Mt. Vernon Is No Sharon

The Interwebs are abuzz with chatter about a conservative manifesto, to be released tomorrow (Wednesday) and called "the Mount Vernon Statement" because it will be ceremonially signed near George Washington's plantation in Northern Virginia.  CBS News, the Washington Post, Huffington Post, Politico, Human Events, Fox News, RadioVice Online, LifeNews, Free Republic, People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch, Logistics Monster, and The American Spectator are just a few of the news outlets and blogs that have reported and commented, prospectively, on the declaration.

Drafters and organizers of the Mount Vernon Statement are keeping a tight lid on it and have embargoed its unveiling until after the ceremony.  A few lines have leaked out, but these are not enough to determine the full scope of the statement, which is scheduled to coincide with the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, opening on Thursday.

Chris Good reported the names of some of the signatories in Marc Armbinder's "Politics" blog on The Atlantic's web site last week:

Some key conservative luminaries will be in attendance at the Collingwood Library and Museum in Alexandria, VA (an original part of George Washington's Mount Vernon properties): Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, David Keene of the American Conservative Union, former Reagan policy adviser Kenneth T. Cribb, Kenneth Blackwell of Coalition for a Conservative Majority, and Federalist Society co-founder David McIntosh.

The Mount Vernon Statement's own web site expands on this list in what looks like a news release:

The proceedings will be led by former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese, senior statesman of the conservative movement. He will be joined by more than 80 national grassroots conservative leaders representing tens of millions of conservative activists including: Edwin Feulner, president of the Heritage Foundation; Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council; Becky Norton Dunlop, president of the Council for National Policy; Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center; Alfred Regnery, publisher of the American Spectator; David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union; Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America; David McIntosh, co-founder of the Federalist Society; T. Kenneth Cribb, former domestic policy adviser to President Reagan; Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform; William Wilson, President, Americans for Limited Government; Elaine Donnelly, Center for Military Readiness; Richard Viguerie, Chairman, ConservativeHQ.com, Kenneth Blackwell, Coalition for a Conservative Majority; Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring and Kathryn J. Lopez, National Review and many others.

Ben Smith notes in Politico that

[Former Reagan administration attorney general Edwin] Meese said the statement is intended to "restate" and "update" the Sharon Statement, a 1960 manifesto of the group Young Americans for Freedom on the limits of government and evil of Communism published in William F. Buckley's National Review, which many view as a founding document of modern conservatism.

Indeed, the Mount Vernon Statement press release (referenced above) makes this claim explicitly:

The Sharon Statement, signed at the home of William F. Buckley, Jr., in Sharon, Connecticut in September 1960, helped launch and define the conservative movement that led to the recruitment, development and election of numerous conservative leaders who have held positions in public office and public trust at all stations from town councils to President of the United States. The Sharon Statement can be viewed here.

Even having not seen the new Mount Vernon Statement, I have to say that this preening comparison with the Sharon Statement claims both too much and too little.

The most glaring contrast between the two is this: The publicized signers of the Mount Vernon Statement are all leaders of the conservative Establishment. Most are more than 50 years old; some are in their late 60s and early 70s.  A number of them are old enough to have been at Sharon or, like Richard Viguerie, got their first job in politics shortly after, and as a result of, the Sharon Conference.

The organizers of the series of meetings that culminated in the gathering at the home of Buckley family in Connecticut in September 1960 were nearly all college-age (if not actually college students) and were Young Turks who were rebelling against the Establishment of their day (the Eisenhower-Nixon wing of the Republican party).

John L. Kelley summarizes in his 1997 book, Bringing the Market Back In: The Political Revitalization of Market Liberalism:

More than 100 young conservatives from over 44 colleges had assembled at Buckley's Sharon, Connecticut, home in September 1960 to draft the "Sharon Statement." The Statement characterized the times as one of "moral and political crisis" when liberty was threatened internally by an overweening central government exceeding its Constitutionally-sanctioned functions and threatened externally by the "forces of international Communism [which] are, at present, the greatest threat to these liberties."

For those who don't know, or don't remember, the Sharon Conference was the founding meeting of Young Americans for Freedom. The late Marvin Liebman offered some background on Sharon in his 1992 memoir, Coming Out Conservative: A Founder of the Modern Conservative Movement Speaks Out on Personal Freedom, Homophobia, and Hate Politics:

The precursor organization to the YAF began to take shape the day after the 1960 convention, when the executive committee of Youth for Goldwater and about six or seven other young conservative activists met in the Columbia Room of the Pick-Congress with [former New Jersey Governor Charles] Edison and me. The old man spoke. He wasn’t Goldwater, he wasn’t Buckley, but he was a hero to them. Edison urged them to keep in touch with each other through some sort of committee of correspondence, similar to that of our own Revolutionary War. He told them that, like the colonists in the l770s, they also had a chance to make a revolution. Edison gave the rallying cry!

In just a little over a month, working out of my New York office and using all the facilities I could provide—mimeograph machine, clerical help, postage meter, mailing house and, most important, money— [Douglas] Caddy, with the help of a few others, set about starting a new organization. They contacted students all over the country—even over the summer recess—and invited them to attend a conference over the weekend of September 9 to 11.

I suggested to Bill Buckley that we have the meeting at Great Elm, the Buckley family home in Sharon, Connecticut. After discussing the logistics with his mother and sisters (it is no small thing to have fifty or more college kids over for a weekend, even for a family with ten children and countless grandchildren), it was agreed, when I assured them that nothing would be damaged.

The Buckley name was a substantial lure. Coordinating the logistics with Bill and his sisters Priscilla, Aloise, and Jane, I organized the meeting. An Interim Committee for a National Conservative Youth Organization was set up in my office under the direction of Caddy.

About ninety activists representing forty-four colleges and universities from twenty-four states made their way to Sharon on chartered buses and on their own. The very first gathering was in the large central hall, the Patio, in Great Elm, with the entire Buckley family, the National Review editors, and all ninety students in attendance. Those of us present from the older generation -- Frank Meyer, Charles Edison, Brent Bozell, Bill Rusher, Buckley, and I -- resolved to give no advice -- unless it was asked for and to keep our mouths shut, which was extremelydifficult for such an articulate group.

The young activists had already started wheeling, dealing, and politicking M. Stanton Evans, one of the older “youths” (at twenty-six!) was busy drafting a statement of their aims and aspirations. This came to be known as the Sharon Statement. Bill Buckley made some editorial changes, and the statement was adopted by the conference as was the name Young Americans for Freedom. Bill Rusher recalled “I remember not liking the acronym (YAF) much—and liking it even less when Liebman . . . became the first to point out this made the rest of us ‘Old Americans for Freedom’ or ‘OAFs.”

Charles Edison was in his glory. This was everything he had ever hoped for. I took great personal satisfaction in this because I loved him and felt this was all a fitting gift and tribute to the work he had done.

While Bill Buckley was speaking at the first event, Edison and I were sitting on the balcony that surrounds the patio. Next to us was Bill’s sister Aloise Heath. Her beloved and elderly dog, Boykie, was given to fits of panting—as was Governor Edison. Edison was sitting on a low stool, panting away, and Aloise softly patted him on the head and said absent-mindedly, “Now be quiet.” Edison, chastised, did as he was bid and ceased panting.

Edison was quite deaf and used a hearing aid, a box he held and aimed at the person who was speaking. When one of the kids was speaking a mile-a-minute to Edison, the governor held out his hearing aid trying to get the words. “No thanks, governor,” said the young conferee, “I don’t smoke!” Edison turned off his machine, and just smiled blandly through the rest of the conversation.

In the ten months following the weekend conference at Sharon, Young Americans for Freedom, working out of my office at 79 Madison Avenue and with an advisory board I made up of every conservative VIP I could think of, became an overwhelming success. Over 180 young conservative clubs sprang up on the nation’s campuses. Widespread publicity in major newspapers and magazines focused on the formation of YAF chapters.

In March 1961, YAF began publishing its monthly magazine, The New Guard. The same month we staged the first YAF National Awards Rally in Manhattan Center, which seated 3,200 people inside; more than 5,000 were turned away from the doors. The main speaker of the evening was Barry Goldwater. Awards went to Bill Buckley, Ambassador George K. C. Yeh of the Republic of China (I was still looking after my old friends), and the columnist George Sokolsky. YAF even set up its own front organizations: the Committee for an Effective Peace Corps, and the Student Committee for a Free Cuba.

Bill Buckley and I were impressed by YAF’s rapid growth, early achievements, and dedication. “What is so striking in the students who met at Sharon,” Buckley wrote, “is their appetite for power. Ten years ago, the struggle seemed so long, so endless, even, that we did not dream of victory. . . . It is quixotic to say that they or their elders have seized the reins of history. But the difference in psychological attitude is tremendous.”

YAF was doing so well that even I began to lose interest. I loved to start organizations, but got bored when it came to running them. This one was already running under its own steam. And although I tried staying out of the limelight, my role in the organization was beginning to receive criticism. In his Rise of the Right, Bill Rusher gently chastised me by saying, “Liebman . . . had innocently fallen into the role of a sort of rich and adoring uncle who could deny these youngsters nothing, unwittingly spoiling a number of them badly.” That was the story of my life then: the rich and adoring uncle to all the bright young men.

Franklin & Marshall College history professor John A. Andrew III elaborates on this background in his 1997 book, The Other Side of the Sixties:  Young Americans for Freedom and the Rise of Conservative Politics.  (Andrew cites Liebman's book in his footnotes.)

Members of the Youth for Goldwater effort in Chicago, along with a few Nixon supporters and others who had pushed Walter Judd’s name forward for vice president, moved quickly to maintain their momentum. The Judd for Vice President headquarters in the Pick Congress Hotel had adjoined that of Youth for Goldwater. Marvin Liebman, friend to William F. Buckley Jr. and public relations guru for many right-wing causes during the 1950s, had organized the Judd efforts. During the course of the convention both Liebman and Buckley (who was in Chicago to cover the convention for National Review) met Youth for Goldwater leaders. David Franke and Douglas Caddy particularly impressed them, and they took the two under their wing. Franke became an intern at National Review, while Caddy joined Liebman’s public relations firm. As the convention ended, Liebman and former New Jersey governor Charles Edison met with the executive committee of Youth for Goldwater and a few other conservative activists in the Columbia Room of the Pick Congress Hotel. They urged Caddy and his colleagues to unite conservative students in a formal organization, and Edison contributed $500 to further the cause.

Within days an Interim Comittee for a National Conservative Youth Organization sprang into existence. Members included James Abstine, Douglas Caddy, Robert Croll, David Franke, George Gaines, Robert Harley, James Kolbe, Richard Noble, Suzanne Regnery, Clendenin Ryan, Scott Stanley, John Weicher, and Brian Whelan. Although they met in Chicago, only Weicher, Whelan, and Regnery were from the immediate area. Caddy and Franke called New York City home; the rest of the Interim Committee came from Indiana, Illinois, Louisiana, the District of Columbia, Arizona, California, New Jersey, and Kansas. On August 16 they issued a call for a meeting to be held at Great Elm, the Buckley family estate in Sharon, Connecticut, September 9—il. This invitation to an “initial organizing effort” went out to 120 “outstanding youth leaders across the Nation” who were known “to be active and influential Conservatives.” Franke and Caddy had found many of them during their loyalty oath efforts earlier in the year. Others had written letters to Human Events or the Young Republican National Federation. They formed the nucleus of the Sharon delegates.

Andrew quotes the call to the conference, sent out to potential participants, which is further evidence of the youth-orientation of Sharon (even more, perhaps, than Liebman's quip about "OAFs").

America stands at the crossroads today. Will our Nation continue to follow the path towards socialism or will we turn towards Conservatism and freedom? The final answer to this question lies with America’s youth. Will our youth be more conservative or more liberal in future years? You can help determine the answer to this question.

Now is the time for Conservative youth to take action to make their full force and influence felt. By action we mean political action! An inter-collegiate society for Conservative youth has been in operation for several years and has been most successful in bringing about a Conservative intellectual revival on the campus. Many feel that now is the time to organize a complementary nationwide youth movement which would be designed almost solely for political action—implementing and coordinating the aspirations of Conservative youth into a dynamic and effective political force.

The text of the Sharon Statement has a heavily libertarian core, something apparent from its first three substantive clauses:

That foremost among the transcendent values is the individual's use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;

That liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;

That the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;

This libertarian core should come as no surprise. As Ronald Reagan, who benefited more from the success of Young Americans for Freedom than any other politician, once told Reason magazine:

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

The Sharon Statement is a lean document. It smartly and successfully walked a narrow path so that all the various factions and wings of the conservative movement could assent to it. John Andrew quotes Stan Evans as later saying that the idea of the Sharon Statement "was to get a declaration which was broadly representative but internally coherent."

Of course, to find such a statement, one may have to look no farther than Barry Goldwater, whose leadership behind the scenes inspired Sharon in the first place. Goldwater said in the first few pages of Conscience of a Conservative:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

My fear about the as-yet-unseen Mt. Vernon Statement is that it will, unlike the Sharon Statement, incorporate as "principles" divisive views on social issues.  The presence of Tony Perkins, for instance, who is head of the anti-gay Family Research Council, and of Wendy Wright, president of the anti-gay Concerned Women for America, and Elaine Donnelly of the anti-gay Center for Military Readiness, among the list of signers suggests that this might be the case.

A good many of the signers of the Sharon Statement and its organizers were (and, those still alive, are) gay.  These include Marvin Liebman, Richard Cowan (former national director of NORML), and former Congressman Jim Kolbe.  Another prominent gay conservative, former Congressman Bob Bauman, although he was not at Sharon (his wife, Carol, was there), became the first president of Young Americans for Freedom.  One wonders whether the product of the Mount Vernon "movement" (if it can be called that) would be acceptable to these men and others, or if the Mount Vernon organizers would close the "big tent" to them.

We will find that out tomorrow.

To return to my original point, however, it is hubris for the Mount Vernon Statement organizers to hook their reputation to the star of the Sharon Statement.  That small conference 50 years ago launched a movement whose successes can hardly be measured.  (The only comparable meeting might be the first gathering of the Mont Pelerin Society about a dozen years earlier.)  Moreover, for conservative movement veterans -- many of them comfortably ensconced in leadership positions in well-established institutions with multimillion-dollar budgets -- to compare themselves the the hungry, motivated, and youthful organizers of Sharon simply boggles the mind (and I say this as someone who is closer in age to the Sharon generation than today's Young Republicans or College Libertarians).

The Mount Vernon Statement may turn out to be readable, something to argue about, maybe even inspiring to some people.  I hardly expect it will spark a revolution, however.

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter!

At Seventeen

Today, October 11, is "National Coming Out Day," which commemorates the first national march on Washington for gay rights, an event that occurred in October 1979. The purpose of National Coming Out Day is to encourage gay men and lesbians to "come out" of their hidden closets of sexuality and admit, to themselves and their friends and relations, who they really are. The benefits of coming out are explained in this week's Chicago Free Press by Paul Varnell:

There is a kind of moral obligation to come out, because coming out helps advance gay equality. It educates more people about the fact that they know and associate on an ordinary basis with a gay person and that gays are pretty normal people, not exotic creatures who lead some bizarre “lifestyle.” This information is always new for some people, and the more gays they learn that they know, the more successfully that message is reinforced.

It is useful to keep in mind too that coming out benefits the other person. It helps disabuse him or her of misimpressions and false beliefs. Knowing the truth is always better than believing lies, distortions, or mistaken views of any sort, so countering those is a virtuous act. If you think of coming out as doing the other person a favor, it may seem more plausible.

The other kind of reason to come out is psychological. There is definitely a liberating effect to coming out—initially, and with each subsequent person. You no longer have to lie or evade important facts about your social or romantic life. You no longer have to remember who knows and who does not know. And most of all, you are no longer hiding. You begin engaging the world as a fully integrated person, not just parts of a person.

Coming out to someone can, to many people’s surprise, actually enhance the quality of friendships and casual social relationships. You sometimes find that people you feared might have a negative reaction volunteer that they have a gay relative. Or they say they thought maybe you were gay, but they didn’t know how to bring it up, because you didn’t seem to want to talk about it. Or they may say they feel they know you better now and are glad that you told them.

(This article, like many others by Paul Varnell, is quite likely to end up in the archives of the Independent Gay Forum.)

Perhaps not coincidentally, Time magazine's October 10 cover story focuses on gay teenagers, noting the surprising rate at which these young people are coming out:

Kids are disclosing their homosexuality with unprecedented regularity--and they are doing so much younger. The average gay person now comes out just before or after graduating high school, according to The New Gay Teenager, a book Harvard University Press published this summer. The book quotes a Penn State study of 350 young people from 59 gay groups that found that the mean age at which lesbians first have sexual contact with other girls is 16; it's just 14 for gay boys. In 1997 there were approximately 100 gay-straight alliances (GSAs)--clubs for gay and gay-friendly kids--on U.S. high school campuses. Today there are at least 3,000 GSAs--nearly 1 in 10 high schools has one--according to the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN, say "glisten"), which registers and advises GSAs. In the 2004-05 academic year, GSAs were established at U.S. schools at the rate of three per day.

The article talks about two different ways for addressing the problems and challenges faced by gay and lesbian teenagers.

One approach is that of the Point Foundation, which provides scholarships to prospective gay college students who have faced unusual hardship or adversity while growing up:

Launched in 2001, Point gives lavish (often full-ride) scholarships to gay students. It is one of the few national groups conceived explicitly to help gay kids, and it is a leading example of how the gay movement is responding to the emergence this decade of hundreds of thousands of openly gay youths.

The other approach is favored by some members of the so-called religious right and is an outgrowth of the discredited ex-gay movement.

On talk radio, on the Internet and in churches, social conservatives' canniest strategy for combatting the emergence of gay youth is to highlight the existence of people who battle--and, some claim, overcome-- their homosexual attractions. Because kids often see their sexuality as riverine and murky--multiple studies have found most teens with same-sex attractions have had sex with both boys and girls--conservatives hope their "ex-gay" message will keep some of those kids from embracing a gay identity. And they aren't aiming the message just at teens. On one of its websites, the Christian group Focus on the Family has warned that boys as young as 5 may show signs of "gender confusion" and require "professional help."

It's important to note that nearly all mental-health professionals agree that trying to reject one's homosexual impulses will usually be fruitless and depressing--and can lead to suicide, according to Dr. Jack Drescher of the American Psychiatric Association, who has studied programs that attempt to alter sexuality. Last month Tennessee officials charged that one of the longest-running evangelical ministries for gays, Love in Action of Memphis, Tenn., was operating unlicensed mental-health facilities. The state said Love in Action must close two residential homes--which include beds for teenagers--or apply for a license. (The ministry's attorney, Nate Kellum, said in an e-mail that the licensure requirement "is intended for facilities that treat mental illness" and not for a "faith-based institution like Love in Action.")

Few young gays actually want to change: six surveys in The New Gay Teenager found that an average of just 13% of young people with same-sex attractions would prefer to be straight. Nonetheless, gay kids trying to change can find unprecedented resources. As recently as the late '90s, Exodus International, the premier organization for Christians battling same-sex attractions, had no youth program. Today, according to president Alan Chambers, the group spends a quarter of its $1 million budget on Exodus Youth; about 80 of Exodus' 125 North American ministries offer help to adolescents. More than 1,000 youths have visited an Exodus-affiliated website called live hope.org to post messages and read articles like "Homosexual Myths" (No. 2: People are born gay). The website, which started as a modest Texas chat board in the late '90s, now gets referrals from scores of churches in 45 countries. "Twenty years ago, most churches wouldn't even let Exodus in the door," says Scott Davis, director of Exodus Youth. "Now there are open doors all across the country."

The level of success these groups can expect to find is suggested by an off-hand comment made by Time's John Cloud, who reported on a conference for teenagers Exodus is seeking to change:

I met very few at the conference who claimed to be completely straight. (At least two of the young men--one 21, the other 18--hooked up that week and still keep in touch.)

Intriguingly, the fresh-faced teenager featured on Time's cover, is comfortable being gay yet attended the Exodus conference out of a desire to learn more about his peers who are not so comfortable about themselves -- or their gay acquaintances:

For their part, several of the young Exodus Christians seemed more stereotypically gay--"I love that Prada bag!" a 16-year-old boy at the Youth Day squealed several times--than some of the Point scholars who had been out for years. Others had gone to Exodus with no intention of going straight. Corey Clark, 18, belongs to his GSA at Governor Mifflin Senior High in Shillington, Pa., and says he sees nothing wrong with being gay. He attended Youth Day because he wanted to better understand his evangelical church and friends who say gays should change. "Actually," he says, "I've heard so many good things about gay pride"--in the media and at school--"but I hadn't heard directly about the downside."

Another Corey, this one in Virginia, may have stepped into a minefield in his quest to establish a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) at a rural Virginia high school. So far he has nimbly avoided the hazards laid in his neighborhood.

By way of background, earlier this year, a Virginia state legislator, Delegate Glenn Weatherholtz, introduced a bill intended to ban GSAs from schools in the commonwealth. Weatherholtz's bill, which failed and which would have conflicted with the federal Equal Access Act (passed, ironically, to protect student-initiated religious clubs, such as Bible-study groups, in government schools), was stimulated by a controversy over the creation of a GSA at Harrisonburg High School.

According to an email sent by Equality Virginia, a statewide lobbying group, to the Metro Weekly, a Washington-based news magazine:

On Thursday, February 17, the Senate Education and Health Committee is expected to vote on HB 2868, introduced by Del. Glenn Weatherholtz (R-Harrisonburg), that will allow discrimination against Gay Straight Alliances (GSAs) based on fear and misinformation about the nature of these organizations. You are receiving this alert since your Senator sits on this Committee. Please write your Senator today and urge him or her to oppose this mean-spirited, discrminatory measure. . . .

The bill, which was filed after a GSA formed at Harrisonburg High school, was modified on the House side from a outright ban on any group justifying or supporting a lifestyle having to do with sexual behavior. As amended, it now would allow individual school boards to discriminate against GSAs by stating, "local school boards in their discretion may prohibit school facilities from being used by any student club or other student group that encourages or promotes sexual activity by unmarried minor students." While GSAs technically would not be affected by this law -- since no GSA "encourages or promotes sexual activity,"-- if passed, it would allow discrimination through misinformation and prejudice about these groups to block a GSA from forming, forcing the school board to face expensive and protracted litigation as the groups sue to form under the federal Equal Access Act.

The Harrisonburg school board responded to the threat of a GSA in its community by passing a rule that required all students who wanted to belong to student clubs to also get a permission slip from their parents. This proposal was met with some opposition, naturally. Chay Lee of WHSV-TV reported:

A rule that would require parents to sign off on their kids joining clubs at a local school has some people up in arms.

The gay and lesbian advocate group, Equality Virginia, has sent a letter to the Harrisonburg School Board expressing its concerns. The rule was proposed by Doctor Cathy Dlusher, and she believes it will help bring parents closer to their children.

The group feels this rule will discourage kids from joining.

"I think a parental consent policy would severely inhibit people who would need to attend a gay and straight alliance meeting; parents are the last usually to know about their children's sexual orientation; in fact, children are most afraid of the reaction of their parents," says Dr. Christine Robinson.

Despite opposition, the school board approved the policy at its meeting on December 7, 2004.

Delegate Weatherholtz, who represents the Harrisonburg area in the General Assembly, felt that this measure was not sufficient. According to the Augusta Free Press, the proposed bill would add:

a subsection D to the already existing Section 22.1-79.3 of the state code relating to policies regarding access to public schools.

"In the exercise of their authority to protect the well-being of students as recognized by federal law pursuant to 20 U.S.C. Section 4071 (f), local school boards providing equal access and fair opportunity to use school facilities or to distribute literature shall not allow such access or opportunity to use such school facilities or to distribute literature to any club or other group that is focused on supporting, assisting or justifying any lifestyle involving sexual behavior," the proposed code addition reads.

The measure was put into the legislative hopper on Friday morning with 34 copatrons having signed on - including 33 members of the Virginia House of Delegates and one senator, Harrisonburg Republican Mark Obenshain.

The bill subsequently passed the House Committee on Education by a vote of 22 to 0 and the House Courts of Justice Committee by a vote of 19 to 0, before being passed by the full House of Delegates by a vote of 95 to 0. (Where was Adam Ebbin that day?)

When Weatherholtz's proposal reached the state Senate, however, it found itself in a cul-de-sac known as the Senate Committee on Education and Health, which killed it on a 9 to 6 vote. (The vote was technically to "pass by" the bill "indefinitely," a form of tabling, so there were 9 "ayes" and 6 "nays.")

Fast forward a few months for a look at what's happening in Rockingham County, close by to Harrisonburg but apparently a world away.

At Turner Ashby High School in Bridgewater, 17-year-old senior Corey L. Loucks, Jr., is the president of a new Gay-Straight Alliance. According to Corey -- whose prom date was one of the subjects of my May 7 article, "Prom Season" -- there was very little opposition from faculty, parents, students, or administrators.

Corey aspires to become a psychiatrist; his top choices for college are the University of Virginia and George Mason University. He is an active student who belies the image of the withdrawn, bullied gay teenager. He probably does not need the support and fraternity that a GSA provides as much as some of his peers might; perhaps that is why he is assertive enough to lay the groundwork for the group himself.

Corey sings bass in the TA Singers, is co-president of the French Club, serves on the Student Advisory Committee (which advises the school administration on things Turner Ashby needs, such as drinking fountains that should be repaired), competes on the Scholastic Bowl team, and participates in a group called "Youth and Government." (According to the TAHS web site, "The Youth and Government Club is open to any student who wishes to be of service to their school and community. Members are expected to develop leadership qualities and to participate in all club activities. The Youth and Government Club makes available opportunities for students to participate in the Model Judiciary, Model Executive, and Model General Assembly programs.")

In short, Corey Loucks is exactly the kind of student the Point Foundation looks for in allocating its scholarship awards. As John Cloud explains in his Time cover story:

By the late '90s, [Bruce] Lindstrom was talking about the idea of a scholarship program with his boyfriend Carl Strickland (who is 29 years younger) and with his old friend John Pence, a San Francisco gallery owner and former social aide to Lyndon Johnson. One night in 2001 at Lindstrom and Strickland's home--which they call the Point because it sits on a promontory on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe--the three christened the Point Foundation. Since then, some 5,000 young gays have applied, and 47 Point scholars have been named.

Lindstrom sees the United Negro College Fund and the Rhodes scholarships as his models, and in order to win, Point candidates must prove both academic success and commitment to gay causes. Not surprisingly, many also have biographies resembling Lindstrom's--they come from conservative families that haven't immediately accepted them. Candidates must write an essay on "how you feel you have been marginalized because of your sexual orientation." When scholars were called upon to introduce themselves at the retreat, many offered heartbreaking stories of family repudiation. It was routine to hear sniffling during these presentations, especially from adults.

Back in Rockingham County, Corey says the Turner Ashby GSA will have its first meeting during the third week of October. Asked what kind of activities the GSA will have, he told me: "We plan to have and AIDS benefit with bands where the money goes to AIDS research, we want to adopt a road, and we hope to have other fundraisers for local charities."

That doesn't sound like the sort of "sex club" or "dating service" feared by Virginia legislators or Harrisonburg school board members. No wonder Corey and his friends had no problem getting approval from the Turner Ashby administration or the Rockingham County school board.

The path was not completely obstacle free. Corey told me that "last year we had an anti-GSA petition going around against us and kids calling me names and saying I'm going to hell." One faculty member, Mike Stover, who teaches world history, also objected. According to Corey, "he said that it was wrong and it shouldn't be a club but he can't stop it because of the laws."

The group's faculty advisor, Rebecca Bonds, also sponsors the school's chapter of Family, Career, and Community Leaders of America (FCCLA), or what was formerly known as Future Homemakers of America. Corey describes Bonds, who teaches "family and consumer sciences" (earlier generations called this "Home Economics," or HomeEc), as "awesome." No doubt.

Until the GSA actually meets a few times, we can't know how many members will attend regularly. Corey estimates that "15 to 40 kids" have expressed interest.

GLSEN lists just over 60 Gay-Straight Alliances in Virginia (including the new one at Turner Ashby High School). Some are at private schools, others at government schools. Most seem to be in suburban Northern Virginia -- Arlington and Fairfax counties, in particular -- but the list includes Christiansburg and Western Albemarle High Schools, which are each pretty far from "inside the Beltway."

Students like Corey Loucks deserve kudos for ignoring the objections of uninformed and busybody legislators and moving forward to create the kind of environment in which all students, regardless of sexual orientation, can grow and thrive -- and, frankly, enjoy a normal high school career without fear of being bullied and beat up.



Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter!

I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change

Readers will recall my June 18 post ("Young Zach Among the Philistines") about Zach, a gay Tennessee teenager whose parents shipped him to a brainwashing facility run by an "ex-gay" ministry called Love in Action.

Now the New York Times has picked up the story and the Christian Broadcasting Network has published an interview with Zach's father, who admits to his abusive actions regarding his son, using the smarmy language of compassion usually employed by liberals who advocate a rights-constricting law because it is "for the children".

In his interview with CBN, Joe Stark -- who apparently is brash enough and so lacking in shame that he uses is own name -- says:

“We felt very good about Zach coming here because… to let him see for himself the destructive lifestyle, what he has to face in the future, and to give him some options that society doesn't give him today,” Stark said. “Knowing that your son... statistics say that by the age of 30 he could either have AIDS or be dead.”

* * *

“Zack has got a mind of his own, and that's a God-given gift,” Joe said. “And Zack will have to make those choices when he is an adult as to what exactly he is going to do with his life. But until he turns 18 and he's an adult in the state of Tennessee, I'm responsible for him. And I’m going to see to it that he has all options available to him.”

* * *

“A lot of things that Zach spent a lot of his time doing were taken away,” Stark said. “And I can see why they do it now. It's because, if you're not doing those things, then what are you doing? Sometime or other, you have to communicate with your family. And that's a big thing that has happened in our family – Zach is communicating a lot more with us.”

One of the survivors of the Love in Action program told the New York Times:

"It's like checking into prison," said Brandon Tidwell, 29, who completed the adult program in 2002 but eventually rejected its teachings, reconciling his Christian beliefs with being gay.

CBN was fair enough to interview Tidwell, as well:

“Rarely in life will you ever live that closed off from the world,” Brandon Tidwell, a former client of “Love in Action,” said. “It's very, I think, deceiving, or misleading, or creates a false hope for people, to help them to create change in that very isolated environment, and then move out into the real world and try to continue to…understand themselves in a whole different way.”

The Times notes that

Critics of programs that seek to change sexual orientation say the programs themselves can open a person to lifelong problems, including guilt, shame and even suicidal impulses. The stakes are higher for adolescents, who are already wrestling with deep questions of identity and sexuality, mental-health experts say.

"Their identities are still in flux," said Dr. Jack Drescher, the chairman of the committee on gay, lesbian and bisexual issues of the American Psychiatric Association, which in 2000 formally rejected regimens like reparative or conversion therapy as scientifically unproven. "One serious risk for the parent to consider is that most of the people who undergo these treatments don't change. That means that most people who go through these experiences often come out feeling worse than when they went in."

Two weeks ago the Tennessee Department of Health sent a letter to Love in Action, saying it was suspected of offering therapeutic services for which it was not licensed, a department spokeswoman said. Mr. Smid insisted in the interview that his program is a spiritual, not a counseling, center, and he is removing references to therapy from its Web site.

He said he does not track his success rate. Mr. Harwood, who graduated from the adult program in 1999, said that of 11 fellow former clients he has kept track of, eight once again consider themselves gay.

Fortunately, Zach is going to be released into the real world soon. We can only pray that his keepers have not lobotomized him (metaphorically speaking). The Times ends its article with a quotation from Zach's blog, suggesting that, despite his youth, he has the fortitude to overcome this terrible episode:

Zach is due to leave the program next week. His June 4 message expressed thanks for the more than 1,700 messages on his page, many voicing support. "Don't worry," he wrote. "I'll get through this. They've promised me things will get better, whether this program does anything or not. Let's hope they're not lying."

Perhaps that last sentence is simply a manifestation of youthful naivete.

Young Zach Among the Philistines

There is a courageous young man in Tennessee who, as of this writing, is being subjected to psychological torture at the whim of his parents, simply because he was honest with them about his being gay.

I am late in coming to this story, which apparently has swept the blogosphere over the past two weeks or so. Consequently, Zach's blog now contains thousands of messages of sympathy and support. The mainstream media (MSM) are just now catching up to it.

Here is how the Washington Blade describes the story in its edition for Friday, June 17:

A Tennessee teen is claiming in a blog that he was forcibly admitted into an “ex-gay” camp by his parents after coming out as gay, gaining attention from media outlets and gay activists.

Zach, a 16-year-old from Bartlett, Tenn., was sent to the camp Refuge, associated with Love In Action near Memphis June 6 and is to remain there at least until June 20, according to his June 3 blog entry.

Love In Action, an ex-gay ministry, is accredited by the ex-gay group Exodus International and supported by numerous area churches in Memphis. Officials with the ministry on Wednesday would not confirm whether the teen was enrolled. A friend contacted by this newspaper would not confirm Zach’s full name. His parents could also not be identified.

Gay activists tracking the teen’s plight have organized daily protests since June 6 outside Love In Action’s facility in Memphis. The organization scheduled a press conference for June 16, after this publication’s press deadline, to address the growing controversy.

“LIA is calling upon the community to extend open-minded consideration and tolerance towards young people with same-sex attraction who are currently undergoing the organization’s youth program called Refuge,” according to a press statement from the organization.

Wayne Besen, a gay author who tracks the “ex-gay” movement, said the teen is likely to experience psychological damage.

"This is significant child abuse,” said Besen, author of “Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals & Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth."

A local Memphis TV station, WMC-TV, did a report on Love in Action, the organization that tries to brainwash gay teenagers. (If you don't listen to the words, can you tell which of the two interview subjects is openly gay and which one is the "ex-gay"?) The report can be found here.

Protests have been organized and took place at the Love in Action facilities in Memphis over the past several days. The protesters got the word out through their own blog.

According to Zach's blog -- which he has updated despite fear of punishment for doing so by the "counselors" at Refuge -- the organization has rules that seem designed to induce Stockholm Syndrome in its "clients", by cutting them off from the outside world and anyone who cares about their well-being. Zach laments:

What is with these people...? Honestly.. how could you support a program like this? If I do come out straight I'll be so mentally unstable and depressed it wont matter.. I'll be back in therapy again. This is not good--

Some of the rules are downright bizarre. I was struck by this one (in addition to bans on clothing made by Abercrombie & Fitch or Calvin Klein):

6. No television viewing, going to movies, or reading/watching/listening to secular media of any kind, anywhere within the client's and the parent's/guardian's control. This includes listening to classical or instrumental music that is not expressly Christian (Beethoven, Bach, etc. are not considered Christian). The only exception to the media policy is the weekly movie. [emphasis added]

Bach not Christian? What about the cantatas? "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring"? The St. Matthew Passion? Or, for that matter, Beethoven's Missa Solemnis?

These people are philistines, pure and simple. Perhaps young Zach's blog will turn out to be the equivalent of young David's sling.

Maybe It's the 24/7 Formalwear

In his book, Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth, Wayne R. Besen exposes the fraudulent nature of the "ex-gay" movement and the reparative "therapy" that promises, against all standards of professional ethics, to turn homo- into heterosexuals.

Now some European scientists who tried their own form of reparative therapy with an unusual niche of patients have thrown up their hands in frustration. According to an article on the British news site, Ananova:

A German zoo's plans to tempt its gay penguins to go straight by importing more females has been declared a failure.

The female penguins were flown in especially from Sweden in an effort to encourage the Humboldt penguins at the Bremerhaven Zoo to reproduce.

But the six homosexual penguins showed no interest in their new female companions and remained faithful to each other.

Zoo Director Heike Kueck said: "The relationships were apparently too strong."

It must be the penguins' snappy way of dressing -- tuxedos are always such a turn-on.