A blog with stories that tell of the life in the big city, multicultural encounters, languages and personal thoughts on political and social issues, particularly gay rights and religion. By Ahuv 柯俊杰
126,000 followers of Sikhism live in London and have a visible impact on the city. Outside the capital, this vibrant faith hailing from Northern India may be comparatively unknown but Londoners often have either a colleague, neighbour or friend spotting a turban that reveals their faith.
Southall in West London is known as THE destination for Indian culture, particularly Punjabi and Sikh culture with several Gurdwara (houses of workship), community organisations, restaurants and even a radio station, I attended the festival of "Nagar Kirtan" for the second time in 2016 and was so amazed by it that I created a humble short documentary about it on my YouTube channel with the help of a Sikh friend. The aim is to explain the festival to non-Sikhs and encourage them to learn more about their neighbours.
In the area of Southall you not only have the largest Sikh concentration of the UK but also have many Muslims, Hindus, East Europeans and other nationalities sharing this part of town. I often hear comments that reveal ignorance or misunderstanding about Sikh practises that I am keen to clarify, not least with this video.
P.S.: If you speak another language, like this video and want to help, I would appreciate your contribution here.
American actor Trevante Rhodes isn't gay but in an interview with People.com, he acknowledged the following:
‘Being a black man in America is relatively difficult right now, being a gay man in America is incredibly difficult. And so being a black, gay man … can be perceived as the worst possible thing right now."
Rhodes was giving an interview about a protagonist embodying this double identity that he part-played in the 2016 movie "Moonlight" (premiering in February 2017 in the UK). It seems that this is the first major, black-directed and black-cast movie that addresses issues with growing up gay. Benjamin Lee rightly said in The Guardian that
"Stories of LGBT people of colour have been largely ignored in film or at least relegated to the sidelines".
This being 2017, one would be forgiven to think that a movie like this would have been long overdue. As a (white) gay man in the UK, issues with my sexuality seem to be a thing of the past decade or two. Bullying, awkward coming outs and even just overhearing hurtful comments seem long behind me and I feel that 90% of the general population would treat me respectfully as a gay individual.
However, is this the same experience for black gay people in America today? I am left wondering even just after watching two interviews by the two other actors that played the same character at different lifestages: In the following two interviews, Ashton Sanders and Andre Holland both struck me as a little insensitive or even ignorant when talking about the gay character they played:
I came across the interviews randomly in excitement reading up on the film I was about to watch. However, I was suddenly struck with a certain "oh!"-moment when both actors used the terms "homosexuality".
This term, although neutrally defined in dictionaries for what it technically describes, is culturally a little insensitive. So much that when people use it, I automatically assume them to be either very ignorant about gay people or at worst outright homophobic. The term comes across overtly medical as it was mostly used at a time when people talked about homosexuality in clinical terms, something of an illness that needs addressing or even curing. GLAAD, in a media guidance publication describes the term "homosexuality" as a "term to avoid" and "offensive".
In my experience, people that genuinly know gay people wouldn't really use this term nowadays because they would have never heard their friends say things like "I went to this homosexual bar last night" or even "I finally mentioned my homosexuality to my boss". Instead, we use "gay" or "lesbian" and maybe "same-sex" when becoming poltical. But never "homosexual".
I wish that these two actors, who both through various interviews suggested the movie was a great source for insight, reflection and emotional maturing, would have learnt to be a bit more insightful about the various cultural overtones used to describe someone's sexuality.
So not just measured by the numeric value of the release year, but also th evident insensitivity shown by the very actors watering within it, the movie is indeed long overdue . I hope it will start more conversations about an identity that has perhaps for too long conveniently been dismissed as a "white" thing.
What is Navratri?
Navratri is a popular nine-night Hindu festival honouring the mother Goddess as Durga and other forms. British Hindus celebrate this festival in their homes, community halls and temples throughout the country every year in autumn. Gujaratis, the 3rd biggest ethnic group in the UK flog to rented sports halls for nine nights in glittering garments and celebrate with prayers and dancing.
Hidden communities
I first witnessed this four years ago in 2011 when I was taken by a Mauritian friend of mine, himself also being a guest to the community event in Leyton. I use the word community because these celebrations are organised by cast or village origin and can be quite close-knit, i.e. everyone will somehow be related, share the same surname of come from the same village in Gujarat, a north-eastern state of now 62 million people (i.e. roughly the size of Britain). This insight would surprise any native Brit as other than small families, there isn't often much community with people from the place you live or are from, certainly not once having moved away.
This year I went all nine nights and last year, in 2014, I managed to go for eight nights. I went to different communities in Harrow, Kingsbury, Stanmore, Northolt, Leyton and Croydon. Often was I the only non-Asian there. This often perplexed me as many of attendees were British-born Asians, fully integrated into the British society with jobs, neighbours and friends. Yet here was a festival so stunning that British tourists would otherwise have to pay high airfares and expensive tour guides to see in India. Yet this is right here all over London and the UK. Are outsiders not welcome? And if they are, is this the best kept cultural experience that nobody knows about?
The Caste System in Britain
The Indian caste system lives on till this day in Britain. While the West may have focus on its negative implications such as discrimination, I saw that it's being used to hold people together, like in by party association, church groups, alumni of a university or followers of long-gone pop legends. Ask any Hindu friend of yours and they will probably be able to tell you the name of their community or sub-caste.
So if communities can be this close-knit, are outsiders welcome?
Outsider welcome?
As I was often the only non-Indian attending, people started recognising me. This year I attended the Navratri celebration of the Brahmin Society of North London held in the Jewish Free School (JFS) in Kingsbury. I went with a friend of mine who himself was part of the community. Recognising me for attending the previous year and eagerly following the cultural and religious programme, I was offered a one-year membership with which I would pay a reduced daily attendance fee, just like other community members. This felt very validating as I had been very serious about learning about Hindusim since I started following teachings around 5 years ago but had never associated myself to any particular temple, community or family. Many Asians that perhaps are part of other communities or even religions (mostly Jain or Sikh) dropped in to some evenings but paid full price.
In 2015, more than half of the events I attended during Navratri had non-Indians attending, albeit usually just 2-3. These would be neighbours or partners (see the video below).
YouTube-ing my visits
Feeling that outsiders seem indeed welcome yet being rare, I started to document each night with a short video clip posted to my personal Facebook and to my public YouTube channel. I quickly gathered a following with people recognising me and greeting me at the actual events.
Also, I encouraged any of my friends to join me, many of whom enjoyed it a lot albeit not having heard of it before (for example Andrew in the video below)
I had numerous community members, young or old come up to me and congratulate me for my videos or dancing. I felt extremly welcome and also felt that these people felt very proud of their culture and that it was appreciated by outsiders.
By publishing my experiences on YouTube I hope to encourage others to join in with their neighbours with the celebration. Religious, cultural or even as a sport, it can be enjoyed on so many levels. Overall, I always believe that exploring other cultures, particular these that co-exist within a country is so important for peace and elimination of prejudices. I will continue to show people that overcoming initial hesitation and shyness can be so rewarding when it comes to part-taking in other people's cultural events that are just waiting to be discovered all throughout the capital and Britain.
Fred Phelps, founder and leader of the Westboro Baptist cult Church in the US has died. He was the one of most notorious homophobes whose distorted worldview was exposed in mainstream media and attracted worldwide ridicule and laughter. Homophobia has become a lot less attractive thanks to him as he made people realise that nut-jobs in his ranks are only worthy of our ridicule and pity. While he thus inadvertently did the gay movement a favour, he also tainted the image of Christianity, perverting its message of love and preaching pure hatred instead. Today, on the day of his death, he will get to know the truth at last, realise his idiocy and be judged for his sins.
May his not be repeated all too often anymore. May we have compassion with those who misjudge us and aid their path to a better understanding of the truth.
Studying in Beijing for the second year of my BA Chinese studies, I did a research project on racism in China. Before that, I thought that any foreigner like me would be adored by the Chinese who are desperate to get their hands on anything foreign. The truth is, what Chinese people adore are white people and their perceived superior looks and 'status'. If you are of dark complexion, you will not enjoy the same treatment as white people in China and don't even think of getting a job as an English teacher (even if your mother tongue is English, they will prefer the broken English of any blond Russian girl). The racist world image of China is that whites are superior to anyone and only Asians come close to them. One would think that nowadays, with so much exposure and exchange with the outer world (Beijing Olympics, Shanghai Expo, MTV, internet...) that Chinese would understand that a black person is just the same as any other human, but the majority is far from that. See below one chapter of my essay followed by a link to the complete work:
In his work “Anti-Black Racism in Post-Mao China” Berry Sautman provides a detailed historical account of Africans coming to the People’s Republic. I will not reproduce every incident that yet successfully brings the vile attitudes of contempt towards Blacks to the light, but try to highlight details that might help to look for reasons for the racial contempt of the Chinese at that time.
While these cultural exchange-students in the 1960s were unhappy with China, it was dissatisfaction with living standards, rather than racism, that the students from mostly elite-backgrounds complained about. At that time, Maoist China was supportive off third-world nations and sought to find diplomatic allies particularly in Africa. The first major race riots start only a few years after Mao’s death.
The pattern of the 1979 race riot in Shanghai was to be repeated in the decades after: Either African or Chinese students complained about each other’s behaviour, Africans would become angry about the lack of help or even mistreatment from authorities and confrontations would end violently. While reading the account of these confrontations, it seems unusual to me that police reportedly would not intervene in some cases, stand by attacks or come hours after the assaults started.
“Africans were stoned and the foreign student hall of residence besieged by Chinese hurling bricks. African students called the police, but officers did not arrive for several hours and failed to intervene as fighting continued throughout the day.”
From my experience it takes second nowadays for the police to vigorously respond to any minor scuffle.
In the 1980s, African students (sometimes along with Arabs and South Asians) staged several protests over the mistreatment and continuous racial taunting: 1980 in Nanjing, 1983, 1985 and 1987 in Beijing and 1986 in Tianjin along with minor incidents in Nanjing, Shenyang and Xi’an that year, 1988 in Hangzhou and Wuhan.
A factor in some universities was that Chinese complained Africans would “pollute Chinese society by having relations with Chinese women”. Africans were also accused of being AIDS-carriers.
From analysing historical backgrounds, a change in attitudes towards Africa is evident. During the Mao era and national emphasis on belonging to the oppressed people, racial stereotypes played minor factors that Africans experienced in China. After the reform era in the late 1970s, morality changed and no longer was the third-world propagandised as the main friend, but the European and American lifestyle as the better, richer, more promising and sophisticated example that is to be striven for.
Theresa May has been chosen to act as Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equality by the new Cameron-led government in Great Britain. Her suitability for the position has been questioned by people who highlighted her voting record (see below for details): Except for the Civil Partnership Act, she has constantly either voted against bills that made LGBTs more equal and been (purposely?) absent from parliament when many of them were discussed. Pinknews quotes David Henry of gay rights group OutRage! saying: “Mrs May is the wrong person for the job", “She's always been against gay rights since I can remember. I'm pretty sure she's opposed almost every gay rights measure”.
Commentator called her “a notorious homophobe”, “an insane appointment”, and opined: “She voted against equal age of consent. She voted against adoption equality. She wanted to maintain the fascist section 28. There are no ifs and no buts about it. Theresa May is a homophobe”. Another commentator said “May is my MP and I've actually met her. (…) The woman rejects anything that doesn't fit in her narrow-minded view of the world.”
Many asked for her to be interviewed by the gay media about her commitment to equality and if there has been a change of mind since the last few years. If one wants to take the initiative, she can be reached at mayt@parliament.uk or via her website’s contact form
David Cameron has been elected the new Prime Minister for Britain. What that means for LGBT people is anything but certain. During the election campaign, it felt like Cameron had a hard job trying to woo some gay voters since nowadays, no major party can afford not to be somewhat for gay rights. His attempts, however, surfaced hypocrisies.
Let’s face it, we do not live in a fairy tale world. Of course we know that there are homophobes out there. One of them is Conservative candidate Philippa Stroud, who founded a church that seeks to ‘heal’ gays and ‘free them’ from demons. After the press got to wind of that, Cameron was quick to defend her as “not homophobic” and said “she believes in gay equality”. How idiotic is he? Does Cameron think we are that stupid? Maybe she believes in equality for gays as long as they turn straight, ex-gay equality.
The following incident, however, shows most obviously how Cameron firstly, FEIGNS support to gays, thirdly HAS NO IDEA about gay concerns and thirdly, DOESN’T REALLY CARE EITHER. During the following interview when questioned about gay rights, he seemed clueless until he finally asked the camera to be switched off!
David Cameron’s voting record shows he voted to restrict marriage and adoption to straight couples (2002) and voted against repealing Section 28 which forbade “promotion of homosexuality” (2003). he now suddenly believes in the right to adopt for same-sex couples.
Germany’s constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex & gender, race, mother tongue, country or culture of origin, disability, religion and religious or political opinion. Since a few years, activist tried to add “sexual identity” to the list to further combat discrimination of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people in Germany. After several high-ranking politicians and even a few states supported the measure, the parliament took up the debate and asked nine experts to present their findings on possible implications of the proposed law.
The voiced concerns were altogether opposing and are furthermore nothing short of the ridiculousness we are used to hear from right-wing conservatives in the US:
Winfried Kluth from the University Halle-Wittenberg argued that protecting LGBTs “would prevent Muslim immigrants from accepting our constitution”. Neutralising involved declaring that one believes in the German constitution. Mr Kluths argument implies demanding the acceptance of gender equality from German Muslims is ok, but to not discriminate gays would be too much to ask for. It would be more important to make it easy for new German citizens to identify with the constitution than promoting acceptance of LGBTs.
Professor Bernd Grzeszick form the University of Heidelberg said the proposed addition to the constitution would lead to the legalisation of polygamy because protecting “bisexuality and other forms of multiple-partner unions” could imply the legalisation of bigamy in the least.
In the parliamentary hearing, several of the appointed experts seemed to warn of the dangers of paedophilia approaching Germany. Klaus Gärditz of University of Bonn argued that “paedophilia, sodomy and sadomasochism” could be interpreted as one of these sexual identities.
The measure was proposed by the socialist party (SPD), the Greens and Leftist Coalition (Linkspartei). Germany’s most outspoken gay politician, Volker Beck (Greens) said: “The current government wants to continue to discriminate and treat LGBTs as second-class citizens. Our constitution protects minorities from arbitrary decisions of a majority and gays and lesbians should have this protection as well.”
At the current situation it seems unlikely that the change will happen. Both coalition parties, Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) and Liberal Democrats (FDP) that make up the current government reject the measure. A two-third majority is needed in the parliament to change the constitution.
The Liberals usually claim to be gay-friendly, but are known to put their business-emphasis first as they opposed many regulations, including non-discrimination acts, to be “forced upon the economy”. Although Germany’s current foreign minister Guido Westerwelle is confidently out gay (See Germany: New government, new hope?), his party is yet to prove their true commitment to gay rights.
The difference Some would think Britain is one of the most progressive countries when it comes to civil rights. Yet, gays and lesbians were until now not able to get hitched in a church or religious building and any religious language or even music was banned from the civil registry office where these strictly “civil partnerships” are made. Fortunately, this ban is now as good as lifted with the House of Lords agreeing on an amendment to the Equality Bill which would make it possible for religious organisations to host civil partnership ceremonies. Among these that are ready to do that are Unitarians, Quakers (See “Quakers welcome debate on equality”), Metropolitan Community Churches, Liberal Jewish synagogues and some Anglican churches might follow in near future.
Why no marriage? In my understanding, this is a good step, but a better step would have been allowing same-sex marriage altogether. Yet this is exactly what some forces fight against and are scared of in the United Kingdom.
It’s not the same! The Bishop of Bradford warned that the change risked equating civil partnerships with marriage: "The fundamental difficulty (…) is that we (…) have been quite clear ever since civil partnerships were introduced that they are not the same as marriage.” Thanks you for proving us a point, Mr Bishop, in the debate of why the government should change the unequal and discriminatory institution of civil partnerships. (See also: “Marriage Equality for the UK”)
So far, opponents of this have argued that civil partnerships are adequate enough and marriage should be preserved for union between a man and a women only.
The Religion Correspondent of The Times, Ms Gledhill wrote a comment entitled “Bishop of Winchester slams gay marriage in church ‘fudge’” and quotes someone saying:
“I believe it does further fudge the line between civil partnerships and marriage. That is shown by some newspapers which simply speak of gay marriages in church.”
Face the reality! So newspapers already speak of "gay marriages"? Oh my! Yes, Ms Gledhill or whoever made that comment, here is a bit of a reality dose for you: Do you really think people in civil partnerships refer to their love as "civil partner" among their colleagues? Do you think they tell people that they are "civilly partnered"? Do you think their personal banker, the call-agent from BT or anyone makes a fuss to refer them as "civil partners"? No! It's a formality being upheld only in the books to not upset religious nuts like you. The majority of the population (61% support gay marriage) has long understood that there is no difference between gay or straight relationships and the apartheid system of civil partnerships is a farce and a mockery of civil rights that is hopefully soon to end.
Several newspaper articles today again showed that so many religious leaders are simply all through homophobic in the sense that they literally FEAR gays and lesbians and they want to fight for their right to discriminate. Hopefully, this injustice will end soon. May God help them to learn to love all of his children.
John Bosco told his story at the LGBT Rights in Africa event at SOAS. He realised he is “gay” by the age of 18. He only knew what “gay” meant from the taunts of fellow pupils. He didn’t come out in fear of arrest, but he couldn’t control the feelings that he felt.
“Nobody wants to be gay in Uganda but you are what you are.”
A gay bar he visited was raided in 2001. He escaped police, yet people tracked his home down where his brother was taken and questioned about John, who wasn’t there. His brother didn’t know of his whereabouts and was beaten and ultimately killed.
Bosco then sought asylum in the UK in September that year and went through immigration hell in inhumane detention centres. Freed later, he had to report to the police daily. After his asylum appeal was rejected several times over the next years he returned to a detention centre and was then forcefully put on a flight back to Uganda in 2008. He told the immigration officers that he would be killed but they said “We told the Ugandan officials nothing”, suggesting that if he keeps quiet, he will be fine.
Yet nothing was fine as the police in Uganda was aware of his identify from the bar raid seven years ago. Since being gay is illegal, he had to bribe his way to freedom coming out of the airport with 500£. People said, he would want to be gay so he could come to the UK and this shows how homosexuality is perceived as something foreign that doesn’t naturally happen in Africa. He flew back to the UK and but was held in the detention centre again until finally his asylum was granted in May 2009.
Bosco said even the Home Office in Britain treats you differently as a gay. He was asked for example to prove that he would be gay while applying for asylum. He was told if they allowed him in, “all gays from Uganda would come”. “Many solicitors on top are also reluctant to take up cases of gay refugees”, he said.
Last week, my University (SOAS, University of London) held a discussion about LGBT rights in Africa. Invited were SOAS lecturer Marica Moscati (preparing her PhD on same-sex marriage), a spokesperson for Amnesty International, John Bosco (a Ugandan refugee) and a Skye (Zimbabwean gay rights activist).
One against the stream Moscati gave a quick picture of what gay rights in Africa looked like and showed a diverse picture from several nations punishing homosexuality with the death penalty or prison to one extreme opposite, South Africa. It prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation since 1996 and legalised same-sex marriages ten years after that . Seen in many western nations as one of the last legal steps to full equality, same-sex marriage was a very early change for better in South Africa. The equal marriage law “serves as a strong example for equality” and as an orientation point for South African society that largely still is as homophobic as it’s neighbours.
South Africa learnt from it’s divisive past and so did Rwanda that decided not to criminalise homosexuality in 2009. Rwanda experienced similar race relation problems as South Africa did. Today, 56.3% of parliamentarians are women, Zimbabwean gay rights activist Skye Chirape pointed out and argued it would have been a major factor for this decision as women are “more compassionate”. “If women were to seize their rightful share of governance, gays will be better off, too”.
Homosexuality – a Western import? A member from the audience tried to contravene with an often heard statement: “Homosexuality is against African values” and the West would be pushing their ideas onto the continent. He was swiftly dismissed by the panellists: “What is African culture?” Moscati asked back and waited for a reply. “What is African culture?” she repeated after a few seconds of silence and then went on:
“Culture is not something fixed or written somewhere on a pillar. It’s something changeable. We can improve culture! We shouldn’t avoid reality just because it has mostly been done that way in the past.”
In fact, this accusation is quite ironic as it were the European colonialists who brought the anti-sodomy laws to the rest of the world in the first place. “There were lesbian relationships with legal implications in some ancient African tribal communities” said Moscati. Of course Africa also knew discrimination and resentments. Amplified homophobia yet is a Western import.
No coming out, no rights As for nowadays, Skye mentioned that in Zimbabwe, the punishment for homosexuality is 10 years in prison “… if you’re lucky to come out alive”. She also emphasised that there are as many LGBTs in Africa as elsewhere, but “reports are oppressed by governments“ and almost all gays and lesbians are “too scared to come out”. This, however, is crucial to be able to fight fully for rights. Some say, gays and lesbians should be careful and see how change comes along before risking their lives. Yet how can people be treated equally if Africa is unaware of their existence? How can they achieve justice if the handful of gay activists are branded as tainted by Western influence? It requires courage and may be daring, but otherwise the lives of gays in Africa will continue to be made miserable.
A bill is being considered again by Hawaiian legislators to provide same-sex couples with a possibility to form civil unions. A civil union, like the name suggests, are basically modelled after marriages yet aim to keep out religion, making it purely ‘civil’. That’s because marriage used to be a religious affair, like it’s still in Israel for example, where only religious bodies can marry people. And since religion is having a hard time accepting same-sex couples, many Christians feel they need to ‘preserve’ marriage for man and women. The civil unions concept was created as a compromise for equal treatment-seeking gay & lesbian couples to provide them with the now larger set of political rights.
It’s not about marriage This very bill is being protested against by thousands of Christians now, holding up signs like “No Unions – No Marriage”, “1 Man + 1 Woman”. See the video here
In the past, conservatives protested when gays sought the access to marriage, claiming they would “redefine” and “attack” a tradition. Now, civil unions never existed before, but these people are still against it. This shows that gay marriage opponents do not simply care about how marriage is preserved for them only, but that they are bothered and disgusted by gay people living together at all.
Why secularism is important The bill has been defeated several times before which was seen as a succeeding of strong protest previously. These protesters are a group of people that seek to impose their view onto others. If anti-gays form exclusive groups in the form of a church, that is legally indisputable. Secularism – separation of church and state – fails when a religious group succeeds in taking away government recognition of certain people outside their church and religiously formed ideas. I am a Christian myself. I have strong beliefs, but I do not turn to the government to impose these beliefs onto others. If there was secularism in Islamic states, Christians wouldn’t have to complain about persecution and mistreatment in these countries. Yet the same happens there. The Muslim majority imposes their views via laws onto differently believing people.
Currently, eight countries and several jurisdictions in the world allow same-sex marriage. These are Belgium, Canada, The Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, a handful of US States and Mexico City.
As I wrote earlier, there is also a campaign to bring gay marriage finally to the UK, but mostly it’s focused in Scotland. www.equalmarriage.org.uk started a campaign in Scotland March 2009.
Secondly, it is the concept of a separate but (yet actually not fully) equal law. One set of laws for straight couples, one for gays & lesbians. Just like there used to be different set of laws for blacks and whites in South Africa or the US. Separate but equal is not equal and this is why we have to stand up for equal treatment now more than ever as the parliament discusses the Equality Bill.
For all UK residents, please write to your local MP about this injustice or copy & paste the following into an email from on findyourmp.parliament.uk :
Dear MP,
I note that Lord Alli has tabled an amendment to the Equality Bill on allowing religious civil partnerships, and I write on this matter.
Although this would correct a major problem in the Civil Partnership act, that it ignored religious same-sex couples, if this were to go through, it still leaves a major problem with the system of relationship registration in Britain.
There exists one relationship registration system for same-sex couples, and another for opposite sex couples. These systems, though designed to look alike, are different, and therefore I believe they are unequal and discriminatory.
Using another word may seem like an easy answer to equality, but it deprives same-sex couples of the terminology of love, refuses them the fullest blessing from the state of their relationship and denies them the respect from society and the community that marriage automatically confers.
Even if my partner and I were to go abroad to a nation that did recognise same-sex marriages and marry there, as soon as we got back to Britain it is relegated to a civil partnership.
I would like to see an amendment tabled that allowed same-sex couples to have a civil marriage, or a religious marriage if that particular religion allowed it (such as Quakers, Liberal Jews, or the Metropolitan Community Church). Equal rights, I believe, must mean that straight and gay are treated the same, ruled over the same laws, and judged by the same standard.
Civil Partnerships were of course a significant step forward, but rather than making a separate system more like the thing it is trying to emulate through this amendment, same-sex couples in Britain should simply be allowed the same marriage rights as all other couples in Britain.
The following case shows how much mistreatment, injustice and even disgust same-sex couples experience in many modern societies and are treated as second-class citizens.
Austria today approved a partnership law for gays and lesbians after weeks of debate. On the European map displaying countries’ recognition of same-sex partnerships, Austria long sticked out as a gray spot with almost no provision among it’s Western neighbours. Finally, the government decided to create a civil union law. However, it is one of the most half-heartedly I’ve ever seen:
While the bill lacks behind marriage in 37 points (edit: there are actually 73), it denies adoption, a common name and even the possibility of having a ceremony in the same localities where straight marriages are usually held. A whole different office will be responsible to hold ceremonies to make sure that ‘evil is separated from good’. Also, a gay non-biological parent is explicitly not allowed to take time off from work when the biological parent falls sick and can’t take care of a child temporarily.
Yet, conservative members of the opposition dismissed the new bill as “a dangerous step towards marriage” and criticised allowing ceremonies that are “de-facto marriage-like”.
The most outrageous and insulting part of this is that the oppositional People’s Party tried everything during the drafting of the bill to make sure same-sex couples are not seen as a “family”; In German language, a surname is mostly called Familienname (“family name”), and this term is used on any form and document where a identification is important. But as soon as an Austrian couple commits to a same-sex partnership, they are not to be regarded as a part of a family anymore and therefore, their surname will be called “Nachname” (literally “surname”). All this despite gay couples having to each keep their own surname. Now, all hotel e.g. will have to print new registration forms.
I know Austria is a pretty conservative country and I heard many stories of racism but its statutory homophobia is just as vile and disgusting,
About a week ago, the report of a Australian Pentecostal pastor giving a sermon asking for acceptance of LGBT people was a refreshing change from the usual hatred directed at us from a whole range of Christians from Catholics to Protestants.
In the US and Australia, those who condemn homosexuality are especially Evangelicals such as conservative Pentecostals who apply Bible teachings literally to many aspects of modern-day life and refuse to consolidate it with science or change of culture.
Pastor of Pentecostal Bayside Church in Melbourne, Rob Buckinham said in his Sunday sermon that in a survey, the most cited point of criticism from young Americans is that they view churches as being too judgemental, insensitive and hypocritical. He also brought up the following study:
“Today, the most common perception is that present-day Christianity is "anti-homosexual." Overall, 91% of young non-Christians and 80% of young churchgoers say this phrase describes Christianity. (…) they believe that Christians show excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians. One of the most frequent criticisms of young Christians was that they believe the church has made homosexuality a "bigger sin" than anything else.” (from: The Barna Group)
As I wrote in my previous post, this of course alienates young people from the church. As our increasingly enlightened society changes, sexist, racist and homophobic views are fading. However, deep-rooted ignorance backed by stubborn Christian belief however seems like an unshakable bastion that keeps society from progressing, when e.g. same-sex marriage laws get rejected.
Christians coming out
In Australia, Pentecostals are numbered at around 200.000 with many attendants in urban areas (see “Mega churches”). However, there a more and more gay Pentecostals coming out, such as 21-year old blogger Ben Gresham from the Hillsong Church in Sydney (I often go to their sister church in London), and even support groups are established such as Freedom 2 B[e] (freedom2b.org) for Pentecostal gays and lesbians striving to hold on to their faith despite rejection.
Now, even church leaders begin to open their eyes and challenge believes.
The Sin of Sodom
Pastor Buckingham took upon often cited bible verses that supposedly condemn homosexuality.
The story of Sodom & Gomorrah in Genesis 19 is one of them. God does not condemn Sodom for being a city full of homosexuals (that’d be a phenomenon even unseen till today). In fact, Lot, responding to the man outside his house, offered his two daughters to be gang-raped instead. If these men were all homosexuals, what use would it have to offer one’s daughters? Buckingham goes on to read Ezekiel 16:49 where the sin of Sodom is explained: Greediness. Or unwillingness to help the poor despite being loaded with riches. He rightfully drew a comparison to the modern Western world. Look at us, we know about starving in Africa. Looks like most of us are the real “sodomites”.
Christians and GLBTs
He went on to say Jesus also died for GLBT people and actually had most compassion for people from the edges of society. He specifically asked followers to invite their gay colleagues and friends to church, where they’d be welcome. He said “homosexuals are not the enemy of the church” and blamed Christian homophobia and derogatory remarks for keeping gays from church or even driving them into suicide during teen years.
Buckingham warned: ”Our job is to love and accept people, not judge or try to change them” (John 16:08).
At several points, he gave hope. As soon as people get to know gays, lesbians or transgender, compassion will fill your heart and you will learn to accept them. The full sermon entitled “Real Christianity is accepting” is available as podcast here.
“Lord God I pray, forgive us and forgive the Christian church for giving this world the notion that You are anti-homosexual”.
Yesterday, voters in the US state of Maine were asked at the ballot whether they want to accept a gay marriage law enacted by legislation earlier this year. 53% percent of voters decided to reject it.
This is the second time that an already passed law to open marriage for gays and lesbians has been brought to a public vote: Exactly one year ago, Californians struck down gay marriage with the successful referendum called Proposition 8.
Majority vs. Minority
In Maine and California, campaigns were heavy on both sides of the issue, trying to win over voters (see my post about Prop 8 last year). However, gay marriage supporters only seem to question the legitimacy of a public vote on minority rights after the loss at the ballot. Why is the majority allowed to vote on a minority right in the first place? Today, I saw the same outcry on Twitter that I saw last year in November: “if you put it up to a vote of the people, we'd have slavery again".
So, is the pure egoism of humans that hinders equality? Do people only think about their own right and reject political measures that help strangers? I reckon a big part is being lead there…
Churches playing politics
Where did we see this last time? Ah yes, the medieval ages in Europe and forced conversions to Christianity under death threat are one example of an organised majority oppressing a minority. Or in South Africa were the Dutch Reformed Church declared their members “the chosen” race. All those are examples of a group of people organising themselves to oppress others, backed by pseudo-religious reasons. The same thing is happening in America today, where churches claim to have a monopoly over marriage and its definition.
American Christians have got to understand that forcing your own beliefs on others will only damage them. I myself am an active Christian, but I am ashamed of what so-called Christians are doing onto others. They take away basic rights, topple gay families even with children, they forget their every ethic and compassion out of pure egoism and ignorance.
Dividing society
Gay rights activist Cleve Jones rightly pointed out that this is a struggle for equality under the law for gay people. Blaming churches for forgetting how important equality is, Jones said:
This is a pluralistic society. We have one constitution, one Bill of Rights, and we have only one class of citizenship.
Churches fighting against this are juggling with the harmony of a diverse society. They are attacking other segments of society and draw anger at them. These churches are hurting the reputation of religion: Various studies show that more and more young people turn their back to religion because of the churches’ hard-line politics (see Putnam/Campbell’s “American Grace”)
"Today is National Coming Out Day. This doesn't mean that today you have to come out to all of your friends and family. This doesn't mean that today, if you are already out that you should forget about the people who are still in. This doesn't mean that today is only important for the LGBT community. Today, is about being YOU! Today is about bringing awareness to the world why we are who
we are. "I'm gay!" - but not because I need or want attention. I'm gay - but it's not because I was abused in a past straight relationship. I'm gay - but not because I didn't have a father when I was growing up. Yes, I am a lesbian, but it's not because I couldn't get a man. I'm gay, but it's not because I have low self-esteem and think girls won't like me, or I want to get back at my parents. We are gay - but it's not because something dramatic happened to us in the past, and it's not because we're going through a phase.
The one and only reason that we are gay is because this is the way we were born! This is who we are. We don't choose to be gay. We choose to be happy with who we are.
Today, we are choosing to show this to the world. Today, even if it's just for today, be proud of who you love!"
National Coming Out Day is celebrated by communities in many countries including the US, Canada, Croatia, Germany, Austria and Switzerland on the 11th of October. The UK's Coming Out Day takes place on the 12th this month.
In difference to big metropolitan Pride marches, this day should be taken to put the focus onto your close surroundings, your community as it is about you. The Internet is taken by many that are already out to friends and family to spread awareness.
Britons, including many gays, would like to think that almost everything that defines equality for same-sex couples and gays has been achieved in the United Kingdom. Civil Partnerships are legal since 2004 and in law, have little difference to traditonal marriage. But the concept in itself is discriminatory. Why have a seperate, but equal law for gay and lesbian partners? Isn't it like racial segregation that was common in many countries just decades ago? Seperate schooling or bus seats? It is. "When I grow up, I wanna... 'civil partner' a prince?"
While heterosexual couples can refer to each other as husband and wife, me and others would have to refer to our loved ones as "my partner". People might think we are in a business relationship. Yet more often, it simply leads to awkwardness or confusion, since many still don't know what civil partners are. Until they are not "married" persons, it will never feel just the same.
The following projects are currently underway to fight for marriage equality on the Isles:
United Kingdom
A simple online petition recenlty launched is to be handed to the Prime Minister to call for marriage equality in the UK. A simple signature and email confirmation will do. You have to be a resident address in Britain (you don't have to be a British citizens!) http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Gay-Marriage/
Since March 2009 there is an internet campaign that was
launched with help of student groups try to lobby the Scottish Parliament to lift the ban on both, same-sex marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships. If you live in Scottland, please support and share the campaign on www.equalmarriage.org.uk
Republic of Ireland
Ireland's government is drafting a civil partnership law, simular to the one in the UK, but with lesser rights. An unexpected support from straight friends and family members is trying to persuade the government, that this is not enough! http://www.marriagequality.ie/
A re-cap: Same-sex marriage in California has been a long back and forth game. Twice, in 2005 and 2007, the bill was approved by the legislation and then vetoed by the Governor Schwarzenegger.
In summer 2008, California became the second US-State to allow citizens to marry whatever gender they loved. In November, a voter referendum, called Proposition 8 (Prop 8), passed by a 2% margin, annuled the rights of gays and lesbians to marry yet again.
For weeks and months after the ruling, a weapon-less civil war broke out with protests not only in California but the whole of the US.
The second American civil war began with thousands of protesters demanding equal rights under the law as gay and lesbian couples. Nowhere else has the fight for marriage been fought with more media attention, YouTube videos, Facebook groups and TV appearances with people throwing arguments about civil liberties or religious doctrines at each other.
For months, the legal outcome was unclear until the Supreme Court of California announced it would make a decision weather the Proposition 8 was valid and thus same-sex marriages invalid or if it would protect the rights of a minority that a majority-vote couldn't turn over.
Since November 2008, two countries and three US-states introduced same-sex marriages: Sweden (36m inhabitants), Norway (4,8m), Iowa (3m), Maine (1,3m), Vermont (0,6m). None of those had, however, such a big cultural impact as the battle for marriage in the 37-million-strong California with countless of world-famous actors, TV stars and thousands of bloggers jumping into the debate with strong feelings on both sides.
The ruling today did not re-instate California's reputation for a state where everyone is supposedly equal. It was one of the first states to repeal a ban on interracial marriages in the 70s but decades after blacks got their civil rights, gays and lesbians remain second class citizens. If there would have been a popular vote about the civil rights in the 70s, there'd probably be still no black US president today.
The court needs to understand it has to protect equality for everyone. History thought us what happens if a majority denies the rights to a minority group: Women, Jews and Blacks are the ones that learnt already how important universal rights are. Unfortunately, many of the once discriminated discriminate others again.
