"Kill The Gays" Bill is Shelved in Uganda

Today, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda was shelved. The bill, introduced on October 14, 2009, would broaden the spectrum of punishment for being homosexual in Uganda by making it a crime punishable by death. People with former convictions for being homosexual, anyone HIV-positive, or anyone engaging in same-sex sexual endeavors under the age of 18 would be subject to this new Bill, had it passed. There is also a section in the Bill stating that any Ugandan citizen engaging in any aspect of homosexuality outside of Uganda would be extradited back to the country for sentencing. This includes businesses and non-government organizations that support LGBT rights.

David Bahati, shown above, is the Member of Parliament (MP) that introduced this bill. Interestingly enough, news organizations in Uganda claim that the inspiration came from American evangelical Christians, who claimed that homosexuality was a direct threat to African families. Coincidentally, the bill was proposed a month after a two day conference was held in Uganda by three American Christians. Hmmm...sounds like the teachings of Jesus to me. I personally find it hilarious that the bill was influenced by Christians, and AMERICAN Christians at that. It's hilarious because the Christian faith prides itself on the teachings of tolerance they are supposed to follow, and it's hilarious because the fact that they were American Christians had to specified, like American Christians are a special breed of Christians.

Uganda President Yoweri Museveni formed a committee to investigate the ramifications of passing the bill, which was quickly dubbed the "Kill The Gays" Bill, and in May of 2010 was advised to shut the bill down. Now, almost a year later, the bill has been shelved, despite protests from Bahati, who is unwilling to stop pushing for the passage of the bill. According to Information Minister Masiko Kabakumba, shown here on the left, the bill is redundant because homosexuality is already illegal in Uganda. In this video shown here, the Uganda government further explains its decision to shelve the bill.

Though it isn't mentioned, it's possible the Yoweri Administration was pressured into shelving the bill by the United Nations. The UN, led by the United States, passed a vote yesterday to condemn any violence committed against LGBT people around  the world. The U.S. took a closer look at the bill after LGBT activist David Kato was killed in Uganda on January 26, 2011. Kato's killer or killers have yet to be arrested, and though the Ugandan government circulated a baseless story claiming Kat was killed in a robbery-murder type deal, a separate story circulating claims that Kato's death was spurred by the hate message spread through Uganda by the American evangelists I mentioned above.

I applaud the UN and the U.S. for taking a stand against the blatant hate displayed by the Ugandan Government. Uganda is one of 83 countries who have declared homosexuality illegal, but it is the first to try and seek the death penalty for someone simply being gay. Uganda has shelved the bill for now, but I don't expect it to go away, especially not if Bahati keeps adamantly defending it. Strangely enough, my outrage doesn't stem from the "Kill The Gays" bill, or even the death of David Kato. The one thing I find the most appalling about this story is the small but important fact that this bill and Kato's death have both been linked to American Christian evangelists. I am fully aware of the fact that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. I am also fully aware of the fact that Jesus teaches tolerance and acceptance. The words of the three evangelists not only fueled the brutal murder of David Kato via steel hammer, but prompted a legislative motion to make it legal to KILL gay people. I'm pretty sure that murder goes against one of the Ten Commandments, as well as the teachings of Jesus. If these are the kind of people who create the image of American Christians to the world, I want no part of it.

Can an LGBT Group open the door for other extremist groups?

Baylor University Professor Francis Beckwith, shown on the right, has a few things to say about denying the students of Baylor the right to form a group dedicated to discussing LGBT issues. The group, called the Sexual Identity Forum, was denied last week, but still continues to fight Baylor's decision. In an email sent to SIF president Samantha Jones, Beckwith states:

"Baylor is not the government. So, its policy on the proper use of our sexual powers is no more impeding your right to speech or assembly as it is impeding the rights of Klansmen and Skinheads to speak and assemble on campus."
Beckwith goes on to say that using words like "LGBT suicide," "hate crimes," and "homophobia" are words used to "intimidate and marginalize many of my brothers and sisters in Christ who as a matter of conscience cannot cooperate with the approval of homosexual conduct." Of course these words are offensive to those who don't believe in Gay Rights! These words turn the tables on those who oppose Gay Rights, and force them to see that aren't the only ones with a defensible opinion.

The one thing I keep seeing as I read through the arguments people against Baylor supporting SIF is the constant restating that homosexuality is a sin. No one is disputing the fact that the Bible says this. A comment left on the SIF website by a student at Baylor says this:

"What we do want is for Baylor to recognize that there are students on campus who identify as other than straight and for Baylor to recognize that there are specific issues that come with the struggles many people are going through involving their sexuality including hate crimes and suicide. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we as followers of God cannot discuss controversial issues."

Karla Rodriguez, mother of a Baylor University student, wrote a response to Baylor's refusal to allow SIF the right to form, saying "this group is trying to advocate acceptance, education and understanding." The local news channel in Waco picked up the story, and a short video on SIF's fight can be found here on their website.

Baylor University spokesperson Lori Fogleman says "the university does not believe that a student organization is the most viable medium in which to have this kind of dialogue on difficult decisions." Who is capable of organizing a discussion group focused on student problems, if students aren't? If Baylor decides to provide a forum in which the topics SIF is trying to discuss, will it be managed by someone who has an open mind, or will it be a way for Baylor to further shove its beliefs down the student body's throats?

Change.org has started a petition for those who want to join SIF's fight for the rights to meet on campus.

Baylor University denies LGBT Group Right to Form on Campus

You'd think that a Christian university like Baylor University would promote tolerance, no matter what the issue. Isn't that what the teachings of Jesus are about? Not so at Baylor University. Baylor actually has a statement on human sexuality on their website, stating that Baylor students "will not participate in advocacy groups which promote understandings of sexuality that are contrary to biblical teaching."

The Sexual Identity Forum (SIF), an LGBT group, was denied the right to organize under Baylor University's name. Understandable, considering what their official statement on human sexuality says. But riddle me this: if Baylor is so against the "advocacy groups" that will promote understanding (a key principle in the teachings of Jesus, mind you) why is the following statement also in Baylor's statement on human sexuality?

"Baylor University welcomes all students into a safe and supportive environment in which to discuss and learn about a variety of issues, including those of human sexuality."

 Am I the only one getting whiplash from Baylor's policy? Does this not seem weird to anyone else? The story of SIF's fight for acceptance caught the eye of John Wright, a writer for Dallas Voice, the "premier media voice for LGBT Texas." When the group was denied its charter from Baylor, Wright was there again with up-to-date news.

Before the Dallas Voice picked the story up, Baylor's newspaper, The Baylor Lariat did a story on SIF's attempt to gain official recognition from Baylor. Samantha Jones, SIF's president, stated that the campus itself was welcoming, but the administration was unwilling to admit that Baylor has it's fair share of gay people on campus.

Baylor student Gabby Garrett, on the other hand, had an opposing view. She said "I think if you want to have discussions you can make that group on your own. I don’t see why it has to have the Baylor-affiliated name to be recognized by Baylor, because Baylor does not recognize homosexuality as an OK lifestyle." Jones countered back, saying "I think, as a Christian school, we should be showing love, compassion and tolerance to everyone, including LGBT students or even just students who want to talk about sexuality."

In an article on change.org, Michael Jones gives evidence that it is in fact okay to be a religious university and still support an LGBT group. Belmont University and Seattle Pacific University have both allowed LGBT groups to form under their school name, so why won't Baylor?

Being a native Texan, I believe it's because Texas is simply too ass-backwards to accept gay students as individuals with voices. I don't mean the whole of Texas, just most of it. I come from a city just outside Houston, arguably one of the most liberal cities in Texas. The high school I went to wasn't very welcoming of gay people. My sister, who is transgendered, was pushed into lockers and spit on, called a faggot and had ice cold water poured over her head. I get that people have a right to their own opinions, but that's my sister, and fucking NO ONE gets to treat her that way. She's a human being too, not an animal to be kicked around.

Baylor's refusal to give SIF the right to form under their name is just another example in a long list of blatant homophobia and gay rights oppression. Texas, the big, glittery belt buckled in the Bible Belt, has to set an example for all the other God-fearing states that surround it. Why, if they let everyone speak their minds, especially the gay community, there might be an uprising of unholy thoughts and unholy deeds. People might get infected with the gay, and we certainly can't have that, can we? I mean, adultery, murder, theft, and other violations of The Holy Bible are offenses we can deal with. So are things like shaving and eating shellfish. But homosexuality? The freedom to be who you were born to be? Not acceptable.

Wake up Baylor. The tide is changing, and you can jump on the bandwagon and embrace this change or you can stay the same and promote your message of hate. The choice is up to you, but I suggest you do the former. Embrace equal rights for everyone, not just who you think deserves them. Welcome to the new world.

Boehner Continues to defend DOMA

You'd think that the president of the United States declaring a law unconstitutional would effectively put a stop to defense of said law. Not so, in John Boehner's case. He said the following during an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network:

"I really am disappointed in the president in his actions.  But if the president won’t defend DOMA, then you’ll see the House of Representatives defend our actions in passing a bill that frankly passed overwhelmingly."

Majority Leader Eric Cantor said that Congress's decision on further defense of DOMA will be reached sometime this week. Boehner seems to believe that the decision to keep defending DOMA is in the bag. It probably is, too. Republicans hold the majority of the House of Representatives, and I won't be surprised if later this week a statement is put out affirming the decision to keep defending DOMA.

What strikes me as...oh, I don't know...CRAZY, is that Boehner is using his new position of power to more or less push his religion on everyone. Rachel Maddow blogged about it earlier today. In his first speech as House Speaker, he called the national debt a "moral threat" to society. He blames Obama solely for the current $14.1 trillion debt, conveniently forgetting to mention that under President Bush's 8-year-term, the debt tripled. TRIPLED. His first speech as House Speaker was also given to the National Religious Broadcasters convention. He continually mentions God, but I thought we had a lovely little thing called separation of church and state. He claims that we have a religious obligation to stop the mounting debt of this country. What about those who don't believe in Christianity? Or those that don't believe in religion at all? What is their obligation to the national debt? Do they not have a say, or does their opinion matter at all?

Though he's not talking about gay rights in this speech, the fact that it was given at a religious convention bothers me. If Boehner continues in this vein, it's only a matter of time before he turns his pulpit toward the "sin" of homosexuality. I personally am worried about what will come in the future. How can our nation be governed fairly if one set of views is slanted to win every time? Do the people of America really have a say in how these matters are handled?

The full text of Boehner's speech can be found here.