Box Turtle Bulletin

Kill-the-Gays Bill Sponsor: Uganda Is Providing Leadership Where It is Needed Most

Current TV’s Vanguard reporter Mariana van Zeller has posted some outtakes from their documentary “Missionaries of Hate“, which explored the events that followed the three-day anti-gay conference put on by three American Evangelicals in March, 2009, which ultimately culminated with the introduction of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, sometimes referred to as the “kill-the-gays bill,” by MP David Bahati. In this video, we see an extended interview with MP Bahati.

Bahati brags that many American Evangelicals who publicly condemn the bill have told him they privately support it. One wonders, which Evangelicals are he referring to?

Click here to read a rush transcript of the interview.

Byrd endorsed DADT compromise with additional sixty day implementation delay

Senator Byrd has released the following statement:

U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, released the following statement announcing that he will vote for a compromise amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization bill to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Byrd worked successfully with interested parties to include some additional language that would give Congress an additional 60 days to thoroughly review the implementation policy once certified:

“I did not want to blindly assent to repealing this law without giving the Congress an opportunity to re-examine the concerns of our Armed Forces and the manner in which they are being addressed.”

“Therefore, I worked with the Senate and House Leadership, Senators Lieberman and Levin, Congressman Murphy, the Administration and the Department of Defense to include a provision in the proposed compromise amendment that would delay the repeal of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy for 60 days after receipt of the findings of the Pentagon Review and the determination of the proposed policy and regulation changes.”

“This period of time will allow the Congress, along with the American people, to thoroughly review the proposed policy recommendations to ensure that these changes are consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention for our Armed Forces.”

“With these changes, I will support the amendment expected to be offered by Senator Lieberman to the Department of Defense Authorization bill.

With Byrd’s promised vote, the bill now has more than the required votes for attachment to the Defense Authorization Bill and for passage out of committee.

It now appears that the timeline will be repeal of DADT language this week, completion of study by December 1, then some undefined period for drafting of policies to be followed by sixty days for Congressional review. I don’t know if there is a provision by which Congress would have to vote again, but this delays implementation until after the swearing in of the next Congress.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen speaks out for repealing DADT

Though the Chiefs of the various military divisions want to delay the repeal of the ban, Admiral Mike Mullen has spoken again today in favor of the timing of the compromise. (Forbes)

“Personal opinion? I believe it’s time. I believe we need to change it,” Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told about 500 service members at Peterson Air Force Base.
Article Controls

However, Mullen stressed that the change had not yet been approved. And if it is, he said he wouldn’t make any final determinations on how to implement it until the military studies the issue and gets input from troops.

General Shalikashvili responds to letters from Military Chiefs

General John Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997 when Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was implemented, has responded to letters released earlier today from Military Chiefs who objected to the compromise worked out between the President, Congress, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of Defense.

Dear Senators Levin and Lieberman,

I have reviewed the letters sent by the Service Chiefs today to Senator McCain and Representative McKeon. While I fully agree that Congress should take no action that usurps the Pentagon’s evaluation process and recommendations, there is nothing in those letters that gives Congress any reason to delay enacting the legislative compromise that was proposed this week.

The legislative compromise fully and affirmatively respects the Working Group process. The Working Group has been tasked with contingency planning to determine how best to implement a repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Unless Congress repeals 10 U.S.C. § 654, the Pentagon will be powerless to implement the Working Group’s recommendations.

Furthermore, the proposed implementation and certification requirements contained in the legislative compromise ensure that the views of Service members and their families will be respected and given full weight in determining how best to implement this shift in policy. In short, it is not only preferable, but essential, that 10 U.S.C. § 654 be repealed in order for the Service Chiefs to retain the very authority they require to do their jobs effectively.

Military chiefs lobby for ignoring DADT compromise

Senator John McCain (the newly crafted ultra-conservative unhesitatingly homophobic Senator John McCain who magically appeared during the last Presidential election, not to be confused with the previous incarnation of Senator McCain which was moderate, “maverick”, relatively gay friendly, and sought solutions rather than grandstanding) is leading the charge to oppose abandoning Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. McCain is in a battle for his party’s continued nomination and apparently he’s decided that he’ll gladly throw his reputation as a statesman to the wind in order to serve yet one more term in the Senate. (yes, I’m bitter)

As part of his campaign in favor of retaining federally mandated institutional discrimination, McCain has solicited and received letters from the various chiefs of staff expressing their dissatisfaction with the compromise.

George Casey, Army

I remain convinced that it is critically important to get a better understanding of where our Soldiers and Families are on this issue, and what the impacts on readiness and unit cohesion might be, so that I can provide informed military advice to the President and the Congress.

I also believe that repealing the law before the completion of the review will be seen by the men and women of the Army as a reversal of our commitment to hear their views before moving forward.

G Roughead, Navy

I share the view of Secretary Gates that the best approach would be to complete the DOD review before there is any legislation to change the law. My concern is that legislative changes at this point, regardless of the precise language used, may cause confusion on the status of the law in the Fleet and disrupt the review process itself by leading Sailors to question whether their input matters. Obtaining the views and opinions of the force and accessing them in the light of the issues involved will be complicated by a shifting legislative backdrop and its associated debate.

Norman Schwartz, Air Force

I believe it is important, a matter of keeping faith with those currently serving in the Armed Forces, that the Secretary of Defense commissioned review be completed before there is any legislation to repeal the DA/DT law. Such action allows me to provide the best military advise to the President, and sends an important signal to our Airmen and their families that their opinion matters. To do otherwise, in my view, would be presumptive and would reflect an intent to act before all relevant factors are assessed, digested and understood.

James Conway, Marines

I encourage the Congress to let the process the Secretary of Defense created to run its course. Collectively, we must make logical and pragmatic decisions about the long-term policies of our Armed Forces – Which so effectively defend this great nation.

Yes, gentlemen, I get it. You don’t really support the end of anti-gay bias in the Military, you just said that you do in the hopes of continuing the practice until the composition of Congress changes to one which will let it stay in place.

But for me, here’s the bottom line.

This policy is discriminatory. It is based in animus, presumption of superiority, and ignorance. It will change. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter whether Military leaders or enlisted personnel like it; ours is a civilian controlled military, not the other way around.

So I don’t care if ridding our Military of bigotry is personally inconvenient. I don’t care if it would be a hassle. I don’t give a whit if service personnel feel insulted that they aren’t consulted on federal legislation. And I really give absolutely no value to whether or not you personally favor anti-gay discrimination.

Because you have two jobs: keep our citizens safe, and advance the values of our nation. Not your values, not Senator McCain’s values, but the values protected by our Constitution and enjoyed by our people.

You don’t work for Senator McCain. And while you may report to the President (though apparently with contempt), you don’t work for him either. You work for us and it’s time that you recall it.

And the legislature doesn’t exist to do your bidding. They are elected by the people, they answer to the people, and they enact the laws and policies that the people demand. Sure your advice on military matters is of value, but your objections to their fulfillment of obligations that they made to us are offensive to our very democratic process.

We the people reject your discriminatory policy. You have no veto power. And if you cannot fulfill your duty, then it’s time for you to tender your resignation.

With DADT Real Compromise In the Works, Panic Ensues

It’s time once again to lock up your tender military-aged sons and daughters. Now that it looks like the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” may be imminent, anti-gay extremists are pulling out every scare tactic to try to block the deal. They’re coming at it from so many bizarre angles that it is increasingly hard to keep up with them all.

First we have the Family “Research” Council claim that repealing DADT will result in a huge jump in “homosexual assaults.”“[H]omosexuals in the military are about three times more likely to commit sexual assaults than heterosexuals are,” they say, using precisely the same kind of mathematical fallacies they’ve previously used to claim that gays sexually abuse children disproportionately to their numbers in the general population. A key fallacy is their claim that “over eight percent (8.2%) of all military sexual assault cases were homosexual in nature.” That may be, but that doesn’t mean that it was actually self-identified gays who committed those assaults. Prison-style rapists aren’t exactly confined to gay people. The FRC has no figures to tell them which of those assailants were actually gay, or were instead straight people on some sort of power-and-violence trip — which is the primary motive for almost all rapists, gay or straight. Somehow, the Family “Research” Council has missed that fundamental fact in its much-vaunted research.

But the FRC’s objections are positively genteel compared to some of the other ones coming out of the woodwork. Cliff Kincaid says that allowing gays to serve openly “could put them on a battlefield where other soldiers could come into contact with their infected blood and bodily fluids.” Meanwhile, the American Family Association has let its collective subconscious slip in warning that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will “ram Gays-In-Minitary vote through Congress.”

Sheesh! And they say we’re the drama queens!

Laurie Higgins’ mixed-up crazy loony-toon topsy turvy notions about “biblical truths”

Laurie Higgins is part of that small select number of anti-gay activist who dedicate their efforts to demeaning and denigrating gay men and women. This group, which includes such folk as Peter LaBarbera, Linda Harvey, and Matt Barber, all seem to believe that it is their Christian and civic duty to work against any measure of civil equality or minor decency that might be directed toward gay people.

At one point, even as recent as a few years ago, their job was relatively easy. Society at large, and Christianity in particular, shared a basic ignorance and mistrust of homosexuality. Lies were readily believed, fears were easily exploited, and it was not difficult at all to convince your audience that gay people were not really human or deserving of rights.

But visibility has changed that. More and more Americans have come to know and love their gay family, friends, coworkers, and neighbors and are find inflammatory denunciations inconsistent with the truth. Increasingly, Laurie and her buddies come off as shrill and ineffective and their extremism is rapidly placing them outside of mainstream Christianity.

And Laurie’s not taking it lightly.

Laurie believes that she’s been “called to activism” as her vocation (presumably by God) and this, in her mind, justifies any wackadoodle notion that tumbles out of her mouth, no matter how vile, offensive, or mean. She worships an angry, vengeful, and vituperative deity and as his acolyte she seeks to live up to expectations.

And further, she’s frightened that her angry god is becoming obsolete and that Christianity is coming to recognize the inherent worth of each individual. And as that’s not good for business (or her own moral certainty), she’s fighting back.

Her latest target is Dr. Warren Throckmorton, whom she believes is a traitor. Throckmorton used to be an advocate of ex-gay ministries until his observations (and his honesty) got in the way. And while Throckmorton endorses a conservative sexual ethic for same-sex attracted people, he had the nerve (such temerity) to oppose Ugandan legislation which would incarcerate or execute gay people for the heinous crime of being gay people (what she disingenuously calls “volitional homosexual acts”).

And even worse, Throckmorton did the unthinkable. He dared criticize those who are obsessed with waging culture war on the lives, freedoms, rights and dignity of gay people. Outrage! Heresy! He must be a homosexualist!

In her indignant wild-haired harangue against him (you can almost see the spittle flying), Higgins elevates her odious ranting to the level of the apostolic, equating herself with Paul and Dr. Martin Luther King. And using a twist of logic that surely makes sense only to her own select group, Higgins declares that opposing discrimination against gay people is the moral equivalent of supporting discrimination against black people.

In my estimation, there are far too few Christians who are willing to speak the truth in the public square. At different times in history, different biblical truths are attacked with particular ferocity. During the era of slavery and Jim Crow laws, biblical truth about the dignity and worth of African American women and men were attacked with special intensity. During those decades, an equally vigorous public response to the cultural lies that destroyed lives and families was necessary. Unfortunately, for far too many years, the white church failed to respond courageously.

Similarly, the church is failing now to respond with courage and vigor to the assault on biblical truth about sexuality, marriage, and the family from the mainstream news media, Hollywood, Madison Avenue, the music industry, and public education.

This was neither satire nor intended irony. It has never occurred to Higgins that the supporters of the civil rights movement in the 60’s were Hollywood, Madison Avenue, and the music industry and that those who opposed civil equality railed against them in words almost identical to her own. And they probably attend her church today.

Poor sad deluded Laurie Higgins. It’s tragic how a gut full of hatred can twist your mind.

ExxonMobil endorses anti-gay discrimination, again

ExxonMobil really, really, doesn’t appreciate its gay employees or customers.

Before 1999, Mobil Corporation had a non-discrimination policy which included sexual orientation. They also provided benefits to domestic partners of employees. But that all changed on November 30, 1999 when Mobil merged with Exxon Corporation to become the world’s largest oil company.

Generally, merging companies adopt the more progressive and customer/employee friendly of corporate policies. But though Mobil had reported no problems with their non-discrimination policies nor any concern that employee benefits were cost prohibitive, the merged company did not choose to continue Mobil’s policies.

Instead, ExxonMobil removed “sexual orientation” from their non-discrimination list, earning the dubious distinction of being the only major corporation ever to reauthorize discrimination against gay people. And lest there be any confusion about their intent or attitude, they restricted partner benefits to those already in the policy, refusing to allow new employees to register their partners.

ExxonMobil claims that it doesn’t need to protect gay employees from discrimination because it bans discrimination against “everyone”. In fact, on their website they claim:

Any form of discrimination by or toward employees, contractors, suppliers, and customers in any ExxonMobil workplace is strictly prohibited. Our global, zero-tolerance policy applies to all forms of discrimination, including discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

But that simply doesn’t ring true. And, in fact, their very next statement clarifies that this is nothing but nonsense and word games.

We provide all employees with a competitive package of benefits and programs, which varies based on the legal requirements and culture of countries. Benefit coverage for spouses is based on legally recognized spousal relationships in the individual countries where we operate. In the United States, we have adopted the definition of spouse used in federal law, which provides benefits to heterosexual couples. Employees in countries where national law recognizes same-sex relationships are provided spousal benefits under the ExxonMobil programs.

Ah. I see. In the US you “provide provide benefits to heterosexual couples based on legally recognized spousal relationships”, but you oppose “any form of discrimination”. Un-huh. Did you have Mat Staver write that up for you?

And the “we cover everyone” excuse does not seem to extend to other groups historically subject to employment discrimination. Their Standards of Business Conduct (which serve as their non-discrimination policies) state:

It is the policy of Exxon Mobil Corporation to provide equal employment opportunity in conformance with all applicable laws and regulations to individuals who are qualified to perform job requirements regardless of their race, color, sex, religion, national origin, citizenship status, age, physical or mental disability, veteran or other legally protected status.

But gay folk… well, they don’t need inclusive language. Sorry, but that just sounds like nastiness wrapped up in pretty shiny paper.

Now, it’s not like I’m picking out ExxonMobil for special criticism and ignoring other major corporation. Because most other major corporations do provide real and legitimate non-discrimination policies. All of the other major oil companies, along with 93% of Fortune 100 and 84% of Fortune 500 have not found any reason to tell their gay employees that they are not valued. And the vast majority also offer partner benefits.

But ExxonMobil is determined. Year after year the shareholders (mostly by management-controlled proxy) vote to deny dignity to gay employees. This year, the vote was 78% against equality.

Myths and Consequences: The True Impact of the Kampala Anti-Gay Conference

L-R: Unidentified woman, American holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, International Healing Foundation's Caleb Brundidge, Exodus International boardmember Don Schmierer, Family Life Network (Uganda)'s Stephen Langa, at the time of the March 2009 anti-gay conference in Uganda.

One criticism of the coverage of the three American Evangelists who held their anti-gay Kampala Conference in March 2009 and its aftermath is over the inference that without the conference, we wouldn’t be in this mess today. Critics of our coverage have charged that we have blamed Uganda’s rampant homophobia on these American activists — a position we have never held. Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, one of the principal American speakers who delivered his “nuclear bomb” at that notorious conference  has even played the race card: “It’s racist to suggest that Africans have no will of their own to produce public policy to suit their own values.”

While we do reject the notion that homophobia in Uganda is an American import, I think it is proper nevertheless to hold the three Americans — Lively, Exodus International board member Don Schmierer, and the International Healing Foundation’s Caleb Brundidge — accountable for the conference and its aftermath. As many independent observers have noticed, this particular conference, with the unwieldy title “Exposing the truth behind homosexuality and the homosexual agenda,” turned out to be — as I correctly feared when I first learned about it a week before it took place — the prime catalyst for the massive convulsion of anti-gay hysteria which followed and ultimately led to the tabling of the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill before Parliament.

Bishop Christopher Senyonjo (Retired)

Bishop Christopher Senyonjo is a rare straight allies for LGBT people in Uganda, and he’s paid a very heavy price for his support. Last Friday, I asked him whether the link between the conference and the events following were overstated:

Jim Burroway: Over here in the US, we often get an unclear, distorted view of what’s happening in Uganda. But when we look, we find that there have been a lot of outing campaigns in the 2006, 2007. To put things in perspective, did that conference really make things worse for LGBT people in Uganda? Or was it just that the rest of us in the Western world, we noticed it because we hadn’t been paying attention before? Did it really make things worse?

Bishop Senyonjo: What we saw coming to the office, it made things worse. Because soon after that conference, we saw the introduction of the bill, you know what I mean? Because I think it was October something when Bahati came out with that bill, And we knew, I knew, different ones were at that conference that before the people come to speak to us, Lively and his company, they had also met with some members of Parliament and talked with them, even I think with the Minister of Integrity. So they had met with him and of course they spoke with someone in power behind them. Right? And not long after, this bill comes up.

Burroway: So, some of the people that you counsel, have they talked about their fears about the Anti-Homosexuality Bill?

Senyonjo: Oh yeah.

Burroway: Do you have any particular examples you can share without breaking anybody’s confidentiality?

Senyonjo: Many, many are afraid, and they have been coming and talking to me about it. And they are afraid and would like to run out of the country. And that is something very difficult. They don’t know how they can live in Uganda like that because their life will be in great danger, because they feel they cannot change what they are. And because many are losing their employment, we are trying to see that we can have some place where people can have what they call self-employment in a certain way so that they may not live a destitute kind of life. We’re trying to do what we can, to have some possible room where you can have people, even if for a short time in a transition to allow them to see where they are going. Some people would need some shelter for some time, they could need transit to get to work…

Burroway: Because a lot of them loose their family, too, is that correct?

Senyonjo: Oh yeah. That’s true. … so it is not easy. There is real fear of what is going to happen if this bill passed. And that is why many of us feel everything possible should be done to reject this bill.

Bishop Senyonjo was an eyewitness to all three days of the three-day conference, so I pressed him to talk more about Lively’s talk –particularly Lively’s assertion that homosexuality and Nazism are inextricably linked, and his blaming the Rwandan genocide on gays — but he was reluctant to touch those topics. “It creates a lot of unnecessary fears,” he said. “It does, and we may probably not want to repeat those.” Besides, he felt that those who attended the conference didn’t place much weight to those two points, which surprised me because I thought that those were the most incendiary parts of the entire conference.

Instead, it turns out that the centerpiece message that came out of the conference was Lively’s,  Brundidge’s and Scmierer’s reinforcement of the myth that gays recruit school children through child sexual abuse. That was the message which struck a particular chord in Uganda. Bishop Senyonjo concurred:

Burroway: One of the things that I keep reading in the newspapers in Uganda that are on the Internet is that there’s a widespread belief that gay people are recruiting children in the schools, and then I heard basically Scott Lively say the same thing at his conference. Do you think that his talk helped confirm some of those fears that people have?

Senyonjo: Yeah. In fact, even myself, I was at one time accused that I was going to schools and trying to recruit, as it were, people into homosexuality, which is actually blackmail. And you can see, what are the intentions of these people to do this? …. People who will say this, they have very evil intentions which I don’t understand. Because I don’t go to schools to recruit young people. In each …. People develop into what they are, they know themselves whatever they are, what kind of sexual orientation they are. They are not being recruited into it.

Buroway: I know. I mean nobody recruited me.

Senyonjo: [Laughs] That’s what I’m saying there’s a lot of work we have to do in education. They threaten the parents, they say that people are going to schools trying to recruit their children into being gay or what?  This is not true, you know?

This reinforcement of the already prevalent myth — and it truly is a myth — is perhaps the worst legacy of the conference. As NPR’s East African correspondent Gwen Tompkins reported last December:

Scott Lively’s philosophies have been deeply internalized here among those who are proponents of the law, and for people who are listening to these public dialogues on homosexuality, they’re hearing Scott Lively’s words reiterated by Ugandan Evangelicals and others who are proponents of the bill. And they believe it to be Gospel. They believe it to be scientific fact, what they’re listening to.

The Vanguard episode, “Missionaries of Hate,” which premieres tonight on Current TV, further confirms the critical role that March 5-7 conference played in propelling this myth as “scientific fact.”  Here is one exchange between Pepe Onziema of Sexual Minorities Uganda and Peabody-award winning reporter Mariana van Zeller:

Pepe Onziema: (SMUG) The conference basically introduced the idea that homosexuals, their agenda is to recruit children into homosexuality.

van Zeller: So before this conference this concept didn’t really exist in Uganda?

Onziema: No.

The truth is, despite Pepe’s recollection, this allegation didn’t originate with the conference. I’ve seen these allegations in Uganda media long before the conference took place. But Pepe’s faulty memory reinforces what NPR’s Tomkins reported, that because those prior suspicions are now regarded as “scientific fact,” the March 5-7 conference has now been thoroughly associated with being the origin of the charge. Where before, the myth was passed on as rumor, this conference led by three American “experts” elevated this rumor to “fact.” Human rights advocate Julius Kaggwa told van Zeller confirms, “The theme of this conference was the gay agenda and the gay agenda was that there is a massive recruitment of school children into homosexuality.” He added:

There is a culture of fear among gay people and among non-gay people. I mean the non-gay people are fearing that the gay people are invading our culture and want to recruit children into this thing. The gay people are scared because there’s a massive onset of hatred, if you look like you’re gay then you might be arrested, you might get mob justice, you might just get assaulted. So there is generally fear on every front.

And to match what Bishop Senyonjo told me about his clients’ fears in the conference’s aftermath, van Zeller followed the story of “Long Jones,” a gay man who was arrested by police following the conference. Because of the conference, he said, “people became more out and spying and mentioning others.”

As we noted yesterday, van Zeller talked to Scott Lively, who admitted that he knew that Ugandan lawmakers were considering new legislation to “strengthen” their already draconian anti-homosexuality law (life imprisonment is already the current penalty, depending on how it is prosecuted). And as we have reported multiple times, the three Americans also met with Ugandan members of Parliament as part of their tour in March, 2009.  Van Zeller also spoke with MP David Bahati, who introduced the Anti-Homosexuality Bill into Parliament. She asked him why he wrote the bill. His response:

I did that for the sake of protecting our children. Here in Uganda we have a problem of people promoting homosexuality, especially using money and materials to recruit young people.

And we know exactly where he got his “facts” from.

“Missionaries of Hate” airs Wednesday on Current TV at 10:00 EST. A preview is also available on Hulu.

(See also part 1 and part 2 of our talk with Bishop Senyonjo.)

Vote Count on ending DADT looks positive

From the Chronicle

Supporters said Wednesday the Senate Armed Services Committee has enough votes to approve a bill overturning the ban on gays serving openly in the military.

The prediction came after several lawmakers on the panel signaled their support, including Sen. Ben Nelson, a conservative Democrat from Nebraska who had been considered a holdout.

“In a military which values honesty and integrity, this policy encourages deceit,” Nelson said of the 17-year-old “don’t ask, don’t tell” law.

If it is presented to the full Senate by the SASC as part of the Defense Authorization Bill, it would require 60 votes to sever it, and is likely to survive the process. The ‘someday when the military decides it’s ready’ provisions may provide the cover for moderate Democrats and Republicans to not fight the issue.

In the House, anti-gay Republicans led by Buck McKeon are trying to use a ‘amend the amendment’ ploy to add endless ‘study’ provisions and delay a vote indefinitely. This probably will not be allowed by the Rules Committee.

African Newspaper Roundup: Homosexuality Not A Western Import, and Other “Horrors and Revulsions”

When straight African writers offer opinions that homosexuality should not be harshly condemned, they are often constrained to politely concede the widespread condemnation of LGBT people throughout Africa. And part of the typical formula is to register their own personal disgust over the idea of gay sex. Janet Otieno, writing for the online Africa Review out of Kenya avoids the latter part of the formula and counters the oft-told argument that homosexuality is an un-African western import. Not true, she says:

Further evidence for the existence of homosexuality is that pre-colonial African ethnic groups ascribed tribal classifications to gay people.

Certain tribes in pre-colonial Burkina Faso and South Africa regarded lesbians as astrologers and traditional healers, while a number of tribal groups in Cameroon and Gabon believed homosexuality had a medicinal effect.

In pre-colonial Benin, homosexuality was viewed as a boyhood phase that males passed through and eventually grew out of according to Zimbabwean Standard newspaper.

The Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten and his lover Smenkhkare were also documented as male couple in history. Their homosexuality does not seem to have bothered Akhenaten’s contemporaries, but his challenge to the clergy brought his downfall.

She then goes briefly goes into the nature-nurture debate, and in her discussion of the importance of sex education in the home, it’s hard to know where she stands on that issue — or for homosexuality in general, although the calm tone of the article carefully hints at her tacit support for LGBT people. That tacit support becomes overt in her penultimate paragraph:

Such individual formation within the family means that sex education is indistinguishable from religious and moral development in other virtues such as temperance, fortitude, and prudence.

Africans should therefore not afford themselves the luxury of being hateful and intolerant to this particular group.

Whether Africa will face up the reality and accept homosexuals, or uphold its traditional values, remains to be seen as the debate rages on.

This piece contrasts very sharply from another op-ed that ran in Kenya’s Daily Nation today with the title, “Homosexuality is an abomination in the sight of God and man.” Three guesses on which side of the fence Dorothy Kweyu sits on. But what makes this piece interesting is that Kweyu reveals that as the Daily Nation’s Revise Editor, she contributed to a relatively positive article by Emeka-Mayaka Gekara which ran last week about LGBT Christians in Kenya who worship privately at a Nairobi branch of the Metropolitan Community Church.

I guess that article left both of them exposed to suspicions that they both endorsed LGBT equality, even though Kweyu’s name is not mentioned in the article. But to settle any confusion the mere presence of the report may have raised, Kweyu saw a burning need to set the record straight:

It occurred to me that as a mother and a Christian, I would be failing in my responsibilities, albeit as a layperson, if I did not express the utter horror and revulsion that was mine at reading such brazen affirmation of an evil. I can, therefore, confirm that my revision task was as “unenviable” as was the writer’s — something you do because you have no option; it’s all in a day’s work.

Minneapolis paper profiles doctor who refuted bogus pediatrician group

When the anti-gay activist group NARTH masqueraded as a “Psychosocial Development Committee” of a fake pediatrician organization, we exposed the charade. Truth Wins Out then got a statement from Dr. Gary Remafedi, the researcher whom the bogus group cited for much of their claims in which he refuted and debunked their anti-gay positions.

Now an article in Minneapolis’ City Pages follows up and provides more information.

Remafedi also wrote a letter to the American College of Pediatricians, asking them to stop citing his research. But the college isn’t budging. Reached at his Florida headquarters, Dr. Tom Benton, the group’s president, says he has every right to use any research he wants.

“I have the utmost respect for Dr. Remafedi,” says Benton, who is a pediatrician. “He does good work. The fact is, his research supports our conclusions, even if he doesn’t.”

Which is why, Benton says, he won’t be taking down references to Remafedi’s work or making any corrections.

That is unthinkable. To have a reputable and respected researcher explain that you are misstating his position – and doing to in a way that in directly contradictory to his intent and his findings – should be cause for immediate correction and profuse apology. To do otherwise is not only disrespectful, but may indeed be libelous.

If there ever was any question about whether perhaps the “American College of Pediatricians” was perhaps duped by NARTH and not completely complicit in their campaign of fraud, this clears up the matter completely. Dr. Tom Benton and the rest of his pretend organization are dedicated anti-gay activists first and physicians a far distant second.

Texas Baptists kick out church that isn’t anti-gay enough

Jesus hates you, this I know,
for my preacher tells me so.
And if some church should start to doubt,
we’ll just friggin’ kick them out!

Randel Everett

Back in March we told you about Royal Lane Baptist Church in North Dallas who dared (the gall of them) to describe themselves as “a vibrant mosaic of varied racial identities, ethnicities, sexual orientations, and denominational backgrounds.”

Well the board at the Baptist General Convention of Texas nearly choked on their Krispy Kremes. Because if there is one thing that a Texas Baptist fears, it’s being thought of as tolerant, open minded, or willing to let others come to a differing interpretation of Scripture.

So when they heard that Royal Lane had actually ordained a gay deacon, they polished up their kicking boot. (Dallas Morning News)

The state’s largest Baptist group officially broke ties today with Royal Lane Baptist Church in North Dallas, citing the church’s acceptance of openly gay deacons.

By an overwhelming margin, the executive board of the Baptist General Convention of Texas voted not to accept funds from Royal Lane. The same resolution asked the church to stop indicating in publications that it is a BGCT affiliate.

Randel Everett, executive director of the BGCT, called the decision “painful” but not difficult.

Of course it might be a bit more difficult for those who it actually impacts.

Doug Washington, a Royal Lane deacon and BGCT executive board member, spoke against the resolution. He said the church has two gay deacons, and he praised them as outstanding leaders.

“To say something is wrong with them is to say God made a mistake,” Washington said. “I can’t buy into that.”

The BGCT requires that executive board members and employees be part of a church in good standing with the denomination. Washington said he would be resigning from the board.

Two Royal Lane members are BGCT employees, and Everett said they would have to find another church if they want to keep their jobs.

It is hard to imagine anyone less Christ-like than Randel Everett. I think Royal Lane Baptist Church should be proud to no longer be affiliated with the likes of him.

Yes, Jesus hates you,
Yes, Jesus hates you.
Yes, Jesus hates you,
my preacher tells me so.

Collins supports DADT compromise

Republican Maine Senator Susan Collins has indicated that she will support the compromise worked out between the Obama Administration and Congress over reversing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. (AP)

Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican considered a critical vote on the issue, says she will support legislation that would repeal the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Collins is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which was expected to vote Thursday on whether to include the repeal provision in the 2011 defense authorization bill.

All TV Weathermen Are Gay

That’s what my partner and I say to each other, especially whenever we travel and notice yet another local TV weatherman pinging our gaydar. We both know that it’s not true of course, but it is fun seeing the local news in a strange town and suddenly being confronted by a television meteorologist who appears to confirm our theory. It doesn’t help that our pathetic little stereotype is support by the fact that one of Tucson’s more popular TV weathermen is, in fact, gay. And neither does this clip from 1978:

Update: My age is showing. I didn’t realize that so many readers would fail to recognize the inimitable Paul Lynde.  You know, Paul Lynde? The Center Square? Uncle Arthur?

Doesn’t anybody teach history anymore?