Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International — an “ex-gay” ministries umbrella group — distanced himself from an opinion piece written by “ex-gay” pastor Phillip Lee of His Way Out Ministries in Bakersfield, Calif., that attacked the “gay lifestyle.”
The Bakersfield Californian published an editorial Sunday called “‘Gay lifestyle’ poses threat to people’s physical well-being” written by Lee saying, in part, “[t]here is, therefore, little to no evidence that homosexual practice can be anything other than a severe threat to the sanctity of life.”
“That said,” Lee wrote, “all efforts should and must continue to better understand and find a cure for AIDS and AIDS-related diseases. However, if the sexual behavior that is fundamental to most homosexual practice constitutes the primary means of transmitting such disease, then it only makes sense for society to do all it can to decrease such behavior, which ultimately protects the sanctity of life.”
Chambers responded to Lee’s commentary in an interview with the Washington Blade on Tuesday.
“Exodus is a large and diverse world-wide network,” Chambers said. “Like any church, or any political party, there are different groups or different individuals within any organization that have certain beliefs. I wouldn’t say that this is the majority of belief within Exodus, nor is it my opinion or the opinion of those that work with me here in Orlando.”
Jim Burroway, publisher of the Box Turtle Bulletin blog, which published a link to the op-ed on Monday, said this is not the normal rhetoric that is used by the Exodus parent organization.
“I don’t know what the beliefs are among Exodus’ top people,” Burroway told the Blade. “I do know that what was printed in that op-ed is very uncharacteristic of the kind of statements you would get from Exodus International.”
“As far as AIDS stigmatization is concerned, they have stayed away from that at the Exodus International level,” Burroway added. “Exodus supposedly says that they maintain certain standards that they expect their affiliates to follow. So I would question whether this op-ed conforms to these standards that they expect their affiliates to follow.”
Chambers claimed that he regularly urges Exodus supporters not to use the kind of language contained in Lee’s commentary.
“These are the types of things, when I go into the numerous churches that I go into all over the world every single year, I tell them ‘please don’t say things like this, anymore. This isn’t helpful,’ Chambers said. “This takes us back to a time of debate when that’s something that we need to move far beyond.
“I have sent him my thoughts via email. Its a hard thing when someone that you’re friends with, and you’re close to shares something publicly that you have to disagree with. But I had to do it. Its one of those things that I felt like was necessary for us to respond to.”
Chambers said that he made his feelings clear to Lee about the editorial in his email on Tuesday.
“Basically, this is not something that I agree with. This is not something that I would say. Not something that I feel like is helpful for us as we try to have conversations about very complex issues.”
Chambers, however, did not entirely rebuke the premise of Lee’s piece that same-sex sexual relationships are fundamentally detrimental to the health of gay men, as the editorial hypothesizes.
“The fact of the matter is I travel quite a bit,” Chambers said. “I go through hundreds of X-ray machines in the airports every year. That’s detrimental to my health. There’s so many things out there that are detrimental to our health, and I think picking on one issue over another, or one set of people over another… we’ve moved past that, hopefully in our culture, and I’d like to see us move further than we have.”
“Chambers is trying to soft-pedal his bigotry in order to be able to falsely claim that he’s not anti-gay,” Director of Communications and Development for ex-gay watchdog group ‘Truth Wins Out,’ John M. Becker told the Blade. “He’s willing to do anything to save Exodus and repair its terribly damaged public image, because his organization is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy.”
‘Gay marriage, gay sex are going to fall like fucking dominoes’
Anger, fear as protesters decry Supreme Court ruling
Just moments after the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its decision on Friday overturning its landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade that had legalized abortion nationwide for 49 years, hundreds gathered outside the court to both protest and celebrate the ruling.
In a 6-3 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the court found that access to abortion was not a right guaranteed under the language of the Constitution. The ruling effectively reversed the court’s 1973 decision that mandated states to allow the procedure in most instances throughout the first two trimesters of pregnancy.
Immediately following the decision, a group of those welcoming the decision quickly gathered in front of the court.
Anna Lulis, a member of Students for Life of America, welcomed the decision as long overdue.
“I think it is a huge victory for human rights,” Lulis said. “For far too long, since 1973, human rights have been infringed upon at an egregious level.”
Beside Lulis, Olivia Cowin, a member of Survivors LA, shared a similar reason for gathering outside the court.
“This is a celebratory day to show our support of the unborn and of women and support both simultaneously,” Cowin said.
But across the way from the court’s west side, Virginia resident Alysia Dempsey feared what the verdict in Dobbs could mean for women’s rights – including those of her four daughters.
“I believe in women’s rights, and I think that our country needs to be able to start listening to each of our stories and to have empathy for them in so many different aspects,” Dempsey said. “I feel like we’re sort of going back in time with regard to so many rights.”
Hailing from Arizona, a state under Republican legislative leadership where Planned Parenthood has already halted all abortion services pending legal clarity from the state, Hannah Waldrip cast doubt on the sincerity of anti-abortion rationale.
“For a country about personal rights and personal freedom, we’re doing an awful lot right now to limit women’s or people with uterus’ ability to do what they want with their body,” Waldrip said.
Stark divisions between the groups arose as ideological lines could be seen physically emerging between the crowds.
And as the day progressed, those protesting the ruling quickly began to outnumber its supporters.
Among the protesters, the color green – a symbol for abortion rights activists borne out of similar movements in Argentina and elsewhere in Latin America – could be seen lining the street on scarves, shirts, stickers, and elsewhere.
As the crowd grew and green began to eclipse the simmering pavement beneath the protesters, several speakers emerged at the center of the crowd.
One of those speakers was Elizabeth Paige White, a civil rights lawyer working under nationally renowned attorney Ben Crump.
In connecting Friday’s decision to the United States’ history of patriarchal structure, White called into focus the disproportionate effect the repeal of nationwide abortion access is widely expected to have on minorities and communities of color with fewer resources to travel to abortion-friendly states.
“As Black, brown, and all these women out here know, we’ve been fighting for our rights since the inception of this country,” White said. “We have been fighting to have rights over our own bodies since the inception of this country.”
With the repeal of Roe, decisions on whether to legalize or outlaw abortion will now be left to each state. As of Friday’s ruling, 13 states are set to make almost all abortions illegal, having passed “trigger bans” designed to take effect in the immediate aftermath of Roe’s demise or within the next month.
However, many abortion rights supporters, activists, and lawmakers still fear that the curtailing of reproductive rights won’t end with the court’s decision.
Sen. Catherine Cortez-Masto (D-Nev.) addressed the crowd with a message of urgency and revelation.
“At the end of the day, let me just say, here’s what’s next,” Cortez-Masto said. “I’ve got some of my Republican colleagues based on this decision who are already drafting legislation to restrict abortion in this country. If they win this election, they will pass that legislation and it will preempt all of the state laws we have protecting women in this country when it comes to our right to choose.”
Beyond a nationwide restriction on abortion, some fear even more privacy restrictions are coming.
Such privacy rights have been established in other Supreme Court rulings based on the same Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment that justices used to interpret nationwide abortion rights nearly half a century ago. These cases have included those that established access in all states to contraception, same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, and the right to same-sex relations in the privacy of one’s home.
Among the crowd gathered on Friday, such was a sobering outlook for many.
“Gay marriage, interracial marriage, gay sex are going to fall like fucking dominoes if we let them,” one speaker outside the court said.
Anger and fear could be felt permeating the crowd. Activists, however, were determined to turn their compatriots’ fears into action and change.
“We must get out in the streets,” the speaker said. “We need millions of people all around the country because this affects every single living, breathing person in this country whether they realize it yet or not.”
Among protesters’ trepidation regarding the future of women’s rights and privacy rights in America, many clung to a message of hope as speakers and activists pledged to continue fighting.
“They have worked to keep us down, they worked to keep us enslaved, they worked to keep us out of the polls, they worked to keep us out of political offices, they’ve worked to keep us in the home,” White said. “But we know, as we fought for centuries, that this will not stand.”
LGBTQ activists alarmed over concurring opinion in abortion ruling
Justice Thomas calls for ‘reconsideration’ of marriage, sodomy rulings
LGBTQ activists have expressed alarm over a concurring opinion issued on Friday by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas calling for the high court to “reconsider” previous decisions overturning state sodomy laws and legalizing same-sex marriage as a follow-up to the court’s controversial ruling on Friday to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion rights.
In an action that drew expressions of outrage from abortion rights advocates and strong support by right-to-life advocates, the Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 ruling on Friday overturning the fundamental right to an abortion that the court established nearly 50 years ago in its landmark decision known as Roe v. Wade.
In his concurring opinion, Thomas said he supports the high court’s majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. He states that he agrees with the ruling that nothing in the majority opinion “should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”
But he also states that in potential future cases, “we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”
He was referring to the past Supreme Court Griswold ruling that overturned state laws banning or restricting birth control such as contraceptives; the high court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling that overturned state laws banning sodomy between consenting adults; and the 2015 Obergefell ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
“Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion is obviously concerning, but it is important to note that not one other justice agreed with him,” said Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBTQ rights advocacy group. “In fact, the majority took pains to disagree with him and clarify that this opinion relates only to abortion. Justice Thomas stands alone,” Warbelow told the Washington Blade in a statement.
“With that said, we know that if the court was willing to overturn 50 years of precedent with this case, that all of our constitutional rights are on the line,” Warbelow said. “Lawmakers will be further emboldened to come after our progress. So, we must be vigilant in protecting our hard-won rights — we’re ready.”
Paul Kawata, executive director of the National Minority AIDS Council (NMAC), said the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade would have a “disastrous effect” on healthcare for women, especially women of color. He said the ruling could also lead to future rulings that adversely impact LGBTQ people and other minorities.
“We have no doubt that the conservative supermajority on the court will not stop with Roe,” Kawata said in a statement. “Justice Thomas’s chilling concurring opinion makes it very clear that the court could target other rights provided by the court — marriage equality, contraception access, and LGBTQ+ intimacy in private to name a few,” he said.
Omar Gonzales-Pagan, who serves as legal counsel for the national LGBTQ litigation group Lambda Legal, said he is especially troubled that Thomas is continuing to push for ending the Supreme Court’s longstanding reliance on the so-called doctrine of substantive due process to expand the rights provided under the U.S. Constitution.
“Justice Thomas’s concurrence is incredibly troubling,” Gonzales-Pagan told the Blade. “Justice Thomas has made it clear that he doesn’t believe in the doctrine of substantive due process, and he called for the reconsideration of that entire doctrine,” he said.
“No other justices joined him on that opinion,” Gonzales-Pagan points out. “But, if the court were to go further than they did today and to reconsider the entire doctrine of substantive due process, it would really call into question all or a large part of the fundamental rights enjoyed by people in the United States.”
Gonzales-Pagan said that potential scenario could play out for same-sex marriage rights and the right of adults to engage in consenting sexual practices if a state or local jurisdiction attempts to pass a law to once again make same-sex marriage or sodomy between consenting adults illegal. Should that happen, the laws would be challenged in the courts and those cases would likely come before the Supreme Court just like the abortion cases did, according to Gonzales-Pagan.
He said he was hopeful but not at all certain that the other justices who did not sign on to Thomas’s concurring opinion could be taken at their word and they would not support overturning the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision legalizing same-sex marriage or the Lawrence v. Texas decision declaring state sodomy laws pertaining to consenting adults unconstitutional.
Biden labels Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade ‘a sad day for court’
“Imagine, woman having to carry a child that’s a consequence of incest, with no option” to terminate the pregnancy, Biden said
WASHINGTON – Just after the Supreme Court’s conservative majority moved to overturn the constitutional right to abortion on Friday in a 6-3 ruling, President Joe Biden vowed to protect American women from prosecution for traveling to other states to terminate their pregnancies.
Thirteen states have made or will soon make abortion illegal, some without exceptions for rape and incest, following today’s ruling. After a draft of that ruling was leaked in May, some state legislatures considered bills to prevent women from circumventing their restrictions on abortion.
“If any state or local official high or low tries to interfere with a woman exercising her basic right to travel, I will do everything in my power to fight that unamerican attack,” Biden said.
Delivering his remarks from the Great Cross Hall of the White House, the President looked visibly upset, particularly when discussing the extreme abortion bans in some states that will now be allowed to go into effect.
“They are so extreme that women can be punished for protecting their health; that some women and girls will be forced to bear their rapists’ child,” Biden said. It was at this point that he appeared to go off-script to share his personal feelings on the ruling and its implications. “It just stuns me,” he said. “Imagine, woman having to carry a child that’s a consequence of incest, with no option” to terminate the pregnancy.
Biden called for those who share his anger and outrage – many who gathered on the steps of the Supreme Court in protest – to remain peaceful. He urged Americans to vote to give Democrats in Congress the majority that will be necessary for them to codify the constitutional right to abortion first established by the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade and overturned today with the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health.
Biden warned of the “dangerous path the court is taking us on,” pointing to Justice Thomas’s comments in the decision that “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”
Should the court revisit the precedents established by those cases, it could mean constitutional protections for the return of laws banning birth control, sodomy and same-sex marriage.
Biden noted Americans’ constitutional right to abortion was affirmed in multiple decisions by the Supreme Court, endorsed by justices who were appointed by presidents from both parties.
“It was three justices named by one president, Donald Trump, who were the core of today’s decision to upend the scales of justice and eliminate a fundamental right for women in this country,” Biden said.
President Biden speaks on Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade:
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT BIDEN
ON THE SUPREME COURT DECISION
TO OVERTURN ROE V. WADE
Today is a — it’s not hyperbole to suggest a very solemn moment. Today, the Supreme Court of the United States expressly took away a constitutional right from the American people that it had already recognized.
They didn’t limit it. They simply took it away. That’s never been done to a right so important to so many Americans.
But they did it. And it’s a sad day for the Court and for the country.
Fifty years ago, Roe v. Wade was decided and has been the law of the land since then.
This landmark case protected a woman’s right to choose, her right to make intensely personal decisions with her doctor, free from the inter- — from interference of politics.
It reaffirmed basic principles of equality — that women have the power to control their own destiny. And it reinforced the fundamental right of privacy — the right of each of us to choose how to live our lives.
Now, with Roe gone, let’s be very clear: The health and life of women in this nation are now at risk.
As Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, as Vice President and now as President of the United States, I’ve studied this case carefully. I’ve overseen more Supreme Court confirmations than anyone today, where this case was always discussed.
I believe Roe v. Wade was the correct decision as a matter of constitutional law, an application of the fundamental right to privacy and liberty in matters of family and personal autonomy.
It was a decision on a complex matter that drew a careful balance between a woman’s right to choose earlier in her pregnancy and the state’s ability to regulate later in her pregnancy. A decision with broad national consensus that most Americans of faiths and backgrounds found acceptable and that had been the law of the land for most of the lifetime of Americans today.
And it was a constitutional principle upheld by justices appointed by Democrat and Republican Presidents alike.
Roe v. Wade was a 7 to 2 decision written by a justice appointed by a Republican President, Richard Nixon. In the five decades that followed Roe v. Wade, justices appointed by Republican Presidents — from Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, George
W. [H.W.] Bush — were among the justices who voted to uphold the principles set forth in Roe v. Wade.
It was three justices named by one President — Donald Trump — who were the core of today’s decision to upend the scales of justice and eliminate a fundamental right for women in this country.
Make no mistake: This decision is the culmination of a deliberate effort over decades to upset the balance of our law. It’s a realization of an extreme ideology and a tragic error by the Supreme Court, in my view.
The Court has done what it has never done before: expressly take away a constitutional right that is so fundamental to so many Americans that had already been recognized.
The Court’s decision to do so will have real and immediate consequences. State laws banning abortion are automatically taking effect today, jeopardizing the health of millions of women, some without exceptions.
So extreme that women could be punished for protecting their health.
So extreme that women and girls who are forced to bear their rapist’s child — of the child of consequence.
It’s a — it just — it just stuns me.
So extreme that doctors will be criminalized for fulfilling their duty to care.
Imagine having — a young woman having to ch- — carry the child of incest — as a consequence of incest. No option.
Too often the case that poor women are going to be hit the hardest. It’s cruel.
In fact, the Court laid out state laws criminalizing abortion that go back to the 1800s as rationale — the Court literally taking America back 150 years.
This a sad day for the country, in my view, but it doesn’t mean the fight is over.
Let me be very clear and unambiguous: The only way we can secure a woman’s right to choose and the balance that existed is for Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade as federal law.
No executive action from the President can do that. And if Congress, as it appears, lacks the vote — votes to do that now, voters need to make their voices heard.
This fall, we must elect more senators and representatives who will codify a woman’s right to choose into federal law once again, elect more state leaders to protect this right at the local level.
We need to restore the protections of Roe as law of the land. We need to elect officials who will do that.
This fall, Roe is on the ballot. Personal freedoms are on the ballot. The right to privacy, liberty, equality, they’re all on the ballot.
Until then, I will do all in my power to protect a woman’s right in states where they will face the consequences of today’s decision.
While the Court’s decision casts a dark shadow over a large swath of the land, many states in this country still recognize a woman’s right to choose.
So if a woman lives in a state that restricts abortion, the Supreme Court’s decision does not prevent her from traveling from her home state to the state that allows it. It does not prevent a doctor in that state — in that state from treating her.
As the Attorney General has made clear, women must remain free to travel safely to another state to seek the care they need. And my administration will defend that bedrock right.
If any state or local official, high or low, tries to interfere with a woman’s ex- — exercising her basic right to travel, I will do everything in my power to fight that deeply un-American attack.
My administration will also protect a woman’s access to medications that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration — the FDA — like contraception, which is essential for preventative healthcare; mifepristone, which the FDA approved 20 years ago to safely end early pregnancies and is commonly used to treat miscarriages.
Some states are saying that they’ll try to ban or severely restrict access to these medications.
But extremist governors and state legislators who are looking to block the mail or search a person’s medicine cabinet or control a woman’s actions by tracking data on her apps she uses are wrong and extreme and out of touch with the majority of Americans.
The American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists wrote to me and Vice President Harris stressing that these laws are not based on — are not based on evidence and asking us to act to protect access to care. They say by limiting access to these medicines, maternal mortality will climb in America. That’s what they say.
Today, I’m directing the Department of Health and Human Services to take steps to ensure that these critical medications are available to the fullest extent possible and that politicians cannot interfere in the decisions that should be made between a woman and her doctor. And my administration will remain vigilant as the implications of this decision play out.
I’ve warned about how this decision risks the broader right to privacy for everyone. That’s because Roe recognized the fundamental right to privacy that has served as the basis for so many more rights that we have come to take — we’ve come to take for granted that are ingrained in the fabric of this country: the right to make the best decisions for your health; the right to use birth control — a married couple — in the privacy of their bedroom, for God’s sake; the right to marry the person you love.
Now, Justice Thomas said as much today. He explicitly called to reconsider the right of marriage equality, the right of couples to make their choices on contraception. This is an extreme and dangerous path the Court is now taking us on.
Let me close with two points.
First, I call on everyone, no matter how deeply they care about this decision, to keep all protests peaceful. Peaceful, peaceful, peaceful. No intimidation. Violence is never acceptable. Threats and intimidation are not speech. We must stand against violence in any form regardless of your rationale.
Second, I know so many of us are frustrated and disillusioned that the Court has taken something away that’s so fundamental. I know so many women are now going to face incredibly difficult situations. I hear you. I support you. I stand with you.
The consequences and the consensus of the American people — core principles of equality, liberty, dignity, and the stability of the rule of law — demand that Roe should not have been overturned.
With this decision, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court shows how extreme it is, how far removed they are from the majority of this country. They have made the United States an outlier among developed nations in the world. But this decision must not be the final word.
My administration will use all of its appropriate lawful powers. But Congress must act. And with your vote, you can act. You can have the final word. This is not over.
Thank you very much. I’ll have more to say on this in weeks to come. Thank you.
British prime minister backs transgender athletes ban
D.C. urges gay, bi men, trans women to get Monkeypox vaccination
DC Aquatics Club swimmers reflect on world title win
Brittney Griner’s trial scheduled to begin July 1
Equality Loudoun hosts its first Pride celebration
U.S. ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein ceremonially sworn in
How do we respond to rising anti-LGBTQ rhetoric?
Texas GOP snubs Log Cabin: shortsighted mistake or sign of things to come?
PHOTOS: Frederick Pride
‘Gay marriage, gay sex are going to fall like fucking dominoes’
Sign Up for Blade eBlasts
The White House5 days ago
U.S. ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein ceremonially sworn in
News5 days ago
Gay doctor elected AMA president-elect
Arts & Entertainment6 days ago
Elon Musk’s trans daughter files for name change to cut ties with him
Opinions3 days ago
How do we respond to rising anti-LGBTQ rhetoric?
Europe6 days ago
Istanbul once again bans Pride march
National4 days ago
Texas GOP snubs Log Cabin: shortsighted mistake or sign of things to come?
Photos2 days ago
PHOTOS: Frederick Pride
District of Columbia5 days ago
One of two gay candidates wins primary for D.C. Council