So-Called "Ex-Gay" Speaker at Illinois Faith Leader Gathering

On January 24th, the right-wing Illinois Family Institute hosted a same-sex marriage legislative forum for pastors in Tinley Park, Illinois. The forum, entitled "What the Church Must Do to Stop Same-Sex Marriage in Illinois", featured anti-LGBTQ speakers from different organizations and ministries. One of the speakers at the event was so-called "ex-lesbian" Linda Jernigan, who claimed that she was allegedly freed of her homosexuality after finding Christ. Excerpts of Jernigan's talk were captured in this YouTube video, where she promoted ugly stereotypes about the LGBTQ community.

Jernigan told the audience that her mother died when she was a baby, after which she was raised by her aunt and uncle. Her uncle sexually abused her when she was twelve, she said, and she was soon driven out of the house to live with a different uncle. The "enemy" had been trying to destroy her life from the beginning, she claimed, in an attempt to prevent her from realizing God's purpose for her.

Jernigan shared her experiences in the church of her youth, where she had a sexual encounter with a female church member. In retrospect, she believed that her attraction to members of the same sex was an outgrowth of living with her non-biological family, rather than her biological parents, as well as a deception from the Devil.

As an adult, Jernigan became romantically involved with another woman. She and Jernigan lived as a couple for nearly fifteen years, raising two boys together. Jernigan claimed that she visited her partner in the hospital when her partner was sick, picked up the boys' report cards from school, and performed many of the roles of a spouse. Because she never encountered any discrimination doing so, she argued that same-sex couples don't need the right to marry to enjoy the same privileges of opposite-sex married couples. At the 6:07 mark, she had this to say.

"I know for a fact that we don't need laws to make sure that homosexuals can do this, because they can do it anyway, 'cause I was doing it twenty years ago and it wasn't a law for me to do it. Nobody stopped me at the hospital and said I couldn't see her because I was a homosexual. That is homosexual propaganda that is playing on the emotions of people, trying to get you all to be sensitive to their deeds when there really is no need. There's no need to make a law. [The] only thing you need to go see someone in a hospital is a a visitor's pass. You don't need a law."

Uh, Linda? Just because you didn't experience discrimination doesn't mean that other LGBTQ persons have been as lucky. Discrimination against LGBTQ patients and same-sex couples in hospital settings is very real, necessitating federal regulations to address the problem. Unfortunately, homophobic discrimination is not limited to hospitals. According to one study published in 2009, one in ten gay, lesiban, or bisexual respondents reported experiencing housing or employment discrimination. In another study, 21.4% of gay, lesbian, or bisexual respondents reported experiencing some form of discrimination in the past year. Moreover, anti-LGBTQ discrimination in employment, housing, medical care, or marriage is far from harmless. Not only is it unfair to LGBTQ persons, but it has detrimental effects to LGBTQ persons' well-being, as documented in these studies published in 2009. Contrary to Jernigan's claims, homophobic discrimination is real, pervasive, and destructive.

Jernigan told listeners that she abused alcohol, which damaged her relationship with her partner. At the 6:47 mark, she stereotyped LGBTQ persons as drug and alcohol abusers, arguing that substance abuse is a natural outgrowth of the "homosexual lifestyle".

"I was battling alcohol addiction and drug addiction, which comes with the homosexual lifestyle, and I'm telling you, most homosexuals that you see, they do have issues with substance abuse. Have you ever asked yourself why do they have so many problems with alcohol, with drugs? ... Because you need to be inebriated to do the things that the homosexual lifestyle calls for you to do. The average person in their right mind cannot do that in their right mind, so you need to go into another realm with all of these other substances that will take you into another spiritual realm, so that you can do the things that you needed to do."

First, not all LGBTQ persons abuse drugs or alcohol. Second, regarding those who do, has Jernigan considered that their substance abuse might result from, you know, the misery of experiencing constant homophobia throughout their lives? The relationship between experiencing homophobia and abusing alcohol and drugs is not a secret. One study found that gay, lesbian, and bisexual respondents who reported discrimination in the past year were far more likely to report substance use problems. Another study published in 2010 correlated violence and safety issues with drug and alcohol use among gay, lesbian, and bisexual college students. Moreover, in a study of 13,921 high school students, sexually questioning students who experienced homophobic teasing were more likely to use drugs and alcohol -- BUT, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and questioning youth were less likely to use drugs if they reported parental support and positive school climates. If Jernigan wants to explore the roots of substance use among some LGBTQ persons, pervasive homophobia is a good place to start.

Jernigan's partner started going to church, but Jernigan was reluctant to attend because of the hypocrisy and morally dubious behavior she'd witnessed at past churches. Eventually, Jernigan attended a service, where God allegedly touched her heart. At the 11:42 mark, she resorted to two common tropes used by "ex-gay" speakers: framing homosexuality and Christianity as mutually exclusive, and claiming that God lifted her out of homosexuality.

"One thing I knew that separated me from God was the fact that I felt like I was born a homosexual. And I knew regardless of how I wanted to be on the Lord's side and how I desired a relationship with him, that it would never work with me and him because I'd either have to be a hypocrite and pretend like I'm not a lesbian, or I'd have to find a church that's going to allow me to be an open lesbian, 'cause I felt that I couldn't change. Because I can't change if I was born this way. Don't you all hate the homosexuals saying that? Like you can't change if I was born this way. And so that was my issue ... I said, "God, there's no way that you and I can be together because I was born this way." And I  clearly heard the voice of the Lord. He did not tell me, "Linda, you wasn't born that way." He did not tell me, "Nah, I ain't created you that way." He said, "It doesn't even matter how you think you were born. I have the power to make you be born again!" And that is the issue that we need to be telling homosexuals today. We need to get out of this discussion and this debate, or we just want to win the argument. You don't need to win the argument. Jesus already won the argument!"

LGBTQ Christians and open-and-affirming congregations might disagree! The idea that someone can be both LGBTQ and Christian was never considered.

At the 13:05 mark, Jernigan urged listeners to rescue gays from the "hell" they're living in, instead of showering them with hateful rhetoric. She insisted that LGBTQ suicides are the result of disconnection from Christ, something that LGBTQ rights legislation supposedly cannot heal. Once again, the idea that LGBTQ persons can plausibly live happy and healthy lives, or that some LGBTQ persons might attempt suicide because of crushing homophobia, was never considered.

"It don't matter what you feel like you were born with, because you too can be born again. That's the argument that the homosexual needs to hear. They don't need to hear that they're going to hell. They don't need to hear that they're an abomination. They don't need to hear that they're wicked and God made Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve. They know all of that. They need to know how do I get out of this hell that I'm living in, and if you don't believe that they're living in hell, let me tell you how I know that. Because statistically, suicide among homosexual is at its highest peak ever, but they got so many laws now that's in their favor, so if the laws [are] going to make them feel better, why is the suicide rate steady escalating? Because the laws can't bring them the peace and the deliverance that they need. What they need is an encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ, and that responsibility falls upon us."

A few minutes later, however, Jernigan proceeded to speak ill of the very LGBTQ community she wanted to bring to Christ. At the 15:35 mark, she accused the LGBTQ community of pushing an agenda. Revealingly, she argued that calls for LGBTQ equality are invalid because LGBTQ status is supposedly changeable, unlike race. In doing so, she reveals the political impetus behind the "ex-gay" movement: to deny LGBTQ persons equality by insisting that they don't have to be LGBTQ in the first place.

"The homosexual community is pretty smart ... They're pushing their agenda, man, and it's flying and it's soaring. And we're sitting back, saying, "What can we do to stop this thing?" Because every answer that we give, they have a counter-answer that seems to be more intellectual--it's not right, but at least they know how to articulate it. But one thing they cannot explain is an ex-homosexual ... The homosexual community, they want to silence people like me, because it takes away their argument of this-is-a-civil-right, because I put it in perspective. Because you say that it is a civil right, so that means that this was something that was innate, it was congenital, that means something you were born with, just like I'm a black woman. There's nothing that I can do to change that ... I should not be discriminated against because I am a black woman. But there was a time I was a homosexual, but I'm not a homosexual no more. So that means that homosexuality, that it is transformable. So if something is transformable, that means it's not a civil right."

Actually, Linda, the LGBTQ community can explain the so-called "ex-gay" movement. Watchdog websites such as Truth Wins Out and Ex-Gay Watch, events such as the Soulforce Symposium, survivor stories, scholarly research, and investigations into sexual orientation change efforts all demonstrate that the so-called "ex-gay" movement is extremely dubious.

Finally, despite the outward appearance of compassion for LGBTQ persons, Jernigan's ending words to the audience were harsh. At the 18:11 mark, she commanded religious leaders to reject homosexuality and "go after them devils" allegedly behind it.

"Stop tolerating homosexuality in your church. Get your homosexuals in your church delivered. Stop tolerating it. Stop being scared to go after them devils and get them delivered."

Jernigan's life story featured tropes commonly heard in other "ex-gay" testimonies: family dysfunction, sexual victimization, drug and alcohol abuse, despair, and rescue from the gay "lifestyle" through Christ. This is not to say that Jernigan did not experience these traumas -- rather, she seems to be misinterpreting her traumatic life events as either causes or effects of her lesbianism. The idea that LGBTQ persons can be happy, well-adjusted people was not discussed, nor was any context provided for the problems that some LGBTQ people experience.

Revealingly, Jernigan's talk toggled between quasi-humanizing rhetoric about gays and demonization of the gay "agenda" and "lifestyle". As with other homophobic speakers, such rhetoric reveals the hostility behind the quasi-loving facade of the anti-LGBTQ movement. The overall message, it seemed, was that homosexuality is supposedly a pathology that can be cured with spiritual upheaval, and that LGBTQ persons do not deserve equal rights because they can allegedly stop being LGBTQ. Behind the condescending rhetoric of saving LGBTQ persons from their supposed "hell" is a refusal to validate who they are and grant them equality.



To learn more about the Illinois Family Institute, visit illinoisfamily[dot]org

(Hat tip to Friendly Atheist and Joe.My.God)

Guest Post: A Little Child Shall Lobby Them

The following commentary was written by Libby Anne, who blogs about religion and gender issues at Love, Joy, Feminism. She describes herself thusly: "I was raised in an evangelical family, was homeschooled, was taught to embrace courtship rather than dating, learned that women’s place is in the home, and was highly involved in the religious right. College turned my world upside down, and I am today an atheist, a feminist, and a progressive."

This little girl was one of dozens of children brought to the Ohio statehouse last week to speak on behalf of the “heartbeat bill” that, if passed, will ban abortion past six weeks (to put the time frame into perspective, the day you miss your period you are technically already four weeks pregnant). These children also passed out teddy bears that play the sound of a fetal heartbeat to each Ohio congressman. This could have been me. No wait, strike that, this was me.

I began marching the political campaign trail before I can even remember. From when I was a very young girl, barely in grade school, I went door to door, worked the polls, attended rallies, marched in parades, and manned the phone banks. Political activism was a normal part of my life, just as it is for many other young people in conservative Christian homeschool families, especially through organizations like Generation Joshua and TeenPact.

I think political activism is a great thing to teach kids. However, there is a major problem with the approach taken by my parents and other like-minded parents throughout the country.

I wish I could just say “children are too young to have informed political opinions” and leave it at that. However, I think the reality is more nuanced. When presented with a variety of issues and facts, a seven-year-old may be able to take a semi-informed position. Some kids are surprisingly astute. However, regardless of his or her maturity a seven-year-old will almost certainly not be able to completely grasp the gravity of adult concerns issues. In contrast, by the teenage years a child can most certainly form informed political opinions.

The problem is this: The girl in the picture above is not forming her own political opinions. She merely serves as the parrot of her parents’ views.

My parents never laid out all the facts and sides and arguments on issues like abortion. Instead, when I was quite small they simply told me that abortion was “killing babies before they are born.” They showed me (not quite accurate) pictures of what fetuses look like, told me they have fingers and brains and hearts just like me, and told me that abortion was murder. They told me that women who have abortions are selfish and cold, and that abortion doctors kill babies for money and participate in “a holocaust of murdered babies.”
Small children don’t have the ability to completely grasp political issues, but to the extent that they can they need even explanations of the facts and arguments, not propaganda.

My parents took pride in how young we children were able to express ourselves politically. They smiled to hear a child of five or seven or nine explain that property taxes were slavery, that abortion was murdering babies, or that gay marriage is wrong because every child needs a mommy and a daddy. They spoke of how politically aware we were, how confident and intelligent we were. Did they realize, I wonder, that we were merely parroting their own views, and not actually forming views of our own?

I would like to say that this changed once I became a teen, but it did not. The simplistic understandings my parents gave us as young children were never amended. At thirteen, fifteen, and seventeen I had still not heard any political side but that fed me by my parents and the resources they used to educate and inform me. Every political magazine, every economics book, every Bible study, it all gave me a completely one-sided picture of every issue. Abortion was still about “murdering babies” and I continued to parrot my parents’ views, uncontaminated by any other source of information or perspective.

My parents took us children along with them to score political points. They openly talked about how powerful it was to have a three-year-old hold an “I’m A Child, Not A Choice” sign while participating in the annual Life Chain, or to have a young teenager be the one to speak to reporters at (traditional) marriage rallies. They would intentionally push us forward to answer questions or spout out our formulated positions, smiling proudly as we performed.

What my parents didn’t realize was that this sort of behavior actually turns some people off. Here are two quotes from Ohio state senators:

“I’m not at all supportive of the bill, and I’m not supportive of them sending kids into my office with a teddy bear that mimics a heartbeat, either. I thought that was a very cheap exploitation of kids. I would rather them come in my office and ask to sit down and talk about it, rather than send a kid into my office.”

“It is an emotional kind of tactic, bringing young children in and having them bring teddy bears. I think that’s a little low.”

As I read these quotes today, I couldn’t help but think of my own childhood experiences. I was that child, trotted at age ten into my state senator’s office to tell her how much I loved being homeschooled and how important it was for homeschooling to remain legal. I wonder, now, what my state senator thought.

Today, I do think this sort of political use is exploitative. First, you should not use your children to make a political statement. Why not, like one of the state senators above suggested, just go to your senators or representatives and make your case? Injecting kids into the issue is nothing but an emotional appeal and it allows parents to step back and let their inexperienced child do the talking for them instead of doing it themselves. Second, you should not turn your children into politically propagandized robots. Sure, you can tell your children where you stand on an issue, but whatever happened to letting children and adolescents explore and make up their own minds? A small child does not have enough experience or understanding to put together mature political positions, and should not be expected to. A teen is quickly gaining the necessary maturity, but should be allowed to explore all sides unhindered and to form his or her own political opinions.

A child of any age who only receives one side of an issue, that of his or her parents, and then echoes that, however vehemently, is not mature or politically savvy.

There is another thing, too. If I had suddenly endorsed liberal political positions, or even moderate ones, I would have faced consequences within my family. My parents would have been angry, would have treated me as an erring and rebellious child. They would have begun a one-sided information campaign to bring me back to their views, and resorted to emotional manipulation until I did. It was not just that I didn’t have access to other political information or arguments, but rather that my parents’ home was not a safe place emotionally in which to explore alternate viewpoints or experiment politically. And this is not healthy.

Sally is not a Democrat or a Republican. She is not pro-life or pro-choice. She is not liberal or conservative. Sally is a child, she is not old enough to understand the world of politics, and I don’t expect her too. As Sally grows, I want her to understand the arguments for each side of an issue, because no matter what all it is, one thing politics is not is simple. I want her to understand that these are complex issues. I will absolutely not tell Sally that one political position is “right” and all the others are “wrong.” As she grows into her teenage years, I want Sally to be able to form her own political views, and to feel like our home is a safe place to do so. If Sally comes home from school someday and tells me she’s a libertarian, that’s fine.
I don’t expect Sally’s political views to be a mirror image of mine, and I don’t expect her political views at the immature age of seven to be the same as at the more mature age of fifteen or at the more seasoned age of twenty-three.

I don’t intend to stake my success as a parent on what political views she adopts. You have to understand that that for parents influenced by the ideas of the Quiverfull movement part of the rationale for having large numbers of children is to raise a (rhetorical) army to “retake the country for Christ.” The idea is to gain a larger voting block, to raise conservative politicians, campaigners, volunteers, and interns. I kid you not, that is the whole point. That’s also a large part of why they homeschool – to remove their children from influences that might teach them other ideas and instead train them up in “Truth” with a capital T. If a child raised in a Quiverfull family turns away from this “Truth” and become moderate, liberal, progressive, or politically apathetic, that child is seen as a failure.

Personally, I don’t stake my success as a parent on Sally adopting any one political view, let alone mine. I don’t stake my success on Sally echoing my religious beliefs, or lack of them, either. Sally’s mind, after all, does not belong to me. It belongs to her. I do care whether Sally grows up to be fulfilled person, and I care whether Sally grows up to be a loving and caring person. But I do not intend to stand over her as an ideological policeman, judging whether or not her beliefs are acceptable.

I have to confess, I did take Sally with me to a rally for Planned Parenthood once. I worried that this was using her as a political tool, but then I realized that I was bringing her there to say something about me, not to use her as an emotional weapon. Namely, I wanted to make the statement that being pro-choice does not mean being anti-child. I wanted to smash the image that feminists are all childless single women who “selfishly” flee the attachment of children. I would never have pushed Sally forward to make some sort of canned statement, because it wasn’t about Sally, it was about me, and who I was, and why I was there. There was another woman there with a baby, and she told a reporter that she was there because she wanted her daughter to grow up to have access to the same reproductive resources she had. I don’t think that’s the same as simply using your child as an emotional tool either. I mean, if that’s all the parents at the Ohio statehouse were saying – say, that they didn’t want their young daughters to grow up to have access to abortion – I wouldn’t have had a problem with that either.

As Sally grows, I do want to teach her the importance of political activism. However, I will not push her forward to spout off formulated positions, I will not feed her my political views boiled down to simplistic formulas that fail to capture the complexity of political issues, and I will not put labels on her. If a reporter or politician comments on her presence, I will say that I think it’s important for her to learn about the political process, not that she’s a good little [insert here]-in-training. And more than that, Sally will know that her political decisions are her own to make. As she grows, if she does not want to come to a rally or a parade or whatever it is I’m participating in because of my political views, I won’t make her.

Sally is not my tool. Sally is a wonderful little person yet to form her own beliefs. Rather than try to make her bloom into the species of flower I want her to be, I intend to let her bloom without hindrance. I will always be there to hold her hand or answer her questions, but I will not use her as a political shield or as my political mouthpiece.

Commentary Tidbits

God Discussion: Christian fundamentalists are driving our country into the Dark Ages

The Wartburg Watch: Christian Filmmaking: Is There a Hidden Agenda?

Right Wing Watch: How Cindy Jacobs and Her Prayer Warriors Saved the Global Economy

Good As You: FRC Stamps Branding On "Scout Sunday"; Prints Church Bulletin Inserts Warning of Supposed Safety Threats

Sojourners: Top 5 Best and Worst Bits of 'Christian Sex' Advice

News Tidbits

NPR: Religious Nonprofits To Get 'Broader Opt-Out' From Birth Control Coverage

Washington Blade: Anti-gay groups speak out in Prop 8, DOMA briefs

Huffington Post: Tony Perkins Blames Gays In The U.S. Military For Surge In Suicides

Times Daily: Teacher linked to gay slurs at school

Women in Combat Have the Religious Right Acting Combatative

On January 24th, Reuters reported that the Pentagon lifted a ban on women serving in front-line combat positions. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey signed an order rescinding the 1994 Direct Ground Combat Definitions and Assignment Rule, which barred women from small combat units and allowed the military to restrict certain positions to men.

This decision will open new positions and advancement opportunities to female military personnel. Women in the armed services have proven themselves to be skilled, focused, and brave, and it is only fair that the old policy be rescinded. To boot, other modern militaries worldwide allow women to serve in combat roles. While the percentages of females in combat roles vary from country to country, the fact remains that women honorably and effectively serve in combat postions across the globe.

One could argue that the old ban on women in combat was not only unfair, but outdated. Before the ban was lifted, female soldiers were already exposed to combat situations because of the changing nature of warfare. For instance, according to a 2011 Pew Research report on women in the military, 24% of post-1990 female veterans had combat exposure. To ban women from combat when many find combat thrust upon them during deployment seems absurd.

The Religious Right seems oblivious to these facts, with several right-wing figures expressing everything from disapproval to outrage over the policy chance. Despite female soldiers' many contributions to the military, some right-wing voices are uncomfortable with women in combat. For example, in a January 24th state, CWA president Penny Nance accused the Obama Administration of ignoring issues that women care about. Nance suggested that allowing women to serve in combat constituted "social experimentation" that could impair combat readiness. (See www[dot]cwfa[dot]org/content.asp?id=21856)

"News of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's intent to lift the long-standing ban on women serving in direct combat is further proof that this administration simply does not care about the issues about which the majority of women care. Once again, their interest on women issues is driven by special interest groups. The point of the military is to protect our country. Anything that distracts from that is detrimental. Our military cannot continue to choose social experimentation and political correctness over combat readiness. While this decision is not unexpected from this administration, it is still disappointing. Concerned Women for America (CWA) and its more than half-a-million members around the country will continue to do all we can to see that our men and women in uniform are governed with the respect and resources needed to do the hard task of fighting for and protecting our freedoms."

In a January 29th commentary at the Washington Times, Family Research Council vice president Jerry Boykin acknowledged that female servicemembers have already found themselves in combat because of the changing nature of warfare. He noted that female soldiers have fought bravely, as the number of women injured in combat clearly demonstrates. However, he argued that mixing of the sexes would not be appropriate for all military units. The reason? Privacy for hygiene and bodily functions.

"Some units, like infantry, Special Forces, SEALs and others, are not suitable for combining men and women. It has nothing to do with the courage or even capabilities of women. It is all about two things: the burden on small unit leaders, and the lack of privacy in these units ... Leaders of these units must be focused like a laser on keeping their soldiers alive and defeating the enemy. It is unreasonable to encumber them with the additional burden of worrying about how they provide privacy for the few women under their command during stressful and very dangerous operations. It is not the same as being a combat pilot who returns to an operating base or an aircraft carrier after the fight, where separate facilities are available."

Next, former Congressman Allen West tweeted his disapproval of women in combat, calling it "Another misconceived lib vision of fairness and equality." (Hat tip to Politico. See mobile[dot]twitter[dot]com/AllenWest/status/294440396925329410) On Facebook, West lambasted the decision as potentially harmful to the U.S. military. (See www[dot]facebook[dot]com/ElectAllenWest/posts/10151677536876729)

"Unless the Obama administration has not noticed we are fighting against a brutal enemy and now is not the time to play a social experiment with our ground combat forces. President Obama, as Commander-in-Chief, should be focused on sequestration and the failure of his policies in the Middle East. This is the misconceived liberal progressive vision of fairness and equality which could potentially lead to the demise of our military."

Finally, in a January 25th column at Blog & Mablog, Christian author Douglas Wilson called the new policy an "abomination" and a "monstrosity". Wilson argued that women in combat (and therefore, combat uniform) violate a passage in Deuteronomy banning people from wearing the apparel of the opposite sex. In other words, Wilson argues that combat uniforms are men's apparel because combat is allegedly a male activity. The idea that women have been involved in modern militaries for decades, as well as warfare in various ancient cultures, escapes him. (Hat tip to Love, Joy, Feminism. See www[dot]dougwils[dot]com/Sex-and-Culture/is-your-god-scary.html)

"[Deuteronomy 22:5] is a prohibition for cross-dressing when it comes to men. But the restriction placed on women here is not simply the reverse of that. When a man is getting kinky in the way described here, it is a straightforward transvesite problem. But going the other way, we should notice a different problem. Notice the odd construction -- "that which pertains to a man." The Hebrew underneath is keli geber, and should be read as the "gear of a warrior." Whether we are talking about a man in fishnet stockings, or a woman decked out in full battle regalia, we need to recognize that God finds it loathsome. So should we."

Wilson also resorts to essentialist arguments against women in combat. He insists that because women are created to give life, it is inappropriate for them to kill like men. "Women were created and exquisitely fashioned by God to be life-imparters, and so they must not be transformed into death-dealers," he writes.

Finally, Wilson urges Christian fathers to prevent their daughters from being "seduced" into military life. The idea that a woman might have the autonomy to make career decisions for herself, or that women have identities beyond that of daughter, is conveniently ignored.

"... [T]his egalitarian move, putting women into combat roles as standard operating procedure, is an abomination. We believe further that Christian fathers have a moral and biblical obligation to prevent their daughters from being seduced, such that they sign up for such a thing voluntarily, or coerced, such that they have no option. Both her family and her communion must stand against this terrible thing."

Wake up, right-wingers! Women's role in society has evolved, and women in combat serve as another example of that evolution. Women assuming more roles in society is not "social experimentation", "political correctness", or "loathsome" -- it's a sign that women are making progress in an otherwise male-dominated institution. As usual, the Religious Right watches in horror as the world around them evolves.


To read additional commentary, visit the following links.

Right Wing Watch: Perkins Warns Allowing Women In Combat Will Lead to Reinstatement of the Draft

Love, Joy, Feminism: The Biblical Case against Women in Combat?

Buzzfeed: 13 Countries That Already Allow Women in Combat

Commentary Tidbits

Infidel753: The fires of fanaticism

Alternet: 5 Shocking Ways the Christian Right Has Forced the Bible Into America's Schools

Wall of Separation: Public School Proselytizing Prohibited: Federal Appeals Court Rejects New Prayer Scheme

Bartholomew's Notes on Religion: Judith Raisman Hits Croatia

News Tidbits

Public Religion Research Institute: Survey: Nearly 3-in-10 Americans Say God Plays a Role in Outcomes of Sports Events

The Daily Beast: Calvary Chapel’s Tangled Web

Washington Post: Virginia panel OKs measure to allow prayer, religious activities in all public places

Edge Boston: Evangelical Churches Refine Message on Gay Issues

Pink News: Scott Lively says Oxford Union ‘botched’ plans for him to appear at gay parenting debate

Pink News: Lynette Burrows: Children should be with straight ‘sluts and drug addicts’ rather than ‘sodomites’

New York Times: Catholics Mobilize to Defeat Philippine Politicians Who Backed Reproductive Law

Gay Star News: UK parliament opens its doors for gay cure debates

Yahoo News: Man claiming to be pastor leaves waiter note: ‘I give God 10%. Why do you get 18?’

Boy Scouts May Reconsider Ban on Gays; Religious Right Horrified

The Associated Press reports that the Boy Scouts of America may empower sponsors of troops to decide whether or not to accept gays as leaders and scouts. In a press statement on the Boy Scouts of America website, BSA director of public relations Deron Smith revealed that the organizations is reconsidering its ban on gays.

"Currently, the BSA is discussing potentially removing the national membership restriction regarding sexual orientation. This would mean there would no longer be any national policy regarding sexual orientation, and the chartered organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting would accept membership and select leaders consistent with each organization’s mission, principles, or religious beliefs."

The Boy Scouts current excludes gays from units, a long-standing policy that has frustrated LGBTQ advocates. If the Boy Scouts changes its policy, it would free troops to accept members of different sexual orientations.

The news comes after several corporate donors (including Merck, UPS, and Intel) have refused to contribute money to the Boy Scouts because of its ban on gays. It also follows several high-profile cases of discrimination, including a teenage boy who was denied Eagle Scout rank for being gay and a troop leader who was removed from her post for being lesbian.

Predictably, the Religious Right is revolted by the idea. First, in a January 28th press release, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins urged Boy Scouts of America to resist pressure from "the bullying of homosexual activists". He correlated the ban on gay members with "moral integrity". (See www[dot]frc[dot]org/newsroom/frc-boy-scouts-should-stand-firm-in-its-moral-values-resist-pressure-to-change-homosexuality-policy)

"The Boy Scouts of America board would be making a serious mistake to bow to the strong-arm tactics of LGBT activists and open the organization to homosexuality. What has changed in terms of the Boy Scouts' concern for the well-being of the boys under their care? Or is this not about the well-being of the Scouts, but the funding for the organization?

The Boy Scouts has for decades been a force for moral integrity and leadership in the United States. Sadly, their principled stances have marked them as a target for harassment by homosexual activists and corporations such as UPS which are working to pressure the Boy Scouts into abandoning their historic values.

The mission of the Boy Scouts is 'to instill values in young people' and 'prepare them to make ethical choices,' and the Scout's oath includes a pledge 'to do my duty to God' and keep himself 'morally straight.' It is entirely reasonable and not at all unusual for those passages to be interpreted as requiring abstinence from homosexual conduct."

Also, in a January 28th alert, the Family Research Council urged supporters to contact Boy Scouts of America before its upcoming board meeting and support its ban on gays. (See www[dot]frc[dot]org/alert/breaking-news-will-the-boy-scouts-stand-up-to-bullies)

In a January 29th commentary at his website, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Albert Mohler lamented that the Boy Scouts might "surrender to massive public pressure". He called the increasing acceptance of LGBTQ people "the reversal in one generation of a moral consensus that had endured for thousands of years". (See www[dot]albertmohler[dot]com/2013/01/29/morally-straight-the-transformation-of-the-boy-scouts-of-america/)

"The Boy Scouts will soon face the same challenge seen in much of the United States military. The conservative segments of the population most opposed to the normalization of homosexuality are also the segments that have historically provided the vast majority of those who volunteer to serve in the military. The Boy Scouts of America is prepared to surrender to massive public pressure and to set itself against the majority of its own members. Remember that just six months ago the B.S.A. chief executive said that the current policy was supported by “the vast majority of the parents of the youth we serve.”

Those parents and sponsoring organizations, including thousands of churches, were no match for the political clout of the gay rights movement. This should serve as a sobering indication of the cultural momentum behind the current moral revolution — the reversal in one generation of a moral consensus that had endured for thousands of years ... Faithful Christians are left in the excruciatingly difficult position of maintaining fidelity to moral judgments revealed in the Bible while the culture around us races in the opposite direction. While the Boy Scouts use language like “morally straight,” the church uses its own language of sin, grace, and obedience."

In a January 28th post at the American Family Association's Rightly Concerned blog, Bryan Fischer warned the Boy Scouts against "capitulation to the forces of sexual deviancy". He claimed that gays sexually abuse children at higher rates, ignoring research to the contrary. (See www[dot]afa[dot]net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147531729)

"If the Scouts do not reverse themselves, we will soon be reading the kind of horror stories about Scouting that we have read about in the Catholic Church. Homosexual pedophiles already seek to infiltrate scouting because it provides a target rich environment for their twisted desires. Abolishing the sexual orientation standard will turn every Boy Scout in America into vulnerable prey for the sexually deviant."

Finally, in a January 29th article at American Thinker entitled "The Boy Scouts: A Deal with Gay Activists?", Dan Nagasaki and Glenn Doi oppose the idea of gay scout leaders but insist it has nothing to do with homophobia. Rather, they claim that placing someone in a leadership position overseeing "impressionable, and sometimes troubled or sexually-confused boys or girls" where sexual tension might exist is inappropriate. (See www[dot]americanthinker[dot]com/blog/2013/01/the_boy_scotus_dealing_with_gay_activists.html)

A common theme runs through many of these statements: the incorrect claim that gay men are more likely to perpetrate abuse. Whether the language is subtle ("concern for the well-being of the boys under their care") or brazen ("homosexual pedophiles" seeking victims for their "twisted desires"), the ugly stereotype of gays as predators is unmistakable. This kind of hateful rhetoric demonizes gays, ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of LGBTQ persons are not predators. Moreover, such rhetoric ignores the real correlates of sexual abuse -- abuse that the Boy Scout's policy of excluding gays did not prevent. If Religious Right figures were genuinely concerned about abuse in the Boy Scouts, they would focus on real abuse prevention instead of scapegoating gays.

Whether the Boy Scouts retains or drops its no-gays policy, the fact that it is publicly reconsidering the policy is progress. The world is evolving on LGBTQ issues, to the Religious Right's dismay. I expect the Religious Right to fume like this every time a major organization abandons an unfair policy or adopts an LGBTQ-affirming stance. And, I expect more and more people to see through their homophobic rhetoric.


To read additional commentary, visit the following links.

Right Wing Watch: Bryan Fischer Explodes: 'Not One Loving Father' Should Entrust Son to the Boy Scouts if Gays Are Included

Christian Science Monitor: Will Change on Gays Allow Boy Scouts to Recapture Role in Society?

The Atlantic: The Real Story Behind the Boy Scouts' Gay-Ban Reversal Is a Human Story

Commentary Tidbits

Wall of Separation: Creationism Commotion: Five States Have Anti-Evolution Bills In Play 

Ward Gossip: Abbottsville Sisters Struggle to Define Rights

Box Turtle Bulletin: NOM plans dramatic revelation of their irrelevancy

News Tidbits

Kansas City Star: Megan Phelps-Roper of Westboro Baptist Church: An heir to hate

Mail Online: 'I had to pray for people to die': Woman who escaped 'hate cult' Westboro Baptist Church finds peace with new life full of freedom

Hawaii News Now: Gay community outraged by Honolulu Ethics Board appointee's comments

Raw Story: San Francisco archbishop: Marriage equality ‘is like legalizing male breastfeeding’

Gay Star News: French right calls for polygamy, incest to be added to gay marriage bill