LGBT Rights in Africa

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.

See my next post for Ugandan John Bosco’s story

To gay marriage opponents, it’s not about marriage

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.

Marriage Equality for the UK

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.

Currently ‘Civil Partnerships’ are said to provide all the rights of marriage but the name to gay and lesbian couples. However, the freedom to ‘marry’ in a church or another house of worship is also not granted as there is a ban in place on this, even if the religious institution wants to. The Quakers called to end this injustice in July last year. (See also: “Why Christians should support same-sex marriage”)

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.

Yours sincerely,

Your constituent.

Thanks to LGBTNetwork for this (http://www.lgbtnetwork.eu/?p=4009)

American churches heat up civil rights war

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.

Among others, the Mormon church was a heavy campaigner against gay marriage, although Mormons just make up 2% of the Californian population they were successful. In Maine, Catholic churches (especially Portland’s diocese) manipulate people into thinking that it’s OK to take away rights from same-sex couples (with campaigns that draw their money from the offertory)

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”)