Box Turtle Bulletin

Don’t Be Fooled By Changes To Uganda’s Anti-Gay Law

BBC is reporting again what so many other media outlets have said over the past several months, that Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill will likely be changed before Parliament takes it up again for its second reading. There really isn’t much new here, so don’t get too excited. We’ve been hearing these suggestions since October but the only hints of change have been to drop the death penalty. Given the broad scope of the bill, that’s barely tinkering around the edges. Pardon me while I repeat myself, but we must never loose sight of the breathtaking scope of the bill. In its current form, it would:

• Expand the definitions for homosexual acts, making conviction easier. 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.”
• Affirm Uganda\’s lifetime imprisonment for those convicted of homosexuality.
• Define a new crime of “aggravated homosexuality” for those who engage in sex with someone under the age of 18, who are HIV-positive, who is a “repeat offender” (so broadly defined as to include anyone who has had a relationship with more than one person, or who had sex with the same person more than once), or who had sex with a disabled person (consensual or not). The penalty for “aggravated homosexuality” is death by hanging.
• Require anyone arrested on suspicion of homosexuality to undergo HIV testing to determine the individual\’s qualification for prosecution of “aggravated homosexuality.”
• Criminalize “attempted homosexuality” with imprisonment for seven years.
• Criminalize “promoting” homosexuality with fines and imprisonment for between five and seven years. This overly-broad provision would criminalize all speech and peaceful assembly for those who advocate on behalf of LGBT citizens in Uganda . It would also criminalize any attempt to repeal or modify the law in the future, as those moves could also be seen as “promoting” homosexuality.
• Criminalize “aiding and abetting homosexuality” with seven years imprisonment. This provision could be used against anyone extending counseling, medical care, or otherwise providing aide gay people.
• Criminalize the act of obtaining a same-sex marriage abroad with lifetime imprisonment.
• Add a clause which forces friends or family members to report LGBT persons to police within 24-hours of learning about that individual\’s homosexuality or face fines or imprisonment for up to three years.
• Penalize people who run “brothels” with five to seven years imprisonment for renting to LGBT people. However, it defines a brothel as “a house, room, set of rooms or place of any kind for the purposes of homosexuality” instead of the more normal definition of a place where commercial sex work takes place. Anyone\’s bedroom would be a “brothel” under this definition, placing landlords and hotel owners in jeopardy for renting to LGBT people.
• Add an extra-territorial and extradition provisions, allowing Uganda to prosecute LGBT Ugandans living abroad.
• Void all international treaties, agreements and human rights obligations which conflict with this bill.

So let’s not pretend that their talk of changing the bill is at all meaningful. But that is what the Ugandan government appears intent on doing: drop the death penalty, maybe tinker with a few other provisions and pass the bulk of the legislation into law. And right now, that appears inevitable.

Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni

The only real question remaining is whether President Yoweri Museveni will sign the bill into law. It is widely believed that the bill’s introduction as a Private Member’s bill rather than an official government bill is mere theater, requiring the same suspension of disbelief it takes to think of Ugandaas a functioning democracy. The government can claim that it had nothing to do with the bill (which it does) while continuing to defend it as an exercize in Uganda’s national sovereignty (which it does) — all of which plays very well with its intended audiences in Uganda. MB DAvid Bahati, who interoduced the bill, has been pillaried for doing so. But he’s just an actor, and to blame him for the bill is like blaming Anthony Hopkins for mass murder. But the final outcome, as is true with all dramas, depends on where the director wants to take this sad play, and that director is Mr. Museveni himself.

There’s a very good reason Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mentioned Museveni by name at yesterday’s National Prayer Breakfast. She spoke to truth that everyone knows but many haven’t acknowledged yet. It’s a difficult thing for them to do. After all, Museveni has been widely praised in the west as a political reformer. But Uganda is, practically speaking, a one-party state where Museveni routinely denies media access to opposition politicians, arrests peaceful opposition demonstrators, charges news reporters with libel when they write critical stories about him, and packs the supposedly independent Electoral Commission with his cronies.

So to say that he’s a reformer who upholds the principles of democracy and freedom, you’d have to ignore the fact that he has held onto power for twenty-four years and he’s not leaving anytime soon. Clinton, by mentioning him by name, broke the cognitive dissonance that Museveni’s supporters and apologists in the west have clung to for so long, and she revealed the simple truth to it all: It all depends on Museveni.

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

More Than Thirty Congressmen Sponsor Resolution Against Uganda’s Anti-Gay Bill

Howard L. Berman (D-CA), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, introduced a bipartisan congressional resolution condemning the Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill yesterday, calling it an attack on human rights and an obstacle to battling HIV/AIDS. The resolution also calls on the President and the Secretary of State to express the US’s opposition to the proposed legislation and ensure that any US funds dedicated to HIV/AIDS prevention be allocated “a manner that is efficient, effective, and appropriate to the local epidemiology of the disease, including in Uganda.”

Click here to read the full text of the Congressional resolution.

Ex-Gay Survivors To March In Sydney’s Mardi Gras

Anthony Venn-Brown, of Australia’s Freedom 2 b[e] is organizing a group of ex-gay survivors to march in the February 27 Sydney Mardi Gras Parade. Sydney’s Mardi Gras is the perhaps the largest gay pride celebration in the world, and Anthony explains why participating can be such a healing experience for former ex-gays:

People who are same-sex-orientated often feel societal and family pressures to resist, reject or deny their true feelings. This pressure to conform and live as heterosexuals is much more intense for those who come from faith backgrounds and Christian churches, as the belief system says that acceptance or rejection of their sexuality has eternal consequences. Struggling to change can be private and internal, through one on one personal counselling or support groups. Some of us have even gone to the extremes of exorcisms, ‘ex-gay\’ programs or marrying, believing this will solve our ‘problem\’. The journey to find resolution and self–acceptance for gay men and lesbians from Christian backgrounds can be torturous and even traumatic.

…Marching in the Mardi Gras parade or a Pride march is often an empowering experience and an opportunity to put the shame and the ‘demons\’ of the past to rest by publicly declaring that we are out, proud and love being who we are; lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

Our message is a positive one; celebrating our journeys to resolution and self-acceptance. By marching together we also send a positive message to people in churches who are still locked in a prison of self-hatred.

If you’re interested in marching with Freedom 2 b[e], you can find more information at their web site. I know I would give my eye teeth to be there.

LaBarbera Award: AFA’s Bryan Fischer

The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer has a blog commentary today about the problems with that Lawrence v. Texas. Homosexuality should be illegal; it would make life easier. If gay folk were all just declared felons, then all of those pesky issues with civil rights and freedoms would just go away.

Think for a moment of the current social controversies that could potentially be avoided if homosexual conduct was still against the law.

Gays in the military: problem solved. We shouldn’t make a place for habitual felons in the armed forces. End of discussion, end of controversy. If someone objects, ask them which other felonies the military ought to overlook in screening recruits.

Gay marriage: problem solved. We should never legalize unions between any two people when the union is forged specifically to engage in felony behavior. Would we sanction, for instance, the formation of a corporation whose stated purpose was to import illegal drugs?

Gay indoctrination in the schools: problem solved. We don’t want to raise a generation of schoolchildren to believe that felony behavior is perfectly appropriate. That’s why we spend so much money warning students about the danger of drugs.

Hate crimes laws: problem solved. We wouldn’t throw a pastor in jail for saying that illegal behavior is not only illegal but also immoral. For instance, he’s free to say that murder is not only contrary to man’s law but also to God’s law. End of the threat to freedom of religion and speech.

Special rights for homosexuals in the workplace: problem solved. No employer should be forced to hire admitted felons to work for him. End of the threat to freedom of religion and freedom of association in the marketplace.

But why stop with the homosexual felons? Why not apply this solution to other social undesirables.

Two months ago, Fischer identified another group that were getting all uppity and trying to be treated just like real people.

It is time, I suggest, to stop the practice of allowing Muslims to serve in the U.S. military. The reason is simple: the more devout a Muslim is, the more of a threat he is to national security. Devout Muslims, who accept the teachings of the Prophet as divinely inspired, believe it is their duty to kill infidels.

Well, that issue has a little problem with the First Amendment. The whole establishment of religion thingy says that the military can’t determine who gets to serve based on religion.

But we can get around that; just declare all Muslims to be felons. Problem solved. We shouldn’t make a place for habitual felons in the armed forces. End of discussion, end of controversy.

Ya know, this could be a really effective tool.

Take the dangerous issue of African Americans wanting to get a fair trial and states executing criminals solely because they are white.

Put simply, there is no evidence to suggest that blacks aren’t committing the majority of homicides in general and first degree murders in particular. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that proponents of affirmative action will demand that we begin to execute more blacks to make up for their present under-representation in American death chambers. And we can safely say they are under-represented by ignoring their representation in the general population (an irrelevant 12%) and looking at their representation among the population of killers (a relevant 55%).

Solution: declare all African Americans to be felons. Not only would that return black men to their proper place in the social order (and proper treatment by the judicial system), but it would solve indoctrination in schools, hate crimes, and special rights in the workplace all in one fell swoop.

But, you know, why hold back. We should just make socialists, atheists, feminists, and the poor all to be felons. If we define it broadly enough, we could make American a wonderful place again for straight, white, Southern Baptist land-owning men, like our founding fathers intended.

Now I know that we might have a small problem for a while with our crime rates. I mean there would be an awful lot of felons in the country at first. But we could just rightly apply the death penalty for dangerous felons; and then we wouldn’t have ACLU types going on and on about jail overcrowding.

And if someone objects, ask them which other felonies the country ought to overlook.

Four Senators Introduce Resolution Condeming Uganda’s Anti-Gay Bill

Four U.S. Senators — Russ Feingold (D-WI), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Susan Collins (R-ME) — have introduced a bipartisan resolution calling on the Ugandan Parliament to reject the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Sen. Coburn’s involvement is particularly notable and especially laudable given his membership in the Family and his otherwise unfriendly positions on LGBT issues. He also gave a convoluted condemnation of the proposed legislation last December. But still, a condemnation is a condemnation, and he’s following that with a co-sponsorship of this Senate resolution. It just goes to show that those who solidly oppose LGBT Americans can still recognize the grossest forms of injustice when they see it.

Of course, that observation doesn’t apply to everyone…

Click here to read the bipartisan Senate resolution.

“Super Uncle” theory gets support from study

Those who study the etiology of sexual orientation know that genetics is not fully responsible for whether or not a man is gay. Other factors which are hypothesized to play a roll including either biological conditions (e.g. in utero hormone levels), natural environmental influences (early childhood infections), psychological influences, and many others.

But the results of twin studies have long since indicated that for at least some gay men, part of the causation of their orientation is due to genetics.

However, evolutionary biologists have been uncertain as to why this would be. Knowing that men who are primarily same-sex attracted and not opposite-sex attracted are less likely to reproduce, what evolutionary advantage would these genes have and how would they have carried for millions of generations without dying out?

One theory is that the advantages of having a small number of men without children of their own would be adequate to advantage the shared genes of their siblings, “super uncles” as it were. Now it appears that at least one study provides some credibility to that idea. (Montreal Gazette)

Interestingly, the study was conducted by someone who set out to prove it wrong. Paul Vasey, associate professor in the University of Lethbridge’s department of psychology, went to Samoa to study the fa’afafine [men who were raised female] to provide the conclusive evidence that the “super uncle” theory could be discarded. He found the opposite.

Researchers conducting similar studies in the U.S. and England did not find any supporting evidence for the theory, said Vasey. “So I thought, ‘Well, I’ll do it in a non-Western culture and chances are I’m going to find exactly the same results and it’ll be the nail in the coffin for this hypothesis,'” he said.
…
Vasey found that the fa’afafine said they were significantly more willing to help kin, yet much less interested in helping children who aren’t family — providing the first evidence to support the “kin selection hypothesis.”

It would be ill advised to draw too many conclusions based on this one study. And directly equating of fa’afafine to gay men in the West is a rather large leap.

However, this does provide additional data to inform the ongoing question as to why some people find themselves attracted to the same sex and others do not.

Ugandan Ethics Minister to Obama: “Ouch!!! Stop That!”

With unprecidented speed, Uganda’s Ethics and Integrity Minister James Nsaba Buturo quickly lashed out at President Barack Obama’s denunciation of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill that is now before Uganda’s Parliament. President Obama called the bill “odious” earlier today during an address at the National Prayer Breakfast. Buturo very quickly shot back that Obama’s statement was “unacceptable” interference:

“Somebody should tell President Obama that the parliament is doing its legislative duty in the interest of the people of Uganda,” James Nsaba Buturo, Ugandan minister of ethics and integrity, told AFP.

…”Members of parliament have a constitutional duty to choose between what the people of Uganda want and what others want, and I am sure they will choose what the people of Uganda want,” he said.”

President Obama finished his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast at 9:25 am, Washington, D.C. locak time. Kampala is eight hours ahead, which would be about 5:25 pm local time there. The AFP’s report came out “seven hours ago” as I write this, which would put this report at about ten-ish am Washington time, or six-ish pm Kampala time, perhaps 7:00 pm at the very latest. That’s not much time for Buturo to hear Obama’s remarks, react to it to a reporter, and have the reporter file his story with AFP. That kind of quick reaction is extremely rare, which can only mean one thing: Obama’s statement landed a solid blow. It may not be a fatal hit, but Uganda’s political leadership definitely felt it.

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

Meet New Mexico’s cowards and enemies of equality

What do you do when you want to kill a bill and you don’t want any publicity for your action? Well, if you are a New Mexico Legislator you can use a procedural tactic.

New Mexico’s legislature meets for 30 days in even numbered years. So if you tie up a bill in committee after committee, you just run out of time. Which is what cowards and enemies of equality are seeking to do with New Mexico’s domestic partnership law. (New Mexico Independent)

Before sending the legislation on to Senate Judiciary Committee a 5-4 vote, the Senate Public Affairs Committee approved sending the 816-page bill to a third committee, the kiss of death during a 30-day session.

A bill that must go before three committees for hearings in either the House or Senate during a 30-day budget session is seen as having too much to overcome to survive the session.

The bill does have one powerful advocate in Governor, Bill Richardson (D) (LA Times).

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is pushing for a vote by all state senators on a proposal to allow domestic partnerships.

Richardson said Wednesday he doesn’t want the bill to get bottled up in a Senate committee this session. The bill has cleared one committee but needs to get through two more to reach the Senate floor.

But even with the Governor’s support, the timing is difficult.

So those who sought to hide from the needs of gay citizens and shield their cowardice and animosity behind procedure may well succeed. However, as I don’t wish to reward their efforts at scurrying into the shadows, I want to introduce you to the cowards and enemies of equality in New Mexico:

Tim Eichenberg – Democrat
Senate District 15 – Albuquerque
Vice Chair of the Public Affairs Committee

On his website Eichenberg says

People dislike politicians for their self-serving agendas, their double-speak and for not honoring their commitments.

A healthy, robust democracy is one in which legislators listen to and are beholden solely to the voters in their districts — not big campaign donors and lobbyists.

In 2009 Eichenberg voted for domestic partnerships. This year he voted to have it disappear in commmittee. I guess that just makes Eichenberg a cynical politician. This is his first term. Let’s hope it’s his last.

Vernon Asbill – Republican
Senate District 34 – Carlsbad

On his website he lists the issues that he believes are a priority for his constituents.

• Family Values
This is a combination of many factors, mainly the preservation of our lifestyle and culture. These values are deeply rooted and need to be nurtured, instilled in our children and passed from generation to generation.

At least you know where you stand with Asbill. His family’s values will always trump your family’s civil rights.

Mark Boitano – Republican
Senate District 18 – Albuquerque

He believes that “Religious faith and practice is an essential civil right and religious groups are important advocates in a pluralistic society.”

His views also link to the Fatherhood and Marriage Leadership Institute and he is somewhat obsessed with making sure that marriages be protected, advanced and given governmental advantage and financial preferences.

Gay Kernan – Republican
Senate District 42 – Hobbs

Gay seems to have no online presence. But she is a consistent vote for discrimination and inequality.

She hates treating all citizens equally.

Gay Kernan wants all of the rights that New Mexico has to offer. It’s a pity she cares nothing about what other gays may want.

George K Munoz – Democrat
Senate District 4 – Gallup

Munoz also voted against civil equality last year.

If this guy has an internet presence, I can’t find it. The only link I found to a campaign website led to an obsolete site. (Maybe he’s afraid of going on record about anything.)

I guess George Munoz is the male, Hispanic, Democratic version of Gay Kernan.

So now you know the New Mexico state senators who oppose equality but are too cowardly to do it by means of a public vote.

Sen. Hatch “clarifies” that he meant the opposite of what he said about DADT

Senator Hatch (Mormon – UT), is now uncomfortable with having told Andrea Mitchell that he had an open mind on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Perhaps his church informed him that his position was in opposition to changing the policy or perhaps the Republican Party clarified for him exactly what he thinks, but whatever the reason, Senator Hatch wishes the public to know that his vote will be in opposition to the change irrespective of the requests of the Pentagon, the position of the Commander in Chief, the findings of the study, or the wishes of the populace.

His church’s paper, the Deseret News, helped set the record straight.

“It’s deeply regrettable that liberal groups are misconstruing my position on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ for activist purposes. I certainly do not support repealing this policy,” Hatch’s statement on Thursday said.

I guess little ol’ “liberal” me must have misconstrued his position when I posted the video and typed out this words verbatim. I suppose I should have realized that he meant exactly the opposite of what he said. Sen. Orrin Hatch is not “at least open to the idea” of being “willing to vote for the change.”

Or, to put it in politician-speak:

“What I said was that I want to see Adm. Mullen’s report. This is a controversial issue with inflamed passions on both sides,” Hatch said.

“Over the years, the views of the military officers and experts, whom I respect, have said that repealing ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ would make life for our troops more difficult — especially as our armed forces wage a global war on terrorism,” Hatch said.

He added, “I always try to be fair and stand by what’s right and that is why I look forward to reviewing the admiral’s report.”

Somehow “I look forward to reviewing” seems a bit disingenuous when coupled with “I do not support” and “experts, whom I trust”. One gets the sense that the ‘review’ will be a search for items to criticize rather than an impassioned desire to do what is right and correct.

I’m uncertain whether this is an indication that the Republican Party wishes to present a unified front in opposition to the change. But if that is the case, it will only serve to further entrench the party as recalcitrant, obstructionist, and hopelessly in servitude to a tiny fraction of socially ultra-conservative activists.

Polls have shown that a majority of the public, a majority of Republicans and a majority of conservatives all favor doing away with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. But it seems that Sen. Orrin Hatch no longer dances to the tune of conservative Republicans; he now only dances when the subset of social extremists play.

Sadly for Senator Hatch, it must be increasingly difficult to look in the mirror and say, “I just plain do not believe in prejudice of any kind” or “I just want to do what is right”.

Obama Calls Uganda’s Anti-Gay Bill “Odious”

Update: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also denounced the bill. See below.

President Barack Obama, speaking today at the National Prayer Breakfast, denounced the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill that is currently before Uganda’s Parliament as “odious.” In prepared remarks, in which Obama talked about the essential role of civility in a functioning democracy, Obama said:

We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are — whether it’s here in the United States or, as Hillary mentioned, more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda.

Uganda’s proposed anti-gay law is sponsored by MP David Bahati, who has ties with the secretive Evangelical group known as the Family, the same group that organizes the National Prayer Breakfast. Since those connections to Bahati became known, the Family has been scrambling  to distance itself from the legislation.

Update: One feature of the National Prayer Breakfast is that the main speakers are always the President of the United States and an unannounced surprise keynote speaker. This year, that keynote speaker was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She also used that platform to denounce Uganda’s proposed legislation:

Every time I travel, I raise the plight of girls and women, and make it clear that we expect to see changes. And I recently called President Museveni, who I have known through the Prayer Breakfast, and expressed the strongest concerns about a law being considered in the Parliament of Uganda.

Think Progress has posted video excerpts from C-SPAN Obama’s and Clinton’s remarks:

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

Miami Beach Police harrass gay witness to their brutality

Miami Beach Officers Frankly Forte and Elliot Hazzi were going about their business of kicking an unarmed man in the head when they realized that they were being observed. By a gay man, of all people.

So they approached Harold Strickland, pushed him to the ground, tied his hands behind his back and screamed homophobic slurs at him. They said they were sick of the f**ing f**gots in the neighborhood so they decided to arrest him for “attempting to break into cars”.

Unfortunately for Forte and Hazzi, Strickland was on the phone with a 911 operator reporting the beating he was witnessing when they decided that he would be target number two. And the tape of the call corroborates Strickland’s call up until the point where the officers demanded to know who he was and what he was doing there. At the time they “observed him” breaking the law, he was face down in their custody being subjected to police brutality.

The officers are still on duty.

Let me repeat, the officers are still on duty. And I can’t help but wonder why the 911 call did not immediately generate a top level investigation. Were I on a jury, the lack of concern on the part of the city would weigh heavily on my determining of just how much to award Mr. Strickland.

It’s no wonder that the gay community is fleeing Miami Beach. They have decided that they’d rather have thugs and monsters than “f**ing f**gots” for. I wonder how that’s working out for them.

Orrin Hatch is open to overturning DADT

Senator Orrin Hatch (R – UT) talks with Andrea Mitchell about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

HATCH: I believe that there are very outstanding patriotic gay people who serve in the military and they aught to be given credit for it. And they shouldn’t have to lie about being gay.

On the other hand I think a lot of people are concerned that if you do away with the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, that literally they’ll come back and ask for special rights and preferences and privileges that others don’t have. I, I don’t see that either.

So, ya know, like I say, I just don’t, I just plain do not believe in prejudice of any kind.

MITCHELL: So you’re willing to vote for the change.

HATCH: Well, I don’t know about that. I’d have to look at it, I’d have to really see, and of course, they recommend, Admiral Mullen said at least a year study by them and then they’ll come out and make the final recommendation. So, at least that’s what I got out of it.

So, I’d like to wait until the end and see what they come up with and see what happens.

But I can see why the people on both sides are upset. I just want to do what’s right.

MITCHELL: So I can put you down as being at least open to the idea. So, uh

HATCH: I am.

MITCHELL: That’s a very interesting statement.

While I would rather hear that Hatch has unequivocal support for overturning the policy, I welcome words of “openness to the idea” from prominent Republicans.

American Prayer Hour vs. National Prayer Breakfast

Several groups are sponsoring the American Prayer Hour for tomorrow, February 4, as an alternative to the National Prayer Breakfast which will take place at the same time in Washington, D.C. The National Prayer Breakfast is organized by the secretive Evangelical group known as the Family, some of whose members are linked to Uganda’s draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill. The American Prayer Hour was conceived as a multi-city event to call on the UGandan government to withdraw the bill that Saddleback pastor Rick Warren characterized as “unjust, extreme and un-Christian toward homosexuals.”

To kick off the event, APH organizers held a news conference yesterday featuring Harry Knox, Director of Religion and Faith for the Human Rights Campaign; the Rev. Elder Darlene Garner, Metropolitan Community Church pastor;  Bishop Carlton Pearson, interim senior pastor at Chicago\’s Christ Universal Temple; Bishop Gene Robinson, the first openly gay man elected bishop in the Episcopal Church; and Frank Schaeffer, son of pre-eminent conservative theologian Francis Schaeffer. More on Mr. Schaeffer later.

But the star of the event was “Moses,” a Ugandan citizen who is seeking asylum in the United States. He appeared in disguise because he fears for his life if he should be forced to go back to Uganda, and his testimony shows us exactly what’s at stake.

Frank Schaeffer

Frank Schaeffer’s presence is particularly notable. His father, Frances Schaeffer, was a very influential and conservative theologian who rejected modernism in all its theological forms. His book, The Christian Manifesto is credited — or blamed — for inspiring the rise of the Christian Right as a political force, as well as the rise of Dominionism as a theological one. His son, Frank, grew up immersed in the work of his father, and in his book Crazy for God, Frank described his own role in pushing religious leaders to tackle abortion in the 1970’s and 1980’s. But over time Frank became disillusioned with the movement his father helped to inspire, and came to the conclusion that the Evangelical right had distorted his father’s teachings beyond recognition. He is now a critic of the very movement he and his father helped to establish.

At yesterday’s news conference, Frank was quoted as saying:

“As a person who was raised in the heart of conservative Christianity, it took me years to realize that anti-gay beliefs are wrong and not inherent to Christianity. Today, fundamentalists are exporting anti-gay beliefs because fewer and fewer people here believe the lies. It\’s time to stop using gay people as political pawns and understand that we are all children of God.”

Mr. Burns thwarted in Maryland

Mr. Burn’s nefarious scheme to deny marriage recognition to Maryland residents who marry in the District of Columbia has been killed in committee. (Baltimore Sun)

Members of a Maryland House committee on Wednesday shot down a bill that would prohibit Maryland from recognizing gay marriages validated by other states or countries.

The House of Delegates Judiciary Committee voted against the proposal from Baltimore County Del. Emmett C. Burns Jr.

Now it is up to Attorney General Douglas Gansler to determine if DC marriages are recognized.

Nepal to get an LGBT Centre

In advance of the implementation in May of their new constitution which will allow same-sex marriage, and as part of their effort to become a tourist destination for gay travelers, the nation of Nepal is continuing to demonstrate their acceptance and welcome of gays and lesbians.

OneIndia reports

Nepal is all set to have Asia’s first LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Trans-sexual) regional centre, a lawmaker said on Wednesday, Feb 3.
…
The centre with a conference capacity of 300 people will be ready within three years at the cost of around USD 2 million.

The LGBT centre will be equipped with a theatre, workshop facility, gallery, library, cafeteria, playground, health clinic, gym and swimming pool among other things.

Those who were considering a trip to Hawaii this year may wish to splurge on an exotic picturesque location. And how cool would it be to tell your neighbors, “Yeah, our state may not recognize it, the when we married at the foot of Mt. Everest, the nation of Nepal treated our marriage with respect and dignity.”