Peter Roskam has still not signed on as a cosponsor of H. Res 1064 condemning the pending Ugandan anti-homosexuality bill that we first wrote about on February 15th. The bill, currently pending in the Ugandan legislature, is expected to come to a vote sometime early in March. The Ugandan measure criminalizes homosexual acts and applies lifetime imprisonment and even the death penalty in some cases.
(A) all people possess an intrinsic human dignity, regardless of sexual orientation, and share fundamental human rights;
(B) the ‘Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009’ introduced in the Ugandan Parliament, which includes the extreme penalties of death and life in prison, poses a serious threat to the life, liberty, and security of the person and, if enacted, would set a troubling precedent for other countries; and
(C) the requirement that individuals report suspected homosexual individuals to the Ugandan Government could undermine Uganda’s efforts to combat HIV/AIDS, and interfere with care and counseling by family members, doctors, pastors, teachers, and others; and
(2) calls upon the President and the Secretary of State to–
(A) impress upon the Ugandan Government the United States belief in the intrinsic human dignity of all Ugandans, regardless of sexual orientation;
(B) express unequivocal United States opposition to the ‘Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009’ introduced in the Ugandan Parliament; and
(C) ensure that resources committed to the global HIV/AIDS response are utilized in a manner that is efficient, effective, and appropriate to the local epidemiology of the disease, including in Uganda.
So why won’t Peter Roskam sign on to show his support. He’s had plenty of time to do so. Why he’s already signed on to a resolution introduced on February 24 recognizing the 189th anniversary of the independence of Greece (yes, the 189th anniversary, not the 15oth, not the 200th) so he could have easily gotten his name on 1064.
We think the reason is partly Roskam’s hyperpartisan nature (he almost never crosses the aisle to support Democratic initiatives, even no-brainers like this one). More importantly, we believe that Roskam has a fundamental hostility to gay rights (he voted against hate crimes legislation, he voted against employment non-discrimination) and a deafness to human rights concerns in general. We also believe that he is sympathetic to the Christian extremists like Rick Warren and Sen James Inhofe who have stirred up an anti-gay hornets nest in Uganda. Both Warren and Inhofe have, after pressure, renounced the Ugandan bill. We think Peter Roskam needs to do the same.
Please contact Peter Roskam and ask him to cosponsor H. Res. 1064. You can reach him at (630) 893-9670 in Bloomingdale or at (202) 225-4561 in Washington.
The resolution in question is H. Res. 1064 – Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the “Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009″ under consideration by the Parliament of Uganda, that would impose long term imprisonment and the death penalty for certain acts, threatens the protection of fundamental human rights, and for other purposes. It was introduced on February 3rd by Representative Howard Berman, a Democrat from California’s 28th District. As of this writing, only a single member of Mr. Roskam’s Republican party has signed on as a cosponsor – Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida’s 18th District.
The meat of the resolution is as follows:
Resolved, That the House of Representatives–
(1) strongly believes that–
(A) all people possess an intrinsic human dignity, regardless of sexual orientation, and share fundamental human rights;
(B) the ‘Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009’ introduced in the Ugandan Parliament, which includes the extreme penalties of death and life in prison, poses a serious threat to the life, liberty, and security of the person and, if enacted, would set a troubling precedent for other countries; and
(C) the requirement that individuals report suspected homosexual individuals to the Ugandan Government could undermine Uganda’s efforts to combat HIV/AIDS, and interfere with care and counseling by family members, doctors, pastors, teachers, and others; and
(2) calls upon the President and the Secretary of State to–
(A) impress upon the Ugandan Government the United States belief in the intrinsic human dignity of all Ugandans, regardless of sexual orientation;
(B) express unequivocal United States opposition to the ‘Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009’ introduced in the Ugandan Parliament; and
(C) ensure that resources committed to the global HIV/AIDS response are utilized in a manner that is efficient, effective, and appropriate to the local epidemiology of the disease, including in Uganda.
We think that there is little to complain of in that text – unless, of course, one believes that gay people should be put to death. Peter Roskam has never been friendly to legislation granting equal rights to gay people, but this is a wholly different matter. Mr. Roskam should run, not walk, to get his name added as a co-sponsor. A similar resolution is pending in the Senate.
American right-wing Christian extremists appear to have been at least influential in the origins of the Ugandan bill. These include Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Pastor Rick Warren of California’s Saddleback Church and author of The Purpose Driven Life. Both Inhofe and Warren have finally, after considerable adverse press coverage, publicly denounced the Ugandan bill and denied any role in it’s genesis. Rachel Maddow of MSNBC has done some excellent reporting documenting their connections to Uganda and to leaders involved in propagation of the bill. A couple of her videos can be found at the end of this post.
The Oklahoman reported that Republican Senator Inhofe has made at least 20 trips to Africa since 1999 at a cost to taxpayers of more than $187,000, another example of the GOP’s stwewardship of your tax dollars. Inhofe has publically referred to the trips as “a Jesus thing” . According to journalist Jeff Sharlet, both Inhofe and David Bahati, the Ugandan who authored the bill, are members of a secretive Christian group known as “The Family” and Inhofe and Bahati were close.
A number of other members of the House and Senate are involved in The Family, including Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, with whom Peter Roskam traveled to Honduras last fall. After that trip, Roskam remarked that “Senator DeMint is so grounded and wise and I came away just very, very impressed with him.” We are unaware of any direct ties between Peter Roskam and The Family.
A powerful film by Big Noise Films, “White Power USA”. Learned about it from Jeremy Scahill on Twitter. The film makers write:
The inauguration of President Barack Obama was hailed as a turning point in US race relations. The country was said to be entering a new era of post-racial politics. But while crowds flocked to Washington to witness the swearing in, others were refusing to join the party. Racially motivated threats against Obama rose to new heights in the first months of his presidency, with the US seeing nine high-profile race killings in 2009. Meanwhile white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups claim their membership is growing and that visits to their websites are increasing. Is the racial undercurrent that has long structured US politics reasserting itself?
This is some scary fucking shit. I don’t for a minute believe that these nut cases reflect the ideas and values of the mainstream GOP. But I do think that there is ample reason for caution to that party for some of their rhetoric that fans these flames.
It is the late summer of 2009. There is growing unease in Corporate America. Popular Democratic President Obama has signed into law the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and is pushing a legislative agenda that includes healthcare reform, cap & trade, employee free-choice, and employment non-discrimination. On top of it all he has had the nerve to appoint a “pay czar” to oversee executive compensation at the huge banks that benefited from the Bush bailout. Corporate shills like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and astroturf efforts like the Tea Parties and the Town Hall riots have damaged Obama somewhat but haven’t dealt a crippling blow. It is time for more forceful action.
Representatives of the U.S. Chamber and the big oil companies meet secretly with friendly generals at the Pentagon and a plan is devised. Early in the morning on Sunday, September 6th, a large contingent of special forces enters the White House grounds and quickly overwhelms the Secret Service detail. President Obama, his wife, and his daughters are dragged from their beds in their pajamas and forced to board a helicopter which takes them to Andrews Air Force Base where they are placed on jet and whisked off to Ottawa. A member of President Obama’s own party, Senator Joe Lieberman, is immediately installed as interim President, to serve until the scheduled end of Obama’s term in 2013. Lieberman immediately declares martial law and imposes a curfew, “temporarily” suspends the bill of rights, and shuts down “unfriendly” news organizations such as NPR, the New York Times, and MSNBC. A number of Democratic Representatives and Senators are arrested and detained. The military is used to quash demonstrations in favor of Obama’s return and a number of civilians are killed while others are arbitrarily arrested and beaten and tortured. Some just disappear.
The coup is immediately condemned as illegal by the United Nations, the Organization of American States, NATO, and the European Union. The Prime Minister of Great Britain, Gordon Brown issues a call for Obama’s reinstatement which goes unheeded. Instead, the corporate-friendly Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, declares Obama’s ouster constitutional because of his “crimes against free enterprise” and affirms Lieberman’s presidency. Still, not a single country in the world recognizes the Lieberman junta as the legitimate government of the United States. No matter for some conservative M.P.s from Britain who, friendly to British corporations such as B.P. operating in the U.S., journey to Washington to meet with Lieberman and other members of the junta, and then return home praising the Lieberman government in contradiction to Britain’s official policy as articulated by Gordon Brown.
This could never happen here, you say. Perhaps not. But something much like this happened in Honduras over the summer and our own Republican Congressman, Peter Roskam, has endorsed it as a model of democracy.
This past June, Manuel Zelaya, the democratically elected President of Honduras, was overthrown by a right wing military coup. The President was kidnapped by the military and flown out of the country. Roberto Micheletti was installed as “interim President” and he immediately moved to suspend constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and to suppress those elements of the media unfriendly to the takeover. The coup was immediately branded as illegal by the United Nations, the Organization of American Stat, and the European Union. President Obama quickly decried the coup as illegal and insisted that Manuel Zelaya was still the rightful President of Honduras. The administration held off on a formal declaration that the seizure was a coup, in hopes that diplomatic actions could return Zelaya to office. Mediation efforts by Oscar Arias, a Nobel peace laureate and the President of Costa Rica, came to naught, and the Obama administration announced a termination of non-humanitarian aid to Honduras in early September.
Enter Roskam. So Peter Roskam flies off to Honduras in early October in the company of Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Illinois Congressman Aaron Schock and some other dude whose name escapes me at the moment. They meet with the members of the illegal government who can’t figure out why they’re getting such a bad rap since it has historically been U.S. policy to support ruthless rightwing thugs in Central America. They make no attempt to meet with Manuel Zelaya, the legitimate President, who is holed up in an embassy having recently returned to the country. They also meet with the U.S. Ambassador who Roskam complains is a little defensive (can’t understand why with all these nice Republican Congressman coming down to interfere with U.S. policy). So Roskam and the delegation give encouragement to the illegal government that is so badly misunderstood and quickly fly back to the U.S., Roskam apparently having developed a serious man crush on DeMint during the trip.
On his return, Roskam begins his own little public relations campaign for the illegal Micheletti regime. He does a couple of radio infomercials on friendly local stations. Here he is last week on WIND’s John & Cisco (You have to listen to him give an update on the status of Republican efforts to kill meaningful healthcare reform first – my audio editor is on vacation):
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
There is little debate about the value of Honduras as an American ally. As a democracy in an increasingly unstable region, Honduras has been a partner in the war on drugs, a necessary check against President Hugo Chavez’s aggressive regime in Venezuela and an important $5 billion export market for American manufacturers through the Central American Free Trade Agreement. A stable and democratic Honduras is unquestionably in America’s best interest.
Lets get this straight. Honduras ceased being a democracy on that day in June when the military junta deposed its democratically-elected government. And this b.s. about Chavez’s “aggressive regime”. Is Venezuela lobbing missiles across our borders? Are they quartering troops in Washington? Are they blowing up our ships in the Panama canal? Just how is the Chavez government aggressive? In fact, if anyone has been aggressive it has been the United States. You may remember that Chavez himself was the tempoarily removed from office by a right-wing coup in 2002 and there is evidence that the Bush administration was involved. Certainly Chavez’ ouster was tied to the same reactionary business interests that Roskam represents in Congress and that are behind Zelaya’s ouster in Honduras. Chavez is also a democratically elected president, having won over 63% of the vote in his last election. He enrages right-wing interests both at home and here in the United States because his policies favor the poor over big business and because of his sharing of the proceeds from the country’s oil wealth with the people.
Roskam writes further:
To be sure, Central America is a tenuous region and the Obama administration must carefully maintain the support of our allies. Moreover, Micheletti has made some very notable tactical errors, including forcibly making Zelaya leave Honduras and then temporarily restricting the freedom of the press.
These are serious mistakes, but they don’t make the case for democratic elections any less warranted.
There remains a solution that will satisfy American interests, provide stability to a region in short supply of it and, most important, give Hondurans what they deserve — fair elections. Even if the State Department will not recognize Micheletti’s interim government, it should support election monitors to observe the upcoming Honduran elections.
So Micheletti made some mistakes, but Obama and the U.S. government (the legitimate U.S. government that is, not DeMint and Roskam) should support him becuse this is all about obtaining free and fair elections, you know, democracy.
So lets take a look at democracy, Micheletti Style. Here’s some video of Micheletti’s police applying a heavy dose of democracy to some peaceful pro-Zelaya demonstrators in Tegucigalpa in June, ordinary folks who were a little upset that their President had been illegally removed from office. That’s tear gas you see in the beginning. A very useful tool for promoting democracy.
When tear gas proves ineffective at achieving democracy, sometimes you have to use bullets.
Making sure the press doesn’t spread “insurrection”, to use Roskam’s term, is an important aspect of promoting democracy. Here Micheletti’s masked police are shutting down a TV station, Channel 36, in September. Apparently this station didn’t understand that press freedom means the freedom to say what Micheletti wants you to say.
When I hear Roskam on the radio or read him in the paper defending this I think my heads going to explode. I used to think Roskam wasn’t such a bad guy though of a decidedly different ideological bent than my own. But now I have to say this man is a pig. He is evil. He does not understand right from wrong or just doesn’t care. Would not be surprised to learn when campaign contribution data becomes available that Roskam received some fat contribution for his P.R. work on behalf of the Honduran junta through one of its high-powered U.S. lobbyists.
Roskam needs to be unelected. Still hoping that we’ll get a strong candidate to step up and slug it out with him in 2010. Tammy, are you up for another go at this creep?
In light of this past week’s events – the march on Washington, the President’s speech to the Human Rights Campaign, the vote on federal hate crimes legislation – it seems appropriate to review our own Congressman Peter Roskam’s record on issues of importance to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community. It is not a pretty picture.
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest civil rights organization, labors to achieve full equality for LGBT people. For each Congress, HRC produces a scorecard detailing each representative’s votes and co-sponsorships on issues of key importance to the community. Roskam was first scored for the 110th Congress which ended last year, Roskam’s first term in office.
Roskam scored a zero. That mean’s that Roskam opposed LGBT rights 100% of the time, a distinguished record of legislative homophobia:
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1592) would expand federal jurisdiction to reach serious, violent hate crimes perpetrated because of the victim’s race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability. The House passed the bill on May 3, 2007, by a vote of 237-180 (Roll Call Vote No. 299, 1st Session, 110th Congress). Democrats — 212 yes, 14 no,6 not voting; Republicans — 25 yes, 166 no, 10 not voting. HRC supported the bill. Peter Roskam voted NO.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) offered a motion to recommit promptly the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1592). The motion would amend the bill to add the categories of senior citizens and members of the armed forces to the legislation, but also wouldrefer the bill back to committee, effectively killing the bill. The motion was defeated on May 3, 2007, by a vote of 189-227 (Roll Call Vote No. 298, 1st Session, 110th Congress). Democrats — 9 yes, 216 no, 7 not voting; Republicans — 180 yes, 11 no, 10 not voting. HRC opposed the motion to recommit. Peter Roskam voted to kill the bill.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 3685) would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The House passed the bill on Nov. 7, 2007, by a vote of 235-184 (Roll Call Vote No. 1057, 1st Session, 110th Congress). Democrats — 200 yes, 25 no, 8 not voting; Republicans — 35 yes, 159 no, 6 not voting. HRC supported the bill. Peter Roskam voted against the ban on discrimination.
Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) offered a motion to recommit promptly the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 3685). The motion stated that the bill would have no impact on state or federal definitions of marriage as being between one man and one woman, but also would refer the bill back to committee, effectively killing the bill. The motion was defeated on Nov. 7, 2007, by a vote of 198-222 (Roll Call Vote No. 1056, 1st Session, 110th Congress). Democrats — 14 yes, 214 no, 5 not voting; Republicans — 184 yes, 8 no, 8 not voting. HRC opposed the motion to recommit. Peter Roskam voted to kill the bill.
Members of Congress were asked to co-sponsor legislation, introduced on April 24, 2007, that would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. As of Oct. 3, 2008, the measure had 185 co-sponsors: Democrats 179; Republicans 6. Peter Roskam refused to co-sponsor the legislation.
Members of Congress were asked to co-sponsor legislation, introduced on Feb. 28, 2007, that would repeal the discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy that denies lesbian, gay and bisexual soldiers the right to serve their country openly. As of Oct. 3, 2008, the measure had 149 co-sponsors: Democrats 146; Republicans 3. Peter Roskam refused to help end discrimination against LGBT soldiers.
Members of Congress were asked to co-sponsor legislation, introduced on March 29, 2007, that would equalize tax treatment for employer-provided health coverage for domestic partners and other non-spouse, non-dependent beneficiaries. As of Oct. 3, 2008, the measurehad 120 co-sponsors: Democrats 116; Republicans 4.Peter Roskam refused to work for equality.
Members of Congress were asked to co-sponsor legislation, introduced on May 8, 2007, that would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide same-sex partners of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents the same immigration benefits that legal spouses of U.S. permanent residents enjoy. As of Oct. 3, 2008, the measure had 119 co-sponsors: Democrats 118; Republicans 1. Peter Roskam refused to help LGBT immigrants.
These coupled with Roskam’s vote last week to defund the military rather than approve federal hate crimes legislation paint a picture of a legislator who is agressively anti-gay. LGBT residents of the 6th District need to pressure Roskam to stop voting against equality.
In case you haven’t seen it, here is President Obama’s speech to the HRC last week. Obama vows to sign the hate crimes legislation and to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. I don’t doubt his sincerity of intent. But I sincerely hope that he will take action sooner rather than later. It is growing harder to rationalize support for a party that has so often disappointed when it comes to LGBT rights.
A 3.4 percent pay raise for members of the armed services
A $6.7 billion allocation for mine-resistant armored vehicles (MRAPs) designed to protect soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Procurement of body armor for those same soldiers
Aid for soldiers with catastrophic combat-related conditions to obtain personal care assistance during the period before retirement or disability becomes effective
A skill incentive bonus for members of the reserves
Bonuses for military linguists serving long-term in Afghanistan
Ensuring that servicemen on duty overseas have the opportunity to have their absentee votes counted
Funding research on tissue repair and transplantation for combat injuries
Why would Peter Roskam vote to defund the military? Because the bill also helps gay people.
Specifically, the bill extends the federal hate crimes legislation, passed in 1968 in the wake of the assasination of Rev. Martin Luther King, making violent crimes committed against people on the basis of sexual orientation federal offenses.
The legislation is important because it allows the federal government to intervene and prosecute such crimes in jurisdictions where local and state authorities prove unwilling to do so. While there is much work left to do, the bill is a big step toward ensuring that LBGT people are ensured equal status under the constitution and can enjoy the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.
Roskam and other House Republicans voted against the bill because of opposition by Christian hate groups such as the Family Research Council that claim that their free speech rights will be violated by preventing them from demonizing gay people from pulpits lest one of their misguided followers commit a violent crime. The bill, however, contains no prohibitions on speech, though hopefully it will encourage more responsible speech on the part of some pastors. Their argument is a fallacy. Protection against crimes committed against persons on the basis of religion in the original 1968 legislation has in no way impaired the free speech rights of those who are critical of religion. But it has, appropriately, enabled federal involvement in investigation of crimes against Christians such as church burnings.
