Pope remains silent on "kill the gays" bill

Pope Benedict XVI (left) recently met with Catholic officials from Uganda at the Vatican to address issues facing the African country. One would assume that this might be the opportunity to discuss the bill before the Ugandan legislature that would put gays in jail for life or put them to death.  Surely stopping the murder of a group of people would be a Christian value.

Not for this pope.

As the website lezbereal.com notes,  "Pope Benedict XVI has not historically been one to keep quiet on issues facing sovereign nations. Most recently he has criticised the UK for trying to enact comprehensive equality legislation, yet still expects the country to foot the bill for his lavish visit. Spanish and Canadian legislators have been taunted and threatened with denial of communion or even excommunication for supporting equality for gays and lesbians, or access to abortion. He has called the parenting of children by lesbians and gays, child abuse."

The Pope's silence on the issue --especially when he has the Ugandan clergy as an audience -- is inexcusable.  Here's a quote from the website Jewish Virtual Library about the Catholic Church's stance during the Holocaust: 

Pope Pius XII's (1876-1958) actions during the Holocaust remain controversial. For much of the war, he maintained a public front of indifference and remained silent while German atrocities were committed. He refused pleas for help on the grounds of neutrality, while making statements condemning injustices in general. Privately, he sheltered a small number of Jews and spoke to a few select officials, encouraging them to help the Jews.

While the scope of the possible "kill the gay bill" in Uganda and the Holocaust can't possibly be compared, we can certainly acknowledge the similarity of innocent people punished or being put to death because of who they are.  And, unfortunately, we are seeing another similarity: the Pope's silence in the face of these atrocities.

It seems that the Catholic Church has learned nothing from history.

News bits

1. The Daily Monitor is reporting that Uganda’s President, Mr. Museveni, has informed the U.S. State Department that if the anit-gay legislation which includes the death penalty passes, he will veto the legislation.  Some Republican congressmen have also written a letter urging the Ugandan Parliament not to pass the law.  Let's be real here: none of this would have happened without intense pressure and great reporting by some in the media, especially Rachel Maddow (above).  Without the pressure, members of Congress and Rick Warren would have remained silent.

2. Officials from Washington, DC have filed a request that the court throw out a suit to make the recent same-sex marriage vote in the city a referendum question.  The Board of Elections and Ethics already ruled that the matter could not be put on the ballot because it involves a civil rights issue.  It's nice to see the government working on our side, for once.

3. The anti-marriage equality people in Iowa are working to take away same-sex marriage rights by trying to put the issue on the ballot.  The process is lengthy, however, and requires two legislative votes in two consecutive years before a referendum can reach the voters. Lets hope by the time a referendum is possible that enough hearts and minds will have changed to defeat it.


4. The Roman Catholic Church is petitioning the courts for a referendum in Mexico City to overturn the council's vote for same-sex marriage. Meanwhile, the Vatican has not uttered one word about the death penalty law being discussed in Uganda. What does that mean?


5. Studio bosses are drinking double time over Robert Downey Jr.'s suggestion on David Letterman that Sherlock Holmes, Downey's latest role, might be gay.  Apparently, some studio executives are not too pleased with Downey's appearance on Letterman.  One publicist said that they didn't want the movie to become Brokeback Mountain 2.  It wasn't the first time Downey has hinted at his character's sexual orientation.  Earlier he had said that the movie was about "two men who happen to be room-mates, wrestle a lot and share a bed." 


6.  This has nothing to do with gay anything, but liberal icons Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins have split and this makes me surprisingly sad.

Such courage in Uganda

The blog GayUganda ran an extraordinary story of courage yesterday.  As is by now well known, there is a bill before the government that would make homosexuality punishable by death.  Anyone who knows of a gay person and does not report that person within 24 hours is subject to three years in prison.  Whether or not this bill passes, it's pretty clear that some bill will pass and that homosexuality will be criminalized. In this environment, it's hard to believe anyone would publicly self identify as LGBT.  But not only did one gay couple do just that, they had a commitment ceremony in the country.

The writer of the blog, a gay man invited to the wedding, describes the ceremony at length.  Here are a few of his observations.  The police described did not know that a same-sex ceremony was going on inside the compound.

An enclosed compound, which was secured. Two armed policemen at the gate. Well, we can hire the police, like all other Ugandans. The details of the ceremony is our damned business. As long as they keep out inquisitive others. And, they did try to.

Music, talking, ritualized counseling. They happened, the kuchus now happy that the secret was out. They were delirious with joy. Two of their number were actually coming out and making their partnership official. In the traditional way. Such gossip has wings. Crowd at the gate grew big. They wanted to know what was happening inside, in the compound. The rumours were too tantalizing. The music, the atmosphere of gaiety too tempting. They wanted to know.

And these final words, which say everything:

        They were stupid. They were human. I love their stupidity and humanity.

        Err, the punishment for this ‘gay marriage’ in the Bahati/Benson Anti-Homosexuality Bill in parliament now?

        Life imprisonment for the Happy Couple. For us the celebrants, 3 years in prison if we  fail to reveal the marriage to police within 24 hours.  If we are not lynched by the       enraged crowd 

        Sadly, now we have to deal with the backlash.

        It was an exceedingly stupid, incredibly foolish thing to do.

        It was, and is, human. Poignantly, absolutely, completely human.

The BBC makes a weak attempt at an apology

A few days ago I wrote about the on-line BBC discussion entitled, "Should Homosexuals Face Execution?" Well, the BBC has apologized. But according to the Associated Press, it was the title of the debate, not the substance, that the BBC management agreed was offensive:

BBC World Service director Peter Horrocks wrote in a blog posted on the broadcaster's Web site: "We apologize for any offense it caused." He said the headline was too stark in hindsight. Editors had changed it to "Should Uganda debate gay execution?" after they closed down the debate.

In its apology, the BBC defended their decision to debate the Ugandan bill.  I'm all for freedom of speech and won't question the station's right to debate whatever it wants. But can anyone think of a time in recent history when a British news organization posed the question of whether a class of people should actually be put to death? 

Unfortunately, the ensuing debate brought out the worst in people.  It was clear that the very question gave some people who commented on the BBC website a chance to spew their hate.  What were the folks at the BBC thinking?  How could you possible have a reasoned argument for killing a group of people for no other reason than who they are?

Are you kidding me?

The BBC has come under heavy criticism for hosting an online debate on whether or not gay people should be executed.  Politicians in the UK have demanded an apology from the network.  It really does boggle the mind.  What were they thinking?  I hadn't realized there was a rational argument for slaughtering people because of who they are. 


Here's what the excellent blogger Joe Jervis write about the BBC "debate":

Premoderated posts included one from Chris, Guildford, posted at 8.59am, which attracted 51 recommendations of support. He wrote: "Totally agree. Ought to be imposed in the UK too, asap. Bring back some respectable family values. Why do we have to suffer 'gay pride' festivals? Would I be allowed to organise a 'straight pride' festival? No, thought as much!! If homosexuality is natural, as we are forced to believe, how can they sustain the species? I suggest all gays are put on a remote island somewhere and left for a generation - after which, theoretically there should be none left!" Another, from Aaron in Freetown, said: "Bravo to the Ugandans for this wise decision, a bright step in eliminating this menace from your society. We hope other African nations will also follow your bold step."

Wow.  Is this at all defensible?

News Updates

1. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (left) specifically referenced the "kill the gays" bill under consideration in Uganda at a speech at Georgetown University.  According to The Advocate, Clinton said, "Governments should be expected to resist the temptation to restrict freedom of expression when criticism arises, and be vigilant in preventing law from becoming an instrument of oppression, as bills like the one under consideration in Uganda to criminalize homosexuality would do."

2. Fox News is continuing its campaign against Kevin Jennings.  The most recent report is entitled Obama's Safe Schools Czar Tied to Lewd Readings for 7th Graders. The supposed "lewd readings" were not written by Kevin, but cited on a reading list about gay issues.  Oh, it doesn't seem to matter that the reading lists compiled by GLSEN urge adults to review all materials before recommending them to specific kids. 

3. New York Governor David Paterson (right) continues to give us hope that politicians will do the right thing.  On Wednesday he plans to announce a major policy in support of transgendered New Yorkers.  It would be hard to find a more committed straight ally then the Governor of New York.


4. Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina wants to make sure everyone knows just how awful he thinks homosexuality is.  In a recent interview, when asked about the possibility of having a gay or lesbian president, he said, "It would be bothersome to me just personally because I consider it immoral. Marriage is a religious institution. The federal government has no business redefining what it is DeMint told Hunt, adding that even state governments should not have the right to permit same-sex marriages. Governments should not be in the business of promoting a behavior that’s proven to be destructive to our society”

5. The Possibility Same Sex Marriage continues to look promising in Washington, DC.  The city council is expected to pass its second vote on the matter this week and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (left) is expected to sign.  The one potential snag is the interference of the US Congress.

Nah, that's not HATE!

When Bob Emrich led the charge to overturn the Maine legislature's passage of a law that allowed same-sex marriage, he was, of course, just defending traditional marriage.  It had nothing to do with disliking gay people.  As the blog Box Turtle Bulletin cites him,  “At some point, it’s a personal, private matter."  Right.


Box Turtle Bulletin goes on to say that Emrich's “personal, private” comments may have only been for public consumption in Maine, and his real goals and desires may be something quite other than what he was willing to admit. In fact, Emrich may well favor draconian laws that enact extreme civil punishment of gay men and women. And Emrich is part of that previously-unknown but amazingly large collection of conservative evangelical Americans who have been investing time and effort in Uganda.

Good As You has a copy of an email sent out yesterday by Emrich to those who share his religious and political views.

I have just recently returned from two weeks in Uganda, ministering the Word among village pastors and Churches. It was a refreshing change of pace from the last year spent on the “marriage referendum”...I visited almost 20 remote villages and spent time with the believers. One of the common sentiments expressed there was that “in order to have a healthy village, there must be a strong and healthy church”... as I work my way back into ministry here at Emmanuel Bible Baptist Church (Plymouth) and with the Maine Jeremiah Project, I wanted to share the following article I found in Uganda’s largest daily newspaper. I had tucked it into my journal and found it yesterday as I reviewed some of my scribbling. I think it speaks for itself, but I hope you will wonder, as I do, where our own culture lost its way.

Box Turtle Bulletin found the article in question.  And guess what? It challenges "sodomists" who swear to you "that what they do in the privacy of their bedroom does not concern the public." It calls for cultural and religious leaders to defend the "African heritage against the moral confusion of Western civilisation."  And it calls the politician who came up with the Anti-Homosexuality Bill as "brilliant."  This is the bill that would put gay people to death.

Can I say it one more time? No. not everyone hates.  But sometimes we use the word hate to describe opponents to same-sex marriage because, well, how else do you describe a "man of God" who supports laws that kill gay people?  And how many times will the public be snookered into believing that these leaders against same-sex marriage, who spend millions of dollars and hours to make sure their fellow citizens don't get what they have, aren't just worried about the definition of "marriage"?

Thanks to Box Turtle Bulletin and Good As You for the research for this entry.

Thanks, Rick Warren

If you don't follow Rick Warren closely, you might think he was a pretty reasonable guy.  Remember, he's the one who gave the invocation at the Obama inauguration.  And, there's no other way to say it, he lies.  And there's proof.  He claimed on Larry King that he had taken no stance on Proposition 8 in California even while there was video of him urging people to support it it.  He claimed never, never to having compared gay relationships to incest or polygamy even though there are videos (damn those videos) proving otherwise.  He has not told the truth.

So when Rick Warren finally condemned the pending Ugandan law that would put gay people to death, Rick Warren played the innocent once again.  His video, urging the Ugandan government to nix the death penalty clause of the law, portrays Warren as a victim: how dare all those people assume I supported that law?

Well, Rev. Warren, it's pretty easy.  You've been involved in Ugandan politics and religion for quite some time.  And when first asked to condemn the law, you said it wasn't your role to do so.

Pardon me for being skeptical, but I find your statement too little, too late, and too political.  Over the past few days, when the political wind was blowing just a bit to hard in your face, you finally made a statement.  And you responded, as you usual do, in pure self interest.  Self-interest isn't a bad thing necessarily; I just appreciate it when people are a little more honest about it as a motive.

If you want to see Rick Warren's statement to see what I'm talking about, take a look below.

Gee, thanks, Rick

Another take on Uganda

Here's an interesting take on the Uganda situation from David Link at Independent Gay Forum

This is exactly what I was worried about.  By taking the death penalty out of the Uganda anti-homosexuality bill, the government has improved the bill's reputation, and its chances.
The Minister of Ethics and Integrity, James Nsaba Buturo said the government supports the bill because homosexuality and lesbianism are “repugnant to the Ugandan culture,” but wanted a more “refined” set of punishments.  Death was too much, so the refinements include life in prison and reeducation.

Whether the punishment is sufficiently refined or not, Buturo articulates the rotten core of this bill: a heterosexual majority running roughshod over the dignity of a very small, and very vulnerable minority for no reason other than political dominance.  And heterosexuals can get swept into the vortex; the bill imposes a regime of controlled speech and opinion, where objections to homosexuality may be freely uttered, but support is prohibited.

I don’t know about Ugandan culture, but that abuse of power is repugnant to any civilized government.  And I am afraid our heated rhetoric has not helped.  To my mind, at least, this was never about the death penalty; it was always about the discrimination.  But after we set the stage with our focus on government murder, the bill now looks, to many people, ever so much more reasonable.  We may have cause to regret our inadvertent aid in making that happen.

While I understand Mr. Link's concerns -- surely no one should be celebrating life imprisonment for being gay -- I also wonder whether or not any of this would have come to the media's attention if it were not for the journalists who were highlighting the "death to gay people" clause of the bill.  Rachel Maddow, who has been in the forefront of this issue, certainly focused on the death penalty.  Now, however, she seems to be digging deeper and calling attention to other heinous aspects of the law, including connections with the United States. As long as the journalists who drew attention to the death penalty aspects of the bill don't let up -- and I don't think they will -- we may be able to address the other punishments included in the bill.  It's a horrible story all around, but we need to keep pushing.

Whatever the case, thanks David Link for your thoughtful piece.

Update on the death bill for LGBT people in Uganda

Apparently, the most inhumane pieces of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill  being discussed in Uganda have been dropped.   Writes Bloommberg: The draft bill, which is under consideration by a parliamentary committee, will drop the two punishments to attract the support of religious leaders who are opposed to these penalties... The Ugandan government supports the bill because homosexuality and lesbianism are 'repugnant to the Ugandan culture,' Buturo said. Still, it favors a more refined set of punishments, he said.

Of course I'm pleased that if this bill passes homosexuality and HIV status would not be punishable by death.  But my fear in focusing on this aspect of the bill has been that the lack of discussion around the entire bill.  What's left of the bill is horrible enough: seven years in prison for being gay and three years in prison for knowing someone gay and not reporting that person to the authorities.  If the bill passes with these penalties in tact, I don't think there's a great deal to celebrate.  The bottom line, in my book, is that there is no compromise here.  None of us should be satisfied doing business and supplying aid to a country that imprisons its citizens because of who they are.

Rachel Maddow has over the past few nights done a superb job uncovering the frightening connections between the originators of the Anti-Homosexual Bill and members of the United States Congress.  And these connections are even deeper than she originally believed.  Time also reports a connection between the bill and some US politicians and religious figures:

The bill has an American genesis of sorts, inspired to a large extent by the visits of U.S. evangelicals who are involved with a movement that promotes Christianity's role in getting homosexuals to become "ex-gays" through prayer and faith. Ugandan supporters of the bill appear to be particularly impressed by the ideas of Scott Lively, a California conservative preacher who has written a book, The Pink Swastika, about what he calls the links between Nazism and a gay agenda for world domination, which, by itself, would have raised the anti-colonial sensitivities of Ugandan society.

Wow.  Gay people are  going to take over the world just as the Nazis tried to?  Take over the world?  I can't even keep my desk neat.  It's laughable if it weren't so serious.

Rachel Maddow talks to Richard Cohen

A while ago I ran a video of Richard Cohen, leader in the "coming out straight" movement that claims to provide "hope" for gay people wanting to live a straight lifestyle. He was the guy who beat the hell out a chair while screaming his mother's name.  As destructive as that might have been, it really doesn't compare to what Rachel Maddow has discovered on her show. Watch.

When fury is needed

The government of Uganda is soon to consider a bill that would make homosexuality punishable by death.  Anyone who supports gay rights (either straight or gay) will be sent to prison.  Anyone who speaks out favorably for same sex marriage can receive life in prison.  Anyone who even knows anyone who is gay and does not report this to the authorities will be sent to prison.  That's right: if a mother knows her child is gay and does not report this, both she and her child can both be sent to prison.

And yes, this is the 21st Century.

But before we start self-righteously ranting against Uganda -- and rant we should, at the top of our lungs and with fury -- we need to face the awful truth of American involvement in this heinous situation:

1.  Some members of the United States Congress belong to a secretive group called The Family.  Probably the most infamous members of this organization are Representative Joe "you lie" Pitts and Bart Stupak, the writer of the Stupak amendment that forbids the government from using insurance agencies that provide abortion coverage to women -- even if it is stipulated that women on this plan through the government cannot take advantage of this coverage.  Members of The Family have been very active in Uganda.  One of their point people is David Bahati, Ugandan member of The Family and one of the originators of Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill.  Even worse, The Family has long had close ties to Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, who has been notoriously anti-gay.

2.  The United States may actually end up funding the execution (double entendre intended) of this law. According to Mike Signorile, "the Anti-Homosexuality Bill would criminalize key aspects of comprehensive HIV/AIDS prevention education and imprison health-care workers who refuse to report sexually active gay patients to the police." In fact, our federal funds are already used to help punish HIV/AIDS education and health care workers.  And this ironic twist: the main transmission of HIV in Uganda is through heterosexual contact.  Under this new bill, health care workers who don't report LGBT patients would be subject to prison time.  Despite all this, US officials in charge of AIDS money in Uganda have actually defended their policy of remaining silent, saying that it is not their job to be monitors of how the money is spent, no matter how corruptly.

3.  We need the voice of the United States government to be louder and clearer.  Either the press or our government is dropping the ball.  The British newspaper The Guardian recently carried a story entitled, Fury at Uganda proposal for gay executions.  The story describes how UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper -- member of the conservative party -- expressed their deep concern for the pending legislation.  Where are the stories in our newspapers about United States fury over the situation?


Thanks to the following sites for their reporting on this issue: The Gist, Americablog.