If a private person misbehaves, probably he should not be exposed. But when a very public person misbehaves in a way that could cause problems for the church, a good argument could be made in favor of exposing him before he does more damage.

I can see both sides of this issue, i.e., whether the exploitive behavior of Davis should have been exposed.

Others have raised the issue of what sexual behaviors are compatible with Christianity. Surely monogamy is best. However, considering the circumstances in which many of us find ourselves, expecting universal monogamy is unrealistic.

As has been pointed out, the Hebrews did not receive the Ten Commandments ’til they had been freed from Egyptian slavery, presumably because as slaves, they would not have been in a position to keep the Commandments. Our situation, though not identical, is similar in some respects.

For many gay men and women, the social barriers to finding a suitable life partner are greater than what they can be expected to overcome. Thus, I am inclined not to be too harsh with gay men and women who have encounters with multiple partners, provided that they treat those partners with consideration and respect which, unfortunately, too often they fail to do. We are, of course, striving to change social conditions and attitudes in such a way that in the future, it will be less difficult for gay men and women to find suitable life partners and live monogamous lives.

With allies like you, who needs enemies?

We’re still waiting for repayment of the plane ticket we bought for you.

You didn’t get an interview with Davis Mac-Iyalla because you were rude, hostile and increasingly demanding—not for any ideological reason.

When you first made a polite request, I was unsure what to do, given your reputation, so I sought advice. You work for an avowedly conservative newspaper owned by the Unification “Church” of Sun Myung Moon, whom most Americans consider a cult leader. This hasn’t stopped you from avidly covering the anti-Gay schism in the worldwide Anglican Communion, or other pet causes of Fundamentalists. If you identify with those Christians, I don’t know how you reconcile taking a paycheck from the Moonies; but A) money talks; B) nothing’s wrong with that; and C) having a controversial employer doesn’t mean you can’t do serious journalism. So I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

My advisers, a few Integrity people, mostly warned me away from you as a promoter of the anti-Gay cause, but they left the decision up to me. So I wavered for a day or two.

You phoned again, renewed your request; you were a bit demanding but not impolite, so I took the question to Davis, trying to point out the pros and cons. You work in the nation’s capital; you have an audience among conservative politicians and conservative Christians. These are people we might want to reach and influence. Davis and I didn’t make a decision. (The time frame here is just a few days, and Davis wasn’t scheduled to be in Washington for several weeks.)

I began to lean in favor of giving you an interview; after all, a newsmaker who isn’t prepared to face a hostile press should confine his or her opinionating to people perched on barstools. Tough questions make for better interviews, and prepare the newsmaker for harder questions.

The morning after I’d decided that yes, Davis could do an interview with you, I got a screeching, sarcastic message from you, repeating your demands and amplifying your hostility, blaming me as the gatekeeper keeping you from your story. Big mistake.

I thought, “This person’s out of control, not a real journalist at all. It’s a hatchet job for sure.” Perhaps this is how you reconcile your ethics and the Moonman’s; hatchet jobs on “liberals” make the end justify the means. Just cash the check and don’t look back.

Since I became in 1977 one of two Gay men to be first to use our full, real names in The Cincinnati Enquirer—the first openly-Gay people in that major American city—I have faced many journalists, some skeptical, some neutral, some supportive. I’ve never had any of them demand an interview as if a maestro appointed them Chief Diva.

Professional journalists use persuasion, establish trust, describe their project and goals; they promise fairness and accuracy, they don’t bully people. But I see by your blog post yesterday that you’re still ticked off, more than a year after I scratched you off my list because you didn’t deserve an interview.

Enjoy that paper paycheck while it lasts; at some point Moonman will die and his son will yell, “Why are we throwing away $50 million a year on this loser property called The Washington Times?” From there you’ll be confined to flacking for Focus on the Family (Not Doctor Dobson’s Billion-Dollar Empire).++

Thank you again.

Leonardo Ricardo

I’m also touched by the honesty here.

Hugs to all.

I just returned from a luncheon in our Capital City…it was held in a elegant flat with great sweeping views of the City…the weather was gorgeous (right in the middle of fierce rains of yesterday that were promised for today too)…it was the celbration of a Birthday, a New Yorker and his wife who have lived here and in New York for over 37 years…today he was 70 years old, surrounded by long-time friends and his children…I was invited because I’m a friend of theirs too, albeit for only 14+ years…I met them at another dinner party all those years ago…a dinner party I attended with my loved one Jose…today several people fondly remembered Jose to me during the festivities…oddly, I had just been to Jose’s vault at the cemetery earlier this week and my feelings of never-ending devoted friendship were fresh in my mind…making promises to Jose and God matter to me too.

I salute ALL who are homosexual and have been widowed…there are far too many of us over the years…and many weren’t at all related to AIDS…I don’t believe our loss and our grief is different than anyones elses but because Jose was murdered I’m still dealing with a lot of anger…I always believed God put Jose in my life…and now, over Ten years after his death, Jose is still in my heart and is part of my everyday “being” and “beliving” and a little over a year ago, God introduced me to Juan Carlos too…I have a belief that people “like us” are held to the same “standard” of good character/behavior and basic decency as EVERYONE else…we ought be responsible and accountable as we insist and demand equal acceptance at The Body of Christ.

Yes, Josh, you’ve strengthened our INTEGRITY by starting this “thread”…if we are to be accepted by other Anglicans we must give up the playing of PRETEND.

To me, this is essential:

“Right now, who your leaders are is very important. Not only for perceptions of the outside world, but for the Christian gay community itself. Lots of gay men look up to gay Christian leadership – and if these guys can’t keep it zippered when they’re not with their partner, it’ll be so much harder for community members to do so – that ever-looming excuse of “our Christian gay leaders do it too.”

Thanks for all the “witness” we’ve seen here and to my dear friend däˈvēd I send you a big hug…I’m glad you survived the rechid hurricane and are back to your perky self with your brothers and sisters…online.

Peace