According to this article from Ugandan news source, New Vision, a bill was introduced and then tabled in the Ugandan parliament yesterday.
The bill would make homosexual relations with someone under 18 punishable by the death penalty.
Here’s more:
The Bill, entitled the Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009, also states that anyone who commits the offence of homosexuality will be liable to life imprisonment.
This was already the case under the current Penal Code Act.
However, it gives a broader definition of the offence of homosexuality.
A person charged with the offence will have to undergo a mandatory medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status.
The bill further states that anybody who “attempts to commit the offence” is liable to imprisonment for seven years.
“The same applies to anybody who “aids, abets, counsels or procures another to engage in acts of homosexuality” or anybody who keeps a house or room for the purpose of homosexuality.
The bill also proposes stiff sentences for people promoting homosexuality.
They risk a fine of sh100m or prison sentences of five to seven years.
This applies to people who produce, publish or distribute pornographic material for purposes of promoting homosexuality, fund or sponsor homosexuality.
Where the offender is a business or NGO, its certificate of registration will be cancelled and the director will be liable to seven years in prison.
Failure to disclose the offence within 24 hours of knowledge makes somebody liable to a maximum sh5m fine or imprisonment of up to three years.
This chilling development was promised by those who promoted the ex-gay conference back in the Spring which featured three Americans, Scott Lively, Don Schmeirer and Caleb Brundidge. Lively backed measures to keep homosexuality illegal at the time.
This bill would make ex-gay ministry such as promoted by the conference impossible as just knowing about someone who is gay could lead to fines or imprisonment.
For previous posts, click here.
Another article on the bill. Boxturtlebulletin has the text of the bill. Here is a plank justifying the harsh measures:
This legislation further recognizes the fact that same sex attraction is not an innate and immutable characteristic and that people who experience this mental disorder can and have changed to a heterosexual orientation. It also recognizes that because homosexuals are not born that way, but develop this disorder based on experiences and environmental conditions, it is preventable, especially among young people who are most vulnerable to recruitment into the homosexual lifestyle.
I don’t think one’s view of etiology matters in the context of freedom. Determined or not, people are free to engage in relationships as adults and of course the state should protect minors. However, it now seems clearer than ever that the ex-gay conference was designed to give the government cover for the line of thinking presented in this bill. All involved in the ex-gay conference presented out-dated, easily falsified information in the Kampala conference. All involved have refused to bring their theories under the scrutiny of science and research. What if the Americans who went to Uganda presented accurate information about homosexuality to the Ugandan authorities? Would the authors of this bill been able to present this inadequate view of etiology unchallenged?
UPDATE from the BBC:
Warren probably said this only because he has venom against Exodus.
The ‘undeniable fact’ is, in fact, pretty deniable. Exodus really doesn’t have much of a ‘statement making’ history…and I can’t think of one that wasn’t in some way tangent to the issue of homosexuality. But feel free to speak as ‘undeniable facts’ the things the voices in your head declare. Rave On, Dude, Rave On!
It’s also good to note that we have no trouble with the death penalty for sex with minors and sexual acts by people with AIDS. That law, which pertained to opposite sex couplings, has been on the books for some time. Where were the letters…phone calls…protests…statements? The cries of outrage? Anyone????
Also interesting to note that ‘the offense of homosexuality’ already carried the penalty of life imprisonment, this new law simply broadened the definition of what those offenses were. (That first link in Warren’s original topic is definitely worthy of a careful reading or two.)
Are you saying that Exodus would NOT have spoken out clearly, quickly and loudly if the Uganda bill was about criminalizing Christianity? That would make Exodus even more disgusting than it is now.
I thought you said you agreed that Exodus should make an official statement. Why are you back-peddling now? What is your real objection to Exodus doing this? If you want to re-read something, re-read this:
It doesn’t matter what others or Exodus didn’t do in the past. It can redeem its stupidity NOW.
HOGWASH!!!
It has done it repeatedly on issues that it really cares about — like gay marriage, anti-bullying programs, The Day of Silence, etc. You want me to post some examples?
Be grateful you don’t live there. An “ex-gay” like yourself could go to prison for life if you “fell” — and an ex-gay worker could spend three years if he didn’t turn you in.
Have you called Alan yet?
That’s truly disgusting. Are you saying Exodus would not have spoken out boldly and officially on the criminilization of Christianity or Exodus-type ministries in other countries?
What good is it then? What good is one’s faith if it doesn’t translate into action — in this case, speaking out clearly against evil and injustice?
Not speaking out against sin is sin.
Jews should be imprisoned for life. Those who know of them and don’t report them should also be imprisoned. Think Exodus would speak out against that?
Nah. What’s all the fuss about? There were already anti-Jew laws on the book before they got involved. It wouldn’t really change anything. It would look like they caved in to their critics. I think they said something in a Christian magazine somewhere. Nothing really official — directly from Exodus headqaurters — although a couple of them gave their personal opinion. That’s enough, right?
In any event, Exodus really doesn’t have much of a ’statement making’ history…and I can’t think of one that wasn’t in some way tangent to the issue of homosexuality.
Randy Thomas:
Exodus should do more than put out a statement. Don should be dismissed from your board. You should personally fly to Uganda to lobby against this bill.
Until you do so, Exodus will be held responsible for atrocities in Uganda. You personally will be considered a party to these barbaric actions – as you are a senior officer in this organization. Exodus basically gave the moral justification to rationalize this horrific persecution. Where do you think the following part of the bill came from?
“It also recognizes that because homosexuals are not born that way, but develop this disorder based on experiences and environmental conditions, it is preventable, especially among young people who are most vulnerable to recruitment into the homosexual lifestyle.”
What Exodus did was profoundly immoral, ethically appalling and downright disgusting. Some might say satanic or evil. I’m sure those who are imprisoned, tortured or murdered will feel better knowing that Don is a nice guy.
How you sleep at night I will never know.
Wayne Besen
Sin? Immoral? Evil? Injustice? That’s a joke. Everything in the Ugandan bill has a Biblical base. Why should Exodus apologize for a board member speaking out against homosexuality, supposedly in a ‘compassionate’ way as well as the other two guys (including the Nazi revisionist)? Even if they spoke for the currently tabled Ugandan bill concerning homosexuality, such punishment are Biblical, so Exodus doesn’t have a dang thing to apologize for.
You have a point.
Used to stone us. In public. God commanded it. Maybe Uaganda is progressive.
There are some important differences between IHF and Exodus on this one. First, let me say that I believe Exodus should issue a statement yesterday condemning the proposed bill.
Now the differences. Exodus did not send Don Schmeirer, he went on his own. IHF sent Brundidge as a mission. Exodus has issued a statement opposing criminalization. IHF has done nothing, except published this surreal article which is used essentially to thank donors and ask for more money.
Any emails, call etc. that are made to Exodus should be made double to IHF.
Phone: (301) 805-6111 / Fax (301) 805-5155
Email: IHFinfo@ChangeIsPossible.com; ihf90@aol.com.
Warren makes a good point above.
I am breaking this report up into three sections as it has a lot of links.
Wayne Besen said:
Uh, Pastor Martin Ssempa, maybe? I’m sure Wayne knows about him. How about Stephen Langa, the director of Uganda’s Family Life Network? These men and their associates in Uganda have far more to do with Uganda’s “religious war” on homosexuality than Exodus (whose “crime” was naivete in its associations) does.
Gay rights activists allege that Ssempa is financially and ideologically propped up by Colorado-based WAIT Training and (surprise!) Scott Lively’s Abiding Truth Ministries. Incidentally, Lively calls Ssempa “one of the leading media figures in the nation.” He appears on radio and TV a lot, apparently. Langa he has referred to as “Uganda’s equivalent of Dr. James Dobson.” Lively made those statements in this report from an African missions trip.
Ssempa’s Web site says he has been fighting HIV/AIDS in Uganda for nearly two decades. He speaks of the need for all Ugandans, regardless of tribe, to love each other, citing Jesus’ second great commandment. I believe I heard him speak in my area a few years ago, but I can’t recall for sure. Whomever I heard compelled me to begin following the Uganda success story — HIV rates drastically dropped through the ABC approach (abstinence, be faithful, condoms).
Ssempa has clearly been more about abstinence while others have wanted to focus more on condoms. Problem, that. South Africa has had abysmal success with the condoms-only approach, so folks started getting the message that there really was something to the abstinence thing. But it is a tough go in Africa, given the entrenched cultural habit of multiple, long-term sexual partners. Still, something appeared to have been working in Uganda and a few other African countries utilizing the ABC approach.
Samaritan Strategy Africa lists as one of its outreach strategies: “Disciplines of love- small practical demonstrations of Christ’s love carried out by local churches, aimed at addressing the wholistic (sic) needs (physical, spiritual, social and mental) of their communities, using their own resources.” Langa is the Eastern Africa Coordinator of this outreach. Some of the information on the site is dated, but it looks like a legitimate Christian ministry to me.
There is a pastoral rivalry problem in Uganda, along with the tribal rivalry problem. A lot of backbiting between gays and Christians. Ssempa and Langa have been implicated (don’t know their guilt or innocence) in attempts to bring down other religious leaders through the supposed outing campaign. There have been accusations of blackmail or extortion attempts from both sides. Just ugly all around. How “practical demonstrations of Christ’s love” can be found in any of this is anyone’s guess. Sign of the times, I guess.
Shifting gears, let’s look at PEPFAR.
This statement appears at the PEPFAR site: “The Emergency Plan is committed to evidence-based best practices in prevention interventions to achieve the Plan’s prevention objectives. Interventions in countries such as Kenya, the Dominican Republic, Thailand, Cambodia, and most notably, Uganda, indicate that promoting behaviors aimed at risk avoidance and risk reduction will likely avert the largest proportion of new infections and reduce the spread of HIV.”
I just ordered a book called The Invisible Cure: Why We Are Losing the Fight Against AIDS in Africa, which speaks about all this in detail.
PEPFAR originally allocated a third of its funding for abstinence. Then Congress was lobbied (I wonder by whom) to drop that proviso. Ssempa pressured U.S. religious and government leaders (including Rick Warren, who sometimes tries to wear both hats) to focus more on abstinence. Ssempa had some folks in his Uganda church (Makerere Community Church in Kampala) come out as ex-gay. They began speaking rather forcefully about the need to eradicate the gay problem, especially the “recruiting” being done in schools, which these ex-gays admitted they had done in the past. (Here’s where we could bring in the Kevin Jennings/GLSEN narrative if we wanted to). GayUganda, a blog written by an anonymous gay Ugandan, and various news outlets have talked about the public outings of alleged gays in Uganda as one tactic Ssempa and others have employed in their gay eradication campaign.
The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) put out a press release in 2007, several paragraphs of which I quote:
Radical Paula Ettelbrick’s organization is saying this. FYI, this highlights the double standard: we need to focus on the MSM (men having sex with men) HIV spread in Africa but here in the U.S., where it is also a higher risk factor, we are to hush it up. And the stigma problem? How does criminalizing homosexuality not drive it farther underground and worsen the already-atrocious HIV problem?
And the U.S. wants to lift the ban on HIV-positive foreigners coming here. Just another little twist.
Now, for the action part.
Seems a few folks keep wanting to bark up the wrong tree. If you want to get at the folks who are most responsible for Uganda’s problems, go to the key Ugandan players, especially Ssempa. Here’s an e-mail address: ssempam@gmail.com. Here’s his Web site: http:// http://www.martinssempa.com. Here’s his U.S. (?) phone number: (702) 639-7108. Then, you can start working on the PEPFAR folks. Stephen Langa’s e-mail is stephenlanga@yahoo.com.
David Blakeslee mentioned contacting Rick Warren the other day. Actually, Warren and Ssempa are friends. Ssempa has appeared at one or more of Warren’s AIDS conferences at Saddleback Church, and Warren has referred to him as a “brother.” Warren has been implicated in some political backroom stuff relative to Uganda, but I can’t confirm it. So, if you want to lean on Warren and Saddleback, give them a holler at (949) 609-8000 or e-mail them at info@saddleback.net.
And when Wayne Besen feels like commenting on the Kevin Jennings debacle (seeing how we’re being so forthcoming on Uganda here), perhaps he can start by explaining this quote from his TWO press release:
And you also can tell us, Wayne, why you inserted the little bit about Mel White, addressing a gay group in Florida at your invitation, supposedly said his former employers (referring to evangelical leaders he ghostwrote for) “want you dead.” Seems you and Mel have a fixation on death and dying. The U.S. is not Uganda. We tend to bend over backward to protect GLBTs.
And it would be nice if TWO, Ex-Gay Watch and Box Turtle Bulletin would post the contact information I have included here rather than just asking folks to hound Exodus. If they do, they will prove this is not merely an Exodus witch-hunt.
If you check Warren’s blog history on the Uganda conference, you’ll see he has previously mentioned some of these players.
My action comment -— part 3 — is awaiting moderation. The blog software made links of the URLS I did not link to. Warren, can you post it?
Good links Debbie. If anyone hears from Pastor Ssempa, please let me know. I have emailed twice with no answer.
Debbie,
Thank you so much for the time and effort to find and report this information. This is a huge help.
Debbie–
I’ve also greatly appreciated your diligence here. I’ve been searching on my own over the weekend but so much of what’s out there falls under the ‘propaganda’ category. So glad that you were able to get beyond that and find some solid info and contact info.
I guess we should spread the word around and multiply our efforts. Couldn’t hurt. I have tried to be sensitive to the propagandizing, as Eddy points out. But if you follow the various trails, it is clear something unChristian and politically motivated is afoot. I am supposing Alan Chambers was in touch with pastors like Ssempa and Langa, of course.
I will use all of the links above to espress my concern. I will do it today. Will Exodus issue its statement any time soon?
The point is not that Exodus is repsonsibile for Uganda. It’s about taking a public moral stand that matters — even if it does not a damn bit of good in terms of changing Ugandan policy. Why such resistance to that?
Not sure why Debbie is talking about condoms and abstinence. This is about putting SSA folk in prison for life and jailing those who don’t thurn them in.
I called and spoke briefly with Rick Warren just now. He said he was not aware of the legisaltion an was “running out the door”. He asked me to leave the information with his assistant. I emailed Ssempa.
Have you guys called Alan to ask him to do what Warren has suggested? Warren, have you contacted Alan?
Debbie, have you asked Alan to do it? Have you, Eddy?
Michael, I have been in touch with Alan. What I said is nobody’s business but ours.
You actually got Rick Warren on the phone? I’m impressed.
I am doing all the contacting you are doing.
.Amen and amen. How come Debbie, David and Eddy don’t object when you say so, Warren?
I don’t buy it. He went with their blessing. They applauded his participation. That he bought his own plane ticket is irrelevant..
If you are talking about the quote in the Christian Post article, it’s not enough. I punched in “uganda” on the Exodus website and got NO REFERENCES. Why are they silent where it matters most — on their own website?
I just called IHF/Cohen and left a message. Have you guys called Alan?
I am not asking you to divlulge your private conversation. Just waiting for Alan to do something. Waiting for Exodus to do something. Thanks for contacting him.
Just called Exodus and left a message asking Alan to do what Warren has suggested. I will continue to email and phone all of the contacts you can provide.
Feels like I am doing what Exodus should be doing.
Box Turtle Bulletin has contact information for the Ugandan legislature: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/tag/uganda
To what good end would there be for gay people to email Ssempa or Langa? I learned years ago that trying to talk to someone set in their bigotted ways was useless. As they follow the Bible they consider gays to have a reprobate mind; so just how much attention do you think they would give even a well-worded, yet respectful argument in favor of gay people of Uganda?
There are two things here that need attention:
(1) Direct action to put pressure on Uganda
(2) DIrect action to put pressure on Exodus.
I am doing both. Has anyone besides Debbie called Alan?
Michael–
1) You don’t know what EXODUS is doing. You have a lot of assumptions, most of them very negative…and you can justify your negative assumptions all you want…they’ll still be assumptions.
2) We didn’t ‘object when Warren said it’ but because Warren made a simple statement of belief…he believes they should have responded yesterday. That’s quite unlike your incessant demands. More than 30 posts, often 4 or 5 posts in a row..minutes apart.
3) No, I haven’t contacted Alan yet. As I began to study this issue, I saw even less value in a statement than I did originally. I agree that something needs to be done but I see a ‘statement’ as virtually worthless and possibly even a negative step. I realize that many of you live by these ‘statements’ but I see most of them as ‘politically correct busywork’.
4) Debbie’s info came in just before I needed to go out for awhile. I’ve read her postings but haven’t had time to digest and mesh them with the little bit of research that I’ve accomplished. When I do, I’ll contact Alan with my ‘two cents’.
5) What was interesting in my research was that the meeting that you are so upset about barely ever came up in any discussions of the Uganda bill…EXCEPT when it was presented as the ‘be all, end all’ in the United States blogsites who relentlessly bash EXODUS. Even pro-gay groups that weren’t part of this EXODUS-bashing network were strangely silent. That’s the propaganda piece of the puzzle that I’ve been trying to sort through.
6) All that is to say that ‘yes’, I still plan to contact Alan. I do plan to recommend that EXODUS take some steps to see if they can have any impact at all on the Uganda bill. Currently, I also plan to add my ‘two cents’ that a ‘statement’, unless it would be a reissue of their March statement, is, IMHO, a waste of time and effort. Michael, you cited that they should have published their statement somewhere with a broader circulation than the Christian Post. With your firm belief in the value of a statement, perhaps you could circulate their original statement to a source with a wider circulation. I can suggest that to Alan as an option for EXODUS to pursue as well.
7) Flash Update: Consider Alan contacted. I’ve decided to copy and paste most of this post in an email to him immediately after posting here.
I have just emailed Alan.
Lynn David has twice touched on a point that comes close to my reservations regarding a ‘statement’. BoxTurtle had an early version (don’t know how much it’s changed, if at all) of the complete Uganda Bill…it contained not only the proposed law but a complete framing of their approach to it. Not sure if that’s the way to put it…but it demonstrated ‘their mindset’.
Lynn David was right earlier in suggesting that Uganda wouldn’t listen because, among other things, they’d have literal Old Testament to appeal to. From the ‘mindset’ portion of the bill, it’s also quite clear that Uganda is in ‘crisis management’ mode regarding AIDS; Uganda wants to be seen as a leader in AIDS managment and in upholding morality; Uganda believes that much of the world (and I would suspect, especially, the western world) is morally corrupt.
A statement from EXODUS, if not thoughtfully and prayerfully constructed, could get EXODUS dismissed as just another agent of corruption closing any doors to having any impact in the future. (Yeah, some of you believe that would be a good thing believing as you do that EXODUS impacted the current bill in a negative way. I challenge that the current bill did not increase penalties…what it did was clarify what ‘aggravated homosexual offense’ was and what ‘homosexual offense’ was). If I understand it correctly, the standards for ‘aggravated homosexual offense’ directly parallel the standards for ‘aggravated heterosexual offense’. There seems to be no special singling out of homosexuals nor does there seem to be a greater penalty for homosexuals than heterosexuals. So this one isn’t so much a gay rights issue as it is a discussion of the ‘death penalty’.
I personally have a very difficult time comprehending any society that endorses the death penalty for any crime. My reasoning is that death takes away the option of eventual redemption. (i.e. if you believe that an individual has committed a horrendous crime, by killing them you are saying that they are beyond redemption…or, at the least, that you don’t believe they should have that option.)
Then do it thoughtfully and prayerfully — but do it. If this law passes, ex-gay groups could not function. You could go to prison if you didn’t turn in a struggler, as Warren pointed out:
Furthermore, yes, it might get Exodus dismissed as “just another agent of corruption”, but that is the risk you take when you take a moral stand, isn’t? Are we going to let the fact that we might be misunderstood or dismmised keep us from doing the right thing?
P.S. Thanks, Eddy, for doing what you did. I honestly do not understand why anyone would hesitate to do so.
I think we have lame excuse #8 — Uganda might think Exodus is light on sin. Uganda might think so no matter how thoughtfully and prayerfully Exodus expresses itself.
But how will Exodus look to the rest of the world if it does not? Exodus could get “dismissed as just another agent of anti-gay corruption, closing any doors to having any impact in the future.”
Exodus has put itself in a very tough spot. They are kinda damned if they do and damned if they don’t — but hey, they did this to themselves by not being more thoughtful and prayerful in the first place.
Good for Randy (and Don). I had been to the Exodus blog earlier today, hoping there might be something there or forthcoming.
What Randy wrote on the Exodus blog:
Can I now assume that this is Exodus’ official stand on the matter on that Randy is not just stating his own opinion? It sounds pretty official. It’s on their blog. If so, thanks.
Michael,
If it’s on the Exodus blog and has no caveat (i.e. “I’m speaking personally here”) then it’s safe to assume that it can be considered an Exodus position. If nothing else, they’d need to answer to it since it’s on ‘their’ blog.
Also, since this statement pretty much echoes the statement Exodus made back in March, it’s pretty safe to say that it’s an official stand. Nice to hear it again but it’s no more official than it was back in March and there was nothing in the interim to suggest that Exodus had changed their mind. But I’m so glad that it serves to appease those who were in need of a fresh statement. (Ah, but I’m waiting…I predict that, by the time I log back in again, we’ll already have our first ‘but it isn’t enough’ comment.)
Randy also said this which partially explains some of the ‘attitude issues’ I’ve been contending with on the side
LOL. Thanks, Randy, for saying it so well.
I’m really not interested in debating that point; I’m sure it’s one where no one would be swayed from one point of view to the other. I present it as an ‘interesting observation that resonated with me’…especially after googling my way through pages and pages of anti-Exodus flame speech.
Let Alan say, “It’s official”, and it’s good enough for me. It is the right thing to do morally — even if it has no direct impact on the Ugandan government.
I know some folks here think I am trying to make Exodus look bad. Actually, the reverse is true. For Exodus to stand officially against this “sweeping, hateful, public policy” that “threatens anyone struggling with same sex attractions, and their loved ones, with death or imprisonment” is to Exodus’ credit. And I am glad, if it is Exodus’s official stand, that it did not take as long as I expected.
Now, we need similar statements from the other players — and I pray that Exodus ask them to join Exodus in its official and unequivocal denunciation of this legislation, about which Randy rightly observes: “It seems that the government has no respect for freedom. Especially as it pertains to free will or self-determination on what a person does with their own same sex attractions.
Michael:
I believe I’ve endured this tackiness of yours long enough. Either have the courage to discuss your exceptions to my logic with me…rationally and point for point…or remain silent. This rephrasing and repackaging my content disrespects honest and truthful discussion. It certainly complicates it needlessly.
1) Did I say “light on sin”. No. My words went more to ‘being morally corrupt’. We’re dealing with cross-cultural understanding and misunderstandings here…why you feel the need to change my words is beyond me. (‘light on sin’ speaks to the issue of judgement; ‘morally corrupt’ speaks to being impaired and tarnished. There’s a difference even if you can’t see it.
2) Thoughtfully and prayerfully may be just a meaningless phrase to you…but, while prayer may only take minutes, thought (including research and seeking advice and counsel) can take days. I waited patiently several days…while I researched and while Debbie researched…and offered Alan more thoughtful advice than if I had written him on Friday or Saturday. Get over it. Thoughtful response isn’t a bad thing and thoughtfulness takes time.
WARREN: This next point warrants your attention
3) I request a formal apology for this one:
I’ve copied and pasted this from Michael’s post. The quotation marks are his…implying that this is a direct quote, not a paraphrase, of someone’s words. And, you’d think they were my words…except Michael added the words ‘anti-gay’ in front of ‘corruption’. It changes what I said; it distorts my meaning and it violates the ethics of quoting.
Again, thanks to Exodus for making it official.
In making this statement today, Uganda could dismiss Exodus “as just another agent of corruption closing any doors to having any impact in the future.” Your words. And yes, that is a risk.
MY point was: If Exodus had not made this statement, the general public could dismiss Exodus as just another agent of “anti-gay”(my word, not Eddy’s) “corruption closing any doors to having any impact in the future”.
I was not quoting you, There were risks for Exodus either way. I was trying to point out that the dangers for Exodus NOT making the statement might be greater then the dangers of doing the good thing they did today.
No, Michael–
You took 17 very recent words of mine, in the order that I wrote them, with the punctuation I used….then you put them inside quotation marks. Quotation marks indicate that you are quoting something already said. Except you added words I didn’t use and didn’t intend to use that were not part of what I was saying and, in fact, changed the essence of what I was saying…I was speaking more globally.
That’s something that’s not proper by rules of the English language. (Read up on the rules for using quotation marks.) It’s unfair; it’s impolite; it’s misleading; it’s a waste of my time…I take my time when I post and I carefully consider my words. Having you follow me, respond to what I’ve said and then slightly alter my words while pretending it’s a quote…that’s an offense, especially in the sticky conversations we have here.
I note that you offered an explanation; I’ll continue to wait for the apology.
I did not mean to imply that Eddy had used the word “anti-gay”. The two statements (his and mine) are similar in thay they point out the big risks that Exodus took today. Either way, Exodus could be “dismissed” as “corrupt.”
I apologize to any person who may have gotten that impression that my words were Eddy’s. I did not intend to use punctuation to make it seem as though Eddy was saying something that I was saying.
I apologize for my sloppiness in my use of quotations. Here is what Eddy said:
The following are MY words — not a quote from Eddy — but using some of his sentence structure and word choice to make MY point:
The failure or refusal by Exodus to issue an official statement condemning the Ugandand legisation could get EXODUS dismissed as just another agent of anti-gay corruption closing any doors to having any impact in the future — Michael Bussee
I am grateful Exodus took the risk.
Curious. Maybe I am not finding it. Is there a link from the Exodus homepage to the Exodus blog? I checked under “press releases” and could not find a statement and I could not figure out how to find the blog from the webpage.
____________________________________
How does Schmierer’s statement compare with what one of his associates in Uganda, Stephen Langa of the Family Life Network, has been doing – after the conference Schmierer attended, for instance [http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/news/Homosexuality_threat_to_Ugandans_activists_83727.shtml]:
____________________________________
Another Uganda news outlet, UGPulse [http://www.ugpulse.com/articles/daily/news.asp?about=Civil%20society%20petitions%20Parliament%20over%20homosexuality%20vice&ID=9749], reported that Deputy Speaker Kadaga “promised to push for the amendment of Article 31 of the Constitution which prohibits homosexual marriages. Langa had earlier noted that the article prohibits gay marriages but not the actions.”The Daily Monitor’s article indicates that the group explained that they wanted the proposed amendment to be broadened to “openly prohibit homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality and other related practices.”
____________________________________
Then there was the time Langa sponsored a press conference in which another allegedly “former gay activist” Paul Kagaba accused a very popular Catholic priest and gospel singer, Fr. Anthony Musaala, of being gay.
____________________________________
The blogger GayUganda is has reported that Stephen Langa, the director of Family Life Network, spoke on Ugandan FM radio stations advocating the arrests of Ugandan LGBT leaders. [http://gayuganda.blogspot.com/2009/03/anti-gay-agenda.html]
____________________________________
Now how is it that these actions by Langa are not supportive of Bahati’s bill on homosexuality? Schmierer certainly didn’t “soften up” Langa and get him to “come around.”
… … …
The opposition being expressed to the new Ugandan legislation against homosexual practice just underlines how far astray we have movede in the West.
Because of the extremely differing views existing the subject and in the interests of fair reporting surely it should be recognised that the approach being taken in Uganda deserves as much respect as the approach being taken in the UK. Otherwise it sounds like a fundamentalism which never questions whether it may be wrong has taken over reporting such issues in the West..
It should always be remembered that when we claim to be wise we may still be fools!