Part One -- Background
My name is Tracie Kurth and I work at Gustavus Adolphus Collegein St. Peter, Minnesota. I have been posting items about recent events atGustavus to pflag-talk, and Maggie Heineman asked me to submit somethingfor her Bridges-Across website. Although Gustavus has a way to go beforeit becomes a "gay-friendly" campus, the College has taken greatstrides in recent months (and is much more open than when I graduated fromGustavus in 1994). What follows is my personal reflection/commentary ona recent homophobic incident and the College's reaction to it: 

On Monday, November 11, a message was posted on the GustavusGLBNS (Gays/Lesbians/Bisexuals Network and Supporters) email list informingus that a Christian group on campus was bringing in a speaker to discussAIDS and homosexuality. Furthermore, the speaker was going to be a "reformed"homosexual and he was going to discuss how he contracted the disease becauseof the sinful gay "lifestyle." Of course, this stirred up folkson the list. The student leaders asked everyone to come to the Tuesday eveningmeeting to discuss how to respond to this event. 

More than twenty people showed up (normally there are 6or 7), including 5 students from the neighboringstate university in Mankanto. Also in attendance for the first 15 minuteswere four members of LINC (Living IN Christ), the group sponsoring the speaker.Three of the LINC members were courteous (and I admire the courage theyhad for coming -- they were obviously uncomfortable) and explained thatthey were the sponsors (posters on campus did not list a sponsoring group-- turned out they were afraid no one would show up if they did post thesponsor ;-) ) apologized for the title of the event (AIDS and Homosexuality:Straight from the Source), and invited our group to attend. The fourth membertried to "deliver" us from our sin of homosexuality. When thesefolks left, laughter broke out across the room -- tension relief. Once calmwas restored we began to discuss how to respond. Ideas were tossed out --hold a separate event, have a debate about Biblical interpretation, sponsora "jeans day" (post signs stating that anyone wearing jeans thatday supported homosexuals). All of these ideas were rejected. Since LINChad specifically invited us, we felt obligated to attend. I pointed outthat tossing bible verses back and forth would not work cuz #1 none of uswere that well versed in the Bible and, from my own experience, when a fundamentalistis caught in a Biblical contradiction, s/he will say that the Holy Spiritis telling them that their interpretation is the "right" one.You can't fight that. The jeans day idea was trashed cuz it would stir peopleup into an emotionally, irrational frenzy. I shared some suggestions thatI had gotten from PFLAG-talk (thanks especially to Ray). I also shared somestatements from various ex-gay ministries that I had found on the web, togive an idea of how the man would likely present himself. 

We decided that the best thing to do would be to listenpolitely and then ask him pointed questions. We would not demonstrate. Wewould not break into a bumper-sticker slogan fight. We would not get intoa Biblical debate. We would let him say his piece, and then we would sayours. We also decided to spread the word to as many supporters and "family"as possible so we could pack the house in our favor. We agreed to meet ahalf hour before the presentation so we could go as a group and restateour plan. 

I also learned that evening that someone had chalked "fagswill die" with the word "fag" circled and crossed out (likea no smoking sign) and "fag free zone" on the sidewalk next tothe Womyn's Center (where the GLBNS group meets). I asked if anyone hadreported it; no one had. So I immediately called security to report thechalkings. I also took pictures of the chalking (I was carrying my camerawith me for some odd reason).

Part Two -- The Event
Tursday evening (Nov. 14) finally came. GLBNS gathered inthe Womyn's Center as planned. More students from Mankato State (MSU) joinedus. About thirty people in all. The GLBNS leader asked everyone to be respectfulto the speaker and listen to what he had to say. A person from MSU, whohad not been at the Tues. meeting, wanted to know what her purpose for comingwas (she seemed to want some sort of distrubtion to take place and commentedthat we wouldn't let some one from the KKK speak with a counter-demonstration).She was informed that the the question answer period would be used to discussour issues and to raise objections. 

Before the group left to go to the event, representativesfrom another Christian group came into the room. They wanted us to knowthat they were in no way associated with bringing the speaker to campus.One woman stated that she was supportive of our group and that at timeslike this she felt ashamed to be called Christian. We thanked them for theirsupport and stated that we understood that not all Chrisitians hold suchhomophobic beliefs. 

Upstairs about 200-250 people had gathered to hear thespeaker. As the event progressed, it became clear that the majority of peopledisagreed with the speaker (judging from reactions and comments during thequestion answer period). A handful were supportive of the speaker (LINCmembers sitting in the front two rows and a man in the back who occasionallyyelled out "Amen" to the speaker's comments). Also, the speakerrequested some extra glasses of water (his medication makes him very dry-mouthed).LINC members stated that the kitchen was closed, and they couldn't get moreglasses. A gay student with rainbow flag stuck in his button hole left theroom and came back with several glasses of water. 

The speaker was Joe Hallet, a member of Outpost Ministries.To his credit, Joe began his presentation (well, after he thumped a bibleon the podium to satisfy the need for a "bible beater") with thestatement that his was speaking from his own experience. Joe shared hislife experience (sexually molested from age 11 to 19 by an older male youth,verbally abusive father, joined the army after graduating from college,finding Jesus Christ and learning that homosexuality was sinful). Joe sharedhis beliefs on the "cause" of homosexuality. He does not likethe biological/genetic explanation because it "removes us from responsibilityover our own actions". He compared it to a child of alcholics, althoughthey are predisposed to being alcoholic need to take responsibility fortheir drinking. Just because you have gay feelings doesn't mean you haveto act on them. Instead, Joe believed that homosexuals are looking for themasculine love that they didn't get from their fathers (note: he never addressedlesbians or bisexuals). And like him, a majority of homosexual men havebeen sexually abused. Above all, homosexual love is an immature expressionof one's need to be loved (heterosexually). Joe stated that he made choicesthat lead him toward homosexuality, and he also made choices that lead himaway from the sin of homosexuality. Joe believes that the God has clearlyestablished within the Bible parameters on how we may behave. Homosexualityis outside these parameters, and even if we have "homosexual tendencies"we must not express these feelings. And although many homosexuals believethat they have fully accepted Christ into their lives, they are foolingthemselves. You cannot fully accept Christ and live outside these parameters. 

Throughout his presentation, Joe confused sex with love.He also contradicted himself in many places. For example, he stated thatit wasn't until he fully accepted Jesus Christ that he realized that sexwas for "procreation not recreation." He then stated that he waspracticing safe sex with his wife (sounds like recreation to me). 

Many people spoke during the question/answer portion ofthe presentation. One man pointed out that many of Joe's points againsthomosexual behavior were similar to heterosexual behavior -- sexual irresponsibility,"love=sex", the looking for love in the bars, meeting needs sexually(outside of marriage) -- except the heteros aren't expected to be responsiblefor *choosing* their sexuality. The "allure" of the gay "life"is similar for anyone who wants to belong to a group-- these are indicativeof the *human* condition, and not just a gay thing. Joe restated that sexoutside of marriage was wrong and sex for purely recreational purposes waswrong. (I wanted to know if he thought post-menopausal women should be havingsex). 

A professor in the education department thanked Joe forbeginning his talk with the statement that his views come from his own experiencein the gay community. She pressed him on his use of stereotypes and hisresponsiblity as a role model. I don't remember exactly how he answeredthis. 

A chaplain at Gustavus asked Joe about how he felt aboutpeople whose journey of faith has lead them to a different conclusion. BasicallyJoe believed they were not fully accepting God and the parameters for appropriatebehavior that are set forth in the Bible. 

Similar questions followed. Most were from people who hadnot been at our planning session. Only a couple of questions/comments weresupportive. No Bible quoting (although Joe brought up Sodom and Gomorrah). 

Part Three -- Afterwards
Following Joe's presentation, we asked people to gather againin the Womyn's Center so we could "debrief" ourselves and shareour comments in a supportive environment. Several students were visiblyupset. One student stated that it took all of his strength to not pick upa chair and hurl it at Joe during his talk. I had a college counselor and/orthe chaplain be available to help students who were having difficulties.Both were so upset at the speaker that they decided not to be present --needed to calm themselves down. Instead, a faculty member joined us. Hestated that since he was teaching a first-term seminar on AIDS, his studentsoriginally thought he was sponsoring the speaker (remember the posters didn'tlist a sponsoring organization). He also used this as an opportunity tocome out to his students. (The prof. received a round of applause from everyonein the room for doing this). Several people who were not at the "before"gathering were at the "after". They shared that they consideredthemselves Christian and were ashamed to be associated with people heldsuch one-sided ideas on "correct" Christianity. We reassured themthat we didn't believe all Christians are that way, especially since muchof the gay community is Christian. Amy, the student leader, commented thatLINC members had spoken with her before Joe began. They had planned on makinga statement to the audience asking people not to distrupt Joe; Amy assuredthem that we had no intention of being interruptive. Overall, we agreedthat LINC had, in a way, done us a service. They had organized and ralliedthe gay community and supporters in the area in a way that we had been unableto do ourselves. LINC provided a visible threat toward the glbt community(instead of our trying to convince the straight community that such threatsexist). 

Pflag talk members asked me for suggestions on how to handlecontroversial speakers. This is my first experience with directly confrontinga speaker like this, so I am by no means an expert. Overall, I would emphasizethat when confronting a controversial speaker such as Joe, keep a levelhead. They expect us to be combative. When we behave like mature, responsible,adults, we take away their power to manipulate us. They need fear, angerand hatred to be in control. Above all, don't get caught in the trap ofdebating Bible verses or religion. The only view they can accept is theirown. Any other interpretation of the Bible (especially if it comes for theMetropoltian Community Church -- founded by the gay community) is falseand misleading (immature and incomplete to use Joe's words). Don't focusyour energy on trying to convince people who hold such ] beliefs that theyare wrong. Instead, look toward those who are unsure about how homosexualityfits into biblical teachings. Point out inconsitencies and contradictions.Don't try to make the speaker out to be a monster. Make sure your voiceis heard and overwhelm them with your kindness. Make the audience thinkand not just react--control your anger and funnel it into a positive expression(no chair throwing!!). 

I am very proud of how the students handled what couldhave been a very explosive situation. The Gustavus Adolphus mission statementreads in part "The College strives to balance educational traditionwith innovation and to foster the development of values as an integral partof intellectual growth. It seeks to promote the open exchange of ideas andthe independent pursuit of learning. The College aspires to be a communityof persons from diverse backgrounds who respect and affirm the dignity ofall people. It is a community where a mature understanding of the Christianfaith and lives of service are nurtured and students are encouraged to worktoward a just and peaceful world." I proudly believe that Thursdayevening the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered students and theirstraight supporters lived up to that statement.