EPTAs such, if there are future developments and other relevant similar things as stated above, post them here and/or PM me so we can include it in the OP. Having one location to discuss this one topic is easier to follow and makes it easier for us to have a discussion.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS/STORIES/REPORTS:
> [Mar 10, 2013] Queen Elizabeth to sign Charter on Gay Rights etc. (TL thread)
On March 10 2013 17:33 yOngKIN wrote:
http://www.news.com.au/world-news/queen-one-does-support-gay-rights/story-fndir2ev-1226594158648
Monday, on live television, Queen Elizabeth will sign a new Commonwealth Charter “designed to stamp out discrimination against homosexual people and promote the ‘empowerment’ of women – a key part of a new drive to boost human rights and living standards across the Commonwealth.
The charter 'opposed' discrimination rooted in gender, race, color, creed, political belief or other grounds, with the 'other grounds' expected to include gay rights and equal rights for boys and girls to ascend to the throne.
Report:
The potential reach of the Charter is vast. The Commonwealth of Nations, formerly known as the British Commonwealth, consists of 54 independent sovereign states: Homosexual acts are still illegal in 41 of the Commonwealth’s 54 nations. Penalties include the death sentence in parts of Nigeria and Pakistan; 25 years jail in Trinidad and Tobago; 20 years plus flogging in Malaysia; and life imprisonment in Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda, Bangladesh and Guyana.
Same-sex relationships are recognised in only five Commonwealth countries: UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. This is a good start.
http://www.news.com.au/world-news/queen-one-does-support-gay-rights/story-fndir2ev-1226594158648
Monday, on live television, Queen Elizabeth will sign a new Commonwealth Charter “designed to stamp out discrimination against homosexual people and promote the ‘empowerment’ of women – a key part of a new drive to boost human rights and living standards across the Commonwealth.
The charter 'opposed' discrimination rooted in gender, race, color, creed, political belief or other grounds, with the 'other grounds' expected to include gay rights and equal rights for boys and girls to ascend to the throne.
Report:
The potential reach of the Charter is vast. The Commonwealth of Nations, formerly known as the British Commonwealth, consists of 54 independent sovereign states: Homosexual acts are still illegal in 41 of the Commonwealth’s 54 nations. Penalties include the death sentence in parts of Nigeria and Pakistan; 25 years jail in Trinidad and Tobago; 20 years plus flogging in Malaysia; and life imprisonment in Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda, Bangladesh and Guyana.
Same-sex relationships are recognised in only five Commonwealth countries: UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. This is a good start.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS/STORIES/REPORTS
> [Mar 1, 2013] Obama backs gay marriage (TL thread)
+ Show Spoiler +
http://www.smh.com.au/world/obama-backs-gay-marriage-in-supreme-court-20130301-2fap1.html
This is big news. Finally the motion is getting a presidential push. Obama's statement is really appropriate for the times, as well as his symbol as the president of change.
WASHINGTON: The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overturn California's ban on gay marriage and take a sceptical view of similar bans elsewhere, wading into a case that could have broad implications for the right of same-sex couples to wed.
The administration said unequivocally in a friend-of-the-court brief filed late on Thursday that gay marriage should be allowed to resume in California, where citizens voted to bar it in a 2008 referendum known as Proposition 8.
It does not explicitly call for marriage equality across the United States, but points the court in that direction.
More immediately, the administration's position, if adopted by the court, probably would result in gay marriage becoming legal in seven other states that, like California, give gay couples all the benefits of marriage, but don't allow them to wed.
Advertisement
They are: Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island.
The brief marks President Barack Obama's most expansive view of the legal rights of gays and lesbians to marry. He announced his personal support for gay marriage last year but has said the issue should be governed by states.
Mr Obama, a former constitutional law professor, raised expectations that he would back a broad brief during his inauguration address on January 21. He said the nation's journey "is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law".
"For if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well," Mr Obama said.
The Justice Department planned to submit its brief later on Thursday – the deadline for filing in the California case. The justices will hear oral arguments in the case on March 26.
The administration said unequivocally in a friend-of-the-court brief filed late on Thursday that gay marriage should be allowed to resume in California, where citizens voted to bar it in a 2008 referendum known as Proposition 8.
It does not explicitly call for marriage equality across the United States, but points the court in that direction.
More immediately, the administration's position, if adopted by the court, probably would result in gay marriage becoming legal in seven other states that, like California, give gay couples all the benefits of marriage, but don't allow them to wed.
Advertisement
They are: Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island.
The brief marks President Barack Obama's most expansive view of the legal rights of gays and lesbians to marry. He announced his personal support for gay marriage last year but has said the issue should be governed by states.
Mr Obama, a former constitutional law professor, raised expectations that he would back a broad brief during his inauguration address on January 21. He said the nation's journey "is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law".
"For if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well," Mr Obama said.
The Justice Department planned to submit its brief later on Thursday – the deadline for filing in the California case. The justices will hear oral arguments in the case on March 26.
This is big news. Finally the motion is getting a presidential push. Obama's statement is really appropriate for the times, as well as his symbol as the president of change.
> [Dec 12, 2012] UK to legalise gay marriage, religious exemptions (TL thread)
+ Show Spoiler +
There are plans (in the sense that it will happen, not just sensationalist news) for the British parliament to introduce gay marriage in the UK before 2015. It is receiving cross party support with the Conservative (centre right)/Lib Dem (socially liberal) coalition government pushing the bill and the Labour opposition (centre left economically) also backing it. Principle opposition is likely to be from backbench Conservative MPs but the party leadership in the UK is way more able to make MPs vote their way than in the US for example.
What we currently have
Same sex couples can currently get civil partnerships which give them the same legal protections and entitlements as married couples, protected under anti discrimination laws. These are effectively marriages but as they are opposed by most Christian and Muslim groups they have a different names and Catholic/Anglican churches/ministers don't let them happen.
What will change
Civil partnerships will remain (heterosexual couples could get them too, it's just a secular marriage) but the option of a marriage and calling it a marriage will be open to homosexual couples. In practice very little will change because they already call themselves married because they pretty much are in every sense that counts, it'll just be one less distinction between heterosexual and homosexual couples. Children growing up may grow up to be less homophobic but to be honest it's largely a formality. A formality that is long overdue but still, simply tidying up after the introduction of civil partnerships did most of the work.
What will stay the same and what will get worse (for gays), also known as "the issue"
To counter the religious freedom argument against gay marriage the freedom for religions to discriminate against homosexuals on the basis of their beliefs is being enshrined in this law. Any religious group has until the law is finalised to put themselves forwards to be named in the law as being not required to perform gay marriages and exempted from any discrimination suit that may result from the refusual to perform gay marriages. It will be illegal for a Catholic priest to perform a gay marriage under the new law, for example, whereas at the moment they could perform the ceremony legally. The same protection applies to church property, a Catholic church will not be forced to allow a gay marriage to happen on their premises, nor will one be legal.
We have a fascist party in the UK called the BNP who used to have a no blacks policy on their membership because they want Britain to be purely white because they're a bunch of racists. They got hit by anti discrimination legislation and now can't refuse membership to black people on the basis of their skin colour, despite being an independent organisation. There is a clear legal and social precedent that private groups do not have the right to discriminate. The proposed new law runs directly counter to that and grants new exemptions to religious groups wanting to discriminate against homosexual couples who wish to get married and actually legally enforces discrimination, making not discriminating while an official of the named groups a crime. It's a step back in terms of civil rights and a secular society.
Talking points
Does this go far enough in giving gays the right to marry? Will it lead to an entrenchment of religious opposition to homosexuality where previously there was a slow retreat towards accepting equal rights?
Do religions have the right to discriminate privately as long as it doesn't deny any rights to the individual?
If religions have the right to discriminate privately on the grounds of sexual orientation why should other groups not also have similar rights?
Is making it specifically illegal for a group to marry gay couples as well as protecting them from discrimination laws too far?
Is it an acceptable price to pay for homosexual couples to call themselves married and be technically correct?
Not talking points
This law is bad because it lets gays marry.
This law is bad because God doesn't exist.
Related reading
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20680924
If any gays, particularly British gays, would like to weigh in their input would be particularly appreciated.
What we currently have
Same sex couples can currently get civil partnerships which give them the same legal protections and entitlements as married couples, protected under anti discrimination laws. These are effectively marriages but as they are opposed by most Christian and Muslim groups they have a different names and Catholic/Anglican churches/ministers don't let them happen.
What will change
Civil partnerships will remain (heterosexual couples could get them too, it's just a secular marriage) but the option of a marriage and calling it a marriage will be open to homosexual couples. In practice very little will change because they already call themselves married because they pretty much are in every sense that counts, it'll just be one less distinction between heterosexual and homosexual couples. Children growing up may grow up to be less homophobic but to be honest it's largely a formality. A formality that is long overdue but still, simply tidying up after the introduction of civil partnerships did most of the work.
What will stay the same and what will get worse (for gays), also known as "the issue"
To counter the religious freedom argument against gay marriage the freedom for religions to discriminate against homosexuals on the basis of their beliefs is being enshrined in this law. Any religious group has until the law is finalised to put themselves forwards to be named in the law as being not required to perform gay marriages and exempted from any discrimination suit that may result from the refusual to perform gay marriages. It will be illegal for a Catholic priest to perform a gay marriage under the new law, for example, whereas at the moment they could perform the ceremony legally. The same protection applies to church property, a Catholic church will not be forced to allow a gay marriage to happen on their premises, nor will one be legal.
We have a fascist party in the UK called the BNP who used to have a no blacks policy on their membership because they want Britain to be purely white because they're a bunch of racists. They got hit by anti discrimination legislation and now can't refuse membership to black people on the basis of their skin colour, despite being an independent organisation. There is a clear legal and social precedent that private groups do not have the right to discriminate. The proposed new law runs directly counter to that and grants new exemptions to religious groups wanting to discriminate against homosexual couples who wish to get married and actually legally enforces discrimination, making not discriminating while an official of the named groups a crime. It's a step back in terms of civil rights and a secular society.
Talking points
Does this go far enough in giving gays the right to marry? Will it lead to an entrenchment of religious opposition to homosexuality where previously there was a slow retreat towards accepting equal rights?
Do religions have the right to discriminate privately as long as it doesn't deny any rights to the individual?
If religions have the right to discriminate privately on the grounds of sexual orientation why should other groups not also have similar rights?
Is making it specifically illegal for a group to marry gay couples as well as protecting them from discrimination laws too far?
Is it an acceptable price to pay for homosexual couples to call themselves married and be technically correct?
Not talking points
This law is bad because it lets gays marry.
This law is bad because God doesn't exist.
Related reading
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20680924
If any gays, particularly British gays, would like to weigh in their input would be particularly appreciated.
> [Oct 12, 2012] Ukraine on Gay Propaganda (TL thread)
+ Show Spoiler +
Ukraine will vote next week (mid-October 2012) on the national bill on "homosexual propaganda". The bill aims to outlaw any "positive depiction" of gay people, including joining in gay parade marches, same-sex displays of affection (kissing, holding hands), and even watching "gay films" like Brokeback Mountain.
Ukraine has traditionally been a tolerant society, decriminalizing homosexuality as early as 1991. But surprisingly, the legislation is getting massive support in the country. A representative of one of the supporters of the bill frames the argument against homosexuality stating that one's individual freedom "are limited by the freedom of someone else." He elaborates that the free speech of the gay minorities is a violation of other people's right to not to have to hear something offensive. He goes on to accuse a worldwide conspiracy of Masons, New-Agers, postmodernists and financiers of various nationalities, of imposing ideas that are not "characteristic for Ukraine" on the nation's children. He continues that gay propaganda could could damage efforts to stem Ukraine's already stratospheric HIV rate, if, for example, some anti-Aids information were to be prohibited.
The universal support to this anti-homosexual bill is reflected in recent events in Ukraine, as the first Gay Pride march in Kiev was cancelled after violent threats from opposing groups. There have also been an increase in the incidents of attacks on gay activists in the country.
POSSIBLE TALKING POINTS
- Ukraine's stance on homosexuality versus the more liberal and tolerant stance by the rest of the modern world
- Particular cultural factors in Ukraine that may have influenced this issue
- Possible venues to explore by both parties to come up with a rational and mutually-beneficial solution to everyone concerned
SOURCES
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19881905
Ukraine has traditionally been a tolerant society, decriminalizing homosexuality as early as 1991. But surprisingly, the legislation is getting massive support in the country. A representative of one of the supporters of the bill frames the argument against homosexuality stating that one's individual freedom "are limited by the freedom of someone else." He elaborates that the free speech of the gay minorities is a violation of other people's right to not to have to hear something offensive. He goes on to accuse a worldwide conspiracy of Masons, New-Agers, postmodernists and financiers of various nationalities, of imposing ideas that are not "characteristic for Ukraine" on the nation's children. He continues that gay propaganda could could damage efforts to stem Ukraine's already stratospheric HIV rate, if, for example, some anti-Aids information were to be prohibited.
The universal support to this anti-homosexual bill is reflected in recent events in Ukraine, as the first Gay Pride march in Kiev was cancelled after violent threats from opposing groups. There have also been an increase in the incidents of attacks on gay activists in the country.
POSSIBLE TALKING POINTS
- Ukraine's stance on homosexuality versus the more liberal and tolerant stance by the rest of the modern world
- Particular cultural factors in Ukraine that may have influenced this issue
- Possible venues to explore by both parties to come up with a rational and mutually-beneficial solution to everyone concerned
SOURCES
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19881905
> [Feb 9, 2012] Washington State Votes to Approve Gay Marriage (TL thread)
+ Show Spoiler +
Haven't seen a topic on this yet.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/08/us/washington-same-sex-marriage/index.html
+ Show Spoiler +
Personal thoughts:
One state closer to a better America . It's great to see gay marriage finally being legalized in some states, and I think that with time gay marriage will eventually be legal in most or all of the U.S. It's long overdue, anyway. I lol'd at this little quote in there:
+ Show Spoiler +
That's an incredibly misleading quote that a lot of people would fall for, I'm sure. Anyway, a good day for gay rights in the U.S.!
Note for any people outside the U.S. that don't know U.S. states: This is referring to Washington, a state in northwestern U.S., not Washington D.C., the capital the U.S.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/08/us/washington-same-sex-marriage/index.html
+ Show Spoiler +
Personal thoughts:
One state closer to a better America . It's great to see gay marriage finally being legalized in some states, and I think that with time gay marriage will eventually be legal in most or all of the U.S. It's long overdue, anyway. I lol'd at this little quote in there:
+ Show Spoiler +
That's an incredibly misleading quote that a lot of people would fall for, I'm sure. Anyway, a good day for gay rights in the U.S.!
Note for any people outside the U.S. that don't know U.S. states: This is referring to Washington, a state in northwestern U.S., not Washington D.C., the capital the U.S.
> [Jun 7, 2012] Gay Scout Resolution (TL thread)
+ Show Spoiler +
A new resolution is curerntly being reviewed for the Boy Scouts of America. The resolution aims to lift the ban on gays and will therefore allow gay scouts and gay leaders in to BSA. The proposal gives the power to each chartered group to decide whether to allow gays into their group.
The initial reaction is still divided on this issue, going against a 105 year old no-gay policy on BSA. BSA officials are either on veehment opposition or lukewarm on this proposal, claiming that the tradition of the group should be held sacred. A few members on the otherhand are open to the idea, stating that the group should keep in touch with the changing ideological pulse of the times. They estimate the issue to be decided by May 2013.
I feel this is a significant change towards freedom in America. Remember that Obama has already expressed support for Gay marriage, and this may well be the start of another snowball on gay rights and human rights on other fronts in society.
Full story in the spoiler below.
The initial reaction is still divided on this issue, going against a 105 year old no-gay policy on BSA. BSA officials are either on veehment opposition or lukewarm on this proposal, claiming that the tradition of the group should be held sacred. A few members on the otherhand are open to the idea, stating that the group should keep in touch with the changing ideological pulse of the times. They estimate the issue to be decided by May 2013.
I feel this is a significant change towards freedom in America. Remember that Obama has already expressed support for Gay marriage, and this may well be the start of another snowball on gay rights and human rights on other fronts in society.
Full story in the spoiler below.
Also:
Gay Starcraft Players
lol great work man!
ABOUT LGTB RIGHTS
LGBT rights are human rights and civil rights. LGBT rights laws include, but are not limited to, the following: government recognition of same-sex relationships (such as via same-sex marriage or civil unions), LGBT adoption, recognition of LGBT parenting, anti-bullying legislation and student non-discrimination laws to protect LGBT children and/or students, immigration equality laws, anti-discrimination laws for employment and housing, hate crime laws providing enhanced criminal penalties for prejudice-motivated violence against LGBT people, equal age of consent laws, and laws related to sexual orientation and military service.
Anti-LGBT laws include, but are not limited to, the following: sodomy laws penalizing consensual same-sex sexual activity with fines, jail terms, or the death penalty, anti-'lesbianism' laws, and higher ages of consent for same-sex activity.
In 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed its first resolution recognizing LGBT rights, which was followed up with a report from the UN Human Rights Commission documenting violations of the rights of LGBT people, including hate crime, criminalization of homosexuality, and discrimination. Following up on the report, the UN Human Rights Commission urged all countries which had not yet done so to enact laws protecting basic LGBT rights.
Source
