A coalition of 21 organizations of LGBTs (lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and “transgendereds”) have sent a press release to the media accusing representatives of the Peruvian Bishops Conference and two members of PRI, Gonzalo Flores and myself, of blocking their agenda for the National Plan on Human Rights.
The National Council of Human Rights is part of the Justice Ministry and was in charge of this plan. It is formed by officials of several ministries and four observers. The Peruvian Bishops Conference has a say but no vote in the council. But its presence is so important because of its tradition in the promotion of human rights and its help in solving many social conflicts in Peru.
However, these LGBT groups had been lobbying this council for two years. And they were in a strategic alliance with some socialist Peruvian non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to push “gender equity,” laws protecting “sexual orientation,” and “sexual and reproductive rights” including changes to Peruvian abortion laws, During this time, this alliance funded 18 low-profile meetings at which LGBT, feminist and pro-abortion representatives were speakers. All of this was calculated to give an appearance of democracy and civil participation.
A well-known socialist and pro-homosexual “expert on human rights” was hired to write a draft, Justice Ministry officials pretended to receive some opinions and collaborations through an obscure website which was actually a mere formality. In reality, this expert wrote the draft himself.
Pro-Life Action Taken
Fast action on the part of our Latin American PRI office let many organizations and politicians express some objections to this draft. Very soon, there were many letters of protest, and when a draft of the plan was available, many organizations could express an opinion. Several congressmen said that new concepts need be discussed and approved by the Congress instead of implemented by an administrative plan, which is not the place to create some new “rights.” The low-profile strategy of the LGBT groups was stopped and exposed.
Extremely long sessions with tough fights took place at the council. One by one, LGBT groups saw their proposals rejected: Abortion, sexual and reproductive rights, and equality of opportunities between men and women. An isolated mention of “sexual orientation” in the Peruvian Constitutional Code of Proceedings started a debate. They wanted a mention of “sexual orientation” in some way. But we said it was not acceptable to state that “sexual orientation” was a source of rights.
So at this point, they attacked us in mass media. They accused the Church of denying rights to homosexuals although we mentioned many times that the Church teaches respect for homosexuals but doesn’t accept homosexuality. We also mentioned some Catholic programs for homosexuals.
The outcome was that the final text of the plan included a very strange expression, “sexual nature/orientation.” The complete text expressed a goal of “encouraging actions to promote a culture of respect for the differences, avoiding violent or denigrating treatment for sexual nature orientation.” Of course, the Church does not accept this statement about “orientation” because it is obvious that it would be used to promote “LGBTism.” But LGBT groups said they suffered a big defeat. For example, on http://www.deambiente.com/web/contents.php?id=177, they said this plan has shocking and had unacceptable passages. They felt someone ruined their idea of the plan and they blamed PRI directly.
Game Still in Play
But the game is not over. One of the ruling principles of the plan is that everything in it needs to be agreed to by general consent. Politically, a plan without a consensus would be aborted before any implementation. And a consensus is far away. Bishops are fighting this plan. LGBT groups are blaming the Church for stopping the National Plan on Human Rights, not mentioning that there are many other people who reject the concept of protecting “sexual orientation.” They are trying to impose their own morality on the Peruvian people.