Showing posts with label anti Gay Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anti Gay Law. Show all posts

April 5, 2019

Boycott on Brunei Hotel Gathers Strength as Capital Anti Gay Law Goes Into Effect

View image on Twitter

Los Angeles politicians were equally pointed. On Tuesday, three City Council members proposed a resolution that officially condemned the government of Brunei “for adopting laws that impose extreme and inhumane penalties.” The proposal discouraged employees and residents from staying at or attending any functions at the Beverly Hills Hotel and Hotel Bel-Air unless the law was repealed.
The city controller, Ron Galperin, said he was “outraged and horrified” by the law and posted photos of Hotel Bel-Air and the Beverly Hills Hotel with a red X through them.
Representatives for the Dorchester Collection said in a statement on Wednesday that the company does “not tolerate any form of discrimination.”
“Dorchester Collection’s Code emphasizes equality, respect and integrity in all areas of our operation, and strongly values people and cultural diversity amongst our guests and employees,” they said. “Inclusion and diversity remain core beliefs.”
This is not the first time Hollywood has called for a boycott of the two hotels because of Brunei’s punitive legal system. In 2014, the City Council unanimously passed a resolution urging the government of Brunei “to divest itself of the Beverly Hills Hotel” after a wave of high-profile protests in response to the country’s harsh punishments for adultery, abortion and homosexuality.
But it is unclear what impact the boycott will have. Although the earlier protests resulted in a flood of cancellations, they did not move the Sultan to sell. In time, the issue faded and celebrities and their entourages returned. 

April 27, 2018

Theresa May Sorry For Colonial Anti Gay Laws But Wont Help in Annulling Them Today

 The UK wrote these anti gay laws for these countries now is is ot lifting a finger to undue the harm

When British prime minister Theresa May, who’d been pushed hard byactivists in her country, apologized to the citizens of Commonwealth nations last week for inflicting dreaded anti-gay laws upon them it was momentous. Historic even.
“I am all too aware that these laws were often put in place by my own country,” she told leaders at the just concluded Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM2018) in London. “They were wrong then and they are wrong now.”
The colonial-era ‘sodomy laws’ are in place in 36 out of 53 Commonwealth nations. And they’ve remained in place for well over 60 years in many African countries with the occasional controversial update at election time. As the West has gained more knowledge on human sexuality and moved away from classifying it as disease or criminal, the UK has changed its laws, and, eventually, fully embraced marriage equality between people of the same gender.
But will May’s ‘deep regret’ move the needle for gay, lesbian or transgender Africans who more often than not have to deal with brute force of the state and the stigma some in society openly heap on them?
Probably not. 
In 2018, many on the continent aren’t expecting May’s regrets to make much difference as they navigate staying alive while loving and living with dignity. In Nairobi, Kenya, Nguru Karugu, a longtime social justice advocate heard the remarks and thought they were of little significance.
“The Kenyan LGBT movement has continued to exert itself supported by a progressive constitution. Britain’s statement does not increase or decrease the trajectory the movement has embarked upon on its justice journey,” Karugu, the executive director of Public Health Innovations consulting firm, said. This rapidly growing movement however is one that the Kenyan president, Uhuru Kenyatta refuses to even acknowledge. Shortly after May’s remarks, he told CNN that LGBT equality in the Kenyan republic was a nonissue.
“I will not engage in a subject of no … it is not of any major importance to the people and the Republic of Kenya. This is not an issue, as you would want to put it, of human rights. This is an issue of society, of our own base, as a culture as a people,” he said adding that 99% of his fellow citizens agree with him.
Bur lately, courtrooms in Kenya tell a different story and are slowlyaffirming Kenyan gays who refuse to stay silent. And few say, Kenyatta is not speaking for them.
Across sub-Saharan Africa, the climate is increasingly hostile, particularly in former British colonies. Anyone can be arrested for on suspicion of being part of the LGBT family. In Zimbabwe there are recent reports of arrests of people simply on a night out; In Nigeria, it remains open season with entrapment of gays being the norm since former president Goodluck Jonathan, signed into law a draconian anti-gay bill in an Election Year gambit that he lost in 2015.
Of course the apology by May was received in Nigeria by scorn being heaped on her and media commentators there conflating decriminalization of adult consensual sexual activity that May called for, with marriage for same sex couples. Over in Tanzania, the state continues to bully activists, arresting anyone they deem to have any whiff of homosexual sympathies. And in Ghana, one prominent Christian leader, Emmanuel Martey, of the Presbyterian church of Ghana deems all gay Ghanaians as ‘Satanists’. And Kingsford Sumana Bagbin, the deputy speaker of parliament claimed homosexuality is worse than an atomic bomb. In Ghana at election time, gay hysteria seems to ramp up like it does in Nigeria.
A few years ago I asked one of Ghana’s noted historians why the Ghanaian sodomy laws which condemned men was silent on women. Nat Amarteifio, Accra’s former mayor howled with laughter then explained: “These laws were written fifty years ago when they didn’t dare think their women had sexual drives for men much less for women.”
So for some May’s apology was a day late and a dollar short.
“Why didn’t she simply condemn the fellow Commonwealth members to repeal their laws, not say the UK will stand by countries who want to reform? ” wondered Nairobi resident Kevin Mwachiro, 45, who felt perhaps she ought to have pointed out the worst offenders. “She should have been more forthright in condemning member countries that still have those laws.”
Still there are glimpses of hope. And resilience.
LGBT people in tiny Kingdom of eSwatini, (Swaziland) are refusing to hide anymore and planning a commemoration of Pride. While Ugandan police keep shutting down, LGBT cultural events, they continue to happen. Nigerian queer women are taking steps away from the shadows too as their queer stories are going public. ‘She Called Me Woman’ (Cassava Republic) hits Lagos bookstores in June. 

March 29, 2018

Christian Colleges Tangle Their Own Anti Gay Policies Against The Laws of The Land

Conservative Christian colleges, once relatively insulated from the culture war, are increasingly entangled in the same battles over LGBT rights and related social issues that have divided other institutions in America.

Students and faculty at many religious institutions are asked to accept a "faith statement" outlining the school's views on such matters as evangelical doctrine, scriptural interpretation and human sexuality. Those statements often include a rejection of homosexual activity and a definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Changing attitudes on sexual ethics and civil rights, however, are making it difficult for some schools, even conservative ones, to ensure broad compliance with their strict positions.

"Millennials are looking at the issue of gay marriage, and more and more they are saying, 'OK, we know the Bible talks about this, but we just don't see this as an essential of the faith,' " says Brad Harper, a professor of theology and religious history at Multnomah University, an evangelical Christian institution in Portland, Ore.

LGBT students at Christian schools are also increasingly likely to be open about their own sexual orientation or gender identity.
At Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Mich., junior Sam Koster, who identifies as queer, finds fellow students to be generally tolerant.

"People I've met in the English Department," Koster says, "even in my dorms, they're like, 'Oh, you're queer? OK, cool. Do you want to go get pizza?' "

Staff and faculty at these Christian schools have to balance a need to attend to their students' personal and spiritual needs with a commitment to their schools' faith statements or official positions on sexuality.

"You've got those two values," says Mary Hulst, senior chaplain at Calvin. "We love our LGBT people. We love our church of Jesus Christ. We love Scripture. So those of us who do this work are right in the middle of that space. We are living in the tension."

Calvin College is affiliated with the Christian Reformed Church, which holds that "homosexual practice ... is incompatible with obedience to the will of God as revealed in Scripture." Hulst leads Bible study groups with her LGBT students and discusses with them the passages that refer to same-sex relationships.

"Those are the clobber passages," Koster says. "They're used to clobber queer kids back into being straight."

Koster was troubled by those Bible verses at first but eventually became comfortable with a devout Christian identity and joined the Gay Christian Network.

In Guidance To Teachers, Church of England Targets Anti-LGBT Bullying

In Guidance To Teachers, Church of England Targets Anti-LGBT Bullying
"When I realized that my faith wasn't necessarily about the [Christian Reformed] Church, and it wasn't even necessarily about the Bible but about my relationship with God and that God is all-encompassing and loving, I felt very free," Koster says.

Koster says Hulst helped guide that faith journey, but Hulst herself is still torn between her love for her LGBT students and her own understanding that the Bible does not really allow them to act on their sexual orientation.

"It's a place where you need to be wise," Hulst says. "I tell them I want to honor Scripture, but I also honor my LGBT brothers and sisters."

It doesn't always work out.

"Someone from the LGBT community will say, 'If you will not honor the choices I make with my life, if I choose a partner and get married, then you're not actually honoring me.' I can understand that," Hulst says, grimacing. "I can see how they might come to that conclusion."

Legal entanglement

In addition to changing social and cultural attitudes, conservative religious schools face a changing legal environment regarding LGBT issues. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

Though the language does not refer to sexual orientation or gender identity, some courts have interpreted Title VII as protecting LGBT individuals and the recent trend has been in a pro-LGBT direction.

Appeals Court Rules The Civil Rights Act Protects Gay Workers
Christian colleges and universities also have to consider Title IX of the Higher Education Amendments of 1972: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

As with Title VII, the question of whether "sex" under Title IX should be interpreted as referring to sexual orientation is hotly debated.

In April 2015, during a Supreme Court argument over the constitutional rights of LGBT individuals, Justice Samuel Alito noted that Bob Jones University in South Carolina had lost its tax-exempt status because of its prohibition on interracial dating and marriage.

"Would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?" Alito asked then-U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr.

"It's certainly going to be an issue," Verrilli answered. "I don't deny that."

The exchange alarmed officials at conservative religious schools, for which the loss of tax-exempt status or federal funding would be devastating. Their anxiety deepened a year later when the Obama administration notified colleges and universities that it interpreted Title IX as prohibiting discrimination "based on a student's gender identity, including discrimination based on a student's transgender status." Christian schools saw that letter as threatening a loss of federal funding if they refused to accommodate students who identify as transgender and want to be housed with other students who share their gender identity.

Trump Administration Rescinds Obama Rule On Transgender Students' Bathroom Use

Trump Administration Rescinds Obama Rule On Transgender Students' Bathroom Use
Upon taking office, the Trump administration rescinded the Obama directive, but some leaders at Christian schools still fear the cultural and legal trends are in favor of expanded LGBT rights on their campuses, which could mean their policies on sexual behavior could face serious challenges.

Educational institutions can currently apply for an exemption from the nondiscrimination provisions of Title VII by demonstrating that those provisions contradict their religious beliefs, but opinions vary on whether those exemptions will protect Christian colleges that seek to maintain strict student and employee policies relating to sexual orientation.

"Religious exemptions are exemptions because they are for small groups of people, and it doesn't necessarily undermine the full purpose of the law to have them," says Shapri LoMaglio, vice president for government affairs at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. "I think case law is upholding the idea that that exemption is the right thing in order to be faithful to the Constitution."

Other Christian college leaders, however, fear that the application of civil rights law to LGBT individuals could eventually jeopardize religious exemptions.

"Four years down the line, eight years down the line, depending on the makeup of the Supreme Court, depending on who is president, I can see the gay/transgender issue being pushed in a way that would seek to make Christian colleges either surrender their federal funding or change their position and conform with the wider consensus," says Carl Trueman, a professor of church history at Westminster Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania.

Preparing for revoked funding

In a recent article in the journal First Things, titled "Preparing for Winter," Trueman argued that conservative Christian schools need to begin planning for a "worst-case scenario, where not only federal money but also tax-exempt status is revoked."

The combination of changing social attitudes and more complex legal issues were major points of discussion when the CCCU assembled representatives of more than 130 of its member institutions in Dallas in late January. College chaplains, student counselors and classroom professors reviewed how they were responding to LGBT students, while administrators and financial officers considered whether they need to prepare for more government scrutiny of their positions and policies on sexual orientation and activity.

One off-the-record session titled "Is Government Funding Replaceable?" was packed solid.

"The fear is so large in many institutions because 40 or 50 or maybe even 60 percent of their budgets are really coming from the federal government," says Dale Kemp, the chief financial officer at Wheaton College in Illinois and the speaker at the CCCU session. "To think they could survive without that [funding] would be catastrophic."

Brad Harper of Multnomah University, which affirms that "sexual relationships are designed by God to be expressed solely within a marriage between a man and a woman," says he has seen growing anxiety about the future of federal aid at like-minded schools in recent years.

"Every single Christian institution is wondering about that, and thinking, 'What happens if we lose government funding?' " he says. "Everybody has done the math about how much money you would have to raise if you lose government funding. You can't do it."

Just as vexing are the cultural questions, especially among the staff and faculty who work with LGBT students on a daily basis. All colleges and universities receiving federal aid are required to have a Title IX coordinator responsible for working with students who feel they have been subject to discrimination because of their sex. Whether gay or transgender students are entitled to Title IX protection is unresolved, so Title IX coordinators find themselves having to judge on their own how to respond to those students who seek their help.

"Sex has to do with identity and your gender and with who you are," says Christine Guzman, the Title IX coordinator at Azusa Pacific University in California, "so if there's a student who is feeling discriminated against because of their gender, then, yes, absolutely, I'm going to apply that law."

So far, at least, Guzman is attentive to gay and transgender students despite her school's official belief that human beings are created "as gendered beings" and that heterosexuality is "God's design."

At Calvin College, Hulst says the struggle to find an appropriate response to her LGBT students is among the most difficult challenges she has faced as a college chaplain.

"The suicidality of this particular population is much higher," she notes. "The chances that they will leave the church are much higher. These [realities] weigh very heavily on me."


It is adamfoxie's 10th🦊Anniversay. 10 years witnessing the world and bringing you a pieace whcih is ussually not getting its due coverage. 4.9 Million Reads

February 12, 2018

Laws Against Homosexuality Were Invented by The UK Under HenryVIII to Obtain Land

The law of "Buggery" has nothing to do with religion but as it is today it has all to do with money. It's happening less and less but only eight years ago in a large way, when a church or politician wanted to raise funds it will start talking or preaching against the terrible, immoral, dangerous gays. Gays were supposed to destroy the world or at least destroy the youth then destroy the US or UK.

When there was a disaster, natural or human made it was pusnishment from god because of homsexuality. How many times did the current Vice President Pence preach it from his church or from the Senate floor! Now people have obtained information from the community of both gays and straights and because of the internet ultra speedy ways, they have been able to judge by the same characters that Martin Luther King talked about. "By the actions not by the color of their skin" Not by what people look like to anyone else but how good they are as human beings to all.

 If you are a religious Christian, Christ should be the one that tells you what makes a good human being, not Paul or Peter or the Pope but by the god, you are supposed to be a follower of. Muslim or other religion? Your ancient text will also tell you what a good person is. It always goes with the way gay people are treated. I mentioned money and even now you have a preacher( will remain nameless because I don't think he should get any more free publicity) but not being a wealthy man he has enough money to travel the world preaching that gays should be put to death and he quotes some bible passages. He has people from all over the world to send him money and places to stay and preach by people who are afraid of gay people, which is basically what homophobia is. Many people hate him but many follow his preachings. I think he might be described as one of the many false prophets because you can't read the whole bible and come up with one or two conclusions about life and death on this planet. Life and death, particular life is more complex than just passing judgment on any people. Those that commit crimes should be caught and punished, But what crimes? Easy! Crimes against other human beings.

A crime is an assault on others and for examples, the dictionary offers many but not being gay or dark skin or poor is not one.  Do some gays cause harm to others? yes, but judging by the numbers homosexuals are a minority and their crimes are less in quantity than others. But Not in horrors because you have always had leaders which were in the closet during old and modern times that thought it advantageous to them to reach what they were looking for by destroying others.

A Trumps' family lawyer early on who fell from grace now dead, was one who (being closeted gay himself) destroyed many gays and straights in law enforcement, politics and mostly cinema during the McCarthy era. He would accuse them from the belly of the Senate of either being gay or communist or both (gays were communists) It did not matter if they were exonerated, the accusation alone would sink their career many committing suicide because they thought they could not go on after losing what took a life to accomplish and now destroyed by the word"Homosexual"
His name was Roy Cohn.

 Roy Cohn and Donald Trump 2001

 If I wanted to kill anyone all I have to do is watch what they do and the first time I see them eating Chinese fried rice with pork..yeah, they are dead. or cheating, dead! and I will use the bible to justify it. My father told me once when he saw me reading the entire Bible in one sitting (a few days), he said:
 "be careful because that is a book that has to be treated carefully." I didn't know what he meant by that but I learn a few years later when I found myself to be attracted to certain men what this book can tell people predispose to violence or to bias against others) Adam Gonzalez ex Seminary Student

Greed, not morality, was at the root of England’s original 1553 anti-homosexuality law, which has spawned similar laws in dozens of former British colonies. The Rt. Rev. Alan Wilson made that point during October’s Intimate Conviction conference in Jamaica.

The Rt. Rev. Alan Wilson (Photo by Colin Stewart)
The Rt. Rev. Alan Wilson (Photo by Colin Stewart)

Wilson, who is the bishop of Buckingham in the United Kingdom, told the conference that before the passage of the Buggery Act in 1553, sexual relations between men was a “sin, not a crime.”
King Henry VIII wanted to seize control of Roman Catholic monasteries and their property. Outlawing “the detestable and abominable Vice of Buggery” made that easier, Wilson said.

England's King Henry VIII (Painting by Hans Holbein the Younger courtesy of BBC)
England’s King Henry VIII (Painting by Hans Holbein the Younger courtesy of BBC)

“Henry had to find a way to deprive people of their property,” Wilson said. “He could have monks hanged for allegations of homosexuality.”
“It had nothing to do with morality. It had to do with property.”
The United Kingdom has repealed that law, but versions of it remain in force in 36 former British colonies.
“It is a toxic heritage of the British Empire. We are deeply embarrassed by it,” Wilson said. “We need to work to remove it.”
Repressive modern politicians tend to use their countries’ anti-homosexuality laws only slightly differently from how Henry VIII used his. Their goal is typically power rather than property.
Powerful politicians in homophobic countries often use LGBT people as scapegoats to be blamed for whatever is going wrong in the country. Politicians also inflame people’s fears and distrust of homosexuals in order to consolidate their power.
This is one of a series of glimpses of the Intimate Conviction conference, October 2017, Jamaica.

Adamfoxie🦊 Celebrating 10 years of keeping an eye on the world for You brings you the important LGBT news others ignore. Does not repost from gay sites [except only when importat athlete comes out].Will post popular items with a different angle or to contribute to our readers🦊

October 6, 2017

Mississippi Anti Gay Sweeping Law Will Go Into Affect Soon

An anti-LGBTQ law that the Human Rights Campaign described as the “nation’s worst” will go into effect on Friday in Mississippi. 
Peddled as yet another pervasive “religious freedom law,” House Bill 1523 was signed by Gov. Phil Bryant last year. A series of legal battles concluded over the weekend when the Fifth Circuit of Appeals rejected a petition to rehear a lawsuit attempting to block HB 1523 from going into effect. Plaintiffs in that case, the Fifth Circuit of Appeals found, were not directly harmed by HB 1523, therefore it could go into effect.
While LGBTQ rights groups vowed to take take the case to the Supreme Court, no such case been filed. Unless another injunction is issued between now and when it’s scheduled to go into effect, HB 1523 will become law. 
HB 1523’s broad stipulations are, in a word, inhumane. Here’s a brief rundown as summarized by local newspaper the Sun Herald:
An Arizona-based Christian group, Alliance Defending Freedom, helped write the Mississippi law that Republican Gov. Phil Bryant signed in 2016. The law protects three beliefs: that marriage is only between a man and a woman, sex should only take place in such a marriage, and a person’s gender is determined at birth and cannot be altered.
Based on these protected beliefs, Mississippi businesses and citizens can now refuse to serve anyone they believe threatens their religious ideology. 
HB 1523 quite literally specifies what forms of discrimination are legal: religious organizations have the right to fire employees based on their sexual orientation; landlords have the right to evict tenants who are LGBTQ; landlords can reject LGBTQ rental applicants; hospitals can refuse to operate on individuals seeking gender reassignment surgery; basically anything related to marriages are fair game for discrimination; state government employees are free to spew whatever type of anti-LGTBQ sentiments they may have; and adoption agencies can refuse to help LGBTQ people become parents. The list goes on.
Perhaps one of HB 1523's most cruel provisions pertains to trans people. When the law goes into effect on Friday, it establishes “sex-specific standards or policies concerning employee or student dress or grooming” — meaning schools, businesses, and other organizations can force trans people to wear clothes that correspond to their biological sex at birth.
Roberta Kaplan, who presented a case against the Defense of Marriage Act to the Supreme Court and won, has lead the legal fight against HB 1523. Speaking to Mississippi Today on Sunday, she said, “Rest assured that we will do everything humanly possible to continue to fight this harmful law on the merits in order to protect our nation’s constitutional values and the LGBT citizens of Mississippi.”

Eleanor Sheehan

July 20, 2017

Decriminalization of Gay Sex in 1967 Did Not Stop Arrests Instead They Skyrocketed

 Alan Turing a British Intelligence hero and math genius was chemically castrated for being a homosexual and even having a boy friend causing him to commit suicide.

The criminalisation of homosexuality did not end in the UK until 2013 – a full 46 years after the Sexual Offences Act 1967. So don’t be misled by the celebrations on 27 July, which will mark the fiftieth anniversary of this legislation. The 1967 Act was just a start. It was the first gay law reform since anal sex was made a crime in 1533, during the reign of King Henry VIII, and since all other sexual acts between men were outlawed in 1885. My research reveals that the liberalization of 1967 was not as liberal as many people believe. An estimated 15,000 – 20,000 gay and bisexual men were convicted in the decades that followed. That’s because homosexuality was only partly decriminalized.

 The remaining anti-gay laws were policed even more aggressively than before, by a State that continued to oppose LGBT acceptance and equality. 15,000-20,000 gay and bisexual men were convicted of gay acts after the liberalization law of 1967 In total, in the 128 years from 1885 to 2013, I calculate that around 100,000 men were convicted of consenting same-sex acts. 

Many were jailed and nearly all suffered devastating knock-on consequences: they lost their jobs and marriages, families and friends disowned them and they were abused and sometimes assaulted in the street. 

Many descended into a downward spiral of depression, alcoholism, mental illness and suicide or attempted suicide. Prejudice within progress Taking the long view, the 1967 legislation was progress. It repealed the maximum penalty of life imprisonment for anal sex and ended the blanket outlawing of all homosexual acts. But it was a limited reform and it still discriminated. 

Pandering to the homophobic notion that young men are seduced and corrupted by older men, the age of consent was set at 21 for sex between men, compared to 16 for heterosexual and lesbian couples. Moreover, the punishment for a man 21 or over having non-anal sex with a man aged 16-21 was increased from two to five years. ‘Laws authorising the sacking of seafarers for homosexual acts were in place until April 2017‘ Gay sex remained prosecutable unless it took place in strict privacy, which meant in a person’s own home, behind locked doors and windows, with the curtains drawn and with no other person present in any part of the house.

 We do not use the word homosexual anymore. It's a word used to arrest, abused and describe something gays are not. Instead, we use gay or the very popular LGBT and LGBTQ or LGBTI. WRITE IT DOWN πŸ“”
 This meant it continued to be a crime if more than two men had sex together, if other people were in the house at the same time or if men having sex were filmed or photographed by a third person. Seven men in Bolton were convicted of these ‘non-private’ offences in 1998 – over 30 years after 1967. Two of the seven, who had sex with a man who was six months under the then gay age of consent of 18, were given suspended jail terms and put on the Sex Offenders Register, alongside rapists and paedophiles. None of them would have been convicted if their partner had been a woman. The 1967 reform applied to only England and Wales; not being extended to Scotland until 1980 and to Northern Ireland until 1982. It did not include the armed forces or merchant navy, where sex between men remained a criminal offence. Gay military personnel and merchant seamen could still be jailed until 1994, for behavior that was no longer a crime between gay civilians. 

Legislation authorising the sacking of seafarers for homosexual acts on UK merchant ships were not repealed until April this year.  1966: 420 convictions of gross indecency 1974, seven years after the 1967 Act: 1,711 convictions of gross indecency ‘Unnatural offences’ The centuries-old anti-gay laws were not abolished in 1967. They remained on the statute book under the heading “Unnatural offences.” The two main gay crimes continued to be anal sex, known in law as buggery, and gross indecency, which was any sexual contact between men other than anal sex, including mere touching and kissing. There was also the offence of procuring; the inviting or facilitating of gay sex. Bizarrely, the 1967 reform decriminalised anal sex in certain circumstances but banned men from procuring lawful anal sex for other males, such as arranging a gay sex date for a friend. 

The law against soliciting and importuning remained in force and was interpreted to designate homosexuality as an immoral purpose. It criminalised men chatting up men or loitering in public places with homosexual intent, even if no sexual act took place. Men were convicted under this law after 1967; sometimes for merely smiling and winking at other men in the street. There were other arrests under ancient legislation against indecency, such as the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860. 

Gay and bisexual men, and some lesbians, continued to be prosecuted, right up until the early 1990s, under public order and breach of the peace laws, for public displays of affection, such as kissing and cuddling. Such prosecutions ended only when the LGBT direct action group, OutRage!, highlighted and protested against them. ‘The Law Lords ruled in 1973 that gay lonely heart adverts in IT magazine were a “conspiracy to corrupt public morals“‘ The 1967 law simply meant that the long-standing and continuing homophobic laws were not enforced in certain circumstances. But many aspects of gay male life remained criminal. In fact, the repression got much worse. There were police stake-outs in parks and toilets, sometimes using good-looking young police officers as bait to lure gay men to commit sex offences. Gay saunas were raided. ‘Disorderly house’ charges were pressed against gay clubs that allowed same-sex couples to dance cheek-to-cheek. 

In 1966, the year before partial decriminalisation, 420 men were convicted of gross indecency. To my shock, I found that in 1974 the number of convictions had soared by over 400 percent, with 1,711 men found guilty of this offence. The authorities seemed determined to ensure that the limited liberalisation of 1967 did not give a green light to what they still regarded as a vice and perversion. Indeed, the Law Lords ruled in 1973 that gay lonely heart adverts in IT magazine were a “conspiracy to corrupt public morals.” 

 Not in England, France, Australia or many other nations which no longer carry anti-gay laws for gay sex or gay men being together, still, will harras or arrest them depending on the county and cop involved.

Despite the reform of 1967, homosexuality was declared by their lordships to be only partly legal, not moral and contrary to the public good. No protections In this era, homophobic discrimination in housing, employment and the provision of goods and services remained lawful by default. There was no legal protection against it. People were denied employment or sacked from their jobs because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. Others were refused rented accommodation or evicted from it. Some were turned away from pubs and restaurants. 

Lesbian mothers and gay fathers often lost custody of their children in divorce cases. There was no redress in law for LGBT people until 2003-2007, when a series of legal protections against discrimination were finally legislated. In the 1980s, the Conservative government’s “family values” and “Victorian values” campaigns whipped up hysterical levels of homophobia; aided by the moral panic over AIDS, which was dubbed the “gay plague.” At the 1987 Conservative Party conference, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher used her keynote speech to attack the notion that people had a right to be gay. 

Coinciding with this intolerant anti-LGBT atmosphere was a massive rise in arrests of gay men for consenting, victimless behavior. Delving into Home Office archives, I found that there were 1,718 convictions and cautions for gross indecency in 1989. I

ndeed, the total of 2,022 recorded offences of gross indecency that year was almost as many as the 2,034 recorded in 1954, when male homosexuality was totally illegal and when Britain was gripped by a McCarthyite anti-gay witch-hunt. ‘In 2003, for the first time in 470 years England and Wales had a criminal code that did not penalise gay sexuality’ There was also a huge increase in queer-bashing violence. From 1986-91, I identified at least 50 murders of men in circumstances that pointed to a homophobic motive. Police investigations to catch the killers were often derisory. 

We were still seen by some officers as less deserving of the protection of the law. The gross indecency law of 1885 had been used to convict the computer genius Alan during in 1952 and, before him, to jail the playwright Oscar Wilde in 1895. Together with the criminalisation of anal sex, the gross indecency law was finally repealed in England and Wales by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. As a result, for the first time in 470 years these two nations had a criminal code that did not penalise gay sexuality. In Northern Ireland, the ban on anal sex was finally repealed in 2008. Scotland’s anti-gay laws were abolished in 2009 but, in the case of sodomy, did not take effect until 2013. Gay sex ceased to be a crime across the whole of the UK only four years ago – 46 years after 1967. Unbelievable, but true! 

Peter Tatchell is Director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation:

June 23, 2017

Federal Judge Lifts Injunction Which Stopped Individuals and Government Workers Not to Discriminate Against LGBT

Gov. Phil Bryant of Mississippi said the law “prevents government interference 

This is a New York Times Article:
A federal appeals court on Thursday lifted an injunction on a Mississippi law that grants private individuals and government workers far-reaching abilities to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people on religious grounds, though lawyers said the law was likely to remain blocked for the time being during the appeals process.
Thursday’s decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, is part of a legal drama being closely watched by gay-rights advocates and religious conservatives. The state law, titled the Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act, was signed by Gov. Phil Bryant, a Republican, on April 5, 2016. It is considered the most aggressive of several state-level conservative responses to the United States Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage in 2015.
According to a legal analysis released last year by Columbia University, the Mississippi law would, among other things, allow government clerks to opt out of certifying same-sex marriages (though only if the marriage is not “impeded or delayed” by their decision) and allow businesses to deny wedding-related services to same-sex couples if their marriage contravened “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction.”
It would allow religious organizations to engage in job and housing discrimination against L.G.B.T. people; allow public school counselors to refuse to work with L.G.B.T. students; and potentially force child-welfare agencies to place L.G.B.T. children with anti-gay foster or adoptive parents.
Continue reading the main story
 The law also contains provisions that could potentially affect single heterosexual people. “For example,” the authors of the analysis wrote, “it would allow a religious university to fire a single mother working in its cafeteria, who supports her children on her own, because the university has a religious opposition to sex outside marriage.”
Last June, just before the law was to take effect, a federal district judge issued the injunction, finding that the law violated the First and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.
Thursday’s 16-page ruling states, in essence, that the plaintiffs challenging the law, many of whom are gay Mississippi residents, lacked standing because the law had not yet injured them. 
“None of these plaintiffs has clearly shown an injury-of-fact, so none has standing,” the judges wrote.
Governor Bryant said in a statement that he was pleased with the ruling. “As I have said all along, the legislation is not meant to discriminate against anyone, but simply prevents government interference with the constitutional right to exercise sincerely held religious beliefs,” he said.
Beth Orlansky, the advocacy director for the Mississippi Center for Justice, a liberal group that brought the suit along with Lambda Legal, said that the law was a black eye for a place that bills itself “The Hospitality State.”
“This law is discriminatory,” she said, “and we will do everything we can to prevent it from causing any more harm.”
The plaintiffs now have a number of options, including requesting a rehearing of the case before the entire Fifth Circuit or appealing directly to the United States Supreme Court.

Featured Posts

Police Union For NYS Troopers Want Out of NYC Because of the NO Chokeholds Law

"SEND THEM AWAY TO ANOTHER STATE I SAY" I hear Russia is Hiring...                                       ...