My Thoughts on The Debate
By Michelle Golberg
Phil Burress, who I debated last night in Cincinnati, is a clever man. He’s a leading Christian right organizer in Ohio, but to hear him, you’d think he was just an amiable, utterly reasonable family guy. After I left, I was kicking myself for not printing out news clippings before the event, because it hadn’t occurred to me that he would simply sit next to me and lie.
We each had eight minutes to give opening remarks, and here’s part of what I said: “Yesterday, at a press conference co-sponsored by Mr. Burress, I heard Ken Blackwell” — Ohio’s GOP candidate for governor — “say that my family belongs to the wrong religion. It was an event for a new group called Clergy for Blackwell, and about fifteen pastors were there to make political endorsements. There was a similar event in Columbus, and Blackwell spoke there. At the press conference here, they showed us a video of him. He was deflecting charges that he longs for a theocracy, and he said he would fight for the rights of unbelievers, because, I quote, they have the right to be wrong. ”
I’d gotten the time and address of the press conference by calling Burress’s office, and I saw both him and his wife there. But at the debate, Burress said he’d had nothing to do with putting it together, which caught me off guard. When I got back to the house I was staying at, I reread the AP story where I’d first heard about Clergy for Blackwell. “Monday’s news conference is being organized with the help of Cincinnati-based Citizens for Community Values,” it said. “The group’s president, Phil Burress, teamed with Blackwell to pass the 2004 gay marriage ban.”
Maybe we can chalk that up to an error on the part of the AP. But the untruths kept coming. At one point, I mentioned that Burress is the treasurer of Exodus International, an evangelical organization that seeks to cure gay people of homosexuality. He shot back that I need to do more research, because Exodus isn’t a religious organization. It was such a bald lie — as anyone who looks at Exodus’s website will see — that I was left a bit discombobulated. I wish I’d had Exodus’s motto in front of me: “freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ.”
He also denied ever taking credit for helping Bush win Ohio by putting the state’s anti-gay marriage amendment on the ballot. Luckily, at least one woman in the audience had heard him do exactly that, and called him on it.
Overall I think the evening went fairly well. There was a standing-room-only crowd of over 200, and many left understanding that one of Ohio’s most important right-wing operatives thinks church/state separation is a lie, believes condoms should be kept locked up at drug stores, and is at best disingenuous about his political activities.
Michelle, you’re wrong. . . . there were well over 300 people last night.
You were poised, dignified, and always in control of the facts. On the contrary, Burress spent the evening steeped in lies and evasion .We can corroborate with you as we were in Dayton on Nov.15, 2005 at the Ohio Restoration Patriot Pastor Luncheon, when Burress claimed and Russell Johnson gave full credit for bringing out the values voters in Ohio for a Bush win. Sharing the dais with these two were no less than TOny Perkins and . . . .Ken Blackwell.
This “dialogue” was only the first. And what a relief it was to see this distinguished young womanbeginn to pry open the can of worms that is taking over our state. . Watch for much more to come out of CIncinnati in the very near future.
Thank you Michelle for an extraordinary evening.
Michelle…Thankyou for what you did last night and for all the work you have done.
I think you presented a wonderful debate. I was disheartened to see the he was not prepared to engage honestly. I find it profoundly amusing that people who claim to be in the right, generally have the hardest time with the truth.
Thank you for walking where many of us fear to go, and voicing what so desperately needs to be said.
MICHELLE: I DID NOT HAVE an oppotunity to view debate, but KUDOS to you nonetheless:we have to challenge these theocratic prevaricators at every opportunity and a every level.
KUDOS again!
Michelle,
I am certain that you have had this feeling before and we always do.
I have spent months creating a presentation, and then to my horor, after the event is over, realize that I left out one of my key points.
It’s ok. Not one debate or presentation does a career make.
With the sheer potential and knowledge that you have cultivated, you will become increasingly comfortable with these situateions/ events. I know it is quite exciting and stressful.
Good job and keep up the good work.
Thank you, dale
Michelle, I listened to the archive of your debate on Defcon’s website…(thank God for the internet)
I feel you did a great job, and your responses were meaty…Phil’s were evasive, obviously practiced to prevent the real agenda from showing, and he was unnecessarily stern, sounding as though he could be your father.
I was following along, and looked up the Arlington Group (its main purpose is to protect marriage, and define it as between a man and woman; phil blatantly lied), I looked up Exodus also..and a couple of other things.
Are these people living in an alternate reality?
GREAT JOB…Thank you.
Josh
Michelle,
I just listened to the discussion on DefCon, (thank you DefCon!), and…well, that was just too easy…you might as
well have been sharing the stage with a robot. You were brilliant. I hope the next debate is with someone who is actually EDUCATED and is willing to have an HONEST debate. Please keep speaking often. Thanks, JR
Hi Michelle,
I listened to the debate last night and couldn’t believe some of the lies that were coming from Phil Burress. You clearly support your arguments with facts and for him to say you needed to “do more research” is such a bunch of crap, especially when he hasn’t even read your book. Even if he doesn’t want to buy the book, he could easily go to his public library and obtain a copy. But I shouldn’t be surprised by this because, as you point out in the book, these people do not rely on empirical data for their arguments, just their faith.
Ironically, while in class the night of the debate, we were going over infant mortality rates and the CDC has clearly linked a correlation between higher infant mortality rates and decreased education on and availability of contraception. This is just another statistic that supports the argument that abstinence education does not work, yet the Bush administration continually pulls money away from federally funded organizations such as Planned Parenthood and showers it on faith based abstinence education programs.
Michelle I enjoyed your debate with the preacher you did great I hope after this more people will come out and debate these people who are trying to destory our secular Americia,,The Usa that we know will be destoryed if a theocary is alowed to take control. And preachers are very wrong the seperation of church and state is not a lie the founding fathers knew what they were doing..This wall of ” Seperation of Church and state must never fall ” Keep on going Michelle I have your book in the mail keep up the good worke. cchood777@aol.com
With such an inflexible ideology, it seems like the real reason to debate is not to actually learn something from the opposing viewpoint. It isn’t actually to hammer out a viable solution to any problem. The right thinks that everyone besides themselves are wrong.
I know, I was one of them for 13 years during the Reagan era.
Kudos though Michelle, as I just finished your scary and yet wonderful book. It’s one I will own, as a reference source. Few folks need stopping, and they are some of them.
Thanks Michelle, for doing the debate with Burress. Thanks also for writing Kingdom Coming. I have been following with alarm and dismay the fundamentalist “Christians” for over 30 years. And I’ve known quite a few of them over the years. A long time ago, they were intentionally politically inactive, believing in “giving to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s”, meaning they chose to not vote, and stay out of worldly matters. However, with the rise in power of the televangelists and fundamentalist social activists, who are only interested in gaining personal wealth and power, the fundie masses who follow them have now become politically active. They are now the largest, most influential voting bloc in the USA, and they can control not only who gets elected to national and local office, but also who gets nominated. They now control the federal government; congress, the presidency, the federal agencies, and they get to choose who Bush nominates to the federal judiciary. They do want a fundamentlist theocracy, and right now, we are living in one.
They must be stopped.
Michelle, I listened to the debate, and I must say that I feel that you came acroos as poised and well-informed. Mr. Burress, on the other hand, came across as being a pompous, arrogant wind-bag, who had no concept of truth.
Way to Go Michelle G.!
I listened to the debate over streaming the other night, and wished I was there! You kicked ass! 
What I really thought was telling about your opponent was that Burress kept saying that Exodus allowed gay men the choice to “walk away” if they wanted to, which I think is horridly telling of the Exodus group’s true agenda. FWIW, the two guys who founded Exodus ended up running off together lol (now THAT is a true story!)
I would’ve asked Burress, if he really “didn’t have a homophobic bone in his body,” as he claimed to, then he would acknowledge that there is NOTHING WRONG with being gay. Now if that is the case, why the need to have an organization such as Exodus to “help” people “walk away” from their sexual idenities? (Just food for thought in case you ever confront one of these homophobia-apologists again.)
Looking forward to reading more of your work.
Michelle K. from Tampa
Hello,
Michelle, ofcourse as everyone pointed out was very well informed, and the facts given were truthful. Looking into the answers given by Mr. Burress, they were of course the opposite. But, If possible my question is for everyone here, and Michelle (if she has time to answer it
is this : During the debate, most if it was talked about gay marriage and the rights of homosexuals. Now I fully agree that they should gain more rights, such as marriage, but I do not think that adoption should be allowed because one main reason, but first I want to see what you think
Do you think that gay married couples should be able to adopt a child? If so, why ?
P.S. debate was fantastic, keep up the good work.
Dimitri.
Dimitri…
Yes, I believe that gay married couples should be allowed to adopt a child. Of course, I also believe that gay or straight single people should be allowed to adopt a child, as well. I don’t see any reason why this should not be the case. There are so many children out there who need a warm, loving home…who is to say that, simply because a person prefers his/her own gender, that person is incapable of providing such a home for a child? Because I was raised by a mother and father who never should have married in the first place, I never was able to experience such a home. Unless someone can provide empirical proof that children are ALWAYS best served by having 2 parents of opposite genders (which can not be the case, as my personal experience has shown me), I see no reason to deny homosexuals the privilege of adopting children. Note I say “privilege”, as I do not feel that ANYONE has the “right” to have children.
Thank you Michelle for your courage and willingess to be a “Daniel” I admire your intelligence and willingness to take on this battle. In order to do this you have had to become familiar, VERY familiar, with the tenets of Christianity. I had to do the opposite and got so lost in Leviticus! But you do know the Bible, more importantly you know the subtle differences among the churches and their leaders and how they can work together despite them. My grandmother used to take me to tent meetings in the summer and I’d hear the speaker quote Scripture and then go on with his particular interpretation of it. Often I heard ideas that contrasted greatly with those I was learning in my own church. My grandmother, dear as she was, replied when I asked about this, “Oh, the men are always right even when they’re wrong.” Then I began to notice little falsehoods - not big bold outright lies like we hear today, but “stories” used to make a point. I noticed that teachers in the classroom did the same. So little seeds of falsehoods have grown into spin, false interpretations of Scripture, a little bend here, a little bend there, “they” won’t know the difference. Phil Buress must belong to every group out there and hold some sort of office in each one. He’s gotten his act down cold and so must we if we are to win this war. Thank you again, for all that you do.
Hello,
The previous question that I had written on whether homosexuals should bare the right to or so to speak, “chance” to adopt children.
Lynne,
I had thought about this question for a while after questioning whether it would be a good thing if they were aloud to marry, and then possibly even adopt. I am definitely not a homophobe, or against them personally. Lynne, when you stated that you dont think they would be any worse as parents, vs mother and farther, I agree, they wouldnt be. The thing that bothers me more is the fact that if they were aloud to adopt, then that child wouldnt necessarily be able to have the same kind of chance to choose whether to lead a regular life with a husband/wife or not.
Now, I believe that your parents are the ones who have a tremendous effect on how you grow up in life. That child, in essence will not have a realistic decision to choose whether they will be homosexual or not. I am definitely not a supported of Exodus, or any kind of “their” family “values” they go by, but fact is, we are naturally straight (i dont mean to be speaking like Burres, who i strongly disagree with) so that is why I believe a child should have the chance at having a mother and father, and from there on they may choose which path they shall lead.
I think marriage should be alloud, but at the same time it contradicts my position because if marriage is passed, they it shall carry on to adoption, which will doubtedly pass, with which I disagree with.
In the end, its hard to decide who gets what rights, because when giving some minority rights, you take away others at the same time. Subjects like this will always end that way, in my opinion…
I have know several gay parents, both male couples and female couples. In the case of the male couple, they of course had to adopt which they did without problem. I taught the little boy in class and his Dads were among the best school parents we had. They supported their child, his class, and his school by taking an interest and very often a part in every activity. Sometimes I think, the ignorant believe that gay men are automatically child molesters, and of course every study ever done has shown that heterosexual men are more likely to be child molesters. I also think the ignorant believe that gay men are going to exhibit flaming behavior or PDA in front of their children and scar them for life. Well, PDA is inappropriate for heterosexual couples too and mature intelligent people just don’t.
Another couple is a lesbian couple I’ve known as long as they’ve been together. I met them in our local church where we were all three very involved in youth work. I could see the fondness growing between them and one day they shared their joy with me as well as dread as to how the church would react. Rather than do anything to upset the church and kids, they went to the Pastor. One of the women was the Associate Pastor. Within days she was defrocked and both women were asked to leave the church immediately with no explanation to anyone. They went through a long dark period, but have come through beautifully to have a “Sacred Union” which is a wedding without a license. They were married in a Protestant Church, which eventually re-ordained her. She now serves a church that just loves her, her “wife” and their children. The younger of the two gave birth to two children who are also related to their other mother through IVF. In addition, the County Social Services thinks enough of them to have made them foster parents. Altogether they are raising two teenage girls, one pre-teen boy, and their own toddler boy and girl.
What are people so afraid of? How can gay marriage “threaten” heterosexual” marriage? With all the controversy over the Da Vinci Code and whether or not Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, perhaps we should think more of John, the Beloved Disciple who was gentle and not like the other men. He often listened to the heartbeat of God.
It has been said in some circles that it was highly unusual for Jewish men to be unmarried, it was what they were supposed to do - the Disciples were married. So if Jesus wasn’t married, maybe it was because he was gay and John was his lover. All of this is ridiculous of course, but no more so than all the hype against gays.
This is in response to Dimitri’s last post.
Dimitri, sexual/affectional orientation is NOT a choice a person makes. And not every person is by nature “naturally straight”. Some are, and some are not.
I realized that my sexual/affectional orientation was toward my own sex when I was very young. I remember realizing my feelings by the age of seven. And, my parents were both heterosexual, so their being straight was not an influence on my own orientation.
I was born in Pittsburgh and lived in western Pennsylvania in a small coal mining town until I was nine, when we moved to Connecticut. I was not influenced by anything on TV or any other media, nor was I influenced by any other people. Sexual orientation was never talked about when I was young. This was during the late 40’s and through the 50’s and 60’s. So I was not influenced by any outside sources. All other gay men I know tell me their situation was the same. I strongly feel, from my personal experience and that of others, that sexual orientation is not learned, it is inate in all of us. Some of us are same-sex oriented, while others are opposite sex oriented.
Also, sexual orientation is not a “behavior”. It is about who a person will be attracted to, maybe fall in love with, and want to share one’s life with.
And sexual orientation is certainly not a “choice”. I never made a conscious choice to have feelings for the same sex over the opposite sex. However, sexual behavior is a choice. A person chooses when to become sexually active, and with whom. That is true regardless of orientation.
And this next is important. Even though I finally by my early twenties realized I was homosexual, I had opportunities to choose whether or not to behave sexually with a woman or with a man. Many gay men who are filled with self hatred do choose to behave sexually with a woman. They will get married to a woman in order to fit in with what society expects of them. They often have children. Now, choices are being made. But being homosexual is not a choice. Behavior IS a choice.
Neither is being heterosexual a choice. Every person sooner or later realizes his or her feelings, and then must decide (a choice) between living life honestly, and behaving honestly, or living a lie.
Many of these antigay activists are really closeted gay people trying to prove to themselves and others that they are not gay. Many gay bashers are closet cases. There was a case of a gay bashing murder here in Connecticut where the defense attorney, during the sentencing hearing, admitted the murderer was struggling with his own sexual orientation. It would be so much better if there was not so much ignorance and fear of same-sex orientation. Ignorance and fear often lead to hatred and demonization.
Another point I want to make is this. People get too hung up on what others do for sex. I’m gay, but am not even sexually active. I’m really not very interested in having sexual contact with someone unless I’m in love. I have been in love…but the other guy did not have quite the same feelings for me, so friendship has been the result. That is fine with me. It is a lasting friendship, and one we both treasure.
Sexual behavior is only part of any couple’s relationship. Think of when you were in love. Didn’t you feel thrilled at simply the thought of being with that person (I assume a woman), seeing her, and enjoying time together? I know I do.
If I was to tell a straight couple that their whole relationship could be summed up by what they did in bed together, they would be outraged, and rightfully so. Sex is maybe only a small part of their love.
And finally, yes, all people should have marriage rights regardless of their orientation. It should not be put up to a popular vote, as with these statewide referendums. How would a straight couple like it if, before they could marry, they were required to hold an election and have all the townspeople turn out and vote on whether or not they should be permitted to get married.
The notion would be considered ridiculous. Yet that same notion is applied constantly by anti-gay activists who want to hold elections to deny same-sex marriage rights.
It is unfair and absurd.
One last point for Dimitri…
Dimitri, you said that giving rights to minorities takes away some rights from others. That is simply untrue. The majority folks still have the same rights they did before. Nothing was taken away from them.
If you meant that allowing same-sex marriage somehow diminishes heterosexual marriages, all I can say is anyone who feels that way must not feel very confident in their own marriage.
Don’t blame gay people for the failures of relationships of straight people.
Straight people have a pretty poor record as far as maintaining successful marriages. They do this on their own. They don’t need any help from gay people.
Dimitry,
Consider this quesion. At what point in your life did you chose to ne straight?
Then, if you apply that question to a gay person they will give you the same answer!
Thanks Don, and Mimi. You are right on.
Hello,
No, I never meant that it diminishes any heterosexuals rights. I am not against homosexual rights either, I am just trying to create more questions to enhance my knowledge and see other peoples views.
You got me convinced though at a point.
Generally, for most, it isnt necessarily a choice to which sex you’re oriented towards. Although, the thing i most commonly see happening around me is the fact that being gay isnt necessarily anything seroius enough for a relationship. Its becoming more like a fad, or just something to be if you want to be noticed. I am definitely not saying this for everybody.
Also, I did look at my previous post and reread it. I wanted to change my view towards allowing to adopt children for gay couples as well. Reason being is because you pointed out that those couples wont necessarily be effected by the choices made by those couples.
I totally agree that affection for others does not require sex to justify your love for another person.
Thanks for the interesting replies.
Dimitri
You’re welcome, Dimitri. And thanks for asking your questions and for wanting more information.
I can assure you that gay people can and do form loving long term relationships. Being gay is not just a temporary fad, or something one does in order to be noticed.
Yes, there are some gay folks who are flamboyant, and anyone who has seen a local gay pride festival on TV news has seen flamboyant people dancing around, but when thinking about these personal displays, keep in mind the way some guys in the stands at football games act. I’ve seen guys stripped to the waist in freezing temperatures, with their bodies and faces painted in all sorts of colors, acting like jerks. And nearly every one I’ve seen is far too ugly and flabby to be removing their shirts in public. Even straight people can be flamboyant at times.
I’ve been to many gay pride festivals and parades, and seen flamboyant guys dancing and prancing around, wearing all sorts of crazy outfits. But then, at work the next day, I’ve seen the same guys wearing their suits and ties, at their jobs as vice president of some bank or insurance company, or whatever capacity they work at.
But with most gay men, you would never be able to tell they were gay just by looking at them or listening to them.
I lived in Cincy for many years and know well how politicians have used the pornography issues to get elected. I believe it started as the Citizens for Decent Literature organization in 1961. Simon Leis, a former prosecutor, would always seem to raid a few “dirty book” stores prior to an election. The good people of Cicncinnati always bought into that story and elected him many times including a stint as sheriff.
During the debate it hit me that the same approach, except switch gay marriage for pornography, is now thrown out there to get elected and keep up the cash flow for religious/political organizations. Michelle used the word “disingenuous” a few times to describe Mr. Burress. Right on. I applaud Michelle’s self control in handling Mr. Burress paternalistic comments “Michelle, you need to do more research on that topic”.
Keep up the fight.
Michelle,
Thank you for your willingness to engage leaders of the Religious Right head-on in a public forum. Your task that night was not an easy one. I think you did a good job, and I’m grateful that you’re willing and able to do the hard work such debates require.
As a life-long Cincinnati native, I should have been at the debate. I even go to Xavier, and was planning on it, but I missed it due to an emergency.
The question I had, and you sort of addressed it here, is how do you trust someone who lies? When Burress was interviewed very early on in CCV’s existence (early 90’s, I think) he said he was going to confine his activities to Hamilton County, as that was where he lived and all he cared about. He emphasized this point. Of course, he then went on to other surrounding counties, as soon as his organization could. Why should he be trusted on other things, when it’s so clear he lied about this fundamental issue?
I’m not surprised that he lied in the debate, and I listened to some of it online (waiting for the mp3) and he DID sound “reasonable”. Mind you, that’s something a lot of the religious right does in more public debates, and they’re quite good at it. Having lived in very conservative Cincinnati, and being a libertarian for a long time (no longer, but for many years) I have come into contact with them when they think they’re “among friends”, and they speak quite differently. Don’t be surprised, you were had. As I said, the right is quite good at it.
Mike
life insurance quote term life insurance
Whole Life Insurance Quote along with life insurance quote life insurance company whole life insurance life insuranc…
Learn facts about the life insurance industry
Information on the life insurance industry