Scott Lively Says He’s ‘Not Unhappy’ Uganda’s Anti-gay Law Was Overturned


Scott Lively, the American evangelical hatemonger who helped Uganda pass its brutal anti-gay law, has written a column claiming he's "not unhappy" the law was struck down in its present form and says he's now waiting for calls of apology from media outlets who "for years have insinuated (or outright insisted) that the Ugandans were merely my puppets in a nefarious scheme to persecute homosexuals there"

Writes Lively:

The maliciously deceitful attempt by the global “gay” movement and its media allies to paint Uganda as a pariah state filled with hateful bigots (as in the propaganda film “God Loves Uganda”), is simply a disgusting modern example of the same “blood libel” used against the Jews by the Nazis.

I am not unhappy that the Ugandan law as written has been nullified. I have always said it was too harsh and did not emphasize prevention and therapy for homosexual disorder. The law’s enactment and quick repeal conclusively demonstrate that Ugandans can think for themselves, are capable of self-governance, and do not need “enlightened” Marxists and homosexual militants from the West to shape their public policy and uphold the rule of law.

Lively, who is set to stand trial for "crimes against humanity" for his role in helping pass Uganda's bill, has been steadfast in his denial of having any role in drumming up anti-gay hysteria in Uganda…despite video showing Lively 'educating' Ugandan lawmakers on how gays are "evil," "serial killers" and "Nazis" 


  1. Jay says

    Well that is not surprising. Scott Lively is a sick pervert who can only extract happiness from the suffering and persecution of others.

  2. Douglas says

    Jesus has a PR problem. Everyone speaking for him when he said nothing about gay people. He did however preach love and compassion. Perhaps his daddy should polish that “I will turn you into a pillar of salt” thingamajiggy STAT.

  3. JackFknTwist says

    Scott Lively writes a column defending himself while Africa burns.

    Get out there and nurse those sick with Ebola, Scott; then we will see that you are an evangelical Christian.
    Otherwise, you are a putrid corpse of a hypocrite.

  4. Ted says

    Someone ought to put a bullet through this prick’s head. It won’t be me, mind you. But if it were to happen, I would be “not unhappy.”

  5. Will G. says

    Is Ebola, “gods revenge” for the “activist evangelical christians” in Africa? Just a thought.

  6. anon says

    Did they appeal the law to derail his trial? It’s unlikely but possible. Given that Pat Roberson has made a mint off of the blood diamond trade and arming the civil wars in Africa, it’s not hard to fathom that other evangelicals have taken to Africa to make their fortunes as well. The religious doctrines are almost cover stories for business relationships.

  7. The Milkman says

    Every time this cretin opens his mouth, more disillusioned christians leave the church.

  8. Robert Rhea says

    You know why he’s not unhappy? I guarantee his lawyers are already drafting a dismissal motion of the SMUG Human Rights Violation Lawsuit on the grounds that its moot now.

  9. Chris L. says

    “Prevention and therapy for homosexual disorder.”

    Is this guy kidding or what? How can anyone actually believe this crap in the year 2014?

  10. Bernie says

    I hope no one trusts a word Mr. Lively says because he is a LIAR among being a rabid and hateful homophobe….

  11. Matt says

    “… and do not need ‘enlightened’ Marxists and homosexual militants from the West to shape their public policy and uphold the rule of law.”

    So what did that make him when he went over there and shaped public policy?

  12. Bill says

    @Robert Rhea : a claim that the lawsuit is moot won’t fly because people were harmed by his actions. All the Ugandan court decision did was to stop additional damage, probably just temporarily. The lawsuit would be moot if it merely challenged something the Uganda government was doing, but that isn’t the case.

    The Ugandan law did not declare the law to be unconstitutional, but rather determined that it was passed without a quorum being present. That’s a purely procedural issue and all their parliament has to do is to vote on it with enough warm bodies present and more or less conscious.