Citibank is one of the largest businesses and employers in Uganda, but the company refuses to take a position against the proposed “Kill The Gays” bill. Over 500,000 have petitioned the company, as well as Barclays, to come out against the odious proposal if only to protect its employees and customers in the country. Citibank responded to the petition today, but only reiterated its nondiscrimination policy:

While the laws and cultural norms in some countries where Citi operates differ from commonly accepted global standards for human rights, Citi supports equality without regard for, among other personal characteristics, race, gender, gender identity or expression, disability, age, nationality, or sexual orientation.

“Supporting equality” is a particularly weak statement in response to a bill that would blatantly persecute gay people and their allies with life sentences in prison or the death penalty. Barclays at least took the added step of acknowledging the bill and its opposition:

Barclays has a strong history of supporting all aspects of diversity, both in the workplace and in wider society. Equally, we are proud of playing our part in the development of economies across Africa, and the key role Barclays plays in the lives of millions of our African customers. Barclays is aware of the proposed legislation relating to homosexuality in Uganda and we are engaging at appropriate levels of the Ugandan Government to express our views.

Sign the Change.org petition to encourage these banking giants to use their significant corporate influence to protect the lives of LGBT citizens.

Dr. Colleen Conway-Welch

Dr. Colleen Conway-Welch was a member of President Reagan’s original commission to investigate AIDS, and she now says it’s “probably past time to go back” and reevaluate the laws criminalizing HIV per the commission’s recommendations. These recommendations included creating “affirmative duties” for those infected with HIV to disclose their status to sexual partners or be subject to criminal penalties. All 50 states have policies that could allow for prosecuting a person for intentional transmission of HIV, including 39 with HIV-specific criminal statutes. According to Conway-Welch, these laws don’t reflect current science:

CONWAY-WELCH: Most of the criminal laws were put into place in the early 90s because people were scared, and it would make sense to recommend that they go back. In medicine now, there is a real push for evidence-based interventions, and I think that for those laws that were not evidence-based, I think it would be time to go back.

Indeed, laws punishing the possible transmission of HIV serve more to humor vengeance and fuel anti-HIV stigma than to actually curb infection rates. A study released in July showed that HIV criminalization discouraged individuals from getting tested for HIV or seeking care once diagnosed out of fear for being exposed for prosecution. A similar study in Canada found that because of the laws, many will not get tested or even discuss sexual practices with nurses and physicians, and will in fact have higher rates of unsafe sex. Meanwhile, there is little evidence to show that the laws have any beneficial effect in fighting the epidemic.

Protecting people from HIV infection is an important priority, but maintaining a public bias against those who are positive is anathema to the cause. Efforts should focus more on prevention and less on punishment.

The Rabbinical Council of America, which represents 1000 Orthodox Rabbis, has released a statement distancing itself from the Jewish ex-gay ministry JONAH. Former JONAH patients filed suit this week accusing JONAH of “consumer fraud” for marketing the promise of changing their sexual orientation and instead of subjecting them to humiliating and shaming practices. RCA wants a letter it once printed removed from JONAH’s website:

As rabbis trained in Jewish law and values, we base our religious positions regarding medical matters on the best research and advice of experts and scholars in those areas, along with concern for the religious, emotional, and physical welfare of those impacted by our decisions. Our responsibility is to apply halakhic (Jewish legal) values to those opinions. [...]

Despite numerous attempts by the RCA to have mention of that original letter removed from the JONAH website, our calls, letters, and emails remain unanswered… We want it taken down. JONAH said it was a letter of support, but if you read the letter it is not. They took an informational statement and reprinted it, and the use of that as an endorsement is an error.

Though RCA points out that numerous Orthodox leaders have rescinded their support for ex-gay therapy, the letter in question does in fact read as supportive, encouraging rabbis to refer individuals from their congregation to JONAH:

Rabbis may refer any individuals within their congregations who are dealing with unwanted same sex attractions or any families who have a member thereof facing such an issue. Please contact them if you need referrals for therapists who specialize in working with this population or for programs that may be of assistance. JONAH’s numerous support groups may be of value to congregants, either for those struggling with the issue and/or for their families.

Rather than worry about a letter, RCA might consider simply making a clear condemnation of ex-gay therapy. This may be less likely, because the Orthodox community has traditionally been an unwelcoming place for LGBT people, Chaim Levin, one of the plaintiffs in the suit against JONAH, has frequently pointed out.

State Sen. John Moolenaar (R), sponsor of the odious bill.

The Michigan Senate’s Committee on Health Policy has approved a bill that would protect health care professionals who wish to discriminate against the LGBT community. Under the guise of “religious liberty and conscience protection,” Senate Bill 975 would allow health facilities to refuse to provide any health care service for any reason of “conscience,” which includes “religious beliefs, moral convictions, or ethical principles”:

A health facility may assert as a matter of conscience an objection to providing a health care service and may decline to provide a health care service that violates its conscience pursuant to this section. If a health facility asserts as a matter of conscience an objection to providing a health care service under this section, the health facility shall apply that objection equally to all patients that it serves, subject to this act.

The bill waives any civil, criminal, or administrative liability for the facilities that choose to discriminate, so no legal recourse would be possible. Instead, it guarantees damages for any person who is forced to violate their “conscience.” It also dictates that no public official or entity can deny aid or grants to a facility that discriminates based on conscience, which means that if same-sex recognition changes in Michigan, the state would remain obligated to financially support agencies like Catholic Charities, even if they refuse to serve same-sex couples, as transpired in Illinois.

Should SB 975 pass, any doctor or medical professional could refuse to provide any service — be it an abortion, HIV treatment, or even a basic check-up for a gay or trans patient — and the employing facility would be prohibited from taking action against the employee. Given members of the LGBT community already face severe health inequities, including basic access to care, this bill could exacerbate an already dire situation. Health policy should protect patients, not doctors’ “moral convictions.”

Michigan teacher Susan Johnson was suspended for three days, two without pay, simply for playing a song about marriage equality in her class. That song, “Same Love” by Macklemore and Ryan Lewis, raises questions about how people are treated for being gay. Now, Macklemore has responded to her mistreatment:

I believe that Ms. Johnson getting suspended is completely out of line and unjust.  However, I think it’s important for moments like these to be exposed and for us to pay attention and respond.  This level of intolerance and fear is still very active in America, but at times is not completely visible. This incident is just one of tens of thousands that have happened across the country where schools have exposed a latent homophobia, preventing safe space for all young people to feel confident in being themselves. It’s clear that Ms. Johnson felt bullying and “gay bashing” were issues that needed to be addressed, and by doing so, was punished.

I wrote the song “Same Love,” not with the expectation that it would cure homophobia and lead to marriage equality across the US (although that’d be awesome).  It was written with the hope that it would facilitate dialogue and through those conversations understanding and empathy would emerge. This incident demonstrates how too often we are quick to silence conversations that must be had. Even if people disagree, there is far more potential for progress when people are vocal and honestly expressing their thoughts about gay rights.  When we are silent and avoid the issue, fear and hatred have a far greater life span.

It’s discouraging that a song about love and civil rights has led to a teacher getting suspended from her job.  But that’s where we are at. For those of us who get a pit in our stomach when reading a story like this, it just makes it abundantly clear there is far more work to be done.

Unfortunately, the school is standing by its action, and is finally speaking out. According to the district, teachers have to submit a completed form about any clip proposed for use in class for approval by a building administrator. In addition, there’s an expectation that teachers identify curriculum benchmarks for every clip “to ensure that instructional materials are appropriate for the course and its students.” Johnson was teaching a performing arts class, so a timely pop song about a relevant social issue for students is easily justified.

The school’s implication seems to be that teachers cannot be entrusted to exercise any creative approaches in their classes or ever incorporate student’s own interests.  It also sounds like anything broaching the subject of LGBT issues is not “appropriate,” essentially proving the very point Macklemore and Ryan Lewis were trying to make.

The Family Research Council is engaging in some very interesting damage control spin this week over its present and past support of Uganda’s “Kill The Gays” bill, which may pass before the end of the year. Earlier this week, Tony Perkins applauded statements by Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, but now he is trying to claim that FRC has never supported Uganda’s heightened criminal sanctions for homosexuality:

For years, the African nation has been condemned for its severe laws criminalizing homosexuality. Despite allegations to the contrary, FRC has never supported that policy–or any policy that imposes the death penalty on homosexuals. What we do oppose is the suggestion that gay and lesbian acts are universal human rights. So when Congress introduced a resolution in 2010 denouncing Uganda’s punishment for homosexuality, FRC fought–at the request of some Members–to strike the pro-homosexual “human rights” language from the final measure.

First, it’s egregious enough that Perkins boasts his group’s opposition to the human rights of gays and lesbians, which would include freedom from violence and harassment, freedom to love, and freedom to raise a family. But what’s galling is that his denial of supporting Uganda’s bill is an outright lie. Though it has been scrubbed from FRC’s website, a distinct audio and visual record still exists documenting FRC’s blatant support of the “Kill The Gays” bill, death penalty and all. Jeremy Hooper provides them both; listen to it:

To be clear, in 2010, the Family Research Council described — in Tony Perkins’ own words — Uganda’s “Kill The Gays” bill as an effort “to uphold moral conduct.” And now, Perkins has the gall to accuse groups like the Human Rights Council and Southern Poverty Law Center of “fostering a culture of hatred and violence,” as if they somehow recruited and encouraged the rogue shooter who opened fire on FRC’s offices earlier this year. Perkins’ interpretation of who is tolerant and who is violent does not reflect reality.