Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

FRC’s latest clarification about Uganda resolution

Timothy Kincaid

June 4th, 2010

The Family Research Council has released the following statement:

Inaccurate internet reports have been circulating indicating that the Family Research Council lobbied “against” a congressional resolution condemning a bill proposed in Uganda. The Uganda bill would have provided for the death penalty for something called “aggravated homosexuality.” Unfortunately, those spreading these false rumors deliberately failed to obtain the facts first.

FRC did not lobby against or oppose passage of the congressional resolution. FRC’s efforts, at the request of Congressional offices, were limited to seeking changes in the language of proposed drafts of the resolution, in order to make it more factually accurate regarding the content of the Uganda bill, and to remove sweeping and inaccurate assertions that homosexual conduct is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right.

FRC does not support the Uganda bill, and does not support the death penalty for homosexuality — nor any other penalty which would have the effect of inhibiting compassionate pastoral, psychological and medical care and treatment for those who experience same-sex attractions or who engage in homosexual conduct.

I guess they found a position on the death penalty. But it appears that they do not object to incarceration or other forms of punishment, so long as they still have access to the “criminal” so they can provide “pastoral, psychological and medical care and treatment.”

There is no ambivalence about their agreement with incarceration of gay people, just so long as you don’t inhibit the churches’ access to them. And I shudder to think of what kind of “medical treatment” the Family Research Council would advocate for those who “engage in homosexual conduct.”

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

B John
June 4th, 2010 | LINK

Let’s hit ‘em where it hurts…right in their tax exempt status.

I did some research and found this explanation of 501(c)’s at the Treasury website (http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/ls717.htm)

“Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as “charities.” … charities are subject to the most stringent rules with respect to their advocacy activities. Section 501(c)(3) expressly provides that charities are prohibited from intervening in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office; and charities may not engage in more than “insubstantial” lobbying in an attempt to influence legislation.”

“For communications that fall within the section 501(c)(3) general definition of “lobbying,” exceptions are provided when an organization makes available certain nonpartisan analysis, study, or research, or provides technical advice to a governmental body in response to a written request.”

So, they had to have received a written request for the information from someone in Congress, or they appear to have been in violation (which I think they are all the time…what do they do besides lobby?). So when is the IRS going to pull their tax-exempt status?

Please go to http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f3949a.pdf and complete that one page IRS form and mail it into the IRS complaining that FRC does more than an insubstantial amount of lobbying to influence legislation. Remember, this wouldn’t be about just this specific situation, but their overall practices. Frankly, it’s all they do. You can submit annonymously, and I filled out the form in about 3 minutes.

Can’t hurt to at least try to get the IRS to pull their tax exempt status.

Lindoro Almaviva
June 4th, 2010 | LINK

I ma quote my granny here and say they can take their pastoral care and shove it “where the sun don’t shine”

AJD
June 4th, 2010 | LINK

You never know with people like this. I mean, they publicly state they’re against the death penalty for homosexuality, but is that what they say amongst themselves in private?

Priya Lynn
June 4th, 2010 | LINK

AJD, David Bahati has said that many of the people who publicly oppose his bill have assured him privately that they support it. It wouldn’t be surprising if people from FRC were amongst them.

Lindoro Almaviva
June 4th, 2010 | LINK

John, I think it is a fabulous Idea. Can we get some help is what do we need to fill. I am more than willing to fill one out.

DN
June 4th, 2010 | LINK

So wait, the FRC thinks this clarification makes them sound like decent people? Give me a break!

AJD
June 4th, 2010 | LINK

Priya: That was my thinking also… There’s no “logical” reason why the FRC would oppose a resolution against this hideous bill, especially considering that the Senate passed it unanimously. The reason they’re giving just seems like a convenient excuse to me.

L. Junius Brutus
June 4th, 2010 | LINK

This isn’t really news. But I’m glad that it’s been getting more attention. You might be interested in seeing (and hearing) Perkins defend the Ugandan bill:

http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=CM10B11

Does civility require the acceptance of all behavior? Hello, I am Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council. At the recent National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama took the podium calling for greater civility in Washington, which in my opinion is a laudable goal. However, his comments quickly turned to his preoccupation with defending homosexuality. The President criticized Ugandan leaders for considering enhance penalties for crimes related to homosexuality. The press has widely mischaracterized the law which calls for the death penalty, not for homosexual behavior which is already a crime, but for acts such as intentionally spreading HIV/AIDS, or preying upon vulnerable individuals such as children, which has been a problem in Uganda for years because the large number of orphans. The President said that “We may disagree about gay marriage, “but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are.” Mr. President as long as you characterize efforts to uphold moral conduct that protects others and in particular the most vulnerable, as attacking people, civility will continue to evade us.

Perkins is lying, and he knows it. If this is only about HIV and children, then why would Obama’s comments constitute “defending homosexuality”? It makes little sense. He’d talk about defending child molestation, which would be a lot more shocking to most people (but perhaps not to these people).

I also note that FRC again claims that the Ugandan bill is being ‘mischaracterized’, yet it says that it does not support it. Why would you lobby to stop the alleged mischaracterization of a law that you don’t support? Don’t they have anything better to do?

I’ve saved the MP3 (which you can download) on my HDD, and saved it for posterity. They can’t remove this and claim that it never happened.

Furthermore, see the following op-ed by Perkins, attacking efforts to promote human rights for us: http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.frc.org/op-eds/nag-in-chief-takes-leftist-worldview-abroad

Derrick
June 5th, 2010 | LINK

@B John:

The FRC statement asserts that they were responding to a request from “Congressional offices”. I would like to know which “offices” requested help from an organization that has no particular knowledge about Ugandan law and no expertise in international law. The request had to be in writing, so this will come out.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.