Michael Glatze has more to say about his story on World Net Daily today.
UPDATE: Michelangelo Signorile interviewed Paul Schindler of the Gay City News about Michael Glatze today. Mr. Schindler talked with Michael and said that Michael indeed an up and coming leader among young gays. Further, Mr. Schindler revealed that Michael backed out of the Paula Zahn Show and today’s Signorile radio show because he prayed about it and did not believe he would get a fair hearing.
There was some extensive discussion of Michael’s explanation for his development of same-sex attraction. According to Schindler, Glatze told him that he had “undifferentiated sexual feelings” when he was 14 and then a friend explained to him about homosexuality and the gay world. Glatze said this influenced the object of his sexual desire toward boys.
On the issue of the LDS church, Schindler said, “I asked him about that” meaning the reports of conversion and Michael reportedly said these reports are not accurate. According to Schindler, Michael is conversing with someone at the CWA to select the right Christian sect. Look for a report from Schindler on Gay City News late tonight or tomorrow.
UPDATE #2 – The Christian Post explores Mr. Glatze’s statement about faith today.
UPDATE #3 – 7/11/07 – GayCity News has a lengthy interview with Mr. Glatze. It covers a lot of the same ground we have been discussing here but adds some detail.
IT seems, in my opinion, that with Mr. Glatze is suffering from ego-dystonic homosexuality.
I don’t get it, god, the holy spirit, Jesus, took Glatze out of homosexuality, but failed to get him into the “correct” church? Isn’t that at least a relatively more ‘easy’ task than denouncing homosexuality which for Glatze was apparently a three or four year trial?
Nemario,
From the Christian Post
It seems that Glatze is taking the Richard Cohen approach to religion. He’s taste testing.
“On the issue of the LDS church, Schindler said, “I asked him about that” meaning the reports of conversion and Michael reportedly said these reports are not accurate.”
He was baptised into the church but didn’t convert? Fill me in here.
Boris,
The discussion aspect of the blog works better if we at least bring mutual respect to the table. Your comments in your last post indicate you have no respect for any ex-gays; you have already pre-judged them all. As one of the ex-gays that regularly blogs here, I’m offended.
The discussion also works better if we are somewhat informed. Michael Glatze isn’t the spawn of Exodus or the ‘ex-gay movement’. He came to his beliefs ‘on his own’ and did not use the services of any ex-gay group in his process. (The Exodus-related folks that I am in touch with actually cringe and wince at Glatze’s bluntness. And there’s a concern for one ‘so young in the faith’ to be stepping out so boldly into a real battleground.) So, if you see him and Exodus as the same, it’s obvious that you do see only in black and white as Timothy suggested.
Boo,
Just so I understnad what you are reading – what are you refering to in my posts that makes you say that I am disingenuous.
And you often do clump all ex gays into one group and so I am making a distinction. I’m sure you wouldn’t want me to clump you into some of the “gay” groups – would you?
“Ex Gay” is not my side. My side is that of equality, peace, etc… I happen to be ex gay. And not all ex gays are bad people.
And I didn’t say they were.
What incentive do I have to lie? Don’t gays have incentive to lie – by the same token??? Gays make improbable claims about ….? You fill in the blank.
It’s a little disengenuous to start claiming ex-gay isn’t your side after previous posts made clear it is.
Timothy:
“It does help to distinguish between the organized, public, political ex-gay leaders and the individual struggler.”
I can’t be bothered anymore. Unfortunately my life has taught me to see every person who claims to be “ex-gay” as an potential enemy. These individuial strugglers, as you call them, seem to have no qualms in attacking my life and trying to make it as difficult as possible.
As I said, I would like to believe differently, but I can not. And nothing I’ve seen so far has made me change my opinion.
Boo,
“Ex Gay” is not my side. My side is that of equality, peace, etc… I happen to be ex gay. And not all ex gays are bad people.
“I know it’s easier to see black and white, but reality is much more nuanced. And it isn’t any more fair to associate every ex-gay with NARTH and FOTF than it is to associate every gay person with the Radical Faeries.”
Well, I spent a week with the Faeries in Wolf Creek, Oregon — and I got to say that 1) they themselves are not a monolithic whole and 2) nonetheless, a great many of them struck as me warm, kind, friendly inviduals.
What’s with the Faerie-bashing, then?
yogiboo,
erotic modeling? video?
hmmmmm
Boris,
It does help to distinguish between the organized, public, political ex-gay leaders and the individual struggler.
Exodus is the enemy of my rights and my freedoms. There is not a single solitary anti-gay position they don’t support nor a single freedom they endorse. And their leaders are active in lobbying to treat me and you differently than them – all in the name of God (which I consider a blasphemy against the commandments of Christ).
But individuals such as Mary and Eddy and probably to some extent many others here are either supportive of equality or at least not actively hostile.
I know it’s easier to see black and white, but reality is much more nuanced. And it isn’t any more fair to associate every ex-gay with NARTH and FOTF than it is to associate every gay person with the Radial Faeries.
Some bloggers on the XGW found this site on Michael Glatze, so I can’t take any credit for it. I am beginning to wonder if this is all staged for something.
http://www.musecube.com/mglatze/126607/
It’s too bad he didn’t go on CNN. Paula seems nice.
It’s very easy to see ex-gays as enemy, because they sure act in public as one. Think about the stances of ex-gay movement and how they advocate for policies that seek to hurt gays and their families as much as possible.
Like this Glatzke character: he sure does get around and seems to choose the most viciously anti-gay venues to deliver his “message”. Like AFA who celebrates a man who wants to execute gays at random as an effective way to keep then in closet (Gary DeMar). Or Focus on the Family that openly endorses human rights violations against gays abroad (like in Nigeria or Jamaica). Or CWA who praises Polish government for banning gay the freedom of assembly and participation in political process through demonstration or freedom of speech.
Different leaders and spokeperons of “ex-gay” movement have enhusiastivcally endorsed all those organizations. This Glatzke just follows suite.
I have to agree with Boo on this one. Personally I see every “ex-gay” an enemy as I se people who advocate for reparative therapies and such. Every single one of them. I wish that I could say different, but I can’t if I’m honest.
So Mary, an answer to your question is that yes, I do believe that “ex-gays” and “ex-gay” movement represents evil. As i said I would like to think different but eveything I’ve experienced affirms what I think to be true.
You’ve got to be kidding me? Right?? And what improbable claims am I making??
Claiming to have changed one’s sexuality from gay to straight (or straight to gay, for that matter) is improbable. Sorry, it just is. (Although as Rick notes, bisexuality does seem to be somewhat more common among women than men.)
What incentive do I have to lie? Don’t gays have incentive to lie – by the same token??? Gays make improbable claims about ….? You fill in the blank.
Being gay gets you religious and social condemnation and can lead in some cases to loss of job and/or life. Hence there is a powerful incentive to claim to have become straight. This does not exist for claiming to be gay. Hence, no, there is not equal motivation to lie (to others or onesself).
Why is it a black and white issue or an all or nothing issue? As in gays are all good and ex gays are all bad. That is starting to be what you sound like. Am I missing your drift or taking an accurate reading of your perception of gyas and ex gays??
Yes, I’m afraid you’re totally missing my drift. You see, it’s the ex-gays who constantly make it a black and white issue, condemning homosexuality as all bad. It’s the ex gays who claim all gay men just didn’t bond with daddy, or are all secretly grossed out by gay sex, or all secretly “know” God condemns them, or are “stupid.” Many ex-gays, and virtually all formal ex-gay associations, are part of the radical right’s crusade to deny equal rights to LGBT people. There are no gay people I’m aware of who are working to make it easier for ex-gays to get fired from their jobs, or to deny them their right to marry, or to tear apart their families. Gay people aren’t going around telling parents of ex-gays not to invite their partners to holiday celebrations. Gay people aren’t making spurious claims of a link between ex-gays and pedophiles. Gay people aren’t promoting junk science about ex-gays dying on average by their 40s. The testimonies of ex-ex-gays so far seem fairly nuanced and acknowledged they did get some good things out of the ex-gay movement, unlike the average ex-gay testimony, which blames homosexuality for every problem they’ve ever experienced and insists that all gay people’s lives are as screwed up as theirs were. And of course while there are ex-gay people who don’t do those things, trust me, you don’t want to get into a side-by-side comparison of ex-gay vs gay on how each treats the other. Your side will not come off looking good.
Mary:
“You’ve got to be kidding me? Right?? And what improbable claims am I making??”
Let’s just make something clear here: women have always been more fluid in their sexual identity than men. I wish I had a dime for every lesbian-turned-ex-lesbian I ever met — and all the ones I knew switched without the aid of prayer, therapy, or support groups. Not a one of them I know struggles against the temptation to “go back.”
I can’t say the same for “ex-gay” men.
Men’s and women’s sexuality is DIFFERENT.
…Because ex-gays are making more improbable claims and have more incentive to lie….
You’ve got to be kidding me? Right?? And what improbable claims am I making??
What incentive do I have to lie? Don’t gays have incentive to lie – by the same token??? Gays make improbable claims about ….? You fill in the blank.
Why is it a black and white issue or an all or nothing issue? As in gays are all good and ex gays are all bad. That is starting to be what you sound like. Am I missing your drift or taking an accurate reading of your perception of gyas and ex gays??
A gay man is a person who is deeply jelous about the straight men around him – it starts in the early ears (around 3, maybe).
That’s kinda funny. I’ve heard gay people say that the only reason that straights hate them so much is because they’re just jealous about how sexually free gay people are (or jealous because they aren’t tied down with kids, or some other jealously-based reason). Both notions are nonsense and little more than insecurity masked by bravado.
I hope in your book, Luke/Claudio, that you have more to present than that.
Gay men are envious and they can´t see their own maleness. It leads them to develop stronger same-sex attractions time after time.
I assure you, Luke/Claudio, that gay men are quite aware of their own maleness.
But this notion that once you discover that you are a man then you will naturally become attracted to women has been around for a while. It was most recently spouted (incoherently) by Michael Glatze with his whole “I’m a man. Of course I’m attracted to women” line.
Frankly, it displays a simplistic mindset and is quite sad.
I think ex-ex-gays are nothing but gays and it means jelousy and envy.
This certainly does give us a clear understanding of your “thinking” process. But I doubt you would like what it tells me.
I don´t hate gay people but their false answers to questions people make. I hate to hear “there’s no ex-gay” and “you’re just supressing your desires” and things like that. These lies are made by gay intelectual leaders have spread them all around the world by media (tv, books, newspaper).
Actually, I think you’ve got it backwards there, Luke. It’s the ex-gay organizations that first came forward with all this noise about “change” and became the willing tools of religious right organizations who used them to argue against gay rights on the grounds that gay people could always just turn straight (ironically ignoring the fact that that same argument could be used to deny rights to Christians on the grounds that we could always just convert). But then of course as more people starting asking questions, the fine print began to come out, and guess what? “Change” doesn’t actually seem to mean heterosexuality after all. The actual ex-gay who even claims to have become heterosexual is a very rare bird indeed. Now if people have found meaning in their lives by becoming celibate, and truly believe this is God’s will for them, then more power to them, but yes, that is in point of fact suppressing one’s desires.
There are many books to ‘guide’ teenagers to get out of the closet and these books tell nothing but lies to those kids. This is what I hate to most: lies to kids!
Please give examples of actual lies to kids (differences of opinion don’t count, I mean actual misrepresentations of fact).
A gay man is a person who is deeply jelous about the straight men around him – it starts in the early ears (around 3, maybe).
Gay men are envious and they can´t see their own maleness. It leads them to develop stronger same-sex attractions time after time.
Can you see that it’s these kind of blanket attacks that lead to people like you being accused of spreading hate? Gay men are envious. Why? Because you say so? Ok, then you’re envious of people who are able to freely express their sexuality. And you own a copy of “Ishtar” on DVD and it’s your favorite movie. And you were responsible for “New Coke.” And you did something to get God mad at you and caused Hurricane Katrina. Spurious allegations are fun!
By the way, why don´t you believe ex-gays’s statement but accept ex-ex-gays answers?
Because ex-gays are making more improbable claims and have more incentive to lie. Extraordinary claims require extaordinary evidence. Spitzer’s 20 minute telephone interviews don’t even come close. On the other hand, if ex-ex-gays started claiming that all ex-gays were suffering from deep seated jealousy over their fan letters to Celine Dionne going unanswered, I would find that quite hard to believe.
Boo
I don´t hate gay people but their false answers to questions people make. I hate to hear “there’s no ex-gay” and “you’re just supressing your desires” and things like that. These lies are made by gay intelectual leaders have spread them all around the world by media (tv, books, newspaper).
There are many books to ‘guide’ teenagers to get out of the closet and these books tell nothing but lies to those kids. This is what I hate to most: lies to kids!
Ex-ex-gays maybe hate the true ex-gays because they are jelous, just this!
A gay man is a person who is deeply jelous about the straight men around him – it starts in the early ears (around 3, maybe).
Gay men are envious and they can´t see their own maleness. It leads them to develop stronger same-sex attractions time after time.
I think ex-ex-gays are nothing but gays and it means jelousy and envy.
By the way, why don´t you believe ex-gays’s statement but accept ex-ex-gays answers?
Luke (Claudio)
July 11, 2007 @ 6:01 am
Why are so many people so hateful and insulting?
I honestly don’t know what it is about the ex-gay lifestyle that drives so many of its practitioners to hate and vilify gay people, but as more and more ex-ex-gays come forward, we may eventually get some answers.
And what is it like, Warren, to share an endorsement with Mr. Demar from the same organizations?
http://www.mfc.org/contents/articles.cfm
http://www.changingworldviews.com/IssuesLibrary.htm
So I guess I was wrong about the lesbian part…but heterosexual men have always been more tolerant of girl-on-girl action.
“Rick — Could you post a reference to your claim about DeMars?”
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=870
Gary DeMar:
“The long term goal [is] the execution of abortionists and parents who hire them. If we argue that abortion is murder, then we must call for the death penalty.”
http://www.skepticfiles.org/atheist/soundoff.htm
Gonzales: If, indeed the Reconstructionist movement ever made it in America, would you advocate these biblical principles being carried out: the execution of the adulterer, the abortionist, and the homosexual?
DEMAR: I’m saying that they could be implemented, yes.
http://joecrubaugh.com/blog/2007/04/07/an-american-theocracy/trackback/
You might think I’m being a little unfair, a bit paranoid, perhaps exaggerating…maybe misrepresenting the Reconstructionist agenda. But an article at Mother Jones makes clear where Demar and the Reconstructionist movement is coming from:
“The Old Testament — with its 600 or so Mosaic laws — is the inflexible guide for the society DeMar and other Reconstructionists envision. Government posts would be reserved for the righteous, as long as they are male. There would be thousands of executions a year, with stoning a preferred method because it would turn the deaths into “community projects,” as movement theologian North has noted. Sinners in line for the death penalty would include women who commit adultery or lie about their virginity, blasphemers, witches, children who strike their parents, and gay men (lesbians, however, would be spared because no specific reference to them can be found in the Books of Moses). DeMar told me that among Reconstructionists he is considered something of a liberal, because he’d execute gays only if they were caught indulging in sodomy. ‘I’m happy to just drive them back into the closet,’ he said.”
Rick — Could you post a reference to your claim about DeMars?
Yep, I just checked: AFA has enthusiastically welcomed Gary DeMar on their radio show, as has WND on their website. This man not only wants to execute gay men, lesbians, and abortion providers, but adulterers and even women who lie about their virginity. People like DeMar hang out in the halls of congress and make a lot of noise about “the homosexual agenda,” but what about THEIR agenda?
Why are so many people so hateful and insulting?
I honestly don’t know what it is about the ex-gay lifestyle that drives so many of its practitioners to hate and vilify gay people, but as more and more ex-ex-gays come forward, we may eventually get some answers.
Well, well… Glatzke prayed about taking part in Paula Zahn and Michelangelo’s shows because he did not believe he would get a fair hearing. By “fair” he obviosuly means “unchallenged”.
Like so many “ex-gays” this Glatzke character chooses venues like CWA or AFA of all places to spew his venom but refuses to gace anyone who could actually challenge some of his most outrageous statements.
Taking part in AFA radio show is telling: after all Tim Wildmon thinks that gary DeMar is the greates Christian thinker of all times. DeMar has suggested random executions of gays so that thay would stay in closet. So this Glatzke person now supports ideology and politics of AFA?
And that “Michael is conversing with someone at the CWA to select the right Christian sect” means that the bigots of CWA realized that a mormon ex-gay is less useful than a Christian one so they grabbed him for more brainwashing. After all it would be so unbecoming to have a LDS member talking about “transforming power” of Christ.
I believe his email address is posted at the end of his WND articles if anyone wants to follow Mary’s advice. I think those comments about others are what is getting a lot of feedback.
I hope Michael avoids the media and finds a good local religious body to fellowship with. I hope he finds some good sound mentors to help him gracefully adjust. It is hard to do that in soundbites.
Why are so many people so hateful and insulting? Sure he sees things differently but if you want to comment about him – might as well comment to him – since he has commented to gays at large. Granted it would be easier to read if he kept his comments about himself and not about “gays”. But then, I doubt he kept his comments about himself when he was gay and talked about those who harmed gays.
“Beyond this, there is no depth of understanding with the scriptures, no thought as to the real meaning of God’s grace, no citation of Bible verses, etc. Simply put, this was too early for Michael to speak, but WND just wanted the headlines.”
I can not agree with you more strongly on this point. I see in Michael Glatze a brave, sensitive, intelligent being — preciesly the sort of individual qualified for spiritual growth. And the greatest pitfall of all such individuals is how the ego will quickly overtake an individual after his or her first major epiphany, and quickly set him or her up for disaster, often leaving them worse off than before they “saw the light.”
“Halfway Up the Mountain: The Error of Premature Claims to Enlightenment,” by Mariana Caplan, is a good book that explains this phenomenom. It is a universal and cosmic issue that is addressed in all the major religious faiths. And in my assessment of things, Michael Glatze’s is coming forward way too early and too prematurely about his “salvation.” It comes across in the very righteous tone he has adopted, and in his very polarizing words. In a sense, we really all should pray for his soul.
And talking about this god which has been leading him to do the right thing…. why did this god lead him to be baptized into the LDS church, but now he says he didn’t really convert to that religion? What is a Christian baptism? Or will it be announced that an LDS baptism doesn’t count as a Christian baptism, such that Glatze must be re-baptized now as a Christian.
Glatze’s god seems to be leading him into at least one Glatze-admitted, somewhat foolish choice. So does this mean Glatze’s god doesn’t have a perfect record, is not perfect? Which leads one to wonder what else Glatze’s god is getting wrong. But that the CWA/NARTH/WND consortium (with their deep, dark secrets) will endeavor to fix without really saying that Glatze was baptized a Mormon.
So Glatze was baptized into the LDS/Mormon church, he did admit that didn’t he? But now he is of a mind to repudiate that because the one’s who want to milk his story the most for their publicity are saying he should be something else.
Couldn’t handle hisi masculinity at 13? Krikey! I never worried about anything such as that. Lawdy! Protested the republicans, I bet he moves becomes a Tory now.
If he was a “nothing,” then why the Bible, why not the Quran? The Vedas? Michael Glatze is a robot who spews his handler’s programming.
I think WND is more interested in showcasing Mr. Glatze as a trophy, especially around July 4th, than reporting the “truth.” Independence from homosexuality on Independence Day makes a good headline. The real matter is that Michael is not yet ready. I believe Michael truly and sincerely desired to have a connection and a relationship with God. However, he came to the conclusion of salvation on his own, perhaps with friends he knew from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. WND, because it was such a “juicy” story, probably assumed that when Michael talks about salvation, he was saved by the traditional evangelical meaning, i.e., being “born again,” and did not realize that Michael was affiliated and was even baptized by LDS.
Thus, I think the real story is a young gay man who wants a relationship with God, found Christ, and decided that loving Christ and being gay is incompatible. Beyond this, there is no depth of understanding with the scriptures, no thought as to the real meaning of God’s grace, no citation of Bible verses, etc. Simply put, this was too early for Michael to speak, but WND just wanted the headlines.
For what it is worth, at the following Internet radio site, http://www.gaybc.com/jmarchive2.html, you can download John McMullen’s interview with Michael Glatze’s lover and business partner of ten years, Benjie Nycum. It sheds some light on what is going on right now.
I share Michael’s experience of growing up feeling estranged from a father I did not respect. That made for distinctive challenges in the journey into adulthood, figuring out what I valued about myself (especially traits that reminded me of my dad), what I valued about masculinity, and what felt authentic to me.
Over-performing and setting unrealistic standards for myself was an issue, but ultimately it was a misguided attempt to equate being a man with being flawed, and being perfect as the way to overcome it.
In many ways it turned out to be healthy for me to connect with my masculine soul in my 20s and early 30s, finding that I could achieve career goals in a corporate world that had seemed foreign, and turned out not to be as scary or dominated by alpha-male energies as I had feared.
But, given that I was also equating being gay with being flawed and less than man, part of me was dying, giving myself over to depression and dysfunction.
To whatever extent Michael believed that being gay let him resolve his personal identity issues, and becoming an overachiever masked the the fact that being gay was not authentic for him, his story echoes mine and countless other coming-out journeys.
We differ, though, in that I’m not saying that my experience proves that being straight is pathological for everyone.
Note he starts the story with this
“I’m not saying this is how homosexuality develops for everybody. It’s just my story.”
yet ends with this:
“My story is that now I know the Truth about homosexuality. And my story is that now I’m going to do what I can to fight it.”
seems a bit inconsistent to me.
And people are supposed to not want to do it, because doing it is something that prevents them from having babies, and having babies is something that we – naturally – are supposed to want to do, for human beings to survive. And, so, it’s obvious why people should feel gross about homosexuality.
And why women should all feel gross about the pill. Oh wait, obviously none of this applies to str8 people, just cause.
I can – and easily would – describe it if asked.
I smell a book. Let’s hope for his sake he gets a ghost writer. If this is a typical example of his writing, I can see why his magazine only lasted five issues:
And people are supposed to not want to do it, because doing it is something that prevents them from having babies, and having babies is something that we – naturally – are supposed to want to do, for human beings to survive. And, so, it’s obvious why people should feel gross about homosexuality.
I wonder if the deep dark secrets he uncovered about socialism included this section from the 4th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles:
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
I happen to be a hard-core capitalist. But I certainly don’t claim that the Bible supports my favored economic system. I think this is time for a paraphrase of Anne LaMott’s quote:
You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people and political systems you do.
Sayeth Michael Glatze:
“I followed His guidance and found books that revealed all sorts of ‘deep, dark’ secrets about things like ‘socialism,’ Concerned Women for America, ‘abstinence-only education’ and the National Association of Research & Therapy of Homosexuality.”
So God has revealed that “socialism” (why does Glatze put it in quotes?) has “deep, dark” secrets? I don’t recall the Bible addressing either socialism or free market economies; if anything it seems to endorse a non-democratic imperial state (“render unto Ceaser”).
As it is, Glatze’s clumsy syntax creates the impression that he is attributing “deep, dark secrets” not just to socialism, but CWF, NARTH, and “abstinence-only” sex-ed.
Still, that he is claiming divine guidance in not just his personal life but his political opinions makes his “epiphany” even more suspect.
For the record, “abstinence-only” education has proven to be an abject failure. But will Glatze endorse creationism next?
Rick
I’m sorry, but most of what he had to say makes absolutely no sense:
When I was about 13, I decided I must be gay because I was unable to handle my own masculinity. It scared me too much. My father had already given me a lot to be afraid of: He’d cheated on my mother and left her crying, alone and selflessly attempting to salvage a dead relationship.
When I was faced with the prospect of either being a “man” or being “me” – who I saw as “better than that” and “not someone who would do such awful things as men do” – I chose “me.” Then, because “me” was not “a man,” “me” became gay.
I didn’t like some of the things my dad did, so I decided that the idea of sex with men would make me horny? Since I don’t like men, I’ll go and have sex with them. That’ll show em! Sorry, it just don’t work that way. No one decides what they’re going to be attracted to. Today, redheads will turn me on. Tomorrow, it’ll be blondes.