The linked story is in the New York Times and it is a very good read, while touching on a very important subject. The question raised (at the very least indirectly) is this: what lengths should the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender community go to in their battle for equality? Is there a line, and is breaking the anonymity of someone attending a 12-step meeting beyond that line?

The pastor, Tom Brock, was put on leave from North Minneapolis’ Hope Lutheran, pending an investigation. The magazine, meanwhile is embroiled in a journalism ethics debate for sending its reporter undercover into the confidential support group.

In a nutshell, this pastor who is an outspoken activist in the anti-gay community was found to be attending a 12-step program for “or people who want to remain chaste despite same-sex attraction.” A reporter for the magazine,  Lavender Magazine went undercover into the meeting, and then wrote about the fact that this anti-gay activist was there, bringing a firestorm of complaints against the journalist as well as the magazine.

The church and religious leaders who are outspoken against homosexuality are a target for LGBT equality activists since most, if not all negativity surrounding the acceptance of LGBT’s grows from a religious intolerance. Additionally, the prime argument these anti-gay activists use is that being gay or lesbian is a choice and that a person can change. Brock’s use of the 12-step group can look like a contradictory illustration of that point. People can’t change their sexual orientation. They can only modify their behavior around it. Constant effort to modify one’s behavior is far from change, and if the fallacy of the “change” argument can be highlighted, some believe we can halt the harm this thinking and those who push it cause.

There are several recognized 12-step groups that use the AA 12 steps as a basis for dealing with sex addiction, sex and love addiction,compulsive sexual behavior, and other associated “stuff.” I use that word intentionally. 12-step groups can spring up for just about anything, which is, in my opinion, one of the most awesome things about the 12 steps. The NYT article doesn’t say which type of 12 step group this was, but a group like Sexaholics Anonymous (SA) is a potential match. I think, in that fellowship, “acceptable sexual activity is restricted to within a heterosexual marriage. Most other 12 step programs dealing with sexual issues such as Sex Addicts Anonymous (SAA) and Sexual Compulsives Anonymous (SCA) define “healthy” sex as including same-sex sexual activity, and sexual orientation or attraction itself is not a problem.

All 12 step groups however, also use the 12 traditions, and guard the notion of “anonymous” very carefully. Being self-help groups, the freedom of anonymity makes it possible for many to attend who otherwise would be too afraid of others finding out. Without that assurance of anonymity, the very nature of the 12 step approach is threatened. The magazine editor is quoted as saying that to him, this isn’t a “real 12 step group,” but who gets to say what is and isn’t a real group? The dynamics of a 12 step group are amazing, and a real testament to the value of consensus and mutual support. By entering and participating, a person “agrees” to abide by the rules which are few, but based on following the traditions, and supporting the “health” of the group. No cross talk, no criticism of others, clear understanding of purpose, mutual respect for all who are there, and anonymity are the foundations. The reporter broke these rules.

One can argue that the ends justify the means, and breaking the rules is OK, but I don’t think I agree with that at all. The legal right to marry, be free of work-place discrimination, and the other aspects of full equality, are simply a set of rules too, albeit rules we are seeking at the highest level of rule-making. If our desire for equality suggests that we can trample on others and harm them- is it equality we are really seeking? Or do we simply want to play the bully instead of the bullied for a change.

I tend to think the approach of confronting the “change argument” is also the wrong way to go. With no real way to prove either way that it is or isn’t a choice (to be gay), the real problem is overlooked entirely. The far right anti-gay Christian perspective misses the mark on sexuality entirely labeling heterosexuality normal and homosexuality abhorrent. But the reality is that sexual orientation falls along a continuum from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual with the vast majority of folks falling somewhere in between. Truly, the “change argument” doesn’t address bisexuals  in any way even though studies suggest that there are more bisexuals out there than there are folks at either end of the continuum.

I think a more useful approach would be to counter the (false) dichotomy of straight as normal and gay as abnormal and wrong. This fake paradigm is sex-native and sex-restrictive  and grows from a patriarchal power structure. If we countered it with real facts and real people that demonstrate the diversity of sexual expression ranging from the Kinsey ends through the bell curve middle.

What do you think? Was outing this guy from his involvement in an anonymous community, good, bad, both, or neither? What does this action say about safety and who deserves to be safe?

via Outing of Anti-Gay Pastor Draws Criticism – Media Decoder Blog – NYTimes.com.