Box Turtle Bulletin

Making Sense of the Mexico Decision, Ctd. — What is an Amparo?

Not to contradict anything that Timothy wrote — he has explained the Mexican marriage decision far more clearly than I ever could — but I wanted to add an answer to a question that maybe some of you asked and others (like myself) didn’t know to ask: What is an Amparo?

It turns out it’s not just any kind of a court case, but a rather special one. Similar to a writ of habeus corpus, which protects an individuals physical liberty,  a recurso de amparo — amparo literall means “protection” in  Spanish — protects all other forms of liberty. (In fact, habeous corpus in Mexico is just one of five specific types of amparos, called an amparo libertad.) Amparos are a particular kind of constitutional human rights complaint challenging an action which conflicts with the Mexican Constitution and/or international human rights protocols. Amparos, as a legal device, were invented in Mexico in the early 1800s, and their use has spread, in various forms, through much of the Spanish-speaking world.

The couples in these three cases filed amparos charging that Oaxaca’s Civil Code was unconstitutional because it excludes gay couples from marriage and that the Congress of Oaxaca had failed to protect their families, a right guaranteed under the Mexican Constitution. Two of the amparos were denied at the lower court level, and one was approved. The cases were then appealed to the Supreme Court, resulting in that court’s granting of these three amparos.

As Timothy pointed out, these decisions apply only to those parties named in these amparos, in much the same way that a writ of habeus corpus applies only to the named parties in the U.S. Which, as I understand it, means that the decision so far applies only to Oaxaca. It takes five consecutive, identical amparos before the ruling becomes universally binding. Already, couples are going to the Civil Registry Office in Toluca requesting marriage licenses and are prepared to file amparos if their requests are denied. But, as Timothy also explained, many local officials may go ahead and begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples based on these decisions. But if two more officials deny a marriage license and those couples file an amparo, we may get the five decisions bringing marriage equality to yet another nation.

Making sense of the Mexico decision

Unlike the United States’ judiciary procedures, in Mexico judicial decisions have more of a cumulative or consensus impact. While the exact details are still murky (to me) it seems that court decisions apply only to the case at hand. However, if five cases (amparos) of a similar nature have five identical conclusions (without any differing conclusions) then this becomes the law.

In the Oaxaca decision, there were three cases which reached identical conclusion. Which means that if two more cases are pursued and the same conclusion is reached (as is likely), then all state laws excluding same-sex marriages are invalidated.

And, also unlike the US court decisions, this process can be quite a swift one; the cases decided yesterday were filed in August 2011.

But it is also possible that the three cases may prove, in practice, to be sufficient. As the intention of the court is pretty clear (unanimous decisions can give that impression), local officials may wish to avoid the hassle of upholding a law that they know has no high-court support and thus will simply issue marriage licenses.

And states may wish to avoid the hassle and cost of fighting a losing battle and will change their state laws to match what is clearly the new national standard. In fact, as I write this Oaxaca’s legislature is in the process of changing their laws.

Also interesting is that this was not the result of gay-rights groups making a strategic decision based on timing and friendly lower courts and bringing their best and most experienced legal team. These suits were brought by a law student, Alex Alí Méndez Díaz, who bucked the advice of the established LGBT groups and found in the Mexico City ruling language that encouraged him to pursue the cases.

However, the greatest boost to the cases probably came from outside Mexico. (Salon)

Méndez got an unexpected boost on Feb. 24, 2012, while the cases were in process: a landmark ruling from the Inter-American Court that the American Convention on Human Rights “prohibits … any rule, act, or discriminatory practice based on sexual orientation.” It came in a case brought by a Chilean lesbian who was denied custody of her children because of her sexual orientation, Karen Atala Riffo y Niñas v. Chile.

Mexico gives weight to international court rulings.

All of this is to say that Mexico has not become the twelfth country to offer nation-wide marriage equality, but it certainly has taken a large step in that direction. As I see it (though with this issue you can always be surprised) the other major likely contenders for that position are Colombia, Uruguay, New Zealand, and the various UK countries.

UPDATE: Michael Levers, writing at the Washington Blade, has an article that helps explain the case. Meanwhile, additional couples are pursuing marriage in Toluca, in an effort that will set the ball rolling for additional amparos.

Washingtonians Make Wedding Plans

Jane Abbott Lighty and Pete-e Petersen of West Seattle have been waiting 35 years for this day.

Same-sex couples throughout Washington State are taking out marriage licenses today, and The Stranger has a good celebratory round-up. Because Washington requires a three day waiting period for all weddings, the first ceremonies will take place Sunday.

Uganda LGBT Advocate: “To the Twitter!”

The cry used to be “to the baracades!” But in the social media-verse that we inhabit today, it’s all about Twitter. Pepe Julian Onziema posted this call to action on Facebook:

Dear Friends on Twitter: This is a Call for Urgent Web Action, we’re asking you to participate in a twitter blast directed at the Ugandan Prime Minister, Amama Mbabazi. In this twitter blast, we’re asking him to speak out against the Bill. Please send multiple tweets with the tags #stopthehate @AmamaMbabazi. Please be reminded to keep the tone of your tweets polite. For example: Can @AmamaMbabazi make a statement against the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda? #stopthehate

Amnesty International has also asked everyone to send emails to the Prime Minister.

Anti-Homosexuality Bill Distracts From Uganda’s Real Problems, Including Birthday Parties

It’s time for an update to the status of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. It is still now dropped to number two on Parliament’s list of “business to follow” (DOC: 39.5KB/3 pages). The second of two contentious Petroleum Bills has now dropped form Parliament’s main agenda to take the number one spot on the business to follow list.

But as I wrote yesterday, it’s not the Anti-Homosxuality Bill’s status that really matters, despite all of the attention it has gotten abroad. What does matter — to Museveni and his allies in Uganda — is that we talk about the Anti-Homosexuality bill and ignore all of the other issues: Uganda’s meddling in a guerilla war on neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo, massive corruption at home, and the theft of oil wealth that is talking place right under everyone’s noses. The gays are just a handy distractions. And if all we’re doing is talking about the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, then we’re doing exactly what Museveni wants us to do.

The issue of the hour in Parliament is oil, particularly President Yoweri Museveni’s maneuvers to gain personal control over his country’s newly-discovered oil wealth. So, what’s going on on the oil front? Yesterday, representatives of President Yoweri Museveni’s cabinet came out in full force to denounce a compromise proposal for a contentious clause in the Petroleum (Exploration, Development and Production) Bill, one of two large Petroleum Bill’s before Parliament. One of the bill’s clauses, Clause 9, currently specifies that the Petroleum Authority, a government oversight agency answerable to Parliament, will have the power to regulate the process of negotiating and signing contracts for oil exploration, drilling and refining, as well as the power to rescind those contracts. Museveni’s government is now trying to ram a change  through Parliament which would give the Energy Minister, a presidential appointee, exclusive and unlimited powers to make all of those decisions. Just as Parliament was about to vote on that change on November 27 — and with Museveni’s ruling National Resistance Movement holding more than 70% of the seats in Parliament making the vote’s outcome a foregone conclusion — a minority of MPs staged an open rebellion within the chamber which brought Parliament to a halt.

When Parliament resumed on Tuesday, confusion reigned again when minority members announced that they had reached a deal with the Energy Minister to modify Clause 9 to allow for a power-sharing arrangement between the President and Parliament. Government ministers immediately countered that they had not been told of any such agreement. That led Speaker Rebecca Kadaga to again suspend the session so everyone could get their stories straight. But before suspending the session, Kadaga announce that President Museveni himself would address parliament today. Parliament didn’t meet yesterday due to a memorial service for a former member of government, and the Cabinet took the opportunity of that lull to publicly “throw out” the compromise proposal. It also announced that Museveni had cancelled today’s address.

As I’ve said before, all of this is important because many observers see Museveni’s oil grab as one of the main drivers behind the Anti-Homosexuality Bill’s re-emergence onto Parliament’s agenda. The other issues that Museveni is grappling with include a massive corruption scandal involving foreign aid that was intended to help northern Uganda recover from two decades of war with the Lord’s Resistance Army. That money instead ended up in private bank accounts of several government officials, the discovery of which has led several European countries — Britain, Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Germany — to announce aid cuts. Meanwhile, Museveni is also having to answer to a United Nations report, in which Uganda and Rwanda were caught supporting the M23 rebels in the neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo. Those rebels recently took over the eastern provincial capital of Goma on Rwanda’s northeastern border, just 50 miles southwest of Uganda.

Happy birthday Mr. President. Birthday party organizers arrested in Masaka.

And, oh, by the way. Did you know that celebrating Museveni’s birthday will get you arrested? That’s what happened in Masaka when police used tear gas to arrest eight youth members of the opposition who organized a 75th birthday party. Museveni claims that he’s 68, but nobody knows how old he really is. This is important because Uganda’s constitution sets an age limit of 75 years for the president. Museveni has already scrapped term limits in 2005, and he’s already said to be angling to run for a fifth term beginning in 2016. The youth are accused of “holding an unlawful assembly and causing unrest.” For a birthday party.

With all of that going on, Museveni may soon decide that he needs a handy weapon to draw if the going gets too tough, either internationally or domestically. And there are very few issues that can rally an entire nation behind a scoundrel president better than going after the gays. The Anti-Homosexuality Bill can be just the hammer he needs to get his foreign detractors to back off — and to train his restive subjects’ minds on to something everyone can agree on. That’s why the bill remains loaded in the magazine, placed right behind the contentious Petroleum Bills on Parliament’s agenda. But it’s a bullet he can fire only once, because once the bill becomes law, it also ceases to become a threat — at least politically. Legally, it’s another matter altogether, because for Uganda’s LGBT  — and straight — citizens, the weaponry of corruption and revenge will only be that much more deadly.

The Daily Agenda for Thursday, December 6

TODAY’S AGENDA:
Same-Sex Marriage Licences Become Available: Maryland and Washington. Thanks to marriage quality ballot victories in Maryland and Washington State last month, same-sex couples can begin taking out marriage licenses in those two states beginning today.

In Washington, King County and Thurston counties opened their auditors’ offices at 12:01 a.m. to begin accepting license applications as soon as the new marriage law takes affect. A few other counties have announced extended hours to handle the expected demand. Paul Harris and his partner of forty years, James Griener will probably be the first to obtain a marriage license in Clark County when that Auditor’s office opens at 8:00 a.m. That’s because Harris works there, where his duties include issuing marriage licenses. For decades he was never allowed to issue a license for himself and his partner. Until now. Because Washington observes a three day waiting period for all marriages, the first same-sex weddings won’t occur until Sunday. Seattle’s gay-affirming First Baptist Church will host a mass wedding ceremony at 2 p.m. Sunday for the first 50 couples who register.

Maryland’s voter approved marriage equality law doesn’t take effect until January 1, 2013, but several counties will begin issuing post-dated marriage licenses as early as today, as soon as Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) formally signs a proclamation certifying that voters approved Question 6. Attorney General General Douglas F. Gansler’s written opinion allowing clerks to issue post-dated licenses also includes other specific instructions:

The attorney general’s opinion also included what might be a bit of disappointing news for some gay couples. Marylanders who already wed in another state where gay marriage is legal cannot now legally marry in their home state. Since Maryland already recognized legal gay marriages from other states, the logic is the same as if a straight couple who got married in, say, Hawaii, tried to hold a second legal wedding here. And in further proof that a civil union is not the same as a marriage, those who were joined in such an arrangement in another state can get married here — but not if they are trying to marry someone new.

A representative from the Maryland Association on Circuit Court Clerks said that about two-thirds of the state’s counties plan to begin issuing licenses before New Year’s Day. In those counties which won’t be issuing post-dated marriage licenses, the earliest that couples will be able to obtain a license will be January 2, since Circuits Courts will be closed on the January 1 holiday.

Protest At Ugandan Embassy: London, UK. With the Ugandan Anti-HOmosexuality Bill rearing its ugly head again, the Kampala-based Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Constitutional Law in Uganda has called for protest actions at Ugandan Embassies around the world. Already there have been protests at embassies in Washington, D.C., New York, Paris and Copenhagen.  Now it’s London’s turn, as human rights advocates join members from the Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) Workers Union to protest in front of the Ugandan Embassy at Trafalgar Square this afternoon from 2:30 to 4:00.

Events This Weekend: Mad Bear, Madrid, Spain; Pride Manila, Manila, Philippines.

TODAY IN HISTORY:
Wisconsin Sheriffs Call For Indeterminate Sentences for Gay People: 1944. The annual convention of the Wisconsin Sheriffs Association, meeting at Milwaukee’s Schroeder Hotel, passed several resolutions, including one endorsing a bill being proposed by the Wisconsin Police Chiefs Association which would mandate medical treatment and indeterminate sentences for gay people who were charged with disorderly conduct. The problem, apparently, was that the current law only carried light fines and minimal jail sentences.

American Medical Association Opposes Gay Cures: 1994. The AMA’s governing House of Delegates adopted a revised policy paper calling for an end to efforts to change sexual orientation. The old position paper titled, “Health Care Needs of the Homosexual Population,” which had been adopted in 1981, had read, that “some homosexual groups maintain, contrary to the bulk of scientific evidence, that preferential or exclusive homosexuality can never be changed, these people may be discouraged form seeking adequate psychiatric consultation. What is more important is that this myth may also be accepted by homosexuals.”

But by 1994, the AMA became convinced that the growing psychological evidence demonstrated that whatever disturbance gay people may have felt about their sexual orientation “is due more to a sense of alienation in an unaccepting environment” and called for “nonjudgmental recognition of sexual orientation by physicians. The AMA also said that “aversion therapy” — which involved showing a gay man, for example, nude pictures of men and shocking them with a jolt of electricity — “is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians.” It went on: “Through psychotherapy, gay men and lesbians can become comfortable with their sexual orientation and understand the social responses to it.” The new policy paper was adopted without dissent.

If you know of something that belongs on the Agenda, please send it here. Don’t forget to include the basics: who, what, when, where, and URL (if available).

As always, please consider this your open thread for the day.

Mexico Supreme Court overturns state law restricting marriage

Since 2010, same-sex couples can marry in Mexico City and have that marriage recognized throughout the country. But with a ruling from the Supreme Court today, such couples can now marry in the state of Oaxaca – and probably all across the nation.

From Animalpolitico.com

La Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN) eliminó del Código Civil de Oaxaca el artículo 143 que establecía que el matrimonio sólo es entre un hombre y una mujer.

A partir de hoy, se sustituye con la resolución de la Corte, que implica matrimonios “entre dos personas”, por lo que no importa si son de distintos sexos o del mismo.

Google translate:

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) eliminated Oaxaca Civil Code Article 143 which stated that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

Beginning today, is replaced with the Court ruling, involving marriages “between two people”, so it does not matter if they are of different sexes or the same.

Two years ago the Catholic Church went entirely nuts claiming that the court was bribed and threatened war. It will be interesting to see what absurdities they will claim about today’s unanimous decision.

Uganda Parliament Continues To Argue Over Oil

Today’s Order Paper (DOC: 37KB/1 page) has Parliament taking a pause for a memorial observance. The momentary respite will probably be welcome among members of Parliament after failing yesterday to come to an agreement over a highly contentious clause in one of the Petroleum Bills. President Yoweri Museveni’s government is trying to push changes to Clause 9 of the Petroleum (Exploration, Development and Production) Bill to strip a commission answerable to Parliament of its powers to negotiate, sign and revoke contracts for exploration, drilling and refining, and hand those powers over to a single person, the Energy Minister– who just happens to be a presidential appointee. Because the proposed changes would cut everyone else out who could provide oversight or transparency into that process, it will effectively legalize the wholesale theft of Uganda’s potential oil wealth.

The first item on yesterday’s agenda was supposed to be a presentation from the Rules Committee of the results of its investigation into the events that led to last week’s breakdown in Parliament. That session ended in chaos when several M.P.s erupted in open rebellion as a vote to approve the changes to Clause 9 was about to take place. Speaker Rebecca Kadaga ordered the Rules Committee to determine those responsible for the rebellion for possible sanctions. But when the Committee reported that it wasn’t finished with the investigation, Parliament moved on to its next order of business, Clause 9. That’s when, according to Daily Monitor, several opposition M.P.s rose to announce that they had ironed out a compromise with the Energy Minister:

“We met yesterday (Monday) with the minister and the vice president up to close to midnight. The minister herself typed a new clause which we agreed to sell to our members but I am surprised she has not told the House so,” Shadow Attorney General Abdu Katuntu (FDC, Bugweri) told the House, prompting a postponement of proceedings.

The Speaker had, on the request of Ms Muloni, first adjourned proceedings for 15 minutes so that those with different opinions consult and agree. However, when they returned, the minister did not report to the House on the discussions, forcing the Speaker to call for voting.

It is this move that caused the disagreement and eventual standing over of the clause. “This kind of behaviour is unprecedented. The rules are made to achieve justice, do not rely on technicalities. How can a government indulge in foolery? How can a government be dishonest with its own Members of Parliament? We have worked all the way to create consensus. If some anarchists want to take over oil, so be it,” Mr Katuntu said.

There’s a lot of inside baseball here, but it seems to sum up this way: the opposition said they had a compromise solution worked out with the Energy Minister, while Government ministers countered that there was no such agreement. The phrase “eventual standing over the clause” refers to Parliament’s decision to “stand over the matter” — in other words, to metaphorically stand and wait but in practice to suspend discussions — until the Petroleum Minister is available to respond. Which means that Parliament has kicked to can further down the road on Clause 9 until later this week or next.

So what does all of this mean for the Anti-Homosexuality Bill? Parliament could take this downtime in its debate over the Petroleum Bill to move the Anti-Homosexuality Bill up from its first place standing under “business to follow” and begin debate, but the House appears uneager to do so. While Ugandan human rights advocates are carefully watching to see whether that might happen, there appears to be little political incentive to pass the Anti-Homosexuality Bill right this minute.

As I’ve argued before, I don’t think you can look at the timing of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill without looking at the broader political context in Uganda. And right now, the Museveni government is locked in a power struggle with some members of Parliament over who gets to control (and steal, given Uganda’s reputation as the most corrupt country in eastern Africa) the country’s newly discovered oil wealth. As a sign of how important that struggle is, Daily Monitor reported that Museveni will address Parliament himself on Thursday. “Although Mr Museveni’s address is supposed to be listened to in silence with no questions and debate, he is expected to meet resistance from MPs over his position to grant the energy minister unilateral powers over key areas of the oil sector,” Daily Monitor reported. (The pro-government New Vision says he will address Parliament Friday.)

Museveni’s fight to control Uganda’s oil isn’t the only black mark against the government these days. Germany’s recent announcement that it was joining Britain, Ireland, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden in cutting direct government-to-government aid to Uganda following the discovery that nearly US$20 million has ended up in the private bank accounts of Prime Minister  Amama Mbabazi and several of his cronies. Britain also expanded its announcement to cover all bilateral aid to Uganda, which includes funding for programs and NGOs. Daily Monitor reports that the government is about to announce several budget cuts because of the drop in donor aid. While most of that aid was intended for structural support of basic government functions, Ugandan officials are threatening to cut delivery of services to the people who need it the most.

So with that, coupled with the controversy over Clause 9 of the Petroleum Bill, I suspect that Parliament will wait until after Clause 9 is dealt with and the entire bill is passed before turning to the unifying distraction for everyone that is the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Parliament could conceivably turn to the Anti-Homosexuality Bill now during this lull, but I don’t see the political advantage for it. Sure, it could unite Parliament and take everyone’s eyes off of Clause 9, but the advantage of that distraction would only be temporary, ending when Clause 9 resurfaces again. What’s more likely is that Parliament deals with Clause 9 first, then looks for a handy issue that everyone can rally around and distract them from what Museveni has done with the country’s oil wealth. That appears to be the real purpose of bringing up the Anti-Homosexuality Bill now. While all of that could happen this week — Museveni’s ruling National Resistance Movement controls more than 70% of Parliament — next week now appears much more likely.

Update: The Uganda Parliament ordinarily does not meet on Mondays and Fridays, although a quick look at past Order Papers shows several exceptions over the past few months.

The Daily Agenda for Wednesday, December 5

TODAY’S AGENDA:
Events This Weekend: Mad Bear, Madrid, Spain; Pride Manila, Manila, Philippines.

From a pamphlet printed in London in 1641 (Click to enlarge).

TODAY IN HISTORY:
Bishop John Atherton Hanged for Buggery: 1640. The delicious irony was that the good bishop of Waterford and Lismore in the Church of Ireland was one of the loudest proponents for a new law making homosexuality a capital crime. He then became the second person to be hanged under that statute. His his steward, tithe proctor and cohort, John Chidle, was also condemned to death.

The original trial records were destroyed in the civil wars that followed the downfall of King Charles I, so virtually everything we know about the case comes from public pamphlets which were the equivalent of our tabloid press. Historians harbor some doubt as to whether Atherton was really guilty. In addition to being a bishop, Atherton was also a lawyer who apparently had some success in winning back some of the church’s lands from Irish landlords, an act for which he undoubtedly collected a number of powerful enemies. Puritans, who were also active in trying to abolish the office of bishops in the Church of England, are also believed to have played a hand in his downfall.

We may never know the true story of Atherton’s sexuality. But his death remains a warning to all nations — I’m looking at you, Uganda — who would impose severe criminal sanctions on homosexual relationships. As long as draconian penalties exist, the temptation will be great for blackmailers and political opponents to lobb accusations against their targets. And under those circumstances, nobody will be safe regardless of their actual sexuality.

Massachusetts Bay Court Sentences Woman for “Unseemly Practices”: 1642. The Essex County Court in Salem recorded the following: “Elizabeth Johnson, servant to Mr. Jos. Yonge, to be severely whipped and find 5 li. (pounds) for unseemly practices betwixt her and another maid; for stubbornness to her mistress answering rudely and unmannerly, and also for stopping her ears with her hands when the Word of God was read…” This brief mention is believed to be the first recorded legal prosecution of same-sex relations between women in North America.

If you know of something that belongs on the Agenda, please send it here. Don’t forget to include the basics: who, what, when, where, and URL (if available).

As always, please consider this your open thread for the day.

TIME Is Right And TIME IS Wrong

There is so much to love about Tim Padgett’s column in TIME magazine this week. Padgett, a Catholic, examines the rhetoric of the Church and of conservative Christians generally demonizing gay people in the U.S. during recent marriage campaign, and, noting the influence some American Christians have in Uganda, connects their rhetoric to what’s happening there now:

No, the real question that conservative Christians from Florida to France to Fiji need to ask themselves at this point is this: By crusading to deny gays and lesbians the right to legally marry — by insisting that God doesn’t consider loving gay unions morally worthy of matrimony and therefore the state shouldn’t either — do they risk demonizing “the phenomena of homosexuality” as inhumanely as the Ugandans are? It’s of course a good thing that the Vatican has condemned the “abuse of homosexual persons.” But as a Catholic, I’m all too aware that Pope Benedict XVI has also said that saving humanity from homosexuals is as crucial as saving rain forests from lumberjacks. And that a Vatican spokesman, after last month’s pro-gay-marriage votes in the U.S., made the equally cruel remark that gay marriage is a slippery slope to polygamy. Don’t blame Ugandan Catholics if they’re getting dangerously mixed signals from Rome.

Still, conservative Christians will claim that St. Paul’s denunciation of homosexuality leaves them no scriptural wiggle room. But St. Paul also condoned slavery, and I think we can safely say Christianity has managed to wiggle out of that one, just as Jews today feel O.K. about ignoring the Torah’s edict to stone nonvirgin brides to death. Like everything else in life, religion has to evolve. If it doesn’t — if it remains as rigidly static as so much Christian doctrine has so far in the 21st century — it risks the irrelevance it increasingly faces in the U.S.

Padgett’s argues that Christianity is in danger of not just being on the wrong side of history,but also “on the wrong side of Christianity, as Ugandan Christendom is this Christmas.” It’s a compelling thought-provoking piece. But, it’s one that’s marred in its setup with these factual errors which — you know me — I can’t let go:

The anti-homosexuality bill speeding through Uganda’s parliament right now — which that body’s Speaker has pledged will pass by year’s end as a “Christmas gift” to its backers — would impose draconian new punishments. Among them: a seven-year prison sentence for consenting adults who have gay sex, life sentences for people in same-sex marriages and jail for even those who don’t report gays and lesbians in their midst. Fortunately, Ugandan lawmakers say they’ve dropped the bill’s death penalty in cases of “aggravated homosexuality,” in which HIV is spread or gay adults have sex with minors.

Yeah. Fortunately the lawmakers say they made those changes, but unfortunately there is no basis whatsoever for taking them at their word. These lines seriously mar an otherwise splendid piece, and since TIME doesn’t seem to have an up-to-snuff fact-checking staff — maybe they took an early Christmas break — I’ll go ahead and do their work for them.

When members of the Legal and Parliamentary Committee emerged from their closed-door meetings two weeks ago, they announced that the lifetime sentence in Clause 2 was reduced to seven years and the death penalty in Clause 3 was changed to life imprisonment. And then they said this: they can’t show you their draft recommendations because, you know, it’s a secret.

Seriously. They said that.

Which means that we have no idea what the committee actually recommended. And that’s important because the last time the committee claimed that they recommended removing the death penalty from the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in 2011, they lied. Completely, totally lied.  Their report claiming the recommend removing the death penalty actually recommended that it be replaced with a reference to the penalty spelled out in Section 129 of the Penal Code — which calls for the death penalty.

But whatever the committee’s recommendations may be, under Uganda’s Parliamentary procedures committees do not have the authority to make any changes to the bill. They can only recommend changes to the full House. It is up to the House to accept the committees recommendations — or reject them, if they so desire — before any changes can be made to the bill. And since that hasn’t happened yet, the bill still remains exactly as it was on the day it was first introduced, death penalty and all.

Padgett also copied virtually line-by-line the bills’ supporters propaganda that the death peanlty only applied cases where “HIV is spread” or where sex with minors is involved. That has been M.P. David Bahati’s favorite line from the very moment he first introduced the bill in 2009. But a plain reading of the bill’s straightforward language, which is written in very simple English, renders that interpretation woefully inadequate:

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.

Journalists have had a very sad history of getting this bill so very wrong so many times in its three year history. Padgett is identified as TIME’s Miami and Latin America bureau chief, which, the last time I looked at an atlas, doesn’t include Africa. So I guess he can be excused for getting these facts wrong. He gets an A for effort, if not for the final result. TIME’s fact-checkers, though, get a big fat red F. Which is a shame, because if they had just fixed those few sentences, Padgett’s column would have been stellar.

That Anti-Gay Double Standard

The National Organization for Marriage is thrilled with a Nevada judge who ruled that banning same-sex marriage does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. NOM’s chairman writes:

In stark contrast to the findings of a rogue judge in California who himself was engaged in a long-term homosexual relationship, the federal court in Nevada has quite properly found that true marriage serves an important public purpose and is entitled to protection.

I’ll pass over the hilarious notion that a judge who wasn’t overturned by the Ninth Circuit Apellate Court is somehow “rogue.” I’m more interested in that side comment:

…who himself was engaged in a long-term homosexual relationship…

You know what he’s implying. Judge Walker had a personal stake in Prop 8, which compromises his ruling. You can certainly dispute that, but for the sake of argument, let’s accept NOM’s principle and apply it to Robert Clive Jones, the Nevada judge whom NOM so deeply admires. What do we find?

• Robert Clive Jones is Mormon who is active in the church.

• Robert Clive Jones is married to a woman.

Personally, I have no problem with that. But NOM? Oh my gosh. If NOM is true to its principles then it ought to be in full repudiation mode against the man.

NOM, you see, holds that marriage equality is a threat to religious freedom. It’s probably their central argument these days. And Mormon religious leaders have said the same, and have done so more than once.

This means that as an active Mormon, Jones has a personal stake in the ruling — according to both NOM’s standards and those of his church. Obviously, then, NOM should issue an ad hominem fatwa against him, just as they did against Judge Walker.

No? Not enough?

Then how about this: NOM holds that same-sex marriage is a threat to “traditional” marriage, and Jones is “traditionally” married. In fact, you can find some of this sentiment in Jones’ own ruling:

Should [marriage] be expanded to include same-sex couples with the state’s imprimatur, it is conceivable that a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons would cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had and hence enter into it less frequently…

“Conceivable”? I suppose it is, at least in the sense that anything you can describe in words is “conceivable,” in the sense that it’s conceivable North Korea actually has discovered a medieval unicorn lair, but still, we’re not basing our judicial rulings on the possibility.

This conceivable notion is so implausible I have to wonder why Jones considers it “meaningful.” Could it be that Jones is worried he’d value his own marriage less if marriage equality were made law? Once again, there’s a personal interest, a reason for NOM to reject his ruling.

This is all ludicrous, of course. And that’s the point. We let black judges rule on civil rights cases. We let women judges rule on birth control and abortion cases. We let devout judges rule on religious freedom cases. And we let gay judges rule on same-sex marriage cases.

But NOM screams STOP at that last example. Not that NOM has anything against gays. There’s no anti-gay double standard at work. Surely not — NOM is just standing by its principles. Principles they only want to enforce against, well, gays.

Second Judge Denies Request for Injunction Against California’s Ex-Gay Therapy Bill

In a second, separate case filed in Federal District Court seeking to block California’s ban on Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) for minors from taking effect, Judge Kimberly K. Mueller denied (via Scribd) Liberty Counsel’s request to issue a preliminary  injunction against the state of California. In Judge Mueller’s 44-page ruling denying the request, she reviewed the state legislature’s methodology for modifying the proposed law in consultation with the state’s licensing mental health organizations which are ultimately responsible for enforcing the ban. She concluded that “the court finds plaintiffs are not likely to prevail on the merits so as to prevail at this stage of the litigation.”

This case is David Pickup v Edmund G Brown, which is NARTH and Liberty Counsel’s challenge to California’s S.B. 1172, which  prohibits California’s licensed professionals from providing SOCE for minors. Therapists who violate the ban will be subject to discipline by the professional organization responsible for their licensing. The bill does not prohibit therapists from providing SOCE to adults, nor does it affect unlicensed counsellors, pastors, and other ex-gay therapy providers such as religious-based ex-gay ministries.

David Pickup, who say s he is ex-gay and is now a therapist with NARTH,  has emerged as NARTH’s chief spokesman against the new law. Pickup was particularly critical of Exodus International when the evangelical ex-gay organization distanced itself earlier this year from Reparative Therapy, a particular form of SOCE which is rooted in a specific set of unproven theories of sexual orientation. (A particularly cringe-worthy video featuring Pickup explaining his approach to “increasing manhood” can be seen here.)

Earlier today, a different Federal District Judge issued a preliminary injunction (via Scribd) which prevents the state of California from enforcing S.B. 1172 against three plaintiffs who are also seeking to overturn the ban. That injunction however is limited to those three plaintiffs only. Judge William Shubb found that the plaintiffs “are likely to succeed on the merits of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims based on violations of their rights to freedom of speech under the First Amendment.”

Ugandan Activist Speaks Out Against Anti-Homosexuality Bill

Her name is Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera, but her friends call her “Bombastic Kasha.” She is Executive Director of Freedom and Roam Uganda (FARUG) and the 2011 winner of the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders. She narrowly escaped arrest last February when Ugandan police raided a gay rights conference in Entebbe.

Meanwhile, it should be noted that Pepsi has a very large presence in Uganda. One group is calling on Pepsico to speak out against the Anti-Homosexuality Bill:

…(O)ur allies on the ground tell us that if Pepsi, which has a huge presence in Uganda, speaks out against the bill and the harmful effect it would have on investment and economic development in Uganda, it would force Ugandan officials to put the bill on hold — or even pull it entirely. Add your name to our petition to Pepsi, telling it to speak out against this horrific “Kill the Gays” bill that’s racing through the Ugandan Parliament.

Uganda May Consider Anti-Homosexuality Bill This Week

Today’s Order Paper (DOC: 37KB/4 pages) for the Uganda Parliament shows that among the first items on the agenda is a report from the Rules, Privileges and Discipline Committee. That committee is expected to present the results of its investigation on last week’s chaotic breakdown in Parliament which led to its suspension for the rest of the week.

Parliament’s session ended last Tuesday when Speaker Rebecca Kadaga suddenly bolted from the chamber after losing control of the debate over a controversial clause in one of the Petroleum Bills. Proposed changes to Clause 9 of the Petroleum( Exploration, Development and Production) Bill would empower a single person in President Yoweri Museveni’s cabinet to negotiate and sign contracts for oil exploration, drilling, refining and transportation. Because the bill gives no oversight or transparancy into that process, it will effectively legalize the wholesale theft of Uganda’s potential oil wealth. The proposed changes to Clause 9 are backed by Museveni, whose ruling National Resistance Movement controls more than 70% of Parliament, making the clause’s passage very likely.

So, what does the timeline for the Anti-Homosexuality Bill look like? Today’s report from the Rules Committee will likely be boistrous and time consuming, and may take most of the day today. But once that’s done, movement on the two Petroleum Bill’s could go rather quickly — as early as tomorrow — assuming Museveni has sufficiently incentivised his MPs to complete the legalized swindle.

Once that’s done (and after a vote on the Accountants Bill, which Warren Throckmorton reports has already occurred.), then the Anti-Homosexuality Bill will be the first bill “on deck” as “business to follow.” If Museveni’s version of Clause 9 of the Petroleum Bill becomes law, the government will likely find the debate and passage of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill to be a very politically useful diversion. He will need a lot of minds, both inside and outside of Parliament, taken off of what has happened and focused onto the one thing that has proven effective in uniting everyone: their collective hatred of gay people. That diversion will have to come very quickly if it is to achieve its maximum effect, which means that Uganda could conceivably be ready to start legally executing gay people — while Museveni quietly begins legally diverting the impoverished nation’s oil wealth to himself, his family and cronies — by the weekend. Merry Christmas, everybody!

Judge Issues Temporary Injunction Against California’s Gay Therapy Law

U.S. District Court Judge William Shubb has issued a very limited temporary injunction which bars the state of California from enforcing its ban on Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) for minors when the law goes into effect on January 1. Judge Shubb limited the injunciton’s effectivity to the three ex-gay therapists who have sued to overturn the measure. According to the Associated Press:

U.S. District Court Judge William Shubb made a decision just hours after a hearing on the issue, ruling that the First Amendment rights of psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health professionals who engage in “reparative” or “conversion” therapy outweigh concern that the practice poses a danger to young people.

“Even if SB 1172 is characterized as primarily aimed at regulating conduct, it also extends to forms of (conversion therapy) that utilize speech and, at a minimum, regulates conduct that has an incidental effect on speech,” Shubb wrote.

The judge also disputed the California Legislature’s finding that trying to change young people’s sexual orientation puts them at risk for suicide or depression, saying it was based on “questionable and scientifically incomplete studies.”

The injunctions applies only to the three plaintiffs: psychiatrist Anthony Duk, marriage and family therapist Donald Welch, and student Aaron Blitzer who is studying to become an SOCE provider and who claims that he is now heterosexual after having undergone ex-gay therapy. Duk was a speaker at NARTH’s 2011 convention in Phoenix. Blitzer claims that he is now heterosexual after having undergone ex-gay therapy. The three plaintiffs are being represented by the Pacific Justice Institute.

In granting the injunctions, Judge Shubb indicated that the plaintiffs stand a good chance of getting the law struck down on constitutional grounds.

Last October, Gov. Jerry Brown signed S.B. 1172, making California the first in the nation to prohibit licensed professionals in the state from providing SOCE for minors. Therapists who violate the ban will be subject to discipline by the professional organization responsible for their licensing. The bill does not prohibit therapists from providing SOCE to adults, nor does it affect unlicensed counsellors, pastors, and other ex-gay therapy providers such as religious-based ex-gay ministries.

NARTH co-founder Joseph Nicolosi recently admitted that about half of all NARTH clients are teens. NARTH and Liberty Counsel have also joined forces to fight the ban in a separate case in Federal Court.

Update:  Judge Shubb’s ruling is available here (via Scribd).