Did Tony Perkins Support Murder of Ugandan Homosexuals?

First, who is Tony Perkins? He is a lobbyist and a politician. He is the president of the Family Research Council (FRC), and he works in the District of Columbia (that's Washington D.C.) lobbying for issues on behalf of some conservative Christians.  It's not a secret that he is opposed to endorsing homosexual behaviors as an alternative lifestyle. He is more likely to treat homosexual behavior as evidence of an illness, mental or otherwise, that merits therapy and treatment.  But does he hate homosexuals? Is he the president of a hate group? 

Second, why is Uganda at the center of controversy over homosexuals?  Uganda is a homophobic nation, half of whose population is under the age of 15, and 15% of those children are orphaned. The nation is suffering an HIV/AIDS epidemic. There are no words to briefly convey the staggering loss of teachers, nurses and policemen (for example) who provide stability to the culture, protection and care for the communities and mentors and guardians for the children. I could not find statistics on how many children are raised by only a single parent in a culture overwhelmed by unemployment and utterly lacking income opportunities, paid welfare, paid health care or even free schools. It is common for households with children to have to choose between school for the kids or food for the family - child care or guardianship for multiple children while a single parent searches for work is nonexistent for many households in Uganda.

It is no secret that the Family Research Council spent $25,000 lobbying congress in 2010 with respect to their plans to pass a resolution condemning a poorly written bill in Uganda. (The bill did not become law.) Here is a Tony Perkins quote, from Family Research Council's website. The quote is no longer posted on their website. It was found on internet archives of March 15, 2010 (colors added for emphasis).

Hello, I am Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council. At the recent National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama took the podium calling for greater civility in Washington, which in my opinion is a laudable goal. However, his comments quickly turned to his preoccupation with defending homosexuality. The President criticized Ugandan leaders for considering enhance penalties for crimes related to homosexuality. The press has widely mischaracterized the law which calls for the death penalty, not for homosexual behavior which is already a crime, but for acts such as intentionally spreading HIV/AIDS, or preying upon vulnerable individuals such as children, which has been a problem in Uganda for years because the large number of orphans. The President said that "We may disagree about gay marriage, "but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are." Mr. President as long as you characterize efforts to uphold moral conduct that protects others and in particular the most vulnerable, as attacking people, civility will continue to evade us.

I have been told this quote is proof that Tony Perkins supported execution for gays and lesbians. When I read this quote, I saw that Mr. Perkins supported protection for children and prevention of the deliberate spread of a terminal disease (hereinafter referred to as "murder"). I do not see the connection between consensual homosexual relationships (which I do not believe should be criminalized) and pedophilia and murder (which I hope we agree are criminal activities).

If it's public record that FRC lobbied about the resolution to condemn the Ugandan bill, they must be either for or against the resolution, right? No, the political process is not black and white, which is why enacting new laws (or even non-binding resolutions) can be so complex in the American system. Does the lobbying form that discloses the monies spent tell us what the FRC lobbied for? No. So, who knows what the intent of the FRC was, while they were spending the money? The lobbyists know. What do they have to say about the topic?

The Tony Perkins-led FRC said it did lobby on the bill, but not to kill it - rather to change the language it contained and "to remove sweeping and inaccurate assertions that homosexual conduct is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right."

"FRC did not lobby against or oppose passage of the congressional resolution," the group said. "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."

"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," the group adds.

There is no clear contradiction in the first and second quotes. It is possible they could both be true, at the same time. For those who say the first quote is a contradiction to the second, and therefore Tony Perkins lied, I would urge you to carefully reconsider.  The logic of such a position is to equate gays and lesbians with pedophiles and murderers, and yet still uphold they should be a protected group of citizens. Such a position does more to harm the image of gays and lesbians than it does to help it.

My subsequent blog post will be about why it matters to me that supporters of alternate lifestyles spend words educating people on the hate speech of their opponents, and vice versa - homophobes educating people on the destructiveness of gay lifestyles.

Dan Cathy, Religious Views and Hate

Today's post is from a guest blogger, Marjorie McKinstry-Miller, upon request from Jean:

He made his beliefs known. Those beliefs are hateful. I am heterosexual. I am married. I have friends who are gay who cannot marry... thanks to other Americans who hold the same hateful beliefs as the head of Chik-Fil-A.

I am also Christian. But, I do not pick and choose elements of the Bible to support my hatred for those different from me. If we followed every law put forth as truth by the Bible, most of the Americans so offended by the reactions of those of us appalled by Chik-Fil-A... would be offended, shocked and appalled.

As an American running a business in America, he has the right to present his opinions and run a business that funds groups whose sole purpose is to prevent loving couples from marrying.

As an American, I have the right to discuss this issue, to speak out against it, and to choose not to purchase chicken when the profits from that chicken will be spent to further an irrational hate and bias professed by bigots. What's most offensive to me is that these bigots are abusing and using the Bible to excuse their hate.

You cannot have it both ways. If you choose to interpret passages in the Bible as being against homosexuality and against gay marriage, then you have to: ensure Cattle do not mingle with any other livestock; cannot have more than one crop in any one field; cannot wear clothing made of more than one fabric; cannot cut your hair or shave; must be killed if you curse your mother or father; must be murdered if you cheat on your spouse; have to prevent those who are blind, lame or who have flat noses from visiting an altar of God; and kill anyone of a different religion. So, those of you pounding on the Bible to suggest that your hatred is warranted, the above list should keep you busy for awhile.... making changes in your life, your family, your yard, your fields, your livestock, your physical features and infirmities... and your hatred of those who are different from you.

Meanwhile, back in the 21st Century, I shall pick and choose the parts of the Bible that discuss love, acceptance, forgiveness and... I know this is difficult for quite a few folks to comprehend... not judging.