Jim Wallis of Sojourners stabs gays in back on immigration reform

Jim Wallis, a longtime social justice advocate and the founder and editor of Sojourners, teamed up with infamous gay-haters, the Southern Baptist Convention and the National Association of Evangelicals, to demand that gay couples be banned from immigration reform.

Feel free to contact Wallis via Twitter and Facebook (organization page, and Wallis personal page on Facebook).

Wallis, incredibly, organized a media conference call with renowned gay-hater and right-wing knuckle-dragger Richard Land of the Baptists (who famously claimed that women who get an abortion are psychologically impaired) in order to kill any effort to address the problems gay couples face with immigration.

After Land spoke on the call, Wallis jumped in:

Added Jim Wallis, head of the Christian social justice group Sojourners: “This is the wrong place at the wrong time” to deal with the issue of gay marriage.

Way to lend legitimacy to two of the most hateful, intolerant, un-Christian groups in America, Mr. Wallis.

Jim Wallis, the religious right's beard.

Jim Wallis, the religious right’s beard.

Jim Wallis echoes religious right language on gays

For the record, it’s not about “gay marriage,” Mr. Wallis.

It’s about gay couples being ripped apart by the US immigration system because their relationships aren’t recognized as legitimate.  If they were straight, their spouses could stay. But because they’re gay, they can’t.  So spare us the Rush-Limbaugh Gary-Bauer Rick-Santorum talking points about how we’re pushing for “gay marriage” in the immigration bill.  We’re fighting for the immigration rights of our loved ones.

Wallis might as well accuse us of seeking “special rights,” now that’s he’s the religious right’s water-boy of bigotry.

And one more point on this whole “gay marriage” thing.  Jim Wallis only came around on gay marriage a month ago.  So pardon me if we’re not very interested in Jim Wallis’ “expert” opinion on a civil right he couldn’t even stomach four weeks ago.

This isn’t comprehensive immigration reform

At least we can thank Jim Wallis for confirming our worst fears, and making it official.

This legislation isn’t “comprehensive immigration reform.”  It’s not intended to address the problems American families face with immigration.  It’s not intended to make things more fair.  It’s intended to help Republicans with their Latino problem, and the rest of America be damned.

Call it the “Rubio 2016″ Act, since apparently no one is permitted to benefit from immigration reform unless Marco Rubio is wooing their votes for his presidential run in four years.  Could the Democrats be any more gullible, thinking the GOP is doing us a favor by maybe kinda sorta supporting a bill they’re actually desperate to have.

I had warned weeks ago that the fix was in, and that the professional left in town didn’t want gay Americans to benefit from immigration reform.  And Jim Wallis just proved it.  He didn’t go out on a limb, and repudiate decades of civil rights work, in order to help Richard Land.  He did it to help the mainstream progressive groups and Democratic politicians, his silent allies in this betrayal.

Would Jim Wallis do a conference call with the Klan?

One wonders just how low Jim Wallis is willing to go.

Would Wallis team up with the Klan if Republicans didn’t want black people to benefit from immigration reform? And they don’t. The Congressional Black Caucus is hopping mad about their concerns about fair immigration not being addressed in this bill.

Should we be expecting a conference call with Jim Wallis and the Grand Wizard any time now? Or do Jim Wallis and Sojourners only make an ecclesiastical exception to their “progressive” morality when it comes to bashing gays?

Gays are not equal members of the Democratic family

It’s clear in 2013 that gay Americans are not an equal member of the Democratic coalition. We’re fools.  The Democrats use us for our money, and as a foil to make Republicans look intolerant to suburban moms and youth.  And it’s increasingly looking like Latino and immigration groups used us to rally our community’s support for legislation that we’re apparently too embarrassing to even be included in.

In my nearly 30 years in Washington, DC, I’ve never seen a community invited to be a partner of a coalition that finds them so utterly icky.  It’s the old Groucho Marx joke in reverse: We only care to help the club that can’t stomach us.

Jim Wallis and Sojourners have a history of anti-gay prejudice

As for Jim Wallis, we always knew that some in the civil rights movement didn’t accept our civil rights as real civil rights.  So it’s no wonder that Sojourners and Wallis are stabbing us in the back.

After all, Sojourners famously banned an ad two years ago that was simply welcoming of gays in church.  That notion, that churches should welcome gays, was too much for Sojourners – who called that ad “gay marriage” too (it seems that’s the stock answer at Sojourners whenever supporting civil rights becomes hard work).

And to this day, Sojourners’ diversity statement still glaringly omits any reference to gay or trans people.  Just like in the immigration bill, gays are best left a silent partner when it comes to Jim Wallis and Sojourners, and their supposed support for civil rights and social justice.

So while we’re saddened by Jim Wallis’ embrace of bigots and bigotry, we’re not surprised.  Jim Wallis has clearly had a problem with gays for a while.  The man was against gay marriage until only for weeks ago.  And we’re seeing today just how sincere Wallis’ “embrace” of marriage equality really is.

Jim Wallis is fine with gay marriage, so long as nobody actually has one.

Sojourners contact information:

Twitter@Sojourners (the organization)
@JimWallis (the top guy)
@tmking (his PR guy)

Sojourner’s Facebook page.

Tim King, Chief Communications Officer
Phone: 202-328-8842
Fax: 202-328-8757
E-mail: [email protected]

Brian P. Duss, Director of Communications
o. (202) 745-4615
c. (202) 997-0184
[email protected]


Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Google+. John Aravosis is the editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown (1989); and worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, and as a stringer for the Economist. Frequent TV pundit: O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline & Reliable Sources. Bio, .

Share This Post

  • TJ

    Dolt. That is all.

  • http://funnyoddthing.blogspot.com frizbeesf

    Wow… shouldn’t you be back hiding under your bridge, waiting for goats?
    This is not about same sex marriage, it is about equal treatment under the law for legally MARRIED couples. So by your math and logic, is totally ok to treat some Americans as second class citizens and deny them the same basic rights afforded to other Americans and their legal spouses. The fact you immediately went to “muslim” as an example, and imply giving Americans like me the same rights is somehow connected to the ” inevitable ruin of my country”, shows quite clearly the bridge you slithered out from underneath. http://snd.sc/12wfdHi

  • Stunned

    I am baffled at the logic behind this blog! It is f******* absurd! Same sex marriage is not legal for our natural born citizens, yet Aravosis is suggesting it is logical to allow a freedom on immigrants that is not allowed upon us? This would be the equivalent of telling all the Muslims that they can bring over all the wives they want, without FIRST reforming the idea that polygamy is illegal here in the good ol’ US of A. I’m sure that would go over great with the native Mormons who have been hiding out in compounds and seclusion from society for the past, well forever, and they still wouldnt have the same right btw. So it will be ok for immigrants marriage to be recognized as legal, but you as natives still arent allowed to get married on your own soil? Priorities people!

    My second point is that not to undermine anyone’s feelings or perceived civil rights, but to be practical based on some simple math. If I had a true love and a soulmate that I was not able to sponsor I would be heartbroken and offended (to say the least). However, if it came down to me choosing the inevitable ruin of my country (by immigration reform not being passed) or moving my husband to the US (at this time), I would choose my country. That is a battle I could and would fight the next day and through more appropriate channels. Illegal immigration is a MAJOR issue to this country all the way from the economy (employment, social security, inflation, housing, etc) right down to elections; it affects 100% of the population on a huge scale as well as all our future generations. Now 3% of the population is gay. Lets assume that 5% of this 3% is being affected by not being able to sponsor a spouse form another country. My math tells me that equals .15% of the population, and I think I am being generous.

    I am pretty sure this is what Wallis meant by saying gay marriage is not the issue here, and I do not think he was “stabbing homosexuals in the back”, he is just being practical.

    There is a time and a place to fight, and it is always wise to choose your battles.

  • Jay

    Whoever except himself thought that Wallis was a “social justice advocate.” He has always been a bigot. Nothing new here. I remember when he refused a paid ad from a gay group. I thought it was stupid for the gay group to want to pay money to these crazies, but it was no surprise that he refused to publish the ad.

  • http://funnyoddthing.blogspot.com frizbeesf

    Sigh…. I know it is tempting…really tempting to start doing the “I told you so” dance. I scrolled back through my own comments on here over the years and my various criticisms of the Obama Administration, Gay Inc., and the Democratic Party in general, and you hate to feel vindicated because there is nothing good about being right on this.

    I’ll be honest, the reason my husband and I finally gave up waiting for the “audacity of change” and he sponsored me to immigrate to the UK was… we knew (okay…. we strongly felt…) that the Democratic Party would fold like a cheap card table on this issue. And the sad truth is, why shouldn’t they? There is no price to pay, because the LGBT community really doesn’t have any other place else to go.

    (Before I get slammed with comments from Green Party folks, let’s be clear, The Greens, bless their little hearts, are still not YET a viable national party, I donate money to the Greens, I have even voted for local CA Green Party Candidates , but on this issue, at this time, the Greens are not in any position to help anytime soon.. sorry we all wish they were, but back to reality okay?)

    So like it or not, the Dems are what we got. Because the alternative is nothing less than sheer and utter disaster. The Democrats may not want to help us, but they are not promoting laws that say we all should be put to death, like the GOP is doing in Africa. The GOP platform clearly states they want legalized discrimination against us enshrined in the US Constitution. Yes the Democrats can be weak spineless, cowards at times, but the Republicans are full of Gay Sex Obsessed bat sh*t crazy closet cases, who feel bashing us is the way to cure themselves. (Paging Lindsey Graham….)

    I don’t know what the answer here is, as fun as it is to say let’s take a page for the tea bagger manual and start primary challenges against folks like Schumer, you have to ask how effective would that really be?

    So yeah, I’m feeling a wee bit depressed today, over this past week I have called, emailed and even written actual letters to every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee (Even good ol’ Jeff Sessions) sharing our story and how the inclusion of same sex couples in Immigration reform is not only the right thing to do, it is the AMERICAN thing to do. ( http://www.domaproject.org/2013/03/doma-exiles-dave-and-eric-urge-president-obama-bring-us-home.html )

    Yet when Senators like Schumer and Feinstein stab us in the back, what’s the use? Is the answer to wait until all 50 states finally pass same sex marriage? I am thrilled about Delaware and now potentially Minnesota, but that road seems like it could take another decade or more… Are the courts really the only way to go here?

  • PDQ

    @John Aravosis: “It’s clear in 2013 that gay Americans are not an equal member of the
    Democratic coalition. We’re fools. The Democrats use us for our money….”

    Ummmm….Yeahhhhh!!! This is no surprise and it applies from the top right on down. Obama isn’t our friend and never was. He throws a few crumbs our way, he watches us all get excited over his “progress”, he collects our donations and then reverts back to his true form.

    Albert Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. By that definition, the power-gays involved with organizations like HRC (and many gay bloggers too) are certifiably, bat-shit insane.

    Stop donating to these fools. Stop working for their election. Until there’s an actual record of progress on our issues that they have had a hand in creating, just STOP!

  • Fifi

    Yep. It’s pegged all the way to the right, something stiff.

  • J in K

    That came off more dickish than I realized it would. It’s just general frustration at high profile “progressives” that continue to promote Trojaners despite what’s been posted here and several other websites over the past few years. There are several other religious and secular groups that really are what Wallis pretends to be but they never get the platform that he does.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Markus-Hayden-Sutherland/1634126207 Markus Hayden Sutherland

    When Wallis FINALLY gave tentative support to marriage equality a few months ago I went out of my way to say I didn’t trust him or his contorted, labored reasoning. I begged people not to trust this snake in the grass. It looks like I was exactly right!

  • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

    This article left me sickened. Many, many years ago the Sojourners were a path of spiritualism and civic reformation and now, to be de-evolved into a focus hate group. —simply awful. Does anyone’s gaydar go off the meter looking at Jim Wallis?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stanley-James/503792594 Stanley James

    interesting – long but puts the issues of hte right winger extremists out in the open. they are essentially the anti christs

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stanley-James/503792594 Stanley James

    teh southern baptists have a program where they train peoplle to go out and poison the well of churcches that become liberal/ progressive

    They are of course- the so. baps – the church that gave us slavery and segregation

    the so. baps are a spinoff of the old dutch church of Apartheid in south africa . too bad we cant send their leaders to the gulag

    so baptist leader mike (the huckster) huclebee “we’ve got to get them to pray, if needed at the point of a gun” to a confence called “renewing god in america.”

    He’d fit in well with the islamc extremists who murder apostates.

    HIs comment seems to be plagerized from “Poliical power grows out of the barrel of a gun”

    (Mao tse TSung – the great leap forward (to hell) – china – about 1960)

  • UncleBucky

    Right, Jim, above I have outlined a way to distinguish Jesus from “Jesus Christ” from “Machine Gun Jesus”.

    And let me add another comment, since you cite the fine work done by UCC, The Episcopal Church, ELCA and other similar groups.

    Believers pretty much go for what is told to them if the beliefs don’t create a disharmony with what one experiences in life. Thus, my Catholic catechism was finely compartmentalized until I saw so many examples of contradictions between “God is Love” and what religionists around me were doing and saying. As a result, I and probably many people deduced that the “god” the religionists were “worshipping” was not really the God of Love or Abba that Jesus was talking about, but rather an angry confection of leaders who were trying to establish their authority and power through strategies of fear and intimidation. It was THEIR “sky god” that many of us said, “no way, I don’t believe in that”, although there wasn’t a strong enough (in my mind) alternative by Progressive Christians or the Christian Left. So, while any intelligent person now realizes that the Being in the White Beard doesn’t exist and couldn’t exist as in the Bible stories and paintings/murals, many people admit that the Earth, the Sun and the Universe, while being quite violent as care givers, deserve some wonder and contemplation beyond being mere atoms and molecules like everything else.

    So, I continue to say I like Jesus more than any thumper, but I have never seen the hand of God (if exist) except as a metaphoric or poetic reaction to the wonder of the Universe/Multiverse. I see no conflict with a skeptical view as that, and there is no evidence that one or another “transgressions” of thumper beliefs has ever resulted in death and destruction from an angry “deity”.

    Lucretius (in part, as summaried by Stephen Greenblatt in “The Swerve…”):
    18. The highest goal of human life is the enhancement of pleasure and the reduction of pain.
    19. The greatest obstacle to pleasure is not pain; it’s delusion (false religion).
    20. Understanding the nature of things generates deep wonder.
    (I have no relation with the authors or their publishers).

    Best,

    UB.

  • UncleBucky

    Hey, I think that your post could actually be divided three ways.

    1. First of all, any TRUE follower of the REAL Jesus would map completely on Progressive agendas, even with those people who admit agnostic or atheist views. Lucretius/Epicurus and Jesus do not have that much tension really against one another. Pleasure/happiness jibes completely with the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, if one doesn’t get too fussy about afterlife nonsense that gets confused with social fairness and communitarianism of Jesus’s message.

    2. Then there are “Christians”, who in my mind can exist along a range from purely Jesus stuff (The Way, etc., Beatitudes, Parables, Lord’s Prayer up to but not incl. the “doxology”, related passages and the Letter of James) to Paul’s “Jesus Christ”, with which he overlayed on top of the REAL Jesus’s messages like a precursor of a Joe Smith and his “Mormon Jesus”. Both Paul and Joe Smith admit to seeing visions of Jesus and then creating a religion around those visions/beliefs.

    3. _christianISM_ or the cult that racists, haters, and psychopaths create by melding their social prejudices with cherry-picked OT or even NT verses. From as early as 312 CE (Battle of the Milvian Bridge – IN HOC SIGNO VINCES) to the present with similar “Crosses” or Chi-Rho’s being placed on shields or wrapped with the Flag, christianISTs have taken Paul’s “Jesus Christ”, and their clever “leaders” have made a Machine Gun Jesus or a Punishing Christ to scare the living daylights out of ignorant people who disagree with them.

    So, according to the Christian Left, one can be a very authentic Progressive and be a follower of Jesus or even a “Christian”, but I would say that there is no such thing as a progressive christianIST.
    http://www.thechristianleft.org/ (for information only, I ain’t shilling for them).

    :)

  • News Nag

    Jim Wallis is the snotty camel’s nose sticking under the liberal/progressive tent. He’s anti-gay and anti-women. He’s anti-abortion rights. His is the kind of social conscience that does more harm than good by subliminally pulling the country toward religious intolerance. While pretending to be a very, very good man, he supports at the core the worst instincts of an intolerant society in wanting to strip women and gays of their natural born rights. He is a male chauvinist patriarch. Don’t let him trick you into thinking he’s a decent fellow. He’s the devil in the details.

  • Jim Olson

    This is not entirely true, nicho. Many of us are both Christian and Progressive, and are working very hard within our little part of Christianity to make that the case. The UCC, The Episcopal Church, The ELCA, and other denominations have many people who are Progressive and are working to make sure that our denominations are as well.

  • Skeptical Cicada

    Yes, but that approach is inconsistent with the states’ rights theory that Kennedy seems to like in the DOMA case and probably would be as unconstitutional as DOMA.
    What is with this rush to give congressional Dems permission to screw bi-national gay couples?

  • FLL

    It’s good that immigration works that way now. As long as a Supreme Court ruling overturning DOMA doesn’t alter the current practice, all is well. I just have a healthy respect for the complete latitude the Supreme Court has. In many countries, the ruling in Bush v. Gore would not have been possible.

  • nicho

    You can pretend to be both Christian and Progressive, but when the shit hits the fan, you have to choose one or the other.

  • Stev84

    >”The Supreme Court could instruct the federal government to consider a
    marriage legal for immigration purposes if the marriage was legal where
    it was celebrated”

    They don’t need to because that’s how immigration already works. There are a few laws that are different (like Social Security), but immigration boards only look at where it was celebrated. There are several gay couples that have had such hearings and they didn’t make any fuss about that part.

  • FLL

    Maybe, maybe not. The Supreme Court could instruct the federal government to consider a marriage legal for immigration purposes if the marriage was legal where it was celebrated. In that case, a same-sex binational couple could get married in New York, for example, but later move to a state without marriage equality with no immigration difficulties. The problem is that the Supreme Court justices can rule any way they please. The Court could also instruct the federal government to only consider a marriage legal for immigration purposes if the marriage is legal where the same-sex couple currently resides. In that case, a same-sex binational couple who were legally married in a marriage equality state would not be able to move to a state without marriage equality without risking deportation. Straight couples don’t have that potential problem anywhere in the country. Feels a little different when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn’t it?

  • http://profiles.google.com/nogodsnomastersliberty Mary O’Grady

    Wasn’t Jim Wallis supposed to be Mr. Nice Guy Jeebusite? So much for that.

  • http://AMERICAblog.com/ John Aravosis

    If.

  • caphillprof

    It’s way to late for the Congress to be legislating rank discrimination.

  • http://twitter.com/sipples Timothy Sipples

    That’s the political calculus among some legislators right now, that they can purposefully exclude same sex married couples from any/all legislation because (they think) the U.S. Supreme Court will take care of matters soon and require the federal government to treat all legally married couples equally.

    If that’s the calculus, OK, then the price is that immigration legislation must wait until next month when the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on DOMA. In the meantime, Jim Wallis and others should not be saying stupid things, and this aspect of immigration legislation should be “held open” if they can’t bring themselves to agree that same sex couples deserve the same rights. Or, better yet, just write the words “legally married” in the legislation and don’t elaborate.

  • samiinh

    If DOMA is found unconstitutional, won’t this issue become moot?

  • FunMe

    I hope this post gets highlighted on Thursday. Remember, 10AM Tues – 3PM Thurs is the best time to get major exposure to stories. Keep it up and keep it going! :-)

  • No Reform

    How absolutely sickening….get out!! Go back to the rain forrest.

  • No Reform

    Yuuuk….aids carrying freaks is really of no concern to Americans…please ho home
    to mexico…..complete freaks.

  • No Reform

    Yuuuuk Sodomites!!! How disgusting…..these “gays” willbe ripped apart?
    Just have the one up here go home to mexico…

  • http://AMERICAblog.com/ John Aravosis

    But people think they are. When I was at CDF years ago, Sojourners walked on water. It’s important to educate people that they, and Wallis, are not civil rights heroes or even social justice advocates. They’re bigots.

  • J in K

    There is nothing “progressive” about Sojourners and I’m not shocked to see Wallis sticking the knife in our backs yet again. He made it pretty clear during the ad flap that he doesn’t consider LGBT rights as real civil rights.

© 2014 AMERICAblog News. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS