Box Turtle Bulletin

Peter LaBarbera Wants To Kill Gay People

… and he wants to get a Christian professor who thinks that is a bad idea fired. He also admits that he has no idea what Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill would actually do, but apparently thinks it can’t be all bad.

Those are the highlights of Peter “Porno Pete” LaBarbera’s latest broadside, who thinks that no one has the right to condemn Uganda’s effort to legislate LGBT people out of existence:

Folks, I\’ve been trying to avoid the Ugandan “Culture War” on homosexuality because I figure we\’re busy enough with our own here in the USA. But that hasn\’t stopped American homosexual activists and fellow travelers like Professor Warren Throckmorton of the “evangelical” Grove City College from insinuating themselves into the Ugandan situation. …

…Tell me: does Uganda have something to learn from Christian “defectors” like the opportunistic Prof. Throckmorton — who is now a de facto promoter of homosexuality as normal, natural and healthy while ostensibly still claiming some sort of “Christian” mission at GCC? (Grove City College boasts in evangelical circles that it is “authentically Christian” — an advertising claim of diminishing accuracy the longer it abides likes of Throckmorton.)

And from there, LaBarbera goes on to urge his dozens of readers to harass Grove City College into firing Dr. Throckmorton over his efforts to prevent innocent people being killed in Uganda or thrown into prison for the rest of their lives.  (When it comes to Ugandan prisons, is there really any difference?)

In typical LaBarbera fashion, he fired off his missive without having a clue about what the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill would do. Most amazingly, he even brags about his ignorance:

Nope. What we\’re seeing here is sheer Western activist arrogance. … I haven\’t yet studied the proposed Ugandan legislation but I agree with Bob Knight\’s analysis below — and AFTAH is clearly on record opposing draconian penalties for homosexuality like those imposed by jihadist Islamic radicals.

No Peter, arrogance is going off half-cocked without knowing what you’re even talking about. But them that’s exactly par for the course. It’s just good to see that for once you admit it.

Okay, so Peter doesn’t want to see gay people tortured with electric drills and surgical glues before they are killed. Good to know. But other than that, what does he support?

We have posted the full text of the proposed bill here, and with that we have a challenge for LaBarbera — a challenge that we will issue to anyone who criticizes those who condemn the bill. What parts do you disagree with, and which provisions do you think are a grand idea?

• It expands 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.”
• Affirms Uganda\’s lifetime imprisonment for those convicted of homosexuality.
• Defines 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.
• Requires anyone arrested on suspicion of homosexuality to undergo HIV testing to determine the individual\’s qualification for prosecution of “aggravated homosexuality.”
• Criminalizes “attempted homosexuality” with imprisonment for seven years.
• Criminalizes “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.
• Criminalizes “aiding and abetting homosexuality” with seven years imprisonment. This provision could be used against anyone extending counseling, medical care, or otherwise providing aid to gay people.
• Criminalizes the act of obtaining a same-sex marriage abroad with lifetime imprisonment.
• Adds 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.
• Penalizes 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.
• Adds an extra-territorial and extradition provisions, allowing Uganda to prosecute LGBT Ugandans living abroad.
• Voids all international treaties, agreements and human rights obligations which conflict with this bill.

The ball’s in your court, Peter. Do you have the balls to answer?

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

Ninety US Congress Reps Denounce Uganda’s Anti-Gay Bill

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) issued a press release announcing that more than ninety colleagues in the House of Representatives, including Barny Frank (D-MA) and Jared Polis (D-CO), have sent separate letters to President Barack Obama (PDF: 2 MB/6 pages) and Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni (PDF: 5 pages/1.7 MB ) calling the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill “the most extreme and hateful attempt by an African country to criminalize their LGBT community.” According to the press release:

In the letters, the Members of Congress call the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2009 “the most extreme and hateful attempt by an African country to criminalize their LGBT community.” The Members asked President Obama to use his “personal leadership, and that of our country, in seeking to deter these legislative proposals,” and warned President Museveni that, “Should the bill be passed, any range of bilateral programs important to relations between our countries and, indeed, to the Ugandan people inevitably would be called under review.”

Rep. Baldwin called the proposed legislation “an appalling violation of human rights,” and calls on President Obama to “use the full force of his office to oppose this hateful and life-threatening legislation.” Rep. Polis said, “This is nothing more than the institutionalization of hatred and bigotry and it must be stopped,” while calling on Obama and Museveni “to do everything in their powers to prevent it from becoming law.”

Rep. Frank said, “Having accepted debt relief from the international community only a few years ago, Uganda has an obligation to show some respect for basic human rights. He also warned that “Vicious unleashing of persecution of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people should and will be an obstacle to any future Congressional initiative to provide aid to that country.”

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

Click here to read the letters sent to President Barack Obama and Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni.

A Hawaiian argument for marriage equality

I can’t guess the number of articles I’ve read in papers about which I though, “They almost got it… but not quite.” Today I read a very simply piece in the Maui News that was as compelling, as direct and succinct as I can recall reading.

It’s a short piece, less than 750 words, about Kevin Rebelo and Frank Miholer, a local couple who make a living planning, arranging, and conducting marriages for heterosexual couples. And yet it hits on all the issues: long-term relationships, discrimination, denied recognition, taxation, immigration, implied deviance, insurance, inheritance, medical care, tradition, family, faith, and the hope that comes from recognizing this as a civil rights struggle.

“I feel frustrated about the lack of understanding by some people of the discrimination that we face,” he said.

But Miholer said he’s confident marriages and/or civil unions eventually will be allowed in Hawaii for gay and lesbian couples.

“Every group that has struggled for equal rights has obtained it,” he said.

Today the Hawaii State Senate will decide whether to allow Rebelo and Miholer to enter a civil union.

Hak-Shing Tam To Be Called As Hostile Witness

Expect some dramatic fireworks today at the Prop 8 trial:

A proponent of California’s same-sex marriage ban who warned that gay rights activists would try to legalize sex with children if Proposition 8 did not pass is expected to be called as a hostile witness Thursday for two same-sex couples suing to overturn the measure.

Lawyers for the couples said they planned to call San Francisco resident Hak-Shing William Tam to testify even though he has asked to be dismissed as a defendant in the case, the first in a federal court to examine if state bans on same-sex marriage illegally discriminate against gay Americans.

Part of the case by lawyers seeking to overturn California’s ban on same-sex marriage is being built on the fact that the proponents of Prop 8 acted out of malice toward gay people. Tam had been an intervenor-defendant in the case but dropped out last week because he didn’t like being subjected to the discovery process. No wonder, because attorneys discovered written statements saying that “other states would fall into Satan’s hands” if same-sex marriage weren’t halted in California. With Tam on the stand today, I’m sure that other similar statements will come to light.

Indiana Senate committee votes for ban on marriage and civil unions

The Indiana Senate Judiciary Committee has just passed SJR 0013 to be presented as a referendum to amend the state constitution:

Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

The bill passed on a 6-4 party line vote and could go for a vote to the full Senate next week. The Senate has a 33 to 17 Republican majority.

What struck me about this is that those legislators who vote for these forms of discrimination know that their behavior is shameful and that history will soundly condemn them. (WIBC)

Republicans on the panel remained silent throughout the two-hour hearing before voiting for the amendment. Democrats challenged witnesses to distinguish the ban from laws once on the books in Indiana and other states against interracial marriage.

It is possible that this bill will have difficulty in the Indiana House where similar legislation has been stuck in committee. Democrats have a 52 – 48 advantage there.

And if it does go to a vote of the populace, it is possible that a effective argument can be made that banning civil unions is just downright unfair and bigoted.

Prop 8 Trial: Mormons Sought “Plausible Deniability”

And when you seek “plausible deniability,” we know that’s code for denying what is true. In this case, it was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints’ extremely heavy and essential involvement in their successful efforts to strip LGBT Californians of their right to marry.

During this afternoon’s session in the suit to overturn California’s Proposition 8, Dr. Gary Segura of the Stanford Center for Democracy read some key memorandums from LDS leaders to the Prop 8 campaign. According to Prop8TrialTracker:

S: Reads document from Jansen who says since first Presidency of LDS church wrote letter, what will be our role? “As you know from the First Presidency this campaign is entirely under the direction of the priesthood…”

“What is the next step in this campaign? I understand all grassroots organizing efforts in OC will be led by Gary Lawrence, who will report directly to the Protect Marriage.com Coalition leaders. He has also been hired…

That was interrupted by objections from the Prop 8 defense team. And while they argue, let’s review some background. Gary Lawrence was the State Grass Roots Area Director for Prop 8. He also said that to get a sens of what the war in heaven was like (in which Satan was expelled), you need to look no further than the Prop 8 campaign. “That battlefield is now California and the parallels between that pre-mortal conflict and the battle over the definition of marriage are striking,” he wrote. Part of the Prop 8 defense in the trial is that their campaign wasn’t driven by animus against gay people. Comparing the battle to cast gays out of marriage with the battle to cast Satan out of heaven looks like, well, animus to me, don’t you think?

There’s more!…

Twelve Senators Voice Opposition to Uganda’s Anti-Gay Bill

Twelve U.S. Senators have written to Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni calling on him to block the Anti-Homosexuality Bill that is now before that nation’s Parliament. Citing Uganda’s relative success in fighting HIV/AIDS, the Senators note:

While your nation has been a leader in Africa on many fronts, including the reduction of HIV infections, this proposed legislation will be a glaring setback in Uganda\’s human rights standing.  Unfortunately, even the mere threat of the new and severe penalties for homosexual behavior suggested in this bill, including life imprisonment and the death penalty, could easily add to an already intolerant atmosphere in Uganda based on sexual orientation.

Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman (CT) joined Democrats Benjamin Cardin (MD), Richard Duban (IL), Daniel Akaka (HI), Christopher Dodd, (CT), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Sherrod Brown (OH), Jeff Merkley (OR), Patty Murray (WA), , Mark Udall (CO), Diane Feinstein (CA) and Barbara Boxer (CA) in signing the letter.

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

Click here to read the letter sent to Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: day seven summary

Thanks to Courage Campaign and FireDogLake

Today the ex-gay movement was on trial. This may seem like it is a long way from the question of marriage, but in reality it sits at the heart of whether anti-gay discrimination is legal.

Olson and Boies are trying to convince the court that gays and lesbians are a “suspect class”. If so, then any laws that distinguish by orientation and discriminate against gays and lesbians would be subject to strict scrutiny (ie the presumption is that such laws are illegal).

The considerations that generally go into whether a group of people are a “suspect class” are:

• Is the group a “discrete” or “insular” minority?
• Do they possess an immutable trait (except in the case of religion)?
• Is there a history of discrimination?
• Are they powerless to protect themselves via the political process?

For this reason we have heard the defense try and argue that, unlike race, sexual orientation is hard to define (so is race, actually). They’ve attempted to show that gay people are politically powerful and that discrimination against gay people is all a thing of the past.

But the plaintiffs’ testimony has been pretty solid in confirming that gays and lesbians are a discrete minority with a history of discrimination and they lack the ability to achieve equality and protection though the political process. Today their focus was to show that sexual orientation is an immutable trait.

The day started with the defense (the Prop 8 guys) adding four witnesses to their list:

• Mr. Criswell – this is probably Bill Criswell, a principal in Criswell Associates, the firm that produced the Prop 8 ads.
• Mr. Wirthlin – Joseph Wirthlin is the Mormon in Massachusetts who sued when his son Joey was read the book King and King in second grade. The Wirthlins, along with David Parker (another darling of the MassResistance hate group), sued the school claiming that it was attempting to indoctrinate their children about an “immoral lifestyle.” They lost, and the US Supreme Court chose not to grant a writ. They were featured in at least on Prop 8 ad.
• Richard Peterson – this is likely be one of two people: either the Richard Peterson who was fired from Hewlett-Packard after he posted Bible verses condemning homosexuality at work, or Pepperdine’s professor Richard M. Peterson, the Mormon who was the face of Prop 8’s ads lying about the consequences of same-sex marriage. I’m guessing the latter.
• John Doe – obviously we don’t know who this is. I’m going to make a wild guess that it’s an ex-gay.

David Boies started with a taped deposition of Dr. Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young, two Prop 8 witnesses that dropped out.

On tape Boies got Nathanson to admit that the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Church use terms such as sinful, evil, a perversion, abomination, deviant behavior, manifestation of a depraved nature in talking about homosexuality. Dr. Nathanson said that half of the Prop 8 voters may have supported the initiative due to religion.

This guy comes off sounding like a witness for the plaintiffs. And, indeed, there is word that he may be gay and supports marriage even though he was called as a witness for the proponents.

Boies: Do you believe that the teaching of certain religions that homosexuality is a sin and abomination leads to gay bashing?

Nicholson: Yes.

Next was taped deposition of Katherine Young. She gave a long list of cultures in which same-sex relationship comparable to marriage were tolerated: Hidras in India, Berdache in a number of American Indian tribes, cultures in West Africa and China, Romans during the Emperors. In addition there were many cultures that tolerated non-marriage same-sex relationships.

She also testified about the link between anti-gay religious teaching and hate crimes, that marriage would be beneficial to gay couples and their children, and that religion had been used as a basis for discrimination and bigotry against women and blacks.

(I can see why they “dropped out”)

Next to the stand was Ryan Kendall, a man who unsuccessfully went through ex-gay therapy. The Prop 8 proponents sought to keep him off the bench, but the Judge pointed out that they introduced reorientation to the case.

Kendall was raised in a very religious family. When they found out at age 13 that he was gay (his journal), they sent him to a counselor to make him heterosexual. Focus on the Family recommended that he be sent to NARTH and his parents began systematic emotional abuse. After a few years of this, at 16, he couldn’t take it any more and asked the Department of Human Services to help him become emancipated.

He went through a rough patch, jobs, school, drugs for about four years until he pulled himself together. He’s been working for the police department now for about two years.

(In yet another demonstration that this is a bi-partisan trial and not the ‘conservatives v. liberal radical homosexuals’, it turns out that Kendall is a member of Log Cabin Republicans.)

In cross-examination, James Campbell for Prop 8 asked him if he’d ever met anyone who had been successful. Kendall said, “publicly yes”. In redirect, Boies had him clarify:

Q: Have you met anyone who succeeded in conversion therapy?

A: Yes, Nicolosi trotted out his perfect patient, named Kelly, who (when the doctor left the room) told me that he was going to a gay bar that night and was pretending success in conversion for his family.

Next up was Dr. Gary Segura, a political science prof at Stanford, president of the midwest political science association, and head of the Stanford Center for Democracy, which studies American elections.

He looks at how the public influences decision makers. His focus is minorities, particularly Latino and gay. One of his article dealt with self-identification of those minorities who can ‘pass\’ as others. He was there to speak about the powerlessness of gays and lesbians in American politics.

Segura had three opinions:

1. Gays and lesbians are not able to protect their interests because they do not possess meaningful political power.

2. They are not subject to political exclusion and suffer political disabilities greater than other groups that have received suspect class protection.

3. The opinions of the Proponents expert Dr. Kenneth Miller are fundamentally flawed and incorrect.

Segura explained how a favorable outcome may still lack political power. For example, Houston just elected a lesbian as mayor but had also just voted against allowing partners of city employees to get benefits, so the new mayor cannot provide benefits to her partner of 19 years.

He pointed out that in those few states where there are protections, generally these are not designed to advance the interests of gays and lesbians but rather to correct harsh discrimination against them. “You have laws against discrimination because there IS discrimination.” Segura testified that no group has been the target of punitive or discriminatory initiatives more than gay people.

Segura talks about under-representation and how that impacts the discussions about people who are not present. “Some public officials have compared gay marriage to marrying a box turtle.” (you go, Segura!!)

Segura testified that the incidences and the intensity of hate crimes against other groups has decreased, but not for gays. He ties a recent surge in hate crimes to Proposition 8.

He testified that government censorship of sex ed classes, HIV prevention efforts, and even bans on funding for gay-themed art all add to the disempowerment of gays. He said the “mommy, I heard in school that I can marry a princess” ad was part of the continued theme of seeking to censor out gay people.

Segura dismissed the idea that gays have powerful allies. He pointed out the failure of the Democratic Party to do anything meaningful and listed the many instances in which Our Fierce Advocate has filed briefs and defied courts in order to keep anti-gay positions in place and has done little to nothing to address our needs.

He said that if two groups were about the same size, the one with no opponents has a real significant advantage. He then was asked about the Mormon involvement in the campaign. He laid out the organization and power of the supporters of Proposition 8, especially the involvement of Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Church.

(An attorney for Jim Garlow and Miles McPherson sought to keep their sermons, speeches, and statements from being presented as evidence. The pastors want on one hand to be political but they want that political activism to have the protections of religious speech. The decision goes to Magistrate Judge Spiro.)

Boies put up a redacted correspondence from the Catholic Conference of Bishops:

The Catholic Conference has played a substantial role in inviting Catholic faithful to put their faith in action by volunteering and donating. Led by the Knights of Columbus national donation of $1.5 million, other million dollar donors, and the countless major donor and with a significant percentage of the 90,000 online donors, the Catholic community has stepped up. Of course this campaign owes an enormous debt to the LDS Church. I will comment specifically at a later time (under separate cover) about their financial, organizational and management contributions to the success of this effort.

Segura reviews other documents noting that the campaign was very early focused on religion, was national in scope, and contained unusual coalitions of churches who seldom align.

Andy Pugno for Prop 8 then fought tooth and toenail (unsuccessfully) to keep out documents that would demonstrate the intense involvement of the Mormon Church. Documents were entered which showed that the LDS Church was very active in the campaign, especially in funding and grassroots organizing but sought to keep plausible deniability about their involvement. Documents showed that the church actively sought to have its members individually donate to the campaign and used the church structure to do so.

Segura discussed the deposition of Dr. Miller, a witness of the proponents who dropped out. Miller lacked knowledge of gay history, social work, and anything outside of California laws. He knew nothing about the lack of protections in most states.

In cross-examination, Thompson lists a bunch of accomplishments that gay people have been able to achieve in terms of legislation. He uses New Hampshire as an example, but Segura notes that there are currently efforts to reverse marriage in that state.

Expert is asked about certain politicians (eg Nancy Pelosi is an ally but not one who moves legislation forward on gay issues), union support, ACLU, high tech companies, etc.

The case will continue until tomorrow or perhaps Friday.

MarriageTrial.com reenacts Perry v. Schwarzenegger

On Monday we told you that filmmaker John Ireland would be posting reenactments of the testimony for Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Now he has a website, MarriageTrial.com, to host the reenactments.

Nothing has been posted yet. Maybe the actors are skurrred that gay folk will hunt them down and make frowny faces at them.

Speaking of Futile Boycotts

Pastor David Grisham wants to boycott Houston because that city elected a lesbian for mayor.

“This is not about the Mayor personally,” Grisham says, no doubt bringing some relief to Annise Parker. “It’s not about personality, it’s about principle. The election of an [openly] homosexual person to a major public office brings with it a radical homosexual agenda. That in and of itself makes a statement.”

Pastor Grisham is behind the Repent Amarillo web site (warning: loud sound effects), which sports an Army of God logo. His”spiritual mapping” page includes a handy rundown of Amarillo’s four gay bars and a few gay-friendly churches. Nice to know for those traveling through.

Uganda’s Cabinet Rejects Withdrawal of Anti-Gay Bill

According to Uganda’s independent NTV, the cabinet considered and rejected the suggestion of withdrawing the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. (Also, in a reminder that Uganda is not a free democracy, this report closes with an update on CBS Radio, which was closed last autumn in a political dispute between President Yoweri Museveni and the traditional king (Kabaka) of Buganda.)

As we reported earlier today, the bill now goes to a subcommittee which will recommend changes to the bill.

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

Cindy McCain supports gay marriage

The household of Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain is divided on the issue of marriage. During his campaign, McCain tried to avoid talking about gay issues as much as possible, but when cornered he spoke in opposition to marriage equality.

But after the campaign his daughter Meghan has become, in many ways, the face of young straight marriage equality supporters. And she has been a constant voice in the Republican Party seeking to change the position of the party on gay issues.

Now another member of McCain’s family has come out publicly in support of marriage, his wife Cindy. She and Meghan have joined the No H8 campaign.

There is no way that this decision was made without the full knowledge and approval of the Senator. What this means for gay rights in the Republican Party is as yet not fully known, but it is definitely a good sign.

Uganda’s Cabinet Debates Anti-Gay Bill

Uganda’s state-owned New Vision reports that a “heated” Cabinet meeting took place yesterday to discuss the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. The discussions don’t look good:

Sources said the Cabinet was divided on the clause spelling out the death penalty. After failing to agree on a position, works minister John Nasasira reportedly proposed that the Bill be delayed. His position was rejected, sources disclosed.

This suggests that there are people in the cabinet who don’t even want the death penalty removed, let alone any of the other draconian and wide-ranging provisions of the proposed legislation. The independent Daily Monitor reports that MP David Bahati, the bill’s sponsor, said that he is willing to amend the proposed law in a way “without putting the values of the country at risk. He was tight-lipped about the Cabinet meeting itself.

The cabinet decided to form a sub-committee headed by Attorney General Khidu Makubuya to suggest amendments to the bill. Other members of the sub-committee include Regional Affairs State Minister Isaac Musumba, Education Minister Namirembe Bitamazire, Gender Minister Gabriel Opiyo, and Ethics and Integrity Minister James Nsaba Buturo. Buturo has been one of the bill’s strongest proponents.

It looks like any hope that the bill would be withdrawn is diminishing. Merely “amending” the bill would still leave a bill that would represent a staggering setback for human rights in Uganda. As the bill is currently written, 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.

It’s impossible to imagine any amendments short of a “strike-all” amendment that would represent a material improvement to the bill.

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

Charts from day six

The Courage Campaign’s Brian Leubitz found charts on the marriage rate and divorce rate in the Netherlands for the past few decades. They add clarity to yesterday’s testimony.

Prop 8’s Chuck Cooper wanted to spend a lot of time talking about the period from 1994 to present where it might appear that enacting marriage correlated to (and perhaps caused) a decline in the marriage rate. But viewing the larger graph shows that this was a false and fraudulent argument.

Hawaii Senate to vote Friday on civil unions

Prop 8 protest in November 2008

“It is my understanding that it will be put on the Order of the Day (agenda) Thursday and put it up for a vote on Friday,” said Sen. Brian Taniguchi, chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

This bill was essentially killed in the last days of the last session by amending it to include the unnecessary wording, “It is not the Legislature’s intent to revise the definition or eligibility requirements of marriage.” That strategic effort bought the legislature nearly another year to do nothing.

Because the bill had a start date as of the first of the year, there is some question as to whether it would be valid or would require another amendment. Some senators appear to be pretending that such a technical amendment would be reason to vote against the bill.

However, the award for bald disingenuousness, for unbridled cynicism, for smarmy condescension goes to former Senate President Robert Bunda:

“It is totally about solemnizing civil unions, and I think what gay people are really seeking is same-sex marriage,” Bunda said.

“I hope we just defer the whole thing. We have more important issues, like the budget.”

Yes, Mr. Bunda, we want equality. But that hasn’t been presented as an option, has it? And you would oppose such a bill were it to come up, wouldn’t you, cuz treating all citizens equally just isn’t important enough.

And, in the meantime, I still have not heard back from the DNC as to why they have said absolutely nothing to encourage the virtually entirely Democratic legislature to pass the civil unions bill. Good thing I wasn’t holding my breath.