Box Turtle Bulletin

Presbyterian update

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) voted 373 to 323 on the following wording change:

“b. Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament. Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”

This means that, if this change is approved by the various presbyteries, the Presbyterian Church (USA) will allow the ordination of gay and lesbian ministers who are in relationships (celibate singles are already allowed).

Tomorrow the convention will probably vote tomorrow on whether to change their definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

NBC’s Today Show reverses: gay couples can enter marriage contest

The ‘gotta be hetero‘ rules for Today Show’s “Modern Wedding” have been lifted.

From GLAAD

This afternoon NBC and the Today Show did just that. Following a meeting between GLAAD and NBC executives, NBC announced that after listening to community concerns it will open the contest to same-sex couples and extend the submission deadline until Monday, July 12. Couples now have until then to apply. Finalists will be announced later this year and the wedding takes place live on the Today Show this October.

Observations about DOMA Cases

As we noted, Federal Court Judge Tauro of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (First Federal Court District) announced rulings today in two different cases which found the Federal Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional. This, my friends, is a WOW moment.

In reviewing the cases, I noted the following:

* The cases deal with two distinct sets of rights, the rights of individuals (i.e. Gill: the rights of gay married individuals to be treated like any other married individuals), and the rights of states (i.e. Commonwealth: the rights to define marriage for the residents of that state). In both cases and for different reasons, the judge found that the Federal Government had trampled rights.

* Both cases were found on summary judgment, in other words on matters of law not disputed fact.

* In Commonwealth, the judge noted that state control of marriage existed prior to the Constitution, during its enactment and ever since. Indeed, many times between the 1880’s and 1950’s there were an attempts to unify state marriage law and it the method understood to be required – and which was unsuccessfully attempted each time – was by means of a federal constitutional amendment.

* In Commonwealth, the state sued not on behalf of its residents but as an aggrieved party who has to pay taxes unfairly and loses revenue to which it is entitled. Massachusetts argued that it is both forced to discriminate against AND to be cheated by same-sex couples. It provided an example of the Federal Government disallowing the state to offer burial in a state-owned veterans cemetery without losing tens of millions of dollars and also an example of how being forced to treat married gay couples as single would result in the state paying medical benefits to individuals who would not qualify as part of a couple (while this may seem like harsh reasoning, it’s smart to point out that marriages include not only benefits but also obligations). Further, the federal government requires that the state pay taxes on its citizens’ income which should be exempt.

* In Commonwealth, the Judge found that the definition of marriage was not delineated as belonging to the Federal Government and was, therefore, the purview of the states. Further it relied on unconstitutional demands (as found in Gill) and thus does not come under the spending provision exceptions allowed for the federal government.

* The judge in the Gill case did not address issues of strict scrutiny. He found that he could make his determination based on the rational basis (lower level of scrutiny).

As set forth in detail below, this court is convinced that “there exists no fairly conceivable set of facts that could ground a rational relationship” between DOMA and a legitimate government objective.

In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the opposing counsel argued that under the rational basis test, anything however bizarre or peculiar which ever could possibly be rationalized (what a rational person could believe) must be accepted as a justification for establishing different treatment for equally situated people. Judge Tauro – in this case – did not accept the wide breadth of such argument and this more narrowly insisting on a connection between stated goal and method which is not “arbitrary or irrational” may – at least in the short term – allow for a commonality of thinking and wording.

* In Gill, as in Perry, the plaintiffs defendants (the federal government) tried to distant themselves from the arguments used to enact the legislation and replace these arguments with other, more legally compatible, arguments. Judge Tauro did not allow them to be dismissed entirely.

And as some of the previous arguments were the same as the current arguments in Perry, the finding by Tauro may be relevant to that case. He soundly dismissed the notions that banning gay marriage benefitted children (of anyone), further encouraged heterosexual marriage (“this court cannot discern a means by
which the federal government’s denial of benefits to same-sex spouses might encourage homosexual people to marry members of the opposite sex”), or protected the prestige of marriage (because the only tactic used to enhance heterosexual marriage was to harm gay people).

* In Gill the plaintiffs had offered “consistency” as a justification for not recognizing Massachusetts’ marriages – don’t have some states with some recognition and others with different recognition. They argued that the Feds have a right to “go slow” and wait for consensus. Basing his decision on the Commonwealth case, Tauro found that no such federal right exists.

Importantly, the passage of DOMA marks the first time that the federal government has ever attempted to legislatively mandate a uniform federal definition of marriage–or any other core concept of domestic relations, for that matter.

Further, the judge notes that DOMA actually contradicts the government’s criteria for distinguishing between who and who does not get benefits. If the government says that marital status is a legitimate basis for offering benefits to some and not to others, then denying it as a basis for same-sex couples challenges the legitimacy of marital status as a basis at all.

* These cases do not discuss whether states may deny marriage equality, only whether the federal government may do so. If it is constitutionally permissible to discriminate against gay people in matters of marriage, only states may enact that discrimination.

* Taken together, it seems clear that Tauro finds that a distinction based on marriage is permissible. But one that is based on sexual orientation is not. This would seem to suggest that because states can determine marriage laws (Commonwealth), it can either allow or refuse same-sex marriage (until otherwise restricted). So those legally married same-sex couples in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Washington DC, New York and Maryland and some 18,000 couples in California would be married in the eyes of the federal government while those in civil unions or domestic partnerships would not.

Defense of Marriage Act Declared Unconstitutional

We have just received word that a Federal Court Judge has ruled the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

According to a press release issued by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD):

This afternoon, a federal court judge issued a decision in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders’ lawsuit challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The judge also issued a decision in Commonwealth v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Attorney General Martha Coakley’s lawsuit challenging Section 3 of DOMA, which is separate from GLAD’s lawsuit and based on a different legal theory.

 One Tweet has it that GLAD’s case was decided on “equal protection principles.” Of course, we eagerly await the text of the ruling itself, which I presume will not be in the form of thousands of tweets.

This is an important first step in the long slog to the Supreme Court. Given that the U.S. Justice Department is likely to appeal the ruling, it’s unclear what immediate affect this ruling might have.

Update 1: Bay Windows has more information:

In one challenge brought by the state of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that Congress violated the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it passed DOMA and took from the states decisions concerning which couples can be considered married. In the other, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, he ruled DOMA violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Both cases were argued separately last May, although both decisions were handed down simultaneously today. Bay Windows notes that this is an extremely quick turn for a decision like this.

Update 2: Reporter Rex Wocknoer sent out this key snippet from the Commonwealth vs US HHS decision:

This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status. The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid.

Update2  3 and 4: The Gill decision has been uploaded here. The Commonwealth decision is here. I’m pretty busy right now, so feel free to discuss them in the comments.

South African DJ’s reportedly suspended for playing Ssempa tapes

YFM is a youth oriented Johannesburg radio station which predominantly plays Hip-Hop, house, kwaito, and R&B music, with about 20% of airtime is dedicated to talk formats on topics of interest to young South Africans.

The Sunday Times (of Johannesburg) is reporting that two disc jockeys have been suspended for playing recordings of Uganda’s Martin Ssempa’s homophobic ranting.

YFM will have to face a tribunal of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission tomorrow because a listener has complained about the “hate speech” that Mukwevho – best known as MacG – was “promoting” when he played the recording on his MacG Unleashed show.

After playing the clip, Mukwevho poked fun at a gay colleague on air, repeating some of Ssempa’s bizarre and unprintable statements.

The unnamed listener wrote that Mukwevho was “laughing hysterically”.

Also under scrutiny is DJ Mpho Maboi, who played the clip previously.

It is difficult to say at this time and distance if the DJ’s were behaving in a homophobic way or if they were mocking Ssempa’s assertions in a manner similar to the Eat Da Poo Poo satire. They will answer to a tribunal on Friday.

UPDATE: From MambaOnline

On Tuesday, Mukwevho apologised for the furore on Twitter: “I’d like to profusely apologise to everyone I offended during my show last month when I made reference to homosexuality. Sincere apologies,” said the DJ.

Pentegon asks military personnel for their opinion on DADT

As part of the Military’s “review” of the anti-gay Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, military officers have encouraged soldiers to share their concerns in group settings. But few concerns about gay soldiers have seemed to be paramount on the minds of the troops. So the Pentagon is sending email invitations for service members to privately provide their opinions. (CNN)

The survey, which servicemembers can expect to receive via e-mail, asks about such issues as how unit morale or readiness might be affected if a commander is believed to be gay or lesbian; the need to maintain personal standards of conduct; and how repeal might affect willingness to serve in the military.

The survey also asks a number of questions aimed at identifying problems that could occur when troops live and work in close quarters overseas in war zones. For example, the questionnaire asks military members how they would react if they had to share a room, bathrooms, and open-bay showers in a war zone with other service members believed to be gay or lesbian.

Should you be Forced! to Shower! with Homosexuals!!??!!

Gee, I can hardly wait for the response.

An Apology

Sexual Minorities Uganda has issued a statement concerning the beheaded gay activist hoax. I’ve included the statement after the jump. To say that knowing that this web site helped to propagate that hoax is humiliating would be an understatement. We’ve worked hard at BTB in establishing our credibility, and I believe that a key component of that is also to maintain an atmosphere of transparency and accountability when we get it wrong. Along the way, I’ve learned that some sources on the Internet are trustworthy, and others are not worth the electricity it takes to power their servers. Until now, I hadn’t had the need to pass judgment on Changing Attitude, but I think you can probably guess where I stand now.

For every story we publish, there are countless others that we pass on for many reasons. Some of those reasons include not making it past the “sniff” test, that sense that there’s something wrong with it. Sure, I could brag about all of the stories that we rejected because they were bogus, but none of that matters when this story managed to make its way past our imperfect B.S. detectors. The fact that other blogs jumped on this story several hours before we did is also meaningless considering that most of the web sites that picked it up afterwards sourced BTB for their posts. I must, and do, accept full responsibility for that. It’s the reward for being a trusted source for LGBT issues; it’s also the pitfall to getting it wrong.

This hoax is damaging for many reasons. The least of those concerns is BTB’s credibility and my good name. In the larger picture, that is expendable when compared to the real damage it can cause. This hoax can provide ammunition to our opponents who would try to use it as proof that LGBT people are deliberately spreading rumors and falsehoods. It can be used as a “crying wolf” case to dismiss future reports in which LGBT people are really attacked and killed. Anger over labeling a  young dead man as “gay” in a country where such labels are an accusation could potentially lead to retaliatory attacks to defend his honor. The hoax’s existence could fuel unfounded suspicions over the young man’s “real killer.” The hoax can be used as an excuse to silence LGBT people, organizations, and news outlets. It can give someone an idea for a copycat crime. It can do so many other damaging things as well, and knowing that I was a part of its spread is something that I am deeply sorry for.

To all those who believed the hoax as much as I did, I offer my profound apology. And that apology goes out especially to the people of Uganda, and principally to Bishop Christopher Senyonjo and to the family and loved ones of the young man whose senseless murder was hijacked for the creation of this hoax.

Click here to see the statement from Sexual Minorities Uganda

Lingle’s veto justified by an argument based in a sense of entitlement and superiority

I do not believe that Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle is a bigot. I have not witnessed overt hostility towards gay Hawaiians or a pattern of anti-gay activism on her part. I think that she perceives herself as respectful and that she genuinely did feel some measure of compassion for the gay men and women who met with her on this issue.

However, one need not personally be a bigot to be motivated by disreputable intentions. And the argument that eventually compelled Lingle to veto this legislation was based in a sense of entitlement and superiority, the same emotion that drives racism, sexism, and other forms of bigoted expression.

From the text of Lingle’s veto speech:

I am vetoing this bill because I have become convinced that this issue is of such significant societal importance that it deserves to be decided directly by all the people of Hawaii.
…
After listening to those both for and against HB 444 I have gained a new appreciation for just how deeply people of all ages and backgrounds feel on this matter, and how significantly they believe the issue will affect their lives.

Few could be unmoved by the poignant story told to me in my office by a young, Big Island man who recounted the journey he had taken to bring himself to tell his very traditional parents that he was gay. I was similarly touched by the mother who in the same office expressed anguish at the prospect of the public schools teaching her children that a same gender marriage was equivalent to their mother and father’s marriage.
…
But in the end, it wasn’t the persuasiveness of public debates, the soundness of legal arguments, or the volume of letters and emails that convinced me to reach this decision. It was the depth of emotion felt by those on both sides of the issue that revealed to me how fundamental the institution of marriage is to our community.

Lingle’s examples – those which best illustrated the “depth of emotion” which she observed – consisted of two individual stories.

In the first, Lingle ignored entirely the real concerns and needs of same-sex couples. She dismissed rights, obligations, and benefits to focus instead on a coming out story. We don’t know if this man was denied hospital visitation or if he paid higher taxes or even if he was part of a couple; we only know that his parents were traditional (with the assumption that all traditional parents are, by default, homophobic).

That is how Lingle characterized the entire quest for couples equality: the emotional difficulty of coming out.

Her second example was more accurate; it correctly expressed the motivations of those who object to civil equality.

This woman wished for her children to believe in the superiority of heterosexuals. She wished them to believe that heterosexuals are due privileges and benefits solely for being heterosexual. And she opposed any public impressions that would suggest that all citizens of Hawaii are equal. The idea that a school might teach that those same-sex people in a civil union were equivalent to her and her husband brought her anguish.

And this is at the heart of Lingle’s decision. This was the argument which she found compelling. Indeed, it wasn’t even a matter of some religion or other owning the word “marriage” but because she found civil unions to be “essentially marriage by another name.”

In her follow up comments, Lingle clarified that her objection was that HB 444 “has all the same rights, responsibilities, benefits and protections” as marriage. It just didn’t leave heterosexual as adequately “better” than gays and lesbians.

Lingle begs her constituents to recognize that she gave the decision making process the dignity that it deserves. But I am not so generous as to assume dignity or a fair consideration.

Because Governor Linda Lingle, like the woman whose anguish justified Lingle’s veto, wants to keep heterosexuals as privileged, superior, and entitled. And that is a most disreputable motivation.

Scam Alert: Uganda Beheading Story Revealed As A Hoax

The story seemed solid. I first saw it on the Episcopal pro-LGBT site for Changing Attitudes , in a post written by the Rev. Colin Coward, who is the founder and director of the U.K.-based organization. I also found two Uganda media reports that confirmed that a headless body and a body-less head were found on and near a farm owned by the Uganda Electoral Commission chairman Badru Kiggundu. With three separate sources, that seemed like confirmation enough for me to go forward with yesterday’s story about a Ugandan LGBT Advocate found beheaded.

We Americans (and Westerners in general) can be a myopic bunch. Our ignorance about the rest of the world renders us naïve as a people, and vulnerable to scams and hoaxes. Nigerian scam artists figured this out more than a decade ago. And that is what this story appears to be, another scam.

Here is what we do know: a young man was brutally murdered, that he was mutilated and his head was cut off and dumped into a latrine. That much is true. But we have now confirmed that the young man had no connections with Integrity Uganda. Furthermore, the story about the missing Rev. Henry Kayizzi Nsubuga’s disappearance following a pro-LGBT sermon also appears increasingly unlikely. Yes, the man is reported to be missing, but so far the only sources indicating that he gave a pro-LGBT sermon are from Rev. Coward himself and the virulently anti-gay Anglican web site Virtue Online. In short, there is almost nothing about the article published by Rev. Coward that appears credible. And the more I dig into this story, the greater the likelihood it appears to me that the story may have been planted by an anti-gay activist who has defrauded to LGBT community in the past.

I have tried to contact Rev. Coward for comment and to ask him where he got his story, but so far he hasn’t returned my email.

To unwind the story, let’s go back to two key quotes that were included in the original Changing Attitudes article that Rev. Coward posted yesterday. The first is from Bishop Christopher Senyonjo, founder of Integrity Uganda, the organization that the murder victim was said to be a volunteer for. Rev. Coward posted this reaction from Bishop Senyonjo:

Bishop Christopher Senyonjo, Chairperson of Integrity Uganda lamented the murder of this young man as ‘absurd’ adding that, ‘clearly, the values of tolerance and social inclusion are sadly being sacrificed on the altar of state ignorance, ineptness and good old colonial stupidity’.

This morning, I received an email from Bishop Senyonjo himself. He denied making that statement. And as the Chairperson of Integrity Uganda, he said that the individual who was murdered has no connection with Integrity Uganda. This has been confirmed through multiple sources in Uganda, many of them expressing exasperation that this story has made headlines.

The heart of the hoax, and it’s biggest clue, is the quote attributed to Rev. Erich Kasirye, who Coward identifies as the “Director General” of Integrity Uganda. Kasirye supposedly said:

‘Pasikali and his partner Abbey joined Integrity Uganda in June 2007 and during the last three years, Integrity Uganda has seen an increase in coordination and harmonisation of youth activities. Pasikali emphasized the promotion of the concept of care across the continuum through the formation of voluntary home care groups for young LGBTIs who continue to live in fear. He will be greatly missed by the entire LGBTI fraternity’.

Multiple sources in Uganda, as well as Bishop Senyonjo himself, confirm that Kasirye is not associated with Integrity Uganda, and that he has had no connection with the organization since 2004.

Erich Kasirye (left) and his wife Patricia, also identified as Colonel Josephine Luboyera (Photo from the Summer/Fall 2001 issue of the Integrity USA newsletter)

According to multiples sources with close ties to  Uganda’s LGBT community, Kasirya was a part of Integrity Uganda when it was founded by Bishop Senyonjo. Kasirya was identified as a co-founder in this newsletter (PDF: 448KB/16 pages) published in the Spring of 2001 by Integrity USA, and he quickly established himself as the de-facto spokesperson for Integrity Uganda to the American LGBT community. Kasirya penned two articles in the Integrity USA newsletter for the Summer/Fall  2001 issue (PDF: 664KB/16 pages) and he contributed another article the following year (PDF: 300KB/20 pages). In that later article about Uganda’s sex eduction policy, Kasirya braged that the anti-gay Anglican leadership in Uganda was “unable to keep pace with Integrity Uganda” and that the people of Uganda were “now eager to open up to the homosexual reality than ever before.”

But two years later, all of that would come tumbling down. Multiple sources who requested confidentiality have told me that by late 2003 or early 2004, it was learned that Kasirya had been using his connections with Integrity Uganda to defraud American and European donors with false stories of a supposed imprisonment for his advocacy on behalf of Uganda’s LGBT community. According to one source, he tried to induce American supporters to purchase a farm out in the bush. Later published reports confirmed that he diverted funds intended for Uganda’s LGBT community to himself and his wife, Patricia Kasirye (who is sometimes identified as Colonel Josephine Luboyera). One source complained about how long it took for Integrity USA to see the red flags, describing the leadership at that time as “naïve.” But by February 2004, the evidence proved conclusive to all doubters, and Integrity USA issued a joint statement with Bishop Senyonjo announcing that Kasirye had been kicked out due to his fraudulent activities:

Leaders of Integrity USA and Integrity Uganda have been in joint consultation for several weeks concerning troubling accounts of the activities of one of the members of the leadership team of Integrity Uganda, the Rev. Erich Kasirye. Fr. Kasirye was among the founders of Integrity Uganda in 2000 and has served frequently as its chief spokesperson.

It is now, sadly, clear to us that Fr. Kasirye has been involved in a number of scams in order to raise money for himself personally using his connection with Integrity Uganda. In particular, in January 2004 he solicited funds from a number of organizations and individuals claiming to have been imprisoned because of his connection to Integrity Uganda, a claim which has turned out not to have been true. At the same time he has, in Uganda, publicly renounced his connection with Integrity to church officials and turned over to them the Kitemu Community Center, which has been the base of Integrity ministry in Uganda. Kitemu Center was built largely with funds raised by Integrity USA.

Integrity USA is under different leadership today and has no official comment for this story other than to confirm past problems with Kasirye, according to spokeswoman Louise Brooks.

Just a couple of weeks after Kasirye’s scam was publicized, the anti-gay Anglican web site Virtue Online crowed:

Integrity USA, ECUSA’s official pansexual organization for sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman, announced, at its website, that the Rev. Erich Kasirye, one of the founders of Integrity Uganda in 2000 had been enriching himself at the expense of the poor and downtrodden and those suffering with AIDS. He was involved in a number of scams in order to raise money for himself personally using his connection with Integrity Uganda, said a joint statement.

…Not only was Kasirye skimming money he has now publicly renounced his connection with Integrity to Uganda church officials… This is a serious blow to Integrity’s desire to gain a foothold on the African continent, and probably its last. The question is was Kasirye playing Integrity USA for suckers all along? The Anglican Church of Uganda maintains that the organization was an elaborate confidence scam since its formation. The former Primate Livingston Nkoyoyo called Integrity Uganda “a fiction and a sham”.

In fact, sources tell me that this debacle was a serious setback, not only for Integrity Uganda, but for the state of LGBT advocacy in Uganda in general. Today, Integrity Uganda has re-emerged from the scandal with new financial oversight controls in place. Other LGBT activists in Uganda, I’m told, took this scandal as an example, reinforcing what they had already recognized as the importance of independence from foreign connections and the development of clear trust and transparency among members within the community.

While it took years for Integrity Uganda to recover from the betrayal, it didn’t take at all long for Kasirye to land on his feet. Before the year was out, his name would surface again, except by this time he had changed teams. On Dec 3, 2004, Orombi boasted to Virtue Online that the Anglican church in Uganda was growing while the head of Integrity Uganda was “cut off”:

Asked why the liberal retired bishop in Uganda was promoting the Integrity organization, Orombi said it was purely for the money. “The good news is that his assistant the Rev. Eric Kasirye has left him and returned to the church. Praise God.”

By mid-2005, New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson, the world’s first openly gay prelate in the Anglican communion, had been in office for little more than a year. In response, several American parishes severed themselves from Robinson and other bishops who supported Robinson’s installation and aligned themselves under the direction of African anti-gay bishops. Nigeria’s Archbishop Peter Akinola and Uganda’s Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi were particularly active in recruiting American Episcopal anti-gay parishes away from their American bishops. It is against this background that Erich Kasirye re-emerged, again with this notice on Virtue Online:

LOOKING FOR A DIOCESE OR PROVINCE THAT WILL GIVE YOU COVER. I got a note this week from the Rev. Erich Kasirye, Diocesan Mission Coordinator for Bishop Samuel Ssekkadde, in the Diocese of Namirembe. This was the first Diocese in East and Central Africa which now has over 5 million membership.

Kasirye wrote saying: “This is to inform you that my Diocese would like to adopt a parish in the States which is orthodox and lacks ecclesiastical protection. Kindly let us know those churches which might need some pastoral and personal support. We are very much aware of the poisonous efforts of the revisionist forces which face orthodox churches in ECUSA-and we do not want them to be vulnerable.”

The Diocese of Namirembe is seated at St. Paul’s Namirembe Cathedral in Kampala, Uganda’s capital. It is the resident church for the Archbishop of Uganda, Henry Luke Orombi.

Integrity Uganda would go on to slowly and painfully recover from Kasirye’s 2004 betrayal. Bishop Christopher Senyonjo has recently concluded a speaking tour of the U.S. and U.K. I was able to meet with him for an evening and morning in Irvine, California. You can find two articles I wrote about him here and here. I find him to be incredibly sincere, brave, and a steadfast ally to the LGBT community. Meanwhile, the state of Uganda’s LGBT advocacy has continued to grow despite the incredible obstacles they continue to face. In addition to Sexual Minorities Uganda, there is Freedom and Roam Uganda and Icebreakers Uganda providing vital services and support for the LGBT community.

It is now clear that the entire story published by Rev. Colin Coward is a complete hoax. The purpose of the hoax is unknown, but a few possibilities come to mind. Some believe that the story was planted by Kasirye to discredit the Ugandan LGBT community, foreign bloggers, and Integrity Uganda specifically when the story is inevitably revealed to be a fraud. Other possibilities include Kasirye’s using this story for another run at fraudulent fundraising. At any rate, it’s hard not to imagine the source of the story somehow tracing itself back to Kasirye himself in some form or fashion. Rev. Coward certainly knows who the person or persons are who planted the story, but so far he has not revealed who they may be.

Update: Nearly simultaneous to this article being posted, Rev. Coward posted his explanation of where he got the story:

The original report by Erich Kasirye was emailed to the SOGI list which had been receiving reports for the past week from activists and media about the disappearance and murder of LGBTI people from Integrity Uganda. [Emphasis mine.]

So it appears that Erich Kasirye himself was the source of the hoax, much as I suspected. Coward suspects that Kasirye planted the story on behalf of Archbishop Orombi, pointing to this paragraph from an article posted on the anti-gay Virtue Online last May:

Asked why the liberal retired bishop in Uganda was promoting the Integrity organization, Orombi said it was purely for the money. “The good news is that his assistant the Rev. Eric Kasirye has left him and returned to the church. Praise God.”

Coward sees it as evidence that Kasirye is still working on Orombi’s behalf. But as I noted above, this paragraph is a word-for-word repeat from an article posted in December, 2004. It appears that this is not a fresh quote, but is a recycled paragraph from six-years ago. Hence, by itself, it is not a good indicator that Kasirye colluded with Orombi in planting the hoax. But Rev. Coward is not the only one to raise this suspicion. I, for one, think it is a very fair question. Is Kasirye still working for Orombi?

Another update: The government-owned New Vision today has an update on Fr. Henry Kayizzi Nsubug, who remains missing. Again, no mention of a gay-sermon connection, probably because there is none. It does say that Fr. Nsubug was in an auto accident on June 10 and “sustained minor injuries.” The descriptions of his behavior a few days after the accident suggest to me that he may have suffered a head injury. His whereabouts remain unknown.

More on the Hawaii Civil Unions Veto

Gov. Linda Lingle (R) today announced that she would veto the civil unions bill that was passed overwhelmingly by the state legislature, calling the measure “marriage by another name.” Of course, the bill isn’t “marriage by another name” at all. As civil unions, they would not have been recognized by any other state that recognizes same-sex marriages from other states. Nor would they be recognized by the federal government if the Defense of Marriage Act were to be repealed.

The Senate passed the bill last January by a veto-proof majority of 18-7. The House passed the bill in April by a 31-20 vote, which was just three votes short of the two-thirds that would be needed for an override. Against that backdrop, Lingle’s reasoning for vetoing the bill was downright nonsensical:

“The subject of this legislation has touched the hearts and minds of our citizens as no other social issue of our day,” Lingle said. “It would be a mistake to allow a decision of this magnitude to be made by one individual or a small group of elected officials.

This year is a gubernatorial election year for Hawaii, and the subject of civil unions may become a campaign issue. Predictably, it has already put the two gubernatorial candidates seeking to replace Lingle on opposite sides of the issue. Republican candidate and current Lt. Gov. Duke Aiona commended Lingle “for making this difficult and courageous decision.” He also called for a public referendum to put a minorities human rights up for a vote.

Meanwhile Democratic candidate and former U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie said:

“HB 444 was not a same-sex marriage bill. The State Legislature has already defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Civil unions respect our diversity, protect people’s privacy and reinforce our core values of equality and aloha.

“Now, it will be up to the next governor and Legislature to ensure that all people of Hawaii receive equal treatment. Protecting people’s civil rights cannot be compromised. I am committed to that most essential of constitutional imperatives.”

Hawaii Civil Unions Vetoed

Republican Governor Linda Lingle vetoed Civil Unions in Hawaii because “it deserves to be decided by all the people”. In other words, minority rights should be put up to the whims of the majority.

A group of kids attack gay Atlanta pastor

Joshua Noblitt and his partner were sitting on a blanket, playing cards, and finishing up a picnic in Piedmont Park when they were accosted by a group of young men. (cbsatlanta.com, video)

“They walked up to us and asked ‘are y’all gay? We ought to beat y’all for that'” said Noblitt.

Noblitt said that the youths walked off, but returned with a stick and demanded money.

The pastor said that he grabbed the stick from one of the attackers and a fight ensued. The young men then used a cell phone to make a call, and up to 10 others arrived and attacked Noblitt and his partner.

“They came out of nowhere,” said Noblitt.

One of the suspects pulled a handgun and held it to Noblitt’s head, then stole his wallet and cell phone, police said.

The police responded quickly and arrested six suspects. Five of them were minors.

A gay man was stabbed to death in the park last May.

Argentina Senate committee opposes marriage bill

An influential senate committee did not recommend that the full Senate approve the marriage equality bill. (On-Top Magazine)

Eight members of the Senate General Law Committee joined its chairwoman, Senator Liliana Negre de Alonso, in recommending that a gay marriage bill approved in May by Argentina’s lower house, the Chamber of Deputies (la Camara de Diputados), be rejected in the Senate.

Six committee members voted to recommend the bill’s approval. Another five members advised senators to reconsider a bill rejected in May by the lower house that would recognize gay and lesbian couples with civil unions. That legislation, however, bans gay couples from adopting.

While supporters are still expressing confidence, this committee vote is believed to be influential. The full Senate will vote next Wednesday.

Presbyterians move closer to full inclusion

The Presbyterian Church (USA) is meeting in Minneapolis this week and high on the agenda is how to deal with gay and lesbian Presbyterians in committed relationships. And two decisions made so far give promise that this year may result in steps towards greater inclusion.

The first action was the election of gay ally Cindy Bolbach as Moderator of the 219th General Assembly (2010).

Only one question from the floor touched upon any of the several controversial issues that this Assembly will tackle in the coming week: whether to change the constitutional definition of marriage from “between a man and a woman” to “between two people.”

Four candidates – Leeth, Nielsen, Kim and Belle – endorsed support for the traditional definition. Though same-sex marriage is not legal in her native North Carolina, Lauterer said “in states where it’s legal, the church should have a part in that union … Covenant makes the community stronger.”

Only Bolbach expressed unqualified support for same-sex marriage. “Who poses the greatest threat – Larry King, who’s been married seven times, or a gay couple [friends of hers] in Washington, D.C., who have been together for 62 years and who got married two weeks ago?” Same-sex marriage is legal in the District of Columbia and five states.

Bolbach, who is a lawyer and legal publishing company executive in Washington, acknowledged, “I don’t think our denomination is ready for [changing the definition of marriage], but what do pastors do in jurisdictions where same-sex marriage is legal?”

Bolbach lives in just such a jurisdiction.

Yesterday, the church addressed correcting a 1960’s mistranslation of the Heidelberg Catechism which included language not in the original German. This additional language (in part of the response to Quetion 87) made anti-gay theological interpretations a matter of catechism. In 2008 the church directed a panel review the issue and respond this year.

Additionally, the Belhar Confession came out of South Africa as a consequence of apartheid and calls for racial equality. It declares that God is on the side of those who been oppressed or who have had injustice engaged against them. It is a strong call against segregating groups or treating people unequally and has been used as support for full inclusion of gay men and women, a connection made stronger by opposition to the Confession from those who oppose gay equality in the church.

The Committee on Theological Issues and Institutions furthered the effort to revise the Heidelberg Catechism and to adopt the Belhar Confession.

The committee concurred, 51-4, with the report to appoint the presently constituted Special Committee to recommend to the 220th General Assembly (2012) a new translation of the present Heidelberg Catechism in The Book of Confessions in cooperation with the Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRCNA) and the Reformed Church of America (RCA), and to consider inclusion of appropriate scriptural citations and/or textual references that correspond to each article.

Following a lengthy and thoughtful process, the committee concurred, 43-11-1, with the Special Committee’s recommendation that the 219th General Assembly (2010) approve the inclusion of the Belhar Confession in The Book of Confessions, and that the amendment be sent to the presbyteries for their affirmative or negative votes by June 2011.

And today a committee soundly rejected a restrictive definition of marriage.

The 219th General Assembly Committee on Civil Union and Marriage Issues voted 47-8-2 Monday to approve a report that urges Presbyterians to further study the issues and stay in covenant with each other while they do so.

The report of the Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage, signed by 10 of its 13 members, passed the Assembly committee with minor amendments.

The committee rejected a minority report submitted by three members of the special committee. The minority report, which stated that “only marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God,” was defeated 40-15, with one abstention.

Additionally, the Committee on Civil Union and Marriage Issues seems to be making some astonishing adjustments to church language. For example,

1. Shall W-4.9001 be amended as follows: [Text to be deleted is shown with a strike-through; text to be added or inserted is shown as italic.]

“Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the well-being of the entire human family. Marriage is a civil contract between a woman and a man two people. For Christians marriage is a covenant through which a man and a woman two people are called to live out together before God their lives of discipleship. In a service of Christian marriage a lifelong commitment is made by a woman and a man to each other between two people, publicly witnessed and acknowledged by the community of faith.”

The vote was affirmative 34 to 18 with two abstentions.

The decisions are not all going in the favor of gay Presbyterians, but there is plenty to be happy about. More Light Presbyterians are providing live-blogging and other coverage from their facebook site.

We must keep in mind that these committee decisions do not, in themselves, place gay people on an equal standing in the Presbyterian Church; there are still a number of hurdles to clear. But they are steps towards that standing and are encouraging signs of what the future holds for gay Presbyterians and gay Christians on the whole.

Breaking: Beheaded Ugandan May Not Have Been Gay or LGBT Activist

Despite three sources providing some corroborating details, the veracity of this story has been called into question. Sources in the U.S. and Uganda now tell me that the young man whose beheaded body was found was not connected with Integrity Uganda, and that Bishop Christopher Senyonjo did not make the statement attributed to him by Changing Attitudes. The young man’s murder is no less horrific. But the connection to homophobia, for now, appears doubtful. I am still looking for more information and will provide updates as soon as I have them.

Update @14:45 PST: More fingerprints of a hoax are emerging. The Rev. Erich Kasirye, identified as the “General Secretary, Integrity Uganda” and who gave an extensive quotation that I reproduced in the original story about an LGBT activist’s beheading, appears to have exploited his connections with Integrity Uganda in a money-raising scam in 2004. He also absconded with the Kitemu Community Center, which had been built using funds from Integrity USA, by turning it over to the Anglican Church of Uganda while renouncing his connections with Integrity Uganda to church officials. The leadership of Integrity USA and Integrity Uganda warned:

It is important, however, for the many networks we have built around the world in support of this ministry, that we make clear that the Rev. Erich Kasirye no longer has any legitimate connection to Integrity Uganda, nor does his wife, Patricia Kasirye, or Colonel Josephine Luboyera, in both of whose names Fr. Kasirye has frequently solicited aid. In addition, the e-mail address <integrityuganda@yahoo.com> is no longer available as a link to the leadership of Integrity Uganda.

Update: The entire story is a complete hoax. More details here.