counter statistics

Saturday, February 21, 2004

Misleading Coverage on the Federal Marriage Amendment by the New York Times

I sent this letter to the New York Times Reader Advocate and David Kirkpatrick, the reporter on this story.

Your coverage of the Federal Marriage Amendment has taken - without question - the lies promoted by some of the Amendment's promoters - that this amendment doesn't bar states from offering Civil Unions or other protections to gay couples.

The language of the amendment introduced by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.) suggests otherwise: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred
upon unmarried couples or groups."

The Washington Post quoted two of the amendment's authors - who said the intent of the amendment was to ban both civil unions and gay marriage:

Two of the amendment's principal authors, professors Robert P. George of Princeton and Gerard V. Bradley of Notre Dame Law School, contend that the opening sentence also would forbid some kinds of civil unions. They argue that future courts would have to interpret the amendment to protect not just the word "marriage," but also its essential meaning -- in the same way that, if the Constitution forbade states from creating "navies," they clearly could not establish "flotillas" or "armadas," either.

Reading the amendment language, it seems like "legal instances thereof" could mean that laws - like in Wisconsin allowing gay partners to visit partners in the hospital. It's important not to let the anti-gay activists pushing this amendment off the hook with regard to bearing false witness.

Daniel Okrent, the New York Times "Public Editor" (Reader's Representative) has responded:

dokrent - 6:48 PM ET February 19, 2004 (#10 of 11)

Being trained not as a constitutional lawyer but merely as a journalist, I'm at something of a loss in trying to formulate responses to readers who have challenged some of David Kirkpatrick's reporting on the proposed federal amendment to ban gay marriage.

Kirkpatrick's description of the amendment, spelled out in his Feb. 8 article, "Conservatives Using Issue of Gay Unions as a Rallying Tool," has been criticized for asserting that the amendment would not outlaw state-mandated civil unions.

He has based this interpretation, he has told me, on his own reading of the amendment; on the claims made by its sponsors; and on the established tendency of courts to heed the intent of an amendment's authors.

Judging by the Web site of the Alliance for Marriage, leading proponents of the amendment, this is indeed the case.

An editorial in the pro-amendment Weekly Standard also spells out this position:

Meanwhile, some supporters of homosexual marriage have argued that the amendment's second sentence bans civil unions and prohibits state legislatures from granting privileges to any human relation other than marriage. This is manifestly wrong: Every sponsor of the bill is on record as denying it -- and conservative critics are vociferating against the amendment precisely because it doesn't outlaw civil unions. The second sentence is directed at courts, stripping from them the power to compel homosexual marriage by appeal to other constitutional provisions. Insofar as the amendment affects legislatures, it merely requires them to specify the benefits they wish to give to relationships outside marriage -- which is what civil-union legislation ought to do in the first place.

But some readers have complained that Kirkpatrick and The Times are falling into a trap set by the amendment's sponsors, who are trying, these readers explain, to trick people who favor civil unions into supporting the amendment. Although Kirkpatrick's point about how courts interpret intent sounds valid to me, this is nonetheless a tricky business that calls for further elucidation.
I urge The Times to report on it more fully -- not just on what the amendment really means, but also on the debate over what it really means.

EY: Thanks to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting for putting out this action alert. It's good that Okrent acknowleges the need to cover the debate over the amendment's meaning. If Kirkpatrick had done the more complete job the Washington Post did on this subject, he would have pointed out the amendment's authors did intend this amendment to ban civil unions. Matt Daniels from the Alliance for Marriage has been selling it differently.

A Modest Proposal sent to the Mayor of Minneapolis

Dear Mayor Rybak:

Why not follow Daley's lead? Seems like you could build some bridges to the Gay community. This would be a good way to do so.

San Francisco has already made $250,000 on those marriage licenses. Perhaps this might be something to try in Minneapolis.

Eva Young

I got a response:

Dear Ms. Young,

The Mayor received your e-mail and asked that I respond. He is very supportive of the issues of equality that surround gay marriage. Last week on National Freedom to Marry Day (February 12th) he issued a proclamation honoring the domestic partnership registration ordinance that the City of Minneapolis passed in 1991 and participated in a celebration that morning for over 30 couples who were registering their partnerships with the City. This is a matter of fairness and doing what's right in a way that honors the dignity and human rights of all Minneapolis' citizens, and recognizing the incredible contributions that GLBT people make in every single neighborhood in this city.

Similar to Chicago, the City of Minneapolis does not issue marriage licenses - that is done by Hennepin County. He is exploring ways that he can support raising this issue like Mayor Daley in Chicago has done.

You also can check today's Washington Post at for an article on this subject that quotes Mayor Rybak.

Thanks again for writing.


Douglas Gardner
Director of Constituent Services
Office of Mayor R.T. Rybak
350 South 5th Street, Room 331
Minneapolis, MN 55415
(612) 673-2133

A Prescription to make you Sick

“Consider the brand-new Medicare drug benefit. Citizens can debate the merits of the biggest entitlement since 1965. However, every American should deplore the shifty way it was enacted and the shady deals now benefiting powerful people associated with this law.

“...Taxpayers are stuck with a program that costs 35 percent more than when their bamboozled representatives approved it last November. Top officials win golden parachutes stitched together by interests they have legislated and regulated. Trampled House voting practices, a federally-funded TV deal for GOP political consultants and a bribery probe all frost this ugly cake. This is why movement conservatives are so grumpy. They are sick of knocking themselves out to promote limited government and fiscal prudence, only to watch their solemn beliefs burn to a crisp in the increasingly Third World crucible called Republican-controlled Washington.”

- Columnist Deroy Murdock (quoted in Chuck Muth's News and Views)

Speak for Yourself

by Chuck Muth in response to Linda Chavez column on Gay Marriage

“Make no mistake,” writes Linda Chavez in her column this week, “same-sex marriage will fundamentally alter the institution itself, rendering it virtually meaningless.”

Now, this is just sad. I like Linda and generally enjoy reading her column, but this contention is simply absurd on its face. Over 2,000 gays got “married” in San Francisco last weekend. many of you married folks around the rest of the country suddenly find your own marriages “meaningless” because of it?

Those of you who raised your hands need to get yourselves to a marriage counselor...quick! You’ve got bigger problems in your marriage than gays tying the knot.

EY: Exactly.....

Dredge Report
The cyberhack jumps the gun.

I happen to know that several major news organizations have for some time been looking into claims about portly conservative moralizer William Bennett and a leather-bound dominatrix bodybuilder in Las Vegas, a woman who has some very interesting narratives to recount. What news organizations? The top five that come to your mind are on the list. Some reporters have even traveled far and wide on this story.

Does this mean the story is true? No. It is "developing," as our favorite cybergossip character assassin likes to say, and it may go nowhere. Every day reporters track down leads and follow up on tips. Sometimes this goes on for a while and they may never nail down the leads. And that's certainly true if there's no truth to them.

It's interesting, though, that Matt Drudge, whose standards are far lower than even those of the Weekly World News, hasn't run a blaring headline like, "Bill Bennett in Grip of Imminent Dominatrix Scandal." I say that, of course, because last week Drudge ran a breathless "world exclusive" report of his own claiming that news organizations were chasing down "recent alleged infidelity" on the
part of Democratic front-runner John Kerry.

Read the column....

EY: Signorile makes a good point here. Lloydletta's Nooz will certainly follow up on the Bennett story if it turns out to be true.

DNC GLBT Outreach Person Responds to my mother's letter

My mother wrote a letter to John Kerry's campaign, and copied Eric Stern of DNC GLBT Outreach to ask him to oppose all versions of the Massachusetts anti-gay Constitutional amendment. Stern has responded. Kerry's campaign has not.

Massachusetts constitutional amendment

Dear Becky:

Thank you so much for writing. We will only defeat the federal and state amendments if we make our voices heard. We must hold our leaders accountable.

This year, all over the nation, we will be registering GLBT voters and
educating voters about how harmful these anti-gay amendments are to our

A few weeks ago, the DNC launched "Pride at the Polls," the official GLBT voter mobilization program for the Democratic Party. Please take a second to sign up at Signing up will also mean that you will become a part of our action network, which will entitle you to the latest updates on GLBT politics and information about events in your local community.

Our civil rights are going to be on the ballot this year. We have a unique opportunity, while the nation is having a debate on civil marriage equality, to make our voices heard and remind the nation that gays and lesbians are their friends, neighbors and co-workers. We must organize like we never have before.

I look forward to working with you.

One voter at a time--together, we will take back the White House in the name of equality.


Eric J. Stern, Esq.
Director of GLBT Outreach
Democratic National Committee
430 South Capitol Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

Bigots Frustrated by Bush

from a Washington Times Article:

Their list of grievances is long, but right now social conservatives are mad over what many consider the president's failure to strongly condemn illegal homosexual "marriages" being performed in San Francisco under the authority of Mayor Gavin Newsom.
Top religious rights activists have been burning up the telephone lines, sharing what one privately called their "apoplexy" over Mr. Bush's failure to act decisively on the issue, although he has said he would support a constitutional amendment if necessary to ban same-sex "marriages."
"I am just furious over what's going on in California and over what the president is not doing in California," a prominent evangelical leader confided. "He says he's 'troubled' -- he should be outraged. If he's troubled, he should pick up the phone and call [California Republican Gov.] Arnold [Schwarzenegger] and tell him we want action against the rogue mayor who is breaking the law."
"They can't possibly guarantee a large turnout of evangelical Christian voters if he does not do what is morally right and take leadership on this issue as he did on the war" in Iraq, said CWA President Sandy Rios.
She echoed other conservative leaders in blaming White House political advisers and not the president himself for the failure to move forcefully against San Francisco's civil disobedience. But the veteran activist and radio host said Mr. Bush could pay a steep price in November for following his strategists' bad advice.
"The strength of this president is in his convictions, but our people do not admire his indecision and lack of leadership on an issue so basic as the sanctity of marriage," Mrs. Rios said.

EY: Actually, as I understand it, Karl Rove has made strong commitments to these bigots - and so far Bush isn't willing to go the last step - which is to call out the National Guard and arrest those trying to get married in San Francisco and to use the bully pulpit to support the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment. What's really happening here? These anti-gay groups are using the gay marriage issue to raise lots of money.

The article continues:

Religious conservatives helped Ronald Reagan win the presidency in the 1980s and helped Republicans retake the House and Senate in 1994, but complain that they have little to show for their loyalty to the GOP.
"I'm not blaming the president, but religious conservatives have been doing politics for 25 years and, on every front, are worse off on things they care about," said Gary Bauer, president of American Values. "The gay rights movement is more powerful, the culture is more decadent, the life of not one baby has been saved, porn is in the living room, and you can't watch the Super Bowl without your hand on the off switch."
Religious right leaders say their constituents aren't likely to defect to the Democrats.
"What is at issue here is, will our folks be AWOL when it comes time for the election because they are just not energized and motivated?" said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. "Social conservatives coalesce around strong leadership. That's what motivates and energizes them. And on their core issues, the leadership from the White House is not there right now."

Really? Well the problem is when the President alienates the fringe Leviticus Crowd, he loses 1 vote per person who stays home. When he alienates moderates who are repelled by rhetorical gay-bashing - they will swing over and vote democrat - which means that Bush loses the equivalent of two votes per voter on that one. It's math that the Whitehouse is fully capable of comprehending.

Sadie Fields, a Bush supporter and Christian Coalition activist, says she's heard grumbles that Mr. Bush stood aside while the man he nominated for a federal appeals court appointment, Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, prosecuted that state's popular chief justice, Roy Moore. Mr. Moore was forced from office after defying a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of Alabama's State Judicial Building.

EY: Bush has just appointed Mr Pryor to the bench in a recess appointment. It will be interesting to see if this really helps him. Pryor's nomination was opposed by Log Cabin Republicans. His brief in support of sodomy laws compared gays to necrophiliacs.

Mr. Knight points to Mr. Bush's having "promoted the Ted Kennedy Leave No Child Behind education bill, which expanded an Education Department that social conservatives see as a fully owned subsidiary of the National Education Association, which has grown more stridently left wing in recent years. The NEA has boldly promoted the homosexual agenda for schoolchildren."

Yup their concerns - all concerns about the "homosexual agenda" - whatever that is.

Friday, February 20, 2004

Minnesota Family Council encourages harrassment of Lesbian Couple seeking to adopt

This is disgusting. The Anti-gay Minnesota Gays can't be families Council has the nerve to claim credit for this - and say they pressured Lutheran Social Services - when what actually happened was that threatening email from their crazed following got the couple to ask that their names and email addresses get removed from the site.

And these people call themselves Christian?

It would have been nice if the author of this article had called Rainbow Families to comment.


Lutheran Social Service removes baby-seeking lesbian couple from its Web site
Delma J. Francis, Star Tribune

Published February 20, 2004

Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota removed a same-sex couple from the "Waiting Families" link on its adoption Web site, and the Minnesota Family Council is taking credit.

The nonprofit Family Council, which describes itself as a defender "of principles and policies supporting the traditional American family," said in a news release Wednesday that Lutheran Social Service (LSS) acted after hearing this week from more than 200 Minnesotans who objected because the couple is lesbian.

Richard Smith, director of LSS adoption services, said the couple asked to be removed from the site to avoid harassment. Their letter on the site to prospective birth parents included their phone number and e-mail address. According to one of the women, who asked not to be identified, their adoption prospects look good.


The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to: "Pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles. With any forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored by our government."

Any good religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women.(Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut
25:5-10) *

-- attributed to
The Rev. Edward G. Rice

Thursday, February 19, 2004

FRC Promotes Adulterer Jesse Jackson's opposition to Gay Marriage

Money quote from the daily FRC bleating:

However, openly homosexual Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) doesn't back the San Francisco strategy, saying the city's decision to challenge state law through civil disobedience promotes the idea that unpopular laws can be broken or ignored. And most surprising, Jesse Jackson - the champion of all things left-wing - has now said he opposes homosexual "marriage" and he does not embrace the argument that it is a civil rights issue.

Meanwhile the city of San Francisco has made $250,000 on marriage licenses since they've opened them to gay people.

And President Bush still hasn't clearly come out in favor of the FMA. Part of the problem is there are multiple versions of that amendment. It's a total lie that the version Bush is looking at backing - the Musgrove Amendment - allows for civil unions.

Barney Frank has always been willing to sell out the Gay community to help the Democrats he supports. He did that when he supported the viscious anti-gay bigot, John Silbur over the pro-gay Bill Weld for Governor. He also did this when he supported the anti-gay Mike Dukakis in 1988. Silbur compared gays to people who like beastly encounters, and Dukakis had an anti-gay foster care policy. Frank then is just fine with calling Log Cabin Republicans, Uncle Tom's Cabin.

Keith Boykin of the National Black Justice Coalition - a group working to build support in the Black community for marriage equality - and has had some impressive successes - was interviewed on the Michelangelo Signorile show.

I called in to say that Jesse Jackson has no moral authority on this issue. It is really tiring to see adulterers who want to go on about the sancitity of marriage. Henry Hyde signing onto the Federal Marriage Amendment is the same sort of story.

National Black Justice Coalition website:

Keith Boykin's blog:

More Comments about Allina Boondoggle

Several Minneapolis Issues Posters weigh in:

It is not clear what the net benefit is to Minneapolis of the recent decision by Allina to relocate employees and develop a headquarters at the Sears sight. I am not anti-Allina, for it has been a good health care provider for me personally. But, I do not support its recent corporate policies and actions requiring infrastructure improvements at 35W and taxpayer funding to underwrite its headquarters at the Sears site.

While it's been the traditional development game, city competing against city (and state against state) for business is a zero sum game in the bigger picture. And while corporations benefit financially, local tax payers lose. Is it really true that big corporations can't pay their way? Most play this game because cities compete for them, regardless of financial need. It made sense for Allina to locate in Minneapolis because there is vacant property next to one of its primary facilities. We'll never be told, but I'm curious to know if Allina would have located at the Sear's site regardless of this city subsidy.

Do Minneapolis residents really support these corporate subsidy activities? Would they have advocated for City support for the Access Project (as demanded by Allina), knowing the City's plan to underwrite Allina's move to the Sears site? We were not told of this two weeks ago when the City voted to support the 35W Access Project.

How does this funding scheme differ in principle from the Target development downtown, a fundamental issue the mayor campaigned on (and in great part won on).

Bottom line: I'd like to see a balance sheet from the City showing net benefit/loss to the community for the Allina headquarters project. What are the public dollars going in (property tax relief and beyond [e.g., for Ryan to development the site] and what are the expected returns over a 5-10 year timeline?

Jeanne Massey


Does this mean that ALL businesses get a free pass? Hip, hip, hooray!!!!!

You've gotta love a City that lets Sear's off the hook for a decade of property taxes, and then gives Allina another twenty years. Any more deals like this and you'll see a real rally on Wall Street.

Tell me again: Who are the chumps?

Vicky Heller, North Oaks


I knew it would be a matter of time before the anti-anything types chimed in regarding Allina. That behemoth of a building and job hungry neighborhood is being reborn, 'ya think Randy Kelly wouldn't give up an internal organ to have them relocate across the river? It's a competition, and as much as the region fights to keep up with the seattles and denvers, our biggest fight is with ourselves. I do nothing but celebrate this "win" for the Lake st. Sears site, where I spent many a childhood saturday. Allina is a good corporate partner and will only continue to be.

Tim Mady
West Calhoun
(Allina employee)

Attempting to be the saucer to the steaming cup of Sears Development/Access Project

On Feb 19, 2004, at 1:27 PM, Timothy Mady wrote:

I knew it would be a matter of time before the anti-anything types chimed in regarding Allina.

I see the pluses and minuses of the Allina "get," but I think it's absolutely fair for citizens to ask about the cost-benefit of a project that is being subsidized both through forgiven property taxes and highway infrastructure.

Jeanne Massey is right: Mayor Rybak won in large part by questioning the cost-benefit of the Downtown Target and other projects. It is only fair to ask the Mayor and his administration for some sort of spreadsheet that the average involved citizen can understand about why this project makes financial sense for the city.

To be sure, there are other values beyond money, but money is important and so is a citizen's right to know.

And while I can appreciate and respect Tim's passion (any employer should be grateful), let's at least think twice about labeling a critic of any city issue as "anti-everything." Like the NIMBY charge, it tends to be anti-intellectual and obscure the factual underpinnings of any rational civic debate.

David Brauer

Minneapolis Taxpayers Stiffed Again

Dave Jensen - Central 35W Excess Project booster posts Allina's spin to the Minneapolis Issues list. Notably nothing in that spin talks about the 20 year - no property tax deal the city has given Allina.

At 07:53 PM 2/18/2004, Dave Jensen wrote:
Good news for South Minneapolis!

The spin:

Allina isn't going to pay property taxes:

Ultimately, Allina will move 950 employees to the site, with the move subsidized by an agreement from the city to forgo most property taxes for the life of Allina's 20-year lease.


Collins said that because the Sears site is a historical redevelopment, which makes it more costly than other types of projects, Minneapolis knew it couldn't win simply on a cost basis against the competing projects. To become more competitive, the city agreed to give back most of the estimated $750,000 a year that Allina otherwise would have paid in property taxes annually for the length of its lease.

EY: So Allina gets twenty years of no property taxes. Unless Allina employees live in Minneapolis, the city doesn't get property taxes from the employees.

Allina also blackmailed the city to get them to support the 35W Excess Project.

Just how is this going to help the city? Homeowners in the city get double digit property taxes increases. Meanwhile the city subsidizes Allina by allowing Allina to be there tax free.

Monday, February 16, 2004

Carpet Bagger in Massachusetts

Ex-Gay Florida Poster Boy Alan Chambers Testifies Before the Massachusetts Judiciary Committee.

Admits that Massachusetts Family Institute paid for his trip. The comments section for his blog has been totally removed. This shows that Exodus has no interest in honest dialog. I copied the comments before they got removed - so they are still available on Lloydletta.

Here is EXACTLY what I'm talking about in regards to keeping your "ex-gay" nose out of other people's business.

How in the world does this legislative battle have any impact on your life as an "ex-gay" person?

And why in the world do you feel the need to travel from your state (Florida I believe) to interfere in the legislative process of a state of which you are not a resident?

And WHO'S PAYING FOR YOUR LITTLE TRIP? Did Dobson pay? Did Exodus pay for this? If it came out of the Exodus budget, I'd like to see you justify how exactly this trip to Mass. is furthering the work of Exodus Intl.

Do you really expect the gay community to believe you're not acting out of complete anti-gay animus?

Posted by: Scott at February 13, 2004 11:51 AM

You want the answer to why he did it?...It goes much deeper than "Sticking his nose in everyones business"'s all about the box, the box he has made for himself and the reasons why. You see, he lives in self-made cage of denial and "behavior modification" because society, the segment of society he choose to emmulate, said he should, said it was "the only way" and "your enternal soul can scare you into doing many things if you follow that ilk". So there he's "done gone and done it"...and not everybody followed along! Matter of fact such a tiny minority "followed along" that his "box" seems very unusal. What would happen to the "view of his box" outside his tiny segment of self-loathing "exgays" and their "Struggle" to be what they aren't? would look even more rediculous than it does now to the majority of mainstream America, who no more believe they could "go gay" then they do "queers going str8".

So then boom, now we have society giving what he despises most, out, happy, confortable self-affirming and nomal Gay men and women EQUALITY...but how did this happen he screams, Look at all I've done to please the Heterosexuals who demnded my "behavioral outward change" and now Gays are out there going to "get away with it" and be accepted and happy and not have to "do what i've done"?

You see, if the hate dissapears, if the PROVEN lies are no longer tauted as gospel, if Queers are no longer saturday night bashing sport, and if no one is screaming for their castration and isolation from "society"...then all his work is wasted! You would think he would be happy to just say "Well, I did it, and I have to live this way, and I found a comfortable place in my behavior modified existance" and move to some small town a live his little hetero life in between wayward glances in the local gym locker rooms.

But no, he must fight the equality of gay men and women, because if we aren't outcast, then his assimilation seems so much like "nothing", a waste of time and all for naught.

"There's a 10 year old boy next door, and his mom lets him have a playstation and stay up till 11pm playing it, but I am a 10 year old boy too,and my mommy wont let me have one and I have to go to bed at 9pm. I don't think any 10 year old boys should have one either, and all 10 year old boys should have to go to bed 9pm"

In the same manner, Alan allowed a segment of society to devine his place and purpose, he (for whatever internal problems and personality profile that allowed it) accepted it, and worked to assimilate into a place where he didn't have to face these issues. To see all of that work being undermined by an accepting society, who follow the learned wisdom of research and truth as opposed to stigma and supersitition mixed with personal doubts and agendas tasks them to no end. In light of this they foam at the mouth and will do anything to stop it, anything to keep the "place" they worked so hard to attain from becoming a silly little wasted effort. Right now Alan has been "freed" of the stigma, freed of the attacks and the hatred and went so far as to complete the picture to assimilate. Long hard road of behavior modification and mask-building. Now it's ebing reduced to "something noone has to do to be accepted in society"...and that breeds some ugly jealousy and one big ugly agenda.

Our equality and freedom, our happiness and legitimate place as human the one thing that will reduce his effort to something SOLEY PERSONAL and done soley to please a tiny segment which includes himself. That my friend, just isn't enough payment for all that work is it Alan? All you had to "change", all you had to "Struggle with" to assimilate and please, and now the only people who will care, are those in that tiny subculture segment that holds you up as poster boy and "star" "family" isn't enough, your "life as a hetero", quiet an unnoticed out of the spotlight, isn't enough. It's never enough for all that hard work is it? You deserve more than the approving nods of a few for all that effort. You need a whole culture group to point at and say "See, if you'd do like I did you could be free, equal and happy"...but now it looks like they wont have to will they? What does that make all your work?

Unfair isn't it? Not like they told you it was gonna be? Those gay people are getting it without doing what you did, or doing what Stephen Bennet did, or Paulk, or any of the others...and the fact you would fly halfway across the country to "try and stop it" shows just how much you NEED it to remain the way it was when you were driven to do what you have done to yourself.

Sorry baby, but there isn't a psychologist on this planet who would deny a word I've said here in this post, outside of Disgruntled NARTH "doctors" that is.


Posted by: russ morris at February 13, 2004 12:50 PM

Our trip was paid for by people in Massachusetts.

And, this is my business as it is every person's business; what happens in Massachusetts affects us all. Same-sex marriage is detrimental to society, to children and absolutely against what God intended for His creation.

I will do everything in my power as a Christian and as a citizen of this great country to battle against the moral decay in our society: pornography, abortion, homosexuality, heterosexual immorality, etc.

It is time that the people of this nation say NO to those who are only out for themselves and today that happens to be a few vocal homosexual people--not the majority of homosexuals.

I am not out most to promote the ex-gay life or alternative--I am out to promote Christ and His best for our entire nation, not just the best for a few.


Posted by: Alan Chambers at February 13, 2004 12:55 PM

Which "people in Massachusetts" paid for your trip? If it was the MCM then you most certainly are working for Dobson, Sheldon, Rios, Crewes and Perkins. I think its a fair question to ask. WHO'S PAYROLL ARE YOU ON?

Were you paid for your time? For a group who claims that there are "thousands of ex-gays" out there, I find it pretty fishy that there aren't any who actually live in Mass. who have more of a right to testify in that state.

Your hollow "detrimental to children" accusation is fairly hard to prove. What do you tell the thousands of kids who have gay parents?

Are you going to advocate ripping them away from their gay parents to "protect them"? Your line of reasoning doesn't add up unless you're planning on this action.

Kids of gay parents ALREADY EXIST and will continue to exist with or without a marriage license unless you and your cohorts decide to do something about that too.

If we're going to play the "hide behind the kids" game, I'll bet that gay couples can match you story for story (and then some).

But I digress. I really just want to know who's paying your tab to fly across the country to a state that you don't live in.

Posted by: Scott at February 13, 2004 01:08 PM

My trip was paid for by the Massachusetts Family Institute. I gladly spoke for free, although I would have accepted an honorarium, too. MFI is an autonomous organization that serves as a Family Policy Counsel for Focus on the Family--an organization that we are wholeheartedly partnered with on numerous projects. We are not, however, the recipient of funding from Focus on the Family and we would never ask for funding from them. Focus' friendship has had a positive, professional impact on Exodus.

As for gay parents...I believe that the ideal place for a child is with both of their birth parents. Unfortunately, we live in a society where all kinds of things prevent this. Adoption is a wonderful gift to parentless children and childless parents. I am an outspoken advocate for heterosexual married couples adopting children. I have some single friends who have adopted and I believe that is less optimal for those children--though I am glad they are in loving homes.

I am opposed to homosexual couples or individuals adopting children as well as heterosexual individuals or couples who are poor examples for children with regard to sexuality, addiction, etc.

As for biological parents who happen to be homosexual or even heterosexual individuals who are promiscuous, I believe that they have a duty to put the child first by forfeiting relationships, shielding their children from evidence of their lifestyles and if there is a healthier parent that the healthiest parent should have primary custody.

Again, I believe the best parents for a child are the ones that they are born to--homosexual or heterosexual. I will say, though, that if a homosexual or heterosexual person or couple have children that they do not plan to shelter from immorality that those parents should place their children in homes where they can grow up healthy, happy and secure.

The best thing that unmarried people can do is keep from getting pregnant until they are married, mature and stable enough to nurture children.

Truth hurts.

Posted by: Alan Chambers at February 13, 2004 02:10 PM

Well you've explained the ideal world. Why not come and live in the real world now. Whether you like it or not, gay parents exist, they adopt or they have kids in other ways. You aren't going to stop that whether you like it or not.

The question stands. Why do you insist on punishing these families because they do not live up to your religious ideals?

Do you seriously think that these people are going to stop existing because you push for a law to ban the recognition of their relationships?

Focus on the Family is a 138 MILLION dollar a year organization that sets up subgroups all over the country.

I've also noticed that J. Edward Pawlick of the MCM is pretty hot under the collar that Focus and the MFI are using this issue to profit handily.

I don't entirely believe that there isn't money changing hands here and there between Focus and these splinter cells.

Lets be honest here about cash and religion for a minute. Je$u$ makes a mint but not without scare tactics and division.

Posted by: Scott at February 13, 2004 02:29 PM

The Massachusetts Family Institute brings in someone from Florida to testify on this issue? Aren't there exgays in Massachusetts who can do the job.

Alan - it's real clear you are pushing an anti-gay agenda. That's not the same as just let me live my life as an ex-gay person.

Posted by: Eva Young at February 13, 2004 02:45 PM

Sunday, February 15, 2004

Thanks Mother!

My mother - a former legislator in Wisconsin, sent the following to Kerry's campaign.

Dear Senator Kerry,

I urge you not to take a position on any of the proposals now under consideration in Massachusetts for amending the constitution to ban gay marriage.

As a former member of the Wisconsin State Assembly where I chaired hearings on gay issues (and as the mother of a gay daughter), I remember with great sorrow the hate those bills to ban gay marriage engendered. A subsequent bill passed the State Legislature. The Republicans have now introduced a constitutional amendment. The hearing was yesterday -- and as per expected, the Christian fundamentalist base was out in full force with its hateful epithets. The issue has become a partisan one, with the intent of mobilizing the GOP base.

Please do not strengthen their cause by espousing an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution. Minnesota, where my daughter lives, also is considering a constitutional amendment. Please don't encourage them

Rebecca Young