Box Turtle Bulletin

“My high school boyfriend was gay”

A Tumblr of photos submitted by women of their former dates.

Full text of my Colorado House committee testimony on civil unions

Providing testimony to a Senate committee earlier this month.

.

The Colorado House is holding a crucial committee hearing on the civil unions bill today and I will be testifying.  In 2006 Colorado voters both rejected a referendum to enact civil unions and amended the state constitution to ban gay marriage.  These events of 2006 have become a favorite talking-point for those legislators wishing to oppose civil unions here in 2011.  Gay rights are one of the fastest changing opinions among voters and multiple polls in Colorado have shown that voters here have changed their views drastically since 2006.

My name is Daniel Gonzales.

I need to publicly apologize to my community because before I came out of the closet, I voted in favor of my home state’s marriage ban amendment.

But I’m not alone, the issue of equal protections for gays and lesbians is one of the most rapidly shifting opinions among voters in our nation right now.

Yet when this bill was in the Senate your peers kept bringing up Ref i and Amendment 43, as if Coloradans are an exception and haven’t reconsidered the issue since these votes in 2006.

That’s clearly not the case.

Three different polls conducted this year and last have all shown support for civil unions exceeding 72% among Coloradans.

So yes, Colorado voters, including people in your district, have changed their minds on this issue, and I count myself among them.

The citizens of Utah, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma have seen fit to pass amendments banning not just marriage but also civil unions.  Yet the people of this state have not done so.  The people of Colorado have left the door open for us to have civil unions.

Amendment 43 bans marriage.  Civil unions and marriage are not the same thing.  Colorado voters know that. That’s why the two poll at drastically different levels of support.

I ask you to please work within the bounds of our constitution to give our relationships some basic dignity through civil unions.

I ask that you realize and acknowledge that the voters of Colorado and I have changed our thinking on this issue.

My own coming out took three years, it was a gradual process. And in that time my existing beliefs and preconceptions were challenged and I began to think about what sort of life and what sort of family I might one-day have.

I’m not here to try and change your personal religious convictions or get some sort of moral stamp of approval.

But I am saying that the voters of Colorado and I have changed our thinking on this issue and I would ask that you too begin to challenge your preconceived feelings about people you might think are so different than you.

Perhaps some of the tearful testimonies earlier have demonstrated that the hopes, dreams and fears of our families are not that much different than yours.

Today you have an opportunity to improve the lives of families in our state. I urge you to take it.

Jackson County, MI, turns human resources over to Crystal Dixon

On April 4, 2008, Michael Miller, the editor of the Toledo Free Press, wrote an editorial in which he declared his affiliation with and affection for the community of gay people in his life. He expressed his difficulty in understanding anti-gay prejudice and the motivations behind those who advocate for discrimination.

Because I have such intense love and respect for the people in my life who are gay, it never makes sense to me when I hear someone preaching anti-gay rights propaganda. I can never understand why they care.

It’s basic Golden Rule territory: don’t judge people for the color of their skin or their physical challenges, and don’t judge them for their sexuality. I know that is a simplified and naïve statement, but for me, the issue really is that simple.

Miller lamented that his home state of Ohio was behind the curve in recognizing the equality of its gay residents. As an illustration on how gay Ohioans can be subjected to casual and careless inequality and indignity, he discussed a local situation.

The frequent denial of health care benefits leads to horror stories. According to the panelists, UT has offered domestic partner benefits since then-president Dan Johnson signed them into effect. The Medical University of Ohio did not offer those benefits. When the institutions merged, UT employees retained the domestic-partner benefits, but MUO employees were not offered them. So, people working for the same employer do not have access to the same benefits. According to the panel, it may be 18 months before the situation is addressed. Eighteen months is a very long time to live (and work at a medical facility) without health benefits.

Miller’s criticism did not sit well with Crystal Dixon, associate vice president for Human Resources at the University of Toledo. So on April 18, the Free Press printed Dixon’s rebuttal and allowed her to set the record straight.

But the Free Press’ implied criticism of the administration was not her concern. No, Dixon was furious that Miller dared to suggest that the struggle for equality for gay people had anything in common with the struggle for equality endured by African-Americans. How dare he compare her to one of them.

As a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo’s Graduate School, an employee and business owner, I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are “civil rights victims.” Here’s why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended. Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing population of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex Gays) and Exodus International just to name a few.

Her letter went on to express her belief that Jesus Christ hates homosexuality, to accuse gay people of violating God’s divine order, to complain that “economic data” proved that gay men who have degrees make more money than a non-college educated black male, and to declare that it was “misleading” to note that gay employees were categorically denied benefits when ALL employees of the two schools have “different benefit plans.”

To say that this was an embarrassment for the University of Toledo would be an understatement. Not only did her actions threaten her department’s employment negotiation possibilities, but it put the entire university in a disadvantage. When considering their options, few prospective college students consider anti-gay advocacy to be a selling point.

So on May 2, Dr. Lloyd Jacobs, the president of the University of Toledo, wrote an op-ed to assure the public that the school does not engage in anti-gay hiring practices, that Dixon’s comments “do not accord with the values of the University of Toledo”, and that he had personally lobbied the legislature in favor of domestic-partner recognition. He also corrected the impression that Dixon gave about the university’s position on the denial of benefits.

As regards the continued asymmetry of benefits packages across the campuses of this university, do understand that we are fully aware that asymmetry that Michael S. Miller spoke of does exist and are working as rapidly as we can to correct this asymmetry. When this asymmetry is corrected, the solution will be reflective of the university value statements above.

And with a cryptic reference to taking action to “more fully align our utterances and actions” with the values he expressed, Dr. Jacobs hinted that Dixon might best update her resume. And, indeed, on the 8th, noting that “personnel actions or decisions taken in your capacity as associate vice president for human resources could be challenged or placed at risk”, the University notified her that she had been terminated.

Naturally, letters flooded in to the editor. Those offended by Dixon’s views tended towards relatively polite exclamations of consternation and little lectures on equality and civil rights. Those angry at Dixon’s discontinued employment included accusations of fascism combined with a healthy dose of religious entitlement and no small amount of homophobia.

Dixon retained the Catholic advocacy law firm, Thomas Moore Law Center, and announced her intention to sue the university for violating her First Amendment rights. And World Net Daily, never one to let a loon go unchampioned, took up her causeRush Limbaugh and Focus on the Family presented Dixon as a martyr, a victim of liberal godlessness
and soon Crystal Dixon was the darling of the anti-gay industry.

Even wackadoodlery’s favorite theologian, Dr. Robert Gagnon, rushed to get a little attention from the controversy. In an open letter to the university full of axiomatic declarations about the obviousness of heterosexuality and amusing assumptions about gay relationships (lesbians have “markedly shorter durations of sexual unions on average, even relative to homosexual males”), he declared that “the closest parallels to adult-committed homosexual relations is not ethnicity or gender but rather adult-committed incestuous unions and adult-committed polysexual unions”.

Gagnon decried the school’s “full affirmation of homosexual activity” and bemoaned the “environment that provides increased opportunities for and fewer negative sanctions against same-gender sexuality”. To not sing Dixon’s praises for her honesty and her courage of conviction was, Gagnon declared, a sign of their intolerance. (One thing you have to say about Robert Gagnon, he never lets logic or consistency dissuade him from the certainty of his presumptions.)

In December 2008, Dixon made good on her threat to sue. But after that her trail goes a bit cold. Thomas Moore Law Center waved her flag a bit in their rundraising efforts, but I’m not sure whether her case was heard or if the school settled.

But, meanwhile, Crystal made good use of her down time. She wrote a book, Destiny’s Time, which is either “A New Novel!” or a guide to turning your “God-given talents and passions” into “viable businesses as well as enhancing job readiness skills!” Or perhaps both.

And she also started a company to sell shoe laces (with the catchy slogan “keeps shoes tied”) and a consulting frim which offers not only business advice but opportunities such as

$$ THREE GREAT WAYS FOR YOU TO EARN EXTRA INCOME! $$

1.You pre-buy paper-back books directly from the author at a discounted rate of $7.50 each and then you sell each book for $11 (includes tax) to your customers. And/or you can pre-buy audio books on CD at the discounted rate of $12.50 each and then you sell each audio book for $20. YOU KEEP all monies from books you sell and you have books to sell on the spot! (Minimum of 5 books for consultant purchases).

2. With your sales, you automatically recoup your $7.50 investment and also earn a 47% ($3.50) profit on each paper-back book you sell! For audio books, you earn at 66% ($7.50) profit on each book you sell. Share the books at your convenience!

(The third great way to earn extra income appears to be a secret.)

However, it looks like Ms. Dixon may now be returning from private enterprise to the governmental sector work force. The county and city of Jackson, Michigan, have decided to consolidate their human relations departments and place them under one director’s control. And they have decided that Crystal Dixon, at a salary of $87,030, is the right person for this role.

Noting that Dixon has spent the past three years “working as a human resources and business consultant”, the Interim County Administrator praised her ability to “wear many hats and switch her leadership style based on where she is.” (Mlive.com)

Interim county Administrator Adam Brown said Dixon’s level of experience and professionalism put her “head and shoulders” above other candidates.

It’s tempting to think that if the County representatives are that stupid then they deserve what they get. But there is a bigger issue at stake; Crystal Dixon has been given authority over the livelihood of any gay people that work for the county and city of Jackson.

And while Dixon is certainly entitled to her views about matters of faith, homosexuality, choice, and civil rights, if she is incapable or unwilling to set aside those views, this will undoubtedly result in a culture – and perhaps even policy – of anti-gay discrimination.

And, even before three years of receiving accolades for her anti-gay advocacy, Dixon left little doubt as to whether she considers employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to be objectionable. She does not. She considers it a divine mandate.

Looking back to where it started, before Dixon was the champion of God, family, and decency, she was a woman responding to a newspaper editor’s call for equal compensation for gay employees. And it was in the context of this right that Dixon countered:

There is a divine order. God created human kind male and female (Genesis 1:27). God created humans with an inalienable right to choose. There are consequences for each of our choices, including those who violate God’s divine order. It is base human nature to revolt and become indignant when the world or even God Himself, disagrees with our choice that violates His divine order. Jesus Christ loves the sinner but hates the sin (John 8:1-11.) Daily, Jesus Christ is radically transforming the lives of both straight and gay folks and bringing them into a life of wholeness: spiritually, psychologically, physically and even economically. That is the ultimate right.

In April 2008, Crystal Dixon endorsed anti-gay discrimination, saying, “one’s personal choices lead to outcomes either positive or negative.” Having now been confirmed in her beliefs by the city and county of Jackson, there is little doubt that she will see this as God anointing her to mete out those outcomes.

Play About Mormon Shock Therapy “Cure” Opens In October

ABC News has just released this fascinating report about playwright John Cameron’s experiences with a Mormon-sponsored program in the 1970s to try to cure him of his homosexuality through the use of electric shock therapy. That program, at Brigham Young University, was the basis for a doctoral dissertationby Max Ford McBride. Cameron was a very devout Mormon, and even though he had never acted on his sexual attractions at the time, he was desperate to get rid of his feelings. He saw McBride as his savior:

A mercury-filled tube was placed around the base of the penis and the students were shown alternating slides of men and women in various stages of undress.

When participants responded to images of men with an erection, the closed electric circuit was broken and they received three-second electrical shocks at 10-second intervals. Each session lasted an hour. Participants set their own pain levels.

Cameron said his shame was so deep that he selected the highest level.

“Max (the study’s author) didn’t do it, we did it,” he said. “I was always turning it up to get the most pain because I was desperate.”

This line really jumped out at me:

McBride’s alleged response ended up in Cameron’s play: “No one is a homosexual. Homosexuality doesn’t exist. It’s just a symptom of a deeper problem you are not willing to deal with.”

This line — there is no such thing as a homosexual — remains fundamental dogma of the ex-gay movement to this very day.

Cameron was one of thirteen subjects for McBride’s study. McBride today is a psychologist in Provo, Utah. Cameron wrote a play, “14,” about his experiences. The play, which includes portions of McBride’s dissertation, will be performed at the University of Colorado in Boulder in October. The play debuted at University of Iowa in 2007, and was performed at Kent State University in 2009.

A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: When AIDS is God’s Punishment

When people who are HIV-positive hold a view of God as benevolent and forgiving, their disease progression is significantly slower than for those who see God as punishing and judgmental, according to a new study to be published in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Behavioral Medicine.  

Researchers at the University of Miami followed 101 HIV-positive people over four years, measuring their viral load (VL_log) and CD-4 counts to determine the progression of their disease. Researchers also monitored other factors which may impact disease progression, including adherance to medication, sexual risk behavior, and other drug use. They also examined psychological measures to determine whether depression, church attendance, social engagement/isolation, or optimism contributed to disease progression. 

After four years, the reseachers determined that a positive view of God was significantly associate with slower disease progression, while those holding to a negative, judgmental and punishing view showed significantly faster disease progression:  

More specifically, the decline ratio shows that those who were low on Positive View of God (at the 25th percentile, score of 23) lost CD4-cells five times faster than those who were high on this construct (at the 75th percentile, score of 30). The increase ratio shows that for those scoring low on Positive View of God (25th percentile, score of 23), VL_log those scoring high (75th percentile, score of 30). Similarly, those who held a Negative View of God as harsh/judgmental/punishing had significantly greater loss of CD4-cells over the 4 years, and significantly worse control of HIV. More specifically, those high on Negative View of God (75th percentile, score of 18) lost CD4-cells 2.52 times faster than those who were low (25th percentile, score of 10.5) and had 3.32 times faster increases in VL_log. 

The interesting thing is that results like this held true even when the sample was adjusted for other factors. A positive view of God remained a significant beneficial factor even after adjusting for church attendance, health behaviors (adherence to medication, sexual risk behavior, alcohol/cocaine use), coping behaviors, and social support. A positive view of God also remained beneficial when adjusting for mood (optimism, depression, hopelessness). Which means that even if a person held a view of God as judgmental and punishing but was still optimistic, not depressed, socially engaged, taking his or her meds, etc., the person with a positive view of God still held a health edge after four years. According to the study’s authors, “The effects of View of God were significant and substantial.” 

The authors gave one interesting example of how this effect might work for some people:

One of our long-term survivors, Sarah (not her real name) who has a positive view of God, interpreted her HIV diagnosis by reframing it into having been chosen by God for a special purpose—to help the heterosexual HIV community by establishing a community center and place of welcome for them.

Non-belief in God was not examined in this study due to the small number of atheists in their initial sample. They also caution that while there is a correlation between disease progression and a view of God, “it does not imply that View of God causes disease-progression.”

Gail Ironson, Rick Stuetzle, Dale Ironson, Elizabeth Balbin, Heidemarie Kremer, Annie George, Neil Schneiderman, Mary Ann Fletcher. “View of God as benevolent and forgiving or punishing and judgmental predicts HIV disease progression.” Journal of Behavioral Medicine (published online February 22, 2911): in press. Abstract available here.

Newt Gingrich Promises To “Slow Down” Gay Rights Progress

New Gingrich is running for President like it’s 1996.

Gingrich is the third major GOP figure running for president to appear on American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer’s radio program. Fischer has said that LGBT people should be legally disqualified from holding public office because “gay sex is a form of domestic terrorism” and should be declared a felony. And he is attracting a line of GOP presidential hopefuls to his microphone. Warren Throckmorton asks, “Is Bryan Fischer the new GOP Kingmaker?“

Immigration Resumes Deportation Procedures Against LGBT Spouses

The hold on deportations of immigrant same-sex spouses of American citizens has been lifted:

“The guidance we were awaiting … was received last night, so the hold is over, so we’re back to adjudicating cases as we always have,” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services press secretary Christopher S. Bentley told Metro Weekly this morning.

…Asked if districts would be able to put cases on hold while awaiting a final court determination about the constitutionality of DOMA, Bentley said, “No. The guidance is the same policy that has always been in place,” which he said is to “enforce the law.”

Asked if that means applications of same-sex bi-national couples would continue to be denied now as they had in the past, Bentley said, “Correct, based on the enforcement of DOMA.”

Montana House Blocks Attempt to Decriminalize Homosexuality

The Montana House last night shot down an attempt to remove the state’s law making consensual gay sex illegal. Even though laws like Montana’s was struck down by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v Texas, Montana lawmakers in the house moved to preserve the unconstitutional law yesterday:

The motion by Rep. Diane Sands, D-Missoula, to blast Senate Bill 276 out of the House Judiciary Committee, received 51 votes in the 100-member House but failed to secure the 60 votes needed. The vote was 51-47.

The Senate passed SB276, by Sen. Tom Facey, D-Missoula, 35-14, but the House Judiciary Committee tabled the bill.

Before the court ruling in 1997, gays and lesbians in Montana risked being charged with felonies and if convicted, they could have faced a maximum penalty of a 10-year prison sentence and a $50,000 fine, said Sands, a lesbian.

Incredibly, this was the reason given for the law’s retention:

Rep. Ken Peterson

Judiciary Chairman Rep. Ken Peterson, R-Billings, who is an attorney, said the Supreme Court didn’t find the law unconstitutional.

Its ruling held that same-sex adults, in private, not-for-commercial purposes, are protected by the right to privacy, Peterson said. The court didn’t say the law was unconstitutional, he said.

“It should not be repealed because of situations it might apply in,” he said.

In other arguments to keep the law, Rep. Michael More, R-Gallatin Gateway, reportedly cited Scripture, natural law and “eternal law.”

Colorado Springs & Loveland districts vital this week in civil unions campaign

Last week the Colorado civil unions bill cleared the Senate and moved on to the House where Republicans hold a 1-vote majority. Some have taken it as a encouraging sign that the bill was not immediately sent to a “kill committee” but rather has been sent to the House Judiciary Committee where those opposed to the bill claim it will receive “a fair hearing”

Via the Colorado Independent:

The members of the Republican majority bloc sitting on the House Judiciary Committee don’t seem like the kind of conservatives who would be persuaded by Laura Bush or Cindy McCain, however. Nor do they seem to much reflect civil-unions-friendly Colorado.

Three of the six committee Republicans are Colorado Springs social conservatives

[snip]

GOP House Speaker Frank McNulty has said on several occasions that he is committed to giving the bill a fair hearing. Ferrandino has also said he believes he has enough Republican votes to pass the bill in the House and Republican representatives have begun to go on record as supporters.

On Friday, most of the GOP members of the Judiciary Committee told the Denver Post that, like McNulty, they’re also committed to “giving the bill a fair hearing,” even if they are personally opposed to civil unions.

Committee Chairman Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, told the Post he opposes civil unions but that he is “certainly hearing from both sides” on the issue.

Rep. Mark Barker, R-Colorado Springs, said he also was committed to a fair hearing, before adding that he was a Southern Baptist.

Nikkel said she hadn’t read the bill but of course she would also give it a fair hearing.

It’s vitally important for this bill that if you have friends or loved ones who live in Colorado Springs or Loveland that you have them contact their House Representative (click here) in the next few days. Given the makeup of The Springs it’s a safe assumption that these representatives have been hearing plenty from anti-gay religious folks like Rosina Kovar.

The House committee hearing is Thursday starting at 1:30pm in the Capitol’s Old Supreme Court Chambers, second floor, north end of the building.

I will be testifying again.

Post update: I’ve learned that Reps Nikkel and Delgrosso from Loveland also sit on the committee.

Bi-National LGBT Immigrant Deportations On Hold

That’s according to Metro Weekly, which just confirmed with a spokesman for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, that deportation cases of foreign partners who are married to a same-sex partner and would otherwise be eligible for a green card are on hold, pending questions about the continued validity of the Defense of Marriage Act:

He notes, however, “USCIS has not implemented any change in policy and intends to follow the President’s directive to continue enforcing the law.” The legal distinction means that although DOMA is still being enforced, the USCIS is using its discretion to hold off on denying green card applications where applicable.

Last month, President Obama’s Justice Department announced that they would only defend section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act under heightened scrutiny, which effectively means that due to the discriminatory nature of the act, the DoJ believes it to be unconstitutional. Section 3 holds that the Federal government is not required to recognize same-sex marriages at the state level. However, the federal government is free to establish alternative arrangements. For example, beginning in 2009, widows of U.S. citizens are no longer subject to deportations even though, by definition, they are no longer married to a U.S. citizen.

TV Report: Uganda to Shelve “Kill-The-Gays” Bill

We now have YouTube video of the television news item we told you about yesterday reporting that the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill will not be taken up by Parliament.

The chairman of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee had scheduled the Anti-Homosexuality Bill for debate in his committee, possibly as early as this week. But now, based on what Information Minister Kabakumba Masiko tells Uganda’s NTV, it appears that government has intervened to put a halt to the bill once and for all:

We had the Cabinet Subcommittee which gave us a report yesterday and we did realize that there are many things that are in the bill that are covered by other laws that are already in place. … And the law that is in offing, the Sexual Offenses Bill, will cover most of the other issues that were going to be covered.

Uganda President Yoweri Museveni directed a subcabinet committee to study the bill in January, 2010 amid growing international outcry over the proposed bill. In April, it was reported that the committee recommended that most of the bill be dropped with “useful provisions of the proposed law” incorporated into the Sexual Offenses Act. Which provisions the cabinet considered combining is not known. We currently do not have a copy of the Sexual Offenses Bill. The Bill’s sponsor, David Bahati, responded with a litany of issues which he felt were not covered:

We don’t have any prohibition on promotion of homosexuality anywhere, we don’t have any prohibition on same-sex marriage, we don’t have any prohibition in our laws on recruitment of homosexuality of our children, we don’t have any provision on counseling and caring. We want to make it very clear, we want Parliament to come up with a law that is specific and clear to address the emergent problem of homosexuality.

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill, if passed, would have imposed the death penalty on gays and lesbians under certain circumstances, including for “repeat offenders” — which would apply to anyone who had more than one relationship. Ugandan law already provides either 20 years or lifetime imprisonment, depending on how prosecutors chose to charge the accused. The new law would also have lowered the bar for conviction, making mere “touching” for the perceived purpose of homosexual relations a criminal offense. The law threatened teachers, doctors, friends, and family members with three years imprisonment if they didn’t report anyone they suspected of being gay to police within twenty-four hours. The law very broadly criminalized all advocacy of homosexuality including, conceivably, lawyers who defended accused gay people in court. It even threatened landlords under a “brothel” provision if they knowingly rented to gay people.

Bahati continued:

I am very confident that the Executive knows that 95% of Ugandans will not support homosexuality.

Minister Kabakumba responded:

Of course we are concerned and we don’t condone homosexuality in our country. That should be very, very, very clear. It’s in the constitution, we do not condone it, and of course our children are suffering.

Bahati called for committee to hold hearings on the bill:

Their views must be taken to committee of Parliament to be considered. They could be accepted, they cold be not accepted.

Last week, Tashobya said that the bill would be taken up for consideration by his committee, possibly as early as this week when Parliament returned for its lame duck session. Parliament returned on March 22. Parliament will expire on May 20. Our source in Kampala reports that Bahati has now gone on radio this morning saying that committee chairman Stephen Tashobya has assured him that the bill would be debated in committee.

But with the announcement coming from a cabinet member and not the committee chairman, it suggests that someone, possibly President Museveni himself via Masiko, has intervened and persuaded the Parliamentary Affairs committee to drop the bill altogether without a hearing. It should be noted that the bill’s main supporter in the cabinet, former Ethics and Integrity Minister James Nsaba Buturo, resigned last week in compliance with a court order following his loss in the ruling party’s primary elections last fall.With Buturo now out of the way, it appears that Masiko is the new point person for the government’s position on the bill. In Buturo’s parting remarks, he called on Parliament to pass the bill. (Shortly after Buturo’s departure, the offices of the Ethics and Integrity Ministry were padlocked by their landlord over failure to pay rent.)

January a year ago, Museveni spoke at an NRM meeting urging Parliament to “go slow” over the bill, pointing out that due to international outcry it is not just a domestic matter but one with worldwide ramifications, most notably in the threat it posed to foreign aid to the country. Foreign aid makes up an estimated one-third of Uganda’s budget and economy. He also called on a special subcabinet committee to examine the bill. In a cable from the U.S. Embassy in Kampala posted on Wikileaks, President Museveni “suggested the entire bill could be dropped, and twice asked the Ambassador to remind Washington that “someone in Uganda”, meaning himself, is handling the matter and knows what he is doing.” Museveni also complained about foreign pressure. “The President twice referred to a recent local political cartoon depicting him on this issue as a puppet of Secretary Clinton, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and Stephen Harper, and asked international donors to stand down to give him room to deal with the anti-homosexuality legislation in his own way.”

That subcabinet committee completed it work the following April, but since then the bill has languished in Parliament’s Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee. There it quietly stayed through the February Parliamentary and Presidential elections, and its quiet repose there appeared to keep it safely out of electoral politics. Now that the elections are over, Buturo is out of the way, and with Parliament reconvening for a short lame-duck session, it appears that Museveni’s government saw this as the best opportunity to kill the bill.

Uganda Bill Finally Shelved?

I received an email earlier this afternoon from a trusted source in Kampala, saying that the news program NTV Tonight reported that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill will not be passed by Parliament after all. Uganda’s Information Minister Kabakumba Matsiko was reportedly shown on television explaining that the bill will not be passed because other laws already exist which criminalize homosexuality. However, some parts of the bill may be attached to the Sexual Offenses Act. Which parts, we don’t know. Our source writes, “Bahati was panicked and tried to look defiant.” M.P David Bahati is the bill’s sponsor.

NTV is Uganda’s main independent television station, and is owned by the same media company which publishes the reputable Daily Monitor newspaper.

Update: Andrés Duque of Blabbeando pointed me to this Spanish language article (Google Translation) from the Agencia EFE which appears to  confirmation initial reports.

Poll: 74% of Catholics Support Recognizing Same-Sex Unions

The Public Religion Research Institute has released a poll that probably won’t come as much of a surprise among Catholics. According to the poll, nearly three quarters of Americna Catholics favor legal recognition of same-sex union, either in the form of civil unions (31%) or marriage (43%) Only 22% of Catholics oppose all legal recognition of same-sex couples. When same-sex marriage is explicitly defined as civil marriage, support shoots up higher: 71% then support same sex civil marriages “like you get at city hall.”

This shouldn’t be surprising for two reasons. First, Catholics have now had 43 years of clergy demanding that they refrain from artificial birth control, a teaching that the average Catholic in the pews has roundly rejected. And having rejected one teaching that the Church considers a key teaching on sexuality, they are more than willing to reconsider other teaching as well. Besides, longtimes Catholics will tell you that the image of the meek Catholic obediently following church teaching died out generations ago, at about the same time the Catholic Church stopped being an immigrant church and became, at least for American parishes, an American church.

There’s something else going on as well. Catholics are very aware of the distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage. As every Catholic will tell you, you can be married at city hall or at an Elvis chapel in Vegas, but the marriage doesn’t exist as far as the Church is concerned. And as divorced Catholics know very well, you can have all of the divorce decrees and marriage licenses you can collect from civil authorities, but no priest will marry you unless the Church decides you’re qualified to be married.

The conservative CatholicVote.org thinks they have an answer for these poll results:

Who is driving the numbers behind the headline: “Catholic support same-sex marriage”? Catholics who are almost never in the pews. And yet, when it comes to the headlines, Catholics who can’t even trouble themselves to get to Mass with any sort of regularity are lumped in with faithful Catholics who actually try to follow the teachings of the Church.

Nice try, but that’s not the whole story. Sure, the poll leans heavily toward Catholics who go to church less than once a week (61% of all respondents), but look at the results among regular churchgoing Catholics. The percentage who supports either marriage or civil unions still reaches 64% among Catholics who attend church weekly or more often.

The report (PDF: 351KB/23 pages) does not describe the poll’s margin of error, sample size, or methodology.

CO Senate Republicans split on gender lines

Colorado Independent:

Senate Republicans delivered Pat Steadman’s same-sex civil unions bill to the Republican-controlled House Thursday with momentum and a message. Although the twelve Republican men in the Senate voted against it, the three Republican women in the Senate voted in favor of the bill, making the case to leaders of the Republican-controlled House to take up the bill with good faith and allow it to move beyond committees and onto the floor of the House for a vote.

Is anyone besides me starting to notice a trend?

Sen Scott Renfroe falsely claims gay parents are inferior to straight parents

Today before final passage of the civil unions bill, the Colorado Senate held more floor debate on SB 172. (It now goes on to the House.) We have video of thanks to The Colorado Channel.

Much of what Senator Scott Renfroe said is true, that children do best in committed, stable, two parent households – the American Psychological Association (APA) has stated this repeatedly (source) and I testified about gay parenting to a Senate committee a few weeks ago. Quoting the APA:

“All else being equal – children do better with two parenting figures rather than just one.”

However the APA is well aware people like Sen Renfroe will try and mis-use this research to claim gay families are inferior. The APA goes on to addresses this:

“The specific research studies typically cited in this regard do not address parents’ sexual orientation.”

Furthermore nearly every mental health group in the country has come to the conclusion gays and lesbians raise children just as well as straight people do.  If Sen Renfroe has a source for his claim, it certainly wasn’t presented today since I was sitting in the Senate gallery and heard his entire speech.  Misuse of research and junk science like this have no place in my statehouse.