Box Turtle Bulletin

Goldstein to Christie on impending veto

I have tremendous respect for Steven Goldstein, chairman of Garden State Equality. His is the style of pragmatic goal-driven activism not distracted by personality or partisanship that I wish I could pull off. And his statement on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s impending veto of the marriage bill illustrates just how capable he is in finding reality while not letting go of the dream and in clarifying the consequences of each.

As we await the Governor’s veto of the marriage equality bill, I beg your indulgence if this statement is a bit more personal than usual. Many in Trenton know that Governor Christie and I have a good relationship. This may come as a surprise, and even disappointment, to some of Garden State Equality’s members, but I like the Governor personally even though I agree with him on almost nothing.

I came of political age where leaders who disagree passionately on the issues, who even fight with one another like cats and dogs in the political arena, were able put the fights aside and see one another as people. I grew up at a time when the legendary Democratic Speaker of the U.S. House, Tip O?Neill – a hero of mine – and President Reagan did exactly that. And it’s always been my philosophy in dealing with Governor Christie and his Administration.

And having worked for several public officials myself, I know there’s a heck of lot more to them than their public images would suggest. No public figure is the two-dimensional character of the headlines. As Garden State Equality’s leader, I have worked closely with this Governor on issues upon which we agree, notably to counter school bullying.

As I have said before, where we agree with them on the issues, Governor Christie and his Administration have treated us with warmth and responsiveness. Yes is yes, no is no, and we’ll get back to you means they get back to you faster than you thought, usually with invaluable help.

And that’s precisely why Governor Christie’s veto of the marriage equality bill will hurt so badly. We’re not naïve – we’ve always known he would veto the bill, and frankly, I was always a bit puzzled by the silly tea-leaf reading and phantasmagoric hopes that perhaps the Governor would look deep inside his heart and let the bill become law. Ridiculous. I know this Governor, and when he says he’ll do something, take him at his word, for better and here for worse.

It’s why I chose not to waste a breath in pleading with the Governor not to veto – and have put Garden State Equality immediately to work to achieve an override. The great news is, we have until the end of the legislative session, in January 2014, to do it.

That doesn’t obviate the pain of the Governor’s veto. Because I do know him, I also know he is not some anti-LGBT nut. He is no Rick Santorum. Frankly, I don’t think Chris Christie has an anti-gay bone in his body, however much I cannot say the same about his impending veto. His veto will be a brutally anti-gay act, pure and simple.

The Governor keeps calling for a referendum, which everyone knows will never happen in New Jersey. To borrow the Governor’s words, it’s time for him to stop engaging in political theater. Our lives are not La Cage Aux Folles: LGBT people fall in love, raise families, often children whom the rest of society shuns, and pay taxes in what is still one of the most heavily taxed states in the country.

Our Governor knows our contributions to society. He won’t veto the bill because he’s anti-gay. He’ll veto the bill because the 2016 South Carolina Republican Presidential primary electorate is anti-gay. And if I get flooded with letters now from Charleston, so be it.

And that’s what hurts so badly. I like this Governor and am able to see him beyond the headlines. When you are rejected by someone you want so badly to love you unconditionally – my own parents have taught me what that’s like – the pain is searing. Rick Santorum I can live with. Gerry Cardinale I can live with, too. But Chris Christie’s rejection? That hurts.

Governor, rest assured that even though I came of political age in an era where political adversaries could be friends – and if you’re game, we’ll continue that good relationship – Garden State Equality and I will continue to fight you on marriage equality with every bone in our bodies. You would expect no less.

For us, this is not about politics. This is about our fundamental American right to conduct our lives with a full life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Equality.

And until we achieve it, we will fight with our every last breath. And we will win, so help me God.

Report: Former VP Dick Cheney Lobbying for Same-Sex Marriage

John Aravosis found this burried in a Baltimore Sun article:

He (Republican Del. Wade Kach) also became the target of a last-minute lobby effort, and said his voice mail was full of messages from important people, including ( former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken) Mehlman, (New York Mayor Michael) Bloomberg and an offer to talk with former Vice President Dick Cheney, whom Kach regards as a “great man.” All three are recognized for their support of gay rights issues. (Emphasis mine.)

Yesterday, Del. Kach announced that he will cast his vote in support of a bill to provide marriage equality in Maryland. The bill is now before the Maryland House of Delegates. A vote may come as early as today.

Civil Unions Bill Introduced In West Virginia

Talk about a cry in the wilderness:

Del. John Doyle says he introduced the bill Thursday to start a conversation about family equality. The Jefferson County Democrat says that gay and lesbian couples should have the same safety net to deal with the death of a parent or the loss of a job as married couples.

Fairness WV, which advocates on behalf of the gay, lesbian and transgender community, says this is the first time a civil union bill has been introduced in the West Virginia Legislature.

I hope you’ll allow me to digress for a moment. I grew up in Portsmouth, Ohio. All three of our television stations came from West Virginia, along with one of the two most popular radio stations (the other was from across the Big Sandy river from Huntington, WV, in Ashland, KY). If we wanted to go to a concert or go shopping or do anything remotely big city-ish, we went to Huntington, about 45 miles away. It was closer and easier to get to than the next option, Columbus, which was 90 miles away. Growing up in the 1970s, contemporary Appalachian culture had far more relevance in our lives than anything that one might assume from the accidental fact that we lived on the north bank of the Ohio river, although I can safely say that neither I nor any of my friends were really much aware of it at the time.

And so having said that, I will now add this: West Virginia, I can confidently predict, will beat Alabama and Mississippi in providing some sort of partnership recognition, although I suspect they probably won’t beat them by much. Especially if the status quo remains unchallenged. Good for Doyle and Fairness WV for challenging the status quo.

The Daily Agenda for Friday, February 17

TODAY’S AGENDA:
Maryland House To Vote On Same-Sex Marriage: Annapolis, MD. It’s looking very likely that there are enough marriage equality supporters in Maryland’s House of Delegates to pass the Civil Marriage Protection Act, which will provide marriage equality in the state of Maryland. Right now, it looks like a vote may take place sometime today. We’ll keep you posted as we learn more.

Celebrations This Weekend: Road Runner Regional Gay Rodeo, Chandler, AZ; Rainbow Reykjavik, Iceland; Sitges Carnival, Sitges, Spain; and Out In the Desert Film Festival, Tucson, AZ.

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).

And feel free to consider this your open thread for the day. What’s happening in your world?

A Handy Menu For “Victims” To Choose From

The proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009. (Click to download, PDF: 847KB/16 pages)

Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill has been re-introduced into Parliament and is currently in the hands of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee. As the Committee considers what to do with the bill, there has been considerable confusion over what would happen if the bill were to become law. Most of the attention has focused on the bill’s death penalty provision, but even if it were removed, the bill’s other seventeen clauses would still represent a barbaric regression for Uganda’s human rights record. In this series, we will examine the original text of bill’s eighteen clauses to uncover exactly what it includes in its present form.

After having examined the many ways in which just about anyone can be charged with homosexuality, the many ways in which just about anyone can earn the death sentence, the ridiculous clause against “attempted homosexuality” (when the burden of proof for the “crime” of homosexuality is set so low that it’s almost impossible how anyone could stop short at “attempting it”), and the dangers that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill pose to doctors, lawyers, beauticians, and just about everyone else who comes in contact with gay people — you’d think after all that, we’d be just about finished with examining the Anti-Homoseuxality Bill.

Unfortunately, we are only now reaching the half-way point. So let’s continue and dispense with these three clauses quickly:

8. Conspiracy to engage in homosexuality.
A person who conspires with another to induce another person of the same sex by any means of false pretence or other fraudulent means to permit any person of the same sex to have unlawful carnal knowledge of him or her commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for seven years.

9. Procuring homosexuality by threats, etc.
(1) A person who–

(a) by threats or intimidation procures or attempts to procure any woman or man to have any unlawful carnal knowledge with any person of the same sex, either in Uganda or elsewhere;

(b) by false pretences or false representations procures any woman or man to have any unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex, either in Uganda or elsewhere; or

(2) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section upon the evidence of one witness only, unless that witness is corroborated in some material particular by evidence implicating the accused.

10. Detention with intent to commit homosexuality.
A person who detains another person with the intention to commit acts of homosexuality with him or herself or with any other person commits an offence and is liable on conviction for seven years.

As is the case with the other clauses we’ve examined, these clauses are predicated on the assumption that there is no such thing as a consensual relationship as far as gay people are concerned. Someone is either a perpetrator or a victim, and if one is a victim, one is either “tricked” into homosexuality (how on earth does that happen?), is threatened into it, or is detained and forced into it. Clause 8, of course, is ridiculous, so much so that the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee recommended its deletion. But not because it’s nonsense, but because they somehow managed to find it redundant with Clause 13 (prohibiting the “promotion” of homosexuality) without explaining how it is redundant.

Clauses 9 and 10 however are somewhat more serious. After all, I think we can agree that threatening someone to have gay sex should be a crime, and that detaining someone in order to have gay sex with them should also be a crime. On those points, I think we all can find common ground.

But while we’re on the topic, shouldn’t threatening someone to have any kind of sex also be a crime? Shouldn’t detaining someone in order to have any kind of sex also be a crime? Of course they should be, and of course they already are.

The addition of these clauses here in the Anti-Homosexuality Bill serve no legal purpose. They merely make illegal that which is already illegal. But they do serve a propaganda purpose by reinforcing the idea that gay people are inherently criminal in all aspects of their relationships. And they also provide a convenient menu from which quick-thinking so-called “victims of homosexuality” can choose when they decide to take advantage of Clauses 5 and 6 to get out of jail free while throwing their partner under the bus.

As for the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee recommendations, they chose to keep Clause 10, but recognized that Clause 9 could have benefited from some proofreading. They recommended striking the unfinished phrase “either in Uganda or elsewhere; or” and adding at the end of the provision the words “…commits an offence and is liable on conviction be liable to imprisonment of seven years.” Oops. It looks like their recommendation needed some more proofreading.

As we said before, the Eight Parliament disbanded before adopting the recommendations. The bill that is back in the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee for the Ninth Parliament is the original bill, which still contains these clauses as originally submitted.

Clause By Clause With Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill:
Clauses 1 and 2: Anybody Can Be Gay
Clause 3: Anyone Can Be “Liable To Suffer Death”
Clause 4: Anyone Can “Attempt to Commit Homosexuality”
Clauses 5 and 6: Anyone Can Be A Victim (And Get Out Of Jail Free If You Act Fast)
Clauses 7 and 14: Anyone Can “Aid And Abet”
Clauses 8 to 10: A Handy Menu For “Victims” To Choose From
Clauses 11, 14, 16 and 17: Nowhere To Run, Nowhere To Hide
Clause 12: Till Life Imprisonment Do You Part
Clause 13: The Silencing of the Lambs
Clause 14: The Requirement Isn’t Only To Report Gay People To Police. It’s To Report Everyone.
Clauses 15 and 19: The Establishment Clauses For The Ugandan Inquisition

An irrelevant sighting

Today on the way to work I saw the Newt Bus parked on the side of Wilshire in the Hancock Park area. I considered stopping to take a picture and going online to check out Gingrich’s schedule for the day, but realized it just didn’t matter.

India’s Supreme Court affirms decriminalization of homosexuality

UPDATE: strike all below. They have not made a decision, this was just the direction of their questions.

There has been, for some years, increased tolerance and acceptance of sexual minorities in India. The largest break-through was in 2009 when the New Delhi High Court found that sodomy laws were unconstitutional and the government chose to apply that ruling to the nation as a whole.

In response some religious and other organizations and individuals petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling. Today the court confirmed the decision of the New Delhi High Court and officially ended the nation’s ban on homosexuality.

The justices took an interesting approach, pondering the meaning of Section 377 of the Indian penal Code which prohibits “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”. In an age of invitro fertilization and surrogacy, they decided that banning same-sex expression as being against the order of nature made little sense. And referring to sculptures of Khajuraho, they determined that gay sex was not originally an offense to Indians, but that the laws prohibiting it were colonial imports from Britain.

NJ House Passes Marriage Equality

The vote was  42-33, and the bill now goes to Gov. Chris Christie’s desk where he promises to veto it. No Republicans voted for the bill, while four Democrats voted against. The Assembly vote was 12 votes shy of the 54 needed to override the veto. Monday’s bipartisan 24-16 Senate vote approving the measure is just three votes shy of the override bar.  Senate President Stephen Sweeny called on Christie to sign the bill:

“Marriage equality will happen in New Jersey,” Sweeney said in a statement. “The only question that remains is whether Governor Christie will be on the right or wrong side of history.”

Assuming Christie follows through on his veto promise, marriage supports will have until the end of the legislative session in January 2014 to build support to override the veto.

Not reacting according to Culture War sides

Unfortunately, in today’s Culture War driven political climate, one’s political affiliation and group identity often dictates their response to issues and situations.

And our community is not immune. We make excuses for those who kinda may support us – or are, at least, affiliated in some way with our supporters – while holding to ridicule and derision proposals and ideas by those who oppose us on matters of equality whether or not those proposals or ideas have merit or impact our community uniquely in any way.

At BTB we try hard to be thoughtful rather than reactionary. We don’t always succeed, but we try. And it is in that context that I declare my agreement with Gary Bauer and Concerned Women for America on a situation.

The matter is trivial, a foolish mistake made by an overzealous government worker who turned off their brain and placed tick-boxes on a clipboard as being far more important than the purposes for those tick-boxes.

According to the Carolina Journal, an agent with the Department of Health and Human Services came to West Hoke Elementary School to inspect the lunches of pre-schoolers and make certain that they were eating an approved meal. The school decided that one four year old girl’s lunch – consisting of a turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice – was not adequately nutritious and so she was informed that Mommy’s lunch was bad and it was replaced with a cafeteria meal. [UPDATE: DHHS has issued a press release stating that the child was not told that Mommy’s lunch was bad, that they do not inspect home prepared lunches, and that besides she was simply offered milk to supplement her meal. To date (2/17) there is no information on exactly how she came to the impression that her lunch needed additional nutritional elements or why whomever noted the lack of compliance with federal guidelines missed that the lunch the girl actually ate was not something that a nutrition-focused parent would select.]

For lunch that day, the girl ate three chicken nuggets.

Now, the right wing is delighted. Here is an example of government at its worst, lurking in your child’s classroom and making her eat chicken nuggets. And the opportunity to attack their enemies was too good to pass up.

Dr. Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America sees Michele Obama as to blame.

I think our state legislators [and] our federal legislators have to get involved in this because regulation is coming from the top, and quite frankly, a lot of this stems from the first lady’s emphasis on nutritional requirements that the government has to certify that each child has the appropriate nutritional requirements.

Gary Bauer (who isn’t running for President this year) sees communists in the bushes.

The girl’s grandmother, who often makes her granddaughter’s lunches, asked rhetorically, “This isn’t China, is it?” Not yet, but welcome to Obama’s brave new world. If the government can force us to buy specific products, force religious institutions to violate their values and send lunchbox inspectors to sort through our kids’ food, Chinese-style “commissars” are in our future.

It’s tempting to leap to the defense of the Obamas and the federal program, isn’t it? Considering that it’s Crouse and Bauer our instinct is to disagree and insist that federal guidelines are necessary to protect the health of children. This can’t be blamed on Obama because this was never their intent and besides this error was on the part of the school. Let’s get our excuses in order and blow these right wingers out of the water…

Except that in this case they are right. Not about the ‘blame the Obamas’ part, but about this being an example of a federal government that has exceeded all reasonable boundaries and has insinuated itself much too far into the minutia of our daily lives.

If we stop for a moment, we will all agree that three chicken nuggets are not a healthier choice than a turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice. Some of us snort at the notion that a government which approves of chicken nuggets – about as close to poison as you can get and still call it food – has any business making any valuations about nutrition.

Some of us go further, questioning why it is that any government official, at any level, is inspecting the lunch bags that parents send with their children. Why the federal government is dictating standards at local schools for home-brought lunches, at all? When did the Senator from Alabama and the Representative from Pascagoula get the right to decide what my kid eats for lunch, anyway?

Some of us hold to the principle that a child’s health and nutrition are primarily the responsibility of that child’s parents and if they are lacking in knowledge or concern then their community – relatives, neighbors, teachers – can offer counsel. Ultimately if it raises to the level of abuse or abandonment of care, the state can step in as protector.

But to abdicate our own responsibilities as parents and community members to a federal bureaucracy is to invite lunch bag inspection. If our desire to control others and force them to do what we know is best rules the day, then control and force will be the result.

And we need not use the examples of “forcing religious institutions to violate their values” to illustrate our point. (And he’s right, as long as they are using their own money and not administering taxpayer funded programs, the Catholic Church should not be forced to pay for contraception, abortion, or any other procedures they find morally objectionable. Nor should the Gay and Lesbian Center be forced to pay for insurance that includes ex-gay counseling, for that matter.)

It’s not the poor abused conservative Christians that are the real victims of governmental excess. Rather, our own community is the very poster child for federal abuse, most of it instigated by political allies of Gary Bauer and Janet Crouse.

The State of Massachusetts is suing the federal government because the Feds refuse to honor the centuries old right of states to determine marriage (so long as they are constitutional determinations). Residents of that state – and five others – are victims not of federal lunch inspectors but of federal crotch inspectors. If there are not the right amount of penises in the relationship, then the government box-tickers will not approve. “No, don’t eat that – not enough penises. Have a chicken nugget.”

Federal legislators are actually proposing a bill that would ban equality-supporting chaplains in the military from offering the rites of their faith to military members at their own chapel if those rites affirm the commitment of a same-sex couple.

And, in a policy that every ‘small tax conservative’ and every ‘pro-business conservative’ and every ‘fewer-restrictions conservative’ should each use as example number one – but for some unknown reason they never ever seem to bring up – our Federal Government has dictated that if a business wishes to offer to its employees health insurance coverage for their spouses, the business must track gay employees separately from straight employees and report this coverage to the Federal Government so that it may tax the gay employees – but not straight employees – on their health benefits.

But Crouse and Bauer aren’t interested in government intrusion on those issues. They lobby for increased federal crotch inspection and further appropriate orientation requirements. “Don’t tell me what to do, but here’s a list of laws that we think should restrict the freedoms and equalitites of gay people.”

I think that the question we should be asking is not “Why is this program anti-gay?” or “Why is this program anti-religious?” or even “Why is this program anti-parent packed lunch?” but rather the question should simply be “Why is this program?”

If we stop fighting and hating each other enough to think, surely we can agree that we all could use a bit more liberty and independence and a little less bureaucracy in our lives.

Is Rhode Island Next?

The Providence Journal reports:

Rep. Frank Ferri, D-Warwick, and Sen. Josh Miller, D-Cranston, will introduce a bill to repeal a controversial section of Rhode Island’s new civil-unions law that exempts religious organizations from recognizing same-sex unions.

Rep. Art Handy, D-Cranston, and Sen. Rhoda Perry, D-Providence, will submit a proposal to grant gay couples the right to marry.

And Rep. Larry Valencia, D-Richmond, and Sen. Donna Nesselbush, D-Pawtucket, will submit legislation allowing gay couples married in other states to divorce in Rhode Island.

Rhode Island’s deeply unpopular civil union law, which went into effect last summer, includes an extraordinarily broad religious exemption provision that extends far beyond protecting churches from being required to recognize civil unions. It actually had the effect of reversing several employment and other non-discrimination protections that LGBT people had until then already enjoyed under state law before civil unions went into effect. It’s a major reason why LGBT groups in Rhode Island opposed the law and urged Gov. Lincoln Chafee to veto it. Two months later, only nine Rhode Island couples bothered to become civil-unioned. By November, that number had skyrocketed. To thirty-nine.

Third Maryland GOP Lawmaker Announces Support for Marriage Equality

Metro Weekly’s Chris Geidner breaks the news that Del. Wade Kach (R-Baltimore County) has just announced that he will support the Civil Marriage Protection Act, which will provide marriage equality in Maryland, when it comes to a vote in Maryland’s House of Delegate. Vote counters believe that his vote is the one vote needed to put marriage equality over the top in the lower house. Kach joins fellow Republicans, Sen. Allan Kittleman (R-Carroll, Howard counties) and Del. Bob Costa (R-Anne Arundel County), in supporting the bill.

The House is in recess until 5:30 p.m. this evening. When the session resumes tonight, the bill’s second reading is expected, during which amendments could be offered. A vote on the bill could come as early as tomorrow.

Anyone Can “Aid And Abet”

The proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009. (Click to download, PDF: 847KB/16 pages)

Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill has been re-introduced into Parliament and is currently in the hands of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee. As the Committee considers what to do with the bill, there has been considerable confusion over what would happen if the bill were to become law. Most of the attention has focused on the bill’s death penalty provision, but even if it were removed, the bill’s other seventeen clauses would still represent a barbaric regression for Uganda’s human rights record. In this series, we will examine the original text of bill’s eighteen clauses to uncover exactly what it includes in its present form.

As we have seen already in just the first six clauses of the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill, it would be easy for anyone, gay or straight, to be caught up on charges which can bring either a lifetime prison sentence or the death penalty. Those clauses ostensibly target gay people, but the (possibly) unintended consequences of the sloppily-worded bill would also make heterosexuals vulnerable, particularly in a country where corruption is endemic. While those clauses supposedly target gay people, other clauses of the bill would target anyone, gay or straight, who would come to their aid. Like these clauses:

7. Aiding and abating (sic) homosexuality
A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures another to engage in acts of homosexuality commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for seven years.

14. Failure to disclose the offence.
A person in authority, who being aware of the commission of any offence under this Act, omits to report the offence to the relevant authorities within twenty-four hours of having first had that knowledge, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty currency points or imprisonment not exceeding three years.

The simple wording of these two clauses provides a breathtaking potential for all sorts of abuse. A straightforward reading of these clauses would leave doctors, lawyers, and other professionals vulnerable for providing services to gay people. That appears to be the precise aim of this bill, according to the British medical journal The Lancet, which reported in December of 2009 of a talk that M.P. David Bahati, the bill’s sponsor, gave before a cheering audience at Makerere University in Kampala (subscription required):

Before ceding the podium, Bahati had one last point to make. “This is not a Ugandan thing”, he said, his chest swelling with indignation. “Homosexuals are using foreign aid organisations to promote this. If an organisation is found to be promoting homosexuality, then their licence should be revoked.”

Shoulder to shoulder with Bahati’s supporters a half dozen or so Ugandans listened quietly. Several were doctors who had spent much of their careers toiling against a disease that has taken the lives of more than a million Ugandans. Their faces were stoic as they contemplated the implications of Bahati’s bill for the fight against HIV/AIDS not just among gay men but also among the wives and children of men who also have sex with men. They considered the long, lean years that had been spent quietly setting up networks to disburse information on HIV/AIDS to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex Ugandans.

“As a doctor, the law infuriates me”, said one general practitioner, who is much sought after by sexual minorities for his willingness to treat them, and who asked that his name not be used for fear that he would be arrested for working with sexual minorities. “We are only now getting to a point where people understand there is a problem. This law is going to erase all of that.”

It will erase all that for two reasons. Doctors who are found providing accurate safe-sex information to people who they know are gay can be held liable for “aiding and abetting” homosexuality. And gay people, understanding that Clause 14 would require doctors to report known gay people to police, would be driven underground. This is critical in the fight against AIDS. As The Lancet’s Zoe Alsop reported, in much of Africa, where AIDS is predominantly a heterosexual disease, many people, including doctors, believe that it’s impossible for gay people to become infected with HIV. This is a very different understanding than in the west.

Doctors aren’t the only professionals whose normal lines of work would make them susceptible to these two clauses. Counsellors and mental health professionals would also be susceptible, as would Lawyers who provide legal assistance or advice to gays and lesbians. Even pastors, whether they be pro-gay, anti-gay or neutral, could also find themselves held liable under these clauses.

But the dangers that these two clauses pose go way beyond the professions. Ordinary people who come in contact with LGBT people — whether they be friends, parents, siblings, co-workers, employers or neighbors — through ordinary kindnesses, accommodations, mutual aid and support, can be seen as “aiding and abetting” homosexuality. And they, too, could face imprisonment if they fail to report their gay friends, sons or daughters, brothers or sisters, co-workers, employees, or neighbors to police within twenty-four hours of finding out about that person’s sexuality.

The Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee, which reviewed the Anti-Homosexuality Bill during the closing days of the Eighth Parliament, recommended that Clause 7 against “aiding and abetting homosexuality” be deleted because, the committee said, it was covered by Clause 13 prohibiting the “promotion of homosexuality.” (We will examine that clause later.) As for Clause 14 requiring everyone to report gay people to police within twenty-four hours, the committee also recommended its deletion, saying “The offence will create absurdities and the provision will be too hard to implement.” The Eighth Parliament ended before the Committee’s recommendations could be accepted in a floor vote. The original bill, which was reintroduced into the Ninth Parliament, is back in the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee for further consideration. And with it, these two clauses are still being considered as well.

(Because Clause 14 is so breathtaking in its scope, I will discuss it further in a later installment.)

Clause By Clause With Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill:
Clauses 1 and 2: Anybody Can Be Gay
Clause 3: Anyone Can Be “Liable To Suffer Death”
Clause 4: Anyone Can “Attempt to Commit Homosexuality”
Clauses 5 and 6: Anyone Can Be A Victim (And Get Out Of Jail Free If You Act Fast)
Clauses 7 and 14: Anyone Can “Aid And Abet”
Clauses 8 to 10: A Handy Menu For “Victims” To Choose From
Clauses 11, 14, 16 and 17: Nowhere To Run, Nowhere To Hide
Clause 12: Till Life Imprisonment Do You Part
Clause 13: The Silencing of the Lambs
Clause 14: The Requirement Isn’t Only To Report Gay People To Police. It’s To Report Everyone.
Clauses 15 and 19: The Establishment Clauses For The Ugandan Inquisition

Tennessee’s “Don’t Say Gay” Bill is Back

A Tennessee House Education Committee approved the so-called “Don’t Say Gay” bill on a voice vote yesterday, sending it to the House Education Committee, which could take up the measure next week. Observers say it is on track for passage in the full house by the time the legislature adjourns in the spring.

The bill (PDF: 36KB/1 page), which would prohibit elementary or middle school teachers from discussing any sexual orientation other than heterosexuality, which opponents fear would prohibit discussions of bullying against gay students. It reads:

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 49-6-1005, is amended by adding the following as new subsection (c) and by relettering the existing subsection (c) accordingly:

(c)

(1) The general assembly recognizes the sensitivity of particular subjects that are best explained and discussed in the home. Human sexuality is a complex subject with societal, scientific, psychological, and historical implications; those implications are best understood by children with sufficient maturity to grasp their complexity.

(2) Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it.

The state Senate has already passed a version last year with an amendment which they claim narrows the scope of the bill. That amendment changed section 2 to read (PDF: 44KB/ 1 page):

Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, any instruction or materials made available or provided at or to a public elementary or middle school shall be limited exclusively to natural human reproduction science.  The provisions of this subdivision shall also apply to a group or organization that provides instruction in natural human reproduction science in public elementary or middle schools.

So far, the bill in the house appears not to have been updated to reflect the Senate’s change.

Liberia’s Ex-First Lady Proposes Death Penalty for Gays

According to AFP, Liberian Sen. Jewel Howard Taylor has introduced a bill into the West African nation’s Senate making homosexuality a first degree felony, which can bring anywhere from ten years to life, or a death sentence at the discretion of the judge.

AFP reports that this comes in response to a campaign by Liberian LGBT advocates who sought to repeal Liberia’s anti-sodomy law, which currently provides for three years’ imprisonment. In January, the Information Ministry responded, “The Liberian government will not allow the legalisation of gay and lesbian activities in Liberia. The president has vowed not to allow such a bill, and even if the bill goes before the president she will veto it.”

Sen. Taylor’s ex-husband, Charles Taylor, ran an oppressive dictatorship from 1996 to 2003 following a bloody seven year civil war. He finally resigned in 2003 after another brutal civil war left him ruling only about a third of Monrovia, Liberia’s capitol. He is now under arrest and being tried for war crimes in The Hague. Sen. Taylor divorced her husband in 2006, citing his exile and a UN travel ban which prevented her from visiting him.

The Daily Agenda for Thursday, February 16

TODAY’S AGENDA:
New Jersey House to Vote On Same-Sex Marriage: Trenton, NJ. The New Jersey House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on a bill to provide marriage equality this afternoon. This follows a bipartisan 24-16 Senate vote approving the measure on Monday, a vote which was just shy of the 27 votes needed to overcome an promised veto by Republican Gov. Chris Christie. The House’s vote is expected to begin at about 1:00 p.m. EST. Assuming Christie follows through on his veto promise, marriage supports will have until the end of the legislative session in January 2014 to build support to override the veto.

Celebrations This Weekend: Rainbow Reykjavik, Iceland; Sitges Carnival, Sitges, Spain; and Out In the Desert Film Festival, Tucson, AZ.

TODAY’S BIRTHDAY:
Katharine Cornell: 1893. She shared the title of “The First Lady of the Theatre” with Helen Hayes; as good friends and colleagues, they each deferred the title to each other. While Hayes is probably more well known today, Cornell’s own acting and contributions to the theater are legendary. Part of her success can be attributed to her collaboration with her husband, Guthrie McClintic, a successful director and producer. Their marriage was both professional and one of convenience: Cornell was lesbian and McClintic was gay. She was a member of New York’s “sewing circles, with relationships with Tallulah Bankhead and Mercedes de Acosta, among others. Meanwhile, McClinctic directed Cornell in every play since their marriage.

Cornell’s acclaimed Broadway roles include the title character of George Bernard Shaw’s Candide, Countess Ellen Olenska in The Age of Innocence, the poet Elizabeth Barrett Browning in The Barretts of Wimpole Street — and that’s just before the Great Depression. Her career continued unabated through the 1950s. Her appearance in the title role of 1936’s St. Joan won her a bevy of honorary degrees from several colleges and universities, and she won a Tony Award for Best Actress for  Antony and Cleopatra in 1947. After McClintic died in 1961, Cornell decided to retire rather than work with another director. She restored the 300-year-old Association Hall on Martha’s Vineyard, which was later rename the Katharine Cornell Theater. She died of pneumonia in 1974, and was buried next to the theater named in her honor.

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).

And feel free to consider this your open thread for the day. What’s happening in your world?