Box Turtle Bulletin

Exodus President Responds to David Kato’s Murder

Exodus International President Alan Chambers responded to yesterday’s brutal murder of Ugandan LGBT advocate David Kato. In a post to the Exodus Blog this evening, Chambers wrote:

The leadership of Exodus international and its member ministries are grieved over the tragic murder of Ugandan gay activist David Kato and we send our sincerest condolences to his family & friends.

Many know that we have responded to the horrible and truly homophobic public policy being promoted in Uganda.  Public policy that would harshly punish, imprison and possibly execute those who have same-sex attractions and/or identify as gay.  Exodus International, in agreement with many other Christian and gay organizations, have pleaded with the government to show compassion, afford dignity and respect for those who identify as gay.  We are absolutely opposed to the criminalization of homosexuality in any nation.

Exodus International calls on President & Mrs. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni to lead their government into an era of treating all of their neighbors as they would like to be treated.  It is abominable that a nation with Christian leadership would endorse or allow anyone to be brutally murdered.  In the words of Jesus Himself, those who are without sin cast the first stone.

Exodus International condemns the murder of David Kato and calls for justice to be fairly applied, not covered up, when the murderers are caught.

Exodus International board member Don Schmierer was one of three American Evangelicals who had conducted an anti-gay conference in Kampala in March 2009. That conference, proudly nicknamed the “nuclear bomb” by Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, marked the start of a massive deterioration in the climate for LGBT people in Uganda which ultimately culminated in the introduction of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in that nation’s Parliament the following October. Despite numerous calls for Exodus to denounce the conference and its aftermath, the ex-gay organization continued to defend Schmierer’s participation. Worse, Schmierer’s only public response was to cast himself as the victim, again and again, rather than acknowledging the perilous situation he helped to set up.

One month after the introduction of the draconian anti-gay legislation, Exodus posted a public letter to Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni. That letter contained a plea to “consider the influence this law will have” on ex-gay organizations operating in Uganda. There was however little  mention of the influence this law would have on gay people themselves.

Finally in March 2010, more than a year after that fateful conference, the Exodus International board of directors got it right. That’s when they issued their statement condemning the anti-gay bill. “Exodus International has not and will not support any legislation that deprives others of life and dignity including, but not limited to, Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009.” While the statement was a strong denunciation of the bill, it appeared to stop just short of condemning criminalization of homosexuality generally. Later that summer, Alan Chambers followed that statement with another personal note on the Exodus blog expressing his regret for not taking seriously the warnings that several people (including BTB’s Timothy Kincaid) sent him privately in advance of the conference. He also detailed several other failures in how he and Exodus handled the fallout. Chamber’s statement then culminated in the announcement of a landmark policy statement placing Exodus on record, for the first time in its history, as opposing the criminalization of homosexuality “as conducted by consensual adults in private.”

Chambers’s statement today builds on last year’s moves. Now, if only Schmierer were capable of displaying one tenth as much courage.

Britain cracks down on freedom of speech

Two men in the UK are being prosecuted for distributing leaflets that violate the law forbidding the incitement hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation. (Independent)

The men charged were named last night as Razwan Javed, 30, and Kabir Ahmed, 27. They are accused of handing out a leaflet entitled “The Death Penalty?” in Derby.

The leaflets, which were also pushed through letterboxes, are understood to have called for homosexuals to be executed.

What does this accomplish? Who wins when speech is stifled? Certainly not our community, who now appear to be intolerant of religious view. Certainly not Muslims, who now are cast as murderous. Certainly not people of good will, who now have to take sides and play the which-minority-do-we-support game.

I think it far wiser to allow haters to say outrageous things and then use that as an opportunity for dialogue and interaction. Give Muslim clerics in the UK the opportunity to side with the gay community through public discourse, rather than force them to take a ‘religious freedom’ position that calls for the death penalty.

I know that other cultures have other values, but I am glad that the US values freedom of speech over freedom not to be insulted.

Will Wyoming Governor veto “no out of state marriages” bill?

Wyoming Governor Matt Mead (R) made a statement today that suggests that he is not supportive of a bill that would deny recognition of out-of-state marriages or civil unions. (NECN.com)

Speaking at a news conference Thursday, Mead said he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman.

“But I also believe that we have to be very careful and pragmatic about how we approach this,” said Mead, a former U.S. attorney in Wyoming. “And the reason is that we do not want to, as a state, limit access to our court system.”

Child custody or property issues can arise with same-sex couples as they do in any marriage, Mead said. “You could have a situation where those needed to be decided quickly. We do not want to say to that couple, ‘Listen, you can’t use our courts. You have to go back to the state where you were married.'”

This certainly sounds to me as though Mead, who has previously indicated potential support for civil unions, would welcome some mechanism by which legal arrangements from out-of-state would have civil union status.

The DOJ’s buddies – Part I

There is an old saying that you are known by the company you keep. So the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice must be mortified by who has filed amicus briefs in support of their defense of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

In July, 2010, First Circuit Federal Court Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act violated the constitutional rights of states to define marriage and of the rights of same-sex couples to have their legal marriages recognized. This ruling did not touch on rights outside of Massachusetts.

The Department of Justice appealed that decision and are arguing for the constitutionality of Congress to deny rights based on sexual orientation. They are joined by a Who’s Who of anti-gay activists such as National Organization for Marriage, NARTH and the Eagle Forum.

Considering that the administration officially wishes to repeal DOMA – or at least that portion found unconstitutional – the decision to defend DOMA is one of legal principle (though I’m not convinced of its necessity) that then of ideology. So, sensing that no one from the DOJ is likely to stand on the table and scream, “they’re filthy sinners full of perversion and disease who are defying God and should be punished,” they have plenty of friends to make that point for them.

GLAD, who is arguing the Gill case on the side of equality, had collected these amicus briefs on their website for your perusal and delight. But, on the off chance that you may not find defense of discrimination and heterosexual superiority to be delightful – or that you may not wish to lose your lunch – I’ll give you a synopsis and save you the effort.

The National Organization for Marriage was the first out of the gate. In an argument that surely would have impressed George Orwell, they declare that allowing the states to define marriage – as they have always done – would be a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

Whatever the origin of the misunderstanding of the scope of the Tenth Amendment, the court below turned the Tenth Amendment on its head. Rather than protecting against federal usurpation of powers reserved to the states, the ruling below would allow each state to impose its own definition of marriage on the federal government in a sort of reverse Supremacy Clause.

Well, I’ll say that at least it is a novel argument.

They ramble a bit about censuses and other matters under federal definition, but basically they call for a newspeak approach to federalism whereby it is best achieved by centralized federal control. Listing all of the ways in which the federal government violates the rights of same-sex couples, they present this as evidence of the government’s right to do so. They rant about bigamy and Think of the Children. This was not their best effort.

The certified hate group, Family Research Council, was up next. Nothing new or interesting here, just the same ol’ “no strict scrutiny required” and “them homos in’t got no rights”. But I’ll give Tony and crew props for perhaps the single most meaningless sentence ever entered into public record:

And no court has ever held that marriage, traditionally understood, extends to same-sex couples. [emphasis in original]

George I. Goverman, “a citizen and resident of Massachusetts and a member of the bar of the Commonwealth since 1970”, chimed in to bring up Baker v. Nelson. Perhaps he intended to file his amicus with Perry, but got confused.

He also has a unique presentation style; his argument is in Times New Roman but for case references he appears to have selected an Arial italics font. They are also different font size and don’t quite line up, leaving a rather jarring effect.

But having read countless “procreative activity” amici during Perry, this peculiar presentation was not quite enough to keep me interested. I was, however, amused that he appealed to George Orwell at his conclusion. I guess he didn’t read NOM’s paper.

Judge Roy Moore (of Ten Commandments fame) was here with his Foundation for Moral Law to “defend the unalienable right to acknowledge God as the moral foundation of our laws.”

After he informed the court that “the views of the American people as a whole from the beginning of American history through the present, have held that homosexual conduct has always been and continues to be immoral and should not be protected or sanctioned by law,” I assume that the judge will just toss this one on the pile marked “raging loons.” It seems that Moore hasn’t read a poll or opened a newspaper in the past decade or so.

But I hope the court does read Moore’s rantings. For this paragraph, if for no other:

From Biblical law and other ancient law, through English and American common law and organic law, to recent times, homosexual conduct has been abhorred and opposed; the idea of a “marriage” based on such conduct never even entered the legal mind until very recent times. Congress’s passage of the federal definition of marriage in DOMA had the force of that history behind it and several present-day interests that were asserted when DOMA was enacted in 1996, such as an interest in defending marriage and an interest in defending traditional notions of morality.

The Supreme Court has found that defending “traditional notions of morality” is not an adequate reason for enacting law. In fact, to do so would be to invite judicial rejection.

So it is definitely to our advantage to remind the court that the sole purpose of anti-gay laws – including anti-marriage laws – is based in a desire on the part of one segment of society to impose their religious beliefs upon others. It also helps that Moore quotes the Bible about abominations and such and makes a bestiality comparison. I’m surprised he didn’t channel Jonathan Edwards.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Judge Moore for writing in and making it perfectly clear that opposition to same-sex marriage is based in religious doctrine, antipathy to gay people, and – at least in your case – baldfaced bigotry.

President Obama on David Kato’s Killing: “LGBT Rights Are Not Special Rights; They Are Human Rights.”

From the White House:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release January 27, 2011

Statement by the President on the Killing of David Kato
I am deeply saddened to learn of the murder of David Kato. In Uganda, David showed tremendous courage in speaking out against hate. He was a powerful advocate for fairness and freedom. The United States mourns his murder, and we recommit ourselves to David’s work.

At home and around the world, LGBT persons continue to be subjected to unconscionable bullying, discrimination, and hate. In the weeks preceding David Kato’s murder in Uganda, five members of the LGBT community in Honduras were also murdered. It is essential that the Governments of Uganda and Honduras investigate these killings and hold the perpetrators accountable.

LGBT rights are not special rights; they are human rights. My Administration will continue to strongly support human rights and assistance work on behalf of LGBT persons abroad. We do this because we recognize the threat faced by leaders like David Kato, and we share their commitment to advancing freedom, fairness, and equality for all.

Don Schmierer Responds to David Kato’s Murder

Exodus International Board Member Don Schmierer

Exodus International board member Don Schmierer responds to the brutal murder of Ugandan LGBT advocate David Kato in his typical style, by reminding everyone who the real victim is:

On Thursday, Don Schmierer, one of the American evangelicals who visited in Uganda in 2009, said Mr. Kato’s death was “horrible.”

“Naturally, I don’t want anyone killed but I don’t feel I had anything to do with that,” said Mr. Schmierer, who added that in Uganda he had focused on parenting skills. He also said that he had been a target of threats himself, recently receiving more than 600 hate mails related to his visit.

“I spoke to help people,” he said, “and I’m getting bludgeoned from one end to the other.”

Kato died from hammer blows to the skull, but Schmierer’s the one getting “bludgeoned,” as he reminded us before here, here and here. Make a note of it.

Sec Clinton Issues Statement on Kato’s Murder

From the State Department:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Statement
Jan. 27, 2011

We are profoundly saddened by the loss of Ugandan human rights defender David Kato, who was brutally murdered in his home near Kampala yesterday. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family, friends, and colleagues. We urge Ugandan authorities to quickly and thoroughly investigate and prosecute those responsible for this heinous act.

David Kato tirelessly devoted himself to improving the lives of others. As an advocate for the group Sexual Minorities Uganda, he worked to defend the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals. His efforts resulted in groundbreaking recognition for Uganda’s LGBT community, including the Uganda Human Rights Commission’s October 2010 statement on the unconstitutionality of Uganda’s draft “anti-homosexuality bill” and the Ugandan High Court’s January 3 ruling safeguarding all Ugandans’ right to privacy and the preservation of human dignity. His tragic death underscores how critical it is that both the government and the people of Uganda, along with the international community, speak out against the discrimination, harassment, and intimidation of Uganda’s LGBT community, and work together to ensure that all individuals are accorded the same rights and dignity to which each and every person is entitled.

Everywhere I travel on behalf of our country, I make it a point to meet with young people and activists — people like David — who are trying to build a better, stronger future for their societies. I let them know that America stands with them, and that their ideas and commitment are indispensible to achieving the progress we all seek.

This crime is a reminder of the heroic generosity of the people who advocate for and defend human rights on behalf of the rest of us — and the sacrifices they make. And as we reflect on his life, it is also an occasion to reaffirm that human rights apply to everyone, no exceptions, and that the human rights of LGBT individuals cannot be separated from the human rights of all persons.

Our ambassadors and diplomats around the world will continue to advance a comprehensive human rights policy, and to stand with those who, with their courage, make the world a more just place where every person can live up to his or her God-given potential. We honor David’s legacy by continuing the important work to which he devoted his life.

David Kato Expressing Fears for His Life

Murdered LGBT advocate David Kato told CNN’s David McKenzie last October that he feared for his safety following the vigilante campaign waged by the Ugandan tabloid Rolling Stone:

“Show me what you’ve got”

Sometimes I wonder whether law enforcement in this country hasn’t completely abandoned the deterrence of crime in favor of “catching bad guys”. And sadly, I see the glorification of entrapment and the nonsensical presentation of it as evidence of my protection to be a trend that has no foreseeable end. And rather than find it troubling, the masses are applauding.

This past Christmas some stupid 19-year-old Somali American kid was “stopped” from setting off bombs at a Christmas Tree Lighting in Portland, Oregon. And the FBI was quick to soak in praise for having foiled his efforts. Of course, they also were the ones who approached him, encouraged his radicalism, provided the “explosives” and sent him on his way. But they are heroes for “protecting” the people from this kid.

Now I’m certainly not saying that the FBI should have ignored the potential threat. But I couldn’t help but wonder if they couldn’t have as effectively prevented an atrocity by approaching the kid and telling him that they were aware of his radical views and that they would have their eye on him. Or perhaps by working with local Muslim leaders to redirect his thinking.

Maybe that wouldn’t have been the right approach in this instance, but I wish that it could have been considered. But, of course, discouraging radicalism isn’t nearly as dramatic or as likely to scare the public or demonstrate just why they need you.

Which brings me to the trial going on in Palm Springs. The 19 gay men who were enticed by a “sting operation” (aka entrapment) conducted by the police department to make an example of and punish the “filthy mother-f*ckers” are fighting their arrests.

I don’t know these guys. For all I know, some were regular scoff-laws who delight in public sex. But they also may be regular guys who had no intention of anything indecent or illegal until an undercover officer encouraged them to break the law. (mydesert.com)

“I pretty much just stood there. People would walk up to us,” Palm Springs officer Chad Nordman testified. He did say “show me what you’ve got” to those arrested — but only after they approached him first, Nordman added.

But approaching isn’t a crime, whether Officer Nordman thinks so or not. And even if being a gay man make you a “bad guy” in Nordman’s eyes, it isn’t an arrestable offense. So the officer had to push the “criminal”, he had to encourage him.

Show me what you’ve got. Commit a crime. Let me catch a bad guy.

What if, instead, the police had just regularly enforced the law when they saw public sex – there or anywhere. Or what if the decoy had simply said, “I want you to know that I am a police officer. And we want to have the public sexual activity to stop. You could have done something for which you would be arrested. Think about it.” Would that not have discouraged public sex? Would that not quickly result in a change in behavior in the area?

But deterring a crime was second to catching bad guys. Even if you had to encourage them to be bad guys to do so.

DADT may be dead as early as mid-year

The AP is reporting that the Obama administration has outlined a plan that could see the end of the Military’s anti-gay Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy in as little as five months.

Pentagon leaders will roll out a plan Friday that is expected to give the military services about three months to train their forces on the new law allowing gays to serve openly, officials said Wednesday.

The plan, they said, will outline the personnel, recruiting and other regulations that must be changed. It will describe three levels of training for the troops, their commanders and the key administrators, recruiters and other leaders who will have to help implement the changes.

Under that training schedule, full implementation of the law could begin later this summer. Once the training is complete, the president and his top military advisers must certify that lifting the ban won’t hurt troops’ ability to fight. Sixty days after certification, the law would take effect.

I’ll admit that is a shorter timeline than I expected.

Park51 Imam echos Focus on the Family

It appears that Park51, the proposed Manhattan Islamic Center (called the “Ground Zero Mosque” by detractors) may not prove to be quite the beacon of tolerance and enlightenment that supporters have promised. Or, at least, not on gay issues.

Imam Abdallah Adhami, newly associated with the project, has expressed views about homosexuality that are consistent with those of Focus on the Family, NARTH, and other anti-gay activists: (NY1)

“An enormously, overwhelming percentage of people struggle with homosexual feeling because of some form of violent emotional or sexual abuse at some point in their life. Again, not necessarily in their childhood….A small, tiny percentage of people are born with a natural inclination they cannot explain. You find this in the animal kingdom on some level as well.”

While this statement has concerned local gay advocates, it should be considered in context. As some who have looked at Islam and its relationship to homosexuality note, this is the position of the tolerant liberal end of Muslim thinking.

“I don’t agree with the imam, but I think what he said is progress,” said Sharma. “Usually, from the Muslim orthodoxy, you are prepared to listen to very strong words of condemnation.”

At least the Imam isn’t calling for my execution.

Iowa Democratic Senators beat back anti-marriage amendment

As expected, the Democrats in the Iowa Senate held firm against a Republican effort to present a constitutional amendment to reverse the state’s recognition of same-sex marriages. Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal has vowed to keep the issue off the floor, but Sen. Kent Sorenson tried to use a procedural measure to get around that decision. (Iowa Independent)

A motion by state Sen. Kent Sorenson (R-Indianola) to suspend the Senate’s rules to allow a vote on a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was defeated early Thursday morning on a party-line vote.

Sorenson asked all 50 senators to call up Senate Joint Resolution 8, a bill that would amend the Iowa Constitution to specify that marriage between one man and one woman is the only legal union valid or recognized in the state. Senate President Jack Kibbie (D-Emmetsburg) said “no,” but agreed to allow a vote on whether to suspend the rules and override his objection.

Twenty-six Democrats voted “no” and 24 Republicans voted “yes.” The motion was defeated.

So the Republicans having now made their token (but predictably unsuccessful) effort, perhaps the issue can rest until the next election.

Wyoming Senate passes anti-marriage constitutional amendment

The Wyoming Senate has voted by the required two-thirds to present a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage – but not civil unions – to the voters of the state. Although the state has a 23 to 7 Republican majority, ten Senators voted against the measure.

The amendment now goes to the House, where it will need 40 members’ support. Although the House has 41 Republicans, this may not be an easy task. On Monday the vote to not recognize out-of-state marriages passed 32 – 27.

Meanwhile, House Bill 150 which would provide for civil unions, will be debated by the House Judiciary Committee on Friday, where it appears to have adequate support.

New Yorkers strongly support marriage equality

Quinnipiac has released its latest survey and support for marriage equality in the state of New York is at an all-time high. Nearly 20% more New Yorkers support state-recognized same-sex marriage than oppose it.

By the highest margin ever, 56 – 37 percent, New York State voters support legislation allowing same-sex couples to marry, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

And while support is not homogeneous by party, geography, and gender, it is becoming more so and the latest figures should encourage some bi-partisan support on this issue. Only slightly more than half of Republicans polled stated their objection to equality, while two in five are supportive:

69 – 25 Democrats
41 – 52 Republicans
55 – 39 Independent

“Kato” Means the Younger of Twins

David Kato (via Facebook)

That’s one thing I learned in a facebook message this morning, and it forms a part of GayUganda’s reaction today to the news that Ugandan LGBT activist David Kato was brutally murdered in his home yesterday. He writes:

We need to celebrate his life. Maybe that will take our minds off the desperate vulnerability of ours…. how quickly, how easily we can lose all, in the name of nothing, or something.But, it is a matter of fact that he lived his life. And, was happy. A gay man in Uganda.

…Maybe for the days when he was still alive to pester us with his demands, his beliefs in what he wanted to have done. He was a doer, and, in a difficult environment, he was an achiever. With scanty resources, he did what he could, and did it fairly well.

Of course he was a human being. Cantankerous, devious, quarrelsome.

But, he was a human being, a fighter, going to the police cells to look for those accused of being gay. Going to court to stand up for our rights.

Kato David Kisule. RIP. Wonder where his twin is.

The worldwide LGBT community is reeling over the loss of a fearless leader.

Front cover of the Oct 2, 2010 edition of Rolling Stone, featuring a photo of David Kato (left) and Bishop Christopher Senyonjo (right). (Click to enlarge)

David Kato was a spokesperson as well as the Advocacy and Litigation Officer for Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG). He was one of the plaintiffs (or applicants) in the successful lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction against the Ugandan tabloid Rolling Stone (no relation to the U.S. publication of the same name). Kato was one of three applicants who had been named by the tabloid under a headline tagged “Hang Them!” His photo appeared on the tabloid’s front cover.

Uganda’s independent Daily Monitor reports that David was attacked in his home yesterday afternoon and beaten in the head with a hammer.  Residents told police that they saw a man entering David’s house, and then they saw him leave dressed in David’s shoes and a jacket that covered part of his face. Later, the neighbors became suspicious and went to check on David but found the door locked. After they forced their way in, they found him and rushed him to Mulago Hospital, but he died on the way.

It is not known right now whether his appearance in the tabloid or subsequent court action was related to his murder. The police spokesperson says police are investigating robbery as a motive, saying that items were missing in the home.The BBC reports that there had been several “iron bar” murders in the neighborhood, and that police have arrested several suspects.

But LGBT advocates who worked with him disagree. They note that he, along with several other LGBT Ugandans, had been the target of several death threats in the past few days, particularly in the aftermath of their court victory.

In a press release from Sexual Minorities Uganda, they “call on religious leaders, political leaders and media houses to stop demonizing sexual minorities in Uganda since doing so creates a climate of violence against gay persons. Val Kalende, the Chair of the Board at Freedom and Roam Uganda stated that “David’s death is a result of the hatred planted in Uganda by U.S Evangelicals in 2009. The Ugandan Government and the so-called U.S Evangelicals must take responsibility for David’s blood!”

LGBT Activists in Uganda point to a virulently anti-gay March 2009 conference put on by three American Evangelical activists for inciting the latest round of violence and intimidation against the local LGBT community. Among the three were Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, Exodus International board member Don Schmierer, and International Healing Foundation’s Caleb Lee Brundidge, who is a protege of ex-gay advocate Richard Cohen. Lively, who blamed gay men for the rise of Nazism and the Rwandan genocide, proudly declared his talk as being a “nuclear bomb” against LGBT advocacy in Africa. (You can read about all of the events of 2009 and early 2010 here.)

Later that same year, M.P. David Bahati introduced the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill in that nation’s Parliament. That bill, which remains under review Parliamentary committee, would impose the death penalty on LGBT Ugandans under certain circumstances and criminalize all advocacy by or on behalf of LGBT people. It would also criminalize even knowing someone who is gay if that person fails to report their LGBT loved one to police within 24 hours. Parliamentary elections are scheduled for February 18, and the bill is expected to be voted on after Parliament returns for a lame-duck session before the new Parliament begins in May. Bahati has admitted that it is his goal “to kill every last gay person.”

Click here to read Sexual Minorities Uganda’s press release