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

March 12, 2017

Planning a Trip? Here Are 77 Countries Were Being Gay is Illegal





 No.64 Jamaica. Here the laws and many of it’s citizens have gone after the LGBT Community in deadly ways even though it is close to the USA and has roots to a Gay friendly west.




By staying away from these countries not only impacts your amount of safety if you are LGBT but it also impacts the money they get to prosecute and persecute gays. In some of these countries it wont matter much but in others in which tourism is very important you could be sending a message, particularly if you go thru the process of letting your travel agent or their turism office know why you wont go there. But if you just avoid it they will feel a pinch and will figure out from where is coming from. Only you can make the choice and the information provided here is to help you make a good choice for you. 


Africa

1 Algeria
2 Angola
3 Botswana
4 Burundi
5 Cameroon
6 Comoros
7 Egypt
8 Eritrea
9 Ethiopia
10 Gambia
11 Ghana
12 Guinea
13 Kenya
14 Liberia
15 Libya
16 Malawi (enforcement of law suspended)
17 Mauritania
18 Mauritius
19 Morocco
20 Namibia
21 Nigeria
22 Senegal
23 Sierra Leone
24 Somalia
25 South Sudan
26 Sudan
27 Swaziland
28 Tanzania
29 Togo
30 Tunisia
31 Uganda
32 Zambia
33 Zimbabwe

Asia, including the Middle East

34 Afghanistan
35 Bangladesh
36 Bhutan
37 Brunei
38 Daesh (or ISIS / ISIL)
39 India
40 Iran
41 Iraq
42 Kuwait
43 Lebanon (law ruled invalid in one court)
44 Malaysia
45 Maldives
46 Myanmar
47 Oman
48 Pakistan
49 Palestine/Gaza Strip
50 Qatar
51 Saudi Arabia
52 Singapore
53 Sri Lanka
54 Syria
55 Turkmenistan
56 United Arab Emirates
57 Uzbekistan
58 Yemen

Americas

59 Antigua & Barbuda
60 Barbados
61 Dominica (But see “Dominica leader: No enforcement of anti-gay law” )
62 Grenada
63 Guyana
64 Jamaica
65 St Kitts & Nevis
66 St Lucia
67 St Vincent & the Grenadines
68 Trinidad & Tobago

In the United States, anti-sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003, but they are still on the books in 13 states: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,  Texas, Utah and Virginia. Conservative state legislators refuse to repeal the laws and, in some cases, police still enforce them.  In the past several years more than a dozen LGBT people were arrested for violating those laws, but the arrestees were freed because prosecutors won’t seek convictions based on defunct laws.

Oceania

69 Cook Islands
70 Indonesia (Aceh Province and South Sumatra)
71 Kirbati
72 Papua New Guinea
73 Samoa
74 Solomon Islands
75 Tonga
76 Tuvalu

Europe

No country in Europe has a law against homosexuality. The last European location with such a law was Northern Cyprus (recognized as a country only by Turkey), which repealed its law in January 2014.

Also in Europe and worth mentioning but not on the list of countries with laws against homosexuality are:

Russia, which enacted an anti-“gay propaganda” law in 2013 prohibiting any positive mention of homosexuality in the presence of minors, including online;
Lithuania, which has a similar law; in 2015, it considered but has not yet adopted a further law that would impose fines for any public display that “defies traditional family values.”
Ukraine, which considered such a law in 2012 and 2013, did not adopt it and seems to have dropped the issue.
Moldova, which adopted and then repealed such a law in 2013.
Belarus, which was discussing such a law in early 2016.
In addition, in central Asia, Kyrgyzstan in October 2014 was on the verge of adopting an anti-“gay propaganda” law harsher than that in Russia. If that bill becomes law, any type of distribution of positive information on same-sex relations, not just discussions in the presence of a minor, would become a crime punishable by fines and a jail sentence.  In Kazakhstan, both house of parliament passed a bill “On Protecting Children from Information Harmful to their Health and Development,” but the Constitutional Council rejected it in May 2015, saying that the wording was too vague.

As noted above, Libya and Nigeria also have anti-“gay propaganda” laws in addition to their laws outlawing same-sex intimacy.

January 26, 2017

LGBT Rights Facing New Hurdles with GOP States Anti Gay Legislation



This is an older file which is come back to have new meaning
 not only in Texas but many other states other states


After the 2015 Obergefell v Hodges Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, LGBT advocates were hit with an onslaught of state bills to allow workers, public and private, to deny certain services if doing so violates their religious beliefs. Other bills have sought to deny transgender people the use of the public bathroom of their choice. Just five of the 200-plus measures were enacted into law.
But this year, according to a report by the Human Rights Campaign, those favoring "religious freedom" and associated bills have been emboldened. Already, at least 40 anti-LGBT bills have been introduced in 16 states, according to the HRC. And President Donald Trump has pledged to sign a federal "First Amendment Defense Act," which prohibits the federal government from taking "discriminatory action," such as denying a federal grant or contract, against anyone whose behavior is dictated by a religious opposition to same-sex relationships or extramarital and premarital sex.
"It's happening because they are making a political statement, not because it's good policy," says Cathryn Oakley, senior legislative counsel at the HRC. Most of the anti-LGBT legislation in 2016 was offered in southern states, and 2017 battlegrounds are shaping up the same way, with bills being introduced in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia. Conversely, states in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic and West coast last year approved 48 laws expanding rights and services for LGBT people. In California alone, HRC reports, lawmakers approved 16 such bills, including one requiring school districts/boards to adopt suicide prevention policies addressing the needs of high-risk groups, including LGBTQ youth, and allowing organ transfers between patients who are both HIV-reactive.
The FADA laws go further than the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, which were aimed at, for example, allowing a pastry maker to decline to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The FADA bills, foes warn, could conceivably allow landlords to deny apartments to single mothers, or allow a hospital to refuse to treat an LGBT person or sexually active, unmarried person, if the service providers believe such behavior violates their religious beliefs about marriage.
Social conservatives defend the FADA bills as essential to protecting the work of small businesses as well as groups like the Salvation Army.
"No person or nonprofit should lose tax-exempt status, face disqualification, lose a professional license or be punished by the federal government simply for believing what President Obama believed just three years ago, that marriage is the union of a man and a woman," Family Research Council president Tony Perkins said in a policy statement on the legislation.
A Mississippi FADA law, approved last year, has been declared unconstitutional by a federal district court and remains in litigation. Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, introduced a federal FADA in the last Congress, and supporters are hopeful they will have more success this year, with Trump in the White House.

January 9, 2017

Secretary Kerry Apologizes for Past Years of Anti Gay Policies




 

On behalf of the U.S. State Department, John Kerry has issued a formal apology for the department's pattern of discrimination against LGBT employees during a period beginning in the 1940s and stretching for decades.

Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., had asked the secretary of state for such an apology in late November, calling the historical discrimination "un-American and unacceptable."

The Washington Blade reported on Cardin's request in early December, noting at the time that the State Department said it was preparing a response.

The mass purge of gay staffers during the mid-20th century was known as the "Lavender Scare," which coincided with the "Red Scare."

Eric Berkowitz, Author of 'The Boundaries Of Desire,' Discusses Laws On Sex And Sexuality

Author Eric Berkowitz, speaking to Terry Gross on Fresh Air in 2015, said the systematic discrimination against gay people in that era has "gotten short shrift in the popular imagination."

At the same time as the persecution of alleged communists, "there was no less energetic a hunt to root out what were called 'perverts' ... from the federal government," he said.

And it started in the State Department, explains David Johnson, the author of The Lavender Scare. He says that in the '40s, the State Department was already systematically firing gay employees.

Then, in 1950, Joseph McCarthy claimed to have a list of communists in the State Department. In an attempt to defend itself against the charges, the department pointed out that it was working hard to expel "subversives" — by firing gay people. That disclosure kicked off the wider "Lavender Scare."

"The purges begin in the State Department," Johnson says. "And then in the politicized atmosphere of McCarthyism, they doubled down."
  
In 1953, years after the State Department began firing gay employees, Dwight Eisenhower instituted a nationwide ban on gay men and lesbians working for the federal government. Purges lasted for decades. Careers were destroyed, and some employees committed suicide, Johnson says.

Cardin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, wrote to Kerry on Nov. 29 to ask that in his last months as secretary of state, he address that history.

Cardin said that more than 1,000 people were dismissed from the Department of State for their alleged sexual orientation, and "many more" prevented from joining the department through discriminatory hiring practices. As recently as the 1990s, he said, the State Department drove out personnel thought to be gay, calling them "security risks."

Cardin urged Kerry to acknowledge the discrimination, apologize for it — and perhaps install an exhibit about it at the State Department's museum.

"Of course, the measures we take today cannot bring back years of anguish or erase decades of institutionalized homophobia, but we can ensure that such injustices levied against the LGBT community are never repeated again," Cardin said in a statement in early December.

Kerry responded with a statement released Monday. He began by highlighting the State Department's recent support for LGBT and intersex employees. Then he wrote:

"In the past — as far back as the 1940s, but continuing for decades — the Department of State was among many public and private employers that discriminated against employees and job applicants on the basis of perceived sexual orientation, forcing some employees to resign or refusing to hire certain applicants in the first place. These actions were wrong then, just as they would be wrong today.
"On behalf of the Department, I apologize to those who were impacted by the practices of the past and reaffirm the Department's steadfast commitment to diversity and inclusion for all our employees, including members of the LGBTI community."
Human Rights Campaign Government Affairs Director David Stacy said in a statement that "although it is not possible to undo the damage that was done decades ago, Secretary Kerry's apology sets the right tone for the State Department as it enters a new and uncertain time in our country under a new administration."

But David Johnson, a history professor at the University of South Florida and the author of The Lavender Scare, says that while the apology is welcome and overdue, Kerry's statement misrepresents the State Department's role in the purge.

"The apology made it sound like the State Department was just one of many institutions that was discriminating against gay men and lesbians ... that it was just sort of run-of-the-mill 1950s anti-gay discrimination," he says.

“In fact, the State Department was unique in its level of homophobia," he says.


December 2, 2016

Congress Killed Anti Gay Legislation Permitting Gays to be Fired





A provision that would have allowed LGBT people to be fired from their jobs has been struck from a defense spending bill passed by the House of Representatives earlier this year.

The National Defense Authorization Act, which got a thumbs up from the Republican-controlled House in May, until recently included an amendment that would have given federal contractors the right to discriminate against employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Known as the Russell Amendment, the bill has been stalled in committee for months after the House and Senate were unable to agree on a final draft of the legislation. On Tuesday the Washington Blade reported that the provision had been killed.

The Russell Amendment, which was named for its sponsor, Rep. Steve Russell, R-Okla., was drafted in response to an executive order passed in 2014 by President Barack Obama. Executive Order 13672, which prohibited the firing of federal employees because of their LGBT identity, reportedly affected 28 million Americans. By effectively repealing those protections, those workers would have been at risk if the bill were passed.

This victory would be a proper cause for celebration if the incoming administration wasn’t already emboldening the forces of intolerance across the country, a message of anti-LGBT hate that’s especially potent during a time of enormous backlash to recent civil rights gains.

The provision is notably similar to bills passed in Mississippi and Indiana that let businesses and employers discriminate on the basis of “sincerely held religious belief.”


The Magnolia State passed House Bill 1523 in March, a “religious liberty” bill that would have affected a number of disparate groups. The legislation would have allowed medics to deny services to a transgender person who had experienced a heart attack and was in need of treatment. A landlord could deny the housing application of an unmarried couple. An employer could even terminate a female worker for having short hair or wearing pants in the office, as hypothesized by ThinkProgress.

These scenarios might seem absurd but are not out without precedent: A bartender was fired in Nevada in 2004 for not wearing makeup during her shift.

This opportunity for broad-based discrimination in Mississippi was struck down by a federal court in June, when HB 1523 was blocked by a federal ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Carlton Reeves. Reeves claimed that the law failed to “honor [America’s] tradition of religion freedom, nor does it respect the equal dignity of all of Mississippi’s citizens.”

A similar law in Indiana, known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, was amended after passage last year. The law led to more than $70 million in economic losses following a nationwide corporate boycott of the state.

Despite these bills’ defeat, Russell maintained that pushing a nearly identical law at the federal level was necessary to protect “the free exercise of religion.”

“More than 2000 federal government contracts a year are awarded to religious organizations and contractors that provide essential services in many vital programs,” the Oklahoma lawmaker claimed in a May speech delivered on the floor of the House. “Now many of these services are being impacted due to conflicting and ambiguous executive guidance. The groups under assault are often the best, if not the only, organizations able to offer the assistance they perform.”

The Russell Amendment would have expanded the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the race, color, religion, sex or national origin, to offer protections for religiously affiliated groups that do business with the government. Because sexual orientation and gender identity are not yet protected under the landmark bill, such a law could technically be enacted.

Congressional Democrats fought the provision, warning that the definition of what comprises a faith-based organization is so broad that any number of groups could claim religious affiliation to exploit the legislation.

A group of 40 Senate Democrats, joined by two independents, penned a letter in October voicing opposition to the Russell Amendment’s passage.

“This discrimination erodes the freedoms that our military has fought for generations to protect,” the letter read. “It would particularly harm women, as religiously-affiliated contractors and grantees would be able to discriminate against individuals based on their personal reproductive health care decisions, including using birth control, becoming pregnant while unmarried, using in vitro fertilization to conceive a child, and accessing other reproductive health care that otherwise violate particular religious tenets.”
 
A coalition of political lobby groups opposed to the bill, including the Human Rights Campaign, American Civil Liberties Union, Center for American Progress Action Fund, American Military Partner Association and Americans United for Separation of Church and State collected signatures against it. More than 320,000 people signed the petition.

The organizations, though, particularly placed pressure on Sen. John McCain to block the Russell Amendment. McCain, who serves as the chair of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee, had been instrumental in preventing the passage of a similar “religious liberty” bill in Arizona two years ago: State Bill 1062 faced a backlash from corporate leaders, including the National Football League, that would have led to an estimated $140 million blow to the state’s economy.

After McCain urged Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to veto SB 1062, which had passed the state’s House and Senate, she did just that.

The lobbying efforts appear to have been successful once again. A congressional aide told the Blade that Republicans had backed off the Russell Amendment, claiming that the provision was “always an imperfect remedy” to the nationwide battle over religious protections. The anonymous source did add, however, that the fight isn’t over. “Subsequent to the election, new paths have opened up to address those issues,” he said.

While LGBT rights advocates might claim the failure of the Russell Amendment a victory, that last sentence is an

On his first day in office, the president-elect has vowed to do the very same thing that the Russell Amendment authorizes: overturn of protections for federal LGBT contractors. During the 2016 presidential race, Trump vowed to overturn Obama’s executive orders. The president-elect has yet to back off that pledge (unlike his recent flip-flops on an Affordable Care Act repeal, which had been central tenet of his campaign, and assigning a federal prosecutor to imprison his former challenger Hillary Clinton).

In allowing for discrimination against LGBT workers, Trump will likely have the support of his vice president, Mike Pence. As the governor of Indiana, Pence personally signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In a 2015 interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC’s “This Week,” Pence defended the law, claiming that it was “absolutely not” a mistake.

Aside from his running mate, Trump’s White House appears to be stacked with figures who have made a name for themselves by opposing equal rights for LGBT people.

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, a front-runner to helm the Department of Homeland Security, has claimed that trans people “suffer from mental disorders” and live a “freakish lifestyle.” Betsy DeVos, tapped to head up the Department of Education, donated $200,000 to a 2004 effort to add an amendment to Michigan’s constitution defining marriage as a union solely between a man and a woman. Tom Price, who could become the new health and human services secretary, co-sponsored the First Amendment Defense Act, yet another bill allowing anti-LGBT discrimination in the name of religion.

The latter bill, co-authored by Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, was introduced in 2015 and some form of it stands a decent shot at passage under a Congress soon to be controlled by Republicans in both houses. Trump has previously stated his support for the First Amendment Defense Act.

The Russell Amendment may be DOA for now, but the threat of anti-LGBT discrimination under Trump is here to stay.

A provision that would have allowed LGBT people to be fired from their jobs has been struck from a defense spending bill passed by the House of Representatives earlier this year.

The National Defense Authorization Act, which got a thumbs up from the Republican-controlled House in May, until recently included an amendment that would have given federal contractors the right to discriminate against employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Known as the Russell Amendment, the bill has been stalled in committee for months after the House and Senate were unable to agree on a final draft of the legislation. On Tuesday the Washington Blade reported that the provision had been killed.

The Russell Amendment, which was named for its sponsor, Rep. Steve Russell, R-Okla., was drafted in response to an executive order passed in 2014 by President Barack Obama. Executive Order 13672, which prohibited the firing of federal employees because of their LGBT identity, reportedly affected 28 million Americans. By effectively repealing those protections, those workers would have been at risk if the bill were passed.

This victory would be a proper cause for celebration if the incoming administration wasn’t already emboldening the forces of intolerance across the country, a message of anti-LGBT hate that’s especially potent during a time of enormous backlash to recent civil rights gains.

The provision is notably similar to bills passed in Mississippi and Indiana that let businesses and employers discriminate on the basis of “sincerely held religious belief.”


The Magnolia State passed House Bill 1523 in March, a “religious liberty” bill that would have affected a number of disparate groups. The legislation would have allowed medics to deny services to a transgender person who had experienced a heart attack and was in need of treatment. A landlord could deny the housing application of an unmarried couple. An employer could even terminate a female worker for having short hair or wearing pants in the office, as hypothesized by ThinkProgress.

These scenarios might seem absurd but are not out without precedent: A bartender was fired in Nevada in 2004 for not wearing makeup during her shift.

This opportunity for broad-based discrimination in Mississippi was struck down by a federal court in June, when HB 1523 was blocked by a federal ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Carlton Reeves. Reeves claimed that the law failed to “honor [America’s] tradition of religion freedom, nor does it respect the equal dignity of all of Mississippi’s citizens.”

A similar law in Indiana, known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, was amended after passage last year. The law led to more than $70 million in economic losses following a nationwide corporate boycott of the state.

Despite these bills’ defeat, Russell maintained that pushing a nearly identical law at the federal level was necessary to protect “the free exercise of religion.”

“More than 2000 federal government contracts a year are awarded to religious organizations and contractors that provide essential services in many vital programs,” the Oklahoma lawmaker claimed in a May speech delivered on the floor of the House. “Now many of these services are being impacted due to conflicting and ambiguous executive guidance. The groups under assault are often the best, if not the only, organizations able to offer the assistance they perform.”

The Russell Amendment would have expanded the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the race, color, religion, sex or national origin, to offer protections for religiously affiliated groups that do business with the government. Because sexual orientation and gender identity are not yet protected under the landmark bill, such a law could technically be enacted.

Congressional Democrats fought the provision, warning that the definition of what comprises a faith-based organization is so broad that any number of groups could claim religious affiliation to exploit the legislation.

A group of 40 Senate Democrats, joined by two independents, penned a letter in October voicing opposition to the Russell Amendment’s passage.

“This discrimination erodes the freedoms that our military has fought for generations to protect,” the letter read. “It would particularly harm women, as religiously-affiliated contractors and grantees would be able to discriminate against individuals based on their personal reproductive health care decisions, including using birth control, becoming pregnant while unmarried, using in vitro fertilization to conceive a child, and accessing other reproductive health care that otherwise violate particular religious tenets.”
 
A coalition of political lobby groups opposed to the bill, including the Human Rights Campaign, American Civil Liberties Union, Center for American Progress Action Fund, American Military Partner Association and Americans United for Separation of Church and State collected signatures against it. More than 320,000 people signed the petition.

The organizations, though, particularly placed pressure on Sen. John McCain to block the Russell Amendment. McCain, who serves as the chair of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee, had been instrumental in preventing the passage of a similar “religious liberty” bill in Arizona two years ago: State Bill 1062 faced a backlash from corporate leaders, including the National Football League, that would have led to an estimated $140 million blow to the state’s economy.

After McCain urged Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to veto SB 1062, which had passed the state’s House and Senate, she did just that.

The lobbying efforts appear to have been successful once again. A congressional aide told the Blade that Republicans had backed off the Russell Amendment, claiming that the provision was “always an imperfect remedy” to the nationwide battle over religious protections. The anonymous source did add, however, that the fight isn’t over. “Subsequent to the election, new paths have opened up to address those issues,” he said.

While LGBT rights advocates might claim the failure of the Russell Amendment a victory, that last sentence is an eerie reminder of the challenges that queer people will face under a Donald Trump presidency. 

On his first day in office, the president-elect has vowed to do the very same thing that the Russell Amendment authorizes: overturn of protections for federal LGBT contractors. During the 2016 presidential race, Trump vowed to overturn Obama’s executive orders. The president-elect has yet to back off that pledge (unlike his recent flip-flops on an Affordable Care Act repeal, which had been central tenet of his campaign, and assigning a federal prosecutor to imprison his former challenger Hillary Clinton).

In allowing for discrimination against LGBT workers, Trump will likely have the support of his vice president, Mike Pence. As the governor of Indiana, Pence personally signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In a 2015 interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC’s “This Week,” Pence defended the law, claiming that it was “absolutely not” a mistake.

Aside from his running mate, Trump’s White House appears to be stacked with figures who have made a name for themselves by opposing equal rights for LGBT people.

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, a front-runner to helm the Department of Homeland Security, has claimed that trans people “suffer from mental disorders” and live a “freakish lifestyle.” Betsy DeVos, tapped to head up the Department of Education, donated $200,000 to a 2004 effort to add an amendment to Michigan’s constitution defining marriage as a union solely between a man and a woman. Tom Price, who could become the new health and human services secretary, co-sponsored the First Amendment Defense Act, yet another bill allowing anti-LGBT discrimination in the name of religion.

The latter bill, co-authored by Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, was introduced in 2015 and some form of it stands a decent shot at passage under a Congress soon to be controlled by Republicans in both houses. Trump has previously stated his support for the First Amendment Defense Act.

The Russell Amendment may be DOA for now, but the threat of anti-LGBT discrimination under Trump is here to stay.

September 29, 2016

Judge Suspended Before Pushing 10Commdts. Now for Refusing SSex Marriage






Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore should be removed from office again, this time for defying the U.S. Supreme Court on gay marriage, lawyers for a disciplinary commission argued on Wednesday.

Testifying under oath, Moore called the latest charges "ridiculous."

The ethics case involves an administrative order Moore sent six months after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that gays can marry in every U.S. state. Moore said then that because the Alabama Supreme Court had not rescinded the state's gay marriage ban, the state's probate judges remained bound by it.

The outspoken Republican jurist, now 69, was removed from office in 2003 for violating judicial ethics by refusing to remove a Ten Commandments statue, but voters later re-elected him.

"We are here 13 years later because the chief justice learned nothing from that first removal. He continues to defy law," attorney John Carroll told the Court of the Judiciary as he argued on behalf of the Judicial Inquiry Commission, which is seeking Moore's removal.

Moore said his January memo simply provided a status update to judges who had questions because the Alabama Supreme Court had not acted to reverse the state ban.

"I don't encourage anyone to defy a federal court or state court order," Moore said. "I gave them a status in the case, a status of the facts that these orders exist. That is all I did."

Moore's lawyer, Mat Staver, told the court that Moore "did not order them to disobey anything."

But Moore did acknowledge in a testy cross-examination that his administrative order told probate judges to follow the very same state court ban that a federal judge specifically said they could no longer enforce.

"His order sowed confusion. It did not clear it up. He urged defiance, not compliance," another lawyer for the commission, R. Ashby Pate, told the court.

The nine-member court now has 10 days to rule on whether Moore violated judicial ethics, and what punishment he should face if so. A decision to remove him from the bench must be unanimous. The chief judge, Michael Joiner, said a decision was not lik
ely Wednesday, but will come "as soon as possible."

Moore stands accused during a season of political upheaval Alabama. The house speaker was removed from office this summer for ethics violations, and a legislative committee will decide if evidence supports impeaching Gov. Robert Bentley after he was accused of having an affair with a top staffer.

Before the hearing began, rainbow flags and Christian music competed for attention outside.

"The truth is homosexuality is wrong," said Donna Holman, who traveled 12 hours from Iowa and carried a sign saying "It's not OK to be gay.

"Equal marriage is the law. Love will always win,” countered Madison Clark of Montgomery.

KIM CHANDLER, ASSOCIATED PRESS

July 2, 2016

Judge Stops Cold Anti LGBT Law ‘Your right to believe should not be paid by my freedoms’

Image result for religion on my freedoms


   
                                                                          
                                                                       
                                                                            








Almost at the last minute, a federal judge has declared a controversial Mississippi law unconstitutional.

The law, HB 1523, would have protected religious objections to gay marriage, extramarital sex and transgender identities. The judge says it favors some religious beliefs over others and would codify unequal treatment of LGBT people.

The Rev. Chris Donald, a Methodist chaplain at Millsaps College, joins other human rights advocates Wednesday at the state Capitol's rotunda, calling for the Mississippi Senate to defeat what they believe is a discriminatory anti-LGBT bill. The Senate passed the bill, which is now on the governor’s desk.  
The state's governor has said he looks forward to an appeal, but Mississippi's attorney general has expressed hesitation over appealing the case.

As the Two-Way has previously reported, the "Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act" was described by its proponents as a religious freedom bill. But it didn't protect all religious beliefs. Here's Section 2 of the bill:

“The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that:

"(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;
"(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and
“(c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth."

Under the law, Mississippi residents who used one of those moral convictions to justify behavior — including individuals declining to offer business or medical services; religious organizations firing or disciplining employees; and state employees refusing to license marriages — could not be punished by the state.(Many of these forms of discrimination against gay and trans people are currently legal in Mississippi, and in many other states. For instance, business owners in Mississippi can already refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple without breaking the law.)
 

U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves ruled on Monday on one portion of the law, and declared that state employees could not deny marriage licenses based on religious objections.

On Thursday night, Reeves went further and ruled on the law as a whole. He said that instead of protecting religious freedom, it violated the First Amendment by essentially endorsing specific religious beliefs over others. Some of the plaintiffs in the case were religious leaders from denominations that do not object to gay marriage.

He also said the law was poised to cause irreparable harm to LGBT residents of Mississippi.

It is difficult to see the compelling government interest in favoring three enumerated religious beliefs over others.
U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves

"There are almost endless explanations for how HB 1523 condones discrimination against the LGBT community, but in its simplest terms it denies LGBT citizens equal protection under the law," Reeves wrote.

He also noted that many of the protections offered by the law — the reasons proponents saw it as necessary — were already provided by the First Amendment and Mississippi's own Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Supporters of the bill had previously said they hoped for an appeals court decision should Reeves rule against them, Mississippi Today reports:

" 'The bill, all it was ever intended to do is protect the religious liberties of everyone in the state,' said State Senator Jenifer Branning (R-Leake), who sponsored the bill, when asked on Tuesday what would happen if it is overturned. 'So I think that's what it does. I'm confident it will be appealed to the [Fifth Circuit]. So we'll see what happens there.' "
On Friday, Gov. Phil Bryant said in a statement that he "look[s] forward to an aggressive appeal."

All it was ever intended to do is protect the religious liberties of everyone in the state ...
State Sen. Jenifer Branning, bill sponsor, to Mississippi Today
State Attorney General Jim Hood, who was named in the lawsuit and tasked with defending the law, spoke to NPR's Morning Edition before the judge's decision was announced. He said that from his perspective, the law "doesn't accomplish anything," because it doesn't grant anyone rights they didn't already have. He also criticized the litigation costs it presents — but said he's doing his job.

"When a law is passed for political reasons, there are impacts of it. My job is to separate my mind from my emotion and make my decisions whether I defend it or not, and I do my duty," he said.

In a statement on Friday, after Bryant announced he was anticipating an appeal, Hood expressed hesitation about an appeal.

"The fact is that the churchgoing public was duped into believing that HB 1523 protected religious freedoms," he said. He said, for instance, that some leaders suggested that without the law, pastors would be forced to marry gay couples, something no court has ever supported.

I will have to think long and hard about spending taxpayer money to appeal the case ...
State Attorney General Jim Hood

"I hate to see politicians continue to prey on people who pray, go to church, follow the law and help their fellow man," Hood wrote. "In consideration of the individual rights of all our citizens, the state's current budget crisis and the cost of appeal, I will have to think long and hard about spending taxpayer money to appeal the case against me."

Susan Hrostowski, one of the plaintiffs in the case, also spoke to Morning Edition after the decision was announced.

"I'm an Episcopal priest, and I'm kind of crazy about the gospel, and I'm crazy about Jesus. And his message was that we should love one another, so I found this bill to be offensive from that perspective," she said. "But then also, as a lesbian — I've been with my wife for 27 years now, and we have a son. And so for both of those reasons, I just fought to make sure that people like me weren't mistreated in the state of Mississippi."

She said she was elated with the decision, and remembered back to a moment during the hearing when the case of Obergefell v. Hodges — the Supreme Court case that legalized gay marriage in all 50 states — came up:

"The judge was asking the state, what were the nonreligious reasons for this bill? And they said, 'Well, Obergefell tipped the tables of justice away from people who are against gay marriage.'
"And Judge Reeves said, 'Well, isn't that like saying Brown v. Board of Education tipped the tables away from segregationists?'
"You know, when you have an oppressed population and they make some gains, that doesn't mean the oppressor has the right to retaliate. ...
"Everyone has the right to their own religious beliefs. But not to the point that practicing those would impinge on my beliefs, and on my freedoms.”
                                                                                           
by
                  
                               

April 30, 2016

Shocking Report on Ugandan Treatment of LGBT


                                                                          \A Ugandan woman holds a placard as she takes part in an anti-gay demonstration in Jinja, Kampala.                                                                          



  
 The ground-breaking report: And That’s How I Survived Being Killed, reveals the violence, humiliation and wide range of human rights abuses LGBT Ugandan’s have to endure.

Sexual Minorities Uganda have released a shocking report detailing beatings, forced anal examination and persecution experienced by the LGBT community in the country.

In addition to 264 verified cases of human rights abuses against sexual and gender minorities in Uganda, the report also features testimony from LGBT citizens who have experienced first hand the violence and persecution behind the statistics.
Asiimwe, 26, who lives in the central Ugandan town of Bukomansimbi, told researchers that he made a date with another man after meeting online.

“It all started by someone sending me a friend request on Facebook who later called me out for a date and to sleep over,” Asiimwe explained.

“On my arrival at the guy’s place I found a bottle of wine on the table. But when I was drinking other two guys entered the house and sat down and then my date called me in the bedroom and started asking me where I learnt to become gay. And then I just kept quiet.”

What happened next put Asiimwe’s life in serious danger: “The guy changed attitude and started shouting calling his friends in the bedroom to see how a gay man looks like,” he reccalled.

“They came and started beating me up telling me to give them money so that they let me free but I didn’t have money on me, they continued to beat me up seriously and then threatened to burn me. I shouted for help but no one was coming and it was 1:00 am.

“Fortunately the last in the neighborhood heard and she came into the house and asked them why are they were beating me up. They responded that I am a homosexual. Then she told them to let me go then she held my hand and took me out gave me first aid and called a boda guy to take me home and that’s how I survived being killed.”

Asiimwe isn’t the only one who has had to endure extreme violence because of his sexuality, In January, 2015 Daniel [not his real name], was arrested for “engaging in crimes against the order of nature.” He was tied up with rope, beaten, and forced to walk through town along with his friends Ssali and Emmanuel.

He told researchers: “While in prison we were denied visitors because we are a “sodomy case.” I was beaten by fellow citizens. Ssali and myself suffered a lot. When they were beating us they said, “a sensible man how can you sleep with a fellow man?” And when in hospital we were forced to take HIV tests and anal tests.”

As well as detailing arrests, expulsions and beatings, the report also catalogues and highlights four main areas of human rights violations. These include 132 reported cases of physical threats and violence between May 2014 and December 2015, 103 evictions, exclusions and loss of property and 24 cases of termination of employment in the same time period. When the healthcare human rights violations are included, this produces a total of 264 reported cases against the LGBT community in 18 months. That’s an average of 14 violations a day.

Frank Mugisha, Executive Director of Sexual Minorities Uganda [SMUG] said: “This report demonstrates the vast array of human rights abuses which stem from Uganda’s state-sanctioned homophobia and transphobia.

“The Ugandan state deems LGBT people as less than human, and as a result that is how we are treated; by the landlords, by employers, by healthcare professionals, even by our families. These testimonies make it abundantly clear that the situation for LGBT people in Uganda has not improved, despite the Anti-Homosexuality Act being struck down.

“As long as Uganda continues to have laws that make LGBT Ugandans criminals, we will continue to be victims of these abuses.”

As well as calling on the Ugandan government to do more to protect its LGBT citizens the organisation also calls on the UK’s Forign and Commonwealth office to review the report and act on it.

Jonathan Cooper, Chief Executive of Human Dignity Trust, also commented on the report, saying: “Criminalisation means the full force of the state is levied against LGBT people. The law sets norms, it determines attitudes.

“These laws are therefore principally to blame for the myriad of atrocious human rights abuses SMUG evidence in this important document. This multi-faceted persecution arises from homophobic and transphobic attitudes, which are permitted, and often encouraged, by politicians, state officials, and, of course, the law.”


You can read the full report, And That’s How I Survived Being Killed, at sexualminoritiesuganda.com

April 1, 2016

Why So Many States are Fighting LGBT with New Laws


                                                                         
When the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, gay-rights supporters celebrated, but a new wave of legislation in states like North Carolina now threatens L.G.B.T. rights.

The Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling was supposed to settle the fight over LGBT rights, right? Not a chance. In 2016, states across the nation have been divided by a raft of new legislation–more than 200 bills advocates consider anti-LGBT have been introduced so far this year, according a tally by the Human Rights Campaign. These measures take many forms and have many aims, but they are often rooted in social conservatives’ reaction to two things. Here’s a primer:

The Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Caused a Backlash

Support for marriage equality is at a record-high 60%, but plenty of Americans remain strongly opposed, according to organizations like Gallup. The court’s ruling has energized this large, if declining, group, and has led state lawmakers to propose versions of religious freedom bills in response.

Not all religious freedom bills are controversial. Many states and the federal government passed their own in a different era. (More on that here.) Today, these measures become lightning rods when they contain language that has the potential to provide legal cover for individuals or organizations to treat LGBT residents differently because of a religious or moral belief. Maybe the bill is something a baker could cite when refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. Or perhaps it would allow an adoption agency or foster program to refuse to help a gay couple find a child to rear.

In Georgia, where the governor vetoed a high-profile religious freedom bill on March 28, one lawmaker sponsoring it explained that “when the Supreme Court changed the definition of marriage, dynamics changed. There was a need for a law — for this law.” Some state lawmakers in Indiana, where the governor signed and then amended a much-maligned religious freedom law last year, made similar statements.

An important backdrop is that while there is a federal law that protects people from being discriminated against based on qualities like race or religion, there is no statute that explicitly forbids firing someone because they are gay or evicting someone because they are transgender, for example. Advocates have been trying to pass one since the mid-90s and have never gotten through Congress. Most states don’t have non-discrimination laws that explicitly cover sexual orientation and gender identity either, though many cities do.

Some courts have found implicit protections for gay or transgender people in prohibitions on sex discrimination. Other courts have ruled otherwise. Several cases turning on this point are pending, like this ACLU lawsuit in Virginia. Many people mistakenly believe these protections already exist. And there is broad support for such protections, even among a good chunk of people who are against same-sex marriage.

Transgender People Are More Visible

The second factor driving many of the state bills in the news is the growing visibility of transgender people. Long marginalized even in the LGBT rights movement, transgender people are increasingly prominent in American culture and are fighting for stronger protection under the law. And many federal interpretations of existing laws are coming down in their favor. 

This emergence has been met with vitriol among some lawmakers–one described it as a “virus that has broken out.” Such language is reminiscent of the 1970s, when the increasing openness of gay and lesbian people prompted some fundamentalists to argue that they were out to “recruit” children. Until the mid-70s, many in the medical community still classified their sexual orientation as an illness. “Trans people were never this visible before,” says Equality Federation executive director Rebecca Isaacs. “It’s been both a really positive thing and its really also brought out the opposition with all of its fangs.”

The “virus” comment was made by a Republican lawmaker earlier this year in South Dakota, where the legislature passed a bill that would have required public school students to use bathrooms based on their “chromosomes and anatomy” at birth. Essentially, the bill would have served to ban transgender girls from girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms and likewise for transgender boys, had the governor not vetoed it. Actually implementing such a law would come with a host of complications and privacy issues.

What Does This Have to do With Bathrooms?

Arguments about which bathroom transgender people should be using are often at the heart of today’s debates over public accommodations, a cumbersome legal phrase that basically refers to the way people are treated in the public square. When gender identity is protected in that sphere, that gives transgender people legal support for using the bathroom that aligns with their innate sense of who they are.

The North Carolina law that started causing such outcry in late March was largely driven by this issue. Charlotte, the state’s largest city, had passed non-discrimination protections for LGBT people in February. It was controversial and the bathroom question was at the center of it. The new law invalidated those protections (and similar ones in about a dozen other cities) by essentially saying that the state would be in charge of non-discrimination matters and barring cities from adding protected classes that the state doesn’t recognize. But the first thing one reads in the new law is language that explicitly requires people like students to use bathrooms that match their “biological sex,” defined as the sex listed on their birth certificate.

The Department of Justice and U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission have issued multiple rulings that say barring transgender people from using the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity is a form of sex discrimination. The Department of Education has issued similar guidance, saying students’ gender identity must be respected. State lawmakers pushing bills that aim to keep transgender people out of certain bathrooms often see themselves as pushing back against government overreach and a “commingling of girls and boys” that they believe is wrong. In South Dakota, state senator Brock Greenfield urged his colleagues to support the bill by looking at “what has happened in Washington, D.C., relative to this issue and the promotion thereof.” Until, “extraordinarily recently,” he said, “this issue was not an issue.”

In North Carolina, LGBT rights activists are asking not only that the law be repealed but that the state go further in the other direction, adding explicit protections covering sexual orientation and gender identity in non-discrimination laws.

What happens in that state will flesh out this story further: just days after Gov. Pat McCrory signed the bill, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of transgender and lesbian residents, alleging that the new law is a form of sex discrimination, as well a a violation of constitutional protections like the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. The state attorney general—a Democrat who is running against McCrory for governor—called the law “a national embarrassment” and refused to defend any named parties challenged in the lawsuit. McCrory, meanwhile, has since said he’s “open to new ideas and solutions.”

But don’t expect that to bring an end to these fights. On March 30, the Mississippi senate passed the “Protecting Freedom of Conscience From Government Discrimination Act.” Among its stipulations: gender is determined at birth, and the belief that reserving “sexual relations” to marriages between men and women should be protected.

Katy Steinmetz 

TIME  

February 11, 2016

Despite The Supreme Court Ruling There still 11 States with anti Sodomy laws



 Florida (the Home of Gov.Jeb Bush and all Republican anti gay governors)



Despite there being a Supreme Court ruling that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional, 12 States still have anti-gay sex laws.


The states of Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Utah all have anti-gay sex laws on their books.

The laws most commonly know as anti-sodomy laws. It forbids both heterosexual and gay couples partaking in anal sex, regardless of consent.

Montana and Virginia repealed theirs after the Supreme Court ruling in 2003, which called the ban a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Before 1962 sodomy was illegal in every state and was punishable by hard labour or a long jail term.

The first State to remove criminal penalties for consensual anal sex was Illinois in 1962.

For further reading on America’s sodomy laws click here

April 13, 2015

Prestigious Big Firms Staying Away Representing Clients Vs.Gay Marriage



                                                                           

As same-sex marriage proponents take their case for "marriage equality" to the U.S. Supreme Court this month,  one area of inequality remains: the prestige of legal representation before the court.

The nation's top law firms have been hands-off in representing opponents of same-sex marriage, leaving the cases to smaller offices or to lawyers working without the backing of their firms, The New York Times reports. 

That's in contrast to tradition, the Times notes. Top law firms have been happy to take on terror detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, including those with ties to al-Qaida.  The practice goes back longer than the establishment of the United States. Future President John Adams defended British soldiers accused of murder in the 1770 Boston Massacre.

More recently, the Times notes, Clarence Darrow represented union activists who killed 21 people in a dynamite attack on the Los Angeles Times building in 1910.

Even racial segregation found prominent law firms to represent its continuation. In the 1953 Brown v. Board of Education case, John W. Davis of the New York law firm now known as Davis Polk & Wardwell argued before the court on behalf of segregation.

But top firms are skittish of taking on proponents of traditional marriage. 

The main lawyer opposing same-sex marriage when the Supreme Court hears arguments on April 28 in Obergefell v. Hodges will be John J. Bursch. He works for a medium-size firm in Michigan, the Times notes.
 
And even that firm, Warner Norcross & Judd, is not representing the case. Bursch is working on his own.

"When the State of Michigan asked me to handle the case, I asked the firm’s management committee about the engagement, and the management committee declined the representation," Bursch told the Times. "I am still a partner at Warner Norcross, but the firm has no involvement at all in the marriage case."

That's because the issue is too hot even inside the firm, said managing partner Douglas E. Wagner.

"This is an issue that engenders strong emotions on both sides for our clients, attorneys and staff," he told the Times.

That's a common concern, as is losing potential clients or being unable to recruit top talent.

Such cases have even forced lawyers out of their practices.

Paul D. Clement, former solicitor general for President George W. Bush, defended the federal Defense of Marriage Act before the high court, but his firm King & Spalding backed out in 2011 after lobbying from gay rights groups. Clement left the firm and took his clients to a smaller firm.

"When the former solicitor general and superstar Supreme Court litigator is forced to resign from his partnership, that shows a lot," Ryan T. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation told the Times. 

source Newsmax

April 1, 2015

Indiana Built on Sports gets No Cheers and Republicans Show Its Still the Old Party



Demonstrators gather outside the City County Building in Indianapolis, Indiana on March 30, 2015.

Aaron P. Bernstein—Getty ImagesDemonstrators gather outside the City County Building in Indianapolis, Indiana 


This week, sports fans will turn their eyes towards Indianapolis and what promises to be a memorable Final Four. Kentucky is going for a perfect season—for men’s college hoops, it would be the first in almost 40 years. Sharpshooting Wisconsin, led by All-American and possible national player of the year Frank “the Tank” Kaminsky, will try to end the Wildcats’ winning streak in one national semifinal. In the other semi, the biggest name in college basketball—Duke—faces off against Final Four regular Michigan State. This year’s event features star players (Kaminsky, Karl-Anthony Towns, Jahlil Okafor) and brand-name coaches (Coach K, John Calipari, Tom Izzo). It’s a dream showcase for the NCAA.
Too bad all anyone can talk about is Indiana.
No, not the Hoosier hoops program: IU left the Big Dance long ago. Indiana—more specifically Indianapolis, the Final Four host city—is stealing the spotlight, thanks to controversial new legislation that Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed last week. Critics of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) say the law gives businesses license to discriminate against LGBT residents, in the name of religious freedom. Indiana is the 20th state to pass a RFRA, but a) unlike some other states, Indiana does not specifically protect the LGBT population from discrimination elsewhere in the state code; b) Indiana is the only state to pass such a law in 2015, an era in which Americans have become much more accepting of gay people, and in which same-sex marriage could become the law of the land (15 states passed these laws between 1993 and 2009, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures) and c) Indiana is the only state to pass such a law just days before a mass American cultural tradition plays out in its largest, most important city.
Final Four hosts cities are like the refs. If they’re the topic of conversation, something must have gone terribly wrong.
 Indianapolis is in a particularly rough spot. Any economist will tell you that sports is usually an ineffective development tool. But if any city has successfully bet on sports to lift its fortunes, it’s Indy. Back in the 1960s, the most exciting things going on in its desolate downtown was the pigeon shooting—citizens would spray bullets on Sundays to control the population. “We were India-no-place,” Indy Mayor Greg Ballard tells TIME.
To revitalize “Naptown,” business and government leaders settled on a sports strategy: The city would try to lure teams and major international events. First, a downtown arena, home to the Indiana Pacers, opened in 1974. The Indiana Sports Corp. became the first non-profit commission in the U.S. dedicated to recruiting and managing sports events. The city built the Hoosier Dome—which helped attract the Colts from Baltimore in 1984—and invested in track and field, swimming and cycling facilities to host the 1982 National Sports Festival and 1987 Pan Am Games. The national governing bodies for track and field, swimming and gymnastics all settled in Indianapolis. Hotels and office buildings sprouted. In 1987, National Geographiccalled Indianapolis “The Cinderella of the Rustbelt.” The NCAA moved its headquarters to Indianapolis in 1999. The city has hosted more men’s Final Fours—six, including this one—over the past 25 years than any other in the country. The 2012 Super Bowl was a success. And overall, Indy’s compact downtown makes it an ideal setting for big-time events. 
“It’s fair to say that this city was built on sports,” says Chris Gahl, vice president of marketing & communications for Visit Indy, a promotional arm. So if sports leagues and teams start boycotting the city, because they don’t want to associate with what they see as a discriminatory law, they can tear it apart. “I certainly can’t endorse something that in principal is contrary to the value or our organization, and mine and my family’s personal values,” says USA Track and Field CEO Max Siegel, who is from Indianapolis. “As long as anti-gay legislation exists in any state, I strongly believe big events such as the Final Four and Super Bowl should not be held in those states’ cities,” Charles Barkley said in a statement
This year’s Final Four is projected to generate $70.8 million in direct visitor spending, according to Visit Indy. The 2010 Final Four, won by Duke, brought in $50 million. According to research firm Rockport Analytics, the 2012 Super Bowl contributed nearly $280 million to the local economy and supported nearly 4,700 jobs. An online petition calling on the Big Ten conference to move its championship football game, which contributed $16 million in direct visitor spending to Indianapolis in 2014, out of the city collected thousands of signatures.
The NCAA, which has some 500 employees at its Indy headquarters, took a notably strong stand against the law. “Anything that could potentially allow for discrimination and works in a way that is inconsistent with our values for inclusion is something we are very concerned about,” NCAA President Mark Emmert told ESPN on Monday. “We have to say, what do we do if this law goes into effect in July, and what’s our relationship with the state of Indiana going to be.” Pence has done the impossible: Won the NCAA widespread kudos.
This kind of talk has Ballard, the Indy mayor, very concerned. “This is very much a burgeoning convention setting, and sports event place,” says Ballard, who like the Governor is a Republican. “A lot of jobs depend on it, and the hospitality industry is huge here, just because of the sports and the convention business.” The NFL, for example, could move its annual scouting combine out of Indianapolis. “It’s very difficult for us right now,” says Ballard, who agrees that Pence’s timing was terrible. In an executive order released Monday, Ballard called on state lawmakers and the Governor to “expressly add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes in state law.”
“They have to correct this, and they have to correct it quickly,” Ballard tells TIME. “They have to make it very, very clear that discrimination is not acceptable anywhere, and that services and facilities are open to everybody in the state of Indiana.” Without such action, Indiana might find itself out of the game.   

Featured Posts

Men Who Seem Gay Entrapment Prey For Port Authority Cops

Port Authority cops target men who seem gay or androgynous and arrest them on false charges of public masturbat...