?

When novelist Anne Rice declared this year that she was quitting Christianity — though remaining dedicated to Christ — in part because she refused to be “anti-gay,” it struck a nerve with many Christians.

Many complained that they weren’t anti-gay, that they just opposed same-sex marriage because the Bible, they said, defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Yet, we don’t live in a theocracy. The Bible is not the governing legal document of the United States. The Constitution is.

Tuesday, for the first time in Iowa’s history of electing judges, voters threw out three state Supreme Court justices for invalidating an Iowa law prohibiting same-sex marriage. It was a unanimous 7-0 decision based on the law, not ideology. What a novel idea. The $800,000 campaign to unseat them was led by Bob Vander Plaats, who ran unsuccessfully as the conservative Christian option in the Iowa governor’s GOP primary. When Focus on the Family’s James Dobson endorsed Plaats, Dobson lauded Plaats’ Bible-based crusade against gay marriage.

But if people really want to use the Bible as our governing legal document, then we need many constitutional amendments, including one that bans divorce except in the very narrow circumstances the permits it. This would be a tough one for evangelicals, since their divorce rate is almost identical to that of atheists and agnostics. This might explain why you don’t see evangelical leaders pumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into campaigns to keep the government from providing divorce.

Why does this double standard and selective morality matter? Because it reinforces the idea among Christians that gay people are morally inferior and don’t deserve to be treated fairly. Is bullying by teens that much of a stretch when you consider the same-sex marriage rhetoric?

Evangelical superstar Rick Warren (of whom I’m a fan when he sticks to preaching the Gospel) said in an interview, “They can’t accuse me of homophobia; I just don’t believe in gay marriage,” but then he went on to compare same-sex marriage to pedophilia and incest. So, being gay is fine, just like it’s fine to be a child molester?

Come on, people.

What about heterosexuals?

If this movement isn’t driven by anti-gay bigotry, then where is the outrage and “Day of Truth” over heterosexuals who are engaging in sex outside of marriage? Why aren’t Christians running around confronting their sexually active heterosexual co- workers and friends about their “lifestyle”? I guess because there is no “ick factor,” to borrow a phrase former presidential candidate and Southern Baptist minister Mike Huckabee used recently to describe gay men and lesbians.

This double standard might have something to do with the fact that many Christians also violate the Bible’s condemnation about sex outside of marriage with impunity. (I’m still waiting for the constitutional amendment banning extramarital sex.)

A few years ago, I attended a talk on the plague of pornography in our society at a New York City evangelical church. At one point, a speaker asked the group of about 300 young Christians, “How many of you are pursuing purity?” About 10 people raised their hands.

Has anyone noticed that there is this special little area carved out where the Bible’s teachings must be enshrined in U.S. law, but only when it applies to others, i.e. gay people?

It seems as if Christians have enough issues to deal with in their own community on the issue of promoting marriage.

Perhaps Christian leaders such as Warren and Dobson should spend less time trying to prevent a tiny percentage of the population from having the right to marry, and help Christians get their own house in order.

Or, as Jesus warned: Take the log out of your own eye before focusing on the speck in your neighbor’s eye.

Kirsten Powers is a freelance writer and political analyst on Fox News. She served in the Clinton administration from 1993 to 1998 and has worked in New York state and city politics.

 

James Swilley Announces He is Gay

A Georgia megachurch pastor has come out of the closet, announcing that he is gay–and that he’s know he was gay since childhood.

“I know a lot of straight people think that [sexual] orientation is a choice,” James Swilley, a twice-married father of four, told the media. “I want to tell you it is not.”

Swilley said that he had been up-front from the start with his wife of 21 years, Debye. After the two divorced, Debye encouraged Swilley to tell the truth, the pastor said.

Debye stood with Swilley not only as his wife, but also as the associate pastor of Church in the Now, which Swilley established a quarter-century ago, The Advocate reported on Oct. 29.

The recent rash of suicides by gay youths who were tormented at school for their sexuality provided the impetus for Swilley’s public disclosure, the pastor told Atlanta news station WSB-TV. As a father…” Swilley began, sounding choked up, before starting again. “Think about your 16, 17-year-old killing themselves. I thought somebody needed to say something.”

WSB-TV noted that anti-gay Christian websites had begun attacking Swilley, with one site calling him “unclean” and “an instrument of the Devil.” Swilley acknowledged that if there is a major loss of attendees to his church, he will have to start over again–but he said that it was worth the risk. “I know all the hateful stuff that’s being written about me online, whatever,” Swilley told WSB-TV. “To think about saving a teenager, yeah, I’ll risk my reputation for that.” Swilley also told the media that his congregation has been largely supportive of his coming out.

The revelation comes less than two months after allegations against Atlanta-based megachurch pastorEddie Long made headlines. Four young men filed suit against Long alleging that the pastor had used his position of spiritual authority, along with passages from Scripture, to coerce them into sexual encounters. The men were all of the age of consent at the time of the alleged encounters, and no criminal charges were filed.

Long has spoken out against GLBT equality and family parity, even leading a march through Atlanta to the grave of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in 2004, in support of an anti-gay amendment to the Georgia Constitution. Long has denied the allegations, comparing himself to David facing down Goliath.