Box Turtle Bulletin

Exodus President Expresses Regret For Uganda Debacle

In March 2009, a member of the Board of Directors for Exodus International, Don Schmierer, travelled to Uganda with holocaust revisionist Scott Lively to conduct what has since become a notorious anti-gay conference whose repercussions — including the drafting of a proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill to add the death penalty for gay people under certain circumstances — continue to reverberate in that country today. Today, more than fifteen months later, Exodus International President Alan Chambers released an unusually frank statement acknowledging his failure to advice Schmierer to cancel his appearance at the conference.

The statement, posted on Exodus International’s blog, in my view constitutes a fairly comprehensive acknowledgment of Chambers personal failings over his handling of the Uganda debacle. While the statement does not use the word “apology” specifically, he provides a detailed self-examination of his mistakes along some of the motives for making them and expresses regret for them. If there’s one thing I gained from my Catholic education, it’s that I think I can recognize a genuine act of contrition when I see one. This statement goes far beyond anything I had ever expected to see.

In the statement, Chambers acknowledges receiving prior warnings from BTB’s Timothy Kincaid, as well as Ex-Gay Watch’s David Roberts and Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton, but says that he didn’t give the warnings the attention they deserved. What’s more, he acknowledges that the reason he didn’t heed them was “due to who was issuing them.”

My initial belief was that their major concern was over Caleb Lee Brundidges association with Richard Cohen. Again, no excuses, I was negligent in digging deeper and heeding their warnings. While I did share my concerns with Don Schmierer prior to the event, he was on the ground in Uganda and I saw this as an issue that didn’t warrant him canceling his appearance there—after all, in my mind, Don was simply sharing his normal talk on parenting. I do realize that his mere presence there, even as a private citizen, did give the appearance that Exodus was endorsing the conference and eventually the horrific political position that was fueled by that event.

As I have stated in less trafficked public settings, I am disappointed that some of my reasons for not heeding warnings was due to who was issuing them. I believe that probably works both ways, but in this case my error was grave. I cannot undo my initial lack of, then delayed, response or the harm that it caused, but I have learned from that terrible mistake and tried to make amends by condemning the Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2009 and by standing with a cross-spectrum group of people to see that the measure is, itself, killed. Exodus and I will continue to do that with regard to the Uganda measure or any other similar law or proposed law in other nations. We will also seek to condemn that which is condemnable more swiftly; not to do so finds us breech in our responsibility as an organization people look to for biblical wisdom.

I have no doubt that I will be pilloried by fellow LGBT advocates for saying this, but while I find the statement’s tardiness indefensible (as Chambers acknowledges near the beginning of his statement), I also find it to be a complete and heartfelt acknowledgement of virtually all of our criticisms concerning Exodus’ connections with the events in Uganda. Sure, our larger differences over the political goals and therapeutically-questionable methods of the ex-gay movement remain intractable. And Exodus’ ongoing efforts to export the culture war to foreign lands where they may not necessarily appreciate the cultural nuances of the host country remain a source of deep concern. But with regard to Exodus’ connection with this particular debacle in Uganda, this is much, much closer to the kind of statement that I wish they had released earlier.

I do, however, believe that Schmierer owes the world a similar act of self-examination. Aside from a few defensive and self-serving comments, his continued silence remains perhaps the most critical missing voice in all of this.

As Timothy Kincaid has already reported, this statement addresses another critical shortcoming that I and others have called on them to address from the beginning. At the conclusion of this statement, Chambers announced that Exodus has drafted a new policy statement against criminalization of homosexuality. While this isn’t the first time Exodus or Chambers have spoken against criminalization, it is the first time Exodus has placed such a statement directly on their main web site in a permanent location where it will be easy for everyone to find.

This statement is ridiculously overdue, but I heartily welcome it nonetheless. And I hope that it will serve as an example for other Evangelical groups with ties to Uganda and elsewhere around the world.

Addendum: A genuine act of contrition calls on the penitent to make amends. Chambers says that they “will continue to [condemn] the Uganda measure or any other similar law or proposed law in other nations.” For this to be effective, it must be pro-active, not reactive. Responding because their opponents are calling them to account comes across as weak and, as Scott Lively put it, “effeminate”. Time will tell whether that particular message has sunk in.

Exodus International opposes criminalization of homosexuality

The situation in Uganda which started with a conference in March of 2009, and led to a legislative effort to enact harsh penalties on gay persons (including death) and the restrictions of civil rights for all Ugandans, has had some positive consequences. It has engendered an international discussion about human rights, it has illustrated the work which continues to be required in much of the world, and it has caused many in the Christian community to question their beliefs and positions.

Some, such as Scott Lively, were revealed as supporters of a culture of imprisonment and death. There have always been those who operate from a sphere of deep hatred towards gay people. And for too long their rhetoric was not perceived as too radical or too extreme to be outside of acceptable Christian thought. For some, this situation revealed their heart.

And others found themselves, for perhaps the first time, speaking out in the defense of gay people. Some religious leaders were embarrassed that they were associated with the bill and the blind hatred in Uganda’s religious rhetoric and took steps to denounce the bill and disassociate themselves from the bias. I am hopeful that they have learned a lesson and will be careful in the future about lending their name and voice to those who act out of hate.

And there were those, like Exodus International, the ex-gay ministries umbrella group, who were made aware that anti-gay activism has real consequences and that “loving the homosexual” has responsibilities that extend beyond trying to “call him to redemption.” Although they claim to “challenge those who respond to homosexuals with ignorance and fear”, for a very long time this “challenge” has been nearly nonexistent and I think that Exodus and its leadership have been awakened to the inadequacy of their response.

It has taken them a very long time to get there, but rather than criticize the trip I want to praise the destination. Exodus has now stated a policy position on the criminalization of homosexuality.

Criminalization of Homosexuality

Exodus International opposes the criminalization of homosexual behavior as conducted by consensual adults in private. We strongly oppose the imprisonment, mistreatment, or death of homosexual men and women on the basis of their perceived or known sexual orientation. These actions breed cultural violence and institutionalized shame, neither of which reflect God’s redemptive heart.

Reports: Malawi Couple Break Up

Update: I’ve found the original article from The Nation, and have revised this report accordingly.

It looks like anti-gay forces in Malawi may have gotten their way after all, if these reports are to be believed:

In a dramatic twist to the tale of Malawi’s convicted but pardoned gay lovebirds, the man, Steven Monjeza, has dumped his homosexual ‘wife’ Tiwonge Chimbalanga to marry a Blantyre-based woman. Twenty-four-year old Dorothy Gulo on Monday confessed her love for Monjeza whom she described as “a real man capable of doing to women what other men ably do in bed.” She was explicit about the issue and said she had nothing to hide.

Malawi’s government was under tremendous international criticism over the pair’s conviction of “gross indecency” following their December engagement ceremony, including pressure from donor nations which make up 40% of the nation’s gross domestic income. Undoubtedly, the couple themselves have also been subjected to unbearable pressure in turn from the virulently anti-gay government. When Steven and Tiwonge were pardoned of their sentence of fourteen years at hard labor, senior government officials warned that they would be re-arrested if they remained together. President Bingu wa Mutharika used particularly venomous language in denouncing the two following his return on June 2 from a two-day Franco-African summit:

Said Mutharika: “Chimbalanga and Monjeza were being used. I was not about to let this country be led astray or suffer because of two misguided and confused men. That is why I forgave them. To err is human, to forgive is divine.

“It, nonetheless, does not mean I condone their actions. Their actions were disgusting, demeaning and a disregard of our culture, religion and laws. Ndawatchera tsopano madona kuti ndione kuti anenano chani [I am now waiting to hear what else donors will demand from me].”

The President could not hide his disgust for Chimbalanga, dubbed Aunt Tiwo, when he described his movement, body language and exaggerated facial expressions as “stupid, demonic and useless”.

Monjeza acknowledged the pressure to The Nation:

Said Monjeza: “We were pardoned but I know the law can bounce back on us if we are not careful. Although I claimed that I still love Tiwo, I did not mean it. I have never had sex with him as was revealed in court. That is why the medical examination failed to establish any anal penetration. I was coerced into the whole thing.”

According to The Nation, Monjeza now claims that he was never gay, and that his recent press conference came about because he was kidnapped by three unidentified men and forced to attend a “drinking orgy.”

Ken Hutcherson has blood on his hands

Conservative Christians are often infuriated by discussions which link their anti-gay activism to violence against actual gay people. They will angrily say that they oppose violence and they love the sinner. That Christians are not the ones going around attacking gay people.

But the truth is plain. Cultivate a culture of condemnation and you will soon see hostility. Oppose tolerance and you’ll get intolerance. Dehumanize gay people and soon you’ll find that there are those willing to treat gay people as something other than human.

And a clear example is evident in Washington.

For years, Ken Hutcherson, pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, WA, has been fighting to make Mt. Si High School a miserable place for gay students. He’s tried to get teachers fired for challenging him on gay issues and threatened to put another on his list. He’s sent his daughter to monitor Gay-Straight-Alliance meetings. He’s preached that God hates effeminate men and “joked” about beating them. He’s spread the message that the Bible opposes tolerance.

Unable to stop the event, in 2008, Hutcherson took his bullhorn and staged a protest on the Day of Silence across the street from Mt. Si. About 600 of the 1,400 students stayed home that day.

Then this happened:

Johnson said her son appointed himself the protector of a new friend who was being intimidated and followed by a group of boys in the hallways at school. She said the taunts included anti-gay slurs. One night, Johnson said, she found her son texting the other boy, “Just stay by me.”

On Friday, Nov. 6, shortly after noon, the two 14-year-olds came into the locker room to change after PE class. Johnson said the freshman who allegedly led the harassment started taunting the one boy about his presumed sexual orientation.

When Johnson’s son swore and told him to leave his friend alone, a 16-year-old junior stepped into the dispute. He struck Johnson’s son twice in the face, lifted him off a bench, kneed him in the face and, when he fell to the ground, kicked him, according to witness statements to the police. A school-surveillance camera caught the 16-year-old leaving the locker room, shaking his hand as if in pain, said Johnson, who has watched the tape.

Johnson was summoned to the school by a frantic call from her son. When she arrived about 1 p.m., she said her son was bleeding from the eye and nose and was nearly “unrecognizable” on the left side of his face. She assumed that an aid car had been called, but one wasn’t summoned until 1:16 p.m., according to police records.

She also learned that a vice principal had asked the boy to go back to the locker room and search for his missing tooth.

The assault broke his eye socket, two teeth and left him with a concussion. The picked on kid’s conclusion? “I think a lot of people don’t like gays.”

Things like this happen most often when society gives its permission. When preachers and parents and teachers and administrators make it clear that small awkward less-masculine boys are sinful threatening menaces to the community with an evil homosexual agenda. And one man is more responsible for that message at Mt. Si High School than any other.

Am I taking it too far to say that Ken Hutcherson owns some responsibility for this kid’s assault, that he has blood on his hands? No.

The seeds of hatred that blossomed into this violent attack were sown by Rev. Ken Hutcherson. Sown, watered, tended and nourished.

Some items of interest from a odd poll

Last week a poll in Iowa conducted by a Des Moines television station reported that a majority of Iowans support marriage equality, a finding that appears difficult to believe. Now an oddly conducted poll from the Des Moines Register adds to the picture.

On the face of it, the polling data might seem negative. And, were this of the population as a whole, this might be quite troubling. But it’s not a poll of Iowans, it’s a polling of Republican Iowans who intend to vote in Tuesday’s primary. I have no idea why the Register didn’t get the opinions of Democrats or independents, but we’re stuck with what they gave us.

Here’s what they found:

More than three-quarters of Iowans planning to vote in Tuesday’s Republican primary say Iowans should have a chance to vote on changing the constitution specifically to ban gay marriage.

But the same consensus does not exist for ousting Iowa Supreme Court judges who voted last year to invalidate Iowa’s statutory ban on same-sex marriage.

And one-third of the poll respondents say that some Iowans have overreacted on the issue, and that gay marriage in the state is just not that big a deal.

Voter analysts will tell you that primary voters tend towards the more committed end of a party, those who feel most connected to the reasons for their registration selection. They also tend to be older, especially in a non-presidential election. So it is fair to say that “Republican primary voters” is among the more conservative polling demographics that could be selected.

And now that Iowans have lived with marriage equality for a year, 35% of Republican primary voters think that “having gay marriage in Iowa is just not that big a deal.” And that’s kind of a big deal.

Study: Children of Lesbian Parents May Be Better Off Than Their Peers

That’s the conclusion of researchers who followed a group of families headed by Lesbian couples for twenty-four years. This month, the journal Pediatrics, published by the American Academy of Pediatrics, posted online the latest installment of the long-running longitudinal study which recruited and followed the children of 154 prospective lesbian mothers who joined the study between 1986 and 1992. The parents were recruited as they were about to start a family via artificial insemination. They agreed to answer questions about their children’s development, social skills, academic performance and behavior at five follow-up times as the children passed specific age milestones.

In four earlier published reports, the study team, led by the University of California, San Francisco’s Dr. Nanette Gartrell, published updates for the parents and their children. As five-year-olds, 87% of the children related well to their peers, but that 18% had experienced homophobia from their peers or teachers. When the children reached the age of ten, the study team found that the prevalence of physical and sexual abuse in this sample was lower than national norms, and in all other measures their development was comparable to children raised ni heterosexual families. Fifty-seven percent of the children were out to their peers, and 43% experienced homophobia.

In this latest report, the study’s authors report on how the children were doing as seventeen-year-olds, always a difficult age for familes. The authors report:

According to their mothers’ reports, the 17-year-old daughters and sons of lesbian mothers were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than their age-matched counterparts in Achenbach’s normative sample of American youth. Within the lesbian family sample, no Child Behavior Checklist differences were found among adolescent offspring who were conceived by known, as-yet-unknown, and permanently unknown donors or between offspring whose mothers were still together and offspring whose mothers had separated.

Dr. Gartrell told Time magazine:

“We simply expected to find no difference in psychological adjustment between adolescents reared in lesbian families and the normative sample of age-matched controls,” says Gartrell. “I was surprised to find that on some measures we found higher levels of [psychological] competency and lower levels of behavioral problems. It wasn’t something I anticipated.”

There are, of course, several limitations to this study, limitations which are virtually universal to social science research. The study is based on a convenience sample which may not be representative of all children born to lesbian-headed households. Also, the nature of this study specifically excludes children born to earlier heterosexual families who were later raised by their lesbian mothers following divorce or death of a husband.

This study is one of the very few to suggest more positive outcomes than children from heterosexual families, a claim that would require more research before it could be regarded as anything more than an outlier.  But it’s easy to imagine one reason for this surprising finding. These parents were recruited because they were about to undergo artificial insemination. This means that in every case, these children were brought into the world because they were wanted and planned for. None of them are the product of a drunken tryst in the back seat of a Chevy. These mothers had to investigate options, invest money, and really want to become mothers. This alone can account for the difference.

Opponents to gay equality often warn that children raised in gay or lesbian households are allegedly harmed by the experience. This study joins about 200 others which, to date, have found no significant negative outcomes. If their argument had any hint of validity, you would think that at least a few peer-reviewed studies would support it. But so far, none of them looking specifically at gay- or lesbian-led families have. I guess opponents to LGBT equality will have to keep on looking.

Congratulations to Portugal’s gay couples

Today is the first day that same-sex couples can marry in Portugal. Our congratulations to those couples now able to legally join, to the politicians who fulfilled campaign promises, and the the Portuguese people whose lives have become enriched with a greater promise of equality.

Update: The first weddings have already started:

Teresa Pires and Helena Paixao, divorced Portuguese mothers in their 30s who have been together since 2003, married in a 15-minute ceremony at a Lisbon registry office.

“This is a great victory, a dream come true,” Pires said as the couple kissed and hugged.

“Now we’re a family, that’s the important thing,” Pires said, adding they would continue to fight for equal rights for homosexuals, including adoption.

Surviving an Exorcism To Cast Out the Gay

In this month’s issue of Details magazine, Matt McAllester delved into the practice among some pentecostal and evangelical churches to perform exorcisms on gay people to drive out their gay demons. Peterson Toscano, a co-founder of Beyond Ex-gay, survived three separate exorcisms:

One took place in the Greenpoint section of Brooklyn, another in an apartment on the West Side of Manhattan owned by Joanne Highley, who runs L.I.F.E. Ministry. During the latter exorcism, Highley had him lie down on her bed, then she sat beside him and began to press on his body, commanding the demons to exit through his mouth and rectum. Before the rite was complete, Toscano, who says he felt increasingly violated by Highley’s actions, stopped the ritual and left her apartment. Highley did not respond to requests to be interviewed, but she has previously stated that her process is to “cleanse and bind demonic powers . . . out of genitals, of course out of anal canals, out of intestines, out of throats and mouths if there’s been ungodly deposit of semen in those areas—we cleanse with the blood of Jesus, and we cast out the demonic powers.”

Highley was one of the activists featured in the 2004 ex-gay promotional video “I Do Exist,” which was released as a counter to National Coming Out Day. [Update: For more on this, see the end of this post] Toscano’s recalls his experience as abusive:

“For a young person, being told that you house evil, that you’re basically a mobile home for evil spirits—that is a very, very damaging concept,” says Toscano. “It’s one of the most extreme manifestations of the anti-gay rhetoric within the church.”

Particularly concerning is the story of 20-year-old Kevin Robinson, who has undergone three exorcisms (one by his mother, another by an uncle who was the pastor at his church), bouts of severe depression, was kicked out of his home by his parents, suffered a severe nervous breakdown, and underwent six month’s treatment at a juvenile psychiatry hospital. He’s out now, living on his own in an apartment and going to college. He is also a bit more comfortable with his sexuality. But not entirely. He’s also back at his same church:

He’s back in the choir, attending practice every Thursday. He hasn’t undergone another deliverance, but the dogma is the same, he says. “They want you to change. It’s just a lot of stuff you can’t do. You can’t do this, you can’t do that. I’m getting overwhelmed—again. It just feels like it’s too much, like today I just felt so overwhelmed. There’s no possible way I can be Mr. Perfect Man.”

I ask Kevin whether he would make himself straight if he could. “Yeah, I would,” he says without hesitation. “I’m not going to lie—I would love to just fit in and be accepted.”

But that doesn’t seem likely. Not long ago, after choir practice ended, another singer—a young man Kevin’s age—took exception to the look of Kevin’s slicked-back hair and effeminate manner and accused him of being “the Devil’s child.”

“I said, ‘I’m not the Devil’s child, I’m one of God’s,'” Kevin says. “He was like, ‘Yeah, right.'”

Update: Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton, who produced I Do Exist, wrote me to explain that when he included Highley in his video, he didn’t know about Highley’s beliefs in exorcisms:

I want to make it crystal clear that the I Do Exist video never took the perspective that homosexuality is related in any way to demon possession. Ms. Highly did not mention these views when we interviewed her. No one associated with I Do Exist had any knowledge of Highly’s views when we filmed or edited the video.

Did FRC Lie To Congress About the Ugandan “Kill-The-Gays” Bill?

The Family Research Council yesterday responded to criticisms that they lobbied Congress against a House resolution denouncing Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill. As part of their response, they claimed that they wanted to make the resolution “more factually accurate regarding the content of the Uganda bill.” I have several concerns over the FRC’s ability to discern “factually accurate” information.

And knowing that supporters of Uganda’s “kill-the-gays” bill have spread false information themselves about what the bill actually includes, it’s still very much an open question what parts of the House resolution the FRC considered inaccurate. But this FRC radio broadcast from Tony Perkins soon after the National Prayer Breakfast of Feb 4, 2010 gives us a clue to what the FRC may have been telling Congress:

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. [Emphasis mine]

This is lifted almost verbatin from Martin Ssempa’s false defense of the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill. As we’ve gone over before again and again, Perkins’ clam that the law calls for the death penalty for intentionally spreading HIV/AIDS or that it only addresses those who prey on vulnerable individuals is flat-out wrong. And as is typical with the bill’s supporters, the FRC refuses to link to the actual text of the bill itself — something that we do with each and every post mentioning the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. And they don’t for good reason: They don’t want you to know what the bill really says.

So once again, as we have done so many times in the past, let’s look at the bill again. Here’s the clause defining “Aggravated Homosexuality”:

3. Aggravated homosexuality.
(1) A person commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality where the

(a) person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of 18 years;

(b) offender is a person living with HIV;

(c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed;

(d) offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;

(e) victim of the offence is a person with disability;

(f) offender is a serial offender, or

(g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy overpower him or her so as to there by  enable any person to have unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex,

(2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death.

(3) Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status.

Clause 3. (1) (b) was often cited to support the claim that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill would impose the death penalty for the “deliberate” spread of HIV, but it is important to note that the bill contains no requirement that the intent be deliberate at all. In fact, the third subclause would suggest that the death penalty would apply upon receiving a positive serostatus result from an HIV test, which might very well be the first time the charged individual would know he or she was HIV-positive. Alternately, if the accused already knew he was HIV-positive, the proposed bill provides no acknowledgment that the accused’s partner may have known about it and entered into a consensual relationship.

Yes, clause 3. (1) (a) includes a prohibition against sex with a minor, and (e) prohibits sex with a “person with disability,” but again, this clause assumes that a disabled person — perhaps someone who is deaf, blind or in a wheelchair, for example — is unable to provide consent. Nowhere in the bill does it suggest that proof that the individual did not consent is needed.

And them of course, there’s the problem with (f), where the “offender is a serial offender.” That could mean anyone who has ever had more than one partner, or anyone who has had sex with his or her partner more than once. And as Rob Tisinai demonstrated, the bill is so badly written that the death penalty for the “serial offender” is so poorly written, just about anyone can be convicted of “aggravated homosexuality.”

But as we have demonstrated so many times in the past, the Family “Research” Council’s inability to comprehend plain English has likely meant that they have provided factually incorrect information to the House and Senate.

I know the boys at FRC are very smart people with good reading comprehension skills. Which is why I know that if this is the message they brought to the Hill, they did so deliberately to obscure the true nature of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. And if anyone wants to obscure the true nature of the draconian bill to claim that all it does is “uphold(s) moral conduct that protects others and in particular the most vulnerable,” then that can only mean one thing. The Family “Research” Council wants to kill you.

That’s the base assumption, and it’s a reasonable one. After all, we know they want to criminalize you. If they believe otherwise, then they need to come clean on exactly what they felt was so “factually inaccurate” about the House resolution.

[Hat tip to BTB reader L. Junius Brutus]

AutoTune “Eat Da Poo Poo!” And More

It’s Friday night and time to party with Ssempa. His “Eat Da Poo Poo!” has inspired several of YouTube remixes. This one goes the more hardcore route:

And then there’s the auto-tune version (also available in a ringtone.):

I suspect you’ll find more remixes show up here. The Jake Benson’s original remix that started it all is here.

And before we go, there’s one more. This one’s not a music remix, but it’s still a great Martin Ssempa / Bill Cosby mashup:

Let me know what else you find in the comments.

Poll: majority of Iowans support same-sex marriage rights

Des Moines television station KCCI has conducted a poll of Iowans asking the following question:

Now that more than a year has gone by since the Iowa Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, do you favor or oppose marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Favor – 53%
Oppose – 41%
Not Sure – 6%

I don’t know the sampling, the methodology, or margin or error. And the wording likely led to skewing the results towards the positive.

But, nevertheless, this is very very good news. And as one of the few recent polls on the issue, it deflects much of the credibility of anti-gay activists who claim that “the people” oppose equality.

CA Attorney General Candidate Cooley

Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley is running for the Republican Party nomination for California State Attorney General. And those readers who are California Republicans (or Decline to State) may wish to consider giving Cooley your vote next Tuesday.

Cooley has been, as best I can tell, supportive of the community. Noting his opposition to Proposition 8, the Bay Area Reporter, a San Francisco gay magazine, commented in April

In the attorney general race, Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley, a marriage equality backer, is doing well in his party’s primary.

Cooley has received the endorsement of most of the state’s influential newspapers. But one endorsement he has not received is that of anti-gay activists.

The National Organization for Marriage has piggy-backed on hate-group Traditional Values Coalition to oppose Cooley’s election.

We are writing you today because there is a dangerous pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage candidate seeking the Republican nomination for Attorney General. This anti-family candidate is Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley and in his own words he publicly states unapologetically, “Let me be clear, I support a woman’s right to choose.”

Not only does Cooley not value life, but he opposes the sanctity of marriage too.

Well that sounds to me like a good reason to vote for him. And considering our state’s history of electing Republicans as the Attorney General, it would be a great comfort if we knew next Wednesday that the Republican nominee for the position was an ally.

Malawi Couples’ TV Interview May Have Occured Under Duress While In Custody

We received another email via LGBT Asylum News saying that the TV interview with Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga was actually recorded last December following their arrest. If so, then that suggests that the interview by government-owned Malawi TV may have been under duress. The interview was removed from Malawi TV’s YouTube channel, but is still available at the Malawi Voice web site.

LGBT Asylum News’ synopsis mostly agrees with the one we received from an American expatriate living in Malawi, but adds a few more details:

I got a twitter messages requesting more information on a TV interview between Television Malawi and Tiwonge and Steven. Sorry I can not provide a full transcript. I am very busy, but I’ll give you a brief summary of the conversation. Here it is:

The reporter is trying to get the couple to denounce what they had done (the alleged wedding) and somewhat apologise to Malawian whom the reporter said the couple had offended. The reporter is using leading questions and authoritative language. Tiwonge, one wrapped in a piece of cloth, did very well in answers. He stood for his beliefs – telling the reporter that “he was within his right to chose his sexual orientation”. Steven got a bit more intimidated and didn’t express himself well.

You need to have in mind that this “interview” was taking place last December – just after the arrest. So the two were still in custody (this – in my opinion – means the interview should not have taken place because it could influence the ruling).

You also need to have in mind that most Malawians – including “leading reports” bought into what I consider stupid consipiracy theory that the couple had been payed by international LGBT campaigners to stage the “wedding” in order to see how Malawi authorities would react. I don’t know the origins of the theory but Malawi is very conservative and religious country so the theory could have its basis on the grounds that religious folks are trying to say Malawians cannot have same sex couples, which is ridiculous because they know it happens undergrounds.

It also think it is a fair assessment that the reporter was (is) ignorant about LGBT issues and he didn’t do his homework for the interview. In the end he felt safer to intimidate them – which was more than possible because the were in custody – rather than have a rational conversation, which the couple could have easily won.

It is also a possibility that the reporter acted on instructions from his bosses because otherwise the interview should not have been aired as it had the potential to pervert a course of justice.

FRC’s latest clarification about Uganda resolution

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.”

Congratulations Tim and Junior

In 2005 Tim Coco, an American, and Genesio “Junior” Oliveira, a Brazilian, married in Massachusetts. But because some legislators value anti-gay discrimination more than they value civil rights or even the right of states to determine their own marriage laws, the federal government chose to ignore their legal marriage. In 2007 they were forcibly separated and Oliveira was sent back to his native Brazil.

Since that time Tim and Junior have been fighting to get Junior back to the states and have hit some bizarre roadblocks. At one point the immigration judge (who was later deemed to be a grossly unqualified political appointment) declared that Junior was not “physically harmed” by being raped in Brazil so he would grant no asylum.

But they also gained the support of Sen. John Kerry, who became an advocate for his cause. And while at first it appeared that the Obama administration was working against Tim and Junior, eventually US Attorney General Eric Holder, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano came to back them.

Now they have, for the moment, gained ground. (Globe)

On Wednesday, Oliveira returned to Massachusetts for an emotional reunion after federal immigration officials took the rare step of granting him permission to stay for one year on humanitarian grounds, clearing the way for him to try again for legal residency. His return followed personal appeals by Senator John F. Kerry, US Attorney General Eric Holder, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on their behalf.

I am delighted for Tim and Junior. And I pray that they are able to find a way for Junior to stay permanently.

And I am appreciative to John Kerry for his tireless work.

“Here were two people who loved each other and were as committed to each other as you could ever imagine, and a quirk in the law was being allowed to keep them apart. I just wanted to do everything I could to reunite them,” he said in a statement.

But, though it is hard to imagine, there are some who fight to keep Tim and Junior apart.

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, criticized the move, saying it seemed unfair to grant a special exception for Oliveira when so many others, such as earthquake survivors in Haiti, are clamoring to get into the country.

Don’t be fooled. Krikorian knows that this is a different situation. He fully knows that unlike Haitian earthquake survivors, Junior is married to an American – a situation that would immediately be cause to allow him to stay if he were heterosexual – Krikorian knows that because Junior is gay that his life in Brazil is subject to oppression and discrimination.

Krikorian sees the pain of their separation. He knows their devotion. He just doesn’t care.

It’s hard to fathom the kind of hatred that is required to intentionally separate spouses. It’s hard to understand the man who sees pain and applauds. It’s hard to look at statements like those of Krikorian and not see evil.