I see this all the time with some in the gay community, playing deferential to bigotry and discrimination where none of you would do so if it was blacks or jews being treated the same way.

You say “Why not impose restrictions on aid to Uganda when it became clear, two years ago, that the Pres has no intent to give up power? Why wait until they are going to pass a law specifically targeted at one group when all of society has been suffering for some time?” and that really takes the cake. If you thought intervention was justified two years it’s just as justified now and I find it despicable that any person would criticize an intervention out of some misguided stockholm syndrome desire to not be to pushy towards bigots.

“But of course it was, it was for the benefit of black South Africans!” And other South Africans of color. Including ethnic Indians, Filipinos, and South Asians to name a few. And to the benefit of White South Africans who opposed the Apartheid Regime, especially white Communist Party leaders and intellectuals. As well as lovers of liberty everywhere. South Africa has, perhaps, the best written constitution in the world. The only thing that could make it better is if they removed what restrictions they have in order to all allowing full freedom of speech; but I understand why they do not.

“and gays were only included because one prominent black anti-apartheid leader came out while he was in jail for opposing the regime” Ah that’s the context I’m missing regarding living through it. I’d never heard that before.

“Apartheid wasn’t a restriction on everyone’s civil liberties” Except that it was. I made a partial list above of the civil liberties which were suspended under the apartheid regime for all people, regardless of race. So while it is appropriate to move against a regime to restricts everyone’s civil liberties, doing so NOW specifically due to the mistreatment of one segment of a population smacks of favoritism and will be misunderstood as such. Why not impose restrictions on aid to Uganda when it became clear, two years ago, that the Pres has no intent to give up power? Why wait until they are going to pass a law specifically targeted at one group when all of society has been suffering for some time?

“Just as ending the discrimination against blacks resulted in protections for whites ending Uganda’s discrmination against LGBTs would almost certainly give the same protections to heterosexuals.” While it is true that Whites are protected under the constitution of S. Africa, this is not a guaranteed outcome of overthrowing an apartheid regime. Look at Zimbabwe. Liberty does not necessarily beget more Liberty.

“I can’t imagine how you can see the proposed laws in Uganda as being any different.” Apartheid was much bigger than just one law.

While what is happening in Uganda is unjust and should be opposed by the international community, at the same time the international community has a responsibility to understand what the actual situation on the ground within the country is and act in such a way that will actually benefit the gays and lesbians in Uganda rather than attempting to score cheap political points domestically by scapegoating a particular country or set of countries. I support the USA’s policy of bringing the State Department up-to-speed but I do not support GB’s policy of withholding aid for this one seemingly arbitrary human rights violation. Also, don’t equivocate the international response to S.Africa & Uganda. S.Africa was isolated economically and politically via sanctions, GB is only proposing a cut in Aid to the nation.

????But of course it was, it was for the benefit of black South Africans! Just because the constitution protected minority whites and gays doesn’t mean ending apartheid was intended to benefit them, quite the opposite for whites, they were the kings and queens of South Africa, the new constitution took power away from them and gays were only included because one prominent black anti-apartheid leader came out while he was in jail for opposing the regime

“Also, Apartheid was all encompassing, in that it was not just a serious of “Jim Crow” like laws, but a serious restriction on everyone’s civil liberties, including the right to form opposition parties, the right to a free press, the right to gather openly, and included terrible state sponsored violence.”

I can’t imagine how you can see the proposed laws in Uganda as being any different. Apartheid wasn’t a restriction on everyone’s civil liberties, it gave all the liberties to white people just as Uganda is giving all the liberties to heterosexuals. There’s no significant difference between the regime Uganda proposes aqainst gays and the one South Africa imposed against blacks. If you supported putting pressure on South Africa to end apartheid then its hypocritical for you to say you’re against pressuring other countries to end their pogroms against LGBTs. Just as ending the discrimination against blacks resulted in protections for whites ending Uganda’s discrmination against LGBTs would almost certainly give the same protections to heterosexuals.

My guess is you’re tying to say Uganda is imposing a similar regime against gays as South Africa did against people of color, but I’m not sure the parallel quite stands up. Ending Apartheid was not just for the benefit of one group and the general public understood this and this sentiment was reflected in the constitution they eventually adopted which both protected the rights of the white minority in S. Africa and the rights of every other minority in S. Africa including gays.

Also, Apartheid was all encompassing, in that it was not just a serious of “Jim Crow” like laws, but a serious restriction on everyone’s civil liberties, including the right to form opposition parties, the right to a free press, the right to gather openly, and included terrible state sponsored violence . Any criticism of the regime was completely shut out of discussion in S.Africa for a majority of the regime’s existence; so I would say Apartheid is more similar to Assad’s regime in Syria (without out the overtly racist overtones of Apartheid) than any attempts to outlaw gay identity in Uganda.

The not-well-thought-through (in my opinion) strategy of GB in unilaterally withholding aid (or shifting it to NGOs, as is apparently the true policy) due to a Nation’s treatment of one specific minority group while previously doing nothing when peoples’ other civil rights were abridged and generally ignoring the apparent rise of a strongman, up to this point, in Uganda & (prior to Wikileaks) Malawi means that these actions, however well meaning, are only bringing unwanted attention to a specific minority group’s civil rights struggles while seemingly ignoring the oppressed opposition in these countries. The majority ends up scratching their head and asking “Why now?” Where was Britain when opposition parties were outlawed in Malawi? Where was Britain when fraudulent presidential elections in Uganda strengthened the strongman in charge?

I am of the continued opinion that the move by Cameron was based on domestic political calculations and an attempt to kill two birds with one stone (without having to spend a dime):

1. Score points with domestic gays by punishing Uganda

2. Cutting foreign aid to appease the conservative base.

And while it may succeed in the two political points above I’d say that the long-term effect on the ground in Uganda will do nothing to help sexual minorities there. I dislike it when political leaders score points at home at the determent of real people abroad due to focusing on the political ramifications rather than the real-world ramifications of whatever policy. Which would be the other difference between opposing Apartheid and opposing GB’s policy.

So, were you against putting pressure on South Africa to end apartheid?

The new USA policies seem to be attempting to bring GLBT rights ‘up to speed’ in the context of human rights priorities. I worry about moving in this direction unilaterally, however. While the State Department does not answer to the Congress, without the specific support of Congress for these measures upcoming administrations could change, decline to fund, or do away with any program put in place to push for LGBT rights as human rights worldwide. I certainly don’t want this important work resting only with the whims of the occupant of the white house. It is much more difficult to convince a future congress (as the DADT situation taught us). Should the Democrats gain majorities in the elections next year, our leadership should focus on codifying these foreign policy priorities.

The ‘occupied’ top 1% make 19% of total income, the top 5% make 33%, and the top half make 85% of income. And, of course, taxes and “wealth” are defined by dollars, not by cost of living, so southern Californians who are part of the top 5% may have less expendable income after housing, transportation, and local taxes than someone living in a less expensive area while paying a higher rate of income taxes.

It is hard to determine. In the US, when we speak of federal funds, we are talking about income taxes, which are about 90% of receipts, with the remainder being things like excise tax and gift tax, etc.

(In theory the Social Security and Medicare receipts are reserved for the program and are not taxes and thus not to be used for governmental expenditures. This is not exactly reality, but for purposes of this exercise, it’s close enough).

Of income taxes, about 80-85% is personal and the remainder is corporate. Of the personal income taxes, they are paid by the following individuals:

the ‘occupied’ top 1% making over $344 K – 37%
top 5% over $155 K – 59%
top half over $33 K – 98%

So the extent to which gay tax dollars are part of the overall tax base would depend on the extent to which gay people are part of the very wealthy.

Gays and lesbians make up roughly 4% of the population. I don’t know whether we are disproportionately in the top 5 or top 1 percent of income earners. Studies on that approach that subject tend to be structured to give results that serve the ones conducting the study rather than to answer the question.