Change.org's Gay Rights Blog

A War on Conversion Therapy

Michael A. Jones — 2010-02-09T12:10:00-08:00

Last week, an undercover activist in England exposed some fairly shocking revelations about British mental health professionals gaming the health care system in order to get the government to pay for conversion therapy for LGBT people. Fed up with conversion therapy and therapists who practice it, the activist, Patrick Strudwick, is now on a mission to root out conversion therapy wherever it exists, and report therapists who practice it to their professional ethics boards.

Strudwick has launched a group on Facebook, the Stop Conversion Therapy Taskforce, where he's drumming up support for a campaign to find health professionals who try and cure gay people, and bring them down.

"We believe that the practice by therapists, psychiatrists and religious leaders of attempting to change a person's sexual orientation is damaging, offensive, immoral, unethical and ineffective," the Taskforce says.

Wonder if the Montgomery County Public School District is paying attention?

Strudwick revealed some rather disturbing practices and statements by psychotherapists in the United Kingdom in a piece that ran in last week's Independent. Among his discoveries included psychotherapists who blamed homosexuality on bad parenting, as well as therapists who tried to pray away the gay.

Strudwick also came upon a renowned ex-gay therapist, Mario Bergner, who will be headlining a conversion therapy conference in Ireland later this month. Among the claims made by Bergner? That he overcame his physical attraction to men, and that he was able to pray away his HIV.

The bottom line comes down to the principle that conversion therapy wrecks lives. That's the crux of Strudwick's organizing on the issue.

"[Conversion therapists] defend their techniques vehemently, claiming: 'We offer choice! We only treat those who come looking for it!'" Strudwick writes in today's Guardian. "It's like a Venus flytrap blaming the hungry insect that wanders into its gaping mouth. But we are determined to root them out however long it takes. This won't be a battle. It's war."

War is pretty tough language. But one thing that certainly is worth getting behind: lobbying psychological associations the world over to condemn ex-gay therapy practices. It's happened here in the states, with the American Psychological Association saying last year that these types of therapy are damaging, deadly and destructive. Three adjectives that sound just about right when describing the type of tactics used in most conversion therapies.

Photo credit: kynan-stewart-hughes

Boy Scouts of America Turns 100, Still Discriminates

Michael A. Jones — 2010-02-09T08:39:00-08:00

So much for that old adage "with age comes wisdom." The Boy Scouts of America celebrates 100 years this year. But despite hitting its centennial birthday, the organization is digging its heels into the ground on the issue of whether gay folks can play a part in the organization.

Ten years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Boy Scouts could bar gay folks from serving as Scout leaders. Ten years later, the Boy Scouts are again playing the homophobia card, telling two lesbian moms from Vermont that they can't be Scout leaders for their son.

That has some Congressional leaders blazing mad, including Vermont's at-large member of the U.S. House, Rep. Peter Welch. He was among the legislators that fired off a letter to the Boy Scouts of America, urging them to reconsider their harsh stance on banning gay people from serving as Scout leaders.

"As deeply troubling as the exclusionary policy is, the message that the policy sends is perhaps most damaging," said the letter. "The Boy Scouts are teaching America's youth at impressionable ages that lesbians and gays are to be excluded because they are different, and not 'morally straight' as per the Boy Scouts' official stated position."

Indeed, the Boy Scouts of America has spent the better part of its first 100 years training young folks to become active members of a "more conscientious, responsible, and productive society." So why does homophobia and discrimination have to play a part in that mission?

At issue in Vermont is the story of two moms, Cate and Elizabeth Wirth, a couple who applied to be scout leaders for their son. Despite being called "a very good Vermont family" by legislators, the Boy Scouts of America said that the moms couldn't take a leadership role with the organization. Sure, the moms had volunteered in the past, but that was before the Boy Scouts found out their sexual orientation.

Makes you think that this is less about protecting children from anything (given that the moms were at one point volunteers), but instead about enforcing a dopey rule that excludes good people from leadership positions within the organization, and contradicts the scouting mission of building a more conscientious world. Conscientious and discrimination go together like Conan O'Brien and NBC.

In receiving the letter from 25 legislators criticizing their persistent exclusion of gay men and women from leadership positions, the Boy Scouts said that they continue to examine the issue. A spokesperson for the group told the Time Argus in Vermont that the Boy Scouts continue to learn through this debate.

"The BSA recognizes that some do not agree with its position on this issue and values the opinions of everyone as it teaches its members to use courtesy and respect at all times," spokesman Deron Smith told the paper. "In the meantime, the Boy Scouts of America will continue to strengthen common interests, while respecting differences and will focus on its mission and on reaching as many youth as possible in order to help them grow into good, strong citizens."

Growing strong citizens doesn't start with telling children that queer folks are disqualified from service. What values get reaffirmed by keeping well-qualified gay and lesbian fathers, mothers and leaders from working with scouts? Certainly not the type of values that create a society that values the common good.

As a former scout -- who happened to win the Pinewood Derby two years in a row, and now has gay pride stickers on his trophies -- there's a lot to admire about the Boy Scouts of America. Their policy on excluding gays and lesbians from service is not one of them. Here's hoping that while their first century was marked by an insistence of exclusion, their next century reverses a bad policy that keeps well-qualified people from helping kids.

Photo credit: stevendepolo

On DADT, Democrats Should Ignore D.C.’s Chicken Littles

Nathan Tabak — 2010-02-09T07:36:00-08:00

When it comes to gay rights, much has changed in the 17 years since President Clinton first attempted to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. But when some political analysts speak about gays in the military, a certain U2 song comes to mind. For these supposed prophets, it's still 1993, and finally repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy, as President Obama has vowed to do, could be disastrous for Democrats come November. Fortunately, these analyses are more Chicken Little than Cassandra.

In a recent feature, the Washington Post editorial page asked various pollsters, pundits, and others for their opinions on repealing DADT. While most of the responses favored an end to the policy, two stood out for their predictions of dire electoral consequences for Democrats.

The first of these answers, unsurprisingly enough, came from a conservative source: Ed Rogers, a former staffer to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Yet his warning seems fairly half-hearted; he acknowledges at the beginning of his response that "it is inevitable that gays will openly serve in the U.S. Armed Forces." Rogers goes on to warn Republicans that supporting repeal may not play well in primaries, as "[m]uch of the Republican coalition will never support gays in the military." That may be true, though it's worth pointing out that a recent Fox News poll found Republicans evenly divided, 46-44, on the subject, rather than being overwhelmingly opposed. After alluding to the standard (and baseless) trope that gays could pose a danger to military cohesion, Rogers suggests that Republicans should listen to former military leaders on the issue. I'm guessing he doesn't mean Colin Powell.

Rogers' advice to Democrats is even feebler. While he acknowledges that acceptance of gay rights is increasing rapidly, particularly among younger Americans, he concludes that "the general population is not there yet." What's the basis for that assertion, you might ask? Rogers never bothers to provide one.

He's not the only would-be oracle who refuses to provide any empirical evidence that repealing DADT poses a political risk. That dubious honor also goes to Democratic pollster Doug Schoen, who warns of "a dramatic and deleterious impact on Democratic fortunes in November." This forecast apparently has nothing to do with any polls Schoen has conducted on the issue; instead, he cites the recent successes of same-sex marriage opponents in California, Maine, New York, and New Jersey, which "demonstrate quite clearly that mass opinion has not changed as dramatically as elite opinion apparently has on the role of gays in our society."

This is absurd for several reasons. Most obviously, Schoen, like Rogers, falsely alleges that public opinion isn't behind DADT repeal. In fact, the aforementioned Fox poll found 61 percent of voters in support of repealing the ban. A May 2009 Gallup poll found an even higher 69 percent in support. But what's more disturbing is that in Schoen's world, there are no individual, distinct LGBT issues. DADT, civil unions, equal immigration policies -- they're all one issue, and that issue is apparently marriage, which represents the entirety of public opinion "on the role of gays in our society."

It says quite a bit that Schoen instinctively rushes to conflate DADT with marriage, which consistently polls significantly worse. While I'd imagine that Schoen is personally supportive of gay rights, he appears to have internalized years of right-wing rhetoric on the subject. He openly expresses his "fear" of the Tea Party movement, social conservatives, and the religious right, at a time when only three percent of Americans rank social issues at the top of their list of priorities. Schoen seemingly experiences sheer terror at the thought of dealing with gay issues, and so he rushes to put every item on the LGBT agenda under the umbrella of the one that's least popular.

It's time to stop living in fear. If Democrats do suffer in November, it'll have far more to do with the unemployment rate and relentless GOP obstructionism than with anything to do with gay rights. And the time for action is now: Strong majorities of the public support repealing DADT, military leaders are backing the President and the votes in Congress are there to pull it off. In short, it's not 1993, and the sky isn't falling.

But if Democrats, and President Obama in particular, would rather show the base that they're weak, easily terrified by conservative homophobes, and unable to fulfill their promises, I'd advise them to heed the sage words of Doug Schoen and Ed Rogers.

Photo credit: theslowlane

Of Gay Judges and Gay Stock Car Announcers

Michael A. Jones — 2010-02-09T06:18:00-08:00

Who's in the mood to bust some glass ceilings this morning?

First comes word out of Senator Chuck Schumer's office that the Empire State's senior senator is going to recommend the first openly gay man for a position on the federal bench. The man, Daniel Alter, has been recommended by Sen. Schumer to fill a vacancy on the bench in the Southern District of New York. Though it's far from a done deal, Presidents typically listen to the Senators when it comes time for the nomination process. If that pattern remains true, the U.S. Senate could be debating its first federal-level judicial nomination surrounding a gay nominee.

That has Sen. Chuck Schumer on Cloud Nine.

“Daniel Alter couldn’t be a more perfect choice. He is a brilliant attorney who possesses the knowledge, balanced views and temperament required of a federal judge,” Schumer said. "I’m proud to nominate Daniel Alter. Period. But I am equally proud to nominate him because he is a history-maker who will be the first openly gay male judge in American history.”

Quite the history-making title to put on you business cards.

Meanwhile, if legal systems aren't your thing, head on over to neighboring Vermont where an openly gay stock car racing announcer is making a national profile for himself. Profiled in Edge, Troy Germain has gone from announcing races at small tracks in rural Vermont to a national race with the American Canadian Tour, and even a NASCAR race in 2007. In Texas.

Turns out that folks within the auto racing industry aren't as concerned about Germain's sexual orientation, as they are about his great performance as an announcer.

"Troy is Troy," Dave Moody told Edge. Moody is the host of Sirius Speedway and one of the racing industry's senior broadcasters. "Our business is performance driven. The only thing that matters is if you can or can’t do his job. Troy is really good at his job."

Shocked and awed yet?

Photo credit: El Biffster

When Health Class Becomes Homophobic Lecturing

Michael A. Jones — 2010-02-08T16:33:00-08:00

Forget learning about the circulatory system, the respiratory system, the nervous system, or even the digestive system. Inside the health classes at Fresno City College, you're likely only to learn one thing: that homosexuals are a "misapplication of human sexuality," and that if you're queer, you should seek treatment.

At least, that's what you'll learn if you're inside the classroom of Professor Dr. Bradley Lopez, who teaches an introductory health class at the college. The ACLU sent a letter to Fresno City College today, documenting some rather homophobic and unscientific curriculum from Lopez's classroom.

According to the ACLU, in addition to telling his students that homosexuality is evil and that gay folks should become ex-gay folks, Dr. Lopez has told his students that homosexuality is a threat to society, and that instead of global warming, students should worry about hellfire and damnation. Oh, and the ACLU says that Dr. Lopez has used quotes from the Bible as empirical evidence to teach his health class students that life begins at conception, and that abortion is murder.

Let Fresno City College's President and Vice President know that this type of academic experience is far from academic excellence. Allowing someone to co-opt a health class in order to teach homophobia is damaging to students, and to the reputation of Fresno City College.

One student who took Professor Lopez's class said that she did not expect to be taught religion inside a health seminar.

"I feel very let down by my school,” said Jacqui Mahaffey, a 24-year-old student. “I signed up for health science because I was interested in the subject, but what I got was hateful lecturing based on Professor Lopez’s personal beliefs. I am in school to learn, not to be indoctrinated with one professor’s religious views and anti-gay beliefs.”

Fresno City College is also a public school, which means that not only is Dr. Lopez's salary supported by public funds, but that there should be measures of accountability put in place to make sure that professors are teaching students a curriculum that will benefit them in the real world.

That's exactly what staff attorneys with the ACLU are arguing. If Fresno City College doesn't respond, there will be further action in the works.

“The college class room of a state school should be a welcoming environment for all students, and courses, especially health courses, should be based on objective and medically accurate information, not religiously-based bias,” said Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. “While Professor Lopez is free to talk about his religious beliefs outside of the classroom, Fresno City College has an obligation to protect its students from religious indoctrination and anti-gay bias presented as ‘science’ or ‘fact.’ Professor Lopez’s health class fails students in both regards.”

If you agree that Fresno City College has an obligation to make sure their classrooms are safe spaces, not to mention places where facts and science are taught in the classroom instead of personal belief and opinion, send Fresno City College a message. The only thing on the line is their academic reputation.

Photo credit: newzar

Five Tips for Converting Others to the Gay Cause

Abbie Kopf — 2010-02-08T14:04:00-08:00

We're all familiar with the more annoying practices of evangelism such as people who bike to our front doors or folks who hand out tracts after a ball game. But telling others about our beliefs is something that we don't do enough of in the gay community.

We might assume that people don't want to hear about gay rights or that they will attack us if we try to bring up who we are and what we're fighting for. Despite these fears, it's absolutely essential that we reach out to others. We're at a critical point in our fight for equality and we need all the soldiers we can get for the war on gay rights.

Gay advocates should take a cue from evangelicals because they've gotten the art of presenting their case down to a science, especially when it comes to converting others. The National Organization for Marriage website provides "Marriage Talking Points" that outline the best ways to talk about the dangers of same-sex marriage. These talking points are researched, they're thorough and they are absolutely frightening ... because they work.

At the Creating Change Conference in Dallas this past weekend, I was fortunate to sit in on a session hosted by the Williams Institute that taught activists how to neutralize gay-rights opponents with factual evidence and current statistics. The know-how to confidently and thoughtfully debate gay issues might allow us to win a few over to our side, but there are some things to keep in mind before trying to convert gay non-believers.

1. Know your audience
Not all conservatives are implacable and ignorant know-it-alls who won't listen to reason. But some are. When faced with someone who is unwilling to listen to any side but her own, it's of no use to debate the validity of gay issues. There's a difference between someone who shows reticence toward the cause and someone who's looking to pick a fight.

2. Get your facts together
Unlike opponents, we don't have a bible that we can turn to for all the answers. However, the Williams Institute damn near has provided us with a gay bible. You can learn everything from gay census data to the negative impact of anti-gay legislation. Armed with statistical proof of the harm of gay prejudice, even hard-core haters won't have much wiggle room in the debate.

3. Tell personal stories
Though factual knowledge is absolutely imperative in fighting anti-gay arguments, there's nothing that can change a person's view quicker than a testimony. Hearing firsthand how hurtful and harmful gay prejudice has been in your life can frame the gay debate in a deeply resonant way, especially for those who know you personally.

4. Don't get angry
Have you ever been writhing in rage when you hear the typical anti-gay propaganda? It's easy to get angry when others espouse backwards or downright hurtful views on gay issues. But reacting in anger will always give away your power and make what you're saying less effective. We're fighting for our right to love one another without facing discrimination. Make your cause about our love and not their hate.

5. Give it time and follow up
If you've told a family member, co-worker or friend about gay rights issues, they may seem unreceptive in the beginning. But many of us have known once-opponents who, given some time to mull things over, might reconsider their stance. Even if you're faced with someone who outright rejects you and your beliefs, be persistent and follow up with them regarding questions and arguments. Winning people over isn't a race. The more you talk to someone the more comfortable they will feel with what you're saying.

Above all, we must be fearless and confident when it comes to telling others about our cause. As the saying goes, "There's no zealot like a convert," and if we're able to change even one mind we might find a remarkable ally in the cause.

Photo credit: lighttripper

Some Anti-Gay Crumpets With Your Tea

Michael A. Jones — 2010-02-08T11:49:00-08:00

This past weekend marked the first ever National Tea Party Convention. It's a movement born out of alleged frustration with how much money the federal government is spending. But as their roster of speakers shows, the Tea Party Movement is also just an extension of the radical religious right. They may boo and hiss at big government when it comes to your pocketbook, but boy, do they sure love big government when it comes to policing America's bedrooms.

Perhaps the most notable anti-gay celebrity speaking at the Tea Party Convention was former Alabama Judge Roy Moore. He became famous last decade for refusing to remove a statue of the Ten Commandments from his courthouse, despite being ordered to by federal officials. In the time since that dust up, Gov. Moore has gone on a crusade, one might say, toward what he sees as a perversion of American values. And boy, does Moore really not like the steps that President Barack Obama has taken toward advancing LGBT equality.

"[Obama] has ignored our history and our heritage, arrogantly declaring to the world that we are no longer a Christian nation," Moore declared in his Tea Party gig. "He has elevated immorality to a new level, setting aside the entire month of June to celebrate gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender pride. He now threatens to change our law to allow homosexuality in our military."

Word has it that President Obama is also considering changing the name of June to, simply, "Debauchery." At least in Roy Moore's head.

OK, so maybe Tea Party organizers didn't know Roy Moore was going to get on stage and dither on about social issues. Good thing they turned his microphone over to ... Pastor Rick Scarborough? You mean the guy who consistently compares homosexuals to drunkards, thieves, and swindlers?

So much for the Tea Party Movement being about economics. Pastor Scarborough even led the crowd in Nashville in a prayer condemning homosexuals -- to the tune of "Amens" from the crowd, according to Time Magazine.

Forget this being a new movement. Forget this being the wave of political activism of the future. Tea Party? No, it's just an extension of the same old religious right politics rooted in racism and homophobia. Call it this decade's version of the 1980s so-called "Moral Majority," only with different clothes.

There's definitely a space for independent-minded folks who are fed up with the stagnation in Washington. But the Tea Party movement isn't it.

Photo credit: a1mega

The Truth About Gay Service in Foreign Militaries

Michael A. Jones — 2010-02-08T09:50:00-08:00

Would allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military really hurt unit cohesion like supporters of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" say it would?

Not if you look at the more than two dozen foreign militaries that have already integrated their militaries to allow openly lesbian and gay troops. From South Africa to Israel to Canada, no foreign government that allows openly gay soldiers has reported one lick of distress when it comes to unit cohesion or morale. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

According to Reason magazine (not necessarily known as a bastion of liberalism), foreign militaries showed nothing more than a shrug when it came to allowing folks to serve openly. The British government observed "a marked lack of reaction." The Canadian government reported "no effect." And in Australia, a group that worked hard to keep a ban on gay soldiers in place eventually came around to say that straight Australian troops never had a lot of difficulty accepting openly gay colleagues.

So that sentiment about how letting troops serve openly could threaten unit cohesion? It seems about as much of an urban legend as the idea that the kid from the Life Cereal commercials died eating Pop Rocks, or that Walt Disney is cryogenically frozen.

Gay service in foreign militaries is also shaping up to be a cornerstone of the work that The Palm Center, a research outfit in California dedicated to overturning "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," plans to do this Spring. They just announced a Spring symposium that will spotlight how gay troops have been successfully integrated into militaries around the world, and how this had absolutely no effect on unit cohesion or troop morale.

"As military and political leaders anticipate the end of 'don't ask, don't tell,' the lessons from the twenty-five foreign forces that allow open gay service are instructive," said Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center. The Palm Center is also preparing to launch a behemoth report on foreign militaries who welcome gay troops. It's expected to drop next week.

So the next time you hear someone talking about troop morale or unit cohesion, just remember that at least 25 militaries around the world have yet to show any problem with allowing gay and lesbian troops to serve openly. What makes the United States think that it will be any different?

Photo credit: The U.S. Army

An Open Letter to the People of Uganda

Adam Amel Rogers — 2010-02-08T08:25:00-08:00

Dear Citizens of Uganda,

My name is Adam Rogers and I live in the United States of America. I am writing because your country’s government is currently debating a bill that I consider to be extremely dangerous and morally reprehensible. It is my understanding that a significant majority of Ugandans support the Anti-Homosexuality Bill that MP David Bahati has introduced, but I believe your support of this bill is based on only one side of the story. The leaders of my country, as well as many others, have urged your leaders to drop this effort, but I would like the opportunity to address you, regular citizen to regular citizen.

I plead with you to continue reading, because the lives and safety of your fellow Ugandans are at stake. After such a despicable history of imperialism, I understand that you are weary of anything you perceive to be a Western export, but I assure you that homosexuality is not the export. Though not always accepted, same-gender affection has been detailed in every culture throughout history. The Western exports you should be concerned with are the lies you have been told by the American evangelical leaders who have been visiting your country.

The message that “homosexuality is changeable” is a fringe and extreme viewpoint that is not based on any reputable science. You have been taught that the gay movement is “an evil based entity” and that our goal is to “defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of promiscuity.” This could not be further from the truth. We do not want to defeat the marriage-based society, we simply want to be a part of it.

Let me clear up some other lies that you have heard. Pastor Martin Ssempa has worked hard to convince you of how different and scary gay people are. He has repeatedly said that we are trying to recruit your children and he has tried to make you afraid of us by saying that we eat each other’s poop. I beg you not to listen to anything this man has to say. He does not spew these lies to fight for Ugandans, he lies because he knows it gets him global headlines. Ssempa has a long history of using his country’s challenges to gain fame -– including burning condoms in the name of Jesus.

The reality is that homosexuals and heterosexuals are not different at all. We all value the same things: family, friends, happiness, freedom and love. I assure you that gay people are not to be feared or hated -– we are painfully normal, as evidenced by my story.

Since I was a young child, I have been attracted to men in the same way that many young people develop an attraction for members of the opposite sex. I fought against these feelings in my early years and I tried to force myself to have feelings for women, but it was a lost (and unnecessary) cause. When I was 18-years-old, I told my parents, family and friends that I was gay and I was blessed with their support and love.

Now years later, I work at a University and my husband is an elementary school teacher. We have been committed to each other for over seven years and we were recently married in front of 150 members of our friends and family. We live a very quiet and peaceful life and the fabric of the traditional family has not been destroyed because of our love for each other.

Pastor Ssempa has urged Ugandans to not use the word “gay” because it means “happy” and “these people are not happy.” I personally am extremely happy because I am able to spend the rest of my life with the person whom I love. I fear it is your fellow Ugandans who will never know happiness, because they are being forced to live their lives in secrecy out of fear that they will be imprisoned or killed because of who they are.

I call upon you to not let Pastor Ssempa and MP Bahati speak for you on this subject. Please do not rob gay Ugandans of the same chance at happiness that you enjoy.

Thank you for listening,

Adam Amel Rogers

Photo credit: freeuganda

End Text Messaging While Driving, Not Gay Marriage

Michael A. Jones — 2010-02-08T07:25:00-08:00

Wow, if voters in Iowa ever meant to send a message about same-sex marriage, this is it. Because of budget cuts, the Iowa state legislature is cutting their normal session by 20 days, limiting the amount of time they'll have to deal with the pressing issues facing the Hawkeye State.

Anti-gay folks in Iowa have been chomping at the bit to have the legislature pass a measure that would create a statewide ballot initiative on whether same-sex marriage should remain legal. Call it the Prop 8 or the Question 1 of the Midwest. But Iowa voters? They just don't want legislators wasting their time on such frivolous -- not to mention homophobic -- measures.

A new poll from the Des Moines Register shows that among six issues that could come before the legislature this session, a repeal of same-sex marriage is dead last, with nearly two-thirds of the state saying let's let gay marriage become settled law in the state. The most important issue, according to voters? Adopting a measure to ban text messaging while driving.

Still, despite overwhelming evidence that Iowa voters just don't want legislators wasting their time on criminalizing gay marriage, a handful of anti-gay Republicans are looking to force a ballot measure through. They'll need help from about seven Democrats in order to make it happen.

Photo credit: D3 San Francisco

Why CBS Was Still Wrong to Air the Focus Ad

Michael A. Jones — 2010-02-08T06:30:00-08:00

The Super Bowl advertising controversy over Focus on the Family -- or, as many might like to call it, the gift that kept on giving to the blogosphere -- is finally history. Millions are waking up this morning playing Monday-morning quarterback, wondering if progressives overreacted to the advertisement, given how cuddly, cute and tame it came across on national television. Was this the Puppy Bowl, or the Tim Tebow advertisement?

Was the advertisement the extreme anti-choice message that some folks feared? No, it wasn't. But the content of the advertisement was never entirely the sole issue here. The controversy was sparked mostly by the double standard that CBS created in order to air the ad, rewriting their own internal advertising policies in order to accommodate Focus on the Family. In years past, CBS refused advocacy advertisements from MoveOn, as well as the United Church of Christ.

As far as advertisements go, the United Church of Christ ad rejected a few years back was equally as tame as the Focus on the Family advertisement last night. But beyond that, the issue here has always been about the organization behind the advertisement. Last night, 100 million viewers were told at the end of the Focus on the Family commercial to go visit their Web site. And while Tim and Pam Tebow might not have had anything controversial to say during their 30 seconds last night, the Focus on the Family Web site doesn't waste any time in getting their homophobia on.

The Focus Web site is full of nuggets that belittle and dehumanize LGBT people. From the "God created marriage as a loyal covenant between one man and one woman only" speak to commentary that "gay marriage and civil unions" have put marriage in a state of crisis, there's a lot more behind the curtain of the Tim and Pam Tebow ad. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Focus on the Family also writes on their Web site that gay marriage will lead to recognition of polygamy, and they openly advocate for ballot measures that take away civil rights for lesbian and gay couples.

But the homophobic comments don't stop there. Wait 'til you see Focus on the Family's section dedicated to the evils of gay adoption. There you'll find out that Focus on the Family believes that gay adoption hurts children, and that same-sex parents can't provide the right kind of love for their children. You'll even find a knock that same-sex families are unhealthy, and that kids raised in same-sex parent households have a higher rate of emotional abuse, suspension from school, and drug abuse.

Yup, that's the Web site that was flashed before 100 million people last night. And that's the real tragedy behind the Focus on the Family advertisement. Pam and Tim Tebow may have been the sugar-coating, but there's a really bitter pill behind the message that viewers who made their way to Focus on the Family's Web site likely found.

The ad's tagline that appeared with the Web site was "Celebrate Family. Celebrate Life." It might as well have said Celebrate Homophobia, too. Because that's a good chunk of what you'll find at Focus on the Family when you look behind the Pam and Tim Tebow curtain.

Photo credit: zap2it

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Tipping Point

Michael A. Jones — 2010-02-07T12:40:00-08:00

This past week has probably seen more "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" coverage than at any other point in the policy's 17-year history. From Admiral Mike Mullen to General Colin Powell, from Defense Secretary Robert Gates to Senator Joe Lieberman, a chorus of political figures and military leaders have called for an end to the discriminatory policy that boots openly gay and lesbian soldiers out of the military, and prevents many more from entering.

And now tomorrow, a new poll of 3,000 active duty troops will show that support for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is at an all-time low inside the ranks of the military. Combined, it all begs the question: have we reached the tipping point on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?"

In physics terms, a tipping point means that an object has moved irreversibly from one state to another. For "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," has debate moved so far to the side of repeal that there's no turning back?

Frank Rich seems to think so. He writes in the New York Times today that opponents of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military had no idea what to do this week, given the onslaught of repeal sentiment from military leaders. How do you argue, Rich asks, against the heartfelt language used by Adm. Mike Mullen during his testimony before the U.S. Senate, where Mullen plain-spokingly said that forcing soldiers to lie compromises the integrity of the U.S. military?

Let's not forget that Admiral Mullen and Defense Secretary Gates were both appointed to their positions by President George W. Bush. Colin Powell? Yeah, he was a Republican official, too. And Joe Lieberman? He endorsed Sen. John McCain in 2008. In other words, these aren't individuals that can be easily branded as socialists by the Tea Party sect.

These are folks that conservatives have respected for eons, and folks who have been heralded among military audiences for just as long.

Have their voices, coupled with the fact that upwards of 75 percent of the U.S. thinks that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should be repealed, been enough to create a tipping point -- a point at which support for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in its current form becomes toxic?

U.S. politicians would be wise to find out. Let's see GOP candidates for the U.S. Senate in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Nevada, Colorado and Florida (to name a few) answer whether they'd support a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Put them in the uncomfortable position of having to cuddle with the anti-LGBT crazies in their party, or take an independent stand on behalf of what up to three-quarters of the country sees as a civil rights issue.

As Rich argues, most independents -- the flavor du jour in American politics -- support progressive stands on social issues. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" seems like a softball one.

Democrats would be wise to have a spine on this one. Folks like Adm. Mike Mullen and Defense Secretary Gates do. And if they can stand up, look John McCain in the eye, and tell him that he's flat wrong on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," there's no reason progressives around the country can't do the same, too.

Photo credit: U.S. Coast Guard

Equal Rights are a Catholic Concept, Too

Michael A. Jones — 2010-02-06T14:12:00-08:00

For more than three decades, New Ways Ministry has been working to advance equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Catholics within the Church. That work has involved compiling lists of LGBT-friendly parishes, LGBT-friendly universities, lobbying on behalf of LGBT civil rights, and calling the Catholic Church to reach out compassionately for the inclusion of gay and lesbian people.

The organization started in the late 1970s, inspired by Brooklyn Catholic Bishop Francis Mugavero's call that gay and lesbian people should be treated equally in society.

But what a difference thirty years makes. That spirit of inclusion and finding a new way for LGBT people and the Church to come together has been replaced by a Church leadership that routinely works to take away the civil rights of LGBT people. In Maine. In California. In New Jersey. In Hawaii. And now the head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is aiming his target at New Ways Ministry, telling the organization that they should no longer consider themselves legitimately Catholic because they support and are pastoral to LGBT people.

"[New Ways Ministry's] claim to be Catholic only confuses the faithful regarding the authentic teaching and ministry of the Church with respect to persons with a homosexual inclination," said Bishop Francis George. "Accordingly, I wish to make it clear that, like other groups that claim to be Catholic but deny central aspects of Church teaching, New Ways Ministry has no approval or recognition from the Catholic Church and that they cannot speak on behalf of the Catholic faithful in the United States."

But here's a newsflash. Bishop Francis George is just a man. He might have a title in front of his name, but when I look up the word pastoral, I don't see his brand of condemnation. Instead, I see the mission of folks like New Ways Ministry who have worked to build bridges between the Church and queer people for thirty years.

For their part, New Ways Ministry issued a statement saying that they were surprised by Bishop Francis George's comments. Turns out the Bishop never opened a conversation with the group, instead deciding to pen a statement from abroad. How very passive aggressive.

"We are astonished that Cardinal George released such a statement, since New Ways Ministry has never been contacted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to discuss the nature of our work," said Francis DeBernardo, Executive Director of New Ways Ministry. "We were not even extended the basic courtesy of being informed of the statement as it was being released to the press. Instead, we learned about it only by reading a press account."

What has happened to the U.S. Catholic Church? Thirty years ago, Bishop Mugavero called on society to treat LGBT people as equal. Heck, even as recently as 1997 the Church issued a statement affirming that LGBT people were "always God's children."

Now, if Bishop Francis George is to be believed, you can't even be pastoral to LGBT people and still consider yourself officially Catholic. Where's the love, sir?

Catholics believe in Jesus. If biblical accounts are to be believed, Jesus was a man who loved his enemies, worked with those who were oppressed and suffered violence, and a man who treated people equally. He's also a man that during the course of his lifetime, never said one thing disparaging about homosexuality.

Maybe Bishop George, and the entire institutional Church, could use a refresher course. Meanwhile, I don't care what Bishop George says. The principles behind New Ways Ministry are the very reason I still feel a connection with the church. No man, whether he's got the word Bishop, Deacon, Cardinal or Pope before his name, is going to tell me otherwise.

Photo credit: andycoan

When Public Schools Peddle Ex-Gay Propaganda

Michael A. Jones — 2010-02-05T18:09:00-08:00

You expect your kids to come home from school with homework, maybe a report card, or a note from the teacher. But would you expect your kids to come home with a flier from an ex-gay organization? At a public school no less?

Turn to Montgomery County, just outside of Washington, D.C., where a group of high school students were officially given literature from Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX), an ex-gay organization that believes that sexual orientation is a self-chosen identity, and collaborates with organizations who view homosexuality as destructive. What did the flier given to students say?

According to teachthefacts.org, the flier told students that if they were LGBT or knew someone who identified as LGBT, that they could change. Oh, and of course, that scientists have yet to discover the "gay center of the brain."

"Every year thousands of people with unwanted same-sex attractions make the personal decision to leave a gay identity through gender affirming programs, including therapy, faith based ministries, and other non-judgmental environments," the PFOX flier stated. "No 'gay gene' or gay center of the brain has been found. No medical test exists to determine if a person is homosexual. Sexual orientation is based on feelings and is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration."

Huh, maybe next week the Montgomery County Public Schools would like to hand out fliers suggesting that the world is flat? Because that carries about as much scientific fact as what PFOX is saying. Tell the Montgomery County Public Schools that peddling propaganda from ex-gay organizations is not only harmful to LGBT students, it's also an affront to science.

PFOX claims to have distributed the flier as a means of drawing attention to the discrimination that ex-gay people face. But as the Washington City Paper's Amanda Hess points out, PFOX doesn't really have all that many ex-gays among its membership. Just a lot of straight people who talk about how gay people can change their sexual orientation.

But PFOX and their bad science aside, what was the Montgomery County Public School system thinking? The President of the School Board even admitted that these fliers "probably" ran counter to what children are taught in the classroom.

"These fliers are probably counter to what is available in our health curriculum," said President Patricia O'Neill. Really? So would you hand out a flier that says 2+2=67 too?

The school district said they were forced by a previous lawsuit to distribute the fliers. But does litigation really mean giving your students misinformation? As teachthefacts.org notes, that's just not a good enough justification.

"This is damaging both to gay adolescents who need understanding and accurate information at a time in their lives when they are most vulnerable, and to the others, who are forming attitudes and stereotypes, and are likely to believe this junk about gay people choosing not to be gay, especially since it is handed out by their teachers, at school," they write.

If you agree, send the Montgomery County Public Schools a message that ex-gay fliers -- fliers that counter what's being taught in student health classes -- don't deserve to be distributed like the lunch menu.

Photo credit: allancaplan

Oliver North is No Authority on Integrity in the Military

Michael A. Jones — 2010-02-05T14:36:00-08:00

When Admiral Mike Mullen testified before the U.S. Senate this week, he said that the reason "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should be repealed is because it's a policy that compromises the integrity of the U.S. military. It forces soldiers to lie about who they are, and it entrenches within the military a culture of dishonesty.

Oliver North disagrees. But Oliver North is no saint when it comes to compromising the integrity of our military.

North, a retired U.S. marine officer, is widely remembered for being involved in the clandestine sale of weapons to Iran in the 1980s, and then using the profits from those weapons to funnel money down to Nicaragua to support rebels. Whether he likes to put it on his resume or business cards, Oliver North was probably the biggest military failure of the 1980s, finishing his military career with more felony charges that that leveled against Michael Jackson's doctor.

Where would someone with such a weasely reputation end up? Why, Fox News of course. And it's on that network where Oliver North went after efforts to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," telling Sean Hannity that if the military lets openly gay troops in, they might as well just go ahead and open the door to pedophiles, too.

"Now, here's what's next. NAMBLA members, same-sex marriages," North said, trotting out the age-old NAMBLA association that died a miserable death decades ago. "Are chaplains in the US military going to be required to perform those kinds of rituals? Do they [pedophiles and homosexuals] get government housing?"

Oliver North then accused President Obama of treating U.S. soldiers like lab rats, experimenting with them to see how they'll react to queer people.

So much for Adm. Mullen's plea that all sides of this debate remain sensible. Because either Oliver North was intoxicated during his appearance, or his intelligence on the issue of politics is extremely stunted. I'm betting on the latter.

Perhaps Igor Volsky over at Think Progress put it best, saying that the "irony of a convicted felon who lied about diverting proceeds from arms sales to a rebel group in Nicaragua, supporting a policy that forces gay and lesbian servicemen to lie about their sexual orientation" must have been lost on Sean Hannity.

But at least now Oliver North can add another thing to his career portfolio: Homophobe. Maybe CBS would like to offer him a commercial?

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

What the Right Gets Wrong: Gay Agendas

Cristian Asher — 2010-02-05T11:51:00-08:00

Phil and I are hoping to buy a home this year. Beyond that, I'm looking forward, in 2010, to deepening my involvement here at Change.org and seeing my husband’s theatre company continue to prosper. That’s my gay agenda. Frightening, isn’t it?

Oh, all right. I also want "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" to go down in flames, the Respect for Marriage Act to pass with flying colors, and the Boies/Olsen Prop 8 lawsuit to strike down that hateful amendment once and for all.

I suppose this sounds more like the “gay agenda” that the lunatic fringe at the edges of the far right is always talking about. But in spite of their hysteria, nothing in my goals should rightly bother anyone. Really, all I’m talking about is freedom and equal treatment. I am definitively not interested in curtailing anybody else’s rights, impacting anybody else’s lifestyle choices, or impinging on any person’s, group’s, or organization’s freedoms. So what's the problem? And who has the real "gay agenda" here, anyway?

When I was in fifth grade, my teacher taught us that “your rights stop at the end of your nose.” He meant that it’s not OK to impose your will on others to their detriment, or to try to grab freedoms that cause harm to others. We gays and lesbians are obeying this moral guidance perfectly in our current political battles. The rights we want affect only us — or, if anything, actually make things better for our neighbors. With marriage and overall equality, we become more committed, valuable members of our communities, and more children get to grow up in households with stable, married parents. Good, right? You’d think more conservatives would be jumping on the bandwagon.

But instead, they have a very different approach. They, unlike us, are determined to enforce not only their rights, but their will way beyond the ends of their noses. They want to reach into our homes and beds, not to mention our children's rooms, our schools, and the lives of our parents, friends, sisters and brothers. They want to wreak havoc in all these places, to dishevel our committed lives and destroy our happiness. Not only do they want to do damage to us, they’re not even increasing their own happiness or rights as they do it. They are fighting to keep us down out of pure dislike for who we are and what we stand for. When Charles Cooper, the attorney representing Prop 8 in Federal court last month, was asked exactly what harm gay marriage would cause to society, he couldn’t come up with an answer. Not a single example of damage. Yet anti-marriage equality forces feel justified in marginalizing us and severely curtailing our freedoms in their attempt to elevate and mainstream their own narrow, religion-based interests.

Our opponents may or may not be motivated by hatred or bigotry in a technical sense. But what they most certainly are not motivated by is any reasonable desire for good, or to increase the general happiness of society. They are, at best, unconscionably selfish. At worst, positively malevolent.

Contrary to what our opponents claim, the things we're fighting for — marriage, adoption rights, protection from hate crimes, the right to serve openly in the military — will not make the slightest difference in their lives, churches, the public schools, or Afghanistan. We simply want to be able to live our lives privately, happily, and equally.

They respond to these goals by telling us we're sick and trying to brainwash us into a pretend heterosexuality, by denying us the right to publicly commit to our loved ones, by curtailing our abilities to visit and support each other when we're ill, by denying us the right to sponsor our loved ones to come live with us in the U.S., by denying us the chance to defend our country, and by generally trying to push us back into the closet and have us kowtow to their extremist worldview in complete denial of the principles of justice and religious non-interference on which the U.S. was founded.

Now that’s a scary gay agenda.

Photo credit: Cristian Asher

Gay Folks Are the Key to Evolutionary Survival

Michael A. Jones — 2010-02-05T10:54:00-08:00

What's that line that anti-gay folks like to say? It goes something like how if the world was full of queer people, we'd cease to exist since people in same-sex relationships can't reproduce.

Now, sure, that's a bit of an unrealistic hypothetical, since the world is full of a lot of people of all different sexual orientations. But as some Canadian researchers are suggesting, it might not be so bad if there were more LGBT people. Why? Because queer folks are actually a blessing for the evolution of humans.

Don't call us LGBT folks. Just call us "Super Uncles" and "Super Aunts."

The story goes something like this: homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time. But instead of being a pox upon the recreation of the human species, gay folks have actually taken on a nurturing role that have helped family members survive for centuries upon centuries.

"The idea is that homosexuals are helping their close relatives reproduce more successfully and at a higher rate by being helpful: babysitting more, tutoring their nieces and nephews in art and music, and helping out financially with things like medical care and education," said Montreal's Gazette. Despite the lack of physical reproduction, gay folks are finding ways to pass along character traits to generations of family members. And as a result, the authors of the study find, queer folks have helped the human species thrive.

Or, in other words, one might say that queer folks are the glue that keeps this species together. Oh, the irony, at least in consideration of the many, many arguments made by anti-LGBT groups to keep gay folks closeted, without rights, and hidden.

Photo credit: drab makyo

Scott Brown's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Inadequacy

Michael A. Jones — 2010-02-05T09:44:00-08:00

The man with the big red pick-up truck became an official U.S. Senator yesterday. Scott Brown -- nay, Senator Scott Brown -- now becomes either the 100th member of the Senate or the 41st vote to block progressive legislation, depending on one's worldview.

Though Sen. Brown has a non-existent voting record to date, one red flag that should have gay rights activists worried is his milquetoast response to a question on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Asked by Barbara Walters last week, Scott Brown said he wanted to talk to generals before weighing in on a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." And then asked yesterday, on the day he was sworn in, whether he supported a repeal, Sen. Brown gave the same response.

While nobody can quibble with the idea of talking to military leaders, Sen. Brown's evasive answer fails to take into account the senior military leaders -- including the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- have weighed in on the issue of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and they're calling for a repeal.

What's more, Sen. Scott Brown's "talk to the generals" comment mirrors very closely the lines used by Sen. John McCain when he stressed his opposition to a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal this week. All of this is going to put Sen. Scott Brown in a tricky place. Does he look at the issue of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" from the viewpoint of the majority of Massachusetts citizens, who support repealing the law, or does he simply toe the line that Sen. John McCain wants him to follow?

The relationship between Sen. McCain and Sen. Brown is pretty close, with Sen. Brown saying yesterday that McCain has helped him transition from pick-up truck driver to Senator more than any other person. Does that mean that Sen. McCain also has extraordinary influence on the political positions Sen. Brown might take, particularly on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?"

Given Sen. Scott Brown's comments about torture and terrorism -- he supports using harsh interrogation techniques in order to get information from detainees -- it's pretty clear that Sen. Brown might be a politician who is moderate on some issues, but hawkish on many others.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is likely going to be among Sen. Brown's first tests to determine whether he's a Republican willing to follow the progressive trends of his constituency, or whether he's a Republican who follows lock step behind senior GOP leaders. LGBT folks would be wise to watch Sen. Brown, and to continue to put him on the spot. Senior military leaders have spoken. Now it's Sen. Brown's turn.

Photo credit: Mary Bono

Black History Month and Identity Politics

Rev. Irene Monroe — 2010-02-05T08:44:00-08:00

February 1 began Black History Month, a national annual observance since 1926, honoring and celebrating the achievements of African-Americans.

And on February 1, the International Civil Rights Center and Museum (ICRCM) opened in Greensboro, North Carolina, honoring the courageous action of four African-American students. Their actions led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which mandated desegregation of all public accommodations.

Fifty years ago on February 1,1960, the now ICRCM was a Woolworth's store and the site of the original sit-in where Ezell A. Blair Jr. (also known as Jibreel Khazan), David Leinhail Richmond, Joseph Alfred McNeil, and Franklin Eugene McCain from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical College (NC A&T), a historically black college, sat at its lunch counter as a form of nonviolent direct action protesting the store's segregated seating policy. And as a result of their civil disobedience, sit-ins sprung up not only in Greensboro but throughout the South, challenging other forms of this nation's segregated public accommodations, including bathrooms, water fountains, parks, theaters, and swimming pools, to name a few.

If Dr. Carter Woodson, the Father of Black History, were alive today, he would be proud that the ICRCM opened this month.

However, for a younger generation of African-Americans as well as whites, whose ballots helped elect this country's first African-American president, celebrating Black History Month seems outdated.

"Obama is post-racial. And Black History Month is old school," Josh Dawson, 26, of New Hampshire tells me.

For many whites as well as people of color of Dawson's generation, Obama race was a "non-issue." And Obama's election encapsulated for them both the physical and symbolic representation of Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision uttered in his historic "I Have a Dream" speech during the 1963 March on Washington.

"King said don't judge by the color of our skin, but instead the content of our character," Dawson continues.

In proving how "post-racial" Obama was as a presidential candidate, Michael Crowley of "The New Republic” wrote in his article "Post-racial" that it wasn't only liberals who had no problem with Obama's race, but conservatives had no problem too, even the infamous ex-Klansman David Duke.

"Even white Supremacists don't hate Obama," Crowley writes about Duke. "[Duke] seems almost nonchalant about Obama, don't see much difference in Barack Obama than Hillary Clinton -- or, for that matter, John McCain."

For years, the celebration of Black History Month has always brought up the ire around "identity politics" and "special rights."

'If we're gonna have Black History Month, why not White History Month? Italian History Month? Chinese History Month?," Dawson questions.

During the George W. Bush years we saw the waning interest in "identity politics," creating both political and systematic disempowerment of marginalized groups, like people of color, women, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people. We also saw the gradual dismantling of affirmative action policies, like in 2003 when the Supreme Court split the difference on affirmative action, allowing the Bakke case on reverse discrimination to stand.

In celebrating Black History Month this year in what is now perceived by some to be one year in the "post-racial" era since Obama took office, I worry how we as a nation will honestly talk about race.

For example, During Black History Month in 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder received scathing criticism for his speech on race. His critics said the tone and tenor of the speech was confrontational and accusatory.

“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot,” Holder said, “in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.”

Within the African- American LGBTQ community, Black History Month has always come under criticism. And rightly so! The absence of LGBTQ people of African descent in the month-long celebration is evidence of how race, gender and sexual politics of the dominant culture are reinscribed in black culture as well. It leads you to believe that the only shakers and movers in the history of people of African descent in the U.S. were and still are heterosexuals. And because of this heterosexist bias, the sheroes and heroes of LGBTQ people of African decent -- like Pat Parker, Audre Lorde, Essex Hemphill, Joseph Beam, and Bayard Rustin (pictured above) -- are mostly known and lauded within a subculture of black life.

However, the argument that celebrating Black History Month in 2010 is no more than a celebration of a relic tethered to an old defunct paradigm of the civil rights era and is a hindrance to black people moving forward is bogus.

In order to move forward you must look back.

And in so doing, were it not for the successful sit-ins, marches, and boycotts of the 1960's, could we have this conversation in 2010?

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

Who Speaks for Evangelicals on Gay Rights?

Michael A. Jones — 2010-02-05T07:44:00-08:00

Over the past week, with discussions about repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and condemning Uganda's anti-gay law at a fever pitch, a gaggle of evangelical leaders have been coming out of the woodwork to reiterate a faith-based opposition to homosexuality. Perhaps they feel threatened by how much attention gay rights is getting in the media. Or perhaps even within their own church, they know that anti-gay sentiment is fading like a proverbial flower.

Who speaks for evangelicals these days? Is it the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer? Fischer, who looks like the product of an "If They Mated" game with James Brolin and Pat Robertson, barked this week that the United States should return to the days of 1962, and make sure that every state in the country criminalizes sodomy.

"Laws not only curb dangerous and risky behavior, they keep such behavior from being normalized, sanctioned and endorsed by the rest of society, and as such render an enormous benefit to a healthy culture," Fischer writes. He then orders us all back into a time where gay folks could be jailed, and people of color had to drink from separate water fountains. Does he speak for evangelicals?

Or maybe it's Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council who speaks for evangelicals. Sprigg went on "Hardball" with Chris Matthews this week, and said that homosexuality should also be criminalized in this country. "I think there should be a place in this country for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior," Sprigg said.

Or maybe it's Andrew Wommack, an American evangelical pastor in Uganda, who wears the moniker of spokesperson for evangelicals. Wommack went on record this week supporting efforts in Uganda to pass laws that would institute the death penalty for certain LGBT folks, and send many others to jail for life. For Wommack, it comes down to a belief that homosexuality causes disease.

"This bill is aimed the actions of people that are endangering the lives of innocent people," said Wommack. "I am so proud of this nation for standing up for something they believe in regardless of the threats that have come from around the World."

Three men. Three similar positions on gay rights. But do they represent the common consensus among the evangelical movement?

Not really. In fact, if you listen to Richard Cizik, the former head of the National Association of Evangelicals, it's clear that as these leaders and pastors age and cement their homophobia, they are becoming more and more isolated from evangelicals who largely believe that when it comes to social issues, there are just more important battles to be fought than condemning gay people.

Cizik has a new organization launching this week, the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, which is looking to build a space for evangelicals on a range of social issues. Consider it a little less fire and brimstone, and a little more building bridges and dialogue between groups that might not see eye to eye on everything, but want to make the world a better place anyway.

"We are to be about healing, not division. We are not to be subservient to ideology, but above it," said Cizik. Sheesh, talk about setting a different tone!

Is Cizik the next Bishop Eugene Robinson? No, of course not. He's still not quite there on gay marriage (he prefers civil unions), and he's certainly got a different vision of women's rights than many a progressive. But is he and the sentiments behind his new organization the future of the evangelical movement?

One can only hope. Polls consistently show that younger evangelicals in particular are sick and tired of condemning, and remain far more accepting of LGBT people than the old white dudes pulling the strings at the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, or with Wommack's ministry in Uganda.

Photo credit: littledan77