Connect with us

News

Uganda president to sign anti-gay bill into law

Int’l LGBT advocates urge Obama administration to take action

Published

on

Yoweri Museveni, Uganda, gay news, Washington Blade

Uganda President Yoweri Museveni has signaled he would sign an anti-gay bill into law (Photo by the U.K. Department for International Development; courtesy Wikimedia Commons).

Despite earlier indications that he wouldn’t approve the measure, Uganda President Yoweri Museveni on Friday signaled his intent to sign a controversial “anti-homosexuality bill” into law.

News that Museveni would sign the bill came via Twitter from Ofwono Opondo, a spokesperson for the Uganda government, who said the Uganda president told members of the NRM party in parliament  he’d “assent” to the legislation.

Multiple news outlets, including Buzzfeed, confirmed that Museveni intended to sign the bill into law.

In a subsequent tweet, Opondo later advised supporters of gay rights to “take it easy,” saying Uganda is a sovereign country and the measure can challenged in the courts.

Homosexual acts are already illegal in Uganda, but the proposed legislation would impose a life sentence in prison for “aggravated homosexuality” — repeated offenses, homosexual sex with a minor or having gay sex while HIV positive. Failure to report gay people to the government would also be made a crime. It includes a provision that makes officiating a same-sex marriage ceremony punishable by seven years in prison.

Controversial provisions that would have instituted the death penalty for homosexual acts were removed from the bill in parliament.

Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, blamed the situation on the efforts by U.S. evangelicals, who reportedly went to the Uganda and spoke out against homosexuality.

“Unless this bill is stopped from becoming law, lives will be destroyed, and countless people will be punished for an immutable characteristic,” Griffin said. “Anti-LGBT Americans advocated for laws further criminalizing LGBT people in Uganda, and it looks like they are now getting their wish. Whether it’s Brian Brown advocating for anti-LGBT laws in Russia or Scott Lively calling for the further criminalization of LGBT people in Uganda, anti-LGBT Americans must stop exporting their hate abroad.”

Among these evangelicals is Scott Lively, who in 2009 travelled to Uganda to help lawmakers craft the legislation. Known for his comparison of the LGBT movement to the Nazi movement in twentieth century Germany, Lively is facing a lawsuit from the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights for illegally fomenting anti-gay sentiment in Uganda.

In response to the latest news, the Center for Constitutional Rights issued an organizational statement blaming Lively for his contribution to passage of the anti-gay bill.

“LGBTI Ugandans will become second-class citizens and even more vulnerable to violence and abuse,” the statement says. “Right wing U.S. evangelical Scott Lively played a major role in the creation of the bill, and we will continue to hold him accountable in U.S. courts on behalf of our clients, Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG).”

After the Uganda parliament approved the legislation unexpectedly in December, Uganda President Yoweri Museveni reportedly said he wouldn’t sign the legislation unless he received scientific proof showing people are gay by choice, and not by birth.

According to Uganda press, scientists in the country prepared a report for Museveni along those lines. Among the findings was that widely discredited notion that “50 percent of the homosexuals revert to heterosexuality if rehabilitated in time.”

But the news that Museveni would sign the bill into law isn’t the only anti-gay development coming out of Uganda. As Box Turtle Bulletin’s Jim Burroway points out, Uganda press reported parliament leaders back Museveni’s plan to hold in jail without possibility of bail sodomy suspects — in addition to those suspected of being “defilers and rapists.” Further, he reportedly tasked the Ministry of Justice to expedite the process of amending the Constitution to that effect.

Other LGBT advocates — many of whom have been speaking out against the Uganda anti-gay bill since its introduction in 2009 — responded to the news by urging the Obama administration to take action.

Mark Bromley, chair of Council for Global Equality, said his organization is “still trying to confirm these latest reports” and urged the Obama administration to compel Museveni to change his mind about signing the bill.

“We are still trying to confirm these latest reports,” Bromley said. “That said, now is the time for the Administration to leverage all of its diplomatic assets to ensure that President Museveni understands the full consequences of this decision and the impact it would have on our bilateral relationship. Museveni has pledged to reject the current Bill. We certainly hope the United States will hold him to that pledge.”

Robyn Lieberman, senior policy strategist for the international group Human Rights First, also urged the Obama administration to prevent Museveni from signing the legislation.

“President Obama should immediately publicly condemn this legislation and emphasize the negative consequences enactment of this law will have on Uganda’s relationship with the United States,” Liberman said. “He should also make it clear to President Museveni that he will take other measures in the relationship if this bill is signed, including diplomatic, economic, and multilateral actions. This is a matter of life and death for LGBT people in Uganda and beyond, and it demands  the attention of this U.S. President who has been a stellar leader on LGBT issues in this country.”

Lieberman also said “there should be no doubt” the announcement that Museveni would sign the anti-gay bill is in response to recent passage of similar anti-gay legislation in countries like Nigeria and Russia.

Neither the White House nor the State Department immediately responded to the Washington Blade’s request to comment on what action the administration will take in the wake of the news that Museveni intends to sign the anti-gay bill. The administration, as well as Obama himself during the National Prayer Breakfast in 2010, have previously spoken out against the legislation.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Rehoboth Beach

BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth

Attendees encouraged to wear appropriate gear

Published

on

Diego’s in Rehoboth Beach will host a BLUF leather social on Friday, April 10 at 5 p.m. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Diego’s in Rehoboth Beach hosts a monthly leather happy hour. April’s edition is scheduled for Friday, April 10, 5-7 p.m. Attendees are encouraged to wear appropriate gear. The event is billed as an official event of BLUF, the free community group for men interested in leather. After happy hour, the attendees are encouraged to reconvene at Local Bootlegging Company for dinner, which allows cigar smoking. There’s no cover charge for either event.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel

Two memorial events scheduled in D.C.

Published

on

(Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Two celebrations of life are planned for Sean Christopher Bartel, 48, who was found deceased on a hiking trail in Argentina on or around March 15. Bartel began his career as a television news reporter and news anchor at stations in Louisville, Ky., and Evansville, Ind., before serving as Senior Video Producer for the D.C.-based International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union from 2013 to 2024.

A memorial gathering is planned for Friday, April 10, 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. at the IBEW International Office (900 7th St., N.W.), according to a statement by the DC Gay Flag Football League, where Bartel was a longtime member. A celebration of life is planned that same evening, 6-8 p.m. at Trade (1410 14th St., N.W.). 

Continue Reading

Puerto Rico

The ‘X’ returns to court

1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans

Published

on

(Photo by Sergei Gnatuk via Bigstock)

Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.

That has now changed.

Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.

The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.

Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.

The issue lies in how the law is applied.

Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.

Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.

The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.

The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.

This case does not exist in isolation.

It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.

Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.

From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.

The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.

Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.

That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.

The debate is no longer theoretical.

It is now before the courts.

Continue Reading

Popular