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

GOP reportedly sides with incarceration and execution of gay Africans

Timothy Kincaid

August 27th, 2012

Think Progress has posted a portion of what they claim is the GOP platform on foreign aid. If this is an accurate and complete statement, then the Republican Party has, in effect, assured African nations that if they return to power, the US will not oppose the horrific mistreatment of gay Africans.

The effectiveness of our foreign aid has been limited by the cultural agenda of the current Administration, attempting to impose on foreign countries, especially the peoples of Africa, legalized abortion and the homosexual rights agenda. At the same time, faith-based groups — the sector that has had the best track record in promoting lasting development — have been excluded from grants because they will not conform to the administration’s social agenda. We will reverse this tragic course, encourage more involvement by the most effective aid organizations, and trust developing peoples to build their future from the ground up.

In Africa – other than South Africa – “the homosexual rights agenda” is not about marriage or adoption or other matters of civil equality. It’s about not being murdered in the street, it’s about being able to meet without police crackdowns, it’s about not being thrown in jail for decades, it’s about not being executed by your government for “repeat offenders”, it’s about existence.

And it is this that is “the administration’s social agenda”. The Obama administration has taken efforts to require that those nations who receive US taxpayer dollars treat their citizens with some small measure of respect.

With this platform, the GOP will “reverse this tragic course… and trust developing peoples to build their future from the ground up.”

You want to throw gay people in jail for 14 year in Malawi? We trust you. You want to pass legislation in Uganda to execute gay people, like couples, who “repeat” the “offense” of having sex with each other? We trust you. You want to incarcerate anyone who “aids or abets” same-sex unions in Nigeria? We trust you.

Yes, I know that the platform has no bearing on the policies of the candidates. Yes, I know that both parties tend to turn the platform over to the less-mainstream members and ignore it thereafter.

But this is extreme. This is the sort of policy statement that really can’t be interpreted to be anything other than horrific. And if the Republican Party members leave this in their platform when it is voted on from the floor this week, it will result in shock and embarrassment when regular people, good ol’ voters, just normal family folks who aren’t really all that concerned about gay people either way hear what it means.

Because it’s one thing to “disagree about the definition of marriage”. It’s quite something else to endorse the execution of people for being gay.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Richard Rush
August 27th, 2012 | LINK

Isn’t it time for the SPLC to consider declaring the Republican Party a hate-group? Once a group has officially indicated that they have no interest in interfering with the execution of gays, what’s left?

David Waite
August 27th, 2012 | LINK

I’d ask for directions to whatever it is you smoke –but I’m afraid to leave reality that far behind.

“This is the sort of policy statement that really can’t be interpreted to be anything other than horrific. And if the Republican Party members leave this in their platform when it is voted on from the floor this week, it will result in shock and embarrassment when regular people, good ol’ voters, just normal family folks who aren’t really all that concerned about gay people either way hear what it means.”

This statemnent is beyond naive; it is flat out unreal, or surreal. Don’t take my word for it: Present this to 10 of your conservative friends and let us know whether they agree with you.

Lord_Byron
August 27th, 2012 | LINK

If this is accurate I would love to see LCR try to put a positive spin on this.

RWG
August 27th, 2012 | LINK

If the GOP/TP does win in November, you’ll have to change the name of this blog to “Box Car Bulletin”, because this policy of extermination for gay people will be implemented as soon as the new administration gives the green light. First Africa, later here in the US. Box cars for us all.

Mark F.
August 27th, 2012 | LINK

The GOP should take a tip from Ron Paul and oppose all tax funded foreign aid.

Neil
August 27th, 2012 | LINK

This is the sort of policy statement that really can’t be interpreted to be anything other than horrific.

The FRC have shown that it can. They just say they don’t support the extreme laws themselves but are opposed to foreign policy treating homosexuality as a human rights issue. The right wing position is that homosexuality is a matter of morality and not to be a subject for conditions on foreign aid.

They can then claim to deplore harsh measures. That’s how they interpret it as other than horrific and I’m sad to say, I’m afraid a lot of mainstream voters will buy it.

TampaZeke
August 27th, 2012 | LINK

“Yes, I know that both parties tend to turn the platform over to the less-mainstream members and ignore it thereafter.”

Here we go with false equivalence again. I challenge anyone to find a plank in the Democratic Platform that is extreme in any way comparable to large parts of the Republican Platform. The fact of the matter is the Democratic Party is a center to right of center Party. We don’t have a viable leftist party in America. The Democratic Party in America is more like the Conservative Party of UK than it is like the Labour Party. The Republican Party would be comparable to the British Nationalist Party (BNP) and far right to extremist party not to the Tories. That’s why Cameron virtually shunned Romney when he visited England.

Jonathan
August 27th, 2012 | LINK

Timothy,

The platform statement is being implemented and it will continue. The Republicans are financiers and the platform statement defines an “effective” organization worthy of funding. Funding vehicles are already in place. The platform just says that they will continue.

These Republicans are working with the USCRIF (including Robert P. George) to scrub the constitutions of anti-gay but pro-American regimes. When they’re done, the regimes will look like human rights champions and legal repression of GLBT people will enshrined in their laws, if you read the fine print.

Steve
August 27th, 2012 | LINK

So-called “faith-based groups” give Bibles to starving people and are majorly responsible for the spread of HIV due their anti-condom propaganda (Catholics) and abstinence-only programs (evangelicals)

Sami
August 27th, 2012 | LINK

Is their any truth at all to this claim?

‘At the same time, faith-based groups — the sector that has had the best track record in promoting lasting development — have been excluded from grants because they will not conform to the administration’s social agenda’

Which ‘social agenda’? I highly doubt the administration is cutting aid to any group that doesn’t endorse full equality since that would include most of the US. The only ‘social agenda’ I could see them being denied funding for is supproting imprisonment or worse.

My personal theory is that it’s all bull. I doubt any religious charity we gave money to was suporting our execution, at least I hope not, and the only faith based groups being denied funding are ones that just get axed in the normal course of bureaucracy because they thought some secular group could do it better or cheaper.

Palmer
August 28th, 2012 | LINK

Perhaps I’m wrong, Mr. Kincaid, but weren’t you praising the Republican platform the other day for the very minuscule inclusion of “respect for all people” in the marriage plank?

Christopher
August 28th, 2012 | LINK

I find it interesting that when a person whose principles go against those of the majority of the Democratic party is elected to represent Democrats in Tennessee where they have no chance of winning suddenly the anti-gay Republican is the “best bet”.

But when Republicans as a group adopt such a vile policy it’s what both parties do when they “turn the platform over to the less-mainstream members”.

Frankly I’m pretty tired of this “both parties are equally bad, but at least Republicans are better for my wallet” argument.

Belar
August 28th, 2012 | LINK

“Perhaps I’m wrong, Mr. Kincaid, but weren’t you praising the Republican platform the other day for the very minuscule inclusion of “respect for all people” in the marriage plank?”

My understanding is that he was defending the LCR, not the actual party itself. I personally think that the LCR at it’s core isn’t a bad group, but they ultimately still seem to support candidates like Mitt Romney (who I strongly suspect they will endorse, if they have not already done so), who are anti-equality candidates, and therefore, I really can’t ever throw my support behind them, regardless of what their intentions and motivations are.

And to Zeke:

The Democrats in general support a secular, science-based educational system, and to many people (specifically evangelicals) this makes them extremists, because they’re leaving the bible out of the mix. Obviously I 100% support a society that has high (secular) educational standards, but there are people that vehemently disagree with opinions such as mine.

From a logical standpoint, I don’t view the Democratic platform as being extreme in any way, shape or form, but religious extremists don’t use logic to make their points..they use “faith” instead.

Blake
August 28th, 2012 | LINK

Where do they get off talking about Social Agendas hampering foreign aid’s effectiveness? W’s PEPFAR guaranteed that a lot of money was put in the hands of ineffective evangelical-based-abstinence-only groups. Something like 6% of the total aid package (around $1B).

I suspect this plank underscores their desire to shift funding back to groups that are popular amongst a key portion of their political base in the USA.

Michael C
August 28th, 2012 | LINK

I fear my reading comprehension skills may be lacking.

“Faith-based groups have been excluded from grants because they will not conform to the administration’s social agenda. We will reverse this tragic course, encourage more involvement by the most effective aid organizations, and trust developing peoples to build their future from the ground up.”

Does this mean that the Republican party wants to fund the Tony Perkins and Scott Lively trips to African nations?

TampaZeke
August 29th, 2012 | LINK

Belar, that’s the best you could come up with?

I don’t think ANYONE outside of the extreme religious right wing of society considers a plank supporting a secular, science based educational system to be “extreme”.

I’m asking for an example of a Democratic platform plank that middle of the road, sane people would consider extreme.

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.