Important: Write your representatives in both state and national government to pass HR 1738 for the regulation of institutions that deal with children to prevent child abuse.
As I have said many times, the issue of Zach and anyone held against their will in the name of conversion to something they don't believe in when they have not committed a crime is a human rights violation, and is not just about gay rights.
Therefore it is important that you sign these petitions (with your first and last name so your signature is valid):
For those of you who may have wanted to pull out your wallets at one time or another (even during the whole zach-wear fiasco) to help combat these ex-gay organizations, I give you this post from the QAC as a legitimate way to help:
QAC Now Accepting Donations
Queer Action Coalition is currently accepting donations to help offset the cost of running the organization. Many people have volunteered countless hours of their time to make QAC a reality and much more remains to be done. Please take a moment to make a PayPal donation. These donations are secure, safe and verified. All monies will be used only for Queer Action Coaltion to promote workshops, collect and distribute information and to create a library of information about the Ex-Gay movement at the MGLCC.
Those wishing to donate: QAC is not a registered nonprofit or 501(c)3. These donations are not tax deductible.
Zach Update (a comment on his profile) vote for pedro!! writes:
Jun 18, 2005 12:25 AM
For everyone who reads Zach's page, here's an update on Zach. He has to do an extension for 6 weeks. So he wont be able to get online or anything. But he thanks everyone for their love and support. And he's doing okay. He's probably changed slightly because of being in that kind of environment for so long but he is still the awesome zach that we know him as. There has been a phony on Myspace pretending to be zach. This is the only page that's the real zach's myspace. (www.myspace.com/specialkid )
This came from the people that actually know Zach, at "fightinghomophobia.blogspot.com" and it is in regard to using his name to help fight legally, to raise funds, etc...so you guys need to read.
"Hi Zac. Thanks for writing to us.
We are not at liberty to disclose any personal information regarding Zach to anyone. Though your efforts to support the cause are valiant, we would urge you to utilize restraint in matters regarding action of any kind against Love In Action/Refuge. Believe me when I tell you: there is plenty going on behind the scenes in regards to this already. When the time is right, you and others who have supported our efforts will be made aware via our website -- http://fightinghomophobia.blogspot.com where news and updates are posted.
In addition, I would recommend to anyone visiting that particular MySpace group to discontinue the unauthorized usage of Zach's image to market or promote the products being sold by Cafe Press as "Free Zach" wear. If you have any questions about this, please contact us.
Thanks again!
EJ"
It's been called a movement, a revolution, a tragedy, and the greatest outpouring of humanity in a very long time, and it all started with a 16 year old young man from Tenn.----Zach!
Zach came out to his parents. They sent him off to a camp to try to make him straight. He posted the rules to the camp on his blog.
Worst of all, the camp....well, this quote attributed to director John Smid, says it all:
"I would rather you commit suicide than have you leave Love In Action wanting to return to the gay lifestyle. In a physical death you could still have a spiritual resurrection; whereas, returning to homosexuality you are yielding yourself to a spiritual death from which there is no recovery." --The Final Indoctrination from John Smid, Director, Love In Action (LIA)
note: this quote is disputed here. For some history on "Love in Action", here's what the Wikipedia (keyword: ex-gay) had to say:
"Love in Action, or LIA, was founded in 1973 by John Evans, who claimed to be a former homosexual, and Rev. Kent Philpott, a heterosexual. It was the first group to publicize cases of homosexuals who had allegedly been converted or learned to abstain from homosexuality or homosexual feelings, which were perceived as sinful and in violation of biblical moral code. After Evans' friend Jack McIntyre committed suicide out of despair concerning his inability to change, Evans left the project and denounced it as dangerous. He was quoted by the Wall Street Journal (April 21, 1993) as saying: "They're destroying people's lives. If you don't do their thing, you're not of God, you'll go to hell. They're living in a fantasy world." Shortly after founding the group, when his patients numbered six, Philpott wrote a book about his ministry called "The Third Sex?," which claimed that his patients had successfully changed their sexual orientation through prayer. His patients, who had not changed their orientation, confronted him, but he said it was "God's will" that the book be written. None of the men ever successfully changed their sexual orientation, and four of them, including Evans, filed suit against Philpott for misrepresenting them in the book. Rather than face the suit, Philpott had the book pulled off the market."
Love in Action's official website is located here: http://www.loveinaction.org
Zach posted on his blog and sparked a revolution:
"I can't take this... noone can... not really, this kind of thing tears you apart emotionally. To introduce THIS subject... I'm not a suicidal person... really I'm not.. I think it's stupid - really. But.. I can't help it, no im not going to commit suicide, all I can think about is killing my mother and myself. It's so horrible. This is what it's doing to me... I have this horrible feeling all of the time... I wish this on no person... I'm so satisfied--happy's too strong of a word the state I'm in-- that everyone's taking the time to email and write letters in complaint to these people. I dont know if it will do anything, but if something did happen it would be -- awesome."
-Zach
There has been an enormous outpouring of love and support from the entire world from people of all faiths, orientations, and nationalities with over 700 comments on his last blog post alone.
Protests have been organized and happening for over a week now.
The word is spreading and sites like http://www.detourmemphis.com , http://www.republicoft.com , and http://fightinghomophobia.blogspot.com have been following the story.
Teen blogs on forced trip to �ex-gay� camp - Houston Voice
By DYANA BAGBY Friday, June 17, 2005
A Tennessee teen is claiming in a blog that he was forcibly admitted into an �ex-gay� camp by his parents after coming out as gay, gaining attention from media outlets and gay activists.
Zach, a 16-year-old from Bartlett, Tenn., was sent to the camp Refuge, associated with Love In Action near Memphis June 6 and is to remain there at least until June 20, according to his June 3 blog entry.
Youth's blog stirs uproar over 'ex-gay' camp- PlanetOut, CA
Larry Buhl, PlanetOut Network - Thursday, June 16, 2005 / 05:45 PM
An estimated total of 150 people -- including parents, children, psychiatrists and other concerned Memphis residents carrying signs that have slogans such as "This is Child Abuse" -- have gathered over eight consecutive days outside LIA headquarters. On Thursday LIA held a press conference in response to the protests.
Yellow is blue and pink's a sin at the Love in Action camp. Memphis Flyer, TN
Chris Davis | 6/17/2005
How does God make a gay man straight? In 1997, John Smid, the ex-gay director of Love in Action, a homosexual conversion center located in Memphis, tried to explain this mystery to a Memphis Flyer reporter:
"I'm looking at that wall and suddenly I say it's blue," Smid said, pointing to a yellow wall. "Someone else comes along and says, 'No, it's gold.' But I want to believe that wall is blue. Then God comes along and He says, 'You're right, John, [that yellow wall] is blue.' That's the help I need. God can help me make that [yellow] wall blue."
Sometime in the near future PBCliberal will have a podcast about the effect this whole LIA thing is having on the internet, similar to the Republic of T post about Blogstorms.
As I have said many times, the issue of Zach and anyone held against their will in the name of conversion to something they don't believe in when they have not committed a crime is a human rights violation, and is not just about gay rights
To me this is also child's rights vs parental rights issue .
Tavdy posted something very relevant on the FZ bulliten board, which I think is an excellent solution (bolded):
BBC debate update Body: I'm going to post peoples' reactions periodically as I think there are a number of valid and interesting points to be made. Eventually I will go through the lot and present a rational argument for why Zach shouldn't be at LIAR. This is a recent set of posts (one of which is copied from the last update) and my reply.
Some of you may wish to join in the debate @ BBC online.
re: Freedom Of Religion? Ynty - 600th post - 21 Jun 2005 10:35
I agree with the reactions that everyone’s posted. However, I’d like o be devils Advocate for a while, not because I agree with these parents, but because I hope it will tease out an interesting point.
These parents might argue: “Suppose that you child was sick. You’d have the right to insist that they had medical treatment, even against your will (assuming they are a minor) even if they didn’t want the treatment because it was nasty and painful.”
Now, the answer’s obvious; being gay is not a sickness. But they’d reply;
“Well, we know that it is, and just because you’ve become so degraded that you don’t know that, why does that give you the right to tell us how to care for our child. How would you feel if we forced you to send you child to such a camp.”
I think this brings out some issues about when the state, or society at large, or the majority, or the enlightened, or whatever, has the right to override the wishes of parents. What’s the ethical basis for this? And how might it have ramifications for other cases involving clashes over parents’ “right to decide?
And what’s the difference between this case and one where parents want the right to give their child a specific kind of education? Or want to either give or withhold treatment for a disability?
re: Freedom Of Religion? J - 53rd post - 22 Jun 2005 10:21
That entirely depends on what the parents wish to do. Obviously it should be up to the parents what to name their child, obviously it should not be up to the parents to chop a child’s little finger of because its part of their religion. It's the grey areas that are the most interesting, but it depends case by case. There is a point which parents shouldn't be able to go beyond, but what exactly that point is depends on what we're talking about and ultimatelty the authorities have to decide
re: Freedom Of Religion? tavdy - 8th post - 22 Jun 2005 20:22
True, but in many cultures (the Jewish tradition, for example) the person in question, at 16, would NOT be considered a child and therefore the parents' actions would be considered kidnapping. The question then becomes 'when is a person old enough to be considered competent to make decisions independently of his/her parents on certain matters?' For matters pertaining to sexuality, I would consider 16 to be a reasonable age, in part since criminalising sexual activity would have much the same effect on teenage sex as it did on homosexual sex - it would be driven underground, encouraging unsafe practices, and in part since puberty - the point at which sexuality manifests itself most obviously - occurs a few years prior, and so the individual has had time to acclimatise themselves somewhat to their 'new reality' as an individual with a libido. If 16 is chosen as the age when an individual is considered comptetent in such matters, then wouldn't any action the state took on Zach's behalf be considered as the state defending that individual's rights and freedoms?
thanks heaps for posting that! i still cant believe that some people believe homsexuality is a disease tho. grr - it makes me so angry that they can be that ignorant!