You’re Not Born a Gay, You’re Born Again!

There are generally two types of groups opposing gay marriage and pushing for the Federal Marriage Amendment. There’s the respectable, Alliance for Marriage/Maggie Gallagher group, who have no problem with gays but really don’t think they deserve any civil rights of which to speak. Then there’s the batshit crazy Concerned Women for America/Focus on the Family crowd, who hate gays, want to convert them, and make no bones about it. I had always assumed that Bush fell into the former crowd, what with his voiced support for civil unions and the whatnot. Given the views of Jim Holsinger, Bush’s nominee to be Surgeon General, I guess I was wrong:

– Holsinger founded Hope Springs Community Church, which “ministers to people who no longer wish to be gay or lesbian.” Holsinger said that he sees homosexuality as “an issue not of orientation but of lifestyle.” [Lexington Herald-Leader, 6/1/07]
– In serving on the United Methodist Judicial Council — the “court” that resolves “disputes involving church doctrine and policies in the nation’s second-largest Protestant denomination” — Holsinger “opposed a decision to allow a practicing lesbian to be an associate pastor, and he supported a pastor who would not permit an openly gay man to join the church.” [Lexington Herald-Leader, 6/1/07]
– In the early 1990s, Holsinger resigned from the United Methodist Church’s Committee to Study Homosexuality “because he believed the committee ‘would follow liberal lines.’” He also warned “that acceptance of homosexuality would drive away millions of churchgoers.” [Arkansas Democrat Gazette, 5/26/07; Time, 6/24/91]

This guy needs to be Borked. And fast.

1 thought on “You’re Not Born a Gay, You’re Born Again!

  1. I wouldn’t assume that Bush actually supports civil unions, because if you look at the only times he’s talked about them as either a positive thing, or as an inevitable thing, they’ve been in election years. Back in 2000, when he was running against Gore, he said that civil unions were probably inevitable whether they were good or not. In 2004, he addressed it as a ‘states issue’ which as everyone knows is the way that presidential candidates always handle issues that are too hot.
    And he hasn’t said anything about it since (barring a few stray comments he may have made before the 2006 elections when asked about proposed amendments). Outside of even numbered-years, he really hasn’t talked about the matter.
    That said, I tend to agree with you that he probably hasn’t been in the crazy straight-up anti-gay category of those who oppose equal rights: I don’t think he’s really homophobic per say but I think he just really just doesn’t care about all Americans having equal rights. It may be politically convenient for him to take one side, or nominate people to powerful positions who are strongly on one side of the issue, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this was just “See? I care!” lip service to the part of his base that think “curing the scourge of gayness” is their personal mission in life.
    Lip service or not, I don’t think he chose this guy Holsinger specifically for his views on gay people. It was probably just an incidental plus. That said, obviously this guy’s nomination should be borked. We’ll see if newly-but-barely Democratically-controlled Senate is up to the task.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s