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.

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.