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.

" My cousin is an agoraphobic homosexual, which makes it kind of hard for him to come out of the closet."

-- singer and song writer Bill Kelly 

My note to the Democratic National Committee

I just received a request from the Democratic National Committee asking for more money.  I wrote I will not give to the party until LGBT issues are taken seriously.  The most recent evidence that they are not being taken seriously?


This story was picked up by Michelangelo Signorile at The Gist:

A report published on Time's web site just before the holiday has an explosive bit of information: the chief judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a while back that a federal employee who reports to him, a lesbian, be given federal marriage benefits, and it was actually going to happen until the White House, through the Office of Personnel Management -- headed by openly gay appointee, John Berry -- refused to comply and directed the health insurance carrier of the employee not to proceed.

Here's more from the Time piece Mike found:

Last week, the chief judge of one of America's most prominent federal courts ordered an Executive Branch agency to stop interfering with a court employee's efforts to secure health insurance coverage for her wife. "The Office of Personnel Management shall cease at once its interference with the jurisdiction of this tribunal," wrote Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. He gave the Administration 30 days to permit Karen Golinski, a lawyer employed by the Ninth Circuit, to include the woman she married under California law last year on her family health-insurance plan.

So, just to make sure I understand this:  the courts are now fighting to secure same sex health benefits?  And instead of supporting this, the administration is fighting back?  How much longer are we supposed to have faith that this administration has our best interests in mind?

31 years ago

These are the final recorded words of Harvey Milk, assassinated 31 years ago yesterday, November 27, 1978.

Adoption in France....

Before we start assuming that European countries -- even those who allow same-sex marriage --are completely open minded, make sure you read this piece that Patrick Inman sent me.  And a request: please feel free to send me any news story that would be appropriate for this blog!  I read as much as I can, but can never begin to read everything. This piece is from MacLean's Magazine in Canada.

Same-sex couples fight to adopt

In France, gay couples are not allowed to adopt children

by  Kate Engelhart on Thursday, November 26, 2009

When the French lesbian known to the public as “Emmanuelle B.” first applied to adopt a child in 1998, she was rejected; the adoption board cited the “lack of a paternal figure in [B.’s] household.” That explanation spurred a legal standoff that pitted French courts against gay rights advocates, who saw the rejection as a statement about their ability—or, more accurately, inability—to be parents. Last week, 11 years after the case began—and one year after the European Court of Human Rights condemned France for sexual discrimination—a French court overruled the 1998 verdict, conceding that it could not “legally justify the decision to reject [B.’s] request.”

B.’s supporters say the case is a flagrant example of high-level prejudice, because, since 1966, France has explicitly allowed unmarried individuals to adopt. And given that the now-48-year-old B. is a nursery school teacher, it would be hard to claim she is an unqualified caregiver. So last week’s reversal is being celebrated as a landmark. “This groundbreaking ruling means governments can’t use sexual orientation to stop someone from adopting a child,” charged Scott Long, director of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights division program at Human Rights Watch. L’Est Republicain, a French newspaper, dubbed the decision “the end of hypocrisy.”

For others, the victory is tainted. If B. does apply to adopt again, she will still have to designate herself as a single parent, despite the fact that she is in a 20-year relationship. That’s because French law still bars same-sex couples from adopting. And that view does not look poised to change: “The government and president have on several occasions expressed our position,” said spokesman Luc Chatal, “which is that we are not in favour of the adoption of children by same-sex couples.”

How much more of this sort of garbage can a community take?

Seems like I find way too many stories like this every day.  The accumulative power of endless stories like these is wearying.  When do we say enough is enough?

Thanks to James Hipps from gayagenda.com for this:

During a conversation about the division between LGBT and evangelical residents, Mayor Davis told the New York Times that gays won’t go to heaven. Now, the mayor of Vallejo, a Northern California community has had to spend a little time back-peddling.

In a statement issued earlier this week, Davis claims that he’s actively seeking to represent all residents of Vallejo, not only heterosexual ones.

The mayor, who is an evangelical, told the Times gays are “committing sin and that sin will keep them out of heaven.”

Davis is now claiming his remarks were taken out of context, and that he won’t use his mayoral position to promote his religious ideology.

Davis defeated a gay candidate for mayor of Vallejo in 2007 by only two votes.

When will people start seeing others not as symbols or representatives of group but as human beings?  I know I already know the answer to this.  Quite some time from now.  But I can still hope!

Twinkie defense and gay panic

Dan White killed San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk and San Francisco Mayor George Moscone 31 years ago today, on November 27, 1978.  White was given a very light sentence for the murder, resulting in rioting in the gay neighborhoods of San Francisco.  During the trial, White's lawyer presented what a newspaper reporter coined "the Twinkie defense."  (These words were never actually used in the trial.) The lawyer tried to convince the jury that Dan White's sudden consumption of high-sugar  junk food was a symptom of the depression that drove him to assassinate Milk and Moscone.  White served five years in prison.

Last week we heard of the brutal murder of Jorge Steven Lopez Mercado young man from Puerto Rico.  The confessed killer, Juan Martínez Matos decapitated the body and cut off arms and legs.  In his confession he suggested that he may use the "gay panic defense."  This defense would argue that Martínez Matos killed Lopez Mercado because he didn't know the young man was male; he thought he had picked up a female prostitute.  While the term "Twinkie defense" has come to be a derogatory term used for a ludicrous trial defense, "gay panic defense" has become anything but.  In fact, this year Joseph Bidermann claimed that Terrance Hauser had made a sexual advance to him.  He was acquitted of murder, even though Biedermann had stabbed Hauser 61 times then went to his girlfriend's apartment, showered, and left. Biedermann's girlfriend called the police.

Let's hope the gay panic defense is soon seen as absurd as the Twinkie defense.