Box Turtle Bulletin

AFA Radio Calls for Criminalizing LGBT People

Uganda’s Parliament will return after its long winter recess tomorrow, and it is expected that its first order of business will be to take up the Anti-Homosexuality Bill for its second reading. The anonymous blogger GayUganda says that police round-ups are continuing under the current law even as we speak. Does anyone doubt that there are those who would like to see the same thing here? Anti-Gay Inc., in the form of the American Family Association, thinks it’s a dandy idea. Here’s Bryan Fischer, host of the AFA’s Focus Point radio program:

It might be worth noting that what I actually suggested is that we impose the same sanctions on those who engage in homosexual behavior as we do on those who engage in intravenous drug abuse, since both pose the same kind of risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. I’d be curious to know what you think should be done with IV drug abusers, because whatever it is, I think the same response should be made to those who engage in homosexual behavior.

I don’t know that Fischer has taken a position on Uganda’s proposal for the death penalty against HIV-positive or “serial offender” gay people, nor their proposal for life imprisonment for everyone else, nor their proposal to lock up anyone — health care professionals, caregivers, landlords — who has any knowledge or contact with gay people. But it doesn’t really matter. The impulse is the same. To paraphrase an old joke about sex and prostitution, we’re just haggling over the price.

[Hat tip: Warren Throckmorton]

A Fishing Expedition to “Cure” the Gay: Bad Parents? Difficult Birth? Freemasonry?

Patrick Strudwick, a British reporter for the Independent, went under cover posing as a gay man wanting to be cured. His journey began at at a conference in London last spring put on by Joseph Nicolosi, founder of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. From there, Patrick underwent “therapy” with one of Nicolosi’s acolytes:

She begins her wound hunt by asking about my family. I tell her that I have a close relationship with my parents and that they always gave me huge amounts of love, so I didn’t understand why Nicolosi says that homosexuality is caused by inadequate parenting. “Well, there was something happening within your family dynamics that led to your depression,” she says.

Lynne explains that people only identify as gay when they are already depressed. “There’s a confusion, there’s an anxiety, there’s a lot of pain,” she says. “Often the thought can be, ‘Oh I’m confused about my sexuality so I must be gay’.” She says that at the heart of homosexuality is a “deep isolation”, which is, she says, “where God needs to be”.

“Did you have a difficult birth?” she asks. No, I say. Why?

“It’s just something I have noticed. Often [with homosexuality] it is quite traumatic, the baby was put into intensive care and because of the separation from the mother there can be that lack of attachment.”

She moves on. “Any Freemasonry in the family?” No, I say, again asking her to elaborate. “Because that often encourages it as well. It has a spiritual effect on males and it often comes out as SSA.”

When you catch a cold, you generally know you caught it from a virus. Bipolar bipolar, Schizeophrenia, Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome can be caused by a number of things — typically biological in the first two, specific stressors in the third. But rarely when dealing with a real pathology is one forced to undergo a wide-ranging fishing expedition where any insignificant detail can then become the thing that causes everything to go wrong. And if they can’t find what they’re looking for — Freemasonry? Really? — they’ll just keep digging, even if nothing is there:

I began to constantly analyse why I found particular men attractive. Does that man represent something that’s lacking in me? Do I want him because he looks strong which must mean I feel weak? Did something happen in my childhood? The therapists planted doubt and worry where there was none.

My experiences, I learn, are typical. I speak to Daniel Gonzalez, one of Nicolosi’s former clients. “Conversion therapy is a very complicated form of repression,” he says. “It’s a way of convincing yourself that your same sex attractions have some alternate meaning. It continued to haunt me for years.”

I also speak to Peterson Toscano, who spent 17 years in Britain and the US trying every different reorientation treatment available. He says simply: “It’s psychological torture.”

Senator-Elect Scott Brown talks gay issues

Massachusetts’ newly elected Senator, Scott Brown, spoke with Barbara Walters on ABC This Week and part of the conversation included his stance on issues of importance to the gay community.

On Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the Military’s ban on service by openly gay men and women.

WALTERS: You have been a member of the National Guard for 30 years. You’ve talked about how important that service is.

BROWN: Yes.

WALTERS: You’re a Lieutenant-Colonel. On Wednesday the president announced that he wants to work with Congress to repeal don’t ask, don’t tell. What’s your view?

BROWN: I think it’s important, because as you know we’re fighting two wars right now. And the most — the first priority is to — is to — is to finish the job, and win those wars. I’d like to hear from the Generals in the field — in the field — the people that actually work with these soldiers to make sure that, you know, the social change is not going to disrupt our ability to finish the job and complete the wars.

WALTERS: But Senator, your own view.

BROWN: That’s my view.

WALTERS: So you can’t say whether you’re for or against it?

BROWN: No. I’m going to wait to speak to the generals on the ground.

I find this exchange both encouraging and troubling.

Obviously Scott Brown has an opinion and is just hedging his bets. And I am not happy that he is discussing the issue as a “social change” and see it in terms of “disrupting”. But it is also nice that the Republican whom the party is lauding as the face of a cultural change is not speaking against the repeal.

Also encouraging is that much of the information that we hear suggests that our problem is with the Pentagon, not with generals in the field. If Brown is sincere – and for now we should give him the benefit of the doubt – there is a good chance that if he does speak to field operations, he’ll hear that good troups are more valuable to the war effort than anti-gay policies. It all depends on whether the officers to whom he speaks have had to lose soldiers that they valued and did not want to let go.

But if Brown is simply looking for an excuse to take an anti-gay position, I’m certain that he can readily find “generals on the ground” who will agree with him. When reporting what you heard from “generals on the ground” (anonymously, of course), they can say anything that your imagination can contrive.

On marriage:

WALTERS: And gay marriage is legal in the state of Massachusetts. But the Republican party platform language calls for the overthrow of Roe v. Wade, and they want a federal ban on gay marriage. Are you out of step with your party, or do you think that the party has to broaden, and change its platform?

BROWN: Well I’ve always been a big tent person, you know? We need more people to come into our tent to express their views in a respectful and thoughtful manner.
…
And on the marriage issue that you brought up, it’s settled here in Massachusetts, but I believe that states should have the ability to determine their own destiny and the government should not be interfering with individual states’ rights on issues that they deal with on a daily basis.

Again, this seems to be language that can leave open a lot of options.

It would seem clear that Brown will not support a Federal Marriage Amendment. But if the Supreme Court overturns Proposition 8, will that be justification for him to vote for a federal amendment to reverse that decision?

And what does this mean for DOMA? Can one truly be “states’ rights” and not support having the federal government honor the marriages of states that provide marriage equality?

We know from his efforts in the Massachusetts legislature that he is not an advocate for marriage equality. But he’s had five years to see that the sky hasn’t fallen and that churches aren’t being shuttered and that his neighbors, liberal and conservative, have come to accept and support the change.

I think there is much to hope for from Scott Brown. We should not expect an ally or even a secure vote on any issues, but if we do not approach him as an enemy I think that it is possible that we will find that Scott Brown could be a crucial bi-partisan vote on some issues of concern to our community.

Heterosexual Menace: mother, toddler, pit bull

Not all heterosexuals molest children. And some can even be trusted alone around children (though a wise parent will be very careful and do a thorough background check before ever allowing an unsupervised practicing heterosexual around their vulnerable children).

Because it’s heterosexuals like the one we read about in Ontario that warn us just how dangerous the heterosexual lifestyle really is. Without getting too graphic about heterosexual sex, just think mother, two year old boy, and pit bull. (msnbc)

The woman had pleaded guilty to five of 12 charges, including sexual assault, making child pornography and possessing child pornography. An earlier charge of bestiality was dropped.

The admitted heterosexual woman was using the internet to broadcast her perversion to another heterosexual. Fortunately the heterosexual man felt shame and turned her in to authorities.

Officers found images and video in which the woman engaged in live sex acts both with herself and her toddler. In other instances, the woman involved her pet pit bull in the acts, and in many of the cases the child is seen walking around in the background and using sexualized language with his mother. The videos were broadcast live to the man who eventually turned the woman in to police.

As I stated earlier, we must love the heterosexual and hate the sin. But we must fight against the heterosexual agenda which is so closely linked to pedophilia, incest, and bestiality.

Satire aside, this is a serious crime against a small child. Fortunately, this woman will never again see the little boy and his foster parent say that he’s doing well.

But I find it disgusting that every single instance of bad behavior on the part of any single gay person is blown up into an indictment on all members of the community. Were this a gay man, it would be covered by every “family” advocacy group in the nation as a warning about “the homosexual agenda”.

There’s more heterosexual shenanigans here and in our report, “The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing the Myths.”

(hat tip to reader Respect)

The inhumanity of “protecting marriage”

In 1995 Hootie and The Blowfish were on the radio, Waterworld was stinking up the movie theaters, and Tommy Lee married Pamela Anderson. It may not have been the best of years, but it was a good year for Kelly Glossip; that’s the year he met Dennis Engelhard.

Over the next 15 years the two men built a life together. They bought and decorated a house, joined a church, and helped raise Kelly’s son from a previous relationship.

And Dennis established a career in law enforcement, earning respect as a Missouri State Highway Patrolman. Even though Missouri is not a liberal state, the two lived openly, even attending social functions with Dennis’ coworkers.

But in 2004 the residents of Missouri decided that they needed to amend the state constitution to protect marriage from people like Kelly and Dennis. And in the process, they provided justification for treating them with contempt.

On Christmas Day, Dennis Engelhard was assisting at a minor accident when he was struck by a car which had lost control in the snow. He was killed. And at Glossip’s time of grief, his state did everything they could to make his life more miserable.

Although there was no confusion about the nature of their relationship, Glossip was denied Engelhard’s survivor pension benefits. And the trooper support organizations decided that they would treat Glossip as dismissively as they would “any other boyfriend” because he’s not a legal spouse (ignoring the fact that most of them had voted to deny Glossip any choice of being a legal spouse).

But in an astonishing act of cynicism, the BackStoppers Police and Firefighters Fund used Engelhard’s death as a fundraising tool:

On the debut night of season nine of American Idol on Fox 2, St. Louis, Idol wanna-bes sang in an effort to raise money for true St. Louis heroes: the families of police and firefighters who’d given their lives in the line of duty. It was night one of the 16 week Backstoppers St. Louis Idol karaoke contest at Helen Fitzgerald’s restaurant and bar in Sunset Hills.

Backstoppers gives financial support to the families of police and firefighters killed in the line of duty.

Tuesday nights contest had a very special significance: the entire evening was a tribute to Missouri State Trooper, Corporal Dennis Engelhard, 49, who gave his life in the line of duty in St. Louis County on Christmas Day.

Engelhard was working an accident on Interstate 44 when an approaching driver apparently hit a slick spot in the snow, went off the road, hit and killed Engelhard, who was standing near the trunk of his cruiser.

The highlight of the evening was a rendition of Danny Boy by 15 year old Ronnie Bass. People in the crowd teared up as he sang what has become something of anthem for police officers. Engelhard had no wife or children.

Backstoppers had already presented his parents with the first check to help them cover expenses related to his death.

Their contribution to Kelly? Nothing.

“The parents are the legal next of kin,” [BackStoppers director Ronald A.] Battelle said.

But it was the state of Missouri that really went out of its way to viciously erase Kelly Glossip from official existence. The department issued an obituary reporting that Engelhard was single and had no children. (StLToday.com)

Gov. Jay Nixon called on Missourians to pray for Engelhard’s family, who “lost a beloved son and brother.”
…
Neither [he nor his son] were formally recognized, Glossip said, at Engelhard’s funeral last month, attended by dozens of law enforcement officials in Engelhard’s hometown of Brookfield, Mo.

While policies that exclude long-term same-sex couples from financial compensation are disgustingly unfair, officials that erase their existence during a funeral are inhumane. This is deliberate callous cruelty was designed to celebrate Dennis Engelehard’s sacrifice for his fellow citizens and make police officers appear to be heroes while dismissing, ignoring, and erasing Kelly Glossip, the part of Dennis’ life that they find distasteful or embarrassing.

But no one displayed his contempt and an utter lack of empathy more than the man responsible for seeing that state employees are treated fairly:

The law would apply the same to a straight trooper with a boyfriend or girlfriend, said state Rep. Ward Franz, R-West Plains, chairman of the Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement.

“I personally feel that a relationship should be between a man and a woman,” Franz said. “They still love each other and care about each other, but I don’t think we can change the law for that.”

In the recent testimony for Perry v. Schwarzenegger, supporters of Proposition 8 sought to argue that there really isn’t any animus towards gay couples but that society simply wants to protect the status and tradition of the definition of marriage.

I think we know that isn’t true in Missouri.

HAWAII DEMOCRATIC HOUSE LEADERSHIP GIVES MESSAGE TO GAY COUPLES: “F*** OFF”

The Democratic Party in Hawaii has told gay couples that they are insignificant, inferior, and beneath their contempt. There really is no other way to understand their decision not to vote on the civil unions bill.

The background:

In February 2009 the Hawaii House of Representatives voted for a civil unions bill. The margin was one vote shy of a veto-proof majority but one representative who supports civil unions was absent.

The Senate then shoved the bill into committee where it sat until the day before the session ended. Then they attached a meaningless and substanceless amendment to the bill so as to kill it for another year.

Then last week the Senate brought the bill back up. House leadership decided that the bill just wouldn’t be worth their attention unless the Senate passed it with a veto-proof majority. Because, you know, it’s possible that the Governor may veto the bill – even though she’s given no indication either way.

And then, to everyone’s surprise, the Senate did just that. They voted 18 to 7. But having their bluff called, the House leadership totally screwed the gay community.

The Democratic Caucus (which is nearly the whole house) went behind closed doors to decide if this vote might be a threat to some specific members who really didn’t want to go on record in an election year. They decided to protect their butts and to hell with you. (WaPo)

The state House of Representatives decided to indefinitely postpone a decision on whether to grant gay and lesbian couples the same rights and benefits the state provides to married couples.

Oh, and were they real men and women about it? Nope.

No roll call was taken on the decision to postpone the vote, which shielded representatives from having their position on the record. Instead, lawmakers shouted “aye” or “no,” and Vice Speaker of the House Michael Magaoay then ruled that the motion to delay a vote had passed.

And no House member called for a roll call.

So, based on today’s action, we can take it as a given that the Democratic House membership cares nothing at all about the inequalities and indignities suffered by their gay constituents. None of them. Not one house member cares enough about you to even get their fellow members to go on record.

And has the state Party, Democratic National Committee, the President, ANYONE, called them on it? Nope.

So here’s a little message from the Hawaii Democratic Party to you gay Hawaiians: “F*** off”

PA Senator introduces marriage ban

From the Philadelphia Gay News

About eight months after he pledged to introduce a bill that would institute a ban on same-sex marriage in the state constitution, Pennsylvania Sen. John Eichelberger (R-30th Dist.) has made good on his promise.

SB 707, which Eichelberger introduced Jan. 26, would add to the Pennsylvania Constitution the language: “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as marriage.”

This bill would have to pass both houses in two back-to-back sessions. It currently has 15 cosponsors (13 Republicans and 2 Democrats). The Senate is currently under Republican control (30 – 20) but the House is under Democrat control (104 – 98).

There is also a bill in the Senate to legalize marriage equality.

Insurance company arrogance is one big reason people are unhappy about health care

Most Americans have health insurance. And most Americans are content with their level of coverage. But “most” is not enough to quell the dissatisfaction that is growing in the nation over the way in which health issues are treated.

But unlike the politicians, I think the underlying discontent lies not in whether there is a single payer or whether catastrophic care is planned for or even in the increased cost of heath care. Rather, I think that the anger and frustration results from a total lack of control over ones own care coupled with the arrogance and condescension with which insurance companies treat the people who pay for their astronomic executive salaries and bonuses.

Allow me to illustrate.

I have pigmentary glaucoma. This is a rare genetic eye condition (discovered mostly in near-sighted male Caucasians in their 30s and 40s) in which bits of pigment flake off the iris and clog the eye’s drains. If untreated, the pressure in the eye builds, destroying the optic nerve and leading to blindness.

This is an easily treated disease. As long as I maintain a regimen of eye drops, I can keep the intraocular pressure in my eyes under control (below 21 mmHg) and avoid nerve damage. And although my eyes had reached pressures of 40 and 38 before detection, I have been very fortunate in that I have had very little loss of vision.

There are three different primary medications from which I can choose and, in the process of stabilizing my pressures, my doctor tried all of them. One was inadequately effective and one resulted in significant redness and irritation. But the third was, as Goldilocks might say, just right. (In conjunction with another eyedrop which works slightly differently)

So everything is just fine.

Until this week.

When I went to pick up my prescription I found that Aetna, my insurance provider, decided to move Travitan Z, one of my essential eye medications, off of their formulary list. What this means is that it is no longer covered at my standard deductible rate. In this case, the out-of-pocket monthly price of this medication went from $35 to $60.

Now moving a medication off the formulary list is not necessarily unreasonable. Sometime a generic is available, at other times there are comparable less expensive options that work identically. Unfortunately, this is not the case for me. There is no generic available and the alternatives were determined by my physician to be either less effective or a source of irritation.

So I called Aetna to discuss the situation. What I found was incompetence, arrogance, and condescension.

My first call resulted in a fellow telling me that he “went on Google” and found a generic, which would certainly have been fine with me. But after calling my pharmacy, I learned he had simply discovered the medication’s non-brand name but that this medication was not available as a generic drug and won’t be until 2013

The second call was when Aetna’s policy of deflecting criticism was revealed.

I was first told that the problem was due to my choices in the open enrollment period. So we walked through the options available that I so very foolishly ignored and, no surprise to me, in each option my eye coverage would be the same. Because the issue was not my “choices” at all, but rather that the drug had been moved off of the formulary list that was used for each of my options.

Having exhausted that avenue of blame, Aetna then told me, “that is the price at which your employer has chosen to cover that medication”. That, of course, was a flat out lie. My employer never said, “hmm, Travatan Z, yeah let’s raise the price on that”. Instead, my employer (or rather the large employment data processor that my real employer uses to process payroll benefits) set a rate for all non-formulary drugs and left the decision up to Aetna as to which drugs would be on the list.

The young lady to whom I was speaking then went for the “I didn’t decide that” route. Well, no, of course not.

But I wasn’t calling her to discuss my options, I was calling Aetna and she was just the voice of the company at that moment. But that simply generated another round of “well this is the result of your choices that you made during open enrollment and this is the amount your employer decided to pay for this drug”. It seems they trained her well; at no point did she acknowledge that the decision resulting in my increased co-pay was made by Aetna.

After finally having the young lady tell me that I had no options whatsoever, I thought for a moment about what I had hoped to achieve from my call. What could Aetna have done differently to avoid having me publicly vent my complaint?

• Aetna could have owned up to the responsibility of the decision that increased my monthly prescription budget. They could have explained the reasoning behind the decision and not tried to lie and claim that it was due to choices made by me or my employer. I might not have been happy, but I would not have felt manipulated.
• Aetna could have treated me like a client, someone that they want to retain and satisfy. They could have expressed concern rather than try to blame me and my employer for their decision.
• Aetna could have provided a means for which exceptions could be made. If there are adequate medications that provide alternatives to most glaucoma patients, that is fine. But some provision should be made for those for whom their doctor has determined that alternatives are inadequate.
• Aetna could have avoided the appearance of profiteering. I might be less resistant to paying an extra $300 per year if Aetna’s CEO was not paid in excess of twenty-four million dollars ($24,000,000) in 2008.

In summation, I’m screwed. Aetna made a decision and I get to pay for that choice. I can pay more with a smile, or I can pay more and vent my frustration to the entire world (clearly, I’m choosing the latter).

Now I know that I am fortunate. Even after the increase, I’ll likely pay less than $2,000 out of pocket for medical care this year. Some people face monthly prescription costs in excess of that amount. It hardly seems worthy of this rant.

But my experience with Aetna addresses a bigger issue.

I am, by nature, favorable to capitalism. I believe that a system that rewards investment and research is more likely than any other to result in continued improvements in treatment for my condition. But capitalism relies on competition, on the ability of the customer to pick up their custom and go to the store next door, which is not an option that many Americans have.

And I do not object to insurance companies making a profit. It is reasonable that providing a service should be compensated. But egregious salaries and bonuses secured through a political system that secures insurers’ advantages and disallows or discourages cross-state shopping or foreign nation pricing are offensive if not downright immoral.

So I have now joined the ranks of those who think of health insurance companies, Aetna in particular, with contempt. Not because of what they provide or really even the profit they make, but because of the limitations on choices that lobbying has created and the arrogance and contempt that it has bred within a smug corporate culture confident that it need not compete for my patronage.

And unless insurers want moderates and conservatives to join with more collective-minded Americans and seek to dismantle the entire system, they should seriously rethink their approach to business.

UPDATE:

For those interested in the outcome, there may be a solution.

After ranting, I started searching the internet and Aetna’s own website and found that they had issued a Pharmacy Clinical Policy Bulletin which allowed for a medical exception specifically for glaucoma medicine if the patient was allergic to the one drug on their “preference list”. After reading this bulletin to Aetna’s employees, I was able to finally reach someone who was familiar with the exceptions that their customer service claimed did not exist.

After four calls from me (speaking to six different people) and two calls from my doctor, Aetna may be making a “tier override”. I’ve paid the larger co-pay but it looks like I may be refunded the difference.

But how many Aetna members do not have BTB readers to encourage them not to give up, are unskilled at searching, and are willing to believe what they are told by customer service? How many are just too sick to spend hours trying to resolve the problem?

Aetna should start caring about the concerns of their members. All the insurance companies should. In the current political culture, arrogance will not serve them well.

Janet Jenkins tells her story on Nightline

Janet Jenkins went on Nightline last night to tell her story and appeal to the public to help her find her daughter.

“My goal has never been to separate Isabella from her other mother, Lisa,” said Jenkins. “I just want what is best for our child, and that is to know both of her parents.”

Another Conservative for Gay Marriage

This time, it’s Don Imus on Fox Business:

Malawi Couple Denied Bail A Second Time, Lawmakers Consider Harsher Punishments for LGBTs

Steven Monjeza (R) and Tiwonge Chimbalanga (L)

Malawi’s High Court Judge Rowland Mbvundula has refused an appeal seeking bail for, the couple who were arrested on December 28 and charged with “gross indecency” following a traditional engagement ceremony. Tiwonge identifies as a woman and may be intersex. She was banished from her village when she was thirteen.

Steven and Tiwonge have reported repeated mistreatment in the hands of police, prison officials, fellow prisoners, and even court officials during trial. Malawi’s Nyasa Times reports that the High Court judge denied the bail on appeal for the couple’s own protection:

Judge Mbvundula also pointed out the same in his ruling: “In the current circumstances, the state is validly concerned about and interested in the applicants\’ safety and justified to be wary of releasing them into the community, at least for the time being.”

State prosecutor Dickens Mwambazi objected to the bail appeal saying the police  fear the couple, who have pleaded not guilty, would “tamper with evidence” if released on bail.

Malawi Gay Rights Movement (Magrim) announced that they will hold a demonstration on Sunday in Blantyre, Malawi’s financial capital and largest city.

The arrests in Malawi, a former British colony, has been condemned  by British and Scottish lawmakers. That condemnation, in turn, was denounced by Kondwani Nankuluma of the Legal Affairs committee of Malawi’s Parliament:

“We are following our laws and proceeding with the case for the two in the courts. They have no part in this business as we have laws and we are following it. Why do they keep pestering us to release the two?” he said.

AfricaNews.com reports that Malawi’s Parliament will begin deliberation into adding harsher punishments to the country’s anti-homosexuality law. Malawi’s current law carries a maximum sentence of fourteen years’ imprisonment.

American Anti-Gay Legal Org Opens Branch in Kenya

Jay Sekulow’s American Center for Law and Justice has announced that they have opened an East African branch in Nairobi, Kenya. According to their announcement:

The bigger vision is for the EACLJ (East Africa Center for Law and Justice) to also help the countries in the East African region with information and research that will enable their development.  With the strengthening and expansion of the East African Community, by the inclusion of Burundi and Rwanda in the Community, the opportunities for development are endless.

This is only the beginning.  The EACLJ will be a centre that will change the landscape of legislation for all Kenyans and eventually all of East Africa\’s citizens.

Unmentioned is Uganda, which just happens to sit between Kenya and Rwanda, with Burundi further south. The ACLJ has filed friend of the court briefs in the U.S. against just about every LGBT-related case brought to the courts. Specifically, they vigorously opposed (PDF: 212KB/28 pages) overturning American anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas. In 1995, they also opposed overturning Colorado’s Amendment 2, which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down for illegally barring LGBT people from full participation in the legislative process. Since ACLJ now wants to meddle in the legal affairs of East Africa, now would be a good time for them to go on record with their position on Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

Reuter’s Video Roundup of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill

This is probably the best video report I’ve seen on Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill so far. It opens with Pepe Julia Onziema and her unidentified partner, talking about how the controversy surrounding the bill has already affected their lives. Ms. Onziema was also profiled last month by the South Africa Times.

The accompanying Reuters article is here.

Is same-sex marriage coming for Maryland residents?

Due to the control of the Maryland Senate being in the hands of Senate President Mike Miller, a Democrat representing Calvert and Prince George’s Counties, and due to the strategic placement of Sen. C. Anthony Muse on the Judicial Proceeding Committee, there is little chance of Maryland voting to offer its gay citizens the same marriage rights that it joyously bestows on its heterosexual citizens. These two men are devoted enemies of equality.

However, marriage recognition may come in another way.

Maryland code section 2-201 says: “Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this State.” However, Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler has been asked to determine whether same-sex marriages conducted outside the state must be recognized within Maryland. Currently, speculation is that it must. (Daily Record)

He has not disclosed when he will issue his opinion.

Gansler\’s silence has fueled speculation that he — a supporter of gay marriage — will suggest that Maryland must recognize same-sex marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. As interpreted by the Supreme Court, a state must extend full faith and credit to the laws of other states unless doing so would offend the state\’s public policy.

This question has taken on increased attention as we get closer to March 2, the day that Washington DC attains marriage equality (much of the Maryland population lives in suburbs of the Nation’s Capital). To ward off that possibility, Sen. Emmett Burns has introduce legislation to deny recognition to out of state same-sex marriages.

Today Mr. Burns testified in the Judiciary Committee of the horrors that could come with recognizing the vows and promises of these long-term, committed, devoted relationships.

“I believe that same-sex marriage is against the natural order,” said Del. Emmett C. Burns Jr., D-Baltimore County, the measure\’s sponsor.

I think it unlikely that Burns’ bill will win in the Senate. But it is fairly certain to fail in the House. In fact, should a bill allowing marriage equality be allowed to obtain a vote in the House, there is a good chance it would pass.

“We have the votes in the House to pass marriage equality,” said Del. Heather R. Mizeur, a Montgomery County Democrat. “There are not enough votes to get it out of [the Senate committee]. Until that happens, until there is some change of heart or change in political landscape or change of composition in that committee, that bill is going to have a hard time.”

If Gansler finds that Maryland must recognize the marriage occurring in Washington, that state may well join New York in recognizing but not conducting same-sex marriages.

Indiana Senate votes for constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality

The full Indiana Senate has voted to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. (WISH)

The state Senate passed a proposed constitutional amendment on gay marriage on a 38-10 vote late Thursday afternoon. The last time the Senate passed the proposal, the Indiana House blocked the effort to send it to a referendum.

The bill is unlikely to advance out of committee in the house, which is controlled by Democrats. Were it to do so, it would then need to be passed again by both houses after another election before being presented to the voters.

The bill, as presented, would ban both same-sex marriage and any “legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage“.