Saturday, July 30, 2005
by Wayne Besen
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Saturday, July 30, 2005
CO-FOUNDER OF MINISTRY THAT RUNS TEEN 'EX-GAY' BOOT CAMP SAYS GROUP SHATTERS LIVES AND CAN CAUSE SUICIDE
Love In Action Co-Founder John Evans Unveils Powerful Letter Rebuking 'Ex-Gay' Ministries NEW YORK - Author Wayne Besen released an explosive letter today by Love In Action's co-Founder and former ex-gay John Evans, which rebukes gay conversion groups saying that they "shattered lives". The group he started has recently made headlines because it runs a boot camp for gay teens called "Refuge" that tries to turn adolescents heterosexual, often against their will.
"In the past 30 years since leaving the 'ex-gay' ministry I have seen nothing but shattered lives, depression and even suicide among those connected with the 'ex-gay' movement," Evans writes in his letter to John Smid, Love In Action's current director. "I challenge Christians to investigate all sides of the issue of being gay and Christian. The Church has been wrong in the past regarding moral issues and I'm sure there will be more before Christ returns."
Evans, a gay man, founded what may be the first modern ex-gay group in San Raphael, Calif. in 1973, along with a heterosexual preacher Kent Philpott. Evans left his life partner of ten years to start the gay conversion group. He later dropped out after he realized it didn't work and his best friend committed suicide because he could not turn heterosexual.
"Having the founder of Love In Action step forward to admonish the ministry he started speaks to the utter hopelessness and futility of these groups, not to mention the danger they represent," said Wayne Besen, Author of Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth (Haworth, 2003). "Most disturbing are the compulsory gay boot camps for teens which are tantamount to child abuse. They should immediately be shut down."
In May, 16-year old Zach told his fundamentalist Christian parents that he is gay. Horrified by the news, they vowed to fix him by sending him to an "ex-gay" boot camp in Memphis to be reprogrammed. Like a modern day message in a bottle, Zach used his Internet blog to send an SOS.
"I told my parents I was gay," he wrote. "This didn't go over very well," and "They tell me that there is something psychologically wrong with me, and they 'raised me wrong.' Today, my mother, father and I had a very long talk in my room, where they let me know I am to apply for a fundamentalist Christian program for gays."
The next day, Zach threw another bottle into the Cyber-sea.
"It's like boot camp. If I do come out straight, I'll be so mentally unstable and depressed it won't matter."
Besen is a nationally recognized advocate for gay and lesbian rights. He has been a guest on leading news and political talk shows. He made international news when he photographed "ex-gay" poster boy and Love in Action graduate John Paulk cruising a gay bar in Washington, D.C.
_____________________________________________
FULL TEXT OF LETTERJuly 30, 2005
Love In Action
ATTN: John Smid, Director
Memphis, TN
Dear Mr. Smid:
We as born again Christians believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God. We Basically agree on the fundamentals of salvation. I've been a born again Christian for over 50 years and I've noticed Christians reading the same scriptural passages, yet arriving at different personal interpretations regarding moral issues. Some of these issues that have divided Christians within recent years have been slavery, women's rights, the Charismatic movement and other issues, including divorce.
Within my lifetime, I've known members of my own family being asked to leave churches they had attended for years over issues of divorce and re-marriage, yet later welcomed back when a different interpretation of scripture was explained.
Today, the subject of homosexuality is being discussed among Christians. Most Christians find the subject too uncomfortable to make a personal investigation, but rely upon the traditional Christian condemnation of homosexuality. There are more scriptures dealing with divorce than homosexuality, yet, today, Christians give each other the freedom of personal interpretation regarding divorce. I'm sure homosexuality will be added to the long list of disagreements among Christians.
In 1973, when I helped organize the "ex-gay" ministry called Love In Action, I admit I had never heard of a different view of homosexuality or made an effort to research the issue. I held to the traditional Christian condemnation that all homosexuality was sinful.
One day, I read a booklet by Dr. Ralph Blair called, "An Evangelical Look At Homosexuality." I prayed before reading this booklet and was shocked, yet refreshed, because I had never heard such remarks regarding this subject from another Evangelical Christian.
I wrote Ralph Blair that I would like to discuss his views regarding this matter and his return letter informed me he could meet with me at my home in San Raphael, Calif. The night he arrived I invited several of my friends who were also involved with Love in Action to join us. We studied the scriptures dealing with homosexuality. I had struggled most of my life with this matter and I would continue to try to be "ex-gay" if it were God's will. Over the past 30 years I have studied both sides of this subject and now know it's not my sexual orientation that's wrong or sinful. But one should allow the Holy Spirit to guide his or her life whatever one's sexual orientation. I challenge other Christians to study the scriptures to show yourself approved unto God and don't be afraid to challenge the traditional condemnation of homosexuality.
The Church has been wrong in the past regarding other issues and I'm sure there will be others before Jesus returns. I know my views regarding homosexuality and being Christian does not agree with most Christians and I've been accused of being "deceived and tricked by the Devil."
God alone knows my heart and Jesus Christ means too much to me to go against the leading of the Holy Spirit as he guides me as a born again Christian. Someday, each of us will stand alone before God to give an account of our lives and I want Him to be satisfied with me.
I just returned from the 25th annual Conference of Evangelicals Concerned, a group of gay Christians who know that it is possible to be both gay and Christian. In the past 30 years since leaving the "ex-gay" ministry I have seen nothing but shattered lives, depression and even suicide among those connected with the "ex-gay" movement.
At the E.C. conference I met gay Christians who have an even closer relationship with Jesus. The Holy Spirit seemed to hover over the entire conference. The closing communion service seemed as if Jesus Himself was there saying, "Come to me all who labor and are laden with the burden of trying to conform to the impossible conclusions of others, and I will give you rest."
Again, I challenge Christians to investigate all sides of the issue of being gay and Christian. The Church has been wrong in the past regarding moral issues and I'm sure there will be more before Christ returns.
Love in Christ,
John Evans
Original Member of Love In Action, 1973
30 Comments
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
by Wayne Besen
Relentlessly promoting God in the public square is the centerpiece of the right wing's dangerous political agenda. They fight to have The 10 Commandments placed in courthouses. Public schools are considered a battlefield for restoring sectarian prayer and teaching creationism. Congress is now an institution that often sounds more like a Pentecostal church than the seat of secular government.
When defending their actions in the exploitation of Terri Schiavo, congressional busybodies said they could not separate their private beliefs from their public duties.
"How is it possible, I wonder, to believe in the existence of God yet refuse to express outrage when His moral code is flouted?"
Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn., once said defending the interjection of religion into every political action.
With such absolutist positions on intertwining church and state, it strikes me as a little odd that Republicans are suddenly rallying to make sure questions about
Supreme Court nominee John Robert's religious beliefs are off the table.
"I hate to see somebody going down this road because it really smacks of a religious test for public service," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said in the New York Times.
Let me get this straight. Republican demagogic leaders have all but handed out study guides and Number 2 pencils for the past twenty-five years, and they suddenly have an aversion to religious tests?
Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, held a cynical press conference this week on Capitol Hill to intimidate Democrats into not asking tough questions during confirmation hearings.
"It is extremely troubling that Judge Roberts would have to face any religious litmus test concerning his confirmation to the Supreme Court," Mahoney said. "This sadly reminds us that religious bigotry still exists in America and hearkens back to the days of political witch- hunts and racial discrimination. We would [sic] for members of the Senate Judiciary to make a public statement that any questions regarding Judge Roberts faith tradition are out of bounds."
How peculiar for Mahoney to want religion out of politics, considering he was a fervent supporter of Alabama Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore who illegally brought a monument of the 10 Commandments to the state courthouse.
To suddenly cry victim and declare religion "out of bounds" during confirmation hearings is untenable, unacceptable and stinks of rank hypocrisy. Thanks to the right's agenda, almost every controversial issue that will come before Congress or the Supreme Court involves religious extremists who want to force their values on all Americans.
At the heart of the abortion debate, for example, is the belief that life begins at conception. This idea is not based on medicine or science, but religious values. Therefore, Robert's theological views are germane to how he might rule as a judge.
Embryonic stem cell research is another example of how religion has been unnecessarily injected into politics. This research has the potential to alleviate suffering and save millions of lives. However, political moralists like Kansas Republican Sen. Sam Brownback are derailing science.
"The central question in this debate is simple," wrote
Sen. Brownback on his website. "Is the human embryo a person or piece of property? It is alive. Is it a life? If life begins at conception then we must protect this innocent human life from harm and destruction."
Opposition to embryonic stem cell research is based almost exclusively on the objections of right wing fundamentalists, even at the expense of saving the lives of people like, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., who has been diagnosed with Hodgkin's
disease.
Indeed, the Supreme Court confirmation battle has itself been cast in religious terms of good vs. evil. The term "strict constructionist" is a slick substitution for "biblical literalist". And, on Aug. 14, Christian conservatives are organizing a telecast called Justice Sunday II and beaming it to churches and religious broadcasters in an effort to rally behind Roberts.
Judge Roberts is a very intelligent man and, in the end, may be a good choice. However, it is painfully troubling that right wing fanatics, like Focus on the Family's James Dobson, seems to think that Roberts is a great pick.
"We believe the issues we care about will be handled carefully by this judge." Dobson said.
It is equally disturbing that The White House said this week that Roberts was not a member of the ultra conservative legal organization,
the Federalist Society. It turns out that he was a member of the
steering committee for the Washington chapter in 1997-98. Is there an official effort to
whitewash Robert's true beliefs and affiliations?
"Yes, religion and politics do mix...Politicians who do not use the Bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in office," Concerned Women for America Founder Beverly LaHaye once said.
As long as Judge Robert's backers are fringe groups like
Concerned Women, who want religion in every sphere of life, I don't want to hear the right carp that religion does not belong in the confirmation hearings. To a large extent the religious right has already succeeded, and now religion is politics. Congratulations, but the grilling Roberts will receive is the price of victory.
2 Comments
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
by Wayne Besen
In May, 16-year old Zach told his fundamentalist Christian parents that he is gay. Horrified by the news, they vowed to fix him by sending him to an "ex-gay" boot camp in Memphis to be reprogrammed. Like a modern day message in a bottle, Zach used his Internet blog to send an SOS. Miraculously, his desperate plea for help washed up on the shores of sanity and circulated in cyberspace at warp speed.
"I told my parents I was gay," he wrote. "This didn't go over very well," and "They tell me that there is something psychologically wrong with me, and they 'raised me wrong.' Today, my mother, father and I had a very long talk in my room, where they let me know I am to apply for a fundamentalist Christian program for gays."
The next day, Zach threw another bottle into the Cyber-sea.
"It's like boot camp. If I do come out straight, I'll be so mentally unstable and depressed it won't matter."
By now, Zach's plight has received worldwide attention and the spotlight has shone brightly on the debatably abusive and coercive tactics used by Love in Action, the cult that runs the ex-gay boot camp for youth called "Refuge".
With all the focus on this young man, another pair of victims in this tragedy has largely gone unnoticed: Zach's parents. They have alternately been portrayed as abusive or religious zealots. Indeed, Zach's father, Joe Stark, unwisely appeared on Pat Robertson's 700 Club to defend his decision to enroll his son in Refuge.
"We felt very good about Zach coming here because"...to let him see for himself the destructive lifestyle, what he has to face in the future, and to give him some options that society doesn't give him today," Stark told the toothy televangelist. "Knowing that your son...statistics say that by the age of 30 he could either have AIDS or be dead."
These are the words of a father who clearly loves his child. He is doing what any sane father would do, and that is using all available means to protect his son. Stark believes he is doing what is necessary to keep Zach from a premature death and an unhappy life.
The problem is, all his assumptions are based on deliberate misinformation spread by quacks or charlatans who have a political or profit motive in deceiving the public. Stark is a parental pawn in the culture wars and I believe he will one day come to greatly resent this unethical manipulation by the extreme right.
First, his statement that gay people die at 30 comes directly from the work of Paul Cameron, a disgraced researcher who was kicked out of the American Psychological Association for distorting the facts on homosexuality. Second, it is clear from Zach's blog that Stark bought the right wing lie that Zach is gay because he wasn't raised properly.
This canard is a staple of conversion therapy and a mammoth burden weighted on the shoulders of guilt-ridden parents who did nothing wrong, but are assigned blame. Parenting has no more to do with a child's sexual orientation than it does with determining height or handedness. Mounting evidence points to sexual orientation resulting from biological factors. Unfortunately, Zach's parents are being victimized by the right wing offering them outdated and disproved research from the 1950's and 60's. I suspect, in time, they will also be outraged by the right's dubious use of "blame the parents" pseudo science.
Look, there is no way in the short run that this is going to end well for the Stark family. They enrolled their son in a failed program where the co-founder, John Evans, dropped out after his friend Jack McIntyre, also in the program, committed suicide because he couldn't change. I photographed Love in Action's poster boy, John Paulk, in a seedy gay bar. The group's youngest graduate and spokesperson, Wade Richards, is now a gay activist. Needless to say, the group has credibility problems, especially when one explores their bizarre techniques.
"I'm looking at that wall and suddenly I say its blue," Love In Action's director, John Smid told the alternative newspaper The Memphis Flyer, while pointing to a yellow wall. "Someone else comes along and says, 'No, it's gold.' But I want to believe that wall is blue. Then God comes along and He says, You're right, John, [that yellow wall] is blue.' That's the help I need. God can help me make that [yellow] wall blue."
Don't get angry at or lose faith in the Stark family. Like most parents, they will need time to sort through the pernicious myths and misinformation. When the high priced miracles and magic fail, they will see that yellow walls don't become blue and gay people don't turn straight. At that point, the Starks will have to choose between valuing their family or Pat Robertson's family values. My bet is they will embrace Zach over Pat.
16 Comments
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
by Wayne Besen
Certainly no one is suggesting the "B" come out of the GLBT movement, but a new study by a group of researchers in Chicago and Toronto questions how widespread bisexuality is in men and shows a need for more comprehensive studies to examine the topic.
The controversial experiment recruited 101 young men from ads placed in gay and alternative newspapers, with 33 identifying as bisexual, 30 as heterosexual and 38 as gay. The psychologists had the men rate their desires from 0-6, with 0-1 indicating heterosexuality, 5-6 signifying homosexuality and bisexuality falling in between.
The subject's members were hooked up to a sensor that shows sexual desire by measuring blood flow to the penis. The human lab rats were then shown gay and lesbian pornography to see what truly turned them on.
About a third of the men in each group showed insignificant response, which is not surprising because a lot of men are not easily aroused by porn. There is also the likelihood that the men were shown porn that did not appeal to them. No matter our sexual orientations, we all have "types" that we find attractive. For example, I rarely date anyone who can out-bench press me. So, if I were shown a bunch of muscle head types, it would have as little effect on my arousal as lesbian porn.
Surprisingly, the men who self-described as bisexual were interested in either female sexual images or male, but not both. Three-quarters of the group had arousal patterns indistinguishable to those of gay men; the rest were identical to heterosexuals.
The New York Times did a
cover story in their Science section on the explosive study under the provocative headline, "Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited." Sadly, reporting on research that questioned assumptions on switch hitters earned the Times brickbats by leading GLBT advocacy groups.
The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, a media watchdog,
bitterly complained that the news article "promotes bisexual stereotypes" and "veers toward hasty generalization."
Matt Foreman, Executive Director of the
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force said, "We remain stunned that
The New York Times Science section would carry such a shoddy, sensationalistic and downright insulting story." He went on to complain that the study is flawed because it equates sexual orientation with sexual arousal and that the Times should "be ashamed".
While there are certainly other aspects to sexual orientation, such as love and emotional connection, sexual arousal is generally recognized as a key component. Arousal is the universal alarm bell that made each gay man in high school think, "my God, I want to sleep with the quarterback, I must be gay!"
Mainstream America understands the centrality of arousal in sexual orientation. That is why people "get it" when a large packaged male or a big-busted woman strolls by in a beer ad and heads automatically turn. As humans, we see, we like and then we react. It is usually a primitive, reflexive response, not the "complicated" exercise some people make it out to be. It only becomes complex when we build walls and weave intricate webs of denial, so we do not have to acknowledge the often-painful truth.
What is so threatening about this new study is that it used a crude device to show a cause and effect relationship that deftly peeled away all the convoluted hang-ups and justifications that keep many homosexuals from coming out of the closet. Indeed, a 1994
Advocate Magazine survey found that before coming out as homosexual, 40 percent of gay men described themselves as bisexual. The new research simply confirms the Advocate survey and what many gay men say privately about bisexuality.
Please, don't misconstrue what I say. I do not question for a moment that true bisexuality exists for males. All people who claim bisexuality should be respected and not have their orientation questioned. Furthermore, they deserve full legal protection from discrimination, whether it is at the hands of straight or gay Americans. Many bisexuals are leaders in the GLBT movement and should be applauded for their heroic efforts.
However, this study implies that bisexuality in males is a more rare phenomenon than we previously thought, just as true ambidextrous people are difficult to find among the vast majority of left and right-handed people.
I can understand the noble impulse to defend an integral part of the GLBT community. Indeed, there are insidious stereotypes that must be combated, such as the absurd and offensive notion that bisexuals are unstable and have more difficulty with monogamy.
Nevertheless, shutting down debate, hounding the media and savaging science are not in the best long-term interest of GLBT people. There are many
legitimate criticisms of this study and NGLTF did a real service in bringing these flaws to the fore. Most of these criticisms may prove to be true. However, this does not change the startling fact that the bisexual subjects in this one study had a different arousal pattern than they professed. This research is intriguing and merits further study with new researchers and a much larger group of participants, not reflexive attacks and derisive dismissal.
13 Comments
