Box Turtle Bulletin

Ugandan State-Owned Media Highlights Museveni’s Speech Against Anti-Gay Bill

Uganda President Yoweri Museveni

Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni’s announcement before the executive council of his ruling party that he will “discuss” the Anti-Homosexuality Bill with MP David Bahati received prominent play in tomorrow morning’s edition of the state-owned New Vision newspaper. Anonymous BTB tipsters from Uganda report that Museveni’s remarks were also featured in the evening newscasts from state-run UBC televsion and similar news broadcasts from other private independent television stations. (You can see NTV’s coverage of Museveni’s remarks here.)

The New Vision article contained extensive quotes from Museveni’s remarks:

Museveni said he had been questioned about the bill by several foreign leaders, including the Canadian prime minister, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He said Clinton called him for over 45 minutes over the issue.  “I told them that this bill was brought up by a private member and I have not even had time to discuss it with him. It is neither the Government nor the NRM party. It is a private member,” Museveni told the NRM meeting at State House Entebbe.

“It is my judgment that our foreign policy is not managed just by some individuals. We have our values and our stand, historically and socially, but we need to know also that our partners we have been working with have their systems,” he added as members murmured in disapproval.

Museveni narrated that the gay community in New York organised a rally and invited then President Bill Clinton.  “In that rally, about 300,000 homosexuals attended. I challenge you. Who of you, MPs, has ever had a rally of 300,000 people, other than me? Even for me, it is not often that I get those numbers,” he said.

Here is audio of Museveni’s remarks, as provided by an anonymous BTB reader in Uganda.

While Uganda has the apparatus of a parliamentary democracy, real power resides in the hands of the president who has held power for almost 24 years since overthrowing his successor in a 1985 civil war. Last fall, he shut down opposition radio stations which were critical of his policies against the traditional king of Buganda following widespread rioting.

So when President Museveni announces that he is going to “discuss” the Anti-Homosexuality Bill with MP Bahati, it’s reasonable to assume that some sort of action will take place. Whether it will be a modification around the edges of the far-reaching bill or its complete withdrawal, it’s hard to say. But it does mean that whatever happens from this point on, it happens because Museveni wants it to happen. This makes Museveni’s remarks — and the prominent attention those remarks are receiving in state-owned news outlets — the most encouraging development in the past year.

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

BREAKING: Audio and News Reports of Uganda President’s Comments on Anti-Gay Bill

Uganda’s NTV has posted video of President Museveni’s announcement at a meeting of his ruling party that he will be speaking to MP David Bahati about the Anti-Homosexuality bill. The reporter suggests that Museveni’s remarks were a final “nail in the coffin” for the draconian measure.

An anonymous Ugandan reader sent audio to BTB and Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton. In this audio clip, we can hear President Museveni speaking before a rowdy crowd at State House, Entebbe, before a meeting of his National Resistance Movement party. After recounting numerous phone calls and personal conversations he has had with foreign leaders and representatives, he announced that he and the Cabinet will sit down with MP Bahati “to see how best to handle this issue”:

I strongly advise you that we agree that the cabinet sit down with Bahati and see how best to handle this issue…

Because it is a foreign policy issue, it is not just our internal politics, and we must handle it in a way which does not compromise our principles but also takes into account our foreign policy interests. So let’s be systematic among ourselves, and then we dialogue with these Europeans and the Americans and then we shall come up with a final position.

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

Blankenhorn: A Brief Summary

It appears that David Blankenhorn will be the primary witness for the defense of Proposition 8. ProtectMarriage.com’s attorney, Chuck Cooper, has said that Blankenhorn will

• show that the preponderance of historical and social leaders agree that this the naturally procreation sexual act that is protected, that it\’s pro-child
• show that if gay marriage is legal, it will lead to higher divorce rates and lower rates of marriage

So let’s look to some of Blankenhorn’s previous writings to get a sense of what he believes. I make no pretense that this is a comprehensive review of Blankenhorn’s positions, or that I have insight to his thinking or his testimony, but it can give us a bit of perspective and perhaps an inkling of what he will say.

First, let’s look at his credentials.

In 1977, he graduated magna cum laude in social studies from Harvard, where he was president of Phillips Brooks House, the campus community service center, and the recipient of a John Knox Fellowship. In 1978, he was awarded an M.A. with distinction in comparative social history from the University of Warwick in Coventry, England.

In 1994, Blankenhorn helped to found the National Fatherhood Initiative, serving as that organization’s founding chairman. In 1992, he was appointed by President Bush to serve on the National Commission on America\’s Urban Families.

It was through his interest in the fatherhood movement – and his belief that families were best served when the father of the children was active in the family – that he began to advocate for heterosexual only marriage.

So he “spent a year studying the history and anthropology of marriage” before going on the lecture circuit as an expert on the subject. (In contrast, Nancy Cott spent about a decade studying marriage in America before writing her book).

Blankenhorn’s conclusions were rather similar to his starting points: that marriage is contrived primarily to tie parents to their children. In an LA Times op-ed, he stated:

Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.

Blankenhorn is well educated and articulate. We should expect poise and confidence in his testimorny.

It would seem based on his writing and on the statements of Chuck Cooper that Blankenhorn is going to argue that society benefits by privileging and providing benefits for institutions that create a natural parental unit. However, as I see it, he has a number of challenges to hurdle:

1. Blankenhorn is not opposed to recognition of same-sex relationships. In February 2009 he argued in the NY Times, with Jonathan Rauch, for the federal recognition of civil unions provided that religious objection was protected.

It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage.

Unlike many die-hard anti-gay activists, he does not argue that children are endangered by having same-sex parents. Indeed, if so then why would he argue for federal recognition of same-sex relationships? So all he can argue is that there is tremendous importance in the word “marriage” but not necessarily in the structure.

In other words, Blankenhorn does not see a benefit to refusing to recognize same-sex relationships. This leaves him in the position of arguing the distinctions between all the rights, and the name. His only consistent argument must be that same-sex couples should have rights but social disadvantage, a second-class recognition, a lesser status.

This could help establish the claims of Olson and Boies that the supporters of Proposition 8 are primarily seeking to enforce distinct social classes of relationships based on their content, a caste system.

2. Blankenhorn’s insistence that the primary purpose of marriage is to tie a child to its natural parents is not the same thing as the only purpose of marriage. Society has allowed many marriages for which that primary purpose is not applicable, elderly or infertile or intentionally childless couples. Blankenhorn will have to explain how these couples meet the standard of the primary purpose or admit that there are secondary purposes.

Blankenhorn must then argue that the secondary purposes for marriage – those which make marriage appropriate and worth social approval for those childless couples – are present in heterosexual sterile couples but absent in same-sex couples. This will not, I believe, be easy to accomplish.

3. Blankenhorn will also have to explain the exceptions that society and the law have made for heterosexual couples whose marriages do not meet the standard of tying natural parents to their natural children. Why, if a state recognizes divorce, second and third marriages, and adoption, then what is it about same-sex couples that more-greatly separates children from their natural parents?

He may argue that opposite sex couples, even those who are not natural parents, are more successful at raising children than same-sex couples and thus deserve preference and privilege. But, unlike in media campaigns, he’ll have to explain the evidence which does not agree with that assertion.

4. Blankenhorn’s assumptions about marriage ignore history – fairly recent history.

Anyone who has done genealogical research knows that the nuclear family was rare until recently. I’ve traced my family back in this country for four hundred years and, at least in my lineage, a family of full brothers and sisters raised by their natural parents was an exception rather than the rule. Early death was not infrequent and second and third marriages with various step children was a common occurrence.

5. And finally, Blankenhorn’s assumptions about marriage ignore liturgy. Consider the vows made at a wedding. They generally go something like this (from the Anglican Church):

I take you to be my wife, to have and to hold from this day forward; for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part; according to God’s holy law.

In the presence of God I make this vow.

and

I give you this ring as a sign of our marriage. With my body I honour you, all that I am I give to you, and all that I have I share with you,
within the love of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

In a Catholic wedding the priest will also ask the couple if they will “accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church”. But this is not the focus of the wedding. And I’ve never been at a protestant wedding in which the participants vowed to have children, to raise children, or even to consider the possibility.

It’s possible to argue that Catholic marriages are solely about children, but that is to argue that the State should establish religion.

I don’t know in what context that Blankenhorn will discuss the marriage rates of foreign nations, something that I think may be a difficult subject for him to tackle. As best I can tell, Blankenhorn is not particularly authoritative about analysis of recent European marriage trends, though I may be mistaken.

He will also tell us what “everyone thinks” about marriage. Except, of course, those who do not.

I’m beginning to wonder if Blankenhorn’s sole purpose for inclusion in the case is to say, “see, even liberals who don’t hate gays oppose gay marriage.” I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Ugandan President To Pressure Anti-Gay Bill Sponsor

There is a post up on the blog for Uganda’s The Independent newspaper indicating that Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni and his cabinet will talk to MP David Bahati, the sponsor of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, in order “to reach a position that will leave both the local and international community satisfied.” Museveni reportedly made the announcement to members of his National Resistance Movement party.

The president\’s pronouncement attracted wild murmurs from the audience prompting him to repeat his statement. He said ever since the bill was tabled in the last quarter of last year; he has been receiving calls from various international figures including US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to find out updates on the proposed law. Museveni observed that the bill is affecting Uganda\’s image abroad. He said although there\’s need to protect Uganda\’s values, it also necessary to take care of concerns of the international community.

An earlier report went out on the blog’s RSS feed suggesting that the President intends to pressure Bahati into withdrawing the bill, but that post itself was withdrawn.

The Monitor, Uganda’s largest independent newspaper, also has a similar story posted moments ago:

President Museveni says that government will hold discussions with David Bahati, the Ndorwa West Member of parliament who tabled the bill which has been labled harsh to reach an agreed position. The president made the revelation today while opening the National Executive Conference of the ruling National Resistance Movement at State House Entebbe. Mr Museveni told the delegates that despite the fact that Uganda, has to protect its values and cultures, there is need to exercise extreme caution on the anti-gay bill. He said that the anti-gay bill is already impacting negatively on Uganda\’s foreign policy.

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

Box Turtle Bulletin Podcast, Listen In!

This is the inaugural episode of what we hope will be a regular podcast at Box Turtle Bulletin. The format we’ve tentatively agreed upon is a discussion of three topics that are prominent in the news. If our readers can think of topics they’d like to hear about, or have any other suggestions or comments, please let us know.

We are also working on making the podcast available on iTunes so that you can subscribe to the feed and have the episodes downloaded automatically on your mp3 player.

For this installment, you have Timothy, Jim and me (Gabriel) discussing the Prop. 8 trial, the Uganda situation, and the Portugal marriage decision:

Lutherans tells State Department that Uganda bill is “abhorrent injustice”

The Presiding Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to express the church’s grave concern over the Proposed Anti-Homosexuality bill in Uganda.

Here is a portion of his letter:

The ELCA is gravely concerned that this measure, introduced last year by Ugandan member of parliament David Bahati, would, in certain cases, impose the death penalty for persons convicted of “aggravated homosexuality.” Enactment of this kind of legislation would be an abhorrent injustice and outside the norms and standards of internationally-recognized human rights.

For the ELCA such an action would be inconsistent with various aspects of our church’s social policy, such as the social statements, including “Death Penalty” (1991), “For Peace in God’s World” (1995), and “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust” (2009), as well as the 1993 Church Council action related to “harassment, assault, and discrimination due to sexual orientation,” all of which affirm the foundational human dignity of each person created in the image of God.

We welcome this strong witness.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: first day highlights

As the trial is not, at present, available on YouTube, I am relying on the excellent liveblogging provided by the Courage Campaign’s Rick Jacobs. Here is how the first day went:

Ted Olson gave his opening remarks, laying out his case.

During this trial, Plaintiffs and leading experts in the fields of history, psychology, economics and political science will prove three fundamental points:

First – Marriage is vitally important in American society.

Second – By denying gay men and lesbians the right to marry, Proposition 8 works a grievous harm on the plaintiffs and other gay men and lesbians throughout California, and adds yet another chapter to the long history of discrimination they have suffered.

Third – Proposition 8 perpetrates this irreparable, immeasurable, discriminatory harm for no good reason.

Then Therese “Terry” Stewart, counsel for San Francisco, asserted that Proposition 8 was economically disadvantageous to the city. He argued that perceptions of second class citizenship lead to hate crimes, a cost that can be avoided.

Charles Cooper, counsel for Protect Marriage is going to show that marriage is about children in a nuclear family, that gay people are powerful and not disadvantaged and that gay marriage would lead to higher divorce rates and lower rates of marriage. It appears that he will be relying predominantly on the testimony of David Blankenhorn.

The supporters of Proposition 8 seem to have argued the peculiar idea that none of the ads they ran encouraging voters to vote for the proposition should be admissible. The judge isn’t buying it, but the ridiculous Gathering Storm ad was not allowed because it was produced after the election.

The proponents, Jeffrey Zarrillo, Paul Katami, Kristin Perry, and Sandra Stier testify about how not being allowed to marry disadvantages their lives and makes them feel unequal. Opposing counsel chooses not to cross examine the women.

Finally Professor Nancy Cott, author of Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation provides testimony about how marriage is not just a contract between two people but a contract between individuals and their state. She discusses the history of marriage in our nation, how it is unique from other nations, and how it was the definitive indication of a free people.

From the liveblog

The ability to marry, to say I do, is a civil right. It demonstrates liberty. This can be seen in American history when slaves could not legally marry. As unfreed persons, they could not consent. They lacked that very basic liberty of person to say I do which meant they were taking on the state\’s obligates and vice versa. A slave could not take on that set of obligations because they were not free.

When slaves were emancipated, they flocked to get married. IT was not trivial to them by any means. They saw the ability to replace the informal unions with legalized vows that the state would protect. One quotation, the title of an article, “The marriage covenant is the foundation of all our rights,” said a former slave who became a northern soldier. The point here is that this slave built his life on that civil right.

She refers to Dred Scott who tried to claim he was a citizen. He was denied that claim. Justice Tawny spent three paragraphs saying that marriage laws in the state in which Dred Scott was prevented him from marrying a white woman was a stigma that made him less than a full citizen. It was a piece of evidence that shows that he could not be a full citizen.

This is some pretty heady stuff.

Grassroots Adventists seek denunciation of draconian anti-gay bill from Uganda Adventist leader who endorsed it

In response to objections made by members of their own church about the statements of endorsement from John Kakembo, the president of the Uganda Union Mission, the Seventh-day Adventist Church issued a tepid statement. They did not mention Kakembo by name, denounce the bill, or demand that he retract his endorsement.

This limited reaction has not been satisfactory to Adventists of good conscience. Spectum Magazine’s Alexander Carpenter has asked his fellow churchmembers to contact Kakembo directly and express what such statements do to their Christ-like witness and their religious liberty work.

Since I believe that letter writing campaigns like this should follow a bottom-up approach as outlined in Matthew 18:15-20, I would encourage folks to address their letters to John Kakembo at the Uganda Union Mission.

The quarterly magazine Adventist Today is joining the effort on their blog site and is encouraging readers to join Spectrum’s advocacy.

As this issue is of concern to all of good will irrespective of their personal views concerning the nature of homosexual orientation and the Adventist Church’s manner of relating to this community, Adventist Today appreciates that Alexander Carpenter has given us permission to post this as well.

In contrast, the weekly Adventist Review only reports the vague statement, choosing instead to emphasize that Kakembo only endorses the non-death penalty portions of the bill.

Even if the death penalty were removed, the bill 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 imprisonment for life.
• 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 of seven years.
• criminalize “promoting” homosexuality with fines and imprisonment of 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 could also be used against anyone extending counseling or otherwise aiding gay people. 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 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 of up to three years.
• label landlords and hotel owners as proprietors of “brothels” and penalizes them with five to seven years imprisonment 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.

Adventists of good will can sincerely differ about the manner in which to interpret and apply scripture. One need not find homosexual behavior to be a morally acceptable option for one’s own life to oppose criminalization, oppression, and discrimination.

If you are an Adventist who finds the above proposal abhorrent, are shocked that the president of the Uganda Union Mission would endorse these provisions, and are ashamed that your church has been unwilling to vociferously and aggressively work against this bill, I encourage you to let your voice be heard.

(I’d STRONGLY advise others not to participate in this process as it could be counter-productive)

Head of Uganda’s Catholic Church Rejects Anti-Gay Bill

Uganda’s largest independent newspaper The Monitor reports:

The titular head of the Catholic Church in Uganda has weighed in on the proposed anti-homosexuality law, saying he rejects it because it is “at odds with the core values” of Christians. But while Kampala Archbishop Cyprian Lwanga\’s opposition to the 2009 Anti-Homosexuality Bill is based on compassion, the cleric retains the view that homosexuality is immoral and violates God\’s will. “The Bible says homosexuality is strictly forbidden,” Dr Lwanga said in a statement made public yesterday.

“However, the Church equally teaches the Christian message of respect, compassion, and sensitivity. The Church has always asked its followers to hate the sin but to love the sinner… In our view, the proposed [law] is not necessary considering that acts of sodomy are already condemned in the Penal Code.”

…Still, in a country where homosexuality is taboo and where many preachers have condemned gays, Dr Lwanga\’s comments will be seen as unlikely opposition to a piece of legislation that proposes death or life imprisonment for gay people.

Based on the Montor’s reporting, it appears that the Bishop may have rejected the entire Anti-Homosexuality Bill, and not just the death penalty provision. The Monitor carefully distinguishes this difference between the Catholic bishop’s position and that of the Anglican Church in Uganda:

Essentially, however, Dr Lwanga\’s views run counter to the position of Uganda\’s Anglican community, whose leaders have supported the proposed law but opposed the death penalty, and alienate junior priests who have expressed contrary views. In Uganda\’s Pentecostal community, where pastors like Martin Ssempa have supported the proposed law in its current shape, homophobia is even more intense.

About 42% of Ugandans are Roman Catholic.

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

Liveblog and Twitter will cover Perry v. Schwarzenegger

Although the US Supreme Court has a hold on video coverage of the Federal court challenge to Proposition 8, those in attendance are providing detail.

GoodAsYou has a twitter trail of comments and the Courage Campaign’s Rick Jacobs is live blogging at prop8trialtracker.com

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: a very Republican conversation

Vaughn R. Walker, the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, is a Republican. He was nominated for the bench by Republican President George H.W. Bush.

And though independently minded, Walker has taken positions in the past that show him not to be universally a gay advocate. In fact, Walker’s first nomination (by President Ronald Reagan) was held up due to controversy over a gay-related issue. Walker was representing the US Olympic Committee in their demand that the Gay Olympics (now the Gay Games) not be allowed to use “Olympics” in their name.

So when lead co-counsel Republican Ted Olson speaks to the court, it will be a very Republican conversation. This is important to recall when anti-gay activists scream about judicial activism and the bias of the court – which they have already begun to do.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger opening statements not to be taped

From the Washington Post

The Supreme Court on Monday morning temporarily blocked a federal judge in San Francisco from showing on YouTube proceedings from a trial that will determine whether a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

The court’s decision is not the final word; the stay sought by same-sex marriage opponents expires Wednesday. The court said that will permit justices “further consideration.” The trial is scheduled to start Monday.

Let us hope that the rest of the trial will be available to the public and not limited to those handful able to obtain a seat in the San Francisco courthouse.

Mixed Messages Can Lead to Violence

Uganda\’s government is now considering the passage of antigay laws that would, among other punishments, impose life imprisonment or even the death sentence on those who engage in homosexual behavior.

Equally disturbing, and as reported in Box Turtle Bulletin and now in the mainstream media, was the role played by American evangelical Christians, including members of a so-called ex-gay movement that believes homosexuality can be “cured.”  As noted in a New York Times editorial last week, these Americans were part of a process that initiated this hateful legislation by giving a series of talks in Uganda last March to “thousands of police officers, teachers and politicians in which, according to participants and audio recordings, [they claimed] that gays and lesbians are a threat to Bible-based family values.”

The evangelical Christians who went to Uganda are now saying, somewhat disingenuously, that they had no idea their condemnatory words might lead to such a violent outcome.  What could they have been thinking?

Typically, many antigay activists, while condemning homosexuality, claim they actually love the sinners (gay men and women) but hate their sins (the act of engaging in homosexual behavior).  For example, Focus on the Family for many years sponsored a series of antigay workshops around the country called “Love Won Out” where motivational speakers claimed that homosexuality could be “changed.”

For gay people, whose same sex attractions feel like an essential part of who they are, this is not a loving message. For most gay people, hating “homosexuality” means hating gay people.  Similarly, not all heterosexuals who hear the mixed message of love and condemnation can psychologically separate “homosexuals” from their homosexuality. Violent gay-bashers, for example, often attack people who they believe “look gay” or who may just be walking around a gay neighborhood. This unitary frame of mind appears to have shaped the legislation being considered in Uganda:  Want to stamp out homosexuality?  Stamp out the “homosexuals.”

Is antigay violence an inevitable outgrowth of moral condemnations of homosexuality?  Not always.  In the wake of a growing international outcry, many American evangelicals who oppose gay civil rights in this country are now condemning the Ugandan legislation\’s harshest measures.

However, one lesson “traditional values” advocates might take from this experience is that claims of “loving” gay people while condemning their homosexuality can lead to the kind of violent responses being contemplated in Uganda.  Do the preachers of a mixed message of love and hate bear responsibility for the hateful acts that may ensue?  Now that they have seen some of the consequences of such messaging, they do from now on.

The author, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, is Emeritus Editor of the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health.

Scott Lively Endorses “Revised” Ugandan Bill. Do Exodus And Cohen?

Scott Lively issued a statement dated today saying that he now supports the “revised” Anti-Homosexuality Bill. We have no idea what the revisions might be. Media reports indicate that it’s merely an elimination of the death-penalty provision, leaving the life imprisonment aspect intact, which is hardly an improvement given the prospect of spending the rest of one’s life rotting away in a Ugandan prison. Lively indicates that there is a forced conversion option, which would please him to no end. Of course, without knowing what the text of the “revised” bill might be, we have no way of verifying any of his claims which must be taken with a grain of salt.

In the lead-in to his statement, Lively says:

“I can\’t say that I necessarily agree with every element of the revised bill, but I believe this revision is an acceptable compromise under the circumstances and well within the prerogative of a civilized sovereign nation”

The bill, as currently written, has the following provisions:

• 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 of seven years.
• Criminalizes “promoting” homosexuality with fines and imprisonment of 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 could also be used against anyone extending counseling or otherwise aiding gay people. 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 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 of up to three years.
• Labels landlords and hotel owners as proprietors of “brothels” and penalizes them with five to seven years imprisonment 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.

Since Lively has lent his endorsement to a revised version of this bill apparently sight unseen. Assuming the death penalty is stricken and the alternative to rotting away the rest of one’s life in a dank Ugandan prison is the false “choice” of forced conversion, it is incumbent upon him to answer which of these provisions he thinks are “well within the prerogative of a civilized sovereign nation”?

Let’s face it, Scott Lively is irredeemably evil, fully earning his three spots on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of anti-gay hate groups. But what about the others? Exodus International board member Don Schmierer and International Healing Foundation’s Caleb Lee Brundidge cast their lot with Lively when they agreed to speak on the same platform with him. They haven’t fully condemned his continuing agitation in Uganda for a bill that he calls “a step in the right direction.” And, more importantly, they haven’t condemned Scott Lively’s hate-filled vendetta itself.

In fact, when Exodus International removed their link to Lively’s online condensed version of The Pink Swastika (which blames gays for Nazism and the Holocaust), they kept the tantalizing title “Homosexuality and the Nazi Party” which a quick Internet search lands the unsuspecting searcher onto Lively’s exercise in Holocaust revisionism. As for the link, Exodus now explains, “This opinion article by Scott Lively from 1995 is no longer offered by Exodus International.” Why not? Is it because they suddenly found Lively’s article objectionably after having provided that link since at least 2005? Or is it just because the “research” is out of date or that it’s no longer hosted on LeadershipU’s web site? Nobody knows and Exodus appears satisfied with that ambiguity. As of tonight, it’s still there. International Healing Foundation’s Richard Cohen hasn’t denounced Lively either for that matter.

Since they have not unambiguously disentangled themselves from Lively himself, their reputations remain entangled in his ongoing meddling in Uganda’s legislative process. And with that entanglement, they need to answer these questions: Do they agree than any part of this bill is a step in the right direction? If so, which parts?

Now more than ever, it is incumbent on Exodus president Alan Chambers, Cohen, Brundidge and Schmierer to fully and resolutely condemn Scott Lively and the other provisions of this bill, and issue a full apology to the LGBT citizens of Uganda who are suffering from the public vigilante campaigns which their conference sparked. They need to do this now before the idea of a “revised” bill being acceptable gains any further ground. It is long past time for them to call out evil by name.

But as I said, I doubt they will. To date, none of them have shown the integrity, the guts, nor the authentic witness of the Christian faith that they claim to hold so dear. Unless they separate themselves completely, forcefully, and without reservation from this unconscionable mess, 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 recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Uganda’s Public Vigilante Campaign Continues To Claim Victims

Uganda’s latest anti-gay public vigilante campaign, which was re-ignited following an anti-gay conference put on by three American anti-gay extremists, continues to claim victims. The notorious tabloid Red Pepper has one story in this morning’s edition of one lesbian couple who barely escaped a lynch mob. According to the tabloid though, they are still in hiding from the police:

The naughty girls, hitherto residents of Kawaala in Rubaga Division, a Kampala suburb, sneaked out of cops\’ hands after being rescued from the angry residents who nearly forced them into an instant meeting with their creator.

This, according to police sources, followed Mikki\’s courageous manner when she called-in on one of the several city radio stations and demanded for her ‘rights\’ as a gay, hence attracting the residents concern who reasoned she had tarnished their village\’s reputation.Police then intervened and rescued the girls from the looming mob.

December 30, 2009 edition of the Red Pepper (Click to enlarge)

Earlier this morning, BTB’s Timothy Kincaid noted an article in the New Zealand Herald of an HIV/AIDS physician who was named by the Red Pepper as being a “gay tycoon” with a Rwandan lover. The Herald lays blame for the latest public vigilantism squarely on the March 3-5 conference that we first reported on last February:

The anti-gay push in Uganda followed a three-day visit by a trio of controversial Americans whose teachings on homosexuals have been widely discredited in the US. The evangelical Christians are: Caleb Lee Brundidge, who describes himself as a former gay man and offers “healing” sessions; Scott Lively, a missionary who writes on protecting children from gay recruiters; and Don Schmierer, who works with Exodus International, an anti-gay church group.

Participants at the Kampala talks describe hearing about the “hidden gay agenda” in which homosexual men convert boys by sodomising them and how gays can be made straight. The appearance of the anti-homosexuality bill so soon after has been blamed on the evangelicals, especially as the bill’s sponsor, David Bahati, claims to have friends in America’s religious right.

Videos obtained jointly by BTB and Ex-Gay Watch fully confirm those descriptions of the infamous March 5-7 conference.

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