Brian Tashman's blog

Ex-Gay Activists Demand Apology From Exodus International

Christopher Doyle, who organized the disastrous Ex-Gay Pride Month and the upcoming Ex-Gay Awareness Month, believes that Exodus International should apologize to ex-gay activists like himself for shutting down and renouncing sexual orientation conversion therapy. The ex-gay ministry recently closed its doors as its former leader Alan Chambers apologized to the gay community and admitted that ex-gay therapy doesn’t work.

Doyle, of Richard Cohen’s International Healing Foundation and a new ex-gay group Voice of the Voiceless, accused Chambers of “throwing some ex-gay leaders under the bus” and acting in an “inappropriate” manner.

He even wrote a passive aggressive letter that he wants Exodus to “offer to the ex-gay community” as an apology for its “ignorance,” “narcissism,” and refusal to accept “cutting-edge therapeutic techniques that were developed to help individuals heal the wounds that lead to [same-sex attraction].”

“Please forgive Alan Chambers for leaking confidential e-mails of our former colleagues to a homosexual activist website who used it against them. That was really bad!”

Following the bizarre letter, Doyle predicted that Exodus “will continue to walk in blindness” and “lead others into similar confusion.”

In preparation for their closure in late July, the leadership of Exodus embarked on a global apology tour. First, with their President Alan Chambers’ appearance on “Our America” with Lisa Ling to say he’s sorry to several participants who felt they were harmed by the work of Exodus. Next, with several visits to churches and Christian universities across the United States. And most recently, before officially closing their doors, their Vice President offered yet another apology to gays, while at the same time, throwing some ex-gay leaders under the bus.

While I believe the apologies are sincere are well-meaning, some of these statements, specifically their condemnation of the work of ex-gay leaders, both within and outside the Exodus International umbrella, are inappropriate and ill-advised. In short, while attempting to right some wrongs for members of the gay community they hurt, the Exodus leadership is “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” when it comes to ex-gays.

It’s really troubling to see these daggers thrown at the ex-gay community without a proper response. So rather than simply point out the errors in the Exodus leadership, I am going to propose an apology that the now extinct Exodus International Board of Directors should offer to the ex-gay community.



Dear Ex-Gay Community,

We are sorry that the leadership of Exodus International didn’t seek out professional psychotherapy to understand the roots of our homosexual feelings. Instead, we merely repressed our urges and hoped that God would take them away if we prayed hard enough.

We also deeply regret that we didn’t pursue advanced degrees in counseling or psychology so we could truly help others who were struggling with unwanted SSA resolve their issues and experience real change.

Now that we look back at our leadership, relying on clichés, slogans, and simplistic answers to complex sexual orientation issues was not the way to go. Rather than embrace cutting-edge therapeutic techniques that were developed to help individuals heal the wounds that lead to SSA, we are deeply saddened that we attacked our allies in the psychological community, most of who are also people of faith. Out of fear and ignorance, we failed to embrace solutions that could bring about real and lasting change.

We would like to ask for forgiveness for making statements, pronouncement, and judgments on behalf of dozens of Exodus member-ministries across the USA, instead of seeking their feedback and making decisions based on a consensus. In essence, our Board of Directors behaved as an oligarchy instead of a democracy. When the members we ruled over didn’t like our direction, instead of humbly listening to them, we promptly dismissed them, arrogantly condemned them, and swiftly exiled them.

Finally, we are sorry that once we realized we were unable to effectively lead, we did not appoint more qualified individuals to take over Exodus International. Instead, our narcissism allowed us to mistakenly believe that if we couldn’t help individuals who experience SSA pursue heterosexuality, than no one could or should.

How foolish of us to believe that our member ministries would stand aside and allow us to destroy their work and reputations. We are sorry that our bad leadership has fragmented the ex-gay community and caused over half of our member ministries to leave and form the Restored Hope Network. We also regret that this has created a great financial difficulty for our organization and caused many of us unemployment.

Yours truly,

Exodus International Board of Directors


PS: Please forgive Alan Chambers for leaking confidential e-mails of our former colleagues to a homosexual activist website who used it against them. That was really bad!

In summary, because the ex-gay community will never receive this apology from the leadership of Exodus International, I will summarize as to what you can expect from them moving forward.

They will continue to struggle with their own homosexual feelings. They will continue to walk in blindness over the causes and meaning of their SSA, and therefore, lead others into similar confusion. Lastly, they will continue to (try to) be buddies with homosexual activists while rejecting the truth that ex-gay ministries offer. How very sad that the largest and most influential ex-gay ministry has resorted to a popularity club for their narcissistic leaders.

Pratt: Obama Administration Officials Are Terrorists, See Americans As The Enemy

Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America seems convinced that the Obama administration will launch some sort of anti-Christian, anti-white race war any day now, and told talk show host Stan Solomon that the Department of Homeland Security considers the American people to be “the enemy.”

After Solomon brought up a 2009 FBI memo about a surge in activity among “white supremacy extremist and militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups,” and the FBI mentioned that it would work with the Defense Department to share information “related only to veterans who draw the attention of Defense Department officials for joining white-supremacist or other extremist groups.”

Of course, this led Pratt to attack outgoing DHS head Janet Napolitano, accusing her of pursuing people who have a “limited government philosophy, that are pro-Second Amendment, that are pro-life, that are pro-traditional marriage.” The influential gun lobbyist seems to be referring to a right-wing conspiracy theory that DHS is targeting conservatives.

Solomon ranted that Obama administration officials “don’t care about terrorists, they encourage terrorists and frankly they are terrorists,” to which Pratt agreed.

Watch:

Pratt: Napolitano was telling us, telling specifically police agencies across the country to be on the lookout for those that could be terrorists, that would include people who have some sort of limited government philosophy, that are pro-Second Amendment, that are pro-life, that are pro-traditional marriage, those are the places where the terrorist pool is located, that’s where they will be coming from. We should’ve realized then that what she was actually saying is that the enemy of the Obama government is the American people.

Solomon: Bingo. That’s exactly it. They weren’t looking for terrorists, they don’t care about terrorists, they encourage terrorists and frankly they are terrorists.

Pratt: Yeah.

700 Club Features Ex-Gay Writer Who Made 'Covenant With Satan'

Pat Robertson’s 700 Club today featured the story of Debra Gauthier, a Nevada police officer who “bought the lie” about homosexuality until she became a Christian and renounced her identity as a lesbian. Gauthier explained that she regretted her “choice” to be a lesbian because “there was a lot of inner turmoil going on, there was something about that that is not right, it’s not natural.”

Gauthier writes in her book, Bright Lights, Dark Places, that she became attracted to men after attending an Exodus International conference. Gauthier claims that while living “the homosexual lifestyle” she made a “covenant with Satan” during a same-sex wedding ceremony and also dated a “practicing witch,” until she “saw the demon in her” during an intimate moment:

Our ceremony was led by a gay male priest and a women priestess. We lit candles and performed cultic rituals, and I sensed the darkness around us. I had no idea that I had just entered into covenant with Satan and opened my life up to the demonic realm.



In my pursuit of spirituality, I became more aware of the demonic realm and began to struggle with fear. I found myself blinded by my own darkness as I opened my soul up more and more to Satan, who masquerades as an angel of light.

As I got deeper into spiritualism, a gift of discerning spirits was activated in me. At the time I was dating Diana, a practicing witch whom I had met at a New Age conference. Diana introduced me to demon worship and a new level of darkness. One evening as she began to seduce me, my spiritual eyes were opened, and I saw the demon in her sneering back at me. It horrified me! I jumped up, quickly got dressed, and ran out of there. This was the beginning of the blinders coming off my eyes and the exposure of the present dark kingdom of which I was very much a part.

This is, of course, far from the first ex-gay segment featured on the 700 Club.

Anti-Sharia Activist: Oklahoma Judge 'Went Out Of Her Way To Side With The Minorities'

In an interview with Janet Mefferd Friday, the chief advocate of Oklahoma’s Sharia law ban lashed out at federal judge Vicki Miles LaGrange for her ruling striking down the 2010 amendment. Rex Duncan, a former Republican state representative and now a district attorney, told Mefferd that the judge, who is African American, was upset by the prohibition on any “special treatment for a minority ideology or religion” because of her past support for “preferential treatment for minorities.”

“She just went out of her way to side with the minorities and make up a reason for it,” Duncan charged.

Somewhere in the recesses of her liberal mind she arrived at, and this is just my opinion, she arrived at the disposition, quickly, that she wanted to get and then had to torture the logic to justify her, in my mind, pre-determined opinion. This lady, she’s a smart lady, but when she was a state senator in Oklahoma she was very liberal, she was known for the liberal causes that she authored, many of which established preferential treatment for minorities with quotas set aside for hiring contracts with preferential treatment for minorities. So it didn’t come as a great surprise that a constitutional amendment that in effect tried to close the door on special treatment for a minority ideology or religion would be seen as her as hostile and I think that’s how she saw it, as a threat to the founding principles of our country, and she just went out of her way to side with the minorities and make up a reason for it.

Robertson: Obama Inciting 'Black-On-White Violence'

Pat Robertson today, while discussing the shooting of an Australian baseball player in Oklahoma by three teenagers, two of them black and one white, accused President Obama of inciting anti-white violence. The 700 Club host said, “We are having a tremendous amount of this black-on-white violence and I have a feeling that instead of bringing racial harmony, having an African-American president has exacerbated the problem.”

“He seems to be wanting to bring division among people instead of bringing them together; he is one of the most divisive leaders this country has ever had,” Robertson continued. “It just seems he wants to rub the edges raw every chance he gets.” Robertson argued that Obama is trying to divide people by race and class: “There’s always something there to stir up controversy.”

Watch:

Schlafly: Immigration And Health Care Reform Are Part Of Obama's Plan To Introduce Communism

Eagle Forum head Phyllis Schlafly, one of the most vocal opponents of immigration reform, took her case to the sympathetic audience at the Talk To Solomon Show last week. Schlafly told host Stan Solomon that President Obama’s drive “to put another thirty million people on our health care system ties in with Obama’s plan for amnesty, to bring them in by the millions and load them onto the taxpayer.”

Solomon explained that the result would be communism: “This is the design, communism is equal but awful, everyone has the same but no one has everything. Everyone has the same but no one has anything. That’s Obama’s plan.”

“That’s his plan,” Schlafly replied.

Earlier this year, Schlafly similarly alleged that immigration reform efforts were crafted by “socialist-minded people” who “want to destroy our system.”

Watch:

LaBarbera Praises Russia Gay Rights Speech Ban, Attacks Gay Refugees: 'We Have Enough As It Is'

While Peter LaBarbera insists that gay rights advocates intend to end freedom of speech, the Americans For Truth About Homosexuality leader is a big fan of Russia’s new law which criminalizes speech it considers “homosexual propaganda.” LaBarbera told VCY America’s Jim Schneider yesterday on Crosstalk that the law is simply a measure to protect Russian children from the “excesses of American homosexual activism.”

After defending the “propaganda” ban, LaBarbera said he is staunchly against any efforts to offer asylum to gay Russians who seek to leave the country, saying that there are too many gay activists in the US already:

We don’t want homosexual activists from across the world, we have enough in the United States as it is. This is just very shocking, what’s happened is America has become the decadent nation which is trying to export homosexuality across the world and some countries are saying no, we don’t want this perversion being celebrated in our country.

Center for Marriage Policy Worries Lesbians Will Trick Gay Men Into Fathering Their Children And Become Their Slaves

David Usher of the Center for Marriage Policy is out with a new column, “Our last chance to save traditional marriage,” lamenting that the Defense of Marriage Act wasn’t properly defended at the Supreme Court because it was “never argued that gay marriage is unequal and unconstitutional.”

Usher argues that if same-sex marriage is legal then women will marry other women and have children with men “by pretending they are using birth control when they are not.” “Entrapped men become economically-conscripted third parties to these marriages,” Usher writes, adding that women will also turn to the state for welfare benefits. Good heterosexual couples will be left “economically-disadvantaged” because they will be taxed to support the lesbian couples’ Big Government goodies.

But that’s not all: Usher then explains that gay men will have it the worst of all as they will be tricked into having sex with lesbians through “reproductive entrapment,” fathering their kids, and then paying child support to support them: “Marriages between two men are destined to be the marital underclass. In most cases, these men will become un-consenting ‘fathers’ by reproductive entrapment. Men in male-male marriages who become fathers by deceptive means will be forced to pay child support to women in bi-maternal marriages, and become economically enslaved” to lesbian unions.

“Men will be forced to labor for the economic benefit of marriages between women – marriages men have been ‘redlined’ out of – by the choice of two women who married with intention to have children by men outside the marriage,” Usher writes. “This approaches the definition of slavery – and perhaps sexual trafficking or bondage.”

The ridiculous argument continues, warning that “discrimination against men” will operate “similarly to pre-civil-rights racism.”

Since gay men and lesbian women will be having a bunch of kids, “schools will be aggressively promoting lifestyles that kill or disable children and infect innocent women and babies with HIV,” not to mention an increase in violent crime.

Oh, and also gay marriage will bring about the end of America: “To dismantle marriage – the most important equal rights institution framed by the Founding Fathers – is to dismantle the Constitution, freedom, and the United States of America.”

U.S. Supreme court declared DOMA unconstitutional because defenders of heterosexual marriage never argued that gay marriage is unequal and unconstitutional. The Left screamed "equality" in every court in the nation. We never responded on the merits, were unable to state harm, and suffered an entirely preventable loss.



Why heterosexual marriage is exclusively constitutional

Heterosexual marriage is the only constitutional form of marriage because it is the only possible arrangement that automatically confers equal social, economic, and parental rights to all married men and women regardless of one's ability to naturally bear a child. Same-sex marriage immediately bifurcates these rights, destroying equality between men and women.



Class 1: Mother-mother marriages: The class of marriages having most advantageous rights is marriages between two women. When two women marry, it is a three-way contract among two women and the government. Most women will bear children by men outside the marriage – often by pretending they are using birth control when they are not. Entrapped men become economically-conscripted third parties to these marriages, but get nothing in return.

This is a significant advantage compelling women who would otherwise become (or are) single mothers to choose to marry a woman instead of a man. They can combine incomes, double-up on tax-free child support and welfare benefits, decrease costs, and double the human resources available to raise children and run their household. They are sexually liberated with boyfriends often cohabiting with them to provide additional undeclared income and human resources without worrying about what happens when they break up with their boyfriends.



Class 2: Heterosexual marriages. The second class of marriages is traditional marriages between men and women. Children of these marriages are almost always borne of the marriage and supported by husband and wife without governmental involvement. In these marriages, men and women have natural parental and economic rights, standing in society, and equal "gender power" before the law. Traditional marriages will be economically-disadvantaged compared to mother-mother marriages because they cannot draw large incomes from the welfare state and they will be taxed to support other marriages. They are treated in discriminatory fashion having to subsidize Class-1 and perhaps Class-3 entitlements (including ObamaCare) in their taxes.

Class 3: Male-Male marriages. Marriages between two men are destined to be the marital underclass. In most cases, these men will become un-consenting "fathers" by reproductive entrapment. Men in male-male marriages who become fathers by deceptive means will be forced to pay child support to women in bi-maternal marriages, and become economically enslaved to Class-1 marriages. The taxpayers will be guarantors of child support collections for low-income fathers who cannot afford to pay (as occurs in the existing welfare state).

Same-sex marriage is a multi-dimensional violation of 14th Amendment protections against sex discrimination. The 5th Amendment protection for life, liberty, and property without due process of law is structurally violated in cases of reproductive deception by women, regardless of marital status of the men involved.



Harm: The harm of same-sex marriage is substantial. All the problems of marriage-absence will be imported into the institution of bi-maternal marriage. Children raised in father-absence have between 400% and 1800% higher rates of problems such as illegitimacy, suicide, ADHD, incarceration and are far less likely to finish high school or succeed in the work force. When men are structurally excluded from marriage, the problem of violent de-socialized males will compound over time.



Medical science has documented the fact that homosexual behavior is a great health and social risk to everyone. There is no evidence that gay marriage reduces the extremely high rates of promiscuity commonly practiced by homosexuals and bisexuals. The Supreme Court ruling guarantees that schools will be aggressively promoting lifestyles that kill or disable children and infect innocent women and babies with HIV.



Illegitimacy and non-marriage are informal activities not warranting the constitutional protections and affirmations of marriage. Same-sex marriage is not a substitute for, or equivalent to heterosexual marriage because of the documented costs it will impose on the nation, businesses, and the taxpayers. It would be unconstitutional to broadly empower the welfare state to affirmatively "buy out" the institution of heterosexual marriage in the name of "gay equality."

If same-sex marriage is forced on America, it is an irreversible change at law. Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned us that illegitimacy would grow quickly and have profound adverse impact on marriage, budgets, crime, and the Nation. My prediction of harm is nothing more than a straight-line extension of Moynihan's prescient analysis, proven to be fully correct by fifty years of history. If legalized, economic advantage will still drive women's marital decisions, but many will choose to marry another woman (and the welfare state) instead of becoming a struggling single mother. Advantage alone will drive a much more aggressive and insidious welfare state that cannot be reigned in because same-sex marriage is a constitutionally-protected activity that by way of precedent cannot be withdrawn at a later date. This is far more dangerous than ObamaCare, abortion, capital punishment, or excessive gun regulations – which are reversible by legislatures and the courts.



Men will be forced to labor for the economic benefit of marriages between women – marriages men have been "redlined" out of – by the choice of two women who married with intention to have children by men outside the marriage. This approaches the definition of slavery – and perhaps sexual trafficking or bondage. This is one reason that the welfare state has been called a "plantation" by an increasingly large cohort of politicians and activists.



Progressives hope to establish an irreversible system of choice-based sex discrimination against men operating similarly to pre-civil-rights racism, when discrimination against blacks was commonplace with respect to property, political, and voting rights. Individuals cannot "choose" to red-line blacks out of the housing market. Individuals cannot "choose" an arrangement impressing blacks to support them with nothing in return. This is precisely what gay marriage will do to all men of all races.

Severability of economic rights and lack of class-action status: Many same-sex cases beyond United States v. Windsor involve unmarried same-sex cohabitants living in economic "civil unions." Windsor and these other non-class-action cases were carefully selected and framed to keep children and parental rights excised to ensure that welfare state and parental rights considerations could not poison the litigation. The recent decision in Windsor is a broadside evisceration of the economic function of the institution of marriage, and a propellant encouraging women to dump their husbands in favor of same-sex marriages. The lack of class-action scrutiny combined with the absence of review of child/parental rights and welfare-state impacts suggests these cases are too myopic and incomplete to warrant a Supreme Court finding justifying either review, much less broad application economically destroying heterosexual marriage in Supra.



The fundamental purpose of heterosexual marriage: Heterosexual marriage harnesses two very different sexes to form one human race working cooperatively to naturally build nations, economy, and raise children. It guarantees equal social, economic, parental, and political rights to all citizens regardless of sex. The Constitution does not support any idea that bifurcates and redirects the natural rights of men and women depending solely on the natural ability of a person to bear a child. To dismantle marriage – the most important equal rights institution framed by the Founding Fathers – is to dismantle the Constitution, freedom, and the United States of America.

Mihet: Chris Christie May Face Divine Punishment For Having 'Declared War' On The Gospel, Helping 'Power of Darkness'

Liberty Counsel’s Harry Mihet appeared this week on VCY America’s flagship radio program Crosstalk to discuss with host Jim Schneider the New Jersey law barring the practice of ex-gay therapy on minors. Mihet’s group has filed a lawsuit to block the law, and he told Schneider that the law is really an attack on Christianity.

Mihet quoted Romans 1:32 about people who gave “hearty approval” to those who are “worthy of death,” saying that “we live in Romans 1:32 times and Gov. Chris Christie perfectly encapsulated the substance of this verse.” He argued that by signing the ban on ex-gay therapy for minors, “Chris Christie has essentially declared war” on the “message of the Gospel.”

The Liberty Counsel attorney also suggested that Chris Christie may face divine retribution for defying God: “The Bible says ‘God will not be mocked’ and I believe that and I believe there are consequences for this type of open rebellion of shaking your fist to the almighty God.”

Mihet agreed with a caller who said homosexuality is a “choice” and a “tendency that needs to be overcome,” adding that “there are thousands and thousands of people who used to be a slave to the homosexual lifestyle but who have been able to come out.” He said that he meets ex-gays “all the time” and “sees the passion with which they speak.”

“It defies all truth and logic and common sense to say that it is something that cannot be changed,” Mihet maintained.

Mihet and Schneider even agreed with a caller who alleged that gay people are possessed by demons who work as Satan minions in the Bohemian Grove.

Caller: I don’t think this is true for all homosexuals by any means but I think a lot of them have actually become demonized, especially those in high places like people in relative leadership in our government. I know a lot of them go to the Bohemian Grove where they do like a casting the care ceremony before Moloch and there’s a lot of sexual perversion there. I think a lot of these people have actually become demonized and they are working for their father who is Satan to promote the one world government.

Schneider: Thank you for your thoughts here today. We have seen situations when people rose up and doing things in opposition to Christ that we saw Jesus respond, ‘you are of your father the devil.’ Certainly we know that these are works of darkness but I so appreciate the verse you shared from Corinthians that reminds us ‘such were some of you.’

Mihet: That’s right. I think the power of the darkness in our time cannot be underestimated, I would caution to say not just with the sin of homosexuality but with any other sin that is elevated and perverted and put ahead of the word of God. We have to cling on to the word of God and the promise that it offers healing and forgiveness for every sin and every lifestyle.

Birther Washington Times Defends Cruz By Attacking Imaginary 'Liberal Birthers'

The Washington Times editorial board baselessly claims this week that “many liberals who not so long ago derided anyone who questioned President Obama’s American birth as a ‘birther’ are asking similar questions now about Mr. Cruz’s eligibility.” The paper fails to name any prominent liberals who have actually made this argument.

In yesterday’s editorial, subtitled “Now a new version of ‘birtherism’ settles on the left,” the Times echoes Sean Hannity’s attack on imaginary liberal questioners of the Canadian-born Cruz’s eligibility.

Of course, the whole story is ironic since the birther movement centers around a conspiracy theory — backed by a majority of Republicans — that Obama was born abroad, probably in Kenya, and is therefore not eligible to be president even though his mother was an American citizen. Since Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and Cuban father, birthers are now quickly trying to backtrack.

The Washington Times editorial defending Cruz is especially ironic since one of the conservative newspaper’s top columnists, Jeffrey Kuhner, wrote a 2011 column arguing that Obama was not born in the US and is consequently an illegitimate president:

If Mr. Obama was not born in America, then it would serve as the final damning indictment of the establishment media’s complicity with the Democratic Party. Not only would it bring the Obama presidency down, but the entire liberal power structure as well.

Moreover, it would spark a constitutional crisis. The Constitution is absolutely clear that to be president one has to be a “natural born citizen.” Therefore, every major initiative implemented during the Obama administration - the health care overhaul, the massive stimulus package, the government takeovers of the auto companies, big banks and insurance firms, the sweeping anti-carbon regulations, allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military, the nearly unprecedented expansion of state power, the new START Treaty - would be invalid and possibly illegal. It would drive a stake through the heart of Mr. Obama’s regime, triggering impeachment and his removal from office. This is why liberals ferociously insist that the birth issue must be buried at almost any cost.



The birth issue is slowly casting a shadow over Mr. Obama’s presidency; it threatens to undermine public confidence in his legal and moral authority to govern. Several states are pushing to pass laws compelling future presidential candidates - including Mr. Obama - to fully disclose all documents proving their natural born citizenship status. This desire for greater political transparency and accountability is healthy.

It is time Mr. Obama came clean. At a minimum, if he does not reveal his birth certificate, he cannot - and should not - be allowed to run for a second term.
Syndicate content