Delhi High Court: Homosexuality is Not a Disease

The court battle in India over the repeal of Section 377 which criminalizes gay sex has been interesting to follow since the Court continues to rebuff the government's attempts and arguments to retain the penal code provision based on religious and non-legal justifications. Since the Court role is to adjudicate civil legal matters - not religious doctrine or beliefs - the Court is doing its job. Would that the government would do its job and cease acting as a de facto representative for religious factions. Here are some highlights from the Times of India:

*

NEW DELHI: Irritated by the government's contradictory and unscientific stand on the issue of homosexuality, the Delhi High Court on Monday told the government that the homosexual trait in a human being cannot be termed as a "disease" and objected to the contention that if legalised, homosexuality would bring "devastation" to society. "Show us one report which says that it is a disease. A WHO [World Health Organization] paper says that it is not a disease but you are describing it as a disease."

*

The Court was hearing a bunch of petitions filed by gay rights activists seeking decriminalisation of gay sex among consenting adults which, at present, is an offence. Section 377 of Indian Penal Code provides a punishment upto life imprisonment for indulging in gay sex. Continuing with its opposition the government described homosexuality as "a most indecent behaviour" in society, pointing out that homosexuals comprise just 0.3% of the population and the interest of rest 99.7% population "cannot be compromised" just to accommodate their rights.

*

The Court, however, instructed him to "stick" to legal issues involved in the case and not raise political ones. Earlier, gay rights activists had contended that the government, by not decriminalising homosexuality, was infringing upon their fundamental right to equality on grounds of morality.

Tuesday Male Beauty

Rise and [Hopefully] Fall of the GOP

As a former Republican, at times I shake my head in disbelief at what a horrible organization the Republican Party has become. It is incredibly divisive and hate-driven, increasingly dismisses the value of anyone who isn't white, straight, intellectually ignorant, evangelical Christian, and anti-minorities. Amazingly, all the while it deludes itself by claiming to be the Party of "family values" and decency. I definitely do not know what dictionary these folks are using to achieve this result based on the actual conduct of the Party's members from McCain spokesmen/women down to the rank and file types at Sarah Palin's increasingly nasty rallies which look more and more like blood lusting lynch mobs. Richard Cohen in today's Washington Post is equally appalled. Here are some highlights from today's column:

*

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Bush and now John McCain have constructed a mean, grumpy, exclusive, narrow-minded and altogether retrograde Republican Party. It has the sharp scent of the old Barry Goldwater GOP -- the angry one of 1964 and not the one perfumed by nostalgia -- that is home, by design or mere dumb luck, to those who think that Obama is "The Madrassian Candidate."

*

[T]he GOP, under Rove and his disciples in the McCain campaign, has not only driven out ethnic and racial minorities but a vast bloc of voters who, quite bluntly, want nothing to do with Sarah Palin. For moderates everywhere, she remains the single best reason to vote against McCain. But the GOP's tropism toward its furiously angry base, its tolerance and currying of anti-immigrant sentiment, its flattering of the ignorant on matters of undisputed scientific consensus -- evolution, for instance -- and, from the mouth of Palin, its celebration of drab provincialism, have sharpened the division between red and blue. Red is the color of yesterday.

*

I know, the blues are not all virtuous. . . . . Still, a Democrat can remain a Democrat -- or at least vote as one -- without compromising basic intellectual or cultural values. That, though, is not what Colin Powell was saying Sunday about his own party.

*

In the end, [Colin] Powell was determined not to be one of the GOP's useful idiots. Those moderates willing to overlook the choice of Palin, those capable of staying in a party where, soon enough, she could be an important or dominant force, retain the intellectual nimbleness that enabled them to persist in championing a war fought for duplicitous reasons and extol cultural values they do not for a minute share. Powell walked away from that, and others will follow -- the second time that a senator from Arizona has led the GOP into the political wilderness.

Supporters of Proposition 8 Continue Lie Campaign

I and others have discussed the disingenuous lies and other scare tactics being utilized by the Christianist and Mormon supporters of Proposition 8 in California. Increasingly, it seems that those who profess to be motivated by "Christian values" are the most dishonest, least charitable and simply down right nasty people one can encounter. I know personally in my legal career, the attorneys who have talked about religion and worn religion on their sleeves the most are typically the ones ripping off their clients the most. In truth, Proposition 8 has NOTHING to do with public school education or curriculum. I have difficulty finding words to fully describe my loathing for the deliberate dishonesty used increasingly by Christianists and now Mormons in their anti-gay jihads. They have truly turned religion into something vile and evil. The Los Angeles Times has a story that looks at some of the latest Christianist scare tactics and lies. Here are some highlights:

*

Supporters of the constitutional amendment, under which marriage would be defined as only between a man and a woman, contend that if Proposition 8 does not pass, gay marriage will be taught in public schools. . . . "They just made something up in order to scare people and change the subject," said Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

*

School districts and the California Department of Education, meanwhile, are getting a steady stream of calls from the media and parents wanting to know whether gay marriage will be taught in schools if Proposition 8 is defeated. . . . There is nothing in the state education code that requires schools to teach anything about marriage. Even the decision about whether to offer comprehensive sex education is left up to individual school districts. What state law does require is that districts that offer sex education "teach respect for marriage and committed relationships."

*

Hilary McLean, spokeswoman for Jack O'Connell, the state superintendent of public instruction, said she was unaware of any district that had changed its curriculum as a result of the California Supreme Court's May ruling allowing same-sex marriage.Still, recognizing how politically potent the issue is, the Yes on 8 campaign has made it the center of its television advertising campaign.

More Monday Male Beauty

What Really Protects Marriage?

The Christianists and Mormons who are pushing the anti-gay marriage initiatives, particularly Proposition 8 in California, whine ad nausea that the anti-gay constitutional amendments are to "protect marriage." How do they protect marriage? In point of fact, they do not - something the principal organizers behind the initiatives know full well. What they do is stigmatize gays, give anti-gay bigots a means of pointing out that gays are not equal and that even the laws recognize such inferiority. Of course, these initiatives are also bringing in huge amounts of money to line the pockets of "professional Christians" and Mormons in the leadership of the movement - the money is the icing on the cake if you will. If these people REALLY wanted to protect marriage, they would be pushing for things far different than the anti-gay measures now under consideration. Here are some thoughts of what could be done if protecting marriage were really the agenda:

*

1. One obvious first step would be to recognize that sexual orientation is not a choice and that it cannot be changed. If this was done thousands if not millions of marriages would not occur where gays marry in the false hope that they can become straight. Like my own former marriage, these marriages are doomed and it is only a question of when they fail, not if they fail. I cannot count the number of LGBT people I know who like myself married and had children only to have it all fall apart eventually.

*

2. As Fr. Geoff points out on his blog, steps could be implemented so that couples cannot hastily and recklessly enter into marriage without thinking through what they are doing. While I loath most things Catholic beacuse of the moral bankruptcy of the Church hierarchy, Fr. Geoff lists off some common requirements for marriage in the Catholic Church - something I myself had to do (not that it help address my denial and repression of my true sexual orientation).

*

3. Implement some of the proposals of the Interfaith Alliance which OPPOSES an anti-gay amendment to the U. S. Constitution: (i) Raise the public’s consciousness of the dignity and importance of women in our still deeply patriarchal society; (ii) increase the minimum wage and offer tax breaks to the working poor so that spouses can see each other for quality lengths of time, rather than briefly passing on their way to two jobs; (iii) encourage family planning; (iv) start a plan to deal with domestic violence; and (v) work to cover mental health care in medical insurance policies so serious emotional difficulties can be prevented from tearing marriages apart.

*

Sadly, you will not see the gay marriage foes pushing for such programs. They are the same crowd who want lower taxes which would result in slashing the budgets for family supportive programs, a raw form of capitalism that eats up families and individuals, and who want abortion outlawed but who are missing in action all too often when it comes to supporting children and low income families. Liars and hypocrites best describe these folks in my view.

Thinking Republicans Continue to Flee McCain/Palin

As I indicated, all of us at the house party over the weekend eagerly watched Colin Powell on Meet the Press where Powell did what in my view any rational, thinking Republican is duty bound to do if they truly care about this country - he endorsed Barack Obama and said he's be voting for Obama. Oh yes, there are some like Pat Buchanan who are delusional and already claiming Powell's endorsement was based on race and race alone, but if you watched or read a transcript of Powell's remarks, it becomes clear that his reasoning was sound and thoughtfully laid out. Moreover, more white Republicans are jumping ship from McCain/Palin and thus showing that only racists and apologists for McSenile and Bible Spice Palin will ultimately cling to the racial excuse against Powell. Here are highlights from Powell's remarks:

*

And I must say that I've gotten a good measure of both. In the case of Mr. McCain, I found that he was a little unsure as to deal with the economic problems that we were having and almost every day there was a different approach to the problem. And that concerned me, sensing that he didn't have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had. And I was also concerned at the selection of Governor Palin. She's a very distinguished woman, and she's to be admired; but at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made.

*

On the Obama side, I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one. And also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor. I think that he has a, a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well.

*

I also believe that on the Republican side over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower. Mr. Obama, at the same time, has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He's crossing lines--ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He's thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values. And I've also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, . . .

*

I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

*

As if Powell's announcement for Obama wasn't bad enough, now Ken Adelman has come out for Obama. Why is this a big deal? Because Adelman is a lifelong conservative Republican. He campaigned for Goldwater, was hired by Rumsfeld at the Office of Economic Opportunity under Nixon, was assistant to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld under Ford, served as Reagan’s director of arms control, and joined the Defense Policy Board for Rumsfeld’s second go-round at the Pentagon, in 2001. Here are some highlights via The Atlantic from Adelman's reasons for endorsing Obama:

*

Why so, since my views align a lot more with McCain’s than with Obama’s? And since I truly dread the notion of a Democratic president, Democratic House, and hugely Democratic Senate? Primarily for two reasons, those of temperament and of judgment.

*
When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I’ve concluded that that’s no way a president can act under pressure.

*
Second is judgment. The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate. That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office—I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain’s main two, and best two, themes for his campaign—Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick.

Monday Male Beauty

Reflections on a Wonderful Weekend

The weekend in Nags Head, North Carolina, was great and I suspect all guests at the house party had a great time. The weather left much to be desired - rain through late afternoon on Saturday and 45-50 knot winds that did not let up until this morning. As the photo at left of me and my dog, Bandit, indicates the ocean was wild and it's just as well I did not take my surf gear. There is no way that any one with a long board could have made it out through the white water (two young surfers looking very hot in their wetsuits down the beach tried to no avail). Besides, even if one had managed to make it out throught the wild whitewater, the waves were simply too crazy to afford a decent ride. At the right of the photo, the stairs down to the beach are roped off due to damage to the bottom of the staircase and, in fact by noon on Sunday, the entire staircase had been swept away.

*

The quality time with the boyfriend was wonderful and it was nice to spend time with his group of friends and our wonderful hostess. Given the less than conducive weather, we spent the time in good conversation, talking politics (we made sure we watched Colin Powell on Meet the Press), watching numerous old movies and gay themed movies, eating wonderful food and indulging in adult beverages and martini's with names dreamed up by our bartender such as "Kaye's Choice" in honor of our hostess and "Versatile But With Preferences." Our group covered a span of ages and one of the gay couples have been together for over 27 years, obviously dispelling the Christianist myth that gays do not know how to commit to relationships.

*

All in all, it was a wonderful weekend and we were all sad to see it end. As I have said before, I am so very happy that the boyfriend came into my life.

Disingenuous Anti-Gay Double Speak

I'm back in town and will post more later tonight. One thing I wanted to comment on however right away was the anti-gay double speak that is being generated by Christianists - both by Sarah "Bible Spice" Palin and in a number of comments left by anti-gay marriage supporters (which I will NOT publish). In all instances, the writers and Palin dress up their anti-gay positions as if they are not judgmental of gays, and then proceed to judge us and endeavor to restrict our CIVIL legal rights based on their Christianist beliefs. First, a look at Bible Spice Palin's remarks to CBN News concerning her opposition to gay marriage and support of a Federal Marriage Amendment:

*

Brody: On Constitutional marriage amendment, are, are you for something like that?

*
Palin: I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that's where we would go because I don't support gay marriage. I'm not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can't do, should and should not do, but I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that I believe would be best for traditional marriage and that's casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage that, that instrument that it's the foundation of our society is that strong family and that's based on that traditional definition of marriage, so I do support that.

*

Excuse me, but isn't telling us that we cannot marry because it offends her warped verion of religious belief judging us and telling us what we can and cannot do? The woman is a cretin if she thinks a Federal Marriage Amendment isn't an anti-gay judgment. Moreover, the judgment is RELIGION based. In my legal opinion, an unbiased application of the U. S. Constitution to the gay marriage issue would require that ALL of the state anti-gay marriage amendments enacted to date are illegal based on both the First Amendment and under the Equal Protection Clause. CIVIL marriage rights and who gets to have them should not be based on one set of religious beliefs.

*

As for the anti-gay comments on this blog, one writer - who obviously is falling for the knowingly false information being disseminated by the supporters of Proposition 8 - made the following unfounded remark:

*

but what I do not agree with is if gay marriage is passes then my religious leaders could get sued for not performing same sex weddings because it would be considered discrimination.

*

Sadly, this writer has been duped by this lie. Nondiscrimination laws do not and never have required churches to modify their religious ceremonies and/or beliefs/doctrines for INTERNAL church issues: e.g., the Roman Catholic Church does not have to marry individuals who were previously married and divorced - and to this day it doesn't (unless the Church is paid a big monetary fee and an "annulment" is issued). The First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution allows/requires this outcome and will even if Proposition 8 fails.

*

Another issue that rankles me is the mindset that if Proposition 8 fails, then - Heavens forbid - gays and gay marriage might be mentioned in schools. As if all us LGBT folk will magically cease to exist if we simply cease to be mentioned. Of course the anti-gay writers never ask the question how they are going to shelter their darling children forever. Sooner or later the little dears will venture out into the real world and - horror of horrors - encounter or hear about LGBT individuals whether "mommie and daddy" like it or not.

*

In the final analysis, in the minds of most opponents of gay marriage, gays and lesbians are not considered fully human and/or deserving of the same rights in every respect as other citizens. Sadly, we are viewed as "sinners" who made the "choice" to be gay and for that we must be forever punished and marginalized. As I have said before, in my opinion, the Christianists are a clear and present danger to constituional freedoms for ALL citizens in this nation.