Box Turtle Bulletin

NY Marriage Vote Today? (Ctd)

Those of you who were hoping for a vote on same-sex marriage in the New York Senate yesterday are probably wondering what happened. Well here’s the scoop: the vote was put off until today. The Senate reconvenes at 10:00 am EST. The Assembly late last night re-passed the marriage bill. Taking another vote during this special session removes any possible procedural obstacle to the bill being sent to the Governor for his signature should the Senate pass in this session.

Going Rove In Uganda

American political strategist and Bush Administration adviser Karl Rove was famous for his use of wedge politics to drive voters to conservative causes. He became so famous for it that his name became an adjective to describe that style of campaigning: Rovian. If you want to turn out voters to get behind your cause, make sure there’s something for them to vote against, a wedge that pits one segment of voters against their own better judgment. And nothing is wedgier than gays. A rash of anti-gay marriage amendments in 2004 have long been regarded, rightly or wrongly, as being part of a successful strategy to put Bush over the top in key battleground states.

We may call it Rovian politics, but that doesn’t mean Karl Rove invented it. It has been a staple of political campaigns the world over for centuries. Ugandan political observers detect what we would call Rovian politics at play with the Anti-Homosexuality Act that was introduced in Parliament last month. Anne Mugisha, of the Forum for Democratic Change, observes that “Uganda is in fact on the verge of a political crisis created by the conflict of an authoritarian police state trying to pass for a quasi modern democracy.” And whenever there’s a political crisis, leaders need a convenient scapegoat to provide a distraction from the real problems facing a country, and American anti-gay activists were more than happy to point the way.

The current strongman, President Yoweri Museveni, has won accolades as a reformer for his 1995 Constitution that requires elections every five years. Museveni has also been behind numerous moves to subvert and change that same constitution (including the removal of its mandated term limits), and this has allowed him to retain the power that he has held since overthrowing his predecessor in a 1986 civil war. But despite his authoritarian credentials, his reputation as a reformer has somehow remained intact. And to keep it that way he has to have elections every five years — 2011 will be another election year — and he has no intention of losing even if a few gay people have to be put to death in the process.

The elections are two years out, but observers note that Uganda’s Parliament is already busying itself with the kind of populist measures to burnish the government’s reputation that voters have come to expect in advance of national elections. But Uganda’s notorious corruption can’t be covered over by another round of popular land reform measures. Wedge politics, according to observers, are also re-appearing after lying dormant since the last elections in 2006, and political leaders are turning to new scapegoats to prop up their popularity. 

At a forum held in Makerere University two weeks ago, Law Professor Sylvia Tamale observed that gays make a great scapegoat. “Anyone who cares to read history books,” she remarked,  “knows very well that in times of crisis, when people at the locus of power are feeling vulnerable and their power is being threatened, they will turn against the weaker groups in society.” She reiterated that in her column published on November 3 in the government opposition paper The Daily Monitor:

Politicians find that homosexuals are a great scapegoat or red herring to divert attention to more pressing issues that affect the ordinary Ugandan such as unemployment, corruption, poor health facilities, reform of electoral laws and so forth. If we are to be absolutely honest with ourselves, we should ask whether there are not more pressing issues of moral violation in other areas such as domestic violence, torture and corruption. None of these areas have specific laws outlawing their practice. That is where the likes of Hon. (David) Bahati (chief sponsor of the Anti-Homosexuality Act) should expend their energies.

Writing for tomorrow’s edition of The Daily Monitor, Augustine Rizindana observes that Museveni’s gay bashing isn’t meant to solve any actual problems which Uganda faces, but is instead a blatant attempt to distract voters from endemic corruption and mismanagement that has been hallmarks of his 23-year rule:

Why does the government and Parliament find the Anti-Homosexual Bill more of a priority than the electoral bills and other governance issues? Already homosexuality is a criminal offence as a “crime against nature” in the Penal Code and marriage is defined in the Constitution as between man and woman. The life and death sentences introduced in the new Bill are to impress an external constituency critical for regime survival.

He doesn’t name the “external constituency critical for regime survival” but Anne Mugisha reminds us to look elsewhere for the bigger picture. Wedge politics may be in play here, but that’s not the whole story. It’s not about David Bahati, a member of Museveni’s ruling party who is the chief sponsor of the Anti-Homosexuality bill. And it’s not just about Museveni winning yet another election. She says it goes even further than that:

Hon. Bahati is a sitting duck for the LGBT community because he has become the face of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda after he tabled it and his name will forever be linked to the international outrage that Uganda has attracted for proposing to execute gays and lesbians for what the Bill calls aggravated homosexuality. But rights activists need to focus harder and higher on the real source of his inspiration and not just on the Ugandan President but also the fundamentalist interests in the US that sponsor radical right wing idealism in our country.

Click here to see BTB\’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Watch the Atlanta vote

From Fox News:

Gay marriage is not on the ballot in Atlanta today, but the issue could make a difference in the race for Mayor. The ongoing gay marriage and gay rights debate has become a flashpoint in an election that could seat the city’s first white mayor since 1973. Both candidates have been pushed into a struggle to prove who is more gay-friendly to win the coveted vote of Atlanta’s gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) community.

The two candidates, former Georgia State Senator Kasim Reed, who is black, and current City Council member Mary Norwood, who is white, are expected to split the city’s heterosexual votes along racial lines.

But Atlanta has a large gay voting block, about 12% of the populace. And the two candidates are each seeking to appeal to these constituents, hoping they will provide the margin of victory.

Norwood has, as I see it, two advantages. First, unlike Reed who favors civil unions, Norwood has long and vocally supported marriage equality. This should give her at least some advantage.

And secondly, Reed is black.

I am not suggesting that gay people are racists or that they generally vote based on skin color (though, of course, racism is present in the gay community just as it is in every community). However, I think that at this point in time there are increased tensions between the gay community and the African American community. And these tensions are the logical outcome of what appears on the surface to be an aggressive attack on gay people by leaders in the black community.

We look over the recent past and we see that in many, many instances those who are leaders in opposition to gay concerns, be it in DC, Maryland, California, or within the Obama administration, can seem to be disproportionately African American. This may be a product of an effort by white anti-gay activists to direct attention to black preachers in a desire to deflect comparisons of anti-gay animus to racism, but polls consistently show that black Americans are far more favorable of discrimination against gay citizens than are any other racial subgroup.

Although there are many principled and caring African American leaders who are committed to equality for all (who, sadly, don’t receive enough press), there is a perception that black politicians cannot be counted on to support our community. So be it fair or not, I think that race will sway gay voters to Norwood.

If, indeed, the election comes down to the gay vote, I suspect that Norwood will be successful. The question I wonder is: We know that if Reed wins, Fox will see this as a rejection of marriage equality; but will a Norwood victory be declared as Atlanta’s endorsement of same-sex marriage?

The Argentine Marriage Tango

Last month, Judge Gabriela Seijas in Buenos Aires, Argentina, determined that disallowing gay couples the right to marry was unconstitutional. And as the decision applied only to one couple and only in Buenos Aires, once the mayor chose not to object it seemed like the marriage would occur.

So Jose Maria Di Bello and Alex Freyre scheduled today to be their wedding day.

But yesterday, Judge Marta Gomez Alsina, acting on the objection of a third party, put a hold on the wedding stating that the decision should be reviewed by the supreme court.

Today the couple showed up at the Civil Registry arguing that they had not been notified of the hold and that Alsina could not overturn the decision because she is not an appellate judge. Judge Seijas reconfirmed her decision to authorize the ceremony. But the registry did not allow the marriage to occur.

It now appears that the issue will be addressed by the Supreme Court (Buenos Aires Herald):

Supreme Court Justice Carlos Fayt said the highest tribunal is currently analyzing a ruling on the possible legalization of same-sex marriages, as the first gay wedding, scheduled for today, was suspended following an appeals court ruling. The case now awaits a final decision in the hands of the Supreme Court.

The complexities of Argentine law are beyond by knowledge base and cultural and language barriers leave this as unfamiliar as the Argentine Tango. But if I understand correctly, like the Tango there will be a lot of kicking followed by a long proud stride forward.

Prominent NJ Democrats call for marriage vote

Over the summer, our community advocated for a marriage vote in New York and New Jersey.

In New York the House passed marriage equality, but the Senate imploded resulting in months of confusion and a constantly changing power play for control. Now, in special session, there may possibly be some movement on the bill, though there is no certainty of its passage.

In New Jersey, however, we have always known that the votes were there for passing marriage equality. But over the summer, with elections coming up, we were asked for patience. Our community was promised that if we would wait until after the election, the legislature would enact marriage equality during the lame duck session regardless of the election outcome.

Now some are talking of reneging on this promise. They blame Maine.

But I wonder if they have the blame backwards. Would the vote in Maine have gone another way if New York and New Jersey had moved ahead by enacting equality? Would the tone of the discussion have shifted? Would Mainers really have wanted to see themselves as less tolerant than their neighbors in New York or New Jersey? It is one thing to be a bit more conservative than Massachusetts, but Jersey?

Yet there is still hope. Some Democrats in the state are not at all pleased by what they see as promise breaking and spineless weaseling. So a collection of prominent Democrats have signed a letter calling for a vote.

An Open Letter Calling on Democratic Legislators to Post Marriage Equality Legislation for a Vote

We believe that equality and fairness are fundamental principles of New Jersey’s Democratic Party, and that is why we call on the state legislature to vote immediately on, and pass, the marriage equality bill.

New Jersey has a proud history of supporting civil rights. It was this legacy that encouraged many of us to become involved in politics. We believe that allowing committed gay and lesbian couples to marry is, at its core, about treating our family members, friends, coworkers, and neighbors with dignity and respect.

We appreciate that this is a difficult issue for some state legislators. But marriage equality is an idea whose time has come. We are confident that the voters will stand by those elected officials who do the right thing.

When our children and grandchildren look back on this moment, we want to be able to tell them that we, too, did the right thing.

As Martin Luther King poignantly reminded us, “the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.” That is why we’re proud to lend our names and our voices to this important cause. We do so in our capacity as private citizens and Democratic voters, and not on behalf of any particular office or organization.

This effort is important – and will perhaps be effective – because it appears to be a grass-roots effort to rally the support of elected officials. If this is, as it seems, the effort of grass-roots workers and endorsed by power brokers, including congresspersons and mayors, then it could be foolish to ignore. It is very difficult to win elections without the support of either motivated activists or powerful party machines.

NY Marriage Vote Today?

There is a rumor floating in “the ether” that the NY State Senate will vote today on whether to have their state join those who have embraced marriage equality. This vote depends on a resolution to the state budget, an assumption that seem tenuous at the moment.

UPDATE 3: And… it’s been postponed until perhaps tomorrow.

UPDATE 2: It’s on the agenda. WKBW:

The Senate is scheduled to reconvene at 9 p.m., aides said.

On the agenda: the deficit reduction plan and same-sex marriage.

“We’ll vote on gay marriage if there’s enough time,” said one Senate staffer who asked not to be identified.

UPDATE: It looks possible. From the Daily News’ Elizabeth Benjamin

Here’s the strongest sign yet that the gay marriage bill will indeed come to the Senate floor for a vote before the day is over: Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr., the measure’s most outspoken opponent, has retired to his Albany office to pray.

“I don’t know why it has to be done in special session. I don’t know why it has to be today. Is it going to be done? I believe so,” Diaz Sr. told me rather glumly during a brief telephone interview just now.

The Assembly is going to vote (again) favorably on the bill which seems to remove some procedural objection and increases the pressure on the Senate.

D.C. Council Approves Same-Sex Marriage

The Washington Post’s blog D.C. Wire reports that the District City Council has approved same-sex marriage on an  11-2 vote. The council will have to approve it again in two weeks before it goes to Mayor Adrian Fenty for his signature. Mayor Fenty has pledged to sign the bill.

Clinton Condemns Criminalization of Homosexuality

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke out yesterday against attempts abroad to criminalize homosexuality. Without mentioning Uganda specifically, Secretary Clinton said:

Obviously, our efforts are hampered whenever discrimination or marginalization of certain populations results in less effective outreach and treatment. So we will work not only to ensure access for all who need it, but also to combat discrimination more broadly. We have to stand against any efforts to marginalize and criminalize and penalize members of the LGBT community worldwide. It is an unacceptable step backwards — (applause) — on behalf of human rights. But it is also a step that undermines the effectiveness of efforts to fight the disease worldwide.

Eric Goosby, chief coordinator for the President\’s emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), came under fire last week when he announced that funding for Uganda would not be linked to their actions on the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Act, which would impose the death penalty on LGBT people under certain circumstances. Altogether, Uganda is set to received $250 million in developmental assistance to promote health, agriculture, and business investments. Secretary Clinton’s address does not contradict that stance, but Kerry Eleveld reports that vigorous engagement with Uganda is taking place behind the scenes. Eleveld writes:

The source said the diplomatic goal was to strike a forceful tone that stopped short of shaming President Museveni, who has yet to take an official stand on the legislation, which was introduced by a lawmaker in his own party, member of parliament David Bahati.

“They are trying to proceed in a way that gives them some private leverage but also acknowledges that Secretary Clinton has an obligation to speak out on human rights issues in her capacity as our top international diplomat,” said the source. “It’s been a delicate effort with inconclusive results.”

Click here to see BTB\’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Southern Baptists oppose health insurance for gays

In an article in the Baptist Press about legislation to provide equal benefits to gay federal employees, prominent Southern Baptist Richard Land declares his opposition and that of his fellow Baptists.

The bill, H.R. 2517, would bestow on homosexual partners of federal employees such benefits as health insurance, retirement and disability benefits, group life insurance, and family and medical leave.
…
Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land criticized the proposal both before and after the committee’s vote.

“Most Southern Baptists believe that the only relationship that should be defined by its sexual nature and should have special benefits accrued to it is heterosexual marriage,” said Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Nov. 25.

Land makes much of his pretense that such a bill would “discriminate” against heterosexuals who are allowed to marry but decide that they don’t wish to do so. Such appeals to irrationality reveal Land’s insincerity and smugness.

Land seems quite happy that straight employees receive greater compensation packages than gay employees. After all, these employment benefits are “special benefits” that are reserved as a reward for being heterosexual, you see.

And naturally, Land expresses absolutely no concern whatsoever about how same-sex spouses or domestic partners are to get health insurance or care during a medical emergency. Frankly, it seems that Land couldn’t care less if they suffer without any medical care at all.

As a religious ethicist (a fascinating misnomer), I’m certain that Richard Land has read the last parable of Matthew 25. I wonder what sort of mental gymnastics he has to play in order to see this as anything other than a direct condemnation of him by Christ.

Marriage equality scheduled to come to District of Columbia tomorrow

On Top Magazine:

Two states are expected to decide on whether to grant gay couples the right to marry before the end of the year, but gay marriage proponents are thoroughly sanguine about the District of Columbia, where passage of Council member David Catania’s gay marriage bill is expected to win approval on December 1.

Nearly every council member has endorsed the bill and its passage is certain. Congress has the power to overturn any legislation passed in the nation’s capital but there does not appear to be political will to do so.

And undoubtedly this will be seen as a convenience for some legislators with a conservative public image. Their staff will be able to marry without any political cost to the elected official.

Will Portugal be nation number eight?

The Pink Paper is reporting that Portugal may soon take step to enact marriage equality.

Sources close to Portuguese Prime Minister José Sócrates, who is forming a new government following September elections, said that legalising same-sex marriage will be one of the new team’s first actions.

The BBC’s Humphrey Hawksley also seems to believe that same-sex marriage is inevitable within a matter of months. The vote count from Sócrates’ Socialist Party when combined with those from the Left Bloc and the Communist Party predict its passage with votes to spare.

Prop 8 Leader admits that “traditional marriage” really only means “no gays”

In an article about John Marcotte’s tongue-in-cheek effort to ban divorce, AP writer Judy Lin got the leader of Prop 8 to make a telling admission:

As much as everyone would like to see fewer divorces, making it illegal would be “impractical,” said Ron Prentice, the executive director of the California Family Council who led a coalition of religious and conservative groups to qualify Proposition 8.
…
Prentice said proponents of traditional marriage only seek to strengthen the one man-one woman union.

“That’s where our intention begins and ends,” he said.

Yep, “traditional marriage” is only traditional to the extent that it excludes gay people. That, you see, is the sole defining characteristic of marriage’s traditions – or, at least, it’s the only thing that anti-gays care about.

Which, of course, is what Marcotte is trying to expose.

Church marriage comes to E. MA Episcopalians

A favorite tactic of anti-gay activists is to pretend that changes to civil marriage law will require churches to change their religious practices in some way. But to do so requires a willful determination to ignore the evidence to the contrary (or a willful determination to lie).

And a decision made by an Episcopal Bishop in Eastern Massachusetts proves the point. Although gay and lesbian couples have had the right to legally marry in that state, they could not do so in an Episcopal Church or with an Episcopal priest presiding. Priests could “bless their union”, but not declare “by the power vested in me” that they were married.

Until now. (Boston Globe)

Five years after same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, the local Episcopal bishop yesterday gave permission for priests in Eastern Massachusetts to officiate at same-sex weddings.

The decision by Bishop M. Thomas Shaw III was immediately welcomed by advocates of gay rights in the Episcopal Church, who have chafed at local rules that allowed priests to bless same-sex couples, but not sign the documents that would solemnize their marriages.

This change in policy should cause anti-gays to worry. But not for any reason that they will admit.

Contrary to the political ads and fiery denunciations from pulpits, changes to civil marriage laws do not require churches to do anything. But they do provide the framework under which same-sex couples can live exemplary lives and show conscientious religious leaders that their objections are based not in principle but in presumption and false impression.

Civil marriage equality will in time lead many many churches to not only adapt to including same-sex marriages but to also hold up such commitments as the most appropriate venues for love and sexual expression for same-sex attracted persons. But this change will be voluntary, a change of heart based on decency, empathy, compassion, and their observation of married couples in their pews.

Anti-gays speak loudly of “religious freedom” and of the fear of coercive efforts to compel them to follow man-made laws rather than God’s laws. But I believe that a voluntary change of heart is something that anti-gays fear far more than any coercion from government.

And I believe that their efforts to ban marriage equality are designed and intended more to deny religious freedom to those who, like the Episcopal Church, would celebrate such marriages than they are to stop that small percentage of the population who would avail themselves of the opportunity.

Yes, anti-gays lost political battles in Massachusetts over the last five years. But their real losses are felt in the announcement of Bishop Shaw.

Rick Warren refuses to oppose Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” bill

Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, has a unique way of viewing a global ministry. Warren sees his mission as being of a scope that does not stop at national borders. He seeks Purpose Driven Nations to comprise his Purpose Driven World.

And Warren is not hesitant to interfere in international religious divisions or schisms. Though not Anglican, he has been a major player in providing American support to African Anglicans who are seeking to oust any affiliates from the Anglican Communion that make any accommodation for gay Christians.

Warren also likes to rub shoulders with the politically powerful. He is friends with presidents and the powerful around the globe. And one of the five steps in his Plan is “Equipping ethical leaders”, i.e. those who agree with Warren’s religious views.

And he’s no stranger to activism on behalf of legislation. Though he was not highly visible in supporting Proposition 8, he did not hesitate to instruct his flock – which does not stop at the walls of his church – to vote to take away the civil rights of their gay neighbors.

But Warren has now found the one exception to his political involvement. And that exception is the proposed Ugandan “Kill Gays” bill. Unlike virtually anything else that flickers across his attention, this piece of legislation just doesn’t rise to the level of requiring his involvement. That would be “interfering in the political process of other nations.”

Or maybe Rick Warren just doesn’t find it unethical on the part of leadership in Uganda to execute HIV positive gay people, incarcerate the rest for life, ban any form of activism that might object, and jail those family, friends, or acquaintances who fail to report their gay loved ones to the government.

On Meet the Press this morning he spoke a good game of loving gay people (while fighting against their rights). But though he declared that his “role is to love everybody” (which presumably would include gay Ugandans), this love seems not to stretch quite enough to oppose their execution and life-long incarceration.

And Newsweek’s Kate Dailey is noting Warren’s failure to respond to the situation in Uganda:

But Warren won’t go so far as to condemn the legislation itself. A request for a broader reaction to the proposed Ugandan anti-homosexual laws generated this response: “The fundamental dignity of every person, our right to be free, and the freedom to make moral choices are gifts endowed by God, our creator. However, it is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations.” On Meet the Press this morning, he reiterated this neutral stance in a different context: “As a pastor, my job is to encourage, to support. I never take sides.” Warren did say he believed that abortion was “a holocaust.” He knows as well as anyone that in a case of great wrong, taking sides is an important thing to do.

I would go further.

When you build the platform, put out the chairs, advertise the event, set up the audio system, introduce the speaker, and hand him the mic, it’s disingenuous to claim that you are not taking sides. Rick Warren was significantly responsible for building Martin Ssempa’s influence in Uganda, and releasing a statement that he had “severed contact with Mr. Ssempa” two years ago is not an adequate reaction to Ssempa’s efforts to incarcerate and kill gay people.

The truth is that while Rick Warren speaks of loving gay people, he doesn’t care if they are executed in Uganda for being gay. Or, at least, he doesn’t care enough to make the slightest effort to stop it.

I guess his life is “driven” by some other “purpose”.

Click here to see BTB\’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Catholic News Source: Scott Lively Blames Foreign Gays for Uganda’s “Kill Gays” Bill

John-Henry Westen

LifeSiteNews was originally launched in 1997 by Campaign Life Coalition, a Canadian national pro-life organization, as a news source for those opposed to legal abortion. Since that time it has broadened its interests to include euthanasia, cloning, homosexuality, and other social issues and currently its readership is primarily in the United States.

LifeSiteNews is generally well written (though biased) and informative and often will have stories that have not caught the attention of mainstream media, especially those which are international in scope. But it must be read with the understanding that it has a strong sectarian slant and is perhaps best viewed as an unofficial lay voice of the Roman Catholic Church.

Today, LifeSiteNews published an article that was unexpected. The Editor, John-Henry Westen, interviewed Scott Lively and echoed without question his statements about homosexuality in Uganda and the current effort underway to pass legislation to execute HIV positive gay people, incarcerate other gay people for life, and jail those family, friends, or acquaintances who do not report suspected gay people to the government. While Westen’s biases make him ready to believe the worst about gay people, however irrational, it was surprising the extent to which Lively’s word was taken as unvarnished truth.

Scott Lively is an unusual anti-gay activist. He does not stop at moral concern, cultural discomfort, or objection based in ignorance, stereotype, or unfamiliarity. Rather, Lively travels the world marketing in anti-gay lies and myths and seeking to inflame hatred and instigate outrage and social oppression of gay people on an international scale.

Lively is the author of The Pink Swastika, a book whose premise is that the Nazis were primarily a homosexual organization and that gays were responsible for the Holocaust. While this is a laughable assertion dismissed by historians and holocaust groups, it is read, believed, and treasured in countries where animus against gay people is strong and an excuse to hate gay people is welcomed without question.

Lively was also, along with Exodus International board member Don Schmierer and Caleb Lee Brundidge of Richard Cohen\’s International Healing Foundation, one of the three American speakers at the conference in February which led to the current proposed legislation in Uganda.

According to the reported interview in LifeSiteNews, Lively is spinning a peculiar message. Lively says that laws against homosexuality should be on the books but only sporadically enforced. This keeps gays oppressed and support for their social inclusion forbidden.

He testified to lawmakers in the Ugandan Assembly Hall that having legislation against homosexuality on the books is important since it protects against those who would advocate in public and in schools that homosexuality is positive.

While Lively makes sure to say that the bill as proposed is “too harsh”, his primary objective in the interview was to lay the blame for any excesses in the bill on reasonable reaction to “the heavy-handed pressure from international gay-activist politicians on Uganda to accept homosexuality as normal.”

In fact, as Dr. Scott Lively, the President of Defend the Family pointed out, the preamble to the bill, and the bill itself contain numerous references to stopping international pressure on Uganda to accept Western sexual values that are abhorrent to Ugandan culture.

The bill states explicitly that it aims “at providing a comprehensive and enhanced legislation to protect the cherished culture of the people of Uganda.” The goal is to protect the “legal, religious, and traditional family values of the people of Uganda against the attempts of sexual rights activists seeking to impose their values of sexual promiscuity on the people of Uganda.”

Dr. Lively, a pro-family activist and attorney based in California was in Uganda in March to testify before Ugandan legislators now considering the legislation. In an interview with LifeSiteNews (LSN), Dr. Lively explained that the impetus for the bill was “a lot of external interference from European and American gay activists attempting to do in Uganda what they’ve done around the world – homosexualize that society.” One of their main concerns, explained Lively, “are the many male homosexuals coming in to the country and abusing boys who are on the streets.”

The Catholic Church’s position on the “Kill Gays” bill is less clearly defined. However, as LifeSiteNews summarizes, they too are taking a “blame it on the foreign gays” approach:

While the Catholic leadership in the nation has not yet responded publicly to the proposed bill, they have consistently expressed outrage at the attempts of the West to impose acceptance of homosexuality on the country. Last month at the Synod for Africa at the Vatican, bishops from all over the continent noted their grave concerns over the international anti-family pressure.

Summing up the discussions, the Cardinal Archbishop of Cape Coast, Ghana, Peter Turkson, said that the Synod had “described in various ways a ferocious onslaught on the family and the related fundamental institution of marriage from outside Africa and attributed it to diverse sources.” The bishops, he said, “vigorously denounced the ideology and international programs which are imposed on African countries under false pretexts or as conditions for development assistance.”

This may not be a conclusive endorsement of the bill by the Catholic Church – and indeed the death penalty goes in opposition to the position of the Vatican. However, it would appear that the Catholic Church is, in at least some venues, indicating that it will not speak out in opposition to this draconian piece of legislation.

Scott Lively has illustrated that he has no use for civil freedoms such as the right to speech or assembly, and his gross distortion of the murder of a gay man has long since revealed a lack or any moral center. One expects nothing but the most extreme and hateful from him.

But it is sad when an institution as old and influential as the Catholic Church, and one that is charged with doing good, seems to be siding with evil.

Click here to see BTB\’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.