Box Turtle Bulletin

Uganda’s “Kill Gays” Bill Still Has American Defenders, Death Penalty And All

Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton has a rundown on several American evangelicals who support Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill, with some even supporting the death penalty or explaining it away by lying about its application. One post by Joel McDurmon appeared on the American Vision web site, appropriately titled “A Perfect Hatred.” He writes:

Where God says a civil crime deserves the death penalty, I propose that we keep in step with the first greatest commandment and recognize His total sovereignty in heart, soul, strength, and mind…. Now, it just so happens that God revealed that the homosexual act is a civil crime, and it just so happens that He revealed that the homosexual act as a civil crime deserves the death penalty.

Larry Jacobs of the World Congress of Families rushed to defend Exodus International board member Don Schmierer, but offered not one word of criticism of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill which came on the aftermath of Schmierer’s March 5-7 conference in Kampala. He didn’t even bother to mention the death penalty provisions.

Warren also noted one article by Cliff Kincaid which earned a LaBarbera Award from BTB’s Timothy Kincaid (no relation), but that’s not the only example from this guy. In another post Cliff Kincaid complains that criticizing the wide-ranging bill amounts to “bashing” Uganda’s Christians, metaphorical language that is insulting in the extreme to those gays and lesbians who have actually been physically bashed bodily, sometimes to death.

If you know of other examples of American supporters of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, feel free to leave them in comments at Warren Throckmorton’s web site.

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

Australian Quakers call for marriage equality

Press release:

Australian Quakers, meeting in their annual meeting in Adelaide today, called on the Federal Government to amend the Marriage Act to give full and equal legal recognition to all marriages, regardless of the sexual orientation and gender of the partners.

‘Australian Quakers celebrated our first same sex marriage in 2007 and seeking legal recognition for such unions is consistent with our long held spiritual belief in the equality of all people\’, said Lyndsay Farrall, Presiding Clerk of Australia Yearly Meeting.

A reminder that gay marriage bans really are about religious freedom, the freedom denied to those faiths that wish to honor and treat their gay and straight parishioners equally.

New Zealand Herald looks at gay scapegoating by African leaders

Life is becoming dangerous in Kampala for Dr. Paul Semugoma (NZHerald.com)

“They are saying that I’m the ‘gay tycoon’, spreading the infectious disease of homosexuality in Uganda,” he says with a bitter laugh. “It’s such nonsense.”

In reality, he is a respected doctor who has volunteered his time to help with HIV and safe sex education programmes and writes a weekly medical advice column for a popular newspaper.

But in the last month he has been publicly outed as a homosexual four times with government officials offering money to anyone willing to inform on his private life.

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

Dr. Semugoma had been named in Uganda’s notorious tabloid Red Pepper as one of the “city tycoons who bankroll Ugandan homos.” Although Box Turtle Bulletin has focused a good deal on the situation in Uganda over the last year, the proposal to execute gays or imprison them for life is but the most drastic measure in a continent-wide effort by politicians to blame their nations’ ills on the “Western import” of homosexuality.

Writing for the New Zealand Herald, Daniel Howden provides a picture of a picture of Africa that is disconcerting. In addition to Uganda and the Milawi couple being held without bail,

“Sodomy laws”, legislation criminalising same-sex intercourse, are under consideration in new commonwealth member Rwanda and in neighbouring Burundi.

In Nigeria, a bill awaiting legislative action would impose criminal penalties for engaging in or performing same sex marriage ceremonies.

In Senegal, nine men, including a prominent HIV prevention worker, were sentenced to eight years in prison last year for “engaging in acts against the order of nature”.

Their sentences were commuted to a fine and they were finally released three months later after an international outcry.
…
The current anti-homosexual crackdown is drawing worldwide attention, but 38 out of 53 African countries had already criminalised consensual gay sex.

And in many cases, sodomy laws had remained on the books from the colonial era.

In many ways the Western world is only just beginning to realize the extent to which homophobia and homohatred has become instilled in African cultures. And it is just now beginning to see the danger of western missionaries stirring the fires of bigotry into conflagrations that they cannot control.

Let’s hope that with increased knowledge will come increased responsibility. Sadly, so far, those who have been most guilty have shown no desire to accept or acknowledge their responsibility.

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

Jeff Sharlet Responds: “We Agree On Central Points… Ugandan Bill Is Wrong and Must Be Stopped.”

Continuing in our quest to to understand the role of American religious conservatives in African politics, we posted yesterday a comment by Bob Hunter, an associate with the heretofore secretive religious group known as The Family. In that comment, Hunter provided a brief excerpt from a transcript which he says supports his statements made on Rachel Maddow’s program earlier last week, and which were contested a few days later by Jeff Sharlet, author of The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power.

Late last night, Sharlet left this comment answering some of Hunter’s points.

I spoke to Bob Hunter this evening after this went up on Box Turtle. The bottom line is that we\’re in agreement on some central points: The bill, proposed and supported by men in relationship with the Family — David Bahati, James Nsaba Buturo, and Yoweri Museveni — is wrong and must be stopped; the Family has been too secretive, which has hindered its ability to take a stand; and Hunter is doing the right thing by going public in order to make that stand.

My use of the phrase “Jesus footing” was not derogatory. It was, as I told Bob tonight, in recognition of the Family\’s long stated goal of a “God-led government.” The particular document I had in mind — related to Senator Jim Inhofe\’s extensive work in Uganda on behalf of the Family — describes one aspect of the Africa work thusly:

“2. THE EXECUTION OF THE VISION
A. A congressman and/or Senator from the United States will befriend the leader of another country and tell him/her how Jesus and His teachings will help his country and its poor.
B. U.S. leader and foreign leader will select 5 men (mentors) from the foreign country to commit to learn about Jesus and how He will help themselves, their country and the poor.

“… We will teach the mentors to confess their sins (known or unknown) and to ask the Holy Spirit of Christ to live in them, and to teach them how to live, what to think and what to say.”

Bob says he\’s unfamiliar with this document. I believe him. There\’s a lot of paperwork in the Family. And, to be fair, Bob\’s pretty busy doing consumer advocacy work.

We also agreed that a there\’s no point in us having a pissing match here in America while Uganda burns, so to speak. So, in that spirit, I\’m going to take Bob\’s word that he was simply trying to clarify the record; accept his apology for saying that I\’ve disowned my book (a misunderstanding, he says); and leave the transcript above to speak for itself. It was an on the record conversation. “Bait” is “bait,” the use of a big name to bring people to the table behind the scenes. Whether that\’s a good approach is in the eye of the beholder. I think it\’s fair to say — and that Bob would at least in part agree – that in the case of Jim Inhofe, the fiercely anti-gay senator identified by a 2003-4 budget as responsible for maintaining relationships with leaders of 11 African nations, including Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi — the “bait” may have brought his own baggage.

But Hunter, thank God, is cut from a different cloth. The point is that Bob is trying to bring peace and human rights to Uganda. We can disagree about how to do that, we can even disagree about what constitutes “peace,” but right now, on the brink of murder, our disagreements don\’t matter as much as our common cause.

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

“Un-African” Homosexuality?

Many of those behind Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill complain that homosexuality is a foreign import, despite the ironic fact that it was Europeans who imposed bans on homosexuality on their African colonies — and despite the huge impetus given the current drive to legislate LGBT people out of existence by three American anti-gay extremists. The idea of homosexuality being somehow “un-African” is widely believed, despite being ignorant nonesense. Douglas Foster, writing for the Los Angeles Times, provides proof of that from his visits to a Johannesburg, South Africa gay nightclub which served as a haven for Africa’s gay diaspora:

To get to Simply Blue’s curved bar and large dance floor, patrons had to climb a long flight of stairs and go through a security pat-down. You could always spot newcomers because they usually sat off to the side in the shadows, on broken-down couches, their eyes wide and jaws slack. Many of them literally had had the idea beaten into them that they were part of a cursed, despicable, tiny minority.

There was the middle-aged man from Zimbabwe, formerly married, whose brother had plotted to have him killed because of the shame he’d brought to his family when he’d switched to dating men. There was a young Nigerian who lingered on the sidelines for weeks before inching out onto the dance floor, but then moved in an explosion of long-suppressed joy at finding himself dancing in public across from another man. I met an older fellow, a soft-spoken farmer from Uganda who’d raised his children before leaving his home, his wife and his country. He’d finally decided he couldn’t live to the end of his life without having the chance to express his truest self.

[Hat tip: BTB reader Regan DuCasse]

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

Uganda’s NTV Television Coverage of Conflicting Statements from Cabinet Members

I just discovered that NTV, Uganda’s independent television station run by the same media company that publishes The Monitor, has a YouTube channel. We reported yesterday on conflicting statements by Uganda’s cabinet members, some saying that the government will pressure MP David Bahati into withdrawing the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill, while others say the bill will proceed through Parliament. Here is NTV’s take as reported earlier this morning (or late evening in Uganda), January 9:

Here is NTV’s January 7 coverage of reaction to the New York Times editorial condemning the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

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

The likely real reason for Hak-Shing William Tam pulling out of Perry v. Schwarzenegger

Hak-Shing William Tam was one of five defendant-intervenors who petitioned the court to be allowed to defend Proposition 8 in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Today he requested that he be allowed to withdraw from the case (pdf).

He listed his reasons as being due to his fears of recognition and reprisals. He claimed that his life, and that of his family, could be in danger.

As evidence, he submitted examples of threats against him during the campaign including vandalism (his car’s tire was punctured while parked on the street without a Prop 8 bumper sticker but in front of a house with a yard sign), theft (some girl tried to steal his yard sign but ran away), death threats (someone left a vulgar comment on a YouTube video which Tam claims to “take very seriously”) and racism (other vulgar comments on his YouTube video).

However, his concerns about being recognized didn’t seem to have dissuaded Bill Tam from giving interviews and making videos and participating in debates during the campaign. And the worrisome issues didn’t give him enough concern to keep him from petitioning the court in May 2009 to be added as a defendant. And Tam provides no instances since May in which anyone recognizing him has been anything other than “friendly”.

He hasn’t even removed from availability the DVD he has called “FAQ: Same-Sex Marriage & Homosexuality” which explains the “Possible Cause of Same Sex Attraction and the Healing” (he has “many friends who went from homosexuality back to heterosexuality“).

But now Bill Tam has suddenly become reduced to a pile of quivering terror. Frankly, I don’t buy it.

However, in his declaration Tam makes a comment that may give us a better understanding of the real reason why the legal team defending Proposition 8 wants him off the case.

A second reason that I want to withdraw as a Defendant-Intervenor is that I do not like the burden of complying with discovery requests. I do not like people questioning me on my private personal beliefs. I do not like people questioning me regarding fourteen year old articles I wrote in the Chinese language to my constituents. I don’t like people focusing on a few articles I posted on my website regarding homosexuality and disregarding the 50 or 60 other articles I posted regarding family values subjects. I do not like the exposure of my history to people who are antagonistic to me.

He doesn’t say what was in the articles that “people” were questioning him about, but the AP gives us a clue:

In the months leading up the trial, lawyers for two unmarried same-sex couples on whose behalf the case was brought complained that Proposition 8’s sponsors were withholding evidence to which the plaintiffs were entitled by citing a letter they had uncovered written by Tam to members of his church during the campaign.

In the letter, Tam outlined what he described as the disastrous consequences for allowing gays to marry in California.

“One by one, other states would fall into Satan’s hands,” he wrote. “Every child, when growing up, would fantasize marrying someone of the same sex. More children would become homosexuals.”

The contents could come up in the trial because one of the issues is whether the measure’s backers were motivated by anti-gay bias.

But even Tam’s public statements during the campaign show clear anti-gay bias. In October 2008, Tam told a reporter with the San Jose Mercury News, “We hope to convince Asian-Americans that gay marriage will encourage more children to experiment with the gay lifestyle and that the lifestyle comes with all kinds of disease.”

That is likely among the tamer of Tam’s proclamations on the subject. I expect that the fourteen year old articles read like the denunciations of Jeremiah. And his website and history would probably provide a very clear illustration of the motivation of those who collected signatures, contributed time and money, and worked diligently to take away the basic rights of their gay neighbors.

Prop 8 supporters fight to keep cameras out of the courtroom

Judge Vaughn Walker has decided that the Olson-Boies case to find Proposition 8 in violation of the US Constitution will be recorded and available on YouTube. Those defending the proposition and seeking to keep California from legally recognizing same-sex marriages are desperate that this not happen.

Their public argument is that video coverage would turn the case into a “media circus” and that they would be targets of retribution. In a fiery denunciation of the judge’s decision, National Organization for Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher raged:

On Oct. 22, the Heritage Foundation released a report titled “The Price of Prop. 8,” which concluded that “supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry.”

To deliberately and needlessly expose these people to a new wave of publicity and attacks by televising the trial is outrageous.

And indeed one of the five official sponsors of Proposition 8 (whom I’ve never heard of) has requested to be removed from the case.

On Friday, Tam told U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker that he fears for his and his family’s safety. In his court filing, Tam’s lawyers say the trial will bring him unwanted publicity and expose him to retribution from gay marriage supporters.

Tam also says the case has been more time-consuming and more intrusive into his personal life than expected.

But what Gallagher and Tam and the other supporters of Proposition 8 fail to mention is that they volunteered for this case. In fact, when Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown expressed no interest in defending the initiative, Tam petitioned the court requesting that he be allowed to do so.

And their concern that they be identified or targeted seems disingenuous. The proceedings are not going to occur in a secluded and private setting where the witnesses will be kept a secret. Every witness will be known and every testimony blogged about.

Tam certainly got more media attention from dropping out of the case than he would have if he’d just gone through with it.

And yet they are frantic that there be no video. The supporters of Prop 8 appealed the judge’s decision, but yesterday they were denied (SJ Merc)

A federal appeals court on Friday rejected a bid by Proposition 8 supporters to block the broadcast of the upcoming trial involving a challenge to California’s same-sex marriage ban, refusing to stop a plan to post the proceedings on YouTube.

In a one-paragraph order, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the Proposition 8 campaign had not presented reason for “intervention by this court” in the broadcast issue.

But this wasn’t the end of their effort. They have now made an emergency application to the Supreme Court asking Justice Kennedy to block camera coverage. The Olson-Boies team has until noon on Sunday to respond (the case starts on Monday).

I do not believe Gallagher and the Prop 8 supporters’ public reasons for wishing to keep the trial from being recorded. I think that their true motivation is better understood from another argument they made. (Law.com)

Lawyers representing the Yes on 8 campaign objected to any broadcast beyond an overflow room in the San Francisco federal building, arguing that witnesses would be intimidated, or change their testimony. [emphasis added]

Change their testimony?

If their witnesses are telling the truth, wouldn’t their testimony be the same in either case?

It seems not. And here is why.

There is a record made of every word said at every trial. But this record generally is not readily accessible to the public. Words said, arguments made, all are lost to dusty volumes and forgotten.

Further, few people ever hear or read what any individual witness has to say. In a high profile trial, reporters will provide the gist of a testimony or paraphrase but the public doesn’t really hear or see

But a video recording of testimony makes their words accessible and permanent. There will be transcripts posted across the internet and for the rest of our lives there will be ready and immediate access to video of each witness making statements in support of banning gay Californians from marrying.

And clearly some of their witnesses are reluctant to testify publicly. They want to say words that the public will never hear and for which they will never be held accountable.

What is it that they don’t want the public to know? What are they reluctant to say in front of the voters who they claim to defend?

“Those who want to ban gay marriage spent millions of dollars to reach the public with misleading ads, rallies and news conferences during the campaign to pass Prop. 8. We are curious why they now fear the publicity they once craved,” said Chad Griffin, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. “Apparently transparency is their enemy, but the people deserve to know exactly what it is they have to hide.”

I suspect that regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit, this case is a winner for us. This lawsuit will expose the intents, methods, and agenda of those who oppose equality. And video of their testimony will be, I believe, a very valuable tool to achieving equality.

And voter initiative battles will never be the same.

Gallagher and crew aren’t afraid that they will be targeted for hateful email or a vengeful grocery clerk squishing their tomatoes. They aren’t worried that their witness will have someone call them a bigot.

I think that what they truly fear is that what they have to say in court will look ugly and obscene when played on the news or in commercials during the next “protect marriage” battle.

“Family” Member Defends Statements Made To Rachel Maddow, Provides Transcript of Conversation With Sharlet

In the context of understanding the role of American religious conservatives in African politics, particularly in Uganda, there has been a back-and-forth between Jeff Sharlet, author of The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power., and Bob Hunter, an organizer affiliated with the Family working in Uganda.

On the 7th, Sharlet appeared on Rachel Maddow\’s show. He asserted that statements by Hunter on a previous episode were inconsistent with his conversation with Hunter and that both he and Hunter had a copy of the transcript of that conversation.

Hunter also included a letter he sent to Rachel Maddow, reinforcing his contention that he did not know Ethics and Integrity Minister James Nsaba Buturo personally, and “had not even heard of him until this story broke, even from my Uganda friends.” But, as with the rest of us, he has learned of him since then in connection with the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

The following comment was made to the thread of our posting about that appearance:

Hi, Bob Hunter here.

I thought you might like to see the transcript of the interview Jeff Sharlet and I had, where I make clear that the reason a Senator and a former UN Ambassador were willing to be “bait” was not about a “Jesus footing”, whatever that is (I have never used the phrase) but about trying to bring peace to Uganda. It worked, eventually helping create a few friends from various political perspectives, meeting around the teachings of Jesus about loving enemies and turning cheeks. Here is the transcript that makes this clear:

Hunter’s transcript of this interview is available after the jump.

Seventh-day Aventists update their statement on the Ugandan legislation

Yesterday we noted that the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Uganda had endorsed the Anti-Homosexuality bill which, in its current form, would incarcerate for life any gay person that touched another and which had death penalty provisions, including for “repeat offenders”, a very broadly defined category.

We also noted that the response of the church in America to having this brought to their attention was woefully vague. It could have meant most anything, including their endorsement of the bill. Today they have a new statement:

Church leadership noted with concern some statements reportedly made by the Uganda Union Mission Executive Director in connection with the Anti-Homosexuality Bill under consideration in Uganda. These views do not reflect the values of the Church as expressed in published statements on same sex conduct.

Seventh-day Adventists continue to affirm the equal dignity and rights of every person as articulated in the relevant international human rights declarations and Covenants.

–Rajmund Dabrowski, Communication Director

While this is more informative, it is far from an unequivocal opposition to this piece of legislation. And considering that many other Christian voices – including those who do not need to reverse public statements of endorsement – have been clear in their opposition, I think that the church does a disservice to itself by speaking in generalities.

It would well serve the integrity of the church to clearly state that they, as a body, oppose the criminalization of non-coercive same-sex behavior and support the rights of gay persons to live in freedom.

If, indeed, that is what they mean.

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

Deacon succinctly lays out Catholic objection to marriage equality

Writing in Catholic Online, Deacon Keith Fournier laments that courts have treated Janet Jenkins with respect and honored the commitments that she and Lisa Miller made. In the midst of his tirade, is a sentence that epitomizes the attitudes of those who rally forth to oppose equality.

They want the State to treat homosexual partnerships as the equivalent of marriage, thereby denying real marriage and the family founded upon it, the favored legal place it has long held as the first society.

It is not that they wish to “preserve tradition” or “uphold the definition” or are “worried about the children”. Those are just subterfuges presented to the media to distract from the real reason.

No, they truly believe that they deserve a favored legal place and that our lives, our relationships and our very citizenship is inferior to their own.

Ugandan MP Refuses To Withdraw Anti-Gay Bill

Late last night, we noticed an item in Uganda’s largest independent newspaper reporting that the Ugandan Minister of State for Investment Aston Kajara said that the government would ask MP David Bahati to withdraw the Anti-Homosexuality Bill due to backlash from foreign investors. Now the Associated Press reports that MP David Bahati, the lawmaker who introduced the private member’s bill, will not back down:

“I stand by the bill,” Bahati said. “I will not withdraw it. We have our children in schools to protect against being recruited into (homosexuality). The process of legislating a law to protect our children against homosexuality and defending our family values must go on.”

Ethics and Integrity Minister James Nsaba Buturo also insists that debate on the bill will take place in about three weeks, claiming that “there is no way government can withdraw that bill.” He also warns that any elected politician who opposed the legislation would be comitting “political suicide.” Parliamentary and presidential elections are scheduled for 2011.

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

Portugal parliament approves marriage equality

Portugal’s legislature has approved a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. (The Guardian)

Right-of-centre parties opposed the change and sought a national referendum on the issue, but their proposal was rejected and the government’s bill was passed by 125 votes to 99.

The bill now goes to a committee and back to parliament for a second vote before being presented to the President.

The conservative president, Aníbal Cavaco Silva, is thought unlikely to veto the socialist government’s bill, which won the support of all left-of-centre parties. His ratification would allow the first gay marriage ceremonies to take place in April, a month before Pope Benedict XVI is due on an official visit to Portugal.

Portugal will be the eighth nation (sixth in Europe) to recognize same sex marriages.

Parliament did not, however, pass a second bill which would allow adoption by same-sex couples.

Don Schmierer “sets the record straight”

We tried diligently to get Don Schmierer to not go to Uganda. He went anyway.

We tried desperately to get Don Schmierer to speak out against the legislation proposed in Uganda to execute gay Ugandans or imprison them for life. He was silent.

In fact, Schmierer ignored us and the results of his international anti-gay activism until he was exposed on Rachel Maddow’s show. Then he issued a statement that appeared to be in conflict with the facts as we knew them to be.

Now he has told the Fox affiliate in Sacramento that it’s all a misunderstanding.

He says he thought he was preaching about open communication in parenting.

But now that his inbox is being flooded with hate-mail he says it’s all a misunderstanding.

“I’m trying to help people understand the differences and how to communicate and how to listen to each other.”

If Mr. Schmierer wishes to communicate, he knows how to reach us. If he wishes to clear up any misunderstandings, he can explain why his version of events contradict the video, news reports, and first hand accounts from the conference. We’d be happy to let him set the record straight – accurately, this time.

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

New Jersey roll call

The New Jersey Senators voted as follows:

Those voting for equality:

Buono – D
Codey – D
Cunningham – D
Gill – D
Gordon – D
Lesniak – D
Ruiz – D
Scutari – D
Smith – D
Stack – D
Vitale – D
Weinberg – D
Whalen – D
Baroni – R

Those voting to keep same-sex relationships inferior:

Girgenti – D
Madden – D
Rice – D
Sacco – D
Turner – D
Van Drew – D
Bateman – R
Beck – R
Bucco – R
Cardinale – R
Connors – R
Doherty – R
Haines – R
S. Kean – R
T. Kean – R
Kyrillos – R
Oroho – R
O’Toole – R
Pennacchio – R
Singer – R

Those not voting:

Beach – D
Sarlo – D
Sweeney – D
Allen -R
Ciesla – R