Fair for ex-lover to out this prominent anti-gay evangelical blogger?

[astro]

Is closet privacy sacrosanct or not, or is it only for those with opinions we approve of?

Prominent Antigay Evangelical Blogger Outed as Gay

Jonathan Merritt, the son of famous evangelist James Merritt, has become a prominent evangelical blogger, writing for, among others, USA Today and The Atlantic (where he most recently wrote about his support of Chick-fil-A). Turns out he's, as Queerty puts it, also "a deeply conflicted gay man" who just got busted for canoodling with gay blogger Azariah Southworth.

James Merrit, the former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, is currently the pastor at an Atlanta mega-church, had promised that his son would join the church this weekend for a special announcement, but no word on whether this was what they had planned. Southworth outed Merritt in his blog this week, so Merritt responded by admitting his "inappropriate" actions to evangelist blogger Ed Stetzer

.

Anti-Gay Columnist Jonathan Merritt Admits To “Inappropriate” Relationship With Gay Blogger

Jonathan Merritt is a widely published columnist whose work appears in mainstream outlets like USA Today, the Christian Science Monitor and The Atlantic, where he just wrote a piece explaining why we shouldn’t boycott Chick-fil-A.

Merritt is also a deeply conflicted gay man who has aligned himself with the evangelical movement.

Joe.My.God’s Joe Jervis just passed along an interview from evangelist Ed Stetzer’s blog, where Merritt came clean:


“In 2009, I was contacted by [blogger Azariah Southworth] in response to an article I wrote about just that—that Christians must love people who experience sexual brokenness. We corresponded several times by email and text for a couple of weeks, some of them inappropriate. When I was traveling through a city near him, we met for dinner because we’d corresponded so recently. As we were saying goodbye, we had physical contact that went beyond the bounds of friendship. I was overcome with guilt, knowing I had put myself in an unwise situation. We never saw each other again and we ceased contact after a period of time.

“When I returned home, I saw a Christian counselor to address the events in my life and sort through my childhood and what I believed God wanted for me. I also began to acknowledge to myself that I have sin in my past, sin for which I accept responsibility. Inappropriate texting, inappropriate actions are inappropriate no matter who the other party is. These were my decisions and no one else’s. It’s from my brokenness, that I feel I can now be transparent, honest, and authentic about these accusations. Those close to me know I have actually been planning to share the story of my brokenness for some time. Because it is part of my spiritual journey. And because it underscores the power of the Gospel to transform lives.”

His support of Chik-Fil-A article

[Onomatopoeia]

Originally Posted by astro

Is closet privacy sacrosanct or not, or is it only for those with opinions we approve of?

I have no problem with Christians who are Gay. I have no problem with Christian evangelists who are Gay. I have no problem with Christian evangelists who are Gay and feel the need to hide their homosexuality. I do have a problem with hypocrisy.

Why is it that outed Christians seem to always want to have their cake and eat it too? If you lend support to a person, entity, or organization that espouses bigotry against those who engage in practices you've also engaged in, then yes, you should be outed. You don't get to harm others through your words or deeds just because you're a Christian. The rules apply to you too, buddy. Sorry, I have no sympathy at all for yet another Christian hypocrite.

[Rachellelogram]

I think it's fair. When religious bloggers/pundits thrust themselves into the public eye by attempting to publicly paint homosexuality as a sin or a choice, and begin actively advocating against gay marriage, they open themselves up to scrutiny by the public. This chucklefuck chose to bring his bigotry to the public's attention. Anything that discredits him is a Very Good Thing. I'm not saying he deserves death or jail or anything stupid like that, but his hypocrisy most certainly should be brought to light. The cognitive dissonance between his words and his actions is ridiculous and hypocritical.

If him being gay hurts his cause, tough shit. I say the same thing to rabid fiscal conservatives who are against living in a "welfare state," while being dependent on disability and food stamps and medicaid. It's a perfect example of that "I got mine, fuck you!" mentality that's so prevalent among conservatives in this country. Kinda reminds me of this female talking head on Fox who, on several occasions, opined that maternity leave was (I'm paraphrasing here) a crock of crap. Then the bitch took maternity leave to have her own baby! Screw that hypocrite, and screw this one too.

Lest the argument come up, there's nothing wrong with being gay and sexting with his boyfriend. It's the fact that he was gay and covering it up in order to persecute gays. Advocating for gay people to have fewer rights than straight people is inexcusably fucking heinous in the first place, but the hypocrisy makes it that much worse.

[bup]

Perhaps the point is moot, but how anti-gay is he? Queerty calls him anti-gay, but the Chick Fil-A column is really about how people just boycott too much, and buying things shouldn't mean you have to agree with a company's politics.

I'm not familiar with what else he's done.

He doesn't strike me as a hypocrite, but as a struggling gay man who still believes he can pray away the gay, or that gay activity is a sin and his feelings are his cross to bear. Whatever.

I think the litmus test here is kind of like in a legal case for surprise witnesses - to directly contradict something the person has said.

If Merritt had said, "I'm not gay and I've never done anything gay," then outing him would be expected. If he wants to keep his gay feelings private, I think it's kind of dickish to call him on it.

[Rachellelogram]

I think this comment from the link posted in the OP merits reposting:

"Before you people feel so sorry for this guy. You might want to think of all the lives he has hurt, all the young kids he has made feel ashamed of themselves because of who they are. How many suicides his words helped with.

"How much damage he has done. Then you look at me and say you feel sorry for him, he got what he deserved and maybe he will change his life now but at least his words won't make an impact anymore.

"So I feel sorry for the young gay people that he has tormented and I hope they are doing well today."

[Accidental Martyr]

It sounds like he's going to "pray the gay away" so he can continue his anti-gay crusade.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by astro

Is closet privacy sacrosanct or not, or is it only for those with opinions we approve of?

It's the hypocrisy and malice on his part that justifies it, not that he disagrees with me. Live and let live is a two way street; if someone goes about busybodying with other people's private lives, then someone else returning the favor is appropriate retaliation. And the fact that his actions are designed to cause harm means that he deserves retaliation for the harm he has caused.

[Agent Foxtrot]

Hypocrites deserve to be exposed regardless of the situation. Period.

[Dr. Drake]

I think the gay community needs to stand up and stop dating closeted men and stop servicing married men. I don't know how prevalent these things are in my community—I don't think it's common, but what do I know? Being in the closet might have been the best option even until quite recently, but at least in the Western world, it is time to move on.

A lot of gay people have a lot of disposable income. I'd like to see us focus more on helping people (with counselling, housing, whatever it takes) to help people who married because of the expectations, including the poor spouses. Especially the poor spouses. (ETA: I realize I'm crawling off on a tangent. Bear with me.)

So, no, I don't think it was fair to out the bastard. You knew you were dating a closeted man, and if you couldn't say, "I'm sorry, I won't date a hypocrite, I won't date a man who hates himself on any level, and I won't date a coward," you should have respected his closet door.

As for Merritt's hypocrisy: I don't think that matters here. It's clear the hypocrisy comes from psychological trauma, not pure evil, but in either case, I think oath-breaking is worse than hypocrisy.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Rachellelogram

I think it's fair. When religious bloggers/pundits thrust themselves into the public eye by attempting to publicly paint homosexuality as a sin or a choice, and begin actively advocating against gay marriage, they open themselves up to scrutiny by the public. This chucklefuck chose to bring his bigotry to the public's attention. Anything that discredits him is a Very Good Thing. I'm not saying he deserves death or jail or anything stupid like that, but his hypocrisy most certainly should be brought to light. The cognitive dissonance between his words and his actions is ridiculous and hypocritical.

If him being gay hurts his cause, tough shit. I say the same thing to rabid fiscal conservatives who are against living in a "welfare state," while being dependent on disability and food stamps and medicaid. It's a perfect example of that "I got mine, fuck you!" mentality that's so prevalent among conservatives in this country. Kinda reminds me of this female talking head on Fox who, on several occasions, opined that maternity leave was (I'm paraphrasing here) a crock of crap. Then the bitch took maternity leave to have her own baby! Screw that hypocrite, and screw this one too.

Lest the argument come up, there's nothing wrong with being gay and sexting with his boyfriend. It's the fact that he was gay and covering it up in order to persecute gays. Advocating for gay people to have fewer rights than straight people is inexcusably fucking heinous in the first place, but the hypocrisy makes it that much worse.

I don't think you know what the word "hypocrite" means.

Someone can say, "I don't agree that the government should require employers to offer maternity leave," and take maternity leave herself, without being a hypocrite.

I've used this illustration before: In Monopoly, the official rules state clearly that "Free Parking" is simply a resting place -- there is no penalty, and no reward, for landing on it. But many people have "house rules" in which fines paid to the bank and even house payments go instead into the Free Parking pot, and landing on that square becomes a lottery win.

I hate those rules. I always argued strongly against playing with them.

But if the issue was decided against me, of course I took the money if I landed on Free Parking. To do otherwise would have been a tremendous disadvantage in the game.

There is, in other words, a distinction between arguing for what the public policy should be, and using the existing public policy to your personal advantage. You may take contrary positions on those two poles without being hypocritical.

[Inner Stickler]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drake

So, no, I don't think it was fair to out the bastard. You knew you were dating a closeted man, and if you couldn't say, "I'm sorry, I won't date a hypocrite, I won't date a man who hates himself on any level, and I won't date a coward," you should have respected his closet door.

See, my thought is, if you're going to stick your cock out of the closet, don't be surprised if someone grabs it and yanks.

[Dr. Drake]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

See, my thought is, if you're going to stick your cock out of the closet, don't be surprised if someone grabs it and yanks.

Being closeted does not mean never having gay sex. Being closeted means pretending you are a heterosexual in the heterosexual community, and only being gay (or only having gay sex, it depends on the person) within the protected space created by gay venues. In 1950, there wasn't much else people could do. In 2012, I think it's counterproductive, but I can understand people who grew up with 1950 attitudes, values, and fears. I understand them, but I won't indulge them.

I think if you date a closet case, or even have a one-off fling, you're helping them perpetuate a system that was once functional but is ultimately harmful. It sounds like, in this case, Mr. Southworth knew Mr. Merritt's situation. More fool him for even engaging in discussion.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drake

Being closeted does not mean never having gay sex. Being closeted means pretending you are a heterosexual in the heterosexual community, and only being gay (or only having gay sex, it depends on the person) within the protected space created by gay venues. In 1950, there wasn't much else people could do. In 2012, I think it's counterproductive, but I can understand people who grew up with 1950 attitudes, values, and fears. I understand them, but I won't indulge them.

I suspect this guy's immediate community is 1950s or worse. Maybe 1650s.

[Inner Stickler]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drake

Being closeted does not mean never having gay sex.

Yes it does. If you're having gay sex, you're out of the closet to at least one person. If that's too much of a risk to bear, stay home with Ricky Palm.

That being said, I have no interest in having a relationship with men in the closet and don't have much time for those that do.

[Dr. Drake]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

Yes it does. If you're having gay sex, you're out of the closet to at least one person. If that's too much of a risk to bear, stay home with Ricky Palm.

That being said, I have no interest in having a relationship with men in the closet and don't have much time for those that do.

I think you're wrong about the meaning of "closeted" within the gay community, but I totally agree with you otherwise.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by bup

Perhaps the point is moot, but how anti-gay is he?

I don't think its moot. Given that most people's opinion seems to be that the morality of de-closeting someone depends on that person having taken a vocal anti-gay stance, I think people who think outing Merrit was OK should have to show that he's actually taken such a stance.

[Simplicio]

Here's an article by Merrit that comes pretty close to saying homosexuality isn't a sin and that evangelical churches should soften their stance against it.

I don't think Merrit is particularly anti-gay in his writings, and in the above article he at least flirts with being pro-gay. So outing him was unethical and Southworth is an ass.

[panache45]

Originally Posted by Rachellelogram

I think this comment from the link posted in the OP merits reposting:

"Before you people feel so sorry for this guy. You might want to think of all the lives he has hurt, all the young kids he has made feel ashamed of themselves because of who they are. How many suicides his words helped with.

"How much damage he has done. Then you look at me and say you feel sorry for him, he got what he deserved and maybe he will change his life now but at least his words won't make an impact anymore.

"So I feel sorry for the young gay people that he has tormented and I hope they are doing well today."

This. These are the worst kind of hypocrites. They not only diminish their own lives, but influence the lives of others, especially young people. Gay kids already have so much to fight against, these guys are often doing irreparable harm, and should be exposed.

[TriPolar]

I'm not sure why fairness should apply to someone who espouses a philosophy of unfairness. It's not government action, so if the facts align with story, it doesn't bother me. It's not exactly right in a lot of senses, but it's just not wrong enough to concern me in any way.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by TriPolar

I'm not sure why fairness should apply to someone who espouses a philosophy of unfairness.

Where has Merrit "espoused a philosophy of unfairness"?

[Simplicio]

Another article by Merrit. Is Prop 8 the Culture War's Last Stand.

Again, he opines that anti-gay sentiment amonst evangelicals is dying out with the "old guard" and again, while he doesn't explicitly take a stance, the article generally seems to approve of the phenomenon.

[Revtim]

In general, is it fair to say that if Person X publicly works against people of Type Y, but is secretly also a Type Y person, it's appropriate to out Person X as being Type Y? Regardless of what Type Y is?

I think so. But if I know the SDMB, someone will come up with example Type that doesn't apply...

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

Where has Merrit "espoused a philosophy of unfairness"?

That's the implication in the OP. That's why I said "if the facts align with the story". I have no idea who the guy is or what he's said.

[bup]

Originally Posted by panache45

This. These are the worst kind of hypocrites. They not only diminish their own lives, but influence the lives of others, especially young people. Gay kids already have so much to fight against, these guys are often doing irreparable harm, and should be exposed.

Except I'm not at all sure Merritt is one of these guys. He's honest about having gay urges, and having acted on them, and sincerely believes that acting on them was a sin, and doesn't believe he's condemned to hell, that Jesus still loves him, etc.

I think he's wrong that it's a sin, but I doubt if this guy has driven any gay teen to suicide. He doesn't say that gays should hate themselves.

[Living Well Is Best Revenge]

It's completely fair.

[Inner Stickler]

Really? Because I think he's an insidious snake in the grass.

[PandaBear77]

Shitty thing to do. And I definitely don't buy the "it gives me no pleasure to do this" crocodile tears he cried on his blog.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Revtim

In general, is it fair to say that if Person X publicly works against people of Type Y, but is secretly also a Type Y person, it's appropriate to out Person X as being Type Y? Regardless of what Type Y is?

I think so. But if I know the SDMB, someone will come up with example Type that doesn't apply...

Major Smith is a British OSS officer, secretly working in Nazi Germany, on Heinrich Himmler's staff. Should the British Press "out" him?

(Grin! Just because I love a challenge!)

[WisdomofLife]

Mixed feelings on this. On one hand if someone (like Merritt) has a secret of being in the closet or having any secret, they better do a good hiding it if don't want to be found out. If they are found, anyone in the closet or has a secret should be prepre to take the consequences of their actions. On the other hand, Southworth (the revealing party) also needs to face the consequences of the revealing and explaining why they believe to out someone/reveal the secret. Also, I think the public need to respect the decisons on how the out person handles the matter if the out person did it with grace.

It sounds like to me that Southworth is bad that he got rejected by Merritt in their relationship, or he wants to make himself a top dog in the LGBT movement. I think that the person in the closet should reveal themselves about the sexuality on their own and not be forced into unless there are serious legal issues or moral issues involve that might harm someone (such as sexual abuse or someone having a STD).

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by astro

Is closet privacy sacrosanct or not, or is it only for those with opinions we approve of?

I've zero moral issue with the outing of people who actively and publicly indulge in gay bashing (same thing, obviously with any similar example of public hypocrisy)


On the other hand, I'm vehemently opposed to disclosing informations about the private life of people who aren't engaged in preaching against what they're themselves doing. To give an extremely common example, I think that "movie star Smith has a new lover, pictures inside" is distasteful. With whom a politician/actor/whatever is sleeping is none of other people's business.


So, ban people magazines, and out gay gay-bashers, and I'll be perfectly happy.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

I don't think its moot. Given that most people's opinion seems to be that the morality of de-closeting someone depends on that person having taken a vocal anti-gay stance, I think people who think outing Merrit was OK should have to show that he's actually taken such a stance.

Since the title identified him as "prominent anti-gay blogger", I took it at face value, not knowing the guy. Anyway, I answered in general terms.

[Inner Stickler]

He's said that he's against the legalization of same-sex marriage and that homosexuality is sinful. He hits all the same talking points as any other homophobic conservative asshole, he just does it sans the electric fence rhetoric which makes people feel that he's moderate in his views rather than just as hateful as the rest of them.

[clairobscur]

By the way, is the picture in the first link depicting Jonathan Merritt? I was picturing some ugly, frowning old man.

If it's his picture, he should indulge wildly in gayness, while he can benefit from his great look. His current occupation is obviously a waste of good material. Maybe that was the ulterior motive of the outer?

[Weeping Wyvern]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I don't think you know what the word "hypocrite" means.

Someone can say, "I don't agree that the government should require employers to offer maternity leave," and take maternity leave herself, without being a hypocrite.

I've used this illustration before: In Monopoly, the official rules state clearly that "Free Parking" is simply a resting place -- there is no penalty, and no reward, for landing on it. But many people have "house rules" in which fines paid to the bank and even house payments go instead into the Free Parking pot, and landing on that square becomes a lottery win.

I hate those rules. I always argued strongly against playing with them.

But if the issue was decided against me, of course I took the money if I landed on Free Parking. To do otherwise would have been a tremendous disadvantage in the game.

There is, in other words, a distinction between arguing for what the public policy should be, and using the existing public policy to your personal advantage. You may take contrary positions on those two poles without being hypocritical.

You make a very good point.

Now as someone who believes all homosexual acts are immoral, I don't think there's much of a moral difference between a closeted homosexual and an open homosexual. (Although obviously it's wrong for anyone to explicitly lie about his life.) And I can definitely sympathize with a homosexual who holds to traditional beliefs on sexual morality, and acts to support those beliefs in his public life, yet occasionally succumbs to committing certain acts to gratify his reproductive hormones. His sin is not his alleged hypocrisy, but his erotic adventures. And meanwhile, from the LGBT perspective, he should be condemned for his evil bigotry, not for his sex life. Likewise I don't think it would be hypocritical for a divorced politician to vote for banning divorce, if he recognizes that his divorce was wrong and that having the law will prevent other people from making the same mistake he made. I would also approve of open homosexuals who publicly work to support traditional beliefs on sexual morality, of course, but for obvious reasons I rather doubt many of those exist.

Anyhow, I'm a bit puzzled why people seem to gleefully point to cases of "closeted gay bigots" as propaganda victories. It seems to me that they should actually be embarrassments for the LGBT community, for they show that even some homosexuals do not support the social and political goals of the movement.

[YogSosoth]

I hate hypocrites, homophobes, and religious nuts. So yes, if a gay-hating religious ass is gay, I would be fine with, and fully support outing him.

Talks of privacy or respect is cheap. When someone is actively trying to hide behind a wall of hate while still trying to secretly enjoy the object of that hatred, and making it difficult for others to enjoy it, then that's an attack and deserves to be countered.

Nobody would say that if a person is lying about something, like taxes, that it would be wrong to out him as a tax cheat. All of the misplaced sympathy is for gay people as a whole, who have it more difficult than straights, and so people who are gay and like gays have this misguided notion of camaraderie with the gay homophobe. Some of them think that by killing them with kindness, they can get them to change their mind. However, being gay doesn't automatically make you a good person. These hypocrites are as odious as they would be if they were straight. So out them, hit them where it hurts, turn their hatred as a weapon on them. Either they will be hurt by it or change their mind, but either way the result is positive

[boytyperanma]

Almost daily I get pictures on my facebook feed of gay events, the patrons of gay bars and clubs. In the past someone pulling out a camera at a club would be a huge offense as it had the potential to out anyone there. Now it's a casual event.

Personally limiting ones actions to avoid outing someone else is a dying concept. I'm not even sure if this is a change in the gay community or just a change in our society in general. Keeping other peoples secrets secret doesn't seem to carry much importance anymore.

I'm not sure how people seem to think it's fair to tell one man he shouldn't talk about a previous fling.

I'm very upfront about my refusal to go out with or even hook up with closeted men. I have no interest in dealing with their emotional shame nor do I have any interest in being forced to lie on their behalf.

If managed to hook up with a prominent-anti gay blogger. His hope of remaining in the closet is over.

[j666]

Absolutely not.

Everyone is entitled to privacy, and everyone should be able to trust a ... canoodlee ... to be discreet. If we did not have that, we would have to give up sex.

I didn't care who Clinton had sex with; I didn't care who Bush pere had sex with; I did not care who Gary Hart had sex with, just that he was an idiot.

I do not care who [what is his name?] Mr. Merritt did, did not, or did not quite have sex with.

It is none of my business, just like it is none of my business with whom anyone has sex ... unless I am married to one of the parties; then I think it is my business.

It is a tragedy this poor man is so conflicted about his sexuality, but it is still none of my business.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Is he actually anti-gay? The Chick-fil-A piece is written from a non-gay but certainly not anti-gay perspective.

[Sampiro]

I think Merritt thought he could work from within to open the gates and make the evangelical church friendlier. I would love to have been in his father's megachurch this weekend when he spoke to the congregation just to know what he said.

It will be interesting to see whether he emerges from this "here, queer, and Christian, it's raining man-na!" or Ted Haggard "But I'm much better now!" Either way, I think he's about to learn that the evangelicals have no desire to reach out to him or any other gay, at least not until they show sufficient self hatred.

[Sampiro]

I don't have any gushing of sympathy for Merritt, for he did preach (and probably believes) the "homo is sinful" school that leads to so much suffering, but as he was not actively on the bashing end I do have some. I think his outer- Azariah Southworth- is a tool who did this more for publicity for himself and his blog (if you know his own story, I think he really misses the limelight) than for real exalted notions of justice.

As a no-value-added non sequitur, Azariah Southworth reminds me a bit in looks of Wil Wheaton. Anybody else see it?

[YogSosoth]

Originally Posted by j666

Absolutely not.

Everyone is entitled to privacy, and everyone should be able to trust a ... canoodlee ... to be discreet. If we did not have that, we would have to give up sex.

I didn't care who Clinton had sex with; I didn't care who Bush pere had sex with; I did not care who Gary Hart had sex with, just that he was an idiot.

I do not care who [what is his name?] Mr. Merritt did, did not, or did not quite have sex with.

It is none of my business, just like it is none of my business with whom anyone has sex ... unless I am married to one of the parties; then I think it is my business.

It is a tragedy this poor man is so conflicted about his sexuality, but it is still none of my business.

There's much more to it than that. These closet homophobes are often the ones shouting the loudest and working to ban gay marriage and restrict gay rights. While I totally agree that it was completely irrelevant whether or not Clinton was getting some on the side, the same thing doesn't hold true for politicians and people who want to ban the act they secretly practice.

That's why, in all fairness, I give Democrats a pass. We don't try to pass laws restricting gays from marriage, or tell people they can't have certain types of sex. We have our own values but understand there's a limit to practicing them and forcing them on others through puritanical laws.

Anyone who pretends to be a family-values public figure, and tries to enforce those values through laws and creates hateful bigoted laws affects me. Their lives then become fodder for me and anyone else to sift through to find contradictions.

[Leaper]

I'm surprised no one else's commented on this yet:

Originally Posted by Weeping Wyvern

Anyhow, I'm a bit puzzled why people seem to gleefully point to cases of "closeted gay bigots" as propaganda victories. It seems to me that they should actually be embarrassments for the LGBT community, for they show that even some homosexuals do not support the social and political goals of the movement.

I dispute that it shows any such thing. For one thing, as you yourself say in the first sentence above, they are "bigots." For another, it's greatly about the reasons they "do not support... the movement." For another, why does a movement need to have unanimous support from all people it affects to have legitimacy? Is Christianity built on a house of cards because not every single church and denomination think exactly the same thing on social and political issues of the day? For another... Well, I could go on, but I'll let someone else pick it up if they want.

[ratatoskK]

Originally Posted by Onomatopoeia

I have no problem with Christians who are Gay. I have no problem with Christian evangelists who are Gay. I have no problem with Christian evangelists who are Gay and feel the need to hide their homosexuality. I do have a problem with hypocrisy.

+1

[Sampiro]

Here's a video clip of Merritt discussing the NC minister who advocated concentration camps. He calls that minister and several others unChristian , states they commit hate speech, and voices his complete disdain for them and calls on Christians for greater tolerance.

The two things that stand out above all else are

1- He's about as far from your typical Bible beating homophobe as you can get to still think gay is a sin

2- How in the hell did anybody not figure out he was gay a long time ago? He's flaming.

I think Southworth was not only a dick to out him, but that even divorcing the ethics of it and looking at it solely as a move to get some publicity it was ill-timed; he should have waited til Merritt did something more high profile or said something more controversial (and this is an election year- how long would he realistically have to wait)? That said, I'm very interested to see what Merritt's preaching a year from now.