Box Turtle Bulletin

Ugandan News Blog: “What Makes Someone Gay and Can People Change Orientation?”

When I saw that title appear on the Uganda Talks blog of that nation’s The Independent newspaper this morning, I was prepared for the worst. But then I saw the byline: Warren Throckmorton. He alone among American evangelicals was out front on this issue clear back in March of last year. I hope this article is able to make its way into the print edition.

But this just goes to show that if those who claim to be against the Anti-Homosexuality Bill were really serious about their claims, they could quite easily demonstrate their sincerity rather than falling back to playing the part of a helpless dupe. But Exodus’ shirking their responsibility is a well-established pattern that is giving Christianity a black eye to millions of people around the world. As I said before: Uganda will forever be their legacy and their cowardly silence will become the indelible image of Christ seen by LGBT people the world over. And thousands of Ugandans — and many more thousands of Americans — will never forget it.

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

Congratulations Gabriel Arana

Our congratulations go out to BTB’s Gabriel Arana, who was nominated for the GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Magazine Article. He was nominated for his cover-story article “Gay on Trial” for the December edition of The American Prospect, where he is the Editorial Assistant.

In “Gay on Trial,” Gabriel explores the complexities of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the case that is currently being heard in Federal Court challenging California’s Prop 8. He describes what’s at stake in the case, and the unusual case that the plaintiffs are forced to present. They have to prove that gay people are a distinct and well-defined group before they can be treated just like everyone else.

By the way, Gabriel is the driving force behind our new Podcast, which is also available on iTunes.

Congratulations Gabriel! We want pictures of you in your tux.

Voice Of America on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill

The Voice of America’s hour-long Straight Talk Africa television program today was devoted to Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Today’s program featured Jeff Sharlet, author of The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power; Ugandan MP David Bahati, sponsor of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill; Matt Kavanagh of the Health Gap Coalition; and Olara A. Otunnu, Former Ambassador of Uganda to the U.N. (1980-1985).

Some background on Otunno is warrented. He was ambassador for the government of Milton Obote, who was overthrown by Uganda’s current President Yoweri Museveni in a civil war. Otunnu is a member of the Obote’s Ugandan People’s Congress, and he is actively courting the divided party’s nomination for the 2011 presidential elections.

The program is available this week for download.

David Bahati continues to assert that “homosexuality is learned and can be unlearned” (wonder where he got that idea?), and characterized gays as being predators who “recruit” children in schools (wonder where he got that idea?), and that is why, he says, the bill is essential. Bahati insisted that Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni “has common ground” with Bahati on the need for the bill.

Bahati was asked if he was a member of The Family. He acknowledged having “friends” in Washington and having attended the National Prayer Breakfast which is organized by the Family. However, he denied that the Family had any input to the bill.

Matt Kavanagh pointed out that the provisions in the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill would criminalize efforts to treat and prevent HIV/AIDS in the LGBT community, since providing such aide could be seen as “aiding and abetting” homosexuality with prison sentences of five to seven years. “Driving people underground is a horrible public health policy. It means only that you are going to increase the spread of HIV.”

Jeff Sharlet talked about the tremendous influence people like Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who “adopted” Uganda and has a close personal relationship with President Museveni. He said that Museveni, and Bahati are members of the Family, but that the Family is now shedding its secretive image in order to “throw Mr. Bahati under the bus” in order to protect their relationship with Museveni, which the Family considers their more valuable asset.

Sharlet confirmed that Uganda’s Ethics and Integrity Minister James Nsaba Buturo plans to attend the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. on February 4th. Buturo has been a heavy promoter of the draconian anti-gay bill throughout the year, having responded to the anti-gay conference put on in Kampala by three American anti-gay extremists with promises to “strengthen” Uganda’s law against homosexuality. Uganda’s laws against “crimes against nature” already provide for lifetime imprisonment. Buturo’s very office was created at the suggestion by the Family.

Ambassador Otunnu denounced the death penalty aspects of the bill and said that all Ugandans deserve equal human rights, but called for sensitivity to the “deeply held traditions and cultures of particular societies. …When a society  sees suddenly a practice that was not (known to be) so widespread, it begins to ask questions, it goes into shock, it begins to panic, and you see reaction which can be irrational.” He went on:

I am very sad that it has taken the issue of homosexuals for key western leaders and key western governments to discover the human rights disaster in Uganda. We’ve had genocide in Northern Uganda for fifteen years, no comments from any high officials in the West.  We had thirty people massacred in the streets of Kampala on the tenth of September the last. No high level comments. We have torture chambers in Kampala as we speak. WE have widespread corruption, fraud in elections. So I’m very disappointed that is has taken this issue to have any comment on human rights, and even then the comments are not about human rights in general in Uganda, but specific to the fate of homosexuals.

Much of the rest of the program was devoted preparations for the 2011 elections, which international observers fear will not be free and fair.

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

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: day three synopsis

Again much appreciation to Courage Campaign for their liveblogging (along with others in the media). As the US Supreme Court has decided that, for now anyway, the proceedings will take place out of the sight of the public, their contribution to creating an informed public is of immense value.

The Defense\’s cross-examination of History Professor George Chauncey continued. Prop 8’s David Thompson sought to get Chauncey to agree that gay people are not really subject to discrimination. This is an attempt to battle Olson/Boies’ goal of establishing sexual orientation as a subject suspect class and thus more highly protected from discrimination.

(Because race is a subject suspect class, the legal assumption is that any discrimination against them is probably unconstitutional. Left-handedness, not currently an oppressed minority subject to regular and insidious discrimination, is not a suspect class and therefore they need to prove that any specific discrimination against them is unconstitutional).

Thompson also sought to get Chauncey to agree that not everyone who opposes marriage (e.g. our “fierce advocate”) does so out of bigotry. He attempted (unsuccessfully) to get Chauncey to agree that a portion of the gay community opposed marriage and therefore supported Proposition 8. Chauncey responded, “The right to marry evolved and became a more widespread and deeply held goal of the gay and lesbian community.”

In redirect Terri Stewart had Chauncey draw parallels between the growing desire in the gay community for marriage to that of the black community who did not seek desegregation when they were simply seeking basic existence.

She had him illustrate that while some faiths were supportive there was strong religious animosity to gay people. Chauncey read from statements from the Vatican and the Southern Baptist Convention. Their point is that sincere religious objection to gay equality can be based in stereotypes and bigotry, just as were sincere religious objections to racial equality.

And then we find out exactly why Hak-Shing William “Bill” Tam sought to be removed from the case. Stewart played a tape of their deposition of Mr. Tam. It seems that Mr. Tam was invited to be an integral part of the campaign focusing on outreach to Asians. He raised substantial amounts of money and orchestrated rallies. He wrote to Asian language newspapers and produced flyers.

One flyer claimed that the San Francisco city government was under the control of homosexuals who wanted to legalize sex with children. Tam feared not only same-sex marriage, but children would learn about gay people and then become gay themselves. Tam seemed to believe that Proposition 8 would stop gay couples from being able to adopt.

Next to testify was Dr. Letishia Peplak, a social psychologist from UCLA with extensive credentials on same-sex relationships. She is an expert on four issues: (a) marriage brings important benefits, (b) relationships between same-sex and heterosexual couples are similar, (c) gay couples who can marry have the same benefits, (d) gay marriage will not harm heterosexual marriage.

Peplak testified that same-sex relationships are very similar to opposite-sex relationships in terms of stability, durability, process, and level of love.

She said that while there is no evidence, it’s been suggested that homosexual relationships are shorter. She also testified that heterosexual co-habitation relationships are shorter than married relationships. She reported a study that married same-sex couples in Massachusetts reported being more committed and to having more benefits.

Nicole Moss questioned Peplak in cross-examination. Moss argued that a 25 year old article shows that gay men are less monogamous than heterosexual married men. Peplak points out that is an “oldie” from a time when gay relationships were secretive. Moss continues with outdated studies of non-representative sample groups.

Peplak has said that she is not an expert on relationships in foreign nations, but Moss presented statistics on marriage in Belgium and the Netherlands. In Belgium 5% of gay couples marry compared to 42% of heterosexual couples. In the Netherlands, 8% of gay couples and 43% if straight couples marry. (I hope that the plaintiffs have statisticians that can speak to the meaning of these numbers and whether they accurately explain current marriages as opposed to cumulative marriages).

Peplak notes the discrepancy with the Massachusetts numbers and speculates that American gay couples may be more pro-family.

In redirect, Peplak notes that studies about lack of monogamy were from a time when there were neither marriage nor domestic partnerships.

Overall, I’m not getting the impression that Peplak was a stellar witness.

US Human Rights Commission To Hold Hearings on Ugandan Anti-Gay Bill

Chris Johnson at DCAgenda reports that US Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WS) will chair a meeting of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission next week to hear testimony on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill that is now before Uganda’s Parliament. The Commission is a congressional body charged with promoting public awareness and developing strategies for Congress in the area of human rights.

Yesterday, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), chair of the Senate finance Committee\’s subcommittee on International Trade, Customs and Global Competitiveness, issued a statement threatening Uganda with loss of preferential trade relations if that nation proceeds with passing the wide-ranging and draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

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

SCOTUS disallows live streaming of Perry v. Schwarzenegger to other courthouses

The question as to whether the proceedings at Perry v. Schwarzenegger can be made available to the public has not been settled. But the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, determined that they cannot be transmitted to other courthouses.

We do not here express any views on the propriety of broadcasting court proceedings generally.

Instead, our review is confined to a narrow legal issue: whether the District Court\’s amendment of its local rules to broadcast this trial complied with federal law. We conclude that it likely did not and that applicants have demonstrated that irreparable harm would likely result from the District Court\’s actions. We therefore stay the court\’s January 7, 2010, order to the extent that it permits the live streaming of court proceedings to other federal courthouses. We do not address other aspects of that order, such as those related to the broadcast of court proceedings on the Internet, as this may be premature.

The District Court attempted to change its rules at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other trials in the district. Not only did it ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue. If courts are to require that others follow regular procedures, courts must do so as well. The Court grants the application for a stay of the District Court\’s order of January 7, 2010, pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari or the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of mandamus.

Justices Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor disagreed, wondering how transmitting to other courthouses could possibly cause harm to the witnesses:

All of the witnesses supporting the applicants are already publicly identified with their cause. They are all experts or advocates who have either already appeared on television or Internet broadcasts, already toured the State advocating a “yes” vote on Proposition 8, or already engaged in extensive public commentary far more likely to make them well known than a closed-circuit broadcast to another federal courthouse. The likelihood of any “irreparable” harm is further diminished by the fact that the court order before us would simply increase the trial\’s viewing audience from the occupants of one courtroom in one courthouse to the occupants of five other courtrooms in five other court-houses (in all of which taking pictures or retransmissions have been forbidden). By way of comparison literally hundreds of national and international newspapers are already covering this trial and reporting in detail the names and testimony of all of the witnesses.
…
The majority\’s action today is unusual. It grants a stay in order to consider a mandamus petition, with a view to intervening in a matter of local court administration that it would not (and should not) consider. It cites no precedent for doing so. It identifies no real harm, let alone “irreparable harm,” to justify its issuance of this stay.And the public interest weighs in favor of providing access to the courts. To justify this extraordinary intervention,the majority insists that courts must “enforce the requirement of procedural regularity on others, and must follow those requirements themselves.” [] And so I believe this Court should adhere to its institutional competence, its historical practice, and its governing precedent—all of which counsel strongly against the issuance of this stay.

So, for now, it is up to the blogosphere to report as best possible on the arguments, positions, assertions, and identity of those who present themselves as experts on why our state and nation should institutionalize discrimination.

LaBarbera Award: Pat Robertson

Pat Robertson richly deserves the LaBarbera Award for this one:

“Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French … and they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, ‘We will serve you if you will get us free from the French.’ True story. So the devil said, ‘OK, it’s a deal.'”

“Ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after another,” Robertson said, referring to the country’s poverty.

Robertson was speaking on the Christian Broadcast Network during a drive by the network, which he founded, to raise money for disaster relief.

Usually, when we award someone with the LaBarbera Award, we post commentary explaining why the winner merits the honor. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then here’s a far more eloquent essay than I could ever hope to write:

…And Racism Ended in 1940

Karen Ocomb is live-blogging the Prop 8 trial:

Thompson, the smug attorney for the Proponents of Prop 8, is taking the position that gays are not being discriminated against any more and so that cannot be the reason that Prop 8 passed. … He\’s mentioning Will and Grace, the movie Philadelphia, and Brokeback mountain as evidence that LGBT people are not being discriminated again.

Hattie McDaniel won an Oscar in 1940 for her role as Mammy in Gone with the Wind. At that time, Amos ‘n’ Andy was a wildly popular radio program. Their characters were so beloved that many movie theaters would stop the film and play the program over the house loudpeakers so their audiences wouldn’t miss a single episode.

And that’s why we haven’t had any racial problems since then.

BTB Podcast Now Available on iTunes

Box Turtle Bulletin’s Weekly Podcast is now available on iTunes here (or by clicking on the image below). Subscribe to our channel and have the episodes downloaded automatically to your iPod or mp3 player.

Ugandan State-Owned TV’s Cautious Coverage of Museveni’s Remarks

Uganda’s state-owned UBC television this morning featured Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni’s comments made yesterday during an Executive Council meeting of the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) party meeting at State House, Entebbe about the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. In these videos, provided by an anonymous BTB reader in Uganda, we see a report on Museveni’s remarks.

As you can see, the report on state-owned TV, which is followed by remarks by Deputy Attorney General Fred Ruhindi, is extremely cautious and does not speculate on the implications of Museveni’s remarks. Early coverage by the state-owned newspaper New Vision gave Museveni’s remarks extraordinarily large and thorough coverage, but offered no analysis of the bill’s future either. However, New Vision printed another article quoting Executive Director of the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative, Livingston Sewanyana, as backing Museveni’s remarks, saying that the bill infringes on human rights. This is, I believe, the first time this opinion has been reported in the state-owned paper.

Independent media has been less cautious. The earlier report by NTV speculated that Museveni’s remarks might be a “nail in the coffin” for the draconian anti-gay bill. Uganda’s independent Monitor newspaper, which is owned by the same media group as NTV, this morning said:

He also left Ndorwa West MP David Bahati holding the can, when he, for the first time publicly, disowned the legislator\’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009, saying it does not represent the party or government position.

As for Bahati himself, he was reportedly on WBS television last night, still determined to push the bill through Parliament.

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

Click here to see a transcript of the UBC television reports

Transcript of Ugandan President’s Remarks To Ruling Party Meeting

We’ve posted earlier an audio clip of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni’s remarks to the Executive Council of the ruling National Resistance Movement party meeting at State House, Entebbe yesterday. A BTB reader in Uganda has provided us with a transcript of those remarks.

When I was at the Commonwealth conference, the Prime Minister of Canada came to see me – and what was he talking about? Gays.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown came to see me – what he talking about? Gays.

When I got to New York, when I was coming back, Assistant Secretary Carson called me. What was he ringing me about? Somalia, and Gays.

The other day when I was here Mrs. Clinton rang me. What was she talking about? Gays.

Now, we need to clarify this issue. This motion of gays was brought by a private member, the Honourable Bahati. In fact, I had not even had time to discuss with him, and that\’s what I was telling these people. I was telling them “but you\’re Democrats.. you\’re the ones who have been talking about democracy. Now, this is a private members bill, so why should it cause so much excitement?”

Recently we sat in the cabinet and we said that the cabinet should invite the Honourable Bahati, look at what he\’s talking about, and see how they can handle it all of them together.

I think you should listen carefully because its better more minds discuss this and see how to navigate through all this.

But the point I\’m making here – I\’m using this forum to clarify that this position is not… this issue was not brought by the government, it was not even brought by the party, it was brought by a private member and we have not had time even to discuss with him. Those who are saying we should not discuss with him, I would advise them to trust my judgement  – that our foreign policy is not managed just by some individuals we must all be involved.

We have got our values here and our stand.. historically, socially… but we need to know, also, that your partners –  the ones who you\’ve been working with so much – in fact, you are the ones who work with Europeans more than I do. You are the ones who are always there… in Europe… in America… They have got their system there.

One day… I can talk about this because it happened. I don\’t think anybody will say I am misrepresenting anything, because I saw it in the papers… there was a rally in New York of 300,000 homosexuals. Now, I would want to challenge you, Members of Parliament… how many of you, other than me, who have had a rally of 300,000 people? And even me I have not had those rallies very often.

Now, President Clinton was supposed to go there to attend but he didn\’t attend… but he sent a message. He said “I have not come, but I\’m with you in spirit.”

So therefore, I strongly advise you that you agree to the idea that the cabinet sit down with Bahati, a sub-committee, and see how best to handle this issue because… because… it is a foreign policy issue. It\’s not just our internal politics. It is a foreign policy issue, and we must handle it in a way which does not compromise our principles, but also takes into account our foreign policy interests.

When I was discussing with Mrs. Clinton on the phone she did not sound dogmatic. In fact, she appeared sort of… inquisitive, and she was asking me, “how is this problem”? I said, “Even me I don\’t know. But I had been told..” (because I really don\’t know much about homosexuals, even here). “I\’d been told..” that\’s what I told her. I said that I had been told… I have heard…(nobody has even really told me, seriously) I have heard… that homosexuals come from Europe, and come here, and try to recruit young people.

Now, that\’s why you need to calm down.

Then Mrs. Clinton said, “no, but that\’s very bad! That is…” She called it “exploitation”. These were her own words.

She said… I simply said..I have heard… which is true because I don\’t really know… and I\’ve not studied this issue. I said I have heard that homosexuals come from Europe, they come with money to lure young people into that practice. That\’s what I said, on the phone, I said. And what did Mrs. Clinton say? She said “Oh, but that is exploitation”.

So you see that if you take a dialogue approach, you would actually come to… like I had that about 45 minutes on the phone with Mrs. Clinton… and I could see we were getting near each .. err…but I was not very briefed myself.. I did not have the facts.

So therefore, don\’t sensationalise this, let\’s be systematic among ourselves, and then we dialogue with these Europeans… the Americans… and then we shall come with a final position.

But, for the press… the rumor mongers… Chairman of NRM Yoweri Museveni is telling you, that this is a private member’s motion, number one. It is not a government position, yet… or a party position… and even the private member is still in the process of discussing this with his colleagues, so it is all premature and out of proportion to kick up all this problem.

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

Mormon Documents May End Up In Prop 8 Trial

Salt Lake City’s ABC affiliate KTVX reports that documents from the LDS Church concerning their efforts at passing California’s Proposition 8 may well end up in the Prop 8 trial after all:

Again, according to our sources, the San Francisco City Attorney, Dennis Herrera, requested, perhaps, as many as 1,500 copied documents about the LDS Church’s opposition to gay marriage. The documents reportedly deal with the LDS Church’s earlier efforts to defeat gay marriage movements in other states, efforts going back a number of years. Herrera, coincidentally, has been admitted as co-counsel in the California federal case to over-turn the ban on gay marriage.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: day two synopsis

Today’s testimony consisted of two witnesses (thanks again to Courage Campaign):

Professor Nancy Cott, author of Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation, continued her testimony about the meaning of marriage. She explained how marriage evolved from the government directing gender roles as we moved from an agrarian society.

Cross-witness sought to get Cott to own the statements of other marriage supporters so as to get her defending ideas other than her own but she wasn’t having it. Opposing counsel tried to get her to make predictions, she didn’t.

Then opposing counsel sought to show that marriage was actually Christian doctrine filtered through marriage law. (I can think of a few reasons why he really wouldn’t want to go there, one being that Olson/Boies can put the leaders of several denominations on the stand to talk about Christian doctrine).

In redirect, Cott explains that same-sex marriage was not likely to lead to polygamy because the central theme to marriage is consent and the central theme to polygamy is despotism. (Interestingly, if “children” is the sole purpose of marriage, then polygamy could be a next step – or, rather, a step back to tradition).

In the afternoon, Terri Stewart questioned Dr. George Chauncey, an expert in LGBT studies. Dr. Chauncey gave a lengthy discussion about discrimination and oppression of gay people in America.

Dr. Chauncey showed how the themes of Anita Bryant’s “Save Our Children” campaigns in the 70’s were successfully carried into the 80’s and 90’s and are the central themes of Proposition 8. He sees them as part of a continuum.

Stewart: Do you believe Prop. 8 ads perpetuate the stereotypes of the history you describe?

Chauncey: I think they do, but they are more polite than the Anita Bryant ads. Society has changed such that what you can say in polite society is different, but most striking is the image of the little girl who comes in to tell her mom that she can marry a princess. There\’s a strong echo of this idea that simple exposure to gay people will lead a generation of young people to become gay.

Cross examination tries to paint Chauncey as “an advocate”. They tried that with Cott. I’m not sure what’s going on there as I think it’s clear that all witnesses on all sides are probably going to be advocates for their position. Certainly Blankenhorn is.

Administration push for removal of DADT in 2010 defense budget

From the Huffington Post

Congressional negotiators and White House officials are moving forward with plans to add the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell to the upcoming defense authorization bill, Democratic sources tell the Huffington Post.

In Congress, members are being whipped to ensure that the votes will be there for passage, should the legislation be placed in the bill. At this juncture, aides say, the prospects look good. Meanwhile, a source close to the White House says the president has instructed the Defense Department that he believes the repeal of DADT should be placed in the authorization bill.

US Senator Threatens Uganda With Trade Sanctions

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), who chairs the Senate finance Committee’s subcommittee on International Trade, Customs and Global Competitiveness, has released a statement  threatening Uganda with trade sanctions if that nation proceeds with passing the wide-ranging and draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and US Trade Representative Ron Kirk, Sen. Wyden warns:

As you know, Uganda is a beneficiary of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which was signed in to law in 2000. AGOA provides duty-free treatment to imports originating from beneficiary African countries. Beneficiaries of AGOA must meet certain eligibility criteria, one of which is to not engage in “gross violations of internationally recognized human rights,” and the jurisprudence in the area of international human rights supports respect of sexual orientation and gender identity as human rights. I strongly urge you to communicate immediately to the Ugandan government, and President Yoweri Museveni directly, that Uganda\’s beneficiary status under AGOA will be revoked should the proposed legislation be enacted.

Sen. Wyden promises to sponsor legislation to amend America’s trade preference programs “to make clear that failure to appropriately respect sexual orientation and gender identity as human rights shall preclude a country from benefitting from any U.S. trade preference scheme.”

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