Nigeria has legislation pending that would not only outlaw homosexuality, but would outlaw anything (in behavior or speech) that it deems to support homosexuality, including disagreement over the law itself.
And the Anglican church in Nigeria, infamously huffy for waving around the Windsor and Lambeth Reports at the Episcopal Church in its outrage over our overly-hasty (in their eyes) election of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire, seems more than happy to ignore the Windsor and Lambeth Reports’ calls for open dialog with and acceptance of gay members in the church. Indeed, the Church of Nigeria wholeheartedly supports the legislation against what it actively calls an “abomination.”
More detail here and here, including this:
The question for us in the Anglican Communion is this:
The proposed law would make impossible any meeting in Nigeria related to Lambeth 1998, 1.10 and it’s resolve to “listen to the experience of homosexual persons” or its assertion that “they (homosexuals) are loved by God and that all baptized, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ.” And the Archbishop and Church’s support of this law effectively says, we can meet with, respect, and listen to the experience of homosexual persons, but not in Nigeria.
The Archbishop of Nigeria has been a person of growing influence in Anglican circles and his voice carries far. Right now he speaks with two voices: the one which lauds Lambeth 1998 resolution 1.10 and claims it is the voice of the Church, and the other which rises in support of legislation that would criminalize the listening required by that very resolution, and subject “full members of the Body of Christ” to criminalized status, in spite of God’s love for them. He speaks, one might say, with a forked tongue.
[…] The question remains: Will the Archbishop of Nigeria explain himself, or do we assume from his support of these measures that he has no intention of providing any safe meeting places for gay Christian persons and no intention of honoring those parts of Lambeth resolutions he finds inconvenient?