Christian and political leaders in the African nation of Zambia are speaking out against Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s global call to end discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. The Zambia Episcopal Conference, the Pentecostal Church’s Bishops’ Council of Zambia and the Zambia United Christian Action “said that it was unwise for the U.S. government to use its money to force other nations to permit ‘ungodly practices’ in their land” and insisted that “Donor aid should not be tied to promoting immorality”:

[T]he government’s information minister, Given Lubinda, assured that the country’s leaders would not bow to outside pressure to respect and tolerate homosexuality in the nation. He reminded western nations about the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and Accra Agenda of Action, which guide development aid distribution and do not mention acceptance of same-sex marriage as the basis for offering aid to the poor nations. Rev. Gibson Nyirenda, spokesman for the Pentecostal bishops’ council, urged Zambia to reject any donor aid that comes with conditions.

“For us as a nation, we cannot go in that direction because it is indecent and can erode our morals as society. Let’s remain a Christian nation by ignoring such assistance,” Rev Nyirenda said.

Homosexuality is considered a felony in Zambia, punishable by up to 14 years in prison, although the country’s constitution does include a general non-discrimination clause and few have been prosecuted for the “crime.”

During her landmark speech in Geneva, Clinton specifically addressed the concerns of religions leaders. “For many of us, religious belief and practice is a vital source of meaning and identity, and fundamental to who we are as people,” she said. “And likewise, for most of us, the bonds of love and family that we forge are also vital sources of meaning and identity. And caring for others is an expression of what it means to be fully human. It is because the human experience is universal that human rights are universal and cut across all religions and cultures.”

Our guest blogger is Jerome Hunt, a Research Associate for LGBT Progress at the Center for American Progress.

Youth homeless was one of the main focuses last week as the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) held their final meeting for the year. The USICH was briefed on the work being done by the Interagency Group on Youth, a collation of representatives from a variety of government agencies including the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Education, Labor, Justice, and the White House Domestic Policy Council. The group presented findings from its series of meetings with federal and state experts from the education, child welfare, housing, and juvenile justice sectors.

The Interagency Group on Youth acknowledged that certain sub-populations of youth — LGBT youth and youth exiting child welfare or the juvenile justice system — are at much higher risk for homelessness and pledged to collaboratively work together and “with service providers currently serving this vulnerable population to ensure that we have a better understanding of the size of the problem, the needs of different sub-groups, that successful strategies are implemented and progress is made.”

Indeed, a recent report by the National Center on Family Homelessness estimated that 1.6 million children lived on the street, in homeless shelters, with other families or in motels last year and that youth homelessness has risen 38 percent during the economic recession. Considering that an estimated 20 to 40 percent of homeless youth population is LGBT, this commitment by the USICH to work collaboratively across government and with the non-profit sector to help these sub-populations is definitely welcomed — particularly in the wake of a survey conducted by the DC Alliance of Youth Advocates (DCAYA) of close to 500 homelessness youth that resulted in 6 percent (or 19 people) of the respondents identifying as LGBT. (DCAYA believes this was due to the low number of participating sites that provide specific services to LGBT youth.)

Much work needs to be done to address the issues of youth homelessness, particularly LGBT youth homeless in this country. More programs need to provide specific services to the LGBT community, train staffs who may encounter LGBT youth, and collect more data about this population. Nevertheless, USICH acknowledgment that LGBT youth are a population at high risk for homelessness and commitment to addressing the issue is a major step in the right direction. Hopefully in 2012, the Interagency Group on Youth will bring some specific plans to the USICH that will help thousands of LGBT youth to no longer call the streets home.

Nathaniel Frank spent the better part of 2010 disputing hysterical conservative claims about the supposed dangers of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces. But in the year since Congress passed legislation eliminating Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and three months after the military implemented repeal, leaders who opposed the change are embracing it and gay servicemembers are reporting acceptance within the ranks.

In fact, as Frank points out in a new report, none of the supposed dangers of ending policy materialized — gays are not “distracting” straight servicemembers, Christian chaplains are not fleeing the military, and the institution has not experienced an increase in sexual assaults. Accountability and DADT “documents—all in one place—60 of the main predictions of disruption that would allegedly result from openly gay service, and the names of the people who made them.” Here is a sampling:

– “[Lifting the ban] may even prove decisive to the viability of the all-volunteer force. That viability may, in turn, determine our ability to avoid in the years ahead—as we have for the past four decades—a return to conscription to meet our requirements for warriors in those conflicts.” [Frank Gaffney, Jr., Center for Security Policy, 2011]

– “I hope that when we pass this legislation that we will understand that we are doing great damage, and we could possibly and probably—as the commandant of the Marine Corps said and I’ve been told by literally thousands of members of the military—harm the battle effectiveness, which is so vital to the support, to the survival of our young men and women in the military.” [Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), 2010]

– “If the law is overturned and open homosexuals are welcomed into the military, the number of homosexuals in the armed forces can only increase—leading to a corresponding increase in same-sex sexual assaults.” [Peter Sprigg, Family Research Council, 2010]

Read the full report here.

On Tuesday, Newt Gingrich told an Iowa voter primarily concerned about marriage equality for gay and lesbian Americans to vote for President Obama, indicating that he would not be interested in engaging on the issue of same-sex marriage as president. Last night, that voter — adjunct college professor Scott Arnold — appeared on MSNBC’s Ed Show and said that Gingrich’s refusal to ever consider changing his mind on the fundamental issue of equal rights made him feel like a second-class citizen:

ARNOLD: It was almost as if he drew a line in the sand saying, you know, I don’t want your support. Go vote for this other guy because there’s no place for you in my, you know, in my presidency, there’s no place for you almost in a sense, you know, as an American. What do gay Americans do if Newt Gingrich was president? It was baffling really. [...] If he wants to be president, he should be president of all Americans. And, yeah, that did make me feel like a second-class citizen. Absolutely.

Watch it:

The Gingrich campaign has issued a statement standing by the Speaker’s refusal to consider gay rights, saying, “As you can see from the transcript and video, Gingrich was saying that he plans to talk to all Americans about jobs, national security, creating a better future for America and many issues.” “He did say that for voters whose most important issue was allowing gays the right to marry, that it was legitimate for them to support Obama for president.” Republican gay groups have also jumped to Gingrich’s defense.

North Carolina Speaker of the House Thom Tillis

During a recent public forum at the University of North Carolina, student Jeff DeLuca challenged North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis (R) for supporting the proposed constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships. DeLuca pointed out that the amendment sends a message to young gay people like him that they are not wanted in the state:

DELUCA: I just want you to know that you are sending a message to many young people like myself — people across this country — that they’re not wanted here in North Carolina. That’s what [Rep.] Jim Forrester said when he brought this forward — that the goal of this amendment was to keep LGBT people out of North Carolina, to scare them away. And I think that that’s a really cynical and divisive thing to be doing when so many people are out of work — straight and gay.

Watch it:

Tillis stood by his opposition to marriage equality, but continued to express some ambivalence about the amendment because he now feels it may be government overreach. He previously tried to absolve himself of responsibility for the amendment’s passage in the legislature, despite the fact he was the one who scheduled it for a vote.