Box Turtle Bulletin

Will Gay Porn Becomes Christianity’s New Recruiting Tool?

Martin Ssempa showing gay porn (Photo via Warren Throckmorton)

We reported last week that Ugandan pentecostal pastor Martin Ssempa has been showing gay porn as part of his anti-gay campaign in support of that country’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill. A columnist identified as “The Analyst” for Uganda’s independent Observer took that premise and ran with it with tongue firmly planted in cheek, claiming that gay porn is responsible for increasing attendance at his church.

This makes Makerere Community Church the only place in Uganda where watching pornography is “legal”. According to Uganda\’s laws, even mere possession of pornographic material is a crime. It would appear that Makerere Community Church has got a special license to show porn. Moreover, perhaps following Jesus Christ\’s example of welcoming children, even kids can watch porn at Makerere Community Church.

The, er, money shot is here:

“I can\’t wait to get home and try it out. The men in the movie really seemed to be enjoying themselves,” one member of the congregation told The Analyst.

We’ve seen megachurches reinvent themselves into coffee houses, rave clubs and concert halls, all in an attempt to incorporate elements of popular culture to make themselves appear hip and relevant. Why not porn? Even the worst of it beats the treacly karaoke singers that have become so popular over the past couple of decades.

Click here to see BTB\’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

UK gay activist seeks to remove ex-gay therapist’s license

Earlier this year, Patrick Strudwick reported on an under-cover investigation into the UK’s ex-gay therapy movement. One of the therapists he exposed was Dr. Paul Miller, an ex-gay whom had previously receive notoriety when he was mentioned by Iris Robinson, wife of North Ireland’s First Minster (Pink News)

“I have a very lovely psychiatrist who works with me in my offices and his Christian background is that he tries to help homosexuals trying to turn away from what they are engaged in.

“And I have met people who have turned around to become heterosexual.”

Now Strudwick has now reported Dr. Miller to the General Medical Council and is seeking to have him “struck off” from being able to practice due to his reorientation efforts.

I hope his effort fails.

Or, to be more specific, I hope that if the GMC does strike off Dr. Miller, it will not do so for the reasons that Patrick Strudwick is stating. (BBC)

Patrick Strudwick wants the medical governing body, the GMC, to take action against Dr Miller.

“I’m actually the first person in British history to try and get a doctor struck off for treating homosexuality,” he said.

“If Dr Miller is struck off, which I hope he is, this is a test case and will serve as a warning to other psychiatrists and mental health professionals attempting to do this.”

I think that Dr. Miller’s behavior was highly unethical and based in ignorance and prejudice. He crossed borders and sexualized the therapy in ways that should never be allowed. He made wild assertions about the bases of Strudwick’s orientation and provided “information” that is not credible. He chose to believe the bizarre and baseless theories of fringe “counselors” and attempted to apply them to clients. I would not be at all sympathetic if he were seriously curbed in his ability to continue in these behaviors.

But I do not want Dr. Miller to “struck off for treating homosexuality.”

Let me be clear. I do not believe that therapy is effective in changing sexual orientation. If there is any change in attraction, it does not appear to be consistent, permanent, thorough, or traceable to specific therapy protocols. And it appears that the vast majority of persons who seek change in sexual orientation – a change from primarily or exclusively same-sex attracted to primarily or exclusively opposite-sex attracted – never achieve this goal.

But I don’t believe that an out-right ban on therapy for persons who wish to change their orientation is appropriate. While I find the evidence of “change” to be unsubstantial, we do know that some individuals do achieve a change in life patterns which they find to be meaningful and rewarding. Some find tools to manage their sexual impulses, others find coping skills for aligning their faith with their attractions, and some few find a spouse that adequately fulfills their desires.

I would not (and probably could not) find meaning in choosing social goals over internal cohesion, but I have no right to demand that others make the same priorities as me. And I would not want that their ability to seek supporting therapy to be eliminated.

And on a pragmatic level, I know that Mr. Strudwick’s efforts will be trumpeted across the anti-gay media network as an “attempt by militant homosexual activists to silence Christians.” The next attack on our freedoms will include a distorted telling of this tale which, of course, will highlight the reporting to the GMC and will conveniently forget Dr. Miller’s creepy and inappropriate sex talk. I don’t want their dire predictions about how “the UK has banned Christian therapists and we’re next” to have basis.

What I would like to see is a tightening of regulations for those who counsel unhappy same-sex attracted people. I would like for the medical community to disallow affirmative claims for cures that have not been studied, require that clients be provided with the official positions of mental health organizations, enforce prohibitions on inappropriate violations of boundaries, and hold ex-gay therapists to the same standards that other therapists must follow. In other words, if you want a professional license, you have to behave professionally.

Australia’s Senate rejects marriage equality

The Australian Senate voted to reject a marriage equality bill by a lopsided 45 to 5 vote. But procedure allows that the actual support for the vote may have been greater than the vote suggests. Some senators may have elected to be absent from the party-line vote to register their opposition to their party’s position. (The Age)

Senator Hanson-Young seized on the absentee rate to declare the major parties split.

”There may have been a group of senators voting to keep discrimination against same-sex couples being able to marry the one they love, but well over one-third of all senators were absent for the final vote, presumably the only form of protest open to them,” she said.

This is an issue that is unlikely to go away in Australia until equality is achieved.

Did Citibank close an account because the business targets gays?

There is a little story circulating. So far, it only seems to be getting traction in the business world, and it may well prove to be a tempest in a teacup, but it is worth watching.

It seems there is a start-up social network site that is in the process of trying to create itself (a reason, of itself, to be cautious on this story). But Fabulis.com appears to have decent backing and the CEO has had success with this business model.

They selected Citibank as their banking institution, which appears to have been a mistake. Citi has cancelled their account because of content.

A few minutes ago I spoke to an account manager at Citibank. This manager let us know that a compliance review occurred, which Citi says is a standard procedure, and the review officer determined the “content was not in compliance with Citibank\’s standard policies.” They requested the account be terminated.

“Content was not in compliance with Citibank\’s standard policies.” Yes, that quote is indeed correct.

The interesting part is that I took a look at the Fabulis site and found nothing even borderline objectionable. There weren’t even any shirtless pictures or cheesy sex polls. No links to hookup sites or porn companies. There wasn’t anything that you wouldn’t want your kid sister to see.

Which leaves one wondering just exactly what Citi found objectionable. Was it because this is a gay site targeting gay men? Is that too “controversial” for Citi?

UPDATE:

Citi has now given Fabulis a fabulous apology. So the drama is over.

But it is important that these things get visibility so as to help encourage businesses to act proactively and train their employees rather than respond to complaints.

I’m sure that whoever decided that “gay” is objectionable very much regrets that decision. Very much. But wouldn’t it have been better if they had been trained so as to know better?

NOM latches onto “Miss Beverly Hills”

Oh you saw coming, didn’t you? You just had to know that Maggie Gallagher would see the lovely Lauren Ashley, hear her opposition to marriage equality, and see an opportunity to create a new martyr. (Fox News)

And while the City of Beverly Hills is shunning the pageant princess, she has garnered strong support from the National Organization for Marriage.

“I’m not surprised that Miss Beverly Hills, Lauren Ashley, opposes gay marriage — after all 45 percent of young Californians voted for Prop 8, as did 7 million Californians generally,” the organization’s president, Maggie Gallagher, told us. “But I have to say, I am impressed with her courage in coming forward and for speaking up for Carrie. The elected officials of city of Beverly Hills are not demonstrating tolerance or kindness by continuing the avalanche of hatred against supporters of Prop 8.”

Ah, such courage it took to fill out the paperwork, claim a city she doesn’t live in, call up a news reporter for a conservative network, and desperately beg for attention. Yeah, courage, un-huh.

But Maggie should be careful. The last time she latched onto a paragon of heterosexual-only virtue it turned out that she had her own sex tape. Who knows what this little delusional attention-starved girl has in her closet?

Ugandan Pastor Wars Reignite, Benny Hinn Accused of Sodomy

The headline in the online edition of Ugandan tabloid Red Pepper screams, “Pastors Name Benny Hinn Sodomy Bonkmate.” That headline appears to be in reaction to the news that American pentecostal prosperity evangelist and faith healer Benny Hinn is unable to heal his own marriage and is seeking a divorce.

Schadenfreudesters should be cautious however. The Red Pepper is notorious for publishing false accusations, especially when those accusations stoke the fires of homophobia. Last year, the tabloid conducted a virulently anti-gay campaign of public outings. The tabloild was also in the very thick of a wide-ranging “pastor wars,” in which several prominent pastors including pentecostal pastor Martin Ssempa, an ardent supporter of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, accused rival pastors of sodomy in order to try to boost their own standing. Sports figures have also gotten into the act.

In this latest flare-up, the Red Pepper published a banner headline accusing Benny Hinn of sodomizing a well-known pastor. The pastor, however, appears not to have been named in the Red Pepper piece, but that didn’t prevent Solomon Male and Simon Kyazze from naming their accused rival which appears to be Robert Kayanja. Pastor Benny Hinn held a large “Fire Conference” revivial at Kayanja’s Rubaga Miracle Centre last June. Kayanja was accused last May of homosexuality by several rival pastors, including Solomon Male and Martin Ssempa. Kayanja retaliated by barring Ssempa, Male and others from Hinn’s revival. BTB readers in Uganda tell us that Hinn is wildly popular there (his program is on Lighthouse TV every weekday evening at 9:00), which makes the snub all the more pointed.

Kayanja was cleared of all accusations by police, and they have charged Ssempa and Male for filing a false report. This may explain the Red Pepper’s reticence in naming the accused pastor in this round. But Ssempa is suspected of being behind the Red Pepper’s numerous anti-gay vigilante campaigns over the past several years. These latest allegations can be seen as just another battle in the ongoing war among Ugandan pastors for supremacy.

If the Anti-Homosexuality Bill should be come law, you can expect such campaigns to increase in frequency and consequence. One provision of the proposed law would significantly lower the bar for conviction. Current law requires evidence of penetration. The new law would expand the definition of homosexual activity to”touch(ing) another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality.” Touching itself is defined as “touching—(a) with any part of the body; (b) with anything else; (c) through anything; and in particular includes touching amounting to penetration of any sexual organ, anus or mouth.”

The phrase “with any body part” leaves a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.  Or a rival pastor.

Click here to see BTB\’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Box Turtle Podcast: Gay Conservatives

On this week’s podcast: What’s the deal with gay conservatives? How does LGBT identity intersect with our politics?

Listen below or subscribe to the podcast on iTunes (click here, then click “subscribe” in the iTunes window).

Direct link to audio file available here.

Maryland recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere

Earlier today Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler released a report that seemed to suggest – but not state – that the State of Maryland could – but perhaps didn’t have to – recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages. For much of the day confusion reigned.

Now he has clarified (WaPo)

Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler (D) said Wednesday that effective immediately, and until challenged in court, the state recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and that Maryland agencies should begin affording out-of-state gay couples all the rights they have been awarded in other places.

“State agencies in Maryland will recognize out-of-state gay marriages as of right now,” Gansler said at a news conference explaining the effect of a long-awaited opinion he released Wednesday morning.

This will be particularly relevant next week when the District of Columbia will allow same-sex couple to begin to marry. Most of the residents of Maryland are within a short drive of the District and it would not be a incapacitating inconvenience to plan weddings there.

Beverly Hills condemns “Miss Beverly Hills”

When I first saw the pictures of Lauren Ashley, Miss Beverly Hills, I thought, “You’ve got to be kidding me!” I’ve seen many a girl from Beverly Hills and, well, let’s just say that her look, her style, and her (ahem) body image are not really what Beverly Hills might consider to be appropriate for a beauty queen. Just saying.

So I went searching for any notice of Miss Ashley winning a local competition; but no success. Then I tried the Miss California USA site – where I saw that one could apply on their own without a city sponsor, which I thought was peculiar.

But I remember that Carrie Prejean was legitimately Miss San Diego so perhaps…? Anyway, I gave Lauren the benefit of the doubt.

Now I just have to laugh at myself.

Because when Lauren decided to go for her minute and a half of fame, she went all out. Not only did she declare her opposition to marriage (sure to get attention) but she also adopted a high profile city.

Alas, poor girl. The City of Beverly Hills was not as amused. They issued a press release:

City of Beverly Hills Disavows Miss California USA Contestant\’s Statements

Beverly Hills, CA – The City of Beverly Hills today denounced statements made by Miss California USA contestant Lauren Ashley, the self-described Miss Beverly Hills. Ms. Ashley resides in Pasadena and is currently a contestant for the Miss California USA title. She does not represent Beverly Hills in any capacity.

The City of Beverly Hills strongly condemns Ms. Ashley\’s recent statements and has contacted pageant officials to determine ways to formally prevent any beauty contestants claiming the title of Miss Beverly Hills in the future. The City of Beverly Hills does not sponsor a beauty pageant and has no association with Miss California USA. As such, there should be no individual claiming the title of Miss Beverly Hills.

“The City Council was shocked to see statements made by a beauty pageant contestant under the name of Beverly Hills who does not live in nor represent our city. We are dismayed by any potential association with the City of Beverly Hills, which has a long history of tolerance and respect,” said Beverly Hills Mayor Nancy Krasne.

Ya see, Beverly Hills likes its gay marriages. It voted 66% to 34% against Proposition 8 and isn’t really known for its conservative Christian population. And I am sure that Mayor Krasne took one look at Ms. Ashley’s lovely ensemble of red stretch top, ill-fitting jeans, white wedges and floppy hat and thought, “What’s going on? We don’t have any trailer parks within city limits!”

But I see another problem lurking. Now Pasadena is implicated in Ms. Ashley’s publicity prank. And while not as liberal as Beverly Hills (they voted against Prop 8 by 58% to 42%), they do pride themselves in having good taste.

Generals weigh in on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Over the next few weeks we will continue to hear the opinions of various levels of officers about repealing the ban on service in the military by openly gay personnel.

In an interview on Monday, General Raymond Odierno, the top U.S. commanding general in Iraq, expressed tentative support for gay soldiers (msnbc)

The top U.S. commanding general in Iraq says he thinks everyone — gay and straight — should be allowed to serve in the military “as long as we are still able to fight our wars.”

The comment by Gen. Raymond Odierno is among the first to come from a senior military leader currently leading troops in battle since the Pentagon announced earlier this month that it will study the issue.

Odierno said that he really hadn’t given the issue much thought because it’s always been a “non-issue” to him.

On Tuesday, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey and Secretary of the Army John McHugh both testified before the Senate and expressed concerns about the proposed change but neither took a position of opposition. Both agreed with Mullen’s proposed study but stated their opposition to a moratorium on expulsions while the study is conducted. (CNN)

Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said Tuesday that he has “serious concerns” over the impact of a repeal of the military’s controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding gay and lesbian service members.

“I do have serious concerns about the impact of the repeal of the law on … a force that’s fully engaged in two wars and has been at war for eight and a half years,” he told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

He agreed, however, that it would be fair to characterize his opinion as not being “strongly” for or against a repeal.
…
Army Secretary John McHugh, also testifying before the committee Tuesday, declined to offer a personal opinion on a possible repeal of the controversial policy. He joined Casey in pointing out potential problems associated with a moratorium on discharges.

Later that day, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz carefully weighed his words but appeared to oppose the change while supporting the study. (Air Force Times)

“This not the time to perturb the force … without careful deliberations,” Schwartz told the House Armed Services Committee.
…
Schwartz said the issue of allowing openly gay men and women to serve needs more study and survey of service members, and that he backs Defense Secretary Robert Gates\’ decision to conduct a year-long review of repealing the law.

Today brought the testimony of Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Chief, and Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations. Conway, who is considered the most resistant to the change in policy appears to have softened his objections and instead of stating his opposition to the change chose to seek to prioritize the way in which the issue is viewed during the study. (boston.com)

In testimony before a House committee, Gen. James Conway said he supports a Pentagon assessment to determine how to lift the ban. But he also suggested that civil rights ultimately would have to take a back seat if it meant tampering with the military’s ability to protect the country.

“That’s what they have been built to do under the current construct and I would argue that we’ve done a pretty good job bringing that to pass,” he told the House Armed Services Committee.

“My concern would be that somehow that central purpose or focus were to become secondary to the discussion,” he said.

Conway also opposed the moratorium on current expulsions. (Stars and Stripes)

“Keep it simple,” Conway said. “I would encourage you to either change the law or not, but in the process half measures would only be confusing in the end.”

Roughead’s statements were similar to the others.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead told House lawmakers on Wednesday that he, too, wants the study to be complete before any changes are made.

“That needs to be done because only with that information can we discuss the force that we have, (and) not someone else’s,” Roughead said.

A pattern appears to evident. No military leaders will oppose the study on the issue, perhaps each hoping that their own perspectives will prevail and in the meantime buying time until perhaps a more favorable Senate will appear. Further, it seems that the politicians in the Pentagon are opposed to the change, while those officers that are fighting wars really couldn’t care less.

Second Argentine couple granted right to marry

We followed the tale of Jose Maria Di Bello and Alex Freyre and their efforts to marry which ended in a joyous celebration in Tierra del Fuego. Now another couple has been declared entitled to marriage equality. (AFP)

A judge on Tuesday authorized two men to marry in Buenos Aires in what would be the country’s second same-sex marriage.
…
Judge Elena Liberatori gave her approval to the second couple, two men whose names were not immediately released, to set a date to wed at the Civil Registry.

However, considering the complicated tango which Di Bello and Freyre had to dance, we should not expect that this marriage will go any more smoothly.

Mexico City Marriages survive court challenge

After the city government of Mexico City legalized same-sex marriages, a number of challenges were raised. (from anti-gay website: LifeSite)

Five Mexican state governors are suing the nation’s Federal District, Mexico City, for legalizing homosexual “marriage” in December of last year.

The governors of the states of Jalisco, Tlaxcala, Guanajuato, Morelos, and Sonora say that the law is unconstitutional, and will require their state governments to recognize “marriages” between people of the same sex, despite the states’ rejection of such unions.

They have been declared invalid (LifeSite)

The Mexican Supreme Court has rejected lawsuits filed by several states to overturn Mexico City’s new homosexual “marriage” and adoption law.

The court stated that states need not recognize the marriages conducted in the capital. A suit brought by the Attorney General of the federal government is still pending.

Ugandan LGBT Advocate Talks About Anti-Gay Bill

Frank Mugisha, chairperson of Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUg), appears in this YouTube interview to talk about conditions in Uganda, the role of the three American anti-gay activists whose conference last March encouraged the creation of the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill, and a death in police custody of one gay man in Mbale.

Mugisha confirms that the American activists met with members of Parliament and claimed that international homosexuals were out to “recruit” Ugandan schoolchildren. For a taste of what those MP’s heard, we have this video taken from a talk by holocaust revisionist Scott Lively:

Malawi Constitutional Court Refuses To Block Trial

Malawi’s Constitutional court refused to refused to hear the case of Tiwonge Chimbalanga (who identifies as a woman) and Steven Monjeza, who were arrested and charged with “gross indecency” in December following a traditional engagement ceremony. Their lawyer, Mauya Msuku, appealed to the high court in January, arguing that Malawi’s anti-homosexuality laws violated their constitutional rights to privacy, belief and self-expression. Chief Justice Lovemore Munlo disagreed, saying that the case was a simple criminal proceeding.

The couple have pleaded no guilty. The verdict is expected to be handed down March 22. Homosexuality is illegal in Malawi, where it carries a sentence of up to 14 years with hard labor.

WV House Shoots Down Gay Marriage Ban

West Virginia House Democrats shot down a GOP attempt to force a vote on a state  constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The vote to force a discharge of the bill from committee to the floor of the House of Delegates failed 68-30. The vote was part of a larger effort by the Republican minority to force a vote on contentious issues. One Democrat, Delegate Tom Louisos (D-Fayette), joined the Republicans on the failed attempt to force a vote.

Family Policy Council of West Virginia is planning a rally at the Capital on Thursday to encourage the state Senate to pass a similar measure. Fifteen of thirty-four Senators have signed on as co-sponsors of the proposed amendment, but a spokesman for Fairness West Virginia believes the Senate will not pass the bill.