I will remove the article or combine it into an updated blog-post… Probably the latter.

I hope Randy chooses to leave the article for archival and historical perspective and instead updates it to reflect his current position.

Even when my perspectives shift on an issue, I prefer that my history be there to remind me that as certain as I may be today on some notion, time has a way of revising both my opinion and my recollection that I ever held it.

You’re right. That ‘base is covered’ by the fact that they were in a private and consensual adult setting.

When I first mentioned this in the Spotlights last year, I wrote that I was concerned about Christians picking up this battle without remembering the human side of those they oppose. The concern was that the war of words would get in the way of presenting the gospel and respecting individuals dignity. After much reflection and more research it does appear that if the Supreme court overturns this case it could be a watershed event in redefining the family. Therefore, in the realm of public dialog, the possibility of overturning the laws deserves opposition from those of us who want to defend our beliefs as they pertain to Biblical models of relationships. Of course it is up to the reader on how to make their views known.

The above is full context of the quote from 4/1/2003. The bolded part is what was left out of Lynn’s quote in the above comment.

I quite frequently state that there are some things I have said in the past (along public policy lines), that I wished I had not. The conjecture about the case above is one of them. My opinion on Lawrence v. Texas changed a long time ago. I am glad the court struck it down. I apologize for not following up when my opinion did indeed change.

I will remove the article or combine it into an updated blog-post… Probably the latter. Thanks for the reminder… I had forgotten about that. Reading the quote from the FRC link upsets me too. Rest assured, that is no where near where I am at today or even five or six of the past seven years.

But I do uphold what I said about everyone deserving dignity and respect.

I left off the first part of his paragraph as it simply did not appear to have any bearing on his final conclusion to support the Texas law.

Eddy…. Uh oh! Seems like we left ‘fines’ off the list. (The penalty in the US based case of Lawrence v Texas was not imprisonment, mistreatment or death; it was a $200 fine.)

Well, when Alan Chambers wrote:

Exodus International opposes the criminalization of homosexual behavior as conducted by consensual adults in private.

That would have taken care of any fine. Whether for a felony or misdemeanor a fine could only be assessed if the act of homogenic sex was criminalized.

We strongly oppose the imprisonment, mistreatment, or death of homosexual men and women on the basis of their perceived or known sexual orientation.

Uh oh! Seems like we left ‘fines’ off the list. (The penalty in the US based case of Lawrence v Texas was not imprisonment, mistreatment or death; it was a $200 fine.)

I’m personally more disturbed that a ‘noise complaint’ warrants police officers to enter a home–anyone’s home–without the express permission of the property owner but that’s just me.

Alan Chambers ~ I recall Warren being the one that seemed initially concerned with Brundidge’s affiliation with Cohen.

.

Warren ~ I will own my initial surprise over Exodus going anywhere with a Cohenite but it did not take long to dig into Lively’s theories.

That is quite probable. As I remember it, some of us had to turn Warren on to the iniquities of Scott Lively. I think it was David Blakeslee first and then I who provided some comments on Lively in that first thread about the Kampala conference. I remember being surprised (actually a bit happily surprised) that Warren didn’t know about Lively.

.

It’s just a little too bad that Uganda and her gay citizens had to be the proving ground for this statement by Exodus. It seems that Lawrence v. Texas would have been the trigger for such a statement. But it was then that Randy Thomas wrote in Exodus news:

After much reflection and more research it does appear that if the Supreme court overturns this case it could be a watershed event in redefining the family. Therefore, in the realm of public dialog, the possibility of overturning the laws deserves opposition from those of us who want to defend our beliefs as they pertain to Biblical models of relationships. Of course it is up to the reader on how to make their views known.

And in support of that position Thomas provided a link to an FRC article about their brief supporting criminalization. The FRC claimed:

The law has historically respected and protected the marital union and has distinguished it from acts outside that union, such as fornication, adultery and sodomy. To extend homosexual sodomy the same protections given to the marital union would undermine the definition of marriage and could lead to homosexual marriage.

.

In order to recognize a non-textual Constitutional right to sodomy, the Court must find sodomy to be deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition. In fact, laws banning sodomy are deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition.

.

Protecting marriage, upholding morality, and seeking to ensure public health is more than enough for Texas to prove it has a “rational basis” behind its law. Homosexual sodomy is the number one vehicle for the transmission in America of the HIV virus, and given all the ramifications HIV/AIDS has on public health, Texas is surely justified is seeking to curtail its continued progression.

What has changed in the intervening seven years? Certainly not the Christian religion.

“I should add that Alan wasn’t getting high pressure from critics (that I am aware of.) He did this because he prayed about it and felt like it had to be done.” — Randy Thomas on the Exodus blog — 6/8/10.

That’s just Randy being Randy, tacky as it is. It never even occurred to me that Alan did this out of pressure from another group. If that were the case, he would have done it long ago.

I am glad Alan said what he did, late or no. He deserves credit for that, and for the policy statement.

Now back to work.

If Exodus is going to play on a world stage, if they really want to share the “love and hope of Christ”, they are going to have to be MUCH more careful! Listen to friends and crtics alike, do some homework, search the internet, figure out a way to prevent this sort of thing from happening and how respond more quickly and less defensively when it does.

I would suggest spending some money on a good public relations specialist to give sound advice on such matters — not only for Exodus’ image, but for the safety and dignity of people in other countries. Please, please — Alan — take these words to heart:

“If you go to countries where there’s already a great deal of suspicion and maybe animosity towards homosexuals, and begin to tell people there, ‘Well, actually these people are child abusers, they’re coming for their children, that they’re the scourge that is being deposited on you by the secular West,’ you’re gonna get a backlash.” Naughton says it’s like “showing up in rooms filled with gasoline, and throwing lighted matches around and saying, ‘Well, I never intended fire . — Jim Naughton

“When it comes to homosexuality, Uganda already has several riot inciters so the role of the Americans was to add a perception of credibility and urgency. What would really be helpful is for the three to say directly to the Ugandan people: we were wrong in what we told you. Gays didn’t cause the holocaust, they aren’t ill people who will respond to a forced cure and they aren’t the cause of all your problems.” Warren Throckmorton, 1/4/10

I am glad you finally did it, but It should not matter WHO is warning you. The bridge was out — and you kept on driving anyway — placing the lives of REAL people at REAL risk. Never again, Alan. Promise.