Box Turtle Bulletin

Marin, Chambers, Others Respond to Prop 8 Decision

Christianity Today has a roundup of responses from various Evangelical leaders to last week’s decision declaring California’s Prop 8 unconstitutional.

The most interesting response, to me, comes from Andrew Marin, who is often credited as being a “bridge builder” between Evangelicals and the gay community. Interesting, only because I’ve been listening to hours of his talks trying to figure out what he really believes, and I don’t think I’m any closer to understanding what he wants to accomplish than when I started, since he won’t just come right out and say what he really believes. In response to the Prop 8 decision, Marin told Christianity Today:

We can continue to politically fight a drawn-out battle with a government that is not governed through an evangelical worldview, producing more casualties for Christ. Or we can learn right now what it means to live in relation to, and relationship with LGBT people as gay marriage is legalized—continuing to actively show Christ’s compelling nature regardless of state or national policy. The choice is ours.

Trying to understand Marin’s position on same-sex marriage (or whether homosexuality is a sin) is like trying to deconstruct the latest statements from the Federal Reserve. When asked directly whether he thinks gay people should marry, Marin adamantly refuses to answer and instructs his followers to do the same. Which, to me, blows his whole bridge-building exercise out of the water. After all, who wants to walk onto a bridge when they don’t know where it goes?  So without a map, we’re left hunting for clues and here we find another: the government is not governed (as evidenced by this decision) through an Evangelical worldview. Many LGBT people might find cause to dispute that — we can’t marry in 9/10ths of the country — but as a self-proclaimed evangelical himself we at least now have an indication that marriage equality doesn’t fit that shared worldview. Take that hint for what it’s worth.

Alan Chambers, of Exodus International responded:

We cannot avoid the glaring scriptural truth that there is, and will always be, a right way and a wrong way concerning just about everything we can imagine. And, yet, I believe that our attitudes towards people (internal and external) are just as important as our positions on the issues at hand. … I firmly believe that if we had spent as much money, time, and energy battling for people’s hearts as we did fighting against their agendas, the gay rights battle would look very different today.

In a recent statement condemning Uganda’s proposed draconian legislation to impose the death penalty on gay people under certain circumstances and to virtually outlaw knowing or providing services to LGBT people, Chambers acknowledged that part of his motivation for waiting sixteen months before adequately addressing the March 2009 anti-gay Kampala conference which started the whole mess was due to the fact that LGBT advocates were calling upon him to do so. That was, I think, a startling and welcome admission. It also marks a change from 2007 when he spoke before a group of anti-gay activists in Florida and characterized the gay community as following an “evil agenda” and actively lobbied Congress against hate crimes legislation and other issues important to the LGBT community. And yet, even in those times, he would offer messages to other broader mainstream audiences similar to the one above. So whether this change is episodic (as others have been) or enduring remains to be seen. (Update: Alan reaffirms that “Exodus isn’t returning to politics, but it was a good venue for talking about having compassion for our neighbors whether we agree with them or not.”)

Other interesting reactions include Timothy George of Samford University:

Christians who thought they would be able to just sleep through this issue will not be allowed to. At stake in the debate is the very nature of marriage itself. Thinking biblically does not allow us to regard marriage as merely prudential or preferential (I like strawberry, you like pistachio), but as a covenantal union of one man and one woman established by God for a purpose that transcends itself. Marriage is not a “right” to be defended or exploited…

Gerald R. McDermott, professor of religion at Roanoke College:

Social science has shown that children do best in a home with two parents of the opposite sex in a low-conflict marriage, and gay marriages make that impossible for their children and less likely for society generally. More children will be created by artificial sperm donation, which in many cases forever cuts the children off from knowing both their biological parents. Gay marriage will also encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality to embrace a lifestyle that suffers high rates of suicide, depression, HIV, drug abuse, STDs, and other pathogens.

McDermott, a relatively minor figure in anti-gay politics, nevertheless remains unchastened over pushing discredited researcher Paul Cameron’s bogus statistics. His 2004 Christianity Today article, “Why Gay Marriage Would Be Harmful,” was the basis for one of the earliest reports by Box Turtle Bulletin.

Glenn Stanton of Focus On the Family was equally direct in his response:

The gospel is deeply serious while Judge Walker’s decision is a jumbled mess of sloppy thinking and accusation. He asserts religion is the cause of violence against gays. Jesus, when asked a tough legal question about marriage, explained, “God created them male and female.” This dual identity of humanity is no small thing for us nor our Lord because male and female image the invisible God, creating a full human communion. But Judge Walker says, “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.” The Christian’s allegiance is clear.

Gender was a major focus on the 2008 debate hosted by Box Turtle Bulletin between anthropologist Patrick Chapman and Glenn Stanton on Stanton’s white paper, “Differing definitions of marriage and family” (PDF: 80KB/10 pages).

And finally, I’d like to highlight Mark Yarhouse, of Regent University:

I don’t know that there is one response to the Proposition 8 decision that will reflect the depth and breadth of the gospel in the life of believers today. A gospel response is shaped by many factors, including how one views Christ and culture. Some Christians will see appealing the decision as part of the gospel response, drawing upon legal avenues and hoping it will be overturned upon appeal. Other Christians will prayerfully consider alternatives to legal means to be a witness to a rapidly changing culture. I think younger Christians, in particular, are more likely to explore such alternatives.

Yarhouse collaborated with Wheaton College’s Stanton Jones in an ex-gay study that found very little change among the study’s participants. Because of the study’s results, Yarhouse has since downplayed the possibility of sexual orientation change.

Brown or Plessy?

So Perry v. Schwarzenegger has taken its first bold step. Assuming the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals hears the case (the defendants of record have already said they won’t appeal, and there is the surprising possibility is that ADF may not have legal standing to do so) then the question becomes whether this case will be the Brown v. Board of Education for LGBT equality, or our Plessy v. Ferguson.  Jon Rowe looks at the Supreme Court and believes he sees a setup for the latter:

Assuming Kagan is on the bench and the lineup remains, I predict there will be 4 votes for gay marriage, 4 against with Justice Kennedy breaking the tie AGAINST constitutionalizing gay marriage. BUT Kennedy being Kennedy he very likely would “split the baby” by demanding a federal constitutional right to civil unions that grant all the rights of marriage other than the name.

The return of “separate but equal”?

Frum: Did California’s Marrying Gays Destroy Bristol Palin’s Marriage?

Alaska was among the earliest states in the Union to pass a constitutional amendment in 1998 to ban same-sex marriage. Bristol Palin was nine years old at the time, which would be plenty of time to protect her marriage. Half her life, in fact. In another nine years she became pregnant and gave birth to Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston on December 27, 2008. She never married. She and the boy’s father, Levi Johnston have been off-again and on-again since then, but they are now back off again

And according to David Frum, this is precisely why last week’s decsision striking down Prop 8 is a danger to heterosexual marriages.  I kid you not.

Update: Frum’s last paragraph says, “The harm feared from same-sex marriage has already arrived: Whether same-sex marriage is accepted or not, opposite-sex marriage as a norm and expectation has already collapsed.” Maybe I misread, but I took this to mean that regardless of what the court finally decides, at least some of the “collapse” is attributed to same-sex marriage. That’s the premise he cited at the begining, and it’s where he appeared, to me at least, to be at the end — after having dismissed the racial discrimination claims pretty effectively. But of course that wasn’t NOM’s argument. In fact, in addressing NOM’s argument, he called their warnings about the supposed superiority of opposite-sex parents rasing children “important and valid.”

Maybe I misread it, maybe he’s inelegant in wrapping this up. Thank God, being confused or confusing isn’t a crime. But I still find his position unclear, and I struggle to understand whether he thinks there’s any connection or not.

GOP Candidate Refuses To Accept Money from Companies That “Support Gay Rights”

This is from Nevada tea-party favorite Sharron Angle, who is trying to unseat Sen. Harry Reid in the U.S. Senate:

Angle laid out this position in a candidate questionnaire that she filled out for the Washington-based Government is not God PAC.

In question 35A of the questionnaire, Angle was asked:

Would you refuse PAC money from those who are fundamentally opposed to your views on social issues?

Angle checked the Yes box. The questionnaire then asked:

In reference to question 35A, Intel Corporation supports “equal rights for gays” and offers benefits to “partners” of homosexual employees. Would you refuse funds from this corporate PAC?

Angle again checked the Yes box.

I wonder how she’s running a campaign while living up to that promise. After all, most of the largest corporations in America fit that definition of supporting “equal rights for gays,” including defense giants Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, and Raytheon. I wonder how many LGBT-friendly companies she has actually received contributions from?

Update: Steve Friess at The Daily Beast has delved into Angle’s financial disclosures. The results aren’t at all surprising.

David Boies: Junk Science, Fear and Prejudice Were Put On Trial and Lost

David Boies, one of plaintiff’s lawyers for the gay couples successfully challenging the constitutionality of California’s Prop 8 in Federal District Court, was on CBS’s Face The Nation yesterday morning, where he eviscerated the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins on their “junk science.”

It’s easy to sit around in debate and throw around opinions and appeal to people’s fear and prejudice, cite studies that either don’t exist or don’t say what you say they do. In a court of law, you’ve got to come in and you’ve got to support those opinions. You’ve got to stand up under oath and cross examination.

And what we saw at trial is that it’s very easy for people who want to deprive gay and lesbian citizens the right to vote [sic]  make all sorts of statements in campaign literature or in debates where they can’t be cross examined. But when they come into court and they have to support those opinions, and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross examination, those opinions just melt away.

And that’s what happened here. There simply wasn’t any evidence. There weren’t any of “those studies.” There weren’t any empirical studies. That’s just made up. That’s just junk science. And it’s easy to say that on television, but the witness stand is a lonely place to lie. And when you come into court, you can’t do that. And that’s what we proved. We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost.

Meanwhile, Ted Olson was on Fox New Sunday defending Judge Vaughn Walker against claims of “judicial activism.” Olson deftly defined “judicial activism” this way: “Most people use the term judicial activism to explain decisions they don’t like.”

Olson cited the case of Reitman v. Mulkey, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down California’s Prop 14 of 1963 because it violated the U.S. Constitution due to its racial discrimination, despite the fact that Californians overwhelmingly supported it at the ballot box. Money quote: “Would you like Fox News’ right to free press put up to a vote?”

Also this, on conservative values: “We believe that a conservative value is stable relationships and stable community and loving individuals coming together and forming a basis that is a building block of our society, which includes marriage.”

NOM’s Assault on the Family

The National Organization for Marriage…matters. I choke on those words, but NOM contributed 62% of the funding to rescinding marriage equality in Maine. If you’re a gay couple in Maine, NOM is the reason you can’t marry.

Now NOM is conducting a bus tour through the eastern states. Attendance has been sad and pathetic, but they’ve been perfecting their message: We’re just a sweet, kindly group of traditional people, and those hateful, intolerant gays are attacking us. It’s canny public relations.

It’s also a lie.

NOM in Georgia and Florida

The time has come that we must now stand for marriage. I know how busy you are, with family, church, work and other commitments. Maybe you have never stood at a public rally or protest before. But if we don’t stand for marriage now, it could soon be too late.

With these stirring words, the National Organization for Marriage called for those who “support traditional marriage” to act now, join them on Saturday in Atlanta to show strength and unity in advancing their cause. And as an extra incentive, in Atlanta they had as a headliner Alveda King, MLK’s niece.

And drew their smallest crowd to date. (Tour Tracker)

We see that Dr. Alveda King has made it. She’s joined by only about 16 NOM supporters (Louis would call it 20 but we’re not counting you, Brian, Justin, Mike, the videographer, or the speakers).

Although their turnout was tiny, at least there was some racial diversity in Atlanta. In addition to King, two gospel singers entertained the few supporters (and the protesters, who enjoyed a song about unity) and there appear to have been a few African-Americans among the supporters.

Speaking of the protesters,

While today’s event may go differently, the outpouring of support from the pro-equality community is no different. We’re standing in a crowd of 254 equality supporters standing alongside a church across the street from the State Capitol.

The protesters rallied earlier at park before marching down to hold their silent protest of NOM’s event. Their crowds keep getting smaller and the protests larger, but I think that perhaps 16 supporter to 254 protesters might be the all-time worst ratio for any marriage-related event. So, if nothing else, I guess NOM can be proud that they’re setting records. Maybe that’s what NOM meant by “We just wrapped up a terrific rally with Dr. Alveda King in Atlanta.”

So then they were on to Orlado, Florida, were NOM did the smart thing and took their rally inside. This makes sense as their rallies are pretty much just religious speech anyway and their supporters often tend to be folks that are not accustomed to standing for an hour in the sun. Of course the trade-off is that church services don’t make very effective media images.

But air conditioning and a church pew were undoubtedly welcome for the 34 people who came to hear NOM. Amusingly but without even noting the irony, Brian Brown exhorted his audience – resting in the church – to stand for truth in the public square: “Each and every one of us has the responsibility to stand up for the good. This is our time to stand!”

NOM has been counting on the overturning of Prop 8 to provide a jump-boost to interest in their cause. Unable to get, well, hardly anyone to show up and support them, NOM was sure that churches and politicians would flock out now that Judge Walker had shown that there was a Real Threat to marriage. (Sunshine State News)

Well, this is Florida, it isn’t California. We have some powerful people in this state who respect our state Constitution and the laws in it,” [NOM spokesperson Ellen] Johnson said.

Some of those “powerful people” are running for office. And if ever the National Organization for Marriage wanted to get them on the record in support of their conservative position – and believed they had a chance to do it – it’s now, one day from the start of early voting in Florida

“This being a big year for conservative values, I think the candidates will back us up,” Johnson said.

If by “back us up,” Johnson meant “stay away and pretend they’ve never heard of you” then she’d be correct. It turns out that Florida’s politicians all had better things to do than have their picture taken in the same room as Brian Brown.

Meanwhile, outside, there was the now-common protest crowd.

134 equality activists are lining the sidewalk outside of the church, including the angels from Stand Up Florida and members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

I’m sure that NOM’s Louis Marinelli is delighted that the Sisters showed up; the Sisters are the anti-gays’ very favorite gay activist group. Yes, you and I know that they are street theater and that they actually raise a lot of money each year for charitable causes, but they also make very good propaganda material for those who want to claim that we all just want to mock them, their faith, and their God.

But at least there was no confrontation for NOM to videotape and the “gays hate God” message was diluted by the protesters joining in prayer.

UPDATE:

Project Q has a great write-up of the Atlanta rally.

UPDATE TWO:

As expected, NOM’s bus driver, Louis Marinelli, entirely ignored his own little rally (and I do mean little rally), choosing to obsess instead about the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and the Angels. Oddly, Louis didn’t have a clue who these people were or why they were there. He somehow thought it was something about Halloween.

He didn’t recognize the habits (he thought they were wedding veils) and he thought it was the Angels that were a mockery. Lordy. I’m beginning to get the impression that Louis is perhaps uniquely situated for a career in driving buses.

Immigrants Are the New Gays

You’d think that socially-conservative Republicans would be screaming about the sky falling now that Prop 8 has been declared unconstitutional. They may at some point, but not now. Instead, they have a new wedge issue to push, says Rep. Peter King (R-NY):

King, the Long Island congressman, said that in terms of social issues, the raging controversy over the Arizona border laws is providing more than enough ammunition for Republicans in key districts.

“The Arizona immigration law is there, there’s no reason to be raising an issue of gay rights” as a wedge, he said.

Nope. Instead of fear-mongering about the gays, we get to fear-monger about someone else for a change.

Schwarzenegger and Brown oppose stay on Perry decision

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown, the official defendants in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, have both filed motions requesting that Judge Walker not put a stay on his decision but instead allow the state to being granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples immediately.

Wackadoodle School a failure

Peter LaBarbera’s wackadoodle school for young anti-gay activists has begun. And, as a report from Truth Wins Out informs us, it is a dismal failure. I guess there just isn’t that much demand for training on how to defend execution of gays, make up lies, sneak into leather events in disguise, sneak kidnappers out of the country, or defraud the poor. Who knew?

According to our sources, there were between 20-30 people in attendance. This was shocking, considering there was a large roster of notoriously anti-gay speakers. Ironically, the Gay Liberation Network’s protest had more demonstrators (see below) outside the event than there were people soaking up the hate on the inside.

The event was not only homophobic and sparsely attended, it was painfully boring, according to one eyewitness.

“It was an exhausting 12-hour day,” said a spy. “The speakers were less charismatic than tree stumps. I would rather turn Bill Gates’ vast fortune into a giant mountain of pennies and count them, than endure one more tedious anti-gay seminar.”

NOM does not fare well on St. Louis news

The local Fox affiliate sent a camera crew to the National Organization for Marriage’s rally and the counter-rally in Clayton (St. Louis), Missouri. It was about as bad for NOM as it could be.

The handful of folks sprinkled across the mostly-empty city plaza at NOM’s rally (I counted 50) looked tiny and sparse. But when the camera panned to show the counter protest, it lined the street for as far as the eye could see.

And while Brian Brown blustered about “marriage laws being at stake,” a minister with the Disciples of Christ Church – in clerical collar – talked about inclusion rather than exclusion.

GOProud desperately seeks attention, reveals insecurities

Have you ever seen straight women out for a night at the gay bar? There’s always one who goes and tips a go-go boy and they all shriek at how Daring! and Shocking! and Scandalous! she is. Invariably she goes for the repeat performance, and then again, in hopes of winning back the spotlight.

I pity such women. Their desire for attention at any cost suggests that they really don’t much think that they are worthy of respect or attention for their own merits.

I can’t say that I’ve never done anything for attention. There have been times – probably more than I would care to acknowledge – when I’ve played the fool for the spotlight. But I’m not so much a fool that I am not aware of (or ashamed of) such motivation. And I’ve never gone to the extent of harming my community.

Sadly, GOProud has no such hesitation. Ever since the little collection of egos which go by the name GOProud broke away from Log Cabin (because LCR was a gay-rights group, not a hate-the-Librulls group) they’ve been waving their dollar bills in the air shrieking “look at me, look at me.”

And for half of a moment, people glanced at the peculiarity of gay people working against their own best interests. But then the world said, “meh”, gave a collective shrug, and went back to watching Snookie on Jersey Shore. Even bad reality television is more interesting than a group whose sole accomplishment is being more conservative than Log Cabin.

But having got a taste of attention, they are desperate for more. And so in their desire to one-up their Daring! and Shocking! and Scandalous! behavior, they have been trying harder and harder to come up with anything they think will annoy people enough to make us pay attention. Oddly, most of it is not only anti-gay but anti-decent-Republican.

In June they ran an attack on pro-gay Republican Tom Campbell, choosing instead to endorse Carly Fiorina who opposes gay equality. They said that Campbell was too much like Dede Scozzafava who, because she supports marriage equality, is “far outside the Republican main stream.”

Then they decided to hold a reception at the Manchester Grand Hyatt, which was being subjected to a boycott organized by Republican gay activist Fred Karger. The hotel’s owner, Doug Manchester, funded the signature collection for Proposition 8. (GOProud failed to mention the attendance, so I’m assuming it was worse than the most poorly attended NOM rally.)

But that didn’t get the attention they first drew. Frankly, beyond a few mentions on blog sites, their shock value is fading. No one is much surprised nor impressed by attention seekers doing things solely for the attention.

So now they are trying to ratchet up the volume; they have decided to join forces with raging homophobe Ann Coulter. And if anyone knows how to get attention for doing nothing at all but being Daring! and Shocking! and Scandalous!, it’s Coulter. GOProud has decided to hold something they are calling Homocon 2010 which will feature Ms. Coulter and her rants about Librulls.

Yawn.

As Ann’s supporters don’t much like Teh Gey and as most gay folk are not much fond of being called “faggot,” I think they could probably hold their event in a booth at Denny’s. And other than the cursory “there they go again,” I’m not expecting that their desperate plea for attention will garner much.

But in the process they said the most interesting thing I’ve ever heard from GOProud. It’s the little slogan they have adopted:

“Our gays are more macho than their straights.”

Now I don’t have any particular concerns about my macho factor. I don’t insist that I’m “straight acting” or try to butch it up. Frankly, while I’m not Paul Lynde, it just doesn’t cross my mind whether I’m “more macho” than anyone else.

But I have met some gay men for whom this was a great concern. They felt, somehow, that masculinity was a symbol of superiority and that if they could “pass for straight” then they were better than the flamer. They were real men, you see. Worthy of being treated with respect, unlike that queen over there.

I don’t have much respect for such folk, but I do have pity; such thinking is almost invariably based in a deeply internalized sense of worthlessness and insecurity. They so fear that they are lesser that they have to find someone even “worse” so they could push away the fear and the doubts and feel almost okay about themselves.

Perhaps that isn’t what motivates Jimmy LaSilva and his tiny band of fellow attention seekers. Perhaps he really is secure in his sexuality and his own sense of self.

But… let me just say that it wouldn’t surprise me all that much if his next move was into an ex-gay ministry.

When Courts Overturn “The Will Of The People”

I love BTB readers. Yes, courts really can overturn “the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box” when the will of the people is discriminatory:

An interesting historical perspective was found at the Washington Blade contributed by poster Nameless Cynic:

Almost 50 years ago, the California Legislature passed the Rumford Fair Housing Act, which banned discrimination against “colored” renters or buyers. About 2/3 of California voters overturned the Rumford Act when they passed Proposition 14, which, like Proposition 8, amended the California Constitution, this time to say that Californians could refuse to sell or rent to anyone for any reason. Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 14 violated the 14th Amendment, and it didn’t matter if 100% of Californians had voted for it — it was discrimination, and unconstitutional.

Yup. Here’s some background on what led to the Rumford Fair Housing Act to begin with, and you can read up on Prop 14 here. Time Magazine published this article about Prop 14 in 1964. Reitman v. Mulkey established the legal precedent that states could remove a constitutional amendment, even if it were passed by a popular vote, if the amendment supported racial discrimination.

[If someone has the Blade link, please pass it along in the comments so we can give credit where it’s due. Thanks.]

McCain Begins to Flip On Federal Marriage Amendmet

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) famously opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004 and 2006 when it came to the Senate Floor, saying that “it usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them.” It’s not that McCain supported marriage equality (he supported California’s Prop 8 and Arizona’s Prop 102 in 2008), but that he saw it as a states rights issue. Now that a Federal Judge has found California’s Proposition 8 unconstitutional, McCain is reconsidering his opposition to the FMA:

Asked whether he thinks backing the Federal Marriage Amendment, or a U.S. constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage, would be an appropriate response to the ruling, McCain said he hasn’t decided what action at this time is appropriate.

“I haven’t looked at the impact of the decision yet as far as what, if any, action needs to be taken,” he said. “I’ve been on the immigration issue, the defense authorization bill and this START treaty, so I really have not had an opportunity to talk to my people about it.”

Reports Build About “Stalled” Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill

There are several reports going around the web that the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill that is now before Uganda’s Parliament is stalled. For regular readers of BTB, this may be old news, but it’s certainly worth revisiting.The current Parliament ends officially in May 2011 when new elections are held and a new Parliament is installed. When that happens, the bill will be officially dead if it hasn’t been acted upon before then. Parliament is expected to wrap up its final session before breaking for elections in the next few months, and as we noted in June, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill did not make it onto Parliament’s final agenda.

In December, MP David Bahati, the bill’s sponsor, revealed in an interview on state-owned UBC Television that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill had been referred to the Parliamentary Committee of Legal Affairs and also the Presidential Affairs Committee. In January, Uganda President Yoweri Museveni, responding to international pressure, urged Parliament to “go slow” on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. By April, it appeared that members of Parliament had little appetite for passing the bill, and I speculated that the two Parliamentary Committees are where the bill was sent to die. While it’s always important to be cautious about such speculation — near-death isn’t death and bills sometimes have a way of being revived — that speculation was further reinforced by a special Presidential Committee, which reportedly “rejected” the bill in May — or more accurately, recommended radical changes to it, changes which have still not been acted on by Parliament.

One thing is for certain however is that if the bill were to be revived — and there are no assurances at this point that it cannot be brought back before Parliament — it would certainly result in an new round of persecutions for Uganda’s LGBT community. Apostle Julius Peter Oyet, who is President of the Ugandan branch of the College of Prayer (which itself is a ministry of Rev. Fred Hartley’s Lilburn Alliance Church in Atlanta), was brought in by MP Bahatito lobby Parliament for the bill’s passage. Oyet repordtedly told a documentary filmmaker:

I was there. I have been part of the brains behind it. We worked on it. We planned who should propose it. It is the Ugandan’s bill. It is the culture of Uganda to keep purity. It is everybody’s voice. I worked with Bahati on this.

In this British Channel Four documentary, Oyet is seen preaching against homosexuality. Later in the clip, he is brought face-to-face with a former employee who is gay. Notice how Oyet cannot even look at him. And notice how, with the young man in his presence, Oyet promises that “the imprisonment begins immediately when Parliament passes the bill” (at the 5:15 mark):