Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, inventor of Javascript, sacked for opposing
Gay
Marriage
Newsletter published on 20 May 2014
(1) Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, inventor of Javascript, sacked for
opposing Gay Marriage
(2) Hate Speech laws used to coerce opponents of
Gay Marriage
(3) US Supreme Court declines to consider free speech grounds to
refuse
same-sex ceremony
(4) Transgender woman sues CrossFit for banning
her from competition
(5) US ambassador to Australia marries same-sex
partner
(6) Alan Joyce, CEO of Qantas, comes out as Gay
(7) Culture War
between Gay West & traditionalist Russia turns violent
over
Ukraine
(8) Putin targeted at Mardi Gras parade
(9) Croats, Poles &
other East Europeans set constitutional bar to
same-sex marriage
(10)
Africa resists Western Gay activists
(11) Keep your gays and your aid,
defiant Uganda tells West
(12) Fear of imprisonment for being gay in Africa
is grounds for asylum
- EU court
(13) Africa blocks Gay Marriage in
Anglican Church
(14) Church of England faces 'crisis’ as gay priest
weds
(15) Jewish Gay activist Carina Kolodny admits that 'Marriage Equality'
is about Destroying 'Traditional Marriage'
(16) Gay activist Masha Gessen
admits that goal of 'Marriage Equality'
is to destroy Marriage
(17) Masha
Gessen: what it’s like to be a Russian-speaking LGBTQ Jew in
the US
today
(18) Purim Children Book Goes Lesbian
(19) Israeli deputy minister:
'Even gay Jews have a higher soul than
gentiles'
(20) China: marriage
must include one man and one woman; LGBT not
accepted in Southeast
Asia
(21) Gay Activist sues Chinese Government for refusing to register his
LGBT organization
(22) Dalai Lama comes out for gay marriage
(1)
Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, inventor of Javascript, sacked for
opposing Gay
Marriage
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/03/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403
Mozilla
CEO resigns, opposition to gay marriage drew fire
BY SARAH
MCBRIDE
SAN FRANCISCO Thu Apr 3, 2014 4:33pm EDT
(Reuters) -
Mozilla Chief Executive Brendan Eich has stepped down, the
company said on
Thursday, after an online dating service urged a boycott
of the company's
web browser because of a donation Eich made to
opponents of gay
marriage.
The software company came under fire for appointing Eich as CEO
last
month. In 2008, he gave money to oppose the legalization of gay
marriage
in California, a hot-button issue especially at a company that
boasts
about its policy of inclusiveness and diversity.
"We didn't
act like you'd expect Mozilla to act," wrote Mozilla
Executive Chairwoman
Mitchell Baker in a blog post. "We didn't move fast
enough to engage with
people once the controversy started. We're sorry."
The next step for
Mozilla's leadership "is still being discussed," she
added, with more
information to come next week.
While gay activists applauded the move,
many in the technology community
lamented the departure of Eich, who
invented the programming language
Javascript and co-founded
Mozilla.
"Brendan Eich is a good friend of 20 years, and has made a
profound
contribution to the Web and to the entire world," venture
capitalist
Marc Andreessen tweeted.
Eich donated $1,000 in 2008 in
support of California's Proposition 8,
which banned gay marriage in the
state until it was struck down by the
Supreme Court in June.
His
resignation came days after OkCupid.com, the popular online dating
site,
called for a boycott of Mozilla Firefox to protest the world's No.
2 Web
browser naming a gay marriage opponent as chief executive.
On Monday,
OkCupid sent a message to visitors who accessed the website
through Firefox,
suggesting they use browsers such as Microsoft Corp's
Internet Explorer or
Google Inc's Chrome.
"Mozilla's new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of
equal rights for gay
couples," the message said. "We would therefore prefer
that our users
not use Mozilla software to access
OkCupid."
(Reporting by Sarah McBride)
(2) Hate Speech laws used
to coerce opponents of Gay Marriage
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/gay-marriage-the-fastest-formed-orthodoxy-ever/14855
Gay
marriage: the fastest-formed orthodoxy ever?
It is scary how quickly gay
marriage became dogma.
Brendan O'Neill
31 March 2014
No one
likes to be a party pooper. But as the champagne corks rocket
through the
air and politicians slog it out to see who can be the most
effusive in their
celebration of the legalisation of gay marriage in
Britain, there remains
one awkward question about the whole thing, an
elephant in the fabulously
decorated room. And it's this: how did this
all happen so quickly? How did
we go at such speed from a situation
where gay marriage was a rather
eccentric concern of small numbers of
professional activists and lawyers to
a situation where to oppose gay
marriage is treated as an eccentricity, and
a wicked one at that? How
did saying 'Let gays get hitched' go from being
fairly outré to utterly
orthodox in about the same amount of time - I'm
saying around five years
- that it takes most modern campaign groups to
design their headed paper?
It isn't surprising people are reluctant to
ask this question. For to do
so, to give this conundrum some serious
consideration, might just reveal
that our society is not quite as tolerant,
or as free, as the
gay-marriage campaigners and their influential backers
would have us
believe. It might just show that the true driver of gay
marriage up the
political agenda, at a pace unprecedented in the modern
social-issues
arena, has been less a new civil-rights vibe and more a kind
of soft
authoritarianism - a largely media-driven momentum that has turned
gay
marriage into social demarcator par excellence, where those who accept
it are Good, and those who oppose it are Bad, bigoted, ripe for being
mauled and ideally silenced by the strangely intolerant promoters of
tolerance for same-sex unions.
The coming into force of the Marriage
(Same Sex Couples) Act at the
weekend has been talked up as the latest stage
in the civil-rights
revolutions of the 1960s and 70s. Politicians, when
they're done with
patting themselves on the back ('I'm incredibly proud to
have been the
first party leader to have supported equal marriage', said
deputy prime
minister Nick Clegg), talk about gay marriage as an issue of
liberty and
tolerance. According to PM David Cameron, the legalisation of
gay
marriage shows that Britain's 'proud traditions of respect, tolerance
and equal worth' are alive and kicking. But this doesn't feel true; it
doesn't gel with the tenor of the advocacy for gay marriage in recent
years, which has frequently been ugly and censorious, and, in the words
of one American observer who supports gay marriage, has displayed a
'stunning lack of charity, magnanimity and tolerance'.
Easily the
most noteworthy thing about the gay-marriage issue has been
the speed with
which media, political and public opinion has fallen in
line behind it. So
in Britain, an ICM poll in March 2012 found that 45
per cent of Brits
supported the legalisation of gay marriage; nine
months later, another ICM
poll, asking the same question, found that 62
per cent supported it; in 2013
it rose to 68 per cent. That's a leap of
nearly 25 percentage points in the
space of a year, which, to say the
least, is unusual. It's a similar story
in America, where in the space
of a few years public support for gay
marriage has risen from 37 per
cent to 60 per cent. Since 2009, there has
been a four-point rise in
support for gay marriage every year in America,
which just doesn't
happen on major social issues that touch upon tradition,
faith, family
and culture. The conservative commentator Christopher Caldwell
has a
point when he says: 'Public opinion does not change this fast in free
societies. Either opinion is not changing as fast as it appears to be,
or society is not as free.'
To put the speedy shift from opposition
to support for gay marriage into
historical perspective, consider this: In
the UK, the Wolfenden Report
suggesting that some homosexual acts should be
decriminalised was
published in 1957; it wasn't until 1967 that consensual
sex between two
men in private was actually decriminalised; and it wasn't
until 2000
that the age of consent for gay men was made equal to that for
heterosexuals. So it took 40 years to secure the right of all gay men
over the age of 16 simply to sleep with each other. Yet somehow, the
idea of gay marriage - which touches upon far more than what happens in
private, pertaining to the institutions of marriage, the family and
traditional forms of commitment - has turned from a lightbulb moment
over a few activists' heads into actual law in less than a decade.
What's going on?
Many, among both supporters and opponents of gay
marriage, have noted
the swiftness with which this idea has come to be
institutionalised. Gay
marriage has gone from 'joke to dogma' in less than a
decade, says
Caldwell. The 'pace and scale' of this campaign have been
'breathtaking', admits one gay-marriage proponent. A writer for The
Week, who supports gay marriage, has marvelled at how in a 'figurative
blink of an eye in cultural terms... gay marriage has gone from being an
oxymoron to a lived reality'. Jonah Goldberg of the National Review says
'future historians will likely be flummoxed by the moment we're living
in' and by the 'blink of an eye' in which gay marriage was established
as an almost unquestionable orthodoxy.
How has this happened? I think
both sides get it wrong. The pro side's
claim that the speedy shift is a
consequence of the brave agitation of
liberal campaigners and politicians
fails to explain the curious absence
of any marches or demos for this
apparent addition to the civil-rights
pantheon, and also how this outburst
of alleged liberalism came about at
a time when true liberalism is in short
supply. As for the anti side's
claim that a sharp-elbowed gay lobby is
demolishing marriage as we knew
it, and probably laughing as they go - that
veers towards
conspiracy-theory territory, echoing the old right's nonsense
about
Western culture being under threat from pinkos 'marching through the
institutions'. My view is that the spreading conformism on gay marriage
is neither a result of a public liberal struggle nor of sinister
machinations by gay groups, but rather speaks to the weakness of modern
society's attachment to traditional institutions and long-term
commitment, and to the ability of small elites in our post-political age
to shape the public agenda in a scarily thoroughgoing fashion.
There
has been extraordinary cultural pressure on people to conform to
the notion
that gay marriage is not only a good idea but the good idea
of our era. This
pressure has taken the form of demonising dissent,
where those who criticise
gay marriage are instantly written off as
homophobes and bigots. As Damon
Linker at The Week says, those who don't
bend the knee at the altar of gay
unions risk 'ostracism from public
life'. Gay-marriage advocates seem
determined to 'stamp out rival
visions', he says, 'hurl[ing] insults as a
means of bullying [opponents]
into submission'. As a result, many who feel
morally uncomfortable with
gay marriage are likely to hide their true views,
for fear of being cast
out or publicly branded with the 'phobe'
tag.
The pressure to conform is increasingly taking a legal form, too,
particularly in America. As Jonah Goldberg points out in his piece
'Celebrate gay marriage - or else', there are more and more cases where
private businesses that refuse to work on gay weddings, notably florists
and photographers, run the risk of being had up for committing a kind of
'hate speech'. There is almost a 'mandatory celebration' of gay
marriage, says Goldberg, which is 'so intense' that 'refusal is now
considered tantamount to a crime'. Meanwhile, actual scientific journals
advise readers on how to use social-networking sites to send out the
message that supporting gay marriage is 'acceptable, appropriate [and]
normal', reminding us that everyone is 'susceptible to the powers of
peer pressure'. Whether it's through cultural pressure, legal pressure
or peer pressure, you will celebrate gay marriage.
This intolerant,
confrontational style of the gay-marriage lobby, its
virtual trawling for
the remaining few people who oppose gay marriage so
that they, too, might be
pressured into mandatory celebration, reveals
something about the true
nature of this issue - which is that it has
become a barometer of social
decency, one of the few things which
otherwise at-sea politicians and
campaigners can use to define
themselves as purposeful in these morally
amorphous times. This leads,
inevitably, to ostentatious showdowns with the
other side, the bad side,
making gay marriage into a 'zero sum game', in
Damon Linker's words,
where campaigners demand not just tolerance of their
views but
'psychological acceptance and positive affirmation' of them. The
more
the political and media classes define their moral worldview through
gay
marriage, the more they need to hunt down and point a finger at the
lingering opponents of it in increasingly intolerant exercises in moral
juxtaposition. This leads, not to a genuine acceptance of gay marriage,
but to a kind of acquiescence to it, a compliance with it, as
individuals sign up under duress, certainly under pressure.
So in a
stunningly short period of time, not only has gay marriage been
normalised,
but opposition to it, traditionalism itself, has been
denormalised. This
reveals the extent of the corrosion of the old
conservative values of
long-term commitment and family life, whose
one-time proponents in the
church and elsewhere have effectively vacated
the moral battlefield and
stood back as marriage has been redefined.
('The terms of our surrender' was
the fitting headline to a recent sad
article by one such conservative.) And
it also reveals the ability of
newer cultural elites, especially the media
classes, to impose new
narratives on public life and to set political and
social agendas. The
media have been key to the gay-marriage crusade, playing
a leading role
in promoting it, defining it, and demonising those who
question it. As a
consequence of an historic emptying-out of political life
in recent
years, of the decline and fall of the classes and interests whose
tussles were once the lifeblood of politics, the media have come to be
an increasingly important political actor, their concerns and prejudices
often taking centre stage in public life. The unstoppable rise of gay
marriage really speaks to the replacement of older, conservative elites
with a new elite, one that is, remarkably, less tolerant of dissent and
more demanding of psychological affirmation of its every idea, whim and
campaign than its predecessors were.
So perhaps we should put all
that champagne on ice. For the
transformation of gay marriage from just an
idea to a juggernaut in the
blink of an eye actually has little to do with
the expansion of
tolerance, but rather speaks to the very opposite
phenomenon: the
emergence of new forms of intolerance that demand nothing
less than
moral obedience and mandatory celebration from everyone - or
else.
Brendan O'Neill is editor of spiked.
(3) US Supreme Court
declines to consider free speech grounds to refuse
same-sex
ceremony
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/07/us-usa-court-freespeech-idUSBREA360Y020140407
Supreme
Court declines free speech, gay marriage case
BY LAWRENCE
HURLEY
WASHINGTON Mon Apr 7, 2014 10:37am EDT
(Reuters) - The U.S.
Supreme Court on Monday declined to consider
whether a New Mexico
photography company had free speech grounds to
refuse to shoot the
commitment ceremony of a same-sex couple.
The court's refusal to
intervene means an August 2013 New Mexico Supreme
Court decision against the
company remains intact. Albuquerque-based
Elane Photography had said its
free speech rights under the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should
be a valid defense to the
state's finding that it violated the New Mexico
Human Rights Act. The
law, similar to laws in 20 other U.S. states, bans
discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation.
The company's
owners, Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, are Christians who
oppose gay
marriage. Because taking photographs can be seen as a form of
speech, the
First Amendment protects them from being required to
"express messages that
conflict with their religious beliefs," their
attorneys said in court
papers. Elane Photography has previously
declined requests to take nude
maternity pictures and images depicting
violence, its lawyers
said.
The dispute arose in 2006 when Vanessa Willock asked the company if
it
would photograph the commitment ceremony between her and her partner,
Misti Collinsworth. When Elane Photography declined, Willock filed a
successful complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.
[...]
(4) Transgender woman sues CrossFit for banning her from
competition
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/03/07/Transgender-woman-sues-CrossFit-for-banning-her-from-competition/1101394198206
Transgender
woman sues CrossFit for banning her from competition
Transgender woman says
it's discrimination for CrossFit to ban her from
women's
competition.
By Danielle Haynes | March. 7, 2014 at 8:34
AM
SANTA CRUZ, Calif., March 7 (UPI) -- Chloie Jonnson, a California
transgender athlete, sued CrossFit for refusing to allow her to compete
as a woman in the upcoming CrossFit Games. Jonnson filed the $2.5
million lawsuit against CrossFit Thursday in Santa Cruz, Calif.,
accusing the fitness company of discrimination, intentional infliction
of emotional distress and unfair competition.
Jonnson said she should
be eligible for the women's division of the
competition because she had a
sex reassignment surgery in 2006 and is
legally recognized as a woman in the
state of California.
CrossFit said that since Jonnson was born a male,
she must compete in
the men's division.
"The fundamental, ineluctable
fact is that a male competitor who has a
sex reassignment procedure still
has a genetic makeup that confers a
physical and physiological advantage
over women," the company said. "Our
decision has nothing to do with
'ignorance' or being bigots -- it has to
do with a very real understanding
of the human genome, of fundamental
biology, that you are either
intentionally ignoring or missed in high
school."
(5) US ambassador
to Australia marries same-sex partner
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/us-ambassador-to-australia-marries-in-private-samesex-ceremony/story-fnet09p2-1226695651201
US
ambassador to Australia marries in private same-sex ceremony
by MATT
YOUNG
August 12, 2013 2:55PM
US AMBASSADOR to Australia John Berry
has married his long-term partner
of 17 years in a private same-sex ceremony
in Washington D.C.
The 54-year-old former head of the Office of Personnel
Management -
which oversees the US public service - is the first openly gay
US
ambassador to serve in a Group of 20 nation and the highest ranking
openly gay man in United States history.
In a short statement, Mr
Berry confirmed the nuptials, telling
news.com.au, "John Berry and Curtis
Yee, partners of 17 years, were
formally married on Saturday August 10, at
St Margaret's Episcopal
Church in Washington DC. [...]
(6) Alan
Joyce, CEO of Qantas, comes out as Gay
http://www.news.com.au/finance/qantas-ceo-alan-joyces-revealing-interview-about-coming-out-and-having-cancer/story-e6frfm1i-1226306141307
Qantas
CEO Alan Joyce's revealing interview about coming out and having
cancer
MARCH 21, 2012 12:31PM
THE CEO of Qantas Alan Joyce has
opened up on being gay, having cancer
and his $5 million salary, in a
revealing interview with a men's magazine.
Mr Joyce has told GQ magazine
about telling his family he was gay for
the first time and being treated for
prostate cancer last year, The
Australian newspaper revealed today in a
preview of the magazine article.
He also defended his $5 million salary
saying pilots are paid more on an
hourly basis.
Joyce, who is openly
gay, has shared his life with a New Zealand man
since 1999. He talks about
coming out to his family and the difficulties
of growing up gay in Dublin,
where his mother was a cleaner and his
father worked in a tobacco factory.
[...]
(7) Culture War between Gay West & traditionalist Russia turns
violent
over Ukraine
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/ukraine-the-globalisation-of-the-culture-wars/15014
Ukraine:
the Culture Wars turn bloody
Frank Furedi
Commentator and
sociologist
The instability in Ukraine is a product of a West-v-East
battle over values.
13 May 2014
In Ukraine, the war of words
between the West and Russia has finally
mutated into a violent and
destructive conflict. Local tensions existed
before the coup in Kiev, the
integration of Crimea into Russia and the
eruption of civil conflict in the
eastern part of Ukraine. But the
unravelling of Ukraine is not merely the
outcome of an escalation of
those local tensions. Numerous global influences
have also contributed
to the escalation of the crisis, one of which is the
generally
unacknowledged phenomenon of the Culture Wars.
Although
conflicts over values tend to be fought on the terrain of
domestic public
life, they also have a significant international
dimension. For some time
now, Western commentators have denounced Russia
as 'traditional',
'outdated', 'misogynist', 'homophobic', 'patriarchal',
'nationalist' and
'censorious'. The intertwining of the domestic and the
global was evident
during the media- and celebrity-directed campaign
against the Russian
political and cultural establishment in the run-up
to Sochi Winter Olympics,
as Brendan O'Neill argued here on spiked. The
Russian political oligarchy
has responded in kind to what it perceives
to be an attempt to impose
Western values on its society: it frequently
mocks the West's obsession with
identity, difference and sexuality as a
form of decadence, and it regards
Russia's traditional values as morally
superior to those of its opponents.
In Ukraine, the same conflict has
played itself out: Russophiles have
portrayed the EU as a
gay-rights-focused institution determined to force
Ukrainians to adopt
an alien lifestyle.
The politicisation of values
has clearly created a destructive dynamic.
Western NGOs, the media and
assorted vain celebrities have campaigned to
ensure that other societies
live by their 'universal' values. Their
assertive exportation of the ideals
of Hollywood-style identity and
gender politics often borders on the
bellicose, which in turn provokes
the fierce, defensive and irrational
reaction of traditionalists.
Putin vs Obama
In their
pronouncements, Russian president Vladimir Putin and US
president Barack
Obama personify two very different sets of values,
which underpin the
Culture Wars both domestically and internationally.
Putin, for instance,
self-consciously cultivates an image of Russia as
the moral guardian of
human civilisation. Last December, in his annual
state-of-the-nation
address, he responded to Western criticism of
Russia's attitude to
homosexuality by lamenting the 'review of norms of
morality' in the West. He
drew attention to the supposedly morally
disorienting consequences of
Western-style social engineering: 'This
destruction of traditional values
from above not only entails negative
consequences for society, but is also
inherently anti-democratic because
it is based on an abstract notion and
runs counter to the will of the
majority of people.' In his populist appeal
to the Russian everyman,
Putin embraced the values of back-to-basics
conservatism. He claimed
that traditional family values were the only
effective defence against
'so-called tolerance - genderless and
infertile'.
Although directed at the Russian people, Putin's denunciation
of
'genderless and infertile' lifestyles was also addressed to a global
audience. It is worth noting that just a few days before he gave this
speech, an influential Kremlin-linked think-tank published a report
entitled Putin: World Conservatism's New Leader. The report sought to
present Putin as the global saviour of traditional values. Ordinary
people throughout the world yearn for the stability and security offered
by traditional values, claimed the report, before asserting that people
believe in the traditional family and regard multiculturalism with
suspicion. Dmitry Abzalov, a spokesman for the think-tank, told the
press that 'it is important for most people to preserve their way of
life, their lifestyle, their traditions', and because of that they 'tend
towards conservatism'.
Putin's attempt to gain international
credibility on the basis of his
defence of traditional values has been noted
by Western politicians.
And, in turn, they have directed their criticism of
the Russian
oligarchy against populist and conservative currents within
their own
societies. That is why, in his recent high-profile Address to
European
Youth, Obama linked his condemnation of Russia's behaviour in
Crimea
with his criticism of those who opposed his political agenda in the
US.
Obama celebrated identity politics and permissiveness and denounced the
'older, more traditional view of power'. He added that 'instead of
targeting our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, we can use our laws
to protect their rights'. Obama was not only attacking Russia; he was
also condemning populist and conservative parties in Europe for their
critical views on multiculturalism and immigration. Russia arguably
served as a proxy for his traditionalist foes in the US, too.
What is
most significant about Putin and Obama's statements is that they
highlight
the confluence of the domestic and global clash of values.
They show that
conflicts over values have transcended national
boundaries, and are now
exercising an important influence over the
conduct of local
disputes.
Intolerance and double standards
The politicisation of
culture inevitably breeds a climate of intolerance
towards one's opponents
and their beliefs and behaviour. Cultural
politics is typically censorious
and focused on morally devaluing the
other side. At the more extreme end,
proponents of cultural politics
strive to dehumanise their opponents and
represent them as evil. The
recent attempt by the Putin regime to ban
swearing, and the Western
reaction to it, illustrates these broader
trends.
Earlier this month Putin signed a law which bans 'foul language'
in
films, books and public performances. This Stalin-style war on obscene
language has been presented as a defence of conservative values against
the corrupting influence of the liberal media. The law, which comes into
effect in July, is an example of the petty controlling imperative
immanent within cultural politics. From this perspective, intolerance is
actually perceived as a virtue.
In the West, numerous critics have
rightly drawn attention to the
absurdity of policing language to the point
of seeking to abolish
obscenity and swearing. And they have also been keen
to draw attention
to the contrast between open and tolerant Western society
and the
censorship-ridden society of Russia. Sadly, many of these valiant
defenders of free speech are far more selective when exercising
tolerance in their own societies.
During the past two or three
decades, the policing of language in
Anglo-American society has become a
veritable industry. Laws against
so-called hate speech and informal
censorship of 'offensive' words have
proliferated. The petty controlling
attitude of Putin towards obscenity
is more than matched by the zealous
policing of language in the West.
Just a few days ago, a BBC dj was
effectively fired for mistakenly
playing a song from 1932 that contained the
word 'nigger'. According to
the Kafkaesque logic of the BBC, there are no
innocent mistakes when it
comes to offensive words.
Antagonists in
these cultural wars are incapable of exercising
self-criticism. That is why
they so frequently exercise double
standards. So 'we' have the right to ban
words that 'we' find repugnant,
but when 'they' attempt to exercise
censorship, 'they' can be denounced
as illiberal. Western culture warriors
cannot comprehend that their
attempt to stigmatise and devalue those
outdated Russian traditionalists
is the moral equivalent of their opponents'
tendency to dehumanise the
behaviour those who embrace a non-traditional
lifestyle.
Confronted by the two faces of intolerance, those who
genuinely uphold
the values of the Enlightenment and democratic liberalism
have a duty to
speak out against these double standards. Both sides of this
Culture War
occupy the moral low ground. Those who uphold the humanistic
ideals of
freedom and tolerance need to point out that the politicisation of
values is antithetical to dialogue. A war of culture, which occupies the
territory of good and evil, cannot be resolved through rational debate.
As the people of Ukraine will soon discover, there are no victors in a
war driven by the politicisation of culture. And the best thing that all
sides - global and local - can do is to keep their culture to
themselves.
Frank Furedi's latest book, First World War: Still No End in
Sight, is
published by Bloomsbury.
(8) Putin targeted at Mardi Gras
parade
http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/putin-targeted-at-mardi-gras-parade/story-e6frfku9-1226842445810
The
Australian
MARCH 01, 2014 9:03PM
SYDNEY'S gay and lesbian Mardi
Gras has taken aim at Russia for its
anti-homosexual propaganda laws, with a
parade aimed at showing the
regime's discriminatory polices won't float with
an Australian audience.
Amid the bright lights, dancing surf life savers,
bikies and angels at
the 37th annual parade stood a ten-foot, bobble-headed
Vladimir Putin float.
"I am very much so proud to be part of this float,"
said Tim, who didn't
give a last name, on whose shoulders rested the Russian
president's
massive head.
"I think it'd be a great opportunity to
protest anti-gay laws, so I
wanted to be part of it myself."
While
the float - titled From Russia with Love - condemned Russia's
views, it was
also used to send love to the country's lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender
and intersex people.
Sydney's Hyde Park was teeming on Saturday night
with hundreds of
thousands of revellers dressed in a rainbow of colours -
everything from
gay pride cowboy dancers to bright blue cast members from
the movie Avatar.
Sydney Mayor Clover Moore said before the parade that
the event, which
is known for its fun, was still capable of stirring up
political debate.
"There's room for very serious political comment in
Mardi Gras," she said.
"Everyone is quite alarmed about what's happening
in Russia, what's
happening in Nigeria and Pakistan.
"This is a
global event, the biggest of its kind in the world and it's
good to make
those statements."
Actress and comedian Magda Szubanski says while
Australia is more
tolerant towards homosexuality, it is not smooth
sailing.
"One recent study shows the incidents of attempted suicide among
LGBTI
youth is six times higher than in the straight community," she
said.
"As much as it's important that we protest Sochi and what's going
on in
Russia, we have to be mindful that things aren't too great
here.
"Speaking as a gay observer, things have a life of their own and at
the
moment there does seem to be a political focus."
This year's
parade - the second largest event in Sydney after New Year's
Eve - is bigger
than in 2013, with a record 144 floats making the
journey down Oxford and
Flinders streets amid an estimated 10,000 marchers.
The footpaths of
Oxford St were packed with an estimated 300,000 people
pressing against
barriers along a two kilometre stretch to see the parade.
The popular
favourites Dykes on Bikes kicked off early celebrations with
a roaring ride
up and down Oxford at 7pm, warming the crowds up for the
main
event.
Among the parade's eccentric features was a nine-metre Strictly
Mardi
Gras trailer complete with a 98-member cast.
One of the forces
behind the float, Strictly Ballroom director Baz
Luhrmann, also attended the
parade, along with performers Delta Goodrem
and Tina Arena.
Federal
MP Penny Wong also marched in the parade.
Extra police - those not on
duty on the NSW police float - were deployed
across the CBD to monitor the
influx of visitors.
(9) Croats, Poles & other East Europeans set
constitutional bar to
same-sex marriage
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/12/03/uk-croatia-referendum-idUKBRE9B209J20131203
Croats
set constitutional bar to same-sex marriage
By Zoran
Radosavljevic
ZAGREB Tue Dec 3, 2013 9:32am GMT
ZAGREB (Reuters) -
Croats voted overwhelmingly in favour of defining
marriage in the
constitution as a "union of man and woman" on Sunday, a
move initiated by
Roman Catholic groups but criticised by opponents as
discrimination against
homosexuals.
Almost 66 percent of those who voted in the referendum in
the new
European Union member endorsed the initiative, launched by the
Catholic
group "In the Name of the Family", according to preliminary results
on
Sunday night. Turnout was 37 percent.
The group had gathered over
740,000 signatures in support of the
referendum, forcing parliament to call
the vote.
The Social Democrat-led government disagreed with the
referendum's
demand, but the outcome was no surprise in a morally
conservative
country where 90 percent of the population of 4.4 million say
they are
Catholic.
The Church wholeheartedly backed the initiative,
which sought to define
marriage in the constitution rather than law so that
its status can only
be changed by a two-thirds majority in
parliament.
"I am happy. We wanted to be sure that, if citizens decide
so, by
introducing marriage as the union of life between a man and a woman
we
will prevent any government to change the substance of marriage without
consulting the citizens of Croatia," Zeljka Markic, leader of "In the
Name of the Family", told Reuters television.
Ballet dancer Sanja
Grgic said: "I have nothing against gay people, I
have many gay friends, but
I voted in favour because I think children
should grow up in a family that
has a mother and a father."
Opponents noted that Croatia now shares its
constitutional definition of
marriage with Belarus, Poland, Moldova,
Bulgaria, Montenegro and Serbia,
where intolerance of same-sex unions is
widespread.
SEX EDUCATION
"This is discrimination, an attack on
human rights and liberties. It's a
stain we'll all have to carry," said Duje
Prkut, one of the main
activists in the 'Against' camp. [...]
(This
story corrects paragraph six to include full quote and clarify
there was no
explicit reference to gay marriages)
(Additional reporting by Suzana
Sabljic; editing by Kevin Liffey)
(10) Africa resists Western Gay
activists
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/rights/uganda-anti-gay-bill-western-activism
Randy
Gener
December 20, 2013 09:37
Western-style activism may be
hurting gay rights in Africa
After years of legislative limbo, Uganda
passed a law Friday offering a
life sentence for "aggravated homosexuality."
Experts say Western
activism may be making matters worse for African
gays.
For gay rights activists in most African countries, the fight for
same-sex marriage is a long way off. The prevalence of homophobia — hate
crimes, societal repression and government-encouraged intolerance of gay
sex — is so severe that many gay people cannot live openly and African
activists who ask the government for fundamental human rights risk
imprisonment or death. A number of experts say such activism could
actually make the problem worse in some countries.
Case in point: the
Ugandan parliament passed a law Friday that would
imprison gay people for
life for committing acts of “aggravated
homosexuality.” The bill had been a
matter of global activist concern
since its introduction in 2010, though the
new law excludes the death
penalty clause that earned it the moniker the
“Kill the Gays Bill.”
In Zimbabwe, the issue of homosexuality had been a
key feature of
President Robert Mugabe's re-election campaign, gay rights
offices have
endured raids and its members been detained.
And
Cameroon and Nigeria are considered among the world’s most anti-gay
countries—places where people have been sentenced to years in prison and
activists have been killed in targeted attacks.
Experts are also
asking the international community to focus on Zambia,
where homophobia has
collided with freedom of expression, leading to
blatant speech violations.
The country has criminalized same-sex sexual
activity, making it punishable
by up to 14 years in prison. In April
2013, an activist was arrested and
charged with "inciting the public to
take part in indecent activities" the
day after he appeared on live
television arguing that the country should
respect same-sex
relationships. Anti-gay sentiment is so intense, activists
have said,
that sometimes young gays and lesbians are turned in to police by
their
own families.
Conditions are similar in Malawi, Namibia,
Ethiopia and other African
nations.
These issues were exactly the
topic at a delegation hosted by the
International Gay and Lesbian Human
Rights Commission (IGLHRC) in the
second week of December.
The
gathering drew together over twenty LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, intersex) advocates and human rights activists from all
around the world for inter-regional meetings with United Nations
officials, government representatives and the media. The conference,
which took place in New York City, included representatives from foreign
missions and of several nations including the United States, United
Kingdom and the European Union. Activists Chesterfield Samba of Zambia’s
Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe (GALZ), Gift Trapence of Malawi’s Centre
for the Development of People, Friedel Dausab of Namibia and Juliet
Mphande of Rainka Zambia made up the Africa delegation.
The human
rights defenders, officials and representatives discussed the
need for
change in Africa, and talked about the monumental challenges
each of their
countries face, ultimately receiving commitments to help
from Western
officials like President Barack Obama’s newly appointed
permanent
representative to the UN, Samantha Power.
Power pledged to "do
everything" she can to support African activists’
"urgent and ultimately
lifesaving and life-giving work."
"To continue changing laws, ending
violence, enlightening minds, and
opening hearts, we must go forward on
every front – locally, as you all
demonstrate, and globally," she
said.
She strongly criticized countries that deny LGBTI communities the
right
to live freely, specifically singling out Russia’s ban on gay
"propaganda" to minors as “outrageous” and “dangerous.”
The Western
form of activism, according to Zambian Reverend Kapya Kaoma
of Christ Church
in Hyde Park, Massachusetts where he currently lives,
operates through a
mode of “shouting it out and making public
statements," usually in front of
the press, which is more harmful for
African gay rights than it is
helpful.
"Western human rights organizations are putting so much pressure
on
their leaders to publicly speak out against what they perceive to be
homophobia," said Kaoma, author of Globalizing the Culture Wars: US
Conservatives, African Churches, and Homophobia. This approach "may work
in the US," he said, but it does not work in Africa.
Indeed, the
African activists urged Western politicians to stop making
spectacular
displays of international solidarity.
Displays like those of British
Prime Minister David Cameron, who in 2011
said his government would consider
withholding foreign aid to
commonwealth countries that enact severe anti-gay
legislation, such as
Uganda’s bill, now law..
President Barack Obama
in the same year announced that the US
administration would consider a
country’s LGBTI rights record in the
allocation of foreign aid. And in June
2013 Obama held a joint press
conference in Senegal with Senegalese
President Macy Sall, saying, "I
don't believe in discrimination of any
sort."
But threats to cut foreign aid, and public criticism of African
government leaders, many are saying, undermine locals’ advocacy
work.
“We’re not asking the UK or foreign governments to cut aid to
Africa,”
said Zambia’s Juliet Mphande. “LGBTI individuals are also Africans,
so
ultimately we all benefit from that aid.”
The problem, Namibia’s
Friedel Dausab argued, is that such drastic,
public stances reduce the work
of advocacy groups to that of
Western-inspired
“neo-colonialists.”
“Cameron went out of his way and made it very
difficult for us," said
Dausab who works in HIV prevention. "All of a
sudden, we’re tagged as
puppets of Western imperial values. What Cameron
should have done is to
acknowledge that the anti-sodomy laws we have are a
legacy of British
colonialism in the region.”
Rev. Kaoma agreed.
Threats of punitive measures from the US and UK, he
wrote in a 2012 article,
do little more than “legitimize religious
conservatives’ contention that
homosexuality is a Western import. Human
rights advocates–rather than US
Christian Right actors–are cast as
neocolonialists.”
“This dynamic
raises questions about whether Western diplomacy might be
practiced more
effectively away from the lights and cameras,” the
article continued, adding
that diplomats must stand firm and cannot back
down when they threaten to
sanction countries with institutionalized
homophobia.
At the
conference, Kaoma said that President Obama might have achieved
“a lot of
good” had he called the president of Senegal, for example, for
a closed
meeting and told him he was concerned about the livelihoods of
LGBTI
citizens in that country.
“In the US context, it works to be public,” he
said. “In Africa, it
reinforces the myth that the western word is the one
which is exporting
homosexuality into Africa." [...]
(11) Keep
your gays and your aid, defiant Uganda tells West
http://www.smh.com.au/world/keep-your-gays-and-your-aid-defiant-uganda-tells-west-20140301-hvfpr.html
Date:
March 01 2014
Mike Pflanz
Kampala: Uganda is willing to give up
all international aid to keep its
new anti-homosexuality law and ''save gays
from damnation", its Ethics
Minister said as the World Bank followed other
donors and froze a £60
million ($112 million) new loan.
In an
interview with Britain's The Daily Telegraph, Simon Lokodo said:
"We want to
rid this country of homosexuality and if that means these
people, Obama,
Hague, you name them, want to stop their aid, then let them.
"We don't
need [aid], we won't die poor and we will at least be able to
save these
gays from damnation."
Condemnation of the new law by Western nations,
which together give
Uganda more than £1 billion a year in aid, drew quick
criticism from Mr
Lokodo.
"Do not come into my house and tell me how
to live, what food to cook,
what to do, as I do not come to your house and
tell you what to do," he
said.
Since the new Anti-Homosexuality Act
was passed on Monday, "dozens" of
gay people had been threatened with
violence, evicted from their homes,
or lost their jobs, said Sandra Ntebi, a
gay activist in Kampala, the
capital. Judges can now jail for life people
who have gay sex. Those who
"aid and abet" homosexuality, or fail to report
suspected homosexuals,
face terms of up to 14 years. [...]
Telegraph,
London
(12) Fear of imprisonment for being gay in Africa is grounds for
asylum
- EU court
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/fear-of-imprisonment-for-being-gay-in-african-countries-is-grounds-for-asylum-eu-court-rules-8927557.html
Fear
of imprisonment for being gay in African countries is grounds for
asylum, EU
court rules
The ruling follows a request for advice from The Netherlands
about three
gay refugees seeking asylum from Uganda, Sierra Leone and
Senegal
Thursday 07 November 2013
The European Union’s highest
court has ruled that the fear of
imprisonment for homosexuality in African
countries is grounds for
asylum in the EU.
The ruling follows a
request for advice from The Netherlands about three
gay refugees seeking
asylum from Uganda, Sierra Leone and Senegal.
According to the European
Court of Justice (ECJ) the existence of laws
that could lead to the
imprisonment of homosexuals, "may constitute an
act of persecution per se"
if they are routinely enforced.
The Luxembourg-based court stated that it
was unreasonable to expect gay
people to hide their sexuality in their home
countries in order to avoid
persecution. Concealing their sexuality would
amount to renouncing a
"characteristic fundamental to a person's identity,"
the court said.
In the case of the three men seeking asylum in The
Netherlands the
application was initially denied on the grounds that the men
could
“exercise restraint” to avoid persecution. The Dutch Council of State,
an advisory body to the government, subsequently took the case to the
ECJ for a ruling.
Despite the ruling it is up to the authorities in
sovereign countries to
decide “whether, in the applicant’s country of
origin, the term of
imprisonment…is applied in practice”.
The ECJ
says laws specifically targeting homosexuals do make them a
separate group,
however, a ban on homosexual acts alone is not grounds
to grant
asylum.
International law says that a social group with a 'well-founded'
fear of
persecution can claim asylum status if the persecution amounts to a
severe violation of human rights.
Homosexual acts are considered
unlawful in most African countries and
Amnesty International has said
homosexuality is "increasingly
criminalised across Africa," with 36 nations
there having laws against
same-sex conduct.
Nations that consider
homosexual acts illegal include Nigeria, Kenya,
Botswana and
Uganda.
Amnesty has also said that homophobic attacks have reached
dangerous
levels in sub-Saharan Africa and that this relates to the "toxic
message" that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are
criminals. A number of the continent's leaders have said homosexuality
is un-African.
In 2010 the Supreme Court in the UK ruled that two gay
men from Iran and
Cameroon have the right to asylum in the UK, after they
were initially
told by the Home Office that they could safely return home if
they were
"discreet” about their sexual orientation.
From:
ReporterNotebook <RePorterNoteBook@Gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar
2014 00:14:07 -0400 Subject: Gay Jews have 'higher souls'
than gentiles,
says deputy minister From: Fredrick Toben
<<mailto:toben@toben.biz>toben@toben.biz>
Date: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:00 PM
Gay Jews have 'higher souls' than
gentiles, says deputy minister
(13) Africa blocks Gay Marriage in
Anglican Church
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10775722/Justin-Welby-the-anguish-I-face-over-gay-marriage.html
Justin
Welby: the anguish I face over gay marriage
Archbishop of Canterbury
suggests blessing gay marriages would divide
Anglican Church because some
worshippers in Africa would never support
homosexuality
By Cole
Moreton, and John Bingham
9:59PM BST 18 Apr 2014
The Archbishop of
Canterbury has suggested he is powerless to provide
blessings for gay
marriages because to do so would split the global
Anglican Church.
In
an interview with The Telegraph, the Most Rev Justin Welby says that
the
Church had probably caused “great harm” to homosexuals in the past —
but
there was not always a “huge amount” that could be done now to
rectify the
situation.
Although indicating that he was sympathetic to calls for the
Church to
publicly honour gay relationships, the Archbishop says that it is
“impossible” for some followers in Africa to support homosexuality. In
the interview, the leader of the Anglican Church, which has 77 million
followers globally, speaks movingly of the persecution faced by
Christians in parts of the world. He indicates that the Church must not
take a step that would cut off these groups, most of them in the third
world, however much this angers parts of society in Britain.
The
introduction of same-sex marriage in England and Wales last month
has
brought divisions within the Church of England to a new
intensity.
Although the Church is legally exempt from carrying out
same-sex
weddings, it is about to embark on a consultation on the possible
introduction of informal blessing-like services. The Church’s attempt to
ban its own clergy from marrying people of the same sex has already been
openly defied by at least one priest who married his partner last
week.
Over the past few weeks, The Telegraph has been given unprecedented
access to the Archbishop after his first year in office. In the
interview, he speaks in detail about the dilemma he is facing over gay
marriage — and the influence of recent visits he has made to Africa over
the issue.
“We are struggling with the reality that there are
different groups
around the place that the Church can do — or has done —
great harm to,”
the Archbishop says. “You look at some of the gay, lesbian,
LGBT groups
in this country and around the world — Africa included, actually
— and
their experience of abuse, hatred, all kinds of things.” But he says:
“We must both respond to what we’ve done in the past and listen to those
voices extremely carefully. Listen with love and compassion and sorrow.
And do what is possible to be done, which is not always a huge
amount.”
The Archbishop adds: “At the same time there are other groups in
many
parts of the world who are the victims of oppression and poverty, who
we
also have to listen to, and who find that issue an almost impossible one
to deal with.
“How do you hold those two things [in balance] and do
what is right and
just by all? And not only by one group that you prefer and
that is
easier to deal with? That’s not acceptable.” In the interview, the
Archbishop speaks of his pain at travelling to South Sudan in the
aftermath of a massacre of dozens of Christians. He speaks of crying
with his wife while watching a mass burial in Bor. On Thursday, the town
was the scene of another atrocity when at least 58 people were killed in
an attack on a UN base.
(14) Church of England faces 'crisis’ as gay
priest weds
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10762940/Church-of-England-faces-crisis-as-gay-priest-weds.html
Church
of England faces 'crisis’ as gay priest weds
Church of England faces
"crisis" as Canon Jeremy Pemberton, a priest
from Lincoln, becomes the first
to defy its ban on gay clergy marrying
By Edward Malnick
9:03PM
BST 12 Apr 2014
A priest has become the first in Britain to defy the
Church of England’s
ban on gay clergy marrying.
Canon Jeremy
Pemberton, 58, a divorced hospital chaplain, wed his
long-term partner
Laurence Cunnington, 51, on Saturday afternoon.
Campaigners expressed
delight that the couple had taken advantage of
Britain’s newly-introduced
gay marriage laws and urged bishops to
“bless” their partnership. They
predict he will be the first of many gay
clergy to marry.
But a
leading member of the Church’s conservative evangelical wing
called for
“discipline” of any clergy seen to be breaking the rules. He
warned of a
“crisis” if the leadership failed to take action.
Canon Pemberton, who
has five children, is a chaplain at Lincoln
hospital and also works in the
Church’s Southwell and Nottingham
diocese. In 2012 he was a signatory to a
letter to The Telegraph from
dozens of clergy warning that if the Church
refused to permit gay
weddings in its own churches they would advise members
of their
congregations to marry elsewhere.
Earlier this year an
acrimonious row broke out within the Church after
the House of
Bishops
decided to ban gay clergy from marryingwhen same-sex marriage
became
legal last month. The decision, which means that anyone defying the
ban
could face lengthy disciplinary measures, was welcomed by
traditionalists but infuriated liberals and campaigners for gay
rights.
Although the Church of England formally objected to the
introduction of
gay marriage and has opted out of performing the ceremonies,
there have
been growing signs of a more relaxed stance on homosexuality.
Bishops
agreed that gay couples who get married will be able to ask for
special
prayers after the ceremony.
However, on Saturday night the
Rev Preb Rod Thomas, chairman of the
Reform evangelical group, said:
“There’s no doubt that there is pressure
within some parts of the church for
the Church to change its mind on
sexuality.
“If there is not clear
discipline then it is the equivalent to saying
'we really didn’t mean what
we said.’ It will precipitate a crisis.”
He warned that traditionalists
“who stick by the biblical understanding”
of marriage would be unable to
accept a “messy compromise”, potentially
leading to a situation similar to
in the US where a traditionalist
splinter Church has emerged from the
liberal Episcopal Church.
However, the Rev Colin Coward, a friend of
Canon Pemberton’s and
director of the Changing Attitude campaign group, of
which he is a
former trustee, said: “I’m really, really happy for Jeremy and
his
partner that they are finally able to get married after a long time of
being together as a couple.
“I hope the bishops find a way to affirm
and bless their relationship
rather than taking action against
them.”
Dr Giles Fraser, the former canon chancellor of St Paul’s, also
congratulated the couple.
The Bishop of Lincoln, the Rt Rev
Christopher Lowson, said: “I am aware
that a member of the clergy who works
in the Diocese of Lincoln has
married a partner of the same sex. The priest
concerned wrote to me in
advance to explain his intention and we had a
subsequent meeting in
which I explained the guidelines of the House of
Bishops.”
(15) Jewish Gay activist Carina Kolodny admits that 'Marriage
Equality'
is about Destroying 'Traditional Marriage'
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4823812
Marriage
Equality Is Destroying 'Traditional Marriage,' and Why That's a
Good Thing
(An Open Letter)
Carina
Kolodny
TheHuffingtonPost.com
02/20/14 12:35 PM ET February 20,
2014
To the enemies of marriage equality:
I definitely never lied.
I am much smarter than that. I didn't
perpetuate a fallacy; I just
continually failed to correct it.
When your chest inflated and your eyes
grew wider and you declared that
"gay marriage is a threat to traditional
marriage," I let somebody else
tell you that you were wrong.
And when
that somebody else -- exhausted from having to defend their
very personhood,
tired from battling for their constitutional right to
equality, drained from
being persecuted by small men inflating their
arrogant chests -- said to
you, "No, marriage equality will not change
traditional marriage," I didn't
have the heart to correct them.
For years and years I've strategically
bit my tongue.
Had I not, I would have sided with you. I would have
agreed with you.
Marriage equality will, in time, fundamentally destroy
"traditional
marriage," and I, for one, will dance on its grave.
It's
not a terribly difficult conclusion to draw.
As same-sex couples marry,
they will be forced to re-imagine many tenets
of your "traditional
marriage." In doing so, they will face a series of
complicated
questions:
* Should one of us change our last name? And if so,
who?
* Should we have kids? Do we want to have kids? How do we want
to
have kids? Whose last name do our kids take?
* How about
housework, work-work, childcare? How do we assign these
roles equitably? How
do we cultivate a partnership that honors each of
our professional and
personal ambitions?
As questions continually arise, heterosexual couples
will take notice --
and be forced to address how much "traditional marriage"
is built on
gender roles and perpetuates a nauseating inequality that has no
place
in 2014.
This will eventually lead to an upswing in
heterosexual women who do not
take their husbands' names -- after all, are
they not just as autonomous
and their families just as significant as their
LGBTQ counterparts?
Many same-sex couples won't want to have children,
and since they'll
feel less pressure to do what's normative, they won't. An
increase in
same-sex couples leading happy lives without children will
empower
heterosexual couples to see that not especially wanting children is
a
perfectly acceptable reason not to have them. This is fantastic news,
because despite your ridiculous claims, children best thrive in families
where they're wanted.
On the other hand, many same-sex couples will
want to have children, and
many will choose to adopt. As same-sex couples
with adopted children
build beautiful families, more heterosexual couples
will realize the
merits of adoption, and in time, women will not be shamed
or limited by
those "ticking biological clocks."
Same-sex couples
will split marital responsibilities and roles
differently based solely on
circumstance, desire and skill. With a
multitude of workable models,
heterosexual couples will feel empowered
to figure out what's right for them
instead of being pigeonholed by what
was entrenched by their
great-great-great grandparents.
So yes, I told a white lie while
soldiering on toward this inevitable
outcome. I bit my lip in favor of
dignity and equality -- not just for
the LGBTQ community but for
heterosexual women. I have done nothing for
which I am ashamed.
You,
on the other hand, told one whopper of a lie. You've been fighting
in the
name of "traditional marriage" -- appealing to some misplaced and
backwards
nostalgia while blatantly ignoring the traditions and cultural
context in
which the institution of marriage was originally conceived.
"Traditional
marriage" was not about sanctity or God or even
procreation. "Traditional
marriage" was a property agreement that was
entered into by two
men.
This country adopted the English law of coverture, which meant
"traditional marriage" was a transfer of a woman's legal rights from her
father to her husband. Traditionally, women abandoned their father's
name and adopted their husband's for no sentimental reason but because
their personhood had been passed in a legal transaction from one man to
another (much like the name on a deed changes when a piece of land is
bought or sold).
When you advocate for "traditional marriage," you
are not advocating for
loving partnerships between men and women exclusively
-- you are
advocating for a model that has nothing to do with love or mutual
benefit but revolves around the assumption that women are a commodity to
be bought and sold.
I believe that marriage equality will stomp out
the remaining misogyny
that you call "tradition." And that's a win, not just
for the LGBTQ
community but for heterosexual women and the heterosexual men
who see
them as equals.
If that still frightens and upsets you, then
at least be honest abut
your true concerns.
You're not really fearful
for the welfare of children or the "sanctity"
of marriage -- you are afraid
of a world that sees men and women
equally. No more and no
less.
Sincerely, Carina
(16) Gay activist Masha Gessen admits that
goal of 'Marriage Equality'
is to destroy Marriage
http://illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage
Homosexual
Activist Admits True Purpose of Battle is to Destroy Marriage
Written By
Micah Clark | 04.06.13
Illinois Family Institute
Even knowing
that there are radicals in all movements, doesn’t lessen
the startling
admission recently by lesbian journalist Masha Gessen. On
a radio show she
actually admits that homosexual activists are lying
about their radical
political agenda. She says that they don’t want to
access the institution
of marriage; they want to radically redefine and
eventually eliminate
it.
Here is what she recently said on a radio interview:
“It’s
a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right
to marry, but
I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the
institution of marriage
should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage
generally involves lying
about what we are going to do with marriage
when we get there — because we
lie that the institution of marriage is
not going to change, and that is a
lie.
The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should
change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like
taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what
I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.
I have three kids
who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t
see why they shouldn’t have
five parents legally… I met my new partner,
and she had just had a baby, and
that baby’s biological father is my
brother, and my daughter’s biological
father is a man who lives in
Russia, and my adopted son also considers him
his father. So the five
parents break down into two groups of three… And
really, I would like to
live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting
that reality, and I
don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of
marriage.”
(Source:
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/why-get-married/4058506)
For
quite some time, the defenders of natural marriage have attempted to
point
out that the true agenda behind the homosexual demands
organizations is not
marriage equality; it is the total unraveling of
marriage and uprooting
traditional values from society. (This will
ultimately include efforts to
silence and punish some churches that
openly adhere to their religious
teachings about marriage and sexual
morality.)
While few have been as
vocal as this lesbian activist was in this
interview, we do have numerical
examples proving her point. When given
the opportunity to marry, after laws
have been struck down relatively
small percentages of homosexuals actually
bother to marry compared to
their heterosexual counterparts. This raises
question about the true
need to unravel marriage for the “fair” extension
its benefits. Only 12
percent of homosexuals in the Netherlands marry
compared to 86 percent
of their heterosexual peers. Less than 20 percent of
same-sex couples
already living together in California married when given
the chance in
2008. In contrast, 91 percent of heterosexual couples in
California who
are living together are married.
Clearly this is about
cultural change and tearing down the traditional
family ethic, since it
seems that most homosexuals living together
neither need nor desire to
marry, though they do desire to radically
change marriage.
Gays and
lesbians are free to live as they choose, and we live in a
society which
roundly applauds them doing so like never before in our
history, but they do
not have the right to rewrite marriage for all of
society.
(17) Masha
Gessen: what it’s like to be a Russian-speaking LGBTQ Jew in
the US
today
https://m.facebook.com/events/662491193770603/
Crossroads:
Jewish, Gay, and Russian. Guests: Masha Gessen, Rabbi S.
Kleinbaum, Dr. J.
Michaelson, Y. Fiks and Dr. B. Proskurov
Wednesday, November 6, 2013 at
7:00pm in EST
Come hear an exciting, thought-provoking panel discussion
about what
it’s like to be a Russian-speaking LGBTQ Jew in the US today. The
panelists will also discuss Jewish and gay life in both the former
Soviet Union and modern-day Russia.
All are welcome. Panelists
include:
Yevgeniy Fiks, Moscow-born artist,
Masha Gessen, journalist and
author,
Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum, spiritual leader of CBST
Dr. Jay
Michaelson, founder of Nehirim and leading LGBT writer and activist,
Dr.
Bella Proskurov, licensed psychologist and RUSA LGBT activist.
Moderator:
Yelena Goltsman.
(18) Purim Children Book Goes Lesbian
http://www.deliberation.info/purim-embraces-diversity/
Purim
Embraces Diversity
Purim Children Book Goes Lesbian
by Ariadna
Theokopoulos on March 11, 2014
The Jewish religious holiday of Purim is
around the corner. The Jewish
children are receiving 'The Purim Superhero',
a children story book as a
gift from the PJ Library. It's the first Jewish
children's book with
LGBT characters.
Elizabeth Kushner, the author
of 'The Purim Superhero', is a lesbian
Jewish mother who lives in Vancouver,
Canada with her spouse Lise and
daughter. She wrote the book in enter
picture book contest held by
Keshet, a Jewish lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender (LGBT)
organization - and won the contest.
The book was
published by Kar-Ben publishing last year. It's based on
the story of a
Jewish boy who turns to his two fathers for advice after
his Hebrew school
classmates tell him he cannot dress up as an alien for
Purim.
The PJ
Library first decided to donate the book to Jewish families on a
request
basis only - in order not to offend the Orthodox (Torah) Jewish
families
which still hang-on to the "outdated" belief that homosexual
activity is
against the Moses Law (Torah). But after a furious campaign
by the Jewish
LGBT groups and the same sex couples with children, the PJ
Library decided
to send The Purim Superhero to all.
"As a proud Jewish mother and a proud
lesbian, I aim to surround my
children with a rich Jewish life. LGBT
families are in synagogues. We
are in Day Schools. We are in Jewish summer
camps and Hebrew schools.
Wouldn't it be wonderful for the children you
serve with PJ Library to
see us in a book too," Naomi Sunshine wrote to PJ
Library, The Jewish
Week, March 6, 2014.
The American conservatives,
reform and reconstructionist Jewish
communities all recognize same-sex
marriage and allow openly gay and
lesbians to be ordained as rabbis. A 2013
survey carried out by Israel
lobby group, the American Jewish Committee
(AJC) found that 71% of
American Jews support same-sex marriage being
legalized in America.
Purim (lot) or lottery used by Haman to choose the
date for the massacre
of Jews living in Persia - is one of the three most
important Jewish
religious holidays (the other being Passover and Chanukah).
Purim is
usually celebrated in the month of March (Adar 15) each year.
According
to Book of Esther (Magillat in Hebrew)), the Crypto-Jew Queen of
Persia,
Esther, pleaded to her husband, King Ahasuerus (who did not know
that
his wife was Jewish), to save Jews living in province of Shushan, who
were declared 'disloyal' by King's prime minister Haman. With the
blessings from the King, Queen Esther and her adopted father, Mordechai,
armed the Jews, who killed Haman and his family and carried out
slaughter of over 75,000 Persian (Goyim) civilians. Haman's entire
estate was given to Esther and Mordrchai replaced Haman as country's new
prime minister.
It is not a coincident that American Jewish
extremist, Dr. Baruch
Goldstein, founder of Jewish Defense League (JDL),
chose Purim 1994, to
murder 40 Muslim worshippers inside Hebron mosque - or
Bush ordering the
killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Muslims and
Christians (Goyim)
on Purim 2003 (March 18-19, 2003).
This year Purim
begins the evening of March 15 and ends at sundown March 16.
(19) Israeli
deputy minister: 'Even gay Jews have a higher soul than
gentiles'
From: ReporterNotebook <RePorterNoteBook@Gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec
2013 14:59:18 -0500 Subject: Israeli deputy minister:
‘Even gay Jews
have a higher soul than gentiles’
http://972mag.com/nstt_feeditem/israeli-deputy-minister-jews-have-a-higher-soul-than-gentiles-even-if-theyre-gay/
Published
December 28, 2013
By Ami Kaufman
Deputy Minister for Religious
Affairs, Rabbi Eli Ben Dahan, from the
settler party Habayit Hayehudi
(Jewish Home) gave an interview [Heb] to
the Israeli daily Ma’ariv yesterday
on his party’s stance against gay
marriage. Personally, I couldn’t decide
which headline I should go with
on this one: his racism against non-Jews, or
his contempt for gays. It
was a lose-lose situation.
Here’s a snippet
from the interview. Remember, this man is a high
ranking government official
in the only democracy in the Middle East.
What will you do if the Knesset
votes on a bill legalizing gay marriage?
No way. Also, a Jew cannot marry
a gentile.
Is that the same thing?
We don’t recognize either of
them. And anyway, a Jew always has a much
higher soul than a gentile, even
if he’s gay.
(20) China: marriage must include one man and one woman;
LGBT not
accepted in Southeast Asia
This journal says, "Read The
Diplomat know the Asia Pacific";
I suggest that it SHOULD be "Read The
Diplomat know the State
Department" - Peter M.
http://thediplomat.com/2014/03/a-small-step-forward-for-asean-lgbt-rights/
A
Small Step Forward for ASEAN LGBT Rights
LGBT activists face a tough
battle winning acceptance in Southeast Asia,
but there are some modest signs
of change.
By Kirsten Han for The Diplomat
March 28,
2014
Photographs show Myo Min Htet and Tin Ko Ko clad in traditional
Burmese
garb, hands clasped as they walk down the aisle past smiling guests.
They pour champagne over a stacked tower of glasses. Another photo shows
Tin Ko Ko giving his partner a kiss on the cheek.
Although they still
have no legal status as a married couple, the
ceremony was Myanmar's very
first public gay wedding.
It's a small step towards acceptance of the
lesbian, gay, transgender,
bisexual, intersex and questioning (LGBTIQ)
community in Myanmar. It's a
trend that activists and advocates in the
region want to encourage, but
they're not stopping there: they want
recognition of sexual orientation,
gender identity and gender expression
throughout ASEAN too.
With 10 Southeast Asian countries represented, the
ASEAN SOGIE Caucus is
a network of human rights activists doing work related
to issues of
sexual orientation, gender identity and expression (SOGIE).
They want
SOGIE to be included in the ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism, thus
affording
legal protection to the LGBTIQ community.
It's not going to
be easy, and they know it. "Because of the ASEAN
principles of
non-interference and consensus decision-making, combined
with the
problematic emphasis on regional particularities, it is really
an uphill
climb for LGBTIQ activists in asserting SOGIE inclusion in the
ASEAN,"
writes Filipino activist Ging Cristobal in an email.
An infographic
produced by the caucus highlights the laws in ASEAN
countries that target
and discriminate against LGBT people. For example,
section 377 of the penal
codes of Brunei, Malaysia, Myanmar and
Singapore - a leftover from these
countries' history as British colonies
- still outlaws sex between
consenting male adults, and is often also
known as the "sodomy law." There
are also laws prohibiting transgender
people from changing their name and
gender in Malaysia, Vietnam,
Thailand and the Philippines. Media regulations
mean that there is a
dearth of the kind of LGBT characters and content that
might improve
social understanding and acceptance.
But it's not just
about laws. Violence and harassment in society can
make life hellish for
LGBTIQ people. A study carried out in Thailand
last November found that
one-third of 2,000 LGBT students had been
physically harassed. A report by
the International Gay and Lesbian Human
Rights Commission found that 15
lesbians had been murdered in Thailand
in the six years from 2006 to 2012.
This, despite it being the only
ASEAN country that supported the UN
declaration of LGBT rights. Hate
crime also occurs in the Philippines,
despite studies reporting that it
is among the most "gay-friendly" countries
in the world.
Residents of ASEAN countries can be just as conservative as
their
legislators, if not more so. A webpage published by Singapore's Health
Promotion Board addressing questions on homosexuality and bisexuality
ignited a firestorm of debate after conservative Christians both in and
out of Parliament raised objections. They had taken exception to the
webpage stating that homosexual relationships were "not that different"
from heterosexual ones, saying that it was a signal to young
Singaporeans that there was nothing wrong with homosexuality.
A Malay
Studies professor at the National University of Singapore also
attracted
complaints after posting a Facebook note describing lesbianism
as a "cancer"
and a "social disease" that needed to be "cleansed." The
backlash led to the
university affirming its commitment to respecting
sexual orientation within
the institution, yet worries remain about the
voices of conservatives
dominating the discussion on LGBT rights.
These situations show how
strong the opposition to granting the LGBTIQ
community equal rights and
protection can be. With societies resistant
to the idea of granting LGBTIQ
equal rights and recognition, governments
can often find easy excuses to
oppose any change.
"SOGIE issues are deliberately being excluded within
ASEAN," Cristobal
writes. "There have been directives from the governments
of Malaysia,
Brunei and Singapore to oppose any inclusion of SOGIE in any
human
rights instruments such as the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on
Human Rights and the recent declaration on the elimination of violence
against woman and children."
That's not to say that there aren't any
encouraging developments. The
Vietnamese government announced in 2012 that
they were considering
legalizing same-sex marriage. "It was a nice surprise.
We expected to
have this in 2015," LGBT rights advocate Le Quang Binh told
me in 2012.
Although the government ultimately didn't move forward, it did
decriminalize same-sex weddings and now allows same-sex couples to live
together.
The caucus was present at the ASEAN People's Forum over
three days in
March, where it reached out to other advocacy groups and built
alliances. "This way, we educate mainstream groups to see the relevance
of SOGIE inclusion in all human rights works of the different sectors of
society," Cristobal explains.
In the run-up to the forum the group
had launched the 'We Are #ASEANtoo'
online campaign, encouraging supporters
to post photographs of
themselves asserting their inclusion in ASEAN. The
campaign received the
support of the deputy head of the Office of the High
Commissioner for
Human Rights (OHCHR)'s Southeast Asian office, as well as
the Indonesian
representatives to the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on
Human
Rights and the ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the
Rights of Women and Children, among others.
But activists may not
necessarily be as supportive as one might imagine.
In a context where LGBTIQ
issues are seen as highly controversial, some
groups find the subject of
SOGIE far too "contentious." The caucus' blog
quoted Siriporn Skrobanek, a
member of the ASEAN Women's Caucus as
saying, "We would like to include
SOGIE, but as if ASEAN will consider
LGBT in its
considerations!"
Taking up such a battle is seen not just as a lost
cause, but a
potential danger: advocacy groups could lose whatever influence
and
support they currently enjoy in their country. SOGIE issues are
therefore put on the backburner, and neglected.
This reluctance to
include LGBTIQ people in the collective struggle
makes the campaign even
more difficult; how can activists make
governments acknowledge the rights of
LGBTIQ people when even other
advocacy groups refuse to include
them?
"We were concerned that the lack of protection and recognition of
LGBTIQ
persons in the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration would... leave them
vulnerable to systematic violence and discrimination endorsed by the
state," the caucus wrote in a blog post summarizing some of their
thoughts on the forum.
Until ASEAN officially recognizes and protects
the rights of LGBTIQ
people, activists will continue to struggle in their
fight against
discrimination and prejudice. But if Myo Min Htet and Tin Ko
Ko's joyful
wedding has taught us anything, it is that change will come,
slowly and
surely, with or without official recognition.
Kirsten Han
is a writer, videographer and photographer. Originally from
Singapore, she
has worked on documentary projects around Asia and
written for publications
including Waging Nonviolence, Asian
Correspondent and The Huffington
Post.
(21) Gay Activist sues Chinese Government for refusing to register
his
LGBT organization
http://thediplomat.com/2014/03/gay-activist-sues-the-chinese-government-for-defamation/
Gay
Activist Sues the Chinese Government for Defamation
Xiang Xiaohan filed
suit after the Hunan government refused to register
his LGBT
organization.
By J.T. Quigley for The Diplomat
March 30,
2014
A 20-year-old gay man in China has become the first to sue the
government in the name of LGBT equality. Xiang Xiaohan (a pseudonym)
filed the defamation lawsuit in Changsha, Hunan's provincial capital,
after an application to register his gay rights group was denied. It has
been seen as a bold move in a country that, until the 1990s, considered
homosexuality to be both a crime and a mental disorder.
The official
letter of refusal claimed that Xiang had no legal basis for
setting up an
LGBT organization and that it went against "traditional
Chinese culture and
the social construction of morality."
The response, considered by many to
be homophobic, also stated:
"According to the Marriage Law, marriage must
include one man and one
woman, so the law does not approve of homosexual
marriages or
relationships."
Xiang founded the group, Same-Sex Love
Assistance Network, in 2009.
Acceptance by the local government, Xiang
claims, would make it easier
for him to hold fundraisers and public events
(though, technically, only
state-run NGOs are approved).
Xiang's
lawsuit, filed on February 19, demanded a retraction and a
published
apology.
The Changsha court ruled that the letter didn't defame
homosexuals and
simply offered "administrative guidance." Though the case
was thrown out
on March 14, Xiang plans to appeal.
"If we can't force
the civil affairs department of the Hunan government
to withdraw what it
said on homosexuality, then other government bodies
would likely follow its
example, and this would cause irreparable
psychological damage to gay and
lesbian people," Xiang told BBC. "If gay
and lesbian people have no place in
China's traditional culture, how can
you encourage them to pursue the
[Chinese] Dream?"
Until it was abolished in 1997, China's controversial
"hooligan law"
criminalized homosexual activity. The Chinese Psychiatric
Association
also listed homosexuality as a mental disease until a 2001
revision.
Despite the case's dismissal, some view the fact that a Chinese
court
even considered the case at all to be a small victory.
"It is
the first time in China that a local government department has
formally
given a written reply to a request from the gay and lesbian
community,
whereas in the past the government would just simply ignore
it," said Yu
Fang Qiang, a spokesperson for Nanjing-based
anti-discrimination NGO Justice
For All.
There are an estimated 30 million LGBT individuals in China. In
a
country that holds fast to traditional customs and family values, many
are forced to live double lives. Some parents even force their children
to undergo sexual orientation reassignment treatments.
(22) Dalai
Lama comes out for gay marriage
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/dalai-lama-comes-out-for-gay-marriage/story-e6frg6so-1226848381147
AFP
MARCH 08, 2014 12:00AM
THE celibate Dalai Lama has thrown his
considerable moral weight behind
gay marriage, condemning homophobia and
saying sex was fine as long as
it was consensual.
The Buddhist monk
offered his views on the hot-button social issue while
touring the US, where
he was welcomed yesterday in Washington by top
politicians and offered the
customary prayer that opens each Senate session.
The Dalai Lama, in an
interview, said gay marriage was up to each
government and was ultimately
"individual business". "If two people -- a
couple -- really feel that way is
more practical, more sort of
satisfaction, both sides fully agree, then OK,"
he told an online talk
show hosted by veteran radio and television host
Larry King.
Tibet's exiled spiritual leader said people should still
follow their
own religion's rules on sexuality. "But then, for a
non-believer, that
is up to them. So there are different forms of sex -- so
long (as it is)
safe, OK, and (if both people) fully agree, OK," the Dalai
Lama said in
English.
"Bully, abuse -- that's totally wrong. That's a
violation of human
rights," he said.
Gay marriage has won growing
acceptance in the Western world and Latin
America. But no predominantly
Buddhist nation allows gay marriage,
although several countries with
Buddhist influence, including Nepal,
Taiwan and Vietnam, have increasingly
debated the issue.
The Dalai Lama, who fled his Chinese-ruled homeland
for India in 1959
and later won the Nobel Peace Prize, has prided himself on
progressive
positions and described himself as a feminist.
But his
past comments on gay rights have occasionally bothered some of
his Western
audiences. In one of his books, the Dalai Lama, while not
explicitly
criticising homosexuality, said sex should only involve
"organs intended for
sexual intercourse".
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.