<%BANNER%>

Identity Work and the New Christian Right

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022126/00001

Material Information

Title: Identity Work and the New Christian Right How Focus on the Family Rhetorically Constructs the 'Ex-Gay' Self
Physical Description: 1 online resource (194 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Alden, Helena
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: exgay, religion, self, sexuality
Sociology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Sociology thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: My study examined where the discourses of evangelical religion, sexuality and self intersect. The Love Won Out conferences of Focus on the Family, an evangelical religious organization, promote the message that homosexuality is both preventable and treatable. In so doing, Focus on the Family actively endorses a specific kind of sexual identity, that of an ?ex-gay.? My study I asked how Focus on the Family defines the conditions of possibility for an ex-gay self. I drew on the theory of institutional selves to interrogate how the Love Won Out conferences put on by Focus on the Family narratively construct sexual identity. Institutional selves are defined as those selves produced in the service of an organization and I examined those selves produced by Love Won Out to further the political goals of Focus on the Family. My study analyzed the transcripts of the Love Won Out conferences I attended in St. Louis and Ft. Lauderdale in 2006. In addition, I examined the textual material promoted by the conference speakers, including a number of books, pamphlets, and supporting materials. Results show that to successfully promote sexual identity transformation, Love Won Out must first produce a mutable, troubled gay self. Having done so, Love Won Out supply the narrative resources necessary to recognize the causes of homosexuality, and then to manage the transformation from a troubled gay self to a healed ex-gay self. More specifically, Love Won Out draw upon discourses of religion, psychotherapy and self-help. They further reinterpret the nature of the healing process such that it becomes more of a spiritual transformation than a sexual one. Focus on the Family also empowers the audience to be active agents of change themselves, and provide the interpretive tools to advocate for social change across a variety of social institutions. I argue that the ex-gay self identity has political utility outside the discursive boundaries of the Love Won Out conferences since to embrace a heterosexual identity would mean being subsumed into wider culture and thus rendered politically and socially invisible. Ex-gay keeps the message that sexuality is mutable at the forefront and therefore becomes important in the fight against the claims of gay and lesbian civil rights groups.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Helena Alden.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Pena, Milagros.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022126:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022126/00001

Material Information

Title: Identity Work and the New Christian Right How Focus on the Family Rhetorically Constructs the 'Ex-Gay' Self
Physical Description: 1 online resource (194 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Alden, Helena
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: exgay, religion, self, sexuality
Sociology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Sociology thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: My study examined where the discourses of evangelical religion, sexuality and self intersect. The Love Won Out conferences of Focus on the Family, an evangelical religious organization, promote the message that homosexuality is both preventable and treatable. In so doing, Focus on the Family actively endorses a specific kind of sexual identity, that of an ?ex-gay.? My study I asked how Focus on the Family defines the conditions of possibility for an ex-gay self. I drew on the theory of institutional selves to interrogate how the Love Won Out conferences put on by Focus on the Family narratively construct sexual identity. Institutional selves are defined as those selves produced in the service of an organization and I examined those selves produced by Love Won Out to further the political goals of Focus on the Family. My study analyzed the transcripts of the Love Won Out conferences I attended in St. Louis and Ft. Lauderdale in 2006. In addition, I examined the textual material promoted by the conference speakers, including a number of books, pamphlets, and supporting materials. Results show that to successfully promote sexual identity transformation, Love Won Out must first produce a mutable, troubled gay self. Having done so, Love Won Out supply the narrative resources necessary to recognize the causes of homosexuality, and then to manage the transformation from a troubled gay self to a healed ex-gay self. More specifically, Love Won Out draw upon discourses of religion, psychotherapy and self-help. They further reinterpret the nature of the healing process such that it becomes more of a spiritual transformation than a sexual one. Focus on the Family also empowers the audience to be active agents of change themselves, and provide the interpretive tools to advocate for social change across a variety of social institutions. I argue that the ex-gay self identity has political utility outside the discursive boundaries of the Love Won Out conferences since to embrace a heterosexual identity would mean being subsumed into wider culture and thus rendered politically and socially invisible. Ex-gay keeps the message that sexuality is mutable at the forefront and therefore becomes important in the fight against the claims of gay and lesbian civil rights groups.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Helena Alden.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Pena, Milagros.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022126:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





IDENTITY WORK AND THE NEW CHRISTIAN RIGHT: HOW FOCUS ON THE FAMILY
RHETORICALLY CONSTRUCTS THE "EX-GAY" SELF




















By

HELENA LOUISE ALDEN


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008




































O 2008 Helena Louise Alden





































To my Mum, my Nan
and
To Liz, always









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation would not have been possible without the support of my wonderful

committee; Milagros Pefia, Kendal Broad, Gwynn Kessler, Tanya Koropeckyj-Cox, and Barbara

Zsembik. They generously offered their time, support and expertise. Milly has been an

inspiration. A better chair and mentor I could not have imagined. She was a constant source of

encouragement despite what must have seemed like a never-ending proj ect! She has continued to

be supportive over the years, and also provided the occasional spark when I wandered off.

Kendal has been both mentor and friend, and also a continual inspiration since I started graduate

school. I feel honored and privileged to have worked with her, and am truly grateful for the

opportunity. I am also very thankful to have continued working with Barb Zsembik who

mentored and encouraged me through both the masters and the doctoral program.

I would like to thank my friends from graduate school who made the grad school

experience fun; Sara Crawley, Susan Eichenberger, Lara Foley, John Reitzel, Melanie Wakeman

and the many others too numerous to mention. Sara, in particular, showed me how to enj oy grad

school and served as friend, mentor, and role model. I would like to thank Danaya Wright for

being such a good friend. I would also like to thank my friends in Wisconsin-especially those

who helped me survive my first winter! My thanks also go to Rhonda Sprague for making a

home away from home. I would especially like to thank Sheila Sullivan for the love and support

she has shown me.

This proj ect would also not have been possible without the encouragement of my family.

My mum, Marcia Alden, has been at my side since the beginning. She instilled in me a love of

education which has served to guide through the thicket of graduate school life. And as she

would say, it' s about time! I would also like to thank my brother, Galen Alden, and this is for

him-"zig-a-zig-ah!"'









Finally, I would like to thank my partner, Liz Fakazis. She has been with me the whole

time and shown me a depth of love and understanding I did not dream possible. To her, I am

truly, truly grateful and thankful she now does not have to go the Bahamas by herself!











TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .............. ...............4.....


AB S TRAC T ......_ ................. ............_........8

CHAPTER


1 ROOTS OF THE EX-GAY IDENTITY ................. ....._._ ...............10. ...


Introducti on.................... ......._ ._ ......._._ ..........1
Background and Literature Review ....._._ .................. ...............14. ....
The Evolution of the New Christian Right ..........._.._............_ ...... .... .........1
The Development of Lesbian and Gay Sexual Identity ..........._...._ ........................30
Where Religion and Sexuality Meet: The Ex-Gays ............ ...............47.....

2 ANALYZING INSTITUTIONAL SELVES: THEORY AND METHOD ................... .........52


The Development of the Social Self. ................. ...............52........ ...
From the Social Self to a Narrative Self ............... ...............61........... ..
Data and M ethods ................. ...............67..............


3 PRODUCING THE GAY SELF .............. ...............82....


Gays and Lesbians Can Change ............. ...............83.....
The "Whats" of Change ................. ...............83......_.__....
The "Hows" of Change ................. ...............91........ .....
G ys and Lesbians Must Chan e............... ...............94.

4 BECOMING EX-GAY ........._.._ ........... ...............101....


Sin and Salvation ........._.. ........... ...............102...
Reparative Therapy............... ...............109
The "Hows" of Being Ex-Gay ........._.._ ..... ._._ ...............115..

5 BEYOND LOVE WON OUT: EXPANDING THE DISCOURSE .............. ................... 130


Society Under Threat ................. ...............134................
Saving Society .............. ...............147....
Saving Souls .............. ...............159....

6 DOES LOVE WIN OUT? ............ ...............168.....


Importance of Institutional Selves at Love Won Out ........._..._... ........._..._..............17
Theoretical Importance of Institutional Selves ........._..._... .........._. ....... 175._......
Love Won Out in the Wider Sociopolitical Climate .............. ...............176....












APPENDIX LO VE WON OUT CONFERENCE SCHEDULE AND SPEAKERS ................... 178


LIST OF REFERENCES ................. ...............179................


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................. ...............194......... ......









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

IDENTITY WORK AND THE NEW CHRISTIAN RIGHT: HOW FOCUS ON THE FAMILY
RHETORICALLY CONSTRUCTS THE "EX-GAY" SELF

By

Helena Louise Alden

August 2008

Chair: Milagros Pefia
Major: Sociology

My study examined where the discourses of evangelical religion, sexuality and self

intersect. The Love Won Out conferences of Focus on the Family, an evangelical religious

organization, promote the message that homosexuality is both preventable and treatable. In so

doing, Focus on the Family actively endorses a specific kind of sexual identity, that of an "ex-

gay." My study I asked how Focus on the Family defines the conditions of possibility for an ex-

gay self. I drew on the theory of institutional selves to interrogate how the Love Won Out

conferences put on by Focus on the Family narratively construct sexual identity. Institutional

selves are defined as those selves produced in the service of an organization and I examined

those selves produced by Love Won Out to further the political goals of Focus on the Family.

My study analyzed the transcripts of the Love Won Out conferences I attended in St. Louis

and Ft. Lauderdale in 2006. In addition, I examined the textual material promoted by the

conference speakers, including a number of books, pamphlets, and supporting materials. Results

show that to successfully promote sexual identity transformation, Love Won Out must first

produce a mutable, troubled gay self. Having done so, Love Won Out supply the narrative

resources necessary to recognize the causes of homosexuality, and then to manage the









transformation from a troubled gay self to a healed ex-gay self. More specifically, Love Won Out

draw upon discourses of religion, psychotherapy and self-help. They further reinterpret the

nature of the healing process such that it becomes more of a spiritual transformation than a

sexual one. Focus on the Family also empowers the audience to be active agents of change

themselves, and provide the interpretive tools to advocate for social change across a variety of

social institutions. I argue that the ex-gay self identity has political utility outside the discursive

boundaries of the Love Won Out conferences since to embrace a heterosexual identity would

mean being subsumed into wider culture and thus rendered politically and socially invisible. Ex-

gay keeps the message that sexuality is mutable at the forefront and therefore becomes important

in the fight against the claims of gay and lesbian civil rights groups.









CHAPTER 1
ROOTS OF THE EX-GAY IDENTITY

The homosexual activist movement ... have been working to implement a plan that has as its
centerpiece the utter destruction of the family. (Dobson 2004: 19)

[Homosexuality] is a prison that leaves many individuals feeling hopeless and abandoned ..
many of these individuals desperately want to be free of this same-sex attraction. (Dobson
2004:72)

Prevention is effective. Change is possible. Hope is available. (Dobson 2002)

Introduction

Since 1998, Focus on the Family, an evangelical Christian organization, has been visiting

megachurches across the country, hosting "ex-gay" conferences known as Love Won Out. Focus

on the Family uses these conferences to strike rhetorically at the heart of the lesbian and gay civil

rights movement. As I will show, they do this in part by denying the existence of a gay and

lesbian identity by arguing that God has made everyone heterosexual, by arguing that same-sex

attraction is a sin of which believers can repent, and by promoting the concept of an "ex-gay"

self-one which cannot deny past sins, but can live a present and future life of redemption. The

very idea of an "ex-gay" or "ex-lesbian" self suggests a fluidity in sexual identity which Focus

on the Family uses to negate the drive by gay and lesbian civil rights groups for the extension of

legal protections to homosexuals based on the argument that they are "born gay."

The battle over gay and lesbian civil rights, not least of which has been the debate over gay

marriage, is one of the most important social and political issues in recent history. Such is the

strength of feeling, that the division has been likened to a culture war (Gilgoff 2007). Gay

marriage has been a pivotal issue in numerous elections, including the 2004 presidential election

and the 2006 state elections-which featured marriage amendments in 8 states.

At the heart of the debate are the competing discourses of "civil rights versus special

rights." On one side gay and lesbian civil rights organizations are arguing for increased legal










protection and legal recognition of same sex relationships, whereas opponents are vehemently

denying the need for any legal recognition of homosexuality. For the most part, denial of civil

rights protections is formulated around the idea that homosexuality is not a viable social identity.

Gays and lesbians are not viewed as a legitimate minority, and consequently homosexuality

should not be recognized under law. In this study, I examine the institutional discourse of one

antigay organization, Focus on the Family, and the manner in which it simultaneously

delegitimates individual homosexual identity and the gay and lesbian movement more widely.

Central to the opposition are the organizations of the religious right; of these, Focus on

the Family plays a pivotal role (Diamond 1995; 1996; Gilgoff 2007; Hedges 2006). Founded in

1977 by James C. Dobson, Focus on the Family has an extremely active role in the fight against

gay and lesbian civil rights. As the beginning quotation highlights, Dobson views homosexuality

as one of the most serious threats to American culture. For that reason, he and his organization

routinely involve themselves in working against any perceived advances of the gay and lesbian

movement, and encourage their followers to do the same.

1998 saw the advent of the most blatant example of Focus on the Family's anti-gay

activism-the institution of the Love Won Out conferences. These one day conferences were

started to promote the message that homosexuality is preventable and treatable. As Dobson

argues in the second and third quotations, many homosexuals want to be freed from

homosexuality and "change is possible." The idea that gays can change strikes at the very heart

of identity politics, and in so doing, completely denies the legitimacy of claims by lesbians and

gays that they should be treated as a recognizable minority group. Love Won Out is designed to

provide the discursive environment necessary to define, understand and produce a new kind of









sexual identity; one in direct opposition to the sexual identity familiar in much lesbian and gay

political activism-that of the "ex-gay."

The goal of this study was to attend the Love Won Out conferences in order to understand

more fully the manner in which Focus on the Family narratively produce the ex-gay self. To do

this, I draw upon the theoretical and methodological conceptualization of Gubrium & Holstein's

(2001) "institutional self." Notions of the institutional self allow me to interrogate the rhetorical

production of the ex-gay self under the narrative auspices of the Love Won Out conferences.

Specifically, I can identify the narrative resources privileged by Focus on the Family and

examine the discourses used to describe what is, at its heart, a highly controversial sexual

identity .

Research of this nature is of fundamental importance on two levels. Firstly, it allows me

to further our theoretical understanding of postmodern narrative identity. Indeed, the Love Won

Out conferences provide a particularly important research site as they are actively engaged in

changing and reinterpreting self and narrative identity, following strict institutional resources.

This study provides an in-depth case illustration of the active production of selves in an

important international organization. Other studies have used notions of the institutional self to

examine the production of such disparate selves as "battered women" (Loseke 2001) and "social

movement selves" (Broad 2002). This dissertation contributes to this research by training the

lens on the construction of a different self, that of the ex-gay. This is a particularly potent

narrative identity, as it is one constructed on the very battlefield between the religious right and

gay and lesbian civil rights movements.

The examination of this particular discursive environment allows political organizations to

counter the inflammatory rhetoric of Focus on the Family. Through denial of sexual identity,









Focus is attempting to negate all claims to political legitimacy of gay and lesbian civil rights

movements. Not only is the organization trying to remove political identity, however, but the

Love Won Out conferences also argue that there is, in fact, no such thing as a "gay identity." As a

result, a thorough understanding of these narrative formulations allows gay and lesbian

individuals, groups, and allies to redefine and reclaim their personal social and sexual identity.

The upcoming chapters document how conservative Christians produce a mutable sexual

identity, and then use this notion to construct ex-gay and ex-lesbian selves. My focus is as much

on the cultural context in which these selves are produced, as on the self production. My specific

research question asks: what narrative conditions make an ex-gay or ex-lesbian self identity

possible and what conditions make it necessary? My research, therefore, examines the manner in

which Focus on the Family construct a troubled and unhealthy same-sex sexuality and then uses

this to mandate sexual identity transformation.

In the remainder of this chapter, I explain the historical development of the New Christian

Right, and provide a brief overview of their core belief system since this is a pivotal narrative

resource used by Focus on the Family. I then examine how notions of individual sexual identity,

in particular the idea of being gay or lesbian, developed. In so doing, I trace the development of

sexual identity politics. I conclude this chapter by situating my study at the crossroads of these

two discourses, in the literature of the ex-gay movement. In chapter 2 I explain how the concept

of the social self developed into a narrative self and then into an institutional self. I use this

theoretical development of self identity to guide my methodological approach, which is outlined

in that chapter also. Chapter 3 documents the narrative resources used by Focus on the Family

and Love Won Out to produce a troubled, sinful and sick lesbian or gay self, since the idea of

being "ex-gay" in part rests on having been "gay." I also note how L WO details the way lesbians









and gays can change and are mandated to do so. I then shift my analytic focus in chapter 4 to

interrogate the way in which ex-gay selves are constructed and maintained. What does it take to

become ex-gay? How does one stay being ex-gay? Of particular interest here is the way Love

Won Out reinterprets the goal of sexual identity transformation such that heterosexuality is not

necessarily the desired outcome. In chapter 5, I examine the political utility of the gay and ex-

gay selves L WO constructed across a variety of social institutions. Finally, in chapter 6, I argue

that the construction of gay and ex-gay selves has as much to do with Focus on the Family's

political ideology, as it does their religious viewpoint.

Background and Literature Review

The Evolution of the New Christian Right

Focus on the Family (FOTF) and their attendant ministries, including Love Won Out, are

firmly rooted in the emergence of the New Christian Right (NCR-also called the religious right)

in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Indeed, FOTF was founded in 1977 by Dr. James Dobson, an

evangelical Christian family psychologist. In order to be able to understand the evolution of

FOTF, it is therefore necessary to trace the origins of the NCR, and the political reemergence of

evangelical Christians in the United States. Furthermore, as the discourse of the NCR is firmly

embedded in evangelical Christianity, it is important to recognize the theological and cultural

history of the fundamentalist and evangelical movements.

The term "fundamentalist" was first coined in 1920 by Curtis Lee Laws, conservative

editor of a Baptist newspaper, to describe those people ready to defend their faith and fight for

what they perceived to be the fundamentals of Christianity (Marsden 1975; 1991a; Marty &

Appleby 1992; Riesbrodt 1993). Rather than signifying the beginning of a movement, however,

the term was more a reflection of decades of arguments and fighting within American

Protestantism: the fundamentalist v modernist controversy that culminated in the arrest and









prosecution of a school teacher, John Scopes, in 1925 (Averill 1989; Gasper 1963; Hunter 1987a;

Marsden 1975; 1991a; Sandeen 1970). The teaching of evolution in schools, indeed the

advancement of modern scientific thought in general, was one of the primary factors of the

fundamentalist v modernist arguments (Gasper 1963; Krapohl & Lippy 1999; Marsden 1971;

1980; 1991a; Wilcox 2000). From the 1870's, which Marsden (1975; 1991a) describes as the

first of four stages of American evangelicalism, theological liberals (the modernist side of the

controversy) strongly advocated the adaptation of Christianity to account for modern scientific

advances (Hunter 1983; 1987a; 1987b; Krapohl & Libby 1999; Marsden 1975; 1980; 1991a). As

Krapohl & Lippy (1999) explain, modernism in this context meant: "(1) the conscious, intended

adaptation of religious ideas to modern culture, (2) the idea that God is immanent in human

cultural development and revealed through it, (3) the belief that human society is moving toward

realization of the Kingdom of God" (41). In other words, theological liberals were moving

toward looser interpretation of biblical texts to allow for scientific explanations and away from

the idea of literal biblical truth (Gasper 1963; Hunter 1983; 1987a). In its most extreme form,

this new liberal theology would be secular humanism (Gasper 1963).

Theologically conservative Protestants were appalled by the modernist approach to

science and biblical teaching. Some argue that fundamentalism arose as a direct reaction to the

liberal theological ideas of the late 19th century (Gasper 1963; Hunter 1983; Krapohl & Libby

1999; Marsden 1975; 1980; 1991a). Certainly theological conservatives began to espouse a more

formal doctrine of biblical inerrancy-belief in the literal truth of the Bible-than was previously

apparent (Hunter 1983; 1987a; Marsden 1975). Although many Christian groups in the past

assumed the absolute truth of the Bible, there had been no formal positions from their respective

churches to support this position (Hunter 1983; 1987a; Marsden 1975; 1991a). Challenges from









modernists served to crystallize fundamentalist ideas and started the movement toward inerrancy

as central to fundamentalist protestant Christian faiths (Gasper 1963; Hunter 1983; 1987a;

1997b; Marsden 1975; 1991a; 1991b):

the doctrine of inerrancy came to mean that the statements and teachings of the Bible, as
the inspired revelation of God written by men are completely without error of any kind; the
Bible is absolutely and exclusively true ... Finally, though not designed as historical and
scientific text, where it makes historical and scientific statements, it is again entirely
accurate and true ... any scientific conclusion that does not conform to the factual
statements of the Bible is regarded as illegitimate and even unscientific. (Hunter 1987a:
21)

The rising prominence of biblical inerrancy also paralleled the anti-evolution crusade of

theological conservatives.

In addition to the anti-evolution and biblical inerrancy arguments, a number of other

beliefs were associated with conservative Protestants in the late 19th century. The most

prominent of these was dispensational premillennialism, or dispensationalism. Dispensational

premillennialism is described as the belief that "history [is divided] into distinct eras, or

dispensations. The final dispensation would be the 'millennium' or one thousand year personal

reign of Christ on earth" (Marsden 1980: 5). The dispensations were aspects in which God tested

people in some aspect of his will (Marsden 1975; 1980). Premillennial refers to the fact that we

are supposedly in the dispensation prior to the second coming of Christ (Averill 1980; Marsden

1975). As Weber (1991) explains, "to qualify as a premillennialist all one has to believe is that

there will be an earthly reign of Christ that will be preceded by the second coming" (6).

Dispensational premillennialism is, again, a thorough rej section of evolutionary human progress

and scientific ideals (Averill 1980; Marsden 1980; Weber 1991). Harding (2000) argues that

even today most fundamentalists believe in both premillennialism and biblical inerrancy, to the

point that many use this to support their crusade against anything perceived as "modernist,"









including acceptance of homosexuality as a normative behavior and the continuing battle against

the teaching of evolution.

Many of these views were laid out in the arguments that followed between liberal and

conservative theologians, which led to the publication of a series of volumes called The

Fundamentals:~dd~~ddd~~dd~~ A Testimony to the Truth between 1910 and 1915. The evolution of the

fundamentalist position is important to understand, if one is to understand how and why it

manifests itself in the present. Beginning with the 1910 five part declaration of the fundamentals

of faith released by the Presbyterian General Assembly, the five fundamentals of faith included;

(1) the inerrancy of scripture; (2) the virgin birth of Jesus Christ; (3) his substitutionary

atonement; (4) his bodily resurrection; and (5) the imminent second coming (Gasper 1963;

Marsden 1975; Krapohl & Lippy 1990). Following the publication in 1919, theological

conservatives formulated an organization called the World's Christian Fundamentals Association

(WCFA) to try and defend against threats to their faith (Hunter 1987b; Marsden 1991b).

The second stage of American evangelism encompassed the period from 1919 (after the

formation of the WCFA) to 1925 and the Scopes trial (Marsden 1975). During this period, at the

end of World War I, fundamentalists attempted to strengthen their control in Protestant

denominations (Marsden 1975; 1980) as they perceived that moral and theological failings were

pushing the country into disaster (Krapohl & Lippy 1999). The dispensational premillennialist

belief structure underpinning much of the conservative theological endeavor led them to believe

that Armageddon was imminent; not only was the Protestant church perceived as thoroughly

corrupt (due to the influence of the modernists) but US culture was becoming increasingly

secular (Hunter 1983; Krapohl & Lippy 1999; Marsden 1975; 1980). Conservatives responded to

the concerns by increasing attacks on mainline denominations for their supposed apostasy and by









strongly driving to eliminate evolutionary theory from public schools once and for all (Krapohl

& Lippy 1999; Marsden 1980).

The strength of the crusade against evolution led to the introduction of legislation to

restrict the teaching of evolution in twenty state legislatures (Wilcox 2000), and the passing of

said legislation in a few southern states (Marsden 1980). The strictest legislation, in Tennessee,

banned the teaching of evolution in public schools (Gasper 1963; Linder 1975; Marsden 1980).

A biology teacher in Dayton, TN, John Scopes, flouted the law, was arrested, and subsequently

brought to trial. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) provided defense for the trial in

the person of Clarence Darrow, one of the most preeminent lawyers of the age, and the

prosecution was handled by William Jennings Bryan, a fundamentalist leader and former

presidential candidate (Krapohl & Lippy 1999). Although Bryan won the trial, Darrow's

articulate and passionate defense of Scopes ridiculed Bryan's position. Darrow's cross

examination of Bryan showed Bryan to be ignorant and foolish (Krapohl & Lippy 1999; Martin

1996; Wilcox 1992; Wuthnow 1989) and not even able to answer simple questions about the

literal interpretation of scripture he was supposed to support (Marsden 1980).

The trial was a disaster for the fundamentalist movement. The popular press painted

fundamentalist Christians as rural, backward, illiterate and anti intellectual (Ammerman 2003;

Feldman 2005; Linder 1975; Martin 1996; Marsden 1975) and they became associated with

intolerance and bigotry (Hunter 1983; Linder 1975). Within five years of the trial, all legislation

restricting the teaching of evolution had been repealed (Martin 1996). By the end of the 1920's,

evangelicals were in retreat across the spectrum of American evangelicalism (Krapohl & Lippy

1999), and commentators were boldly proclaiming that conservative theology had run its course

(Ammerman 2003; Marsden 1991a; Watt 1991).









Far from disappearing, however, the fundamentalist-evangelical movement reorganized

(Marsden, 1991b). The regrouping characterized the third stage of American evangelicalism and

lasted through the 1940's (Marsden 1975). During this time, there was a shift in focus

throughout the fundamentalist and evangelical movement, from trying to gain control of the

mainline denominations to an emphasis in working through local organizations, churches and

colleges (Hunter 1983; Krapohl & Lippy 1999; Marsden 1975; 1980; 1991a; Smith 1998;

Wilcox 1992). Some fundamentalists worked from within the main denominations to form

fundamentalist groups resistant to liberal influence (Gasperl963; Hunter 1983; Marsden 1991a;

1991b). However, the mainline denominations were viewed by others as too corrupt;

dispensationalists in particular were concerned that the churches were becoming increasingly

apostate (Marsden 1991a). As a result, an increasing number of evangelicals adhered far more to

the doctrine of strict separation, thus spawning a growth of independent evangelical churches

following conservative fundamentalist theology (Ammerman 2003; Carpenter 1984; Gasper

1963; Hunter 1983; Marsden 1980; Smith 1998).

The advent of World War II inspired fundamentalist critiques of both world and U. S.

society (Ammerman 2003; Carpenter 1984; 1997). Primary among these criticisms was the idea

that WWII had been prompted by "a materialistic concept of progress" (Carpenter 1984: 8)

directly counter to orthodox Christian values. For fundamentalists, with liberal theology's

support of modernization, war had been started and millions slaughtered (Carpenter 1984). Such

sentiment provided one of the spurs for increasingly separatist evangelicals. These separatists

recognized the need for some kind of unity to support their doctrinal stance (Gasper 1963;

Hunter 1983; 1987a). As a result, the American Council of Churches (ACC) was founded in

1941 (Gasper 1963; Hunter 1983; Marsden 1980). The ACC demanded that members be strictly









separate from mainstream denominations as these were still viewed as apostate. Its founder, Carl

McIntire, described the ACC as "militantly pro-Gospel and anti-modernist" (quoted in Gasper

1963, p. 23). Its principles included,

adherence to these truths [pro-Gospel and anti-modernist] ... the full truthfulness,
inerrancy and authority of the Bible which is the Word of God; the holiness and love of the
one sovereign God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit; the true deity and sinless humanity of our
Lord Jesus Christ, His virgin birth, His atoning death, 'The just for the unjust,' His bodily
resurrection, His glorious coming again; salvation by grace through faith alone; the
oneness in Christ of those He has redeemed with His own precious blood; and the
maintenance in the visible church of purity of life and doctrine. (Gasper 1963: 23)

ACC was still clearly committed to the five fundamentals of faith advanced in the early part of

the century and was a strong advocate of the need to disassociate from modernism.

The formation of the ACC underscored deepening divisions within American

evangelicalism, and in 1942 a rival organization composed of moderate evangelicals was

constitute -The National Association of Evangelicals, later called the Neo-Evangelicals (Gasper

1963; Marsden 1991a; 1991b; Smith 1998). Although ACC and NAE were doctrinally similar,

they widely disagreed on matters of policy: ACC was strictly separate while NAE advocated

cooperation and inclusivity within mainstream denominations (Gasper 1963; Hunter 1983;

1987a).

The Neo-Evangelicals concentrated much of their efforts on building a strong network

through resurgent revivalist trends across much of the U. S. (Hunterl983). Of particular

importance was a radio show called The Old Time Gospel Hour, which drew an incredibly large

audience. There were also the inaugural evangelical television programs and a number of new

youth evangelical organizations that proved immensely popular (Hunter 1983; 1987; Marsden

1980). This last provided evangelicals with one of their most enduring legacies from this period:

Billy Graham got his start as the first full-time paid evangelical in the Youth for Christ

organization in the 1940s (Carpenter 1997; Hunter 1983; Marsden 1980). His mass rallies were









held country-wide, reached huge audiences, and quickly served to make premillennialism and

evangelical Christianity popular once again (Carpenter 1997).

On the other side of the divide, the strict separatists of the ACC were engaged in the anti-

communism crusade (Gasper 1963; Wilcox 1992; 2000; Wuthnow 1989). "Godless

Communism" was viewed as one of the greatest threats to U. S. culture and seen as a "false

religion" (Wuthnow, 1989: 41). By 1953, all of the leaders of the anti-communist movement

were associated with the ACCC (Wilcox 1992). The focus in targeting threats to U.S. culture is

significant to this proj ect as the message was not limited to anti-communism. Both Medicare

and sex education in schools also posed threats (Wilcox 2000)--Medicare because it was seen as

socialized medicine and sex education because it threatened the moral fiber of the country.

However, the collapse of McCarthy's crusade against Communism negatively impacted the

evangelicals associated with it and eventually the influence of those evangelicals faded in the

early 1960s (Wilcox 2000).

The late 1950s and early 1960s also signified a maj or realignment in both the

fundamentalists and the Neo-Evangelicals. A split in the fundamentalist camp occurred around

the New York City crusade of Billy Graham in 1957 after he accepted sponsorship from the

city's Council of Churches. Fundamentalists were upset because they regarded some of the

city's church organizations as too liberal, since they did not follow their rigid theological

traditions (Marsden 1991a). The Neo-Evangelicals split over the question of Biblical inerrancy

(Marsden 1991a) with those supporting inerrancy, including Billy Graham, leading most of the

evangelicals (Carpenter 1997; Hunter 1983; 1987a; Marsden 1975; 1991a). Further divisions

occurred around the need for evangelical social programs and the prospect of involvement in

progressive politics (Marsden 1991a).









These developments made it increasingly difficult to define different groups as either

fundamentalist or evangelical, and even to talk about a united evangelical movement (Hunter

1983; Marsden 1991a; 1991b; Nash 1987). The term evangelical had become increasingly used

to describe any "theologically conservative Protestant who affirmed the necessity of

regeneration" (Marsden 1991b: 31) and could be used to describe any number of organizations

with a variety of beliefs (Marsden 1991b; Nash 1987). Neo-evangelicals retained the term

evangelical and continued work in the inclusivist tradition (Hunter 1983). Fundamentalist,

however, referred as a self designation to "separatist, dispensationalist Baptists and members of

individual Bible churches" (Marsden 1991Ib: 3 1), except for one maj or organization within the

Southern Baptist Convention that gained the maj ority voice in the 1970's and 1980's. Therefore,

"'fundamentalist' could be used to refer almost exclusively to noncharismatic (nonpentecostal)

dispensationalists" (Marsden 1991b: 31). In other words, fundamentalist came to refer to those

conservative Christians who wanted to keep separate from the apostasy of the wider church

community, and who still believed in the imminent second Coming. Despite a seeming unity in

the fundamentalist camp in the 1970's, they too were split into two camps: militants who insisted

on separation from any formal religious denomination, or individual within a denomination, that

allowed liberal theology; and moderates, who, although still separate from major denominations,

did not insist upon such strict separation (Carpenter 1984). Both, however, denounced

evangelicals for their perceived liberalism.

Throughout all the shifting alignments and splits within both the fundamentalist and

evangelical movements, both continued to build a strong infrastructure of churches, publishing

houses, magazines, newspapers, colleges and, perhaps most importantly, television ministries

(Ammerman 1987; 2003; Hunter 1983; Wilcox 2000; Wuthnow 1989). Much as the radio









evangelicals of the 1940's and 1950's had reached massive audiences, so the television

ministries in the 1970's, the so-called electronic church, also reached huge numbers of people

(Himmelstein 1990; Ostling 1984; Wuthnow 1989). The success of the televangelists meant that

such themes as biblical inerrancy and personal salvation in the form of Jesus Christ, already

critical within the fundamentalist and evangelical movements, reached a far broader audience

(Feldman 2005; Himmelstein 1990; Krapohl & Lippy 1997; Ostling 1984). Some estimates put

viewing figures at 10 million in 1970, and several times that by the 1980's (Himmelstein 1990).

Not only did television widen the appeal of conservative Protestant ideals, it also served as a

mechanism for raising massive amounts of money for the broadcasters and their causes

(Ammerman 2003; Diamond 1995; 1996; Himmelstein 1990; Krapohl & Lippy 1997). Of these

newly-popular television ministries, the best known were Jerry Falwell's Old Time Gospel Hour

(modeled after Fuller' s 1940's radio show), Pat Robertson' s 700 Club and Jim and Tammy Faye

Bakker's PTL Club (Feldman 2005; Himmelstein 1990; Krapohl & Lippy 1997).

In addition to the increased prominence of evangelical Christianity due to the massive

success of the electronic church (Himmelstein, 1990; Krapohl & Lippy, 1997; Reichley, 2002;

Wuthnow, 1989), the origins of the NCR can also be traced to the success of a number of local

political movements based on evangelical ideals (Himmelstein 1990; Liebman 1983; Wald

2003); the election of a born again President, Jimmy Carter, in 1976 (Pierard 1984; Wuthnow

1989); and increasing numbers of college graduates identifying as evangelical Christians

(Wuthnow 1989). During the 1970's, there were three key grassroots campaigns that Liebman

(1983) and Wald (2003) argue mobilized evangelicals and provided both motivation and a sense

of political involvement that prompted later national campaigns. The campaigns were: textbook

challenges in West Virginia that ultimately led to a changed textbook adoption procedure; the









1977 repeal of a gay rights ordinance in Miami-Dade County; and the defeat of the Equal Rights

Amendment after a campaign spearheaded by religious conservatives (Wald 2003). Each of the

campaigns were successful and, as Wald (2003) explains,

although motivated by different issues, the three campaigns were tied together by a
common dissatisfaction with what the participants saw as a godless society that had
replaced firm moral standards with a system of relativism ... [The campaigns] appealed
most strongly to white evangelical Protestants who saw each movement as a crusade in
defense of traditional Christian values. (207)

In other words, just as the fundamentalists battling the evils of modernism in the late 19th and

early 20th centuries, evangelical Christians of the 1970's and 1980's were appalled at what they

saw as widespread moral depravity that could only hasten Armageddon (Diamond 1995; Watt

1991).

The success of these three campaigns was also noticed by secular conservatives looking to

revitalize the Republican Party by harnessing the power and energy of the evangelicals

(Himmelstein 1990; Moen 1992; Wald 2003). These political activists, Howard Phillips, Terry

Dolan, Paul Weyrich and Richard Viguerie, approached Christian conservative leaders with an

idea for mobilizing evangelicals (Himmelstein 1990; Liesnesch 1993; Wald 2003; Wuthnow

1983; 1989). This new alliance of secular and Christian conservatives soon turned to the

powerful televangelists, and through a combination of the political resources of the activists, and

the reach of the television preachers, formed a number of new national organizations (Wald

2003; Wilcox 1992; 2000; Wuthnow 1989). The most prominent of these were the Moral

Maj ority, founded by Jerry Falwell in 1979, the Religious Roundtable (later renamed just as the

Roundtable), founded by Ed McAteer, and Christian Voice, founded out of an anti-homosexual

crusade in California. FOTF was also formed at this time, although it did not immediately come

into national prominence.









1976 also saw the election of President Jimmy Carter, an evangelical Southern Baptist who

was outspoken in his faith and as such brought even greater national prominence to evangelical

Christianity (Corbett & Corbett 1999; Feldman 2005; Reichley 1987; 2002; Wuthnow 1983;

1989). While in office, Carter frequently stressed the importance of public morality and urged

Christians to become politically active (Liesnesch 1993; Wilcox 1992; Wuthnow 1983; 1989).

The Carter presidency and increasing political success validated not only evangelical Christian

identity, but also ignited political sensibilities. This combined with the higher level of education,

thus a greater likelihood of voting, spurred an evangelical Christian return to political activity

and political power (Moen 1992; Wuthnow 1989). As Moen (1992) explains, "the infusion of

conservative Christians into politics en masse gave the movement' s early leaders the opportunity

to sharpen their political skills and provided a large pool of interested people out of which a

small cadre of politically adroit leaders could emerge" (2). In other words, the mobilization of

evangelical Christians in the later 1970's spawned a far more politically sophisticated set of

theologically conservative Christians through the 1980's and 1990's.

The combination of evangelical Christian ideology, increased political activity, massive,

visible national organizations and the convergence of public morality and politics formed what is

now the New Christian Right (Feldman2005; Moen 1992; Wald 2003). Organizations such as the

Moral Maj ority had massive voter registration drives and used their public platform to encourage

evangelical Christians to become politically active-from being mostly apolitical prior to the

1970's, suddenly preachers were stressing the idea that to be good Christians, congregants and

viewers had to vote to preserve Christian morality in the US (Wuthnow 1989). As Wuthnow

(1989) explains, "suddenly it was part of one' s Christian duty to exercise the responsibilities of

citizenship" (199). Estimates put the numbers recruited during these drives to anywhere from









200,000 to multiple millions; the numbers were certainly high enough to prompt evangelical

Christian leaders to claim credit for Ronald Reagan's 1980 election victory (Wald 2003; Wilcox

1992; Wuthnow 1989).

The strength of evangelical Christian belief in biblical inerrancy also provided what

evangelicals saw "as a clear set of moral guidelines for them to follow" (Wuthnow 1989: 202).

Furthermore, the emergence of morality as an important element emboldened evangelicals to

begin imposing these morals in the political arena: "the two were so closely linked, in fact, that

many evangelicals probably failed to see that for the first time in many years they were

becoming politically active. Rather they considered they were merely taking a stand on matters

they knew to be morally mandated as part of scripture" (Wuthnow 1989: 202). By the mid-

1980's, the NCR had become a formidable presence in the Republican Party with the strength to

influence the political agenda (Moen 1992; Wuthnow 1989).

The NCR were instrumental in developing a moral political platform they dubbed a "pro-

family" agenda, or a "return to traditional values" (Moen 1992; Wald 2003; Wuthnow 1989).

Critical issues in this were abortion, homosexuality, extra and premarital sex and traditional

marriage (Moen 1992). Such was the strength of the "pro-family" agenda that President George

H.W. Bush touted it in 1992, and the Republican Party convention during that same campaign

heard speeches on these issues from evangelicals Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan (Wald 2003).

NCR activists used this platform to link what they perceive as a moral crisis to concrete social

problems. In the introduction to Dobson, founder of FOTF, and Bauer' s (1990) book Children at

Risk, William Bennett, Secretary of Education under Reagan, wrote that America' s social

regression was due to three things: (1) Americans had abandoned morality; (2) value judgments

had been replaced by "an expansive notion of 'rights' ... that masked a destructive underlying










philosophy ... that found its way into public policy' (xix); (3) liberalism in the form of the

Democrats had led to a whole series of "misguided social policies" (xx), including abortion

rights and welfare checks for unwed mothers, that "effectively tore down out cultural guardrails"

(xx). Furthermore, Bennett (1990) argues, the social pathologies have worsened to the point that

only a return to traditional religious values can "save" society.

One of the key voices in the NCR' s "pro-family" campaign was James Dobson' s Focus on

the Family (Diamond 1996; Moen 1992; Wald 2003). FOTF was founded in 1977 by Dobson. At

the heart of his organization are his syndicated radio broadcasts that reach an estimated 5 million

listeners daily and that are broadcast on over 4000 radio stations worldwide (Wilcox 2000).

Headquartered in Colorado Springs, FOTF has over 1300 employees, generates well over $100

million annually, operates numerous active ministries (including everything from an institute

where college students can spend a semester, to a public policy unit and international outreach)

and maintains an email list of over 2.5 million (Alexander-Moegerle 1997; Diamond 1996;

Wilcox 2000). Dobson has become so powerful that a 2005 Time (Van Biema 2005) article

named him as one of the 25 most influential evangelicals.

Although Dobson has repeatedly tried to distance himself rhetorically from the NCR, his

policies, mission statements, public works, broadcasts, and even other well known evangelical

Christian leaders, place him at the forefront of the NCR movement-to the point that Falwell even

referred to him as a "rising star" of the movement (Moen 1992). Moen (1992) ascribes part of

this reluctance as a desire not to be seen to be involved in the NCR and therefore associated with

its previous scandals-this despite Dobson setting up a political arm of FOTF, the Family

Research Council, and also publishing a monthly political magazine. He also recently left the

presidency of FOTF to Jim Daly in order to involve himself more actively in politics. Critics









have suggested that Dobson did not want to appear politically active so as not to jeopardize the

tax-exempt status of FOTF (Alexander-Moegerle 1997; Diamond 1996). Despite his

protestations, however, Dobson has been consistently involved with attempts to mobilize his

readers and listeners to advance the conservative social agenda (Moen 1992; Diamond 1996;

Wilcox 2000). His emails, broadcasts, and published material often include examples of laws and

legislation threatening the "pro-family" agenda, indirectly or directly (depending on the

publication), exhort the audience to political action and always end with financial pleas to help

with the "defense of the family" (Dobson 2006: 5). By way of illustration, here is an extract from

the financial plea included with the June 2006 Famnily News from Dr. JamJJJJJJJJ~~~~~~~~~es Dobson:

If you and I fail to defend the most vulnerable of our members, perhaps millions of kids
now in public schools will be coerced into believing that same-sex marriage is morally
equivalent to the traditional family and that there are no reliable standards of right and
wrong. Safe-sex ideology will be taught instead of "abstinent until married," and that
homosexuality is genetic and therefore inevitable ... .It must not be allowed to happen.

All of us at Focus on the Family would appreciate you j oining our effort to defend the
children of the nation, after you have met your obligations to your local church. Any
contribution you make will be used carefully and wisely, not only to help nourish the
institution of the family, but to defend it and protect its children as well.

As the above example shows, at the core of FOTF is the same belief system that

characterizes both evangelical Christianity and the NCR, and they follow the same moral

campaigns promoted but the NCR' s "pro-family" agenda. In other words, FOTF promotes what

its leaders perceive as traditional family values: "to put it succinctly, the institution of marriage

represents the very foundation of the human social order. Everything of value sits upon that

base. Institutions, governments, religious fervor, and the welfare of children are all dependent on

its stability. When it is weakened or undermined, the entire superstructure begins to wobble"

(Dobson 2004: 9). So strong is Dobson's view about the threat that he calls it the "second great

civil war" (1990: 22). As he explains,









Something far more significant than money is behind the contest for the hearts and minds
of children. Nothing short of a great Civil War of Values rages today throughout North
America ... .Bloody battles are being fought on a thousand fronts both inside and outside
of government. Open any daily newspaper and you'll find accounts of the latest
Gettysburg, Waterloo, Normandy, or Stalingrad. Instead of Eighting for territory or military
conquest, however, the struggle is on for the hearts and minds of the people. It is a war
over ideas (Dobson 1990: 2-emphasis in original).

For Dobson and FOTF one of the key issues threatening the family is homosexuality.

Indeed, according to Dobson (2004), should traditional ideas of marriage and family be

compromised, then there will "chaos such as the world has never seen before" (19). At the

forefront of this battle are the "homosexual activist movement ... working to implement a master

plan that has had as its centerpiece the utter destruction of the family (Dobson 2004: 19).

Furthermore, Dobson argues, the threat is on such a large scale as to threaten the very existence

of US society. He describes the attacks on marriage as being on the same magnitude as the attack

on Pearl Harbor and the Nazi advance through Europe (Dobson 1990; 2004; 2006).

Clearly, then, homosexuality is a pivotal issue within FOTF and is positioned

prominently throughout NCR activism. FOTF's response to the "crisis"hsbetoryo


delegitimate both the gay and lesbian movement, and gay and lesbian individuals, by launching

an outreach ministry, named Love Won Out, that promotes the idea that homosexuality is both

preventable and treatable. Central to this program is the idea that "change is possible" and that

through Einding Jesus, gays and lesbians can alter their sexuality and lifestyle.

Much NCR activism in general, and the L WO ministry more specifically, is designed to

repudiate claims by LGBT social movements for increased acceptance and legal recognition of

same sex relationships. The NCR counters claims that LGBT couples and individuals are entitled

to legal protections similar to other protected minorities by arguing that homosexuality is both a

choice and treatable. Racial and ethnic minorities, for example, deserve equal protection under

law whereas sexual minorities choose what is argued to be their immoral lifestyle. Consequently









the L WO ministry can be perceived as speaking back to the identity politics of many LGBT

social movements. To fully understand one of the central discourses of L WO, it is therefore

necessary to trace the development of gay and lesbian sexual identity and the formation of sexual

identity politics.

The Development of Lesbian and Gay Sexual Identity

One of the prerequisites for a social movement is "an identifiable social group with

considerable political awareness" (Adam 1995:1). Prior to the late 19th century, however, there

was little understanding of sexuality as a separate identity, as is presumed now (D'Emilio 1992;

1998; Halperin 1990; 2000; Weeks 1991; 2000). Consequently, it is critical to understand how

the idea of "the homosexual" originated and was further developed into both a social and

political identity.

Scholars disagree as to whether homosexuality existed in a recognizable form before the

late 1800's. Some, such as Halperin (1989; 1990; 2000), argue that there is no such thing as a

history of, in this case male, homosexuality. Rather there are multiple discursive traditions that

overlap to produce our contemporary understanding of homosexuality. Other historians (see

Boswell 1980; 1989) take historical records of same-sex sexual activity as proof that

homosexuality existed in familiar forms across time (Chauncey, Duberman & Vicinus 1989).

Despite the fact that there is evidence of same sex sexual activity throughout recorded

history, it was not until the late 1800's that sexual behavior, including homosexuality, was

imagined as an entity separate to, and outside of the family unit and other social institutions

(Adam 1995; Halperin 2000; Padgug 1989; Weeks 1991). "Sexuality" did not exist within the

private realm: "intercourse, kinship and the family, and gender, did not form anything like a field

of sexuality. Rather, each group of sexual acts was connected directly or indirectly [to]

institutions and thought patterns which we tend to view as political, economic or social in nature










.." (Padgug 1989: 62). Up until this point, appropriate sexual activity had been defined using

traditional religious doctrine, such that sexual activity of any kind outside of the marital union

was viewed as sinful (D'Emilio 1992; 1998).

Sexual practices were governed by laws that centered on non-reproductive relations

(D'Emilio 1992; 1998; Weeks 1991). By way of illustration, the early 1800's in England saw a

spike in the number of prosecutions, and subsequent hangings, for sodomy-to the point that these

outnumbered hangings for murder. Weeks (1991) attributes this to the fact that England was at

war, and argues that prosecution of same-sex sexual activity is more generally linked to social

turmoil and serves as a "funnel" for wider social anxiety. In other words, during times of social

upheaval, such as Britain was experiencing in the early 18th century, there are normally far

greater sanctions on inappropriate sexual expression, a pattern also seen in the US. It is important

to note that at this point, sodomy did not refer to just male same-sex activity but was a term used

to reference any sexual activity deemed non reproductive, including both heterosexual and

homosexual oral and anal intercourse. Sodomy was defined in relation to individual sexual

activity, not sexual inclination. In the words of John D'Emilio (1998); "men and women engaged

in what we would describe as homosexual behavior, but neither they nor the society in which

they lived defined persons as essentially different in kind from the maj ority because of their

sexual expression ... their behavior was interpreted as a discrete transgression, a misdeed

comparable to other sins and crimes ..." (4). Consequently, both adultery and homosexuality

could be, and were, punished by death (Greenberg 1988).

The reconceptualization of sex as a distinguishing characteristic of a particular type of

person was not evidenced until the mid to late 1800's (Halperin 2000; Weeks 1991). Scholars

have argued that this shift in focus was partly as a result of capitalist market forces (D'Emilio









1992; Greenberg 1988; Greenberg & Bystryn 1996). Under capitalism, individuals began to

make a living selling their labor and earning wages, thus creating a completely different social

structure (Adam 1985; 1995; D'Emilio 1992; Greenberg 1988; Greenberg & Bystryn 1996). The

family had previously been a self sufficient economic unit of production with all members

equally dependent upon one another (Adam 1985; D'Emilio 1992; Weeks 1991); a new social

organization rendered this conceptualization of the family obsolete. In its place stood a unit still

somewhat interdependent, but now with emotional and sexual bonds in place as opposed to

purely economic ties (D'Emilio 1992; 1998). Individuals were free to pursue relationships

outside of the confines of the family as a result of their new economic freedom, thus creating

conditions a little more conducive to same-sex coupling. Moreover, the existence of individuals

separate from the traditional family unit made it possible for same sex attraction to shift into

homosexual identity (D'Emilio 1992; 1998).

These same social conditions also promoted the increased legal and social restriction of

homosexual activity. Despite the fact that capitalism arguably weakened the nuclear family

economically, it also "enshrined the family as the source of love, affection, and emotional

security" (D'Emilio 1998: 473). The family then moved from being an economic mainstay, to

being the centerpiece of social stability. In addition, D'Emilio (1998) argues that

ideologically, capitalism drives people into heterosexual families ... materially, capitalism
weakened the bonds that once kept families together so that their members experience a
growing instability in a place they have come to expect happiness and emotional security.
Thus, while capitalism has knocked the material foundation away from family life,
lesbians, gay men and heterosexual feminists have become the scapegoat for the social
instability of the system. (473)

Accordingly, homosexuality comes to be viewed with increasing negativity, a social ill that

needs to be diagnosed and then treated.









The combination of the stronger ideology of the nuclear family and the deepening sexual

division of labor combined to create homosexuality as an aberrant behavior. Additionally, the

later 1800's also saw an increasing drive to categorize and explain behavior, especially deviant

behavior, medically. The early medical explanations of same sex attraction sought to explain the

behavior as a manifestation of inappropriate gender identity, such that the first terms used

referred to gender "inversion" or sexual inversion. Having said that, however, sexual inversion

was a far broader term than homosexuality, and referenced a wide range of gender deviant

behaviors, including masculine behaviors in women such as an interest in politics and feminine

behaviors in men, such as an effeminate appearance (Halperin 1989; 1990; 2000; Weeks 1985;

1991; 2000). Consequently, same sex attraction was viewed as a pathological expression of

behavior at variance with what was deemed natural behavior for men and women (Halperin

2000).

These early sexologists formulated theories of behavior that argued for recognition of

inverts as a third sex, therefore cementing the idea that such conduct was biological and innate

(Marshall 1981). By way of illustration:

[Karl Heinrich] Ulrichs argues that homosexuality was congenital, resulting from an
anomalous combination of male and female characteristics in a single biological body. The
human embryo, he believed, is at first neither male nor female but develops these
characteristics only after the first few months of life. In the male homosexual the genitals
become male, but the same differentiation fails to occur in that part of the brain that
determines the sex drive. The result is a 'feminine soul in a male body.' (Marshall
1981:142)

These ideas were of critical importance in the medicalization of homosexuality and formed the

basis for much of the later work in sexology.

Although the medical profession started investigating sexual activity in the mid 1800's, it

wasn't until 1868 that the term "homosexual" was first used. "Homosexual" was initially

conceptualized by a writer, Karl Maria Kertbeny, in a political campaign to try and prevent the









criminalization of same-sex activity in Germany (D'Emilio 1992; Katz 1976; Weeks 1991). At

the time, Kertbeny used "homosexual" to simply describe sexual attraction between members of

the same sex, in opposition to the prevailing view of gender inversion. This initial usage was

vague enough to allow for appropriation of the term by the medical profession for description of

particular kinds of people (D'Emilio 1992; Katz 1976; Weeks 1991).

Despite the fact that some sexologists were arguing that since homosexuality was

biological, and therefore should not be subj ect to criminal prosecution, most medical

professionals viewed it as a disease and pathology (Adam 1985; 1995; D'Emilio 1992;

Greenberg 1988; Greenberg & Bystryn 1996). They were embedded within an ideological

system that viewed any extramarital intercourse as deviant, and their research reflected this. As

D'Emilio (1998) reports,

medical views bore a complex relation to the older perspectives of religion and law. In
important ways they reinforced the cultural matrix that condemned and punished people
that engaged in homosexual activity ... Doctors did not ply their trade in a vacuum,
moreover, and the language of the moralist permeated the scientific literature. It is difficult
to imagine a physician describing pneumonia as 'shocking to every sense of decency,
disgusting and revolting,' yet one did apply this phrase to a case of homosexuality. (8)

The medical discourse superseded religion and provided a scientific explanation of what is

natural, thus effecting a shift from the view of homosexuality as sin to homosexuality as sick

(D'Emilio 1998; Irvine 2003; Rahman 2000).

The early understanding of homosexuality as a biological congenital condition gave way to

the conceptualization of homosexuality as a mental illness with the advent of psychology and

psychoanalysis. The key figure here, of course, is Sigmund Freud. Freudian analysis posited that

the important element in understanding sexuality is the psyche, not the body, such that sexuality

is rooted in unconscious, instinctual drives. Although Freud himself did not talk much about

homosexuality (D'Emilio 1995; Rahman 2000; Weeks 1985), he did advance theories of normal









sexuality and sexual development-heterosexuality-compared to the abnormal sexual object

choice of the homosexual. Homosexuality, then, was viewed as "a failure of achieved normality"

(Weeks 1985: 154). Freud's successors in psychoanalysis built on his theories to formulate a

detailed model of homosexuality as pathology, a mental illness or psychological malady to be

diagnosed and cured.

The prevailing view of homosexuality as a sickness prompted the search for suitable

treatments and cures. As a result, homosexual men and women were hospitalized by their

families and subj ect to experimentation by doctors (Adam 1995; D'Emilio 1992). Some of the

treatments were fairly gentle and included hypnosis and psychotherapy. On the other end of the

spectrum were procedures such as castration, hysterectomy, lobotomy and electric shock therapy

(D'Emiliol992). This perception of homosexuality as a disease and the severity of some of the

suggested treatments also reflected societal perception of the threat posed by deviant sexuality.

Although notions of homosexuality as sickness were generally detrimental to the

individual, the medical model prompted further development of homosexual identity. The

isolation of sexual obj ect choice from what Halperin (1989) calls secondary characteristics of

masculinity and femininity by famed sexologist Havelock Ellis, and Freud's analytical

distinction between sexual obj ect choice and sexual aim allowed for a new taxonomy of sexual

behavior, and sexual psychology based on the biological sex of the individuals involved. From

this, ideas of sexual identity began to develop from the labels these sexual actors were given.

Despite being labeled "sick" for instance, those engaged in same sex sexual activity now had a

name for themselves and their behaviors. There is some debate among historians as to the impact

of medicine on the development of a gay and lesbian community (Irvinel1994), what is clear,

however, is that the medicalization of homosexuality promoted gay and lesbian identity since









erotic desire for the same sex became an inescapable part of one' s being (D'Emilio 1992; Irvine

1994; Rahman 2000; Seidman 1996). As Foucault (1990) explains, "homosexuality began to

speak in its own behalf, to demand that its legitimacy or 'naturality' be acknowledged, often in

the same vocabulary, using the same categories by which it was medically disqualified" (101).

Thus, by turning same sex attraction into a clinical entity, doctors provided the discourse

necessary for the formation of identity based upon sexual expression.

Initial categorization and description of homosexuality was meant, in some cases, to spur

the fight for civil rights and to argue against the criminalization of homosexuality. Although the

homosexual identity discourse started appearing in the late 1800's and early 1900's, it was not

until the 1950's that the political identity necessary for social movement organization developed

(Adam 1995; Engel 2001). The first major homosexual civil rights group the Mattachine

Society, was founded in April 195 1 by an active member of the Communist Party, Harry Hay

(Adam 1995; D'Emilio 1998; Engel 2001; Marotta 1981; Taylor, Kaminski & Dugan 2002). The

neophyte group defined itself as a homophilee" organization, rather than a homosexual group, in

an attempt to distance themselves from overtly sexual descriptors. Instead, the society hoped to

portray homosexuality as an emotional attachment as well as a sexual one (Esterberg 1994;

Marotta 1981). The goal of the Mattachine Society was initially to liberate homosexuals, and

galvanize the gay community into militant political activity (D'Emilio 1998; Rimmerman 2002),

as the following principles illustrate:

SA smaller organization, The Society for Human Rights, was founded in Chicago in 1925 (Adam 1995;
Bullough 1979; Licata 1985; Marotta 1981; Taylor et al. 2002). This group was formulated primarily to
fight for law reform in Illinois and purposely targeted prominent citizens such as birth control proponent
Margaret Sanger for support, which failed (Licata 1985). The group never had more than ten members
and was disbanded rather quickly after the wife of one of them filed charges against him for contributing
to the delinquency of a minor in the person of their son (Bullough 1985; Licata 1985). The four active
members were subsequently arrested, and one was fined (Adam 1995; Bullough 1989).









'TO UNIFY' those homosexuals isolated from their own kind

'TO EDUCATE' homosexuals and heterosexuals toward an ethical homosexuals culture
.. paralleling the emerging cultures of our fellow-minorities-the Negro, Mexican and
Jewish peoples ..

'TO LEAD': the more ... socially conscious homosexuals [are to] provide leadership to
the whole mass of social deviates and also

"to assist 'our people who are victimized daily as a result of our oppression."' (Quoted in
Adam 1995: 68)

A change in the leadership in 1953 resulted in a radical change of policy, however, and the

Mattachine Society moved from a liberationist stance to one of accommodation and integration,

insisting that homosexuality was a "minor characteristic that should not foster a rift with the

heterosexual majority" (Engel 2001: 32). Consequently, movement strategies shifted to

encompass a nonconfrontational stance designed to facilitate acceptance of homosexuality in the

wider culture (D'Emilio 1983; Engel 2001; Taylor et al. 2002).

The 1950's also saw the emergence of the first women' s hemophile organization, the

Daughters of Bilitis (DOB). It was founded by four couples in San Francisco in 1955, although

Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon were the two women mostly responsible for its appearance

(D'Emilio 1998; Marotta 1981). Much like the reformulation of the Mattachine Society, DOB

adopted an integrationist stance, with a particular focus on educating the general public

(Bernstein 1997; D'Emilio 1992; 1998; Engel 2001; Esterberg 1994; Marotta 1981). They sought

to dispel "myths, misinformation and prejudice" (D'Emilio, 1998: 103) surrounding lesbian

sexuality, participate in professional research proj ects, and work for legal change (D'Emilio

1998; Esterberg 1994).

The assimilationist discourse of the hemophile movement stressed the similarity of

homosexuals and heterosexuals in an attempt to reduce social hostility (D'Emilio 1998;

Rimmerman 2002). As Rimmerman (2002) explains, "their strategy was to present themselves as









reasonable, well adjusted people, hoping these heterosexual arbiters of public opinion [the

"professionals"] would rethink their assumptions regarding homosexuality" (22). In other words,

they believed that they needed the support of experts to gain credibility in their campaign for

equality (D'Emilio 1998). One of their key strategies was to de-emphasize the sexual aspect of

homosexual relationships as it was this that was creating most social condemnation (Rimmerman

2002). This "quest for legitimacy" (D'Emilio 1998) was the prevalent strategy through the end

of the 1950's and into the 1960's, up until the time of Stonewall, for both the Mattachine Society

and DOB. Nevertheless, there were a few dissenting voices, including Franklin Kameny and

Barbara Gittings, urging for a far more confrontational approach that included picketing

(D'Emilio 1998; 2000; D'Emilio & Freedman 1988; Engel 2001; Rimmerman 2002).The more

militant activists championed a far more active stance against antihomosexual ideals, including

the first well-publicized gay rights pickets in Washington in 1965 to protest employment

discrimination (Licata 1985; Vaid 1995). Interestingly, the protesters' behavior and clothing was

supervised by Kameny in order to challenge the stigmatizing stereotypes of lesbians and gay men

(Licata 1985).

The 1960's were a period of profound social unrest, highlighted by mass mobilization of

both blacks and whites to end racial discrimination (Freeman & Johnson 1999; Rimmerman

2002). The move toward a proactive stance by the more radical members of the hemophile

movement embraced the politics and social movement activism of the civil rights movement,

such that the mobilization strategies adopted by the two were often similar (Adam 1979; 1995;

Button, Rienzo & Wald 1997; D'Emilio 1998; Licata 1985; Murray 1996; Rimmerman 2002).

Activists protested discriminatory public policy, organized protests and boycotts, and even

arranged a motorcade to protest the exclusion of homosexuals from the military (Altman 1993;









Engel 2001; Marotta 1981; Vaid 1995). The common thread was still the desire to assimilate into

the wider society-only the movement strategies had changed (Altman 1993). According to Engel

(2001), this was a primary reason for the failure to mobilize the same number of people evident

in the civil rights movement: "by advocating that homosexuals should assimilate, and that the

only difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality was fundamentally unimportant, [the

hemophile movement] destroyed any possibility of mass mobilization because it devastated the

potential for collective identity formation" (3 8). Consequently, attempts to organize during this

time period were ultimately unsuccessful.

The latter part of the 1960's provided one of the most pivotal moments in the development

of gay and lesbian civil rights movements-the Stonewall riots (Adam 1995; Button, Rienzo &

Wald. 1997; Miller 1998; Rimmerman 2002). The evening of June 27th 1969 saw the police raid

a gay bar in New York's Greenwich Village, a not uncommon occurrence during this time period

(Adam 1995; Bullough 1979; Carter 2004; D'Emilio & Freedman 1988; Marotta 1981; Miller

1998). What distinguished this particular night was that the bar patrons fought back, sparking a

two day street battle (Adam 1979; D'Emilio 1998; Licata 1985; Marotta 1981). The following

night saw graffiti bearing the legend "gay power" and the Mattachine Society in New York

prepared special leaflets calling for organized resistance (Adam 1995; D'Emilio 1998). The

Stonewall riots sparked demonstrations across the country and intense discussion of"the first

gay riot in history" (D'Emilio 1998: 232). The aftermath of the disturbances intensified political

mobilization and saw the rise of a new kind of homosexual activism, gay and lesbian liberation

(Adam 1995; Button et al. 1997; D'Emilio 1998; Engel 2001; Rahman 2000; Rimmerman 2002;

Weeks 2000).









The advent of the gay and lesbian liberation movement marked a profound shift in the

political and social organizing of both gay men and lesbian women, including a change in

terminology (Adam 1995; Altman 1993; D'Emilio 1992; Engel 2001). Similar to the manner in

which the black civil rights movement rej ected "Negro," the fledgling gay liberation movement

also argued for new descriptors (Licata 1985). The term "homosexual" was rej ected as being too

often associated with the medical establishment and imposed upon gays and lesbians to imply

sickness (Engel 2001; Licata 1985; Marotta 1981). The ideals of the hemophile movement were

treated with disdain, and the word homophilee" abandoned for its association with an outmoded

assimilationist ideology (Engel 2001; Licata 1985; Marotta 1981). These two terms were

replaced by the word "gay," an expression used by homosexuals to identify one another (Engel

2001; Licata 1985), and was a "recognition of internal power" (Engel 2002: 388). A member of

the Gay Liberation Front explains it thus, "the artificial categories of 'homosexual' and

'heterosexual' have been laid on us by a sexist society" (Young 1970-quoted in D'Emilio &

Freedman 1988: 322). For this Gay Liberation Front member, the term gay was embraced as it

freed sexuality from its previous confines.

The gay liberation movement had its roots in the New Left principles of other social

movements from the 1960's, in particular black civil rights and women' s liberation (Adam 1995;

D'Emilio 1992; Enge, 2001; Licata 1985; Rimmerman 2002). They did not see themselves as

purely a gay and lesbian civil rights movement, but rather as a part of the wider radical

movement to eradicate oppression (Adam 1995; Altman 1993). The liberationist ideology

represented a total break with the hemophile movement: the hemophile movement emphasized

assimilation and sameness whereas the gay liberation movement highlighted the need for radical

social overhaul. The Gay Liberation Front (GLF), founded only a couple of months after the









Stonewall riots announced: "we are a revolutionary homosexual group of men and women

formed with the realization that complete sexual liberation for all people cannot come about

unless existing social institutions are abolished. We rej ect society' s attempt to impose sexual

roles and definitions on our nature" (quoted in D'Emilio & Freedman 1988: 321). In other

words, liberationists embraced their sexuality and difference, and urged social change to reflect

this. They argued that homosexuality was a natural capacity for everyone, and that oppression

stemmed from rigid enforcement of heterosexuality through the nuclear family (Adam 1995;

Altman 1993; D'Emilio & Freedman 1988; Engel 2002; Terry 1999).

Two critical features of the gay liberation movement had a lasting impact on gay and

lesbian politics: the notion of "coming out" and the mobilization of lesbians (Adam 1995;

D'Emilio 1992; 2000; D'Emilio & Freedman 1988; Engel 2001; Miller 1998), women had

constituted only a small fragment of the hemophile movement. Before Stonewall (D'Emilio

1992) even DOB, an exclusively female organization, could not boast of a large membership.

The emergence of gay liberation at about the same time as women' s liberation propelled large

numbers of lesbian and heterosexual women into political activity (Adam 1995; D'Emilio 1992).

Women's issues had been largely ignored in the hemophile movement, but the convergence of

feminism and gay liberation provided a space for lesbian women to organize around issues

important to both lesbian and heterosexual women.

The other feature of gay liberation with a profound impact on the future was the idea of

"coming out" (Button et al. 1997; D'Emilio 1992; 1998; Engel 2001; 2002; Miller 1998; Vaid

1995). Before gay liberation, coming out had referred to the notion of individual gay men and

lesbian women acknowledging one another's sexual identity (D'Emilio 1998; Engel 2001; 2002).

Liberationists took the term and recast it into a profoundly political move: "a critical step on the









road to freedom, coming out implied a rej section of negative social meaning attached to

homosexuality in favor of pride and self acceptance ... thus, the act became both a marker of

liberation and an act of resistance against oppressive society" (D'Emilio & Freedman 1988:

322). As a result, homosexuals embraced coming out as crucial step in the process of affirming a

positive sexual identity as either a gay man or a lesbian woman. It represented adoption of a

unique sexual identity, self-affirmation in that identity, and came to encompass a wide range of

activities and relationships that define a way of life (D'Emilio & Freedman 1988).

The assumption of a positive sexual identity provided the impetus necessary for mass

political mobilization of gays and lesbians (D'Emilio 1992; Rahman 2000; Rimmerman 2002).

The "out" gays and lesbians used their newly visible status to fight for civil rights in a manner

impossible under the hemophile movement, as that was characterized by secrecy. After coming

out gay and lesbian political identity flourished as the sheer act of coming out meant an

investment in the success of the gay and lesbian movement due to their visibility and resultant

vulnerability to attack (D'Emilio 1998). Prior to Stonewall, and after nearly 20 years of activism,

there were only about 50 hemophile organizations, but by 1973 the liberation movement could

boast more than 800 gay and lesbian groups with close to one thousand at the end of the 1970's

(D'Emilio 1992; 1998; Engel 2001; 2002). Moreover, the first anniversary of the Stonewall riots

saw an astonishing 5000 (some estimates put the number as high as 10,000) people march in

New York to commemorate the event (D'Emiliol992; 1998). Homosexuality, then, had morphed

from a shameful stigma into an identity to be proud of.

The strong political mobilization of the 1970's saw a number of breakthroughs for the gay

and lesbian movement. Of critical importance was the removal of homosexuality by the

American Psychiatric Association (APA) from the list of "sicknesses"-the Diagnostic and









Statistical Manual-in 1973 (Adam 1979; 1995; Brewer, Kaib & O'Connor 2000; D'Emilio

2000). The liberation movement frequently protested APA conventions where treatment of

homosexuality was discussed, and vociferously rej ected notions of homosexuality as a mental

illness. The remarkable turnaround was not due to APA members changing their minds, but

instead was the result of "an aggressive and sustained campaign by lesbian and gay activists"

(Rimmerman 2002: 86). Activists also protested anti-homosexual laws and promoted legal

reform. As a result, half the states repealed their sodomy laws during the 1970's, the US Civil

Service Commission lifted its ban on employing gays and lesbians, and a number of large cities

incorporated sexual preference into civil rights laws (Adam 1995; Button et al.1997; D'Emilio &

Freedman 1988; Rimmerman 2002).

The 1970's, then, was a time of political gains and a period of community building and

strengthening (Adam 1995; D'Emilio 1992; Seidman 1996). A number of gay and lesbian

oriented media outlets appeared, including numerous books, magazines and newspapers, most

notably the Advocate and Washington Blade (Engel 2001). These publications provided new and

exciting opportunities for gay and lesbian self expression, and reinforced the sense of collective

identity developed through political activism (Engel 2001; Rahman 2000). The burgeoning sense

of community was further strengthened by the emergence of visibly gay residential areas,

including the Castro district of San Francisco (D'Emilio 1992). Not only did these areas provide

safe living spaces, but also additional opportunities for political activism and political power, to

the point that an openly gay city supervisor was elected in San Francisco2. By the end of the



2 The supervisor, Harvey Milk, was assassinated in 1978, along with San Francisco mayor George
Moscone (Adam 1995; D'Emilio 1992; Engel 2001). It is widely believed that the killer, Dan White, was
politically motivated. He was the most conservative member in City Hall and believed he had been
betrayed by liberals in the city (Adam 1995). A former policeman, White received the minimum possible
sentence (a little under 8 years and he was out in 5), in spite of the fact that the murder of public officials
was a capital crime (Adam 1995). The lenient sentence was greeted with outrage and sparked rioting in

























































San Francisco (Adam 1995: D'Emilio 1992). Police (many of whom wore "Free Dan White" shirts during
the trial) retaliated by 'invading' Castro Street, attacking pedestrians and destroying a gay bar (Adam
1995: D'Emilio 1992).


1970's, the gay and lesbian civil rights movements had a number of new national political

organizations, gays and lesbians had become visible, and the notion of gay and lesbian political

and social identity was firmly entrenched.

The move toward establishing gay and lesbian social and political identity is embedded in

a discursive framework closely resembling that of the black civil rights movement (Bronski

1998; Button, Rienzo & Wald 2000; Epstein 1998). The "ethnic identity model" (Epstein 1998)

allowed "lesbians and gay men [to claim] legitimacy as a deprived minority entitled to basic

human rights" (Button et al. 2000: 270) in much the same ways as African Americans appealed

for equal protection under law. In other words, gays and lesbians oriented themselves around

their newly conceived sexual identities, used these identities to crystallize political mobilization,

and put forward strong claims to the same civil rights as other minority groups (Bronski 1998;

Button et al. 1997; 2000; Epstein 1998; Rimmerman 2002). Logically, "if one views gays and

lesbians as similar to other disadvantaged minorities, the conventional liberal strategy is to

extend to homosexuals the same legal protections granted to blacks, women and other

minorities" (Button et al. 1997: 62). Furthermore, strategic use of the ethnic identity discourse

promotes a sense of legitimacy within the gay and lesbian community as it creates a kind of

public affirmation of sexual identity (Adam 1995; Button et al. 1997; 2000). Consequently, "a

politics of identity is also a politics of social meaning. That is, because identity is a name, it is a

signifier of social meaning (Bailey 1999: 27).









The political mobilization of gays and lesbians not only led to the removal of sodomy

statutes in over half the states, but also to a number of maj or cities adding sexual preference to

their existing civil rights statutes (Adam 1995; D'Emilio 1998; D'Emilio & Freedman 1988).

These cities included Boston, San Francisco and Washington D.C. Gay and lesbian activists also

lobbied for including sexual orientation protection at the state level, and found sponsors to

endorse a federal civil rights law (D'Emilio 1998; D'Emilio & Freedman 1988).

A burgeoning sense of collective identity within the gay and lesbian community, combined

with a powerful and sometimes successful politics of identity, ignited a storm of protest from

opponents, most notably the NCR (Bull & Gallagher 1996; Button, Rienzo & Wald 1997). Of

particular interest is the 1977 Save Our Children campaign, spearheaded by Anita Bryant, to

repeal a Dade County, FL, antidiscrimination ordinance including sexual orientation (Adam

1995; Bryant 1977; Bull & Gallagher 1996; D'Emilio 2000). This was the first time that the

passage of any pro-gay legislation had met with organized resistance. Moreover, the Eight was a

key battleground between the competing ideologies of religious conservatism and sexual

liberalism, and was the first of many such clashes (D'Emilio & Freedman 1993).

Bryant' s crusade hinged on two key arguments: that protection for gays and lesbians would

be detrimental to children' s wellbeing, (as she argued, "... you would be discriminating against

my children' s right to grow up in a healthy, decent community ..." [Bryant 1977: 16]); second

that civil rights legislation gave preferential treatment to gays and lesbians (Button et al.1997;

Clendinen & Nagourney 1999; Rimmerman 2002). Bryant was chiefly responsible for the idea

that gays and lesbians actively work to recruit children. She argued, "homosexuals cannot

reproduce-so they must recruit. And to freshen their ranks, they must recruit the youth of

America" (Bryant 1977: 62). Her campaign literature reinforced these arguments by including









references to newspaper articles detailing instances of pedophilia between adult men and

younger boys and bearing the headline, "THERE IS NO 'HUMAN RIGHT' TO CORRUPT

OUR CHILDREN" (Bryant 1977: 90-emphasis in original). These arguments played into

entrenched fears regarding gays as child molesters, and resonated profoundly with voters in

Miami both then and now (Adam 1995; Bronski 1998). Indeed, the conceptualization of the

predatory homosexual is still a key factor in antigay rhetoric (Adam 1995; Bronski 1998;

Herman 1997; Rimmerman 2002; Smith & Windes 2000).

Notwithstanding the potency of the pedophile argument, the second of Bryant' s arguments,

that of preferential treatment, was perhaps the most critical (Bull & Gallagher 1996; Button et al.

1997; D'Emilio & Freedman 1993; Herman 1997; Rimmerman 2000; Stein 2001). Her

opposition to the Dade County antidiscrimination ordinance stemmed from her belief that gays

and lesbians are not deserving of legislative protection in the same manner as other minority

groups: "we were not opposing an individual's right to be treated with equality and fairness, but

we did rise in opposition to the misleading demand of so-called civil rights for homosexuals who

are not a legitimate oppressed minority with the same claims and rights as, say Chicanos or

blacks" (Bryant 1977: 34). The challenge, therefore, was to any discussion of gays and lesbians

as a minority group. As a result, any attempt to argue for civil rights would be vehemently

opposed, since the gay and lesbian community was not perceived as having a genuine social and

political identity.

The success of the Save Our Children campaign galvanized NCR opponents to the gay and

lesbian civil rights movement across the country. By 1978, similar civil rights initiatives had

been repealed in Eugene, St. Paul and Wichita (Clendinen & Nagourney 1999; Rimmerman

2002) and the NCR' s opposition to gay rights had gained momentum on the strength of the "no









special rights" platform (Button et al.1997; Green 2000; Rimmerman 2002). The core of the

argument stems from an "antirights discourse" that repudiates claims to a legitimate gay and

lesbian sexual identity, and denies the oppression of homosexuals and homosexuality (Herman

1997). According to Button et al (1997), the cooptation of the rights discourse by the NCR goes

through four steps: first, civil rights are defined as those rights specifically reserved for deserving

minorities-those who have suffered discrimination; second, legal protections are defined as

special rights that can be given or taken away by the maj ority, who have ordinary rights not

special rights; third, these special rights are earned by those who qualify on the basis of various

hardships and these special rights are deemed appropriate treatment for having endured; fourth,

extending such rights imposes no cost on society. According to these premises, gay people do

not deserve these special rights as they have not suffered discrimination like other "deserving

minorities." Furthermore, opponents argue that gays and lesbians have, in fact, more wealth and

more political power than any other minority group, and are therefore even further removed from

any justifiable claim to minority status (Button et al. 1997; Herman 1997).

The antirights discourse of the NCR remained a significant part of their antigay activism

through the 1980's and 1990's (Herman 1997; Rimmerman 2002). Without a doubt, the

continued adherence of the gay rights movement to a politics based on recognition of

homosexuality as a genuine social and political identity structured much of the NCR rhetorical

framing. Political campaigners in the gay and lesbian civil rights movement wedded to the ethnic

identity model unwittingly aided NCR activism as it gave the NCR a proven discursive

framework to structure their opposition (Green 2000).

Where Religion and Sexuality Meet: The Ex-Gays

Focus on the Family, as one of the maj or organizations in NCR activism, campaigned

vigorously against any legal recognition of gays and lesbians. They argued against gay marriage,










calling it a threat to the very existence of society (Dobson 1990; 2004), and fought any

legislation that included sexual orientation-including anti-discrimination laws and gay adoption

laws (Diamond 1996; Dobson 2004; Gilgoff 2007; Hedges 1996). At the core of their arguments

was still the "no special rights" platform started by Anita Bryant, and a cornerstone of NCR

activist discourse. They stressed, time and again, that homosexuals were not a minority in the

same way as racial and ethnic minorities (Dobson 2004; Straight Answers, 2003), and were

therefore not in need of legislative protection.

In addition to the rights discourse, FOTF promoted the idea that homosexuality was

preventable, treatable and changeable (Haley 2004; Nicolosi & Nicolosi 2002). Embedded

within notions of sexual identity is the idea that it is immutable, unchangeable (Epstein 1999). In

much the same way as African Americans are born black, homosexuals are born gay-and

therefore deserving of equal protection under law since sexuality is a core part of their being.

Any contradictory evidence would seriously undermine the bid by lesbians and gay men for legal

recognition on the basis of sexual identity. By advancing the idea that homosexuality is

treatable, and by challenging certain assumptions regarding immutable sexual identity, FOTF

take direct aim at the heart of gay and lesbian identity politics

Focus on the Family takes the position that there is in fact, an immutable sexual identity-

everyone is born heterosexual (Haley 2004; Nicolosi & Nicolosi 2002). In the words of Mike

Haley (2004), in charge of mobilization at FOF, former director of Gender Issues at FOTF and

keynote speaker at Love Won Out: "There is no such thing as a homosexual ... We are all

SPlaskow (2005) suggests that grounding the discussion of gay and lesbian civil rights in biological arguments is
fundamentally flawed. Instead, she suggests that social constructionist arguments should be used to "place the issue
of homosexuality in the larger context of the feminist critique of gender roles, compulsory heterosexuality, and
traditional sexual ethics" (178).

SErzen (2006) argues this as a queer identity conversion as it necessitates the destabilization of sexual identity
categories.









biological heterosexuals. To be sure, some heterosexuals find themselves dealing with a

homosexual problem ... .But to firmly identify oneself as a homosexual is to buy into the false

idea that two distinct, valid, immutable orientations exist" (22). Therefore, since everyone is

naturally heterosexual, the "homosexual problem" can be treated. Furthermore, the assumption

that everyone is heterosexual ne gates arguments for gay civil rights. A booklet sold at the L WO

conferences explains it thus:

If society was convinced that people were born gay, then some would feel there is a need
to protect homosexuals by the government as a designated minority class status, such as
African- or Native-Americans. Slowly but surely, it seems the government is embracing
this view and granting special rights to the homosexual community for what is
behaviorally based identity rather than a true genetic one. (Straight Answers 2003: 8)

FOTF use the language of special rights in concert with their promotion of the homosexuality-

can-be-cured message to fight back against the gay and lesbian civil rights movement.

The idea that homosexuality can be cured is the central message of the Love Won Out

conferences. The following extract comes from the Love Won Out website and details exactly

what the conferences are about: "Focus on the Family is promoting the truth that change is

possible for those who experience same-sex attractions ... .We want people to know that

individuals don't have to be gay and that a homosexual identity is something that can be

overcome. That's why we've developed a one-day conference for those seeking answers on this

often confusing and divisive issue" (www.lovewonout.com 2007). In other words, L WO is

solely designed to promulgate the idea that homosexuality is treatable and that gays and lesbians

can change.

The L WO conferences are part of the wider ex-gay movement that first appeared in the

1970's, and is situated within evangelical religious doctrine as I just described it. The first ex-



5 In particular, Focus on the Family's reading of the Bible as inerrant.









gay ministry, New Hope (renamed Love in Action), was started by Frank Worthen in 1973

(Erzen 2006). Worthen spent 25 years as a homosexual himself, before reporting hearing God

calling him back to his faith. Having done so, Worthen then began his "God-given mission" to

counsel other gay individuals and bring them back to the Lord. Love in Action served as a

template for later ex-gay organizations, most especially those following a religious affiliation

with conservative Christian churches. Each ministry drew on a biblical understanding of

sexuality that grounded heterosexuality as the only, true, God-given and natural sexual

expression. These ex-gay ministries eventually came together under the umbrella organization of

Exodus International (for a detailed history of the ex-gay movement and Love in Action see

Erzen 2006)

Research into the ex-gay movement in social science had been virtually non-existent until

about 2003. Sporadic articles about Exodus International appeared (Fetner 2005; Ponticelli 1996;

1999), but most research was in psychology and critiqued reparative therapy (see, for example,

Drescher & Zucker 2006). Reparative therapy is used by many ex-gay programs to heal

homosexuality, and I explain the approach in more detail in chapters 3 and 4. More recently, an

in-depth ethnographic study examined identity transformation at New Hope Ministry (Erzen

2006), and a further study contrasted the pro-gay Christianity of the Metropolitan Community

Church with the ex-gay Christianity of Exodus (Wolkomir 2001; 2006).

My study adds to this body of literature in some significant ways. Firstly, the research site

has rarely been the obj ect of academic investigation (one gay and lesbian civil rights

organization, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, has published three different studies through

its Policy Institute). Most studies into the ex-gay movement have looked at ex-gay ministries

under the umbrella of Exodus International (Erzen 2006; Ponticelli 1996; 1999; Wolkomir 2001;










2006) or looked at only textual material (Bennett 2003; Burack & Josephson 2005; Robinson &

Spivey 2007). Love Won Out is a critical research venue since it brings the ex-gay message to a

far larger audience than the residential ministries of Exodus or, indeed, the Exodus annual

conference (L WO is allied with Exodus, however, and a number of the keynote speakers are on

the board). Furthermore, L WO appeal explicitly to parents and friends of lesbians and gays,

ministers, educators, and concerned citizens, in addition to the lesbians and gays themselves.

Theoretically and methodologically, this dissertation also adds to the body of literature on the ex-

gay movement, and the social psychological literature on the self, since the way in which Focus

on the Family constructs particular selves in service of their organization through Love Won Out

has not yet been studied.

In order to examine the manner in which Focus on the Family is redefining sexual identity

in the Love Won Out conferences, I use the concept of the "institutional self' (Gubrium &

Holstein 2001). In the following chapter, I explain the concept of the institutional self trace its

theoretical development from the original conceptualization of the uniquely social self, into the

postmodern world of multiple sites of discursive identity. Since the institutional self is a

methodological as well as theoretical orientation, I also turn to a discussion of my

methodological analysis in chapter 2. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 provide the empirical basis for my

arguments. In chapter 6, I conclude by summarizing the key findings and conclusions of this

research.









CHAPTER 2
ANALYZING INSTITUTIONAL SELVES: THEORY AND METHOD

The Development of the Social Self

The Love Won Out conferences promote a very specific conceptualization of sexual

identity. Over the course of the day, the speakers take the audience on the very same j ourney that

they themselves went through-from the troubled and desperate homosexual, to finding God, to

the climax of healing and hopefully becoming a happy heterosexual. To fully understand the

rhetorical construction of this self transition l use Gubrium & Holstein' s (2001) notion of the

institutional self. Institutional self describes the manner in which different social institutions

legitimate and promote the production of particular selves. This formulation of narrative identity

has its roots in early symbolic interactionist understandings of the self. In this chapter, I first

trace the development of the social self in order to make plain the complex theoretical origins of

the self, and the subsequent move into a postmodern orientation toward self construction and

narrative identity. In so doing, I situate my study within the larger body of literature surrounding

narrative self identity.

Holstein and Gubrium's (2000) narratively constructed self is an extension of the

uniquely social self initially conceived by James, Cooley, Mead, Blumer and Goffman (Holstein

& Gubrium 2000; Meltzer et al. 1975; Reynolds 1990; Reynolds & Herman-Kinney 2003; Stone

& Farberman 1970). This newly social self signified a break with the way the self had

traditionally been conceptualized in Western thought; it moved from an abstract, transcendental

self to one empirically grounded in social reality (Holstein & Gubrium 2000; Meltzer, Petras &

Reynolds 1975; Reynolds 1970).

William James was one of the first philosophers to conceive of a self outside of the

metaphysical realm (Holstein & Gubrium 2000, Meltzer et al. 1975; Reynolds 2003). For James,









the self was empirically grounded in everyday life and experience. One of the key components in

this empirical self was what James referred to as the social self. As he explains, "a man' s Social

self is the recognition which he gets from his mates" (James 1983: 281). This social self is

embedded within social interaction, and comes to be understood through communication with

others. As James (1983) explains, "properly speaking a man has as many social selves as there

are individuals who recognize him and carry an image of him in their mind" (281i-emphasis in

original). In other words, as we move through society and interact with different individuals, so

each of those individuals come to have different views of our self. This conception of multiple

selves came later to be viewed as the "multiple entity conception" (Reynolds 1970) and is still a

popular idea in the symbolic interactionist tradition (Reynolds 2003).

James (1983) emphasizes his notions of his empirical self by his refusal to distinguish

material elements of the self from more metaphysical elements:

In its widest possible sense, however, a man 's M~e is the sum total of all that he CAN call
his, not only his body and his psychic powers, but also his clothes, and his house, his wife
and children, his ancestors and friends, his reputation and works, his lands and horses, and
yacht and bank account (279-emphasis in original).

James's empirical self also includes the pure ego, the material self (body, clothes, friends, family

possessions etc.) and the spiritual self (inner or subj ective beliefs) in addition to the social self.

James's empirical self is also cast as reflexive as the self is both knower and known; both

subject and obj ect and, in more familiar terms both "I" and "me" (Stone & Farberman 1970). For

James, there is a strong element of self awareness, hence the difference between the "I" and the

"me". As with later theorists of the self, James describes a difference between these two

elements of the self. The "I" is the origin of our self awareness, the knower, whereas the "me" is

the obj ect of our self awareness, the known. As he describes;

Whatever I may be thinking of, I am always at the same time more or less aware of myself,
of my personal existence. At the same time it is I who am aware; so that the total self of









me, being as it were duplex, partly known and partly knower, partly obj ect and partly
subj ect, must have two aspects discriminated in it, of which for shortness we may call one
the me and the other the I. I call these "discriminated aspects," and not separate things
because the identity of I with me ... must not be undermined by terminology. (James 1983:
373)

In other words, as I am sitting here in the library absorbed in thinking deep sociological thoughts,

I am also aware of my personal existence-separate from those thoughts: my feet are cold from

walking through the snow, I am hungry and I am going numb from sitting on a hard chair in a

metal cage for hours. Yet these two aspects of my self, although differentiated, can never be, and

should not be, separated. Each one is as much a part of me as the other.

Although James was one of the first to embed discussions of the self in the mundanity of

everyday life, Charles Horton Cooley believed that James' s discussions of knower and known

etc. were still too fundamentally abstract (Stone & Farberman 1970). Cooley's goal was to

further embed the self in everyday discourse. Indeed his theorizing was an advancement of

James's work: Cooley supposed that the self was not first a characteristic of the mind, and then

afterwards becoming social, instead he presumed that the self arises with the mind through

communication and social interaction (Holstein & Gubrium 2000; Stone & Farberman 1970;

Mead 1930; Wood 1930). While James recognized the influence of the social environment, he

was less interested in the development of the self through social interaction than in the spread of

the self through the social landscape (Mead 1930).

In the introduction to Human Nature and the Social Order, Cooley (1956) clearly

delineates the theoretical orientation he intends to follow for the entirety of his book; "the other

[stream of life history] comes by way of language, intercourse and education ... the social origin

of his life comes by the pathway of intercourse with other persons" (4-5). Cooley's emphasis on

social interaction continues into his discussion of an empirical or social self. Similar to James,

Cooley discusses the self in terms of the "I" and the "me", yet he immediately tries to distance









himself from the more abstract discussions of his predecessors. He does not want to concern

himself with metaphysical discussions of self or of pure ego, and is far more interested in the self

in everyday interaction (Cooley 1956; Holstein & Gubrium 2000; Stone & Farberman 1970)-to

quote: "although the topic of the self is regarded as an abstruse one, this abstruseness belongs

chiefly, perhaps, to the metaphysical discussions of the 'pure ego'-whatever that may be-while

the empirical self should not be very much more difficult to get hold of than other facts of the

mind" (Cooley 1956: 169).

Having dispensed with ego, Cooley turns his attention to his understandings of the social

self and one of his maj or contributions was the addition of feeling (Holstein & Gubrium 2000;

Perinbanayagam 1985; Stone & Farberman 1970)-or what he calls the "mineness" of the self. As

he explains, "the social self is simply any idea, or system of ideas, drawn from communication

that the mind cherishes as its own. Self feeling has its chief scope within the general life, not

outside of it; the special endeavor or tendency of which it is the emotional aspect finds its

principal field of exercise in a world of personal forces, reflected in the mind by a world of

personal impressions" (Cooley 1956: 179). In other words, the self is developed through

everyday social interaction (Holstein & Gubrium 2000; Perinbanayagam 1985; Stone &

Farberman 1970). Indeed by virtue of the fact that we each interact with a unique set of

individuals, so we draw upon a variety of experiences that form our own highly individual

feeling of "mineness"-or sense of self.

This seemingly instinctive appropriation of ideas was not Cooley's entire view of the self,

however. The importance of both self feeling and social interaction in Cooley's work was

indicative of his idea that we actually imagine how we appear to others, and adjust our self

accordingly-the now famous "looking glass self." As Cooley (1956) describes;









[the self] takes the form of a somewhat definite imagination of how one' s self-that is, any
idea he appropriates appears in a particular mind, and the kind of self-feeling one has is
determined by the attitude toward this attributed to the other mind. A social self of this
sort might be called the reflected or looking-glass self. (151-152)

This looking-glass self has three key components: (1) our imagination of how we appear to

others; (2) our imagination of how these others judge our appearance; and (3) our reaction to that

imagination (Cooley 1956; Holstein & Gubrium 2000; Macionis 2003; Meltzer et al. 1974; Prus

1996; Reynolds 1990; Stone & Farberman 1970). For example, when I am preparing myself to

face a new class for the first time, I find myself imagining how I would appear to these new

students; if I wear a suit what will they think? If I carry my motorcycle helmet what will they

think? If I am too soft on the first day of class, what will happen? Having imagined my

appearance to these new students, I then, according to Cooley, imagine their judgment of my

appearance. I cannot wear jeans as they may think me unprofessional, I already look too young

to scare them into behaving-therefore I cannot be too soft on them. I decide to wear a suit, not

carry my motorcycle helmet, and to be as strict as possible-my imagination tells me that such a

combination creates the best impression of "competent, professional and scholarly instructor."

Thus, this view of my self is firmly embedded within the social realm, and not a product purely

of my ego.

Although Cooley advanced understandings of the social self, it was Mead who made the

concept far more comprehensive, and provided an account of the manner in which the self

emerges and exists (Holstein & Gubrium 2000; Kuhn 1967; Meltzer et al. 1975; Perinbanayagam

1985; Reynolds 2003). Mead' s self is far less instinctive than Cooley's; whereas Cooley's self

instinctively appropriated ideas from others, Mead's self is more firmly embedded in society and

is highly interactive (Holstein & Gubrium 2000; Meltzer et al. 1975). Mead is, in fact, rather









critical of Cooley's notion of self-feeling as it leaves the self only nominally social (Holstein &

Gubrium 2000; Mead 1967).

Mead' s general thesis is that the self is part of the process of social interaction. Indeed,

one of Mead' s most important precepts is that our self-awareness is such that even our inner

thoughts are a form of communication, "communication in the sense of significant symbols,

communication which is not only directed to others, but also to the individual himself (Mead

1967: 139). This ability to be able to communicate with one's self therefore "necessarily implies

that one possesses a self. If you are capable of acting toward yourself as you do others, then you

have a self' (Reynolds 1990: 58). In other words, for Mead, having a self meant that an

individual could be an object to his or her self, and communicate accordingly (Blumer 1966;

Charon 1998).

Mead describes the development of the social self in relation to play and organized games

(see Charon 1979; Hewitt 1991; Mead 1967). The difference between the two is described thus,

"in that early stage, he passes from one role to another just as whim takes him. But in a game,

where a number of individuals are involved, then the child taking one role must be ready to take

the role of everyone else..." (Mead, 1967: 151). This describes the development of one of Mead' s

most famous concepts, the "generalized other."

Through the form of the generalized other the community of which the individual is a part

begins to exert influence. At this point there is awareness, within the individual selves, of a wider

society. Prior to the game stage, the child can only take on the role of one other form at a time.

During the game stage the self is constructed in reference to group attitudes and the child is able

to imagine taking a variety of roles with many generalized others. Continued social interactions

with generalized others forms patterns of interactions that create a certain consistency within the









self. For example, attending school every day for years and therefore interacting with the same

generalized other creates a "school self." The society in the context of school is a set of

universally significant symbols that arouse in school children a particular set of responses.

Society is characterized by Mead as the social interaction of selves with varying

generalized others. As was seen in the school example, patterns of behavior aroused by the

generalized other become more consistent over time and with experience, and thus easier to

predict. This is fundamental to the concept of society as it implies there are sets of common

meanings that call out common responses for a wide number of people. In addition to the

development of the generalized other in terms of group activities, Mead also describes

"generalized social attitudes" (1967: 260). These he describes as institutions: representations of

the common responses of all members of the community to a particular situation (Mead 1967).

The process of communication is as fundamental to the understanding of the larger social

community as it is to the construction of individual selves. Society is as much embedded in

social interaction as the self. Society is understood through the construction of generalized others

that are, in turn, formulated through social interaction and communication. To illustrate, "The

development of communication is not simply a matter of abstract ideas, but it is a process of

putting one' s self in the place of the other person' s attitude, communicating through significant

symbols" (Mead 1967: 327). Thus, society is constructed within the realm of human experience

through the communication of significant symbols.

Mead also describes a relationship between the subj ective and obj ective aspects of the

self-the "I" and the "me" (Hewitt 1976; Holstein & Gubrium 2000; Mead 1967; Meltzer et al.

1975; Perinbanayagam 1985; Reynolds 1990; 2003). The "I" is that which is more immediate,

spontaneous and impulsive, whereas the "me emphasizes the groups values, beliefs and, to a









certain extent, the internalization of the generalized other (Charon 1998; Hewitt 1976; Mead

1967; Perinbanayagam 1985; Reynolds 1990). Mead understood that the self is a continual

process of interaction and negotiation between the "I" and the "me." Furthermore, the presence

of both aspects of the self ensures not only a level of social control and conformity, but also

enables a level of novelt -even in ordinary, routine situations (Charon 1998; Hewitt 1976;

Reynolds 1990).

Herbert Blumer was one of Mead' s students at the University of Chicago (Hewitt 1984;

Holstein & Gubrium 2000). He acknowledges Mead's influences, and tries to organize Mead's

concepts of mind, self and society into a coherent framework. It is Blumer (1969) who coined the

term "symbolic interactionism" (in a footnote Blumer states that the term is a "barbaric

neologism that I coined in an offhand way in an article. The term somehow caught on and is now

in general use" (1969: 1). At the heart of Blumer' s (1969) work are, as he describes them, three

simple premises:

The first premise is that human beings act toward such things on the basis of the
meanings that the things have for them ... .The second premise is that the meaning of such
things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with one's
fellows. The third premise is that these meanings are handled in, and modified through, an
interpretive process used by the person dealing with the things he encounters. (2)

In other words, Blumer is concerned with the process of meaning-making through interactions

among individuals. His notion of the social world is the world of meanings that actors construct

and use for interaction. This process of meaning-making is continual. As Blumer (1969) reminds

readers,

The actor selects, checks, suspends, regroups, and transforms the meanings in light of the
situation in which he is placed and the direction of his action. Accordingly, interpretation
should not be regarded as a mere automatic application of established meanings but as a
formative process in which meanings are used and revised as instruments for the guidance
and formation of action. (5-emphasis added)









Similar to Mead, then, Blumer argues that the self emerges in everyday social interaction-

albeit in a far more coherent manner. In addition, Blumer adds the methodological reasoning for

how to proceed with analysis of an interactional self via social science. Blumer uses Mead' s

understanding of the interactional nature of the social world as a methodological call to study the

"empirical" social world of the everyday. He writes, "The empirical social world, in short, is the

world of everyday experience, the top layers of which we see in our lives and recognize in the

lives of others (Blumer 1969: 35)." Empirical, in this sense, referring to the pragmatist' s

conceptualization of experience (Holstein & Gubrium 2000).

In The Presentation of Self in Everydaly Life, Erving Goffman (1959) uses the notion of

human interaction as theatre, dramaturgy, to describe social interaction. As suggested by the title

of the manuscript, Goffman believes the self to be embedded in everyday life and presented to

audiences through performance interaction. The goal of the performance is to convince observers

of the legitimacy of the presentation, and thus achieve the desired response. As Goffman (1959)

explains, "when an individual appears in the presence of others, there will usually be some

reason for him to mobilize his activity so that it will convey an impression to others which it is in

his interests to convey" (4).

Although Goffman is also concerned with the development of the self in social interaction,

he differs from Mead and Blumer in his focus on social order and rituals of interaction (Gubrium

& Holstein 1997; Holstein & Gubrium 2000; Katovich & Reese 1993). Indeed, Goffman wanted

to know how the individual was implicit in maintaining social order-the self we present is

observable, conforms to social standards and works to present believable performances. The

audience is a vital component of the successful performance. Not only does the performer have a

responsibility to them to be as s/he is claiming, but the audience is required to treat the performer









with respect. As Goffman (1959) explains, "Society is organized on the principle that any

individual who possesses certain social characteristics has a moral right to expect that others will

value and treat him in an appropriate manner" (13). Furthermore, at times when the performance

breaks down, both the performer and the audience are expected to employ "defensive" and

"protective" practices to maintain the continuity of the interaction (Goffman 1959). Herein lies

one of the bases of the (now-classic) sociological term of impression management.

Consequently, both audience and performer have a stake in producing and maintaining coherent

selves. Furthermore, each individual has multiple selves that are pertinent to different

performances (Gubrium & Holstein 2000a).

For all of these theorists, the self is an interactionall accomplishment" (Gagne &

Tewkesbury 1999: 59) that is formulated through interaction with others, and is a reflexive,

active agent in the circumstances of its own production (Weigert & Gecas 2003). In other words,

the self is embedded within the discourse of everyday life: "self is here broadly understood to be

an unfolding reflective awareness of being-in-the-world, including a sense of one' s past and

future" (Ochs & Capps 1996: 21). Selves can therefore be understood through examination of the

social situations in which each self is produced.

From the social self to a narrative self

The social self of James, Mead, Blumer and Goffman is interwoven with the multiplicity

of selves exhibited as part of narrative identity in a postmodern world. As Gubrium & Holstein

(2001) explain, "the self is a thoroughly social structure ... the self unfolds within society ..

from this perspective if there is a personal self, it is not a private entity so much as it is a shared

articulation of traits, roles, standpoints and behaviors that individuals acquire through social

interaction" (6). This unfolding of self is essentially narrative in character, meaning that the self

and narrative are inseparable as we talk our selves into being (Davis 2005; Gubrium & Holstein









2000a; Ochs & Capps 1996). Through our everyday conversations both with ourselves and

others, we "tell" our lives and our stories (Davis 2005). As we do so, we learn who we are and

can use that to comprehend our selves (Gubrium & Holstein 2000b). Therefore, we know

ourselves through our use of narrative to give shape to our personal experiences and to format

our relationships with others (Ochs & Capps 1996).

These selves do not appear abstractly, however, nor are they impromptu (Gubrium &

Holstein 2000a). Rather they are constructed using available and identifiable cultural resources

(Davis 2005; Gagne & Tewkesbury 1999; Holstein & Gubrium 2000): "self-construction is

always accountable to the institutional preferences and the pertinent biographical particulars of

one's life" (Holstein & Gubrium 2000: 102). In other words, my own selves are always

somewhat informed by my race, age, sex etc. in addition to the narrative models available to me

in a particular social situation (Davis 2005; Gubrium & Holstein 2000a; Polletta 1998).

Any given social situation will have a particular set of narrative resources available for self

construction (Gubrium & Holstein 1995; 2000a; 2000b). Individuals draw upon these resources

to produce a recognizable entity that can be understood in context (Gubrium & Holstein 2000a;

Gubrium 1991). The social context in which interaction occurs is then important for mediating

who and what we are (Gubrium & Holstein 1996). These resources can be anything from

personal experiences, to bodies, to the social location and social identity of the individual actors

(Gubrium & Holstein 2000a; Crawley 2002; Gagne & Tewkesbury 1999). For example, as I

interact with my mother, my self is partially drawn from pervious shared experiences, as well as

my own social location as "daughter." Consequently, that "Helena-as-daughter" self will look

rather different from the "Helena-as-girlfriend" self or the "Helena-as-professor" selves, both of









which are constructed from a different set of experiences and performed from completely

different social locations.

Analysis of social situations provides only limited understanding of the manner in which

selves are produced, however. Although the self is embedded in everyday life and everyday

interactions, this everyday life is interactionally produced within different social environments

(Gubrium & Holstein 2000a; 2000b; Holstein & Gubrium 2000). In other words, the social

environment, or local culture (Gubrium 1991; Gubrium & Holstein 1995, 2000a), is also

implicated within narrative development of selves as it, too, provides a complex set of narrative

resources from which the individual can construct a self. Our stories and our selves are only

intelligible if we understand the wider institutional setting that may be influencing the available

discourses (Broad 2002; Davis 2005; Gubrium 1991; Gubrium & Holstein 2000a; 2001; Holstein

& Gubrium 2000; Loseke 2001; Polletta 1998).

Gubrium & Holstein (2000b) describe the various groups and organizations involved in

production of selves as "going concerns" which are "relatively stable, routinized, ongoing

patterns of action and interaction" (102). These going concerns are social institutions that also

have an actively "discursive quality" (102) that affirms or denies certain stories (Gubrium 2005)

and can range from large government organizations, to small informal gatherings and from

multimillion dollar religious organizations to transsexual support groups. What each of these has

in common is the production of numerous discourses that can be drawn upon to convey a certain

type of self.

The influence of local culture upon self construction does not mean that the individual

actor is completely at the mercy of institutional influence. She is not a puppet, rather she is a

skilful, active participant in the ongoing negotiation between institutional demands and









individual biography; "the self the emanates from the interplay among institutional demands,

restraints and resources on the one hand and biographically informed, self constituting social

actions on the other" (Gubrium & Holstein 2000b: 102). This interplay is defined as interpretive

practice, a process through which reality is "apprehended, understood, organized and

represented" (Gubrium & Holstein 2000b: 103).

For Holstein & Gubrium (2000), interpretive practice consists of both ethnomethodoloigcal

discursive practice, and Foucauldian discourses-in-practice. Discursive practice refers to the

manner in which individuals "do" society or "do" the self. In terms of self production, discursive

practice highlights the process of self actualization; consequently questions of what it is are

secondary to questions of how the self is produced. Thus, through discursive practice, the

process of self construction is analyzed.

In addition to discursive practice, Gubrium & Holstein (2000) also contend that

Foucauldian notions of discourse in practice are critical when trying to understand the

circumstances of self production. Where discursive practice examines the howss" of social

practice, discourse-in-practice is more concerned with the "whats" as these provide "the

resources and interpretive possibilities for self designation" (Gubrium & Holstein 2000b: 103).

These discourses-in-practice basically refer to the "conditions of possibility" or available cultural

and historical narrative resources. For example, under the narrative auspices of Love Won Out,

discourses-in-practice refer to those institutional resources that are available including

evangelical religious doctrine.

The synthesi s of di scursive practice and di scourse-in-practice i s the foundation of

interpretive practice. The two together allow for richly detailed examination of self production,









from the "artful procedures through which selves are constructed" to the narrative possibilities of

particular social times and places. To quote:

interpretive practice comprises both the hows and whats of reality construction. It is a way
of conceptualizing the entire technology of self construction, from the conversational
machinery involved in interactionally storying the self, to the sorts of subj activity that
might possibly be conferred, to the settings and institutions within which selves are crafted.
(Gubrium & Holstein 2000a: 94)

Interpretive practice, therefore, assumes the postmodern self is actively constructed within the

different discursive realms of going concerns (Broad 2002). In the context of my dissertation, the

going concern examined is the Love Won Out conference of Focus on the Family since it

provides a unique discursive environment through which to understand the stories of self identity

being told.

There are a myriad of entities in the business of self production, construction and

reconstruction, including self help groups, churches, social movements, religious organizations,

television talk shows etc. (Gubrium & Holstein 2001). Each of these going concerns provides a

different discursive environment through which the self can be negotiated and understood using

the narrative resources that each institution recognizes and promotes. Therefore, each going

concern rhetorically constructs an institutional self, described by Loseke (2001) as "an image or

type of self created by, and in service of, an organization" (348).

The notion of an institutional self has been used to describe how many going concerns

provide rhetorical devices necessary for recognizing and dealing with personal troubles.

Examples of such troubled selves include the battered woman, recovering alcoholic, divorcing,

legal selves, and sexually marginalized selves. In each of these instances, the institution provides

the narrative map for the construction and understanding of personal troubles. In the case of

Focus on the Family, the Love Won Out conferences provide the discursive environment

necessary to constructt the troubled sexual self of the "gay man" or "lesbian woman." In this way,









L WO sets the conditions of possibility for a homosexual self that is in line with institutional

doctrine: it is a self deeply troubled and need of fixing. Not so coincidentally, L WO also creates

narrative possibilities for reconstructing the troubled homosexual self into an untroubled

heterosexual self.

These institutional selves are not automatically imprinted on the participants, however.

Instead, the individual actor is engaged in interpretive activity designed to make the connection

between the personal self and the troubled identity, which is conditioned by the discursive

environment (Gubrium & Holstein 2001; Loseke 2001). The participant uses the institutional

resources available to understand their own everyday lived experience in relation to the

institutional self promoted. This identity work entails "framing lived experience in terms of

being troubled," or in the case of LWO from being "gay," which is a problematic social and

political identity that does not really exist to "homosexual," which does-with the ultimate goal of

reaching "ex-gay."

"Institutional self' is a critical concept for understanding the ways in which going concerns

legitimate certain narrative identities. Each discursive environment promotes a particular kind of

self and a thorough investigation of both the narrative "whats" and howss" can illuminate exactly

what resources the organizations are privileging for these institutionally sanctioned identities.

The L WO conferences provide a distinct discursive environment for understanding the

production of certain selves. L WO is actively engaged in the identity work necessary to

formulate a specific social self-that of the ex-gay. In this study I examine the discursive

production of this self, and other related selves. Through attendance at multiple L WO

conferences and analysis of the textual material made available at them, I interrogate the










rhetorical production of the ex-gay self and highlight the resources used by FOTF to narrate such

a controversial self.

Data and Methods

The Love Won Out conferences were started by Focus on the Family in 1998 as a means of

promoting the message that homosexuality is preventable and treatable. The L WO ministry was

first conceptualized by John Paulk who was then working at FOTF as the director of the

Homosexuality and Gender Department as a means of "introducing homosexuals to Jesus Christ

and to offer a way out of the lifestyle that ensnares them" (Paulk 2000). Paulk was featured on

the cover of Newsweek in 1998, along with wife Anne, amidst a story titled "Can Gays

Convert?" that highlighted conversion from gay to straight. The Paulk's also wrote a book called

Love Won Out about their j ourney out of homosexuality-and this is how the conferences got

their name.

L WO describes their mission in the conference guide in the following manner: "to provide

a Christ centered comprehensive conference which will enlighten, empower and equip families,

church and youth leaders, educators, counselors, policy-makers and the gay community on the

truth about homosexuality and its impact on culture, families and youth." This truth about

homosexuality reads as follows: "Scripture is very clear in its condemnation of homosexual

conduct ... there is no established scientific evidence that sexual orientation is genetically

determined...Focus on the Family has seen that by God's grace ... it is sometimes possible-

although difficult-for a person to move from homosexual to a heterosexual orientation" (Love

Won Out Conference Guide 2006: 7). L WO, then, is clearly focused on the particular

development of an ex gay self, with development of this self embedded within narratives of

change.









Since inception, FOTF have held over 40 of these one day conferences, and reached an

audience estimated to be well over 30,000. The individual conferences draw an audience of

between 700 and 1300 people each. L WO are held five times a year in maj or cities across the

United States (they are also now developing international programs and have recently held

conferences in Canada and Spain), generally in large churches willing to donate their space. The

last conference, for example, was held at the Trinity Church in Omaha Nebraska.

Upon arrival at the conference venue such as, for example, the Coral Ridge Baptist Church

in Fort Lauderdale, attendees are met by security provided by both a private security firm and the

local police departments. Uniformed police officers were present in the church at both events I

attended. Focus on the Family identify, both in the conference guide and on the Love Won Out

website, the controversial nature of the material presented and, as such, expect significant

protests. There were, incidentally, protests at the conferences I attended in both St Louis and Fort

Lauderdale. I had to provide photographic identification, which was carefully checked, as I

signed in for the day and received my conference packet. In addition, I underwent both hand

frisking and bag searches by volunteers at the church door. Upon registering, I was handed a

paper wristband which had to remain visible at all times. If the wristband was not in view,

attendees were questioned and then promptly removed if they were shown to be imposters. I was

also required to sign a waiver guaranteeing my good behavior. Should my behavior become

disruptive, which it did not, signing the waiver would have assured my ej section form church

grounds. An information sheet given out to all delegates explained the code of conduct:

While frank and open discussion is valuable, disruption of the conference is not acceptable,
including: interrupting conference presenters or activities; distributing non-Focus on the
Family literature; campaigning for alternative religions, philosophical or political views;
seeking sexual contacts, abusing alcohol or narcotics during the conference; sharing
registrations with other persons; or harassment of others in any form. Failure to abide by
this code of conduct is grounds for dismissal from this conference.









Although the physical layout of the churches hosting the conference varied, the general

environment of the L WO conferences did not. Conference goers were directed to the main

sanctuary by a bevy of volunteers after registration. Inside the sanctuary, there was a lectern

standing on the stage in front of the altar, with a Love Won Out banner draped over it. There was

also a screen set up above the stage which played a PowerPoint slide show to greet the audience

as they found their seats. The slides alternated between promotion of textual materials in the

L WO bookstore and quotations from Scripture. Some of the biblical references included Psalm

91:14-16: "'Because he loves me' says the Lord, 'I will rescue him; I will protect him, for he

acknowledges my name. He will call upon me and I will answer him; I will be with him in

trouble. I will deliver him and honor him'" and Hebrews 10:38-39, "But my righteous one will

live by faith. And if he shrinks back I will not be pleased with him. But we are not of those who

shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved."

All L WO conferences, including the two I attended follow the same format. They began

promptly at 8 a.m. with a welcome and introduction from one of the FOTF spokespeople,

including a videotaped introduction from the founder of Focus on the Family, James Dobson,

and then moved into presentations to the entire audience until 11. These presentations included

personal testimonies from an ex-gay man, Mike Haley, and an ex-lesbian, Melissa Fryrear. They

were followed by a number of breakout sessions that audience members could choose to attend,

including ones about responding to pro-gay theology and gay marriage. At each set of breakout

sessions, audience members had a choice of four different topics. The period after lunch saw the

audience converge again to listen to keynote speeches about the pro-gay agenda in schools, and

one from Nancy Heche (mother of actress Anne Heche, the actress who was he partner of talk-

show host Ellen DeGeneres before marrying a man). Two more sets of breakout sessions covered









such topics as prevention of male homosexuality and top ten questions loved ones ask, and then

everyone gathered to hear the final plenary address. Here, the speaker gave the audience tips on

how to respond to homosexuality in their lives, the workplace, schools and other public

institutions. (For the full list of conference sessions, speakers and the chronology of the

conference, see Appendix A).

Over the course of the conference, the speakers are actively engaged in the rhetorical

production of a very specific self-that of the ex-gay. The day is formatted such that the audience

is exposed to the narratives necessary not only to interpret what an ex gay self looks like, but

also to narratively produce their own ex-gay self. For example, Mike Haley uses his time to take

the audience on his own journey through homosexuality and into heterosexuality-using the

rhetorical strategies provided by L WO and FOTF. L WO, then, provide a particular discursive

environment for the production of troubled selves.

The data for my analysis of the ex-gay self come from attendance at L WO conferences held

in the Evangelical Free Church in St. Louis and the Coral Ridge Baptist Church in Ft Lauderdale,

both in 2006. Each conference was audiotaped and available for purchase once the conference

was over. I obtained sound recordings of each conference and fully transcribed the material.

Having carefully examined the sound recordings from the early L WO conferences, I discovered

that there has been little change in institutional discourse from 1998 when the conferences began,

to the present. As a result, I opted to only examine in detail those later conferences since I was

able to attend these personally and therefore obtain a more nuanced understanding of the

circumstances of self production. As a procedural note, although I transcribed and coded the

material from both conferences, I opted to use extracts only from the Ft. Lauderdale event when









writing. L WO control what is being spoken over the course of the day very tightly, and as such

the two conferences are almost identical bar a few idiosyncrasies in speech patterns.

Attendance at the conferences was critical for my analysis since my interest was in the

manner in which the institutional self discourse was delivered. As such, I needed to examine the

setting in which the conferences were held, as well as the transcriptions. While at the

conferences, I paid particular attention to the arrangement of the space, the imagery used by the

speakers, the audience reaction to the content, and my own visceral reaction to what was being

performed. As Charmaz (2006) exclaims, "gathering ethnographic data means starting by

engaging in the studied phenomena-get involved!" (24). My fieldnotes then became a part of my

data and thus of my analysis.

In addition to the audio transcriptions and my fieldnotes, I also gathered textual material

made available and the books recommended by the speakers. L WO produced a booklet series that

mirrored the conference sessions and the conference goers were frequently urged to buy it since

it would serve as an important reminder of the concepts covered. Consequently I bought a set of

these as it was an illustration of the way the message of the L WO conferences is spread outside

the narrative confines of the day. In addition, I purchased five other books that were often

mentioned by the speakers, and four of which were written by those giving speeches. The book

titles are: God 's Grace and the Homosexual Next Door by Alan Chambers and the Exodus

International Leadership Team; 101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality by Mike

Haley; A Parent 's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality and Healing Homosexuality both by

Joseph Nicolosi; and Someone ILove is Gay by Anita Worthen and Bob Davies. These, too

formed an important part of my data as the L WO message was explained in far more detail than

the conference structure allowed.









The L WO conferences are open to the public at a cost of $50. FOTF also encourages

attendance from educators, researchers and gay activists, providing that the latter are not

disruptive. With that in mind, I did not identify myself as a researcher when registering for the

conferences. Indeed, I was not asked my reasons for attending when signing up. Once at the

conferences, I made a conscious decision not to interact much with the other attendees.

Following the model of Ponticelli (1996), who attended a week long ex-gay conference, I also

did not identify myself as a researcher once at the conferences-thus rendering myself a covert

researcher (Denzin 1968; Hilbert 1980). Like Ponticelli, I also disclosed my sexual orientation,

lesbian, when I was asked and would explain that I was at LWO to learn.

It is interesting to note at this point that when other conference goers did speak to me, it

was in very specific ways; I was either asked who the gay person in my life was, or if I had

"accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as my own personal Lord and Savior." If I answered "me" to the

first question, then I was subsequently asked where I was on my j ourney (out of homosexuality),

to which I would reply that I wasn't on that particular j ourney. Invariably, the person

approaching me would tell me about their gay or lesbian loved one, which I later came to think

of as their "proj ect gay," and would explain how prayer would save us from damnation. In

answer to the second question I would answer that no, I had not accepted Jesus into my life,

which would inevitably lead to my having to politely but firmly decline the offer to say the

sinners prayer at that time. Typically, the people who approached me would be in their 50's and

60's and would identify as parents with children approximately my age. I was one of the few

people by myself and it was this that seemed to arouse the other attendee's interest, or perhaps

pity.









To interrogate the rhetorical production of the ex-gay self, I followed models of

institutional ethnography of Broad (2002), Loseke (2001), Gubrium & Holstein (2000a; 2001);

Holstein & Gubrium (2000) and others (Chase 2001; Crawley 2002; Pollner & Stein 2001). As

Gubrium & Holstein (2001) explain institutional ethnography documents[] the way social and

discursive environments of particular going concerns provide for the construction of troubled

selves" (16). In this sense, the focus is on how discourse structures identity. Traditionally,

institutional ethnography typically locates the knower in the everyday world and forms a way of

thinking that allows the ethnographer to see how the social world works (Campbell & Gregor

2004). Smith's (2005; 2006) conceptualization of institutional ethnography is concerned with

textually mediated relations of ruling, meaning that the focus is on how everyday individual

experience is produced and then tied back into the institutional power structure by "documentary

forms of knowledge" (DeVault &McCoy 2006: 19). In this approach the focus is more on how

individuals are socially located, and then looks up at how individual experience is mediated and

affected by institutional text. My approach to institutional ethnography follows more along the

lines of Gubrium & Holstein (2001), in which the discursive environment of particular going

concerns becomes key to understanding institutional production of self identity. In my

dissertation, institutional ethnography allows me to interrogate how specific selves are produced

by Focus on the Family under the narrative auspices of the Love Won Out conferences.

Institutional ethnography as defined by Gubrium & Holstein (2001) permits me as the

researcher to examine the institutional discourse of the specific organization, in this case L WO,

whilst still being attuned to the narrative howss" of institutional self construction. By way of

illustration, Broad (2002) utilizes the conceptualization of the institutional self to examine the

production of social movement selves within one specific social movement organization. To do









this, she examined the dominant narrative resources present in the organizational discourse, and

used this to explain the particular self produced within this discursive environment. In a similar

manner, I examine the narrative resources used by L WO to construct the ex-gay self. What

rhetorical strategies do they use? What discourses do they draw on? What narrative resources are

privileged? How is the heterosexual self produced? How is the troubled ex-gay self constructed?

How do FOTF use L WO to speak back to the lesbian and gay movement? In other words, what

are the conditions of possibility for the ex-gay self!

I began my analysis with general understandings developed from my knowledge of the

available literature (see Loseke & Cavendish 2001) and previous attendance at L WO

conferences. Thematic analysis was undertaken using techniques adapted from interpretive

grounded theory, in combination with the theoretical and methodological orientation of

interpretive practice and analytic bracketing. Where interpretive practice provided me with a

general set of questions to use to interrogate the data, the "how" and the "what" questions

(Gubrium & Holstein 1997; 2000a; 2001; Holstein & Gubrium 2000; 2005), grounded theory

gave a set of practical tools for data analysis that allowed the theory to develop from the data

(Charmaz 1983; 2000; 2005; 2006; Dey 2004; Glaser & Strauss 1967; Strauss & Corbin 1990).

Grounded theory was developed by Glaser & Strauss in the late 1960's to enable

qualitative researchers to have as rigorous a methodology as quantitative, positivistic research,

and also to codify existing qualitative practice (Charmaz 2006; Dey 2004). In particular, Glaser

& Strauss advocated "discovery and theory development rather than logical deductive reasoning

which relies on prior theoretical frameworks" (Charmaz 1983: 110), such that theoretical

categories are allowed to emerge from the data itself. More specifically, they argued that data

collection and analysis should be simultaneous, analytic codes should be constructed from the









data and not from previously developed hypotheses, the researcher should use a constant

comparative method whereby comparisons are made during each analytic stage, theory

development should happen during each step of data collection and analysis and that the

researcher should engage in memo writing to help elaborate upon developing theoretical

categories (Charmaz 2006). In other words, grounded theorists advocate methodological

principles allowing analysis to proceed inductively from data to theory.

Charmaz (2000; 2005; 2006) took the basic idea of grounded theory and adapted it to

incorporate a more interpretive orientation, thus allowing the researcher more freedom to

integrate meaning construction into the analysis (Charmaz 2006). As she explains, "I assume that

neither data nor theories are discovered. Rather, we are part of the world we study and the data

we collect. We construct our grounded theories through our past and present involvements and

interactions with people, perspectives and research practices" (Charmaz 2006: 10).

Consequently, constructivist grounded theory enables greater focus on meaning while not

assuming one external version of reality; "data do not provide a window on reality. Rather, the

'discovered' reality arises from the interactive process and its temporal, cultural and structural

contexts" (Charmaz 2000: 524). This means, therefore, that conceptual categories "arise though

our interpretations of data rather than emanating fr~om them "(Charmaz 2000: 505).

Charmaz also argues that it is impossible for a researcher such as myself to enter the field

without having any orientating frame of reference. She stresses that what I see and hear and

understand is going to be related to my own biography and prior exposure to the substantive

material. Embracing an interpretive approach to grounded theory requires reflexive

acknowledgement of my own frames of reference before, and during, the research endeavor. This

being said, before I embarked on any initial coding, I had done a lot of background reading in









both evangelical religion and the development of sexual identity, and this consequently served to

orient my thinking somewhat as I entered the field.

Constructivist grounded theory is firmly embedded within the social, local and historical

context of the research proj ect, such that the data and any theory produced are viewed as an

interpretive rendering of the social world under consideration (Charmaz 2000; 2006; 2008). In

this proj ect, I have already described the historical and social context that led to the formation of

the Love Won Out conferences. This enables my analysis to focus on how the L WO speakers

draw upon particular historical, social and local discourses to create meaning.

To facilitate understanding of these interactive processes Charmaz suggests a two-stage

coding process during which the data are categorized and labeled. As she explains, "coding is the

pivotal link between collecting data and developing emergent theory to explain these data.

Through coding you define what is happening in the data and begin to grapple with what it

means" (Charmaz 2006: 46). The fundamental questions asked by grounded theorists when

coding are: "What do I see going on here? What are people doing? What is happening? What

kind of events are at issue here? How are they constructed? What do they mean?" (Charmaz

1983; Glaser 1978). In a grounded theory proj ect, coding is defined by what is seen in the data,

not by any preconceived theoretical ideas.

The first stage in the coding process, initial coding, merely investigates what is happening

in the data and involves naming each line or section of data (Charmaz 2006). This process can be

undertaken word by word, line by line, incident by incident, or some combination of three

(Charmaz 2006; Glaser 1978). The breakdown and naming of the data in these small pieces

makes it far easier to "remain open to the data and to see nuances in it" (Charmaz 2006: 50).









Consequently, initial codes help to categorize data, prompt an initial theoretical questioning of

the data and lay clear any patterns or processes.

For this proj ect, my initial coding involved examining the textual data line by line and then

naming what I saw. For example, in the following line from Nicolosi (2006a) in his talk on "The

Condition of Male Homosexuality," I developed a number of initial codes. The line is "An

informed disapproval does not mean homophobia. That word we get hit over our heads." Here,

the codes I initially developed were "debunking homophobia, reinterpretation of homophobia

and use of the word by others." These codes all emerged from my reading of the data and not

from any preconceived ideas of what I expected to see in the data. Following Charmaz (2006), I

limited my initial codes to words that reflected action, rather than forcing them to fit external

theories. Furthermore, I followed her guidelines in terms of working quickly through the initial

coding process. I decided upon line by line coding for the textual material since it enabled me to

remain open-minded about the data. My Hieldnotes evidenced a different kind of data so I used

incident coding to document my findings as opposed to the line by line coding I used for the

textual material. My fieldnotes are already in my own words so it made more sense to compare

incidents and observations, than to label and name each line.

Once initial coding has highlighted particular themes or conceptual categories, focused

coding begins to synthesize these ideas to allow for explanation of larger segments of data;

"focused coding means using the most significant and/or frequent earlier codes to sift through

large amounts of data. Focused coding requires decisions about which initial codes make the

most analytic sense to categorize your data incisively and completely" (Charmaz 2006: 57).

Focused coding, therefore, condenses the data into smaller, more manageable and analytically









important sections. Furthermore, focused coding is concerned with the development of

conceptual categories rather than simply naming and labeling (Charmaz 1983).

Focused coding entails active engagement with the data and the codes developed in the

initial stage. As I examined the codes I had initially developed, I explored which ones had the

most explanatory power and from there came up with the focused codes. I then used these same

codes to go back through my data and interrogate their utility. For example, careful examination

of my data led me to the idea of "tuming points" as the following two extracts from the

transcription of Mike Haley's (2006b) testimony show,

Well finally I built up the courage and I sat down with a female counselor the public
school that I was at and I shared with her what I was thinking and what I was feeling. But
because she had bought into the world's idea about homosexuality she said Mike from
what everything I understand about this issue you were bomn this way and this is how God
has made you so to live a healthy productive life you are going to need to embrace that.
Well to a 16 year old boy that hadn't heard anything different you know what? That made
sense. ... and I figured well if this is who I am and this is how God has made me and I
need to experience that community. And for those of you that are not familiar with
Southern California I grew up very close to an area known as Laguna Beach and Laguna
Beach is very much like the San Francisco of Southemn California probably a lot like the
Fort Lauderdale of Southern Califomnia. And so it was very easy and very accessible to for
me and so for the very first time at the age of 16 I walked into a gay bar. And let me tell
you I thought I had comehom

So I began to go to the library and I began to do the research I began to look at these
studies, these studies that I had heard talked about in the gay community that we would
talk about in the gay bars. And I began to look at these studies. The LeVay hypothalamus
study, the Bailey-Pillard twin studies, the Dean Hamer gene study and you know what
folks? The very foundation upon which my entire life was based absolutely began to
crumble when I realized what these researchers themselves had said about their studies.
That they didn't find a genetic link, that some in society like to say they do and my world
crumbled. And I came to the end of myself. And as you can only imagine, one of my
favorite stories in scripture is the story of the prodigal son. Of course I don't like that we
call it the story of the prodigal son? Because I don't believe that story is about a son at all.
I believe instead that that story is about a father about a godly father that waits on his knees
in prayer daily for his one that' s lost. And so when I came to the end of myself, I did what
the prodigal son did and I came home.

The two extracts both indicate what I described as turning points in Mike Haley's life. One he

identifies as pushing him toward the gay community, and one back toward his faith, but both









serve as markers in his life story. I then went back thorough all my data to identify the myriad

ways in which the speakers used the concept of "turning point". For example, in this extract

speaker Joe Dallas (2006a) is talking about his own involvement with what L WO call pro-gay

theology:

And when I was first exposed to the teaching there I wanted very much to believe what I
was hearing. And so based on that desire I embraced it, eventually joined both the church
and the staff and even promoted many of the pro-gay theological arguments we'll be
discussing this morning. Until January of 1984 when I realized I could no longer keep
telling myself what I wanted to believe just because I wanted to believe it. What the
Scripture plainly said was too difficult for me to keep getting around and that was when I
repented and began my own j ourney of recovery

Focused codes develop more into conceptual categories that have analytic importance. "Turning

points," for example, became an important section in my explanation of the way in which the ex-

gay self is narratively developed by L WO.

The link between coding and the completion of analysis occurs through memo writing or

the writing of analytic notes (Charmaz 2000; 2006). Memos are designed to enable the

researcher to examine the focused codes for any patterns or links between them, to start to flesh

out conceptual categories, makes comparisons between codes, and to link analytic interpretation

with empirical reality. In other words, memo writing elaborates on ideas about data and codes

and through this process, "fosters a theoretical rendering of the data" (Charmaz 1983: 121).

According to Charmaz (2000), memo writing helps researchers:

a. Grapple with ideas about the data

b. To set an analytic course

c. To refine categories

d. To define the relationships among various categories

e. To gain a sense of confidence and competence in their ability to analyze data









These memos are then sorted by category and integrated, thus revealing relationships and links

between conceptual categories (Charmaz 1983). Analytic note writing occurs at all stages of the

research process and forms the core of the grounded theory process.

Memo writing is a key part of the constructivist grounded theory process. As I moved

through the coding process, I would write frequent analytic notes to myself that would explain

what I thought I was seeing in the data. My earliest memos, for instance, started to examine the

relationship between the different focused codes I had drawn up, and provided me with a space

to discuss conceptual links between these ideas. In one analytic note, I started to explore the idea

of mutable sexual identity, as this short extract illustrates, "to be ex-gay means that sexual

identity has to have changed. To sell this idea, the speakers have to prove that sexuality can

change. It seems like they do this by referring to the Bible and show how to do it by talking

about reparative therapy." I then used this brief memo to question how the speakers characterize

these ideas and to interrogate how the mutability of sexuality identity is defined and "proven" by

L WO. This process facilitates a more abstract analysis of conceptual categories. Memo writing

continues throughout the research process, and much of it focuses on the constant comparative

methods stressed by Glaser and Strauss in their original conceptualization of grounded theory

(Charmaz 2006). New codes, memos and analytical categories are continually compared with

one another and with the data to ensure that the data remains in the analysis.

By using constructivist grounded theory in combination with analytic bracketing, I had a

specific set of methodological tools that were used to structure my data analysis. Analytic

bracketing is a term developed by Gubrium & Holstein (1997; 2000b; 2005) to explain the

manner in which the researcher can "capture the interplay between discursive practice and

discourses-in-practice" (Gubrium & Holstein 2000b: 499). As they explain in more detail:









This procedure amounts to alternately bracketing the whats, then the hows, in order to
assemble a more complete picture of practice. The objective is to move back and forth
between constitutive activity and substantive resources, alternately describing each,
making informative references to the other in the process. Either the activity or the
substantive context becomes the provisional phenomenon, while interest in the other is
temporarily deferred but not forgotten (Gubrium & Holstein 1997: 119).

In terms of my specific proj ect, this entailed shifting my analytic lens from what substantively

the L WO conferences are saying, to what narrative resources were drawn upon to say it. As a

result, I alternately coded for both the howss" and "whats" in the data.

In this study, I describe the specific narrative resources used by L WO to construct the

institutional self. The upcoming chapters detail the rhetorical production of the different kinds of

selves produced by Love Won Out in service of the Focus on the Family message. These include

the production of the troubled gay self in need of healing, which I document in the next chapter,

and the pivotal ex-gay self which I cover in chapter 4. The Einal empirical chapter details the

manner in which Focus on the Family encourage the audience to become active agents of change

themselves and in so doing, spread the message more widely. This dissertation documents the

way in which a specific going concern provides the social and discursive environment necessary

for production of a troubled self (Gubrium & Holstein 2001). In so doing, it answers the

following charge from Gubrium & Holstein (2001), "if we are to understand the self and identity

in a postmodern world, we can't limit our attention to personal life; we must turn directly to the

environments in which selves are constructed" (16).









CHAPTER 3
PRODUCINTG THE GAY SELF

Troubled selves are constructed in a number of different ways across the identity

landscape. Different going concerns provide different conditions of possibility through which to

understand self identity. Therefore, it is necessary to focus on the specific discursive

environments in which these selves are constructed. The Love Won Out conferences of Focus on

the Family are designed to promote the message that homosexuality is both "preventable and

treatable" (www.lovewonout.com). For this message to be successful, FOTF must first provide a

discursive framework through which gays and lesbians can recognize themselves as troubled,

and, therefore, in need of treatment (Gubrium & Holstein 2001). In other words, to have an ex-

gay self, there must first be a troubled gay self.

This chapter examines the manner in which L WO first assembles the troubled gay self in

order to produce the ultimate goal of the oppositional ex-gay self. More specifically, I argue that

the conference speakers must accomplish two key narrative goals: a rhetorical framework

describing how gays and lesbians can change; and a rhetorical framework describing how gays

and lesbians must change. In addition, as I argue in chapter 1, I indicate that L WO uses the

rhetorical strategies associated with countermovements to Eight against gay and lesbian civil

rights and I show how these are woven throughout the production of the troubled gay self.

Coding for the L WO rhetoric involved several steps to understand the maj or themes as they

developed over the conferences. As I explained in the previous chapter, I used interpretive

grounded theory to interrogate the manner in which the troubled gay or lesbian self is produced

by LWO.

First, to facilitate investigation of the gay self, l utilize Gubrium & Holstein' s (1997;

2000a; 2001; Holstein & Gubrium 2000) conceptualization of analytic bracketing which allows









me to isolate first the substantive themes (the "whats") and then the narrative strategies used to

produce such a self (the howss). Therefore, I start the chapter with a discussion of how L WO

constructs a gay and lesbian self that can change since this the most pivotal issue. Without the

ability to change sexual identity, an ex-gay self would not exist. Second, I demonstrate how

FOTF constructs the idea that gays and lesbians must change because they are argued to be a

threat to themselves, their community and broader society. Finally I offer an analysis of how

mobilization of a typical gay or lesbian self is used as justification for the radical sexual identity

transformation from gay to ex-gay.

Gays and Lesbians Can Change

The "Whats" of Change

Focus on the Family, through the Love Won Out conferences, are describing to the

audience a very specific self identity "ex-gay," that first requires radical identity transformation.

To accomplish this sexual identity transformation, the speakers at Love Won Out must first

assemble a set of narrative resources that allow gays and lesbians to recognize themselves as

troubled and as having the ability to change. Narrative production of a mutable gay self,

therefore, becomes of paramount importance over the course of the day. If "change is possible"

(Dobson 2001) then the audience must be equipped to "discover how" (Love Won Out billboard).

The message is of such critical importance that it is immediately referenced in the first

speech of the day. Indeed, initial exposure to the troubled, mutable gay self comes within a

minute and a half in the first keynote address of the day given by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi. Nicolosi is

a licensed psychologist specializing in the treatment of homosexuality and the related gender

identity disorder. In this first extract, the ability of the gay self to change is discursively produced

both directly and indirectly. Towards the beginning of his speech on "The Condition of Male

Homosexuality," Nicolosi acknowledges his role in helping people to reach their ultimate goal of









heterosexuality, and therefore implicates the ability to change, and the privileging of

heterosexual sexuality. To quote:

I have the opportunity to work with men and women fulfill their goal of heterosexual life
.. .Now while our treatment may not work for everyone, I could say our basic cure rate is
a third a third a third. A third, no change a third significant improvement, and a third
cure... And that the important thing I want to convey to you this morning, homosexual
attraction is a symptom of something else. And that' s what the person learns in the course
of therapy. That when they have a homosexual attraction something just happened
interrelationally. Something that threw them off, something that took away their power,
something that disorientated them and that the symptom of homosexuality is a reparative
.. a reparation of something that was just taken away from them (Nicolosi 2006a)

Immediately, Nicolosi makes it clear to the audience that a heterosexual life is possible, that a

heterosexual life is desirable, and that treatment and a successful cure achievable. This is so, he

argues, because causal factors are associated with homosexuality and since those causal factors

are recognizable, they can be understood and dealt with accordingly.

Thematic development of these causal factors continues over the course of the day.

Specifically, understanding of the development of homosexuality is embedded within a

psychological discourse reminiscent of earlier gender inversion theories. In brief, gender

inversion theories assumed that homosexuals had "bodies, conduct, attitudes, tastes and

personalities characteristic of the opposite sex" (Terry 1999: 36) and this is what enabled same-

sex attraction. Accordingly, men desiring men would appear effeminate and women desiring

women would appear masculine-what Krafft-Ebing called the "mannish lesbian" (Erzen 2006;

Seidman 1996; Terry 1999). Here, for example, is Nicolosi's (2006a) explanation of

homosexuality in the first session of the day. He explains to participants that: "homosexuality is

not a sexual problem. We see it primarily as a gender identity problem."

Diagnosis of homosexuality as a gender identity problem has its etiological roots in a

particular psychological discursive framework, that of reparative therapy. Reparative therapy

advanced gender inversion theories and placed them firmly in the realm of psychoanalysis. Now,









rather than being a biological, congenital condition, and hence incurable, homosexuality comes

to be seen as a pathological state related to developmental mental disorders that can be treated

(Erzen 2006; Nicolosi 1991; 1993; Terry 1999). A booklet produced by L WO (2004) explains it

thus: "male homosexuality is a developmental problem that is almost always the result of a

problem in family relations, particularly between father and son" (The Roots and Causes of2ale

Homosexuality: 10).

Reparative therapy produces a very distinct narrative structure through which the gay self

can be understood. More specifically, reparative therapy argues that homosexuality is the result

of traumatic early life experiences, including childhood sexual abuse, and problematic parent-

child bonding. As Nicolosi states:

Same sex behavior is an attempt to repair childhood emotional hurts. And it' s really such
good news. It good news for our clients that come to us because it' s basically saying
you're not a sinful degenerate perverted weirdo, your homosexual behavior is your attempt
to make that male bonding connection that you needed. (2006a)

One third of our homosexual clients were sexually abused by older boys or men. (Nicolosi,
2006a)

Of most concern to the speakers at L WO is the effect of inadequate parent-child bonding

on gender identity and gender expression. Importantly, the speakers consistently narrate gay or

lesbian selves that have been inappropriately socialized and are in active violation of normative

masculinity or femininity, as I will demonstrate. This gender transgression is traced back to the

parents and, depending on whether the discussion concerns a gay man or lesbian woman,

troubled relations with either the same sex or opposite sex parent.

Construction of the gay male self within the framework of reparative therapy is typically

understood as a problem within the father-son relationship, with limited discussion of the

mother-son dynamic. The father of the gay man is seen as the primary factor in the successful










psychosexual development of the son. As Nicolosi (2006a), one of the most active proponents of

reparative therapy explains:

We know that men who have homosexual problems do not have good relationships with
their fathers. We know this. And so the boy reaches out to the father. If he's warmly
embraced and encouraged then he'll get that masculine identification. If he reaches out to
the father and experiences father as an emotionally distant, emotionally unexpressive,
critical, hostile, aloof, the boy will reach out and experience what we call a narcissistic hurt
and he will shut down and he will abandon his masculine strivings.

To become appropriately masculine, the boy must have a good, strong relationship with his

father. If that relationship fails, the boy will therefore rej ect masculinity and embrace femininity

and be at risk of a "sexual identity struggle" (Fryrear 2006a).

The lack of identification with the father creates a gender identity crisis which, for

reparative therapists, is the root of homosexuality. More specifically, the boy feels insecure with

his own masculinity which is a source of "humiliation and shame" (Haley 2006a) and reaches

out to other men for the affirmation and attention that should have come from the father:

Gender identity which is to say our internal sense of ourselves as male or female
determines sexual orientation. We romanticize the mysterious, the other than me qualities
which we do not possess i.e. what we do not identify within ourselves. So the man with the
homosexual problem does not feel sufficient in his masculine identity and he wants to
connect with that masculinity in the other man." (Nicolosi 2006b).

The implication, here, is that the gay man recognizes his own need for masculinity and rather

than finding it in himself, he reaches out to other men to provide it for him. In other words, the

gay self is now constructed as one that is insufficiently masculine, yet still searching for that

elusive masculinity through eroticization of the other. In the words of Mike Haley (2006b), an

ex-gay man; "for the prehomosexual boy like myself, I feared the world of masculinity. I was

much more comfortable in the world of women so when puberty kicked in I was drawn to the

obj ect of difference or to the obj ect of curiosity." Male homosexuality is then seen as a










reparative drive that sexualizes the need for same sex intimacy and male bonding (Robinson &

Spivey 2007).

The mother is also implicated in the development of male homosexuality. For a boy to

understand and embrace normative masculinity, he is expected to disidentify with his mother and

bond with his father (Nicolosi 1991). If the mother does not allow this to happen, or remains too

forcefully involved in the son's life, this can adversely affect his psychosexual development.

This conceptualization, then, is reminiscent of the now-classic "over bearing mother and weak

father" causal explanation of male homosexuality; "Between mother and son we have over

emotionally involved mother, dominant, a strong personality" (Nicolosi 2006a). The mother of a

gay son may have devalued masculinity more generally, criticized her husband and made him

seem weak and ineffectual and emphasized feminine identification. To quote: "homosexuals

have long been thought to have mothers who are overly close, protective or domineering. The

mother' s influence does seem to be a factor that can undermine the father-son relationship and

sabotage the boy's autonomy" (Nicolosi 1991: 77). A more personal example of this is given by

Nicolosi as he recounts the story of one of his patients,

I remember a client saying to me I said what was the relationship with your father? He said
oh I loved my father; my father was wonderful he was a saint. And I didn't usually hear
that kind of report. So I was curious. I said tell me more about your father. Saying to
myself if your father was saint, how come you didn't bond with him? What happened? So
he's talking, he's wonderful he would entertain us, he was a clown, he would make us
laugh at the dinner table and then my mother would scold him and make him stand in the
corner throughout the rest of the dinner. (Nicolosi 1991: 77)

Here there is a clear identification of the mother emasculating the father, portraying the father as

weak and not encouraging the father-son bonding.

Reparative therapy also provides a framework for understanding the production of the

lesbian self. Similar to the formulation of the gay male self, the lesbian self is also understood in

terms of parent-child bonding and traumatic life events, again sexual abuse being prevalent. A









booklet produced by LWO and entitled 7Jhe Roots and Causes ofFemale Homosexuality explains

the effect of these life events: "traumatic events interfere with a person' s very sense of being ..

when the emotional, verbal or sexual abuser is male, which is the maj ority of cases, the girl may

fear involvement with, or hate all men" (2004: 18). The trauma of sexual abuse, it is argued, can

be enough to tumn the traumatized girl away from men entirely, and push her into relations with

women. The question and answer session on lesbianism also highlights this;

a woman sharing that she's been involved in lesbianism for 15 years tried to leave
lesbianism through pastoral counseling, had childhood sexual abuse in her own life.
Regrettably the pastor raped her, she got pregnant as a result, had a forced abortion, and
asking how can she tumn back to her faith that has failed her so miserably. (Fryrear 2006c)

This is the very first question of the session and in answering it, the speakers underscore the

presence and effects of sexual abuse in lesbian life.

It is important to note here that each time lesbianism is discussed in detail it is

consistently linked with sexual trauma and an inability to trust men. Fryrear (2006a) provides the

following example,

as a result of being sexually violated,[ a woman] vowed: I will never trust a man, I'll never
let a man touch me, I'll never be emotionally vulnerable with a man, I'll never get married,
I'll never be a wife, I'll never be a mother. What' s left? I mean, what' s left? When you
close that many doors, make that many judgments, make-make that many inner vows, it' s
like almost, "what' s left?" but a vulnerability to same-sex relationships.

The speaker here is emphasizing the fact that women tumn to other women only if there has been

abuse in their past. The lesbian self being constructed is one that is so severely damaged that the

only available outlet is another woman. In other words, lesbians are constructed as victims

seeking solace as opposed to women actively and passionately seeking other women.

In addition to the perceived lack of trust in men, the presence of sexual trauma also

affects how women understand femininity. The L WO speakers repeatedly construct the lesbian










self as one that has abandoned feminine ideals as these are seen as a source of pain. In a session

on "The Condition of Female Homosexuality," Melissa Fryrear (2006a) explains how this works:

In the years, again, of having ministered to hundreds of women it came as no surprise to
me of women who had been sexually violated, there was a rej section of her feminine
identity, a rej section of her womanhood because it was a liability to be a woman .
Because it meant that you would be hurt if you were a woman. And so you rej ected the
feminine identity, rejected womanhood much less, men, they're not safe, they're not
trustworthy, so rej section, or closing of relationship with men and then a turning exclusively
instead to relationships with women.

Again, lesbians are being narratively defined as women who have been traumatized by men and

are looking for "safe" companionship with women.

Over the course of the conference, the lesbian self is never defined as being explicitly

sexual. Instead, it seen as a troubled self that is searching for emotional bonding, not sexual

fulfillment. Lesbians, therefore, are still seen as 'proper' women insofar as the fact that women

are perceived to not have sexual desire. Rather, women are understood to have a craving for

emotional attachment, as the following quote, from the session on lesbianism referenced above,

illustrates;

At its core, lesbianism is not about sex, because women are more often than not
relationally wired, emotionally wired. lesbianism is more about connecting and because
we're emotionally, relationally wired." This need for emotional bonding is "what we
would call a yearning in her heart to Eind a sense of completion, or a sense of wholeness
within this real, or imagined, relationship with another woman. It' s an inner-driving need
for nurture, for love, for acceptance, affirmation. (Fryrear 2006a)

This emotional desire is due, again, to a fractured parent-daughter bond. More specifically, a

weak bond between mother and daughter is cited as a causal factor in the development of a

lesbian self.

Mothers of lesbian daughters are described in two main ways; 1) a "doormat"

relationship whereby the mother is perceived as downtrodden or ineffective and subj ect to the

whims of men; (2) a "my best friend" relationship in which the daughter provides for the









emotional needs of the mothers, but the daughter' s emotional needs are not met. In both of these

cases, the daughter perceives rej section from the mother and begins to emotionally withdraw. As

a result, she is seen to be "vulnerable to a sexual identity struggle" since the withdrawal from the

mother also implies a rejection of femininity. This is also understood to be a rej section of

wifehood and motherhood which are discussed as the keys to normative femininity.

Fathers are also seen as critical in the adoption of an appropriately feminine gender

identity, as the following quote from "The Condition of Female Homosexuality" demonstrates,

because they have the power to shape their daughters perception of men in general,

Well daddies are very important in little girl's lives too, for a few additional reasons. There
are four things imperative for a father to convey to his daughter. Those are protection,
attention, adoration and support ... oftentimes three important things happen as a result.
One, that little girl begins to grow up and develop and mature, into a sense of worth as a
person. Because of the attention, and the affirmation and support her father gives her, she
begins to grow up in a sense of worth as a person. Because father is the opposite gender, as
she grows up, she also begins to develop a sense of value in the fact specifically that she' s
female. She'll begin to grow into a sense of value that she' s a young woman, a little girl, a
female. And then third, fathers, at least for a season, represent the entire world of
masculinity to her, they represent; he represents the universal world of men. And so in her
life involved in her life, he begins to help show her and teach her how to relate to the
opposite sex, in a healthy way. (Fryrear 2006a)

Fathers, then, bear the primary responsibility for helping their daughters understand the

importance of the female role, specifically the relationship of femininity to masculinity. Female

worth, therefore, is defined in direct relation to the masculine. If the girl is not encouraged by her

father, the result could be a repudiation of femininity as she may not have learned the value and

honor of being female. Melissa Fryrear describes a scenario in which a teenager was heading off

to the prom and decided to wear a dress and makeup. She presented herself to her father who

asked her "who hit you in the eyes?" with the following consequences:

Susan remembered that in her life, that moment in her life, because it was a risk for her to
step out into the world of femininity, into the world of womanhood. Regardless of how
well she did it or thought she did it, taking that risk of stepping out into that world and
desperately needed the affirmation of her father, to affirm her in that. Susan said she ran up










to the bathroom with tears streaming down her face, ran into the sink with a washcloth and
rubbed her face until it was r-until it was raw and she vowed: "I will never ever ever do
that again." And 15 years later when she told this story she had never worn a dress again in
her life, and had never worn makeup, had never taken that risk again into the world of
femininity or womanhood. (Fryrear 2006a)

The father in this anecdote failed to affirm his daughter' s budding femininity. As a result, she

turned away from womanhood and embraced a lesbian identity that enabled her to feel safe and

secure.

Consequently, use of reparative therapy as a discursive framework privileges a narrative

strategy clearly indicative of the idea that gays and lesbians can change because their

homosexuality is framed as a coping mechanism for past traumas and neglect. Having identified

the source of homosexual feelings, the speakers at Love Won Out then describe the conditions

necessary for identity transformation, which I will discuss in more detail in the next chapter.

What is apparent, however, is that these root causes are utilized to Eight same-sex attraction;

the contributing factors add up to this: you have sexualized unmet needs. So the healing
process includes finding appropriate ways to meet these legitimate needs through healthy
activities and relationships. As you do so, you will notice the longing for inappropriate
activities and relationships melts away" (Haley 2004: 130).

Reparative therapy, therefore, provides the narrative resources necessary for gays and lesbians to

identify themselves as troubled, and start to realize how they may be able to undergo a radical

sexual identity transformation.

The "Hows" of Change

The speakers at L WO use a number of different discursive strategies to produce a

troubled gay or lesbian self. Bracketing the substantive themes, identified above, allows me to

interrogate the process by which these themes are produced-what Gubrium & Holstein (1997;

2000; 2001) call the howss" of interpretive practice.









Narrative production of a changeable gay self is legitimized by an appeal to both scientific

and divine authority. In this first example, Nicolosi (2006a) immediately tells the audience that

he has both the professional expertise and scientific knowledge to be able to story the gay self:

I have had the privilege of working as Mike said over the last 15 years with over a 1000
men who have wanted to change. Besides that we have worked with families, 100's of
families who are concerned about their GID gender identity disordered daughter or erm
child. We are talking very young ages. Many in my own profession do not want to touch
this topic of homosexuality and I think they are missing out on very gratifying occupation

It is also important to point out that Nicolosi is the first speaker of the day, consequently setting

the tone for the rest of the conference. In his introduction from Mike Haley, both his

qualifications and his clinical expertise are referred to. In addition he is always named as "Dr

Nicolosi" whereas the other speakers are called by their first names.

The use of a scientist as the introductory speaker gives the conference an aura of

credibility and scientific authority that is referenced throughout the day. The keynote address

after lunch, which is also a critical time of day since it sets up the afternoon sessions, is also

given by man with a doctoral degree. His credentials are also emphasized, both by the person

introducing him and throughout the speech. Furthermore, his biography, which is available in

both the conference guide and the L WO website stresses, "as a veteran and award winning

teaching, principal, public policy analyst and college professor ... Dr Carpenter currently serves

as an assistant professor ... at a maj or research university system" (Love Won Out Conference

Guide 2006:8). He is given an authoritative voice through both his professional experience

within the educational system and his current position as a university professor-with the

emphasis on "maj or research" establishment.

I argue that the privileging of scientific discourse allows Love Won Out to persuasively

argue that gays and lesbians can change and also to be able to claim they are the ones speaking

the "truth" about homosexuality. This first quote highlights the importance of scientific









knowledge, "let's face it: science is fact ... not theory" (Straight Answers: Exposing the M~yths

and Facts About Homosexuality 2003:10). Innumerable times over the course of the conference,

the speakers refer to what the "facts" are or they reference scientific studies to validate a point.

For instance, "the facts are that there is a connection between boyhood sexual abuse by an older

male and homosexuality" (Nicolosi 2006a) and "there are thousands and thousands of different

academic studies demonstrating that kids do better on every measure of well being when they are

raised by their married, biological parents" (Maier 2006) or "many studies show there is a high

correlation between gender non conformity and adult homosexuality." (Nicolosi 2006b). Once

scientific authority is established, the following claims can be made; "a future heterosexual life.

The evidence is clear. When parents affirm a child's sex appropriate gender identity ... the child

is much more likely to be heterosexual" (Nicolosi 2006b).

Scientific authority is also used to refute truth claims from the lesbian and gay civil rights

movement, specifically those naming a biological basis for homosexuality. Repeatedly, the

audience is told "there is no credible scientific evidence" (Carpenter 2006a) supporting a genetic

basis for homosexuality. In more detail, "all the findings combined from the study of twins, gene

"linkage" studies or brain dissections cannot prove that homosexuality is genetic. What is clear is

that the scientific attempts to demonstrate that homosexual attraction is biologically determined

have failed" (Straight Answers 2003: 9). In other words, L WO provides factual support for their

discursive claims against being born gay. As Gubrium & Holstein (1997) note "to claim

something as a fact, one must show that proper procedures have been followed to establish it as

"obj ectively" known" (137). L WO accomplish this through their repeated scientific

documentation, this allowing them to argue; "so to answer the question "are homosexuals









attractions biological?" The conclusive answer is that there is No support in scientific research

for the conclusion that homosexuality is biological determined" (Straight Answers 2003: 10)

Discursive formulation of a gay self that can change also draws upon divine authority,

with specific reference to biblical conceptualizations of sexuality. With a belief system

embedded in wider evangelical discourse, including a belief in the Bible as the actual word of

God and which I explained in chapter 1, this is a particularly powerful rhetorical strategy. The

possibility of sexual identity transformation is first discussed in relation to the perceived

immutability of homosexuality: "we do not believe it is genetic, Christian worldview, the Bible

proves homosexuality is not genetic" (Fryrear 2006a). If the Bible asserts this, and the Bible is

the literal word of God, then clearly sexuality can be changed.

The idea of biblical sexuality contradicting the idea of being born gay is also underscored

in relation to what is characterized as the reality of God' s perspective, "from God's perspective,

there's one orientation, we were all created heterosexual ... God created heterosexual people"

(Haley 2006b). This is neatly summarized by Haley (2004) in his book 101 Frequently Asked

Questions About Homosexuality in answering the question can a homosexual really change?

If you believe in an all powerful God the answer is the loudest possible Yes!i First
Corinthians 6 spells this out gloriously when it proclaims that true freedom for
homosexuals can be found in that one four-letter, life-giving word found in the first phase
of verse 1 1: "and that is why some of you were." After listing a number of vices that focus
our need for Christ' s forgiveness, Paul proclaims this truth for all mankind-regardless of
what sin has beset them the true change is possible through the provision of Christ. (127)

The message is clear, homosexuals have the option of changing their sexual identity once

religious faith is embraced and the underlying causes of homosexuality understood.

Gays and lesbians must change









The rhetorical production of a gay and lesbian self that can change only takes Love Won

Out so far in their desire for sexual identity transformation and the eventual construction of an

ex-gay self. Once gays and lesbians have been provided with a narrative framework for storying

their troubled selves, they must also have incentive to undergo painful self reconstruction. In this

next section, I discuss how L WO present interpretive resources necessary to hold those same

troubled selves accountable for undergoing that change.

As I suggest in chapter 1, defining the obligation to change within an evangelical

religious organization is obviously going to underscore the importance of biblical constructions

of appropriate sexuality. Speakers consistently draw upon a discursive standard that describes

homosexuality as sinful. Although I will cover this in greater detail in the upcoming chapter,

there are some key points that need to be addressed here. In concert with the idea that

homosexuality is sin is the fact that individuals must repent in order to get to heaven. Hence,

gays and lesbians must repent of sin in order to be saved, "God is clear about the consequences

of unrighteousness such as homosexual behavior. Yet, as with other sinful lifestyles,

homosexuality is forgiven if the person repents his or her actions and turns to God" (Straight

Answers 2003: 25).

Gays and lesbians are seen to be under divine mandate to change when their sexual

conduct is viewed through the religious framework that L WO present. Speakers draw upon a

traditional religious discourse that constructs homosexuality in relation to what is called God's

created intent. As the following suggests, human sexuality is storied as relations only between

male and female within the marital union, "... from the beginning God made the male and

female. For this cause will a man leave his father and cleave to his wife and the two shall become

one ... this was the created intention for the human marital and sexual experience ... that it be










monogamous ... that it be heterosexual" (Dallas 2006a). In this extract, Dallas is drawing the

boundaries of appropriate sexuality. Moreover, homosexuality is seen as particularly egregious

as it violates God's original design for men and women.

The primary narrative resource drawn upon relates back to the ideas of reparative therapy

discussed earlier. Reparative therapy constructs a mutable sexual identity and gives a clear

indication of the root causes of homosexuality. These root causes are explained as a

psychosexual developmental disorder related to inappropriate bonding between parents and

children and exposure to traumatic life events. This discursive framework produces a self that is

suffering from a serious identity disorder, and is seeking to repair childhood emotional hurts

through same-sex expression. In general, the psychological profile presented is one in which

homosexuals are depicted as "pathetic and unfulfilled; gay men and lesbians constantly seek

parental substitutes as love objects-a doomed and tragic quest" (Herman 1997: 71).

This depiction of homosexuality as a developmental mental disorder frequently

characterizes selves that are empty, lonely and emotionally crippled, as these excerpts indicate,

homosexuality is always prompted, ALWAYS PROMPTED, by an inner sense of
emptiness. (Nicolosi 2006a)

And so if there' s a breakdown in a same sex relationship with the mother, a same-sex love
deficit can occur. (Fryrear 2006a)

The signs are ... loneliness, anxiety, depression, maladaption. (Nicolosi 2006b)

What is notable in all of these quotes is the stress placed on selves that are empty and

emotionally deficient. In other words, selves that are psychologically unhealthy. The underlying

thread suggests that to become healthy there must be a radical identity change.

Emotional immaturity is also referenced as a consequence of inadequate parent-child

bonding. Gays and lesbians are often infantilized and depicted as acting out against straight

society. Haley describes an incident with his Christian mentor that sets the two selves against one









another. Here, Haley, in an attempt to provoke his mentor had been talking about his sexual

activities the previous weekend and his mentor respectfully declined to listen, then the following

exchange takes place,

But I want to let you know that there' s not going to be anything that you're going to be
able to do or say that' s going to push me away so let's just stop that game right now. And
I was like, okay. And it would take the wind out of my sails and I would have to go on to
the next game. Until he figured that one out (Haley 2006b)

The self being storied is one that is immature and playing games, especially when read against

the sensible adult mentor. Nicolosi (2006a) also refers to gay men as emotionally immature and

likens them to children who have never grown up, "Have you ever seen a gay pride parade?

These are like a bunch of little boys." Infantilizing gay men is a powerful discursive tool, and

again implicates these troubled selves in a need to change.

Conceptualization of homosexuality as unhealthy is a consistent theme throughout the

conference. Speakers routinely draw on interpretive resources that frame homosexuality as

pathological. Nicolosi even gives a detailed definition of pathology to ensure the audience is

clear on how damaging homosexuality is: "pathology is defined as maladaptive, self defeating,

self destructive behavior". Directly linking sexuality and pathology makes the need for a cure

imperative.

Portrayal of the physical consequences of engaging in homosexual sex also highlights the

need for sexual identity transformation. The following quotes from two different conference

sessions detail the myriad ways in which gay and lesbian selves are sick, and provide compelling

reasons for change:

For example the 1991 study in the Archives of General Psychiatry found that there were
substantially higher levels of mental health problems including suicide attempts, anxiety
disorders, maj or depression, eating disorders, substance abuse. And that' s just one study.
Many, many studies support this. (Nicolosi 2006b)









And frankly I believe we should also be grieved by the consequences of homosexual
behavior. Um, as many of you know, it' s linked to some, some very tragic health
consequences, elevated rates of psychiatric illness, drug and alcohol abuse and suicide.
And research suggests that the life expectancy of a gay man is about 7 to 20 years shorter
than that of a heterosexual man. (Maier 2006)

Haley (2004) also details studies in which both gay men and lesbians are said to smoke and drink

more, have greater levels of mental illness, be more at risk from domestic violence and be far

more promiscuous than heterosexuals. Accordingly the onus is on homosexuals to take

responsibility for their actions.

The theme of pathology and mental illness is furthered with a depiction of gay men as

disease carriers. More specifically, gay men are portrayed as being far more sexually

promiscuous and therefore at risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Of primary

importance here is, of course, the association between gay male promiscuity and AIDS,

The chances of a heterosexual contracting the HIV virus from one episode of unprotected
sexual intercourse is one in a hundred and seventy five thousand. Do you know what that
statistic is for a gay man that engages in one episode of unprotected homosexual
intercourse? It's one in 165. Not 165,000, 165 (Haley 2006b)

Haley (2004) is also careful to note in his book that AIDS infection rates are rising fastest

amongst the gay male population. Moreover, in terms of promiscuity, he references a study in

which 28% of gay men were said to have had 1000 or more sexual partners, which far exceeds

the numbers in the heterosexual community. Linking promiscuity with homosexuality and

disease is achieved thus:

Solid irrefutable evidence proves that there are lethal consequences to engaging in the
defining features of male homosexuality-that is promiscuity. According to one report, the
risk of anal cancer rises an astounding 4000% for those engaging in homosexual
intercourse and doubles again for those who are HIV positive. (Straight Answers 2003: 12)

Lesbian women are not immune from depiction as promiscuous and diseased, despite

construction of lesbianism as emotional, not sexual. A booklet produced by L WO to detail the

myths and facts about homosexuality deals with the perception that "lesbian relationships are









healthier than gay male relationships" by responding "lesbian relationships are equally

unhealthy, and just as life-threatening as gay male relationships" (Straight Answers 2003: 21). In

particular, "it' s important that women know the consequences of their choices. Lesbians are not

excluded from the realities of promiscuity, like the HIV virus" (Straight Answers 2003: 22). Both

gay men and lesbians, then, run the risk of contracting life-threatening diseases if they do not

change their sexual identity.

The substantive themes I have detailed above all deal with the individual consequences of

homosexuality, and therefore the need to change on a personal level. Love Won Out also draw on

wider cultural narratives to stress the importance of identity transformation, which I will describe

in detail in chapter 5. One thing that is critical, however, is the connection drawn between

homosexuality and pedophilia. Such a potent narrative resource makes it absolutely imperative

for gays and lesbians to change their sexuality and accordingly be less of a threat to children.

This association is indirectly referenced by Nicolosi (2006a), "1/3 of our homosexual clients at

our clinic were sexually abused by older boys or men. And the personal histories of gay men

often report same sex abuse, and we know that those who were abused become abusers. Besides

that in addition, gay activists are more likely to lobby for lowering the sexual age of consent."

Fryrear (2006c) expresses the relationship more frankly "within the male population there are a

disproportionate number of gay identified men who are involved in pedophilia." Undoubtedly,

the pressure is on homosexuals to accept that their selves are troubled and to work on healing. If

they do not, not only are they a danger to themselves, but also a danger to others-most especially

children.

To accomplish sexual identity transformation, gay men and lesbians must first learn what

thought, behaviors and emotions are consistent with inappropriate sexual expression (Wolkomir










2006). This necessitates discursive formulation of a gay self that is troubled and in need of

healing. Narrative production of such a self draws upon interpretive resources suggesting that

gays and lesbians can, with specific reference to reparative therapy, and gays and lesbians must

change, with specific reference to pathological behavior.

Production of this gay self is accomplished through a process of typification, described

by Gubrium & Holstein (1997) as a means of categorizing and understanding "typical" behavior:

"experience makes no sense until it has been categorized as evidently an instance of some known

type" (138). This enables people to make sense of a particular discursive account and

subsequently ascribe "other characteristics, activities, motives to objects and actions" (Gubrium

& Holstein 1997: 13 8). In terms of a gay or lesbian self production, typifieation allows audience

members to assign a range of meanings to what "gay" entails.

Over the course of the conference, the speakers assemble a range of discursive resources

to mobilize the typical gay or lesbian self. Gays are constructed as mentally ill, pathological,

promiscuous, traumatized, emotionally immature and sinful. Typification in this manner has

radical consequences for self identity and self construction since it also provides justification for

particular courses of action-sexual identity transformation from gay to ex-gay. In the next

chapter I detail how this self transformation is achieved.









CHAPTER 4
BECOMING EX-GAY

Mobilization of the typical gay or lesbian self draws on narrative resources that signify a

certain kind of sexual identity. The gay and lesbian selves constructed are a critical component of

the institutional selves produced by Love Won Out for the evangelical religious organization,

Focus on the Family. Narrative production of the troubled gay or lesbian self implicates one that

can sexual identity and must change it. Gays and lesbians are depicted as a danger to themselves

and to others, sinful, and psychologically damaged. Consequently, with this worldview, Love

Won Out must develop a rhetorical framework that fosters development of ex-gay and ex-lesbian

selves that can be healed from the trials and tribulations of their former lives. This framework

draws upon discourses of religion, psychotherapy, and self-help movements, as I will explain in

this chapter.

The most critical aspect of the ex-gay self is that it develops primarily through a process of

religious identity transformation, which subsequently directs the sexual identity transformation.

Over the course of this chapter, I describe the story of a self that has come to recognize itself as

troubled, as I explained in the previous chapter, one that embarks on a "healing journey" using

the discursive frameworks provided by evangelical religion and reparative therapy. The ex-gay

self produced is one that can only be understood in relation to specific constructions of biblical

sexuality, that is that the only true God-given sexual identity is heterosexual. Therefore I begin

this chapter with a discussion of the narrative resources Love Won Out draws upon to produce

the religious self. I also describe the discursive production of sexual identity transformation, and

the strategies used to maintain the ex-gay self. I conclude by examining the narrative tension

inherent in an ex-gay self that is described as both immutable and changeable written on the

body and socially constructed.









The narrative resources used by Love Won Out to mobilize the typical ex-gay self are

predominantly those associated with biblical constructions of acceptable behavior within the

specific religious doctrine associated with Focus on the Family. As I described in chapter 1,

FOTF is an evangelical religious organization and, as such, stories an institutional self that

reflects those ideals. More specifically, narrative construction of an ex-gay self is confined

within the biblical conditions of possibility for gender and sexuality.

Sin and Salvation

To successfully perform the radical identity transformation from gay to ex-gay, there must

first have been a self realization of the problematic nature of homosexuality. The speakers at

L WO routinely draw upon biblical constructions of the sinful nature of homosexuality to detail

their initially reluctant acceptance of these truth claims. Having said that, however, acceptance of

the idea that homosexuality is sinful is preceded by fervent denial of religion. During the

testimonies of Mike Haley and Melissa Fryrear, the ex-gay and ex-lesbian respectively, each

recounts significant episodes in which they symbolically shut religion out of their lives in order

to embrace a homosexual identity. In this upcoming extract, Haley (2006a) describes his initial

confusion surrounding the negotiation of his religious identity and his burgeoning

homosexuality,

I'm growing up in the church. As a matter of fact I'm the kid in the youth group that every
youth pastor would have wanted. If there was a mission trip I had Hyve of my unsaved
friends going on that trip that I'd pray for. I was there early to set up chairs I was very,
very involved. But I began to become very confused as you can only imagine. I remember
at the age of 15 going to a large Christian camp. I went forward and rededicated my life
and I felt at that point the Lord put a call on my life to full time Christian service
specifically as it pertained to dealing with youth. But I was like ok God wait a minute I'm
very confused and part of my confusion stemmed from the attitude of the pulpit that I was
receiving from the Church that I was growing up in. The church that I was raised in said
there was a hotter place in hell for gays and lesbians or that Jesus had to hang a little longer
on the cross for people that were like that.









Here, Haley clearly identifies his own strong religious orientation and the difficulty he had

reconciling that with his sexual feelings, and that Jesus had to suffer more for it. He continues,

"That' s what explained all of those feelings as I was growing up. Some of those developmental

processes Dr. Nicolosi just talked about. I misinterpreted them because I believed at that point

that I was born gay and I figured well if this is who I am and this is how God has made me then I

need to go and I need to experience that community" (Haley 2006a).

Haley makes it a point to stress that he was under the impression that his homosexuality

was God-given, due to "misperception" of developmental processes and the influence of

misguided cultural ideology. Further on in his testimony, he describes his last attempt to

reconcile his faith with his sexuality. In this excerpt, Haley (2006a) is having a discussion about

his homosexuality with his youth pastor who subsequently suggests that he needs to pray more to

rid himself of his unwanted sexual feelings,

So what do you think I did as a 17-year-old junior in high school that didn't want to be
gay? I read my Bible and I read my Bible and I read my Bible and I prayed and I prayed
and I prayed. I remember one night kneeling next to my bed and saying Lord I'm not going
to stop praying until I feel different only to fall asleep and waking up feeling just as
different as I had when I started to pray ... .But I was told to put God in a box to pray to
him and to read his word and he owed it to me to change me. Well how many of you have
been Christians long enough to know you don't tell God what to do. So when God didn't
do what I told him he should do I got angry at my faith, I got angry at the church, I denied
that God existed, I became hateful towards the Christian community. I hated God, denied
that he existed and I lived the next 12 years involved in the gay community.

Haley's testimony, which is the second speech of the day, provides a clear narrative grounding

for an ex-gay self that undergoes a primarily religious transformation, whereas the troubled gay

self is one that has rej ected religion and turned its back on faith.

The storying of the troubled gay self in terms of the rej section of religion is a consistent

theme over the course of the conference. Fryrear (2006b) explains her own experiences,

There's a Sunday morning that stands out to me, I can see it as clearly as yesterday. I was
13-years-old at the time, I was sitting in the sanctuary with my parents, waiting for that









service to begin and I picked up a Bible that was resting on the back of the pew in front of
me, and I began to very casually flip through the Bible that morning. Well it fell open to
the book of Leviticus. And the 18th chapter of Leviticus. And I began to read through and I
got to verse 22, that a man should not lie with another man as one lies with a woman; that
is detestable...I only read the verse twice, but it had a very decisive effect on me that
Sunday morning, because after I read it again, I made the decision to close that Bible, I
placed it on the back of the pew in front of me, and just as I had done with the Bible, I
made the decision to close my heart to God, because basically I misread the verse.

When I read the verse, I read, "Melissa is detestable." I was 13; I was already questioning
whether I might be gay. I was already questioning my sexual identity. And so when I read
that verse, I thought that that' s what God was saying about me, that I was detestable. And
so I made a conscious decision to close my heart to Him.

In this excerpt, Fryrear constructs gay and lesbian selves as irreligious, having made a conscious

decision to renounce faith, because their faith has no room for them.

Despite initial rej section of religion, gays and lesbians can come to a gradual acceptance

of biblical teachings on sexuality through the evangelism of an outside mentor. In fact,

evangelical religious doctrine suggests that church members should be involved in actively

recruiting new members or converts, including troubled gays or lesbians that can be healed once

brought back into the fold (Marsden 2006; Smith 1998; Utter & Storey 2007). Evangelism, or

sharing of the gospel, is regularly cited by the speakers as a critical component for religious

awakening. Haley, describes his moment of transformation through evangelism that he

experienced just as he was about to engage in anonymous sex with a man he picked up at a gay

gym. The man suddenly said "I am sorry to have led you on, but I'm a Christian and I am trying

to walk away from this." This man then went on to ask if he could tell Haley his story. Haley

(2006a) then chronicles what happened next,

So I got in this guy's car and we began to drive around the southern California area where
my family still lives and he began to talk to me about his counselor, a guy named Jeff
Konrad that was helping him to understand the roots of his homosexuality. How he too had
not bonded with his father, how in elementary school he was much more comfortable
being with the girls than he was with the boys. How every day in junior high and high
school he was peer labeled and called fag. And he talked about all these things and he
talked how too he had just happened to have been sexually abused... Now mind you, its










quarter after midnight we're sitting in his car, he's going on and on about these things that
he' s been learning. Some of these things are ringing true of my own life. He' s going on
and on about his counselor, this man named Jeff. Jeff is telling me this and Jeff this and
Jeff that and all of a sudden his eyes got big, bigger than I've ever seen anybody/s eyes get
in my entire life. And he said you are never going to believe this but there' s Jeff right now
. So I got what I now know was the holy spirit goose bumps and the
Lord brought back to my mind a verse that I had memorized as a young boy in vacation
Bible school: 'was my arm too short to rescue you?'

In this excerpt, Haley clearly identifies the moment that he began what he later calls his walk out

of homosexuality. The self being constructed is one that is being led toward to the realization of

its own troubled nature and the need for radical identity transformation through religious

conversion.

Evangelical religious doctrine is also used to construct the sinful nature of homosexuality

and the subsequent need for repentance, as I briefly described in the previous chapter. In a book

written by Alan Chambers (2006), one of the speakers at the conferences, and other influential

figures at the leading ex-gay organization-Exodus International-homosexuality is described as

"abominable to God" (30). However, he also stresses that humanity's fallen nature is such that

all are sinners, with homosexuality being no worse a sin than anything else. Later in the same

book, one of the authors offers the following, "the church was correct in calling homosexuality a

sin, but as with all sins, God offers forgiveness, restoration and transformation" (Goeke 2006:

109). Accordingly, homosexuals can be "saved" from their sin if they repent and offer

themselves to God. Indeed, repentance is mandated within this discursive formulation for any

and all sinners as one speaker notes, "the Bible says, though, that God doesn't want anyone to

perish but everyone to come to repentance" (Fryrear 2006b).

Intertwined with notion of sin and repentance is the key concept of change. In keeping

with other aspects of the narrative formulation of the ex-gay self, change is conceptualized

within a biblical framework. Importantly, all of the speakers describe hearing the message of sin,










repentance and change through the evangelism of an outside source. This from Haley's (2006a)

testimony,

This man named Jeff Konrad that would not leave me alone. I would move, I wouldn't
give him my forwarding address he'd track me down, he'd send me birthday cards. He
would say I don't even know if you live at this address but I wanted to let you know that I
love you and that God loves you and that change is possible. I'd write him back the
nastiest ugly letters about his god about his faith. I was born this way, leave me alone.
He'd write me back, Mike you said in your last letter that you were born this way I want
you to go to the library, I want you to find me a study that will prove to me that you were
born gay and if you can do that I will change the way that I believe and I thought yes
there's one more stupid Christian that I am going to get to change their mind .
.The very foundation upon which my entire life was based absolutely began to crumble
when I realized what these researchers themselves had said about their studies. That they
didn't find a genetic link, that some in society like to say they do and my world crumbled.

The evangelist, Konrad, is described not only as a tireless crusader, but also as instrumental in

helping Haley realize that his sexuality was not, in fact God-given, and could be changed if his

faith is once more embraced.

Melissa Fryrear, too, describes her transformation from a lesbian self to an ex-lesbian in

terms of the evangelism of others. In her case, however, she was introduced to religion before

she committed herself to change. For example,

Bill was a Christian. And Bill knew that I was living homosexually ... Bill was a very wise
and mature man as well and that he knew I first needed a savior, that I first needed Jesus
Christ in my life and so he put homosexuality on the back-burner ... and with that sense of
trust that built I began to ask him questions about his faith and about Christianity. Is Jesus
real? Is Heaven and Hell real? And what happens when you die and what about this sin
thing? ... and so something spiritually began to stir in my heart. (Fryrear 2006b)

Once she started to feel the pull of her religion, she began to tentatively return to church. In the

following two selections from her testimony, Fryrear describes her first ventures back into

religious life and uses them to emphasize the fact that as a lesbian what she lacked most was

religious faith. In fact, homosexuality and religion are constructed as mutually exclusive:

And so one Saturday night I asked my live-in lesbian partner if she wanted to go to church
the next morning. And I don't know if I was more shocked that I asked her or if I was-I
was I was more shocked that she agreed to go ... .So you can imagine that scene two









lesbian women sitting in the middle of this church, small congregation of predominantly
older couples, to say we stood out is an understatement. (Fryrear 2006b)

Fryrear (2006b) continues,

My live-in lesbian partner actually gave me my first Bible. Not sure where that lines up
with your theology.

Lesbian self identity is repeatedly portrayed as incompatible with religious identity. Moreover,

there is an unmistakable incredulity expressed at the idea that homosexuality and faith can be

reconciled: after both of these statements the audience laughed loudly and at length.

The possibility of change is presented to the troubled gay or lesbian self in the form of

specific biblical truth claims regarding the nature of sin, sexuality and salvation. From

Chambers' book "inherent in the message of the gospel is the idea that through Jesus we all

become new creatures. The gospel is about changed lives. It should follow that, through Jesus

Christ, the homosexual can likewise experience change" (Goeke 2006: 127). What is being

explained here is one of the most critical ideas addressed over the course of the conference and

undergirds the construction of the ex-gay self: sexual identity transformation can occur through

religious identity transformation and the acceptance of faith. The discursive formulation of

change is repeated over the course of the conference and throughout the related textual material:

"true change is possible through the provision of Christ" (Haley 2004: 127). In other words, the

pivotal part of transformation from gay to ex-gay is defined by the acceptance of religion into the

individual's life. As an example, "I was led to make the most important decision of my life. And

saying that prayer that I know so many of you have prayed and hopeful and prayerful that those

who haven't one day will: Jesus would you come and be the savior and Lord of my life" (Fryrear

2006b).

Yet the speakers are careful to explain that embracing religious identity does not

necessarily lead to instantaneous self transformation. Rather, formerly gay selves are storied as










struggling to accept narratives of change whilst still holding true to evangelical doctrinal truths.

Fryrear (2006b) explains her struggle in her testimony,

I look back and it felt like a wrestling match started. Of going around and round and round
in circles with the Lord. And very honest conversations with Him at that time, "I didn't ask
for these feelings Lord, I don't know where've they've come from, I don't know why
they're in my life, I don't want them here, but I don't know how to get rid of em, this is all
I've ever known, it' s the only way I've ever lived, these are the only people that I know.
There's this Christian community, but I'm scared of them, I don't know if they'll rej ect me
or accept me, I don't know if I can change, I don't know if my feelings will ever change, I
don't know if you can get me out of this. I've come to believe in you now though and your
word says it's wrong. Help.

Haley (2006a) expresses the difficulty of the transition more directly:

So like I said I left homosexuality and I'd love to tell you that from there it' s this
incredible god pleasing story but that' s just not the case at all. The year of 1990 was the
closest thing to hell I believe I will ever experience in my life. I had left the gay
community I had known all those years, I was coming back to the Christian community
that I didn't like and frankly I didn't think they liked me very much. I was going to good
Godly Christian counseling, I was dealing with some of my sexual abuse issues, I was
dealing with some of my dad issues and I began for the first time in my life to have
feelings that I didn't know what to do with ... I was failing miserably

In both of these extracts, the selves produced are in a state of confusion. On the one hand, they

have accepted a set of interpretive resources allowing them to believe in the idea of leaving

homosexuality, yet they are still understood in terms of a sexual identity incompatible with the

new religious self.

Evangelical religion provides the discursive standard against which gay and lesbian selves

can measure their identity transformation from gay to ex-gay. What it does not provide, however,

are the interpretive tools necessary for the sexual identity transformation. Nevertheless it is

important to note that Love Won Out consistently stresses that religious identity transformation

will almost automatically result in sexual identity change. By way of illustration:

To say that someone has had a change in his (or her) identity means, essentially, that he no
longer identifies himself as gay. His identity is not based on his feelings, and certainly not
on his sexual desires or his struggles with sin. He becomes what he knows to be true from
the word of God ... these changes people gladly accept the identity bestowed on them by









their God-new creatures designed for the purpose of glorifying their God, fully male or
female, and fully righteous based on the blood of Jesus for their sins" (Goeke 2006: 70)

Notice that the emphasis is on the centrality of religious identity for the self, and this is what

produces the marked shift from self conceptualization as "gay."

Reparative Therapy

Religious discourse suggests the possibility of change and provides the incentive to

change, while secular discourse provides the conditions of possibility to accomplish that change.

More specifically, production of the ex-gay self is embedded within the framework of reparative

therapy. Reparative therapy, as I described in the previous chapter, portrays homosexuality as

primarily a gender identity disorder caused by inadequate parent-child bonding. Furthermore,

reparative therapy proposes a number of causal factors associated with the development of

homosexuality which can be addressed in order to affect the sexual identity shift that religious

conversion requires.

Reparative therapists depict homosexuality as "a symptom of something else. And that' s

what the person learns in the course of therapy. That when they have a homosexual attraction

something happened interrelationally" (Nicolosi 2006a). The 'something else' mentioned here by

Nicolosi is first triggered by poor parent child relations. To reach the perceived goal of becoming

ex-gay, the self has to understand these triggers, and either reform parental bonds or compensate

for them. Failure of parental socialization leave the child "vulnerable to sexual identity struggle"

(Fryrear 2006a) since that self lacks adequate gender role models. Consequently, gay men and

lesbian women are constructed as violating normative masculinity or femininity respectively. In

this first excerpt, Fryrear (2006b) illustrates how these issues played out in her own life,

Let me say without question that today I know how desperately my parents love me. Um,
how sweetly they love me, that they would have given me, would have sacrificed anything
to have provided for me and cared for me. And that' s taken a lot of years to come to know
because I misperceived them growing up, I misperceived the depth and the enormity of










their love. That they have loved me unconditionally the entire way ... I know in retrospect
I sought to fill that search for love in relationships with other women.

Here she stories her formerly lesbian self as one in line with the precepts of reparative therapy.

She describes herself as mistakenly feeling unloved by her parents, which then led to her ensuing

homosexuality as she looked to other women for comfort and love. Reparation of this

misperception and broken bond is the primary component in successful sexual identity

transformation.

For the male desiring sexual identity transformation, reparative therapists stress the need

to recognize the failure of the father son bond and provide strategies to help negotiate this. In one

of his books, therapist Nicolosi (1993) describes the following scenario from a session with one

of his clients:

Dan began to recognize the anger that he felt towards the very persons from whom he
sought sexual gratification. This sadomasochistic characteristic often found in
homosexuality traces back to the unattainable father whom the boy desires, yet despises.
Dan spent many months in therapy working through his feelings for his mother and father.
It was those core feelings of love and painful dependency that he sought to feel again in
order to heal. Uncovering these feelings in a safe and understanding relationship offered
the only hope of relief from the sense of hollowness he lived with. (101)

Here, then, failure of the father-son bond led Dan not only to homosexuality, but to seek

sadomasochistic sexual fulfillment with other men. The therapist in this situation urges Dan to

reconnect with his feelings for his parents so that he would no longer seek sexual gratification

with men.

Male homosexuality, therefore, is portrayed as a struggle to find masculine affirmation and

male bonding missing due to the fractured father-son bond. Haley (2006a) refers directly to this

when narrating the story of his own self transformation;

Dr Nicolosi said we all have what are known as those homoemotional needs that need to
be met. And I longed to find acceptance from my father. In fact one of the phrases I heard
most out of my father was that I was going to be worthless and I was never going to









amount to anything and so it was very difficult for me and I was always looking for value
and I was always looking for worth.

Within this discursive framework, gay men are described as seeking a sense of masculine self-

esteem through eroticization of another' s masculinity. Accordingly, successful self

transformation for men demands replacements for these masculine bonds improperly formed

through same sex sexual activity.

Resocializing the ex-gay self into correct masculine expression and appropriate gender

identity involves building what L WO consistently refers to as "healthy same sex friendships"

(Haley 2006b) as the upcoming quotes illustrate:

So what I need now is healthy Godly men to invest in my life this was the initial part of my
healing process and I needed great wonderful godly men that were able and willing to bond
with me heterosexually just be my buddy know my struggles and that' s one of the things I
tell people that struggle with homosexuality is look you need positive same sex
relationships that are non sexually intimate and that's where your healing is going to come
from.

One man said to me, my healing of homosexuality was being seen as a man by a man. So
much of homosexual activity is really wanting to be seen and valued and appreciated and
excited which unfortunately becomes erotic excitement by a man ... What are the
emotional barriers, the psychological obstacles that prevent you from connecting with
other men? When you develop that connection with men when you feel like a guy, you're
not going to sexualize other guys.

In the first extract, the speaker emphasizes the importance of appropriate male friendships to

reaffirm his own masculinity. Moreover, these friendships are described as a key part of the

healing process, as the second excerpt highlights. Reparative therapy, therefore, assumes that

homosocial bonding reaffirms men in their own masculinity and this will subsequently remove

the sexual desire for another man. The following selection summarizes how this works; "as the

roots of the attractions are uncovered, and as the true relational need is exposed and met by

healthy relationships with the same sex, men and women find themselves less desirous of sexual









intimacy with the same sex" (Goeke 2006: 74). In other words, narrative production of the male

ex-gay self is now almost complete.

Discursive production of the female ex-gay self follows many of the patterns outlined

above for the male self. Lesbian selves are portrayed as having fractured parent-child bonds that

result in non normative gender presentation. The women are storied as overly masculine and out

of touch with their innate femininity. Fryrear (2006b) describes her own experiences,

because of how I perceive the world around me, or rather, better said, misperceived the
world, I thought that being a woman was second best to--second class and, so I rejected
femininity, rej ected womanhood, and to the extreme even so of wishing that I could've
been a little boy or a man and tried to emulate what I thought was manhood.

Understood within the framework of reparative therapy, this is the story of a self seeking to

fulfill the void created by an absence of parental love by engaging in same-sex sexual activity

and rebelling against normative femininity. A vignette entitled "Feeling Safe as a Woman" from

one of the L WO booklet series presents a similar story: "Growing up, my alcoholic father had a

violent temper and would often hit my mother. Because my mom was a victim, I rej ected

anything to do with femininity and wanted no part of being a girl. Instead I looked up to my

older brother and wanted to be just like him" (Sneeringer 2005: 30).

Discursive production of the female ex-gay self often involves negotiating the

consequences of violence, including sexual abuse. As I mentioned in chapter 3, lesbians are

frequently portrayed as victims of rape and other forms of molestation that force them to

renounce their femininity:

My parents divorced when I was 12 and sent me away to live with relatives, where I was
molested by an older cousin. Like most children who have been sexually abused, somehow
I thought I was to blame. If only men wouldn't find me attractive then things like this
wouldn't happen to me, I reasoned. From then on I wanted to conceal whatever shred of
femininity I had left (Sneeringer 2005: 30-31).









Such trauma creates a distrust of men, rejection of femininity and embracement of masculinity.

Consequently, successful self transformation for women demands interpretive strategies allowing

rape trauma survivors to relearn trust for men, and to understand and value normative femininity.

Love Won Out utilizes the question and answer session on lesbianism to explicate how

women can heal their damaged selves. In answer to a question "will my hate in men ever go

away?" the speakers give a number of potential strategies. The first involves an exercise in which

women are urged to write down words like men, women, sexuality and then write down

everything they can to fill in the categories. Fryrear (2006c) demonstrates the importance of such

an exercise that she herself performed at God' s urging,

So I wrote men on one page, women on the other; marriage female, sexuality, wrote all
these maj or categories and [the Lord] said now write down everything that you think about
that so I had hundreds of pages, dozens of pages of what I thought for example about men.
Well as I went through those, well no surprise, they were not true, they were all lies and
they weren't scripturally based and so the next step was why do I think that way? Where
did that come from?... Some of that was confession, it was sin on my part that I had to
repent of; some were very deep wounding of traumatic events that had happened in my
life ... So that can be very insightful.

In this excerpt, Fryrear instructs women on how to overcome their fear of men by looking more

closely at where the fear comes from. Furthermore, she stresses examining biblical constructions

of appropriate maleness, thereby ensuring the manner in which masculinity will be read and

understood. The other strategies also revolved around scriptural understandings of masculinity

and the use of prayer. For example, in this selection, Fryrear (2006c) implicates these two

strategies in combination with exposure to godly men:

And then to pray that God would bring godly men into your life who will exemplify what
does it mean to be a godly man and you can see that lived out before you and that was one
of the most significant ways the Lord helped to dispel the myths and what I believed about
men by bringing good Godly men into my life... And to encourage you that yes absolutely
he can change your thoughts and feelings about that.









It is interesting to note that the speakers never fully explain what constitutes being a "godly

man." To a certain extent, this leaves the audience free to reconstruct the men in their lives as

either godly or ungodly depending on their own interpretations of the Love Won Out discourse.

Having said that, however, the construction of godly masculinity is frequently undertaken using

a discursive framework that understands masculinity in stereotypical ways. The man should be

stronger, assertive and domineering, while still adhering to Christ-like qualities.

Healing the wounds from sexual trauma is not the only requirement for women to

complete radical sexual identity transformation since there must also be acceptance of normative

femininity. Typically, this involves mending the parent-child bond and the realization that

homosexuality results from unmet emotional needs. As is the case for men, women undergoing

sexual identity transformation are compelled to seek out female friends to fi11 emotional voids.

One woman describes her transformation,

When I returned to my church in Tampa, I asked all my friends to start calling me
"Christine."... I wanted to embrace my femininity. In the church I met godly, strong
women who helped me see that being female wasn't a liability ... the key to my healing
was developing healthy same-sex friendships. With God's help and the support of caring
people, homosexuality no longer casts a shadow on my life. (Sneeringer 2005: 33)

Christine stories herself transformation through the impact of her female friends and the eventual

acceptance, and even embracing, of her femininity. This also impacted how she viewed men: "I

also saw men in a different light. They were true friends, and they were interested in me, not sex.

For the first time, I felt safe as a woman" (Sneeringer 2005: 33). Female friendships are,

therefore, thought to free women from unwanted same sex sexual attraction and allow them to

Einalize the transformation from gay to ex-gay.

The Einal step in producing the ex-gay self for both men and women involves

emphasizing the discursive link between sex, gender and sexuality. As I have already explained,

L WO typically understand sexuality in terms of a biblical proscription against homosexuality,









backed up with a belief that everyone is born heterosexual. In addition, they understand

appropriate sexuality and normative gender expression to be situated on the body, such that

biological sex determines both. In this quote from Nicolosi's (2006a) explanation of male

homosexuality, one of his clients expresses all of these ideas, "One man said to me my body gets

in the way of my happiness. I said what? My body, your body gets in the way of your happiness?

He says yeah because a real man wants a woman's body, he doesn't want my body. And he's

absolutely right ... ." The client expresses his sexual desire for other men, the fact that he is not

gratified in his desire and his conceptualization of gender and sex through his discussion of what

real men want. In terms of production of the ex-gay self, this conflation of sex, gender and

sexuality determines the importance of healing and also the manner in which the healing process

is understood. Of primary importance is the fact that men and women are expected to behave in

manners appropriate to their biological sex, including in their partner choice. As a result, the ex-

gay self is one that is perceived to be returning to its "natural state" of heterosexuality. I will

revisit this issue when I address the maintenance of the ex-gay self, since it reveals a

fundamental contradiction between the elements of the Love Won Out belief system and the

institutional self under construction.

The "Hows" of Being Ex-Gay

Production of the ex-gay self draws upon a number of narrative practices. Substantively,

the ex-gay self is embedded within notions of religious and psychological discursive practice.

Putting these aside, bracketing them facilitates interrogation of the manner in which these themes

are produced-the howss" of interpretive practice (Gubrium & Holstein 1997).

As already noted, the ex-gay self has its discursive origin within a troubled gay self. To

be ex-gay, there first has to be gay. In keeping with many other organizations in the business of

reconfiguring personal identity by fixing troubled selves, L WO frequently draw upon a "self-










help" framework, typically that developed by Alcoholics Anonymous. Here, then, selves become

ex-gay, and start to understand themselves as being ex-gay, in a similar manner as AA

participants may become "recovering alcoholics" (Gubrium & Holstein 2001). This new

'recovering self' identity is then used by participants to "make sense of their lives, circumstances

and personal travails that led to their troubles" (Gubrium & Holstein 2001: 11).

Becoming ex-gay in L WO involves profound self transformation comparable to that of

the recovering alcoholic. As Denzin (1987) explains,

Not only does he or she become sober, but a new language of self is acquired, as are a new
set of meanings concerning alcohol, alcoholism and the drinking act. By becoming a part
of the lived history of AA, the individual is transformed into a "recovering alcoholic"
within a society of fellow alcoholics ... by no longer drinking, the alcoholic can pass as
normal within society. But this is a duplicitous normalcy, for the recovering alcoholic
carries the previous label of having been alcoholic ... she desired to be a recovering
alcoholic with all the meaning AA gives to that identity. (168)

Love Won Out envisage the ex-gay self in much the same way as Denzin explicates the

recovering alcoholic. Over the course of the day, participants leamn new ways to identify

themselves, leamn how to reinterpret homosexuality and heterosexuality, become part of a

fellowship of ex-gays and still retain part of the gay label. Moreover, they frequently use many

of the phrases that characterize AA to narrate the ex-gay self and thus provide interpretive

resources necessary to undergo the fundamental transformation of self referred to.

Production of the ex-gay self employs one of the discursive strategies that exemplifies

Alcoholics Anonymous, that of the public testimony-often called drunkalogues (Denzin 1987;

Holstein & Gubrium 2000; Pollner & Stein 1996; 2001). Since AA can trace its own origins to

evangelical religion, this is perhaps unsurprising (Erzen 2006). Testimony is a maj or component

of evangelical Christian experience and traces participants experience from sinner to saved

(Erzen 2006; Marsden 2006). The significance of this is illustrated by Mike Haley (2006b) in the

introduction to his own testimony;









Revelation 12:11 says they overcame him, speaking of Satan, by the blood of the lamb and
the word of their testimony and they did not love their lives so much as to shrink back.
And I believe that in that verse is a recipe for us as Christians. First of all the focus on
Jesus and secondly to tell our stories. How did you come to know the Lord? And as you
share your story as I will be doing this morning, I believe that what happens in the midst of
that, as we're promised in the verse, that we overcome the evil one, but also we give the
world that needs some hope the very thing that they're looking for ..

These public pronouncements allow the audience to position and locate their own stories within

the approved ex-gay narrative framework (Denzin 1987; Erzen 2006). In addition, the

testimonies provide a narrative template through which audience members can respecify and

restory themselves and their behaviors. Under the narrative auspices of the Love Won Out

conferences, two specific kinds of stories are presented, one ex-gay and one ex-lesbian, ensuring

that male and female participants are represented. In the next chapter, I will explain in more

detail how ex-gay personal testimonies provide potent narrative resources for the New Christian

Right in their battle against lesbian and gay civil rights.

Reliance on personal transformation stories legitimizes the production of the ex-gay self

in terms of "establishing the voice of experience" (Pollner & Stein 1996: 207). In much the same

way as AA stresses the importance of experience, so L WO presents a series of testimonies from

those already transformed. In other words, authority comes from being one (Crawley & Broad

2004). Billboards surrounding the Love Won Out conferences sites routinely feature photographs

of ex-gays and contain such messages as "I Questioned Homosexuality. Change is Possible.

Discover How." Moreover, the specific stories presented at the conference are used as exemplars

of what the ex-gay and ex-lesbian experience looks like, and are thought to provide

representation for the wider ex-gay and ex-lesbian community. Most notably, the featured

speakers are employed by Focus on the Family in their explicit capacity as ex-gay and ex-

lesbian. In some senses, then, Melissa Fryrear and Mike Haley are professional ex-gays purely

for their ability to privilege their own transformative experiences.









In the first speech of the day, Nicolosi (2006a) uses the existence of the ex-gay stories to

refute what he refers to as one of the homosexual myths, once gay always gay:

And we're going to be hearing testimonies from men and women who have come out of
homosexuality, who have come out of lesbianism and you'll get to hear their ex-gay stories
that we're hearing more and more. Because we're encouraging them, because we as a
culture are respecting their testimonies we're going to hearing more and more of these
individuals.

What is notable here is that testimonials from ex-gays and ex-lesbians are routinely privileged

even, in some cases, over the voices of the psychological experts. In this selection, Nicolosi does

not emphasize scientific authority to renounce gay and lesbian truth claims, instead referring to

the very existence of ex-gay testimonials as the ultimate proof. In addition, he highlights the

strategic importance of testimony and the wider cultural impact that support for these narratives

may have.

The identity work undertaken to story the biography of an ex-gay self follows a similar

narrative map to the drunkalogues of Alcoholics Anonymous (Denzin 1987; Gubrium & Holstein

2001; Holstein & Gubrium 2000; Pollner & Stein 1996). The accounts typically begin with

recitations of childhood troubles, including difficulties bonding with parents and recognition of

perceived gender irregularity, and they generally conform to the discursive framework presented

by reparative therapy. This accomplished, the narrators take the audience on a journey to the

point that they recognize their acceptance of a gay or lesbian self identity-typically coupled with

explicit rejection of religion. These are what Denzin (1987) calls before-stories and are

characterized by details of the troubles involved with being gay or lesbian, including alcohol

abuse and promiscuity. Before-stories end with the ex-gay equivalent of "hitting bottom" in

which there is a dramatic fall and realization that they must surrender to God in order to begin

the healing process. As Haley (2006a) describes, "I came to the end of myself." In the same way

as alcoholic selves are depicted as more hopeful after hitting bottom (Denzin 1987; Holstein &









Gubrium 2000), so too are ex-gays selves portrayed as hopeful of lasting change. These after-

stories center around the role of faith in "leaving" homosexuality and maintaining a sexual

identity in keeping with their newfound religion as the following extract demonstrates:

And so what happened was God and his Holy Spirit, it was four months and it was eight
months and it was twelve months and God's spirit kept working those truths deeper and
deeper and deeper down into my heart where you come to that point where you know that
you know that you know what you're doing is wrong ... how gentle He was, how
intentional He was, to continue to come after me and after me and after me and woo me
and woo me with that gentle, sweet love, administering that gift of repentance. 1992, being
able to repent by His grace and lay down so many years of sexual sin (Fryrear 2006b).

Fryrear' s after-story constructs God as being central to her transformation, to the point that she

renounced her homosexuality and can relate exactly when that happened.

In addition to embedding production of the ex-gay self within a discursive framework

similar to those of other self-help organizations, Love Won Out also provide their own narrative

template against which to measure successful identity transformation. As Haley (2004) writes, "

.. the Lord reminded me of what I had so desperately wanted at the beginning of my process ..

something that would help me evaluate my status and progress" (131). What he came up with

was a way for fledgling ex-gay selves to measure their own progression and evaluate their

chance of success. In his book, he speaks directly to those desiring change when he presents

what he identified as the Hyve characteristics proven successful for those who "succeed in

permanently leaving homosexuality" (Haley 2004: 133). These characteristics include the right

motivation, a new goal, changed relationships, commitment to action, and a different passion.

Taken together, they define exactly how ex-gay selves are produced and understood. Moreover,

the discursive strategies he details in his book underpin much of what is spoken at the

conferences.

The first two characteristics describe how the gay and lesbian selves being restored

should understand not only their desire for change, but also what appropriate expectations are.










First, motivation is defined as an absolute "devotion to leaving the gay lifestyle" (Haley 2004:

133). In addressing his readers more directly, Haley (2004) emphasizes this, "You must be

desperate for change ... Have you realized your desperation? Are you willing to endure public

ridicule from the gay community?" (133-134). Here, the audience is given a standard against

which to measure their commitment to change. What are they willing to endure in order to begin

the transformation process? Randy Thomas (2006a) provides one idea in the session designed

explicitly for those struggling with homosexuality: "the Lord asked me through someone who I

was teaching, if I don't take this struggle away from you, will you still obey me, will you still

serve me? If every ex-gay in the world falls, will you? I said: "No, Lord, I won't.""

Second, the goal of identity transformation is explained as holiness, not heterosexuality

(Chambers 2006; Haley 2004). This selection details how this works:

The only true goal that sustains the type of perseverance needed for this j ourney is summed
up in one word-obedience. If you focus on obtaining heterosexuality, not achieving
obedience, your chances of failure are enormous. That' s because the opposite of
homosexuality is not heterosexuality-it' s holiness. And when we strive toward holiness in
a quest to become more Christ-like, the desires of the flesh fall away and we begin to
obtain freedom like never before. (Haley 2004: 134)

Selves in this excerpt are being given instruction in how to think about their ultimate obj ective,

which is to remain true to their faith. Here, then ex-gay selves are being redefined in terms

religious goals, not sexual goals. Haley further demonstrates this during one of the conference

sessions, "we have to remember from God' s perspective the opposite of homosexuality is not

heterosexuality the opposite of homosexuality from God' s perspective is holiness." Not only is

religious conversion stressed, but he also draws upon divine authority to support his

pronouncements .

Over the course the conference, there is repeated emphasis on the purpose of becoming

ex-gay. Fryrear (2006b) explains to the audience how this should look, "And so we think the










j ourney out of homosexuality is the same j ourney that every person who is sincerely seeking to

follow Christ, it' s that same type of journey. It' s a j ourney of wanting to live your life

repentantly and obediently. It' s a pursuit of holiness. It' s a lifestyle of worship." She underlines

the role of faith, and the idea that repentance, worship and holiness are of paramount importance.

Notice that she does not refer to the sexual transformation, just religious conversion.

The final three characteristics described by Haley (2004) as crucial to successful change

focus more explicitly on the behaviors and attitudes that bring about healing. He describes selves

that have formed strong bonds with others, are committed to proactively seeking change, and a

passion for Christ. These become the foundation for the practical approaches to maintaining the

ex-gay self which I will outline the next section.

Narrative production of change details sexual identity transformation as a process that

begins with faith, the subsequent religious conversion and acceptance of homosexuality as sin.

Although Love Won Out believe in the possibility of the instantaneous eradication of homosexual

desire (Goeke 2006; Haley 2004), for the most part, progression from gay to ex-gay is portrayed

as "painful, long and arduous" (Haley 2004: 131). Maintenance of the ex-gay self, therefore,

becomes as important as the initial narrative production.

Production of the ex-gay self is a complex mix of religion, psychology and self-help, all

of which combine to influence how it must be further maintained. In keeping with evangelical

doctrine, all selves are defined as being inherently sinful-the ex-gay self obviously being no

exception. Fryrear (2006a), for example, explicates this view and embeds it in the conference

message more generally: "at the "Love Won Out" conference ... we come already with that

understanding as Bible-believing, faith-based Christians, that we understand, inherently, being in

a fallen world and that there is an enemy of our souls ... ." What this means in terms of









maintaining appropriate sexual and gender behavior is the acknowledgement of the temptations

that may lead to "sexual falls". The question and answer session on lesbianism deals with this

explicitly when the speaker references her own experiences, "it doesn't mean that I may never

have a temptation and I believe that' s not anything unusual. Christ himself was tempted. So

being tempted is not a sin. I believe it's what we do with that temptation. How do we respond to

that? How do we react to that?" (Fryrear 2006a). Here, there is a clear acceptance of the

possibility of sexual sin on the part of the healing self. Moreover, description of this sexual sin

has its discursive origins more widely in the narrative of biblical sin and the temptations of

Satan.

Sexual falls are explained by L WO as something to be expected. What is important,

however, is how these are reinterpreted over the course of the conference in order to maintain the

perception of sexually healed selves. Each speaker who identified as ex-gay or ex-lesbian storied

selves that continued to fight same-sex sexual attraction, or as Mike Haley (2006b) describes it,

"I will never be as though I never was." Repeatedly, L WO provide the interpretive resources

necessary for audience members to reconstruct their sexual struggles despite a discursive

framework that dismisses homosexuality and compels change. As one speaker explains,

just like the alcoholic who has been sober for 10 15 years and suddenly everything falls
apart in their life, divorce, loss of a job or loss of a loved one and suddenly they're
thinking I'd like to have a drink right now. Does that mean they're not healed? No. It just
means that old ting is beckoning them and they can either listen to that voice or they can
say you know what I'm going to make the right choice here cause I don't want that in my
life. So I've learned how to look that in the face and make a right choice. (Sneeringer
2006)

In this extract, sexual temptation is likened to an alcoholic wanting a drink in times of stress.

They still have the desire for a drink, or in the case of an ex-gay same-sex intimacy, yet this does

nothing to diminish the healing process. In his book, Haley (2004) takes the issue of his own

former homosexuality and explains how his struggles look at present:









While temptations still come my way, I liken them to a pesky fly. They pass my way and
bother me for a minute, I shoo them away, and then they're gone. I must frequently remind
myself of the truth that I am a new creation in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17) in the spiritual
realm-but in the physical one I will continue to deal with temptation. However, this does
not negate the fact that I live in complete victory. (140)

The story here is of a self that has to constantly battle, yet still considers itself to have been

healed and declares victory over unwanted sexual desire. Clearly, then, what is being suggested

here is that healing should be read in terms of physical behavior and spiritual conversion, not

complete removal of homosexual attraction.

Maintenance of the ex-gay self over the course of the Love Won Out conferences involves

active negotiation with the audience. This is particularly noticeable in terms of leading the

participants toward an understanding of how L WO understands the change process and what

appropriate behavioral expectations should be. In a session specifically designed for neophyte

ex-gays and ex-lesbians, the leader asks the audience to identify what it is they expect from their

ex-gay selves. Each and everyone that spoke identified surprise at their continued homosexuality

and most expected that these attractions would have ceased some time ago. For instance,

I am married and have children and I still struggle with attraction and I expect those
attractions will end.

After 15 years of working on my marriage and working on my issue, it didn't work out in
the marriage. It led to 15 more years of sanctification and trials and things of that nature
and my expectation now is to continue to press into the Lord and walk it out.

My expectation is that my attractions will be gone immediately and my thoughts will be
pure

Yeah, I just wanted to be clear I have been married now for twenty years, my marriage is
working great. And my wife and I are very much in love and I'm a good dad to my kids
but, my confusion, is that after all of this stuff, working on it, and following the Lord. all
the time, I still struggle

In each of these, the narrators describe selves that have obviously not managed to escape their

unwanted sexual attractions, despite assurances to the contrary and expectations that "change is










possible." The session leader, therefore, has to help these struggling selves to renegotiate their

identities within the discursive framework provided by Love Won Out.

Maintenance of the ex-gay self becomes a continual redefinition of self using language

that rephrases sexual attraction in terms of sin and sanctifieation, not failure or incomplete

healing. Randy Thomas, the session leader just mentioned, responds to the audience' s concerns

by helping them reevaluate their expectations;

Now, some realistic goal or expectations, you can expect a life of obedience. It' s not
always gonna work out to your liking ... And there are gonna be times when it' s hard and
the Lord's gonna ask you to obey... You can expect a lifetime of obedience. You will have
a life of struggle with sin. You can expect that you're going to struggle with sin until you
meet Him in glory. (Thomas 2006a)

In this excerpt, Thomas provides participants with a way to rethink their sexual attraction-in

terms of sin and not homosexuality. He continues by blaming persistent difficulty on the

influence of Satan, "I don't know where everybody gets this idea that, you know, once you're

down the road it's completely gone. The Lord knows, or your flesh remembers what happened,

Satan certainly does, but can you withstand that? That is the true change" (Thomas 2006a). He

encourages those listening not to think that healing means complete removal of homosexual

attractions, and instead reframes change in terms of the ability of the self to continually fight

temptation and maintain acceptable biblical standards of behavior.

Sustaining the ex-gay or ex-lesbian self despite continued temptation is also framed

through referral to psychological discourse. Goeke (2006) writes, "the temptations are dealt with

for what they are: a sign of some other problem that must be addressed with the Lord" (74). One

of the questions in the session on lesbianism asked "Do you continue to struggle with lesbian

inclinations if so what and how do you overcome temptation?" to which the speaker replied,

Years ago I learned an acronym that really helped me a lot. HALT. Hungry, angry,
lonely, tired. And I learned to ask myself when I'm feeling homosexually tempted because
I knew it wasn't a sexual need that had and so I learned to ask myself what is it that I'm









really feeling? Am I hungry? Am I angry? Am I lonely? Or am I tired? ... So the question
then is if I am some of those things I can do something about that if I'm lonely I can call a
friend. If I'm tired I can take a nap, if I'm hungry I can go out to eat ... that was the
general thing that I learned to ask myself and then began to address those needs that I may
be having. (Sneeringer 2006)

Notice that Sneeringer, the speaker, immediately discounts her sexual feelings, instead she

identifies them as symptomatic of something else, and in so doing grounds her identity back in a

reparative therapy framework. In terms of maintenance of her ex-lesbian self, she can use this to

ensure she does not suffer from any "sexual falls" due to misinterpretation of her needs.

Moreover, this description equips the audience with another set of narrative tools that can be

used to reinterpret their own sexual selves.

The ex-gay self is one that requires constant policing due to the ever-present danger of

temptation and, as such, public testimony becomes of paramount importance in ensuring

acceptable standards of behavior. Public recounting of private troubles provides an opportunity

to reinforce the message that homosexuality is mutable. In this excerpt, for instance, the speaker

explains how reaching out to other people helped her sustain her ex-lesbian identity:

I need to go talk to someone especially in leadership because I need to I'm too I have a
kind of sober reality of sin that I don't want to keep secrets from Satan so if I'm tempted
and I don't tell anyone because of my shame then I feel like I'm setting myself up for
something where I may get in trouble. So I'll go tell somebody. I'll ask for prayer and
that' s hard to do when you're in a position of leadership and people look to you as an
example. But I believe it's the only reason I'm standing before you today after seven years
of ministry because I've been willing to make those kinds of proclamations and ask for that
kind of help and have that kind of humility otherwise I would have blown it because life is
hard and there's lots of disappointments and reasons for me to maybe want to go back to
my old life to medicate and to feel comfort. (Sneeringer 2006)

The ex-lesbian self storied here is one that required open acknowledgement and admission of her

difficulties to help maintain appropriate behavioral norms. In this sense, maintaining an ex-gay

or lesbian self becomes more of a public performance than a sexual self would generally entail.










Typically, public testimony of sexual struggle occurs within the church community, as

would be expected within an evangelical organization. Having said that, however, Love Won Out

persistently stress the importance of attending support groups and ex-gay conferences where

public testimonials are the mainstays of the events. These occasions demonstrate not only

successful identity conversions to fledgling ex-gay and lesbian selves, but also endow attendees

with a feeling of belonging that strengthens their resolve to maintain their sexual fidelity. Haley

(2006a) expounds on the benefit of these conferences during his testimony,

There were about 800 other people there that were in the same shoes that I was that were
desperate for a relationship with Christ, that had the issues of homosexuality in their lives
that were looking for realness and it was incredible. I met men and women who had been
out of homosexuality, 5, 10 15, 20 years and they had gone on with their lives. And I
thought wow maybe this is possible for me. I mean I really met these people they weren't
just people that I had heard about I met them I talked with them and it was an incredible
experience.

He mentions not only finding other people like him, but also role models and people to talk to

about his experiences. The presence of other ex-gays and ex-lesbians facilitates maintenance of

the new self identity since they understand the nature of the struggle and can point out any

potential pitfalls. In addition, these conferences provide a set of potential same-sex friends that

can also aid in maintaining the ex-gay self. This becomes key since ex-gays and ex-lesbians are

strongly discouraged from keeping friendships with those in the gay community, as;

often [participants] will report that their gay friends will make fun of them or say that
you're never going to make it; it' s not like they're very supportive, "Oh I think it' s
wonderful that you want to leave homosexuality." they're not standing by cheering and
you need that. you need people that are on the same page with you that will encourage you
because this is a tough road. ... it' s hard because at the point that you're walking away you
may be leaving a lover and a community and then you're coming into a church that' s not
necessarily welcoming you with open arms (Sneeringer 2006)

Public performance of the ex-gay or ex-lesbian self also allows others to monitor the

boundaries of acceptable gender expression. The impact of healthy same-sex friendships is such










that, according to Love Won Out, it can be a cornerstone in maintaining an ex-gay self. Fryrear

(2006e) writes about this issue,

I did join that women' s Bible study... just being around them, laughing with them, crying
with them, and praying with them healed so many wounds in my heart. In essence my
womanhood and femininity began to blossom ... If those who are dealing with same-sex
attraction embrace female friendships and find their place in the world of women, she will
find greater commonality with women and, as a result, feel more secure and content to be
"just another woman." (193)

Relating to men and women in what is deemed an appropriate manner underpins maintenance of

ex-gay and ex-lesbian selves since it is thought to strengthen the new self in its own masculinity

or femininity. The book Someone I Love is Gay, one of the textual resources frequently

referenced and promoted by L WO, explains how same-sex friends help, "you have a special

opportunity to build confidence in your friend's life through your acceptance of him as another

man. You can help him by being vulnerable about your own life ... .This openness helps him

realize that many of his problems are the same as any man' s" (Worthen & Davis 1996: 173).

Formerly gay men are therefore encouraged to think of themselves as being part of the wider

male community. Their issues are not gay issues, rather the same as those other men are dealing

with.

Emphasis on maintaining an ex-gay or ex-lesbian self through policing gender boundaries

highlights what I argue is the inherent narrative tension in production and maintenance of such a

self-the contradiction between biological determination of sexuality and the social construction

of gender. Love Won Out contend that everyone is born heterosexual, and that homosexuality is

purely a sign of a psychologically troubled self. Discursive production of the ex-gay self is

rooted within biblical understandings of sexuality depicting a self that is reclaiming its God-

given life. Sexuality, therefore, is reported as a natural consequence of a particular body.









The difficulty arises when equating physiological bodies with social practice, in other

words, assuming that biology determines behavior. For evangelical organizations like Focus on

the Family, sex gender and sexuality are fused whereby the first determines the other two in what

Crawley, Foley & Shehan (2008) call a gender box structure. As they explain, "if we believe we

know the sex of the person, we also believe we know the gender and sexual orientation of the

person" (Crawley et al. 2008: 16). A male bodied person will have a masculine gender identity

and a female partner. Disruptions of this upset the natural order of the world and the ex-gay self

is depicted as redressing the balance.

In spite of the fact that sexuality, sex and gender are constructed as biologically

determined, L WO frequently contradict these ideas by drawing upon a discourse of the social to

explain the transformation process. Ex-gay and ex-lesbian selves are produced using a discursive

framework that implies a certain flexibility in both gender expression and sexual desire. In this

upcoming example, Fryrear (2006b) explains her own movement from being a butch lesbian

(itself a social construction) to a feminine woman:

Papa began to try to teach me and show me about this thing called womanhood.

Oh my gosh! Who knew? Who knew? Who knew!? Who knew there was so much to
learn? Who knew how expensive it is to be a woman?...I didn't know there were so many
gadgets to being a woman, to help you be beautiful! My co-worker, true story, has a heated
eyelash curler. She' s like, "Melissa, you ought to get one 'o these!"

In this excerpt, Fryrear relates her understanding of femininity in terms of her physical

appearance, and her expectations of being beautiful. This is a theme that is further explained by

another ex-lesbian when she writes,

I also attended the annual Exodus conference that year ... I participated in a "makeover"
session that had a deep impact on me. For the first time since I had been sexually abused, I
wanted to be pretty, just like the other women at church. As I walked back to the dorm
room after the makeover, a thought hit me and stopped me in my tracks ... all my life I
struggled with intense feelings of inadequacy about being a girl, and suddenly I saw myself
just like them. (Sneeringer 2005: 32)










For this woman, perception of normative femininity is equated with make-up, beauty and being

pretty. Both of these quotes implicate feminine selves that are socially produced since there is an

expectation that female bodies need to look and act a certain way-and to do this there is a need

to rely on technology such as makeup and eyelash curlers. In other words, real women are

constructed as being pretty and must actively maintain public performance appropriate

femininity. Bodies, therefore, become the obj ects of social practice in which gendered

expectations are inscribed upon them and subsequently become read as "natural" (Crawley et al.

2008).

For the ex-gay and ex-lesbian self to be understood within the boundaries of normative

masculinity or normative femininity, they must follow certain behavioral standards, in addition

to looking a particular way. This means they must subscribe to what are seen as typically

masculine or feminine activities such as engaging in sports or desiring to be a wife or mother.

Without these, they may be misinterpreted as still engaging in what are seen as gay or lesbian

behaviors. Production and maintenance of the ex-gay self, therefore, relies on a religious

discursive framework that mandates appropriate behavior for men and women.

In the next chapter, I explain how Focus on the Family, through the Love Won Out

conferences, empowers the audience to be active agents of change themselves. For the

institutional selves to be truly successful, the message must be carried by the audience beyond

the discursive realm of the conferences.









CHAPTER 5
BEYOND LOVE WON OUT: EXPANDINTG THE DISCOURSE

Throughout this proj ect, institutional selves are described as those that are produced in

the service of a particular organization (Gubrium & Holstein 2001; Loseke & Cavendish 2001).

In the previous two chapters, I have described how Love Won Out narratively produce troubled

gay and lesbian selves, and then detailed the way in which these can be healed, thereby

producing ex-gay and ex-lesbian selves. The interpretive demands of producing a distinctly

troubled gay self and a uniquely healed ex-gay self are not limited to the day of the conference

alone, however. The selves produced are also empowered to be active agents of change

themselves once they leave the confines of the conference. The audience is provided with the

interpretive resources necessary not only to recognize their own troubles, but also the troubles of

others. They are consistently urged to put what they have learned into action and share the truth

about homosexuality as they have been taught to see it. The prevailing identity discourse of LWO

is one that can be diffused through culture more widely once the audience is provided with the

narrative tools to accomplish this.

L WO routinely draw upon a threat narrative that necessitates action on the part of those

listening. In so doing, they provide a discursive framework that reinterprets homosexuality as a

direct threat to normative heterosexuality, and to culture more widely. In chapter 3 I explained

how L WO perceive individual troubled gay and lesbian selves and provide a discursive

framework that compels them to change. In this chapter, I will detail how Love Won Out describe

the menace of homosexuality to more than just individuals and impose upon the audience a

mandate to affect change across different social institutions-including education, the church and

politics. In closing, I also explain how L WO seem to construct their ultimate goal as the









eradication of the ex-gay self. They believe that homosexuality can be healed once present, but

more importantly, can be prevented from appearing in the first place.

Focus on the Family more widely, and Love Won Out specifically, draws upon a

traditional family values discourse that is characteristic of the New Christian Right. As I outlined

in chapter 1, at the forefront of this pro-family agenda is the notion that homosexuality poses a

threat to society of such magnitude that culture as we know and understand it would be

destroyed. This therefore necessitates urgent action on the part of the conference attendees and

means that L WO speakers must provide a coherent discursive framework through which such

action can be read and understood.

At the heart of this discourse are narrative resources that construct the lesbian and gay

movement as having such power and potency (Herman 1997) that they could easily achieve their

desired goal of overthrowing normative heterosexual society, as the following two quotes

illustrate. In the first, the speaker, Dick Carpenter (2006a), explains how he perceives the danger

of homosexuality:

Number one it' s the radical transformation of society ... By "social transformation" I'm
talking about changing a culture by changing what people believe about something, by
changing what they value, by changing the way they talk about it and how they talk about
it by changing what they except as "normal." And as a result we change the very
foundation and fabric of society.

First and foremost, Carpenter portrays the lesbian and gay movement as having not only

the power, but also the desire, to completely alter the nature of society. Furthermore, he assumes

that there is a unitary cultural ideology that is under threat. It is also important to note here, that

this speech is given as part of the keynote address immediately following lunch. Consequently, it

has top billing and sets the tone for the remainder of the afternoon. In this next extract, the writer

is explaining the effect of gay activism:









This small militant crowd is very clever and powerful. They have moved beyond the days
of simply wanting people to tolerate what they may not personally accept. They want to
force acceptance of homosexuality and punish anyone who will not adopt their pro-
homosexual ideology. (Thomas 2006b: 128)

To emphasize the threat posed by homosexuality, the speakers consistently depict gay

activists as forcing others to accept values and behaviors they fundamentally disagree with, as

the previous quote illustrates. Allied with this construction are interpretive resources that paint

the lesbian and gay civil rights movement tactics as deceitful and underhanded. In one session,

the speaker explains exactly how deceitful the gay rights movement is: "Focus on the Family,

The Family Research Council, The Alliance Defense Fund; we documented the fact that gay

activist organizations have used deception, manipulation, and strong armed tactics to achieve

their political goals" (Maier 2006). As a result, "gay groups have also done a marvelous job at

propagating several myths about homosexuality and because of that we find misinformation

about homosexuality everywhere. We find it in the media; we find it in the academic world, even

in the more liberal elements of the church" (Maier 2006). The deception and manipulation

referred to here is often related to the myths about homosexuality referenced over the course of

the conference, and reportedly promoted by gay activists. Primarily, this alludes to arguments

that locate homosexuality in biology, specifically genetics, which the speakers debunk repeatedly

over the course of the day. Another of these myths refers to the notion that gay activists are

perceived as frequently lying about the actual numbers of gays and lesbians in the population in

order to further their political agenda. For example, in the booklet Straight Answers: Exposing

the Myths and Facts About Homosexuality, the first myth mentioned is "ten percent of the

population is homosexual" which is derived from the famous investigation into human sexuality

conducted by Alfred Kinsey (2003: 5). Love Won Out refute this in the following manner:

homosexual activist groups now admit that the ten percent myth is false and that they
exploited the inflated Kinsey figures for political reasons. "We used that figure ... to try to









create an impression of our numbers" says Tom Stoddard, former member of the Lambda
Legal Defense Fund ... regarding the facts of how many people are gay or straight, maybe
you're asking, "What' s the big deal?" Well, here's the deal: By saying that one out of 10
people is homosexual, gay activists are knowingly promoting a lie. (Straight Answers
2003: 6)

Here, then, is a depiction of the underhanded tactics used by gay and lesbian activists to

further their political agenda. This particular example is used by virtually every speaker, and

referenced in the textual material, as exemplifying the deception generally undertaken by

homosexual activists.

L WO reinterpret the political activism of the gay and lesbian civil rights movement as the

more sinister-sounding pushing of the homosexual (or gay) agenda. This agenda is described

thus,

there are those within the homosexual population who are what I would call, "militant" in
that they have a twofold agenda: the normalization of homosexuality combined with
intolerance for any opposing viewpoint. That is the dark side of the gay rights movement.
Not its attempt to normalize homosexuality, but its intolerance for opposing viewpoints
and its commitment to silencing opposing viewpoints. (Dallas 2006b)


In this selection, the speaker explains exactly how to understand the central ideas of the

gay agenda. Militant homosexuals are described as trying to force through the normalization of

homosexual behavior, while also forcefully resisting any opposition. Normalization, in this

sense, refers to the manner in which culture desensitizes people to the issue of homosexuality

through repeated exposure. In the first speech of the day, Nicolosi (2006a) goes a little further.

After mentioning the four gay myths, ("once gay always gay", "ten percent of the population is

homosexual", "born gay", "homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality") he says, "if you

believe 1, 2, 3, 4, then the conclusion is total acceptance and that' s exactly what the gay agenda

is about-total acceptance." Not only are gay and lesbian activists depicted as promulgating









numerous falsehoods, they are also perceived as using them to force an unsuspecting public to

accept their sinful behavior.

Society Under Threat

The "infection" (Teaching Captivity 2002: 3) caused by the homosexual agenda is

portrayed as spreading through all the maj or social institutions. The Love Won Out (2006)

conference guide details the extent of the problem,

Today, the homosexual issue surrounds our culture on all sides. We cannot escape the
onslaught of gay propaganda that seeks to influence our churches, schools, businesses and
neighborhoods. There is a great deal of misinformation being spread that homosexuality is
a biological imperative and that change and freedom are not possible. Children-as young
as 5 years old-are being taught that homosexuality is simply another alternative lifestyle
option equivalent to heterosexuality. Increasingly, churches across the nation are
embracing and affirming homosexual unions and blessing gay partnerships. Some
scientists tell us that genetics determine sexuality and that those who question this
assertion are homophobic and intolerant. (6)

The message here is clear; the threat caused by homosexuality is widespread and homosexuality

has already caused disruption and damage. Such is the fear of the gay agenda that Love Won Out

devote sessions exclusively to detailing the extent of the problem in education, the church and in

politics (with specific reference to the issue of same-sex marriage).

Dick Carpenter gives the critical plenary session after the lunch break, titled "Why is

What They're Teaching So Dangerous?" The title suggests that the audience have a right to be

concerned with the impact of homosexuality on schools. The session description in the

conference guide reinforces this impression:

The goal of gay activists is to "overhaul" America with the message that homosexuality is
normal and healthy. Popular television shows and elementary school classrooms are the
breeding ground for a dramatic shift in how homosexuality is portrayed. This ..
presentation poignantly reveals the motives behind gay activists' influential impact on
America. (Love Won Out Conference Guide 2006: 10)









Schools, then, are portrayed as an important arena where gay activists are trying to assert

control in their goal to overthrow normative heterosexuality (Smith & Windes 2000). Dobson

(1994), founder of Focus on the Family, emphasizes the centrality of schools in the battle over

homosexuality:

children are the great prize to the winners of the second great civil war. Those who control
what young people are taught and what they experience will determine the future course
for the nation. Given that influence, the predominant value system of an entire culture can
be overhauled in one generation, or certainly in two, by those with unlimited access to
children. (38)

Schools and teachers, therefore, are at the forefront of the debate over homosexuality.

Over the course of his plenary address, Carpenter carefully dissects what he argues is the

gay agenda regarding schools and education-normalization through desensitization. The primary

narrative resource he draws upon again embeds discussion of homosexuality within a wider

cultural understanding of threat through exposure. If children become acquainted with

homosexuality too early, they are subsequently in danger of thinking themselves to be gay, since

they are too young to understand notions of sexual deviancy (Herman 1997). In this extract,

Carpenter (2006a) is explaining a movie clip that was shown to a grade-school class, in which

the teacher has been introducing the topic of homosexuality to his elementary school class;

because of the developmental age of these children, his message can be easily
misunderstood. So, for example, let' s picture one of the children we just saw on this video,
perhaps the young boy near the end with the blonde hair, and he hears this message from
the teacher, he goes home and he asks his mom or his dad, "What does gay mean?" and
they might respond with, "Well you know, that's uh, a different kind of love" or something
like that. Well what' s a young boy of eight or nine-years-old to think when he hears from
his mom if his mom or his dad were to say, "That' s when a boy likes a boy and doesn't
like a girl." And vice-versa. What is that young boy to think? "Well, I like boys, and I
certainly don't like girls, I guess that means I'm gay." Now, you may scoff at that and say,
"Oh please, that doesn't happen." I can't tell you the number of times that people have
come up to me and said, "You know what? That has happened, with my child." Or "With
my grandchild." Or some other relative.









Such is the potency of the homosexual message, that the boy in this quote is perceived to be in

danger of adopting a gay identity simply by being exposed to the terminology (Herman 1997;

Smith & Windes 2000). Exposure to such pro-gay themes does not only come from the teacher.

Carpenter also details how the homosexual agenda can infect schools through books such as

Heather Has Two mommies, student support organizations such as Gay-Straight Alliances and

support for openly gay teachers and principals.

In addition to describing the mission of homosexual activists in schools, Carpenter also

provides the discursive tools necessary for the audience to recognize the presence of a pro-gay

agenda in their own school districts. In his breakout session, he explains why this is important:

So we're going to talk next turn our attention to different strategies that are typically used
within school communities [to promote the homosexual agenda] and the reason I do this is
because often I hear from parents or other folks who will say I don't know what I'm
looking for or I don't understand until it' s too late what' s going on in the school. How do I
know what to look for? So that' s why I want to cover strategies so that people can kind of
keep an eye out and understand what's going on in the school and what it will typically
look like. (Carpenter 2006b)

The audience is taught to use the discursive framework provided by Love Won Out to reinterpret

their school curricula and look for the hidden homosexual agenda. The booklet published to

mirror the breakout session, Teaching Captivity: How the Pro-Gay Agend'a is Affecting Our

Schools ... And How You Can Make a Difference, provides a checklist for assessing schools'

"risk for encouraging homosexuality" (2002: 39). The checklist and explanation reads as

follows:

The activities and policies below may sound nice, but in reality they protect and promote
homosexuality and sexual promiscuity, putting students directly in harm's way instead of
cautioning them about risky behavior.

1. A safe schools harassment program

2. A homosexual student club

3. Non-discrimination policy based on "sexual orientation"










4. Programs to stop "homophobia," "hate," or "bias"

5. Pro-homosexual literature added to curricula and libraries; pro-family material
bypassed or discarded

6. AIDS and "safe-sex" education programs

Other red flags for community concern:

7. Teachers who are openly homosexual

8. Involvement in your school of pro-homosexual groups like GLSEN, PFLAG and
Lambda Legal Defense Fund

9. Celebrating "gay pride" month, "day of silence" or "coming out" day

10. Exhibits/films on families headed by homosexuals

11. Students and parents with concerns being silenced

12. Teacher in-service meetings promoting diversity and complaining about
"homophobia" (Teaching Captivity 2002: 39-44)

For each of these programs, the booklet proceeds to explain what the assumptions, problems and

end results are. For example, the result of incorporating programs to stop hate within the school

curriculum is described as: "Supporters of traditional values are accused of "hate." Instances of

harassment are linked to those who would never commit such acts. Students are not warned

about homosexuality, so more will experiment with this high risk behavior" (Teaching Captivity

2002: 41). The "red flags" are described purely in terms of their problematic nature. Celebrating

gay pride month, for instance, is opposed because, "there is nothing to celebrate about

encouraging kids to adopt dangerous sexual practices" (Teaching Captivity 2002: 44). This list,

therefore, gives a clear set of indicators that readers can use to identify the impact of the gay

agenda within their own school districts.

Once the audience have gone through and identified the programs in existence in their

own schools, the booklet offers a score card that interprets the results. If 8-12 indicators are

marked off, then this









is a signal that corruption is widespread and entrenched within the system. Look for heavy
influence of radical homosexual groups, using attention-hungry teens, parents and teachers
to front their issues. Sexual promiscuity is undoubtedly rising among students and
teachers, and academics are likely to be suffering. Get the kids you care about out of this
school now. (Teaching Captivity 2002: 45)

The underlying message here is that gay activist groups are again using underhanded and

deceptive tactics to push their agenda into unsuspecting schools. In addition, there is a clear link

drawn between support for homosexuality and homosexual activity, and rise in sexual

promiscuity. As I detailed in an earlier chapter, homosexuality is thought to be characterized by

promiscuity, such that engaging in these kinds of behaviors increases the risk of contracting

disease. Pro-gay teaching is also paired with falling academic standards, since the focus is no

longer on education, but instead on promoting a corruptive political agenda. A school with this

approach is designated a danger to children, and parents are urged to remove their own children

as soon as possible.

The Einal part of the discursive framework Love Won Out use to highlight the problem of

the hidden gay agenda in schools involves reinterpretation of language, since language is a key

component in the public debate over social change (Smith & Windes 2000). As the Teaching

Captivity booklet explains, "many positive terms have been corrupted, and negative terminology

about those disagreeing with the normality and practice of homosexuality has been trumpeted"

(2002: 15). A list of these corrupted words includes diversity, multicultural, tolerance, safety,

respect, freedom, and inclusive (Teaching Captivity 2002). For each of these, L WO describes the

dictionary definition and then explains the manner in which language has been tainted by gay

activism. For example, diversity is defined as "a point of respect in which things differ" yet

redefined by the homosexual agenda to "include the normality of various sexual behaviors"

(Teaching Captivity 2002: 15). This point is further illustrated by Carpenter with the following

case study. He describes how the school in question was going to have a diversity week panel,









including a session on homosexuality and religion where the speakers would all be clergy

members. One student asked for her own clergyman to be on the panel and was refused:

The school handed it over to the GSA [Gay Straight Alliance] to organize this panel so
they're all pro gay clergy ... They said but we'll let you give a speech at an open mike
panel on What Diversity Means To Me. So she went home, she wrote the speech, and she
had to submit the speech ahead of time because they wanted to make sure she didn't have
inflammatory words or etc., etc. So she submitted it, she received a phone call at home on
a Sunday afternoon from a school assistant principal. That person said you need to remove
the following sentences and she was told which ones to remove, and she was told to
remove the sentences that referenced her faith's belief system on the issue of
homosexuality. She did not use offensive words, they were not overly negative or
inflammatory; they just had the wrong message about homosexuality so she was censored.
So she sued her school and she won. (Carpenter 2006b)

In this extract, Carpenter emphasizes how diversity only works one way: in favor of

homosexuality. The strength and success of the gay agenda is perceived as such that any message

deemed antigay, especially if it is religious in tone, is censored and differing opinions repressed.

So, if "diversity" or any other of the red-flag words feature prominently in educational programs,

it is taken as evidence that the school district in question has been corrupted by gay activists.

The goal of the homosexual agenda to normalize homosexuality is also described as

increasingly influential within the theological and religious community. In a session on

"Responding to Pro-Gay Theology," Joe Dallas (2006a) explains the relationship between the

secular and religious gay agenda:

In essence, let' s define pro-gay theology as this: 'It is the religious counter-part to pro-gay
ideology.' Now ideology is a set of arguments based on a belief. Pro-gay ideology has the
goal of normalizing sexuality. That is in essence the goal of the gay-rights movement, to
normalize homosexuality and in doing so pro-gay ideology relies largely on secular
disciplines, psychology, sociology, philosophy. Now pro-gay theology has the same goal
as pro-gay ideology. That is, pro-gay theology seeks to normalize homosexuality, but on
religious principle, not secular principle.

So where as pro-gay ideology states, 'Homosexuality is normal, therefore we should
consider it on par with heterosexuality.' Pro-gay theology takes it a step further and says,
"Homosexuality is God ordained." God created some people to be homosexual as he
created some people to be heterosexual.









Both in religious and secular discourse, the pro-gay agenda are described as one that intends the

normalization of homosexuality. Within religion, however, acceptance of homosexuality is

defined using the conceptualization of sexuality as God ordained, to the extent that, "gays and

lesbians have twisted the biblical narrative on sexuality. In doing so, they have sought to present

an image of a God who not only accepts their sexuality, but has offered it to them as a gift"

(Responding to Pro-gay Theology: What Does the Bible Really Say? 2004: 7).

The impact of the gay agenda within the church community is defined as problematic as

it is thought to signify a momentous revision of Scripture and a move away from biblical

teaching on appropriate sexuality. Reinterpretation of Scripture is of particular concern to Love

Won Out since it is viewed as "discounting biblical truth" (Responding to Pro-gay Theology

2004: 13). The booklet called Responding to Pro-gay Theology: What Does the Bible Really Say?

explains why readers should be troubled: "homosexuality is particularly egregious at this level

because it rej ects God' s design at its deepest point ... Despite hearty attempts to redefine and

reinterpret particular Scriptures, the true intent of the biblical narrative ... cannot be denied or

twisted to fit any particular agenda" (2004: 12). Since Focus on the Family believes in biblical

inerrancy, the gay agenda in religion is depicted as distorting and misrepresenting the true Word

of God-a particularly appalling sin.

Love Won Out also ensure that their audience is clear on just how outrageous

misrepresenting biblical truth is. In the following booklet extract, the writer explains the

consequences of these mistruths:

.. these distortions have caused grief and hardship to so many. We know from the Bible
that those who practice homosexual acts receive in 'themselves the due penalty for their
perversion.' Alan Chambers knows the eternity altering affects that not knowing and/or not
abiding by the truth can have on an entire civilization ... 'Today culture is moving farther
and farther away from biblical teachings about sexuality and gender ... Because of the
downward spiral that has become our way of life, it is not surprising that people are










questioning what is right and wrong regarding sex when wrong is now considered normal.
Our actions-good and bad-have consequences that impact us, our society and every single
living person that comes after us until eternity.'(Straight Answers 2003: 20)

In this selection, the author outlines not only the individual impact of engaging in homosexual

activity, but also the subsequent effects on society of allowing the gay agenda to spread. Gay

men and lesbian women are constructed as in line for their "due penalty," which is later

described as burning in hell. Holding to biblical misrepresentation is depicted as a far more

serious problem, however. Here, the booklet stresses the fact that revision of Scripture will

irreversibly alter an "entire civilization" for eternity.

In addition to describing the effect of pursuing a pro-homosexual agenda on society, L WO

also detail the extent of the problem. Adherence to a gay-affirmative belief system has become

so widespread, according to Joe Dallas (2006a), that:

Today, [pro-gay theology] has become popularized to the point where many of our
mainline denominations are on the verge of splitting over it. As we speak this morning, the
Presbyterian Church USA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, of course the
Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, several sections of the American Baptist
Church and several other denominations and independent groups are debating whether or
not they should revise their position on homosexuality and in each of these denominations
there are large groups of people believing the pro-gay interpretation of the scripture.

Dallas emphasizes the power and reach of the gay agenda by identifying the ideological crisis in

all of the maj or Protestant denominations.

The political arena is also shown to have been strongly affected by the gay agenda. L WO

describe public policy as having been subj ected to an unrelenting assault from an illegitimate

minority seeking special rights. From the L WO conference guide: "Focus does take strong

exception to the activist movement that seeks to gain special privileges and protected minority

status for the homosexual community ... homosexuals have far higher average incomes and

educations than most Americans, along with significant political influence" (2006: 7). This quote

illustrates how L WO construct the political debate surrounding homosexuality as a Eight over the









reinterpretation of the discourse such that homosexuals are perceived as wanting special

protection for their immoral behavior, as I explained in chapter 1. As Herman (1997) explains,

"in order to represent one group as 'counterfeit,' others must be constructed as authentic" (112).

The extract form the conference guide shows L WO constructing the civil rights claims of the

lesbian and gay movement in this way. Furthermore, Love Won Out also bolster the strength of

their opposition by referencing the supposed power of the lesbian and gay movement. Not only

are the pro-gay movement perceived as falsely drawing upon a civil right discourse to which

they have no right, they are also depicted as having enough political power to force through their

agenda.

Construction of an undeserving minority serves to delegitimize the rights discourse of the

lesbian and gay movement activists, as I describe in chapter 1. Herman (1997) explains the

importance of such a move,

The primary theme of Christian Right pragmatists is that, while rights may be due to the
'truly disadvantaged,' the gay movement does not fit this description. Their argument
contains two fused limbs: first gays are immensely wealthy; second, the gay movement is
not only one of the most politically powerful in the country, but lesbians and gay men as
individuals actually hold vast amounts of political power and unfairly wield it over others.
As a result, civil rights protections will simply extend and entrench the extraordinary
privileges of this elite and deceitful) because they portray themselves as oppressed) group.
(116)

L WO draw on these narrative techniques to demonstrate how gays and lesbians use their political

power to unfairly portray themselves as oppressed. The following extract is from Haley's (2004)

book, in response to the question, "a friend of mine thinks that Christians are hateful when we

don't think homosexuals should be granted equal rights protection or 'civil rights' status. How

should I respond?"

This question shows the success of homosexual activists to ride on the coattails of the 1964
Civil Rights Act, which was implemented to grant minority class status to those in our
country who were not treated equitably ... it's all too painfully easy to see the reality of
discrimination against African Americans in this regard, but there has never been any









noteworthy proof afforded the courts of this same discrimination being experienced by the
gay community. Consider these findings: Factoring in comparative household sizes, gays
average an annual individual income of $36800 compared with $12287 for the average
American and a mere $3041 for disadvantaged African Americans. This means that
homosexuals make, on average, more than 300 percent more than the typical straight
American and 1200 percent more than a disadvantaged African-American ... more than
three times as many gays as average Americans are college graduates....More than three
times as many gays as average Americans hold professional or managerial positions,
making gays outrageously more advantaged than true minorities in the j ob market ... (180-
1 82)

In this extract, Haley (2004) is drawing a clear delineation between deserving minorities, such as

African Americans, and the undeserving gays and lesbians seeking to appropriate the minority

discourse. In this way, he formulates both authentic and counterfeit minorities in much the same

way as Herman (1997) describes.

After describing the numerous advantages that gays and lesbians have over the average

American, Haley (2004) continues,

the power of the gay lobby is impossible to miss. Public schools, federal, state, and local
legislation ... many mainline church denominations ... have all seemingly felt the push of
this powerful force-a record of success made all the more remarkable by the fact that the
overall population has far fewer homosexuals than there are concentrations of any other
politically aware "minority" group. It's ludicrous, to say the least, for anyone to argue that
this criterion [political powerlessness] applies to gays. (182)

In this extract, Haley refers directly to the potency of the gay and lesbian civil rights movement,

and the absurdity of their claims to minority status. It is also important to note here that part of

his dismissal of minority status for gays and lesbians rests on comparing their power in relation

to their numbers in the population. In this writing, and in various speeches over the conference,

Love Won Out refute claims that put homosexuals as ten percent of the population. As Nicolosi

(2006a) describes, "people actually believe it's 10% it's really not ... It's really 1.5 to 2%." This

is a critical point because it highlights a maj or contradiction in the discursive framework Love

Won Out draw upon over the course of the day: that everyone is born heterosexual, yet there is a

clearly identifiable number of homosexuals in the population. There is a fundamental









inconsistency within this narrative formulation since homosexuality cannot be both mutable and

immutable at the same time. Nevertheless, both the fallaciousness of the ten percent argument

and the "actual" gay population of two percent are drawn upon to demonstrate the power of the

pro-gay agenda.

The menace of homosexuality to public policy is typically defined around the issue of

gay marriage. As I explained in earlier chapters, the battle over same-sex marriage is one of the

core issues for the New Christian Right and has been described in the most powerful terms,

including as the Second Great Civil War (Dobson & Bauer 1994). The founder of Focus on the

Family, James Dobson (1994), declares it a war on values and "the hottest and most dangerous

confrontation to date (46). He draws on the words of Winston Churchill to describe the battle as

a "clash upon which the fate of Christian civilization [is] riding" (Dobson 1994: xiii).

The push for same-sex marriage by gay and lesbian activists is described by L WO as "the

most radical social experiment ever proposed in our country" (Maier 2006). The message here is

that the drive toward gay marriage is a most extreme form of social experimentation. In the

session called "Straight Thinking on Gay Marriage," the speaker, Bill Maier, explains this in

more detail, by referring to his view of marriage in human history:

Now, when we talk about this whole same-sex marriage debate, I think it' s important for
us to remember what we're talking about here is an eradicable, redefinition of human
family. Up until the last few milliseconds of human history, no society anywhere in the
world at any time in recorded history has ever affirmed homosexual marriage. Homosexual
unions have never been considered a normal, morally equal part of any society.

Notably, Maier first tells the audience how to understand the extent of the problem, total

reinterpretation of family, before moving into a metaphorical description of the presence of gay

marriage in human history. If history is conceptualized in terms of time, gay marriage has only

been in existence for milliseconds, yet still poses a potent threat to human society. Maier (2006)

continues his portrayal of the danger of gay marriage by drawing a more global picture:










If you were to spin that globe and you were to stop it and stab your finger down on any
inhabited land mass, anywhere in the world, what you would find is that marriage is and
marriage has always been, the bringing together of men and women to cooperatively raise
the next generation. And it doesn't matter whether you're talking about the remotest part of
Siberia, the tiniest little Polynesian island. You will not find any culture or society where
the basic family union is headed up by two men or two women. But in the last few years
there have been a few western countries and a few state judges in Massachusetts that um
have been arrogant enough to believe that we can take marriage and we can dismantle it,
dismember it, disfigure it and not suffer any negative consequences. As Dr. Thomson often
says: "We tinker with marriage at our own peril."

In this extract, Maier locates the discussion of same-sex marriage within the context of global

norms. The emphasis is again on the prevalence of, and preference for, heterosexual marriage.

Those pushing the gay agenda are constructed as being in a very small, yet very powerful and

very dangerous minority.

To ensure that the audience understand the true extent of the problem, the last keynote

address of the day, titled "How Should We Respond?" draws together all of the substantive

themes I outlined above. The speaker, Joe Dallas, uses the opportunity of having the whole

audience together one last time to get them fired up about the issue of homosexuality and exhorts

them to be active agents of change themselves. Towards the end of his speech, Dallas

concentrates on the menace to society presented by the gay and lesbian movement, and on the

wide-ranging consequences of giving into their demands. He draws on the words of Martin

Luther King Jr., in which King describes the church as being the conscience of the state, to paint

a chilling picture of the repercussions felt in society due to the incursion of the gay agenda:

Now a man without a conscience is that scariest of all horror movie figures, the sociopath.
The sociopath feels nothing. If it suits his purposes, he'll be nice to you, if it suits his
purposes he'll murder you ... Perhaps the only thing more frightening than a sociopath
individual is a sociopath culture. A culture whose church has been intimidated into silence,
cannot help but become a sociopath culture. A culture without its moral bearings, that will
murder the inconvenient unborn, euthanize the inconvenient elderly, redefine the family
unit to suit whatever prevailing political trends are happening. And should the conscience
of the state, [the church], allow itself to be intimidated into silence, there is no hope for the
state but to become sociopath. And God will require the blood of the state at the hands of
the conscience of the state that allowed itself to be intimidated into silence. It is not a









stretch to say that as we speak, there are elements of the gay rights movement that seek to
silence the conscience of the state. (Dallas 2006b)

This extract comes from the same speech in which Dallas describes the goal of the gay agenda as

being to silence opposing viewpoints, and which I mentioned earlier in this chapter. Put together,

this means that successful promotion of a pro-homosexual agenda is constructed as being the

Einal downfall of society, whereby society will become sociopathic once the voice of the church

is silenced. Subsequently, God is portrayed as demanding retribution from the church for

allowing such things as abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia to happen.

Dallas continues his powerful denouncement of homosexuality by expanding on his

conceptualization of the gay agenda silencing critics. As he describes,

I would suggest that where you see the normalization of homosexuality you will also see
growing restrictions on freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom of
religion. Check any institution, state, or nation that has legitimized homosexuality and you
will find not only the normalization of homosexuality, but the silencing of people who
oppose that normalization. A lot of people think that same-sex marriage is going to be the
last great battle in America over gay rights. Not so. The last battle will be over freedom of
speech, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. And it is that battle I fear more
than any of the other battles we're currently fighting. (Dallas 2006b)

Once again, Dallas is condemning the seemingly all-powerful gay and lesbian civil rights

movement. In this excerpt, Dallas furthers his argument by telling the audience where the battles

over gay rights are going to end up. It is not just a battle over on substantive public policy;

instead, it is a Eight over the core cultural values of American society. He continues this line of

thinking by providing the audience with comprehensive examples of how opposition to gay

rights has already been silenced. More specifically, Dallas (2006b) refers to the way in which

religious opposition is being oppressed in places where homosexuality is conceivably normal:

In our neighboring Canada the shoe has already dropped, laws are now on the books that
make it illegal to make statements publicly, anywhere, including in church that could
quote, unquote: "Incite hatred against homosexual people."... Do they mean threatening
someone? Calling someone an awful name? Quoting Leviticus? Nobody's saying. They
might ask Pastor Green from Sweden who was arrested last year for violating the Swedish









law that made it illegal even from the pulpit to criticize homosexuality. And what was
especially frightening in his trial were the words of the public prosecutor who said, and I
quote: "Collecting Bible verses on this topic makes this hate speech." Collecting Bible
verses on this topic makes this hate speech.

The threat to freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion is clearly

demonstrated in the passage above: once homosexuality is normalized, religious oppression

follows. From Dallas again: "if we allow ourselves to be silenced on social issues, it is only a

matter of time before we are silenced on the very preaching of the Gospel. And if we can't do

that, what are we even here for?"

Saving Society

The threat to society posed by homosexuality is portrayed as so powerful that Love Won

Out describe how audience members are under a divine mandate to work against such destructive

social forces. At the start of the session "How Should We Respond?", Dallas explains the

importance of this: "You can't take a position on homosexuality without causing some

controversy ... To be controversial just for the sake of making noise, oh that' s childish. But there

are times the body of Christ has a divine mandate to be controversial for the sake of the truth.

And this is one of those times." The audience, as members of the body of Christ and evangelical

Christians, are required to confront the issue of homosexuality head-on and to promote the truth

claims about homosexuality as described by Love Won Out.

As the title of the address indicates, this session provides the discursive framework through

which the audience can understand the appropriate responses to homosexuality. Important, here,

is the notion L WO portrays that they, through churches following similar doctrine, are the only

ones with the truth about homosexuality. Not only that, they construct themselves as knowing

exactly God's response to these issues. Consequently, they are the authorities on how









homosexuality should be read, understood, and responded to. In the following reference, Dallas

(2006b) explains how this works:

Now here, I believe, Paul gives us a cue in Ephesians 2-10 when he says: "We, the church,
are Christ' s workmanship." And the Greek word he uses for workmanship is "Poiema,"
from which we get our word "poem." I love this thought. Just as a poet tries to express
themselves through his work, so God is trying to express his heart and his mind through us,
his Poiema. So ideally, if a non-believer wants to know what the God of the Bible feels for
homosexual people, and what the God of the Bible thinks about homosexuality, that non-
believer need go no further than God's Poiema to get an accurate reading on the heart and
mind of God. We are in essence, his visual representation on earth.

Those listening, therefore, have been equipped not only with the truth about homosexuality as

seen by Focus on the Family and Love Won Out, but with God's truth. They have been given the

interpretive resources they need to understand exactly the power of the information received over

the course of the day. Consequently, they see themselves as working to promote God' s true

message of homosexuality, that it is sinful, dangerous and needs to be eradicated from society.

The strength of this mandate is such that Dallas (2006b) warns people to take their charge

very seriously:

[being the visual representation of Christ on earth] puts a tremendous responsibility on the
body of Christ. Because we know this from both testaments, God hates being
misrepresented. People have lost their very lives for misrepresenting the very heart and
mind of God. And so should we fall short of accurately representing his heart and his mind
I believe God would call us to repentance and recommitment in three primary areas.

As this quote shows, the audience is urged to act on the information provided at Love Won Out

since it is intimately connected with the true word of God and there would, therefore, be

tremendous consequences if they either sat idle or were guilty of misrepresentation.

Such is the strength of the mandate for the audience to be active agents of change

themselves, that they are given the interpretive resources they need to affect that change

throughout the course of the conference. All of these different threads are then drawn together in

the last session, "How Should We Respond?" In much the same as the speakers at LWO









demonstrate the threat posed by the gay agenda across different social institutions, so they also

illustrate how those listening can put the information they are hearing into practice to fight the

incursion of the gay agenda in those same institutions.

The breakout session on education, titled "Teaching Captivity: Addressing the Pro-Gay

Agenda in Your School" is explicitly designed for educators and parents to receive the

information they need to counter pro-homosexual messages in schools. As the conference guide

explains, "Parents, teachers and administrators often find themselves at a loss in countering this

onslaught. This session outlines action steps in confronting gay-affirmative curricula and how to

counter anti-family activism in your schools" (2006: 10). Carpenter begins the session by asking

the audience members to identify whether they are parents, teachers, administrators or trainee

teachers, and the maj ority fall into one of these categories. Having done this, he then lays out the

problems of the pro-gay agenda in schools, which he partially explains in his after-lunch plenary

address I explained in the beginning of this chapter.

Once the audience make-up is established and the problem is defined, Carpenter sets

about presenting a set of solutions for teachers, parents and students. Of primary importance is

that all three of these groups are encouraged to become more vocal and more active. Carpenter

draws upon his own experiences as teacher, principal and college professor to suggest practical

ways to do this. He begins with parents:

I can tell you first hand when I was a school principal I anticipated very little input and
resistance on decisions that I made. I rarely thought, "well I wonder what people will think
about this?" other than my teachers ... very rarely did I think well I wonder how parents
will think about this because it so rarely happened that somebody would come in, that
someone would have an issue or a complaint. So, parents, first things first. What I tell
folks is to think about how you can what I call protect your child. That is, if your school is
going to address the issue, you want to tell them you want to be notified first so that you
can make the proper decision for your child. (Carpenter 2006b)









In this extract Carpenter uses his own experiences to inform parents of the best way to counter

the issue of homosexuality in schools, and that is to ask the school to keep a letter in the child's

Eile requesting parental permission before addressing this subj ect. In terms of becoming more

vocal and more active, Carpenter suggests speaking to both like-minded parents and like-minded

teachers. Teachers will be able to inform the parents of decisions made that contradict

Conservative Christian values, as Carpenter (2006b) illustrates,

I just asked how many teachers do I have and I had teachers put up their hand all over the
place. There are Christian teachers who know what' s going on and can tell you. I was one
of those. It wasn't unusual for a parent to come in and say hey I heard that the school is
going to do x y and z what do you know about that? And I would tell them yes, no, this is
what' s going on etc., etc. So you can find people who will help you.

Here, he suggests allying with teachers of a similar ideological mindset in order to have an

insider' s point of view on the happenings within the school. He also recommends parents

banding together to approach the school, since a group will not be as easily dismissed. Again,

Carpenter (2006b) explains the importance of using these particular strategies,

Here' s how it' s done. I have done it not on this issue but I have done it when a parent
came in with a complaint. I said well Mrs. Smith you're the only one to come in and tell
me that. Now what does she think? Wow, I guess maybe I'm overreacting, I guess maybe
it' just me. That's how easy it is to dismiss an individual. But a group is not so easy to
dismiss. As a principal my second worst fear was that a group of parents would come into
my office with ... with a complaint. It can be very intimidating.

In addition to providing a set of practical approaches for parents, Carpenter also presents

a framework for action on behalf of teachers and students. Again, the most important of these is

to be actively engaged within the school community with a number of likeminded peers, "so Eind

those people in your building who believe what you believe or who would agree with what you

agree with" (Carpenter 2006b). In the booklet that accompanies the breakout session, both

teachers and students are encouraged to "relentlessly pursue the truth" (Teaching Captivity 2002:










30) about homosexuality-that it is sinful, dangerous and mutable. Teachers, for example, can

insist upon:

Equal Time ... homosexual activists demand that teachers address the issue in class and
more and more schools are requiring it. As a teacher, you may be forced to address it, but
you can demand equal time. You can talk about or ask someone else to share a different
message about homosexuality-that you don't have to be gay. (Teaching Captivity 2002:
3 1)

In this extract, there is emphasis on sharing one of the messages that Love Won Out insistently

promotes: that homosexuality is mutable, and that no one is born gay. Students, too, are provided

with the discursive tools necessary to promulgate this central message of the L WO conference:

Refuse to be a pawn in the pro-gay agenda in your school. If the information you are being
taught seems to have a pro-gay slant to it, it' s not being fairly presented. Use discernment
when you suspect opinions, rather than facts are being taught. Don't be afraid to raise your
hand and ask you teachers about specific questions about the facts on homosexuality. This
will get your peers and teacher thinking twice about the information. You can ask
questions like:

I heard that only 1 to 3 percent of the population is gay or lesbian ... isn't that true?

No studies have proven that homosexuality is genetic-right? It' s documented that
thousands of people have come out of homosexuality-why do some people say it' s not
possible? (Teaching Captivity 2002: 32)

In this passage, there is further reference to the fact that homosexuality is changeable; that the

pro-gay agenda is based on opinion, not fact, and that those facts used are patently false. The

students are then given exact instructions on how to combat these issues.

Within the educational establishment more generally, L WO also give explicit instructions

on who needs to be contacted to address issues of homosexuality, and how to go about doing

this. They suggest attendance at school board meetings, and give tips on how to achieve

particular political goals within this realm. Moreover, they also include a sample letter from a

parent to a school principal in the conference guide. This letter asks that parents be notified when

the school teaches about anything connected with sexuality, homosexuality, or alternative









lifestyles. It also requests that homosexuality not be taught at all, and if referred to, should

address both sides of the argument. By way of illustration: "if this issue must be addressed, we

ask that the school at least present a balanced view by allowing knowledge authorities such as

doctors and former homosexuals to address some of the consequences associated with

homosexuality" (Teaching Captivity 2002: 24). Another letter is contained in the booklet

Teaching Captivity (2002) that addresses similar issues in terms of how a student should contact

their school or a newspaper editor.

In response to the pro-gay agenda in the religious community, Love Won Out provide a

narrative framework that the audience can use to combat theological arguments gays and

lesbians use to attempt to normalize homosexuality in the spiritual realm. In his session on

"Understanding Pro-Gay Theology," Joe Dallas (2006a) explains the purpose behind his address,

So pro-gay theology is in essence a revision of the scriptures and I' d like to look at the five
Scriptures that specifically name and condemn homosexuality, two from the old testament,
three from the new and I'd like to look this morning at the revisionist interpretation of
these Scriptures, the pro-gay take on them and then offer a response to that. ... so we can
be better equipped to respond to those interpretations.

Here Dallas expressly states that his goal is to empower those listening to respond to pro-gay

interpretation of the Bible in an appropriate manner, using the discursive tools he provides. The

Scriptures he examines include excerpts from Leviticus, and assorted New Testament verses,

such as 1 Corinthians. Dallas isolates passages, articulates the revisionist pro-gay interpretations

of these passages, and then refutes then.

He begins by referencing Leviticus 18-22 "Thou shall not lie with mankind as one lies

with a woman, it is an abomination" And Leviticus 20-13, "If a man lie with a man as with a

woman, both of them has committed an abomination, they shall surely be put to death." Dallas

(2006a) describes the pro-gay interpretation in the following manner,









But the revisionist' s viewpoint would say something like this: Hey wait a minute, other
prohibitions in Leviticus, dietary prohibitions, ceremonial prohibitions, etcetera, are
generally viewed by the church today as being culturally bound to the ancient Israelites.
That is, there are many scriptures both in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that we look at today
and say well we are not bound by that, that was a cultural prohibition for that time. So why
then should prohibitions against homosexuality be singled out and enforced today?

His rebuttal focuses on two key areas, whether or not biblical law condemns homosexuality and

whether that condemnation is still binding. Dallas explains that the fact some of these

prohibitions are repeated in the New Testament means they are still relevant. By way of

illustration,

We do know according to specific New Testament verses that aspects of the law are not
binding on us today. And so for example Paul told the Galatians, "You're observing feast
days and you're observing dietary laws that you are no longer bound by."... But it's
interesting to note that in Leviticus 18 and 20 you have prohibitions against sexual
behaviors that are also prohibited in the New Testament as well. So the prohibitions in
these chapters against adultery, incest, sorcery and homosexuality are confirmed in the
New Testament as well. ... for believers whether they be Jewish or gentile. (Dallas 2006b)

He details exactly how to answer back to theologians who may be drawing upon this type of

narrative resource. He continues his refutation by explaining how a different revision of the same

Scripture argues that homosexuality is only condemned as part of idol worship and Heathen

ceremony. According to this premise, homosexuality outside of such a ceremony would be

permissible. To which Dallas (2006a) responds,

Now if we are going to impose that contingency on the Scriptures referring to
homosexuality we have to impose it on all of the other prohibitions as well. You can't have
it both ways. In other words, if we are going to say that homosexuality in Leviticus is only
condemned if it' s practiced as part of idol worship we must say the same thing about
adultery, incest and bestiality, which of course nobody is going to say because they are so
obviously condemned throughout Scripture. So is homosexuality condemned in the
Levitical code? Yes, clearly it is.

For each of the blocks of Scripture mentioned, Dallas goes through the same process I

outlined above for the verses from Leviticus. He first outlines the pro-gay theological version,

and then thoroughly discredits it. What he is doing, therefore, is furnishing those listening with









the interpretive tools critical for supporting their own ideological stance. Furthermore, since Love

Won Out promote the idea that they are the sole purveyors of God' s truth about homosexuality,

they are also arming their followers against the seduction of what they have determined to be the

false doctrine of pro-gay theology (Responding to Pro-Gay Theology 2004). It is also important

to note at this point that Dallas also explicitly refers to the impending Second Coming of Jesus

before closing this session. This is important because Dallas (2006b) explains how true believers

will recognize Armageddon,

[Jesus said] "Take heed that no one deceive you." And he said, "In fact in those days, the
power of deception will be so great, if possible even God's very elect are going to be
deceived." Paul said something similar to Timothy when he said, "In the last days the
times are going to get perilous. Men will not endure sound doctrine. Obj ective, sound truth
will become unacceptable and people will want to hear, not what is true, but what is
convenient."

Here, Dallas stresses that the end of the world will come after believers start to rej ect sound

doctrinal truths, and instead embrace a false set of truths-similar to the situation he portrays with

the acceptance of pro-gay theology.

Love Won Out' s provision of a narrative framework allowing the audience to counter pro-

gay beliefs in the church is mirrored in their empowering of the audience to fight legislation

approving same-sex marriage. There are two sessions in the conference that deal expressly with

this issue (they are both the same, but held at different times to ensure that the audience can

attend one of them), called "Straight Thinking on Gay Marriage". These are designed to do the

following:

Gay marriage is a reality in the U.S.-now how do we as Christians make a convincing,
compassionate case for why this is not in the best interest of society and our children? This
session will equip attendees with the facts and strategies they need to effectively argue for
the benefits of traditional marriage to their friends, coworkers and legislators (Love Won
Out Conference Guide 2006: 11).









As the passage illustrates, L WO acknowledge that the express purpose of the session is to

provide the tools the audience would need to counter proposed same-sex marriage legislation.

Towards the beginning of the session, the speaker, Bill Maier, reinterprets the discourse

surrounding the gay marriage debate so that the audience are clear on what the arguments are

"really about." By doing this, he ensures that those listening are familiar with the appropriate

institutional responses to same-sex marriage. They are, in fact, given the "right" responses and

told exactly how they should think about this issue. Maier (2006) first outlines what Love Won

Out say the gay marriage debate is not about:

First of all it' s not about whether gays and lesbians are nice people or good citizens... It' s
not about whether gays and lesbians can form loving relationships... It's not about whether
gays and lesbians can be loving parents... And it' s not about whether homosexuals should
be treated with respect and dignity. Every member of the human race should be treated
with respect and dignity. As Christians we should be the first to uphold that because we
believe that human beings are made in God's image, exactly.

In this extract, Maier attempts to defuse all of the major arguments in support of gay

marriage by reinterpreting the terms of the gay marriage debate. He carefully stresses that the

question of whether or not gay couples should be allowed to marry has nothing to do with love,

respect or citizenship. He does, in fact, say that lesbians and gays have loving relationships and

should be afforded the secular rights of full citizens. Those listening are being shown how to

effectively neutralize the potency of the gay agenda by agreeing with the key arguments, and

instead refocusing the debate.

Having explained what the debate is not about, Maier then shifts his attention to what

Love Won Out believe the same-sex marriage debate is actually about. The following passage

explains their approach,

It' s about whether we have the right to redefine marriage so it' s elastic enough to include
any grouping of adults regardless of their gender ... It' s about whether we embrace the
wonderful human diversity expressed in the two genders, male and female. It' s about
whether men and women complement and complete each other in their differences. It' s










about whether mothers and fathers play unique and irreplaceable roles in the lives of their
children... And it' s whether there are compelling societal reasons to define marriage as one
thing, and not define it as something else. (Maier 2006)

In this extract, Maier outlines all of the key arguments that the audience need to be aware of in

order to fight same-sex marriage. First and foremost, he questions whether anyone has the right

to tamper with traditional marriage definitions. Later in this same speech, and in many of the

other sessions over the course of the day, marriage is defined as an institution that is divinely

ordained, "for those of you who are married or those of you who are aspiring to marriage, as

Christians we know that heterosexual marriage was established by God ... since marriage was

created by God, it naturally follows that it is a universal, human institution" (Maier 2006).

Consequently, the audience are mandated to oppose any legislative changes to marriage since

this is constructed as protecting the word of God. The remainder of this paragraph relates to the

perceived role of men and women within the marriage relationship, and is connected with the

wider discursive framework L WO use to define appropriate sexual expression in terms of gender

and bodies.

In addition to redefining the terms of the same-sex marriage debate, Maier also gives the

audience further information on combating the discourse put forth by the pro-gay activists.

Specifically, he addresses the issue of benefits for same-sex and opposite-sex couples: "Now in

the public debate over same-sex marriage gay spokespeople often argue that gay couples should

be given the same, the same state and federal benefits, that are given to heterosexual couples and

that's a reasonable argument ...". Here, he identifies the demands of the gay community as

seemingly reasonable, before he utterly refutes them:

The reason society provides benefits to marriage is because marriage benefits society in
some remarkable ways... How does marriage benefit adults? Well in some pretty
remarkable ways. Married people have better emotional and physical health and live longer
than unmarried people. And before I go on lemme just tell you that I'm talking about,
when I go into these statistics I'm talking about natural, heterosexual marriage. There's no









evidence that homosexual marriage would provide these same benefits... Married couples
have greater incomes than single adults and the longer they stay married the more wealth
they accumulate. Married couples enjoy greater sexual satisfaction ... Married women are
safer than unmarried women. Never married, cohabited, separated and divorced women
experience higher rates of domestic violence then married women ... some of the ways that
marriage benefits society. Marriage makes homes safer places to live because it curbs
social problems such as domestic violence and child-abuse. Communities with more
married parent families are safer and more attractive places to live because they're less
likely to have substance abuse and crime among young people ... And married people are
more likely to be healthy, productive and engaged citizens benefiting businesses and
ultimately benefiting the economy ... married folks typically make ... make better
employees than single folks or divorced folks. (Maier 2006)

This list demonstrates all the criteria that marriage is perceived to benefit both individuals and

society. Maier suggests that these can all be used as strong points to argue when reiterating the

need for marriage, and the requirement to deny state and federal benefits to same-sex couples.

Moreover, he also expounds on the need to deny marriage to homosexuals, despite arguments

suggesting that these same benefits would apply to same sex marriages:

There is recent research from the Netherlands that does not support that belief ... so what
did they find as they looked at these male, gay couples in long-term relationships? Well
gay men in steady partnerships stay together for an average of 18 months. These are the
committed gay male couples. An average of one and a half years. And during that time gay
men with a steady partner have an average of eight additional sexual partners per year ..
monogamy and fidelity are virtually nonexistent in the male homosexual community.
(Maier 2006)

Maier uses this example to strengthen claims that marriage should be restricted to heterosexuals

since the key concepts of monogamy and fidelity are missing in male same-sex relationships. He

does not specifically mention lesbian couples, although he hints that such promiscuity also

characterizes lesbian relationships.

The final part of the discursive framework used by L WO to empower the audience to

counter attempts to legalize same-sex marriage involves linking it with polygamy, incest, and

pedophilia. This is a particularly powerful narrative tool as it simultaneously delegitimizes gay









and lesbian right to marry claims, while connecting them with two of society's strongest sexual

taboos: incest and pedophilia. From Bill Maier (2006) again,

Now, if we redefine marriage in one way, really there is no logical reason for us to not
redefine it in another way and I think it' s important for us to look at what might lie ahead
for our culture if same-sex marriage is legalized ... what' s to stop us from redefining it to
consider marriage between a man and four women or a group of six or seven heterosexual,
homosexual, bisexual adults and their respective children? ... if a father wants to marry his
fourteen-year-old daughter, who are we to stop him?

Importantly, Maier takes the audience on a hypothetical journey from the historical moment

when same-sex marriage is legalized, to the logical conclusion he describes. He implies that if

those assembled do not organize to defeat this menace, then society will deteriorate to such a

point where there are no sexual mores, and fathers would be free to marry their underage

daughters should they desire-since there would be no legal justification for stopping them doing

just as they please.

By the end of the session on gay marriage, the congregation has a set of definitive ideas

on how to engage in dialogue with supporters of this legislation. They have been told how to

understand what the debate is really about, marriage as a fundamental religious institution has

been reiterated, the benefits of heterosexual marriage have been clearly outlined, homosexual

unions have been proven false and the consequences to society of allowing gay marriage have

been stressed. Consequently, the audience is now ready to carry the message about gay marriage

to a wider circle of people and fight any potential legislation supporting same-sex unions.

Indeed, at the very end of the session, Maier introduces a speaker who will be available to

answer audience questions on how to combat specific state same-sex marriage legislation, and

how to organize to pass constitutional marriage protection acts.









Saving Souls

The institutional selves produced by Love Won Out in service of the organization are

encouraged to become active agents of change themselves. They are given a narrative framework

that allows for identification and interpretation of the key issues in the debate over

homosexuality and subsequently pushes them to fight incursion of the pro-gay agenda across

different social institutions. This is not the end of the story for these selves, however. They are

also given the interpretive resources necessary to affect change on an individual level. Since

Focus on the Family is an evangelical Christian organization, this typically involves practical tips

on how to evangelize the gay community, and how to reach gay and lesbian friends and love

ones. Dallas (2006b) explains the importance of reaching out to individuals in the last plenary

address of the day,

To hear some of us talk, you would think it was more important to politically defeat
homosexual people than it is to see them won into the Kingdom. And that ought not to be
.. The culture wars are important I will not withdraw from them. But there are more
important things than the culture wars. There are the souls of the lesbian women and the
gay men we are often opposing.

Here, Dallas recognizes significance of fighting against gays and lesbians politically, but also

implicates the battle over souls as being the most decisive.

The speakers at the conference routinely suggest ways that the message they are

promoting can be utilized outside the discursive boundaries of the conference. Much as

production of the gay self rests on the two pivotal discourses of religion and reparative therapy,

so, too, do the techniques for diffusing narrative constructions of the ex-gay self across the

identity landscape. Indeed, those listening are repeatedly told that the characteristics of gay and

lesbians selves are such that they are emotionally needy, temperamentally vulnerable, and can

therefore be easily influenced.









One of the adjustments that audience members are told to make when first hearing that

their loved one identifies as gay or lesbian is to reinterpret the way in which the gay or lesbian

individual stories their own self identity. More specifically, L WO insist that gay men and lesbian

women are not as happy as they initially exclaim on first coming out. As Mike Haley (2006b)

explains in a session designed to help those wanting to reach out to their loved ones,

It talks about in Scripture how sin is pleasurable for a season and oftentimes you will hear
your loved one or your friend talk about especially when they first come out look I'm
happier than I ever have been I'm being true to who I am I'm finally embracing who God
has made me to be this homosexual individual ... Scripture talks about that and so
oftentimes it' s like the elephant has just been let out of the cage you know the zoo keeper
wants to stand in the way and stop the elephant but he's going to wind up getting trampled
on.

This narrative formulation allows parents with gay children to reframe their child's experience

into a framework that still depicts homosexuality as sinful, emotionally damaging and dangerous.

In other words, their children are not actually happy; instead they are being seduced by the

temptations of homosexual sin. As Haley (2004) explains,

Society has silenced any message of hope regarding change from homosexuality, and the
church hasn't stepped boldly up to the plate either. So individuals with same-sex
attractions have been left to fend for themselves. When the pain of denial, hiding or
repression becomes so heated the pot begins to boil and the top is blown right off, men and
women 'come out' and express a newfound 'freedom' like never before. (47)

In this passage, Haley identifies the fact that the ex-gay message has been silenced as one of the

key reasons that gays and lesbians feel repressed, and depressed. Subsequently, the expectations

is that once they have embraced the counterfeit happiness offered by the gay lifestyle, and

embraced the false idea of a biological immutable homosexual identity, they would indeed feel a

huge sense of relief.

As a result, it is incumbent upon the church, parents and other loved ones to spread the

message that homosexuality is, in fact, mutable. From Haley (2004) again, in response to a

question from a mother concerning her son's supposed happiness:









The key for your son in the weeks and months to come is for him to realize it' s not too late
to turn back. This is where the church and loved ones like you come in. If he hears that
change is possible, that he was not made this way, and that he is loved ... there is hope that
when the feeling of relief wears off and the emptiness sets in, he will try to live his life in
line with God's will. (47)

Haley is advocating for the message of change to be spread as widely as possible. He argues that

the nature of homosexuality is such that people will eventually become tired of its false promise

and begin to realize that they are beset by inner emptiness-as reparative therapists explain the

some of the causes of same-sex desire. Before this happens, however, he stresses that "in the

meantime, advise you to pray that he becomes as miserable as possible, as soon as possible"

(Haley 2004: 47). Once this happens, Haley believes, then the stricken loved one would be more

receptive to the religious message that the parent is trying to promote.

The speakers at LWO frequently combine the understanding developed through reparative

therapy with evangelical religious discourse to suggest to the audience how to reach out to gays

and lesbians. As I outlined above, and in earlier chapters, reparative therapists believe that

homosexuals are fundamentally unhappy and have deep-seated psychological distress stemming

from inadequate parent-child bonding. Consequently, those listening are urged to wait for

evidence of this vulnerability before stepping in with the "message of hope" L WO are trying to

spread. The following selections, from different sessions and from Haley's book, illustrate this

idea,

let him get tired and let him realize what homosexuality is all about so when they're tired
and they're worn out that' s when we can begin to invest in their life (Haley 2006b)

you can still show empathy for a hurting person and say you know I've been through
break-ups and I know it' s painful and I'm really sorry and I would even pray before you
do this, but this is where I might see opportunity for evangelism: "You feel like the loss of
this relationship is you know longer have a reason to live but let me tell you about my
reason for living because man has let me down to when I say man I mean humans I don't
mean men but just in general. I've been let down a lot by people and I've been through
bad break-ups but Jesus is the only one who is not going to let me down. I'd love to tell
you about him." (Fryrear 2006c)









.. many hidden issues can contribute to a struggle with homosexuality. If you suspect your
acquaintance is flirting with homosexuality, start by exploring these issues ... if you are a
youth pastor who wants to approach a youth, you could begin by saying ... "Gary, when
you talk about your family, you light up when you talk about your mum-always making
sure I understand how much you 'can't stand' your dad. Have you ever thought about how
this negative relationship with your dad affects your life? ... you may uncover homosexual
inclinations, but more importantly, you are ministering to the core of the problem ... .As
with any sin issue, we must look beyond someone's behavior and minister to the wound
that have prompted them (Haley 2004: 67-68).

In all of these extracts, the focus is on finding an entry point into the gay or lesbian person' s life,

which opens up when that self is wounded and suffering. Having found an entry, the emphasis

shifts to introducing that self to the interpretive constructs necessary to free them from the

constraints of homosexuality. In other words, the audience is taught to take advantage of

suffering selves to evangelize them, and in their opinion, save their soul. This is what Love Won

Out refers to as "ministering to their humanity." For example,

.. About ministering to their humanity which ... doesn't mean that we condone their
homosexuality. If you have a coworker and you hear her crying in the office next to you
and she' s just broken up with her partner well I mean who can't empathize with a break
up? And even though the relationships are illegitimate in that they're not God's design the
feelings are still real ... and so being able to minister where that person is and ... being
able to share that God would comfort them and encourage them and show Himself to them.
Now I'm not going to pray that her girlfriend come back not going to pray condoning their
sexuality but being able to meet that person where she is in that moment of loss and grief
that we can all relate to. (Fryrear 2006c)

Notice that the emphasis is on praying with the person who has been hurt, and bringing their soul

back to God. Furthermore, the speaker in this extract, Melissa Fryrear, makes a clear delineation

between praying for those hurting and support for their homosexuality.

In addition to ministering to those suffering, L WO also encourages the audience to go out

of their way to befriend gays and lesbians and also to make sure they remain in close contact

with their homosexual loved ones. The speakers suggest nurturing friendships in order to win a

place of trust in the gay or lesbian' s life. Once this happens, the audience are depicted as being in

a perfect place to minister to the gay or lesbian when the inevitable emotional breakdown










happens. Fryrear (2006d) details how to structure a friendship with a homosexual individual so

this can take place,

if you have a friend who is struggling ... make [homosexuality] the back-burner issue. If
we're too aggressive on always talking about this, we run the risk of pushing that person
away if he or she does not know Christ. That' s ultimately our greatest heart concern of
seeing people come to know Jesus Christ. Be vulnerable and real about your own life, I
like what Mike says, "Vulnerability breeds vulnerability." Issues of sexuality and gender
are some of the most intimate in our lives and there needs to be a level of trust built up in
that relationship for that person to be able to talk openly, so invest in building that
relationship.

Fryrear lays out expressly how to approach friendship with gays and lesbians. The ultimate goal

is to save the soul of the unrepentant gay or lesbian and the easiest way to do this is to maneuver

a position of trust such that the other person will open up about their life. Haley (2004) explains

further, "show interest in his career, ask about his latest vacation, or simply enj oy your time with

him over dinner" (51-52). The audience, therefore, are having their own self identity restored

such that they are seen to have a powerful role in reaching gays for Christ. They are empowered

to become actively involved and are supplied with the narrative resources required to do this.

The role of the Christian loved one or friend as an evangelist is expounded by Joe Dallas

(2006c) in his session on "Top Ten Questions Loved Ones Ask," "As stewards of the truth, we

should speak the truth as clearly and lovingly as possible, always remembering that it isn't words

that change people's hearts and attitudes, it' s the spirit of God taking those words and using them

in that person's life." In other words, those listening are constructed as being the only ones with

a true understanding of homosexuality, and it is incumbent upon them to spread that message to

people they love. Haley (2006b) advances this idea by furnishing his audience with a set of

questions and answers that those listening can use to approach those they wish to evangelize,

one of the things that I often do when I'm dealing with people that struggle with
homosexuality or people that want to walk away from homosexuality, or even people that
don't, is that I like to use what' s called the whole person model. God has created us to be
sexual beings, physical beings, moral beings and social being ... God has created in us the









ability to think. So one of the very first places that I want to engage with someone that' s
dealing with the issue of homosexuality is their intellect. And the very first place that I
start is tell me why you're gay ... because if they believe that they were born that way then
you know where you need to begin to engage their mind and you know where the
educational process needs to begin.

Haley's initial approach to evangelism draws on one of the primary narrative resources L WO

stress over the course of the conference: that no one is born gay. If the target of evangelism

believes this myth, the one reaching out is encouraged to use scientific studies to discredit this

belief system, in the hope that the gay or lesbian will start to question their own sense of self

identity. Haley (2006b) continues his instructions:

If they believe that homosexuality is something that happened in their life that it was
developmental, then that' s a wonderful place because that' s where the area of ministry is
going to start. Another place that I like to engage them is to talk about the physical.
There's some real potential danger of involvement in homosexuality ... And these
potential physical consequences are different for males than for females but they're still a
number of situations that are very negative physically for both men and women that
involve themselves in homosexual behavior... Back to the physical, this is one of the
things that I like to do with especially men that struggle with homosexuality ... look you're
young, you're attractive, you're 25, 26 years old, the gay community is basically eating
you up but you're getting all the attention you need, you're young, you're attractive ... the
gay community thinks wow. But ... I want you to notice when you're at the bar at two in
the morning when the lights turn on and everybody's leaving, who's left sitting at the bar?
And who is it? It's the 40, 50, 60 year old men that have less hair that have pot bellies,
these are the ones that are left alone and why is that? Because they are no longer the valued
commodity .

This selection, too, illustrates how to use the pivotal discourses of the Love Won Out conference

to reach out to struggling homosexuals. Haley implicates the reparative therapists'

developmental approach as the starting point for ministry. He then turns to the perceived

physical dangers of continued engagement in same-sex sexual activity as a way to persuade

unrepentant souls to change their behavior and outlook.

Reliance on the conditions of possibility for a sexual self defined by a discursive

framework embedded within reparative therapy also suggests that homosexuality can be

prevented as well as treated. As I have already mentioned, the ultimate goal of the L WO









conferences is defined as saving the souls of gays and lesbians who would be condemned to

eternal damnation if they do not repent of their sexual sin. When taken in combination with

reparative therapies' discourse suggesting that causes of homosexuality have been isolated, this, I

argue means that conference goers are encouraged and empowered to prevent homosexuality and

therefore protect vulnerable souls. This has become such an important issue, that "the prevention

of homosexuality in children has become one of the primary emphases of research within the ex-

gay movement" (Haley 2004: 24).

Reparative therapy posits that homosexuality is a gender identity problem, as I have

explained in earlier chapters. As a result, homosexuality can be prevented if children are

encouraged to present and maintain appropriate gender expression. Parents, teachers, friends and

other family members are therefore urged to actively police children's gender identity. In the

session called "The Prevention of Male Homosexuality," Nicolosi suggests that parents must

take proactive steps when dealing with their male children,

Clear and consistent affirmation of the child' s gender. Often parents make the error of
doing nothing. They see the boy doing something effeminate and they do nothing, they
freeze, they avoid. They rationalize; oh it' just a phase and then the phase becomes a stage
and the stage becomes a developmental period and then it becomes a decade and then an
era and a lifestyle and then it' s too late ... .Intervene. Speak up. Because as Richard Green
said, doing nothing is a signal to him of approval ... And what you're doing is reinforcing
the androgynous fantasy. ... Rather we advise parents a clear and constant message. We
do not accept your effeminacy. We emphasize the positive: reinforcing the masculine but
discouraging, but not punishing the negative. We avoid shaming, but we are supportive
and encouraging and uplifting of anything that is masculine. You're a boy, mum and dad
love you as a boy, God made you as a boy, being a boy is special.

In this excerpt, Nicolosi gives clear direction on how parents must act toward their children. He

assumes that effeminacy in boys results in later homosexuality and argues that suppression of

this effeminacy young children will prevent sexual struggle-to the point that he supports gender

intervention on children as young as two and three years old. If the young boy's masculinity is

consistently affirmed, Nicolosi insists that this will be enough to stop the development of same-









sex attraction. As he explains, "I believe that the future of the debate on homosexuality will not

be on the treatment but on the prevention because we can accomplish with children in a matter of

months what will take years of treatment for adults."

To successfully prevent homosexuality, there is also strong emphasis on the importance

of the parent-child bond, and the presence of two, opposite-sex parents. Reparative therapists like

Nicolosi implicate poor parent-child socialization as one of the causal factors in adult

homosexuality. If children grow up with inadequate gender role modeling from their parents,

they are depicted as being vulnerable to struggles with same-sex attraction. Consequently, the

audience are repeatedly urged to be role models to the children in their lives. Moreover, single

mothers are advised to reach out to other adult men to help mentor their male children otherwise

Nicolosi warns of a future rise in homosexuality. He explains thus:

A question always asked is with all these single mothers are we going to see more
homosexuality? Well, yes, unless those women can get a good male figure. Two minutes
before I started talking there was a question put to me by a mother, what do I do? Father' s
not around. Find a male figure. This boy has to feel that there's one man that really sees
me as masculine. (Nicolosi 2006b)

Children of same-sex parents are also perceived as being particularly in need of adult same-sex

role models. From Melissa Fryrear (2006d),

children need a mother figure and a father figure in raising them ... if you have gay
identified loved ones who have had children, I would encourage you to be a part of that
child's life, especially two women who have a son. How desperately he needs that father
figure in his life, and so the grandfather or the uncle to be intentional in that boy's life. On
my best butch day I could not be a father to a son.

Prevention, therefore, rests on constant affirmation of what is deemed as appropriate behavior for

boys and girls, in addition to the presence of two opposite sex parents. Since Love Won Out

consistently argue that homosexuality is a danger to individuals and to society, early prevention

of homosexuality would successfully diminish this threat.









The institutional selves produced by Love Won Out are supplied with the narrative

resources they need to engender change in social institutions, and in other troubled selves. They

are taught to recognize the threat posed to normative heterosexuality within the confines of

education, the church and through support for same sex marriage. The gay agenda is constructed

as having such potency that, if left unchecked, it will radically alter society. Consequently, the

audience are repeatedly urged to fight the incursion of the pro-gay message in order to save

society, and given practical ways to do this. As a result, they are facilitating the diffusion of their

message across numerous other institutions. Furthermore, L WO define troubled gay selves as

being able to change, and just in need of spiritual direction and ex-gay selves as needing the

support of the church. Consequently, the speakers consistently exhort those listening to use the

interpretive resources they have learned to reach out to, and save, other struggling selves. If these

selves can be prevented from struggling with their sexuality in the first place, as reparative

therapists suggest, then eventually the ex-gay self would be one that becomes unnecessary,

meaning conferences such as this would become redundant.









CHAPTER 6
DOES LOVE WIN OUT?

The Love Won Out conferences are designed to promote the message that homosexuality is

preventable and treatable and out of this comes the notion of the ex-gay self. I would argue that

L WO go further than just promoting a particular kind of sexual self, however, they are also

equally engaged in the political battle over homosexuality. Their most powerful tool is this ex-

gay or ex-lesbian self. Using the moniker ex-gay or ex-lesbian privileges a particular narrative

identity that is based on what the self used to be. Such a self becomes of paramount strategic

importance in the public policy arena since it reinforces the core message of LWO:

homosexuality can be changed. If one is not born gay, then there is no need to afford any type of

legal protections to gays and lesbians since they are clearly able to change, unlike African-

Americans. Continual use of the identity "ex-gay" as opposed to heterosexual is, I argue, partly a

political strategy since to be known as "heterosexual" would mean being subsumed into the

wider culture. In other words, identifying as heterosexual has no political utility in the battle over

gay and lesbian civil rights, whereas ex-gay does.

This research falls within a larger political context as the battle over homosexuality is one

of the key political issues of the present time. On one side are the gay and lesbian civil rights

movements and their assorted allies arguing for equal protection under the law based on

recognition of their minority status. On the other side are the conservative alliances, strongly

linked to the New Christian Right (NCR), who maintain that to allow homosexuals any civil or

legal recognition is a flagrant violation of the Word of God and will result in the downfall of

society as we know it (Dobson 1990; 2004). The pivotal issue is whether or not gays and lesbians

are a recognizable minority in a similar form as, for instance, African-Americans (Herman 1997;

Smith & Windes 2000; Smith 1998). If they are seen to be a minority, then there is no









justification for withholding legal recognition. If they are not, however, there is clearly no need

for advancing legal protections.

At the heart of the matter, therefore are the different conceptualizations of lesbian and

gay identity. Traditionally, the lesbian and gay civil rights movement has drawn upon a

discursive framework that constructs gay and lesbian identity as fixed, immutable, and

something the individual was born with; the ethnic identity model (Epstein 1998). Adherence to

this narrative formulation implies that since homosexuals are born that way, they should be

afforded minority status and the attendant protections such a status affords (Bronski 1998;

Button et al. 2000; Epstein 1998). Opponents of the lesbian and gay civil rights movement

suggest, instead, that homosexuals are claiming special rights they do not deserve since they do

not count as a legitimate minority (Button et al. 1997; Diamond 1995; 1996; Dobson 2004). This

opposition rests on a narrative formulation implicating sexual identity as mutable and

homosexuality as perverse, immoral and sinful.

One of the major NCR organizations involved in fighting against gay and lesbian civil

rights is Focus on the Family, the evangelical religious organization formed in 1977 by James

Dobson (Gilgoff 2007; Hedges 2006) and that served as the basis for this research. Their core

message follows the pro-family rhetoric similar to many NCR organizations and further

conceptualizes homosexuality as a threat to society, family and individuals. Furthermore, they

have been instrumental in formulating and strengthening the discursive framework that depicts

homosexuality as not only sinful, but also changeable (Haley 2004; Nicolosi & Nicolosi 2002).

The Love Won Out conferences began in 1998 and were designed to promote this same message;

that homosexuality is changeable, preventable and treatable. By promulgating these ideas, Focus

on the Family (FOTF), through the Love Won Out (L WO) conferences are placing themselves in









the center of the political battle over gay rights by attacking the utility of the ethnic identity

model. They seek to reformulate the discourse such that homosexuality becomes reframed as an

obj ect of pity, not of pride and a thing to be healed not protected.

Importance of Institutional Selves at Love Won Out

In this proj ect, I have used the concept of an institutional self (Gubrium & Holstein 2001;

Holstein & Gubrium 2000) to describe in detail how the L WO conferences frame ideas about

sexual identity. More specifically, the institutional self is one produced in service of an

organization (Loseke 200 1)-in this case Focus on the Family. Over the course of the

conferences, the speakers construct the kind of self that will be most advantageous to the

organization, that of the ex-gay. Narrative production of an ex-gay self allows Focus on the

Family to address the competing discourses in the debate over homosexuality and provides a

powerful, new sexual identity that diminishes the potency of the gay or lesbian self.

In chapter 3, I described how LWO mobilize the typical gay or lesbian self, which is a

necessary first step in describing identity transformation from gay to ex-gay. In other words,

without first producing a troubled gay or lesbian self, narrative identity of ex-gay makes no sense

since it is reliant upon identification of what one was. The process of typification is described as

a way of categorizing and understanding a particular social type, such that "the application of a

categorical description provides a basis for ascribing other characteristics, activities and motives

to objects or actions" (Gubrium & Holstein 1997: 138). In typifying gays and lesbians, FOTF are

providing the audience with a clear framework through which to understand what being "gay" or

"lesbian" means.

Of critical importance is the typification of gay and lesbian as something mutable.

Without construction of a changeable sexual identity, notions of an ex-gay self identity become

ridiculous and fanciful. To accomplish this narrative formulation, L WO draw upon the









understandings of both religious and secular discourse. Belief in biblical inerrancy, as would be

expected of an evangelical religious organization, implicates heterosexuality as the only, true,

God-given sexuality. Consequently, everyone is born heterosexual, so homosexuality becomes

an aberration that can be fixed using the causal factors developed by reparative therapists.

Reparative therapists suggest that homosexuality is a symptom of a deep-seated psychological

disturbance, such as inadequate parent-child bonding, that manifests as inappropriate gender

identity and subsequently same-sex sexual attraction.

Having defined gay and lesbians selves as able to change, L WO must produce further

evidence suggesting that the typical gay and lesbian must change. Typification is important

because it suggests specific courses of action, in addition to categorization. In the case of the

homosexual, for example, simply presenting sexual identity as mutable does not mandate any

particular action. Mobilizing typical gays and lesbians as deviant, pathological or dangerous

does, however. As Gubrium & Holstein (1997) explain, "dismissing the act in question would be

unreasonable ... the type becomes more apparent as its concrete signs are identified ... the

assignment of experience to a particular category promotes distinctive constellations of

understanding that carry evaluative implications with practical consequences" (139). Love Won

Out expertly mobilize a typical gay or lesbian self that is unhealthy, emotionally traumatized,

sinful, immoral, promiscuous, and dangerous to society, thereby presenting the audience with a

way to understand "gay" and "lesbian" that justifies interference and a push toward healing.

Healing the troubled gay or lesbian self depends on two identity transformations, one

religious and one sexual, as I explained in chapter 4. Evangelical religious doctrine constructs

humanity as inherently sinful, and thus in need of salvation and repentance. This same

understanding is applied to healing homosexuality; repent and be saved. The religious









transformation is sparked by the evangelism of an outside mentor, the success of which FOTF

hope will inspire audience members to evangelize their own gay or lesbian loved ones.

Acceptance of religion as part of the troubled gay' s or lesbian' s sense of self necessitates further

action on their part since this religious framework is incompatible with their sexual identity.

L WO then focus on detailing the ways in which sexual identity transformation occurs.

In much the same way as mobilization of the typical gay or lesbian self relies on

reparative therapy, so too does the required sexual identity transformation to become ex-gay.

Reparative therapists embed their understanding of homosexuality within a narrative framework

that depicts it as primarily an emotional problem. Consequently, those desiring change must be

taught ways to fulfill those unmet emotional needs, including through the development of

healthy same-sex friendships. These friendships are thought to aid the struggling selves in their

quest for healing since they provide the required bonding, and also model appropriate gender

behavior and same-sex intimacy.

The utilization of both religious and secular discourse creates what I argue is an inherent

narrative tension between the two frameworks. As I have outlined earlier, evangelical religion

defines sexuality in terms of what is written in the Bible, thus, everyone is born heterosexual.

This formulation is then used as a platform to argue against homosexuality and promote the

development of an ex-gay self. Reparative therapy also suggests that everyone is born

heterosexual and that homosexuality is a treatable condition. The difficulty comes in interpreting

and fulfiling the subsequent healing strategies. To successfully move through the healing

process, ex-gay selves are taught the importance of maintaining appropriate gender identity;

appropriate to their biological sex. Men are taught to be masculine and women feminine, within

the discursive constraints of traditional gender constructions. Both masculinity and femininity,









therefore, are initially conceptualized as a natural consequence of biological sex, and then later

as a uniquely social construction that can be molded to fit the requirements of a specific narrative

formulation. The message then becomes very confused. The fledgling ex-gay selves have been

told they were not born gay, and have a gender identity problem which requires realignment of

their sex, gender, and sexuality. They are then given the interpretive resources they need to heal,

which contradict all they have been told of the nature of their problem.

Discursive production of the ex-gay self also involves L WO reframing the healing goals.

Initial impressions suggest that ex-gay selves are ones that have been healed from same-sex

sexual attraction. Over the course of the conference, however, the speakers routinely reinterpret

"healing" such that the ultimate goal is not heterosexuality, but adherence to religious faith.

Moreover, the speakers carefully redefine enduring same-sex attraction such that it becomes

symptomatic of a fallen world, and a sign of continued temptation. This reformulation allows

Love Won Out to claim that homosexuality can in fact be changed, despite evidence to the

contrary. Again, self identity is understood within an evangelical religious discourse that

imagines humanity as inherently sinful and continued homosexual attraction is another sign of

this sin.

The institutional selves constructed by L WO are also defined as being under a divine

mandate to engage in political activism across different social institutions. To facilitate this

social action, L WO first define the far-reaching consequences of allowing gay and lesbian civil

rights activists to continue unchecked. Framed in terms of pushing a gay agenda, homosexuals

are portrayed as attempting to transform society by forcing acceptance of their immorality onto

an unsuspecting public. The gay agenda is perceived as a threat to schools and children, the

church and public policy, as I detailed in the previous chapter.










Such is the potency of the threat narrative that L WO suggest that not acting in defense of

"traditional" values they promote would provoke the anger of a wrathful God. Consequently, the

audience is taught how to be active agents of change themselves. From creating ex-gay selves,

L WO create politically and strategically aware selves that will further the goals of the

organization, some of which are tied to fighting the advent of gay marriage, and the extension of

other legal protections to gays and lesbians. Political awareness is fostered through recognition

of the extent of the incursion of the gay agenda into schools, churches and politics. The audience

is taught how to identify the pro-gay agenda in schools and churches, and also how to defend

traditional marriage against accusations of homophobia and bias. Moreover, the audience is

taught specific strategies to use in the various social institutions that have a high chance of

success.

In addition to providing the conditions of possibility necessary to produce an ex-gay self,

Love Won Out also define the narrative resources required to promote the awareness of ex-gay

selves outside the discursive realm of the conferences. The audience are shown how to recognize

struggling gay or lesbian selves, and then told how and when to approach them in order to begin

the healing process. In addition, there is frequent reference to the gay's and lesbian's own self

perceptions, as understood by L WO, which explain how to initiate dialogue and promote the

message of the conferences without offense. Finally, production of ex-gay selves is seen as such

a crucial part of the battle against the pro-gay agenda that L WO believe prevention of

homosexuality before it manifests itself is the way of the future. Using the same discursive

frameworks of evangelical religion and reparative therapy that construct troubled gay selves,

healed ex-gay selves, and produce strategically aware political selves, L WO instruct the audience

on prevention strategies.









Theoretical Importance of Institutional Selves

The concept of an institutional self is an extremely important concept for investigation of

organizations such as Focus on the Family, and an effective tool for examination of conferences

such as Love Won Out. L WO are in the business of promoting a specific self identity, that of the

ex-gay. Interrogation of their discourse highlights the specific narrative resources they use to

develop this new kind of sexual identity. Importantly, institutional selves are those developed in

the service of an organization. Consequently, rhetorical production of the ex-gay self has an

explicit role in furthering the mission of Focus on the Family. Detailed exploration of these

narratives, such as I have done in this dissertation, reveals exactly how FOTF hope to achieve

their stated goals. Furthermore, utilization of the theoretical and methodological insights of

institutional selves allows investigation of how FOTF privilege particular narrative resources in

their ongoing battle against the gay and lesbian civil rights movement.

The format of the L WO conferences is such that there is limited opportunity for audience

participation. As a result my analysis of interpretive practice is also somewhat limited. Holstein

& Gubrium (2000) suggest that one of the components of an institutional self is the way in which

a particular institutional discourse is interpreted by individual selves. As it is, I have explored

this premise as far as is possible in a discursive arena in which audience participation is confined

to question and answer sessions allowing only pre-scripted questions. An obvious suggestion for

future research would be to examine more of the analytics of interpretive practice, and thus

interrogate how the L WO discourse is used to formulate individual self identity.

A further limitation and possible area for future research concerns both the make-up of

the audience and the other types of institutional selves produce by Love Won Out. From my own

estimation, it appeared that the audience was made up primarily of parents of gays and lesbians,

and gays and lesbians themselves. Without interviewing them, I have no way of knowing









whether this is actually the case. As a result, I have no clear sense of the reasons that many of

those in attendance chose to go. Furthermore, this also limits understanding of the way the

institutional discourse is used and interpreted by the audience. This, therefore, could be a fruitful

source of inquiry in the future. Related to this are the other kinds of selves that the L WO

conferences produce, and which are outside the scope of this dissertation. To name just a few,

Focus on the Family construct parenting selves, religious selves, activist selves, and evangelizing

selves. Each one of these could be a research proj ect in and of themselves.

Love Won Out in the Wider Sociopolitical Climate

The L WO conferences are an interesting site for exploring self production due to the

nature of the discourse. In the fight over the definition of homosexuality and the promotion of

civil rights, Love Won Out is uniquely positioned within the identity landscape. They are in the

business of producing a new kind of sexual self, the ex-gay, with the express purpose of denying

the legitimacy of gay and lesbian truth claims. L WO consistently draw upon the discursive

framework of the lesbian and gay civil rights movement, and then counter every maj or argument.

Furthermore, the self produced serves to negate the very existence of gays and lesbians. The

conferences are an excellent research site for examining the manner in which the competing

discourses of sexual identity are formed and reformed, and for investigating the techniques used

by social movements such as FOTF to reinterpret existing discourse in a way that furthers their

political agenda.

This research is an important contribution in understanding the way selves are produced

within particular going concerns. In addition, it can serve as a resource for the gay and lesbian

civil rights movement in their ongoing struggle for equal protection under the law. I have

detailed the numerous ways in which L WO delegitimize any claims that gays and lesbians have

made to be a protected minority. This proj ect, therefore, can help activists to reformulate their









discourse such that it takes into account the oppositional narratives of New Christian Right

organizations such as Focus on the Family. In particular, my dissertation reveals the narrative

resources most privileged by FOTF, and most challenging to the gay and lesbian movement-the

complete disavowal of lesbian and gay identity, and the idea that homosexuality is mutable and

therefore curable. Moreover, my research should also serve as a cautionary note against the ever-

expanding use of the ethnic identity model by activists. FOTF have a potent way of challenging

this narrative model, and in such a way that even existing protections become endangered.

In conclusion, Focus on the Family is carving out an important place in the identity

landscape with the Love Won Out conferences. They are engaged in producing a highly

controversial sexual self that is set to head out to battle against any incursion by the so-called

pro-gay agenda in any and all social institutions. Exposing the narrative formation of the ex-gay

self then becomes the key to its eventual defeat and downfall.














Time Session Speaker

8.00-8.15 Welcome & Introduction
8.15-9.00 The Condition of Male Homosexuality Dr. Joseph
Nicolosi
9.00-9.30 Testimony Mike Haley
9.30-9.45 Break
9.45-10.30 The Condition of Female Homosexualit Melissa Frrear
10.30- Testimony Melissa Fryrear
11.00
11.00- Break
11.15
11.15.12.00 Breakout Sessions
Respnding to Pro-Gay Theolog Joe Dallas
Someone I Love is Ga Melissa Frrear
Hop for Those Who Struggle Rand Thomas
Straight Thinking. on GyMarriage Dr. Bill Maier
12.00-1.15 Lunch
11.15- Why is What They're Teaching So Dangerous? Dr. Dick Carpenter
12.00
2.00-2.30 Testimony Nanc Heche
2.45-3.30 Breakout Sessions
Practical Tips for Reaching Out Mike Haley
Top Ten Questions Loved Ones Ask Joe Dallas
Ten Thins to Sa When You Don't Know What to Sy Nanc Heche
Straight Thinking. on GyMarriage Dr. Bill Maier
3.30-3.45 Break
3.45-4.30 Breakout Sessions
Practical Tips for Reaching Out Q&A Mike Haley
Prevention of Male Homosexuality Dr. Joseph
Nicolosi
Questions & Answers on Lesbianism Melissa Fryrear
Chri stine
Sneeringer
Teaching Captivity? Addressing the Pro-Gay Agenda in Dr. Dick Carpenter
Your School
4.30-4.45 Break
4.45-5.30 How Should We Respod? Joe Dallas


APPENDIX
LOVE WON OUT CONFERENCE SCHEDULE AND SPEAKERS










LIST OF REFERENCES

2002. Teaching Captivity? How the Pro-Gay Agenda Is Affecting Our Schools...And How You
Can Make a Difference. Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family.

2003. Straight Answers: Exposing the M~yths and Facts About Homosexuality. Colorado Springs,
CO: Focus on the Family.

2004. Responding to Pro-Gay Theology What Does the Bible Really Say? Colorado Springs, CO:
Focus on the Family.

2004. The Roots and Causes of2ale Homosexuality. Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the
Family.

2005. The Roots and Causes ofFentale Homosexuality. Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the
Family.

2006. Love Won Out Conference Guide. Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family.

2007. "Love Won Out." www.lovewonout.com.

Adam, Barry D. 1979. "A Social History of Gay Politics." Pp. 285-300 in Gay M~en: The
Sociology of2ale Homosexuality, edited by M. P. Levine. New York: Harper & Row
Publi shers.

-.1995. The Rise of the Gay & Lesbian 2ovenzent, Revised Edition. New York: Twayne
Publi shers.

Alexander-Moegerle, Gil. 1997. JamJJJJJJJJ~~~~~~~~~es Dobson's War on America. New York: Prometheus
Books .

Altman, Dennis. 1993. Homosexual Oppression & Liberation. New York: New York University
Press.

Ammerman, Nancy Tatom. 1987. Bible Believers: Fundamentalists~~dd~~dd~~dd~ in the M~odern World. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

-.2003. "Re-Awakening a Sleeping Giant: Christian Fundamentalists in Late Twentieth-
Century US Society." Pp. 89-110 in The Freedom to do God's Will: Religious
Fundantentalisn;~dd~~dd~~dd~ and Social Change, edited by G. ter Haar and J. J. Busuttil. New York:
Routl edge.

Averill, Lloyd. 1989. Religious Right, Religious Wrong. New York: The Pilgrim Press.

Bailey, Robert W. 1999. Gay Politics, th ban Politics: Identity and Economics in the Grban
Setting. New York: Columbia University Press.










Bennett, Jeffrey A. 2003. "Love Me Gender: Normative Homosexuality and "Ex-Gay"
Performativity in Reparative Therapy Narratives." Text and Performance Quarterly
23:331-352.

Bennett, William. 1990. "Introduction." Pp. xvii-xxiv in Children at Risk, edited by J. Dobson
and G. L. Bauer. Dallas, TX: Word Publishing.

Bernstein, Mary. 1997. "Celebration and Suppression: The Strategic Uses of Identity by the
Lesbian and Gay Movement." The American Journal of Sociology 103:531-565.

Blumer, Herbert. 1966. Sociological Implications of the Thought of George Herbert Mead."
American Journal of Sociology 71:53 5-544.

Boswell, John. 1980. Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.

-.1989. "Revolutions, Universals and Sexual Categories." Pp. 17-36 in Hidden From History:
Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past, edited by G. J. Chauncey, M. B. Duberman, and
M. Vicinus. New York: NAL Press.

Brewer, Sarah E., David Kaib, and Karen O'Connor. 2000. Sex and the Supreme Court: Gays,
Lesbians and Justice." Pp. 377-408 in The Politics of Gay Rights, edited by C. A.
Rimmerman, K. D. Wald, and C. Wilcox. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Broad, Kendal L. 2002. "Social Movement Selves." Sociological Perspectives 45:317-336.

Bronski, Michael. 1998. The Pleasure Principle: Sex, Backlash and the Sr.Cll.ele for Gay
Freedom. New York: St Martin's Press.

Bryant, Anita. 1977. The Anita Bryan2t Story. Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company.

Bull, Chris and John Gallagher. 1996. Perfect Enemies: The Religious Right, the Gay M~ovement
and the Politics of the 1990's. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc.

Bullough, Vern. 1979. Homosexuality: A History. New York: NAL Press.

Burack, Cynthia and Jyl J Josephson. 2005. "Origin Stories: Same-Sex Sexuality and Christian
Right Politics." Culture and Religion 6:369-392.

Button, James W., Barbara A. Rienzo, and Kenneth D. Wald. 1997. Private Lives, Public
Conflicts: Battles Over Gay Rights in American Communities. Washington DC:
Congressional Quarterly Inc.

-.2000. "The Politics of Gay Rights at the Local and State Level." Pp. 269-289 in The Politics
ofGay Rights, edited by C. A. Rimmerman, K. D. Wald, and C. Wilcox. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.











Campbell, Marie and Frances Gregor. 2004. Mapping Social Relations: A Printer in Doing
hIstitutional Ethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Carpenter, Dick. 2006a. "Why is What They're Teaching So Dangerous?" in Love Won Out. Ft.
Lauderdale, FL.

-.2006b. "Teaching Captivity? Addressing the Pro-Gay Agenda in Your School." in Love Won
Out. Ft. Lauderdale, FL.

Carpenter, Joel A. 1984. "From Fundamentalism to the New Evangelical Coalition." Pp. 3-17 in
Evangelicalism and2~odern America, edited by G. M. Marsden. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

-.1997. Revive Us Again: The Reawakening ofAnzerican Fundantentalism.~dd~~dd~~dd~ New York: Oxford
University Press.

Carter, David. 2004. Stonewall. New York: St Martin's Press.

Chambers, Alan. 2006. "Demystifying Homosexuality." Pp. 27-40 in God's Grace and the
Hontosexual Next Door, edited by A. a. t. L. T. a. E. I. Chambers. Eugene, OR: Harvest
House Publishers.

Charmaz, Kathy. 1983. "The Grounded Theory Method: An Explication and Interpretation." Pp.
109-126 in Contensporary Field Research: A Collection ofReadings, edited by R. M.
Emerson. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

-. 2000. "Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods." Pp. 209-236 in
Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. Denzin, K. and Y. Lincoln, S. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

-. 2005. "Grounded Theory in the 21st Century: Applications for Advancing Social Justice
Studies." Pp. 507-535 in The Sage H~andbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N.
Denzin, K. and Y. Lincoln, S. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

-. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

-. 2008. "Constructionism and the Grounded Theory Method." Pp. 397-412 in H~andbook of
Constructionist Research, edited by J. A. Holstein and J. F. Gubrium. New York: The
Guilford Press.

Charon, Joel M. 1998. Symbolic hIteractionisnz: An hItroduction, An hIterpretation, An
hItegration. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.










Chase, Susan. 2001. "Universities as Discursive Environments for Sexual Identity Construction."
Pp. 142-157 in Institutional Selves: Troubles Identities in a Postmodern World, edited by
J. F. Gubrium and J. A. Holstein. New York: Oxford University Press.

Chauncey, George Jr., Martin Bauml Duberman, and Martha Vicinus. 1989. "Introduction." Pp.
1-16 in Hidden From History: Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past, edited by G. J.
Chauncey, M. B. Duberman, and M. Vicinus. New York: NAL Press.

Clendinden, Dudley and Adam Nagourney. 1999. Our for Good: The Strge~f,l to Build a Gay
Rights M~ovement in America. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Cooley, Charles Horton. 1956. Human Nature and Social Order. New York: Charles Scribener.

Corbett, Michael and Julia Mitchell Corbett. 1999. Religion and Politics in the United States.
New York: Garland Publishing Inc.

Crawley, Sara L. 2002. "Narrating and Negotiating Butch and Femme : Storying Lesbian Selves
in a Heteronormative World." PhD Thesis, Department of Sociology, University of
Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Crawley, Sara L, Lara J Foley, and Constance L Shehan. 2008. Gendering Bodies, Edited by J.
A. Howard, B. Risman, and J. Sprague. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Crawley, Sara L. and Kendal L. Broad. 2004. "Be Your (Real Lesbian) Self." Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography 33:39-71.

Dallas, Joe. 2006a. "Responding to Pro-Gay Theology." in Love Won Out. Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
Bridgeport, 1L: Christian Audio Tapes.

-. 2006b. "How Should We Respond?" in Love Won Out. Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Bridgeport, IL:
Christian Audio Tapes.

-. 2006c. "Top Ten Questions Loved Ones Ask." in Love Won Out. Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
Bridgeport, 1L: Christian Audio Tapes.

Davis, Joseph E. 2005. "Victim Narratives and Victim Selves: False Memory Syndrome and the
Power of Accounts." Social Problems 52:529-548.

D'Emilio, John. 1992. Making Trouble: Essays on Gay History, Politics and the University. New
York: Routledge.

-.1998. Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making ofa Homosexual M~inority/ in the
United States, 1940-1970. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.










-.2000. "Cycles of Change, Questions of Strategy: The Gay and Lesbian Movement After Fifty
Years." Pp. 31-53 in The Politics of Gay Rights, edited by C. A. Rimmerman, K. D.
Wald, and C. Wilcox. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

D'Emilio, John and Estelle Freedman. 1988. hItintate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America.
New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

Denzin, Norman, K. 1968. "On the Ethics of Disguised Observation." Social Problents 15:502-
504.

-.1987. The Alcoholic Self: Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

DeVault, Marjorie and Lisa McCoy. 2006. "Institutional Ethnography: Using Interviews to
Investigate Ruling Relations." Pp. 15-44 in hIstitutional Ethnography as Practice, edited
by D. E. Smith. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Dey, lan. 2004. "Grounded Theory." Pp. 80-93 in Qualitative Research Practice, edited by C.
Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, and D. Silverman. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Diamond, Sara. 1995. Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing M~ovements and Political Power in the
thrited States. New York: The Guilford Press.

-.1996. Facing the Wrath: Confionting the Right in Dangerous Times. Monroe, ME: Common
Courage Press.

Dobson, James. 1990. "The Second Great Civil War." Pp. 22-44 in Children at Risk, edited by J.
Dobson and G. L. Bauer. Dallas, TX: Word Publishing.

-. 2002. "Can Homosexuality Be Treated and Prevented?" Focus On the Family, Colorado
Springs, CO.

-. 2004. Marriage thider Fire. Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers.

-. 2006. "Family News From Dr. James Dobson." Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family.

Dobson, James and Gary L. Bauer. 1990. Children At Risk. Dallas: Word Publishing.

Drescher, Jack and Kenneth J Zucker. 2006. Ex-Gay Research: Analyzing the Spitzer Study and
Its Relation to Science, Religion, Politics and Culture. New York: Harrington Park Press.

Engel, Stephen M. 2001. The thifinished Revohition: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and
Lesbian M~ovement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.










-.2002. "Making A Minority: Understanding the Formation of the Gay and Lesbian Movement
in the United States." Pp. 377-402 in The Handbook ofLesbian and Gay Studies, edited
by D. Richardson and S. Seidman. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Epstein, Steven. 1998. "Gay Politics, Ethnic Identity: The Limits of Social Constructionism." Pp.
134-159 in Social Perspectives in Lesbian and Gay Studies, edited by P. M. Nardi and B.
E. Schneider. New York: Routledge.

Erzen, Tanya. 2006. Straight to Jesus: Sexual and Christian Conversions in the Ex-Gay
Movement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Esterberg, Kristin. 1994. "From Accommodation to Liberation: A Social Movement Analysis of
Lesbians in the Homophile Movement." Gender and Society 8:424-443.

Feldman, Noah. 2005. Divided By God: America's Church-State Problem and What We Morln/J
Do About it. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.

Fetner, Tina. 2005. "Ex-gay Rhetoric and the Politics of Sexuality: The Christian Antigay/Pro-
family Movement's 'Truth in Love' Ad Campaign." Journal ofHomosexuality 50:71-96.

Foucault, Michel. 1990. The History ofSexuality, Volume 1. Translated by R. Hurley. New York:
Vintage Books.

Freeman, Jo and Victoria Johnson. 1999. Waves ofProtest. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Fryrear, Melissa. 2006a. "The Condition of Female Homosexuality." in Love Won Out. Ft.
Lauderdale, FL. Bridgeport, IL: Christian Audio Tapes.

-. 2006b. "Testimony." in Love Won Out. Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Bridgeport, 1L: Christian Audio
Tapes.

-. 2006c. "Questions & Answers on Lesbianism." in Love Won Out. Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
Bridgeport, 1L: Christian Audio Tapes.

-. 2006d. "Someone I Love is Gay." in Love Won Out. Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Bridgeport, IL:
Christian Audio Tapes.

-. 2006e. "Ministry to Lesbian Women." Pp. 173-202 in God's Grace and the Homosexual Next
Door, edited by A. Chambers. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers.

Gagne, Patricia and Richard Tewkesbury. 1999. "Knowledge and Power, Body and Self: An
Analysis of Knowledge Systems and the Transgendered Self." The Sociological
Quarterly 40:59-83.

Gasper, Louis. 1963. The Fundamentalist Movement.dd~d~~d~ The Hague: Mouton & Co.










Gergen, Kenneth J. and Mary M. Gergen. 1983. "Narratives of the Self." Pp. 254-273 in Studies
in Socialldentity, edited by T. R. Sarbin and K. E. Scheibe. New York: Praeger.

-.1988. "Narrative and the Self as Relationship." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology
21:17-55.

Gil goff, Dan. 2007. The Jesus Machine: How JamJJJJJJJJ~~~~~~~~~es Dobson, Focus on the FamFFFFFFFF~~~~~~~~~ily and
Evangelical American are Winning the Culture War. New York: St Martin's Press.

Glaser, Barney G. 1978. Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press.

Glaser, Barney G and Anselm L Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago:
Aldine.

Goeke, Mike. 2006. "Is Change Possible?" Pp. 59-78 in God's Grace and the Hontosexual Next
Door, edited by A. Chambers. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers.

Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation ofSelfin Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.

Green, John C. 2000. "Antigay: Varieties of Opposition to Gay Rights." Pp. 121-138 in The
Politics ofGay Rights, edited by C. A. Rimmerman, K. D. Wald, and C. Wilcox.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Greenberg, David F. 1988. The Construction ofHontosexuality. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.

Greenberg, David F and Marcia H. Bystryn. 1996. "Capitalism, Bureaucracy and Male
Homosexuality." Pp. 83-110 in Queer Theory Sociology, edited by S. Seidman. Maiden,
MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Gubrium, Jaber F. 1991. "Recognizing and Analyzing Local Cultures." in Experiencing
Fieldwuork: An hIside View ofeualitative Research, edited by W. B. Shaffir and R. A.
Stebbins. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

-.2005. "Introduction: Narrative Environments and Social Problems." SocialProblents 52:525-
528.

Gubrium, Jaber F. and James A Holstein. 1995. "Qualitative Inquiry and the Deprivatization of
Experience." Qualitative hIquity 1:204-222.

-. 1997. The New Language of Qualitative M~ethod. New York: Oxford University Press.

-. 2000a. "Analyzing Interpretive Practice." Pp. 487-508 in Handbook of Qualitative Research,
edited by N. Denzin, K. and Y. Lincoln, S. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

-. 2000b. "The Self in a World of Going Concerns." Symbolic hIteraction 23:95-1 15.











-.2001. Institutional Selves: Troubled Identities in a Postmodern World. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Haley, Mike. 2004. 101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality. Eugene, OR: Harvest
House Press.

-. 2006a. "Testimony." in Love Won Out. Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Bridgeport, 1L: Christian Audio
Tapes.

-. 2006b. "Practical Tips for Reaching Out." in Love Won Out. Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Bridgeport,
IL: Christian Audio Tapes.

Halperin, David M. 1989. "Sex Before Sexuality: Pederasty, Politics and Power in Classical
Athens." Pp. 37-53 in Hidden From History: Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past,
edited by G. J. Chauncey, M. B. Duberman, and M. Vicinus. New York: NAL Books.

-. 1990. One Hundred Years ofHontosexuality. New York: Routledge.

-. 2000. "How to do the History of Male Homosexuality." GLQ 6:87-124.

Harding, Susan Friend. 2000. The Book of Jerry Fabrell: Fundamentalistdd~~ddd~~dd~~ Language and Politics.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hed ges, Chris. 2006. American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. New
York: Free Press.

Herman, Didi. 1997. The Antigay Agenda: Orthodox Vision and the Christian Right. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.

Hewitt, John P. 1976. Self and Society: A Symbolic hIteractionist Social Psychology. Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.

-. 1984. Selfand Society: A Symbolic Interactionist Social Psychology. 3rd Edition. Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.

-. 1989. Dilenanas of the American Self: Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Himmel stein, Jerome L. 1990. To the Right: The Transformation ofAnzerican Conservatism.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Holstein, James A and Jaber F. Gubrium. 2000. The Self We Live By: Narrative Identity in a
Postmodern World. New York: Oxford University Press.










-.2005. "Interpretive Practice and Social Action." Pp. 483-505 in The Sage Handbook of
Qualitative Research, edited by N. Denzin, K. and Y. Lincoln, S. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Hunter, James Davison. 1983. American Evangelicalism: Conservative Religion and the
Quandazydd~~~~~ddddd~~~~ of2~odernity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

-. 1987a. "The Evangelical Worldview Since 1890." Pp. 19-54 in Piety & Politics:
Evangelicals andFundamentalists~d~~dd~~dd~ Confiont the World, edited by R. J. Neuhaus and M.
Cromartie. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.

-. 1987b. Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Irvine, Janice. 1994. "A Place in the Rainbow: Theorizing Gay and Lesbian Culture."
Sociological Theory 12:232-248.

-.2003. ""The Sociologist as Voyeur": Social Theory and Sexuality Research, 1910-1978."
Qualitative Sociology 26:429-456.
James, William. 1983. The Principles ofPsychology. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University
Press.

Katovitch, Mike and Bill Reese. 1993. "Postmodern Thought in Symbolic Interaction:
Reconstructing Social Inquiry in Light of Late-Modern Concerns." The Sociological
Quarterly 39:391-411.

Katz, Jonathan. 1976. Gay American History. New York: Timothy Y. Crowell Company.

Krapohl, Robert H. and Charles H. Lippy. 1999. The Evangelicals: A Historical, Thematic and
Biographical Guide. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

Kuhn, Manford H. 1967. "Major Trends in Symbolic Interaction Theory in the Past Twenty-Five
Years." Pp. 46-67 in Synabolic Interaction: A Reader in Social Psychology, edited by J.
G. Manis and B. N. Meltzer. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Licata, Salvatore J. 1985. "The Homosexual Rights Movement in the United States: A
Traditionally Overlooked Area of American History." Pp. 161-190 in The Gay Past: A
Collection ofHistoricalEssays, edited by S. J. Licata and R. P. Petersen. New York:
Harrington Park Press.

Liebman, Robert C. 1983. "Mobilizing the Moral Majority." Pp. 50-74 in The New Christian~it~i~it~itit~it
Right, edited by R. C. Liebman and R. Wuthnow. New York: Aldine Publishing
Company.

Lienesch, Michael. 1983. RedeenzingAnzerica: Piety & Politics in the New Christian Right.
Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.










Linder, Robert D. 1975. "The Resurgence of Evangelical Social Concern (1925-1975)." Pp. 189-
210 in The Evangelicals: What They Believe, Who They Are and Where They Are
Changing, edited by D. F. Wells and J. D. Woodbridge. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Loseke, Donileen R. 2001. "Lived Realities and Formula Stories of "Battered Women"." Pp.
107-126 in hIstitutional Selves: Troubled Identities in a Postmodern World, edited by J.
F. Gubrium and J. A. Holstein. New York: Oxford University Press.

Loseke, Donileen R. and James C. Cavendish. 2001. "Producing Institutional Selves:
Rhetorically Constructing the Dignity of Sexually Marginalized Catholics." Social
Psychology Quarterly 64:347-362.

Love, Won Out. 2006. "Love Won Out: Conference Guide." in Love Won Out. St Louis, MO:
Focus on the Family.

Macionis, John J. 2003. Sociology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Maier, Bill. 2006. Straight Thinking on Gay Marriage." in Love Won Out. Ft. Lauderdale, FL.

Marotta, Toby. 1981. The Politics ofHontosexuality. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Marsden, George M. 1975. "From Fundamentalism to Evangelicalism: A Historical Analysis."
Pp. 122-142 in The Evangelicals: What They Believe, Who They Are and Where They are
Changing, edited by D. F. Wells and J. D. Woodbridge. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

-. 1980. Fundamentalismdd~~ddd~~dd~~ and American Culture: The Maping'" of TMI Iemileth Centwry
Evangelicalism 1870-1925. New York: Oxford University Press.

-. 1991a. Thiderstanding Fundamentalismdd~~ddd~~dd~~ and Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

-. 1991b. "Fundamentalism and American Evangelicalism." Pp. 22-34 in The Variety of
American Evangelicalism, edited by D. W. Dayton and R. K. Johnston. Knoxville: The
University of Tennessee Press.

-. 2006. Fundamentalismdd~~ddd~~dd~~ and American Culture. New Edition. New York: Oxford University
Press.

Marshall, John. 1981. "Pansies, Perverts and Macho Men: Changing Conceptions of Male
Homosexuality." Pp. 133-154 in The Making of the M~odern Homosexual, edited by K.
Plummer. Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble Books.

Martin, William. 1996. With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America. New
York: Broadway Books.










Marty, Martin E. and R. Scott Appleby. 1992. The Glory and the Power: The Fundamentalistdd~~ddd~~dd~~
Challenge to the M~odern World. Boston: Beacon Press.

Mead, George Herbert. 1930. "Cooley's Contribution to American Social Thought." The
American Journal of Sociology 35:693-106.

-.1967. M~ind, Self& Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Meltzer, Bernard N., John W. Petras, and Larry T Reynolds. 1975. Symbolic hIteractionisnz:
Genesis, varieties and criticism. London: Routledge.

Miller, Diane Helene. 1998. Freedom to Differ: The \hapig" of the Gay and Lesbian Strugle ~~for
Civil Rights. New York: New York University Press.

Moen, Matthew C. 1992. The Transformation of the Christian Right. Tuscaloosa, AL: The
University of Alabama Press.

Murray, Stephen O. 1996. American Gay. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Nash, Ronald H. 1987. Evangelicals in America: Who They Are, What They Believe. Nashville:
Abingdon Press.

Nicolosi, Joseph. 1991. Reparative Therapy: A New Clinical Approach. Northvale, NJ: Jason
Aronson, Inc.

-. 1993. Healing Homosexuality: Case Stories ofReparative Therapy. Northvale, NJ: Jason
Aronson Inc.

-. 2006a. "The Condition of Male Homosexuality." in Love Won Out. Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
Bridgeport, 1L: Christian Audio Tapes.

-. 2006b. "Prevention of Male Homosexuality." in Love Won Out. Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
Bridgeport, 1L: Christian Audio Tapes.

Nicolosi, Joseph and Linda Ames Nicolosi. 2002. A Parent'sPPP~~~~PPP~~~PPP Guide to Preventing
Homosexuality. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.

Ochs, Elinor and Lisa Capps. 1996. "Narrating the Self." Annual Review of Anthropology 25:19-
43.

Ostling, Richard N. 1984. "Evangelical Publishing and Broadcasting." Pp. 46-56 in
Evangelicalism and2~odern America, edited by G. M. Marsden. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.










Padgug, Robert. 1989. "Sexual Matters: Rethinking Sexuality in History." Pp. 54-63 in Hidden
From History: Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past, edited by G. J. Chauncey, M. B.
Duberman, and M. Vicinus. New York: NAL Press.

Paulk, John 2000. "What Happens When Love Wins Out."

Paulk, John and Anne Paulk. 1999. Love Won Out: How God's Love Helped Two People Leave
Homosexuality andFindEach Other. Wheaton, Il: Tyndale House Publishers.

Perinbanayagam, R.S. 1985. Signify/ing Acts: Structure and Meaning in Everyday Life.
Carbondale, Ill: Southern Illinois University Press.

Pierard, Richard V. 1984. "The New Religious Right in American Politics." Pp. 161-175 in
Evangelicalism and2~odern America, edited by G. M. Marsden. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Plaskow, Judith. 2005. The Coming ofLilith: Essssssssssssssays on Fentinisnz, Judaism and Sexual Ethics,
1972-2003. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Polletta, Francesca. 1998. "Contending Stories: Narrative in Social Movements." Qualitative
Sociology 21:419-446.

Pollner, Melvin and Jill Stein. 1996. "Narrative Mapping of Social Worlds: The Voice of
Experience in Alcoholics Anonymous." Symbolic hIteraction 19:203-223.

-.2001. "Doubled Over in Laughter: Humor and the Construction of Selves in Alcoholics
Anonymous." Pp. 46-63 in hIstitutional Selves: Troubles Identities in a Postmodern
World, edited by J. F. Gubrium and J. A. Holstein. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ponticelli, Christy M. 1996. "The Spiritual Warfare of Exodus: A Postpositivist Research
Adventure." Qualitative hIquity 2: 198-219.

-.1999. "Crafting Stories of Sexual Identity Reconstruction." Social Psychology Quarterly
62:157-172.

Prus, Robert. 1996. Symbolic hIteraction and Ethnographic Research: hItersubjectivity and the
Study ofHuntan Lived Experience. Albany, N.Y: State University of New York Press.

Rahman, Momin. 2000. Sexuality and Democracy: Identities and Strategies in Lesbian and Gay
Politics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Reichley, A. James. 1987. "The Evangelical and Fundamentalist Revolt." Pp. 69-95 in Piety &
Politics: Evangelicals and Fundamentalists~d~~dd~~dd~ Confr~ont the World, edited by R. J. Neuhaus
and M. Cromartie. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.

-.2002. Faith in Politics. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institute Press.











Reynolds, Larry T. 1970. "The Self in Symbolic Interaction Theory." in The Sociology of
Sociology: Analysis and Criticism of the Thought, Research and Ethical Followays of
Sociology and its Practitioners, edited by L. T. Reynolds and J. M. Reynolds. New York:
David McKay.

-. 1990. hIteractionisnz: Exposition and Critique. Dix Hills, NY: General Hall, Inc.

-. 2003. "Early Representatives." Pp. 39-58 in H~andbook Of Synabolic interactionisnz, edited by
L. T. Reynolds and N. J. Herman-Kinney. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Reynolds, Larry T and Nancy J. Herman-Kinney. 2003. "Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism."
Pp. 1077. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Riesbrodt, Martin. 1993. Pious Passion: The Emergence of2~odern Fundantentalisn;~dd~~dd~~dd~ in the
thrited States andlran. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Rimmerman, Craig A. 2002. From Identity to Politics: The Lesbian and Gay M~ovements in the
thrited States. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Robinson, Christine M. and Sue E. Spivey. 2007. "The Politics of Masculinity and the Ex-Gay
Movement." Gender and Society 21:.650-975.

Sandeen, Ernest R. 1970. The Roots ofFundantentalism.dd~~dd~~dd~ Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.

Seidman, Steven. 1996. "Introduction." in Queer Theory Sociology, edited by S. Seidman.
Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc.

Smith, Christian. 1998. American Evangelicalism: Embattled and Thriving. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.

Smith, Dorothy E. 2005. hIstitutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People. Lanham, MD: Alta
Mira Press.

-.2006. hIstitutional Ethnography as Practice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Smith, Ralph R. and Russel R. Windes. 2000. Progay Antigay: The Rhetorical War Over
Sexuality. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sneeringer, Christine. 2005. "Feeling Safe As A Woman." Pp. 30-33 in The Roots and Causes of
Female Homosexuality, Love Won Out Series.

-.2006. "Questions & Answers on Lesbianism." in Love Won Out. Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
Bridgeport, 1L: Christian Audio Tapes.










Stein, Arlene. 2001. The Stranger Next Door: The Story of a Small Community's Battle Over Sex,
Faith, and Civil Rights. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Stone, Gregory P. and Harvey A. Farberman. 1970. "Social Psychology Through Symbolic
Interaction." Waltham, Mass: Ginn-Blaisdell.

Strauss, Anselm L. and Juliet Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.

Taylor, Verta, Elizabeth Kaminski, and Kimberly Dugan. 2002. "From the Bowery to the Castro:
Communities, Identities and Movements." in The Handbook ofLesbian and Gay Studies,
edited by D. Richardson and S. Seidman. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Terry, Jennifer. 1999. An American Obsession: Science, M~edicine and Homosexuality in M~odern
Society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Thomas, Randy. 2006a. "Hope for Those Who Struggle." in Love Won Out. Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
Bridgeport, 1L: Christian Audio Tapes.

-.2006b. "Understanding the Three Degrees of Homosexuality." Pp. 119-132 in God's Grace
and the Homosexual Next Door, edited by A. Chambers. Eugene, OR: Harvest House
Publi shers.

Utter, Glenn H. and John W. Storey. 2007. The Religious Right: A Reference Handbook.
Millerton, NY: Gray House Publishing.

Vaid, Urvashi. 1995. Virtual Equality: The Mainstreamning of Gay and Lesbian Liberation. New
York: Anchor Books.

Van Biema, David 2005. "The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America." Time, February 7,
2005, pp. 34-45.

Wald, Kenneth D. 2003. Religion andPolitics in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman and
Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Watt, David Harrington. 1991. A Transforming Faith: An Exploration of TMI I'mil'th-Century
American Evangelicalism. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Weber, Timothy P. 1991. "Premillennialism and the Branches of American Evangelicalism." Pp.
5-21 in The Variety ofAmerican Evangelicalism, edited by D. W. Dayton and R. K.
Johnston. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press.

Weeks, Jeffrey. 1985. Sexuality and its Discontents. New York: Routledge.

-.1991. Against Nature: Essays on History, Sexuality and Identity. London: Rivers Oram Press.










-.2000. Making Sexual History. Maiden, MA: Polity Press.


Weigert, Andrew J. and Vik Gecas. 2003. Self." Pp. 267-288 in Handbook of Synabolic
Interactionisnz, edited by L. T. Reynolds and N. J. Herman-Kinney. Lanham, MD:
AltaMira Press.

Wilcox, Clyde. 1992. God's Warriors: The Christian Right in 20th Centwry America. Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

-.2000. Onward Christian Soldiers? The Religious Right in American Politics. Boulder:
Westview Press.

Wolkomir, Michelle. 2001. "Wrestling With The Angels of Meaning: The Revisionist
Ideological Work of Gay and Ex-Gay Christian Men." Symbolic Interaction 24:407-424.

-.2006. Be Not Deceived: The Sacred and Sexual Struggles of Gay and Ex-Gay Christian M~en.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Wood, Arthur Evans. 1930. "Charles Horton Cooley: An Appreciation." The American Journal
of Sociology 35:707-717.

Worthen, Anita and Bob Davies. 1996. Someone I Love is Gay: How FamFFFFFFFF~~~~~~~~~ily & Friends Can
Respond. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Wuthnow, Robert. 1983. "The Political Rebirth of American Evangelicalism." Pp. 168-187 in
The New Christian Right, edited by R. C. Liebman and R. Wuthnow. New York: Aldine
Publishing Company.

-.1989. The Restructuring ofAmerican Religion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Helena Alden was born and raised in England. She attended the University of South

Florida and graduated summa cum laude with a degree in criminology in 1999. She attended

graduate school at the University of Florida and received her M.A. in 2001, and her PhD. in

2008. She is currently an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin

Stevens Point.





PAGE 1

IDENTITY WORK AND THE NEW CHRISTI AN RIGHT: HOW FOCUS ON THE FAMILY RHETORICALLY CONSTRUCTS THE EX-GAY SELF By HELENA LOUISE ALDEN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008 1

PAGE 2

2008 Helena Louise Alden 2

PAGE 3

To my Mum, my Nan and To Liz, always 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation would not have been possi ble without the suppor t of my wonderful committee; Milagros Pea, Ke ndal Broad, Gwynn Kessler, Tanya Koropeckyj-Cox, and Barbara Zsembik. They generously offered their time support and expertise. Milly has been an inspiration. A better chair and mentor I could no t have imagined. She was a constant source of encouragement despite what must have seemed like a never-ending project! She has continued to be supportive over the years, and also provide d the occasional spark when I wandered off. Kendal has been both mentor and friend, and also a continual inspiration si nce I started graduate school. I feel honored and privileged to have work ed with her, and am truly grateful for the opportunity. I am also very thankful to have continued working with Barb Zsembik who mentored and encouraged me through bot h the masters and the doctoral program. I would like to thank my friends from gr aduate school who made the grad school experience fun; Sara Crawley, Susan Eichenberg er, Lara Foley, John Reitzel, Melanie Wakeman and the many others too numerous to mention. Sara, in particular, showed me how to enjoy grad school and served as friend, mentor, and role m odel. I would like to thank Danaya Wright for being such a good friend. I would also like to th ank my friends in Wisconsinespecially those who helped me survive my first winter! My thanks also go to Rhonda Sprague for making a home away from home. I would es pecially like to thank Sheila Sullivan for the love and support she has shown me. This project would also not have been possi ble without the encourag ement of my family. My mum, Marcia Alden, has been at my side si nce the beginning. She instilled in me a love of education which has served to guide through the thicket of graduate sc hool life. And as she would say, its about time! I would also like to thank my brother, Galen Alden, and this is for himzig-a-zig-ah! 4

PAGE 5

Finally, I would like to thank my partner, Li z Fakazis. She has been with me the whole time and shown me a depth of love and understanding I did not dream possible. To her, I am truly, truly grateful and tha nkful she now does not have to go the Bahamas by herself! 5

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................8 CHAPTER 1 ROOTS OF THE EX-GAY IDENTITY................................................................................10 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........10 Background and Literature Review........................................................................................14 The Evolution of the New Christian Right......................................................................14 The Development of Lesbian and Gay Sexual Identity...................................................30 Where Religion and Sexuality Meet: The Ex-Gays ......................................................47 2 ANALYZING INSTITUTIONAL SELVES: THEORY AND METHOD............................52 The Development of the Social Self.......................................................................................52 From the Social Self to a Narrative Self.................................................................................61 Data and Methods...................................................................................................................67 3 PRODUCING THE GAY SELF............................................................................................82 Gays and Lesbians Can Change ............................................................................................83 The "Whats" of Change...................................................................................................83 The "Hows" of Change....................................................................................................91 Gays and Lesbians Must Change............................................................................................94 4 BECOMING EX-GAY.........................................................................................................101 Sin and Salvation..................................................................................................................102 Reparative Therapy............................................................................................................. ..109 The "Hows" of Being Ex-Gay..............................................................................................115 5 BEYOND LOVE WON OUT : EXPANDING THE DISCOURSE......................................130 Society Under Threat............................................................................................................134 Saving Society......................................................................................................................147 Saving Souls.........................................................................................................................159 6 DOES LOVE WIN OUT?....................................................................................................168 Importance of Institutional Selves at Love Won Out ............................................................170 Theoretical Importance of Institutional Selves.....................................................................175 Love Won Out in the Wider Sociopolitical Climate.............................................................176 6

PAGE 7

APPENDIX LOVE WON OUT CONFERENCE SCHEDU LE AND SPEAKERS ...................178 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................179 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................194 7

PAGE 8

Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy IDENTITY WORK AND THE NEW CHRISTI AN RIGHT: HOW FOCUS ON THE FAMILY RHETORICALLY CONSTRUCTS THE EX-GAY SELF By Helena Louise Alden August 2008 Chair: Milagros Pea Major: Sociology My study examined where the discourses of evangelical religion, sexuality and self intersect. The Love Won Out conferences of Focus on the Family, an evangelical religious organization, promote the message that homosexuali ty is both preventable and treatable. In so doing, Focus on the Family actively endorses a specifi c kind of sexual identity, that of an exgay. My study I asked how Focus on the Family de fines the conditions of possibility for an exgay self. I drew on the theo ry of institutional selves to interrogate how the Love Won Out conferences put on by Focus on the Family narrati vely construct sexual identity. Institutional selves are defined as those selves produced in the service of an organization and I examined those selves produced by Love Won Out to further the political goa ls of Focus on the Family. My study analyzed the transcripts of the Love Won Out conferences I attended in St. Louis and Ft. Lauderdale in 2006. In addition, I exam ined the textual material promoted by the conference speakers, including a number of books, pamphlets, and supporting materials. Results show that to successfully promot e sexual identity transformation, Love Won Out must first produce a mutable, troubled gay self. Having done so, Love Won Out supply the narrative resources necessary to recognize the causes of homosexuality, and then to manage the 8

PAGE 9

9 transformation from a troubled gay self to a healed ex-gay self. More specifically, Love Won Out draw upon discourses of religion, psychotherapy and self-help. They further reinterpret the nature of the healing process such that it b ecomes more of a spiritual transformation than a sexual one. Focus on the Family also empowers th e audience to be active agents of change themselves, and provide the interpretive tools to advocate for social chan ge across a variety of social institutions. I argue that the ex-gay self identity has political utility outside the discursive boundaries of the Love Won Out conferences since to embrace a heterosexual identity would mean being subsumed into wider culture and thus rendered politically and so cially invisible. Exgay keeps the message that sexuality is mutable at the forefront and therefore becomes important in the fight against the claims of gay and lesbian civil rights groups.

PAGE 10

CHAPTER 1 ROOTS OF THE EX-GAY IDENTITY The homosexual activist movement have been wo rking to implement a plan that has as its centerpiece the utter destructi on of the family. (Dobson 2004:19) [Homosexuality] is a prison that leaves many individuals feeling hopeless and abandoned many of these individuals desperately want to be free of this same-sex attraction. (Dobson 2004:72) Prevention is effective. Change is po ssible. Hope is available. (Dobson 2002) Introduction Since 1998, Focus on the Family, an evangelical Christian organization, has been visiting megachurches across the country, hos ting ex-gay conferences known as Love Won Out Focus on the Family uses these conferences to strike rhet orically at the heart of the lesbian and gay civil rights movement. As I will show, they do this in part by denying the existence of a gay and lesbian identity by arguing that God has made everyone heterosexual, by arguing that same-sex attraction is a sin of which beli evers can repent, and by promoti ng the concept of an ex-gay selfone which cannot deny past sins, but can live a present and future life of redemption. The very idea of an ex-gay or ex-lesbian self sugg ests a fluidity in sexual identity which Focus on the Family uses to negate the drive by gay an d lesbian civil rights groups for the extension of legal protections to homosexuals based on th e argument that they are born gay. The battle over gay and lesbian civil rights, no t least of which has been the debate over gay marriage, is one of the most important social and political issues in re cent history. Such is the strength of feeling, that the division has been likened to a culture war (Gilgoff 2007). Gay marriage has been a pivotal issue in numerous elections, including the 20 04 presidential election and the 2006 state electionswhich featured marriage amendments in 8 states. At the heart of the debate are the competi ng discourses of civil rights versus special rights. On one side gay and lesbian civil righ ts organizations are arguing for increased legal 10

PAGE 11

protection and legal recognition of same sex relationships, whereas opponents are vehemently denying the need for any legal recognition of homo sexuality. For the most part, denial of civil rights protections is formulated ar ound the idea that homosexuality is not a viable social identity. Gays and lesbians are not viewed as a legi timate minority, and consequently homosexuality should not be recognized under law. In this st udy, I examine the institutio nal discourse of one antigay organization, Focus on the Family, and the manner in which it simultaneously delegitimates individual homosexual identity and the gay and lesbian movement more widely. Central to the opposition are th e organizations of the religious right; of these, Focus on the Family plays a pivotal role (Diamond 1995; 1996; Gilgoff 2007; Hedges 2006). Founded in 1977 by James C. Dobson, Focus on the Family has an extremely active role in the fight against gay and lesbian civil rights. As the beginning quotation highlights, Dobson views homosexuality as one of the most serious thre ats to American culture. For that reason, he and his organization routinely involve themselves in working against any perceived advances of the gay and lesbian movement, and encourage their followers to do the same. 1998 saw the advent of the most blatant example of Focus on the Familys anti-gay activismthe institution of the Love Won Out conferences. These one day conferences were started to promote the message that homosexua lity is preventable and treatable. As Dobson argues in the second and third quotations, ma ny homosexuals want to be freed from homosexuality and change is possible. The idea th at gays can change stri kes at the very heart of identity politics, and in so doing, completely denies the legitimacy of claims by lesbians and gays that they should be treate d as a recognizable minority group. Love Won Out is designed to provide the discursive envir onment necessary to define, unde rstand and produce a new kind of 11

PAGE 12

sexual identity; one in direct opposition to the se xual identity familiar in much lesbian and gay political activismtha t of the ex-gay. The goal of this study was to attend the Love Won Out conferences in order to understand more fully the manner in which Focus on the Fam ily narratively produce th e ex-gay self. To do this, I draw upon the theoretical and methodological conceptualiza tion of Gubrium & Holsteins (2001) institutional self. Notions of the instituti onal self allow me to in terrogate the rhetorical production of the ex-gay self under the narrative au spices of the Love Won Out conferences. Specifically, I can identify the narrative resources privileged by Focus on the Family and examine the discourses used to describe what is at its heart, a highly controversial sexual identity. Research of this nature is of fundamental importance on tw o levels. Firstly, it allows me to further our theoretical unde rstanding of postmodern narr ative identit y. Indeed, the Love Won Out conferences provide a particularly important re search site as they are actively engaged in changing and reinterpreting self and narrative identity, following strict institutional resources. This study provides an in-depth case illustrati on of the active production of selves in an important international organizati on. Other studies have used notions of the institutional self to examine the production of such disparate selves as battered women (Loseke 2001) and social movement selves (Broad 2002). Th is dissertation contributes to this research by training the lens on the construction of a diffe rent self, that of the ex-gay. This is a particularly potent narrative identity, as it is one c onstructed on the very battlefield between the relig ious right and gay and lesbian civil ri ghts movements. The examination of this particular discursive environment allows political organizations to counter the inflammatory rhetoric of Focus on the Family. Through denial of sexual identity, 12

PAGE 13

Focus is attempting to negate all claims to political legitimacy of gay and lesbian civil rights movements. Not only is the organization trying to remove political identity, however, but the Love Won Out conferences also argue that there is, in fact, no such thing as a gay identity. As a result, a thorough understanding of these narrat ive formulations allows gay and lesbian individuals, groups, and allies to redefine and reclaim their pers onal social and sexual identity. The upcoming chapters document how conserva tive Christians produce a mutable sexual identity, and then use this notion to construct ex-g ay and ex-lesbian selves. My focus is as much on the cultural context in which these selves are produced, as on the se lf production. My specific research question asks: what narr ative conditions make an ex-gay or ex-lesbian self identity possible and what conditions make it necessary? My research, therefore, examines the manner in which Focus on the Family construct a troubled a nd unhealthy same-sex sexuality and then uses this to mandate sexual identity transformation. In the remainder of this chapte r, I explain the historical development of the New Christian Right, and provide a brief overview of their core belief system since this is a pivotal narrative resource used by Focus on the Family. I then examine how notions of individual sexual identity, in particular the idea of bei ng gay or lesbian, developed. In so doing, I trace the development of sexual identity politics. I conclude this chapter by situating my st udy at the crossroads of these two discourses, in the literature of the ex-gay movement. In chapter 2 I explain how the concept of the social self developed into a narrative self and then into an institutional self. I use this theoretical development of self identity to guide my methodological appr oach, which is outlined in that chapter also. Chapter 3 documents the na rrative resources used by Focus on the Family and Love Won Out to produce a troubled, sinful and sick lesbian or gay self since the idea of being ex-gay in part rests on havi ng been gay. I also note how LWO details the way lesbians 13

PAGE 14

and gays can change and are mandated to do so. I then shift my analytic focus in chapter 4 to interrogate the way in which ex-gay selves are constructed and maintaine d. What does it take to become ex-gay? How does one stay being ex-gay ? Of particular interest here is the way Love Won Out reinterprets the goal of sexual identity tran sformation such that heterosexuality is not necessarily the desired outcome. In chapter 5, I examine the political utility of the gay and exgay selves LWO constructed across a variety of social institutions. Finally, in chapter 6, I argue that the construction of gay and ex-gay selves has as much to do with Focus on the Familys political ideology, as it does their religious viewpoint. Background and Literature Review The Evolution of the New Christian Right Focus on the Family (FOTF) and th eir attendant ministries, including Love Won Out are firmly rooted in the emergence of the New Chri stian Right (NCRalso called the religious right) in the late 1970s and early 1980 s. Indeed, FOTF was founded in 1977 by Dr. James Dobson, an evangelical Christian family ps ychologist. In order to be able to understand the evolution of FOTF, it is therefore necessary to trace the origin s of the NCR, and the political reemergence of evangelical Christians in the Un ited States. Furthermore, as the discourse of the NCR is firmly embedded in evangelical Christianity, it is impor tant to recognize the theological and cultural history of the fundamentalist and evangelical movements. The term fundamentalist was first coined in 1920 by Curtis Lee Laws, conservative editor of a Baptist newspaper, to describe those people ready to defend their faith and fight for what they perceived to be the fundamentals of Christianity (Marsden 1975; 1991a; Marty & Appleby 1992; Riesbrodt 1993). Rath er than signifying the begi nning of a movement, however, the term was more a reflection of decades of arguments and fighting within American Protestantism: the fundamentalist v modernist c ontroversy that culminated in the arrest and 14

PAGE 15

prosecution of a school teacher, John Scopes, in 1925 (Averill 1989; Gasper 1963; Hunter 1987a; Marsden 1975; 1991a; Sandeen 1970). The teachi ng of evolution in schools, indeed the advancement of modern scientif ic thought in general, was one of the primary factors of the fundamentalist v modernist arguments (Gaspe r 1963; Krapohl & Li ppy 1999; Marsden 1971; 1980; 1991a; Wilcox 2000). From the 1870s, which Marsden (1975; 1991a) describes as the first of four stages of American evangelicalism, theological liberals (the modernist side of the controversy) strongly advocated th e adaptation of Christianity to account for modern scientific advances (Hunter 1983; 1987a; 1987b; Krapohl & Libby 1999; Marsden 1975; 1980; 1991a). As Krapohl & Lippy (1999) explain, modernism in this context meant: (1) the conscious, intended adaptation of religious ideas to modern culture (2) the idea that God is immanent in human cultural development and revealed through it, (3) the belief that human society is moving toward realization of the Kingdom of G od (41). In other words, theological liberals were moving toward looser interpretation of biblical texts to allow for scie ntific explanations and away from the idea of literal bib lical truth (Gasper 1963; Hunter 1983; 1987a). In its most extreme form, this new liberal theology would be secular humanism (Gasper 1963). Theologically conservative Protestants we re appalled by the mode rnist approach to science and biblical teaching. Some argue that fundamentalism aros e as a direct reaction to the liberal theological ideas of the late 19th cen tury (Gasper 1963; Hunter 1983; Krapohl & Libby 1999; Marsden 1975; 1980; 1991a). Ce rtainly theological conservati ves began to espouse a more formal doctrine of biblical inerra ncybelief in the literal truth of the Biblethan was previously apparent (Hunter 1983; 1987a; Marsden 1975). A lthough many Christian groups in the past assumed the absolute truth of the Bible, there had been no formal positions from their respective churches to support this position (Hunter 1983; 1987a; Marsden 1975; 1991a). Challenges from 15

PAGE 16

modernists served to crystallize fundamentalist ideas and started the movement toward inerrancy as central to fundamentalist protestant Christian faiths (G asper 1963; Hunter 1983; 1987a; 1997b; Marsden 1975; 1991a; 1991b): the doctrine of inerrancy came to mean that the statements a nd teachings of the Bible, as the inspired revelation of God written by men ar e completely without error of any kind; the Bible is absolutely and exclusively true Finally, though not designed as historical and scientific text, where it makes historical and scientific stat ements, it is again entirely accurate and true any scientific conclu sion that does not conform to the factual statements of the Bible is regarded as illeg itimate and even unscie ntific. (Hunter 1987a: 21) The rising prominence of biblical inerrancy al so paralleled the anti-evolution crusade of theological conservatives. In addition to the anti-evolution and bibl ical inerrancy arguments, a number of other beliefs were associated with conservative Pr otestants in the late 19th century. The most prominent of these was dispensational premillennialism, or dispensationalism. Dispensational premillennialism is described as the belief that history [is divided] into distinct eras, or dispensations. The final dispensation would be the millennium or one thousand year personal reign of Christ on earth (Marsden 1980: 5). The dispensations were aspect s in which God tested people in some aspect of his will (Marsden 1975; 1980). Premillennial refers to the fact that we are supposedly in the dispensation prior to the second coming of Christ (Averill 1980; Marsden 1975). As Weber (1991) explains, t o qualify as a premillennialist all one has to believe is that there will be an earthly reign of Christ that will be preceded by the second coming (6). Dispensational premillennialism is, again, a thor ough rejection of evolutionary human progress and scientific ideals (Averi ll 1980; Marsden 1980; Weber 1991). Harding (2000) argues that even today most fundamentalists believe in both premillennialism and biblical inerrancy, to the point that many use this to s upport their crusade against anyt hing perceived as modernist, 16

PAGE 17

including acceptance of homosexua lity as a normative behavior a nd the continuing battle against the teaching of evolution. Many of these views were la id out in the arguments that followed between liberal and conservative theologians, which led to the publication of a series of volumes called The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth between 1910 and 1915. The evolution of the fundamentalist position is important to understa nd, if one is to understand how and why it manifests itself in the present. Beginning with th e 1910 five part declaration of the fundamentals of faith released by the Presbyterian General Asse mbly, the five fundamentals of faith included; (1) the inerrancy of scripture; (2) the virgin birth of Jesus Christ; (3) his substitutionary atonement; (4) his bodily resurrection; and (5 ) the imminent second coming (Gasper 1963; Marsden 1975; Krapohl & Lippy 1990). Follo wing the publication in 1919, theological conservatives formulated an organization called the Worlds Chri stian Fundamentals Association (WCFA) to try and defend against threats to their faith (Hunter 1987b; Marsden 1991b). The second stage of American evangelism en compassed the period from 1919 (after the formation of the WCFA) to 1925 and the Scopes tr ial (Marsden 1975). During this period, at the end of World War I, fundamentalists attempted to strengthen their c ontrol in Protestant denominations (Marsden 1975; 1980) as they perceived that moral and theological failings were pushing the country into disaster (Krapohl & Lippy 1999). The dispensational premillennialist belief structure underpinning much of the conservative theological endeavor led them to believe that Armageddon was imminent; not only was the Protestant church perceived as thoroughly corrupt (due to the influence of the modernists) but US culture was becoming increasingly secular (Hunter 1983; Krapohl & Lippy 1999; Mars den 1975; 1980). Conservatives responded to the concerns by increasing attacks on mainline de nominations for their supposed apostasy and by 17

PAGE 18

strongly driving to eliminate evolutionary theo ry from public schools once and for all (Krapohl & Lippy 1999; Marsden 1980). The strength of the crusade ag ainst evolution led to the in troduction of legislation to restrict the teaching of evoluti on in twenty state legislatures (Wilcox 2000), and the passing of said legislation in a few southern states (Mar sden 1980). The strictest legislation, in Tennessee, banned the teaching of evolution in public schools (Gasper 1963; Linder 1975; Marsden 1980). A biology teacher in Dayton, TN, John Scopes, flout ed the law, was arrested, and subsequently brought to trial. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) pr ovided defense for the trial in the person of Clarence Darrow, one of the most preeminent lawyers of the age, and the prosecution was handled by William Jennings Br yan, a fundamentalist leader and former presidential candidate (Kra pohl & Lippy 1999). Although Bryan won the trial, Darrows articulate and passionate defense of Scope s ridiculed Bryans position. Darrows cross examination of Bryan showed Bryan to be igno rant and foolish (Krapohl & Lippy 1999; Martin 1996; Wilcox 1992; Wuthnow 1989) and not even able to answer simple questions about the literal interpretation of scripture he was supposed to support (Marsden 1980). The trial was a disaster for the fundament alist movement. The popular press painted fundamentalist Christians as rural, backward, illiterate and anti intellectual (Ammerman 2003; Feldman 2005; Linder 1975; Mar tin 1996; Marsden 1975) and they became associated with intolerance and bigotry (Hunter 1983; Linder 1975). Within five year s of the trial, all legislation restricting the teaching of evolution had been re pealed (Martin 1996). By the end of the 1920s, evangelicals were in retreat across the spectrum of American evangelicalism (Krapohl & Lippy 1999), and commentators were boldly proclaiming that conservative theology had run its course (Ammerman 2003; Marsden 1991a; Watt 1991). 18

PAGE 19

Far from disappearing, however, the fundame ntalist-evangelical movement reorganized (Marsden, 1991b). The regrouping ch aracterized the third stage of American evangelicalism and lasted through the 1940s (Marsden 1975). Duri ng this time, there was a shift in focus throughout the fundamentalist and evangelical m ovement, from trying to gain control of the mainline denominations to an emphasis in wo rking through local organizations, churches and colleges (Hunter 1983; Krapohl & Lippy 1999; Marsden 1975; 1980; 1991a; Smith 1998; Wilcox 1992). Some fundamentalists worked from within the main denominations to form fundamentalist groups resistant to liberal influence (Gasper19 63; Hunter 1983; Marsden 1991a; 1991b). However, the mainline denominations were viewed by others as too corrupt; dispensationalists in particular were concerned that the churches were becoming increasingly apostate (Marsden 1991a). As a result, an incr easing number of evangelicals adhered far more to the doctrine of strict separati on, thus spawning a growth of i ndependent evangelical churches following conservative fundamentalist theo logy (Ammerman 2003; Carpenter 1984; Gasper 1963; Hunter 1983; Marsden 1980; Smith 1998). The advent of World War II inspired fundame ntalist critiques of both world and U.S. society (Ammerman 2003; Carpenter 1984; 1997). Primary among these cri ticisms was the idea that WWII had been prompted by a materialistic con cept of progress (Carpenter 1984: 8) directly counter to orthodox Ch ristian values. For fundamenta lists, with libe ral theologys support of modernization, war had been started and millions slaughtered (Carpenter 1984). Such sentiment provided one of the spurs for increasing ly separatist evangelicals. These separatists recognized the need for some kind of unity to support their doctrina l stance (Gasper 1963; Hunter 1983; 1987a). As a resu lt, the American Council of C hurches (ACC) was founded in 1941 (Gasper 1963; Hunter 1983; Marsden 1980). Th e ACC demanded that members be strictly 19

PAGE 20

separate from mainstream denomina tions as these were still viewed as apostate. Its founder, Carl McIntire, described the ACC as militantly proGospel and anti-modernist (quoted in Gasper 1963, p. 23). Its principles included, adherence to these truths [pro-Gospel and anti-modernist] the full truthfulness, inerrancy and authority of the Bible which is th e Word of God; the ho liness and love of the one sovereign God, Father, Son a nd Holy Spirit; the true deity and sinless humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ, His virgin birth, His atoning death, The just for the unjust, His bodily resurrection, His glorious coming again; salvation by grace through faith alone; the oneness in Christ of those He has redeem ed with His own precious blood; and the maintenance in the visible church of purity of life and doctrine. (Gasper 1963: 23) ACC was still clearly committed to the five fundame ntals of faith advanced in the early part of the century and was a strong advocate of the need to disassociate from modernism. The formation of the ACC underscored d eepening divisions within American evangelicalism, and in 1942 a rival organization composed of moderate evangelicals was constitute The National Associa tion of Evangelicals, later calle d the Neo-Evangelicals (Gasper 1963; Marsden 1991a; 1991b; Smith 1998). Although ACC and NAE were doctrinally similar, they widely disagreed on matters of policy: ACC was strictly separate while NAE advocated cooperation and inclusivity with in mainstream denominations (Gasper 1963; Hunter 1983; 1987a). The Neo-Evangelicals concentrated much of their efforts on building a strong network through resurgent revivalist trends across much of the U.S. (Hunter1983). Of particular importance was a radio show called The Old Time Gospel Hour, which drew an incredibly large audience. There were also the inaugural eva ngelical television progr ams and a number of new youth evangelical organizations that proved immensely popular (Hunter 1983; 1987; Marsden 1980). This last provided evangelica ls with one of their most enduri ng legacies from this period: Billy Graham got his start as the first full-ti me paid evangelical in the Youth for Christ organization in the 1940s (Carpenter 1997; Hunt er 1983; Marsden 1980). His mass rallies were 20

PAGE 21

held country-wide, reached huge audiences, and quickly served to make premillennialism and evangelical Christianity popular once again (Carpenter 1997). On the other side of the divide the strict separatists of the ACC were engaged in the anticommunism crusade (Gasper 1963; Wilcox 1992; 2000; Wuthnow 1989). Godless Communism was viewed as one of the greatest th reats to U.S. culture and seen as a false religion (Wuthnow, 1989: 41). By 1953, all of th e leaders of the anti-communist movement were associated with the ACCC (Wilcox 1992). The focus in targeting threats to U.S. culture is significant to this project as the message was not limited to anti-communism. Both Medicare and sex education in schools also posed threat s (Wilcox 2000)--Medicare because it was seen as socialized medicine and sex education because it threatened the moral fiber of the country. However, the collapse of McCarthys crusad e against Communism negatively impacted the evangelicals associated with it a nd eventually the influence of those evangelicals faded in the early 1960s (Wilcox 2000). The late 1950s and early 1960s also signi fied a major realignment in both the fundamentalists and the Neo-Evangelicals. A split in the fundamentalist camp occurred around the New York City crusade of Billy Graham in 1957 after he accepted sponsorship from the citys Council of Church es. Fundamentalists were upset because they regarded some of the citys church organizations as too liberal, si nce they did not follow their rigid theological traditions (Marsden 1991a). The Neo-Evangelicals split over the question of Biblical inerrancy (Marsden 1991a) with those supporting inerrancy, including Billy Graham, leading most of the evangelicals (Carpenter 1997; Hunter 1983; 1987a; Marsden 1975; 1991a). Further divisions occurred around the need for evangelical social programs and the prospe ct of involvement in progressive politics (Marsden 1991a). 21

PAGE 22

These developments made it increasingly difficu lt to define different groups as either fundamentalist or evangelical, and even to talk about a united evangelical movement (Hunter 1983; Marsden 1991a; 1991b; Nash 1987). The term evangelical had become increasingly used to describe any theologica lly conservative Protestant who affirmed the necessity of regeneration (Marsden 1991b: 31) and could be used to describe any number of organizations with a variety of beliefs (Marsden 1991b; Na sh 1987). Neo-evangelicals retained the term evangelical and continued work in the inclus ivist tradition (Hunter 1983). Fundamentalist, however, referred as a self designation to separ atist, dispensationalist Baptists and members of individual Bible churches (Marsden 1991b: 31), except for one major organization within the Southern Baptist Convention that gained the majority voice in the 1970s and 1980s. Therefore, fundamentalist could be used to refer almo st exclusively to noncharismatic (nonpentecostal) dispensationalists (Marsden 1991b: 31). In other words, fundamentalist came to refer to those conservative Christians who wanted to keep separate from the apostasy of the wider church community, and who still believed in the immi nent second Coming. Despite a seeming unity in the fundamentalist camp in the 1970s, they too we re split into two camps: militants who insisted on separation from any formal religious denomina tion, or individual within a denomination, that allowed liberal theology; and moderates, who, a lthough still separate from major denominations, did not insist upon such stri ct separation (Carpenter 1984). Both, however, denounced evangelicals for their perceived liberalism. Throughout all the shifting alignments and splits within both the fundamentalist and evangelical movements, both continued to build a strong infrastructure of churches, publishing houses, magazines, newspapers, colleges and, perh aps most importantly, television ministries (Ammerman 1987; 2003; Hunter 1983; Wilcox 2000; Wuthnow 1989). Much as the radio 22

PAGE 23

evangelicals of the 1940s and 1950s had reache d massive audiences, so the television ministries in the 1970s, the so -called electronic church, also reached huge numbers of people (Himmelstein 1990; Ostling 1984; Wuthnow 1989). Th e success of the televangelists meant that such themes as biblical inerrancy and personal salvation in the form of Jesus Christ, already critical within the fundamentalist and evangeli cal movements, reached a far broader audience (Feldman 2005; Himmelstein 1990; Krapohl & Lippy 1997; Ostling 1984). Some estimates put viewing figures at 10 million in 1970, and seve ral times that by the 1980s (Himmelstein 1990). Not only did television widen the appeal of conser vative Protestant ideals, it also served as a mechanism for raising massive amounts of mone y for the broadcasters and their causes (Ammerman 2003; Diamond 1995; 1996; Himmelst ein 1990; Krapohl & Lippy 1997). Of these newly-popular television mi nistries, the best known were Jerry Falwells Old Time Gospel Hour (modeled after Fullers 1940s radio show), Pat Robertsons 700 Club and Jim and Tammy Faye Bakkers PTL Club (Feldman 2005; Himmelstei n 1990; Krapohl & Lippy 1997). In addition to the increased prominence of ev angelical Christianity due to the massive success of the electron ic church (Himmelstein, 1990; Kr apohl & Lippy, 1997; Reichley, 2002; Wuthnow, 1989), the origins of the NCR can also be traced to the success of a number of local political movements based on evangelical id eals (Himmelstein 1990; Liebman 1983; Wald 2003); the election of a born ag ain President, Jimmy Carter, in 1976 (Pierard 1984; Wuthnow 1989); and increasing numbers of college graduates identifying as evangelical Christians (Wuthnow 1989). During the 1970s, there were three key grassroots campaigns that Liebman (1983) and Wald (2003) argue mobilized evangeli cals and provided both motivation and a sense of political involvement that prompted later national campaigns. The campaigns were: textbook challenges in West Virginia that ultimately le d to a changed textbook ad option procedure; the 23

PAGE 24

1977 repeal of a gay rights ordina nce in Miami-Dade County; and the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment after a campaign spea rheaded by religious conservatives (Wald 2003). Each of the campaigns were successful and, as Wald (2003) explains, although motivated by different issues, the three campaigns were tied together by a common dissatisfaction with what the particip ants saw as a godless society that had replaced firm moral standard s with a system of relativis m [The campaigns] appealed most strongly to white evangelical Protesta nts who saw each movement as a crusade in defense of traditional Christian values. (207) In other words, just as the fundamentalists ba ttling the evils of modern ism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, evangelical Christians of the 1970s and 1980s were appalled at what they saw as widespread moral depravity that c ould only hasten Armageddon (Diamond 1995; Watt 1991). The success of these three campaigns was also noticed by secular conservatives looking to revitalize the Republican Party by harnessing the power and energy of the evangelicals (Himmelstein 1990; Moen 1992; Wald 2003). These political activists, Howa rd Phillips, Terry Dolan, Paul Weyrich and Richard Viguerie, approached Christian conservative leaders with an idea for mobilizing evangelical s (Himmelstein 1990; Liesnesch 1993; Wald 2003; Wuthnow 1983; 1989). This new alliance of secular and Ch ristian conservatives soon turned to the powerful televangelists, and through a combination of the political resources of the activists, and the reach of the television pr eachers, formed a number of ne w national organizations (Wald 2003; Wilcox 1992; 2000; Wuthnow 1989). The most prominent of these were the Moral Majority, founded by Jerry Falwell in 1979, the Relig ious Roundtable (later renamed just as the Roundtable), founded by Ed McAteer, and Christ ian Voice, founded out of an anti-homosexual crusade in California. FOTF was also formed at this time, although it did not immediately come into national prominence. 24

PAGE 25

1976 also saw the election of President Jimmy Ca rter, an evangelical Southern Baptist who was outspoken in his faith and as such brought ev en greater national prom inence to evangelical Christianity (Corbett & Corbett 1999; Fe ldman 2005; Reichley 1987; 2002; Wuthnow 1983; 1989). While in office, Carter frequently stre ssed the importance of public morality and urged Christians to become politically active (Liesnesch 1993; Wilcox 1992; Wuthnow 1983; 1989). The Carter presidency and increasing political success validated not only evangelical Christian identity, but also ignited political sensibilities. This combined w ith the higher level of education, thus a greater likelihood of voting, spurred an evangelical Christia n return to political activity and political power (Moen 1992; Wuthnow 1989). As Moen (1992) explains, the infusion of conservative Christians into politics en masse gave the movements early leaders the opportunity to sharpen their political skills and provided a large pool of inte rested people out of which a small cadre of politically adroit leaders could em erge (2). In other words, the mobilization of evangelical Christians in the la ter 1970s spawned a far more po litically sophisticated set of theologically conservative Christians through the 1980s and 1990s. The combination of evangelical Christian id eology, increased politic al activity, massive, visible national organizations a nd the convergence of public morality and politics formed what is now the New Christian Right (Feldman2005; Moen 1992; Wald 2003). Organizations such as the Moral Majority had massive voter registration driv es and used their public platform to encourage evangelical Christians to become politically activ efrom being mostly apolitical prior to the 1970s, suddenly preachers were stressing the idea that to be good Christians, congregants and viewers had to vote to preserve Christian mo rality in the US (Wuthnow 1989). As Wuthnow (1989) explains, suddenly it was part of ones Chri stian duty to exercise the respons ibilities of citizenship (199). Estimates put the numbers recruited during thes e drives to anywhere from 25

PAGE 26

200,000 to multiple millions; the numbers were cer tainly high enough to prompt evangelical Christian leaders to claim credit for Ronald Reagans 1980 election victory (Wald 2003; Wilcox 1992; Wuthnow 1989). The strength of evangelical Christian belief in biblical inerrancy also provided what evangelicals saw as a clear set of moral guidel ines for them to follow (Wuthnow 1989: 202). Furthermore, the emergence of morality as an important element emboldened evangelicals to begin imposing these morals in the political arena: the two were so clos ely linked, in fact, that many evangelicals probably failed to see that for the first time in many years they were becoming politically active. Rather they consider ed they were merely taking a stand on matters they knew to be morally mandated as part of scripture (Wuthnow 1989: 202). By the mid1980s, the NCR had become a formidable presence in the Republican Party with the strength to influence the political agenda (Moen 1992; Wuthnow 1989). The NCR were instrumental in developing a moral political platform they dubbed a profamily agenda, or a return to traditional values (Moen 1992; Wald 2003; Wuthnow 1989). Critical issues in this were abortion, homosexuality, extra and premarital sex and traditional marriage (Moen 1992). Such was the strength of th e pro-family agenda th at President George H.W. Bush touted it in 1992, and the Republi can Party convention during that same campaign heard speeches on these issues from evangeli cals Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan (Wald 2003). NCR activists used this platform to link what they perceive as a moral crisis to concrete social problems. In the introduction to Dobson, founder of FOTF, and Bauers (1990) book Children at Risk, William Bennett, Secretary of Education under Reagan, wrote that Americas social regression was due to three things: (1) Ameri cans had abandoned morality; (2) value judgments had been replaced by an expansive notion of rig hts that masked a destructive underlying 26

PAGE 27

philosophy that found its way in to public policy (xix ); (3) liberalism in the form of the Democrats had led to a whole series of mis guided social policies (xx), including abortion rights and welfare checks for unwed mothers, that effectively tore down out cultural guardrails (xx). Furthermore, Bennett (1990) argues, the social pathologies have worsened to the point that only a return to traditional religious values can save society. One of the key voices in the NCRs pro-f amily campaign was James Dobsons Focus on the Family (Diamond 1996; Moen 1992; Wald 2003). FOTF was founded in 1977 by Dobson. At the heart of his organization are his syndicated ra dio broadcasts that reach an estimated 5 million listeners daily and that are broadcast on ove r 4000 radio stations worldwide (Wilcox 2000). Headquartered in Colorado Springs, FOTF ha s over 1300 employees, generates well over $100 million annually, operates numerous active ministries (including everything from an institute where college students can spend a semester, to a public policy unit and international outreach) and maintains an email list of over 2.5 million (Alexander-Moegerle 1997; Diamond 1996; Wilcox 2000). Dobson has become so powerful that a 2005 Time (Van Biema 2005) article named him as one of the 25 mo st influential evangelicals. Although Dobson has repeatedly tr ied to distance himself rhet orically from the NCR, his policies, mission statements, public works, broadcasts, and even other well known evangelical Christian leaders, place him at the forefront of the NCR movementto the poi nt that Falwell even referred to him as a rising star of the moveme nt (Moen 1992). Moen (1992) ascribes part of this reluctance as a desire not to be seen to be involved in the NCR and th erefore associated with its previous scandalsthis despite Dobson sett ing up a political arm of FOTF, the Family Research Council, and also publishing a monthly po litical magazine. He also recently left the presidency of FOTF to Jim Daly in order to i nvolve himself more activel y in politics. Critics 27

PAGE 28

have suggested that Dobson did not want to appear pol itically active so as not to jeopardize the tax-exempt status of FOTF (Alexande r-Moegerle 1997; Diamond 1996). Despite his protestations, however, Dobson has been consiste ntly involved with attempts to mobilize his readers and listeners to advance the conservative social agenda (Moen 1992; Diamond 1996; Wilcox 2000). His emails, broadcasts, and published material often include examples of laws and legislation threatening the pro-family agenda indirectly or dire ctly (depending on the publication), exhort the audience to political action and always end with financial pleas to help with the defense of the family (Dobson 2006: 5). By way of illustration, here is an extract from the financial plea included with the June 2006 Family News from Dr. James Dobson: If you and I fail to defend the most vulnerable of our members, perhaps millions of kids now in public schools will be coerced into be lieving that same-sex marriage is morally equivalent to the traditional family and that there are no reliable standards of right and wrong. Safe-sex ideology will be taught inst ead of abstinent until married, and that homosexuality is genetic and therefore inevit able .It must not be allowed to happen. All of us at Focus on the Family would appr eciate you joining our effort to defend the children of the nation, after you have met your obligations to your local church. Any contribution you make will be used carefully and wisely, not only to help nourish the institution of the family, but to defe nd it and protect its children as well. As the above example shows, at the core of FOTF is the same belief system that characterizes both evangelical Christianity and the NCR, a nd they follow the same moral campaigns promoted but the NCRs pro-family ag enda. In other words, FOTF promotes what its leaders perceive as traditional family values : to put it succinctly, the institution of marriage represents the very foundation of the human social order. Ever ything of value sits upon that base. Institutions, governments, religious fervor, and the welfare of child ren are all dependent on its stability. When it is weakened or undermine d, the entire superstructure begins to wobble (Dobson 2004: 9). So strong is Dobsons view about the threat that he ca lls it the second great civil war (1990: 22). As he explains, 28

PAGE 29

Something far more significant than money is behind the contest for the hearts and minds of children. Nothing short of a great Civil War of Values rages today throughout North America .Bloody battles are being fought on a thousand fronts both inside and outside of government. Open any daily newspape r and youll find accounts of the latest Gettysburg, Waterloo, Normandy, or Stalingrad. In stead of fighting for territory or military conquest, however, the struggle is on for the h earts and minds of the people. It is a war over ideas (Dobson 1990: 2emphasis in original). For Dobson and FOTF one of the key issues threatening the family is homosexuality. Indeed, according to Dobson (2004), should tr aditional ideas of marriage and family be compromised, then there will chaos such as th e world has never seen before (19). At the forefront of this battle are the homosexual ac tivist movement working to implement a master plan that has had as its centerpiece the utte r destruction of the family (Dobson 2004: 19). Furthermore, Dobson argues, the threat is on such a large scale as to threaten the very existence of US society. He describes the attacks on marriag e as being on the same magnitude as the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Nazi advanc e through Europe (Dobson 1990; 2004; 2006). Clearly, then, homosexuality is a pivota l issue within FOTF and is positioned prominently throughout NCR activism. FOTFs res ponse to the crisis has been to try to delegitimate both the gay and lesbian movement, and gay and lesbian individuals, by launching an outreach ministry, named Love Won Out that promotes the idea that homosexuality is both preventable and treatable. Central to this program is the idea that change is possible and that through finding Jesus, gays and lesbians can alter their sexual ity and lifestyle. Much NCR activism in general, and the LWO ministry more specifically, is designed to repudiate claims by LGBT social movements for increased acceptance a nd legal recognition of same sex relationships. The NCR counters claims that LGBT couples and individuals are entitled to legal protections similar to other protecte d minorities by arguing that homosexuality is both a choice and treatable. Racial and ethnic minoritie s, for example, deserve equal protection under law whereas sexual minorities choose what is argued to be their immoral lifestyle. Consequently 29

PAGE 30

the LWO ministry can be perceived as speaking b ack to the identity politics of many LGBT social movements. To fully understa nd one of the central discourses of LWO it is therefore necessary to trace the developmen t of gay and lesbian sexual identity and the formation of sexual identity politics. The Development of Lesbian and Gay Sexual Identity One of the prerequisites for a social move ment is an identifiable social group with considerable political awareness (Adam 1995:1). Prior to the late 19th century, however, there was little understanding of sexuality as a separate identity, as is presumed now (DEmilio 1992; 1998; Halperin 1990; 2000; Week s 1991; 2000). Consequently, it is critical to understand how the idea of the homosexual originated and was further developed into both a social and political identity. Scholars disagree as to whether homosexuality existed in a recognizable form before the late 1800s. Some, such as Halperin (1989; 1990; 2000), argue that there is no such thing as a history of, in this case male, homosexuality. Rath er there are multiple discursive traditions that overlap to produce our contemporary understandi ng of homosexuality. Other historians (see Boswell 1980; 1989) take historical records of same-sex sexual activity as proof that homosexuality existed in familiar forms across time (Chauncey, Duberman & Vicinus 1989). Despite the fact that there is evidence of same sex sexual activity th roughout recorded history, it was not until the late 1800s that sexual behavior, including homosexuality, was imagined as an entity separate to, and outside of the family unit and other social institutions (Adam 1995; Halperin 2000; Padgug 1989; Weeks 1991) Sexuality did not exist within the private realm: intercourse, kins hip and the family, and gender, did not form anything like a field of sexuality. Rather, each group of sexual acts was connected directly or indirectly [to] institutions and thought patterns wh ich we tend to view as political, economic or social in nature 30

PAGE 31

(Padgug 1989: 62). Up until this point, approp riate sexual activity had been defined using traditional religious doctrine, such that sexual activity of any kind outside of the marital union was viewed as sinful (DEmilio 1992; 1998). Sexual practices were governed by laws that centered on non-reproductive relations (DEmilio 1992; 1998; Weeks 1991). By way of illu stration, the early 1800s in England saw a spike in the number of prosecuti ons, and subsequent hangings, for sodomyto the point that these outnumbered hangings for murder. Weeks (1991) attrib utes this to the fact that England was at war, and argues that prosecution of same-sex se xual activity is more gene rally linked to social turmoil and serves as a funnel for wider social anxiety. In other words, during times of social upheaval, such as Britain was experiencing in the early 18th century, there are normally far greater sanctions on inappropriate sexual expression, a pattern also seen in the US. It is important to note that at this point, sodomy did not refer to just male same-sex activity but was a term used to reference any sexual activity deemed non reproductive, including both heterosexual and homosexual oral and anal interc ourse. Sodomy was defined in relation to individual sexual activity, not sexual inclination. In the words of John DEmilio (1998); men and women engaged in what we would describe as homosexual behavi or, but neither they nor the society in which they lived defined persons as essentially different in kind from the majority because of their sexual expression their behavior was interpre ted as a discrete transgression, a misdeed comparable to other sins and crimes (4). Consequently, both adultery and homosexuality could be, and were, punished by death (Greenberg 1988). The reconceptualization of sex as a distinguishi ng characteristic of a particular type of person was not evidenced until the mid to la te 1800s (Halperin 2000; Weeks 1991). Scholars have argued that this shift in focus was partly as a result of capitalist market forces (DEmilio 31

PAGE 32

1992; Greenberg 1988; Greenberg & Bystryn 1996). Under capital ism, individuals began to make a living selling their labor and earning wages, thus creating a completely different social structure (Adam 1985; 1995; D Emilio 1992; Greenberg 1988; Greenberg & Bystryn 1996). The family had previously been a self sufficien t economic unit of produc tion with all members equally dependent upon one another (Adam 1985 ; DEmilio 1992; Weeks 1991); a new social organization rendered this conceptualization of th e family obsolete. In its place stood a unit still somewhat interdependent, but now with emo tional and sexual bonds in place as opposed to purely economic ties (DEmilio 1992; 1998). Indivi duals were free to pursue relationships outside of the confines of the family as a result of their new economic freedom, thus creating conditions a little more conducive to same-sex c oupling. Moreover, the exis tence of individuals separate from the traditional family unit made it possible for same sex attraction to shift into homosexual identity (DEmilio 1992; 1998). These same social conditions also promoted th e increased legal and social restriction of homosexual activity. Despite the fact that capi talism arguably weakened the nuclear family economically, it also enshrined the family as the source of love, affection, and emotional security" (DEmilio 1998: 473). The family then moved from being an economic mainstay, to being the centerpiece of soci al stability. In addition, DEmilio (1998) argues that ideologically, capitalism drives people into heterosexual families materially, capitalism weakened the bonds that once kept families toge ther so that their members experience a growing instability in a place th ey have come to expect happiness and emotional security. Thus, while capitalism has knocked the mate rial foundation away from family life, lesbians, gay men and heterosexual feminists have become the scapegoat for the social instability of th e system. (473) Accordingly, homosexuality comes to be viewed with increasing negativity, a social ill that needs to be diagnosed and then treated. 32

PAGE 33

The combination of the stronger ideology of the nuclear family and the deepening sexual division of labor combined to create homosexuali ty as an aberrant behavior. Additionally, the later 1800s also saw an increasing drive to categ orize and explain behavi or, especially deviant behavior, medically. The early medical explanations of same sex attractio n sought to explain the behavior as a manifestation of inappropriate gender identity, such that the first terms used referred to gender inversion or sexual inversion. Having said that, however, sexual inversion was a far broader term than homosexuality, a nd referenced a wide ra nge of gender deviant behaviors, including masculine behaviors in women such as an interest in politics and feminine behaviors in men, such as an effeminate appearance (Halperin 1989; 1990; 2000; Weeks 1985; 1991; 2000). Consequently, same sex attraction wa s viewed as a pathological expression of behavior at variance with what was deemed natural behavior for me n and women (Halperin 2000). These early sexologists formulated theories of behavior that ar gued for recognition of inverts as a third sex, therefore cementing the id ea that such conduct wa s biological and innate (Marshall 1981). By way of illustration: [Karl Heinrich] Ulrichs argues that homosexuality was congenital, resulting from an anomalous combination of male and female characteristics in a si ngle biological body. The human embryo, he believed, is at first neit her male nor female but develops these characteristics only after the fi rst few months of life. In th e male homosexual the genitals become male, but the same differentiation fails to occur in that part of the brain that determines the sex drive. The result is a feminine soul in a male body. (Marshall 1981:142) These ideas were of critical importance in the medicalization of homosexuality and formed the basis for much of the later work in sexology. Although the medical profession st arted investigating sexual activity in the mid 1800s, it wasnt until 1868 that the term homosexual was first used. Homosexual was initially conceptualized by a writer, Karl Maria Kertbeny, in a political campaign to try and prevent the 33

PAGE 34

criminalization of same-sex act ivity in Germany (DEmilio 1992; Katz 1976; Weeks 1991). At the time, Kertbeny used homosexual to simply describe sexual attracti on between members of the same sex, in opposition to the prevailing view of gender inversion. Th is initial usage was vague enough to allow for appropr iation of the term by the medical profession for description of particular kinds of people (DE milio 1992; Katz 1976; Weeks 1991). Despite the fact that some sexologists we re arguing that since homosexuality was biological, and therefore should not be subj ect to criminal prosecution, most medical professionals viewed it as a disease a nd pathology (Adam 1985; 1995; DEmilio 1992; Greenberg 1988; Greenberg & Bystryn 1996). Th ey were embedded within an ideological system that viewed any extramarita l intercourse as deviant, and their research reflected this. As DEmilio (1998) reports, medical views bore a complex relation to the ol der perspectives of religion and law. In important ways they reinforced the cultural matrix that condemned and punished people that engaged in homosexual activity Doct ors did not ply their trade in a vacuum, moreover, and the language of the moralist permeated the scientif ic literature. It is difficult to imagine a physician describing pneumonia as shocking to every sense of decency, disgusting and revolting, yet one did apply this phrase to a case of homosexuality. (8) The medical discourse superseded religion and provided a scientific explanation of what is natural, thus effecting a shift from the view of homosexuality as sin to homosexuality as sick (DEmilio 1998; Irvine 2003; Rahman 2000). The early understanding of homosexuality as a biological congenital condition gave way to the conceptualization of homosexuality as a mental illness with the advent of psychology and psychoanalysis. The key figure here, of course, is Sigmund Freud. Freudian analysis posited that the important element in understand ing sexuality is the psyche, not the body, such that sexuality is rooted in unconscious, instin ctual drives. Although Freud hims elf did not talk much about homosexuality (D'Emilio 1995; Rahman 2000; Week s 1985), he did advance theories of normal 34

PAGE 35

sexuality and sexual developmentheterosexuali tycompared to the abnormal sexual object choice of the homosexual. Homosexuality, then, was viewed as a failure of achieved normality (Weeks 1985: 154). Freuds successors in psychoan alysis built on his theories to formulate a detailed model of homosexuality as pathology, a mental illness or psychological malady to be diagnosed and cured. The prevailing view of homosexuality as a sickness prompted the search for suitable treatments and cures. As a result, homose xual men and women were hospitalized by their families and subject to experimentation by doc tors (Adam 1995; DEmilio 1992). Some of the treatments were fairly gentle and included hypno sis and psychotherapy. On the other end of the spectrum were procedures such as castration, hys terectomy, lobotomy and el ectric shock therapy (DEmilio1992). This perception of homosexuality as a disease and the severi ty of some of the suggested treatments also reflected societal perc eption of the threat pos ed by deviant sexuality. Although notions of homosexuality as sickne ss were generally detrimental to the individual, the medical model prompted further development of homosexual identity The isolation of sexual object choice from what Halperin (1989) calls secondary characteristics of masculinity and femininity by famed sexologist Havelock Ellis, and Freuds analytical distinction between sexual object choice and se xual aim allowed for a new taxonomy of sexual behavior, and sexual psychology based on the biologi cal sex of the indivi duals involved. From this, ideas of sexual identity began to develop fr om the labels these sexu al actors were given. Despite being labeled sick for instance, those engaged in same sex sexual activity now had a name for themselves and their behaviors. There is some debate among historians as to the impact of medicine on the development of a gay and le sbian community (Irvine1 994), what is clear, however, is that the medicaliza tion of homosexuality promoted gay and lesbian identity since 35

PAGE 36

erotic desire for the same sex became an inescap able part of ones being (D'Emilio 1992; Irvine 1994; Rahman 2000; Seidman 1996). As Foucault (1990) explains, homosexuality began to speak in its own behalf, to demand that its le gitimacy or naturality be acknowledged, often in the same vocabulary, using the same categories by which it was medically disqualified (101). Thus, by turning same sex attraction into a clinical entity, doctors provided the discourse necessary for the formation of identity based upon sexual expression. Initial categorization and descri ption of homosexuality was meant, in some cases, to spur the fight for civil rights and to argue against the criminaliza tion of homosexuality. Although the homosexual identity discourse st arted appearing in the late 18 00s and early 1900s, it was not until the 1950s that the political identity necessa ry for social movement organization developed (Adam 1995; Engel 2001). The first major homosexual civil rights group1, the Mattachine Society, was founded in April 1951 by an active member of the Communist Party, Harry Hay (Adam 1995; DEmilio 1998; Engel 2001; Marotta 1981; Taylor, Kaminski & Dugan 2002). The neophyte group defined itself as a homophile orga nization, rather than a homosexual group, in an attempt to distance themselves from overtly sexual descriptors. Inst ead, the society hoped to portray homosexuality as an emotional attachme nt as well as a sexua l one (Esterberg 1994; Marotta 1981). The goal of the Ma ttachine Society was initially to liberate homosexuals, and galvanize the gay community into militant po litical activity (DEmilio 1998; Rimmerman 2002), as the following principles illustrate: 1 A smaller organization, The Society for Human Rights, was founded in Chicago in 1925 (Adam 1995; Bullough 1979; Licata 1985; Marotta 1981; Taylor et al. 2002). This group was formulated primarily to fight for law reform in Illinois and purposely targeted prominent citizens such as birth control proponent Margaret Sanger for support, which failed (Licata 1985). The group never had more than ten members and was disbanded rather quickly after the wife of on e of them filed charges against him for contributing to the delinquency of a minor in the person of their son (Bullough 1985; Licata 1985). The four active members were subsequently arrested, a nd one was fined (Adam 1995; Bullough 1989). 36

PAGE 37

TO UNIFY those homosexuals is olated from their own kind TO EDUCATE homosexuals a nd heterosexuals toward an ethical homosexuals culture paralleling the emerging cu ltures of our fellow-minorit iesthe Negro, Mexican and Jewish peoples TO LEAD: the more socially conscious homosexuals [are to] provide leadership to the whole mass of social deviates and also to assist our people who ar e victimized daily as a result of our oppression. (Quoted in Adam 1995: 68) A change in the leadership in 1953 resulted in a radical chan ge of policy, however, and the Mattachine Society moved from a liberationist stance to one of accommo dation and integration, insisting that homosexuality was a minor character istic that should not foster a rift with the heterosexual majority (Engel 2001: 32). Conse quently, movement strategies shifted to encompass a nonconfrontational stan ce designed to facil itate acceptance of ho mosexuality in the wider culture (DEmilio 1983; Engel 2001; Taylor et al. 2002). The 1950s also saw the emergence of th e first womens homophile organization, the Daughters of Bilitis (DOB). It was founded by f our couples in San Francisco in 1955, although Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon were the two wo men mostly responsible for its appearance (DEmilio 1998; Marotta 1981). Much like the re formulation of the Mattachine Society, DOB adopted an integrationist stance, with a pa rticular focus on educa ting the general public (Bernstein 1997; DEmilio 1992; 1998; Engel 200 1; Esterberg 1994; Marotta 1981). They sought to dispel myths, misinformation and prej udice (DEmilio, 1998: 103) surrounding lesbian sexuality, participate in professional research projects, and work for legal change (DEmilio 1998; Esterberg 1994). The assimilationist discourse of the hom ophile movement stressed the similarity of homosexuals and heterosexuals in an attemp t to reduce social hostility (DEmilio 1998; Rimmerman 2002). As Rimmerman (2002) explains, t heir strategy was to present themselves as 37

PAGE 38

reasonable, well adjusted people, hoping these heterosexual arbite rs of public opinion [the professionals] would rethink th eir assumptions regarding homose xuality (22). In other words, they believed that they needed the support of experts to gain credibility in their campaign for equality (DEmilio 1998). One of their key strate gies was to de-emphasize the sexual aspect of homosexual relationships as it was this that wa s creating most social condemnation (Rimmerman 2002). This quest for legitimacy (DEmilio 19 98) was the prevalent strategy through the end of the 1950s and into the 1960s, up until the tim e of Stonewall, for both the Mattachine Society and DOB. Nevertheless, there we re a few dissenting voices, in cluding Franklin Kameny and Barbara Gittings, urging for a far more confr ontational approach that included picketing (DEmilio 1998; 2000; DEmilio & Freedman 1988; Engel 2001; Rimmerman 2002).The more militant activists championed a far more active stance against antihomosexual ideals, including the first well-publicized gay rights pickets in Washington in 1965 to protest employment discrimination (Licata 1985; Vaid 1995). Interes tingly, the protesters be havior and clothing was supervised by Kameny in order to challenge the stigmatizing stereotypes of lesbians and gay men (Licata 1985). The 1960s were a period of pr ofound social unrest, highli ghted by mass mobilization of both blacks and whites to end racial discrimination (Freem an & Johnson 1999; Rimmerman 2002). The move toward a proactive stance by the more radical members of the homophile movement embraced the politics and social move ment activism of the civil rights movement, such that the mobilization strategies adopted by the two were often similar (Adam 1979; 1995; Button, Rienzo & Wald 1997; DEmilio 1998; Licata 1985; Murray 1996; Rimmerman 2002). Activists protested discriminatory public policy, organized protests a nd boycotts, and even arranged a motorcade to protest the exclusion of homosexuals from the military (Altman 1993; 38

PAGE 39

Engel 2001; Marotta 1981; Vaid 1995). The common thr ead was still the desire to assimilate into the wider societyonly the movement strategies had changed (Altman 1993). According to Engel (2001), this was a primary reason for the failure to mobilize the same number of people evident in the civil rights movement: by advocating that homosexuals should assimilate, and that the only difference between homosexuality and hetero sexuality was fundamentally unimportant, [the homophile movement] destroyed an y possibility of mass mobilization because it devastated the potential for collective identity formation (38). Consequently, attempts to organize during this time period were ultimately unsuccessful. The latter part of the 1960s provided one of the most pivotal moments in the development of gay and lesbian civil rights movementsth e Stonewall riots (Adam 1995; Button, Rienzo & Wald. 1997; Miller 1998; Rimmerman 2002). The even ing of June 27th 1969 saw the police raid a gay bar in New Yorks Greenwich Village, a not uncommon occurrence during this time period (Adam 1995; Bullough 1979; Carter 2004; DEmilio & Freedman 1988; Marotta 1981; Miller 1998). What distinguished this particular night was that the bar patrons fought back, sparking a two day street battle (Adam 1979; DEmilio 1998 ; Licata 1985; Marotta 1981). The following night saw graffiti bearing the legend gay power and the Mattachine Society in New York prepared special leaflets calling for organi zed resistance (Adam 1995; DEmilio 1998). The Stonewall riots sparked demonstrations across the country and intense disc ussion of the first gay riot in history (DEmilio 1998: 232). The aftermath of the disturbances intensified political mobilization and saw the rise of a new kind of homosexual activism, gay and lesbian liberation (Adam 1995; Button et al. 1997; DEmilio 1998; Engel 2001; Rahman 2000; Rimmerman 2002; Weeks 2000). 39

PAGE 40

The advent of the gay and lesbian liberati on movement marked a profound shift in the political and social organizing of both gay men and lesbian women, including a change in terminology (Adam 1995; Altman 1993; DEmilio 1992; Engel 2001). Similar to the manner in which the black civil rights movement rejected Negro, the fledgling gay liberation movement also argued for new descriptors (Licata 1985). The term homosexua l was rejected as being too often associated with the medi cal establishment and imposed upon gays and lesbians to imply sickness (Engel 2001; Licata 1985; Marotta 1981). The ideals of the homophile movement were treated with disdain, and the wo rd homophile abandoned for its association with an outmoded assimilationist ideology (Engel 2001; Licata 1985; Marotta 1981). These two terms were replaced by the word gay, an expression used by homosexuals to identify one another (Engel 2001; Licata 1985), and was a recognition of inte rnal power (Engel 2002: 388). A member of the Gay Liberation Front explains it thus, the artificial cate gories of homosexual and heterosexual have been laid on us by a sexist society (Young 1970quoted in DEmilio & Freedman 1988: 322). For this Gay Liberation Front member, the term gay was embraced as it freed sexuality from its previous confines. The gay liberation movement had its roots in the New Left principl es of other social movements from the 1960s, in particular black civil rights and women s liberation (Adam 1995; DEmilio 1992; Enge, 2001; Licata 1985; Rimmerman 2002). They did not see themselves as purely a gay and lesbian civil rights movement, but rather as a part of the wider radical movement to eradicate oppression (Adam 1995; Altman 1993). The lib erationist ideology represented a total break with the homophile movement: the homophile movement emphasized assimilation and sameness whereas the gay liberati on movement highlighted the need for radical social overhaul. The Gay Liberation Front (GLF ), founded only a couple of months after the 40

PAGE 41

Stonewall riots announced: we are a revolutionary homosexual group of men and women formed with the realization that complete se xual liberation for all people cannot come about unless existing social institutions are abolished. We reject societys attempt to impose sexual roles and definitions on our nature (quoted in DEmilio & Freedman 1988: 321). In other words, liberationists embraced thei r sexuality and difference, and ur ged social change to reflect this. They argued that homosexuality was a natural capacity for everyone, and that oppression stemmed from rigid enforcement of heterose xuality through the nuclear family (Adam 1995; Altman 1993; DEmilio & Freedman 1988; Engel 2002; Terry 1999). Two critical features of the gay liberation movement had a lasting impact on gay and lesbian politics: the notion of coming out and the mobilization of lesbians (Adam 1995; DEmilio 1992; 2000; DEmilio & Freedman 1988; Engel 2001; Miller 1998), women had constituted only a small fragment of the hom ophile movement. Before Stonewall (DEmilio 1992) even DOB, an exclusively female organization, could not boast of a large membership. The emergence of gay liberation at about the sa me time as womens liberation propelled large numbers of lesbian and heterosexual women into political activity (Adam 1995; DEmilio 1992). Womens issues had been largely ignored in th e homophile movement, but the convergence of feminism and gay liberation provided a space for lesbian women to organize around issues important to both lesbian and heterosexual women. The other feature of gay liberation with a profound impact on the future was the idea of coming out (Button et al. 1997; DEmilio 1992 ; 1998; Engel 2001; 2002; Miller 1998; Vaid 1995). Before gay liberation, coming out had referr ed to the notion of individual gay men and lesbian women acknowledging one anothers sexual identity (DEmilio 1998; Engel 2001; 2002). Liberationists took the term and recast it into a profoundly political move: a critical step on the 41

PAGE 42

road to freedom, coming out implied a rejecti on of negative social meaning attached to homosexuality in favor of pride and self accepta nce thus, the act became both a marker of liberation and an act of resistance against oppressive society (DEmilio & Freedman 1988: 322). As a result, homosexuals embraced coming out as crucial step in the process of affirming a positive sexual identity as either a gay man or a lesbian woman. It represented adoption of a unique sexual identity, self-affirmation in that identity, and came to encompass a wide range of activities and relationships that define a way of life (DEmilio & Freedman 1988). The assumption of a positive sexual identity provided the impetus necessary for mass political mobilization of gays and lesbians (DEmilio 1992; Rahman 2000; Rimmerman 2002). The out gays and lesbians used their newly visible status to fight for civil rights in a manner impossible under the homophile movement, as th at was characterized by secrecy. After coming out gay and lesbian political iden tity flourished as the sheer act of coming out meant an investment in the success of the gay and lesbian movement due to their visibility and resultant vulnerability to attack (DEmilio 1998). Prior to Stonewall, and after nearly 20 years of activism, there were only about 50 hom ophile organizations, but by 1973 the liberation movement could boast more than 800 gay and lesbian groups with close to one thousand at the end of the 1970s (DEmilio 1992; 1998; Engel 2001; 2002). Moreover, th e first anniversary of the Stonewall riots saw an astonishing 5000 (some estimates put th e number as high as 10,000) people march in New York to commemorate the event (DEm ilio1992; 1998). Homosexuality, then, had morphed from a shameful stigma into an identity to be proud of. The strong political mobilization of the 1970s saw a number of breakthroughs for the gay and lesbian movement. Of critical importance was the removal of homosexuality by the American Psychiatric Associa tion (APA) from the list of sicknessesthe Diagnostic and 42

PAGE 43

Statistical Manualin 1973 (Adam 1979; 1995; Brewer, Kaib & OConnor 2000; DEmilio 2000). The liberation movement frequently protested APA conventions where treatment of homosexuality was discussed, and vociferously rejected notions of homosexuality as a mental illness. The remarkable turnaround was not due to APA members changing their minds, but instead was the result of an a ggressive and sustained campaign by lesbian and gay activists (Rimmerman 2002: 86). Activists also protested anti-homose xual laws and promoted legal reform. As a result, half the states repealed th eir sodomy laws during the 1970s, the US Civil Service Commission lifted its ban on employing gays and lesbians, and a number of large cities incorporated sexual preference in to civil rights laws (Adam 1 995; Button et al.1997; DEmilio & Freedman 1988; Rimmerman 2002). The 1970s, then, was a time of political ga ins and a period of community building and strengthening (Adam 1995; DEmilio 1992; Se idman 1996). A number of gay and lesbian oriented media outlets appear ed, including numerous books, mag azines and newspapers, most notably the Advocate and Washington Blade (Engel 2001). These publications provided new and exciting opportunities for gay and lesbian self e xpression, and reinforced the sense of collective identity developed through po litical activism (Engel 2001; Rahman 2000). The burgeoning sense of community was further strengthened by the em ergence of visibly ga y residential areas, including the Castro district of San Francisco (DEmilio 1992). Not only did these areas provide safe living spaces, but also additional opportunities for political activism a nd political power, to the point that an openly gay city supe rvisor was elected in San Francisco2. By the end of the 2 The supervisor, Harvey Milk, was assassinated in 1978, along with San Francisco mayor George Moscone (Adam 1995; DEmilio 1992; Enge l 2001). It is widely believed that the killer, Dan White, was politically motivated. He was the mo st conservative member in City Hall and believed he had been betrayed by liberals in the city (Adam 1995). A former policeman, White received the minimum possible sentence (a little under 8 years and he was out in 5), in sp ite of the fact that the murder of public officials was a capital crime (Adam 1995). The lenient sentence w as greeted with outrage and sparked rioting in 43

PAGE 44

1970s, the gay and lesbian civil rights movements had a numbe r of new national political organizations, gays and lesbians had become visible, and the notion of ga y and lesbian political and social identity was firmly entrenched. The move toward establishing gay and lesbian so cial and political iden tity is embedded in a discursive framework closely resembling that of the black civil rights movement (Bronski 1998; Button, Rienzo & Wald 2000; Epstein 1998). The ethnic identity model (Epstein 1998) allowed lesbians and gay men [to claim] legitimacy as a deprived minority entitled to basic human rights (Button et al. 2000: 270) in much the same ways as African Americans appealed for equal protection under law. In other words, gays and lesbians oriented themselves around their newly conceived sexual ident ities, used these identities to cr ystallize political mobilization, and put forward strong claims to the same civil rights as other minority groups (Bronski 1998; Button et al.1997; 2000; Epstei n 1998; Rimmerman 2002). Logical ly, if one views gays and lesbians as similar to other disadvantaged minor ities, the conventional liberal strategy is to extend to homosexuals the same legal protect ions granted to blacks, women and other minorities (Button et al. 1997: 62). Furthermore, strategic use of the ethnic identity discourse promotes a sense of legitimacy within the ga y and lesbian community as it creates a kind of public affirmation of sexual identity (Adam 1995; Button et al.1997; 200 0). Consequently, a politics of identity is also a politics of social meaning. That is, because identity is a name, it is a signifier of social meaning (Bailey 1999: 27). San Francisco (Adam 1995; DEmilio 1992). Police (man y of whom wore Free Dan White shirts during the trial) retaliated by invading Castro Street, attacking pedestrians and destroying a gay bar (Adam 1995; D'Emilio 1992). 44

PAGE 45

The political mobilization of gays and lesb ians not only led to the removal of sodomy statutes in over half the states, but also to a number of major cities adding sexual preference to their existing civil rights statutes (Adam 1995; DEmilio 1998; DEmilio & Freedman 1988). These cities included Boston, San Fr ancisco and Washington D.C. Ga y and lesbian activists also lobbied for including sexual orientation protec tion at the state level, and found sponsors to endorse a federal civil rights law (D Emilio 1998; DEmilio & Freedman 1988). A burgeoning sense of collective identity with in the gay and lesbian community, combined with a powerful and sometimes successful politics of identity, ignited a storm of protest from opponents, most notably the NCR (Bull & Ga llagher 1996; Button, Rienzo & Wald 1997). Of particular interest is the 1977 Save Our Child ren campaign, spearheaded by Anita Bryant, to repeal a Dade County, FL, antidiscrimination ordinance including sexua l orientation (Adam 1995; Bryant 1977; Bull & Gallagher 1996; DEmilio 2000). This was the first time that the passage of any pro-gay legislation had met with organized resist ance. Moreover, the fight was a key battleground between the competing ideologies of religious conservatism and sexual liberalism, and was the first of many such clashes (DEmilio & Freedman 1993). Bryants crusade hinged on two key arguments: th at protection for gays and lesbians would be detrimental to childrens we llbeing, (as she argued, you would be discriminating against my childrens right to grow up in a healthy, decent community [Bryant 1977: 16]); second that civil rights legislation gave preferential treatment to gays and lesbians (Button et al.1997; Clendinen & Nagourney 1999; Rimm erman 2002). Bryant was chiefly responsible for the idea that gays and lesbians actively work to recr uit children. She argued, homosexuals cannot reproduceso they must recruit. And to freshe n their ranks, they must recruit the youth of America (Bryant 1977: 62). Her campaign literatur e reinforced these arguments by including 45

PAGE 46

references to newspaper articles detailing instances of pedophilia between adult men and younger boys and bearing the headline, THERE IS NO HUMAN RIGHT TO CORRUPT OUR CHILDREN (Bryant 1977: 9 0emphasis in original). Th ese arguments played into entrenched fears regarding gays as child mole sters, and resonated profoundly with voters in Miami both then and now (Adam 1995; Bronski 1998). Indeed, the conceptualization of the predatory homosexual is still a key factor in antigay rhet oric (Adam 1995; Bronski 1998; Herman 1997; Rimmerman 2002; Smith & Windes 2000). Notwithstanding the potency of the pedophile argument, the sec ond of Bryants arguments, that of preferential treatment, was perhaps the most critical (Bull & Gallagher 1996; Button et al. 1997; DEmilio & Freedman 1993; Herman 1997; Rimmerman 2000; Stein 2001). Her opposition to the Dade County antidiscrimination or dinance stemmed from her belief that gays and lesbians are not deserving of legislative protection in th e same manner as other minority groups: we were not opposing an in dividuals right to be treated w ith equality and fairness, but we did rise in opposition to the misleading dema nd of so-called civil rights for homosexuals who are not a legitimate oppressed minority with the same claims and rights as, say Chicanos or blacks (Bryant 1977: 34). The chal lenge, therefore, was to any disc ussion of gays and lesbians as a minority group. As a result, any attempt to argue for civil rights would be vehemently opposed, since the gay and lesbian community was not perceived as having a genuine social and political identity. The success of the Save Our Children campai gn galvanized NCR opponents to the gay and lesbian civil rights movement across the countr y. By 1978, similar civil rights initiatives had been repealed in Eugene, St. Paul and Wichita (Clendinen & Nagourney 1999; Rimmerman 2002) and the NCRs opposition to gay rights had gained momentum on the strength of the no 46

PAGE 47

special rights platform (Button et al.1997; Green 2000; Rimmerman 2002). The core of the argument stems from an antirights discourse th at repudiates claims to a legitimate gay and lesbian sexual identity, and denies the oppres sion of homosexuals and homosexuality (Herman 1997). According to Button et al (1997), the c ooptation of the rights discourse by the NCR goes through four steps: first, civil ri ghts are defined as those rights specifically reserved for deserving minoritiesthose who have suffered discriminati on; second, legal protections are defined as special rights that can be give n or taken away by the majorit y, who have ordinary rights not special rights; third, these special rights are ear ned by those who qualify on the basis of various hardships and these special rights are deemed ap propriate treatment for having endured; fourth, extending such rights imposes no cost on societ y. According to these premises, gay people do not deserve these special rights as they have not suffered discrimination like other deserving minorities. Furthermore, opponents argue that gays and lesbians have, in fact, more wealth and more political power than any other minority gro up, and are therefore even further removed from any justifiable claim to minority stat us (Button et al. 1997; Herman 1997). The antirights discourse of the NCR remained a significan t part of their antigay activism through the 1980s and 1990s (Herman 1997; Rimmerman 2002). Without a doubt, the continued adherence of the gay rights move ment to a politics based on recognition of homosexuality as a genuine social and political identity structured much of the NCR rhetorical framing. Political campaigners in the gay and lesbia n civil rights movement wedded to the ethnic identity model unwittingly aided NCR activism as it gave the NCR a proven discursive framework to structure their opposition (Green 2000). Where Religion and Sexuality Meet: The Ex-Gays Focus on the Family, as one of the major organizations in NCR activism, campaigned vigorously against any legal rec ognition of gays and lesbians. Th ey argued against gay marriage, 47

PAGE 48

calling it a threat to the very existen ce of society (Dobson 1990; 2004), and fought any legislation that included sexual orientationincluding anti-discrim ination laws and gay adoption laws (Diamond 1996; Dobson 2004; Gilgoff 2007; Hedge s 1996). At the core of their arguments was still the no special rights platform star ted by Anita Bryant, and a cornerstone of NCR activist discourse. They stressed, time and agai n, that homosexuals were not a minority in the same way as racial and ethnic minorities (Dobson 2004; Straight Answers 2003), and were therefore not in need of legislative protection. In addition to the rights discourse, FOTF pr omoted the idea that homosexuality was preventable, treatable and ch angeable (Haley 2004; Nicolo si & Nicolosi 2002). Embedded within notions of sexual identity is the idea that it is immutable, uncha ngeable (Epstein 1999). In much the same way as African Americans are born black, homosexuals are born gayand therefore deserving of equal protection under law since sexuality is a core part of their being. Any contradictory evidence would seriously undermi ne the bid by lesbians and gay men for legal recognition on the basis of sexual identity3. By advancing the idea that homosexuality is treatable, and by challenging certain assumptions regarding immutable sexual identity, FOTF take direct aim at the heart of gay and lesbian identity politics4. Focus on the Family takes the position that th ere is in fact, an immutable sexual identity everyone is born heterosexual (H aley 2004; Nicolosi & Nicolosi 2002). In the words of Mike Haley (2004), in charge of mobilization at FOF, former director of Gender Issues at FOTF and keynote speaker at Love Won Out : There is no such thing as a homosexual We are all 3 Plaskow (2005) suggests that grounding the discussion of gay and lesbian civil rights in biological arguments is fundamentally flawed. Instead, she suggests that social constructionist argume nts should be used to place the issue of homosexuality in the larger context of the feminist critique of gender roles, compulsory heterosexuality, and traditional sexual ethics (178). 4 Erzen (2006) argues this as a queer identity conversion as it necessitates the destabilization of sexual identity categories. 48

PAGE 49

biological heterosexuals. To be sure, some he terosexuals find themselves dealing with a homosexual problem .But to firmly identify one self as a homosexual is to buy into the false idea that two distinct, valid, immu table orientations exist (22). Therefore, since everyone is naturally heterosexual, the hom osexual problem can be treated. Furthermore, the assumption that everyone is heterosexual ne gates arguments for gay civil rights. A booklet sold at the LWO conferences explains it thus: If society was convinced that people were bor n gay, then some would feel there is a need to protect homosexuals by the government as a designated minority class status, such as Africanor Native-Americans. Slowly but su rely, it seems the government is embracing this view and granting special rights to the homosexual community for what is behaviorally based iden tity rather than a true genetic one. ( Straight Answers 2003: 8) FOTF use the language of special rights in con cert with their promoti on of the homosexualitycan-be-cured message to fight back against the gay and lesbian civil rights movement. The idea that homosexuality can be cured is the central message of the Love Won Out conferences. The following extract comes from the Love Won Out website and details exactly what the conferences are about: Focus on the Fa mily is promoting the truth that change is possible for those who experien ce same-sex attractions .We want people to know that individuals don't have to be gay and that a homosexual identity is something that can be overcome. That's why we've developed a one-day conference for those seeking answers on this often confusing and divisive issue (www. lovewonout.com 2007). In other words, LWO is solely designed to promulgate the idea that homose xuality is treatable and that gays and lesbians can change. The LWO conferences are part of the wider ex-gay movement that first appeared in the 1970s, and is situated within evangelical religious doctrine5 as I just described it. The first ex5 In particular, Focus on the Familys reading of the Bible as inerrant. 49

PAGE 50

gay ministry, New Hope (renamed Love in Action), was started by Frank Worthen in 1973 (Erzen 2006). Worthen spent 25 years as a homos exual himself, before reporting hearing God calling him back to his faith. Having done so, Worthen then began his God-given mission to counsel other gay individuals and bring them b ack to the Lord. Love in Action served as a template for later ex-gay organizations, most es pecially those following a religious affiliation with conservative Christian churches. Each ministry drew on a biblical understanding of sexuality that grounded heterosexuality as th e only, true, God-give n and natural sexual expression. These ex-gay ministries eventually ca me together under the umbrella organization of Exodus International (for a detailed history of the ex-gay m ovement and Love in Action see Erzen 2006) Research into the ex-gay movement in social science had been virtually non-existent until about 2003. Sporadic articles about Exodus International appeared (Fetner 2005; Ponticelli 1996; 1999), but most research was in psychology and critiqued reparative therapy (see, for example, Drescher & Zucker 2006). Repa rative therapy is used by many ex-gay programs to heal homosexuality, and I explain the approach in more detail in chapters 3 and 4. More recently, an in-depth ethnographic study examined identity transformation at New Hope Ministry (Erzen 2006), and a further study contrast ed the pro-gay Christianity of the Metropolitan Community Church with the ex-gay Christianity of Exodus (Wolkomir 2001; 2006). My study adds to this body of literature in so me significant ways. Firstly, the research site has rarely been the object of academic investigation (one gay and lesbian civil rights organization, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, has published three different studies through its Policy Institute). Most studies into the ex-g ay movement have looked at ex-gay ministries under the umbrella of Exodus In ternational (Erzen 2006; Pontic elli 1996; 1999; Wolkomir 2001; 50

PAGE 51

51 2006) or looked at only textual material (Bennett 2003; Bura ck & Josephson 2005; Robinson & Spivey 2007). Love Won Out is a critical research venue sinc e it brings the ex-gay message to a far larger audience than the residential mini stries of Exodus or, indeed, the Exodus annual conference ( LWO is allied with Exodus, however, and a number of the keynote speakers are on the board). Furthermore, LWO appeal explicitly to parents an d friends of lesbians and gays, ministers, educators, and concerned citizens, in addition to the lesbians and gays themselves. Theoretically and methodologically, this dissertati on also adds to the body of literature on the exgay movement, and the social psychological literature on the self, since the way in which Focus on the Family constructs particular selves in service of their organization through Love Won Out has not yet been studied. In order to examine the manner in which Focus on the Family is redefining sexual identity in the Love Won Out conferences, I use the concept of the institutional self (Gubrium & Holstein 2001). In the following chapter, I explai n the concept of the in stitutional self trace its theoretical development from the original conceptualization of the uniquely social self, into the postmodern world of multiple sites of discursive identity. Since the institutional self is a methodological as well as theoretical orientat ion, I also turn to a discussion of my methodological analysis in chapter 2. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 provide the em pirical basis for my arguments. In chapter 6, I conclude by summari zing the key findings and conclusions of this research.

PAGE 52

CHAPTER 2 ANALYZING INSTITUTIONAL SELVES: THEORY AND METHOD The Development of the Social Self The Love Won Out conferences promote a very speci fic conceptualization of sexual identity. Over the course of th e day, the speakers take the audien ce on the very same journey that they themselves went throughfrom the troubled and desperate homosexual, to finding God, to the climax of healing and hopefully becoming a happy heterosexual. To fully understand the rhetorical construction of this self transition I use Gubrium & Holsteins (2001) notion of the institutional self. Institutional self describes th e manner in which different social institutions legitimate and promote the production of particular selves. This formulation of narrative identity has its roots in early symbolic in teractionist understandings of the self. In this chapter, I first trace the development of the social self in order to ma ke plain the complex th eoretical origins of the self, and the subsequent move into a postm odern orientation toward self construction and narrative identity. In so doing, I situate my st udy within the larger body of literature surrounding narrative self identity. Holstein and Gubriums (2000) narratively constructed self is an extension of the uniquely social self initially conceived by James, Cooley, Mea d, Blumer and Goffman (Holstein & Gubrium 2000; Meltzer et al. 1975; Reynolds 1990; Reynolds & Herman-Kinney 2003; Stone & Farberman 1970). This newly social self si gnified a break with the way the self had traditionally been conceptualized in Western tho ught; it moved from an abstract, transcendental self to one empirically grounded in social reality (Hol stein & Gubrium 2000; Meltzer, Petras & Reynolds 1975; Reynolds 1970). William James was one of the first philosophers to conceive of a self outside of the metaphysical realm (Holstein & Gubrium 2000, Me ltzer et al. 1975; Reynolds 2003). For James, 52

PAGE 53

the self was empirically grounded in everyday life and experience. One of the key components in this empirical self was what James referred to as the social self. As he explains, a mans Social self is the recognition which he gets from his mates (James 1983: 281). This social self is embedded within social interaction, and come s to be understood through communication with others. As James (1983) explains, properly speaking a man has as many social selves as there are individuals who recognize him and carry an image of him in their mind (281emphasis in original). In other words, as we move through so ciety and interact with different individuals, so each of those individuals come to have different views of our self. This conception of multiple selves came later to be viewed as the multiple entity conception (Reynol ds 1970) and is still a popular idea in the symbolic inte ractionist tradition (Reynolds 2003). James (1983) emphasizes his notions of his em pirical self by his re fusal to distinguish material elements of the self from more metaphysical elements: In its widest possible sense however, a mans Me is the sum tota l of all that he CAN call his, not only his body and his psyc hic powers, but also his clot hes, and his house, his wife and children, his ancestors and friends, his reputation and works, his lands and horses, and yacht and bank account (279em phasis in original). Jamess empirical self also incl udes the pure ego, the material se lf (body, clothes, friends, family possessions etc.) and the spiritual se lf (inner or subjective beliefs) in addition to the social self. Jamess empirical self is also cast as refl exive as the self is both knower and known; both subject and object and, in more familiar terms both I and me (Stone & Farberman 1970). For James, there is a strong element of self awareness, hence the difference between the I and the me. As with later theorists of the self, James describes a difference between these two elements of the self. The I is the origin of our self awarenes s, the knower, whereas the me is the object of our self awarene ss, the known. As he describes; Whatever I may be thinking of, I am always at the same time more or less aware of myself, of my personal existence. At the same time it is I who am aware; so th at the total self of 53

PAGE 54

me, being as it were duplex, partly known a nd partly knower, partly object and partly subject, must have two aspects discriminated in it, of which for s hortness we may call one the me and the other the I. I call these discr iminated aspects, and not separate things because the identity of I w ith me must not be undermined by terminology. (James 1983: 373) In other words, as I am sitting here in the libr ary absorbed in thinking de ep sociological thoughts, I am also aware of my personal existenceseparate from those t houghts: my feet are cold from walking through the snow, I am hungry and I am going numb from sitting on a hard chair in a metal cage for hours. Yet these two aspects of my self, although differentiated, can never be, and should not be, separated. Each one is as much a part of me as the other. Although James was one of the first to embed di scussions of the self in the mundanity of everyday life, Charles Horton Cooley believed that Jamess discussions of knower and known etc. were still too fundamental ly abstract (Stone & Farberman 1970). Cooleys goal was to further embed the self in everyday discourse. Indeed his theorizing was an advancement of Jamess work: Cooley supposed that the self was not first a characteristic of the mind, and then afterwards becoming social, instead he presumed that the self arises with the mind through communication and social inte raction (Holstein & Gubrium 2000; Stone & Farberman 1970; Mead 1930; Wood 1930). While James recognized the influence of the social environment, he was less interested in the developm ent of the self through social inte raction than in the spread of the self through the social landscape (Mead 1930). In the introduction to Human Nature and the Social Order Cooley (1956) clearly delineates the theoretical orientat ion he intends to follow for the entirety of his book; the other [stream of life history] comes by way of language, intercourse and education the social origin of his life comes by the pathway of intercourse with other pers ons (4-5). Cooleys emphasis on social interaction continues into his discussion of an empirical or social self. Similar to James, Cooley discusses the self in term s of the I and the me, yet he immediately trie s to distance 54

PAGE 55

himself from the more abstract discussions of his predecessors He does not want to concern himself with metaphysical discussions of self or of pure ego, and is far more interested in the self in everyday interaction (Cooley 1956; Holste in & Gubrium 2000; Stone & Farberman 1970)to quote: although the topic of the self is regarded as an abstruse one, this abstruseness belongs chiefly, perhaps, to the metaphysi cal discussions of the pure e gowhatever that may bewhile the empirical self should not be very much more difficult to get hold of than other facts of the mind (Cooley 1956: 169). Having dispensed with ego, Cooley turns his at tention to his understand ings of the social self and one of his major contributions was th e addition of feeling (H olstein & Gubrium 2000; Perinbanayagam 1985; Stone & Farberman 1970)or what he calls the mineness of the self. As he explains, the social self is simply any idea, or syst em of ideas, drawn from communication that the mind cherishes as its own. Self feeling has its chief scope within the general life, not outside of it; the special endea vor or tendency of which it is the emotional aspect finds its principal field of exercise in a world of pers onal forces, reflected in the mind by a world of personal impressions (Cooley 1956: 179). In ot her words, the self is developed through everyday social interaction (Holstein & Gubrium 2000; Pe rinbanayagam 1985; Stone & Farberman 1970). Indeed by virtue of the fact that we each interact with a unique set of individuals, so we draw upon a variety of e xperiences that form our own highly individual feeling of mineness-or sense of self. This seemingly instinctive appropriation of ideas was not Cooleys enti re view of the self, however. The importance of both self feeling a nd social interaction in Cooleys work was indicative of his idea that we actually imagine how we appear to others, and adjust our self accordinglythe now famous looking glass self. As Cooley (1956) describes; 55

PAGE 56

[the self] takes the form of a somewhat definite imagination of how ones selfthat is, any idea he appropriates appears in a particular mind, and the ki nd of self-feeling one has is determined by the attitude toward this attributed to the othe r mind. A social self of this sort might be called the reflected or looking-glass self. (151-152) This looking-glass self has thre e key components: (1) our imagination of how we appear to others; (2) our imagination of how these others judge our appearan ce; and (3) our reaction to that imagination (Cooley 1956; Hols tein & Gubrium 2000; Macionis 2003; Meltzer et al. 1974; Prus 1996; Reynolds 1990; Stone & Farberman 1970). For ex ample, when I am preparing myself to face a new class for the first time, I find myself imagining how I would appear to these new students; if I wear a suit what will they think? If I carry my motorcycle helmet what will they think? If I am too soft on the first day of class, what will happen? Having imagined my appearance to these new students, I then, accord ing to Cooley, imagine their judgment of my appearance. I cannot wear jeans as they may think me unprofessional, I already look too young to scare them into behavingtherefore I cannot be too soft on them. I decide to wear a suit, not carry my motorcycle helmet, and to be as strict as possiblemy imaginati on tells me that such a combination creates the best impression of comp etent, professional and scholarly instructor. Thus, this view of my self is firmly embedded within the social realm, and not a product purely of my ego. Although Cooley advanced understandings of the social self it was Mead who made the concept far more comprehensive, and provided an account of the manner in which the self emerges and exists (Holstein & Gubrium 2000; Kuhn 1967; Meltzer et al. 1975; Perinbanayagam 1985; Reynolds 2003). Meads self is far less ins tinctive than Cooleys; whereas Cooleys self instinctively appropriated ideas from others, Meads self is more firmly embedded in society and is highly interactive (Holstein & Gubrium 2000; Meltzer et al. 1975). Mead is, in fact, rather 56

PAGE 57

critical of Cooleys notion of se lf-feeling as it leaves the self only nominally social (Holstein & Gubrium 2000; Mead 1967). Meads general thesis is that the self is part of the proce ss of social interaction. Indeed, one of Meads most important precepts is that our self-awareness is such that even our inner thoughts are a form of communication, communicati on in the sense of si gnificant symbols, communication which is not only directed to othe rs, but also to the individual himself (Mead 1967: 139). This ability to be ab le to communicate with ones self therefore necessarily implies that one possesses a self. If you are capable of acting toward yourself as you do others, then you have a self (Reynolds 1990: 58). In other words, for Mead, having a self meant that an individual could be an object to his or her self, and comm unicate accordingly (Blumer 1966; Charon 1998). Mead describes the development of the social self in relation to play and organized games (see Charon 1979; Hewitt 1991; Mead 1967). The difference between the two is described thus, in that early stage, he passes from one role to another just as whim takes him. But in a game, where a number of individuals ar e involved, then the child taking one role must be ready to take the role of everyone else... (Mead, 1967: 151). This describes the development of one of Meads most famous concepts, the generalized other. Through the form of the generalized other the community of which the individual is a part begins to exert influence. At this point there is awareness, within the individual selves, of a wider society. Prior to the game stage, the child can only take on the role of one other form at a time. During the game stage the self is constructed in reference to group attitudes and the child is able to imagine taking a variety of ro les with many generalized others. Continued social interactions with generalized others forms patterns of interacti ons that create a certain consistency within the 57

PAGE 58

self. For example, attending school every day for years and therefore interacting with the same generalized other creates a school self. The so ciety in the context of school is a set of universally significant symbols that arouse in school children a particular set of responses. Society is characterized by Mead as the so cial interaction of selves with varying generalized others. As was seen in the school example, patterns of behavior aroused by the generalized other become more consistent over time and with experience, and thus easier to predict. This is fundamental to the concept of society as it implies there are sets of common meanings that call out common responses for a wide number of people. In addition to the development of the generalized other in terms of group activities, Mead also describes generalized social attitudes ( 1967: 260). These he describes as institutions: representations of the common responses of all members of the co mmunity to a particular situation (Mead 1967). The process of communication is as fundame ntal to the understanding of the larger social community as it is to the constr uction of individual selves. So ciety is as much embedded in social interaction as the self. Society is understo od through the construction of generalized others that are, in turn, formulated through social interaction and communication. To illustrate, The development of communication is not simply a ma tter of abstract ideas, but it is a process of putting ones self in the place of the other persons attitude communicating through significant symbols (Mead 1967: 327). Thus, society is constr ucted within the realm of human experience through the communication of significant symbols. Mead also describes a relationship between the subjective and objective aspects of the selfthe I and the me (Hewitt 1976; Holste in & Gubrium 2000; Mead 1967; Meltzer et al. 1975; Perinbanayagam 1985; Reynolds 1990; 2003). Th e I is that which is more immediate, spontaneous and impulsive, whereas the me emph asizes the groups values, beliefs and, to a 58

PAGE 59

certain extent, the internaliz ation of the generalized othe r (Charon 1998; Hewitt 1976; Mead 1967; Perinbanayagam 1985; Reynolds 1990). Mead understood that the se lf is a continual process of interaction and negotiation between the I and the me. Furthermore, the presence of both aspects of the self ensures not only a le vel of social control and conformity, but also enables a level of novelt even in ordinary, routine situations (Charon 1998; Hewitt 1976; Reynolds 1990). Herbert Blumer was one of Meads students at the University of Chicago (Hewitt 1984; Holstein & Gubrium 2000). He acknowledges Meads influences, and tries to organize Meads concepts of mind, self and society into a coherent framework. It is Blumer (1969) who coined the term symbolic interactionism (in a footnote Blumer states that the term is a barbaric neologism that I coined in an offhand way in an article. The term some how caught on and is now in general use (1969: 1). At the heart of Blumers (1969) work are, as he describes them, three simple premises: The first premise is that human beings act toward such things on the basis of the meanings that the things have for them .The second premise is that the meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, th e social interaction that one has with ones fellows. The third premise is that these meani ngs are handled in, and modified through, an interpretive process us ed by the person dealing with th e things he encounters. (2) In other words, Blumer is concerned with th e process of meaning-ma king through interactions among individuals. His notion of the social world is the world of meanings that actors construct and use for interaction. This process of meaningmaking is continual. As Blumer (1969) reminds readers, The actor selects, checks, suspends, regroups, and transforms the meanings in light of the situation in which he is placed and the direction of his actio n. Accordingly, interpretation should not be regarded as a mere automatic application of established meanings but as a formative process in which meanings are used and revised as instruments for the guidance and formation of action. (5emphasis added) 59

PAGE 60

Similar to Mead, then, Blumer argues that the self emerges in everyda y social interaction albeit in a far more coherent manner. In a ddition, Blumer adds the methodological reasoning for how to proceed with analysis of an interactional self via social science. Blumer uses Meads understanding of the interactional nature of the social world as a methodological call to study the empirical social world of the everyday. He writes, The empirical social world, in short, is the world of everyday experience, the top layers of which we see in our lives and recognize in the lives of others (Blumer 1969: 35). Empirical, in this sense, referring to the pragmatists conceptualization of experi ence (Holstein & Gubrium 2000). In The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life Erving Goffman (1959) uses the notion of human interaction as theatre, dramaturgy, to describe social interaction. As suggested by the title of the manuscript, Goffman believes the self to be embedded in everyday life and presented to audiences through performance inte raction. The goal of the performa nce is to convince observers of the legitimacy of the presentation, and thus achieve the desired res ponse. As Goffman (1959) explains, when an individual appears in the pr esence of others, there will usually be some reason for him to mobilize his activity so that it wi ll convey an impression to others which it is in his interests to convey (4). Although Goffman is also concerned with the deve lopment of the self in social interaction, he differs from Mead and Blumer in his focus on social order and rituals of interaction (Gubrium & Holstein 1997; Holstein & Gubrium 2000; Katovich & Reese 1993). Indeed, Goffman wanted to know how the individual was implicit in mainta ining social orderthe self we present is observable, conforms to social standards and works to present believable performances. The audience is a vital component of the successful performance. No t only does the performer have a responsibility to them to be as s/ he is claiming, but the audience is required to tr eat the performer 60

PAGE 61

with respect. As Goffman (1959) explains, Society is organized on th e principle that any individual who possesses certain social characteristic s has a moral right to e xpect that others will value and treat him in an appropriate manner ( 13). Furthermore, at times when the performance breaks down, both the performer and the audien ce are expected to employ defensive and protective practices to maintain the continuity of the in teraction (Goffman 1959). Herein lies one of the bases of the (now-classic) sociological term of impression management. Consequently, both audience and performer have a stake in producing and maintaining coherent selves. Furthermore, each individual has multip le selves that are pertinent to different performances (Gubrium & Holstein 2000a). For all of these theorists, the self is an interactional accomplishment (Gagn & Tewkesbury 1999: 59) that is formulated through interaction with others, and is a reflexive, active agent in the circumstances of its own prod uction (Weigert & Gecas 2003). In other words, the self is embedded within the discourse of everyday life: self is here broadly understood to be an unfolding reflective awarene ss of being-in-the-world, including a sense of ones past and future (Ochs & Capps 1996: 21). Selves can therefore be under stood through examination of the social situations in which each self is produced. From the social self to a narrative self The social self of James, Mead, Blumer and Goffman is interwoven with the multiplicity of selves exhibited as part of narrative identity in a postmode rn world. As Gubrium & Holstein (2001) explain, the self is a th oroughly social structure the self unfolds within society from this perspective if there is a personal self, it is not a private entity so much as it is a shared articulation of traits, roles, standpoints and behaviors that individuals acquire through social interaction (6). This unfolding of self is essentially narrative in character, meaning that the self and narrative are inseparable as we talk our selves into being (Davis 2005; Gubrium & Holstein 61

PAGE 62

2000a; Ochs & Capps 1996). Through our everyday conversations both with ourselves and others, we tell our lives and our stories (Dav is 2005). As we do so, we learn who we are and can use that to comprehend our selves (G ubrium & Holstein 2000b). Therefore, we know ourselves through our use of narrati ve to give shape to our pers onal experiences and to format our relationships with others (Ochs & Capps 1996). These selves do not appear abstractly, however, nor are they impromptu (Gubrium & Holstein 2000a). Rather they ar e constructed using avai lable and identifiable cultural resources (Davis 2005; Gagn & Tewkesbury 1999; Holste in & Gubrium 2000): self-construction is always accountable to the institutional preference s and the pertinent biographical particulars of ones life (Holstein & Gubriu m 2000: 102). In other words, my own selves are always somewhat informed by my race, age, sex etc. in addition to the narrative models available to me in a particular social situ ation (Davis 2005; Gubrium & Holstein 2000a; Polletta 1998). Any given social situation will ha ve a particular set of narrative resources available for self construction (Gubrium & Holstein 1995; 2000a; 2000b). Individuals draw upon these resources to produce a recognizable entity that can be understood in context (Gubrium & Holstein 2000a; Gubrium 1991). The social context in which inter action occurs is then important for mediating who and what we are (Gubrium & Holstein 1996). These resources can be anything from personal experiences, to bodies, to th e social location and social identity of the individual actors (Gubrium & Holstein 2000a; Crawley 2002; Gagne & Tewkesbury 1999). For example, as I interact with my mother, my self is partially dr awn from pervious shared experiences, as well as my own social location as daughter. Consequently, that Helena-as-daughter self will look rather different from the Helenaas-girlfriend self or the Hel ena-as-professor selves, both of 62

PAGE 63

which are constructed from a different set of experiences and performed from completely different social locations. Analysis of social situations provides onl y limited understanding of the manner in which selves are produced, however. Although the self is embedded in everyday life and everyday interactions, this everyday life is interactionally produced within different social environments (Gubrium & Holstein 2000a; 2000b; Holstein & G ubrium 2000). In other words, the social environment, or local culture (Gubrium 1991; Gubrium & Holstein 1995, 2000a), is also implicated within narrative develo pment of selves as it, too, provi des a complex set of narrative resources from which the individua l can construct a self. Our stories and our selves are only intelligible if we understand the wider institutional setti ng that may be influencing the available discourses (Broad 2002; Davis 2005; Gubrium 1991; Gubrium & Holstein 2000a; 2001; Holstein & Gubrium 2000; Loseke 2001; Polletta 1998). Gubrium & Holstein (2000b) describe the va rious groups and organi zations involved in production of selves as going concerns whic h are relatively stab le, routinized, ongoing patterns of action and interaction (102). These going concerns are social institutions that also have an actively discursive quality (102) that affirms or denies certai n stories (Gubrium 2005) and can range from large government organizatio ns, to small informal gatherings and from multimillion dollar religious organizations to transsexual support groups. What each of these has in common is the production of numerous discours es that can be drawn upon to convey a certain type of self. The influence of local culture upon self cons truction does not mean that the individual actor is completely at the mercy of institutional influence. She is not a puppet, rather she is a skilful, active participant in the ongoing ne gotiation between institutional demands and 63

PAGE 64

individual biography; the self the emanates from the interplay among institutional demands, restraints and resources on the one hand and biographically informed, self constituting social actions on the other (Gubrium & Holstein 2000b: 102) This interplay is de fined as interpretive practice, a process through which reality is apprehended, understood, organized and represented (Gubrium & Holstein 2000b: 103). For Holstein & Gubrium (2000), interpretive practice consists of both ethnomethodoloigcal discursive practice, and Foucauld ian discourses-in-practice. Discursive practice refers to the manner in which individuals do society or do the self. In terms of se lf production, discursive practice highlights the process of self actualizati on; consequently questions of what it is are secondary to questions of how the self is produced. Thus, through disc ursive practice, the process of self construction is analyzed. In addition to discursive practice, Gubrium & Holstein (2000) also contend that Foucauldian notions of discourse in practice are critical when trying to understand the circumstances of self production. Where discursi ve practice examines the hows of social practice, discourse-in-practice is more concerned with the whats as these provide the resources and interpretive possi bilities for self designation (Gubrium & Holstein 2000b: 103). These discourses-in-practice basical ly refer to the conditions of po ssibility or available cultural and historical narrative resources. For ex ample, under the narrative auspices of Love Won Out discourses-in-practice refer to those institu tional resources that are available including evangelical religious doctrine. The synthesis of discursive practice and discourse-in-pr actice is the foundation of interpretive practice. The two together allow for richly de tailed examination of self production, 64

PAGE 65

from the artful procedures through which selves are constructed to the narrative possibilities of particular social times and places. To quote: interpretive practice comp rises both the hows and whats of r eality construction. It is a way of conceptualizing the entire technology of self construc tion, from the conversational machinery involved in interactionally storying the self, to the sorts of subjectivity that might possibly be conferred, to the settings a nd institutions within which selves are crafted. (Gubrium & Holstein 2000a: 94) Interpretive practice, therefore, assumes the postmodern self is actively constructed within the different discursive realms of going concerns (Broad 2002). In the context of my dissertation, the going concern examined is the Love Won Out conference of Focus on the Family since it provides a unique discursive environment through which to understand the stor ies of self identity being told. There are a myriad of entit ies in the business of self production, construction and reconstruction, including self help groups, church es, social movements, religious organizations, television talk shows etc. (Gubr ium & Holstein 2001). Each of these going concerns provides a different discursive environmen t through which the self can be negotiated and understood using the narrative resources that each institution r ecognizes and promotes. Therefore, each going concern rhetorically constructs an institutional self, described by Loseke (2001) as an image or type of self created by, and in serv ice of, an organization (348). The notion of an institutional self has been used to describe ho w many going concerns provide rhetorical devices necessary for r ecognizing and dealing with personal troubles. Examples of such troubled selves include the battered woman, recovering alcoholic, divorcing, legal selves, and sexually marginalized selves. In each of these instances, the institution provides the narrative map for the construction and unders tanding of personal trouble s. In the case of Focus on the Family, the Love Won Out conferences provide the discursive environment necessary to construct th e troubled sexual self of the gay man or lesbian woman. In this way, 65

PAGE 66

LWO sets the conditions of possibi lity for a homosexual self that is in line with institutional doctrine: it is a self deep ly troubled and need of fi xing. Not so coincidentally, LWO also creates narrative possibilities for reconstructing the tr oubled homosexual self into an untroubled heterosexual self. These institutional selves are not automati cally imprinted on the participants, however. Instead, the individual actor is engaged in interpretive activity designed to make the connection between the personal self and the troubled iden tity, which is conditioned by the discursive environment (Gubrium & Holstein 2001; Loseke 2001). The participant uses the institutional resources available to understand their own ev eryday lived experience in relation to the institutional self promoted. This identity work entails framing lived experience in terms of being troubled, or in the case of LWO from being gay, which is a problematic social and political identity that does not re ally exist to homosexual, whic h doeswith the ultimate goal of reaching ex-gay. Institutional self is a critical concept for understanding th e ways in which going concerns legitimate certain narrative identities. Each discur sive environment promotes a particular kind of self and a thorough investigation of both the narrative w hats and hows can illuminate exactly what resources the organizations are privileging for these institutionally sanctioned identities. The LWO conferences provide a distinct disc ursive environment for understanding the production of certain selves. LWO is actively engaged in the identity work necessary to formulate a specific social self that of the ex-gay. In this study I examine the discursive production of this self, and other relate d selves. Through attendance at multiple LWO conferences and analysis of the textual materi al made available at them, I interrogate the 66

PAGE 67

rhetorical production of the ex-gay self and highli ght the resources used by FOTF to narrate such a controversial self. Data and Methods The Love Won Out conferences were started by Focus on the Family in 1998 as a means of promoting the message that homosexuality is preventable and treatable. The LWO ministry was first conceptualized by John Paulk who was then working at FOTF as the director of the Homosexuality and Gender Department as a means of introducing homosexuals to Jesus Christ and to offer a way out of the lifestyle that en snares them (Paulk 2000). Paulk was featured on the cover of Newsweek in 1998, along with wife Anne, amidst a story titled Can Gays Convert? that highlighted convers ion from gay to straight. The Paulk's also wrote a book called Love Won Out about their journey out of homosexuali tyand this is how the conferences got their name. LWO describes their mission in the conference guide in the following manner: to provide a Christ centered comprehensive conference which will enlighten, empower and equip families, church and youth leaders, educat ors, counselors, policy-makers and the gay community on the truth about homosexuality and its impact on cu lture, families and youth. This truth about homosexuality reads as follows: Scripture is very clear in its condemnation of homosexual conduct there is no established scientific evidence that sexual orientation is genetically determinedFocus on the Family has seen that by Gods grace it is sometimes possible although difficultfor a person to move from ho mosexual to a heterose xual orientation (Love Won Out Conference Guide 2006: 7). LWO then, is clearly focused on the particular development of an ex gay self, with developmen t of this self embedded within narratives of change. 67

PAGE 68

Since inception, FOTF have held over 40 of these one day conferences, and reached an audience estimated to be well over 30,000. The i ndividual conferences dr aw an audience of between 700 and 1300 people each. LWO are held five times a year in major cities across the United States (they are also now developing international progra ms and have recently held conferences in Canada and Spain), generally in large churches willing to donate their space. The last conference, for example, was held at the Trinity Church in Omaha Nebraska. Upon arrival at the conference venue such as, for example, th e Coral Ridge Baptist Church in Fort Lauderdale, attendees are met by security provided by both a private security firm and the local police departments. Uniformed police officers were present in the church at both events I attended. Focus on the Family identify, both in the conference guide and on the Love Won Out website, the controversial nature of the material presented an d, as such, expect significant protests. There were, inci dentally, protests at the conferences I attended in both St Louis and Fort Lauderdale. I had to provide photographic identif ication, which was carefully checked, as I signed in for the day and received my confer ence packet. In additi on, I underwent both hand frisking and bag searches by volunteers at the church door. Upon registering, I was handed a paper wristband which had to remain visible at all times. If the wristband was not in view, attendees were questioned and then promptly rem oved if they were shown to be imposters. I was also required to sign a waiv er guaranteeing my good behavior Should my behavior become disruptive, which it did not, signing the waiver would have assu red my ejection form church grounds. An information sheet given out to a ll delegates explained the code of conduct: While frank and open discussion is valuable, di sruption of the conference is not acceptable, including: interrupting conference presenters or activities; distri buting non-Focus on the Family literature; campaigning for alternative reli gions, philosophical or political views; seeking sexual contacts, abusing alcohol or narcotics during the conference; sharing registrations with other persons; or harassment of others in any form Failure to abide by this code of conduct is grounds for dismissal from this conference. 68

PAGE 69

Although the physical layout of the churches hosting the conference varied, the general environment of the LWO conferences did not. Conference go ers were directed to the main sanctuary by a bevy of volunteers after registra tion. Inside the sanctu ary, there was a lectern standing on the stage in front of the altar, with a Love Won Out banner draped over it. There was also a screen set up above the stage which played a PowerPoint slide show to greet the audience as they found their seats. The s lides alternated between promoti on of textual materials in the LWO bookstore and quotations from Scripture. Some of the biblical references included Psalm 91:14-16: Because he loves me says the Lord, I will rescue him; I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name. He will call upon me and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble. I will deliver him and honor him and Hebrews 10:38-39, But my righteous one will live by faith. And if he shrinks back I will not be pleased with him. But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved. All LWO conferences, including the two I attended follow the same format. They began promptly at 8 a.m. with a welcome and intr oduction from one of the FOTF spokespeople, including a videotaped introduc tion from the founder of Focus on the Family, James Dobson, and then moved into presentations to the entire audience until 11. These presentations included personal testimonies from an ex-gay man, Mike Haley, and an ex-lesbian, Melissa Fryrear. They were followed by a number of breakout sessions that audience members could choose to attend, including ones about responding to pro-gay theo logy and gay marriage. At each set of breakout sessions, audience members had a c hoice of four different topics. The period after lunch saw the audience converge again to listen to keynote speeches about the pr o-gay agenda in schools, and one from Nancy Heche (mother of actress Anne H eche, the actress who was he partner of talkshow host Ellen DeGeneres before marrying a man) Two more sets of breakout sessions covered 69

PAGE 70

such topics as prevention of male homosexuality and top ten questions loved ones ask, and then everyone gathered to hear the fi nal plenary address. Here, the speaker gave the audience tips on how to respond to homosexuality in their lives, the workpl ace, schools and other public institutions. (For the full lis t of conference sessions, speakers and the chronology of the conference, see Appendix A). Over the course of the conference, the speak ers are actively engaged in the rhetorical production of a very specific selfthat of the ex-g ay. The day is formatted such that the audience is exposed to the narratives necessary not only to interpret what an ex gay self looks like, but also to narratively produce their ow n ex-gay self. For example, Mike Haley uses his time to take the audience on his own journey through homosexuality and in to heterosexualityusing the rhetorical strategies provided by LWO and FOTF. LWO then, provide a particular discursive environment for the produc tion of troubled selves. The data for my analysis of the ex -gay self come from attendance at LWO conferences held in the Evangelical Free Church in St. Louis and the Coral Ridge Baptist Church in Ft Lauderdale, both in 2006. Each conference was audiotaped and available for purchase once the conference was over. I obtained sound recordings of each conference and fully transcribed the material. Having carefully examined the sound recordings from the early LWO conferences, I discovered that there has been little cha nge in institutional discourse from 1998 when the conferences began, to the present. As a result, I opted to only ex amine in detail those later conferences since I was able to attend these personally and therefor e obtain a more nuanced understanding of the circumstances of self production. As a procedur al note, although I transcribed and coded the material from both conferences, I opted to use extracts only fro m the Ft. Lauderdale event when 70

PAGE 71

writing. LWO control what is being spoken over the cour se of the day very tightly, and as such the two conferences are almost identical bar a few idiosyncrasies in speech patterns. Attendance at the conferences was critical for my analysis since my interest was in the manner in which the institutional self discourse wa s delivered. As such, I needed to examine the setting in which the conferences were held, as well as the transcriptions. While at the conferences, I paid particular a ttention to the arrangement of th e space, the imagery used by the speakers, the audience reaction to the content, and my own visceral reaction to what was being performed. As Charmaz (2006) exclaims, gat hering ethnographic data means starting by engaging in the studied phenomenaget involved! (24). My fieldnotes then became a part of my data and thus of my analysis. In addition to the audio transcriptions and my fieldnotes, I also gathered textual material made available and the books recommended by the speakers. LWO produced a booklet series that mirrored the conference sessions and the conference goers were frequently urged to buy it since it would serve as an important reminder of the co ncepts covered. Consequently I bought a set of these as it was an illustration of the way the message of the LWO conferences is spread outside the narrative confines of the day. In addition, I purchased five other books that were often mentioned by the speakers, and four of which were written by those giving speeches. The book titles are: Gods Grace and the Homosexual Next Door by Alan Chambers and the Exodus International Leadership Team; 101 Frequently Asked Questi ons About Homosexuality by Mike Haley; A Parents Guide to Preventing Homosexuality and Healing Homosexuality both by Joseph Nicolosi; and Someone I Love is Gay by Anita Worthen and Bob Davies. These, too formed an important part of my data as the LWO message was explained in far more detail than the conference structure allowed. 71

PAGE 72

The LWO conferences are open to the public at a cost of $50. FOTF also encourages attendance from educators, researchers and gay activists, providing that the latter are not disruptive. With that in mind, I did not identify myself as a researcher when registering for the conferences. Indeed, I was not asked my reas ons for attending when signing up. Once at the conferences, I made a conscious decision not to interact much with the other attendees. Following the model of Pontice lli (1996), who attended a week l ong ex-gay conference, I also did not identify myself as a re searcher once at the conferences thus rendering myself a covert researcher (Denzin 1968; Hilbert 1980). Like Pon ticelli, I also disclose d my sexual orientation, lesbian, when I was asked and would explain that I was at LWO to learn. It is interesting to note at this point that when other confer ence goers did speak to me, it was in very specific ways; I was either asked wh o the gay person in my life was, or if I had accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as my own personal Lord and Savior. If I answered me to the first question, then I was subsequently asked wher e I was on my journey (out of homosexuality), to which I would reply that I wasnt on that particular journey. Invariably, the person approaching me would tell me about their gay or lesbian loved one, which I later came to think of as their project gay, and would explain how prayer would save us from damnation. In answer to the second question I would answer that no, I had not accepted Jesus into my life, which would inevitably lead to my having to po litely but firmly decline the offer to say the sinners prayer at that time. Typically, the peopl e who approached me woul d be in their 50s and 60s and would identify as parents with children approximately my age. I was one of the few people by myself and it was this that seemed to arouse the other attendees interest, or perhaps pity. 72

PAGE 73

To interrogate the rhetorical production of the ex-gay self, I followed models of institutional ethnography of Br oad (2002), Loseke (2001), Gubrium & Holstein (2000a; 2001); Holstein & Gubrium (2000) and others (Chase 2001; Crawley 2002; Po llner & Stein 2001). As Gubrium & Holstein (2001) explain institutiona l ethnography document[s] the way social and discursive environments of pa rticular going concerns provide for the construction of troubled selves (16). In this sense, the focus is on how discourse structures identity. Traditionally, institutional ethnography typically locates the knower in the everyday world and forms a way of thinking that allows the ethnogr apher to see how the social world works (Campbell & Gregor 2004). Smiths (2005; 2006) conceptualization of institutional ethnography is concerned with textually mediated relations of ruling, meani ng that the focus is on how everyday individual experience is produced and then tied back into the institutional power structure by documentary forms of knowledge (DeVault &McCoy 2006: 19). In this approach the focus is more on how individuals are socially located, and then looks up at how indivi dual experience is mediated and affected by institutional text. My approach to institutional ethnography follows more along the lines of Gubrium & Holstein (2001), in which th e discursive environment of particular going concerns becomes key to understanding institu tional production of self identity. In my dissertation, institutional ethnogra phy allows me to interrogate how specific selves are produced by Focus on the Family under the narrative auspices of the Love Won Out conferences. Institutional ethnography as de fined by Gubrium & Holstein (2001) permits me as the researcher to examine the institutional discourse of the specific organization, in this case LWO whilst still being attuned to the narrative hows of institutional self c onstruction. By way of illustration, Broad (2002) utilizes the conceptualization of the institutional self to examine the production of social movement selves within one specific social movement organization. To do 73

PAGE 74

this, she examined the dominant narrative resour ces present in the organizational discourse, and used this to explain the particul ar self produced within this disc ursive environment. In a similar manner, I examine the narrative resources used by LWO to construct the ex-gay self. What rhetorical strategies do they use? What discours es do they draw on? What narrative resources are privileged? How is the heterosexual self produced? How is the troubled ex-gay self constructed? How do FOTF use LWO to speak back to the lesbian and gay movement? In other words, what are the conditions of possibi lity for the ex-gay self? I began my analysis with general understand ings developed from my knowledge of the available literature (see Loseke & Cave ndish 2001) and previous attendance at LWO conferences. Thematic analysis was undertaken using techniques adapted from interpretive grounded theory, in combination with the th eoretical and methodologi cal orientation of interpretive practice and analytic bracketing. Where interpre tive practice provided me with a general set of questions to use to interrogate the data, the how and the what questions (Gubrium & Holstein 1997; 2000a; 2001; Hols tein & Gubrium 2000; 2005), grounded theory gave a set of practical tools for data analysis that allowed the th eory to develop from the data (Charmaz 1983; 2000; 2005; 2006; Dey 2004; Glaser & Strauss 1967; Strauss & Corbin 1990). Grounded theory was developed by Glaser & Strauss in the late 1960s to enable qualitative researchers to have as rigorous a methodology as quantitative, positivistic research, and also to codify existing qualitative pract ice (Charmaz 2006; Dey 2004). In particular, Glaser & Strauss advocated discovery and theory development rather than logical deductive reasoning which relies on prior theoreti cal frameworks (Charmaz 1983: 110), such that theoretical categories are allowed to emerge from the data itself. More specifically, they argued that data collection and analysis should be simultaneous, analytic code s should be constructed from the 74

PAGE 75

data and not from previously developed hypothe ses, the researcher should use a constant comparative method whereby comparisons are made during each analytic stage, theory development should happen during each step of data collection and an alysis and that the researcher should engage in memo writing to help elaborate upon developing theoretical categories (Charmaz 2006). In other words, grounded theorists advocate methodological principles allowing analysis to proceed inductively from data to theory. Charmaz (2000; 2005; 2006) took the basic id ea of grounded theory and adapted it to incorporate a more interpretive orientation, t hus allowing the research er more freedom to integrate meaning construction into the analysis (Charmaz 2006). As she explains, I assume that neither data nor theories are di scovered. Rather, we are part of the world we study and the data we collect. We construct our grounded theories through our past and present involvements and interactions with people, perspectives and research practices (Charmaz 2006: 10). Consequently, constructivist grounded theory enables greater focus on meaning while not assuming one external version of reality; dat a do not provide a window on reality. Rather, the discovered reality arises from the interactive process and its temporal, cultural and structural contexts (Charmaz 2000: 524). This means, theref ore, that conceptual categories arise though our interpretations of data rather than emanating from them (Charmaz 2000: 505). Charmaz also argues that it is impossible for a re searcher such as myself to enter the field without having any orientating fram e of reference. She stresses that what I see and hear and understand is going to be related to my own bi ography and prior exposure to the substantive material. Embracing an interp retive approach to grounded th eory requires reflexive acknowledgement of my own frames of reference before, and during, the research endeavor. This being said, before I embarked on any initial c oding, I had done a lot of background reading in 75

PAGE 76

both evangelical religion and the de velopment of sexual identity, and this consequently served to orient my thinking somewhat as I entered the field. Constructivist grounded theory is firmly embedd ed within the social, local and historical context of the research project, such that the data and any theory produced are viewed as an interpretive rendering of the social world under consideration (Charm az 2000; 2006; 2008). In this project, I have already descri bed the historical and social cont ext that led to the formation of the Love Won Out conferences. This enables my analysis to focus on how the LWO speakers draw upon particular historical, social and local discourses to create meaning. To facilitate understanding of these interactive processes Charmaz suggests a two-stage coding process during which the data are categori zed and labeled. As she explains, coding is the pivotal link between collecting data and devel oping emergent theory to explain these data. Through coding you define what is happening in the data and begi n to grapple with what it means (Charmaz 2006: 46). The fundamental questions asked by grounded theorists when coding are: What do I see going on here? What are people doin g? What is happening? What kind of events are at issue here? How are they constructed? What do they mean? (Charmaz 1983; Glaser 1978). In a grounded theory project, codi ng is defined by what is seen in the data, not by any preconceived theoretical ideas. The first stage in the coding process, initial coding, merely investigat es what is happening in the data and involves naming each line or secti on of data (Charmaz 2006). This process can be undertaken word by word, line by line, incident by incident, or some combination of three (Charmaz 2006; Glaser 1978). The breakdown and na ming of the data in these small pieces makes it far easier to remain open to the data and to see nuances in it (Charmaz 2006: 50). 76

PAGE 77

Consequently, initial codes help to categorize data, prompt an in itial theoretical questioning of the data and lay clear any patterns or processes. For this project, my initial coding involved exam ining the textual data line by line and then naming what I saw. For example, in the following line from Nicolosi (2006a) in his talk on The Condition of Male Homosexuality, I developed a number of initial c odes. The line is An informed disapproval does not mean homophobia. Th at word we get hit over our heads. Here, the codes I initially developed were de bunking homophobia, reinterpretation of homophobia and use of the word by others. These codes all emerged from my reading of the data and not from any preconceived ideas of what I expected to see in the data. Following Charmaz (2006), I limited my initial codes to words that reflected action, rather than forcing them to fit external theories. Furthermore, I followed her guidelines in terms of working qui ckly through the initial coding process. I decided upon line by line coding for the textual material si nce it enabled me to remain open-minded about the data. My fieldnotes evidenced a different kind of data so I used incident coding to document my fi ndings as opposed to the line by line coding I used for the textual material. My fieldnotes are already in my own words so it made more sense to compare incidents and observations, than to label and name each line. Once initial coding has highlighted particular themes or conceptual categories, focused coding begins to synthesize these ideas to allow for explanation of larger segments of data; focused coding means using the most significant and/or frequent earlie r codes to sift through large amounts of data. Focused coding requires decisions about which initial codes make the most analytic sense to categorize your data incisively and completely (Charmaz 2006: 57). Focused coding, therefore, condenses the data into smaller, more manageable and analytically 77

PAGE 78

important sections. Furthermore, focused c oding is concerned with the development of conceptual categories rather than simp ly naming and labeling (Charmaz 1983). Focused coding entails active engagement with the data and the codes developed in the initial stage. As I examined the codes I had in itially developed, I expl ored which ones had the most explanatory power and from there came up with the focused codes. I then used these same codes to go back through my data and interrogate their utility. Fo r example, careful examination of my data led me to the idea of turning poi nts as the following two extracts from the transcription of Mike Hale ys (2006b) testimony show, Well finally I built up the courage and I sa t down with a female counselor the public school that I was at and I shared with her what I was thinking and what I was feeling. But because she had bought into the worlds idea about homosexuality she said Mike from what everything I understand about this issue you were born this way and this is how God has made you so to live a healthy productive life you are going to need to embrace that. Well to a 16 year old boy that hadnt hear d anything different you know what? That made sense. and I figured well if this is who I am and this is how God has made me and I need to experience that community. And fo r those of you that are not familiar with Southern California I grew up very close to an area known as Laguna Beach and Laguna Beach is very much like the San Francisco of Southern California probably a lot like the Fort Lauderdale of Southern California. And so it was very easy and very accessible to for me and so for the very first time at the age of 16 I walked into a gay bar. And let me tell you I thought I had come home So I began to go to the library and I began to do the research I be gan to look at these studies, these studies that I had heard talked about in the gay comm unity that we would talk about in the gay bars. And I began to look at these studies. The LeVay hypothalamus study, the Bailey-Pillard twin studies, the Dean Hamer gene study and you know what folks? The very foundation upon which my entire life was based absolutely began to crumble when I realized what these research ers themselves had said about their studies. That they didnt find a genetic link, that some in society like to say they do and my world crumbled. And I came to the end of myself. And as you can only imagine, one of my favorite stories in scripture is the story of the prodigal son. Of course I dont like that we call it the story of the prodigal so n? Because I dont believe that story is about a son at all. I believe instead that that stor y is about a father about a godly father that waits on his knees in prayer daily for his one that s lost. And so when I came to the end of myself, I did what the prodigal son did and I came home. The two extracts both indicate what I described as turning points in Mike Haleys life. One he identifies as pushing him toward the gay commu nity, and one back toward his faith, but both 78

PAGE 79

serve as markers in his life story. I then went ba ck thorough all my data to identify the myriad ways in which the speakers used the concept of turning point. For exam ple, in this extract speaker Joe Dallas (2006a) is talking about his own involvement with what LWO call pro-gay theology: And when I was first exposed to the teaching th ere I wanted very much to believe what I was hearing. And so based on that desire I embraced it, eventually joined both the church and the staff and even promoted many of the pro-gay theological arguments well be discussing this morning. Until January of 1984 when I realized I could no longer keep telling myself what I wanted to believe just because I wanted to believe it. What the Scripture plainly said was too difficult for me to keep getting around and that was when I repented and began my ow n journey of recovery Focused codes develop more into conceptual cate gories that have analyt ic importance. Turning points, for example, became an important section in my explanation of the way in which the exgay self is narratively developed by LWO The link between coding and the completion of analysis occurs through memo writing or the writing of analytic notes (Charmaz 2000; 2006). Memos are designed to enable the researcher to examine the focused codes for any pa tterns or links between them, to start to flesh out conceptual categories, makes comparisons between codes, and to link analytic interpretation with empirical reality. In other words, memo writing elaborates on ideas about data and codes and through this process, fosters a theoretical rendering of the data (Charmaz 1983: 121). According to Charmaz (2000), memo writing helps researchers: a. Grapple with ideas about the data b. To set an analytic course c. To refine categories d. To define the relationships among various categories e. To gain a sense of confidence and comp etence in their ability to analyze data 79

PAGE 80

These memos are then sorted by category and inte grated, thus revealing relationships and links between conceptual categor ies (Charmaz 1983). Analytic note writ ing occurs at all stages of the research process and forms the core of the grounded theory process. Memo writing is a key part of the constr uctivist grounded theory process. As I moved through the coding process, I would write frequent analytic notes to myself that would explain what I thought I was seeing in the data. My earlie st memos, for instance, started to examine the relationship between the different focused codes I had drawn up, and provided me with a space to discuss conceptual links between these ideas. In one analytic note, I star ted to explore the idea of mutable sexual identity, as this short extrac t illustrates, to be ex-gay means that sexual identity has to have changed. To sell this idea, the speakers have to prove that sexuality can change. It seems like they do this by referring to the Bible and show how to do it by talking about reparative therapy. I then used this brief memo to questi on how the speakers characterize these ideas and to interrogate how the mutability of sexuality identity is defined and proven by LWO This process facilitates a more abstract an alysis of conceptual categories. Memo writing continues throughout the research process, and much of it focuses on the constant comparative methods stressed by Glaser and Strauss in their original conceptualization of grounded theory (Charmaz 2006). New codes, memos and analytical categories are contin ually compared with one another and with the data to ensure that the data remains in the analysis. By using constructivist grounded theory in combination with analytic bracketing, I had a specific set of methodological tool s that were used to structur e my data analysis. Analytic bracketing is a term developed by Gubrium & Holstein (1997; 2000b; 2005) to explain the manner in which the researcher can capture th e interplay between discursive practice and discourses-in-practice (Gubrium & Holstein 20 00b: 499). As they explain in more detail: 80

PAGE 81

81 This procedure amounts to alternately bracketin g the whats, then the hows, in order to assemble a more complete picture of practic e. The objective is to move back and forth between constitutive activity and substantive resources, alternately describing each, making informative references to the other in the process. Either the activity or the substantive context becomes the provisional phenomenon, while interest in the other is temporarily deferred but not forgo tten (Gubrium & Holstein 1997: 119). In terms of my specific project, this entailed shifting my analytic lens from what substantively the LWO conferences are saying, to wh at narrative resources were drawn upon to say it. As a result, I alternately coded for both th e hows and whats in the data. In this study, I describe the sp ecific narrative resources used by LWO to construct the institutional self. The upcoming ch apters detail the rhetorical produc tion of the different kinds of selves produced by Love Won Out in service of the Focus on the Family message. These include the production of the troubled gay self in need of healing, which I document in the next chapter, and the pivotal ex-gay self which I cover in chapter 4. The final empirical chapter details the manner in which Focus on the Family encourage th e audience to become active agents of change themselves and in so doing, spread the message more widely. This dissertation documents the way in which a specific going concern provides the social and discursive environment necessary for production of a troubled self (Gubrium & Ho lstein 2001). In so doing, it answers the following charge from Gubrium & Holstein (2001), if we are to understand the self and identity in a postmodern world, we cant limit our attention to personal life; we must turn directly to the environments in which selves ar e constructed (16).

PAGE 82

CHAPTER 3 PRODUCING THE GAY SELF Troubled selves are construc ted in a number of different ways across the identity landscape. Different going concerns provide different conditions of possibility through which to understand self identity. Therefore, it is neces sary to focus on the specific discursive environments in which these selves are constructed. The Love Won Out conferences of Focus on the Family are designed to promote the message that homosexuality is both preventable and treatable (www.lovewonout.com). For this message to be successful, FOTF must first provide a discursive framework through which gays and le sbians can recognize themselves as troubled, and, therefore, in need of trea tment (Gubrium & Holstein 2001). In other words, to have an exgay self, there must firs t be a troubled gay self. This chapter examines the manner in which LWO first assembles the troubled gay self in order to produce the ultimate goal of the oppositi onal ex-gay self. More sp ecifically, I argue that the conference speakers must accomplish two ke y narrative goals: a rhetorical framework describing how gays and lesbians can change; an d a rhetorical framewor k describing how gays and lesbians must change. In addition, as I argue in chapter 1, I indicate that LWO uses the rhetorical strategies associated with countermovements to fight against gay and lesbian civil rights and I show how these are woven througho ut the production of the troubled gay self. Coding for the LWO rhetoric involved several steps to understand the major themes as they developed over the conferences. As I explained in the previous chapter, I used interpretive grounded theory to interrogate the manner in whic h the troubled gay or lesbian self is produced by LWO First, to facilitate investigation of the ga y self, I utilize Gubrium & Holsteins (1997; 2000a; 2001; Holstein & Gubrium 2000) conceptualization of analytic bracketing which allows 82

PAGE 83

me to isolate first the substantive themes (the w hats) and then the narrati ve strategies used to produce such a self (the hows). Therefore, I start the chapter with a discussion of how LWO constructs a gay and lesb ian self that can change since this the most pivotal issue. Without the ability to change sexual identit y, an ex-gay self would not ex ist. Second, I demonstrate how FOTF constructs the idea that gays and lesbians must change because they are argued to be a threat to themselves, their community and broade r society. Finally I offer an analysis of how mobilization of a typical gay or lesbian self is us ed as justification for the radical sexual identity transformation from gay to ex-gay. Gays and Lesbians Can Change The Whats of Change Focus on the Family, through the Love Won Out conferences, are describing to the audience a very specific self identity ex-gay, that fi rst requires radical id entity transformation. To accomplish this sexual identity transformation, the speakers at Love Won Out must first assemble a set of narrative res ources that allow gays and lesbians to recognize themselves as troubled and as having the ability to change Narrative production of a mutable gay self, therefore, becomes of paramount importance over the course of the day. If change is possible (Dobson 2001) then the audience must be equipped to discover how ( Love Won Out billboard). The message is of such critical importance th at it is immediately referenced in the first speech of the day. Indeed, initial exposure to the troubled, mutable gay self comes within a minute and a half in the first keynote address of the day given by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi. Nicolosi is a licensed psychologist specializing in the treat ment of homosexuality and the related gender identity disorder. In this first extract, the ability of the gay self to change is discursively produced both directly and indirectly. To wards the beginning of his speech on The Condition of Male Homosexuality, Nicolosi acknowledges his role in helping people to reach their ultimate goal of 83

PAGE 84

heterosexuality, and therefore implicates th e ability to change, and the privileging of heterosexual sexuality. To quote: I have the opportunity to work with men a nd women fulfill their goa l of heterosexual life .Now while our treatme nt may not work for everyone, I c ould say our basic cure rate is a third a third a third. A third, no change a third significant improvement, and a third cure And that the important thing I want to convey to you this morning, homosexual attraction is a symptom of some thing else. And thats what th e person learns in the course of therapy. That when they have a homo sexual attraction something just happened interrelationally. Something that threw them off, something that took away their power, something that disorientated them and that the symptom of homosexuality is a reparative a reparation of something that was just taken away from them (Nicolosi 2006a) Immediately, Nicolosi makes it clear to the audien ce that a heterosexual li fe is possible, that a heterosexual life is desirable, and that treatment and a successful cure achievable. This is so, he argues, because causal factors are associated w ith homosexuality and since those causal factors are recognizable, they can be unders tood and dealt with accordingly. Thematic development of these causal fact ors continues over the course of the day. Specifically, understanding of the developmen t of homosexuality is embedded within a psychological discourse reminiscent of earlier ge nder inversion theories. In brief, gender inversion theories assumed th at homosexuals had bodies, conduct, attitudes, tastes and personalities characteristic of the opposite sex (Terry 1999: 36) and this is what enabled samesex attraction. Accordingly, men desiring men would appear e ffeminate and women desiring women would appear masculinewhat Krafft-Ebi ng called the mannish lesbian (Erzen 2006; Seidman 1996; Terry 1999). Here, for exampl e, is Nicolosis (2006a) explanation of homosexuality in the first session of the day. He explains to partic ipants that: homosexuality is not a sexual problem. We see it primar ily as a gender identity problem. Diagnosis of homosexuality as a gender iden tity problem has its etiological roots in a particular psychological discursi ve framework, that of reparati ve therapy. Reparative therapy advanced gender inversion theories and placed them firmly in the realm of psychoanalysis. Now, 84

PAGE 85

rather than being a biological, congenital condi tion, and hence incurable, homosexuality comes to be seen as a pathological st ate related to developmental mental disorders that can be treated (Erzen 2006; Nicolosi 1991; 1993; Terry 1999). A booklet produced by LWO (2004) explains it thus: male homosexuality is a developmental probl em that is almost always the result of a problem in family relations, partic ularly between father and son ( The Roots and Causes of Male Homosexuality : 10). Reparative therapy produces a very distinct narrative structure through which the gay self can be understood. More specificall y, reparative therapy argues that homosexuality is the result of traumatic early life experi ences, including childhood sexual abuse, and problematic parentchild bonding. As Nicolosi states: Same sex behavior is an attempt to repair childhood emotional hurts. And its really such good news. It good news for our clients that co me to us because its basically saying youre not a sinful degenerate perverted weirdo, your homose xual behavior is your attempt to make that male bonding connection that you needed. (2006a) One third of our homosexual clients were sexually abused by older boys or men. (Nicolosi, 2006a) Of most concern to the speakers at LWO is the effect of inad equate parent-child bonding on gender identity and gender expression. Importan tly, the speakers consistently narrate gay or lesbian selves that have been inappropriately so cialized and are in activ e violation of normative masculinity or femininity, as I will demonstrate. This gender transgression is traced back to the parents and, depending on whether the discus sion concerns a gay man or lesbian woman, troubled relations with either the same sex or opposite sex parent. Construction of the gay male self within th e framework of reparativ e therapy is typically understood as a problem within the father-son relationship, with limited discussion of the mother-son dynamic. The father of the gay man is seen as the primary factor in the successful 85

PAGE 86

psychosexual development of the son. As Nicolosi (2006a), one of the most active proponents of reparative therapy explains: We know that men who have homosexual prob lems do not have good relationships with their fathers. We know this. And so the boy reaches out to the father. If hes warmly embraced and encouraged then hell get that ma sculine identification. If he reaches out to the father and experiences father as an em otionally distant, emotionally unexpressive, critical, hostile, aloof, the boy w ill reach out and experience what we call a narcissistic hurt and he will shut down and he will abandon his masculine strivings. To become appropriately masculine, the boy mu st have a good, strong relationship with his father. If that relationship fails, the boy will th erefore reject masculinity and embrace femininity and be at risk of a sexual id entity struggle (F ryrear 2006a). The lack of identification with the father creates a gender identity crisis which, for reparative therapists, is the root of homosexuality. More specifically, the boy feels insecure with his own masculinity which is a source of h umiliation and shame (H aley 2006a) and reaches out to other men for the affirmation and atten tion that should have come from the father: Gender identity which is to say our internal sense of ourselves as male or female determines sexual orientation. We romanticize the mysterious, the other than me qualities which we do not possess i.e. what we do not iden tify within ourselves. So the man with the homosexual problem does not feel sufficient in his masculine identity and he wants to connect with that masculinity in the other man. (Nicolosi 2006b). The implication, here, is that the gay man rec ognizes his own need for masculinity and rather than finding it in himself, he reaches out to other men to provide it for him. In other words, the gay self is now constructed as one that is insufficiently masculine, yet still searching for that elusive masculinity thro ugh eroticization of the other. In the words of Mike Haley (2006b), an ex-gay man; for the prehomosexual boy like myse lf, I feared the world of masculinity. I was much more comfortable in the world of women so when puberty kicked in I was drawn to the object of difference or to the object of curiosity. Male homosexuality is then seen as a 86

PAGE 87

reparative drive that sexualizes the need for same sex intimacy and male bonding (Robinson & Spivey 2007). The mother is also implicated in the de velopment of male homosexuality. For a boy to understand and embrace normative masculinity, he is e xpected to disidentify with his mother and bond with his father (Nicolosi 1991). If the mother does not allow this to happen, or remains too forcefully involved in the sons life, this can adversely affect his psychosexual development. This conceptualization, then, is reminiscent of the now-classic over bearing mother and weak father causal explanation of male homosexuality; Between mother and son we have over emotionally involved mother, dominant, a strong pe rsonality (Nicolosi 2006a). The mother of a gay son may have devalued masculinity more generally, criticized her husband and made him seem weak and ineffectual and emphasized femi nine identification. To quote: homosexuals have long been thought to have mothers who ar e overly close, protective or domineering. The mothers influence does seem to be a factor that can undermine the father-son relationship and sabotage the boys autonomy (Nicolosi 1991: 77). A more personal example of this is given by Nicolosi as he recounts the story of one of his patients, I remember a client saying to me I said what was the relationship with your father? He said oh I loved my father; my father was wonderful he was a saint. And I didnt usually hear that kind of report. So I was curious. I said tell me more about your father. Saying to myself if your father was saint, how come you didnt bond with him? What happened? So hes talking, hes wonderful he would entertain us, he was a clown, he would make us laugh at the dinner table and then my mother would scold him and make him stand in the corner throughout the rest of the dinner. (Nicolosi 1991: 77) Here there is a clear identification of the mother emasculating the father, portraying the father as weak and not encouraging the father-son bonding. Reparative therapy also pr ovides a framework for understanding the production of the lesbian self. Similar to the formul ation of the gay male self, the le sbian self is also understood in terms of parent-child bonding a nd traumatic life events, again sexual abuse being prevalent. A 87

PAGE 88

booklet produced by LWO and entitled The Roots and Causes of Female Homosexuality explains the effect of these life events: t raumatic events interfere with a persons very sense of being when the emotional, verbal or se xual abuser is male, which is th e majority of cases, the girl may fear involvement with, or hate all men (2004: 18 ). The trauma of sexual abuse, it is argued, can be enough to turn the traumatized girl away from men entirely, and push he r into relations with women. The question and answer session on lesbianism also highlights this; a woman sharing that shes been involved in lesbianism for 15 years tried to leave lesbianism through pastoral counseling, ha d childhood sexual abuse in her own life. Regrettably the pastor raped he r, she got pregnant as a resu lt, had a forced abortion, and asking how can she turn back to her faith that has failed her so miserably. (Fryrear 2006c) This is the very first question of the session and in answering it, the speakers underscore the presence and effects of se xual abuse in lesbian life. It is important to note here that each tim e lesbianism is discussed in detail it is consistently linked with sexual tr auma and an inability to trus t men. Fryrear (2006a) provides the following example, as a result of being sexually violated,[ a woma n] vowed: I will neve r trust a man, Ill never let a man touch me, Ill never be emotionally vulnerable with a man, Ill never get married, Ill never be a wife, Ill neve r be a mother. Whats left? I mean, whats left? When you close that many doors, make that many judgmen ts, make-make that many inner vows, its like almost, whats left? but a vulner ability to same-sex relationships. The speaker here is emphasizing the fact that wo men turn to other women only if there has been abuse in their past. The lesbian se lf being constructed is one that is so severely damaged that the only available outlet is another woman. In other words, lesbians are constructed as victims seeking solace as opposed to women activel y and passionately seeking other women. In addition to the perceived lack of trust in men, the presence of sexual trauma also affects how women understand femininity. The LWO speakers repeatedly construct the lesbian 88

PAGE 89

self as one that has abandoned feminine ideals as these are seen as a source of pain. In a session on The Condition of Female Homosexuality, Melissa Fryrear (2006a) explai ns how this works: In the years, again, of having ministered to hundreds of women it came as no surprise to me of women who had been sexually violate d, there was a rejection of her feminine identity, a rejection of her womanhood because it was a liability to be a woman . Because it meant that you would be hurt if you were a woman. And so you rejected the feminine identity, rejected womanhood much less, men, they re not safe, theyre not trustworthy, so rejection, or closing of relationship with men and then a turning exclusively instead to relationships with women. Again, lesbians are being narratively defined as women who have been traumatized by men and are looking for safe companionship with women. Over the course of the conference, the lesbia n self is never define d as being explicitly sexual. Instead, it seen as a tr oubled self that is searching for emotional bonding, not sexual fulfillment. Lesbians, therefore, are still seen as proper women insofar as the fact that women are perceived to not have sexual desire. Rath er, women are understood to have a craving for emotional attachment, as the following quote, from the session on lesbianism referenced above, illustrates; At its core, lesbianism is not about sex, because women are more often than not relationally wired, emotionally wired. lesbia nism is more about connecting and because were emotionally, relationally wired. This need for emotional bonding is what we would call a yearning in her he art to find a sense of comple tion, or a sense of wholeness within this real, or imagined, relationship w ith another woman. Its an inner-driving need for nurture, for love, for acceptance, affirmation. (Fryrear 2006a) This emotional desire is due, again, to a fract ured parent-daughter bond. More specifically, a weak bond between mother and daughter is cited as a causal fact or in the development of a lesbian self. Mothers of lesbian daughters are descri bed in two main ways; 1) a doormat relationship whereby the mother is perceived as downtrodden or ineffective and subject to the whims of men; (2) a my best friend relatio nship in which the daughter provides for the 89

PAGE 90

emotional needs of the mothers, but the daughters emotional needs are not met. In both of these cases, the daughter perceives rejec tion from the mother and begins to emotionally withdraw. As a result, she is seen to be vulnerable to a sexua l identity struggle since the withdrawal from the mother also implies a rejection of femininity. This is also understood to be a rejection of wifehood and motherhood which are discussed as the keys to normative femininity. Fathers are also seen as critical in the adoption of an appropriately feminine gender identity, as the following quote from The C ondition of Female Homosexuality demonstrates, because they have the power to shape their daughters perception of men in general, Well daddies are very important in little girls lives too, for a few a dditional reasons. There are four things imperative fo r a father to convey to his daughter. Those are protection, attention, adoration and support oftentimes three important things happen as a result. One, that little girl begins to grow up and develop and mature, into a sense of worth as a person. Because of the attention, and the affirm ation and support her father gives her, she begins to grow up in a sense of worth as a pe rson. Because father is the opposite gender, as she grows up, she also begins to develop a sense of value in the fact sp ecifically that shes female. Shell begin to grow into a sense of value that shes a young woman, a little girl, a female. And then third, fathers, at least for a season, represent the entire world of masculinity to her, they represent; he represen ts the universal world of men. And so in her life involved in her life, he be gins to help show her and t each her how to relate to the opposite sex, in a healthy way. (Fryrear 2006a) Fathers, then, bear the primary responsibil ity for helping their daughters understand the importance of the female role, specifically the re lationship of femininity to masculinity. Female worth, therefore, is defined in dir ect relation to the masculine. If the girl is not encouraged by her father, the result could be a repudi ation of femininity as she may not have learned the value and honor of being female. Melissa Fryrear describes a scenario in which a teenager was heading off to the prom and decided to wear a dress and makeup. She presented herself to her father who asked her who hit you in the eyes? with the following consequences: Susan remembered that in her life, that moment in her life, because it was a risk for her to step out into the world of femininity, in to the world of womanhood. Regardless of how well she did it or thought she did it, taking that risk of stepping out into that world and desperately needed the affirmation of her father to affirm her in that. Susan said she ran up 90

PAGE 91

to the bathroom with tears st reaming down her face, ran into the sink with a washcloth and rubbed her face until it was r-until it was raw and she vowed: I will never ever ever do that again. And 15 years later when she told th is story she had never worn a dress again in her life, and had never worn makeup, had neve r taken that risk again into the world of femininity or womanhood. (Fryrear 2006a) The father in this anecdote failed to affirm his daughters budding femininity. As a result, she turned away from womanhood and embraced a lesbian identity that enabled her to feel safe and secure. Consequently, use of reparative therapy as a discursive framework privileges a narrative strategy clearly indicative of the idea that gays and lesbians can change because their homosexuality is framed as a coping mechanism for past traumas and neglect. Having identified the source of homosexual feelings, the speakers at Love Won Out then describe the conditions necessary for identity transformation, which I will discuss in more detail in the next chapter. What is apparent, however, is that these root causes are utilized to fight same-sex attraction; the contributing factors add up to this: you have sexualized un met needs. So the healing process includes finding appropriate ways to meet these le gitimate needs through healthy activities and relationships. As you do so, you will notice the longing for inappropriate activities and relationships me lts away (Haley 2004: 130). Reparative therapy, therefore, provides the narrativ e resources necessary for gays and lesbians to identify themselves as troubled, and start to r ealize how they may be able to undergo a radical sexual identity transformation. The Hows of Change The speakers at LWO use a number of different disc ursive strategies to produce a troubled gay or lesbian self. Bracketing the substantive themes, identifie d above, allows me to interrogate the process by which these themes are producedwhat Gubrium & Holstein (1997; 2000; 2001) call the hows of interpretive practice. 91

PAGE 92

Narrative production of a changeable gay self is legitimized by an app eal to both scientific and divine authority. In this first example, Nicolosi (2006a) immediately tells the audience that he has both the professional expert ise and scientific knowledge to be able to story the gay self: I have had the privilege of working as Mike said over the last 15 years with over a 1000 men who have wanted to change. Besides that we have worked with families, 100s of families who are concerned about their GID ge nder identity disordered daughter or erm child. We are talking very young ages. Many in my own profession do not want to touch this topic of homosexuality and I think they are missing out on very gratifying occupation It is also important to point out that Nicolosi is the first speaker of the day, consequently setting the tone for the rest of the conference. In his introduction from Mike Haley, both his qualifications and his clinical e xpertise are referred to. In add ition he is always named as Dr Nicolosi whereas the other speakers are called by their first names. The use of a scientist as the introductory speaker gives the conference an aura of credibility and scientif ic authority that is referenced throughout the day. The keynote address after lunch, which is also a critic al time of day since it sets up the afternoon sessions, is also given by man with a doctoral degree. His cred entials are also empha sized, both by the person introducing him and throughout the speech. Furtherm ore, his biography, which is available in both the conference guide and the LWO website stresses, as a veteran and award winning teaching, principal, public policy analyst and colle ge professor Dr Carpenter currently serves as an assistant professor at a major research university system ( Love Won Out Conference Guide 2006:8). He is given an authoritative voi ce through both his professional experience within the educational system and his current position as a university professorwith the emphasis on major research establishment. I argue that the privileging of scientific discourse allows Love Won Out to persuasively argue that gays and lesbians can change and also to be able to claim they are the ones speaking the truth about homosexuality. This first quote highlights the impor tance of scientific 92

PAGE 93

knowledge, let's face it: science is fact not theory ( Straight Answers: Exposing the Myths and Facts About Homosexuality 2003:10). Innumerable times over the course of the conference, the speakers refer to what the fac ts are or they reference scien tific studies to validate a point. For instance, the facts are th at there is a connection between boyhood sexual abuse by an older male and homosexuality (Nicolosi 2006a) and there are thousands and thousands of different academic studies demonstrating that kids do better on every measure of well being when they are raised by their married, biological parents (Mai er 2006) or many studies show there is a high correlation between gender non conformity and adult homosexuality. (Nicolosi 2006b). Once scientific authority is established, the following claims can be made; a future heterosexual life. The evidence is clear. When parents affirm a chil ds sex appropriate gender identity the child is much more likely to be heterosexual (Nicolosi 2006b). Scientific authority is also used to refute tr uth claims from the lesbian and gay civil rights movement, specifically those naming a biologi cal basis for homosexuality. Repeatedly, the audience is told there is no credible scientif ic evidence (Carpenter 2006a) supporting a genetic basis for homosexuality. In more detail, all the findings combined from the study of twins, gene linkage studies or brain dissections cannot prove th at homosexuality is genetic. What is clear is that the scientific attempts to demonstrate that homosexual attraction is biologically determined have failed ( Straight Answers 2003: 9). In other words, LWO provides factual support for their discursive claims against be ing born gay. As Gubrium & Ho lstein (1997) note to claim something as a fact, one must show that proper pro cedures have been followed to establish it as objectively known (137). LWO accomplish this through th eir repeated scientific documentation, this allowing them to argue; s o to answer the question are homosexuals 93

PAGE 94

attractions biological? The conclusi ve answer is that there is No support in scientific research for the conclusion that homosexuality is biological determined ( Straight Answers 2003: 10) Discursive formulation of a gay self that can change also draws upon divine authority, with specific reference to biblical conceptu alizations of sexuality. With a belief system embedded in wider evangelical discourse, including a belief in the Bible as the actual word of God and which I explained in chapter 1, this is a particularly powerful rhetorical strategy. The possibility of sexual identity transformation is first discussed in relation to the perceived immutability of homosexuality: we do not believ e it is genetic, Chris tian worldview, the Bible proves homosexuality is not genetic (Fryrear 2006a ). If the Bible asserts this, and the Bible is the literal word of God, then cl early sexuality can be changed. The idea of biblical sexuality contradicting the idea of being born gay is also underscored in relation to what is characteri zed as the reality of Gods persp ective, from Gods perspective, theres one orientation, we were all created heterosexual G od created heterosexual people (Haley 2006b). This is neatly su mmarized by Haley (2004) in his book 101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality in answering the question can a homosexual really change? If you believe in an all powerful God the answer is the loudes t possible Yes! First Corinthians 6 spells this out gloriously when it proclaims that true freedom for homosexuals can be found in that one four-le tter, life-giving word f ound in the first phase of verse 11: and that is why some of you were. After listing a number of vices that focus our need for Christs forgiveness, Paul proc laims this truth for all mankindregardless of what sin has beset them the true change is possible through the provi sion of Christ. (127) The message is clear, homosexuals have the option of changing their se xual identity once religious faith is embraced and the underlying causes of homosexuality understood. Gays and lesbians must change 94

PAGE 95

The rhetorical production of a gay and le sbian self that can change only takes Love Won Out so far in their desire for sexual identity tr ansformation and the eventu al construction of an ex-gay self. Once gays and lesbians have been provided with a narrativ e framework for storying their troubled selves, they must also have incentive to undergo painful self reconstruction. In this next section, I discuss how LWO present interpretive resources necessary to hold those same troubled selves accountable for undergoing that change. As I suggest in chapter 1, defining the ob ligation to change wi thin an evangelical religious organization is obviously going to underscore the importa nce of biblical constructions of appropriate sexuality. Speakers consistently draw upon a discur sive standard that describes homosexuality as sinful. Although I will cover this in greater detail in the upcoming chapter, there are some key points that need to be a ddressed here. In concert with the idea that homosexuality is sin is the fact that individuals must repent in order to get to heaven. Hence, gays and lesbians must repent of sin in order to be saved, God is clear about the consequences of unrighteousness such as hom osexual behavior. Yet, as wi th other sinful lifestyles, homosexuality is forgiven if the person repe nts his or her actions and turns to God ( Straight Answers 2003: 25). Gays and lesbians are seen to be under di vine mandate to change when their sexual conduct is viewed through th e religious framework that LWO present. Speakers draw upon a traditional religious discourse that constructs homosexuality in relation to what is called Gods created intent. As the following suggests, human sexuality is storied as relations only between male and female within the marital union, from the beginning God made the male and female. For this cause will a man leave his father and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one this was the created intention for the hum an marital and sexual ex perience that it be 95

PAGE 96

monogamous that it be heterose xual (Dallas 2006a). In this extract, Da llas is drawing the boundaries of appropriate sexualit y. Moreover, homosexuality is seen as particularly egregious as it violates Gods original design for men and women. The primary narrative resource dr awn upon relates back to the ideas of reparative therapy discussed earlier. Reparative therapy constructs a mutable sexual identity and gives a clear indication of the root causes of homosexual ity. These root causes are explained as a psychosexual developmental disorder related to inappropriate bonding between parents and children and exposure to traumatic life events. This discursive framework pr oduces a self that is suffering from a serious identity disorder, and is seeking to repair childhood emotional hurts through same-sex expression. In general, the ps ychological profile presen ted is one in which homosexuals are depicted as pathetic and unfulfilled; gay men and lesbians constantly seek parental substitutes as love objectsa doomed and tragic quest (Herman 1997: 71). This depiction of homosexuality as a de velopmental mental disorder frequently characterizes selves that are empt y, lonely and emotionally cripple d, as these excerpts indicate, homosexuality is always prompted, ALWAYS PROMPTED, by an inner sense of emptiness. (Nicolosi 2006a) And so if theres a breakdown in a same sex relationship with the mother, a same-sex love deficit can occur. (Fryrear 2006a) The signs are loneliness, anxiety, depression, maladaption. (Nicolosi 2006b) What is notable in all of these quotes is the stress placed on selves that are empty and emotionally deficient. In other words, selves that are psychologically unhealthy. The underlying thread suggests that to become healthy there must be a radical identity change. Emotional immaturity is also referenced as a consequence of inadequate parent-child bonding. Gays and lesbians are often infantilized and depicted as acting out against straight society. Haley describes an incident with his Christian mentor that sets the two selves against one 96

PAGE 97

another. Here, Haley, in an attempt to provoke his mentor had been talking about his sexual activities the previous weekend and his mentor respectfully declined to listen, then the following exchange takes place, But I want to let you know that theres not go ing to be anything that youre going to be able to do or say thats going to push me away so lets just stop that game right now. And I was like, okay. And it would take the wind out of my sails and I w ould have to go on to the next game. Until he figured that one out (Haley 2006b) The self being storied is one that is immature a nd playing games, especially when read against the sensible adult mentor. Nicolo si (2006a) also refers to gay me n as emotionally immature and likens them to children who have never grow n up, Have you ever seen a gay pride parade? These are like a bunch of little boys. Infantiliz ing gay men is a powerful discursive tool, and again implicates these troubled se lves in a need to change. Conceptualization of homosexuality as unh ealthy is a consistent theme throughout the conference. Speakers routinely draw on interpre tive resources that frame homosexuality as pathological. Nicolosi even give s a detailed definition of path ology to ensure the audience is clear on how damaging homosexuality is: pathology is defined as maladaptive, self defeating, self destructive behavior. Directly linking se xuality and pathology makes the need for a cure imperative. Portrayal of the physical consequences of engaging in homosexual sex also highlights the need for sexual identity transformation. The following quotes from two different conference sessions detail the myriad ways in which gay and lesbian selves are sick, and provide compelling reasons for change: For example the 1991 study in the Archives of General Psychiatry found that there were substantially higher levels of mental health problems including suicide attempts, anxiety disorders, major depression, eating disorders, substance abuse. And thats just one study. Many, many studies suppor t this. (Nicolosi 2006b) 97

PAGE 98

And frankly I believe we should also be gr ieved by the consequences of homosexual behavior. Um, as many of you know, its linked to some, some very tragic health consequences, elevated rates of psychiatric illness, drug and alcohol abuse and suicide. And research suggests that the life expectancy of a gay man is about 7 to 20 years shorter than that of a heterosexual man. (Maier 2006) Haley (2004) also details studies in which both gay men and lesbians are said to smoke and drink more, have greater levels of ment al illness, be more at risk from domestic violence and be far more promiscuous than heterosexuals. Accord ingly the onus is on homosexuals to take responsibility for their actions. The theme of pathology and mental illness is furthered with a depiction of gay men as disease carriers. More specifically, gay men are portrayed as being far more sexually promiscuous and therefore at risk of contra cting sexually transmitted diseases. Of primary importance here is, of course the association between gay male promiscuity and AIDS, The chances of a heterosexual contracting th e HIV virus from one episode of unprotected sexual intercourse is one in a hundred and seventy five thousand. Do you know what that statistic is for a gay man that engages in one episode of unprotected homosexual intercourse? Its one in 165. Not 165,000, 165 (Haley 2006b) Haley (2004) is also careful to note in his book that AIDS infection rates are rising fastest amongst the gay male population. Moreover, in term s of promiscuity, he references a study in which 28% of gay men were said to have had 1000 or more sexual partners, which far exceeds the numbers in the heterosexual community. Linking promiscuity with homosexuality and disease is achieved thus: Solid irrefutable evidence proves that there are lethal consequences to engaging in the defining features of male homosexualitythat is promiscuity. Accordi ng to one report, the risk of anal cancer rises an astoundin g 4000% for those engaging in homosexual intercourse and doubles again fo r those who are HIV positive. ( Straight Answers 2003: 12) Lesbian women are not immune from depic tion as promiscuous and diseased, despite construction of lesbianism as emotio nal, not sexual. A booklet produced by LWO to detail the myths and facts about homosexualit y deals with the perception that lesbian relationships are 98

PAGE 99

healthier than gay male relationships by re sponding lesbian rela tionships are equally unhealthy, and just as life-threaten ing as gay male relationships (Straight Answers 2003: 21). In particular, its important that women know the c onsequences of their choices. Lesbians are not excluded from the realities of pr omiscuity, like the HIV virus ( Straight Answers 2003: 22). Both gay men and lesbians, then, run the risk of cont racting life-threatening di seases if they do not change their sexual identity. The substantive themes I have detailed above all deal with the indi vidual consequences of homosexuality, and therefore the need to change on a personal level. Love Won Out also draw on wider cultural narratives to stress the importan ce of identity transformati on, which I will describe in detail in chapter 5. One thing that is cri tical, however, is the connection drawn between homosexuality and pedophilia. Such a potent na rrative resource makes it absolutely imperative for gays and lesbians to change their sexuality and accordingly be less of a threat to children. This association is indirectly referenced by Nicolosi (2006a), /3 of our homosexual clients at our clinic were sexually abused by older boys or men. And the personal histories of gay men often report same sex abuse, and we know that th ose who were abused become abusers. Besides that in addition, gay activists are more likely to lobby for lowering the sexual age of consent. Fryrear (2006c) expresses the re lationship more frankly within the male population there are a disproportionate number of gay identified men who are involved in pedophilia. Undoubtedly, the pressure is on homosexuals to accept that their selv es are troubled and to work on healing. If they do not, not only are they a da nger to themselves, but also a da nger to othersmost especially children. To accomplish sexual identity transformation, ga y men and lesbians must first learn what thought, behaviors and emotions ar e consistent with inappropriate sexual expression (Wolkomir 99

PAGE 100

100 2006). This necessitates discursive formulation of a gay self that is troubled and in need of healing. Narrative production of such a self dr aws upon interpretive reso urces suggesting that gays and lesbians can, with specific reference to reparative therapy, and ga ys and lesbians must change, with specific referen ce to pathological behavior. Production of this gay self is accomplished through a process of typification, described by Gubrium & Holstein (1997) as a means of categorizing and unde rstanding typical behavior: experience makes no sense until it has been cate gorized as evidently an instance of some known type (138). This enables people to make se nse of a particular discursive account and subsequently ascribe other characteristics, activ ities, motives to objects and actions (Gubrium & Holstein 1997: 138). In terms of a gay or lesbian self producti on, typification allows audience members to assign a range of mean ings to what gay entails. Over the course of the conference, the speak ers assemble a range of discursive resources to mobilize the typical gay or lesbian self. Gays are constructed as mentally ill, pathological, promiscuous, traumatized, emotionally immature and sinful. Typification in this manner has radical consequences for self identity and self construction since it also provides justification for particular courses of actionse xual identity transformation from gay to ex-gay. In the next chapter I detail how this self transformation is achieved.

PAGE 101

CHAPTER 4 BECOMING EX-GAY Mobilization of the typical gay or lesbian self draws on narra tive resources that signify a certain kind of sexual identity. The gay and lesbian selves constructe d are a critical component of the institutional selves produced by Love Won Out for the evangelical religious organization, Focus on the Family. Narrative production of the tr oubled gay or lesbian self implicates one that can sexual identity and must change it. Gays and lesbians are depicted as a danger to themselves and to others, sinful, and psychologically da maged. Consequently, with this worldview, Love Won Out must develop a rhetorical framework that fo sters development of ex-gay and ex-lesbian selves that can be healed from the trials and tr ibulations of their former lives. This framework draws upon discourses of religion, psychotherapy, a nd self-help movements, as I will explain in this chapter. The most critical aspect of the ex-gay self is that it develops primarily through a process of religious identity transformation, which subsequen tly directs the sexual id entity transformation. Over the course of this chapter, I describe the story of a self that has come to recognize itself as troubled, as I explained in the pr evious chapter, one that emba rks on a healing journey using the discursive frameworks provi ded by evangelical religion and reparative therapy. The ex-gay self produced is one that can onl y be understood in relation to speci fic constructions of biblical sexuality, that is that the only tr ue God-given sexual identity is heterosexual. Therefore I begin this chapter with a discussi on of the narrative resources Love Won Out draws upon to produce the religious self. I also describe the discursive production of sexual identity transformation, and the strategies used to maintain the ex-gay se lf. I conclude by examini ng the narrative tension inherent in an ex-gay self that is described as both immutable and changeable written on the body and socially constructed. 101

PAGE 102

The narrative resources used by Love Won Out to mobilize the typical ex-gay self are predominantly those associated with biblical constructions of acceptable behavior within the specific religious doctrine associated with Focu s on the Family. As I described in chapter 1, FOTF is an evangelical religious organization and, as such, storie s an institutional self that reflects those ideals. More specif ically, narrative construction of an ex-gay self is confined within the biblical conditions of possibility for gender and sexuality. Sin and Salvation To successfully perform the radical identity tr ansformation from gay to ex-gay, there must first have been a self realization of the problematic nature of homosexuality. The speakers at LWO routinely draw upon biblical constructions of the sinful nature of homosexuality to detail their initially reluctant acceptance of these truth claims. Havi ng said that, however, acceptance of the idea that homosexuality is sinful is pr eceded by fervent denial of religion. During the testimonies of Mike Haley and Melissa Fryrear, the ex-gay and ex-lesbian respectively, each recounts significant episodes in wh ich they symbolically shut reli gion out of their lives in order to embrace a homosexual identity. In this upcomi ng extract, Haley (2006a) describes his initial confusion surrounding the negot iation of his religious id entity and his burgeoning homosexuality, Im growing up in the church. As a matter of fact Im the kid in the youth group that every youth pastor would have wanted. If there wa s a mission trip I had five of my unsaved friends going on that trip that Id pray for. I was there early to set up chairs I was very, very involved. But I began to become very confused as you can only imagine. I remember at the age of 15 going to a la rge Christian camp. I went fo rward and rededicated my life and I felt at that point the Lord put a call on my life to full time Christian service specifically as it pertained to dealing with youth. But I was like ok God wait a minute Im very confused and part of my confusion stemmed from the attitude of the pulpit that I was receiving from the Church that I was growing up in. The church that I was raised in said there was a hotter place in hell for gays and lesbians or that Jesus had to hang a little longer on the cross for people that were like that. 102

PAGE 103

Here, Haley clearly identifies his own strong religious orienta tion and the difficulty he had reconciling that with his sexual f eelings, and that Jesus had to su ffer more for it. He continues, Thats what explained all of t hose feelings as I was growing up. Some of those developmental processes Dr. Nicolosi just talked about. I misint erpreted them because I believed at that point that I was born gay and I figured well if this is who I am and this is how God has made me then I need to go and I need to experience that community (Haley 2006a). Haley makes it a point to stress that he was under the impression that his homosexuality was God-given, due to misperception of de velopmental processes and the influence of misguided cultural ideology. Further on in his testimony, he describes his last attempt to reconcile his faith with his sexuality. In this excerpt, Haley (2006a) is having a discussion about his homosexuality with his youth pastor who subseque ntly suggests that he needs to pray more to rid himself of his unwanted sexual feelings, So what do you think I did as a 17-year-old ju nior in high school that didnt want to be gay? I read my Bible and I read my Bible a nd I read my Bible and I prayed and I prayed and I prayed. I remember one night kneeling next to my bed and saying Lord Im not going to stop praying until I feel different only to fall asleep and waking up feeling just as different as I had when I started to pray .B ut I was told to put God in a box to pray to him and to read his word and he owed it to me to change me. Well how many of you have been Christians long enough to know you dont tell God what to do. So when God didnt do what I told him he should do I got angry at my faith, I got angry at the church, I denied that God existed, I became hateful towards the Christian community. I hated God, denied that he existed and I lived the next 12 years involved in the gay community. Haleys testimony, which is the second speech of the day, provides a clear narrative grounding for an ex-gay self that undergoes a primarily religious transformation, whereas the troubled gay self is one that has rejected re ligion and turned its back on faith. The storying of the troubled gay self in terms of the reject ion of religion is a consistent theme over the course of the conference. Fr yrear (2006b) explains her own experiences, Theres a Sunday morning that stands out to me I can see it as clearly as yesterday. I was 13-years-old at the time, I was sitting in the sanctuary with my parents, waiting for that 103

PAGE 104

service to begin and I picked up a Bible that wa s resting on the back of the pew in front of me, and I began to very casually flip through the Bible that morning. Well it fell open to the book of Leviticus. And the 18th chapter of Leviticus. And I began to read through and I got to verse 22, that a man should not lie with another man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable...I only read the verse twice, but it had a very decisive effect on me that Sunday morning, because after I read it again, I made the decision to close that Bible, I placed it on the back of the pew in front of me and just as I had done with the Bible, I made the decision to close my heart to God, because basically I misread the verse. When I read the verse, I read, Melissa is detestable. I was 13; I was already questioning whether I might be gay. I was already questioni ng my sexual identity. And so when I read that verse, I thought that that s what God was saying about me that I was detestable. And so I made a conscious decision to close my heart to Him. In this excerpt, Fryrear construc ts gay and lesbian selves as irre ligious, having made a conscious decision to renounce faith, because th eir faith has no room for them. Despite initial rejection of religion, gays and lesbians can come to a gradual acceptance of biblical teachings on sexuality through the evan gelism of an outside mentor. In fact, evangelical religious doctrine suggests that church members should be involved in actively recruiting new members or converts, including troubled gays or lesbians th at can be healed once brought back into the fold (Marsden 2006; Smith 1998; Utter & Storey 2007). Evangelism, or sharing of the gospel, is regularly cited by the speakers as a critical component for religious awakening. Haley, describes his moment of transformation through evangelism that he experienced just as he was about to engage in anonymous sex with a man he picked up at a gay gym. The man suddenly said I am sorry to ha ve led you on, but Im a Ch ristian and I am trying to walk away from this. This man then went on to ask if he could tell Haley his story. Haley (2006a) then chronicles what happened next, So I got in this guys car and we began to drive around the southern California area where my family still lives and he began to talk to me about his counselor, a guy named Jeff Konrad that was helping him to understand th e roots of his homosexuality. How he too had not bonded with his father, how in elementa ry school he was much more comfortable being with the girls than he was with the boys. How every day in junior high and high school he was peer labeled and called fag. And he talked about all these things and he talked how too he had just happened to have been sexually abused... Now mind you, its 104

PAGE 105

quarter after midnight were sit ting in his car, hes going on and on about these things that hes been learning. Some of these things ar e ringing true of my own life. Hes going on and on about his counselor, this man named Jeff Jeff is telling me this and Jeff this and Jeff that and all of a sudden his eyes got big, bigger than I've ever seen anybody/s eyes get in my entire life. And he said you are never goi ng to believe this but theres Jeff right now . So I got what I now know was th e holy spirit goose bumps and the Lord brought back to my mind a verse that I had memorized as a young boy in vacation Bible school: was my arm too short to rescue you? In this excerpt, Haley clearly identifies the moment that he began what he later calls his walk out of homosexuality. The self being co nstructed is one that is being le d toward to the realization of its own troubled nature and th e need for radical identity transformation through religious conversion. Evangelical religious doctrine is also used to construct the si nful nature of homosexuality and the subsequent need for repentance, as I brie fly described in the previous chapter. In a book written by Alan Chambers (2006), one of the spea kers at the conferences and other influential figures at the leading ex-gay organizationExodus Internationalhom osexuality is described as abominable to God (30). However, he also stre sses that humanitys fallen nature is such that all are sinners, with homosexuality being no wors e a sin than anything else. Later in the same book, one of the authors offers the following, the church was correct in calling homosexuality a sin, but as with all sins, God offers forgivenes s, restoration and tran sformation (Goeke 2006: 109). Accordingly, homosexuals can be saved from their sin if they repent and offer themselves to God. Indeed, repentance is mandate d within this discursive formulation for any and all sinners as one speaker notes, the Bible says, though, that God doesnt want anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance (Fryrear 2006b). Intertwined with notion of sin and repentan ce is the key concept of change. In keeping with other aspects of the narrative formulation of the ex-gay self, change is conceptualized within a biblical framework. Importantly, all of the speakers describe hearing the message of sin, 105

PAGE 106

repentance and change through the evangelism of an outside sour ce. This from Haleys (2006a) testimony, This man named Jeff Konrad that would not leave me alone. I would move, I wouldnt give him my forwarding address hed track me down, hed send me birthday cards. He would say I dont even know if you live at this address but I wanted to let you know that I love you and that God loves you and that change is possible. Id write him back the nastiest ugly letters about his god about his faith. I was born this way, leave me alone. Hed write me back, Mike you sa id in your last letter that yo u were born this way I want you to go to the library, I want you to find me a study that will prove to me that you were born gay and if you can do that I will change the way that I believe and I thought yes theres one more stupid Christia n that I am going to get to change their mind . .The very foundation upon which my entire lif e was based absolutely began to crumble when I realized what these researchers themse lves had said about their studies. That they didnt find a genetic link, that some in societ y like to say they do a nd my world crumbled. The evangelist, Konrad, is descri bed not only as a tireless crusader but also as instrumental in helping Haley realize that his sexuality was not, in fact God-given, and c ould be changed if his faith is once more embraced. Melissa Fryrear, too, describes her transformati on from a lesbian self to an ex-lesbian in terms of the evangelism of others. In her case, however, she was introdu ced to religion before she committed herself to change. For example, Bill was a Christian. And Bill knew that I was living homosexually Bill was a very wise and mature man as well and that he knew I firs t needed a savior, that I first needed Jesus Christ in my life and so he put homosexuality on the back-burner a nd with that sense of trust that built I began to ask him questions a bout his faith and about Christianity. Is Jesus real? Is Heaven and Hell real? And what ha ppens when you die and what about this sin thing? ... and so something spiritually bega n to stir in my heart. (Fryrear 2006b) Once she started to feel the pull of her religion, she began to tentatively return to church. In the following two selections from her testimony, Fryr ear describes her first ventures back into religious life and uses them to emphasize the fact that as a le sbian what she lacked most was religious faith. In fact, homosexuality and religion are constructed as mutually exclusive: And so one Saturday night I asked my live-in le sbian partner if she wanted to go to church the next morning. And I dont know if I was more shocked that I asked her or if I was-I was I was more shocked that she agreed to go .So you can imagine that scene two 106

PAGE 107

lesbian women sitting in the middle of this church, small congregation of predominantly older couples, to say we stood out is an understatement. (Fryrear 2006b) Fryrear (2006b) continues, My live-in lesbian partner actually gave me my first Bible. Not sure where that lines up with your theology. Lesbian self identity is repeatedly portrayed as incompatible with religious identity. Moreover, there is an unmistakable incredulity expressed at the idea that homosexua lity and faith can be reconciled: after both of these statements the audience laughed l oudly and at length. The possibility of change is presented to the troubled gay or lesbian self in the form of specific biblical truth claims regarding the nature of sin, sexuality and salvation. From Chambers book inherent in the message of the gospel is the idea that through Jesus we all become new creatures. The gospel is about changed lives. It should follo w that, through Jesus Christ, the homosexual can likewise experience change (Goeke 2006: 127). What is being explained here is one of the most critical ideas addressed over the course of the conference and undergirds the construction of the ex-gay self: sexual identity transfor mation can occur through religious identity transformation and the accepta nce of faith. The discursive formulation of change is repeated over the course of the conf erence and throughout the re lated textual material: true change is possible through the provision of Christ (Haley 2004: 127). In other words, the pivotal part of transforma tion from gay to ex-gay is defined by the acceptance of religion into the individuals life. As an example, I was led to make the most important decision of my life. And saying that prayer that I know so many of you have prayed and hopeful and prayerful that those who havent one day will: Jesus would you come and be the savior and Lord of my life (Fryrear 2006b). Yet the speakers are careful to explain th at embracing religious identity does not necessarily lead to inst antaneous self transformation. Rather, formerly gay selves are storied as 107

PAGE 108

struggling to accept narratives of change whilst still holding true to evangelical doctrinal truths. Fryrear (2006b) explains he r struggle in her testimony, I look back and it felt like a wrestling match started. Of going around and round and round in circles with the Lord. And ve ry honest conversations with Hi m at that time, I didnt ask for these feelings Lord, I dont know wher eve theyve come from, I dont know why theyre in my life, I dont want them here, but I dont know how to get rid of em, this is all Ive ever known, its the only wa y Ive ever lived, these are the only people that I know. Theres this Christian community, but Im scared of them, I dont know if theyll reject me or accept me, I dont know if I can change, I don t know if my feelings will ever change, I dont know if you can get me out of this. Iv e come to believe in you now though and your word says its wrong. Help. Haley (2006a) expresses the difficult y of the transition more directly: So like I said I left homosexuality and Id l ove to tell you that from there its this incredible god pleasing story but thats just not the case at all. The year of 1990 was the closest thing to hell I believe I will ever experience in my life. I had left the gay community I had known all those years, I wa s coming back to the Christian community that I didnt like and frankly I didnt think they liked me very much. I was going to good Godly Christian counseling, I wa s dealing with some of my sexual abuse issues, I was dealing with some of my dad issues and I began for the first time in my life to have feelings that I didnt know what to do with I was failing miserably In both of these extracts, the selves produced ar e in a state of confusion. On the one hand, they have accepted a set of interpretive resources allo wing them to believe in the idea of leaving homosexuality, yet they are still understood in terms of a sexual id entity incompatible with the new religious self. Evangelical religion provides the discursive standard against which gay and lesbian selves can measure their identity transformation from ga y to ex-gay. What it does not provide, however, are the interpretive tools necessary for the sexu al identity transforma tion. Nevertheless it is important to note that Love Won Out consistently stresses that religious identity transformation will almost automatically result in sexual identity change. By way of illustration: To say that someone has had a ch ange in his (or her) identity means, essentially, that he no longer identifies himself as gay. His identity is not based on his feeli ngs, and certainly not on his sexual desires or his str uggles with sin. He becomes what he knows to be true from the word of God these changes people glad ly accept the identity bestowed on them by 108

PAGE 109

their Godnew creatures designed for the purpose of glorifying their God, fully male or female, and fully righteous based on the blood of Jesus for their sins (Goeke 2006: 70) Notice that the emphasis is on the centrality of relig ious identity for the self, and this is what produces the marked shift from self conceptualization as gay. Reparative Therapy Religious discourse suggests the possibility of change and pr ovides the incentive to change, while secular discourse provides the cond itions of possibility to accomplish that change. More specifically, production of the ex-gay self is embedded with in the framework of reparative therapy. Reparative therapy, as I described in th e previous chapter, por trays homosexuality as primarily a gender identity diso rder caused by inadequate pare nt-child bonding. Furthermore, reparative therapy proposes a number of causal f actors associated with the development of homosexuality which can be addres sed in order to affect the sexual identity shift that religious conversion requires. Reparative therapists depict homosexuality as a symptom of something else. And thats what the person learns in the course of therapy. That when they have a homosexual attraction something happened interrelationally (Nicolosi 2006a). The something else mentioned here by Nicolosi is first triggered by poor parent child relations. To reach the perceived goal of becoming ex-gay, the self has to understa nd these triggers, and either refo rm parental bonds or compensate for them. Failure of parental soci alization leave the child vulnera ble to sexual identity struggle (Fryrear 2006a) since that self lacks adequate gender role models. Consequently, gay men and lesbian women are constructed as violating norma tive masculinity or femininity respectively. In this first excerpt, Fryrear (2006b) illustrates how these issues played out in her own life, Let me say without question th at today I know how desperately my parents love me. Um, how sweetly they love me, that they would have given me, would have sacrificed anything to have provided for me and cared for me. And thats taken a lot of y ears to come to know because I misperceived them growing up, I mi sperceived the depth and the enormity of 109

PAGE 110

their love. That they have loved me uncondition ally the entire way I know in retrospect I sought to fill that search for love in relationships with other women. Here she stories her formerly lesbian self as one in line with the precepts of reparative therapy. She describes herself as mistakenly feeling unlove d by her parents, which then led to her ensuing homosexuality as she looked to other wome n for comfort and love. Reparation of this misperception and broken bond is the primary component in successful sexual identity transformation. For the male desiring sexual identity transf ormation, reparative therapists stress the need to recognize the failure of the father son bond and provide strategies to help negotiate this. In one of his books, therapist Nicolosi (1993) describes the following scenario from a session with one of his clients: Dan began to recognize the anger that he fe lt towards the very persons from whom he sought sexual gratification. This sadomaso chistic characteristic often found in homosexuality traces back to the unattainable father whom the boy desires, yet despises. Dan spent many months in therapy working thro ugh his feelings for his mother and father. It was those core feelings of love and painfu l dependency that he s ought to feel again in order to heal. Uncovering these feelings in a safe and understanding relationship offered the only hope of relief from the sense of hollowness he lived with. (101) Here, then, failure of the father-son bond led Dan not only to homose xuality, but to seek sadomasochistic sexual fulfillment with other men. The therapist in this situation urges Dan to reconnect with his feelings for his parents so that he would no longer se ek sexual gratification with men. Male homosexuality, therefore, is portrayed as a struggle to find masculine affirmation and male bonding missing due to the fractured father-s on bond. Haley (2006a) refers directly to this when narrating the story of hi s own self transformation; Dr Nicolosi said we all have what are know n as those homoemotional needs that need to be met. And I longed to find acceptance from my father. In fact one of the phrases I heard most out of my father was that I was goi ng to be worthless and I was never going to 110

PAGE 111

amount to anything and so it was very difficu lt for me and I was always looking for value and I was always looking for worth. Within this discursive framework, gay men are de scribed as seeking a sense of masculine selfesteem through eroticization of anothers masculinity. Accordingly, successful self transformation for men demands replacements for these masculine bonds improperly formed through same sex sexual activity. Resocializing the ex-gay self into correct masculine expression and appropriate gender identity involves building what LWO consistently refers to as healthy same sex friendships (Haley 2006b) as the upcoming quotes illustrate: So what I need now is healthy Godly men to inve st in my life this was the initial part of my healing process and I needed great wonderful godly men that were able and willing to bond with me heterosexually just be my buddy know my struggles and thats one of the things I tell people that struggle with homosexuality is look you need positive same sex relationships that are non sexually intimate and thats where your healing is going to come from. One man said to me, my healing of homosexua lity was being seen as a man by a man. So much of homosexual activity is really wanting to be seen an d valued and appreciated and excited which unfortunately becomes erotic excitement by a man What are the emotional barriers, the psychological obstacles that prevent you from connecting with other men? When you develop that connecti on with men when you feel like a guy, youre not going to sexualize other guys. In the first extract, the speaker emphasizes the importance of appropriate male friendships to reaffirm his own masculinity. Moreover, these fr iendships are described as a key part of the healing process, as the second excerpt highlights. Reparative therapy, th erefore, assumes that homosocial bonding reaffirms men in their own masculinity and this will subsequently remove the sexual desire for another man. The following selection summarizes how this works; as the roots of the attractions are uncovered, and as th e true relational need is exposed and met by healthy relationships with the same sex, men a nd women find themselves less desirous of sexual 111

PAGE 112

intimacy with the same sex (Goeke 2006: 74). In other words, narrative production of the male ex-gay self is now almost complete. Discursive production of the female ex-gay self follows many of the patterns outlined above for the male self. Lesbian se lves are portrayed as having fractured parent-child bonds that result in non normative gender presentation. The women are storied as overly masculine and out of touch with their innate femininity. Fryr ear (2006b) describes her own experiences, because of how I perceive the world around me, or rather, better said, misperceived the world, I thought that being a woman was sec ond best tosecond class and, so I rejected femininity, rejected womanhood, and to the extreme even so of wishing that I couldve been a little boy or a man and trie d to emulate what I thought was manhood. Understood within the framework of reparative therapy, th is is the story of a self seeking to fulfill the void created by an absence of parental love by engaging in same-sex sexual activity and rebelling against normative femininity. A vigne tte entitled Feeling Sa fe as a Woman from one of the LWO booklet series presents a similar story: Growing up, my alc oholic father had a violent temper and would often hit my mother Because my mom was a victim, I rejected anything to do with femininity and wanted no part of being a girl. Instead I looked up to my older brother and wanted to be just like him (Sneeringer 2005: 30). Discursive production of the female ex-g ay self often involves negotiating the consequences of violence, including sexual abuse. As I mentioned in chapter 3, lesbians are frequently portrayed as victims of rape and ot her forms of molestation that force them to renounce their femininity: My parents divorced when I was 12 and sent me away to live with relatives, where I was molested by an older cousin. Like most chil dren who have been sexually abused, somehow I thought I was to blame. If only men wouldn t find me attractive th en things like this wouldnt happen to me, I reasoned. From then on I wanted to conceal whatever shred of femininity I had left (Sneeringer 2005: 30-31). 112

PAGE 113

Such trauma creates a distrust of men, rejecti on of femininity and embracement of masculinity. Consequently, successful self tr ansformation for women demands in terpretive strategies allowing rape trauma survivors to relearn trust for men, and to understand and value normative femininity. Love Won Out utilizes the question and answer se ssion on lesbianism to explicate how women can heal their damaged selves. In answer to a question will my hate in men ever go away? the speakers give a number of potential strate gies. The first involves an exercise in which women are urged to write down words like men, women, sexuality and then write down everything they can to fill in the categories. Fr yrear (2006c) demonstrates the importance of such an exercise that she hersel f performed at Gods urging, So I wrote men on one page, women on the ot her; marriage female, sexuality, wrote all these major categories and [the Lord] said now write down everything that you think about that so I had hundreds of pages, dozens of pa ges of what I thought for example about men. Well as I went through those, well no surprise, they were not true, they were all lies and they werent scripturally based and so the ne xt step was why do I think that way? Where did that come from?... Some of that was c onfession, it was sin on my part that I had to repent of; some were very deep woundings of traumatic events that had happened in my life So that can be very insightful. In this excerpt, Fryrear instructs women on ho w to overcome their fear of men by looking more closely at where the fear comes from. Furthermore, she stresses examining biblical constructions of appropriate maleness, thereby ensuring the manner in which masculinity will be read and understood. The other strategies al so revolved around scriptural understandings of masculinity and the use of prayer. For example, in this selection, Fryrear (2006c) implicates these two strategies in combination w ith exposure to godly men: And then to pray that God would bring godly men into your life who will exemplify what does it mean to be a godly man and you can see that lived out before you and that was one of the most significant ways the Lord helped to dispel the myths a nd what I believed about men by bringing good Godly men into my life... And to encourage you that yes absolutely he can change your thoughts and feelings about that. 113

PAGE 114

It is interesting to note that the speakers ne ver fully explain what constitutes being a godly man. To a certain extent, this leaves the audien ce free to reconstruct the men in their lives as either godly or ungodly depending on th eir own interpre tations of the Love Won Out discourse. Having said that, however, the construction of go dly masculinity is frequently undertaken using a discursive framework that understands masculin ity in stereotypical ways. The man should be stronger, assertive and domineering, while st ill adhering to Christ -like qualities. Healing the wounds from sexual trauma is not the only requirement for women to complete radical sexual identity transformation since there must also be acceptance of normative femininity. Typically, this involves mending the parent-child bond and the realization that homosexuality results from unmet emotional needs. As is the case for men, women undergoing sexual identity transformation are compelled to seek out female friends to fill emotional voids. One woman describes her transformation, When I returned to my church in Tampa, I asked all my friends to start calling me Christine. I wanted to embrace my femi ninity. In the church I met godly, strong women who helped me see that being female wasnt a liability the key to my healing was developing healthy same-sex friendships. With Gods help and the support of caring people, homosexuality no longer casts a sh adow on my life. (S neeringer 2005: 33) Christine stories herself transformation through the impact of her female friends and the eventual acceptance, and even embracing, of her femininity. This also impacted how she viewed men: I also saw men in a different light. They were true friends, and they were in terested in me, not sex. For the first time, I felt safe as a woman (Sneeringer 2005: 33). Female friendships are, therefore, thought to free wome n from unwanted same sex sexual attraction and allow them to finalize the transformation from gay to ex-gay. The final step in producing the ex-gay self for both men and women involves emphasizing the discursive link between sex, gender and sexuality. As I ha ve already explained, LWO typically understand sexuality in terms of a biblical proscription against homosexuality, 114

PAGE 115

backed up with a belief that everyone is born heterosexual. In addition, they understand appropriate sexuality and normative gender expr ession to be situated on the body, such that biological sex determines both. In this quote from Nicolosis (2006a) explanation of male homosexuality, one of his clients expresses all of these ideas, One man said to me my body gets in the way of my happiness. I said what? My body, your body gets in the way of your happiness? He says yeah because a real man wants a womans body, he doesnt want my body. And hes absolutely right The client expresses his sexu al desire for other men, the fact that he is not gratified in his desire and his conceptualization of gender and se x through his discussion of what real men want. In terms of production of the ex -gay self, this conflation of sex, gender and sexuality determines the importance of healing a nd also the manner in which the healing process is understood. Of primary importance is the fact that men and wome n are expected to behave in manners appropriate to their biol ogical sex, including in their part ner choice. As a result, the exgay self is one that is perceived to be returni ng to its natural state of heterosexuality. I will revisit this issue when I address the mainte nance of the ex-gay self, since it reveals a fundamental contradiction be tween the elements of the Love Won Out belief system and the institutional self under construction. The Hows of Being Ex-Gay Production of the ex-gay self draws upon a num ber of narrative practices. Substantively, the ex-gay self is embedded within notions of religious and psychologica l discursive practice. Putting these aside, bracketing them facilitates in terrogation of the manner in which these themes are producedthe hows of interpre tive practice (Gubrium & Holstein 1997). As already noted, the ex-gay self has its disc ursive origin within a troubled gay self. To be ex-gay, there first has to be gay. In keeping with many other organizations in the business of reconfiguring personal identi ty by fixing troubled selves, LWO frequently draw upon a self115

PAGE 116

help framework, typically that developed by Al coholics Anonymous. Here, then, selves become ex-gay, and start to understand themselves as being ex-gay, in a similar manner as AA participants may become rec overing alcoholics (Gubrium & Holstein 2001). This new recovering self identity is then used by participan ts to make sense of their lives, circumstances and personal travails that led to thei r troubles (Gubrium & Holstein 2001: 11). Becoming ex-gay in LWO involves profound self transformation comparable to that of the recovering alcoholic. As Denzin (1987) explains, Not only does he or she become sober, but a new language of self is acquired, as are a new set of meanings concerning alcohol, alcoholis m and the drinking act. By becoming a part of the lived history of AA, the individual is transformed into a recovering alcoholic within a society of fellow al coholics by no longer drinking the alcoholic can pass as normal within society. But this is a duplic itous normalcy, for the recovering alcoholic carries the previous label of having been alcoholic she desired to be a recovering alcoholic with all the meaning AA gives to that identity. (168) Love Won Out envisage the ex-gay self in much th e same way as Denzin explicates the recovering alcoholic. Over the course of the da y, participants learn new ways to identify themselves, learn how to reinte rpret homosexuality and heterosexuality, become part of a fellowship of ex-gays and still retain part of th e gay label. Moreover, they frequently use many of the phrases that characterize AA to narrate the ex-gay self and thus provide interpretive resources necessary to undergo the fundame ntal transformation of self referred to. Production of the ex-gay self employs one of the discursive strategi es that exemplifies Alcoholics Anonymous, that of the public testimonyoften called drunkalogues (Denzin 1987; Holstein & Gubrium 2000; Polln er & Stein 1996; 2001). Since AA can trace its own origins to evangelical religion, this is perhaps unsurpri sing (Erzen 2006). Testimony is a major component of evangelical Christian experi ence and traces partic ipants experience from sinner to saved (Erzen 2006; Marsden 2006). The significance of this is illustrated by Mike Haley (2006b) in the introduction to his own testimony; 116

PAGE 117

Revelation 12:11 says they overcame him, speak ing of Satan, by the blood of the lamb and the word of their testimony and they did not love their lives so much as to shrink back. And I believe that in that verse is a recipe for us as Christians. First of all the focus on Jesus and secondly to tell our stories. How did you come to know the Lord? And as you share your story as I will be doing this morning, I believe that what happens in the midst of that, as were promised in the verse, that we overcome the evil one, but also we give the world that needs some hope the very thing that theyre looking for These public pronouncements allow the audience to position and locate thei r own stories within the approved ex-gay narrative framewor k (Denzin 1987; Erzen 2006). In addition, the testimonies provide a narrative template th rough which audience members can respecify and restory themselves and their behaviors. Under the narrativ e auspices of the Love Won Out conferences, two specific kinds of stories are presented, one ex-gay and one ex-lesbian, ensuring that male and female participants are represente d. In the next chapter, I will explain in more detail how ex-gay personal testimonies provide potent narrative resources for the New Christian Right in their battle against lesbian and gay civil rights. Reliance on personal transformation stories legitimizes the production of the ex-gay self in terms of establishing the voice of experience (Pollner & Stein 1996: 207). In much the same way as AA stresses the importance of experience, so LWO presents a series of testimonies from those already transformed. In other words, auth ority comes from being one (Crawley & Broad 2004). Billboards surrounding the Love Won Out conferences sites routin ely feature photographs of ex-gays and contain such messages as I Questioned Homosexuality. Change is Possible. Discover How. Moreover, the specific stories presen ted at the conference are used as exemplars of what the ex-gay and ex-lesbian experi ence looks like, and are thought to provide representation for the wider ex-gay and ex-les bian community. Most notably, the featured speakers are employed by Focus on the Family in their explicit capacity as ex-gay and exlesbian. In some senses, then, Melissa Fryrear and Mike Haley are prof essional ex-gays purely for their ability to privilege thei r own transformative experiences. 117

PAGE 118

In the first speech of the day, Nicolosi (2006a ) uses the existence of the ex-gay stories to refute what he refers to as one of th e homosexual myths, onc e gay always gay: And were going to be hearing testimonies fr om men and women who have come out of homosexuality, who have come out of lesbianism and youll get to hear their ex-gay stories that were hearing more and more. Because were encouraging them, because we as a culture are respecting their testimonies were going to hearing more and more of these individuals. What is notable here is that testimonials from ex-gays and ex-lesbians are routinely privileged even, in some cases, over the voices of the psychol ogical experts. In this selection, Nicolosi does not emphasize scientific authority to renounce gay and lesbian truth claims, instead referring to the very existence of ex-gay testimonials as the ultimate proof. In addition, he highlights the strategic importance of testimony and the wider cultural impact th at support for these narratives may have. The identity work undertaken to story the bi ography of an ex-gay se lf follows a similar narrative map to the drunkalogues of Alcoholics Anonymous (Denzin 1987; Gubrium & Holstein 2001; Holstein & Gubrium 2000; Pollner & St ein 1996). The accounts typically begin with recitations of childhood troubles, including difficu lties bonding with parent s and recognition of perceived gender irregularity, and they generally conform to the discursive framework presented by reparative therapy. This accomplished, the narr ators take the audience on a journey to the point that they recognize their acceptance of a gay or lesbian self identity typically coupled with explicit rejection of re ligion. These are what Denzin (1987) calls before-stories and are characterized by details of the troubles involved with being gay or lesbian, including alcohol abuse and promiscuity. Before-stories end with the ex-gay equivalent of hitting bottom in which there is a dramatic fall and realization that they must surrender to God in order to begin the healing process. As Haley (2006 a) describes, I came to the e nd of myself. In the same way as alcoholic selves are depicted as more hope ful after hitting bottom (Denzin 1987; Holstein & 118

PAGE 119

Gubrium 2000), so too are ex-gays selves portray ed as hopeful of lasting change. These afterstories center around the ro le of faith in leaving homose xuality and maintaining a sexual identity in keeping with th eir newfound religion as the following extract demonstrates: And so what happened was God and his Holy Spirit, it was four months and it was eight months and it was twelve months and Gods sp irit kept working those truths deeper and deeper and deeper down into my heart wher e you come to that point where you know that you know that you know what youre doing is wrong how gentle He was, how intentional He was, to continue to come af ter me and after me and after me and woo me and woo me with that gentle, sweet love, administering that gift of repentance. 1992, being able to repent by His grace and lay down so many years of sexual sin (Fryrear 2006b). Fryrears after-story constructs God as being cent ral to her transformation, to the point that she renounced her homosexuality and can re late exactly when that happened. In addition to embedding production of the ex-gay self within a discursive framework similar to those of othe r self-help organizations, Love Won Out also provide their own narrative template against which to measure successful iden tity transformation. As Haley (2004) writes, the Lord reminded me of what I had so desper ately wanted at the begi nning of my process something that would help me evaluate my status and progress (131). What he came up with was a way for fledgling ex-gay selves to m easure their own progression and evaluate their chance of success. In his book, he speaks directly to those desiring change when he presents what he identified as the five characteristic s proven successful for those who succeed in permanently leaving homosexuality (Haley 2004: 133). These characteristics include the right motivation, a new goal, changed relationships, commitment to action, and a different passion. Taken together, they define exactly how ex-gay selves are produced and understood. Moreover, the discursive strategies he details in his book underpin much of what is spoken at the conferences. The first two characteristics describe how the gay and lesbian selves being restoried should understand not only their desire for change, but also what appropriate expectations are. 119

PAGE 120

First, motivation is defined as an absolute d evotion to leaving the ga y lifestyle (Haley 2004: 133). In addressing his readers more directl y, Haley (2004) emphasizes this, You must be desperate for change Have you realized your desperation? Are you willing to endure public ridicule from the gay community ? (133-134). Here, the audience is given a standard against which to measure their commitment to change. Wh at are they willing to endure in order to begin the transformation process? Randy Thomas (2006a ) provides one idea in the session designed explicitly for those struggling with homosexualit y: the Lord asked me through someone who I was teaching, if I dont take this struggle aw ay from you, will you still obey me, will you still serve me? If every ex-gay in the world fa lls, will you? I said: No, Lord, I wont. Second, the goal of identity tr ansformation is explained as holiness, not heterosexuality (Chambers 2006; Haley 2004). This sele ction details how this works: The only true goal that sustains the type of perseverance need ed for this journey is summed up in one wordobedience. If you focus on obtaining heterosexuality, not achieving obedience, your chances of failure are enormous. Thats because the opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexua lityits holiness. And when we strive toward holiness in a quest to become more Christ-like, the desi res of the flesh fall away and we begin to obtain freedom like never before. (Haley 2004: 134) Selves in this excerpt are bei ng given instruction in how to th ink about their ultimate objective, which is to remain true to their faith. Here, th en ex-gay selves are be ing redefined in terms religious goals, not sexual goals Haley further demonstrates this during one of the conference sessions, we have to remember from Gods pe rspective the opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality the opposite of homosexuality from Gods perspective is holiness. Not only is religious conversion stressed, but he also draws upon divine aut hority to support his pronouncements. Over the course the conference, there is repeated emphasis on the purpose of becoming ex-gay. Fryrear (2006b) explains to the audience how this should look, And so we think the 120

PAGE 121

journey out of homosexuality is the same journey that every person who is sincerely seeking to follow Christ, its that same type of journey. Its a journey of wan ting to live your life repentantly and obediently. Its a pursuit of holiness. Its a life style of worship. She underlines the role of faith, and the idea th at repentance, worship and holiness are of paramount importance. Notice that she does not refer to the sexua l transformation, just religious conversion. The final three characteristics described by Ha ley (2004) as crucial to successful change focus more explicitly on the beha viors and attitudes that bring a bout healing. He describes selves that have formed strong bonds with others, are committed to proactively seeking change, and a passion for Christ. These become the foundation for the practical approaches to maintaining the ex-gay self which I will outline the next section. Narrative production of change details sexua l identity transformation as a process that begins with faith, the subsequent religious c onversion and acceptance of homosexuality as sin. Although Love Won Out believe in the possibility of the in stantaneous eradication of homosexual desire (Goeke 2006; Haley 2004), for the most part, progression from gay to ex-gay is portrayed as painful, long and arduous (Haley 2004: 131). Maintenance of the ex-gay self, therefore, becomes as important as the initial narrative production. Production of the ex-gay self is a comple x mix of religion, psyc hology and self-help, all of which combine to influence how it must be further maintained. In keeping with evangelical doctrine, all selves are defined as being inherently sinfulthe ex-gay self obviously being no exception. Fryrear (2006a), for example, explicates this view and embeds it in the conference message more generally: at the Love Won Out conference we come already with that understanding as Bible-believing, faith-based Christians, that we understand, inherently, being in a fallen world and that there is an enemy of our souls What this means in terms of 121

PAGE 122

maintaining appropriate sexual a nd gender behavior is the acknowledgement of the temptations that may lead to sexual falls. The question and answer session on lesbia nism deals with this explicitly when the speaker references her own experiences, it doesnt mean that I may never have a temptation and I believe thats not anyt hing unusual. Christ himself was tempted. So being tempted is not a sin. I believe its what we do with that temptation. How do we respond to that? How do we react to that? (Fryrear 2006a) Here, there is a clear acceptance of the possibility of sexual sin on the part of the healin g self. Moreover, description of this sexual sin has its discursive origins more widely in the narrative of bibl ical sin and the temptations of Satan. Sexual falls are explained by LWO as something to be expected. What is important, however, is how these are reinterpre ted over the course of the conference in order to maintain the perception of sexually healed selv es. Each speaker who identified as ex-gay or ex-lesbian storied selves that continued to fight same-sex sexual attraction, or as Mike Ha ley (2006b) describes it, I will never be as though I never was. Repeatedly, LWO provide the interpretive resources necessary for audience members to reconstruct their sexual struggles despite a discursive framework that dismisses homosexuality and compels change. As one speaker explains, just like the alcoholic who has been sobe r for 10 15 years and suddenly everything falls apart in their life, divorce, loss of a job or loss of a l oved one and suddenly theyre thinking Id like to have a dri nk right now. Does that mean th eyre not healed? No. It just means that old ting is beckoning them and they can either listen to that voice or they can say you know what Im going to make the right c hoice here cause I dont want that in my life. So Ive learned how to look that in th e face and make a right choice. (Sneeringer 2006) In this extract, sexual temptation is likened to an alcoholic wanting a drink in times of stress. They still have the desire for a drink, or in the case of an ex-gay same-sex intimacy, yet this does nothing to diminish the healing process. In hi s book, Haley (2004) takes the issue of his own former homosexuality and explains how his struggles look at present: 122

PAGE 123

While temptations still come my way, I liken them to a pesky fly. They pass my way and bother me for a minute, I shoo them away, and then theyre gone. I must frequently remind myself of the truth that I am a new creation in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17) in the spiritual realmbut in the physical one I will continue to deal with temptation. However, this does not negate the fact that I liv e in complete victory. (140) The story here is of a self that has to constantly battle, yet still considers itself to have been healed and declares victory over unwanted sexual desire. Clearly, then, what is being suggested here is that healing should be read in terms of physical beha vior and spiritual conversion, not complete removal of homosexual attraction. Maintenance of the ex-gay self over the course of the Love Won Out conferences involves active negotiation with the audience. This is pa rticularly noticeable in terms of leading the participants toward an understanding of how LWO understands the change process and what appropriate behavioral expect ations should be. In a session specifically designed for neophyte ex-gays and ex-lesbians, the leader asks the audien ce to identify what it is they expect from their ex-gay selves. Each and everyone that spoke iden tified surprise at their continued homosexuality and most expected that these attractions w ould have ceased some time ago. For instance, I am married and have children and I still struggle with attracti on and I expect those attractions will end. After 15 years of working on my marriage and wo rking on my issue, it didnt work out in the marriage. It led to 15 more years of sanctif ication and trials and th ings of that nature and my expectation now is to continue to press into the Lord and walk it out. My expectation is that my attractions will be gone immediately and my thoughts will be pure Yeah, I just wanted to be clea r I have been married now for twenty years, my marriage is working great. And my wife and I are very much in love and Im a good dad to my kids but, my confusion, is that after all of this stuff, working on it, and following the Lord. all the time, I still struggle In each of these, the narrators describe selves that have obviously not managed to escape their unwanted sexual attractions, despite assurances to the contrary and expectations that change is 123

PAGE 124

possible. The session leader, therefore, has to he lp these struggling selves to renegotiate their identities within the disc ursive framework provided by Love Won Out Maintenance of the ex-gay self becomes a continual redefinition of self using language that rephrases sexual attraction in terms of sin and sanctificat ion, not failure or incomplete healing. Randy Thomas, the session leader just mentioned, responds to the audiences concerns by helping them reevaluate their expectations; Now, some realistic goal or expectations, you can expect a life of obedience. Its not always gonna work out to your liking And th ere are gonna be times when its hard and the Lords gonna ask you to obey... You can exp ect a lifetime of obedi ence. You will have a life of struggle with sin. You can expect that youre going to struggle with sin until you meet Him in glory. (Thomas 2006a) In this excerpt, Thomas provide s participants with a way to rethink their sexual attractionin terms of sin and not homosexuality. He conti nues by blaming persistent difficulty on the influence of Satan, I dont know where everybody gets this idea that, you know, once youre down the road its completely gone. The Lord knows, or your flesh remembers what happened, Satan certainly does, but can you withstand that? That is the tr ue change (Thomas 2006a). He encourages those listening not to think that healing means complete removal of homosexual attractions, and instead reframes change in terms of the ability of the se lf to continually fight temptation and maintain acceptable bi blical standards of behavior. Sustaining the ex-gay or ex-lesbian self despite continued temptation is also framed through referral to psychological discourse. Goeke (2006) writes, t he temptations are dealt with for what they are: a sign of some other problem that must be addressed with the Lord (74). One of the questions in the session on lesbianism as ked Do you continue to struggle with lesbian inclinations if so what and how do you overcome temptation? to which the speaker replied, Years ago I learned an acronym that really helped me a lot. HALT. Hungry, angry, lonely, tired. And I learned to ask myself when Im feeling homosexually tempted because I knew it wasnt a sexual need that had and so I learned to ask myself what is it that Im 124

PAGE 125

really feeling? Am I hungry? Am I angry? Am I lonely? Or am I tired ? So the question then is if I am some of those things I can do something about that if Im lonely I can call a friend. If Im tired I can take a nap, if Im hungry I can go out to eat that was the general thing that I learned to ask myself and then began to address those needs that I may be having. (Sneeringer 2006) Notice that Sneeringer, the speaker, immediatel y discounts her sexual feelings, instead she identifies them as symptomatic of something else and in so doing grounds her identity back in a reparative therapy framework. In te rms of maintenance of her ex-les bian self, she can use this to ensure she does not suffer from any sexual fa lls due to misinterpretation of her needs. Moreover, this description equips the audience with another set of narrative tools that can be used to reinterpret th eir own sexual selves. The ex-gay self is one that requires constant policing due to the ever-present danger of temptation and, as such, public testimony becomes of paramount importance in ensuring acceptable standards of behavior. Public recounting of private tr oubles provides an opportunity to reinforce the message that homosexuality is mu table. In this excerpt, for instance, the speaker explains how reaching out to other people he lped her sustain her ex-lesbian identity: I need to go talk to someone especially in l eadership because I need to Im too I have a kind of sober reality of sin that I dont want to keep secrets from Satan so if Im tempted and I dont tell anyone because of my shame th en I feel like Im setting myself up for something where I may get in trouble. So Ill go tell somebody. Ill ask for prayer and thats hard to do when youre in a position of leadership and people look to you as an example. But I believe its the only reason Im standing before you today after seven years of ministry because Ive been w illing to make those kinds of proclamations and ask for that kind of help and have that kind of humility ot herwise I would have blown it because life is hard and theres lots of disappointments and re asons for me to maybe want to go back to my old life to medicate and to feel comfort. (Sneeringer 2006) The ex-lesbian self storied here is one that required open acknowledgement and admission of her difficulties to help maintain appropriate behavioral norms. In this sense, maintaining an ex-gay or lesbian self becomes more of a public performance than a sexua l self would generally entail. 125

PAGE 126

Typically, public testimony of sexual struggle occurs within the church community, as would be expected within an evangelical organization. Having said that, however, Love Won Out persistently stress the importa nce of attending su pport groups and ex-gay conferences where public testimonials are the mainstays of the events. These occasions demonstrate not only successful identity conversions to fledgling ex-gay and lesbian se lves, but also endow attendees with a feeling of belonging that strengthens their resolve to main tain their sexual fidelity. Haley (2006a) expounds on the benefit of these conferences during his testimony, There were about 800 other people there that were in the same shoes that I was that were desperate for a relationship with Christ, that ha d the issues of homose xuality in their lives that were looking for realness and it was in credible. I met men and women who had been out of homosexuality, 5, 10 15, 20 years and they had gone on with their lives. And I thought wow maybe this is possibl e for me. I mean I really me t these people they werent just people that I had heard about I met them I talked with them and it was an incredible experience. He mentions not only finding othe r people like him, but also role models and people to talk to about his experiences. The presen ce of other ex-gays and ex-lesbi ans facilitates maintenance of the new self identity since th ey understand the nature of the struggle and can point out any potential pitfalls. In addition, these conferences provide a set of potential same-sex friends that can also aid in maintaining the ex-gay self. Th is becomes key since ex-gays and ex-lesbians are strongly discouraged from keeping friendships with those in the gay community, as; often [participants] will report that their gay friends will make fun of them or say that youre never going to make it; its not like theyre very supportive, Oh I think its wonderful that you want to leave homosexuality. theyre not standing by cheering and you need that. you need people that are on the same page with you that will encourage you because this is a tough road. its hard becau se at the point that youre walking away you may be leaving a lover and a community and th en youre coming into a church thats not necessarily welcoming you with open arms (Sneeringer 2006) Public performance of the ex-g ay or ex-lesbian self also allows others to monitor the boundaries of acceptable gender expression. The impact of healthy same-sex friendships is such 126

PAGE 127

that, according to Love Won Out it can be a cornerstone in main taining an ex-gay self. Fryrear (2006e) writes about this issue, I did join that womens Bible study just being around th em, laughing with them, crying with them, and praying with them healed so many wounds in my heart. In essence my womanhood and femininity began to blossom If those who are dealing with same-sex attraction embrace female friendships and find their place in the world of women, she will find greater commonality with wome n and, as a result, feel more secure and content to be just another woman. (193) Relating to men and women in what is deemed an appropriate manner underpins maintenance of ex-gay and ex-lesbian selves sin ce it is thought to strengthen the new self in its own masculinity or femininity. The book Someone I Love is Ga y, one of the textual resources frequently referenced and promoted by LWO explains how same-sex friends help, you have a special opportunity to build confidence in your friends life through your acceptance of him as another man. You can help him by being vulnerable a bout your own life .This openness helps him realize that many of his problems are the same as any mans (Worthen & Davis 1996:173). Formerly gay men are therefore encouraged to th ink of themselves as being part of the wider male community. Their issues are not gay issues, rather the same as those other men are dealing with. Emphasis on maintaining an ex-gay or ex-l esbian self through policing gender boundaries highlights what I argue is the inherent narrative tension in production and maintenance of such a selfthe contradiction between biological determination of sexuality and the social construction of gender. Love Won Out contend that everyone is born heterosexual, and that homosexuality is purely a sign of a psychologically troubled self. Discursive produc tion of the ex-gay self is rooted within biblical understandings of sexua lity depicting a self that is reclaiming its Godgiven life. Sexuality, therefore, is reported as a natural c onsequence of a particular body. 127

PAGE 128

The difficulty arises when equating physiol ogical bodies with social practice, in other words, assuming that biology determines behavior For evangelical organizations like Focus on the Family, sex gender and sexuality are fused whereby the first determines the other two in what Crawley, Foley & Shehan (2008) call a gender box st ructure. As they expl ain, if we believe we know the sex of the person, we also believe we know the gender and sexual orientation of the person (Crawley et al. 2008: 16). A male bodied person will have a masculine gender identity and a female partner. Disruptions of this upset th e natural order of the wo rld and the ex-gay self is depicted as redressing the balance. In spite of the fact that sexuality, sex and gender are constructed as biologically determined, LWO frequently contradict these ideas by dr awing upon a discourse of the social to explain the transformation process. Ex-gay and ex-l esbian selves are produ ced using a discursive framework that implies a certain flexibility in both gender expression and sexual desire. In this upcoming example, Fryrear (2006b) explains her own movement from being a butch lesbian (itself a social construction) to a feminine woman: Papa began to try to teach me and s how me about this thing called womanhood. Oh my gosh! Who knew? Who knew? Who knew!? Who knew there was so much to learn? Who knew how expensive it is to be a woman?...I didnt know there were so many gadgets to being a woman, to help you be beauti ful! My co-worker, true story, has a heated eyelash curler. Shes like, Meli ssa, you ought to get one o these! In this excerpt, Fryrear relates her understa nding of femininity in terms of her physical appearance, and her expectations of being beautiful. This is a theme that is further explained by another ex-lesbian when she writes, I also attended the annual Exodus conference that year I pa rticipated in a makeover session that had a deep impact on me. For the fi rst time since I had been sexually abused, I wanted to be pretty, just like the other women at church. As I walked back to the dorm room after the makeover, a thought hit me a nd stopped me in my tracks all my life I struggled with intense feelings of inadequacy about being a girl, and suddenly I saw myself just like them. (Sneeringer 2005: 32) 128

PAGE 129

129 For this woman, perception of normative femininity is equated with make-up, beauty and being pretty. Both of these quotes implicate feminine selv es that are socially pro duced since there is an expectation that female bodies need to look and act a certain wayand to do this there is a need to rely on technology such as makeup and eyelas h curlers. In other words, real women are constructed as being pretty and must activ ely maintain public performance appropriate femininity. Bodies, therefore, become the objects of social practice in which gendered expectations are inscribed upon them and subsequently become read as natural (Crawley et al. 2008). For the ex-gay and ex-lesbian self to be understood within the boundaries of normative masculinity or normative femininity, they must fo llow certain behavioral standards, in addition to looking a particular way. This means they mu st subscribe to what are seen as typically masculine or feminine activities such as engaging in sports or desiring to be a wife or mother. Without these, they may be misinterpreted as st ill engaging in what are seen as gay or lesbian behaviors. Production and maintenance of the ex -gay self, therefore, relies on a religious discursive framework that mandates appropriate behavior fo r men and women. In the next chapter, I explain how Focus on the Family, through the Love Won Out conferences, empowers the audience to be ac tive agents of change themselves. For the institutional selves to be tr uly successful, the message must be carried by the audience beyond the discursive realm of the conferences.

PAGE 130

CHAPTER 5 BEYOND LOVE WON OUT : EXPANDING THE DISCOURSE Throughout this project, institutional selves are described as those that are produced in the service of a particular organization (Gubrium & Holstein 2001; Loseke & Cavendish 2001). In the previous two chapters, I have described how Love Won Out narratively pr oduce troubled gay and lesbian selves, and th en detailed the way in which these can be healed, thereby producing ex-gay and ex-lesbian selves. The interpretive demands of producing a distinctly troubled gay self and a uniquely healed ex-gay self are not limited to th e day of the conference alone, however. The selves produced are also em powered to be active agents of change themselves once they leave the confines of the conference. The audience is provided with the interpretive resources necessary not only to recognize th eir own troubles, but al so the troubles of others. They are consistently urged to put what they have learned into action and share the truth about homosexuality as they have been taught to see it. The prevailing identity discourse of LWO is one that can be diffused through culture more widely once the audience is provided with the narrative tools to accomplish this. LWO routinely draw upon a threat narrative that necessitates action on the part of those listening. In so doing, they provide a discursive framework that re interprets homosexuality as a direct threat to normative hetero sexuality, and to culture more wi dely. In chapter 3 I explained how LWO perceive individual troubled gay and le sbian selves and provide a discursive framework that compels them to change In this chapter, I will detail how Love Won Out describe the menace of homosexuality to more than ju st individuals and im pose upon the audience a mandate to affect change across different social institutionsincluding education, the church and politics. In closing, I also explain how LWO seem to construct their ultimate goal as the 130

PAGE 131

eradication of the ex-gay self. They believe that homosexuality can be healed once present, but more importantly, can be prevented from appearing in the first place. Focus on the Family more widely, and Love Won Out specifically, draws upon a traditional family values discourse that is charac teristic of the New Christian Right. As I outlined in chapter 1, at the forefront of this pro-family agenda is the notion that homosexuality poses a threat to society of such magnitude that culture as we know and understand it would be destroyed. This therefore necessitates urgent action on the part of the conference attendees and means that LWO speakers must provide a coherent di scursive framework through which such action can be read and understood. At the heart of this discourse are narrative resources that construct the lesbian and gay movement as having such power and potency (Her man 1997) that they coul d easily achieve their desired goal of overthrowing normative hetero sexual society, as the following two quotes illustrate. In the first, the speaker, Dick Carpen ter (2006a), explains how he perceives the danger of homosexuality: Number one its the radical transformation of society By socia l transformation Im talking about changing a culture by changing what people believe about something, by changing what they value, by changing the way they talk about it and how they talk about it by changing what they except as normal. And as a result we change the very foundation and fabric of society. First and foremost, Carpenter portrays the le sbian and gay movement as having not only the power, but also the desire, to completely alte r the nature of society. Furthermore, he assumes that there is a unitary cultural ideology that is und er threat. It is also im portant to note here, that this speech is given as part of the keynote a ddress immediately following lunch. Consequently, it has top billing and sets the tone for the remainder of the afternoon. In this next extract, the writer is explaining the effect of gay activism: 131

PAGE 132

This small militant crowd is very clever and powerful. They have moved beyond the days of simply wanting people to tolerate what th ey may not personally accept. They want to force acceptance of homosexuality and puni sh anyone who will not adopt their prohomosexual ideology. (Thomas 2006b: 128) To emphasize the threat posed by homosexuality, the speakers consistently depict gay activists as forcing others to accept values and behaviors they fundamenta lly disagree with, as the previous quote illustrates. Al lied with this constr uction are interpretive resources that paint the lesbian and gay civil rights movement tac tics as deceitful and unde rhanded. In one session, the speaker explains exactly how deceitful the gay rights movement is: Focus on the Family, The Family Research Council, The Alliance Defe nse Fund; we documented the fact that gay activist organizations have used deception, manipulation, and strong armed tactics to achieve their political goals (Maier 2006). As a result, gay groups have also done a marvelous job at propagating several myths about homosexuality a nd because of that we find misinformation about homosexuality everywhere. We find it in th e media; we find it in the academic world, even in the more liberal elements of the chur ch (Maier 2006). The deception and manipulation referred to here is often related to the myths about homosexuality referenced over the course of the conference, and reportedly promoted by gay activists. Primar ily, this alludes to arguments that locate homosexuality in biol ogy, specifically genetics, which the speakers debunk repeatedly over the course of the day. Another of these myth s refers to the notion that gay activists are perceived as frequently lying a bout the actual numbers of gays a nd lesbians in the population in order to further their political agenda. For example, in the booklet Straight Answers: Exposing the Myths and Facts About Homosexuality the first myth mentioned is ten percent of the population is homosexual which is derived from the famous investigation into human sexuality conducted by Alfred Kinsey (2003: 5). Love Won Out refute this in th e following manner: homosexual activist groups now admit that the ten percent myth is false and that they exploited the inflated Kinsey figures for politi cal reasons. We used that figure to try to 132

PAGE 133

create an impression of our numbers says Tom Stoddard, former member of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund regarding the facts of how many people are gay or straight, maybe youre asking, Whats the big deal? Well, here 's the deal: By saying that one out of 10 people is homosexual, gay activists are knowingly promoting a lie. ( Straight Answers 2003: 6) Here, then, is a depiction of the underhanded tactics used by gay and lesbian activists to further their political agenda. Th is particular example is used by virtually every speaker, and referenced in the textual material, as ex emplifying the deception generally undertaken by homosexual activists. LWO reinterpret the political act ivism of the gay and lesbian civil rights movement as the more sinister-sounding pushing of the homosexual (or gay) agenda. This agenda is described thus, there are those within the homosexual populati on who are what I would call, militant in that they have a twofold ag enda: the normalization of ho mosexuality combined with intolerance for any opposing viewpo int. That is the dark side of the gay rights movement. Not its attempt to normalize homosexuality, but its intolerance for opposing viewpoints and its commitment to silencing opposing viewpoints. (Dallas 2006b) In this selection, the speaker explains exactly how to understa nd the central ideas of the gay agenda. Militant homosexuals are described as trying to force through the normalization of homosexual behavior, while also forcefully re sisting any opposition. Normalization, in this sense, refers to the manner in which culture de sensitizes people to the issue of homosexuality through repeated exposure. In the first speech of the day, Nicolosi (2006a) goes a little further. After mentioning the four gay myth s, (once gay always gay, ten percent of the population is homosexual, born gay, homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality) he says, if you believe 1, 2, 3, 4, then the conclusion is total a cceptance and thats exactly what the gay agenda is abouttotal acceptance. Not only are gay a nd lesbian activists depicted as promulgating 133

PAGE 134

numerous falsehoods, they are also perceived as using them to force an unsuspecting public to accept their sinful behavior. Society Under Threat The infection ( Teaching Captivity 2002: 3) caused by the homosexual agenda is portrayed as spreading through all th e major social institutions. The Love Won Out (2006) conference guide details th e extent of the problem, Today, the homosexual issue surrounds our cu lture on all sides. We cannot escape the onslaught of gay propaganda that seeks to in fluence our churches, schools, businesses and neighborhoods. There is a great deal of misinformation being spread that homosexuality is a biological imperative and th at change and freedom are not possible. Childrenas young as 5 years oldare being taught that homosexuality is simply another alterna tive lifestyle option equivalent to heterosexuality. Incr easingly, churches across the nation are embracing and affirming homosexual unions and blessing gay pa rtnerships. Some scientists tell us that genetics determine sexuality and that those who question this assertion are homophobic and intolerant. (6) The message here is clear; the threat caused by homosexuality is widespread and homosexuality has already caused disruption and damage. Such is the fear of the gay agenda that Love Won Out devote sessions exclusively to detailing the extent of the problem in education, the church and in politics (with specific reference to the issue of same-sex marriage). Dick Carpenter gives the critical plenary session after the lunch break, titled Why is What Theyre Teaching So Dangerous? The title s uggests that the audience have a right to be concerned with the impact of homosexuality on schools. The session description in the conference guide reinforces this impression: The goal of gay activists is to overhaul America with the message that homosexuality is normal and healthy. Popular television shows and elementary school classrooms are the breeding ground for a dramatic shift in how homosexuality is portrayed. This presentation poignantly reveals the motives behind gay activists influential impact on America. (Love Won Out Conference Guide 2006:10) 134

PAGE 135

Schools, then, are portrayed as an important ar ena where gay activists are trying to assert control in their goal to over throw normative heterosexuality (Smith & Windes 2000). Dobson (1994), founder of Focus on the Family, emphasizes the centrality of schools in the battle over homosexuality: children are the great pr ize to the winners of the second gr eat civil war. Those who control what young people are taught and what they expe rience will determine the future course for the nation. Given that influence, the pre dominant value system of an entire culture can be overhauled in one generation, or certainly in two, by those with unlimited access to children. (38) Schools and teachers, therefore, are at the fo refront of the debate over homosexuality. Over the course of his plenary address, Carp enter carefully dissects what he argues is the gay agenda regarding schools and educationno rmalization through dese nsitization. The primary narrative resource he draws upon again embeds di scussion of homosexuality within a wider cultural understanding of thr eat through exposure. If child ren become acquainted with homosexuality too early, they are subsequently in danger of thinking themselves to be gay, since they are too young to understand notions of sexual deviancy (Herman 1997). In this extract, Carpenter (2006a) is explaining a movie clip that was shown to a grade-school class, in which the teacher has been introduci ng the topic of homosexuality to his elementary school class; because of the developmental age of thes e children, his message can be easily misunderstood. So, for example, lets picture one of the children we just saw on this video, perhaps the young boy near the end with the blonde hair, and he hears this message from the teacher, he goes home and he asks his mom or his dad, What does gay mean? and they might respond with, Well you know, thats uh, a different kind of love or something like that. Well whats a young boy of eight or nine -years-old to think when he hears from his mom if his mom or his dad were to say, Thats when a boy likes a boy and doesnt like a girl. And vice-versa. What is that young boy to think? Well, I like boys, and I certainly dont like girls, I guess that means Im gay. Now, you may scoff at that and say, Oh please, that doesnt happen. I cant te ll you the number of times that people have come up to me and said, You know what? That has happened, with my child. Or With my grandchild. Or some other relative. 135

PAGE 136

Such is the potency of the homosexual message, that the boy in this quote is perceived to be in danger of adopting a gay identity simply by being exposed to the terminology (Herman 1997; Smith & Windes 2000). Exposure to such pro-gay themes does not only come from the teacher. Carpenter also details how the homosexual ag enda can infect schools through books such as Heather Has Two Mommies student support organizations such as Gay-Straight Alliances and support for openly gay teachers and principals. In addition to describing the mission of homo sexual activists in schools, Carpenter also provides the discursive tools n ecessary for the audience to rec ognize the presence of a pro-gay agenda in their own scho ol districts. In his breakout session, he explains why this is important: So were going to talk next turn our attention to different stra tegies that are typically used within school communities [to promote the hom osexual agenda] and the reason I do this is because often I hear from parents or ot her folks who will say I dont know what Im looking for or I dont understand until its too late whats going on in the school. How do I know what to look for? So thats why I want to cover strategies so that people can kind of keep an eye out and understand whats going on in the school and what it will typically look like. (Carpenter 2006b) The audience is taught to use th e discursive framework provided by Love Won Out to reinterpret their school curricula and look for the hidden homosexual agenda. The booklet published to mirror the breakout session, Teaching Captivity: How the Pr o-Gay Agenda is Affecting Our Schools And How You Can Make a Difference provides a checklist for assessing schools risk for encouraging homosexuality (2002: 39) The checklist and explanation reads as follows: The activities and policies below may sound nice, but in reality they protect and promote homosexuality and sexual promiscuity, putting st udents directly in harms way instead of cautioning them about risky behavior. 1. A safe schools harassment program 2. A homosexual student club 3. Non-discrimination policy ba sed on sexual orientation 136

PAGE 137

4. Programs to stop homophobi a, hate, or bias 5. Pro-homosexual literature added to curri cula and libraries; pro-family material bypassed or discarded 6. AIDS and safe-sex education programs Other red flags for community concern: 7. Teachers who are openly homosexual 8. Involvement in your school of prohomosexual groups like GLSEN, PFLAG and Lambda Legal Defense Fund 9. Celebrating gay pride month, d ay of silence or coming out day 10. Exhibits/films on families headed by homosexuals 11. Students and parents with concerns being silenced 12. Teacher in-service meetings promoting diversity and complaining about homophobia (Teaching Captivity 2002: 39-44) For each of these programs, the booklet proceeds to explain what the assumptions, problems and end results are. For example, the result of inco rporating programs to stop hate within the school curriculum is described as: Supporters of traditional va lues are accused of hate. Instances of harassment are linked to those who would never commit such acts. Students are not warned about homosexuality, so more will experi ment with this high risk behavior ( Teaching Captivity 2002: 41). The red flags are desc ribed purely in terms of their problematic nature. Celebrating gay pride month, for instance, is opposed becau se, there is nothing to celebrate about encouraging kids to adopt dangerous sexual practices ( Teaching Captivity 2002: 44). This list, therefore, gives a clear set of indicators that readers can use to identify the impact of the gay agenda within their own school districts. Once the audience have gone through and iden tified the programs in existence in their own schools, the booklet offers a score card that interprets the results. If 8-12 indicators are marked off, then this 137

PAGE 138

is a signal that corr uption is widespread and entrenched within the system. Look for heavy influence of radical homosexual groups, using attention-hungry teens, parents and teachers to front their issues. Sexual promiscuity is undoubtedly rising among students and teachers, and academics are likely to be suffering. Get the kids you care about out of this school now. ( Teaching Captivity 2002: 45) The underlying message here is that gay activ ist groups are again using underhanded and deceptive tactics to push their agenda into unsusp ecting schools. In addition, there is a clear link drawn between support for homosexuality a nd homosexual activity, and rise in sexual promiscuity. As I detailed in an earlier chapter, homosexuality is thought to be characterized by promiscuity, such that engaging in these kinds of behaviors increases th e risk of contracting disease. Pro-gay teaching is also paired with falling academic standards, since the focus is no longer on education, but instead on promoting a co rruptive political agenda. A school with this approach is designated a danger to children, and parents are urge d to remove their own children as soon as possible. The final part of the discursive framework Love Won Out use to highlight the problem of the hidden gay agenda in schools involves reinte rpretation of language, since language is a key component in the public debate over social change (Smith & Windes 2000). As the Teaching Captivity booklet explains, many positive terms have been corrupted, and negative terminology about those disagreeing with the normality and practice of homosexuality has been trumpeted (2002: 15). A list of these corrupted words includes diversity, multicultural, tolerance, safety, respect, freedom, and inclusive (Teaching Captivity 2002). For each of these, LWO describes the dictionary definition and then explains the ma nner in which language has been tainted by gay activism. For example, diversity is defined as a point of respect in which things differ yet redefined by the homosexual agenda to include the normality of various sexual behaviors ( Teaching Captivity 2002: 15). This point is further illu strated by Carpenter with the following case study. He describes how the sc hool in question was going to have a diversity week panel, 138

PAGE 139

including a session on homosexuality and religion where the speakers would all be clergy members. One student asked for her own clergy man to be on the panel and was refused: The school handed it over to the GSA [Gay Stra ight Alliance] to organize this panel so theyre all pro gay clergy They said but well let you give a speech at an open mike panel on What Diversity Means To Me. So she went home, she wrote the speech, and she had to submit the speech ahead of time because they wanted to make sure she didnt have inflammatory words or etc., etc. So she s ubmitted it, she received a phone call at home on a Sunday afternoon from a school assistant princi pal. That person said you need to remove the following sentences and she was told which ones to remove, and she was told to remove the sentences that referenced he r faiths belief system on the issue of homosexuality. She did not use offensive words, they were not overly negative or inflammatory; they just had the wrong messa ge about homosexuality so she was censored. So she sued her school and she won. (Carpenter 2006b) In this extract, Carpenter emphasizes how diversity only works one way: in favor of homosexuality. The strength and success of the gay agenda is perceived as such that any message deemed antigay, especially if it is religious in tone, is censored and di ffering opinions repressed. So, if diversity or any other of the red-flag words feature prom inently in educational programs, it is taken as evidence th at the school district in question ha s been corrupted by gay activists. The goal of the homosexual agenda to norma lize homosexuality is also described as increasingly influential within the theologi cal and religious community. In a session on Responding to Pro-Gay Theology, Joe Dallas (2006a) explains the relationship between the secular and religious gay agenda: In essence, lets define pro-gay theology as th is: It is the re ligious counter-part to pro-gay ideology. Now ideology is a set of arguments based on a be lief. Pro-gay ideology has the goal of normalizing sexuality. That is in esse nce the goal of the gay-rights movement, to normalize homosexuality and in doing so pro-gay ideology relies largely on secular disciplines, psychology, sociology, philosophy. No w pro-gay theology has the same goal as pro-gay ideology. That is, pro-gay theo logy seeks to normalize homosexuality, but on religious principle, no t secular principle. So where as pro-gay ideology states, Hom osexuality is normal, therefore we should consider it on par with heterosexuality. Progay theology takes it a step further and says, Homosexuality is God ordained. God creat ed some people to be homosexual as he created some people to be heterosexual. 139

PAGE 140

Both in religious and secular discourse, the pro-ga y agenda are described as one that intends the normalization of homosexuality. Within religi on, however, acceptance of homosexuality is defined using the conceptualization of sexuality as God ordained, to the extent that, gays and lesbians have twisted the biblical narrative on se xuality. In doing so, they have sought to present an image of a God who not only a ccepts their sexuality, but has o ffered it to them as a gift ( Responding to Pro-gay Theology: W hat Does the Bible Really Say? 2004: 7). The impact of the gay agenda within the c hurch community is defined as problematic as it is thought to signify a moment ous revision of Scripture and a move away from biblical teaching on appropriate sexuality. Reinterpretation of Scripture is of particular concern to Love Won Out since it is viewed as dis counting biblical truth ( Responding to Pro-gay Theology 2004:13). The booklet called Responding to Pro-gay Theology: W hat Does the Bible Really Say? explains why readers should be troubled: homosexua lity is particularly eg regious at this level because it rejects Gods design at its deepest point Despite hear ty attempts to redefine and reinterpret particular Scriptures, the true intent of the biblical narrative cannot be denied or twisted to fit any particular ag enda (2004: 12). Since Focus on th e Family believes in biblical inerrancy, the gay agenda in relig ion is depicted as distorting a nd misrepresenting the true Word of Goda particularly appalling sin. Love Won Out also ensure that their audien ce is clear on just how outrageous misrepresenting biblical truth is. In the fo llowing booklet extract, the writer explains the consequences of these mistruths: these distortions have caused grief and hardship to so many. We know from the Bible that those who practice homose xual acts receive in themselve s the due penalty for their perversion. Alan Chambers knows the eternity altering affects that not knowing and/or not abiding by the truth can have on an entire civ ilization Today cultu re is moving farther and farther away from biblical teachings about sexuality and gender Because of the downward spiral that has become our way of life, it is not surprising that people are 140

PAGE 141

questioning what is right and wrong regarding sex when wrong is now considered normal. Our actionsgood and badhave consequences that impact us, our society and every single living person that comes after us until eternity.( Straight Answers 2003: 20) In this selection, the author outlines not only the individua l impact of engaging in homosexual activity, but also the s ubsequent effects on society of allo wing the gay agenda to spread. Gay men and lesbian women are constructed as in line for their due penalty, which is later described as burning in hell. Hold ing to biblical misrepresentati on is depicted as a far more serious problem, however. Here, the booklet stress es the fact that revision of Scripture will irreversibly alter an entire civilization for eternity. In addition to describing the effect of pursuing a pro-homosexual agenda on society, LWO also detail the extent of the problem. Adheren ce to a gay-affirmative belief system has become so widespread, according to Joe Dallas (2006a), that: Today, [pro-gay theology] has become popularized to the point where many of our mainline denominations are on the verge of spli tting over it. As we speak this morning, the Presbyterian Church USA, the Evangelical Luth eran Church of America, of course the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, several sections of the American Baptist Church and several other denominations and independent groups ar e debating whether or not they should revise their position on homo sexuality and in each of these denominations there are large groups of peopl e believing the pro-gay interp retation of the scripture. Dallas emphasizes the power and reach of the gay agenda by identifying the ideological crisis in all of the major Protestant denominations. The political arena is also shown to have been strongly affected by the gay agenda. LWO describe public policy as having been subjected to an unrelenting assault from an illegitimate minority seeking special rights. From the LWO conference guide: Focus does take strong exception to the activist movement that seeks to gain special privileges and protected minority status for the homosexual community homose xuals have far higher average incomes and educations than most Americans, along with sign ificant political influence (2006: 7). This quote illustrates how LWO construct the political debate surr ounding homosexuality as a fight over the 141

PAGE 142

reinterpretation of the discourse such that homosexuals are perceived as wanting special protection for their immoral behavior, as I expl ained in chapter 1. As Herman (1997) explains, in order to represent one group as counterfeit, others must be constructed as authentic (112). The extract form the conference guide shows LWO constructing the civil rights claims of the lesbian and gay movement in this way. Furthermore, Love Won Out also bolster the strength of their opposition by referencing the supposed power of the lesbian and gay movement. Not only are the pro-gay movement perceived as falsely drawing upon a civil right discourse to which they have no right, they are also depicted as having enough political power to force through their agenda. Construction of an undeserving minority serves to delegitimize the ri ghts discourse of the lesbian and gay movement activists, as I describe in chapter 1. Herman (1997) explains the importance of such a move, The primary theme of Christian Right pragmatis ts is that, while rights may be due to the truly disadvantaged, the gay movement does not fit this description. Their argument contains two fused limbs: first gays are imme nsely wealthy; second, the gay movement is not only one of the most politic ally powerful in the country, but lesbians and gay men as individuals actually hold vast amounts of political power and unfairly wield it over others. As a result, civil rights protections will simply extend and entrench the extraordinary privileges of this elite and deceitful) because they portray themselves as oppressed) group. (116) LWO draw on these narrative techniques to demonstr ate how gays and lesbia ns use their political power to unfairly portray themselves as oppresse d. The following extract is from Haleys (2004) book, in response to the question, a friend of mine thinks that Christians are hateful when we dont think homosexuals should be granted equal rights protection or civil rights status. How should I respond? This question shows the success of homosexual ac tivists to ride on th e coattails of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which was implemented to gr ant minority class status to those in our country who were not treated equitably it's all too painfully easy to see the reality of discrimination against African Americans in this regard, but there has never been any 142

PAGE 143

noteworthy proof afforded the courts of this same discrimination being experienced by the gay community. Consider these findings: Fact oring in comparative household sizes, gays average an annual individual income of $36800 compared with $12287 for the average American and a mere $3041 for disadvantaged African Americans. This means that homosexuals make, on average, more than 300 percent more than the typical straight American and 1200 percent more than a disa dvantaged African-American more than three times as many gays as average Ameri cans are college graduates....More than three times as many gays as average Americans ho ld professional or managerial positions, making gays outrageously more advantaged than true minorities in the job market (180182) In this extract, Haley (2004) is drawing a clear delineation between deserving minorities, such as African Americans, and the undese rving gays and lesbians seeking to appropriate the minority discourse. In this way, he formulates both authen tic and counterfeit minorities in much the same way as Herman (1997) describes. After describing the numerous advantages that gays and lesbians have over the average American, Haley (2004) continues, the power of the gay lobby is impossible to miss. Public schools, fede ral, state, and local legislation many mainline church denominati ons have all seemingly felt the push of this powerful forcea record of success made all the more remarkable by the fact that the overall population has far fewer homosexuals th an there are concentrations of any other politically aware minority group. Its ludicrous, to say the least, for anyone to argue that this criterion [political powerle ssness] applies to gays. (182) In this extract, Haley refers directly to the potency of the gay and lesbia n civil rights movement, and the absurdity of their claims to minority status. It is also important to note here that part of his dismissal of minority status for gays and lesb ians rests on comparing their power in relation to their numbers in the population. In this wri ting, and in various speeches over the conference, Love Won Out refute claims that put homosexuals as ten percent of the po pulation. As Nicolosi (2006a) describes, people actually believe its 10% its really not Its really 1.5 to 2%. This is a critical point because it highlights a majo r contradiction in the discursive framework Love Won Out draw upon over the course of the day: that everyone is born heterosexual, yet there is a clearly identifiable number of homosexuals in the population. Ther e is a fundamental 143

PAGE 144

inconsistency within this narrative formulation since homosexuality cannot be both mutable and immutable at the same time. Nevertheless, both the fallaciousness of the ten percent argument and the actual gay population of two percent are drawn upon to demonstrate the power of the pro-gay agenda. The menace of homosexuality to public polic y is typically defined around the issue of gay marriage. As I explained in earlier chapters, the battle over same-sex marriage is one of the core issues for the New Christian Right and ha s been described in the most powerful terms, including as the Second Great Civil War (Dobson & Bauer 1994) The founder of Focus on the Family, James Dobson (1994), declares it a war on values and the hottest and most dangerous confrontation to date (46). He dr aws on the words of Winston Church ill to describe the battle as a clash upon which the fate of Christian ci vilization [is] riding (Dobson 1994: xiii). The push for same-sex marriage by gay a nd lesbian activists is described by LWO as the most radical social experiment ever proposed in our country (Maier 2006). The message here is that the drive toward gay marriage is a most extreme form of social experimentation. In the session called Straight Th inking on Gay Marriage, the speaker, Bill Maier, explains this in more detail, by referring to his vi ew of marriage in human history: Now, when we talk about this whole same-sex marriage debate, I think its important for us to remember what were talking about he re is an eradicable, redefinition of human family. Up until the last few milliseconds of human history, no society anywhere in the world at any time in recorded history has ev er affirmed homosexual marriage. Homosexual unions have never been considered a norma l, morally equal part of any society. Notably, Maier first tells the audience how to understand the extent of the problem, total reinterpretation of family, before moving into a metaphorical desc ription of the presence of gay marriage in human history. If hist ory is conceptualized in terms of time, gay marriage has only been in existence for milliseconds, yet still pose s a potent threat to human society. Maier (2006) continues his portrayal of th e danger of gay marriage by drawing a more global picture: 144

PAGE 145

If you were to spin that globe and you we re to stop it and stab your finger down on any inhabited land mass, anywhere in the world, what you would find is that marriage is and marriage has always been, the bringing together of men and women to cooperatively raise the next generation. And it doesnt matter whethe r youre talking about the remotest part of Siberia, the tiniest little Polynesian island. You will not find any culture or society where the basic family union is headed up by two me n or two women. But in the last few years there have been a few western countries and a few state judges in Ma ssachusetts that um have been arrogant enough to believe that we can take marriage and we can dismantle it, dismember it, disfigure it and not suffer a ny negative consequences. As Dr. Thomson often says: We tinker with marri age at our own peril. In this extract, Maier locates the discussion of same-sex marriage within the context of global norms. The emphasis is again on the prevalence of and preference for, heterosexual marriage. Those pushing the gay agenda are constructed as being in a very small, yet very powerful and very dangerous minority. To ensure that the audience understand the true extent of the problem, the last keynote address of the day, title d How Should We Respond? draws together all of the substantive themes I outlined above. The speaker, Joe Dallas, uses the opportunity of having the whole audience together one last time to get them fire d up about the issue of homosexuality and exhorts them to be active agents of change them selves. Towards the end of his speech, Dallas concentrates on the menace to society presente d by the gay and lesbian movement, and on the wide-ranging consequences of giving into th eir demands. He draws on the words of Martin Luther King Jr., in which King describes the church as being the conscience of the state, to paint a chilling picture of the repercu ssions felt in society due to th e incursion of the gay agenda: Now a man without a conscience is that scariest of all horror movie figures, the sociopath. The sociopath feels nothing. If it suits his pur poses, hell be nice to you, if it suits his purposes hell murder you Perhaps the only thing more frightening than a sociopath individual is a sociopath culture. A culture whose church ha s been intimidated into silence, cannot help but become a sociopath culture. A culture without its moral bearings, that will murder the inconvenient unborn, euthanize the inconvenient elderly, redefine the family unit to suit whatever prevailing political tre nds are happening. And should the conscience of the state, [the church], allow itself to be intimidated into silence, there is no hope for the state but to become sociopath. And God will requ ire the blood of the state at the hands of the conscience of the state that allowed itself to be intimidated into silence. It is not a 145

PAGE 146

stretch to say that as we speak, there are elem ents of the gay rights movement that seek to silence the conscience of the state. (Dallas 2006b) This extract comes from the same speech in whic h Dallas describes the goal of the gay agenda as being to silence opposing viewpoints, and which I me ntioned earlier in this chapter. Put together, this means that successful promotion of a prohomosexual agenda is constructed as being the final downfall of society, wher eby society will become sociopathic once the voice of the church is silenced. Subsequently, God is portrayed as demanding retribution from the church for allowing such things as abortion, ga y marriage and euthanasia to happen. Dallas continues his powerful denouncemen t of homosexuality by expanding on his conceptualization of the gay agenda s ilencing critics. As he describes, I would suggest that where you see the normali zation of homosexuality you will also see growing restrictions on freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion. Check any institution, state, or nation that has le gitimized homosexuality and you will find not only the normalization of homo sexuality, but the silencing of people who oppose that normalization. A lot of people think that same-sex marriage is going to be the last great battle in America ove r gay rights. Not so. The last battle will be over freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and freedom of re ligion. And it is that battle I fear more than any of the other battles we re currently figh ting. (Dallas 2006b) Once again, Dallas is condemning the seemingly all-powerful gay and lesbian civil rights movement. In this excerpt, Dallas furthers his argument by telling the audience where the battles over gay rights are going to e nd up. It is not just a battle over on substantive public policy; instead, it is a fight over the core cultural values of American society. He continues this line of thinking by providing the audience with comp rehensive examples of how opposition to gay rights has already been silence d. More specifically, Dallas (2006b) refers to the way in which religious opposition is being oppr essed in places where homose xuality is conceivably normal: In our neighboring Canada the shoe has al ready dropped, laws are now on the books that make it illegal to make statements publicly, anywhere, including in church that could quote, unquote: Incite hatred against homosexual people. Do they mean threatening someone? Calling someone an awful name? Quoting Leviticus? Nobodys saying. They might ask Pastor Green from Sweden who was a rrested last year for violating the Swedish 146

PAGE 147

law that made it illegal even from the pul pit to criticize homosexuality. And what was especially frightening in his trial were the words of the public prosecutor who said, and I quote: Collecting Bible verses on this topi c makes this hate speech. Collecting Bible verses on this topic makes this hate speech. The threat to freedom of speec h, freedom of conscience and fr eedom of religion is clearly demonstrated in the passage above: once homosexuality is normalized, religious oppression follows. From Dallas again: if we allow ourselves to be silenced on social issues, it is only a matter of time before we are silenced on the ve ry preaching of the Gospel. And if we cant do that, what are we even here for? Saving Society The threat to society posed by homosexuality is portrayed as so powerful that Love Won Out describe how audience members are under a divine mandate to work agai nst such destructive social forces. At the start of the session H ow Should We Respond?, Dallas explains the importance of this: You cant take a position on homosexuality without causing some controversy To be controversial just for the sa ke of making noise, oh thats childish. But there are times the body of Christ has a divine mandate to be controversial for the sake of the truth. And this is one of those times. The audience, as members of the body of Christ and evangelical Christians, are required to conf ront the issue of homosexuality h ead-on and to promote the truth claims about homosexuality as described by Love Won Out As the title of the address i ndicates, this session provides th e discursive framework through which the audience can understand the appropriate responses to homosexuality. Important, here, is the notion LWO portrays that they, through churches following similar doctrine, are the only ones with the truth about homosexuality. Not onl y that, they construct themselves as knowing exactly Gods response to these issues. C onsequently, they are the authorities on how 147

PAGE 148

homosexuality should be read, understood, and re sponded to. In the following reference, Dallas (2006b) explains how this works: Now here, I believe, Paul gives us a cue in E phesians 2-10 when he says: We, the church, are Christs workmanship. And the Greek wo rd he uses for workmanship is Poiema, from which we get our word poem. I love this thought. Just as a poet tries to express themselves through his work, so God is trying to express his heart and his mind through us, his Poiema. So ideally, if a non-believer wants to know what the God of the Bible feels for homosexual people, and what the God of the Bible thinks about homosexuality, that nonbeliever need go no further than Gods Poiema to get an accurate reading on the heart and mind of God. We are in essence, his visual representation on earth. Those listening, therefore, have been equipped not only with the truth about homosexuality as seen by Focus on the Family and Love Won Out but with Gods truth. They have been given the interpretive resources they need to understand ex actly the power of the information received over the course of the day. Consequently, they see themselves as working to promote Gods true message of homosexuality, that it is sinful, dangerous and needs to be eradicated from society. The strength of this mandate is such that Dallas (2006b) warns people to take their charge very seriously: [being the visual representation of Christ on earth] puts a tremendous responsibility on the body of Christ. Because we know this fr om both testaments, God hates being misrepresented. People have lost their very lives for misrepresenting the very heart and mind of God. And so should we fall short of accurately representing his heart and his mind I believe God would call us to repentance a nd recommitment in three primary areas. As this quote shows, the audience is urge d to act on the information provided at Love Won Out since it is intimately connected with the true word of God and there would, therefore, be tremendous consequences if they either sat idle or were guilty of misrepresentation. Such is the strength of the mandate for th e audience to be active agents of change themselves, that they are given the interpretive resources they need to affect that change throughout the course of the conference. All of these different threads are then drawn together in the last session, How Should We Respond? In much the same as the speakers at LWO 148

PAGE 149

demonstrate the threat posed by the gay agenda acr oss different social institutions, so they also illustrate how those listening can put the informati on they are hearing into practice to fight the incursion of the gay agenda in those same institutions. The breakout session on educat ion, titled Teaching Captivity: Addressing the Pro-Gay Agenda in Your School is explicitly designe d for educators and parents to receive the information they need to counter pro-homosexua l messages in schools. As the conference guide explains, Parents, teachers and administrators of ten find themselves at a loss in countering this onslaught. This session outlines action steps in co nfronting gay-affirmativ e curricula and how to counter anti-family activism in your schools (20 06: 10). Carpenter begins the session by asking the audience members to identify whether they ar e parents, teachers, admi nistrators or trainee teachers, and the majority fall into one of these categories. Having done this, he then lays out the problems of the pro-gay agenda in schools, which he partially explains in his after-lunch plenary address I explained in the be ginning of this chapter. Once the audience make-up is established a nd the problem is defined, Carpenter sets about presenting a set of solutions for teachers, parents and students. Of primary importance is that all three of these groups are encouraged to become more vocal and more active. Carpenter draws upon his own experiences as teacher, principal and college professor to suggest practical ways to do this. He begins with parents: I can tell you first hand when I was a school pr incipal I anticipated very little input and resistance on decisions that I made. I rarely thought, well I wonder what people will think about this? other than my teachers very rarely did I think well I wonder how parents will think about this because it so rarely happened that somebody would come in, that someone would have an issue or a complaint. So, parents, first things first. What I tell folks is to think about how you can what I call protect your child. That is, if your school is going to address the issue, you wa nt to tell them you want to be notified first so that you can make the proper decision for your child. (Carpenter 2006b) 149

PAGE 150

In this extract Carpenter uses his own experiences to inform parents of the best way to counter the issue of homosexuality in schoo ls, and that is to as k the school to keep a letter in the childs file requesting parental permission before addr essing this subject. In terms of becoming more vocal and more active, Carpenter suggests sp eaking to both like-minded parents and like-minded teachers. Teachers will be able to inform the parents of decisions made that contradict Conservative Christian values, as Carpenter (2006b) illustrates, I just asked how many teachers do I have and I had teachers put up their hand all over the place. There are Christian teachers who know whats going on and can tell you. I was one of those. It wasnt unusual for a parent to come in and say hey I heard that the school is going to do x y and z what do you know about th at? And I would tell th em yes, no, this is whats going on etc., etc. So you can find people who will help you. Here, he suggests allying with teachers of a si milar ideological mindset in order to have an insiders point of view on the happenings within the school. He also recommends parents banding together to approach the school, since a group will not be as easily dismissed. Again, Carpenter (2006b) explains the importance of using these particular strategies, Heres how its done. I have done it not on th is issue but I have done it when a parent came in with a complaint. I said well Mrs. Sm ith youre the only one to come in and tell me that. Now what does she think? Wow, I guess maybe Im overreacting, I guess maybe its just me. Thats how easy it is to dismiss an individual. But a group is not so easy to dismiss. As a principal my second worst fear was that a group of parents would come into my office with with a complaint. It can be very intimidating. In addition to providing a set of practical appr oaches for parents, Carpenter also presents a framework for action on behalf of teachers and students. Again, the most important of these is to be actively engaged within the school commun ity with a number of likeminded peers, so find those people in your building who believe what you believe or who would agree with what you agree with (Carpenter 2006b). In the booklet that accompanies the breakout session, both teachers and students are encouraged to relentlessly pursue the truth ( Teaching Captivity 2002: 150

PAGE 151

30) about homosexualitythat it is sinful, danger ous and mutable. Teachers, for example, can insist upon: Equal Time homosexual activists demand that teachers address the issue in class and more and more schools are requiring it. As a te acher, you may be forced to address it, but you can demand equal time. You can talk about or ask someone else to share a different message about homosexualitytha t you dont have to be gay. ( Teaching Captivity 2002: 31) In this extract, there is emphasis on sharing one of the messages that Love Won Out insistently promotes: that homosexuality is mutable, and th at no one is born gay. Students, too, are provided with the discursive tools necessary to promulgate this central message of the LWO conference: Refuse to be a pawn in the pro-gay agenda in your school. If the information you are being taught seems to have a pro-gay slant to it, it s not being fairly presented. Use discernment when you suspect opinions, rather than facts are being taught. Dont be afraid to raise your hand and ask you teachers about specific questions about the facts on homosexuality. This will get your peers and teach er thinking twice about the information. You can ask questions like: I heard that only 1 to 3 percent of the population is gay or lesbian isnt that true? No studies have proven that homosexuality is geneticright? Its documented that thousands of people have come out of homosexualitywhy do some people say its not possible? ( Teaching Captivity 2002: 32) In this passage, there is further reference to the fact that homosexuality is changeable; that the pro-gay agenda is based on opinion, not fact, and that those facts used are patently false. The students are then given exact instruct ions on how to combat these issues. Within the educational establishment more generally, LWO also give explicit instructions on who needs to be contacted to address issu es of homosexuality, and how to go about doing this. They suggest attendance at school board meetings, and give tips on how to achieve particular political goals within this realm. Moreover, they also include a sample letter from a parent to a school principal in th e conference guide. This letter asks that parents be notified when the school teaches about anythi ng connected with sexuality, ho mosexuality, or alternative 151

PAGE 152

lifestyles. It also requests th at homosexuality not be taught at all, and if referred to, should address both sides of the argument. By way of illustration: if this issue must be addressed, we ask that the school at least present a balanced view by allowing knowledge authorities such as doctors and former homosexuals to address some of the c onsequences associated with homosexuality (Teaching Captivity 2002: 24). Another letter is contained in the booklet Teaching Captivity (2002) that addresses sim ilar issues in terms of how a student should contact their school or a newspaper editor. In response to the pro-gay age nda in the religious community, Love Won Out provide a narrative framework that the audience can use to combat theological arguments gays and lesbians use to attempt to normalize homosexualit y in the spiritual realm. In his session on Understanding Pro-Gay Theology, Joe Dallas (2006a) explains th e purpose behind his address, So pro-gay theology is in essen ce a revision of the scriptures a nd Id like to look at the five Scriptures that specifically name and conde mn homosexuality, two from the old testament, three from the new and Id like to look this morning at the revisionist interpretation of these Scriptures, the pro-gay take on them a nd then offer a response to that. so we can be better equipped to respond to those interpretations. Here Dallas expressly states th at his goal is to empower thos e listening to respond to pro-gay interpretation of the Bible in an appropriate ma nner, using the discursive tools he provides. The Scriptures he examines include excerpts from Leviticus, and assorted New Testament verses, such as 1 Corinthians. Dallas isolates passages, articulates the revisionist pro-gay interpretations of these passages, and then refutes then. He begins by referencing Leviticus 18-22 T hou shall not lie with mankind as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination And Levitic us 20-13, If a man lie with a man as with a woman, both of them has committed an abomination, they shall surely be put to death. Dallas (2006a) describes the pro-gay interp retation in the following manner, 152

PAGE 153

But the revisionists viewpoint would say so mething like this: Hey wait a minute, other prohibitions in Leviticus, di etary prohibitions, ceremonial prohibitions, etcetera, are generally viewed by the church today as bei ng culturally bound to the ancient Israelites. That is, there are many scriptures both in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that we look at today and say well we are not bound by that, that was a cultural prohibition for that time. So why then should prohibitions against homosexual ity be singled out and enforced today? His rebuttal focuses on two key areas, whether or not biblical law condemns homosexuality and whether that condemnation is still binding. Dallas explains that the fact some of these prohibitions are repeated in the New Testamen t means they are still relevant. By way of illustration, We do know according to specific New Testament verses that aspects of the law are not binding on us today. And so for example Paul told the Galatians, Youre observing feast days and youre observing dietary laws that you are no longer bound by. But its interesting to note that in Leviticus 18 and 20 you have prohibitions against sexual behaviors that are also prohibi ted in the New Testament as well. So the prohibitions in these chapters against adultery, incest, sorc ery and homosexuality are confirmed in the New Testament as well. for believers whethe r they be Jewish or gentile. (Dallas 2006b) He details exactly how to answer back to th eologians who may be drawing upon this type of narrative resource. He continues his refutation by explaining how a different revision of the same Scripture argues that homosexuality is only cond emned as part of idol worship and Heathen ceremony. According to this premise, homosexua lity outside of such a ceremony would be permissible. To which Dallas (2006a) responds, Now if we are going to impose that con tingency on the Scriptures referring to homosexuality we have to impose it on all of th e other prohibitions as well. You cant have it both ways. In other words, if we are going to say that homosexuality in Leviticus is only condemned if its practiced as part of idol worship we must say the same thing about adultery, incest and bestiality, which of course nobody is going to say because they are so obviously condemned throughout Scripture. So is homosexuality condemned in the Levitical code? Yes, clearly it is. For each of the blocks of Scripture men tioned, Dallas goes through the same process I outlined above for the verses from Leviticus. He first outlines the pro-gay theological version, and then thoroughly discredits it. What he is doin g, therefore, is furnishi ng those listening with 153

PAGE 154

the interpretive tools critical for supporting th eir own ideological stance. Furthermore, since Love Won Out promote the idea that they are the sole purveyors of God s truth about homosexuality, they are also arming their followers against the se duction of what they have determined to be the false doctrine of pro-gay theology ( Responding to Pro-Gay Theology 2004). It is also important to note at this point that Dallas also explicitly refers to the impending Second Coming of Jesus before closing this session. This is important because Dallas (2006b) explains how true believers will recognize Armageddon, [Jesus said] Take heed that no one deceive you. And he said, In fact in those days, the power of deception will be so great, if possible even Gods very elect are going to be deceived. Paul said something similar to Ti mothy when he said, In the last days the times are going to get perilous Men will not endure sound doct rine. Objective, sound truth will become unacceptable and people will want to hear, not what is true, but what is convenient. Here, Dallas stresses that the end of the world will come after believers start to reject sound doctrinal truths, and instead embrace a false set of truthssimilar to the situation he portrays with the acceptance of pro-gay theology. Love Won Out s provision of a narrative framework allowing the audience to counter progay beliefs in the church is mi rrored in their empowering of the audience to fight legislation approving same-sex marriage. There are two sessions in the conference that deal expressly with this issue (they are both the same, but held at different times to ensure that the audience can attend one of them), called Straight Thinking on Gay Marriage. These are designed to do the following: Gay marriage is a reality in the U.S.now how do we as Christians make a convincing, compassionate case for why this is not in the best interest of society and our children? This session will equip attendees with the facts and strategies they need to effectively argue for the benefits of traditional marriage to their friends, coworkers and legislators ( Love Won Out Conference Guide 2006: 11). 154

PAGE 155

As the passage illustrates, LWO acknowledge that the express purpose of the session is to provide the tools the audience w ould need to counter proposed sa me-sex marriage legislation. Towards the beginning of the session, the speaker, Bill Maier, reinterprets the discourse surrounding the gay marriage debate so that the audience are clear on what the arguments are really about. By doing this, he ensures that those listening are familiar with the appropriate institutional responses to same-sex marriage. They are, in fact, given the right responses and told exactly how they should think about th is issue. Maier (2006) first outlines what Love Won Out say the gay marriage debate is not about: First of all its not about whether gays and le sbians are nice people or good citizens... Its not about whether gays and lesbians can form loving relationships... It s not about whether gays and lesbians can be loving parents... And its not about whether homosexuals should be treated with respect and dignity. Every member of the human race should be treated with respect and dignity. As Christians we should be the first to uphold that because we believe that human beings are made in Gods image, exactly. In this extract, Maier attempts to defuse all of the major arguments in support of gay marriage by reinterpreting the terms of the gay ma rriage debate. He carefu lly stresses that the question of whether or not gay couples should be allowed to marry has nothing to do with love, respect or citizenship. He does, in fact, say that lesbians and ga ys have loving relationships and should be afforded the secular rights of full c itizens. Those listening are being shown how to effectively neutralize the potency of the gay agenda by agreeing with the key arguments, and instead refocusing the debate. Having explained what the deba te is not about, Maier then sh ifts his attention to what Love Won Out believe the same-sex marriage debate is actually about. The following passage explains their approach, Its about whether we have th e right to redefine marriage so its elastic enough to include any grouping of adults regardless of their gender Its about whether we embrace the wonderful human diversity expressed in the two genders, male and female. Its about whether men and women complement and comple te each other in their differences. Its 155

PAGE 156

about whether mothers and fathers play unique and irreplaceable roles in the lives of their children... And its whether there are compelling so cietal reasons to define marriage as one thing, and not define it as something else. (Maier 2006) In this extract, Maier outlines all of the key argu ments that the audience need to be aware of in order to fight same-sex marriage. First and fore most, he questions whether anyone has the right to tamper with traditional marriage definitions. Later in this same speech, and in many of the other sessions over the course of the day, marriage is defined as an institution that is divinely ordained, for those of you who are married or those of you who are aspiring to marriage, as Christians we know that heterosexual marriage was established by God since marriage was created by God, it naturally follows that it is a universal, human institution (Maier 2006). Consequently, the audience are mandated to oppos e any legislative changes to marriage since this is constructed as protecting the word of G od. The remainder of this paragraph relates to the perceived role of men and women within the ma rriage relationship, and is connected with the wider discursive framework LWO use to define appropriate sexual expression in terms of gender and bodies. In addition to redefining the terms of the sa me-sex marriage debate, Maier also gives the audience further information on combating the discourse put forth by the pro-gay activists. Specifically, he addresses the issue of benefits for same-sex and opposite-sex couples: Now in the public debate over same-sex marriage gay s pokespeople often argue th at gay couples should be given the same, the same state and federal bene fits, that are given to heterosexual couples and thats a reasonable argument Here, he identifies the demands of the gay community as seemingly reasonable, before he utterly refutes them: The reason society provides benefits to marriag e is because marriage benefits society in some remarkable ways How does marriage benefit adults? Well in some pretty remarkable ways. Married people have better emotional and physical health and live longer than unmarried people. And before I go on lemme just tell you that Im talking about, when I go into these statistics Im talking a bout natural, heterosexual marriage. Theres no 156

PAGE 157

evidence that homosexual marriage would provi de these same benefits Married couples have greater incomes than single adults and th e longer they stay married the more wealth they accumulate. Married couples enjoy grea ter sexual satisfaction Married women are safer than unmarried women. Never married, cohabited, separated and divorced women experience higher rates of domestic violence th en married women some of the ways that marriage benefits society. Marriage makes homes safer places to live because it curbs social problems such as domestic violen ce and child-abuse. Communities with more married parent families are safer and more attractive places to live because theyre less likely to have substance abuse and crim e among young people And married people are more likely to be healthy, productive a nd engaged citizens benefiting businesses and ultimately benefiting the economy married folks typically make make better employees than single folks or divorced folks. (Maier 2006) This list demonstrates all the criteria that marri age is perceived to bene fit both individuals and society. Maier suggests that these can all be used as strong points to argue when reiterating the need for marriage, and the requirement to deny st ate and federal benefits to same-sex couples. Moreover, he also expounds on the need to deny marriage to homosexuals, despite arguments suggesting that these same benefits would apply to same sex marriages: There is recent research from the Netherlands that does not support that belief so what did they find as they looked at these male, gay couples in long-term relationships? Well gay men in steady partnerships stay together for an average of 18 months. These are the committed gay male couples. An average of one and a half years. And during that time gay men with a steady partner have an average of eight additiona l sexual partners per year monogamy and fidelity are vi rtually nonexistent in the male homosexual community. (Maier 2006) Maier uses this example to strengthen claims that marriage should be restri cted to heterosexuals since the key concepts of monogamy and fidelity are missing in male same-sex relationships. He does not specifically mention lesbian couples, although he hints that such promiscuity also characterizes lesbian relationships. The final part of the discursive framework used by LWO to empower the audience to counter attempts to legalize same-sex marriage involves linking it with polygamy, incest, and pedophilia. This is a particularly powerful narra tive tool as it simultane ously delegitimizes gay 157

PAGE 158

and lesbian right to marry claims, while connecting them with two of societys strongest sexual taboos: incest and pedophilia. From Bill Maier (2006) again, Now, if we redefine marriage in one way, real ly there is no logical reason for us to not redefine it in another way and I think its important for us to look at what might lie ahead for our culture if same-sex marriage is legalized whats to stop us from redefining it to consider marriage between a man and four wome n or a group of six or seven heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual adults and their respective children? if a father wants to marry his fourteen-year-old daughter, who are we to stop him? Importantly, Maier takes the audience on a hypothe tical journey from the historical moment when same-sex marriage is legalized, to the logical conclusion he describes. He implies that if those assembled do not organize to defeat this menace, then society will deteriorate to such a point where there are no sexual mores, and fa thers would be free to marry their underage daughters should they desiresin ce there would be no legal justification for stopping them doing just as they please. By the end of the session on gay marriage, th e congregation has a set of definitive ideas on how to engage in dialogue with supporters of this legislation. They have been told how to understand what the debate is really about, marriage as a fundamental religious institution has been reiterated, the benefits of heterosexual marriage have been clearly outlined, homosexual unions have been proven false a nd the consequences to society of allowing gay marriage have been stressed. Consequently, the audience is now ready to carry the message about gay marriage to a wider circle of people and fight any pot ential legislation s upporting same-sex unions. Indeed, at the very end of the session, Maier in troduces a speaker who will be available to answer audience questions on how to combat sp ecific state same-sex marriage legislation, and how to organize to pass constitu tional marriage protection acts. 158

PAGE 159

Saving Souls The institutional selves produced by Love Won Out in service of the organization are encouraged to become active agents of change themselves. They are given a narrative framework that allows for identification and interpretation of the key issues in the debate over homosexuality and subsequently pushes them to fight incursion of the pro-gay agenda across different social institutions. This is not the end of the story for these selves, however. They are also given the interpretive resour ces necessary to affect change on an individual level. Since Focus on the Family is an evangelical Christian or ganization, this typically involves practical tips on how to evangelize the gay community, and how to reach gay and lesbian friends and love ones. Dallas (2006b) explains the importance of r eaching out to individuals in the last plenary address of the day, To hear some of us talk, you would think it was more important to politically defeat homosexual people than it is to see them won into the Kingdo m. And that ought not to be The culture wars are important I will not withdraw from them. But there are more important things than the culture wars. Ther e are the souls of the lesbian women and the gay men we are often opposing. Here, Dallas recognizes significance of fighting against gays and lesbians politica lly, but also implicates the battle over souls as being the most decisive. The speakers at the conference routinely suggest ways that the message they are promoting can be utilized outsi de the discursive boundaries of the conference. Much as production of the gay self rests on the two pivotal discourses of religi on and reparative therapy, so, too, do the techniques for diffusing narrative c onstructions of the ex-gay self across the identity landscape. Indeed, those listening are repeatedly told th at the characteristics of gay and lesbians selves are such that they are emotionally needy, temperamentally vulnerable, and can therefore be easily influenced. 159

PAGE 160

One of the adjustments that audience member s are told to make when first hearing that their loved one identifies as gay or lesbian is to reinterpret the way in which the gay or lesbian individual stories their own se lf identity. More specifically, LWO insist that gay men and lesbian women are not as happy as they initially ex claim on first coming out. As Mike Haley (2006b) explains in a session designed to help those wanting to reach out to their loved ones, It talks about in Scripture how sin is pleasur able for a season and oftentimes you will hear your loved one or your friend talk about especi ally when they first come out look Im happier than I ever have been Im being true to who I am Im finally embracing who God has made me to be this homosexual indivi dual Scripture talks about that and so oftentimes its like th e elephant has just been let out of the cage you know the zoo keeper wants to stand in the way and stop the elephant but hes going to wi nd up getting trampled on. This narrative formulation allows parents with gay children to reframe their childs experience into a framework that still depicts homosexuality as sinful, emotionally damaging and dangerous. In other words, their children are not actually happy; instead they are being seduced by the temptations of homosexual si n. As Haley (2004) explains, Society has silenced any message of hope re garding change from homosexuality, and the church hasnt stepped boldly up to the pl ate either. So individuals with same-sex attractions have been left to fend for them selves. When the pain of denial, hiding or repression becomes so heated the pot begins to boil and the top is blown right off, men and women come out and express a newfound freedom like never before. (47) In this passage, Haley identifies the fact that the ex-gay message has been silenced as one of the key reasons that gays and lesbia ns feel repressed, and depresse d. Subsequently, the expectations is that once they have embraced the counterfe it happiness offered by the gay lifestyle, and embraced the false idea of a biological immutable homosexual identity, they would indeed feel a huge sense of relief. As a result, it is incumbent upon the church, parents and other love d ones to spread the message that homosexuality is, in fact, mutable. From Haley (2004) again, in response to a question from a mother concerni ng her sons supposed happiness: 160

PAGE 161

The key for your son in the weeks and months to come is for him to realize its not too late to turn back. This is where the church and loved ones like you come in. If he hears that change is possible, that he wa s not made this way, and that he is loved there is hope that when the feeling of relief wears off and the emp tiness sets in, he will try to live his life in line with Gods will. (47) Haley is advocating for the message of change to be spread as widely as possible. He argues that the nature of homosexuality is su ch that people will eventually b ecome tired of its false promise and begin to realize that they are beset by inner emptinessas re parative therapists explain the some of the causes of same-sex desire. Before th is happens, however, he stresses that in the meantime, advise you to pray that he becomes as miserable as possibl e, as soon as possible (Haley 2004: 47). Once this happens, Haley believes then the stricken loved one would be more receptive to the religious message that the parent is trying to promote. The speakers at LWO frequently combine the understan ding developed through reparative therapy with evangelical religious discourse to su ggest to the audience how to reach out to gays and lesbians. As I outlined above, and in earlier chapters, reparative therapists believe that homosexuals are fundamentally unhappy and have deep-seated psychological distress stemming from inadequate parent-child bonding. Consequently, those listening are urged to wait for evidence of this vulnerability before stepping in with the message of hope LWO are trying to spread. The following selections, from different sessions and fr om Haleys book, illustrate this idea, let him get tired and let him realize what homos exuality is all about so when theyre tired and theyre worn out thats when we can begin to invest in their life (Haley 2006b) you can still show empathy for a hurting person and say you know Ive been through break-ups and I know its painful and Im r eally sorry and I would even pray before you do this, but this is where I might see opportunity for evangelism: You fe el like the loss of this relationship is you know longer have a re ason to live but let me tell you about my reason for living because man has let me down to when I say man I mean humans I dont mean men but just in general. Ive been le t down a lot by people and Ive been through bad break-ups but Jesus is the only one who is not going to let me down. Id love to tell you about him. (Fryrear 2006c) 161

PAGE 162

many hidden issues can contribute to a str uggle with homosexuality. If you suspect your acquaintance is flirting with homosexuality, st art by exploring these issues if you are a youth pastor who wants to approach a yout h, you could begin by saying Gary, when you talk about your family, you light up when you talk about your mumalways making sure I understand how much you cant stand your dad. Have you ever thought about how this negative relationship with your dad a ffects your life? ... you may uncover homosexual inclinations, but more importantly, you are mini stering to the core of the problem .As with any sin issue, we must look beyond so meones behavior and minister to the wound that have prompted them (Haley 2004: 67-68). In all of these extracts, the focus is on finding an entry point into the gay or lesbian persons life, which opens up when that self is wounded a nd suffering. Having found an entry, the emphasis shifts to introducing that self to the interpreti ve constructs necessary to free them from the constraints of homosexuality. In other words, the audience is taught to take advantage of suffering selves to evangelize them, and in th eir opinion, save their soul. This is what Love Won Out refers to as ministering to their humanity. For example, About ministering to their humanity whic h doesnt mean that we condone their homosexuality. If you have a coworker and you h ear her crying in the office next to you and shes just broken up with her partner well I mean who cant empathize with a break up? And even though the relationships are illegi timate in that theyre not Gods design the feelings are still real and so being able to minister where that person is and being able to share that God would comfort them a nd encourage them and show Himself to them. Now Im not going to pray that her girlfriend come back not going to pray condoning their sexuality but being able to meet that person where she is in that moment of loss and grief that we can all relate to. (Fryrear 2006c) Notice that the emphasis is on praying with the pe rson who has been hurt, and bringing their soul back to God. Furthermore, the speaker in this extract, Melissa Fryrear, makes a clear delineation between praying for those hurting and support for their homosexuality. In addition to ministering to those suffering, LWO also encourages the audience to go out of their way to befriend gays and lesbians and al so to make sure they remain in close contact with their homosexual loved ones. The speakers s uggest nurturing friendships in order to win a place of trust in the gay or lesbians life. Once this happens, the audience ar e depicted as being in a perfect place to minister to the gay or le sbian when the inevitabl e emotional breakdown 162

PAGE 163

happens. Fryrear (2006d) details how to structure a friendship w ith a homosexual individual so this can take place, if you have a friend who is st ruggling make [homosexuality ] the back-burner issue. If were too aggressive on always talking about this, we run the risk of pushing that person away if he or she does not know Christ. That s ultimately our great est heart concern of seeing people come to know Jesus Christ. Be vulnerable and real a bout your own life, I like what Mike says, Vulnerability breeds vul nerability. Issues of sexuality and gender are some of the most intimate in our lives a nd there needs to be a le vel of trust built up in that relationship for that person to be able to talk openly, so invest in building that relationship. Fryrear lays out expressly how to approach friendship with gays and lesbians. The ultimate goal is to save the soul of the unrepentant gay or lesbian and the easiest way to do this is to maneuver a position of trust such that the other person wi ll open up about their life Haley (2004) explains further, show interest in his career, ask about hi s latest vacation, or simply enjoy your time with him over dinner (51-52). The audience, therefore, are having their own se lf identity restoried such that they are seen to have a powerful role in reaching gays for Christ. They are empowered to become actively involved and are supplied with the narrative resources required to do this. The role of the Christian loved one or frie nd as an evangelist is expounded by Joe Dallas (2006c) in his session on Top Ten Questions Love d Ones Ask, As stewards of the truth, we should speak the truth as clearly and lovingly as possible, always remembering that it isnt words that change peoples hearts and at titudes, its the spir it of God taking those words and using them in that persons life. In other words, those li stening are constructed as being the only ones with a true understanding of homosexuali ty, and it is incumbent upon them to spread that message to people they love. Haley (2006b) advances this idea by furnishi ng his audience with a set of questions and answers that those listening can use to approach those they wish to evangelize, one of the things that I often do when Im dealing with people that struggle with homosexuality or people that want to walk away from homo sexuality, or even people that dont, is that I like to use wh ats called the whole person mode l. God has created us to be sexual beings, physical beings, moral beings a nd social being God has created in us the 163

PAGE 164

ability to think. So one of the very first places that I want to engage with someone thats dealing with the issue of homosexuality is th eir intellect. And the ve ry first place that I start is tell me why youre gay because if they believe that they were born that way then you know where you need to begin to e ngage their mind and you know where the educational process needs to begin. Haleys initial approach to evangelism draw s on one of the primary narrative resources LWO stress over the course of the conference: that no one is born gay. If the target of evangelism believes this myth, the one reaching out is encourag ed to use scientific studies to discredit this belief system, in the hope that the gay or lesbia n will start to question their own sense of self identity. Haley (2006b) con tinues his instructions: If they believe that homosexuality is someth ing that happened in their life that it was developmental, then thats a wonderful place because thats where the area of ministry is going to start. Another place that I like to e ngage them is to talk about the physical. Theres some real potential danger of involvement in homosexuality And these potential physical consequences are different for males than for females but theyre still a number of situations that are very nega tive physically for both men and women that involve themselves in homose xual behavior Back to the physical, this is one of the things that I like to do with especially men that struggle with homosexuality look youre young, youre attractive, youre 25, 26 years ol d, the gay community is basically eating you up but youre getting all th e attention you need, youre young, youre attractive the gay community thinks wow. But I want you to notice when youre at the bar at two in the morning when the lights turn on and everybod ys leaving, whos left sitting at the bar? And who is it? Its the 40, 50, 60 year old men that have less hair th at have pot bellies, these are the ones that are left alone and why is that? Because they are no longer the valued commodity. This selection, too, illustrates how to use the pivotal discourses of the Love Won Out conference to reach out to struggling ho mosexuals. Haley implicates the reparative therapists developmental approach as the starting point fo r ministry. He then turns to the perceived physical dangers of continued engagement in sa me-sex sexual activity as a way to persuade unrepentant souls to change their behavior and outlook. Reliance on the conditions of possibility fo r a sexual self defined by a discursive framework embedded within reparative thera py also suggests that homosexuality can be prevented as well as treated. As I have already mentioned, the ultimate goal of the LWO 164

PAGE 165

conferences is defined as savi ng the souls of gays and lesbia ns who would be condemned to eternal damnation if they do not repent of their sexual sin. When taken in combination with reparative therapies discourse s uggesting that causes of homosexual ity have been isolated, this, I argue means that conference goers are encouraged and empowered to prevent homosexuality and therefore protect vulnerable souls. This has become such an important issu e, that the prevention of homosexuality in children has become one of the primary emphases of research within the exgay movement (Haley 2004: 24). Reparative therapy posits that homosexuality is a gender identity problem, as I have explained in earlier chapters. As a result, hom osexuality can be prevented if children are encouraged to present and maintain appropriate gender expression. Parents, teachers, friends and other family members are therefore urged to ac tively police childrens ge nder identity. In the session called The Prevention of Male Homosexuality, Nicolosi suggests that parents must take proactive steps when dealing with their male children, Clear and consistent affirmation of the childs gender. Often parents make the error of doing nothing. They see the boy doing someth ing effeminate and they do nothing, they freeze, they avoid. They rationalize; oh its just a phase and then the phase becomes a stage and the stage becomes a developmental period and then it becomes a decade and then an era and a lifestyle and then its too late .Intervene. Speak up. Because as Richard Green said, doing nothing is a signal to him of approval ... And what youre doing is reinforcing the androgynous fantasy. Rather we advise parents a clear and constant message. We do not accept your effeminacy. We emphasize the positive: reinforcing the masculine but discouraging, but not punishing the negative. We avoid sh aming, but we are supportive and encouraging and uplifting of anything that is masculine. Youre a boy, mum and dad love you as a boy, God made you as a boy, being a boy is special. In this excerpt, Nicolosi gives clear direction on how parents must act toward their children. He assumes that effeminacy in boys results in later homosexuality and argues that suppression of this effeminacy young children will prevent sexual struggleto the point that he supports gender intervention on children as young as two and three years old. If the young boys masculinity is consistently affirmed, Nicolosi insists that this will be enough to stop the development of same165

PAGE 166

sex attraction. As he explains, I believe that the future of the debate on homosexuality will not be on the treatment but on the prevention because we can accomplish with children in a matter of months what will take years of treatment for adults. To successfully prevent homosexuality, ther e is also strong emphasis on the importance of the parent-child bond, and the presence of two, opposite-sex parents. Reparative therapists like Nicolosi implicate poor parent-child socializ ation as one of the causal factors in adult homosexuality. If children grow up with inadequate gender role modeling from their parents, they are depicted as being vulne rable to struggles with same-sex attraction. Consequently, the audience are repeatedly urged to be role models to the children in their lives. Moreover, single mothers are advised to reach out to other adult men to help ment or their male children otherwise Nicolosi warns of a future rise in homosexuality. He explains thus: A question always asked is with all these single mothers are we going to see more homosexuality? Well, yes, unless those women can get a good male figure. Two minutes before I started talking there was a question pu t to me by a mother, wh at do I do? Fathers not around. Find a male figure. This boy has to f eel that theres one ma n that really sees me as masculine. (Nicolosi 2006b) Children of same-sex parents are al so perceived as being particular ly in need of adult same-sex role models. From Melissa Fryrear (2006d), children need a mother figure and a father fi gure in raising them if you have gay identified loved ones who have had children, I would encourage you to be a part of that childs life, especially two women who have a son. How desperately he needs that father figure in his life, and so the gr andfather or the uncle to be in tentional in that boys life. On my best butch day I could not be a father to a son. Prevention, therefore, rests on consta nt affirmation of what is deem ed as appropriate behavior for boys and girls, in addition to the pr esence of two opposite sex parents. Since Love Won Out consistently argue that homosexua lity is a danger to individuals and to society, early prevention of homosexuality would successful ly diminish this threat. 166

PAGE 167

167 The institutional selves produced by Love Won Out are supplied with the narrative resources they need to engender change in social institutions, and in other troubled selves. They are taught to recognize the threat posed to norma tive heterosexuality with in the confines of education, the church and through support for same sex marriage. The gay agenda is constructed as having such potency that, if left unchecked, it will radically alter society. Consequently, the audience are repeatedly urged to fight the incurs ion of the pro-gay message in order to save society, and given practical ways to do this. As a result, they are facilitating the diffusion of their message across numerous other institutions. Furthermore, LWO define troubled gay selves as being able to change, and just in need of spir itual direction and ex-gay selves as needing the support of the church. Consequently, the speakers consistently exhort those listening to use the interpretive resources they have le arned to reach out to, and save, other struggling selves. If these selves can be prevented from struggling with th eir sexuality in the fi rst place, as reparative therapists suggest, then eventually the ex-gay self would be one that becomes unnecessary, meaning conferences such as this would become redundant.

PAGE 168

CHAPTER 6 DOES LOVE WIN OUT? The Love Won Out conferences are designed to promot e the message that homosexuality is preventable and treatable and out of this comes th e notion of the ex-gay se lf. I would argue that LWO go further than just promoting a particular kind of sexual self, how ever, they are also equally engaged in the political battle over homos exuality. Their most powerful tool is this exgay or ex-lesbian self. Using the moniker ex-gay or ex-lesbian privileges a particular narrative identity that is based on what th e self used to be. Such a self becomes of paramount strategic importance in the public policy arena sin ce it reinforces the core message of LWO : homosexuality can be changed. If one is not born gay, then there is no need to afford any type of legal protections to gays and le sbians since they are clearly able to change, unlike AfricanAmericans. Continual use of the identity ex-gay as opposed to hete rosexual is, I argue, partly a political strategy since to be known as heterosexual would mean being subsumed into the wider culture. In other words, identifying as hete rosexual has no political u tility in the battle over gay and lesbian ci vil rights, whereas ex-gay does. This research falls within a larger political context as the battle over homosexuality is one of the key political issues of the present time. On one side are the gay and lesbian civil rights movements and their assorted allies arguing for equal protection under the law based on recognition of their minority stat us. On the other side are the conservative alliances, strongly linked to the New Christian Right (NCR), who maintain that to allow homosexuals any civil or legal recognition is a flagrant violation of the Word of God and will result in the downfall of society as we know it (Dobson 1990; 2004). The pivotal issue is whether or not gays and lesbians are a recognizable minority in a similar form as, for instance, African-Americans (Herman 1997; Smith & Windes 2000; Smith 1998). If they are s een to be a minority, then there is no 168

PAGE 169

justification for withholdi ng legal recognition. If they are not, however, there is clearly no need for advancing legal protections. At the heart of the matter, therefore are the different conceptualizations of lesbian and gay identity. Traditionally, the lesbian a nd gay civil rights movement has drawn upon a discursive framework that constructs gay a nd lesbian identity as fixed, immutable, and something the individual was born with; the ethnic identity model (Epste in 1998). Adherence to this narrative formulation implies that since hom osexuals are born that way, they should be afforded minority status and the attendant prot ections such a status affords (Bronski 1998; Button et al. 2000; Epstein 1998). Opponents of the lesbian and gay civil rights movement suggest, instead, that homosexuals are claiming sp ecial rights they do not deserve since they do not count as a legitimate minority (Button et al. 1997; Diamond 1995; 1996; Dobson 2004). This opposition rests on a narrative formulation imp licating sexual identity as mutable and homosexuality as perverse, immoral and sinful. One of the major NCR organizations involve d in fighting against gay and lesbian civil rights is Focus on the Family, the evangelical religious organization formed in 1977 by James Dobson (Gilgoff 2007; Hedges 2006) and that served as the basis for this research. Their core message follows the pro-family rhetoric si milar to many NCR orga nizations and further conceptualizes homosexuality as a threat to society, family and individuals. Furthermore, they have been instrumental in formulating and stre ngthening the discursive framework that depicts homosexuality as not only sinf ul, but also changeable (Haley 2004; Nicolosi & Nicolosi 2002). The Love Won Out conferences began in 1998 and were de signed to promote this same message; that homosexuality is changeable, preventable an d treatable. By promulgating these ideas, Focus on the Family (FOTF), through the Love Won Out ( LWO ) conferences are placing themselves in 169

PAGE 170

the center of the political battle over gay rights by attacking the utility of the ethnic identity model. They seek to reformulate the discourse su ch that homosexuality becomes reframed as an object of pity, not of pride and a thing to be healed not protected. Importance of Institutional Selves at Love Won Out In this project, I have used the concept of an institutional self (Gubrium & Holstein 2001; Holstein & Gubrium 2000) to describe in detail how the LWO conferences frame ideas about sexual identity. More specifically, the instituti onal self is one produced in service of an organization (Loseke 2001)in this case Focu s on the Family. Over the course of the conferences, the speakers construct the kind of se lf that will be most advantageous to the organization, that of the ex-gay. Narrative pr oduction of an ex-gay self allows Focus on the Family to address the competing discourses in the debate over homosexuality and provides a powerful, new sexual identity that diminishes the potency of the gay or lesbian self. In chapter 3, I described how LWO mobilize the typical gay or lesbian self, which is a necessary first step in describing identity transf ormation from gay to ex-gay. In other words, without first producing a troubled gay or lesbian self, na rrative identity of ex-gay makes no sense since it is reliant upon iden tification of what one was. The pro cess of typification is described as a way of categorizing and understand ing a particular social type, su ch that the application of a categorical description provides a basis for ascribing other characteristics, activities and motives to objects or actions (Gubrium & Holstein 1997: 138). In typifyi ng gays and lesbians, FOTF are providing the audience with a cl ear framework through which to understand what being gay or lesbian means. Of critical importance is the typification of gay and lesbian as something mutable. Without construction of a changeable sexual identit y, notions of an ex-gay self identity become ridiculous and fanciful. To acco mplish this narrative formulation, LWO draw upon the 170

PAGE 171

understandings of both religious a nd secular discourse. Belief in bi blical inerrancy, as would be expected of an evangelical relig ious organization, implicates he terosexuality as the only, true, God-given sexuality. Consequently, everyone is born heterosexual, so homosexuality becomes an aberration that can be fixed using the cau sal factors developed by reparative therapists. Reparative therapists suggest that homosexuality is a symptom of a deep-seated psychological disturbance, such as inadequate parent-child bonding, that manifests as inappropriate gender identity and subsequently same-sex sexual attraction. Having defined gay and lesbians selves as able to change, LWO must produce further evidence suggesting that the typical gay and lesbian must cha nge. Typification is important because it suggests specific courses of action, in addition to categorization. In the case of the homosexual, for example, simply presenting sexu al identity as mutabl e does not mandate any particular action. Mobilizing typical gays and lesbians as devian t, pathological or dangerous does, however. As Gubrium & Hols tein (1997) explain, dismissing the act in question would be unreasonable the type becomes more apparent as its concrete signs are identified the assignment of experience to a particular cate gory promotes distinct ive constellations of understanding that carry eval uative implications with prac tical consequences (139). Love Won Out expertly mobilize a typical ga y or lesbian self that is unhe althy, emotionally traumatized, sinful, immoral, promiscuous, and dangerous to society, thereby presenti ng the audience with a way to understand gay and lesbian that justifies interference and a pu sh toward healing. Healing the troubled gay or lesbian self depends on two id entity transformations, one religious and one sexual, as I explained in chap ter 4. Evangelical religi ous doctrine constructs humanity as inherently sinful, and thus in need of salvation and repentance. This same understanding is applied to healing homosexua lity; repent and be saved. The religious 171

PAGE 172

transformation is sparked by the evangelism of an outside mentor, the success of which FOTF hope will inspire audience members to evange lize their own gay or lesbian loved ones. Acceptance of religion as part of the troubled gays or lesbians se nse of self necessitates further action on their part since this religious framework is incompa tible with their sexual identity. LWO then focus on detailing the ways in wh ich sexual identity transformation occurs. In much the same way as mobilization of the typical gay or lesbian self relies on reparative therapy, so too does the required sexu al identity transformation to become ex-gay. Reparative therapists embed their understanding of homosexuality within a narrative framework that depicts it as primarily an emotional proble m. Consequently, those desiring change must be taught ways to fulfill those unmet emotional needs, including through the development of healthy same-sex friendships. Th ese friendships are thought to aid the struggling se lves in their quest for healing since they provide the requ ired bonding, and also model appropriate gender behavior and same-sex intimacy. The utilization of both religious and secular discourse creates what I argue is an inherent narrative tension between the two frameworks. As I have outlined earlier, evangelical religion defines sexuality in terms of what is written in the Bible, thus, everyone is born heterosexual. This formulation is then used as a platform to argue against homosexuality and promote the development of an ex-gay self. Reparative therapy also suggests that everyone is born heterosexual and that homosexuality is a treatabl e condition. The difficulty comes in interpreting and fulfilling the subsequent healing strategi es. To successfully move through the healing process, ex-gay selves are taught the importan ce of maintaining appropr iate gender identity; appropriate to their biological sex. Men are taught to be masculine and women feminine, within the discursive constraints of traditional gender constructions. Both masculinity and femininity, 172

PAGE 173

therefore, are initially conceptualized as a natural conseque nce of biological sex, and then later as a uniquely social construction that can be mold ed to fit the requirements of a specific narrative formulation. The message then becomes very conf used. The fledgling ex-gay selves have been told they were not born gay, and have a gender identity problem which requires realignment of their sex, gender, and sexuality. They are then given the interpretive resources they need to heal, which contradict all they have been told of the nature of their problem. Discursive production of the ex-gay self also involves LWO reframing the healing goals. Initial impressions suggest that ex-gay selves are ones that have been healed from same-sex sexual attraction. Over the course of the confer ence, however, the speaker s routinely reinterpret healing such that the ultimate goal is not he terosexuality, but adherence to religious faith. Moreover, the speakers carefully redefine endur ing same-sex attraction such that it becomes symptomatic of a fallen world, and a sign of c ontinued temptation. This reformulation allows Love Won Out to claim that homosexuality can in f act be changed, despite evidence to the contrary. Again, self identity is understood within an evangelical religious discourse that imagines humanity as inherently sinful and c ontinued homosexual attraction is another sign of this sin. The institutional selves constructed by LWO are also defined as being under a divine mandate to engage in political activism across different social institutions. To facilitate this social action, LWO first define the far-reaching consequen ces of allowing gay and lesbian civil rights activists to continue unc hecked. Framed in terms of pushing a gay agenda, homosexuals are portrayed as attempting to transform society by forcing acceptance of their immorality onto an unsuspecting public. The gay agenda is per ceived as a threat to schools and children, the church and public policy, as I deta iled in the previous chapter. 173

PAGE 174

Such is the potency of the threat narrative that LWO suggest that not acting in defense of traditional values they prom ote would provoke the anger of a wrathful God. Consequently, the audience is taught how to be active agents of ch ange themselves. From creating ex-gay selves, LWO create politically and strate gically aware selves that w ill further the goals of the organization, some of which are tied to fighting the advent of gay marriage, and the extension of other legal protections to gays and lesbians. Political awarene ss is fostered through recognition of the extent of the incursion of the gay agenda into schools, churches and politics. The audience is taught how to identify the pro-gay agenda in schools and churches, and also how to defend traditional marriage against accusations of hom ophobia and bias. Moreover, the audience is taught specific strategies to use in the various social institutio ns that have a high chance of success. In addition to providing the conditions of po ssibility necessary to produce an ex-gay self, Love Won Out also define the narrative resources requi red to promote the awareness of ex-gay selves outside the discursive realm of the conferences. The au dience are shown how to recognize struggling gay or lesbian selves, and then told ho w and when to approach them in order to begin the healing process. In addition, there is frequent reference to the gays and lesbians own self perceptions, as understood by LWO which explain how to initiate dialogue and promote the message of the conferences withou t offense. Finally, production of ex -gay selves is seen as such a crucial part of the battle ag ainst the pro-gay agenda that LWO believe prevention of homosexuality before it manifest s itself is the way of the future. Using the same discursive frameworks of evangelical relig ion and reparative therapy that construct troubled gay selves, healed ex-gay selves, and produce st rategically aware political selves, LWO instruct the audience on prevention strategies. 174

PAGE 175

Theoretical Importance of Institutional Selves The concept of an institutiona l self is an extremely important concept for investigation of organizations such as Focus on the Family, and an effective tool for examination of conferences such as Love Won Out LWO are in the business of promoting a specific self identity, that of the ex-gay. Interrogation of their discourse highlight s the specific narrative resources they use to develop this new kind of sexual id entity. Importantly, institutional selves are those developed in the service of an organization. C onsequently, rhetorical producti on of the ex-gay self has an explicit role in furthering th e mission of Focus on the Family. Detailed exploration of these narratives, such as I have done in this dissert ation, reveals exactly how FOTF hope to achieve their stated goals. Furthermore, utilization of the theoretical and methodological insights of institutional selves allows inve stigation of how FOTF privilege particular narrativ e resources in their ongoing battle against the gay and lesbian civil rights movement. The format of the LWO conferences is such that there is limited opportunity for audience participation. As a result my analysis of interp retive practice is also somewhat limited. Holstein & Gubrium (2000) suggest that one of the components of an institutional self is the way in which a particular institutional discourse is interpreted by individual selves. As it is, I have explored this premise as far as is possible in a discursive arena in which audience participation is confined to question and answer sessions allowing only pr e-scripted questions. An obvious suggestion for future research would be to examine more of the analytics of interpre tive practice, and thus interrogate how the LWO discourse is used to formulate individual self identity. A further limitation and possible area for fu ture research concerns both the make-up of the audience and the other types of institutional selves produce by Love Won Out From my own estimation, it appeared that the audience was made up primarily of parents of gays and lesbians, and gays and lesbians themselves. Without interviewing them, I have no way of knowing 175

PAGE 176

whether this is actually the case. As a result, I have no clear sense of the reasons that many of those in attendance chose to go. Furthermore, th is also limits understanding of the way the institutional discourse is used a nd interpreted by the audience. This, therefore, could be a fruitful source of inquiry in the future. Related to th is are the other kinds of selves that the LWO conferences produce, and which are outside the scope of this disse rtation. To name just a few, Focus on the Family construct parenting selves, re ligious selves, activist selves, and evangelizing selves. Each one of these could be a re search project in and of themselves. Love Won Out in the Wider Sociopolitical Climate The LWO conferences are an interesting site for exploring self production due to the nature of the discourse. In the fight over the definition of homosexuality and the promotion of civil rights, Love Won Out is uniquely positioned within the iden tity landscape. They are in the business of producing a new kind of sexual self, the ex-gay, with the express purpose of denying the legitimacy of gay and lesbian truth claims. LWO consistently draw upon the discursive framework of the lesbian and gay civil rights m ovement, and then counter every major argument. Furthermore, the self produced serves to negate the very existence of gays and lesbians. The conferences are an excellent research site fo r examining the manner in which the competing discourses of sexual identity are formed and refo rmed, and for investigating the techniques used by social movements such as FOTF to reinterpret existing discourse in a wa y that furthers their political agenda. This research is an important contributi on in understanding the way selves are produced within particular going concerns. In addition, it can serve as a re source for the gay and lesbian civil rights movement in their ongoing struggle for equal protection under the law. I have detailed the numerous ways in which LWO delegitimize any claims that gays and lesbians have made to be a protected minority. This project, th erefore, can help activists to reformulate their 176

PAGE 177

177 discourse such that it takes into account the oppositional narratives of New Christian Right organizations such as Focus on the Family. In particular, my disserta tion reveals the narrative resources most privileged by FOTF, and most ch allenging to the gay and lesbian movementthe complete disavowal of lesbian and gay identity, and the idea that homosexuality is mutable and therefore curable. Moreover, my research should also serve as a cautionary note against the everexpanding use of the ethnic identity model by ac tivists. FOTF have a pot ent way of challenging this narrative model, and in su ch a way that even existing protections become endangered. In conclusion, Focus on the Family is carving out an important place in the identity landscape with the Love Won Out conferences. They are enga ged in producing a highly controversial sexual self that is set to head out to battle agai nst any incursion by the so-called pro-gay agenda in any and all so cial institutions. Exposing the na rrative formation of the ex-gay self then becomes the key to its eventual defeat and downfall.

PAGE 178

APPENDIX LOVE WON OUT CONFERENCE SCHEDULE AND SPEAKERS Time Session Speaker 8.00-8.15 Welcome & Introduction 8.15-9.00 The Condition of Male Homosexuality Dr. Joseph Nicolosi 9.00-9.30 Testimony Mike Haley 9.30-9.45 Break 9.45-10.30 The Condition of Female Ho mosexuality Melissa Fryrear 10.3011.00 Testimony Melissa Fryrear 11.0011.15 Break 11.15.12.00 Breakout Sessions Responding to Pro-Gay Theology Joe Dallas Someone I Love is Gay Melissa Fryrear Hope for Those Who Struggle Randy Thomas Straight Thinking on Gay Marriage Dr. Bill Maier 12.00-1.15 Lunch 11.1512.00 Why is What Theyre Teaching So Dangerous? Dr. Dick Carpenter 2.00-2.30 Testimony Nancy Heche 2.45-3.30 Breakout Sessions Practical Tips for Reaching Out Mike Haley Top Ten Questions Loved Ones Ask Joe Dallas Ten Things to Say When You Dont Know What to Say Nancy Heche Straight Thinking on Gay Marriage Dr. Bill Maier 3.30-3.45 Break 3.45-4.30 Breakout Sessions Practical Tips for Reaching Out Q&A Mike Haley Prevention of Male Homosexuality Dr. Joseph Nicolosi Questions & Answers on Lesbianism Melissa Fryrear Christine Sneeringer Teaching Captivity? Addressing the Pro-Gay Agenda in Your School Dr. Dick Carpenter 4.30-4.45 Break 4.45-5.30 How Should We Respond? Joe Dallas 178

PAGE 179

LIST OF REFERENCES 2002. Teaching Captivity? How the Pro-Gay Age nda Is Affecting Our Schools...And How You Can Make a Difference Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family. 2003. Straight Answers: Exposing the My ths and Facts About Homosexuality Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family. 2004. Responding to Pro-Gay Theology W hat Does the Bible Really Say? Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family. 2004. The Roots and Causes of Male Homosexuality Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family. 2005. The Roots and Causes of Female Homosexuality Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family. 2006. Love Won Out Conference Guide Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family. 2007. "Love Won Out." www.lovewonout.com. Adam, Barry D. 1979. "A Social History of Gay Politics." Pp. 285-300 in Gay Men: The Sociology of Male Homosexuality edited by M. P. Levine. New York: Harper & Row Publishers. 1995. The Rise of the Gay & Lesbian Movement, Revised Edition New York: Twayne Publishers. Alexander-Moegerle, Gil. 1997. James Dobson's War on America New York: Prometheus Books. Altman, Dennis. 1993. Homosexual Oppression & Liberation New York: New York University Press. Ammerman, Nancy Tatom. 1987. Bible Believers: Fundamentalis ts in the Modern World New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 2003. "Re-Awakening a Sleeping Giant: Chris tian Fundamentalists in Late TwentiethCentury US Society." Pp. 89-110 in The Freedom to do God's Will: Religious Fundamentalism and Social Change edited by G. ter Haar and J. J. Busuttil. New York: Routledge. Averill, Lloyd. 1989. Religious Right, Religious Wrong New York: The Pilgrim Press. Bailey, Robert W. 1999. Gay Politics, Urban Politics: Identity and Economics in the Urban Setting New York: Columbia University Press. 179

PAGE 180

Bennett, Jeffrey A. 2003. "Love Me Gender: Normative Homosexuality and "Ex-Gay" Performativity in Reparative Therapy Narratives." Text and Performance Quarterly 23:331-352. Bennett, William. 1990. "Introduction." Pp. xvii-xxiv in Children at Risk edited by J. Dobson and G. L. Bauer. Dallas, TX: Word Publishing. Bernstein, Mary. 1997. "Celebration and Suppression: The Strategic Uses of Identity by the Lesbian and Gay Movement." The American Journal of Sociology 103:531-565. Blumer, Herbert. 1966. "Sociological Implications of the Thought of George Herbert Mead." American Journal of Sociology 71:535-544. Boswell, John. 1980. Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1989. "Revolutions, Universals a nd Sexual Categories." Pp. 17-36 in Hidden From History: Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past edited by G. J. Chauncey, M. B. Duberman, and M. Vicinus. New York: NAL Press. Brewer, Sarah E., David Kaib, and Karen O'Connor. 2000. "Sex and the Supreme Court: Gays, Lesbians and Justice." Pp. 377-408 in The Politics of Gay Rights edited by C. A. Rimmerman, K. D. Wald, and C. Wilcox. Chi cago: The University of Chicago Press. Broad, Kendal L. 2002. "Social Movement Selves." Sociological Perspectives 45:317-336. Bronski, Michael. 1998. The Pleasure Principle: Sex, Backlash and the Struggle for Gay Freedom New York: St Martins Press. Bryant, Anita. 1977. The Anita Bryant Story Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company. Bull, Chris and John Gallagher. 1996. Perfect Enemies: The Religious Right, the Gay Movement and the Politics of the 1990's New York: Crown Publishers, Inc. Bullough, Vern. 1979. Homosexuality: A History New York: NAL Press. Burack, Cynthia and Jyl J Josephson. 2005. "Origin Stories: Same-Sex Sexuality and Christian Right Politics." Culture and Religion 6:369-392. Button, James W., Barbara A. Rienzo, and Kenneth D. Wald. 1997. Private Lives, Public Conflicts: Battles Over Gay Rights in American Communities. Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc. 2000. "The Politics of Gay Rights at the Local and State Level." Pp. 269-289 in The Politics of Gay Rights edited by C. A. Rimmerman, K. D. Wald, and C. Wilcox. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 180

PAGE 181

Campbell, Marie and Frances Gregor. 2004. Mapping Social Relations: A Primer in Doing Institutional Ethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Carpenter, Dick. 2006a. "Why is What They're Teaching So Dangerous?" in Love Won Out Ft. Lauderdale, FL. 2006b. "Teaching Captivity? Addressing the Pro-Gay Agenda in Your School." in Love Won Out Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Carpenter, Joel A. 1984. "From Fundamentalism to the New Evangelical Coalition." Pp. 3-17 in Evangelicalism and Modern America edited by G. M. Marsden. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1997. Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism New York: Oxford University Press. Carter, David. 2004. Stonewall. New York: St Martins Press. Chambers, Alan. 2006. "Demystifying Homosexuality." Pp. 27-40 in God's Grace and the Homosexual Next Door, edited by A. a. t. L. T. a. E. I. Chambers. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers. Charmaz, Kathy. 1983. "The Grounded Theory Method: An Explication and Interpretation." Pp. 109-126 in Contemporary Field Research: A Collection of Readings edited by R. M. Emerson. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. 2000. "Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods." Pp. 209-236 in Handbook of Qualitative Research edited by N. Denzin, K. and Y. Lincoln, S. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 2005. "Grounded Theory in the 21st Century: A pplications for Advancing Social Justice Studies." Pp. 507-535 in The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research edited by N. Denzin, K. and Y. Lincoln, S. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 2008. "Constructionism and the Grounded Theory Method." Pp. 397-412 in Handbook of Constructionist Research edited by J. A. Holstein and J. F. Gubrium. New York: The Guilford Press. Charon, Joel M. 1998. Symbolic Interactionism: An Introduction, An Interpretation, An Integration Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 181

PAGE 182

Chase, Susan. 2001. "Universities as Discursive Environments for Sexual Id entity Construction." Pp. 142-157 in Institutional Selv es: Troubles Identities in a Postmodern World edited by J. F. Gubrium and J. A. Holstein. New York: Oxford University Press. Chauncey, George Jr., Martin Bauml Duberma n, and Martha Vicinus. 1989. "Introduction." Pp. 1-16 in Hidden From History: Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past edited by G. J. Chauncey, M. B. Duberman, and M. Vicinus. New York: NAL Press. Clendinden, Dudley and Adam Nagourney. 1999. Our for Good: The Struggle to Build a Gay Rights Movement in America New York: Simon & Schuster. Cooley, Charles Horton. 1956. Human Nature and Social Order New York: Charles Scribener. Corbett, Michael and Julia Mitchell Corbett. 1999. Religion and Politics in the United States New York: Garland Publishing Inc. Crawley, Sara L. 2002. "Narrating and Negotiating Butch and Femme : Storying Lesbian Selves in a Heteronormative World." PhD Thesis, Department of Sociology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Crawley, Sara L, Lara J Foley, and Constance L Shehan. 2008. Gendering Bodies Edited by J. A. Howard, B. Risman, and J. Spragu e. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Crawley, Sara L. and Kendal L. Broad. 2004. "Be Your (Real Lesbian) Self." Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 33:39-71. Dallas, Joe. 2006a. "Responding to Pro-Gay Theology." in Love Won Out Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Bridgeport, IL: Christian Audio Tapes. 2006b. "How Should We Respond?" in Love Won Out Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Bridgeport, IL: Christian Audio Tapes. 2006c. "Top Ten Questions Loved Ones Ask." in Love Won Out Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Bridgeport, IL: Christian Audio Tapes. Davis, Joseph E. 2005. "Victim Narratives and Victim Selves: False Memory Syndrome and the Power of Accounts." Social Problems 52:529-548. D'Emilio, John. 1992. Making Trouble: Essays on Gay History, Politics and the University New York: Routledge. 1998. Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States, 1940-1970 Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 182

PAGE 183

. 2000. "Cycles of Change, Questions of Strategy : The Gay and Lesbian Movement After Fifty Years." Pp. 31-53 in The Politics of Gay Rights edited by C. A. Rimmerman, K. D. Wald, and C. Wilcox. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. D'Emilio, John and Estelle Freedman. 1988. Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America New York: Harper & Row Publishers. Denzin, Norman, K. 1968. "On the Et hics of Disguised Observation." Social Problems 15:502504. 1987. The Alcoholic Self Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. DeVault, Marjorie and Lisa McCoy. 2006. "Ins titutional Ethnography: Using Interviews to Investigate Ruling Relations." Pp. 15-44 in Institutional Ethnography as Practice edited by D. E. Smith. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Dey, Ian. 2004. "Grounded Theory." Pp. 80-93 in Qualitative Research Practice edited by C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, and D. Silverman. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Diamond, Sara. 1995. Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Move ments and Political Power in the United States New York: The Guilford Press. 1996. Facing the Wrath: Confronting the Right in Dangerous Times. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press. Dobson, James. 1990. "The Second Great Civil War." Pp. 22-44 in Children at Risk edited by J. Dobson and G. L. Bauer. Dallas, TX: Word Publishing. 2002. "Can Homosexuality Be Treated and Prevented?" Focus On the Family, Colorado Springs, CO. 2004. Marriage Under Fire. Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers. 2006. "Family News From Dr. James Dobson." Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family. Dobson, James and Gary L. Bauer. 1990. Children At Risk. Dallas: Word Publishing. Drescher, Jack and Kenneth J Zucker. 2006. Ex-Gay Research: Analyzing the Spitzer Study and Its Relation to Science, Religion, Politics and Culture New York: Harrington Park Press. Engel, Stephen M. 2001. The Unfinished Revolution: Socia l Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 183

PAGE 184

. 2002. "Making A Minority: Understanding the Fo rmation of the Gay and Lesbian Movement in the United States." Pp. 377-402 in The Handbook of Lesbian and Gay Studies edited by D. Richardson and S. Seidman. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Epstein, Steven. 1998. "Gay Politics, Ethnic Identity: The Limits of Social Constructionism." Pp. 134-159 in Social Perspectives in Lesbian and Gay Studies, edited by P. M. Nardi and B. E. Schneider. New York: Routledge. Erzen, Tanya. 2006. Straight to Jesus: Sexual and Chri stian Conversions in the Ex-Gay Movement Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Esterberg, Kristin. 1994. "From Accommodation to Li beration: A Social Movement Analysis of Lesbians in the Homophile Movement." Gender and Society 8:424-443. Feldman, Noah. 2005. Divided By God: America's Church-S tate Problem and What We Should Do About it. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux. Fetner, Tina. 2005. "Ex-gay Rhetoric and the Polit ics of Sexuality: The Christian Antigay/Profamily Movement's 'Truth in Love' Ad Campaign." Journal of Homosexuality 50:71-96. Foucault, Michel. 1990. The History of Sexuality, Volume 1. Translated by R. Hurley. New York: Vintage Books. Freeman, Jo and Victoria Johnson. 1999. Waves of Protest Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Fryrear, Melissa. 2006a. "The Condition of Female Homosexuality." in Love Won Out Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Bridgeport, IL : Christian Audio Tapes. 2006b. "Testimony." in Love Won Out Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Bridgeport, IL: Christian Audio Tapes. 2006c. "Questions & Answers on Lesbianism." in Love Won Out Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Bridgeport, IL: Christian Audio Tapes. 2006d. "Someone I Love is Gay." in Love Won Out Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Bridgeport, IL: Christian Audio Tapes. 2006e. "Ministry to Lesbian Women." Pp. 173-202 in God's Grace and the Homosexual Next Door edited by A. Chambers. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers. Gagne, Patricia and Richard Tewkesbury. 1999. "Knowledge and Power, Body and Self: An Analysis of Knowledge Systems and the Transgendered Self." The Sociological Quarterly 40:59-83. Gasper, Louis. 1963. The Fundamentalist Movement The Hague: Mouton & Co. 184

PAGE 185

Gergen, Kenneth J. and Mary M. Gergen. 1983. "Narratives of the Self." Pp. 254-273 in Studies in Social Identity edited by T. R. Sarbin and K. E. Scheibe. New York: Praeger. 1988. "Narrative and the Self as Relationship." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 21:17-55. Gilgoff, Dan. 2007. The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family and Evangelical American are Wi nning the Culture War New York: St Martins Press. Glaser, Barney G. 1978. Theoretical Sensitivity Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press. Glaser, Barney G and Anselm L Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory Chicago: Aldine. Goeke, Mike. 2006. "Is Change Possible?" Pp. 59-78 in God's Grace and the Homosexual Next Door edited by A. Chambers. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers. Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life New York: Doubleday. Green, John C. 2000. "Antigay: Varieties of Opposition to Gay Rights." Pp. 121-138 in The Politics of Gay Rights edited by C. A. Rimmerman, K. D. Wald, and C. Wilcox. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Greenberg, David F. 1988. The Construction of Homosexuality Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Greenberg, David F and Marcia H. Bystryn. 1996. "Capitalism, Bureaucracy and Male Homosexuality." Pp. 83-110 in Queer Theory/Sociology, edited by S. Seidman. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Gubrium, Jaber F. 1991. "Recognizing and Analyzing Local Cultures." in Experiencing Fieldwork: An Inside View of Qualitative Research edited by W. B. Shaffir and R. A. Stebbins. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 2005. "Introduction: Narrative Envi ronments and Social Problems." Social Problems 52:525528. Gubrium, Jaber F. and James A Holstein. 1995. "Q ualitative Inquiry and the Deprivatization of Experience." Qualitative Inquiry 1:204-222. 1997. The New Language of Qualitative Method New York: Oxford University Press. 2000a. "Analyzing Interpretive Practice." Pp. 487-508 in Handbook of Qualitative Research edited by N. Denzin, K. and Y. Lincoln, S. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 2000b. "The Self in a World of Going Concerns." Symbolic Interaction 23:95-115. 185

PAGE 186

. 2001. Institutional Selves: Troubled Identities in a Postmodern World New York: Oxford University Press. Haley, Mike. 2004. 101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality Eugene, OR: Harvest House Press. 2006a. "Testimony." in Love Won Out Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Bridgeport, IL: Christian Audio Tapes. 2006b. "Practical Tips for Reaching Out." in Love Won Out Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Bridgeport, IL: Christian Audio Tapes. Halperin, David M. 1989. "Sex Before Sexuality : Pederasty, Politics and Power in Classical Athens." Pp. 37-53 in Hidden From History: Reclai ming the Gay and Lesbian Past edited by G. J. Chauncey, M. B. Duberman, and M. Vicinus. New York: NAL Books. 1990. One Hundred Years of Homosexuality New York: Routledge. 2000. "How to do the History of Male Homosexuality." GLQ 6:87-124. Harding, Susan Friend. 2000. The Book of Jerry Falwell: Fundamentalist Language and Politics Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hedges, Chris. 2006. American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America New York: Free Press. Herman, Didi. 1997. The Antigay Agenda: Orthodox Vision and the Christian Right Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Hewitt, John P. 1976. Self and Society: A Symbolic Interactionist Social Psychology Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. 1984. Self and Society: A Symbolic Interactionist Social Psychology. 3rd Edition Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. 1989. Dilemmas of the American Self Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Himmelstein, Jerome L. 1990. To the Right: The Transformation of American Conservatism Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Holstein, James A and Jaber F. Gubrium. 2000. The Self We Live By: Narrative Identity in a Postmodern World New York: Oxford University Press. 186

PAGE 187

. 2005. "Interpretive Practice and Social Action." Pp. 483-505 in The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research edited by N. Denzin, K. and Y. Lincoln, S. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hunter, James Davison. 1983. American Evangelicalism: Conservative Religion and the Quandary of Modernity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 1987a. "The Evangelical Worldview Since 1890." Pp. 19-54 in Piety & Politics: Evangelicals and Fundamentalists Confront the World edited by R. J. Neuhaus and M. Cromartie. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc. 1987b. Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Irvine, Janice. 1994. "A Place in the Rainbow : Theorizing Gay and Lesbian Culture." Sociological Theory 12:232-248. 2003. ""The Sociologist as Voyeur": Social Theory and Sexuality Research, 1910-1978." Qualitative Sociology 26:429-456. James, William. 1983. The Principles of Psychology Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Katovitch, Mike and Bill Reese. 1993. "Postm odern Thought in Symbolic Interaction: Reconstructing Social Inquiry in Light of Late-Modern Concerns." The Sociological Quarterly 39:391-411. Katz, Jonathan. 1976. Gay American History New York: Timothy Y. Crowell Company. Krapohl, Robert H. and Charles H. Lippy. 1999. The Evangelicals: A Historical, Thematic and Biographical Guide Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. Kuhn, Manford H. 1967. "Major Trends in Symbolic Interaction Theory in the Past Twenty-Five Years." Pp. 46-67 in Symbolic Interaction: A Reader in Social Psychology edited by J. G. Manis and B. N. Melt zer. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Licata, Salvatore J. 1985. "The Homosexual Rights Movement in the United States: A Traditionally Overlooked Area of Am erican History." Pp. 161-190 in The Gay Past: A Collection of Historical Essays edited by S. J. Licata and R. P. Petersen. New York: Harrington Park Press. Liebman, Robert C. 1983. "Mobilizing the Moral Majorit y." Pp. 50-74 in The New Christian Right edited by R. C. Liebman and R. Wuthnow. New York: Aldine Publishing Company. Lienesch, Michael. 1983. Redeeming America: Piety & Politics in the New Christian Right Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. 187

PAGE 188

Linder, Robert D. 1975. "The Resurgence of Ev angelical Social Concern (1925-1975)." Pp. 189210 in The Evangelicals: What They Believe, Who They Are and Where They Are Changing, edited by D. F. Wells and J. D. W oodbridge. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Loseke, Donileen R. 2001. "Lived Realities and Formula Storie s of "Battered Women"." Pp. 107-126 in Institutional Selves: Troubled Iden tities in a Postmodern World edited by J. F. Gubrium and J. A. Holstein. New York: Oxford University Press. Loseke, Donileen R. and James C. Cavendi sh. 2001. "Producing Institutional Selves: Rhetorically Constructing the Dignity of Sexually Marginalized Catholics." Social Psychology Quarterly 64:347-362. Love, Won Out. 2006. "Love Won Out: Conference Guide." in Love Won Out St Louis, MO: Focus on the Family. Macionis, John J. 2003. Sociology Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Maier, Bill. 2006. "Straight Thinking on Gay Marriage." in Love Won Out Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Marotta, Toby. 1981. The Politics of Homosexuality Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Marsden, George M. 1975. "From Fundamentalism to Evangelicalism: A Historical Analysis." Pp. 122-142 in The Evangelicals: What They Believe, Who They Are and Where They are Changing, edited by D. F. Wells and J. D. W oodbridge. Nashville: Abingdon Press. 1980. Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth Century Evangelicalism 1870-1925 New York: Oxford University Press. 1991a. Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1991b. "Fundamentalism and American Evangelicalism." Pp. 22-34 in The Variety of American Evangelicalism, edited by D. W. Dayton and R. K. Johnston. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press. 2006. Fundamentalism and American Culture. New Edition New York: Oxford University Press. Marshall, John. 1981. "Pansies, Pe rverts and Macho Men: Cha nging Conceptions of Male Homosexuality." Pp. 133-154 in The Making of the Modern Homosexual edited by K. Plummer. Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble Books. Martin, William. 1996. With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America New York: Broadway Books. 188

PAGE 189

Marty, Martin E. and R. Scott Appleby. 1992. The Glory and the Power: The Fundamentalist Challenge to the Modern World Boston: Beacon Press. Mead, George Herbert. 1930. "Cooley's Cont ribution to American Social Thought." The American Journal of Sociology 35:693-106. 1967. Mind, Self & Society Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Meltzer, Bernard N., John W. Petras, and Larry T Reynolds. 1975. Symbolic Interactionism: Genesis, varieties and criticism London: Routledge. Miller, Diane Helene. 1998. Freedom to Differ: The Shaping of the Gay and Lesbian Struggle for Civil Rights New York: New York University Press. Moen, Matthew C. 1992. The Transformation of the Christian Right Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press. Murray, Stephen O. 1996. American Gay Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Nash, Ronald H. 1987. Evangelicals in America: W ho They Are, What They Believe Nashville: Abingdon Press. Nicolosi, Joseph. 1991. Reparative Therapy: A New Clinical Approach Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc. 1993. Healing Homosexuality: Case Stories of Reparative Therapy Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc. 2006a. "The Condition of Male Homosexuality." in Love Won Out Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Bridgeport, IL: Christian Audio Tapes. 2006b. "Prevention of Male Homosexuality." in Love Won Out Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Bridgeport, IL: Christian Audio Tapes. Nicolosi, Joseph and Linda Ames Nicolosi. 2002. A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press. Ochs, Elinor and Lisa Capps. 1996. "Narrating the Self." Annual Review of Anthropology 25:1943. Ostling, Richard N. 1984. "Evangelical Publ ishing and Broadcasting." Pp. 46-56 in Evangelicalism and Modern America edited by G. M. Marsden. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 189

PAGE 190

Padgug, Robert. 1989. "Sexual Matters: Rethinki ng Sexuality in History." Pp. 54-63 in Hidden From History: Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past edited by G. J. Chauncey, M. B. Duberman, and M. Vicinus. New York: NAL Press. Paulk, John 2000. "What Happens When Love Wins Out." Paulk, John and Anne Paulk. 1999. Love Won Out: How God's Love Helped Two People Leave Homosexuality and Find Each Other. Wheaton, Il: Tyndale House Publishers. Perinbanayagam, R.S. 1985. Signifying Acts: Structure and Meaning in Everyday Life Carbondale, Ill: Southern Il linois University Press. Pierard, Richard V. 1984. "The New Religious Ri ght in American Politics." Pp. 161-175 in Evangelicalism and Modern America edited by G. M. Marsden. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Plaskow, Judith. 2005. The Coming of Lilith: Essays on Fe minism, Judaism and Sexual Ethics, 1972-2003. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Polletta, Francesca. 1998. "Contending Storie s: Narrative in Social Movements." Qualitative Sociology 21:419-446. Pollner, Melvin and Jill Stein. 1996. "Narrative Mapping of Social Worlds: The Voice of Experience in Alcoholics Anonymous." Symbolic Interaction 19:203-223. 2001. "Doubled Over in Laughter: Humor and the Construction of Selves in Alcoholics Anonymous." Pp. 46-63 in Institutional Selves: Troubles Identities in a Postmodern World edited by J. F. Gubrium and J. A. Holste in. New York: Oxford University Press. Ponticelli, Christy M. 1996. "The Spiritual Warfare of Exodus: A Postpositivist Research Adventure." Qualitative Inquiry 2:198-219. 1999. "Crafting Stories of Sexual Identity Reconstruction." Social Psychology Quarterly 62:157-172. Prus, Robert. 1996. Symbolic Interaction and Ethnographic Research: Intersubjectivity and the Study of Human Lived Experience Albany, N.Y: State University of New York Press. Rahman, Momin. 2000. Sexuality and Democracy: Identitie s and Strategies in Lesbian and Gay Politics Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Reichley, A. James. 1987. "The Evangelical and Fundamentalist Revolt." Pp. 69-95 in Piety & Politics: Evangelicals and Fundamen talists Confront the World edited by R. J. Neuhaus and M. Cromartie. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc. 2002. Faith in Politics. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institute Press. 190

PAGE 191

Reynolds, Larry T. 1970. "The Self in Symbolic Interaction Theory." in The Sociology of Sociology: Analysis and Criticism of the T hought, Research and Ethical Folkways of Sociology and its Practitioners edited by L. T. Reynolds and J. M. Reynolds. New York: David McKay. 1990. Interactionism: Exposition and Critique Dix Hills, NY: General Hall, Inc. 2003. "Early Representatives." Pp. 39-58 in Handbook Of Symbolic interactionism edited by L. T. Reynolds and N. J. Herman-Kinne y. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Reynolds, Larry T and Nancy J. Herman-Kinne y. 2003. "Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism." Pp. 1077. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Riesbrodt, Martin. 1993. Pious Passion: The Emergence of Modern Fundamentalism in the United States and Iran. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Rimmerman, Craig A. 2002. From Identity to Politics: The Lesbian and Gay Movements in the United States Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Robinson, Christine M. and Sue E. Spivey. 2007. "The Politics of Masculinity and the Ex-Gay Movement." Gender and Society 21:650-975. Sandeen, Ernest R. 1970. The Roots of Fundamentalism Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Seidman, Steven. 1996. "Introduction." in Queer Theory/ Sociology edited by S. Seidman. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc. Smith, Christian. 1998. American Evangelicalism: Embattled and Thriving Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Smith, Dorothy E. 2005. Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People Lanham, MD: Alta Mira Press. 2006. Institutional Ethnography as Practice Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Smith, Ralph R. and Russel R. Windes. 2000. Progay/Antigay: The Rh etorical War Over Sexuality Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sneeringer, Christine. 2005. "Feelin g Safe As A Woman." Pp. 30-33 in The Roots and Causes of Female Homosexuality, Love Won Out Series 2006. "Questions & Answers on Lesbianism." in Love Won Out Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Bridgeport, IL: Christian Audio Tapes. 191

PAGE 192

Stein, Arlene. 2001. The Stranger Next Door: The Story of a Small Community's Battle Over Sex, Faith, and Civil Rights Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Stone, Gregory P. and Harvey A. Farber man. 1970. "Social Psychology Through Symbolic Interaction." Waltham, Mass: Ginn-Blaisdell. Strauss, Anselm L. and Juliet Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Taylor, Verta, Elizabeth Kaminski, and Kimber ly Dugan. 2002. "From the Bowery to the Castro: Communities, Identities and Movements." in The Handbook of Lesbian and Gay Studies edited by D. Richardson and S. Seidman. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Terry, Jennifer. 1999. An American Obsession: Science, Medicine and Homosexuality in Modern Society Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Thomas, Randy. 2006a. "Hope for Those Who Struggle." in Love Won Out Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Bridgeport, IL: Christian Audio Tapes. 2006b. "Understanding the Three Degrees of Homosexuality." Pp. 119-132 in God's Grace and the Homosexual Next Door, edited by A. Chambers. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers. Utter, Glenn H. and John W. Storey. 2007. The Religious Right: A Reference Handbook Millerton, NY: Gray House Publishing. Vaid, Urvashi. 1995. Virtual Equality: The Mainstreaming of Gay and Lesbian Liberation New York: Anchor Books. Van Biema, David 2005. "The 25 Most In fluential Evangelicals in America." Time February 7, 2005, pp. 34-45. Wald, Kenneth D. 2003. Religion and Politics in the United States Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Watt, David Harrington. 1991. A Transforming Faith: An Exploration of Twentieth-Century American Evangelicalism. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Weber, Timothy P. 1991. "Premillennialism and the Branches of American Evangelicalism." Pp. 5-21 in The Variety of American Evangelicalism edited by D. W. Dayton and R. K. Johnston. Knoxville: The Univer sity of Tennessee Press. Weeks, Jeffrey. 1985. Sexuality and its Discontents New York: Routledge. 1991. Against Nature: Essays on Hi story, Sexuality and Identity London: Rivers Oram Press. 192

PAGE 193

193 2000. Making Sexual History Malden, MA: Polity Press. Weigert, Andrew J. and Vik Gecas. 2003. "Self." Pp. 267-288 in Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism edited by L. T. Reynolds and N. J. Herman-Kinney. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press. Wilcox, Clyde. 1992. God's Warriors: The Christian Right in 20th Century America Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2000. Onward Christian Soldiers? The Religious Right in American Politics Boulder: Westview Press. Wolkomir, Michelle. 2001. "Wrestling With Th e Angels of Meaning: The Revisionist Ideological Work of Gay a nd Ex-Gay Christian Men." Symbolic Interaction 24:407-424. 2006. Be Not Deceived: The Sacred and Sexual St ruggles of Gay and Ex-Gay Christian Men New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Wood, Arthur Evans. 1930. "Charles Horton Cooley: An Appreciation." The American Journal of Sociology 35:707-717. Worthen, Anita and Bob Davies. 1996. Someone I Love is Gay: How Family & Friends Can Respond. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Wuthnow, Robert. 1983. "The Political Rebirth of American Evangelicalism." Pp. 168-187 in The New Christian Right edited by R. C. Liebman and R. Wuthnow. New York: Aldine Publishing Company. 1989. The Restructuring of American Religion Princeton: Princeton University Press.

PAGE 194

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Helena Alden was born and raised in Engl and. She attended the University of South Florida and graduated summa cum laude with a degree in criminology in 1999. She attended graduate school at the Univers ity of Florida and received he r M.A. in 2001, and her PhD. in 2008. She is currently an Assist ant Professor of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin Stevens Point.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101221_AAAABM INGEST_TIME 2010-12-21T18:35:27Z PACKAGE UFE0022126_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 2152 DFID F20101221_AABDQE ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH alden_h_Page_024.txt GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
ced85744987ade0a3c1626d01c8c4346
SHA-1
34d8aa20a32834e752bc464bbd9ab3faef741b3e
2337 F20101221_AABDPQ alden_h_Page_010.txt
26dd92dfe53b948b633a346300c2cfac
decbe4033088128feaad2495ca65f97d7d9b9dd9
3939 F20101221_AABCMO alden_h_Page_002.jpg
f2da73f5c579828c4e77f9da743dd6c5
73cd39fdc68aa11ff106b935c9f22acc9f9cb670
98535 F20101221_AABCLZ alden_h_Page_186.jpg
ce14e992a908da6a694c67ceaf1f0905
fd32a662e73d3799e380d7602dc5a42ea4aef681
109928 F20101221_AABCNC alden_h_Page_017.jpg
6cca5dfabf610247732eaa4709a90a50
fc15f59aa900f9b5ecbcead16a412ecbf9fdcf4a
2240 F20101221_AABDQF alden_h_Page_025.txt
8e8e08d473c264de6fc9a720d5fe59f8
acfbaa76a8001933cd9f72e5149dd1da072c1ffe
108470 F20101221_AABCND alden_h_Page_018.jpg
3548d1be2abd8d73760fa22458692a8b
d3a373cb44d58cec6aa03bffe0f0ce9c17ddfaef
2113 F20101221_AABDQG alden_h_Page_026.txt
e099ef21e1b830a9f1b38359018030a6
326176b19c9900f8178cd0634e7832f55e6c96f7
2093 F20101221_AABDPR alden_h_Page_011.txt
22c9695e774d8eae2f2a6bd61c6d9163
18915a2295e154c0d2600cea5addd06899bec078
112775 F20101221_AABCNE alden_h_Page_019.jpg
10199ef6cd03bf6960616ea345dbcca2
ba8671d21b44684014dbe5e4cb1b6e6a14a66577
4907 F20101221_AABCMP alden_h_Page_003.jpg
95e32bdeee5132bccdecf2da3887cebc
429dcb121240f421a9715cfb2d75ba41bbdcf18b
2172 F20101221_AABDQH alden_h_Page_027.txt
928ff0d745f82d65ab463c07f828001d
28f569d9f1efc89c46c6db22e38d75f328a92be7
2088 F20101221_AABDPS alden_h_Page_012.txt
94fff5d913a825f9f75c550870e9cd3e
7bebd3a2f84b0bd5bfe088b2526635614bad3641
121583 F20101221_AABCNF alden_h_Page_020.jpg
57f43e50cffb0f88580478a90b34a4d9
147e27bc086863af295e553ea7c14c1f977e96ac
107142 F20101221_AABCMQ alden_h_Page_004.jpg
6c0e6661adf47a9bc49c58ecb9c26d47
a9d4d89424206bec0e6f0822051105f5e835f562
2544 F20101221_AABDQI alden_h_Page_028.txt
9cc07c4bafd301865d4d1222af47a5e1
ee44a594b34a6348f76fb9b61e92cece306ae12b
2245 F20101221_AABDPT alden_h_Page_013.txt
2a95514c980999229aff06f377b65111
ffa28d08643fd3ef45d49c0616ec5b39773e4473
106179 F20101221_AABCNG alden_h_Page_021.jpg
4549d5330e5e858815a055ac3807e594
5df15aa7e8e8afcd9b96c9bdc0c12dedb492aa2e
17451 F20101221_AABCMR alden_h_Page_005.jpg
48f7679ae8e729c4a41ddbd584142b42
ad9355526670b2b441ea0fa7419680b11ebe99cc
2533 F20101221_AABDQJ alden_h_Page_029.txt
8f81e1ac321fb5f51f63b51a7d947526
43c4fbd14b365454e70378f0b9e7e32aff406c95
2181 F20101221_AABDPU alden_h_Page_014.txt
b72b9a6adec2f34637dd77bd69776f7e
5437f723f7269fac4ae49c756f49322dd1fdf10c
112149 F20101221_AABCNH alden_h_Page_022.jpg
82c33f3d8a3ae9ca439859ddfd5a55fc
551a3b91301a75e3e25d0f618bdb94164ac5fc87
19927 F20101221_AABCMS alden_h_Page_007.jpg
7234d6318d517e44e7213b728731a13c
53b14cce605b498c91b46b8629f6aa8d26aa06e5
2139 F20101221_AABDQK alden_h_Page_030.txt
dcd5f902ab56fe59ce06041b6856fa43
9de55c6c4e224de8f0d204ff3db3993cc6e0ac23
2198 F20101221_AABDPV alden_h_Page_015.txt
de83cd59531ef484270afd48fa98d43b
1d4e58ae6119c48448aa644c5566f12a445cd966
115320 F20101221_AABCNI alden_h_Page_023.jpg
c76d245196ddff6982403a38ea5296dd
aee2a48ee46f34712a6da1e9f076866e99789df9
96742 F20101221_AABCMT alden_h_Page_008.jpg
6b215e3d1090d339d33fe8ce9dda1ef0
a1e5a3a6cfb90660d9ccde32e1936aa0380d504c
F20101221_AABDQL alden_h_Page_031.txt
a7b35c93f60d85fe3b45132640c2780c
5799e90fedbc02671d23aabf315b4bb3d68513f9
2321 F20101221_AABDPW alden_h_Page_016.txt
34895e6a94785e322b1c7a5094ec8637
2b81d18da9b498d7a42951b4a5c5b35662e8d419
109939 F20101221_AABCNJ alden_h_Page_024.jpg
e802baea2a2b74a42fe227993c927c55
8048bf56093bc675a844d611ff77acaf1d01b8e0
51789 F20101221_AABCMU alden_h_Page_009.jpg
e9685ab1644095132cf031990bdfa36c
d2c4b3b2c88dcdf594b721b32fedb53bb209d337
2064 F20101221_AABDRA alden_h_Page_046.txt
35667787accfcae2d516aa8a8d98aafc
10c712dbe88093addf18f5c2e6ece11a38cac1aa
2233 F20101221_AABDQM alden_h_Page_032.txt
a2fdc20587cf04fc28e8ee3ce010c247
9a6a60e5879e155505d16b2a77e9520e8c181c61
2146 F20101221_AABDPX alden_h_Page_017.txt
45a75108d602a7b6d47b080815baeede
b3237cac742ccd07ce607fbb644bb7d228932f2d
116749 F20101221_AABCNK alden_h_Page_025.jpg
05a0699324da43115a1b30549b103f71
5f389edeaac3dc616679b4f9979ac31c41c38692
109379 F20101221_AABCMV alden_h_Page_010.jpg
5391bd22147aa002cb1c90722df81a74
5ddf50714fb7ffab0c8d2f3a128671be7f5e70fc
2227 F20101221_AABDRB alden_h_Page_047.txt
a36a2aca802612fd03ff0867fce1c797
7c760a46e2ac5101f58d68f65276f530e87ae714
2338 F20101221_AABDQN alden_h_Page_033.txt
fbc3971d7a58bdbbddd05a577ee3369f
72663ce12e656fc7acb6d97ab01c080e8f140395
2080 F20101221_AABDPY alden_h_Page_018.txt
3bd8488ae2aed88669e0af59c24407ad
3925ffca43da8191931706ccc58360deb172c069
111767 F20101221_AABCNL alden_h_Page_026.jpg
e4b123add0a9a7a8c9739ae7e907f219
af253973756d569a204bbc8f113895f41588dd25
107603 F20101221_AABCMW alden_h_Page_011.jpg
1be94dbc08865c94401d7ad748c48202
7dacca9a53d35c81b20a292e2677eaea3c932174
2363 F20101221_AABDRC alden_h_Page_048.txt
01e72e6fe7953ea9e7af5b85616309c0
51363a1cf4806ecf6357a08b07d2d44ab5c290ed
2349 F20101221_AABDQO alden_h_Page_034.txt
531d9e9b8f93214f4f313cafba40c5fe
f3ed571e7224fd1f671eae048356bfca9ffe2579
2115 F20101221_AABDPZ alden_h_Page_019.txt
89bdf923f4b528b3035b56053e404ab7
850f87793e80ad19c161f85ddf0c0e183f2c959a
109909 F20101221_AABCOA alden_h_Page_041.jpg
2ad69e0b11fdc7466cf4cee467ca26ae
ffa13dba0e971ec341ba7ea99bdc84f0d8a85f8f
112645 F20101221_AABCNM alden_h_Page_027.jpg
ef43d245182db76cc120c4b3f66c4a3e
92017695b05c8042ecda4f8f52dcc536661f6ad4
104009 F20101221_AABCMX alden_h_Page_012.jpg
bbc98ece93f68844222eeb4de72d6a94
19d5942803a6787617e265080a58e41954b7e47f
2226 F20101221_AABDRD alden_h_Page_049.txt
c11d4b2a88243534e17f4181a1331ec8
78111e4d8452d7096ca15aee7e3825880634a88a
2138 F20101221_AABDQP alden_h_Page_035.txt
a46c6227cdd58bf1bcbb6a978f14e9cc
e5d246b395eab147a309950958b0a7d2365862e4
112304 F20101221_AABCOB alden_h_Page_042.jpg
3a86e4680db9ac9cf51ab84f8dee836c
fd574973024bcb63b68d2381b8539b05250934ad
123819 F20101221_AABCNN alden_h_Page_028.jpg
92aaafa08bbed07542ec8428c26b1ac9
777e8389e08fac373bb0ad81400bda8bd4a09605
113952 F20101221_AABCMY alden_h_Page_013.jpg
0fc7b74e781e23d605f511b25de1f050
70dd50576170f862bc9cacd02f46d05bedd43b50
2106 F20101221_AABDRE alden_h_Page_050.txt
72bbc85fd50673248533e199a710748d
6e73b5000f2f8e2fde8af93cd568c802d9112cc2
2479 F20101221_AABDQQ alden_h_Page_036.txt
d4cce45f5015e4188a3777a545f016df
c324edf97807434bb21a49bd97cbb46169456452
125077 F20101221_AABCOC alden_h_Page_043.jpg
4c9d33d22d962bd3f8999a46b80c6879
f9a16e84f3155173c6a2e3fd237fd157bd96bcf2
127241 F20101221_AABCNO alden_h_Page_029.jpg
60a995ede9f4f1db4c695d8575611839
81cb06568056183b5982f583b1d4dd91d21f6ea6
110884 F20101221_AABCMZ alden_h_Page_014.jpg
31bf28318106105481c6268bcc636072
99dc53c0af0cf1173684df0c99602dfb527d1e2a
1711 F20101221_AABDRF alden_h_Page_051.txt
aead1982df8fbb82e6e8d21a57527e5a
66c32c110c1b4925bfbf3c77eb8a839932ddf668
2164 F20101221_AABDQR alden_h_Page_037.txt
7826d70368094d8af2088cdf915fab2f
5196f50230971a73693484130bdf56958eb29f7f
101772 F20101221_AABCOD alden_h_Page_044.jpg
4f1cdc74ddd5af95ed16df911e7869fb
949c01bac1a5d1924141b5dff98de02675da2495
109894 F20101221_AABCNP alden_h_Page_030.jpg
705dcd7dd642d3bd804e1ac4a6f60f17
70ba8149bd3fb0212fe4e63a3daa181e5fd16628
2461 F20101221_AABDRG alden_h_Page_053.txt
31aadc7e46e914a42f04b35499f389a5
e865529ba6bf549147951dc89dcd68e1f30a0874
114022 F20101221_AABCOE alden_h_Page_045.jpg
1633a16580cc22db7bd696a3e4486319
d1463a9a2f6bc23d937ca28db6e2d305199f831b
2398 F20101221_AABDRH alden_h_Page_054.txt
b7729d361439e820992f7e19f8ae3fbc
62b3fa7c932830b18d3afd777b07b7ecf897dbe4
2128 F20101221_AABDQS alden_h_Page_038.txt
145cefbbab7c6eaa1ec665334d680e83
1375273d3a62a16dda2e4707ba8702aac169d67b
109734 F20101221_AABCOF alden_h_Page_046.jpg
8d7e23230d731b78b73581800831b268
a7d32c599b45e90e0c9dc84be4aadc4f8b3aa99b
111142 F20101221_AABCNQ alden_h_Page_031.jpg
0e6ee646b36beb61db4edbc4172a5796
9bfde241d2d7bd0e083ec831a43a1ca606193b09
2095 F20101221_AABDRI alden_h_Page_055.txt
9122813ac267e1ccf1c33835adca6590
61d03a065257c4f3b658e012be66f56830a4ea4b
2002 F20101221_AABDQT alden_h_Page_039.txt
1da13bf6fbb17549fde4d3179cc178a1
96a2c6d3748ece164a291bd032b65c836fde7360
116438 F20101221_AABCOG alden_h_Page_047.jpg
cba7102f0d35d02c48c1c80726033a00
596dca590f766e09e02961a7978952dbe8e35c6f
113705 F20101221_AABCNR alden_h_Page_032.jpg
8acb4c55930bdf96fbb66069e9e83b6f
0d3e85171a45b37a074a79c23b00ba6fab199618
2236 F20101221_AABDRJ alden_h_Page_056.txt
b4309856390c25ae3746b3c5cf24132b
445a190f50747983a6c7af98c0cfb6ea13439f5b
2133 F20101221_AABDQU alden_h_Page_040.txt
06a372aa95f4a3d7f43ba5e124c81f44
701f3010f3f50134f56117645499986bd1363f6e
115602 F20101221_AABCOH alden_h_Page_048.jpg
076158a6d8c80339dc956c81af385362
7202bd85322013a99abe7a15de14646c873563fd
114626 F20101221_AABCNS alden_h_Page_033.jpg
11b364e7f856c0d32642cab1707f7938
7f4a8f59ef79097ed5ab389e380399f74d534326
2098 F20101221_AABDRK alden_h_Page_057.txt
99cb831d04b6756d22c492d23ec0fcac
2b4f17d961a957c2448db3a0c646ab83e836e272
2124 F20101221_AABDQV alden_h_Page_041.txt
a38716dd11f5856552d4a302432237fa
a9df07ce056ee78eb9a084cb48c164948f1a313a
111400 F20101221_AABCOI alden_h_Page_049.jpg
dedc317837b219692e5e4d8592a0dfbc
2e39845bd8521fe16e57457dea4ebe13d7e85de3
119075 F20101221_AABCNT alden_h_Page_034.jpg
dc050e895e884978bdc63f9543c0c0ec
63a174c87518ad6a68f9bfa693dc205706b44fbf
2185 F20101221_AABDRL alden_h_Page_058.txt
3938735dc0fd70d50da01bf37bcac93a
41a6a7c708c16eb6a59b5c7bb687d7d36b46e3a9
2171 F20101221_AABDQW alden_h_Page_042.txt
917804dfa13c482cce41d95fdce80363
4c0df0abd57ddea10719454171b965f48ef00b01
110460 F20101221_AABCOJ alden_h_Page_050.jpg
7daf6356ca01114b2c04e8e8d55c3db0
e6e0d007e2aefb592be206e64246f1a3f4707493
111852 F20101221_AABCNU alden_h_Page_035.jpg
43b74de311fdb1e14ab9be2271e97e1e
40e6351491513dde3851038bbda4cc6e23c52ce7
2224 F20101221_AABDSA alden_h_Page_073.txt
af8beee902a46b36b898d80b525b9c41
09eb44523379543d1c68ef707dba301ed82c6a6a
2330 F20101221_AABDRM alden_h_Page_059.txt
cab02a78743c0a7a7441cc50a5617f08
0bd0fc87e390c2b0005b597019edee4eab432a9f
2480 F20101221_AABDQX alden_h_Page_043.txt
da16e543017ce44e266ec914137a1b33
1aae18fae35f1b40cc5d953ddb35cfb10164e64f
88078 F20101221_AABCOK alden_h_Page_051.jpg
17f482d991dbc662b331982b48c81eb0
d514cae09c3f7f54a43fe237b118e4982306aa8e
122622 F20101221_AABCNV alden_h_Page_036.jpg
0b6e8f025283aaba69b836461ef1964b
f6f79dd673b7c32a6822e7bf55a507a464d768f5
2154 F20101221_AABDSB alden_h_Page_075.txt
c843db6e5d0443f7f7502ab36e7372c2
24730bc958df1de1129075a7d1cd091765a6a420
2182 F20101221_AABDRN alden_h_Page_060.txt
c1420635b26e9c8d22860fac8bb3aa89
5de88d23fdef018a3d2627729ea61584b96fa8ea
2087 F20101221_AABDQY alden_h_Page_044.txt
0243112a5b03d8a5dee005240a945d24
a6c5f2005d6407d00e2e985f7b557f1adaa801dd
106001 F20101221_AABCOL alden_h_Page_052.jpg
f61bce56e2497969cc13a0410d7d8e52
dd0897eecd4ce3449cb81a784e662e439ea19fe0
109668 F20101221_AABCNW alden_h_Page_037.jpg
3852b1a8150249dca02b2b831b8dc2cb
6930f779c4cc89809b46ce14d5c2e0c1d74d951e
2031 F20101221_AABDSC alden_h_Page_076.txt
bd78bc348cf8e257f6bd01ef6ea0b8c9
9c9490caf8ecca010d762aadd5e23d5e2c8d2fc6
2229 F20101221_AABDRO alden_h_Page_061.txt
d3d03ced655abdaa4bcbf634f21b51c5
dbc1b6381241aa9d42eff12a04e1ccc7e5b8aa25
2195 F20101221_AABDQZ alden_h_Page_045.txt
1ffd56aaca18098fba4b17736df639e3
7eedf4529379b996e5b93d52d834aeb8fa4bbcc0
122321 F20101221_AABCOM alden_h_Page_053.jpg
29fa2845ca95c76973a15e505c01b535
84413dbf4fa3bda6662b9133002f4ebf50e7039a
111770 F20101221_AABCNX alden_h_Page_038.jpg
732a929dfeb51146e802cdf2f64572e9
420ad4760e9db79ba401a1e315da75472e33777e
124066 F20101221_AABCPA alden_h_Page_068.jpg
359d4c7804acfc80b28ba3c203da3f7c
603e18a6e66a54592b99cf67b177dea78c5bde15
2076 F20101221_AABDSD alden_h_Page_077.txt
2320602b9cdec73617e0dd97b7b89a4d
3847ed03eeed79ad398a00b9164f1c8ab9506fb7
2070 F20101221_AABDRP alden_h_Page_062.txt
420258e6964031deae588fd9f248c55f
5e4778dea78b450c85dbeb1b3eb83e98d5c4d5a8
120901 F20101221_AABCON alden_h_Page_054.jpg
5239e92f1eb31466c44bf9b00bdf7d9c
de6197e54816e39ee5944129de63870617c6a70b
106325 F20101221_AABCNY alden_h_Page_039.jpg
60cc59cb9ff9bb0cd9375849a216080b
974a5d93b6bf7cef1f94bab96b85958bf38b0480
113549 F20101221_AABCPB alden_h_Page_069.jpg
398368a9585d55ba2959cee15a146d15
09f1bb1526971f3f10be2c7a1a29cba052cbe299
F20101221_AABDSE alden_h_Page_079.txt
7f41572441eb8f4d07f6570cae2f445a
6e69e3be67e43342a97a8ab3df5fe9fd1da14f0d
2036 F20101221_AABDRQ alden_h_Page_063.txt
a026e820c22cda9e295386e96345e9da
443d2ea2e328f958bfcadd0bfdf3861041db5c0b
108268 F20101221_AABCOO alden_h_Page_055.jpg
c55010078c00ffd2d13454bac52b37ef
2d6b4ef60f12fd25a6467eb9e69fe2a8f325efc9
112085 F20101221_AABCNZ alden_h_Page_040.jpg
78a7325af41181ad81ba7dad3b764fd9
6cbd6aa0b427ab30ba258b4040d3047c009648d4
106429 F20101221_AABCPC alden_h_Page_070.jpg
84dcb51c5a56030167a6cdb4e8b38725
df0f3970e214dfe3074e0ed7e5fb096e48631d1a
2205 F20101221_AABDSF alden_h_Page_080.txt
c8d44e4d23ea016db89f78193221c89f
0bf784f1018907486afd2ee71cfa2bff9233c164
1975 F20101221_AABDRR alden_h_Page_064.txt
51ce8646f77caefcf1db726047ba1cbc
a6d9a11358442c5f7b371987bd5c644071c48b83
114298 F20101221_AABCOP alden_h_Page_056.jpg
476199ea6991ba71e9220e843b6ef5af
70137ec34abbd56efce7fe5ab14686d49789d4b8
107607 F20101221_AABCPD alden_h_Page_071.jpg
5d992a3142025e80ffbe5db2924dda2e
1f1f9fca346e9a3d5e29a089b0604b8afef8664d
1969 F20101221_AABDSG alden_h_Page_081.txt
1b5506d766921f2e29c41994fe9585e4
aa92d7715e9b7fb83cd08380acc49b809e7f3ebc
F20101221_AABDRS alden_h_Page_065.txt
7b15b13a3b7d499544f2bec05efef058
3243c8ec88fdace14f07d0cbd221a68325c07609
105423 F20101221_AABCOQ alden_h_Page_057.jpg
9c51d541df8608075a3a2b172d4a1512
7d7f7161e73007cc98f6287101ceaebff5eee5dc
103325 F20101221_AABCPE alden_h_Page_072.jpg
e6a860b9fce7fe46b8d2e85280e50af2
3614fac6799b2d678f562177d31672dbbe38b94e
2107 F20101221_AABDSH alden_h_Page_082.txt
5ab8fd3a7c81b1703b44af9d4796959a
05ae5e289e2b1362e343d12e0befa93c41370a79
115024 F20101221_AABCPF alden_h_Page_073.jpg
1aedc5a1d11927acbc3ff57bc806685c
4f6dc2b5728a73b61894513fc9a12b2cf80c1ea1
2201 F20101221_AABDSI alden_h_Page_083.txt
d1e1226885d1cf3c9eaf5d220fc8fec7
0312b285ec3b47f5a6205ed21d73c9ce3c0d0743
2000 F20101221_AABDRT alden_h_Page_066.txt
7c2ee3be97c73116b6dbef85f38c481c
610523613527e4bb53d6564b469d5758095b4385
110092 F20101221_AABCOR alden_h_Page_058.jpg
419bcac8eda727c8db36d31c6f18f691
0429ea54bb81f9af16bbdbfe373b23bc33202be8
112806 F20101221_AABCPG alden_h_Page_074.jpg
48336b8d964c29681265d73376330a90
18ae55ad42e0773ac74e74d4aa114f31e067d992
2572 F20101221_AABDSJ alden_h_Page_084.txt
579791da6f19f754c269ba94584fcee8
6c0fa386afbb9f870aa22011577005a9bdff425c
1926 F20101221_AABDRU alden_h_Page_067.txt
c04c718704fe965c00dde62ce8b9db15
79f7716632bdc1d7c0db3cbc8ef7366131428b8d
113603 F20101221_AABCOS alden_h_Page_059.jpg
63e544dfb0e16b3ad65eea3b16cbf3db
354616e0a68b78ecf92c1fdf1e9a471ceaca6dd6
111384 F20101221_AABCPH alden_h_Page_075.jpg
44f0b9ff21d7b04d17f2b55d87dee4ca
55af45a93937b32801fd675ad26e18ef5cf09d65
F20101221_AABDSK alden_h_Page_085.txt
c6f1385343c9bc301c63c9da958ebb08
6036c1d70b71251a8b6eef2885e0cffe23377703
2490 F20101221_AABDRV alden_h_Page_068.txt
a6061a5d6467bc1300b5f0be3c783d51
d67b86af70ed1c14ed88b4a9a36c5197248240b9
111266 F20101221_AABCOT alden_h_Page_060.jpg
23a447cf167559c8c103e9b31fd7e449
75561600ef08dafd4711de9959bf8dc4db505484
105146 F20101221_AABCPI alden_h_Page_076.jpg
4ad05797de2ed324636058982d74b076
2428d9ad0ab65c6869e581e86da0f409aa84174f
2485 F20101221_AABDSL alden_h_Page_086.txt
994fd5412e56a1e29c45508b2c4bb975
bbbf26e9b9570649c05d25bbe044b8956feb9263
2211 F20101221_AABDRW alden_h_Page_069.txt
963bb7b9e1ccd385b1e3cd406474db10
daad9404f841601c52d1555211474d44b1f9d3bd
111361 F20101221_AABCOU alden_h_Page_061.jpg
c331252505c3b0d27028d5e01d5a0b81
25a2cb71453d1096488ba996a85111a5a5ecaeb0
107943 F20101221_AABCPJ alden_h_Page_077.jpg
a69f023664f960e7d15795c7ce8be64e
1c114a94e7682f006a04c6043bebc6cf9676dc16
F20101221_AABDTA alden_h_Page_101.txt
b4449ac24ab1907d9e0ce86e82549c6f
bf925cb6b138cbf3086c910648ca5f22e7231585
2436 F20101221_AABDSM alden_h_Page_087.txt
7faa1d320090567262de7b06947245c7
6c1240a6405525d0412399a98fce31757f911338
2046 F20101221_AABDRX alden_h_Page_070.txt
3a39951690ff86a890aaaa10d0becc01
82b19489f9131b6d3a29cf2e5d364a822a161a2c
109716 F20101221_AABCOV alden_h_Page_062.jpg
07ddd18caed39163772abe9662efc7a7
b26f2c692f6946d9b6524f4c3a40687a8c0b94d5
152673 F20101221_AABCPK alden_h_Page_078.jpg
e746d96bffa43812319ce2af0d3c2217
c30ce498fbbe844ac7d2035f96fce03e02a946c2
2725 F20101221_AABDTB alden_h_Page_103.txt
8bfc52ca6d88784f92ae625a737761c1
63e19f1a74080ead2e56a19d262355592afe37b0
2397 F20101221_AABDSN alden_h_Page_088.txt
03399f8524a1689298860d5c3ec86d99
69e7f5899e064a5175e69715ff2b35f2da062de3
2089 F20101221_AABDRY alden_h_Page_071.txt
e1eb0f69bab0be95f278d0a54c973141
538f0c091f629d091738545db617698d33d093a9
104729 F20101221_AABCOW alden_h_Page_063.jpg
fdbb66127507ab1d4fd54113055d01e2
ebdd080402b4326bc9ac7e1ecd28485e37be0d97
102414 F20101221_AABCPL alden_h_Page_079.jpg
f3c45587e41c1680ad63eec39b7dbef5
fe4c25e38e35990b11595bf5682f19f36178a18e
2990 F20101221_AABDTC alden_h_Page_104.txt
50fe16d4882c8ea8d5382496f306bb60
4d5c062e9516c4622f3f02d209d33346efef8068
2515 F20101221_AABDSO alden_h_Page_089.txt
03ea9f5da5fb9dd62b506a405895188c
0dcbaa8bc87be7073ea1d36f503e13dd67abb8cb
2029 F20101221_AABDRZ alden_h_Page_072.txt
c472ab4e34719cd0ae7c1aa72fdfa0ab
bc16f7ef38ec73cf93ac73e5e0a493abf71fca34
115856 F20101221_AABCOX alden_h_Page_065.jpg
a92903781d8e6fb8092a150fdb997f2f
868e345526c27e48a89d12e43a882c98cb5624b0
107883 F20101221_AABCQA alden_h_Page_095.jpg
5ac84490a5a33a6f4ddcdb9258bf689b
c547b5df9e1c8a310a91aa5031a76b8463a99afa
112486 F20101221_AABCPM alden_h_Page_080.jpg
e663ceb9c185990672853ef0a334a7f1
4ffe2d016b44209f0a93a2cd84e29e6a691be477
2510 F20101221_AABDTD alden_h_Page_105.txt
f322a7b3daa20c6f36616638ff69de4e
d2e54f2a333f34e55dee8238fd5b3e448521684f
2983 F20101221_AABDSP alden_h_Page_090.txt
73174b84898a5ce6a1c4b3f1f143d94e
f924d3c539a4e901ec0bb2a92112138f0cc7b5d4
100693 F20101221_AABCOY alden_h_Page_066.jpg
d25a2c56872d2f5b6b1d15cb0c3e2a80
1fbdf97a3f30e48e4a0336a2e0438b8e7bffe096
112506 F20101221_AABCQB alden_h_Page_096.jpg
24f7b0e2318ae05d6e0a4ad98c06fdf2
2a9c2dec1cee2478df3bd9defbe63d5ec1abb420
98184 F20101221_AABCPN alden_h_Page_081.jpg
d65796439b3bd1a9234ac5e1aa0498b3
e21bc139b0034e14c5eef16ff596d1d4012670a3
3010 F20101221_AABDTE alden_h_Page_106.txt
c78634f7ae8f2ecb47718dde4ae1005d
9b8be64db6d0ebddf628e3d53c3e4ad336dcdd93
2202 F20101221_AABDSQ alden_h_Page_091.txt
dabe43f353f9d8ec7f9804d45d131692
be6c908ad3a8b61542493f8e370557194086cc33
97160 F20101221_AABCOZ alden_h_Page_067.jpg
db20d375c2a95ca48246034fc8606fa6
d61d8148462ae613c8d909e953be235dc9578d65
108764 F20101221_AABCQC alden_h_Page_097.jpg
72612c17ceee0b0ef2a487a1a8e902df
a36739b7b240eb8c2c9b779a8ff2d9a034ed4891
105041 F20101221_AABCPO alden_h_Page_082.jpg
01c80e9d29c52de843741c7f52560cae
efc13daf88cb572d2e62cc5121f3cf894cd98010
2209 F20101221_AABDTF alden_h_Page_107.txt
3e6a50907d256bc8847c727fc5073b9c
f3935777e9c044e7b932aa7ebfee1dde2e2aef93
F20101221_AABDSR alden_h_Page_092.txt
c70bd87be3b25ae6c65eded4a5f67281
58d1f299dc80f07500ec0469d80d9fb6beaa6231
125176 F20101221_AABCQD alden_h_Page_098.jpg
ab283f48aa0e899c858c1d78ac5eb9c7
11b10d68fba4f08605dcb8594f926a9ed12809e6
110247 F20101221_AABCPP alden_h_Page_083.jpg
851f445e86859b04f4afdfdf1fc8d840
8a6c93af37026bd75b6af43b7daf97b119fbb648
3021 F20101221_AABDTG alden_h_Page_108.txt
8229caf1c1a4e89f15c148553c8633c6
57bace74e1f3014a426161faf494b49a7251937f
F20101221_AABDSS alden_h_Page_093.txt
6ab1c03ccd70a46300148dd82ac983ea
c49e763c46d549cbc61997629e9ce572cdc2e581
108276 F20101221_AABCQE alden_h_Page_099.jpg
7e6f846a03322ffe7c940edb641c17ff
951068ead7ce468b5bc0011ec2d0f003a29e1788
126620 F20101221_AABCPQ alden_h_Page_084.jpg
3bc33a0ab41be12780219048ef4fe29b
5bcf584c1bac21211e64f108f0330e4669eb0249
2409 F20101221_AABDTH alden_h_Page_109.txt
a3058615cd84d5ede164ae003ecbff9c
ad714a039ec9490407924947237a08f693e1699d
2269 F20101221_AABDST alden_h_Page_094.txt
f231b37feb42591ce0f9efc82654b5f2
940bc1d3c6ed117afb8db404b9521424c6557ae0
79079 F20101221_AABCQF alden_h_Page_100.jpg
4f37634ddcef0ac88048bab71f43c845
3a1de14d2afc1516892c267d64413a145e575b30
107986 F20101221_AABCPR alden_h_Page_085.jpg
283998af7584353d2ff3f2af4f3a0074
bdfbc990bc750b2305b6fce743f584aa7ecf6456
2416 F20101221_AABDTI alden_h_Page_110.txt
68f996f40f69ac613ac0efa5fe34ec3f
0cb00448a9d540e7ad212352124c406da9c71a57
107125 F20101221_AABCQG alden_h_Page_101.jpg
c129b483b02608e843dc0e55ead127d8
4334194ed3e37dac66d2c6204f7232d2f0925386
2394 F20101221_AABDTJ alden_h_Page_111.txt
8e4e1defff1ca014a118ec1c70b4283b
fff87356ca4dc7bfeae1141dcc1e199b4be6b039
2135 F20101221_AABDSU alden_h_Page_095.txt
1847b9e3107d4a8351715f3275eb862e
8ebc31d82fa4887e8441f82e478e1ad9ca5d945e
119863 F20101221_AABCQH alden_h_Page_102.jpg
639a8ad6dfedc57934fb0586ffafa8de
b906c82fc9eb33e9b6f939ad2f9235f5cef0c026
119588 F20101221_AABCPS alden_h_Page_086.jpg
c25d3f1a20cca1c3d894046357026f79
19b16fc1c1838afb6a802b8cae23402ea8aa6f1e
2283 F20101221_AABDTK alden_h_Page_112.txt
61bb46a6c66969721f67c835bf357308
e271a7209b2bff472319aed684ad99093d001072
F20101221_AABDSV alden_h_Page_096.txt
917cf2ab634ba427950c3f9ad63956da
f619f83d96a486cfcf00dfd41d68ff5382d932a3
141538 F20101221_AABCQI alden_h_Page_104.jpg
67512cc891d8b235f03bf035ceee78b7
0f451682ccf8910198f73b321a2b23826cc6d7f3
119540 F20101221_AABCPT alden_h_Page_087.jpg
c2fa6a7f1eb95949b3d3fa9272d55137
16961f0bce75fef5b46f593c54deabe8df547533
2548 F20101221_AABDTL alden_h_Page_113.txt
b76f68703f7e278456812b9992af6958
20c3049acabe68d607b504ac841d29621011255d
2206 F20101221_AABDSW alden_h_Page_097.txt
993a9fe207ab2b5d5664df3ef49ac572
ed17f19f5d9a47f7506d0c67afe1010a8a173111
124033 F20101221_AABCQJ alden_h_Page_105.jpg
1332fdeaecd08d5cf880fd883bc8550a
0afbebd0890ef984bbdf6881e222968a3f0b207e
114797 F20101221_AABCPU alden_h_Page_088.jpg
96c2d1dfdb2737c2225874eb5db3e57f
bbd94482004cd494473afd80e05c165fcfd47035
1672 F20101221_AABDUA alden_h_Page_129.txt
de3b158c57cef015b4144c445970119d
5f8dccdaef63986660d18c9b77ab468629d4ad79
2396 F20101221_AABDTM alden_h_Page_114.txt
722912588193d775bdf7e92783d099f2
bdacddd127ebfc87cfd4bdfc641f54cc749dddf5
2543 F20101221_AABDSX alden_h_Page_098.txt
ab23a64a84347421aca863b6f9286582
f3cdbef6a8bb67a3a324c030b1bd67f5bec5a4fb
139807 F20101221_AABCQK alden_h_Page_106.jpg
cb258bde802b0d5be7344b372fe3327e
a13fea7abc3e51c0c8328647781192222741cd73
119661 F20101221_AABCPV alden_h_Page_089.jpg
e5b11df8680cc74cb961c995a367eed3
3fbf8596290dc8c1a3a0c2e90422295622391e83
2105 F20101221_AABDUB alden_h_Page_130.txt
50923ae7822362c85238059e6c21db08
3c9a3e6e729bafc2e6a7b6bf4ea3cf2227c6f3c8
2252 F20101221_AABDTN alden_h_Page_115.txt
ca4c975cfb6316296a7ec5b2465486a6
6640d39150ad73594845dfb3a017d91bbe96be3f
F20101221_AABDSY alden_h_Page_099.txt
4b92ec6e3c2af4b5f255ba7da26ae6a7
21af69fa99deefb2bb9933344be02241b8b31efa
111757 F20101221_AABCQL alden_h_Page_107.jpg
009804478063f69e93b60cf82b560ad3
b86b7b4b3084fdb9d3877aaa33921b9976b91eb6
140564 F20101221_AABCPW alden_h_Page_090.jpg
80ad9029529c279ddaf198f767289c52
c86442b79ef61fc29e5191c04913e8dcf761f1e1
2180 F20101221_AABDUC alden_h_Page_131.txt
5f3f257e7d39663c86899d6c529fa44f
3873c52133ef5fa36c1e3dac5a9fe41dca97843e
2447 F20101221_AABDTO alden_h_Page_116.txt
9f02a8a94321674e5fcadf277176cbd0
16c229209a74ec38f36b74ea576905829fdfb1c5
1577 F20101221_AABDSZ alden_h_Page_100.txt
3aabc0709ad97d4ab51315cc5135b425
ecf039e572d1d6980bd812403be3fe6527eb5540
120078 F20101221_AABCRA alden_h_Page_122.jpg
3545ecc693768c7fe535d3f4ef25f0e5
2654e229ef1ccf5693b6f9e0db8ab6572bdd5369
140760 F20101221_AABCQM alden_h_Page_108.jpg
656383c03e09bba5e9bddcc0b699f6f1
7933921f28fa54cc70e56fbd252fe8c267983c52
106823 F20101221_AABCPX alden_h_Page_091.jpg
c0ddd89060e08160b9c497c3a80b70c2
dccfcbc841ee639a23de548cc2bac44ed8e41746
2475 F20101221_AABDUD alden_h_Page_132.txt
7cdcb09d94ef51445761560c489c29db
7ee78284e79ef3d0d437c81037949881f1cecab4
2528 F20101221_AABDTP alden_h_Page_117.txt
7b0b2c96f2ee3c753c24068e7faf17e2
e677e6de3874bf086864e0671f29d7e16f852ff2
119307 F20101221_AABCRB alden_h_Page_123.jpg
112f02e07a576611fd41b05b390f8e3a
e1914b45952c85b9fa5f5366a772a4fc785f0107
117920 F20101221_AABCQN alden_h_Page_109.jpg
9064e171438ce3da1d845d1d31e68ef4
b7137263e8f27d49a24593ce64a81bbad8884083
120580 F20101221_AABCPY alden_h_Page_092.jpg
91dc2345af66d3d233e98d2109cb3d18
3f63d2cde9666246c3000ef0a3bcf785d8549513
2270 F20101221_AABDUE alden_h_Page_133.txt
875b7fb5d0c2b87686b27d57a572c118
62b36f2172124c1dfecf2fb42c88633b3d5804db
2371 F20101221_AABDTQ alden_h_Page_118.txt
ef685f92dd3640e81dcaba0677c33445
d12da732fdc32310d2d224eac7e810966f57e5cd
122787 F20101221_AABCRC alden_h_Page_124.jpg
4567afa773c5274a45f8eadc52b7baf8
1fee4371abb3401325e3c6cb0c57e19927aead37
116721 F20101221_AABCQO alden_h_Page_110.jpg
9dbc851daf188b502bd451adacc57eb8
dd12253ba3a57d60775909548efc2cb676a2c54d
110677 F20101221_AABCPZ alden_h_Page_094.jpg
3bea11ffd9cf401501ad1a2e7a68c4bc
7b88b34e63ccb337a4894ca7e902cdebc40a91ea
8918 F20101221_AABEAA alden_h_Page_035thm.jpg
fb4a082b373cad8d67be2aef3e4ff54d
6159554d17ba7bd1dc5e25286c3cbbda5f8446fa
2373 F20101221_AABDUF alden_h_Page_134.txt
19a44f587c315e2e302631fcf9aeade5
ffbae63eba5ad7a489a3f2459e5c2c496d4b9767
2481 F20101221_AABDTR alden_h_Page_119.txt
390189ae6ef2156a6f8b528940eccd37
7cd174a687f23ab5f3a1fd252ac2090e3e0d226e
129736 F20101221_AABCRD alden_h_Page_125.jpg
c8d9ecc22d9dcda621c180a999a9314c
42dd0e42cfb86137aa511944ddd0828452393cb5
115067 F20101221_AABCQP alden_h_Page_111.jpg
c7eaeb0f6bb3f0d036ab371f124cc26d
01c8e9e907f83e7e1ae54cc7e470264af39f6dbb
2675 F20101221_AABDUG alden_h_Page_135.txt
1a7fad2fe324198ea97ee217c0575fad
5bd3d84341c2c8597690338cda03fda6bf8cdb70
2372 F20101221_AABDTS alden_h_Page_120.txt
6f38187db728d9a83dc83a9d1f22eeb3
014261ae0c3aabc451b54b43096354aff393759f
130807 F20101221_AABCRE alden_h_Page_126.jpg
f1154ff88d6448ded463fa90ffbbd568
f1545c5bf5a3634dcfdd19fc4ee1cabfccdd210c
112113 F20101221_AABCQQ alden_h_Page_112.jpg
f5c553225bc0ee3f92807ee3e93d4555
39cf0ad12c363887ffdf2f7ac3932c53175d5e71
37495 F20101221_AABEAB alden_h_Page_036.QC.jpg
fe369542d7cb900c0270bec712acaedc
2f9a6b9e5c67c667b95dd59f4191d264a0649d44
F20101221_AABDUH alden_h_Page_137.txt
acabc9ceff0fc9813201575f63147606
9d232a533d7a13137d8bb72f9cf2aaf56f36f7a4
2191 F20101221_AABDTT alden_h_Page_121.txt
c624e241ea15ba9f2666e96c753a7be8
b9848dc1db92c6594e087ed3595ecd1d395641be
111462 F20101221_AABCRF alden_h_Page_127.jpg
2574cc1b09014d420fc455c760dc8a18
0e7cbd0d492c3b846e4feffddb40bb330f124321
125008 F20101221_AABCQR alden_h_Page_113.jpg
2fcd78304ba109bde13d9b783321418e
085de11d8ae19188bdd952803d86427c05e1348f
35038 F20101221_AABEAC alden_h_Page_037.QC.jpg
a807e9b8ce9a0c7af9bb74e43934cefb
a60c2ba66f059cccc4c2621f89132120cb97d738
2418 F20101221_AABDUI alden_h_Page_138.txt
9ca9373dbee482352334af7f915d8087
e09211054e6c727e1c54fa0b1cbe08d39be98117
2534 F20101221_AABDTU alden_h_Page_123.txt
4ebe6a8d3f94e0b8435fff26455642d7
e4a70adda04893ea90b9e435529ae2d2382458eb
121955 F20101221_AABCRG alden_h_Page_128.jpg
0752dcf3c1b7e1f1ce37bb664af6463e
3c48958ba46df818aaba7c2c101f61da5518b3d5
118450 F20101221_AABCQS alden_h_Page_114.jpg
96ee698cb441f349f3cebc6e524b5c63
2674d62d45778eee61559c2f78dbc89dda649204
35782 F20101221_AABEAD alden_h_Page_038.QC.jpg
f89aa92ee37e7ee2af0278dfb5073986
7217ae5a0aa341c98cac02d1e0535cdcabbcc8d5
2939 F20101221_AABDUJ alden_h_Page_139.txt
a1ef152ecc0fbf9ce245dea402eaabf3
5655004b13e9d1852fd1d815dcf7c41ffedff982
85302 F20101221_AABCRH alden_h_Page_129.jpg
cc62a3c9f45e7ea258a32292383ee3f6
870649d061a125e1dfb1920923a24a79b62429ab
9031 F20101221_AABEAE alden_h_Page_038thm.jpg
f843b94bcbdbb8e13c4f887e89511af6
0a6b758a7db8306d5480b0624aef27783708fc84
2411 F20101221_AABDUK alden_h_Page_140.txt
f08760550b2e9663398eac181219564a
c615aed1506b54b6f4e52d7313a6d6f1194c3c7f
F20101221_AABDTV alden_h_Page_124.txt
77f545881520404c9719554475a61d26
180d59b05a569718670f79c41a2d0a7c6c6c0aa5
105555 F20101221_AABCRI alden_h_Page_130.jpg
b84d7f734b4ab1ec9bda573e94cac9c0
443c9a0a8ca89ca0eabca7547b35d266d80bac26
112534 F20101221_AABCQT alden_h_Page_115.jpg
11b31ed41e464898d9538b43a9bf60c3
d1f25f60ec398ba1ff92886336128e2df356d998
8415 F20101221_AABEAF alden_h_Page_039thm.jpg
75aee88bfb2b6ba40504a853b13f952e
978bbc118727ef06ad42cd97cc7cb15d95ea2f55
2577 F20101221_AABDUL alden_h_Page_141.txt
949b7044a1bd39179572e90c9b449909
a86a296086544f30ac08e4da0f528de3b1dfd021
2697 F20101221_AABDTW alden_h_Page_125.txt
d6469d370f7d97d141b556fd80944653
2ba1f66a212a687f0552c9bb10cb7f3284608a98
106152 F20101221_AABCRJ alden_h_Page_131.jpg
8851f60cdc5eb7f24ec6ea538e8c88fa
b9015255d8a5de71fa92e8569b123eb744e73e18
123607 F20101221_AABCQU alden_h_Page_116.jpg
8ce16fb7dd7e972eecee9819786c7109
2405160b6a429221faeccc535b15d0ba3e487367
36013 F20101221_AABEAG alden_h_Page_040.QC.jpg
860d640b7d697e47c008231748fc87f4
5f78b5b1b31b80d26111b01970a4e84e3ff8e3ae
2795 F20101221_AABDVA alden_h_Page_157.txt
87afb63296b44bc0464a80413971c49c
d0cb58c026810a7916113b036f4dbdfc75604860
2525 F20101221_AABDUM alden_h_Page_142.txt
6a6cfc16f8e7288813551a5af75c2a56
38b23a810f3e749e7e9fddff120e89c930b70b7e
2696 F20101221_AABDTX alden_h_Page_126.txt
f84c50f0dacfc22c3fb5fa107a1b3c43
e45b82222ce53da91122a1e90e5ac2ca1d025289
126269 F20101221_AABCRK alden_h_Page_132.jpg
be58345b1a615b7e1a31629e0aeb6332
0e5091eb9c4519cfa0d3399e062a596b0250cc3a
125540 F20101221_AABCQV alden_h_Page_117.jpg
6ad5061e22b607f3a61e5fef9916f39a
ac355f27ff67bff71f00b3db7428d150aa2b4c36
9005 F20101221_AABEAH alden_h_Page_040thm.jpg
45e79364f29a66f2ddf156ee1935f592
2fab297464eb2e81e3b0b6445a72876f05e254fa
2178 F20101221_AABDVB alden_h_Page_158.txt
1dea5cbe557880884fbbf4c303df4633
725173a620e43b5f2ce6174e49629acdcd309699
2786 F20101221_AABDUN alden_h_Page_143.txt
89dd8a18da8874c6bb5966da7f95b07c
d91e49f655d16184b61f282bf42879945926696e
2216 F20101221_AABDTY alden_h_Page_127.txt
beedcad8ddfe8fc4115df93fdad17178
7da461634e56ac779073dbb43e758d1ee3e320b9
111393 F20101221_AABCRL alden_h_Page_133.jpg
5bc6976435c23ce27257f669261e856a
d5224ed53fe3a8b543ee16446c7704c529fda220
120678 F20101221_AABCQW alden_h_Page_118.jpg
647c7eef3f21eb5b56a01ad2bded2d31
eae178176ec660442ca6680cc550dd886ff7fb2f
36341 F20101221_AABEAI alden_h_Page_041.QC.jpg
e0dfafc50e367a9bec4510ede49fe63f
2456502ae2059142c7d59142ee7edee39c4a4314
2157 F20101221_AABDVC alden_h_Page_159.txt
0d39a60d4d7f6bf90a0b3c10e224a42d
d1204b69be4768e20057e0af0084735854551733
2408 F20101221_AABDUO alden_h_Page_144.txt
e8ea6e7e126bf8bbb320ea03082f9f2c
d7a9a9f1f19d018ff734e66730c2556919f09bd5
F20101221_AABDTZ alden_h_Page_128.txt
e22a9bbb6afcb142100e073dfd077b28
24bf45546000a423f6104b942cae61252271f6ba
124148 F20101221_AABCQX alden_h_Page_119.jpg
c10632a2a9e1e856fb7fc8712f3679ae
1c7be4ccc6bfa1b13625772b32e5f02a1ef9cfed
127999 F20101221_AABCSA alden_h_Page_148.jpg
e5a6d1fcd4bcae4665fc4b096d256dac
3dd1f39b80114df39b221e3c8bd30bcd9b21519b
114291 F20101221_AABCRM alden_h_Page_134.jpg
ee892c6cf6f5cb9169c9c17f421173a6
b34748afc53f518e0811f50552458f5a2dbcd3bf
8907 F20101221_AABEAJ alden_h_Page_041thm.jpg
17d39a6bed503cfa16becd295d278dc8
c80b31ffd7da1fd420246733ffbf2d609382b8e0
2579 F20101221_AABDVD alden_h_Page_160.txt
1bf2dd718daa374e61f408f31f50c3b9
0bdca206fee11ec8d502bd20f91943e017e94fd9
2799 F20101221_AABDUP alden_h_Page_146.txt
51dfa93c9e50d24a78e69e75133a41e6
1c7480a6f42dbb6653ec5e94640725b91273d93c
117395 F20101221_AABCQY alden_h_Page_120.jpg
b1c009b9da50ef5c17faf86673f63d74
f106e6d76ed30ed5939ddcbdda0821c0f7e10c35
117693 F20101221_AABCSB alden_h_Page_149.jpg
e0270dc17720b64d6107dfaac08cfb79
851add6de715259832e39a7940e4e0653b79676e
127865 F20101221_AABCRN alden_h_Page_135.jpg
f3a0c3499a4faf5cb8289857b896bb30
8d5e152263fe65116b68e1bdaa54112b963b9b59
36317 F20101221_AABEAK alden_h_Page_042.QC.jpg
3dfe2d2885b4c1fc5d2728c43905803b
af44a7d5c4e27d1b8b0d8cc0523d9cfc418a923c
2707 F20101221_AABDVE alden_h_Page_161.txt
ee38fba2abd13c330cc9541f36633523
d86d57ed60c6f52d0b84996b1d982944a10e2d3b
F20101221_AABDUQ alden_h_Page_147.txt
2e4f2b4b9648e956b529466118e792f3
aa44ea5289a5405f1aad76ce40b939e9ab307f81
110751 F20101221_AABCQZ alden_h_Page_121.jpg
c465d4304ed72029e5fa4314d8e32fca
180fb03ca503ed0e279de3d685c2f0bd6dc02219
123748 F20101221_AABCSC alden_h_Page_150.jpg
2a7faf1f2b623490df4f1084a99d2c81
252d5481e7633a4d9679b4a116969927e8c402b5
114381 F20101221_AABCRO alden_h_Page_136.jpg
67d2a5bbc521f98c29ddb941e16bdf31
b2027e437bac77b1921905b1804ea5ad23ba6a11
35500 F20101221_AABEBA alden_h_Page_050.QC.jpg
f5501005284ec3c5cc2fad73601abb34
80008c524d46816574a4d6633a51f3b3161491f8
8952 F20101221_AABEAL alden_h_Page_042thm.jpg
2daabc4babe8675551577487cf5bd45a
afefee74affbbcdcb50774975cc3031a1d7cfee8
3003 F20101221_AABDVF alden_h_Page_162.txt
931a45fcfc7eaafa7fb1d5b648fe5e36
585be7a0c49e8f7c73f30cc34f88f50c2311b440
2616 F20101221_AABDUR alden_h_Page_148.txt
12df959af7d379182ba711df440ac71e
7d05d588ca9fb5316855cd7b2ed4295b3b700fbe
121551 F20101221_AABCSD alden_h_Page_151.jpg
9b60182d33d93aa6371518ba023d36b7
eeecc487852881e60e957e26deec57f52da5bb1f
95703 F20101221_AABCRP alden_h_Page_137.jpg
434e1df7b33c42c3525d1c08b7c4476d
ce53c27e4aacd7f421d4a1ddc50f0b4ecd2fa98f
9001 F20101221_AABEBB alden_h_Page_050thm.jpg
6854a42954ddc9868dbb6c6432140177
98347521791c91145a3c2501cf4e539ee46a734f
39403 F20101221_AABEAM alden_h_Page_043.QC.jpg
94bf2265755c4aff3c95a76565286fe1
d519e449ec72ca20100f5d7eac4957ca4c625218
2719 F20101221_AABDVG alden_h_Page_163.txt
885bdcad5628ba193bd2ce4b4d484ff0
297d720ebff30503c1083072b7096ccca003609b
2413 F20101221_AABDUS alden_h_Page_149.txt
32124a2c0ddc545c700b682763c63d7b
f6682b5c76d43899a22d3b1c9843e91c97036602
113744 F20101221_AABCSE alden_h_Page_152.jpg
b0ec739e6050f37ff13fd52ed3320b1b
73ee46818e1802a0c6ff8d5c076a0de8cec9c1b3
121906 F20101221_AABCRQ alden_h_Page_138.jpg
1042f131059705a6c187095beb4b434c
27ac54d5e8cd2d6e5f7fbcf4b3f48bd4c955aca5
9385 F20101221_AABEAN alden_h_Page_043thm.jpg
975ad50b9ae193236502345b584b64af
d5e40df1986c0e0848efb2ff0e35d53f02a54a49
2972 F20101221_AABDVH alden_h_Page_164.txt
34b6c2f01edc03a17f6f950658060b07
681f2c347609aba676025a0bc6e0d18b67649f86
2546 F20101221_AABDUT alden_h_Page_150.txt
ff3421dce6781447efd84da015f04945
15ee39e1d0eaf8d48a985528c53e6ef0acd0c9f2
133305 F20101221_AABCSF alden_h_Page_153.jpg
9ae84c2b5ecf7062c211e0bffcda28d5
b0ecc0bd4ea5b4a1a998e81493ce3c40c48cf4cd
139769 F20101221_AABCRR alden_h_Page_139.jpg
ec152921b08e3011ef5566108a0535ac
306f0e9c7eca0956e87bb88499f3c1c3797afc71
28314 F20101221_AABEBC alden_h_Page_051.QC.jpg
8744589d5894534778d2e496d675cb8e
ea9e592acaa3374a593eceecb533dd639ced8c26
32746 F20101221_AABEAO alden_h_Page_044.QC.jpg
93d55f31fd14ed068f0901c5d2fd48e5
30c1fff4f2b2e46ae9ecb4c21ceafd4e68c687be
2708 F20101221_AABDVI alden_h_Page_165.txt
b66dbbd8dbd60fd878c5d7f0571d94e5
a19bb883f60c32d68e5e16c42e25e7a3c9f972f6
2516 F20101221_AABDUU alden_h_Page_151.txt
06e36ab7bbfb07aef8bc9d50ec7a66f8
93ca50f7f48ba5534864d380e25b3eb134be31aa
113135 F20101221_AABCSG alden_h_Page_154.jpg
c04cb6ec3ba9180bf2be23b815bb315f
77a779a71495ab8cc522303fb6795a13241eb7fd
118580 F20101221_AABCRS alden_h_Page_140.jpg
6b2516fa97f6435a36d87e70c027bff7
d1e3d19673effc01390337a633f715a224f4a560
35177 F20101221_AABEBD alden_h_Page_052.QC.jpg
7880b00f2de686f6f341c621a79a1cb9
2772b09ec168138147ec927319635be520361514
8033 F20101221_AABEAP alden_h_Page_044thm.jpg
2022ab7f83154312d2220c5eef8b9439
15e74a412943a1cd8f0fc3ffd1d9f652a0210725
2402 F20101221_AABDVJ alden_h_Page_166.txt
221ac364db03078c7f9bfe828cc08041
ae0d2f5da8c8341c60415f3bdbf7d46835f20341
F20101221_AABDUV alden_h_Page_152.txt
4db845300c04457edb03f880a7d0b310
a08681a3e956d3f5d75b2177b41ab23f2ac60b67
122938 F20101221_AABCSH alden_h_Page_155.jpg
b319f83b964e100e5a6861e8f6a89eca
085c73fe9454256f8ac0e8ef4e1b3c4b81c0249b
128013 F20101221_AABCRT alden_h_Page_141.jpg
2faacee9b8bdc2c0fd1516958afb781a
555d582ed8857353c1543c95ef713c0736b368ac
38153 F20101221_AABEBE alden_h_Page_053.QC.jpg
277b434f8bf3fe4423493424daa1db17
014adcae7bb266d2117458858a32d360804eea0c
36733 F20101221_AABEAQ alden_h_Page_045.QC.jpg
a59da66d48cfcc8b7443c6be2e1aec63
0aad3a15596797f1a4da4f9aafd6c0e5e787fb96
1355 F20101221_AABDVK alden_h_Page_167.txt
2fb9ca7088db5bf31ce46a37e98e29d5
9f74a194a5fb18ccd3da676e335eece0225f6adf
123753 F20101221_AABCSI alden_h_Page_156.jpg
d25d3e5d555ecf4ecab2f4ade7542c65
c9e5bc6a6242f50a8186d66bb44a0a2a94a68254
9280 F20101221_AABEBF alden_h_Page_053thm.jpg
e781b28bca48179939d733cbbc089b5e
7eb3cf4e88c8c3769e518872eb7d7efd200f513c
9020 F20101221_AABEAR alden_h_Page_045thm.jpg
34d5912d9510d040239749ee43f6a0ad
2ccbb856bf981223db95487e30af8a2f89899648
F20101221_AABDVL alden_h_Page_168.txt
acb95fd1d49066063f602f20e9de7a2e
b294205d87fb8289fe464137fb6c330c3195a141
2881 F20101221_AABDUW alden_h_Page_153.txt
b2c7299f63b564bf611f436a831981d9
e7a4c468179bde4bb44f0102ff45d1cb98186e50
134695 F20101221_AABCSJ alden_h_Page_157.jpg
f0d84a2d56be6399206db14302b71c77
e77b6deb790781a5a28ef72f35bd690214a33706
123230 F20101221_AABCRU alden_h_Page_142.jpg
b952cbd4de3f68fc66d68815e42be376
76a11fff8721ffb3cb26f56e85929a84f71cafff
38114 F20101221_AABEBG alden_h_Page_054.QC.jpg
a145ea9e0414f3bbf2c3d2d7f30b7863
ed9617aa155c922eef79b66fbced729b869b12ab
35311 F20101221_AABEAS alden_h_Page_046.QC.jpg
dcf62bc442b121275dc6ab3f20c2681a
ed3e0530993f60fac3505c5e480f372656a5423d
F20101221_AABDWA alden_h_Page_183.txt
5cae5b8baa717df452d273cf9f0d7527
28b12fef0faba7cfaa31b5097b6c221668c21523
2111 F20101221_AABDVM alden_h_Page_169.txt
104732513ff88d8ef5f6b7777ee9a3ad
7a6082a8ab3ad81bdeb04ac64a81fb053fcb0506
2326 F20101221_AABDUX alden_h_Page_154.txt
de7136b2421713d74929d5d5cb69e3fc
7a58cc666b01b9e5be5bb0350aa47317bdb8576e
108387 F20101221_AABCSK alden_h_Page_158.jpg
66c3614550b34a9d82e1a080614f5c85
afe267895f15c85aaff7c9d103d5495450415050
134865 F20101221_AABCRV alden_h_Page_143.jpg
5e84b359dee03d3b8d9ea67227d21e54
82d5b3d4e1b433755760191fe73792f3f9f66d71
9201 F20101221_AABEBH alden_h_Page_054thm.jpg
e909cb68e2aa543ca527ce327dbfdef2
62a296b3567a7da3fc35736b309499161e194cfb
8706 F20101221_AABEAT alden_h_Page_046thm.jpg
dd499cbcb83541bf982d64b97bfa6432
59a5243df5ea66b3e9e503d9db2bc529a5f75e74
2351 F20101221_AABDWB alden_h_Page_184.txt
d10103fec9879b458794bf8caa20144c
9a8b9d85bb567d9889e7889b3085b0bbe27b8ce5
2214 F20101221_AABDVN alden_h_Page_170.txt
11a37cc48d4dcb815620468da58e6ecc
5775001bdbda32ee9a2cc90759d956fb6669566a
2529 F20101221_AABDUY alden_h_Page_155.txt
5eaa97aa1e027f64fc598369e75b9896
ea14e76e27d142bd1e401d3947d372532b7f7691
104707 F20101221_AABCSL alden_h_Page_159.jpg
34e318371ef6dc6697c55e8826d435a1
fd8933ea4c7e1faedaff1a6c942d05e46b1c4acc
119386 F20101221_AABCRW alden_h_Page_144.jpg
b650621059cf789f26d289a30a8c92a5
6bf6af975f7300b9f5007b7562db66447c9c776a
34689 F20101221_AABEBI alden_h_Page_055.QC.jpg
6c4634c3fc2825edc66dd1363d842c17
24f8709efcc000973d7aa2e561654a285f0111a6
38422 F20101221_AABEAU alden_h_Page_047.QC.jpg
a6908899503598e03023a30d501a9594
1e8c91aba9ac22734d26081d2c64a9689f816400
2374 F20101221_AABDWC alden_h_Page_185.txt
3c657045e92f7f2a61c93fc3f274e9f6
236141ed5da4f7918e74b3026f4c2cba4049899e
2184 F20101221_AABDVO alden_h_Page_171.txt
772cb6c0fc0458d4ec8af32a0769aa52
4a5aad97b40d7f3c0f6eb293b06d2999ded16ebb
2489 F20101221_AABDUZ alden_h_Page_156.txt
3c5bcfaa6a53281e23e6aafbd2308ed6
08ac99017787f532d403e1f0db2b8b66292b5bfa
107037 F20101221_AABCTA alden_h_Page_174.jpg
acd756c39fc4c02bd5c0cff8a28d1657
bfce88455c1e9d8aaa03c5c0e1bcb800adb2d0e0
124667 F20101221_AABCSM alden_h_Page_160.jpg
4be684810562ff04acea0a8b0068d396
cdc78e6e13894445e32c69810de568dd341f5e40
145696 F20101221_AABCRX alden_h_Page_145.jpg
194fb3444adad296c086787dc6e16bc8
4ffe9cadeb2c7534826f4ee6eac80e81cfed7715
36112 F20101221_AABEBJ alden_h_Page_056.QC.jpg
91c180a8af994d78ce50ced2e9d80456
cefa6a58740129e379f59a49eeed62e706e4ee57
9143 F20101221_AABEAV alden_h_Page_047thm.jpg
15480a3575c099a40aa6ba7364612b41
3bd68c5f4846d5bf9c2bca4aea4774629a1c1327
1951 F20101221_AABDWD alden_h_Page_186.txt
906ff5921cb54d22ff0ce76de47e3006
b40152dbb7629b147a91e10840535587c41d909e
F20101221_AABDVP alden_h_Page_172.txt
fdbda1f899311314363ddcd8c68dfc45
4bbd32359a4978d05fe0d47dbeff6a9ac934a32f
116086 F20101221_AABCTB alden_h_Page_175.jpg
286ecd800e2270cfbc47800a7d01d85f
4477d5218968f223a67500252c71b587e3b83e05
131803 F20101221_AABCSN alden_h_Page_161.jpg
a5a561d1b472a0235c708f70819a40f1
c38eb681b9c067e88d0dd4304b8c35481a8fea91
134552 F20101221_AABCRY alden_h_Page_146.jpg
9744f445848174a1b243a8fd5d2f1e55
18bd7b94a4906005fb02d66dafeaff00ca695739
8620 F20101221_AABEBK alden_h_Page_056thm.jpg
dfc86c7177ee0886ed697abf06e071ca
0f985da79622dae6a74a6e9b06e6ad1361c2c4e9
36608 F20101221_AABEAW alden_h_Page_048.QC.jpg
c3f92b57b94017d6112e76d162210fc2
34919e5c64df095df042420809a2ad6907620484
2497 F20101221_AABDWE alden_h_Page_187.txt
54e0ea9a79296b2170ddc039c1b21263
e6a8cd425c44d1b35fdc93c613538e9c8d3e5884
2126 F20101221_AABDVQ alden_h_Page_173.txt
e0b56de2ccd864d9b83769126ae65383
b41de95537de9a8d124c524d0bc905bca35618a2
112590 F20101221_AABCTC alden_h_Page_176.jpg
8bf5ae13f63dd112bf578387712b2856
16d298fccf784ede1e1c533d5fe782b1f780108a
140530 F20101221_AABCSO alden_h_Page_162.jpg
af3a4054ca8f30c1331b0a173ea3a257
43e8ada023ef08344ceabeb533959ccadb81642b
106512 F20101221_AABCRZ alden_h_Page_147.jpg
c6559388abf5ff06591c243d7d549ebd
965848524a1483232852286918f7c1f3eefa0c02
36662 F20101221_AABECA alden_h_Page_065.QC.jpg
311e8e631be52ee92644a4644e7f1b62
e2c049134aba7586f789b99cf4fa75d7b0b8478e
34200 F20101221_AABEBL alden_h_Page_057.QC.jpg
08ab7faee733870467e9ff9adc0fb769
4c61eb5945c235b83bca15b62c810a974d590ac6
8899 F20101221_AABEAX alden_h_Page_048thm.jpg
69154a7a57f1bc70730096c572ec6950
72284985665eb4260ae25b466bb5a26efe550538
2434 F20101221_AABDWF alden_h_Page_188.txt
d5ff660564d0b45964993e8812e9cc40
3639d9d9cc7b7a657e39422255f92d45a39995a3
2116 F20101221_AABDVR alden_h_Page_174.txt
c7309b65b21776720f43262dfb00f37a
fc6d122a1f37532f0f4286deeb51f412176ea638
60245 F20101221_AABCTD alden_h_Page_177.jpg
4a066552ed07482a4209a4a8091c6fd4
2bd04bbd58de8b0c50f2293646eb78cf909cfdaa
133438 F20101221_AABCSP alden_h_Page_163.jpg
15725b0f94395f4a48fb11f990cda379
383d37a4bda5da2b4a6a0b9ab1e07ae964b8bb8b
33253 F20101221_AABECB alden_h_Page_066.QC.jpg
3bd2d01794db20d09b80a60bb7722e7f
a5c6a84da8a973668b453443a06995db3389292f
9036 F20101221_AABEBM alden_h_Page_057thm.jpg
e9f3c28b7c00325d93c14bc360209abc
eb05c835936c73aac295de7b4d62768799e1c70f
34160 F20101221_AABEAY alden_h_Page_049.QC.jpg
331e4513d8fe51ef0c7c381255c41ecf
b4aaadc3bdfffd5541c78d683f29a66ef017a6eb
2030 F20101221_AABDWG alden_h_Page_189.txt
852b112ce86b5b6620d55c1ef421c254
0be4fd87c6797894ba47e980f63d69d5fab47f19
2329 F20101221_AABDVS alden_h_Page_175.txt
f5bd8e576f5046a0d87ce649abb8cf7a
601f6eb25044adfc0b4a2e840a44161c57e92201
100865 F20101221_AABCTE alden_h_Page_178.jpg
1b114d60032fc9c7b6bf174f5f898ea2
8e47fff28af58289a5256d7229c2434cc0bc39bc
137620 F20101221_AABCSQ alden_h_Page_164.jpg
3f8e739bd1a669d2eebc15657c6c8459
e90123e410352b02e558c78e5875a77974b0bc61
8211 F20101221_AABECC alden_h_Page_066thm.jpg
8dbcd817104b88058b2c2d24c9dc4193
be1945ef314b9f3e2fdcdfa8756678084b7d361a
35611 F20101221_AABEBN alden_h_Page_058.QC.jpg
ed6d06c6c259e67cb6aa76ea72af18ef
fdb934551ebe2209059e4690c2fb9ee760ae79ce
8378 F20101221_AABEAZ alden_h_Page_049thm.jpg
1abef8ba1984819009d2804f8f3b393a
1908ce12d461e34bec19553af846ee4e37b621b3
2538 F20101221_AABDWH alden_h_Page_190.txt
cb0d6a962064fc05d777b25c8dc89f2d
b409623f22a5a6787c448db3a58a48df1224713a
F20101221_AABDVT alden_h_Page_176.txt
e63d844bac167b1905520ac31cf9b42e
76a354ddf18579904c8a0d039b0b63cbb0ab907b
100560 F20101221_AABCTF alden_h_Page_179.jpg
b1f870d8e0c67dc9fe3f80ff6874b77b
5041cb0be302cb5bca976f5350ee65777c52fc02
131632 F20101221_AABCSR alden_h_Page_165.jpg
26d8aebe14ba626d65171fd7d9f440f3
43000947864a483cabfaf418e02aa09cb823cf9e
8796 F20101221_AABEBO alden_h_Page_058thm.jpg
43918d5696741c36cc07ef82ca5689de
97a68e7bbb7ee9650724f7e0f625e606e83d0659
2215 F20101221_AABDWI alden_h_Page_191.txt
fd0e97bb7dc3a2e5b3ba8faaaf904c49
4b257c7cfdb8144c15d6c953870601cba5d2ef95
1144 F20101221_AABDVU alden_h_Page_177.txt
4d347a5728274e9fb1712411658e2485
0b3f5f3d4d966d621a297f4ece773f27f2c7ca74
119581 F20101221_AABCTG alden_h_Page_180.jpg
77541aabcc8389225d0789155f13653b
25bebfaeaa0bcb3bb79e9ce92b69a362659d0066
117655 F20101221_AABCSS alden_h_Page_166.jpg
4526dc9785768b774fb368d277e8f848
b581a9f53f5621877acc57c20ff3265435eb48d0
32187 F20101221_AABECD alden_h_Page_067.QC.jpg
1deafeda5aba76ccefc0be8709c6f032
170756ed04be7f65d435408d5f472b3245d6d831
34649 F20101221_AABEBP alden_h_Page_059.QC.jpg
a46dc778f308d72647171505299c26d8
b33bbff2c104d52e8e1cc8c7644d7ed6e705c9e9
2297 F20101221_AABDWJ alden_h_Page_192.txt
ac728b42114b1d91639457c121466f9b
5d5677a9ab947e12c2181bebc85a0c2d81c01238
1987 F20101221_AABDVV alden_h_Page_178.txt
4e8bf124240ad5ac582a56d95ea4814f
6d97654c5aa2907dcbdd2a893103447b257e6b88
114223 F20101221_AABCTH alden_h_Page_181.jpg
1aed9102a482e68bb3cdc3d6d15ef42b
2369d3688a16101ec4b414fdf13d1240bc5d2361
70052 F20101221_AABCST alden_h_Page_167.jpg
2212707302fd9c199754834258f168b5
0a52fade6701137b0af05f262d5f5215f8bb3097
8105 F20101221_AABECE alden_h_Page_067thm.jpg
de8b2c11d18be83df04f031b23d64000
503a39744e9b48c38aa2aa46646c34dc55fe6b4b
8106 F20101221_AABEBQ alden_h_Page_059thm.jpg
7c8586b4470e2d5ef7a6bdb2cc580f8d
92befaff2b241e1285b8ba82de804e03b82803a4
1444 F20101221_AABDWK alden_h_Page_193.txt
9abfad9915acb391afae162d8224a716
749501fc97e0b6a70dbe5a9ab0356f1e39796add
2033 F20101221_AABDVW alden_h_Page_179.txt
60445c462e1bd78e9ee9dc1f47d712f2
b98857a5287b420916a0e8c90fdb6d61af0c536d
114895 F20101221_AABCTI alden_h_Page_182.jpg
b8a1a8d6f1df8fce4524a4a6d0d07573
3c481c44dfb1d360c74af08bbf0dcb285642eb0e
109481 F20101221_AABCSU alden_h_Page_168.jpg
997215949633c93b47aae464e240bac2
e7c724c9a14c35b41ee6f03a2f5e7c7c40cca155
39044 F20101221_AABECF alden_h_Page_068.QC.jpg
7e769e8e60237ae718618bfa416d7c98
fcf4e40e9c81a481d17af0b22d265853daeb654c
36201 F20101221_AABEBR alden_h_Page_060.QC.jpg
e6f890cd6d137304c0226898ce2199c6
d8d37439668f90fce7a81fcc0601c4350bbb4501
455 F20101221_AABDWL alden_h_Page_194.txt
cae900d1f745affb18ff96a54fd36168
f1d27da98601d623fce5c693f87ef1372d1037d1
108261 F20101221_AABCTJ alden_h_Page_183.jpg
cb0e226e09b3e6cc4891a466bdbe0d54
e83c8b64384187fb48ec6a020fd1370a9e7a672f
9190 F20101221_AABECG alden_h_Page_068thm.jpg
70fe8a5ab13d5f7d6132ebdb1feb7360
898a40936efa4b4f5102bf9a7160f24fb10c4e4d
9107 F20101221_AABEBS alden_h_Page_060thm.jpg
e40539143e04c8eea2e133e83b64b41d
f6f10f9b28da44b5a85c13e2b97a6d434bb07556
33936 F20101221_AABDXA alden_h_Page_131.QC.jpg
b8804e7522fa61837d718760ee7b3e9d
c2e5ad0156dfdf77696ce9d94aff14ad3838f86e
2244 F20101221_AABDWM alden_h_Page_001thm.jpg
66f1a29f72ce5a8f82c79363f51d52b4
f00bbf86ade41cd68248c863774672092563a534
2451 F20101221_AABDVX alden_h_Page_180.txt
4b202392f5d2946af028cafa5f835758
22ba6499c869dbfb7c6fecb2fa18888ae97eb484
119778 F20101221_AABCTK alden_h_Page_184.jpg
48388d115157a7a4733700497768a1cf
50f1b7a6127d2310340872669b3c4c377fc041db
108783 F20101221_AABCSV alden_h_Page_169.jpg
49427dc3033da8fbb63bad0f5cb928d0
65afb32ce803123f59d008bc879b561562e30d23
37274 F20101221_AABECH alden_h_Page_069.QC.jpg
59fe7f531592cd089e99aa944d9278e9
35a21af50697db5659bc0a43fa180107cc1cad1a
37585 F20101221_AABEBT alden_h_Page_061.QC.jpg
24fe0a45de7429f77052b8ccb3f31c45
aa2868ab2f7cade482666ab476fa59945f753c94
35956 F20101221_AABDXB alden_h_Page_031.QC.jpg
3d109b9e93c930191bfc3e8d22c4c999
1650c72541f3416c3328b9bb561ccd38b8a1840c
586331 F20101221_AABDWN alden_h.pdf
a437403a0d272bdae4e87d54e0ccf6ef
da73c1c227329bc97a696c0682a68f05d17ce928
2267 F20101221_AABDVY alden_h_Page_181.txt
edd0cfcf08fbce94bddcdc0658ae1c53
ec10f9110ef9d85a3f346c36374dd24df395b632
120198 F20101221_AABCTL alden_h_Page_185.jpg
0935480fd068c4e3202f628d6c476f27
b6652d20d681ca242755692932714ce9ff3dc5fa
111442 F20101221_AABCSW alden_h_Page_170.jpg
5f0080e8094f53c6af65eda2fe7aa424
448fef3b8bc1d0c409ca3a5d5e8aa50e14d79974
9199 F20101221_AABECI alden_h_Page_069thm.jpg
41fc6f2b687e86c8ec24e8068e604baf
c2cb9a61202d8215f40b90a009a569bc1c483546
9080 F20101221_AABEBU alden_h_Page_061thm.jpg
e51690d5d1f20e63065481fa56e6209d
43147f418c2f0a3d68bf76890a2866824c12f872
9010 F20101221_AABDXC alden_h_Page_065thm.jpg
49c9ce6d37b8d5dcd87e1c5b5ea6f161
d7bc0150215f2b6231e623583753da5106647602
36917 F20101221_AABDWO alden_h_Page_014.QC.jpg
42316d8482ee6a3d1b58485a77168e9f
20c1d0d7233375fc4260d7402dd7ad58e3bea626
2298 F20101221_AABDVZ alden_h_Page_182.txt
1418ee4b9c9a2dc44e90497fee3bd5e4
a4e51e603a7ffacaf64f36f272e4a85a57fe9089
118927 F20101221_AABCTM alden_h_Page_187.jpg
255470dd774789e8603f9541619a7851
6efcd330a9e6d631999e1cbc6eb97afb1ebcd3a9
111264 F20101221_AABCSX alden_h_Page_171.jpg
f4ccd7e2ae91ca900e47aa9f4789a3fb
5c00516e36f6c83502176417170d094b27f9cca2
291538 F20101221_AABCUA alden_h_Page_007.jp2
c50bf1a1d9537a083bbfd69900ca1b52
63048591cfb7a2bbb5ddc8d44c6d69eeeeaf8eab
34310 F20101221_AABECJ alden_h_Page_070.QC.jpg
85f466d1f9ebfc52fbe6910907912bdc
330b7fec1d9a984a14c13bf969b889b8c9e3dc0a
35153 F20101221_AABEBV alden_h_Page_062.QC.jpg
51edf3e03fe2504160f3b9ea9545e32a
339d9fd40a30310f52b6e97612d4fb380c16c837
35963 F20101221_AABDXD alden_h_Page_107.QC.jpg
84cebd1740fcf91598b5f50d09569637
adbc77a2d434f780c5d3c037b7e197b275d6b220
36996 F20101221_AABDWP alden_h_Page_157.QC.jpg
9f8e6e3416b049956ae421ba5e594b28
4b7db84685d0c12e86bd42949ff510d42384823f
119468 F20101221_AABCTN alden_h_Page_188.jpg
39738c9779cb62740c8ff3e9406cdd23
f211f94c327ac8719eb6d3a9d727f06edacfecfc
110063 F20101221_AABCSY alden_h_Page_172.jpg
81e2780374ece8d81ec8924b5c46cf79
e6757e703f828d011286dac1902081cffb9a354d
1046544 F20101221_AABCUB alden_h_Page_008.jp2
20ca9d54d48a4151b5295fd1347e75b5
02c7fc08a94182640443801b2685894b321fb07e
8583 F20101221_AABECK alden_h_Page_070thm.jpg
2cfb2c90f39405decdd2b4034568168a
ff5f0016c7f1da8118faa3f625a1fbac7782ea84
8719 F20101221_AABEBW alden_h_Page_062thm.jpg
a86431fc581106cd75f53508b4fe6951
f7449a2e312ce40073a53744745b3bb2a1a75c46
8911 F20101221_AABDXE alden_h_Page_036thm.jpg
8583f3bd5c35ef86f9e7673e58b9baf3
f2cdb8275c448ae9e4b64e63e70f8db34712b5ca
36203 F20101221_AABDWQ alden_h_Page_030.QC.jpg
c21071b14e6f5f70a6953c59f0ec970d
c89844ec689f4673d7387ed7db2fbf4976202708
101096 F20101221_AABCTO alden_h_Page_189.jpg
55167c2228289d98f3bf567ad22db3be
c5505ad5aa6a834588f04c583a1fe73b3d78348a
108883 F20101221_AABCSZ alden_h_Page_173.jpg
350e317134ebf1c1cdce42ee4bbefa68
02ca9e25e9bb79651d76aa1cb9d0c6506cdaeedb
552987 F20101221_AABCUC alden_h_Page_009.jp2
077e2350362374bfcadeddecd9cd8f6c
f320ed75723a20ecd1f0ea8419f81d3f327b8492
31719 F20101221_AABEDA alden_h_Page_079.QC.jpg
5e80f6d6f867db79f3effd550d781741
36e88b2418fb9f4fa31146a112709df0efdbfef1
34584 F20101221_AABECL alden_h_Page_071.QC.jpg
a332e6f91ce8bd640c3b4835752ecfc1
58a625b91ef34ec3f029b821d44d536ede21e462
8305 F20101221_AABEBX alden_h_Page_063thm.jpg
bf94459b06d82750256d25d289ad3749
f8417e69966a863913ee4a84dc74efe00fe171e6
38382 F20101221_AABDXF alden_h_Page_153.QC.jpg
5501c8eb73a23871fefee74d259b92e6
3952bdea28b6aa7cbae7d6212c7b5baab62997a2
7210 F20101221_AABDWR alden_h_Page_051thm.jpg
a9707da6c59dcb0e7159895d35823af6
232a1bcd5dcba5157c40a3ee36f37eea54a615e8
124958 F20101221_AABCTP alden_h_Page_190.jpg
2ba60d46a09ab38a8f06a69927baf57d
07bc8b59f8876b5af2b3f73153a489dacce47f79
1051944 F20101221_AABCUD alden_h_Page_010.jp2
a1bd541e8966772aa03183262cebefe2
51e653a3f1a51a92681e663a18663671627c08a0
7944 F20101221_AABEDB alden_h_Page_079thm.jpg
2071314787529cf36da1a84a5555ff62
fec1809baf3c61b245e2f73dbc64494a7fe97069
8983 F20101221_AABECM alden_h_Page_071thm.jpg
20d153d3e1dd4a1acc41b3c748db264e
09cd9d89b0a782855b7ae84b2bb45dec18f4677c
31735 F20101221_AABEBY alden_h_Page_064.QC.jpg
80c84b20a5972505ebf9192994cc089d
588d8afeaec2761a1cf74a7eff8f724295570538
8584 F20101221_AABDXG alden_h_Page_055thm.jpg
708b918c112cc3936a87cfa60aa0f9a0
d6496ab7bcaa5a1b894b5bbaf6bc8fb7262daf56
39598 F20101221_AABDWS alden_h_Page_132.QC.jpg
65d0048ed583727b03c1c81ff022cfb7
4e34699e38650dd5381fdada3d508465f34bac2f
109524 F20101221_AABCTQ alden_h_Page_191.jpg
7935619c2ce8fd2c9266b5c2dd07faab
210ec0e6c30e2d8f070895f252389b2b11e91194
1051976 F20101221_AABCUE alden_h_Page_011.jp2
0773b5323ac09a698fdd4f6ad1d241c5
f93c979a887cadb3550b0e0320e0227e518131cb
36864 F20101221_AABEDC alden_h_Page_080.QC.jpg
15c1a436b12b7f974d1eff7869e9e8af
6ef6b0c3800a8694022ec4ba66416862cc27605f
34052 F20101221_AABECN alden_h_Page_072.QC.jpg
48931805061e88df088cbc5e2f9129ee
29ac5006ed7374afc58aa6312a338d7f288bc0ea
8108 F20101221_AABEBZ alden_h_Page_064thm.jpg
31edb68eba676993987e5c596e79a447
3c4309a784f88d55f4a65abad28773158445577c
39273 F20101221_AABDXH alden_h_Page_163.QC.jpg
9df395204b10e38f1b07cb511e80b822
4a14668b6f3a362b62155e37cb78265fa1fff820
38527 F20101221_AABDWT alden_h_Page_161.QC.jpg
adba3ce8c4d018c6edb7b880857316d8
f4c14e8cb3c12e56c751618f9ed8c97e1d6ce580
115421 F20101221_AABCTR alden_h_Page_192.jpg
871ca0bfc52ad47f84563fc1a328f370
42e0e96d0f6f102fa72316104203138b0c85263c
1051942 F20101221_AABDAA alden_h_Page_172.jp2
398857ff8bd5dc98a23ffa6b64cd1fe9
7d259cd961b650e988bb786de373a8fccac7635c
F20101221_AABCUF alden_h_Page_012.jp2
494f728675dedd33baa2232e4c5a1518
e76550b8a3162a2e57f2baa87d1be994d6222ea5
9118 F20101221_AABEDD alden_h_Page_080thm.jpg
5ec7453341aede0aa79738064d542f6f
92b80dbd88bb8ca6b359035bf296bdd9df22f4ea
8313 F20101221_AABECO alden_h_Page_072thm.jpg
3126f4ee18f9e383b0cadbd9d98533d5
afe4c8c01f39f35fa4f7cde2960d79f1b815c6b0
9125 F20101221_AABDXI alden_h_Page_121thm.jpg
faed1637992e8c882d289508d0a974e8
92639f9828ddef0b8d712ee7cc77633a7889b19a
9087 F20101221_AABDWU alden_h_Page_025thm.jpg
1977e39656dd6215e9a0a34719c40093
3f1a76ea270787bb5b541308a1b1af0beba3c72f
73875 F20101221_AABCTS alden_h_Page_193.jpg
6fb5c816241b2c09e1a98ee0fa9d978c
c0460a038c8a7e73f63b0f68db373a72b22c2911
1051974 F20101221_AABDAB alden_h_Page_173.jp2
c3c582bb8dcac63e4840bd5d6d6e6011
c3786b27380bd7c10625e1893217545101b39578
1051915 F20101221_AABCUG alden_h_Page_013.jp2
bbb1635313e5dbc307c4ee106bc2972e
31c91137acd3ef311808a80bd2153a84f6487e9c
36998 F20101221_AABECP alden_h_Page_073.QC.jpg
17539f14bbcdaf6880211d87e68614c7
123cba1abf39116d31038347a5ee75332c9881fd
8834 F20101221_AABDXJ alden_h_Page_095thm.jpg
9507cb96ffac3aa43d4798126656fe2b
b621fd3fb3bf01f5207c81a93be2bb992800989d
37676 F20101221_AABDWV alden_h_Page_156.QC.jpg
fd6012455bded4e23f47c643b973f442
bcc5882afda2f1f73c8e8f7f4a4271f476fe31e4
25697 F20101221_AABCTT alden_h_Page_194.jpg
13783965e440949321469c821f081383
7b6d7883eb3c232b44a3c7d5c4f16426eef10c18
1051927 F20101221_AABCUH alden_h_Page_014.jp2
9f6aafa8a486ea561396a7bd347c5942
bf0d3059db2c9deccc9ac5e45e5384302c39570c
29923 F20101221_AABEDE alden_h_Page_081.QC.jpg
38f45c6d6b2c44f30df27aae23650364
6fbfb9de8b84802177780b74e58ea4eede47a2fd
9051 F20101221_AABECQ alden_h_Page_073thm.jpg
7fb7b7925e4c5973a332036c50eaf6dc
2dee16f2dc376b5e2347e3e6c8d2ddde0964846f
35855 F20101221_AABDXK alden_h_Page_171.QC.jpg
b8e353a52a0fd9e9b3defb5d83b38935
79ad3f8ad82ae16121c4278b513647f365b27027
8727 F20101221_AABDWW alden_h_Page_149thm.jpg
e02ea06ca363fbce8bd7d286ebfe886c
22532d70a410fd5a7e1724b4c51e249b2c3e82dc
270111 F20101221_AABCTU alden_h_Page_001.jp2
4f22b3f232bae862027c769bbffdf590
04510c4feee13bb510d2deee58b83cb9c42ad904
1051985 F20101221_AABDAC alden_h_Page_174.jp2
42060ca2ef5b343253ed647c2ba4afa3
18bd06a7a1fdfd2411e2c586b7d1928bdc8c43ea
1051966 F20101221_AABCUI alden_h_Page_015.jp2
b2a53bf04ec5a800271e123bc83ec43b
d246a86914c9450a174e1cfb61bf7f218cd76f78
7294 F20101221_AABEDF alden_h_Page_081thm.jpg
cebc69e228c29a81dbdd1877fa467e0d
e6a67b7e24dc514e962cd7e714ce41878acc0244
8931 F20101221_AABECR alden_h_Page_074thm.jpg
4fa5e9ecf58b19aecedfa934800da9b2
92010314cbe50511ca63713a78470c2ff57df5b6
22368 F20101221_AABDXL alden_h_Page_193.QC.jpg
57fd944e0b034251d93bd1494b07f023
065bfe62142788d81365d0e0bbcecb5c8b7c71d2
36818 F20101221_AABDWX alden_h_Page_135.QC.jpg
a9a28137dc9d39163e597b078f511ce3
af4f969654114ef3f9989cb1336ce787195aa5a6
28149 F20101221_AABCTV alden_h_Page_002.jp2
b61e015667c6c5c19cdefdda8e314276
d6160c58d04171aa9e56e62029cfb9c9a90adc42
1051967 F20101221_AABDAD alden_h_Page_175.jp2
6ac0502f63cc1b4537516d1163015c19
6cd452f4e754e07cfbff33c14a96eb2269667764
F20101221_AABCUJ alden_h_Page_016.jp2
1e3552b850e1c2abde9a99c55cbd535f
52a8dc68274d851e17762847b4ed8b0061efaff9
34207 F20101221_AABEDG alden_h_Page_082.QC.jpg
73eded577abc48b8563b7caaad114fd9
769ab1c8b6858c51f854ece1df04f3892f86ff44
36105 F20101221_AABECS alden_h_Page_075.QC.jpg
52827ee86d969559c9b61292980ddfc1
93dadf228817521b14ec47bbc3a1c4c4543c067b
8514 F20101221_AABDYA alden_h_Page_004thm.jpg
5a52fa52194943e2c8e0448e536af42e
d86d7416a277c73ec60e69c19da67ed90d2ca078
8679 F20101221_AABDXM alden_h_Page_010thm.jpg
77f38ed0b406ec68f7557054bc925a1b
5eb745347a7f57525df25490af4de3e2a679a634
F20101221_AABDAE alden_h_Page_176.jp2
b53978053fc024a4a6d00c319f26b873
e19e8c83517579e8e506140d37475172911f6710
1051984 F20101221_AABCUK alden_h_Page_017.jp2
ab0f074dcabae9f1f80d5b2288ebe349
081a727299655d70c4ca9121215f16b290bfd207
8354 F20101221_AABEDH alden_h_Page_082thm.jpg
3a21b95af81ef38fbe3e4945b0a9ada6
31127daf28ca6af397d99e77e8b8ba235d99eb55
8868 F20101221_AABECT alden_h_Page_075thm.jpg
ad8683c42fffffccb20b2b619c6af280
7952d0bf9ffb9cc1f910f15d4874e0e0d1a64da4
6379 F20101221_AABDYB alden_h_Page_005.QC.jpg
5765cca9d04a69a691efc92fa4cfb0be
1755d24b828f84d563be38eb50ed426d0d207b1d
8650 F20101221_AABDXN alden_h_Page_037thm.jpg
4354def271744b5bd19b3317bd1fb9ab
24046ed2695c4dc0bdb0016d0ff003a661f7157a
27024 F20101221_AABDWY alden_h_Page_100.QC.jpg
e1132c9c1e46c2319a5f1d0a78738595
a0d72f6fa5993bed8109fc8b7218c6653ae192ca
32943 F20101221_AABCTW alden_h_Page_003.jp2
ea2d8494db07236eac0880520e1e5c1b
e4be0ad745af6e9a6a41553fd511a5aa4370a25a
648674 F20101221_AABDAF alden_h_Page_177.jp2
7585b5105c9679ebe95abbef6a51c13c
1b5c9092207946c007a0283ee78c57221541602b
1051963 F20101221_AABCUL alden_h_Page_018.jp2
ba4535d3cdfe0a0e51d4df0a001840a6
9d2a86cc195cc383a786ce3651debe034b6c8d8d
36529 F20101221_AABEDI alden_h_Page_083.QC.jpg
eac99ab1a10d59fcea230b22bfb8301a
a92f4ae2494e1bd31ec04ed51f9d0ded01e3ac9f
34350 F20101221_AABECU alden_h_Page_076.QC.jpg
a80594849b5ce22fa36ac57c7377e3af
3084b4e7d449e850b6e030f18162d30bc6edb107
1708 F20101221_AABDYC alden_h_Page_005thm.jpg
0540b2b0c9c4f693f0c965d22eb292c6
cb091c10f72f388e054408c70cfc8f5999e66c94
8890 F20101221_AABDXO alden_h_Page_034thm.jpg
79b10cda9c74d9f72c87360c357234c3
a1d04f84a1ae9e9ea65249ddfb22780ce0dee650
39700 F20101221_AABDWZ alden_h_Page_106.QC.jpg
c658a81527333e26d23a21d9dea1e0ac
1a4d295087a7ab0498fabec588374d344f80518f
1051959 F20101221_AABCTX alden_h_Page_004.jp2
7df412219b5032d1ad2c2141fa85110e
574e7006a5f8636ccff6e125423ae94189ac21ca
952483 F20101221_AABDAG alden_h_Page_178.jp2
38bd464ea4c87049a7dc43fc661faca4
4ca7c383bda811f6ebb0a9ecb41a2cc4f983a93c
1051981 F20101221_AABCVA alden_h_Page_036.jp2
5d0b4a1ac3284c79a6cb6bf8935a0bf7
20d255c5f0945ff4980f3f2296f696ee2217839c
1051960 F20101221_AABCUM alden_h_Page_019.jp2
b170479ef71c2d496bdcc3cf18405990
d518ba830415e98e022da73b21cb8f71fdd59bb1
8922 F20101221_AABEDJ alden_h_Page_083thm.jpg
6a13983dd714d1904c42e1452a65fc13
50852a801f758f562e4262e86e2730dc4adcad2e
8599 F20101221_AABECV alden_h_Page_076thm.jpg
0dfbc992e894810f1f81c06a3dff243e
8cf762a5215d8bbc6422f8e68952bcd908b3add1
26801 F20101221_AABDYD alden_h_Page_006.QC.jpg
1084eec21f7e2cfced48f79212e88ca0
a0b44ef78921e84a74b04705312dff08a94b4dd9
8932 F20101221_AABDXP alden_h_Page_022thm.jpg
5ce0a2f63044930f3ad3a4eb3854054b
7547a00c2f05f2de78f71bc4658b6277096ab5c6
164078 F20101221_AABCTY alden_h_Page_005.jp2
bb315726780b6a746adc149ebe439d02
38cbaddb24443217a43b83b0ea25885f4df2be2c
F20101221_AABDAH alden_h_Page_179.jp2
9efdea365154b13acb8ea6621c83f880
ad9b1331bd28edde42893aeee47064164035f90b
1051948 F20101221_AABCVB alden_h_Page_038.jp2
fd4f946e1eb636a8947ada16a3104165
946f3c7bccf6bec22272f297e965f601ab6d234b
F20101221_AABCUN alden_h_Page_020.jp2
963db863a4cb8205522c056702a290ac
1836a3899f4f97b0eb80140052d75b34681f7d34
38633 F20101221_AABEDK alden_h_Page_084.QC.jpg
7252877d5c2452b73f28301e2b6a190b
07e2800320661bf91a914a735e9e09a04f2314d1
34634 F20101221_AABECW alden_h_Page_077.QC.jpg
5927f64e85e8b1741224d938cca57ed8
a3edcf0c9d2f5e76236bdde4a9b9bb916264f2c8
6816 F20101221_AABDYE alden_h_Page_006thm.jpg
fc9b2f07e56a320e6af49d0a18e5b003
30089c98f82a9f3d487da79f957f6c523fda0d56
8411 F20101221_AABDXQ alden_h_Page_133thm.jpg
b616611d0eb7836a63a43fbf3712391d
0792f001dc6b5135ff027b59138af64068f7ee76
1051982 F20101221_AABCTZ alden_h_Page_006.jp2
82c35ca6c0f456e10780d12aad5a6d33
1d7bd594e843789e1f1e864d8dd3ad7db6903261
F20101221_AABDAI alden_h_Page_180.jp2
ad9add1ccde8d69b92fb8d38e86c23f1
6bd01f308d8e6f4ca120e969feb4381f6dd5cff0
1051946 F20101221_AABCVC alden_h_Page_039.jp2
80e8e09b63fbce793d9d6c2490b441df
a2eb9c6abe0746f5a4f7b1333f2c970e3d222d3f
F20101221_AABCUO alden_h_Page_021.jp2
e0a5b04a1ba663ca1006ead18017fbff
3513014a668962778393fc32d925fe94fdfb73eb
38175 F20101221_AABEEA alden_h_Page_092.QC.jpg
b3843bf7de0845c504873a76a65fe4f2
5f48aa4ada5c5b43774e33ac4fbb3d20f6cd872d
8886 F20101221_AABEDL alden_h_Page_084thm.jpg
9d653fdb52de06004e691c16bdfbc2d7
617305fdf45ca59d3408ef83873ed9d9de4b4a71
F20101221_AABECX alden_h_Page_077thm.jpg
996d13b7964237595a472b42ff71a44d
b48ab840c9748728e6ed17ea19bd1af97d9161db
5920 F20101221_AABDYF alden_h_Page_007.QC.jpg
b7989cb6ca246c9d54438a511c66c325
93612837160c6b5d5b98933c3ac41a3fec00981d
8608 F20101221_AABDXR alden_h_Page_183thm.jpg
6ab050bfe25c462ddd0d6280e9def878
df77dd38141e87fb069de5da1b309c2a7d012617
1051979 F20101221_AABDAJ alden_h_Page_182.jp2
68afce77ff8aa81f23f99b143d45dba8
dd2dafb9cb580a6a04c23fbdda92848dd5574ac5
1051983 F20101221_AABCVD alden_h_Page_040.jp2
2ee5aed70575cec27c77a3b3e9771306
8f87f8d28475e5d17cc96dcb6bab5def85cdf2cd
1051972 F20101221_AABCUP alden_h_Page_022.jp2
10325306b4fdcdc30f492d78ede066d5
d40ab7653fd6a1d1572bf02e4849c19f0d56be06
35454 F20101221_AABEEB alden_h_Page_093.QC.jpg
9561b112f37f2a6d6abf6ecf4b978a54
336135af70bd2b399dda8f96b5510de7ec701927
34171 F20101221_AABEDM alden_h_Page_085.QC.jpg
e8bfffa446d6ea466af5c8f293e58187
92848b7b7406cceb2fe59886104d82c63f61ee45
42159 F20101221_AABECY alden_h_Page_078.QC.jpg
4b42bffe095f9c664ee44d9ea34b8604
8ce67ae90738a5821b84274393f53246261d87b9
1668 F20101221_AABDYG alden_h_Page_007thm.jpg
08678a077b7f8ccb179dbbf6781a1033
6e6658ab26fa4b54d5095e5db4bb80a69e4aeeb5
36747 F20101221_AABDXS alden_h_Page_074.QC.jpg
1f8f4d821bfa6c352038be097023235d
7931bcf6bc1f0fbf9791aceed76b4d4a6fb886f6
1051932 F20101221_AABDAK alden_h_Page_183.jp2
6c12dcdae509ec0faea0153f96d7e21d
9333eddbe8f26d8eac507eb93735b22419bf4b76
F20101221_AABCVE alden_h_Page_041.jp2
431d7890c3712db2b20f6f0d8cc772c7
13b97f1b604443aec3ba5e0bbe3bcc6c9d08e6e5
1051949 F20101221_AABCUQ alden_h_Page_023.jp2
ff151933bec1e931a29f5a5024793c7f
685d6777b74805ac1f64c38f32b365faea904009
8839 F20101221_AABEEC alden_h_Page_093thm.jpg
2ebad4a1e4a085a01555de5e870729ea
4bb05a6617bdb4f7b7a9aa159a1960229fca0045
8547 F20101221_AABEDN alden_h_Page_085thm.jpg
dd9e4a36a3eae3e41a6de3c17b90ffab
d98ec06c3eba0d40a0b8ea2012f66d37d44516ce
9193 F20101221_AABECZ alden_h_Page_078thm.jpg
179b8553508f1fccaa227ddfff5a6829
a97fcc165bedff68dae3c0a1fe2ae7ff825dd65b
30070 F20101221_AABDYH alden_h_Page_008.QC.jpg
7de5ee7097220e3f068fe685c7a5e04c
4ddded5ebaf7a846dd11dcbeea3f8a035fc36844
288137 F20101221_AABDXT UFE0022126_00001.xml FULL
429bcf5397d20c1ca73d4d3912a7a899
1ea9d961b70f335be81c17dff41ef65e6af4c419
F20101221_AABDAL alden_h_Page_184.jp2
15bb0042ae5f5f383f04308e4c1cd824
4b5e762a8f14cc22edb866a3d6f968655026d11b
1051961 F20101221_AABCVF alden_h_Page_043.jp2
888bebaf3206d646fdf76e9b1a5acdd2
c4a245e0c159a3147de7b273c626741d434fdbec
1051879 F20101221_AABCUR alden_h_Page_025.jp2
d90d011b00e4f2487af36db278db6eb9
2769dd594f941807958516cac655fbdafea6015c
25271604 F20101221_AABDBA alden_h_Page_005.tif
1db922c119b17555c4d2620a460e4228
d03570562166bc87ac8ffaf67845054b5e7ef0ae
34702 F20101221_AABEED alden_h_Page_094.QC.jpg
59c415b803a06b0a943bbfac54c30a39
1587364a11c9887f1aedc652ba12cb63d1bcc7ab
35824 F20101221_AABEDO alden_h_Page_086.QC.jpg
77ea55b2b76d81ceb5d4af0703a7700d
7ce6f4f48fb4280244563d8b60244a7d421d3a29
7704 F20101221_AABDYI alden_h_Page_008thm.jpg
f6d9acdf1fb0f26384c8218a97756f39
3a3611714bcbbd393f834e5c97729c154ee6e37c
8848 F20101221_AABDXU alden_h_Page_001.QC.jpg
3b7c904c044aefdb819462a525b9a273
4f4a89a799dc3315abd7082ea8ccc32867234840
F20101221_AABDAM alden_h_Page_185.jp2
1a5650aa3b6166c8fa4301328c9a69d6
4b8a0bab1a57e194e1659e58f1314c49bb306477
1051978 F20101221_AABCVG alden_h_Page_044.jp2
795a2e59217ec21eabe9fd195309fc1f
fa242089c536c0018b12be736398105e0ee81f26
1051954 F20101221_AABCUS alden_h_Page_026.jp2
80afa40049975d92e4c7bc4d359ca4fe
0ffd5ce0f3b560fd4828328b478edc7bf4f8b3fd
F20101221_AABDBB alden_h_Page_006.tif
087b5c18fb095b7473d8b330f5da0a01
1d9b16f8d0df2acdf771fee30c081ef94f75636f
8138 F20101221_AABEEE alden_h_Page_094thm.jpg
48c0a560a18b6db24f2c6cbb1e67c723
1248ddd6a676d570f2fcc1bb2ccd8d09147e101d
8501 F20101221_AABEDP alden_h_Page_086thm.jpg
8939760c19f7d85cdcb95df120ab3806
d8256f81e41763a3e16c9d46963e1f7ff387412b
16964 F20101221_AABDYJ alden_h_Page_009.QC.jpg
6b972ae85ef42fa7e51df7f88fc2bd79
7d2926be3c9996d4ae5f17329817d844855268ad
1246 F20101221_AABDXV alden_h_Page_002.QC.jpg
b88c8bdc2c308651851e7a2e1d97d819
b2c0e0df284520db8b1b2b715bea692717fff022
F20101221_AABDAN alden_h_Page_186.jp2
655d86c1406ec07f8f1d52ff140cf853
8b13d0d95aaf51dc8c1cd3720beb8fc6dd679526
1051943 F20101221_AABCVH alden_h_Page_045.jp2
de25f2db2360f7b28058f04592e62a2b
5a646db5be8750e32875ec83ab327a67e91f90c4
F20101221_AABCUT alden_h_Page_027.jp2
1cc421064a32b4f214ed976a430222a0
72b7484fcb8702d27c91a38cc8b44931b78743b0
F20101221_AABDBC alden_h_Page_007.tif
876bd47f9c471b9177747faea5b6c5a2
45b35d22bb8f582b7b1e2b82f4f83159b3ae84ce
37683 F20101221_AABEDQ alden_h_Page_087.QC.jpg
78fc20d869e7dcb898bb0e22cf24db69
a605ecb7200e2f21a09bb33810efccd7a4abad04
4340 F20101221_AABDYK alden_h_Page_009thm.jpg
30f634cc650c8ca4d542c1ca3afe17ec
6b69b993d54ceebbaed68c54efc77c4840cc7d68
529 F20101221_AABDXW alden_h_Page_002thm.jpg
60a8c7292458d30dbcd3e77fe2989aa2
d767fdbc04deded73fcf42bcb2d31ed40bb44dcb
F20101221_AABDAO alden_h_Page_187.jp2
7e43f2ae747e1fe6d96547ef3556854b
8446dc2412147862ccde268be7f67145f1515b18
1051891 F20101221_AABCVI alden_h_Page_046.jp2
c65cc340acd4cf484330ddf40cbe2144
995944d603a6a821821f84ab0f66304771dfa10e
1051938 F20101221_AABCUU alden_h_Page_029.jp2
298ec16cd9698e066aa2ff6bd1c2e3b9
8881cf6163a23184643b5e08e12f7368eeedc8d7
34425 F20101221_AABEEF alden_h_Page_095.QC.jpg
d850ceb2e1514a5ddecabfa0e1ac490f
a3b6f90b0a0b2041e04fb4be782f3be2eb73dad4
8972 F20101221_AABEDR alden_h_Page_087thm.jpg
a52226b8cdaab911f2931e4883d87e0e
560e8973273bef4ede02f23a7256803a160c8426
35453 F20101221_AABDYL alden_h_Page_010.QC.jpg
c13899c6fc58ab396f05ed510539a134
f0faa5b8f06b31d4f76ffe89b6786e08de0faa9b
1445 F20101221_AABDXX alden_h_Page_003.QC.jpg
39cd6e465b9784ad0982e080f1e7d3e7
cce67da5badb5f10d8c4bb7d8bc2647f7ee7cde7
F20101221_AABDAP alden_h_Page_188.jp2
15f19612b7991b48315b199ea925af44
c953a4a8863bfb3af60a77b72d5d9d22595898ac
1051973 F20101221_AABCVJ alden_h_Page_047.jp2
1f2a33c9ab4c64a8d43eeb730367408b
07aab7a7b6f697ecfc604b62ce919ef2aa4a9b4c
1051977 F20101221_AABCUV alden_h_Page_030.jp2
c1781b3fbd4a2b727399bcf4a556741c
a78214be149c25a56e09cfb61c31131ce924f9a9
F20101221_AABDBD alden_h_Page_008.tif
2632821b21c027998054383e1d61e6bd
42ef078015a842f777e2c89c8703ab2d0eccb4ad
36171 F20101221_AABEEG alden_h_Page_096.QC.jpg
febe2328399556c76e449b623753f6d2
da80dd420195c9607c15832d7e327dcd23a8cf2f
35538 F20101221_AABEDS alden_h_Page_088.QC.jpg
0a0567e031bd821a3a3a402033a78899
c313b8a2b00c932b2cdc091a55234569ac3ffdc6
36643 F20101221_AABDZA alden_h_Page_019.QC.jpg
f14cb57996c718e705d3c4141133c330
47048a693c50c7c605b4d49fe92d1d3aaed0fdde
34652 F20101221_AABDYM alden_h_Page_011.QC.jpg
dfb08ac70416f2ff696de3ab31d7bb25
d06748a0ee67577aa84c3ba50e7450131a3e177a
605 F20101221_AABDXY alden_h_Page_003thm.jpg
5923b1491679cdbfc628cbc0e22f3ce6
ba745479d5d06964bb448ac7de0790b364f67416
1051950 F20101221_AABDAQ alden_h_Page_189.jp2
ffb940307efeec567f76fd5ddbd9d7b6
839a5dea97a7ae11e0f4b08981c4df82bd6d3fb9
1051956 F20101221_AABCVK alden_h_Page_048.jp2
0983888a8a11560daf413aea2b19c4b4
f78ce2c5530f24e7455a6e8986c072f31f8129cc
F20101221_AABCUW alden_h_Page_031.jp2
6596c33c03bc7ab9f25079f009628575
e330aa1fe18cfc11a761ea946bcd83bbb7daf6d0
F20101221_AABDBE alden_h_Page_009.tif
b8226726cce703149e09df552b221779
1ddf0c2c34210612527a1741f1e748ab1be3f037
8773 F20101221_AABEEH alden_h_Page_096thm.jpg
f7b3a428b43b5e66fa9c2d2524f91b84
4103658071cf929af9fdc178988c72d12d722a5b
8649 F20101221_AABEDT alden_h_Page_088thm.jpg
5928fe97e4e7175967bfa16fcd14d2ae
021c01880466b3c81543680b575464c4d2a61b32
8937 F20101221_AABDZB alden_h_Page_019thm.jpg
cfe10159facddea7cfe73e1f0afbeb58
e081e72e8726abcfbb4725d5f9ef87d6c3b5d3c4
8554 F20101221_AABDYN alden_h_Page_011thm.jpg
a7d800c5947ef6c55db43f9c993abf0e
84f7e711af288ea913c2954e35f19f59cff38e98
1051968 F20101221_AABDAR alden_h_Page_190.jp2
f78ce1fdb1e01aad73659906c04f9e22
fa80c4d9684670f9020b4132c9213b1667e79cb9
1051971 F20101221_AABCVL alden_h_Page_049.jp2
d8d4001939f7b4200e02b4573ef7f44d
be8cc64d3feb85930b9c8b85172303d9e68cf624
F20101221_AABDBF alden_h_Page_011.tif
707b5cc6760b75ab3d86e6aee62a9a68
cc890952f03574d10212040c23ec7564611a5440
34277 F20101221_AABEEI alden_h_Page_097.QC.jpg
0e2a6451e946bdde492f928729cc0f0f
6f08eb7e5bc21104912ec0a10ce938ada31b9a33
36681 F20101221_AABEDU alden_h_Page_089.QC.jpg
cadca6280f56233c95217c9d144cf522
38f1cae92fcea51dddba40e38832fa196d813c68
38043 F20101221_AABDZC alden_h_Page_020.QC.jpg
c098709df27972ad6d0d9e15a0909711
f85de979b80260bb3ff0d0138e3097872bd9de3b
33731 F20101221_AABDYO alden_h_Page_012.QC.jpg
8153a832a04bb087407acaf13e1d8183
aa50479022ea0712691dba20a6800f65256508f8
34726 F20101221_AABDXZ alden_h_Page_004.QC.jpg
48dc6b677a3fed0689fa71bc22c2d0ab
c1379ece624f3d53dccc9862491370311f4034e7
F20101221_AABCWA alden_h_Page_065.jp2
3793cc751f2c124436ef54e7a28838a5
66ce59a54d3c5b6ec9c9a7b7d4ed2cdab2a1efcc
F20101221_AABDAS alden_h_Page_191.jp2
c119178d4ca48bd58d615a9c94dd7ca9
3481a2fed17c0e4c97b2675653c85e4ac80eaa7a
1051930 F20101221_AABCVM alden_h_Page_050.jp2
b660a8f98d6330f83d4b72f0d5a43230
1a22c3e209368a103b8a6b1954a75192c5c38c7c
F20101221_AABCUX alden_h_Page_033.jp2
8ba39ef1a80b850ff95265776d5f37e8
f0a3aa3a4965c80cb87d4f790605217cfcddcf88
F20101221_AABDBG alden_h_Page_012.tif
f1912537ff33a1f8d4c86f2d7666a55d
e14bf647fe8aa4303f8807148875c7c80cff39f5
8449 F20101221_AABEEJ alden_h_Page_097thm.jpg
2b2c43e9c9a8beefd6102d4e0a7fd5e9
37d40815381db81c2bda8e37beb5ee67f3afd60a
8577 F20101221_AABEDV alden_h_Page_089thm.jpg
73d0b0f5680a86b1e01684c8c30e6847
a85bf919d79a20059aa46a86c1494b004c922e39
9198 F20101221_AABDZD alden_h_Page_020thm.jpg
4f04d736e228303c636ec5b47d70a01d
b39898f2fecce8bb6b53bb4a290e066a4d000027
8636 F20101221_AABDYP alden_h_Page_012thm.jpg
28d44305305a97fdfb3f62d80f80517e
366ec8507319b2e60fc99ff9662d8124ac14535a
F20101221_AABCWB alden_h_Page_066.jp2
16764a6c6a11bf18dd0e56993db76b5f
dc0d2b85e6ff75a45ede1aaf28d8c42b5088d9ba
1051980 F20101221_AABDAT alden_h_Page_192.jp2
427b475b6d1dd0d8efde78b5ef129971
89c5e659351059d4d2f996174bafcab711cfb22f
958154 F20101221_AABCVN alden_h_Page_051.jp2
709fa916c6e9928759f9b40112e6fe47
ddf218a778319614e6787bc93c70f75c2a70b89d
F20101221_AABCUY alden_h_Page_034.jp2
fd3034583062ad876b18055a1cf03546
0ce70b2f7fd4db95f6863e4def75e51e1273b031
F20101221_AABDBH alden_h_Page_013.tif
3c6e0da484a266affee80f30047635f9
bfd128b76f83d3bf56ae8c251dee4c6f3ba4b447
37347 F20101221_AABEEK alden_h_Page_098.QC.jpg
aba0f21b3a3b734b9955e5edbe3684be
2e20fcee22514e44c54ff271e7a5d4535dab6678
40485 F20101221_AABEDW alden_h_Page_090.QC.jpg
c7c2205f09c7974ce51326e8c8b22db0
eb75c0f669ee758af28d312078ae11da3de2cc35
8492 F20101221_AABDZE alden_h_Page_021thm.jpg
952f9e25a4ef39adc991f8d2fcd38a43
b6ec2e4694b6a63e7a35090c34cb12ecdac2ca49
37178 F20101221_AABDYQ alden_h_Page_013.QC.jpg
aa7cdb93acbe999e9879b8b9212706fc
8a32f3098632a8f28e5040d551f29d78254afd78
F20101221_AABCWC alden_h_Page_067.jp2
a582fc61d46164e0ff6fea9bb2d40a77
edab9ba18ca793a71ddecb4aa9595752041b827b
826382 F20101221_AABDAU alden_h_Page_193.jp2
581713cb60fa10d854b0f84008e63634
1cb3225c061a08cd5e293dd80afafa884a59afac
1051933 F20101221_AABCVO alden_h_Page_052.jp2
86e149aa3efd500d2cd630b97c843ee5
6c86204dbb15c6d9bb3cdd48978cef121a176955
1051970 F20101221_AABCUZ alden_h_Page_035.jp2
d5a6d43623b295917415bb26c2e5fe6d
23020630cec7b942a2e701d485519df6ff000903
F20101221_AABDBI alden_h_Page_014.tif
36ada7b5eb917b7aeeef9cb1d13634b2
044d2f8f7201cedf1c817cf71757ebec03a8318b
40094 F20101221_AABEFA alden_h_Page_108.QC.jpg
23db82ebe1ef96d785178dd856a2de3b
b94de184b75660a15df0458cf287fdbde44dcac2
35073 F20101221_AABEEL alden_h_Page_099.QC.jpg
ece06b5871f7ecc4806a2766392b8ffb
56aea8547b90846c6028d37afba3b33e65a33e80
9394 F20101221_AABEDX alden_h_Page_090thm.jpg
bf19a99ebe1f4f8bc863687e8ae4518b
2e59402a533e4b08e04fd1576791e17d8f14795f
36134 F20101221_AABDZF alden_h_Page_022.QC.jpg
5c8be5913a613c6334bc21fb54d151c3
c74cacdab6272253d1f99730e432f4f8db8774a3
9064 F20101221_AABDYR alden_h_Page_013thm.jpg
85cbe5014b8534541873cb2c3fd98ab0
03c33356bba8b3059a66783427e1e47a9ab41359
1051958 F20101221_AABCWD alden_h_Page_068.jp2
0d1353ad44e8acd2c85b53f7d3a8f2aa
7824a7de0467281ea79834407932794f8600d4c3
247662 F20101221_AABDAV alden_h_Page_194.jp2
d5d5c11948a2064b9a212f7710da3e11
525d1ef51e8ee7bd983371293ee1095580b565d7
1051986 F20101221_AABCVP alden_h_Page_053.jp2
c12b31eff6be732330de05fa69c650d4
d87a14be8a398870eb5174f8ea933d6c57ac5d64
F20101221_AABDBJ alden_h_Page_015.tif
cc855b13a0ff220346fd6658ca3ab53f
a972c51298221471fe17fc9049a47f9895a8e857
8874 F20101221_AABEFB alden_h_Page_108thm.jpg
289b48ad6a93371ecece040caf415f47
9e721fc25328177f3908fef4f3897d32b5ced374
8631 F20101221_AABEEM alden_h_Page_099thm.jpg
5e66759f97b452e4bc7a70906f53eb72
57b665c278cd5dfd6a20e9a075e03e2d1d8d8e2c
31533 F20101221_AABEDY alden_h_Page_091.QC.jpg
aeecd850ef9dac63fb3a70896b440c2f
6f44fa0ff34936e3f49abddc92381c03ad067aa9
37478 F20101221_AABDZG alden_h_Page_023.QC.jpg
01c48f19d967c0631758495ae43497e8
21c92b8c5ebd4348a0f46997c90978631f001d8d
F20101221_AABDYS alden_h_Page_014thm.jpg
205c248dbc6fc2a032abb86e339ffc3a
1dc326891d605f45a862a0aea659e6bf4b4eca59
1051953 F20101221_AABCWE alden_h_Page_069.jp2
5757bca9b95ec9ce76ee83f8ff65b112
0fd8145599277c2ed161ef5b413f9145910de736
F20101221_AABDAW alden_h_Page_001.tif
c04b5998cbeb2ee1e4d36191dd2eb89c
5f9a3b792aeedc8eb29c49a8fc117262334bc15b
1051936 F20101221_AABCVQ alden_h_Page_054.jp2
c685d8af95f5ea4dbcdc0ab5d006aaf7
a1a16a0ac16501c8efbcaac9a58ce79b8cd483ca
F20101221_AABDBK alden_h_Page_016.tif
e6953e86a2b4533bd2de1dd65d4d3c6b
97df9a04911d0c23bc2fb396bdc383ba129ca2bd
36773 F20101221_AABEFC alden_h_Page_109.QC.jpg
82cf61fb9753565f21bbf9ae3a08c8ee
4a67168ac0a4d2879d3df065f9f9944355d404d4
6737 F20101221_AABEEN alden_h_Page_100thm.jpg
22f716a1c27b1960ab942efe48657bff
f5e7b79c3a5f6c640b68ac06c86d351ae59ae311
F20101221_AABEDZ alden_h_Page_091thm.jpg
6269a2020c788a520701a0b131a0af7d
3d1a77c8e6bf6ea1de3464f69c408feaa8bfbf14
9122 F20101221_AABDZH alden_h_Page_023thm.jpg
e82eba097cb3da5111ea98c984d65b9f
eac2768538e01da4006cd8b8e72d405b8b0cfe62
37655 F20101221_AABDYT alden_h_Page_015.QC.jpg
8461f7d95dd4135fd3695c0a5e7e5aac
3e2bfa83ffe55278b13658459c3a087fad5e9deb
1051886 F20101221_AABCWF alden_h_Page_070.jp2
a378d32d591a3ea86dd0b0383ebea2ab
0f3a9e279568b79cfa037efa9a97cddc6a0d7871
F20101221_AABDAX alden_h_Page_002.tif
7d1febfa2106ab2d05fc3cd02747d8d9
6c007bdf752162b3288c90eeccbcafbd07139fd4
1051964 F20101221_AABCVR alden_h_Page_055.jp2
b29fe0dffe1bcd3a0ef932ee08cba942
52f949fb7180f32cfcc43e7e91292a6c6d175381
F20101221_AABDCA alden_h_Page_032.tif
77f6a75033e5ee6300932ec6e5db540e
5fc387ff264e0b2e7cdff09c57514cd052fec1d8
F20101221_AABDBL alden_h_Page_017.tif
12dd9b4b66e64916064b9528625d8ecf
39b6a9d5f990e1c67f34560c3031876020a334c6
33661 F20101221_AABEFD alden_h_Page_110.QC.jpg
5650c54974295c6a86701e5d9d0ba612
8c0bfdb1b16f51fae208bfef558af399b9ac51b5
34603 F20101221_AABEEO alden_h_Page_101.QC.jpg
75c36f16c5d973ade048bf473f55fb1f
13d6a4ef7463cdc725b557bf97f286e7b3e27092
33935 F20101221_AABDZI alden_h_Page_024.QC.jpg
030136c067e37ac8ba873974ba5b2e83
b63cf5c4339b3011501d32c7597627ed215c629c
35377 F20101221_AABDYU alden_h_Page_016.QC.jpg
8ec040a6461a754078cc3bf588881887
aa6a81ac00e382a76dff074712981aee616c17cc
F20101221_AABCWG alden_h_Page_071.jp2
f43e3300a40eb35bda63bd7f8a4b9a61
108d6b70e74a56e01cf5e61daae52d724775606d
F20101221_AABDAY alden_h_Page_003.tif
a644d410bf201862a0f86522d9ffe3a1
cf5100f8499966ec75740d7d931b678b2271960b
1051951 F20101221_AABCVS alden_h_Page_056.jp2
ca9e3aee4f70124d7be06deb459809e5
413eb6479eb11a1fc499f59a5164de7e0b6a87fa
F20101221_AABDCB alden_h_Page_033.tif
945712499e655fd1f54992c901501ef0
634e4d88f7f7f1c9b9b8b7984240c99a62449a8c
F20101221_AABDBM alden_h_Page_018.tif
754cd29428d8e4b76e9e2e9ce8d7fd5f
ad67111f6a5b6e5f0d1d95d71acb49c0a43d17b3
34098 F20101221_AABEFE alden_h_Page_111.QC.jpg
6e426c0bccec36ce47a91a211e2cdcb5
c74414683e3147d8305e62ca206e6f5a7fa9cc18
8496 F20101221_AABEEP alden_h_Page_101thm.jpg
0ccddb3763fbcea5c4539ebd1d5c1f13
61c8b84c7cf110490b87a570ae2c492de24ce3e2
F20101221_AABDZJ alden_h_Page_024thm.jpg
baa90bcdab5093bd3da6416a8e093f3f
5972e0fd9d68ef3f2b7e6a01ec38c633f6acfac5
8882 F20101221_AABDYV alden_h_Page_016thm.jpg
2e9ea9f444e60eae929249397dd6e256
c9b6e7021305feb5a00b094cdb0c8e07c2d6f077
1051923 F20101221_AABCWH alden_h_Page_072.jp2
74d0bd2cd0add25fb4da41ff4c6d4cd9
397002232a296239b5a63512dd9946d1aa547fda
F20101221_AABDAZ alden_h_Page_004.tif
09e7d09472c65039a1c0bfadaea3b636
4ed728342432b95d0a5ac29e71ff96d969964788
1051917 F20101221_AABCVT alden_h_Page_057.jp2
d89c97a476313311ee2fc6f80307e93e
3eaa93f5df0f2d26cbdc2a3aed7df9d894dda757
F20101221_AABDCC alden_h_Page_034.tif
6022b02e45775bb8ac64ea9190d10e5e
a9cf5734d13ddb0ef09d36447b9ab44d4cfa6bb1
F20101221_AABDBN alden_h_Page_019.tif
5699cf551c1c9ba37698a6564c1a6e7d
fa7389e5a369b03e70795255ea9b2c5476b2581f
8490 F20101221_AABEFF alden_h_Page_111thm.jpg
4551376bc7998a7c9074162705cec242
9be0932ee12e4f9598ac5f6fd7518f890c894ac3
36006 F20101221_AABEEQ alden_h_Page_102.QC.jpg
a52ebcc7ef9a1bcd6c600c585dc3638c
1c8f60b3a53ed7c99af82938c493372b4fb7c065
37439 F20101221_AABDZK alden_h_Page_025.QC.jpg
18601e854b59a81bc0e8c66ba18dd191
e10ecfe04942c77658856d6f768ce19d50a80c5c
35471 F20101221_AABDYW alden_h_Page_017.QC.jpg
b22d0ec8fa9a1f148f20c229df9a7aee
7966ea247e9c241a2880758fdf697f7565b8d05d
F20101221_AABCWI alden_h_Page_073.jp2
ad880091f9b7c1ceccfa5324e0127084
6955b6613516da892f8204af54d7c99d2bfe7523
1051895 F20101221_AABCVU alden_h_Page_058.jp2
4df95bd05ebafab9c1bf808fa5eedecf
9350af69627052aa01216b05b477da0ae35d1dc0
F20101221_AABDCD alden_h_Page_035.tif
fd51eb3f3298ffb132df046c78171e1a
e498e3e7e6dfa50d803fc774065cf51d513ec595
F20101221_AABDBO alden_h_Page_020.tif
baabbbaf408dbc4736cd4ade6d032b92
32c1ae5b6e6b303c98fecd5efe7a21560d7e2233
8566 F20101221_AABEER alden_h_Page_102thm.jpg
feffd914998e1c982fb5862b0465a44c
6651b13c660600ce3e2223669261a3bf0f014ccc
36474 F20101221_AABDZL alden_h_Page_026.QC.jpg
19a3d56bf5fad7ece3b47ebd5b92b4f3
8e9d53d1c7fd87de0155724ba06d019ae681a01d
8812 F20101221_AABDYX alden_h_Page_017thm.jpg
3fd190877ccd772396c864cfb6ad5157
128c2af4024d54c040830e45ff866a2242e966ac
1051922 F20101221_AABCVV alden_h_Page_059.jp2
9afe1553b6c8208ff8754e0726f1d9d4
c9415441e2ac32ec60a573bf41a12f3996a6ef99
F20101221_AABDBP alden_h_Page_021.tif
a713e0b9acbef59ac09c4e1f44e1d48b
ddadd0dd00d1a4f902262984c94874045c726d1f
1051914 F20101221_AABCWJ alden_h_Page_074.jp2
0be92bc55666043a6a93e5f77310c516
72ac7cb2742986dad18854d75011fe2b46f14e7d
34490 F20101221_AABEFG alden_h_Page_112.QC.jpg
e743ecf7f17359c94e4ff53536636897
65dd9ea5b12ee56ec690b7b19b19d0e09b967bbe
39599 F20101221_AABEES alden_h_Page_103.QC.jpg
7f84a8f62da7ce2767a39fd665824444
c2e432acea417271f713e9eed423d2e109cf9924
9106 F20101221_AABDZM alden_h_Page_026thm.jpg
eee6c74cd2225a67c75bb7c353e3fa70
1486e78d3ddabbc0a6350d4ba0e886010dc41eba
35093 F20101221_AABDYY alden_h_Page_018.QC.jpg
c28cb0145ff1fdaf6be4c8ee73edea25
50a73d3e37bb877a47e3a5fc3ad992c178414064
1051965 F20101221_AABCVW alden_h_Page_060.jp2
97c9f96c9738d951c6b0bd95213f674a
4269e3c9690ad6dfc2527d1b70b1be8397590f19
F20101221_AABDCE alden_h_Page_036.tif
8397b9d3a3307e2e9528cb14d96b1eed
aa1cf6cbf51287366826b84438125c7a7ef2b67a
F20101221_AABDBQ alden_h_Page_022.tif
ecd743fae2d876ea9d34d840dec9a4a7
535afed8f3a0a02b456908a81f712ca4660989a5
F20101221_AABCWK alden_h_Page_075.jp2
743c6bb96782053c85865cceff8e237a
65695ba8af1810b31f125ffa0280751c06ca218c
8437 F20101221_AABEFH alden_h_Page_112thm.jpg
b0399b0a1c3d1ce3c2d305fa69e13e84
b2da6fd472e5016b8895e11cb78a980a52cf60fd
9124 F20101221_AABEET alden_h_Page_103thm.jpg
0863e23b3bc7acb97bc33d6588dd313f
eecf53e0303cde43c3edc58d3cdda0a53d23437c
36539 F20101221_AABDZN alden_h_Page_027.QC.jpg
1c287bd8d3b037b6e96a8091ed245ceb
8852f5662b20a573f420d367fca57dc5ece972b2
8769 F20101221_AABDYZ alden_h_Page_018thm.jpg
698280d467858eebdea59e6b629c891b
2fc0a9717c10d3f918803a45c9fefbf97f07f5b6
1051905 F20101221_AABCVX alden_h_Page_061.jp2
4af85d6e8ed59ada778ac5e5198ca2f0
454dc633480737723fc905fa4ac426227e9f0b6c
F20101221_AABDCF alden_h_Page_037.tif
efe2018696a8099b1563e78e68ad26f5
11fb5bc94d5745eb4daa135d5def5898f4bd3b72
F20101221_AABDBR alden_h_Page_023.tif
4f837189cabedceb452e5c0885d9532f
91b255136a4ea918f42d4dbd98ebf3475d4f3e5a
1051957 F20101221_AABCWL alden_h_Page_076.jp2
43053faebb0a6b90d101a0023c54b81e
ccdf9ea35362b0b0a35a1dbc55750ed0f17457e0
8855 F20101221_AABEFI alden_h_Page_113thm.jpg
df7ea7849df17df5ba7b703908dabd93
9326e19ad72e01e2f3d916b0e69fda24b8ead098
40329 F20101221_AABEEU alden_h_Page_104.QC.jpg
d0934c7ee2cb18c9c59022f55a1cd4db
6d7a302f57fe4b77cb2fefda6d0340216727400b
9114 F20101221_AABDZO alden_h_Page_027thm.jpg
eb4096668542ea421b2377bc0ac82a71
75845553fe3eddde369eef38b76c2a180610315a
F20101221_AABDCG alden_h_Page_038.tif
b1620f47a12d64a279a0e0f737cea172
7ad965cb9a06e21fb2c9e59f0c1bee0f9dc62dfe
F20101221_AABCXA alden_h_Page_091.jp2
2fa6f0a24e0fbc5406ac03948d92345f
e2d043c89609b2e4c1039a5744a4fd99e4ac9795
F20101221_AABDBS alden_h_Page_024.tif
05dd1467eb975f61c59a7e72b50e8b45
23ef94c7b30e8603a7468a3d00fc665c222d9f04
F20101221_AABCWM alden_h_Page_077.jp2
b50b36c144706f24fff6c2cd5dca5516
bdf9f1c33dd9d39dea1ad217ca017512978ba915
37609 F20101221_AABEFJ alden_h_Page_114.QC.jpg
6f95b38643633eeafbed88a75646b0bc
5c5dc9dea69c2914177165d8e3aa317a2f4d81e6
9235 F20101221_AABEEV alden_h_Page_104thm.jpg
7bb5cf12a9165ee08056898e0dd9590a
0732940c3f7d66667736ac8a359a3115de969c50
37630 F20101221_AABDZP alden_h_Page_028.QC.jpg
5fafa6af4e678f0b5b562bcd1d3b8fa5
d123b177f74700f2fe45dbb37176c520f8cde5a4
F20101221_AABCVY alden_h_Page_062.jp2
9d1479c5c6266f96159bf6e2ad0d77d6
2d3e85bab2be6c076cc506701c25fc219ab0f1cd
F20101221_AABDCH alden_h_Page_039.tif
5cbff0c5b7f815e29e45536f98e70a5b
9db4ece8cc6ec1b6e81f1024e5ded6e52d1ae8d1
F20101221_AABCXB alden_h_Page_092.jp2
a75ba2e24b2bd4037e5f17ffa3ae0315
c2e5b7389b8d53a631a0cdbd9256c24c822a4a0e
F20101221_AABDBT alden_h_Page_025.tif
47a2c01377417e1b62fe50e952c99896
4a4724b11c36e0ff74946202e06693a13400c037
1051870 F20101221_AABCWN alden_h_Page_078.jp2
2df41190d8cb9fc8d3799f9c71c966f9
49310c1c88d043159d4e6a221c345238f87201eb
8835 F20101221_AABEFK alden_h_Page_114thm.jpg
683253876930888900f393edca82a2fd
c5237db109bff61f47670ac0f3b54f532391a73f
38258 F20101221_AABEEW alden_h_Page_105.QC.jpg
c506ba73efd47f4dd28dbe4a99f64e01
d9a54dda93feeb60ee496324678e62c23d624a88
8978 F20101221_AABDZQ alden_h_Page_028thm.jpg
aa1a2c599bcbb073e39e82c9a114c2d8
ed87aa0bfc461aa716391638b49fcac3f6e6c80a
F20101221_AABCVZ alden_h_Page_063.jp2
ba91b8a1d8e7461a86ed874886ba8483
911840d93639519dbf4ce63c28265a5a02cca087
F20101221_AABDCI alden_h_Page_040.tif
d3f20ff5d01e8b9fbae530bbdd2f1b49
c6040123a63efeb5355c7b3d1b12e0b3130164be
1051907 F20101221_AABCXC alden_h_Page_093.jp2
dcaa9667a0e2b71823f7e2d8882fe2c8
a76c6ea6b913745854791d6f25bdb7c11b401cd7
F20101221_AABDBU alden_h_Page_026.tif
55c573acfd93deac9c104e786428363a
71137890d1b1fef989ea79ed630f6b83a67b69b0
1051945 F20101221_AABCWO alden_h_Page_079.jp2
8fc9d661e2cb179540190560b3852814
5eaa8548d7d30290bcc24b7d2c55baaa411beeb3
36387 F20101221_AABEGA alden_h_Page_123.QC.jpg
1f20c24f04338fa3f23eb370fa6ac3e2
fe52c53d0aa8b2f846c484110a67fd6f49e536b0
37993 F20101221_AABEFL alden_h_Page_115.QC.jpg
0a6680930609f4937564e7f521abd8c0
7ee82056fb2092b338b25fcb656c0c94285a3b8c
9017 F20101221_AABEEX alden_h_Page_105thm.jpg
9cc0908fa9f6527e590b95c4f0b25dbd
fbce3af01c193d1dd5bf4b5e980d411d9401d69e
9265 F20101221_AABDZR alden_h_Page_029thm.jpg
b83864e74b0eb902e584f8976162d0fc
c1366223e14ca4ad2406684ad3d98647f1ccb666
F20101221_AABDCJ alden_h_Page_041.tif
6844ae1e540e9c82320e2119b2df4483
3054956c3faa3bf5087a987d83fcbf0a6336bce3
F20101221_AABCXD alden_h_Page_094.jp2
415567402b9b013e6f711c8906a25c60
142ff7672072c34dd99adad1da4795b7a831de99
F20101221_AABDBV alden_h_Page_027.tif
0fbacd408d7ecc28fdb55e7f646846e7
792d157400d0630e618a401cf93d75d8ccaa8b0e
F20101221_AABCWP alden_h_Page_080.jp2
4a5d33caa6ad986a6d3c7ad70ea36496
e90b031d18f2fe49bb21d70bb7f62a2675c9a81a
8873 F20101221_AABEGB alden_h_Page_123thm.jpg
7ce3dc5ef59f3de67d7c62a4483b0ae4
a417285858e16aaa3739a6faf7aad907c4ca1199
9147 F20101221_AABEFM alden_h_Page_115thm.jpg
f392697a90ccc1215357aee84e8e81ec
9c3b8f1abfc79737a0cfa6bea345f72d85e5dbef
9033 F20101221_AABEEY alden_h_Page_106thm.jpg
3f81629b2d8e5ec541e37ee2d3919b71
2ac407f326795122574bd8e225b10685323bc9b8
8944 F20101221_AABDZS alden_h_Page_030thm.jpg
704ddb475bdaddf4aa0d975b76390529
fab9af05a93ac73c369d6af9ef3d46717166c6bd
F20101221_AABDCK alden_h_Page_042.tif
e9ba30caa6439d0a393b176e628c02c6
7ead444870569d6925ad7a84f6a7cbbade396647
F20101221_AABCXE alden_h_Page_095.jp2
6d02009a84c6db6a8de84ca6456bf58c
65278fb8cb1f3c8f74be60ce23dc7d01f9b78d07
F20101221_AABDBW alden_h_Page_028.tif
5e0ff224d6152acd2acd7c41f7a6eb95
35e96102b933c61cc773b7e188f14dd678790265
F20101221_AABCWQ alden_h_Page_081.jp2
744a6488d501746747c6aef13d857717
d5b275ada2917753630f9773c16b71acc8171609
38101 F20101221_AABEGC alden_h_Page_124.QC.jpg
f0e5455e639b6a0188a2e10f54d64d36
1df07cf9f85524e392cb3455f0485250f78d4089
37900 F20101221_AABEFN alden_h_Page_116.QC.jpg
58b84e8eab5d8fe121e17318a8e0e3e2
b473279f69579f023a83d68c8ef9d344bd650832
8849 F20101221_AABEEZ alden_h_Page_107thm.jpg
72aa911c2a19a47de3f1ffc2aa1d57eb
2c0a441ede69ee97ec0892612dd32d6eb56084bf
8961 F20101221_AABDZT alden_h_Page_031thm.jpg
63ab701baced741740a35272b2026462
ea0a167f0c722e80726232d1ec514b188696364a
F20101221_AABDDA alden_h_Page_058.tif
ea09e47f073a4b39446a16d2b02f4eee
ef2cf74e88dc1dbb639839eb6aa85bfe56f8d118
F20101221_AABDCL alden_h_Page_043.tif
8fbc63213722db8f66ec762928148cf0
c51183f8d8d5a88c07841c99b2dee58638389db2
F20101221_AABCXF alden_h_Page_096.jp2
5c118a0d6cb9c32b39af9867844f2751
dbf657371fd0d30c8dc5c7ce2f4d14f6fa41f3d8
F20101221_AABDBX alden_h_Page_029.tif
a6d10f26aca9deb19a4c3ffedfb09ee9
37806a4fffda1be6e90db96e385a51ad10aef784
F20101221_AABCWR alden_h_Page_082.jp2
e3ffaf5a11c3d50241e25ba04b0bee40
00dc2cd6c251400b3335ab40292cb30a267d7b2b
9047 F20101221_AABEGD alden_h_Page_124thm.jpg
71c676f0e07e5a41c353e9a76b8168b9
828c2384bc485c6674e6edc99b699f17bf9835ca
8904 F20101221_AABEFO alden_h_Page_116thm.jpg
f8c3aca968640bd4f77be6777d7cfb6f
e4ba9cb2df7c42470542d4440e51cb9d9bdf492d
34928 F20101221_AABDZU alden_h_Page_032.QC.jpg
712f234853736188b69a313ea7871435
d48122c3f69b03da01b995fdaa96d0e95d589d30
F20101221_AABDDB alden_h_Page_059.tif
b6892f28440823e80e58320815dfec2b
3982355c76489263934facdc9ed2f1ee8eb8edab
F20101221_AABDCM alden_h_Page_044.tif
626464582260c80a5d59e9da7f157d55
5ba28d1c4dbd9ce9e977dec29edf519028b47fdf
F20101221_AABCXG alden_h_Page_097.jp2
95c9fabdcb4a2071e0ec1bddec19dfd9
eddb99e4c8e1539a63ff7ac820cf0d3782fe43fc
F20101221_AABDBY alden_h_Page_030.tif
ce15fad8c44aeb432e4704490af7b39f
f5e845d0a3b9762f8368b1327e13812833f8f9f7
F20101221_AABCWS alden_h_Page_083.jp2
29c0d6bbd2e65f242aec24a4d56e61e2
c1cca7d5a53774969ecd5126e045d2b2a2be5866
37290 F20101221_AABEGE alden_h_Page_125.QC.jpg
0c5e5eeda336b7064cf0391a5bde52d7
8bc5a99c4aa157e774440210917ff28f81838ee6
39269 F20101221_AABEFP alden_h_Page_117.QC.jpg
5b3697153244f6b749edc564674392d9
88e4b37daa3c93a318fc4a34ce70e8d90df63136
8423 F20101221_AABDZV alden_h_Page_032thm.jpg
e63aed6811794ae5768cd60ab2e26fe6
11ecbef0743cd2816b93d7f6c9d2ca28baebb2e1
F20101221_AABDDC alden_h_Page_060.tif
e60b4eb77474018c11012ba2d69c670a
6aefef7c3dfeecae7d9ae5fada5b51fce629fb2b
F20101221_AABDCN alden_h_Page_045.tif
21727e1d6813858060ca36a77a7cf769
345c755e20ce3256774c366b28204df380c7175d
F20101221_AABCXH alden_h_Page_098.jp2
9d0760881f59a8191a3e1cfe35a1edfe
bbce7af4a9f656f91283d09f243a70db1f3d7a36
F20101221_AABDBZ alden_h_Page_031.tif
ba1aaa5a4e1cd856879dc2df835493a7
9548befaaebe1fe9088df343c5c21d05f61f86e1
F20101221_AABCWT alden_h_Page_084.jp2
262a341b6154cadade431747f75d1797
fac75eb30d156bba975ea78306f0c3858d9daca8
8836 F20101221_AABEGF alden_h_Page_125thm.jpg
1c71a26e5d397142a999ea52d3f32200
957e40aed115ea86f740da0f8683c7609089f8d1
F20101221_AABEFQ alden_h_Page_117thm.jpg
1d8462d4d3c7faa6d9d8f32b3aa8fe5e
62747f5e55755d98e53fde37c03c9291f7ccdf69
36379 F20101221_AABDZW alden_h_Page_033.QC.jpg
64eacd29ee21c7f5846d6be3764a45d4
566bddb57598dfbc0f4073b23689a8b54078f9ff
F20101221_AABDDD alden_h_Page_061.tif
dd2c1c0f46b724e7a7c5932736252ac3
d0332220eac892dc0c20f64d72e35397f9eacec0
F20101221_AABDCO alden_h_Page_046.tif
ae78a6f650dd64dbb56756e8629b159d
256324a177aa9f10ed6758cd47aae7e983d0bcc1
F20101221_AABCXI alden_h_Page_099.jp2
f5e225dd8f2fe974ad08b8821a6ff037
27c70b94ab8033a587f187e722ffd55e161ad542
F20101221_AABCWU alden_h_Page_085.jp2
435c17f0696b0779df3914005e39a317
b94e4d2c9e8e77c261637db3094f44cce39eca88
38490 F20101221_AABEGG alden_h_Page_126.QC.jpg
16e4d8d62cb650b5a2eaeed10266f971
fcb68adcb6890b899d23ebd9cfd1ecb3dff96dfd
38317 F20101221_AABEFR alden_h_Page_118.QC.jpg
be7677271ab54c41e5bdb1e6d76e13bc
67978dc15e9804e20cc547fe94708ca5c71473ce
8655 F20101221_AABDZX alden_h_Page_033thm.jpg
e3e5668dd8fb2b76dfb3114204daa452
3964a9401cc987825c22b7af3011c1d59cfb08e5
F20101221_AABDDE alden_h_Page_062.tif
bb8511deae247cabeb7e5e51a8831979
1c19f345ff13b80ffa6618b11eed3e330264a5c9
F20101221_AABDCP alden_h_Page_047.tif
91141ae4a75cb70325bbb4dbbc60cec3
f925598d4b2f4eb3aa19e77dfcd07e29e75e94b2
885460 F20101221_AABCXJ alden_h_Page_100.jp2
90166030c0672abff4f181aad6130092
bcad84731a8d7effdb11331691e0f4c8c7e6b913
F20101221_AABCWV alden_h_Page_086.jp2
c9e55527ec85e94f0ae440bffee16161
cf32c099d318b7ca4b519055a0f46a9bf2d7d8dc
F20101221_AABEFS alden_h_Page_118thm.jpg
c99f940185ad4fbdfc6f5be2c10d5d22
63f88ba90a88b5dea973df3966dc583fbceb0095
37420 F20101221_AABDZY alden_h_Page_034.QC.jpg
5f9148bbb8acff604634848ba53f5fe1
a93085962f77e577381c0dd1938d9c10b3ffea99
F20101221_AABDCQ alden_h_Page_048.tif
8c8663f6c197c5f4ddfb0243230a4a9f
955d8921051eca0c506e0e87324d82b8a3708aab
1051969 F20101221_AABCXK alden_h_Page_101.jp2
d9db7d202727db4d9eb6bc3f7bdf48b2
289b19c2a7ff3744c8819bf2674639477c57ad5c
F20101221_AABCWW alden_h_Page_087.jp2
6374fb88186ce2340b8484a4d806e6c2
ecd43f52969598544b4307e0bdcb6619e172a2c4
8989 F20101221_AABEGH alden_h_Page_126thm.jpg
374427690cd71116d43868c46dc27beb
72a912c5c8f5da032145cd65c0de66fb62b86dbf
38827 F20101221_AABEFT alden_h_Page_119.QC.jpg
8574d991219001d8499b6890fde5f718
83a2abf858cf5ef1a5d60240545c5467e4a79b38
35769 F20101221_AABDZZ alden_h_Page_035.QC.jpg
3dba043722bf64225219e39d715e09af
1949616befcdd31630a96d85a03a112f993a9e3a
F20101221_AABDDF alden_h_Page_063.tif
a0ffd5daa77a538fb7781ad3ac8cf020
c83ab166d10ac5cc36c6d6a759859e1a45346bd9
F20101221_AABDCR alden_h_Page_049.tif
40cd24f5cdde52075350c43396540a27
cb955846c2db8743a1b5ff00c1574d0527928aa8
F20101221_AABCXL alden_h_Page_102.jp2
e6126f62f145f4608215f002aa31ce26
40e8b4ba068b5fb16a96eba8e44d7f4cc72a63f6
1051975 F20101221_AABCWX alden_h_Page_088.jp2
a47fe57efe6bff2a06681b7854bc19f4
0964c41c4e3c2cd374c184f89b27f8115c68eabd
34362 F20101221_AABEGI alden_h_Page_127.QC.jpg
a2b64da78e3c87201434cc8201258723
786303265835ac7bbe642e0a2bd344c215140b91
9164 F20101221_AABEFU alden_h_Page_119thm.jpg
2fd6b3c922a14d3cf30d1778ef8df6be
4a022f7574cb043b525a1290b1c8bdd02a52b467
F20101221_AABCYA alden_h_Page_117.jp2
72b848c85853fdafc2e877759b65afa7
2a920a64a27c676292653aaaa5644fe057df7ffa
F20101221_AABDCS alden_h_Page_050.tif
af87d878d1f7a160a2a6c51d24b934ad
fd3dac618a43bddaff6248e3d0a2ca881bffffd1
F20101221_AABCXM alden_h_Page_103.jp2
66bdb1ae2a34bf7c31f19a4bb259d88d
19958ff9fceeebdf5c8e15e934b0a03e87440b36
F20101221_AABCWY alden_h_Page_089.jp2
319a933c315d1e5551824dbc8e6c2be5
79a8348ad24a3a52c8989a4589d99b761a3fe286
F20101221_AABDDG alden_h_Page_064.tif
eeef68a5cd251f581ba8675905d0ea4b
05d76bd05c40070832c85c12ad2378bb1051972a
8159 F20101221_AABEGJ alden_h_Page_127thm.jpg
53044e72eb8007e324944cdf24e268f1
87a9a4359c9aa707e28dd223ff750ec39c3e2ed8
37612 F20101221_AABEFV alden_h_Page_120.QC.jpg
f120f33f4c1bd422d207bcf6cd3bde1a
6be94402e9e65d16ce9178cbf51b03bda4ffa1b3
F20101221_AABCYB alden_h_Page_118.jp2
0e23196a8b5edfeef42d48b477cfe23a
f31daa9a5c502d33a27fecbf8f94035449f3e3a0
F20101221_AABDCT alden_h_Page_051.tif
91279637e18097b1cc7f626948a919a8
2651b3323fdb5661f3c5c8503492ef75b79a2641
F20101221_AABCXN alden_h_Page_104.jp2
c838960135e758a7362d865afd208ba5
c2132a3692955f956d097165bb473ea2dd1be3b8
F20101221_AABDDH alden_h_Page_065.tif
9c5826c606a566765921204f84c255d8
5d0b86b21ce58a0270ba80f2f349c8b6a0bbb3a8
37666 F20101221_AABEGK alden_h_Page_128.QC.jpg
9ba0e53d1d1f985272198d6122f932a9
1feadaee84254dfbf00aba18ef7c8bcfdf0d3970
8831 F20101221_AABEFW alden_h_Page_120thm.jpg
8d229e303aa1e1f11f717975cd1fbfbb
ff810b02d8ab642e119c1cba273b7b4c9b193015
F20101221_AABCYC alden_h_Page_119.jp2
bfd3429f47beea23b60acbac18d2d0a0
87217fbd01b8ee7245dab2eb6a301e3ff698de50
F20101221_AABDCU alden_h_Page_052.tif
49abf89fdcec95ec251f22417e846483
ab3512483f30f3ee39a33124acf28c9aa9cb0ca2
F20101221_AABCXO alden_h_Page_105.jp2
e34dc70a4c21cc8ed0c2e3bf2889c916
355d40ebf841fe64be65adde951070fa7078100f
F20101221_AABCWZ alden_h_Page_090.jp2
5b024b45735c4a2297cdd428f0a40a6f
92bf65d909e4237cd9c78d997c95ede2e409d8c5
F20101221_AABDDI alden_h_Page_066.tif
9ab8a1c240503a57f52a78d03dc8bcbc
e22c511b293cafa7a754430d4fc6f616a5ae5e45
9044 F20101221_AABEHA alden_h_Page_138thm.jpg
2bf9ff427b34ec9427b2aa0422238419
e6b833064dad6ead1f804bd6ca2ae58afffcae97
8824 F20101221_AABEGL alden_h_Page_128thm.jpg
94bedc87aac8f910c658d7a6534361cc
93208ff25818dfbdf07395ddfd3bc5b56b13b132
35373 F20101221_AABEFX alden_h_Page_121.QC.jpg
6ebd26f4b36bb7652d31c7e28daf36c6
963f87ab29d521d405c8e3d88406a559464f2eb4
F20101221_AABCYD alden_h_Page_120.jp2
8c3100b588973cfd756cb222cf2344b3
40478aed6d6f8d369f2a6ada44655b63f954e803
F20101221_AABDCV alden_h_Page_053.tif
58a7866ba324b2f76091b898eeb24aee
4e8cc8d2b59989b8e434b13187ca42a48173d0f1
1051884 F20101221_AABCXP alden_h_Page_106.jp2
d6c9172eb865a73a9164f280d9fa9f0f
e43bd7509d33b14403c4755bbb2301efa886ebff
F20101221_AABDDJ alden_h_Page_067.tif
cfbf27915c6974e0a22c33d8906fd28c
e18633efb91b07c69dd6423ce035e39f95d918aa
39370 F20101221_AABEHB alden_h_Page_139.QC.jpg
c90c76d88f33da1e2f9a5cd7cc2f39a5
ab6e9bb77c7c0deb0a92266958a3638654e6f37d
28305 F20101221_AABEGM alden_h_Page_129.QC.jpg
24144cd2636ca7bd02d917f45786dcdd
a4ded0311551808a199517eddbd1974019e6e842
38276 F20101221_AABEFY alden_h_Page_122.QC.jpg
ea7b4d4f02e2de188c6ead60cbd42725
7e606640e8d5fc668006b7665772dc5cbc9afbb0
F20101221_AABCYE alden_h_Page_121.jp2
7ad5a31e6583fc66e99f4a0db4136147
378e052d7d3fdd4c2052d20991c4f1327beda8c1
F20101221_AABDCW alden_h_Page_054.tif
feb5b5ead0d90c5b1d16f07f22a33d89
0026bdd356299564a2f9f5d308605e1531db5511
F20101221_AABCXQ alden_h_Page_107.jp2
6e872c00b76c14a7ab6f79440f0bc548
e0acba801205746f2ff8f1c219ecdc5ef8d235a3
F20101221_AABDDK alden_h_Page_068.tif
1e94e32bdb1edaa1445ee2ed9fdf920b
343178065db2953a907ea2248fa3666cfd4e5a65
F20101221_AABEHC alden_h_Page_139thm.jpg
9e5176e1a2b0450189907ad1576d7487
c37aeea4271662be165545b03185bb16ee4c26a6
6801 F20101221_AABEGN alden_h_Page_129thm.jpg
7e9965d101b157af11cfe6c22a1c6404
be9fce62b7cb7b256b33fc9784cd2ad0a44e7e41
9089 F20101221_AABEFZ alden_h_Page_122thm.jpg
f91417dffa54c0a53309d5db08e22a5a
47d1627edead725031f4db1060b84b522b44c2d6
F20101221_AABCYF alden_h_Page_122.jp2
2b14147ed78828d8d841276fc93f7338
ebb1a28697027f855440b6bb0a511ed76014b0b5
F20101221_AABDCX alden_h_Page_055.tif
2feeb1f61c86693e74eb4ad920ba1983
57a9bfe237ea12049e3d13ab2a7d67eaa741a09f
F20101221_AABCXR alden_h_Page_108.jp2
f4affede5b1fb029c77db696c9f60507
d4675117f19f05d534def5e9346fca01fb926a1f
F20101221_AABDEA alden_h_Page_084.tif
49cb744e68cc3c57b9de59e1e59db3bc
eac29221a8edf3b622e702a1bd8093a72bc3902b
F20101221_AABDDL alden_h_Page_069.tif
b2aa0e7f00d74756ab63205dd6b67b4a
778e60a96dfcd713ffb0bff484eeaae495bba709
37553 F20101221_AABEHD alden_h_Page_140.QC.jpg
a310f35d5b6d776c66105d7657f3b17a
91f0de822ee9953b3b267ba4b98ed63189e2ff9d
34003 F20101221_AABEGO alden_h_Page_130.QC.jpg
6a6f5f9c9e0d10bce1328e163c3b1a36
c6b7fde67342fa54656117277f0a33050b29ff98
F20101221_AABCYG alden_h_Page_123.jp2
a1ce0babca72841f8f1563a5332351e8
e99508ba9b620c80d560d4ec9658d14b6eb0765b
F20101221_AABDCY alden_h_Page_056.tif
5dfbe2a8767db6d7f6d97376c4475ea4
102c27b6199322841252f90a578263d1eefed9ac
F20101221_AABCXS alden_h_Page_109.jp2
662d5ac5e3c3fd031edd92586211f8ba
5d890716a7f6ab020330d6b5c8a264d6d103c730
F20101221_AABDEB alden_h_Page_085.tif
fc42c3f2a29dd42f276db7c432651e37
a9a02721d408996e38e27e4d05317b6772f1c99c
F20101221_AABDDM alden_h_Page_070.tif
fbbfb676852f9d36526f2abaa78a96f4
413a960cea19bdc5fdf868a2cae5dff3bb503bd1
8959 F20101221_AABEHE alden_h_Page_140thm.jpg
d690b1699012d6af12fbaf0f172a9b15
1212ed13d74217b5f6b2ab19d4effe033267f155
8542 F20101221_AABEGP alden_h_Page_130thm.jpg
871eddd84da5709c82e835039b4bf5f7
60d40cd155aa249f45e4994262f4472576ea8426
F20101221_AABCYH alden_h_Page_124.jp2
8b4fbf1702f818ed5806a677b2fcc270
cc3309ef875d3873bffaca45dffdde315f408b99
F20101221_AABDCZ alden_h_Page_057.tif
073b0c5ddd5b77b8943fce2e3decce0a
ea15c3be2acaa6faa8d41128a634ac750c37edb9
F20101221_AABCXT alden_h_Page_110.jp2
38b3d337ba35ef3bcaac721cb1caa1f2
998576bd047f43fd96707bb0208a7a2120b59248
F20101221_AABDEC alden_h_Page_086.tif
df73f0175d897487e8bed501681000dc
41ac7b8b2a8b7cc97a954d5433e3d3ad488fd0c3
F20101221_AABDDN alden_h_Page_071.tif
2404af257a4a6016c5b884350c2d9246
51f6abc5f04074bc8b239c8771ac8198405676e8
38549 F20101221_AABEHF alden_h_Page_141.QC.jpg
dbee01879d560ff66e8bf040d093c609
a012d75b71b3a3b79510dfc47cdbaf6fbf14615f
8494 F20101221_AABEGQ alden_h_Page_131thm.jpg
d70328a1db193614cd6a1fd56c551a7e
1de5cb11c89fa53b62ec2b7d5f2472758b367cba
F20101221_AABCYI alden_h_Page_125.jp2
1adee2d807ba2b5478f53a16da2dd787
b7a09d3f331c5fb99763b984174b18d050c0a92e
F20101221_AABCXU alden_h_Page_111.jp2
dc37415a75370dc277c385bee03236b1
22078b68857031c4278d434102256de6a8bb2330
F20101221_AABDED alden_h_Page_087.tif
0517bf8a0f42ecbcdaea52b62a691853
c8bc4d985a4e3e9bbc9f3882367e13236bea996c
F20101221_AABDDO alden_h_Page_072.tif
2227370e58ec975fae2d8f9ef7eef2b5
70097256bf2a63d640f6d6823d5fa3f6a35223df
9117 F20101221_AABEHG alden_h_Page_141thm.jpg
4d202882000251ff7a97b9a878a2b186
21cd27b52ff14dd34ef5ebb4d21a62fcd57cf706
9234 F20101221_AABEGR alden_h_Page_132thm.jpg
080303a64c7b1a7802b991e3b02d2024
8beb6899d4aced8b374955c9f0b778284dfa8136
F20101221_AABCYJ alden_h_Page_126.jp2
82c4f47e50afad84fcaf247d3051975b
b4d6a5f173e68805c4cf295e4227bf2e2aea65af
1051937 F20101221_AABCXV alden_h_Page_112.jp2
207642786580b812b993212d7a7a73cc
d169b34650066d3c086ca6a6604a837fbda70b19
F20101221_AABDEE alden_h_Page_088.tif
dd675de297de21b86d01f66582b23c45
a26941a62fd823c09f9f28a67d05acc2ff8bab36
F20101221_AABDDP alden_h_Page_073.tif
a3429ca9d7a14524b1f38f4249466462
f22792bf15ab598e910cdb2ea48b159e0e0dd913
37443 F20101221_AABEHH alden_h_Page_142.QC.jpg
6cda0eb625ffe7d47e7c2f5fa392c9b0
611e7387412fb33f1a492ce7c46ee3e9b2c21775
33361 F20101221_AABEGS alden_h_Page_133.QC.jpg
5a88a3efec71be3aee550fffed8bfcf0
234932f699db7335642504d602a06c5c08f42bf3
1051900 F20101221_AABCYK alden_h_Page_127.jp2
c631aaeb69e41c364b29f25c8e290026
3149c4fc0fd50c8c3fbd827f974f8a386fa3992a
1051962 F20101221_AABCXW alden_h_Page_113.jp2
44cf57768a75ebc9dba4c5f89de80c0d
fa11e7134919ede097ea45758ef3398d90cbb029
F20101221_AABDEF alden_h_Page_089.tif
f0cb2937bbca5c983d877528b0f9a0e9
c6bfb6d3efdbeb6f0866911cf689fe486ee9f7b4
F20101221_AABDDQ alden_h_Page_074.tif
c78f1e5abc53fd25d504831ae6c803b2
5bcc2916b015e7ebee9b1c268a0ab33d5dff2e48
33156 F20101221_AABEGT alden_h_Page_134.QC.jpg
2a2295a4ed117b8f2db219cb60db2f57
0de23939927c406d1497f7528a596fcc12e0f7d4
F20101221_AABCYL alden_h_Page_128.jp2
7049b3f606fc8694e8f455d59e415c5a
83ec5a1e96f1910d183c938d8aa3f1246aa04142
F20101221_AABCXX alden_h_Page_114.jp2
3a685aed4a3580fa893786d381ba4fc3
c92f96888a80e58e094b59a0c0102101bea978ca
F20101221_AABDDR alden_h_Page_075.tif
beb15bbab3f37d3680da9de45c5ae5c7
18e259ed729c93a6aa6a9e56225d814e11782204
8797 F20101221_AABEHI alden_h_Page_142thm.jpg
9001103d13ba69069008f810b608c4d7
acec425cc5c2a5a174f38a5400755ea5ee3adab1
7980 F20101221_AABEGU alden_h_Page_134thm.jpg
33e4b9a8f57b4d8d52a495957b5b5d07
17f07bc3fcd9415db54c5432d2380aedc0e5542c
941907 F20101221_AABCYM alden_h_Page_129.jp2
e7cd5f8f6b986d449b14405108a09035
0f02dd5520a78f68418f65616c1ffe27395c8494
F20101221_AABCXY alden_h_Page_115.jp2
4c513273692ca7a1b203ee06b2bc90e3
c11e1dec1b1b3df5dd6d34a7d3b6a607f671457e
F20101221_AABDEG alden_h_Page_090.tif
6fdf2aded0755bdafc64e415381e0e83
0b637b6f9c5ebd41b8b141360ab577b0d95c50cf
F20101221_AABCZA alden_h_Page_144.jp2
d55589a48fb86907c7d966a4daf4b799
0da1a2520ae1f0ecb12ba2db392f2edbbd2045c7
F20101221_AABDDS alden_h_Page_076.tif
2f880d69b55b6aa0781db70887a55389
1ad7f96cd625e28d0d79e5e1ae0467e6ddb32ca5
38450 F20101221_AABEHJ alden_h_Page_143.QC.jpg
28ddcd1cc5ac1ad97dba233f9937f266
39aac1ba8a3de1e0553338089f90bc02f890a043
8820 F20101221_AABEGV alden_h_Page_135thm.jpg
395bcbfdb4553fadc11f7ec672ece33a
7c9e7dde54151f902163502e8cd4899b076b8186
F20101221_AABCYN alden_h_Page_130.jp2
fc3b0ca4060ca3457fcff686360ebe60
4c94ce66a61195f93f625c1d3ae53cd9af5c45d6
F20101221_AABCXZ alden_h_Page_116.jp2
102b707b21c7c11c4c95222396919378
47b01e845497c5eeaefc517928a03150d58f93a8
F20101221_AABDEH alden_h_Page_091.tif
6fb4a270ee082825f4a8e93951edff8f
5ec43a394db6195586d82f51c4b73a66064a1998
F20101221_AABCZB alden_h_Page_145.jp2
95f5bf6bd82da7ff6c51906181817842
0d3958fd69820bc496e08974a67037c7cee23528
F20101221_AABDDT alden_h_Page_077.tif
caa89464daa7381ef7bed2d7943b1486
7b235e24690a10dfe1dade6a65b92899694d8f8e
8919 F20101221_AABEHK alden_h_Page_143thm.jpg
73afd3dc853d43c3292150cbadec754a
9293cd8ca6fa60d242b5f01f46eae2bdd4b4aad4
34318 F20101221_AABEGW alden_h_Page_136.QC.jpg
a9efd722b158b0e560210ec4c90f494f
c810d40b9c8d90f285679037b51c4bdb2656eff4
F20101221_AABCYO alden_h_Page_131.jp2
29374f0f5dd760a66a5b0059da0924d2
f21ba3894faea7a5a048c725cce270d43214fcff
F20101221_AABDEI alden_h_Page_093.tif
1cf7f60db677ba88f889610104b15d4d
85e78a59a14be2bbd07c06e2cf3391c5e87acf09
F20101221_AABCZC alden_h_Page_147.jp2
ba2312767d985c9a6d5e3c73e83b9a3d
df9c859029788637f139afaee3dfda6f84ca77d1
F20101221_AABDDU alden_h_Page_078.tif
ea4da018d5d8c1f989cffb69e07402bc
5f8b8ec6182de7ff09741d038f2a5024e844636e
8985 F20101221_AABEIA alden_h_Page_153thm.jpg
2afa229ccac86ff05c520fba37122d4d
3219aeaa5f05276d2a54782b6bc9021b9ae95082
38761 F20101221_AABEHL alden_h_Page_144.QC.jpg
a26e2edcf363211040f651d39f8804e8
35db54ef23ca5a4b49da1cee9cd6cc76cd430965
8184 F20101221_AABEGX alden_h_Page_136thm.jpg
85260c75947a021566be178fd918febf
a6ce9a5f4ea88136edbf5f8b6752add4c22c0835
F20101221_AABCYP alden_h_Page_132.jp2
f38ac999d2a2dc99060a0ab3e04c76b1
61c8118318b46534a33c917654900c5790e57ca8
F20101221_AABDEJ alden_h_Page_094.tif
3803ca49bfac153dad43939bbfe42abd
12fa991685fb7f53f025cc21163369263e4c10c8
F20101221_AABCZD alden_h_Page_148.jp2
1d6038e7557a77f40eae6256a5bd0904
87af0dcf6ae33e29375de824714384b3a7c409c3
F20101221_AABDDV alden_h_Page_079.tif
149b354216f3bd3bc527dae7868eefdd
aac12dcd50a2ae5787b23396b3382db986ec8647
33870 F20101221_AABEIB alden_h_Page_154.QC.jpg
0d1dea088e24f3e5313fee3df2405572
5f8bf6f0e8df0460f2e25cbcfc513a60613190f9
9389 F20101221_AABEHM alden_h_Page_144thm.jpg
589ca8503e3813dcd8e36e40ddd304bd
5e6fdb08231f024e3e1a18b87228753b3a02caf7
31308 F20101221_AABEGY alden_h_Page_137.QC.jpg
6722654d63db09e7f55f973abecc3d37
2c55717c04bf68d0d66bfe10202f9ada201103d1
F20101221_AABCYQ alden_h_Page_133.jp2
0384e45a850b3b3f34ed4d4e0feba4de
04e2d1d91e982b0cf866288ca0915a94fa136f72
F20101221_AABDEK alden_h_Page_095.tif
40610f1a8f0229b557a0d552f4dde5c7
9572845cf09eec4e88a43e2e04e4d82414217a4c
F20101221_AABCZE alden_h_Page_149.jp2
ceba193ad7e27935347356f5c2eabd48
1629ebf4f9b9c9c1dcffefda208f3b472f4a1e29
F20101221_AABDDW alden_h_Page_080.tif
1f0e0b2b8d07cbab0c30fb6264394222
752bc492769133bc378f7373c609856539baefa8
8585 F20101221_AABEIC alden_h_Page_154thm.jpg
21b6ca7e1695860573d3642f37948482
df20d162295329d5620d72150c770c84b856459f
40455 F20101221_AABEHN alden_h_Page_145.QC.jpg
e6304d88ed547cc0ff32cf3ae965d7ed
938ce6b8e1eb1a0fff49cdbad397e6cb631c091c
39321 F20101221_AABEGZ alden_h_Page_138.QC.jpg
1e753394178b9efccec59cda1acb00f9
5e584b9ddd180334c1