Family Research Council clarifies lobbying role on Anti-Homosexuality Bill resolution

Yesterday blogger Joe Jervis reported that the Family Research Council lobbied members of the House of Representatives against a resolution which expresses opposition to Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill. The measure, House Resolution 1064 (full text) was introduced February 3 by Howard Berman (D-CA) and referred to the House Committee on Foreign Relations the same day with 62 co-sponsors. The title of the resolution expresses the essential purpose:

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the “Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009” under consideration by the Parliament of Uganda, that would impose long term imprisonment and the death penalty for certain acts, threatens the protection of fundamental human rights…

Jervis refers to a required lobbying report filed quarterly with the House and Senate. That report in full is here for review. The cost of all lobbying activity for the quarter on all issues was $25,000. The section relevant to the Ugandan resolution is a disclosure on page 3 that FRC conducted some lobbying activity regarding H.Res 1064.

Tom McClusky is listed as one of the two lobbyists and so I contacted him to ask how FRC lobbied and with whom. While he declined to say which members were lobbied, he said, “We didn’t necessarily lobby against or for the resolution but tried to work with offices to make the language more neutral on homosexuality.” He added his recollection was that “the original language was incorrect on what Uganda was doing as well.” McClusky said the lobbying took place before the resolution was introduced but did not say what, if anything, was altered as the result of their efforts. As for the Ugandan bill, he said that the FRC has never taken a position on the death penalty. Regarding H.Res. 1064, he added, “We have not taken a public position on the current resolution.”

I appreciate the clarification but I am disappointed that FRC would not go on to encourage the passage of H.Res 1064. As an evangelical, I am sad that some Christian groups are neutral or even speaking in favor of the Ugandan bill. To me, it wrong and short-sighted for Christian groups to complain about being mistreated or disrespected when those same groups are promoting or refusing to condemn the same treatment to those who hold different views.

UPDATE: In response to the reports such as described above the FRC issued a statement on their blog:

FRC Statement on H. Res. 1064

by JP Duffy

June 4, 2010

Inaccurate internet reports have been circulating indicating that the Family Research Council lobbied “against” a congressional resolution condemning a bill proposed in Uganda. The Uganda bill would have provided for the death penalty for something called “aggravated homosexuality.” Unfortunately, those spreading these false rumors deliberately failed to obtain the facts first.

FRC did not lobby against or oppose passage of the congressional resolution. FRC’s efforts, at the request of Congressional offices, were limited to seeking changes in the language of proposed drafts of the resolution, in order to make it more factually accurate regarding the content of the Uganda bill, and to remove sweeping and inaccurate assertions that homosexual conduct is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right.

FRC does not support the Uganda bill, and does not support the death penalty for homosexuality – nor any other penalty which would have the effect of inhibiting compassionate pastoral, psychological, and medical care and treatment for those who experience same-sex attractions or who engage in homosexual conduct.

If homosexual conduct is not a human right, then what is it? I do not understand the opposition to freedom of conscience from those who say the government is too involved in our lives.

Uganda tells Germany it does not support Anti-Homosexuality Bill

The government of Uganda has made a commitment to Germany not to pass any additional penalties on homosexuality. The promise comes in exchange for a German aid. Here is the Earthtimes article referencing a letter from the Ugandan government.

Posted : Fri, 28 May 2010 11:57:27 GMT

Berlin – Uganda has reassured Germany it does not support a bid by one parliamentarian to outlaw homosexual acts, in order to win an extension of existing aid payments, German officials said Friday.

The German development aid ministry said in Berlin it had cleared pledges totalling 120 million euros (148 million dollars) to Uganda over the next three years.

That aid would be conditional on Uganda not passing any legislation imposing new penalties on homosexual acts.

Gay groups protested round the globe last year when a Ugandan legislator, David Bahati, proposed an anti-homosexual bill, calling for life imprisonment for homosexual acts and death for homosexual rape of children.

Uganda’s parliament has studied the bill but not passed it.

Ugandan Foreign Minister Sam Kutesa sent a written assurance to Hans-Juergen Beerfeltz, state secretary at the German Aid Ministry, saying that the government in Kampala does not support Bahati’s legislation.

“We regard this letter as a positive signal and will continue to insist that the bill does not become law,” said Beerfeltz. He spoke after Ugandan and German officials conferred Wednesday and Thursday on the aid pledges.

The money will be used to fight poverty, stop water wastage and reduce carbon emissions. German Aid Minister Dirk Niebel earlier said he would halt aid to Uganda if the bill were passed.

If accurate, this report seems to be the clearest signal yet that the Ugandan government is now opposed to the Bahati bill. Sam Kutesa was one of the early voices in opposition and this makes it official policy.

Vanguard extra: David Bahati says American evangelicals secretly agree with Anti-Homosexuality Bill

Mariana van Zeller posted some extended footage of interviews conducted for the documentary, Missionaries of Hate. Here is her description of this interview with David Bahati:

An exclusive, extended interview with David Bahati, the Ugandan member of parliament who introduced the anti-gay bill calling for use of the death penalty. Correspondent Mariana van Zeller asks Bahati about his reaction to President Obama’s and Rev. Rick Warren’s condemnation of the bill, how he would respond if had a gay family member, and his belief that Uganda may have been chosen by God to fight this “spiritual battle.”

I was struck by Bahati’s confidence that American evangelicals secretly agree with his bill and his approach. He expresses the view that the opposition here is not genuine because American evangelicals are telling him privately to continue with his approach.

I want to know, who are these evangelicals? Who is lying? He is saying clearly that some people who are publicly opposing the bill are secretly telling them they favor it. It is jarring for a man to invoke God while at the same time say that his supporters in America are lying to the public. Fess up, name names, who is playing to the crowds?

Missionaries of Hate: Current TV documentary on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill

It was slated to be released tomorrow night but is on Hulu now. I saw it over the weekend thanks to the Current TV folks. Watch it here and then watch it on Current TV tomorrow night. And then watch it again. For those of us who have followed this issue, it is important work in that it covers most of the many bases that make up this field.

Open forum…

Scott Lively goes on offense

Perhaps in preparation for the upcoming Current TV documentary on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill, Scott Lively is going on offense. In a May 22nd email to supporters, Lively wrote:

Friends,

 

I’m looking for a good Christian media source to interview me on film on the Uganda issue for posting online.  I intend to get off defense and counter-attack the false witnesses with hard facts about Uganda and the dishonest way the media has addressed the story.  Please forward this to any pro-family journalists you know and ask them to contact me at [email protected].

In the mean time, I have created a new category of news stories at DefendtheFamily.com under the title “Uganda.”  There are about 20 stories there now, going back to about 2003 which show the growing problem of pro-homosexual activism in that country, long before my 2009 seminar which is now being blamed for creating a climate of “homophobia” in Uganda. There are also numerous examples of liberal media propaganda about the anti-homosexuality bill.

If you happen to hear someone criticize me based on the intense, global anti-Scott Lively character assassination by these media, please refer them to our website, both to read the material there, but also to download Redeeming the Rainbow: A Christian Response to the “Gay” Agenda which was the source of all of my comments and teaching in Uganda.

Thanks for standing with me through the firestorm,

Dr. Scott Lively

As he notes on his website, there are several articles going back to 2003 (although some of the links are broken), including a letter addressed to the Parliament of Uganda back in March. The letter is long but the highlights are that he favors targeted criminalization but with the aim being rehabilitation rather than prison. He indicates in this letter that he knew the Parliament was considering new legislation at the time (March, 2009). He also frames his views as a “don’t ask, don’t tell” public policy:

I believe you could easily adapt this model to your purposes by imposing this same reporting requirement on anyone with knowledge of homosexuals who involve themselves with anyone under a certain age. If, for example, you encompassed all youths under the age of twenty-five within this shield of protection, you would stop virtually all “gay” recruitment in your country, since normal young men and women are usually firmly set in their heterosexual identity by their mid-twenties. On the other hand, you would preserve the right to privacy of adults who are not activists or pederasts but simply want to live their lives in relative peace. This would function much like the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the United States military. Adult homosexuals would remain subject to the law, but not actively pursued if they are discrete about their lifestyle.

Lively professes opposition to the death penalty but the reasons sound pragmatic rather than principled.

First and foremost, the inclusion of capital punishment for what you have classed as “aggravated homosexuality” is, in my view, a disproportionately harsh penalty. You may not be aware that capital punishment has been banned in numerous countries, even for the most extreme cases of aggravated murder. This is held as such an important policy that these nations will often refuse to extradite criminals to their home countries (including the United States) if there is any possibility that they will be subject to capital punishment there. Advocating the “death penalty” for “mere” sexual crimes evokes such a severe negative reaction in most Western nations that all other aspects of the law, and the rationale for drafting it is ignored, and very “gay” movement we seek to oppose is strengthened by public sympathy they would not otherwise enjoy.

Conversely, if the “death penalty” provision were removed, it would take the wind out of the sails of their current campaign against the bill. With so much of the international opposition rooted in the idea that this is a “Kill the Gays” law, the removal of this provision would represent enough of a concession on your part that a great many of the people who are now siding with the homosexual movement out of sympathy would consider the matter resolved. The “gay” activists and their political allies will, of course, continue to attack the bill, but from a much weaker position.

You can read the whole thing and form your own conclusions, but according to the response provided, the bill supporters did not want to make any changes. Note the players involved in getting the letter to Parliament and then the response to Lively. Martin Ssempa received Lively’s letter and forwarded it to Parliament. Then, the responder was Charles Tuhaise, who has emerged as a major supporter of the bill. Here is the reply:

My letter was forwarded to Members of Parliament by Dr. Martin Ssempa. This was the reply.

March 10, 2010

Dr. Ssempa,

Thanks for sending Dr. Lively’s Letter. His proposals can be considered as we make our revisions, but, while I appreciate the need to have people like Lively campaign for the Bill and the law when passed, there are obvious dangers in trying to equalise the policy and law on homosexuality between USA and Uganda. The two countries are dealing with totally different situations. The time when USA should have enacted a preventive law like we are contemplating passed a long time ago and they are faced with a huge and financially and politically powerful gay population recruited into homosexuality because no one foresaw the need for a preventive law in time (probably in the 1940s). If such comprehensive law (not merely about sodomy) had been in place, people like Alfred Kinsey would not have done so much damage by opening the door wide for homosexuality.

The situation in Uganda today is different because homosexuality is still a budding problem. We either nip it in the bud now with a strong, preventive law or give it a foothold to grow from.

The danger I see in Dr. Lively’s suggestions is in proposing to

normalise homosexual practice for adults (whatever age they may be). That is the Western approach generally which has failed miserably, because what is held as normal practice by adults will be adopted by children and youth automatically. It’s just a matter of time before the whole culture is swamped in homosexual practice. That’s how pornography broke barriers in Western society and became insidious. It’s like the proverbial “Camel and herdsman story”. Today it is a foot in the hut, tomorrow it is a leg in the hut, next day its the head in the hut; before long, the herdsman is tossed out of the hut.

I agree with Dr. Lively that the Death Penalty can be removed, but it must be replaced by equally strong and detterent penalties. The purpose of penalties is to detter people from behaviour with far-reaching consequences. What the Bill needs, to me, is solid research into the consequences of homosexuality. Its huge health-risks and social, cultural and economic disruption need to be documented and not merely talk about defending our “religious and cultural practices”. In countries or territories with legalised homosexuality, parents and religious bodies have lost the right to teach against homosexuality; a property owner will not refuse to rent a house or hotel room to a homosexual couple based on belief, conscience or fear of influence on neighbouhood children; teachers must teach that homosexuality is normal lyfestyle or lose their licences; children in Kindergarten are introduced to homosexual books and other indoctrination e.t.c. All these are reasons we must do everything to stop and prevent homosexual practice.

Ultimately, I see no way out in taking a stand and paying the price. We cannot adopt an innefective policy against homosexuality just to prevent loss of donor funds. Our friends in the West must stand with Uganda as we take a serious stand against homosexual infiltration. What we need is more nations to stand up and do the same. There will be no place for lukewarmness, the way I see this situation. It’s time for nations to stand up for what is right and pay the price. The more nations do this, the more the tide will turn against the homosexual movement. Christians in the West must know that it is time to pay the price for truth. Unwillingness to do this is responsible for infiltration and takeover of virtually every western insitution by homosexuals, including the church.

I admire the courage of my friend Dr. Lively, because he has stood up to homosexual intimidation for so long as a lone voice. We need more people like him in the days, weeks, months and years ahead. The homosexual machine is well organised and its agenda is not conciliation with anyone but total take-over of society. Africa is probably is the last place they are trying to take-over that has the best hope to turn the tide, if we do not mess-up the opportunity.

Charles Tuhaise

(P/S: You can forward my comments to Dr. Scott Lively)

Mr. Tuhaise may have forgotten where he heard all about pornography and homosexuality. According to Lively, about the same message came from his highly successful visit to Uganda in March, 2009:

The Ugandan people are strongly pro-family, and there is a large Christian population which is much more activist minded than that of most western countries. However, the international “gay” movement has devoted a lot of resources to transforming the moral culture from a marriage-based one to one that embraces sexual anarchy. Just as in the U.S. many years ago they are leading with pornography to weaken the moral fiber of the people, and propagandizing the children behind the parents’ backs. On the TV show we exposed a book distributed to schools by UNICEF that normalizes homosexuality to teenagers. (We expect a massive protest by parents, who are mostly not aware that such materials even exist in their country, let alone in their childrens’ classrooms.)

Mr. Tuhaise seems to be saying that the bill is necessary based on what Scott Lively taught when he was in Uganda. The Ugandan supporters of the bill believe they are carrying the teachings of Lively to their logical conclusion.

…..

Read a current update on the status of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

For all articles on Uganda, click here.