Truth Wins Out’s acclaimed Center Against Religious Extremism (TWOCARE), offers original, in-depth, and on-site reporting.

“Please, come join us,” insisted an attractive college student flashing her bright Aquafresh smile.

Before I was able to decline her friendly invitation I was gently pulled into a large prayer circle of thirty or so Charismatic Christians. “I’m sorry my hand is sweaty,” the girl said with a sheepish grin.

Those were the last words she spoke that I understood. We quickly surrounded a handful of young preachers who whooped and hollered before surrendering English for the unintelligible language of tongues.  The manic participants sounded like a cross between a prayer service and a Native American tribe preparing for battle.

Eventually, they raised their hands toward the sky pointing to God, which allowed me to escape and enter the seating area at Ford Field, where Lou Engle, founder of The Call, had gathered 27,000 fundamentalist Christians from across the nation on 11.11.11, a date that came to him in what he believes to be a divinely inspired vision. The majority of the crowd was Caucasian, however a significant number were African American. There was a large youth component, but the age of participants reached across the spectrum.

While I can’t speak for the entire conference, which was a 24-hour call to fast and prayer, I did spend 14 hours at Ford Field watching sermons, surveying sideshows, videotaping the gathering, and interacting with the hyped-up crowd. So, my observations, while not complete, do offer a significant snapshot of the 11.11.11 Detroit rally.

In a press release prior to the event I wrote that I expected 11.11.11 Detroit to be a “gay bashing” and “Muslim trashing” extravaganza. After all, The Call had chosen Detroit as its rally site in an effort to convert the region’s estimated 150,000 to 200,000 Muslims.

The Associated Press reported that Apostle Ellis Smith, Engle’s local “point person” for The Call, referred to Islam in a sermon leading up to the revival as a “false,” “lame” and “perverse” religion.

Engle had previously held an infamous event in Uganda that whipped up anti-gay hysteria. In 2008, the electrifying preacher organized a rally at San Diego’s Qualcomm Stadium in support of Proposition 8, a successful measure to prohibit marriage equality in California.

To my surprise, the festivities, which were aired on God TV, were appreciably toned down. Sure, there was red meat on the menu, but it was not the all-you-can-eat buffet that I had come to expect from Engle and other leaders of the 7 Mountains Movement (aka The New Apostolic Reformation) that he is a key part of.

Indeed, most of the aspersions on Friday evening and Saturday were deliberately cast though euphemism. Homosexuality was never explicitly mentioned, but was instead lumped together with other “sins” under the umbrella of “sexual immorality.” Other times, speakers camouflaged their anti-gay agenda by simply saying they supported “traditional marriage.” During the entire time I observed the event there was not one reference to healing homosexuality and no “ex-gays” were trotted up on the stage to tell tales of how they “prayed away the gay.”

However, the Detroit Free Press reported that Apostle Smith claimed that at the event, “a lesbian came from the homosexual community and said she has never experienced such love. And she is now working to change her lifestyle.”

(I’m sure this alleged lesbian was very stable and well adjusted because it is common for healthy and secure LGBT people to spend weekends attending revivals that consider them demonic.)

The conversion of Muslims was also downplayed and “Dearborn,” referring to the Detroit suburb with perhaps the nation’s largest Muslim population, euphemistically replaced the word “Islam.”

It took several hours to figure out what was really going on – but I gasped when the disturbing pattern finally revealed itself. This elaborate show had all the trappings of a modern religious revival – from the thumping music to the two gargantuan video screens suspended above the enraptured audience. But this ostensibly religious event was little more than a political front.

Its real aim was to peel African American support away from the Democratic Party in a swing state during a critical election year. Not only is President Barack Obama’s reelection at stake, Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow is locked in a tight race that includes social conservative and former GOP Rep. Peter Hoekstra. This cynical revival was not about “values” — it was about votes. It was not about worship, but winning office for Republicans by promoting what writer Ed Kilgore called in The New Republic, a “big-God, small-government creed.”

The amazing part was that the audience seemed totally unaware of the underlying motives and machinations. After all, the words “Democrat” and “Republican” were never spoken and there was only one local politician identified on-stage. It seemed that even some of the minor speakers might not have been privy to the overarching strategy. Nonetheless, a brilliant display of political subterfuge was unfolding as the oblivious crowd bopped to Christian rock with their hands swaying above their heads.

This is not the first attempt of white fundamentalists to lure black voters away from the Democratic Party. Immediately following the 2004 presidential election, social conservatives made a strong push to lure African-Americans. Rev. Lou Sheldon, founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center hate group, The Traditional Values Coalition, hosted a right wing meeting of 70 black religious leaders in Los Angeles.

“In 2004, the religious right was concerned about re-electing George W. Bush,” said Al Sharpton at First Iconium Baptist Church. “They couldn’t come to black churches to talk about the war, about health care, about poverty. So they did what they always do and reached for the bigotry against gay and lesbian people.”

Unbelievably, at the Los Angeles meeting Sheldon played an anti-gay video featuring disgraced Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss. Remember, Lott had to step down as Senate Majority Leader after he publicly pined over Strom Thurmond not winning the presidency as a Dixiecrat. African-American columnist Leonard Pitts put Sheldon’s power grab in perspective:

“Whether the issue was slavery, segregation, lynching, voting rights or housing discrimination, social conservatives have always taken a position that history later judged to be ignorant and flat-out wrong….which leaves me at a loss to understand why any African American possessed of a functioning brain would give this atavistic bunch the time of day.”

Still, the attempt was gaining some momentum until Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans, which badly frayed the burgeoning unholy alliance. The effort was further hampered by the emergence of Barack Obama as the Democratic standard bearer.

In this renewed effort in Detroit, Lou Engle and his minions were smart. They wisely figured out that direct attacks on the Democratic Party would not fly, nor would all-out verbal barrages against President Barack Obama, who still has strong African American support. They also understood that the baggage surrounding white Evangelical racism would have to be addressed and surmounted before real progress was made.

To overcome these obstacles and recruit African Americans to vote for the GOP they devised what seems like a five-part strategy.

1) Pick a key swing state with a beleaguered city that had an economically disadvantaged African American population

2) Create an emotional spectacle where tearful white people pleaded for forgiveness and repented onstage for past racism

3) Sharply define new wedge issue(s) and create a racially-based conspiracy theory that could ultimately be used against the Democratic Party

4) Exploit these emerging wedge issue(s) to the point they become more important than fixing the economy

5) Redefine voting criteria so candidates are primarily judged by where they stand on these wedge issue(s) – with the ultimate goal of leading many African Americans to conclude that they are best represented by the conservative GOP.

Lou Engle understands that much of Michigan is conservative. If he were able to peel off fifteen or twenty percent of Detroit’s black Democratic vote, he might be able to turn the state solidly red. The main wedge issue he selected to accomplish his plan is abortion. For good measure, he helped weave a conspiracy theory: Sinister white bigots who run programs like Planned Parenthood were using abortion to reduce African American birthrates.

“What Birmingham is to the civil rights movement, Detroit is to abortion,” bellowed Engle at the event. “Detroit has a calling…blacks and Latinos could lead the parade of history.”

Engle’s message was aided by a parade of socially conservative African American ministers.  One preached that black people must choose “BC (Biblical Correctness) over PC (Political Correctness).” The subtext was that the pro-life GOP is on the side of the Bible and thus should be the party of African Americans. Another pastor was even more explicit when he declared that African Americans had a choice: “God’s way or a political party’s way.” (Read More)

November 17, 2011

Bachmann & Associates, Inc.

Lake Elmo Office
8669 Eagle Point Blvd.
Lake Elmo, MN  55042

Dear Dr. Bachmann:

The undersigned is personal counsel for John Becker of Burlington, Vermont.

It has come to my attention that Bachmann & Associates has wrongfully billed my client Mr. Becker, representing the organization Truth Wins Out, for therapy sessions that he never attended.

More so, you have personally called my client demanding he remit immediate payment to Bachmann & Associates in the amount of $150.00 for cancelled appointments. In truth and in fact, these so called appointments were timely canceled pursuant to and in compliance with your clinic’s stated procedures.

According to Bachmann & Associates’ no-show policy, patients are assessed a $75 fee for each appointment that they miss without giving prior notification. Becker’s telephone records indicate that he called the clinic in early July to cancel his remaining sessions, giving Bachmann & Associates ample time to schedule appointments with other clients.

Accordingly, assuming you were even entitled to collect money for cancellations, that would not apply in this instance. My client met your office’s policies. This should end the discussion alone.

However, if you are persistent in this claim, and attempt to employ the collection agency you have threatened to, you should know that my firm and our associates in your jurisdiction would take legal action against you.

Specifically, and you should make no mistake about the same, we consider your therapy and practices fraudulent. We have concluded your services are dubious and questionable, not worthy of any billing at all. We consider your fees and charges part of a larger civil conspiracy to defraud vulnerable individuals.

As you know, the American Psychiatric Association says that attempts to alter one’s sexual orientation can lead to “anxiety, depression, and self-destructive behavior.” Truth Wins Out has conclusively documented your office engaging in this discredited “therapy” while masquerading it as treatment.

If you go forward with your claim, we are prepared to show that your clinic’s presentations and practices are specious and surreptitious, unworthy of financial compensation. In furtherance of our assertion, we are going to ask the Office of the Minnesota Attorney General to investigate your policies, practices, and procedures. Specifically, we are going to ask them to evaluate the purported ‘scientific’ basis for your patently false representations that your clinic offers ‘therapeutic’ services.

Nevertheless, having timely canceled his appointments, it is apparent that Mr. Becker has received this billing as retaliation. Unlike your billing department, my client, in fact, did his due diligence and followed up with your office.

On November 2, your billing department informed Mr, Becker that the decision about whether to waive the no-show fees would be made by his therapist. My client was further informed that if he didn’t hear back from the therapist, Timothy Wiertzema, within the week, he should consider the fees waived, and the matter settled. No one from your ‘clinic’ contacted him.

Thus, one can reasonably conclude that Bachmann & Associates was derelict in its duty, as it failed to contact Becker in a reasonable and timely matter, giving him the false impression that the dispute had been resolved. Instead, you personally- and inexplicably- called on November 14^th, leaving a voicemail demanding payment from my client.

To be quite frank, in reputable and ethical mental health practices, the billing department usually handles collections. We are gravely concerned that you contacted my client out of spite, because he disclosed the truth about the discredited and outmoded techniques practiced in your office, instead exposing the way you misled the public- by denying that this “therapy” was even taking place.

Accordingly, should you take any action against Mr. Becker, we will also allege that your actions constitute a purposeful and malicious prosecution, albeit for a ridiculously small stipend. We will be interested in the civil discovery process to find out from you in a deposition how often you personally call up clients to collect on an alleged $150 debt. Your answer under oath will be most probative.-

It appears that the goal of your unwarranted attacks is to publicly defame and discredit Mr. Becker and impugn his reputation by portraying him as a deadbeat unwilling to pay his bills.

Therefore, we hereby demand that you immediately cease and desist from your harassment and intimidation of my client and his employer. Please do not embarrass yourself or your firm further by attempting to collect a debt that you are not owed for a point you cannot make.

Please advise me that Bachmann & Associates will summarily dismiss this claim within 72 hours, or we will necessarily engage counsel and institute appropriate legal actions of our own against your firm, premised on the three legal arguments I have outlined above:

First, that my client was compliant with your business practices, albeit questionable though they are;

Second, that because your services involve a conspiracy to defraud otherwise innocent parties they constitute fraud in the inducement; and

Third, that your attempt to facilitate the collection of an unjustified debt constitutes a retaliatory and malicious prosecution, warranting attorney’s fees and court costs.

You decide the better way to proceed.

Sincerely,

Norm Kent, Esq.
Kent & Cormican, P.A.
Attorney sat Law
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

(Weekly Column)

In recent years, the Roman Catholic Church has veered hard right and become politically active in opposing abortion rights and marriage equality in America. For example, they played a key role in thwarting marriage for same-sex couples in Maine and have refused to give communion to pro-choice politicians such as Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I) and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA).

Beginning under Pope John Paul II and accelerating under the reign of Pope Benedict XVI, the Catholic Church has inserted itself repeatedly into America’s “culture war.” In a doctrine called “co-belligerence,” the Catholic leadership has joined forces with the evangelical right to fight against the perceived threat of secularism. Bitter extremists who are quick to incense are overshadowing the sweet and peaceful aroma of church incense.

Unfortunately, for the Church, one of its lead cultural warriors took it a bit too far when he ventured from co-belligerence to flat out belligerence. Dan Avila was forced to resign from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, where he served as Policy Advisor for Marriage and Family, after penning a column for The Boston Pilot that suggested Satan might cause people to become gay. According to Avila’s column:

“…the scientific evidence of how same-sex attraction most likely may be created provides a credible basis for a spiritual explanation that indicts the devil. Any time natural disasters occur, we as people of faith look back to Scripture’s account of those angels who rebelled and fell from grace. In their anger against God, these malcontents prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. They continue to do all they can to mar, distort and destroy God’s handiwork. Therefore, whenever natural causes disturb otherwise typical biological development, leading to the personally unchosen beginnings of same-sex attraction, the ultimate responsibility, on a theological level, is and should be imputed to the evil one, not God.”

Avila’s (pictured) demonizing words represented a major obstacle to the church’s questionable claim that it respects all people. It’s one thing for the Catholic Church to team up with Pat Robertson and quite another for its representatives to actually become Pat Robertson. While the actions of the church have become increasingly hostile and homophobic, up until this point their slick PR team had made an effort to appear reasonable. Avila’s screed lacked nuance and it appeared that the Church had gone full-blown Satan, like they were part of a Saturday Night Live skit with the Church Lady.

It seems that the Church has finally been pushed to its limit – at least for now. Prior to his resignation from the USCCB, Avila was forced to offer a weak retraction in the Boston Pilot, writing that his column “[does] not represent the position of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the column was not authorized for publication as is required policy for staff of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.”

Only weeks before the brouhaha, Avila appeared at the Voter Values Summit in Washington, DC. In a video that I filmed with my telephone camera, Avila spoke of a furtive Catholic plot to undermine marriage equality in Massachusetts. While pontificating on stage he said,  “a deliberate uprising has been put in motion, a careful tilling of the political soil has created a bumper crop of many new legislators dedicated to letting the people vote [on marriage equality].”

The more the Catholic Church plays political hardball, the more polarizing screwballs it seems to attract. In recent years we’ve seen the conversion to Catholicism of verbal flamethrowers such as Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. Exhibit A is the perpetually aggrieved Bill Donohue from the Catholic League, a blustery bulldog who is about the only person in the world who can make Pope Benedict XVI actually seem warm and sympathetic.

Donohue once had to be reined in after defending the Mel Gibson movie Passion of the Christ by saying, “Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It’s not a secret, OK? And I’m not afraid to say it. That’s why they hate this movie. It’s about Jesus Christ, and it’s about truth. It’s about the Messiah.”

The ironic part of the Catholic Church’s recent posturing is that it is a morally challenged institution that has yet to recover from multiple and ongoing pedophile priest scandals. Even as it scrounges up dwindling funds to fight marriage equality, it closes down Catholic schools across the nation. This shows grossly misplaced priorities and an unnatural obsession with homosexuality that has been elevated above the wellbeing of children who are losing their schools.

To underscore the Catholic Church’s falling moral authority, once staunchly Catholic Ireland announced this week that it will close its embassy to the Vatican. This once unthinkable move is a major hit to the Vatican’s reputation and worldwide standing.

The Vatican should get back to basics and forgo the self-destructive path of co-belligerence. If not, we will see more extremists, such as Avila and Donohue, who are fast becoming the unappetizing public face of the Roman Catholic Church in America.

(Weekly Column)

Earlier this month, Herman Cain told the protesters occupying Wall Street that “if you don’t have a job…blame yourself.” I hope he takes his own advice and accepts personal responsibility if he loses his job as a presidential candidate. This morning Politico dropped the bombshell that may well derail the surging Cain Train. The report said that he had been accused of sexually harassing two women while he led the National Restaurant Association from 1996-1999.

Cain and his team initially stonewalled, but belatedly responded to the accusations: “I have never sexually harassed anyone — anyone,” said Cain. “And absolutely these are false allegations.”

This may be true, but the manner in which it was handled from the outset makes it appear as if Cain has something to hide. At first Cain’s campaign dodged questions by making it appear as if the candidate was unaware of past allegations. Cain spokesperson J.D. Gordon told Politico that the candidate indicated that he was “vaguely familiar” with the charges.

This is just nonsense. If one is unjustly accused of sexual harassment it has to be a jarring experience, not one that is brushed aside or easily forgotten. The only way Cain is “vaguely familiar” with the charges is if he is a serial harasser and has had so many victims that he can’t keep track of them.

Cain’s next implausible move was to take the “I’m too important and busy to notice” defense. He claimed that he wasn’t aware of allegations because he “had thousands of people working for me” over the decades at various enterprises.

Yeah, and I’ve eaten thousands of meals that I can’t remember, but I do recall the few that gave me food poisoning – in the same way that Cain would remember the two women who accused him of being a sexual menace.

Next, Cain said he could not comment, “Until I see some facts or some concrete evidence.” What’s with the word parsing from a candidate who promised not to behave like a traditional politician? Why was it so difficult to refrain from equivocating and to simply tell the truth?

The embattled candidate then tried classic denial: “I am not going to comment on that.” Finally, an exasperated and heavy breathing Cain glared at a questioning reporter and tried to turn the tables by brazenly asking,  “Have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?”

It appears that Herman Cain doesn’t understand that it is irrelevant if the reporter was drunk and had just come from a birthday party where cake was consumed off the tan buttocks of a stoned stripper. The reporter isn’t an avowed Christian conservative running for President of the United States in the puritanical “family values” party.

Let me put it in simplistic branding language that Cain might comprehend: Don’t bill yourself as a pepperoni pizza if you are actually a submarine sandwich. Either you are who you say you are – or you’re just another self-righteous Republican phony.

The fact that he dissembled on such a clear-cut issue and couldn’t answer basic questions on whether he sexually harassed employees is a really bad sign.

The other troubling aspect of the situation is that Herman Cain appears completely unaware that both women left the National Restaurant Association after receiving separation packages that were in the five-figure range.

“If the restaurant association did a settlement, I wasn’t even aware of it and I hope it wasn’t for much,” Cain told Fox News. “If there was a settlement, it was handled by some of the other officers at the restaurant association.”*

I’m sorry, but this man was not a lowly office assistant – he was the CEO. I have a difficult time believing that the politically ambitious Cain doesn’t know more about how these potentially career ending allegations were resolved. While he may not remember the specific dollar amounts of these legal settlements, it is improbable that he did not know that they had occurred. After all, as the man in charge, what did he think happened to the money that disappeared from his budget and landed into the bank accounts of his accusers?

Mr. self-reliance also loses points for playing the “liberal media” card.  A statement on Cain’s campaign website says “inside-the-Beltway media” and “political trade press” are “casting aspersions on his character and spreading rumors that never stood up as facts.”

No, these reporters are just doing their jobs, in much the same way that they grilled Democrats Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Gary Hart and Elliott Spitzer when allegations of sexual impropriety surfaced.

I’m not sure if Cain is innocent or guilty, but I do know he has to do a better job of crisis management. The former Godfather’s Pizza executive should know the old axiom: If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

* Cain is already retreating

(Weekly Column)

The field of contemptible anti-gay activists has long been overcrowded, like a room full of teenagers frenetically rushing a concert stage. In this cacophony of crazy it is quite a feat to rise above the din. Yet radio host and Mission America President Linda Harvey is making a name for herself by fast becoming the most homophobic woman in the nation.

Unlike her more sophisticated counterparts, Harvey is a zealot without a filter who appears unable to finesse her fanaticism. She is outright paranoid of an imagined gay menace that in her diseased mind is lurking to corrupt children on every street corner. For example, Harvey’s latest screed warns naïve mothers about the “threat” of openly gay doctors and nurses treating their children.

“There are a few homosexual doctors treating kids, there are far more nurses, LPNs, technicians and other health care workers in these lifestyles so you may want to consider writing a letter that you file with your pediatrician that should your child ever be hospitalized, you do not want your child to be treated or cared for by one of these members of the Children’s Hospital gay employees group except in the case of an emergency situation.”

Harvey is also opposed to openly LGBT schoolteachers and claimed on her website that that, “These teachers then become role models, in-house activists, and possible confidants for students who want to start homosexual behavior. Student molestation becomes a real risk.”

The Mission America leader is so obsessed with bashing LGBT people that she even took a swipe while commenting on the mortgage crisis: “But back to our main point, probably few such households are homosexually-headed, because few homosexuals want to settle down to any kind of permanence.” (Has she seen the latest census figures or actually met any gay couples?)

Harvey is so extreme that she believes she has the right to control the lives of LGBT people: “Our President has launched a broad scale attack on traditional values,” Harvey said on her radio program. “If homosexuals and transgenders are allowed to live and love as they see fit, we would have a whole societal mess on our hands, which is already starting to happen in some areas.”

Exactly what does Harvey mean when she says, “If homosexuals and transgenders are allowed to live and love as they see fit?” Is Harvey suggesting that she and her fundamentalist friends have the right to dominion over our existence? Does she think that she has the authority to deny us life, liberty, and freedom?

Harvey answered these questions at a March 2010 speaking appearance in Grosse Pointe, Michigan. At the event she flat out lied about Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” bill and even expressed her support for the deadly legislation: “The fact they are re-criminalizing homosexuality is (a) their business, (b) it is patronizing for white Westerners to be telling these folks — they are seeing George Soros funded gay groups going into Uganda. They are all through the schools, lots of promotion to kids. Poor kids, poor kids are being offered money and favors and gifts to have sex. That’s exploitation. That’s sex trafficking. And it’s being done mostly homosexually. By Western homosexuals coming in and trying to get involved in Uganda.”

It is absolutely abominable and shameless that Harvey peddled such unsubstantiated propaganda about LGBT westerners coming to Uganda to exploit children. In reality, the Westerners who are actually going to this nation are fundamentalist Christians who are exporting homophobia in an effort to take over Uganda though business contracts and the funneling of US taxpayer money into this repressive, rogue state.

More disturbing, it seems that Harvey thinks it’s okay to terrorize, imprison, and even murder LGBT people in any country that would allow it. One wonders if she would deem it a local matter if the legislation in Uganda were called the “Kill the Christians Bill.” And one also questions if her support for such brutal punishment would apply to American states had they the ability to pass such punitive anti-gay laws.

Finally, Harvey is so mean-spirited that she even gives succor to school bullies by attacking Dan Savage’s laudable It Gets Better campaign: “It’s supposed to encourage kids, that’s great,” says Harvey. “Encourage kids, say, you know if you’re having trouble, you’re getting bullied, you feel despaired, don’t give up. That would be a worthy goal if they stop there. But no they tag on to it approval of homosexuality and the implication that anybody who objects is just like those bullies out there and they’re leading you or others into suicide. That’s just wrong, it’s evil, it’s dark…”

If one wants to witness evil and darkness, look no further than the ignorant mind, cruel heart, and empty soul of Linda Harvey.

(Weekly Column)

For decades, John Smid had been the leader of Love in Action, the infamous “ex-gay” ministry that took away the underwear of clients if the undergarments appeared too gay.  The strict Memphis-based ministry also used an egg timer in the bathroom to make sure its clients would not masturbate while showering.

Of all the “ex-gay” ministries this was the most cult-like – with Smid keeping tight control over the social lives of his clients, who paid a pretty penny to live in the residential program.

The amount of mind control employed by Smid to turn gay people into heterosexuals was stunning. In a 1997 interview with the Memphis Flyer, Smid, spoke of his own special technique for denying reality: “I’m looking at that wall and suddenly I say it’s blue,” Smid said, pointing to a yellow wall. “Someone else comes along and says, ‘No, it’s gold.’ But I want to believe that wall is blue. Then God comes along and He says, ‘You’re right, John, [that yellow wall] is blue.’ That’s the help I need. God can help me make that [yellow] wall blue.”

This high level of brainwashing was not uncommon for Love in Action’s star clients. For example, Anne Paulk, co-author of Love Won Out, wrote about the mind games she played to allegedly overcome her lesbian thoughts: “…I would start to experience a sexual response…So I’d look out the car window and say something like, ‘Gosh, lord, there’ a tree out there! That tree is green, and it has leaves on it. It’s got brown bark.’ I would fix my mind on anything and everything to distract myself…over time that process made me mentally disciplined enough to displace all lesbian thoughts, period.” (I photographed her “ex-gay” poster boy husband John in a gay bar)

Of course, such techniques can temporarily instill discipline to change sexual behavior – but not one’s sexual orientation. In a stunning admission this week, Smid said that altering one’s attractions are highly improbable – indeed so unlikely that he claims that he has not met a single man who truly prayed away the gay.  According to Smid:

Yes, there are homosexuals that make dramatic changes in their lives as they walk through the transformation process with Jesus. I have heard story after story of changes that have occurred as men and women find the grace of God in their lives as homosexual people. But, I’m sorry, this transformation process may not meet the expectations of many Christians. I also want to reiterate here that the transformation for the vast majority of homosexuals will not include a change of sexual orientation. Actually I’ve never met a man who experienced a change from homosexual to heterosexual.

Wow. If the “ex-gay” myth did not work for Smid, then it won’t work for anyone. After all, he had incredible dedication, adhered to a hardcore form of fundamentalism, and enforced a strict cult-like regimen on his charges. Yet, years later, he is faced with the daunting reality that “ex-gay” programs are a Religious Right marketing program, not a legitimate movement.

Needless to say, leaving the past completely behind is not easy. Smid is still married to his wife and on a journey to discover his inner-truth. He has one foot in the reality-based community and one foot in a fantasy world. But the first step in leaving the “ex-gay” charade behind is admitting that the programs do not work.

It is never easy for one to acknowledge being wrong, especially after decades of investing mentally, spiritually and financially in a big lie. I wish Smid the best of luck on his continued evolution and am grateful that he is beginning to honestly discuss the limitations of “ex-gay” programs.

Smid’s timing is exquisite because desperate GOP presidential candidates are pandering to the Religious Right by touting the “ex-gay” myth. For example, on ABC’s The View Herman Cain said that he thought homosexuality was a “choice.” The ever-gay-bashing Rick Santorum also jumped on the “ex-gay” bandwagon falsely claiming there is credible evidence that say LGBT people can change from gay to straight: “There are all sorts of studies out there that suggest just the contrary,” Santorum stated. “And there are people who were gay, and lived the gay lifestyle, and aren’t anymore.”

Additionally, there are junk science peddlers such as Regent University’s Mark Yarhouse who produces bogus studies that claim that sexual orientation change is possible. I strongly suggest these crass political operatives stop the propaganda long enough to listen to Smid.

But, of course, that would require putting peoples’ lives ahead of political lies – so don’t expect this to happen anytime soon.

Today, presidential candidate Herman Cain declared on ABC’s The View that homosexuality is a choice. He told View co-host Joy Behar: “You show me the science that says that it’s not [a choice], and I could be persuaded. Right now it’s my opinion against the opinion of others who feel differently. That’s just a difference of opinion.”

Actually, empirical and scientific evidence strongly suggests that sexual orientation is not a choice but is inborn.

The official battle over this issue began around 1970 when the American Psychiatric Association first began to consider whether homosexuality should be listed as a mental disorder. After reviewing the data the APA found that there was no evidence to support labeling being gay a sickness. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association officially removed homosexuality from list of mental disorders (DSM). The following year, the American Psychological Association declassified being gay as an illness; since then, every major medical and mental health organization has come to embrace this view.

Angered by the new evidence-based scientific view, a handful of disgruntled therapists created a new organization to argue that homosexuality was a choice and create the false impression that the issue remained up for debate. The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) was co-founded by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi and Dr. Charles Socarides, who held the pseudoscientific view that “Homosexuality is… a purple menace that is threatening the proper design of gender distinctions in society.

Three years after the American Psychiatric Association made its historic decision, the fundamentalist Christian “ex-gay” organization Exodus International was founded. Shortly thereafter, Seventh Day Adventist minister Colin Cook founded another “ex-gay” organization, Homosexuals Anonymous, which is a twelve-step program for overcoming homosexuality (there are actually fourteen steps in the HA program)

Unfortunately, these groups seemed to prove the opposite of what they set out to show. Two of Exodus’ founders, Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper, left their wives and married each other. After appearing on the Phil Donahue show as a “cured” ex-gay, Colin Cook had to leave his ministry after having sex with his male counseling clients.

NARTH’s record is equally dubious, with the organization resting its claims of change on a series of debunked studies from disreputable sources. The following sources are the five most frequently cited by NARTH:

• Irving Bieber’s outdated 1962 study, Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals. This “study” tried to prove that gay men had overbearing mothers, distant fathers, and “fit the sissy stereotype.”

• Masters & Johnson’s 1979 book, Homosexuality in Perspective, that claims to cure homosexuality.

• A 1970 study by UCLA’s Gender Identity Clinic led by Dr. George Rekers, who claimed he “cured” the homosexuality of a boy named Kirk. Rekers later became a NARTH board member.

• The work of the Family Research Institute’s Paul Cameron

• The International Healing Foundation’s Richard Cohen

However, these studies and spokespeople could not withstand the test of time:

• Irving Bieber’s study was rendered invalid by the psychiatric establishment because of his deeply flawed research sample. Out of 106 gay male subjects, 28 were schizophrenic, 31 neurotic, and 42 were diagnosed with character disorders.

• In his groundbreaking new book, Masters of Sex, author Thomas Maier’s investigative reporting showed that the results of Masters & Johnson’s study were entirely fabricated; Virginia Johnson herself later acknowledged this.

• Earlier this year, blogger Jim Burroway discovered that the Rekers study, in which he claimed to have “cured” a young man named Kirk of homosexuality, was a fraud.  To the contrary, Kirk remained gay, and his family believes that he committed suicide as a result of the trauma caused by this study. The failed study was covered in a three-part series on CNN’s AC360. Last year, George Rekers resigned from NARTH’s board after he was discovered vacationing with a male escort he hired from RentBoy.com.

• Paul Cameron was expelled from the American Psychological Association and the Nebraska Psychological Association for fabricating research against LGBT people.

• Richard Cohen was expelled from the American Counseling Association for multiple ethics violations.

Despite overwhelming scientific and empirical evidence that being gay is not a choice, fifteen anti-LGBT organizations launched the million-dollar Truth in Love campaign in 1998. The goal was to cast homosexuality as changeable because polls showed that harsh anti-gay rhetoric was backfiring. These same polls also pointed out that those who believed being gay was a choice were significantly more likely to vote against LGBT equality.

The “Truth in Love” campaign featured “ex-gay” activist John Paulk, who appeared with his wife on the cover of Newsweek. In 2000, Paulk was photographed inside a gay bar in Washington, DC. He was suspended from Focus on the Family’s Love Won Out program and stepped down as chairman of Exodus International.

This campaign also featured Michael Johnston, who said he had gone from gay to straight through prayer. At the time, Johnston worked with the American Family Association and Rev. Jerry Falwell. He was also the founder of the so-called “National Coming Out of Homosexuality Day.” In 2003, Johnston checked into a sex addiction facility in Kentucky after it was revealed that he was having sex with men he met on the Internet.

Meanwhile, as the scandals involving prominent “ex-gays” continue to debunk “ex-gay” propaganda, a growing body of research is showing potential biological origins of homosexuality:

• In 1993, the National Institute of Health’s Dean Hamer illustrated that homosexuality might be inherited from the mother by her sons through a specific region of the X chromosome (Xq28). Hamer demonstrated this by noting that 33 out of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers whom he studied showed the same variation in the tip of the chromosome.

• A June 2006 Canadian study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences said that nature, not nurture, explains the origins of homosexuality. The study’s author, Prof. Anthony F. Bogaert of Brock University in Ontario, explored the causes behind what is known as the fraternal birth order. The research showed a correlation between the number of biological older brothers a man has and his sexual orientation. Dividing his sample of more than 900 heterosexual and homosexual men into four groups, Bogaert examined the impact of all types of older brothers, including step and adopted siblings, and the amount of time brothers spent together while growing up. His research found that only the number of biological brothers had an impact on sexuality, regardless of whether the boys were raised together.

• A study released in May 2006 by Swedish scientists demonstrated that biology plays a key role in determining a person’ sexuality. The research showed that the area of the brain that helps regulate sexuality — the hypothalamus – reacted the exact same way in straight women and gay men when exposed to male pheromones, which are chemicals designed to provoke a behavior such as sexual arousal. The same area of the brain only became stimulated in heterosexual men when introduced to female pheromones.

• In 2005, Dr. Brian Mustanski of the University of Illinois at Chicago published a study in the esteemed biomedical journal Human Genetics, claiming he identified three chromosomal regions linked to sexual orientation in men: 7q36, 8p12 and 10q26.

• In 2003, University of Texas psychoacoustics specialist Dennis McFadden found that when measuring the way the brain reacts to sound, lesbians fell in between heterosexual men and straight women, suggesting they might be exposed to higher than normal levels of male hormones in utero.

• In 2003, University of Liverpool biologist John T. Manning found that the lesbians whom he studied have a hand pattern that “resembles a man’s more than a straight female.” Manning concluded from his study that this “strongly tells us that female homosexuals have had higher levels of exposure to testosterone before birth.”

• A 1991 study by Dr. Simon LeVay found that a specific region of the hypothalamus is twice as large in heterosexual men as it is in women or gay men. This strongly points to the role of biology in sexual orientation.

• Another 1991 study by scientists Richard Pillard and John M. Bailey studied homosexuality among brothers and found that 53 percent of identical twins were both gay. In adoptive brothers, 11 percent were both homosexual. Of non-twin biological siblings, 9 percent were gay. Again, this points to solid evidence that homosexuality is a matter of nature.

• The June/July 2006 issue of Seed Magazine points out that at least 450 vertebrate species engage in homosexual behavior.

The weight of the evidence was too much for even the “ex-gay” organizations to ignore. They have recently begun to shift their rhetoric away from promises of a magic “cure” and admit that being gay is not a choice. Here is what Alan Chambers, the president of Exodus International, says about changing sexual orientation:

• “One thing we can expect as Christians is a life of denial. I don’t think we’re afraid to tell people that they may have a lifetime of struggle. Freedom isn’t the absence of struggle, but the life of struggle with joy in the process.” (Christianity Today, Sept. 13, 2007)

• Sexual orientation “isn’t a light switch that you can switch on and off.” (Los Angeles Times, June 18, 2007)

• “And so every single morning – this is a ritual for me – I wake up and I say, “Dear Lord, I can’t make it today without You. I choose to deny what comes naturally to me.’” (Love Won Out, Phoenix, Feb. 10, 2007, www.boxturtlebulletin.com)

• Chambers told One News Now that he had never met someone who had a “sudden or complete change when it came to homosexuality.” He told the news service that he believes that God gives people the ability to overcome on a daily basis, rather than “a complete transformation in an instant.” (One News Now, June 22, 2007)

• “I don’t think change is going from gay to straight. Just saying that doesn’t sound like an accurate representation of what Exodus facilitates or proclaims.” (Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth, pg. 35, Haworth Press 2003, interview taped March 11, 2001)

• “To say that Exodus is a great healer and the place for people to become straight, I would think that is not right. If there are Exodus ministries that do that, we need to change that. We need to work on that.” (Ibid.)

• “Put me in a bathhouse, would I find people attractive or would it stir me, it probably would. I’m not a raging heterosexual where I have to worry about if a lady walks in the room and I have to turn my head, while some guys are like that.” (Ibid., p. 58)

Eli Coleman, professor and director of Human Sexuality at the University of Minnesota Medical School, told CNN: “We’ve been through this over and over. You can get behavioral changes, but that’s not orientation change. You can get short-term behavioral change. It’s not sustained.”

Coleman’s views are echoed in a landmark 2009 American Psychological Association report which states that there is “no evidence that sexual orientation change efforts work.” The report also says that “practitioners should avoid telling clients that they can change from gay to straight.”

And finally, let’s not forget that millions of LGBT people will tell you firsthand that they did not choose their sexual orientation.

The evidence is clear: Herman Cain needs to do his homework.

Michael Brown, hatemonger and busybody extraordinaire, who recently invaded Charlotte Pride with his red-shirted horde of bigots [slogan: "Free water! God hates fags!"] in order to “dialogue” with all the gays about how they’re going to burn in hell, is very upset with Wayne right now. You see, Wayne and I both understand that Brown’s calling card is to pretend to love gay people, to seek “dialogue” and common ground, while preaching Peter LaBarbera levels of hatred against the LGBT community. So he has an entire post up today, attacking Wayne for trying to “redefine Christianity”:

WHEN A GAY JEWISH LIBERAL TRIES TO REDEFINE CHRISTIANITY

Uhhhhh. Yeah, that’s the headline, and that’s why my headline says what it says.

Wayne Besen is a passionate gay activist and non-religious, liberal Jew who has dedicated himself to opposing the idea that homosexuals can become heterosexual.

Wayne Besen is guilty of spreading facts, and facts have a well-known liberal bias. Also, Jew.

he is never at a loss for words, especially when it comes to the “religious right.” In that spirit, he has graced me with several articles, including the not so subtly-titled, “Michael Brown Is an Anti-Gay Monster”

And….. (?)

In that article, Wayne claims that my “game is to try inciting followers to possible violence against LGBT people, while innocently maintaining that he loves homosexuals and simply wants them to meet his militant and perverted version of God.” He calls me “a slick dude,” a “sick and cynical” person, someone with “a messiah complex [who] is a diabolical individual who aims to manipulate impressionable followers to launch some sort of holy war,” noting however, that, I’m “too much of a coward to start the war” myself.

Well, Brown does seem to want a confrontation, and he does have a messiah complex. I think his victim complex is funnier though.

God bless dear Wayne! He certainly has a way with words. After all, it’s not every day that you get called a pathological monster, a slick, sick, cynical, diabolical madman with a messiah complex, as well as get accused of trying to incite a bunch of unstable thugs “to engage in a violent physical clash with LGBT people.” (For what I actually advocate, namely, a totally non-violent, moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution, click here.)

Really? Days go by when people don’t call Michael Brown those things? He must not be listening very hard to the other side of the “dialogue” he wants. For the record, a “spiritual revolution” which includes eradicating gayness [in the real world, to eradicate gayness, you have to eradicate gay people...when the fundamentalist wellspring of denial on that issue dries up, watch out] is by its very nature violent.

Wayne even weighs in again in his own comments section, calling me an “ego-maniac”…

Omigod, it’s surprising Brown didn’t show up in the comments of that piece, such an attention-starved loon he is. As anyone who’s ever encountered him will tell you, Michael looooooves to yammer on and see his name in print.

while other commenters follow in his footsteps with sophisticated posts like these: “I would not be surprised if ‘Mein Kampf’ were to be found on his nightstand.” (This was followed by other comments too vulgar to print.) What a delightful, thoughtful bunch!

This is me, slapping you all on the wrists for hurting Michael’s fee fees. Don’t do it again, unless, y’know, you want to.

But I am only one of Wayne’s targets. In his most recent attack, “Mainstream Christians Must Stand Up to the Religious Right” (September 19, 2011), he reviles the hundreds of Christians with whom I attended the recent gay pride event in Charlotte, claiming that we “confronted and harassed festival attendees with [our] arrogant slogan ‘God Has A Better Way.’” He refers to us as “despicable bullies” and speaks of our “fanatical behavior,” although, for the record, our group of roughly 400 consisted of grandparents, moms, dads, kids, and college-age singles who handed out about 2,500 free bottles of water (labeled “Jesus Loves You”) and engaged in civil and respectful conversation with any who cared to talk with us. Oh, the horror!

To tell them they are going to hell and need to abandon a core part of who they are in order to find favor with Michael Brown’s sick deity of choice. Also, Kathy Baldock was there and counted just over 200 people on the Red Shirt team. Why must wingnuts always inflate their numbers? Is it to bolster their fledgling self worth? Kathy also points out in the comments of Michael’s whiny piece that his decision to bring children to the event is questionable, by his own [nonexistent] standards:

I think it is interesting that a decision was made to bring so many children (maybe 1/10 were under 12 ish.) when the words used to describe Pride Charlotte in your own pre-event media warned “expect this to be a challenging day as sexual immorality, wickedness, and rejection will abound.” I would have used a bit more judgment as a parent. Of course, that was NOT the case, none of that was bounding or a bounding. BUT, had I been on the GHABW team, I would have found a sitter for my kids.

Anyway, back to Michael crying “look at me!”

All this, however, is the backdrop for Wayne’s heartfelt appeal. He is desperately concerned that religious “extremists” like me, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Bachman will “defile America – and permanently define Christianity.” Instead, Wayne wants the “Religious Left” to rise up and show America what Christianity really is. He writes, “It is time to stand up, speak out, and give voice to our values. If not now, when? Are we going to wait until it is too late and we have lost our country?”

The problem, of course, is that the “Religious Left” has rejected most of the fundamental tenets of the historic Christian faith, denying the authority of Scripture, espousing religious pluralism, defending abortion, and championing homosexuality.

Whereas Michael Brown longs for the good old days of the Crusades and the Inquisition, back when people knew their place. Oh, nostalgia.

Could this be why these so-called “mainstream” churches are in such numerical decline while conservative churches are growing exponentially in many parts of the world?

Well, for one thing, religious belief is on the decline in the US, in general. Yes, many conservative churches are growing in other parts of the world, because fundamentalists go where they can be effective predators. Since the educated, developed first world has less and less patience for the medieval bigotry of people like Michael Brown, they see hungry people in the Third World and exchange food for people’s souls. It’s rather simple…

Wayne himself is not optimistic about the prospects, writing, “This reluctance to stand up and speak out has created a hazardous vacuum where only the shrill and unreasonable voices of fundamentalism are heard. Instead of the dialogue that many progressives of faith claim to desire, this perceived weakness creates a lopsided right wing monologue, which is having a deleterious effect on our nation and the world.”

The reality, of course, is that the “Christianity” Wayne calls for bears little resemblance to the faith of the Scriptures or the faith of history, but that should not surprise us.

Wayne is not “calling for” any new kind of Christianity, you dingbat. It already exists. He and I are simply calling upon the millions upon millions of non-wingnut Christians to speak up a little louder and stop letting their faith be hi-jacked in the public square by self-congratulatory bigots like Michael Brown.

After all, what else should we expect when a non-religious, gay Jewish liberal tries to redefine Christianity?

Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew, said Michael Brown.

And again, Wayne is not “redefining Christianity,” and neither is the Christian left, which is simply trying to live out a faith wherein having the name “Christ” in its title is a feature rather than a bug, as it seems to be for modern day fundamentalists. Focusing on the teachings of the guy the religion is named after, rather than on one’s pitifully uneducated understanding of five or six minor Bible verses, which are then used as a convenient bludgeoning device to be deployed against LGBT people, is really not all that radical of an idea.

Weekly Column

Last week’s column, “Mainstream Christians Must Stand Up to the Religious Right,” caused quite a stir. E-mail flooded into my in-box and there was much online discussion.

“…the number of mainstream Christians fighting the hate campaigns of the religious right is disappointing,” I wrote. “With thousands of churches, millions of members, and a vested interest in fighting back against religious extremism, they have consistently underachieved and failed to reach their potential.”

There were generally four reactions to the column. The first was from non-believers who completely dismissed religious people as loopy and seemed ambivalent to their assistance in fighting the right. The second was from non-religious people who agreed with the column and urged the religious left to stop passively sitting on the sidelines. The third was from people of faith who supported the column and wanted to join the fight for freedom.

“Wayne, next time you need religious progressiv­es to stand with you contact the local Unitarian Universali­st churches. We will be glad to march with you,” wrote one person based in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The fourth reaction came from people in denial who defended the deafening silence in too many liberal and mainstream churches, rather than admit their obvious shortcomings.

“Just because they do not call a press conference or take to the streets does not discount the fact that millions of Christians are hearing a message of love and inclusion each week in services,” wrote one person on The Huffington Post.

I agree that these religious leaders should not call a press conference. They should call dozens of press conferences until the media pays attention. And, yes, they should also be in the streets. As someone who organizes and participates in several protests each year, I can attest to the fact that they are often unpleasant and unglamorous. Sometimes it involves waking up at ungodly hours on weekend mornings to march for hours in inclement weather.

Is this reader suggesting that these churchgoers are somehow superior and shouldn’t get their hands dirty? I find it elitist and reprehensible to push the burden of defending this nation’s inclusive values onto a small group of dedicated individuals, when a broad-based movement is what is desperately needed. If we can’t all be activists, at least we can be active. Why shouldn’t we all be out there doing our part, standing up for our beliefs, and speaking out against the zealots that would transform this nation into an unrecognizable beast?

Fortunately, we don’t have to reinvent the wheel. Here are four examples of mainstream Christians who are leading the way:

• In August, fundamentalist preacher Dr. Michael Brown organized a regimen of red shirted zealots to infiltrate Charlotte’s gay pride event with their self-righteous slogan “God Has A Better Way.” Kathy Baldock of the Christian organization Canyonwalker Connections stood up to the fanatics.

“As we walked and prayed around the perimeter of Pride Charlotte that morning, we did not know we were stepping into more hatred than either of us had ever before faced,” wrote Baldock of the experience.

• Christian writer John Shore offered a perfect example of how mainstream Christians can be a powerful voice: “Jamey Rodemeyer is a 14-year-old kid from Buffalo, NY, who earlier this week, after years of being bullied for being gay, committed suicide,” Shore wrote on his website. “If you’re a Christian who believes that being gay is a morally reprehensible offense against God, then you share a mindset, worldview, and moral structure with the kids who hounded Jamey Rodemeyer, literally, to death. It is your ethos, your convictions, and your theology that informed, supported, and encouraged their cruelty. We Christians who believe that God created gay people as much in His own image as he did straight people are begging you to reconsider your theology — to do nothing more than be open to an alternative, fully credible, scholastically sound interpretation of one or two lines from Paul. How can you be unwilling to do something so simple, when you see the horrible ultimate cost of that refusal?”

• In a CNN interview with Don Lemon, Rev. Jay Bakker, son of televangelists Jim and Tammy, spoke in favor of LGBT rights: “They (fundamentalists) get hung up on a few scriptures that really in my opinion have been taken out of context and they almost let them trump love your neighbor as yourself. It’s really a scary thing.”

• Actress Kristin Chenoweth recently appeared on HLN’s Joy Behar Show. “I am a Christian. I believe in God and I don’t believe He makes mistakes. So, I believe that being gay is not a sin and, in fact, it’s how you are made.”

Clearly, the loving and inclusive rhetoric of some mainstream Christians is fruitful. The million-dollar question is how do we get such voices to multiply and amplify? The decline of the Religious Right depends on faith communities rooted in fairness who pray to a Jesus that stands for justice.

If I’m what Mission America priestess of hatred Linda Harvey considers evil, I don’t want to be good. Linda Harvey brought a woman who almost equals her in unbridled, unreasonable, unmitigated, dishonest hatred, Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute hate group, onto the radio with her for the purpose of wah wah wah:

Higgins: Homosexual activists are deceptive in terms of concealing information. They know full well that Queer Theory, which emerges from the homosexual community, says homosexuality is not fixed, it’s not hereditary, and it’s mutable, and it’s flexible, particularly among women. So not only can they not marshal in the evidence to prove the ‘born that way’ theory there’s a lot of at least anecdotal evidence to suggest it’s not fixed and it’s not immutable and certainly there’s no genetic or biological research proving that they are ‘born that way.’ So they’re not even honest about that, they know what I’ve just said. The problem is, the mainstream public doesn’t know.

Harvey: Well and the mainstream, homosexual person on the internet who believes these evil bloggers, they are evil, these people are evil and they are purposefully deceptive. I get my comments edited all the time. These folks will believe a smidgen here and a smidgen there and think, ‘oh it’s been settled,’ it hasn’t been settled, check it out! That science is not at all settled and in fact there’s tons of evidence that people are not born that way.

A numbered list because these women don’t deserve prose:

1. Queer theory isn’t mainstream even among the mainstream gay community. Though it has interesting things to say, this writer finds a lot of it tedious and just plain wrong. Unlike fundamentalist Christians, though, gays are not a borg of groupthink, and rather feel free to argue with one another. However, it should be pointed out that Queer Theory is a very different thing from SCIENCE (!!!!), which does, yes, tend to state that homosexuality is not a choice, that it’s hereditary and that efforts to change it through outside means are ineffective and often harmful. The fact that women’s sexuality is often more fluid than men’s is in no way an argument for Linda & Laurence’s belief that homosexuality is eeeeeeeeeeevil and must be stopped. Only the truly stupid would make that connection in their heads.

2. Oh, we are so evil, making fun of you and trying to stop you from driving your own children to suicide, like you all do on a regular basis. As I’ve said before, pig ignorant bigotry is one of the only forms of “trickle-down” that actually works, and the blood on the hands crusts over thickest at the top.

3. Neither one of you has ever had your comments edited here. Indeed, one major difference between the religious right and the eeeeeeeeeeeevil (boo!) gay bloggers is that we have open comments sections, because we know that our ideological opponents are so phenomenally intellectually unequipped to handle reasoned argument that they will make fools of themselves all on their own. Moreover, we quote you people directly in our own posts, all the freaking time, and just let you damn yourselves with your own words. Why would we censor people who accidentally help our side of the culture wars with their vicious uninformed nonsense?