61% of UK Christians back equal rights for gay couples - Survey

<p style="text-align: justify;">There is extensive evidence that the US is moving to embrace full equality for lesbian and gay couples, and that Catholics are more supportive than the population at large. American Evangelicals though, remain (mostly) hostile. There has not been nearly as much polling for the UK, but a new survey shows even more support than in the US - including from 61% of all Christians.</p>

<blockquote>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a style="text-align: -webkit-auto;" href="http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/02/14/uk-study-61-of-christians-back-equal-gay-rights/">61% of Christians back equal rights for gay couples</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/02/14/uk-study-61-of-christians-back-equal-gay-rights/"><img src="http://queeringthechurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/bible3.jpg" alt="" /></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>Results of a poll released today say 61% of people in the UK who identify as Christian back fully equal rights for gay couples.</em></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>The 2011 Ipsos MORI study explored the “beliefs, knowledge and attitudes” of people who identified as Christian after the nationwide census last year.</em></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>74% of respondents said as Christians they thought religion should not have a special influence on public life.</em></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>The survey was conducted on behalf of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.</em></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>Six in ten respondents, 61%, agreed that gays should have the same rights in all aspects of their lives as straight people.</em></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>Only 29% said they disapproved of sexual relationships between gays. Nearly half said they did not actively disapprove.</em></span></p>
<p style="text-align: right;"><a href="http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/02/14/uk-study-61-of-christians-back-equal-gay-rights/"> - full report at  PinkNews.co.uk</a>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">A word of caution here, is that the survey was sponsored by the explicitly secularist Richard Dawkins Foundation, which is using the results to demonstrate that the UK is a secular society, and not a "Christian country". It does not appear to have released the full questionnaire or tables. The only results currently available are those selected for inclusion in the press release by the Foundation. In particular, the description "Christian" appears to be used for those who describe themselves as such - many of whom do not actively practice their religion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">There is no reason to disregard the main thrust of the finding though, which is in agreement with what previous research is available. British opinion is firmly on the side of LGBT inclusion - and that includes those who think of themselves Christian.</p>

<div class="zemanta-pixie" style="margin-top: 10px; height: 15px;"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" title="Enhanced by Zemanta" href="http://www.zemanta.com/"><img class="zemanta-pixie-img" style="border: none; float: right;" src="http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_c.png?x-id=7681a347-0316-4a01-bb9e-62d2fccaf92f" alt="Enhanced by Zemanta" /></a></div>

Court rules in favor of transgender editor at Legislature

The federal appeals court in Atlanta on Tuesday ruled in favor of a transgender woman who was fired from her General Assembly job after disclosing she was going to make the transition from man to woman.

The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals means Vandy Beth Glenn is one step closer to getting her job back as an editor and proofreader of legislation. Glenn was fired in October 2007.

The court upheld a ruling last year by a federal judge in Atlanta. Glenn had not been allowed to return to her General Assembly job, pending the state’s appeal, but has continued to be paid her state salary.

Glenn was hired at the Office of Legislative Counsel in 2005 when she was a man named Glenn Morrison. That year, she was diagnosed with gender identity disorder, and her doctors recommended a gender transition for her health and well-being. 

Atlanta Journal Constitutional

'via Blog this'

LGBT Rights to be Embedded in Zimbabwe Constitution?

Could Zimbabwe really be the second African country to build LGBT protection into it's constitution? Zimbabwe, where the tyrant Robert Mugabe has earned the enmity of Peter Tatchell for his vehement  hostility to gay men and lesbians?

At first sight, it seems unlikely, but it may well be realistic. Since the last stolen and hotly disputed election, Zimbabwe has been governed by an uneasy national unity government, with Mugabe as executive president, and Tsvangirai as Prime Minister, while the politicians, assisted by neighbouring South Africa, are involved in protracted negotiations over a new constitution.  Mugabe is known to be ailing, and fresh elections under a new constitution must be held within a year or two. Mugabe cannot continue in office too much longer: whether from human mortality or democratic process, he is clearly in the departure lounge. It is too soon to predict with confidence who will replace him as the next head honcho, but it could well be Tsvangirai. 

Twenty years ago, South Africans were engaged in similar negotiations between political foes over a new, democratic election. The document that emerged was the first in the world to build LGBT protections into a bill of rights. In Zimbabwe, Morgan Tsvangirai has now reversed his own long-standing antipathy to homosexuals, and stated that he supports the principle of equality, and freedom from discrimination, for all.

Zimbabwe's PM Morgan Tsvangirai in gay rights U-turn

Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai has reversed his position on gay rights, saying he now wants them enshrined in a new constitution.

He told the BBC that gay rights were a "human right" that conservative Zimbabweans should respect.

Last year, Mr Tsvangirai joined President Robert Mugabe in opposing homosexuality.

The fractious coalition formed by the two leaders has promised political reforms ahead of next year's elections.

Zimbabwe is in the process of drafting a new constitution, which will be put to a referendum ahead of the elections.

Homosexual acts are currently illegal in Zimbabwe, as in most African countries where many people view homosexuality as un-Christian and un-African."

-full report, and video interview, at BBC News

Related articles

• Botswana Leader Wants Homosexuality Decriminalized

• Zimbabwe's PM Morgan Tsvangirai Reverses, Supports Constitutional Protections of Gay Rights (towleroad.com)
• Change in Zimbabwe (paper-bird.net)

Transgender woman poised for seat in Poland's new parliament

Anna Grodzka has become Poland's first openly transgender parliamentarian.

Grodzka, who transitioned last year, secured a place in the Sejm, the nation's lower house of parliament, reports Warsaw Business Journal.

The politician, who is the founder and president of NGO Trans-Fuzja, received 19,541 votes the Kraków II electoral district.

"Today, Poland is changing. I am the proof along with Robert Biedron, a homosexual and the head of an anti-homophobia campaign who ran for office in Gdynia," Grodzka said.

She also noted the day before her win was confirmed, "If I'll be elected in Krakow, I'll be Poland's first transgender woman, and the only transgender [member of parliament] not only in Poland, but the entire world," adding, "In New Zealand, there was Georgina Beyer, but she is no longer an MP since 2007."

Grodzka joined the Palikot's Movement (RP) after many years with the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD).

Warsaw Business Journal notes that RP is known for its liberal views including supporting LGBT rights, abortion, and legalizing "soft drugs."

- Huffington Post

Related Posts:

Georgina Beyer, Trans Politician

BBC News - UK party leaders back global gay rights campaign

The United Nations says gay men in India are denied HIV care because of discriminatory laws

 "David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband have given their backing to a new organisation which aims to promote gay rights around the world.

Kaleidoscope will campaign against homophobic prejudice and violence, particularly in Africa and the Middle East, where punishments for homosexuality can be severe.

The prime minister said such treatment was "simply appalling".

Commons Speaker John Bercow will host a reception to launch the campaign.

'Global beacon'


At present, homosexuality is illegal in 76 countries, including 38 within the Commonwealth. At least five countries - the Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania and Sudan - have used the death penalty against gay people.

One of Kaleidoscope's founders, Bisi Alimi, said: "I was the first person from Nigeria to openly declare my sexuality on national television. As a result I was attacked, tied up and beaten in my own home in Lagos. I was forced to leave my country.

-more at BBC News 

"

'via Blog this'

Opposition to Gay Marriage Not Socially Acceptable?

"One of the fascinating snippets in a new opinion poll on same sex marriage and more general LGBT equality, is that opposition to queer equality may be going the same way. A narrow majority of Americans now believe that it is more acceptable to support same-sex marriage than to oppose it."

-read the full analysis at Queering the Church

Gay Politicians: UK Minister Nick Brown

b. 14th June, 1950

In the UK, any public suggestion of homosexuality would once have been a kiss of death: no more.

Prime Minister now says that errors of judgement may be a "resigning issue", but orientation is not. The PM is standing by his Agriculture minister Nick Brown, who has revealed that he is gay.

From BBC News:

Cabinet rallies around gay minister

Cabinet colleagues have been quick to voice their support for Agriculture Minister Nick Brown, who has revealed he is gay. Their backing for Mr Brown closely follows the line set by Prime Minister Tony Blair, who declared he was standing by his minister. 

By lending Mr Brown its full support, the government's line appears to be that "errors of judgement" may be a resigning issue for ministers, but their sexuality is not.

Mr Blair's official spokesman said the prime minister was "satisfied" with Mr Brown's account of his relationship with a former male partner.

It was his former partner's attempts to sell a story about the relationship to the News of the World newspaper which forced Mr Brown to publicly declare his sexuality and to deny he had paid for sex with the man.

Once again, the lesson is clear: the simplest way to avoid blackmail over sexuality, is to out oneself.

Gay Adoption Passes Final Hurdle in NSW

After the original narrow passage in the lower house of the New South Wales Parliament, it's been somewhat of a to and fro struggle, but the bill has now finally passed. New South Wales has joined ACT (Australian Capital Territory and Western Australia) in providing for adoption by same sex couples.

Typically, the difficulties concerned attempts to deal with religious objections. The original bill passed in the lower house only after an amendment to provide for some exemptions for religious bodies. In the Upper House, a conflicting amendment was passed to narrow the scope of those amendments, requiring that the bill return to the Lower House - then back to the upper house again.

A BILL giving same-sex couples the right to adopt has been passed by the NSW parliament, after the Legislative Council voted in support of a last-minute amendment to the legislation.

The bill passed its final hurdle in the upper house just after 6.30pm (AEST) today, after MPs backed the lower house amendment.

The amendment, made by Planning Minister Frank Sartor, frees up adoption agencies to act on the wishes of parents regarding where their children are adopted. It was made to temper changes made in the upper house on Wednesday night, which narrowed an exemption from the Anti-Discrimination Act for faith-based adoption agencies. MPs have been allowed a conscience vote on the historic legislation, leading to heated debate in both houses of the NSW parliament. NSW is now the third state or territory to allow same-sex adoption, after the ACT and Western Australia.

-Read more

Oz State Premier Stands Up To Cardinal Pell, Secures Gay Adoption for NSW.

Breaking news today is that the New South Wales state assembly has narrowly approved a bill to put LGBT and heterosexual couples on an equal footing for adoption procedures. There are still a few hurdles to clear before this becomes final, but (as far as I can tell), with this one, the biggest has now been cleared. This is big news for queer Catholics. The formidable Cardinal Pell made clear his strong opposition - but the equally strong support of the Catholic NSW Premier, Kristina Keneally, appears to have been decisive in providing just enough resistance.

Kristina Kenneally, Catholic and Advocate for Adoption Equality

Perhaps it was the full-fledged backing given to the Bill by New South Wales Premier Kristina Keneally, a devout Catholic, which took the wind out of the sails of opponents. "In forming my position on this Bill, I have considered my experiences as a mother, my responsibilities as a parliamentarian and my conscience as a Christian and member of the Catholic faith," she told lawmakers. Instead of proving divisive, it served to unite New South Wales's main political outfits with Opposition Liberal Party leader Barry O'Farrell also voting in its favor.

-RTT News

Hadrian (76-138)

Hadrian was an accomplished military ruler, but owes his fame more to his success as a wise and civilized leader and administrator, who helped to stabilize the Roman Empire - and for his renowned devotion to his lover, Antinous. After his young lover drowned in the Nile in 130, the Emperor was publicly overcome with grief, and declared the young man to be a god, and founded an Egytpian  city,  Antinoopolis, in his honour.  The new cult was happily taken up bright across the empire, with and at least 2000 bronze and marble busts and statues made to honour him. In Greece at alone, thirty one cities minted coins with his portrait.

Bust of Hadrian’s beloved, Antinous

In total contradiction to some modern stereotypes, there is no sense in which Hadrian could be considered in any way wimpish or effeminate:

Hadrian was a brave, resourceful soldier and an intrepid hunter of bears, boars, and lions. He bore cold and bad weather with stolid endurance. He was bearded and dressed simply. He allowed no ornaments on his sword belt or jewels on the clasp.

His sexual taste, like that of Trajan, a cousin of his father and his predecessor as emperor, was predominantly for teenage boys, though ill-wishers accused him also of affairs with grown men (adultorum amor) and of adulteries with married women. He had no children. He often said that had he been a private citizen he would have sent away his ill-tempered wife Sabina.

-glbtq encyclopedia

Hadrian and Antinous in Egypt. Plate VII from "De Figuris Veneris"

NJ Gay Marriage Court Initiative Failed.

In New Jersey, the recent focus for news on marriage equality was the unsuccessful political process which aimed to slip legislation in during the dying days of the last legislature, before the new anti-marriage Governor took office. Later, there was a much less well-publicized attempt to pursue a litigation route. Some years ago, the state Supreme Court had ruled that the state had an obligation to provide equal treatment to all its citizens. IT was on the strength of this judgement that the state legislature then introduced civil unions as an alternative.

Experience since then has shown that in NJ, as elsewhere, separate is not equal. After the failure of the political process, six same-sex couples initiated court proceedings to secure the equality which had been promised, but not provided by the political process. That application today hit a road block: the court declined to hear the case.

This looks though, like a temporary delay. The reason given was that the suit must first make its way through the lower courts. Even so, the decision was close - a 3-3 split. Equality could still come to New Jersey. (Marriage opponents probably have more reason to be disappointed than equality supporters do over this decision: they were hoping for a total rejection:

Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, which supports the traditional view of marriage as between one man and one woman, said, “We were hoping the Supreme Court would just reject the application outright.”

(New York Times)

From Washington Post:

NJ Supreme Court rejects gay marriage case

TRENTON, N.J. -- The New Jersey Supreme Court has declined to hear a case from six same-sex couples seeking the right to marry, saying the case needs to wind its way through the lower courts first.

Gay couples unsuccessfully sued New Jersey four years ago for the right to marry. They claim that by creating civil unions, the state has not fulfilled a court order to treat them the same as heterosexual couples seeking to marry.

The Supreme Court said Monday that it cannot consider whether the civil union law provides equal rights to gay couples until there is a trial record.

The justices were split 3-3, one vote shy of the four needed for the motion to be granted.

The Road To Equality: How Long, How Long!

After I placed a report this week on the UN accreditation for an LGBT Human Rights Group, I noted in a comment that it is important as we celebrate each landmark (as with gay marriage success), we should also look back and recognise how far we have come.

Sadly, I was reminded this week that we also need to look ahead and consider just how far we still have to go. At one end of the scale, there are still five countries that impose the death penalty for homosexual acts. On the other, not even the most progressive countries have year reached  full equality: there are still only a handful of countries with full protection against all discrimination on grounds of both orientation and gender identity. None of those has a full slate of legal protections.

My interest today was triggered by a report from Canada, concerning the possibly imminent execution of an Iranian man, urging the Canadian government to "intervene". The difficulty in these countries, which are generally pretty hostile to the West in the first place, is knowing how to intervene without aggravating the situation.  The death penalty also still applies in four other states (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Mauritania and Sudan), as well as in some parts of Nigeria and Somalia.

In search of fuller information I went to ILGA (International Lesbian Gay Association), and downloaded their report  on "State Sponsored Homophobia". This is dated May 2010, so its pretty up to date - but beware. The listing for marriage gives only three countries, omitting Portugal, Iceland Argentina. This a sharp (and encouraging) sign of just how quickly things can sometimes change.

Homosexual acts remain illegal (without the death penalty) in 34 African countries (more than half the total) and eighteen in Asia , in Guyana in South America as well as eleven Caribbean island states, and nine Pacific Island states. Even in Europe,  homosexual acts are illegal in the Turkish part of Cyprus.

Even where homosexuality itself is legal, there are still a few countries where there is not yet an equal age of consent, even in some parts of Europe and North America.

There has been progress with various laws against discrimination of various sorts, but piece-meal protections can never be comprehensive.  There are still only nine countries with constitutional protection against discrimination on grounds of orientation. South Africa led the way in 1994, followed by Canada and Ecuador in 1998, Colombia and Switzerland (2000), Swede (2003), Portugal (2004), Kosovo (2008) and Bolivia (2009).

None of these yet has full legal protection on all the criteria listed by ILGA:

• Employment discrimination based on orientation
• Employment discrimination based on gender identity
• Hate crimes based on orientation considered an aggravating circumstance
• Hate crimes based on gender identity considered an aggravating circumstance
• Incitement to hatred on orientation a criminal offence
• Full marriage equality
• Adoption by same -sex couples
• Gender recognition

(Sweden comes closest. It is not included only under "hate crimes based on gender". Not far to go, Sweden!)

So, wherever you are, there remains work to do on the long road to equality, both in your own country, and even more, in the world at large. Why not see what you can do to help?

(However, there was one suprising bright spot: with all the attention and awareness of homophobia in Africa, it was good to see, in a listing of the dates for decriminalization of homosexual acts, Africa is the only region listed where  in some countries  same-sex activities have NEVER been criminalised.  Hats off to  Benin, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Côte d‘Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Gabon, Madagascar, Mali, Niger and Rwanda!)

A Queer Presence at the UN

In a most welcome development, an LGBT human rights group has just won accreditation for observer status at the UN - over strenuous opposition from some GOP politicians.  Among other benefits, this has huge symbolic value - and will enable LGBT lobbyists to directly counter Vatican lobbying efforts lesbigaytrans issues.

From Huffpost:

US gay rights group gets UN accreditation

UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. Economic and Social Council has voted to accredit the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission after strong lobbying by the U.S. administration.

The 54-member council approved the U.S.-based group's application for consultative status by a vote of 23-13 with 13 abstentions.

The organization, which has offices in South Africa, Argentina and the Philippines, has been trying since 2007 to get consultative status with the council so it can work at the United Nations. The council serves as the main U.N. forum for discussing international economic and social issues.

The U.S. government and 14 members of Congress supporting the application believe the group's application was not approved because it promotes gay rights.

Gay Marriage: Where Next?

In the first six months of the year, three countries have already approved legal recognition for same sex marriage, up from just two last year, and an average of less than one a year during the previous eight years. The pace is clearly accelerating. We could well ask, where next? There are several candidates, some of which could see change quite soon.

The state of Marriage, Europe July 2010

Luxembourg is closely associated with its neighbours Netherlands and Belgium (hence the term "Benelux" countries), which were the first to introduce full marriage equality. At present, the Grand Duchy's legal provision is based on the French PACS, but the government has announced plans to upgrade that to full marriage. In January, the minister of Justice announced  promised that legislation would be passed before the summer recess this year. The  bill was accepted for the session which began last week, and could be passed within weeks.

Slovenia announced its intention to provide legal recognition in July 2009, and passed the first reading of the required bill in March this year. There have been no reports since.

Nepal will introduce full marriage rights for all couples, but this too could take some time yet. To comply with a ruling by the Supreme Court last year, the country is obliged to do so, and has promised to include such a provision in the new constitution currently being drafted. It is expected that this should be promulgated by May 2011.

In Finland, there has been a rapid change of opinion among parliamentarians, who seem to have shifted within months from a narrow majority against, to overwhelming support in principle.  The leading political groupings have both accepted the principle of equality, and earlier this month, the Minister of Justice announced the start of work on preparing legislation. However, this will be a slow progress: the bill is likely to be introduced only in 2012.

In terms of a court ruling last year, Germany is obliged to upgrade its current civil unions provision to "full equality" with married couples. The Government has announced its intention to do so, but it is not clear when it will do so, or how, whether by formal marriage, or by upgrading the benefits of civil unions to "everything except the name". Meanwhile, Berlin has announced its own plans to approve full marriage, which it says is the only way to provide fully with the constitutional requirement.

In Cyprus the Interior Ministry said that the government would "soon" examine the issue of extending marriage, but there has been nothing since.

Albania last July promised laws to outlaw sexual discrimination and introduce marriage equality. The discrimination law has been passed, but the marriage bill has been bogged down in a constitutional dispute: the opposition Socialists and allies party has been boycotting parliament in protest at alleged electoral fraud. Without their presence, the government cannot muster sufficient votes to pass the required change to the Family Code. When (and if) the boycott ends, expect easy passage - but don't hold your breath.

So over the next two years or so, there could be anywhere from four to seven countries approving full equality - and that's just the ones we known of.  There will likely be others coming up unexpectedly. Court rulings, or changes in government, can change things very quickly (Argentina wasn't on the radar even one year ago).

That's full marriage. What of civil unions?

The State of Marriage, South America: July 2010 (Wikipedia)

Ireland's Civil Partnership bill, granting virtually all the benefits of marriage without the name, has now been approved by both houses  parliament, and is with the President for signature.

Venezuela has civil unions legislation currently before the National Assembly. It has the support of President Hugo Chavez, and has already passed the first reading. (Civil Unions are already recognized in the state of Mérida)

In March 2010, Liechtenstein presented to parliament a civil unions bill modelled on that of Switzerland. I have seen no reports of progress since then.

In Chile, the government is currently "drawing up proposals" to extend some of the marriage benefits to same sex couples. It is not yet clear how far these will go, or how soon implementation will come.

The Costa Rican national assembly is "currently" considering legislation submitted by a gay rights group to recognise civil unions.  In April this year, the President, Oscar Arias, announced his support for the measure.

Modern History: Out in the Forces, UK

Over the last year or so there have been many notable anniversaries of landmarks on the way to LGBT equality: 40 since since Stonewall (June last year), 40 years since the first gay liberation march (June this year); 20 years since the first civil unions in Denmark (last year),10 years for those in Vermont (June this year), 5 years for the first full marriages in Massachusetts. Here's one that passed me by - possibly because it's more difficult to pin it down to a specific date in th year, possibly because it will have been missed by the American media that so dominate our news cycle.

2010 marks ten years of openly gay and lesbian members serving in the British armed forces.
Two specific dates are important here: in January 2000 the direct ban on "homosexual" servicemen and women was lifted, in November 2010 the regulations went further, making discrimination on grounds of orientation illegal. If you want a specific date for the ten-year anniversary celebration, I guess you could take a simple average of these two months, and come up - round about now, just in time for London Pride on Saturday, when there will surely be uniformed squads from the army, navy or airforce marching with the rest of us. Unlike the rest of us, they will be PAID for doing so! From a link at "Proud2Serve", I can share extracts from the formal  "DEFENCE INSTRUCTIONS AND NOTICES" for the event:

This year’s ‘London Pride’ event will take place in Central London on Sat 3 Jul 10. Service and Civil Service Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender (LGBT) personnel will be permitted to march in the parade element. Following the success of the event in both 2008 and 2009, authority is given for serving members of the regular and reserve forces to march in uniform. Individuals marching in uniform on the day will be considered to be representing their Service at a Public parade and as such will be considered to be on-duty and may claim duty travel costs (but not subsistence) within the UK, subject to budget manager approval.

London Pride is a large public event which attracts up to 600,000 members of the public from the UK and overseas. The event attracts worldwide media attention and the very highest of standards are required to ensure that the Services and the MOD are portrayed in a positive light as modern, inclusive, employers that welcome men and women from a diverse range of backgrounds. A high degree of discipline and military bearing is expected from Service personnel participating in the parade. Prior to commencement of the March, individual Service Parade commanders will be expected to undertake an inspection of their Flight to ensure their personnel are suitably prepared for this high profile event. Personnel who fail to make the appropriate Service dress and deportment standards will be removed from the Parade. The orders of dress are as follows:

Royal Navy No 1 Dress with lanyards or equivalent

Army Service Dress/No 2 Dress

Royal Air Force No 1 Dress

Medals are to be worn by all entitled to wear them

London Pride is a large public event which attracts up to 600,000 members of the public from the UK and overseas. The event attracts worldwide media attention and the very highest of standards are required to ensure that the Services and the MOD are portrayed in a positive light as modern, inclusive, employers that welcome men and women from a diverse range of backgrounds. A high degree of discipline and military bearing is expected from Service personnel participating in the parade. Prior to commencement of the March, individual Service Parade commanders will be expected to undertake an inspection of their Flight to ensure their personnel are suitably prepared for this high profile event. Personnel who fail to make the appropriate Service dress and deportment standards will be removed from the Parade. The orders of dress are as follows:Royal Navy No 1 Dress with lanyards or equivalentArmy Service Dress/No 2 DressRoyal Air Force No 1 DressMedals are to be worn by all entitled to wear them

Although openly gay men were not only accepted but expected in the military in former times, getting to this point after the low points of the mid-twentieth century was a long hard struggle, which still continues in the US. For the UK, Proud2Serve has a useful chronology.

Inclusion in the military is important not simply as a symbol of the armed services "catching up" with the modern world. As Peter Bracken clearly shows in a Guardian "Comment is free" article,  creating a culture of inclusion and equality in the military is a powerful guarantor for  entrenching that culture of equality in the civilian world. Here are some extracts:

These developments are all the more profound because, unlike their civilian equivalents, the armed services are strong culture organisations, distinguished by their members' adherence to a strict set of intensely held values and norms. The services welcome and encourage this ethos because it fosters what they crave above all else: a commitment that is the mainstay of the soldier's capacity to venture in harm's way and perhaps face the ultimate sacrifice. As such, the shift in the armed forces' outlook, such that today it is aligned with progressive attitudes, is of surpassing social and symbolic significance.

The monoculture that before defined the homogenised military ideal – white, heterosexual servicemen – has been replaced by a strong culture that celebrates diversity. Where once the military resisted convergence with the accepted standards of equality of opportunity, pleading its case to be different on the grounds of "operational effectiveness", today it seeks to cast itself as the embodiment of those standards. It's a seismic shift, underappreciated by sociologists and equal rights campaigners alike. And, what's more, it entrains an appreciation of equal opportunities that is deeper than any embraced by its civilian counterparts.

A much stronger case for equality of opportunity locates it in the concept of citizenship. Citizenship is founded upon the principle of equality. Anyone who meets its eligibility requirements is deemed to hold the same rights. These rights are unconditional, such that citizenship enjoys a moral imperative – justice demands that individuals have the right to exercise it.

The military finds itself in the happy circumstance of being at the vanguard of this default claim on equality. And that is because there are few more potent expressions of citizenship than the right to serve in a great institution of state. Indeed, given the armed forces' role as defenders of a nation's constitution, values and – ultimately – citizenship, they are uniquely privileged to set the standard by which that citizenship is founded. The services, in other words, have within their gift the capacity to lead others in a commitment to deliver genuine equal opportunities for all.

As Bracken notes in concluding his piece,

We should salute their efforts.

And so I do.

In Vermont, 10 Years of Civil Unions

It is now 10 years since the start of legal recognition for same sex unions in Vermont, just 11 years after a comparable start in Denmark. For a time, both Vermont in the US and Denmark internationally were seen as remarkable exceptions: idiosyncracies in that were unlikely to be emulated in more mainstream states and nations. However, after some initial delay, and increasing number of others followed, and even upped the game. 

From Silicon Valley Mercury News:

MONTPELIER, Vt.—When Lois Farnham and Holly Puterbaugh were joined in civil union 10 years ago Thursday, some of their friends didn't come for fear they'd lose their jobs, and the church asked that plainclothes police officers attend the ceremony in case there was trouble.

A decade later, Vermont and four other states—Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Iowa, as well as the District of Columbia—have instituted full marriage for same-sex couples, and the Burlington couple say many people view their relationship as "ho-hum."

Vermont was the first jurisdiction in the country to offer most of the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples. Massachusetts instituted full same-sex marriage in 2004 in response to a state court's order. Last year, Vermont's Legislature became the first to approve full marriage for those couples without a court's prompting.

"At the time, civil unions were so radical," Farnham said this week. "Now it's the fallback, conservative issue."

What has been remarkable in recent years though, is how quickly, after the slow beginning, the idea has spread. In Europe, almost all countries have or are planning some form of provision for same sex partnerships, and seven have already upgraded to full marriage, with more on the way. In the US, early progress towards marriage equality was meet with a strong political backlash, but even here progress has been substantial and is accelerating.

Even with the heartbreaking ballot losses in California and Maine, five states now have full state level provision for marriage equality, and many more states and even cities have local provision for varying grades of partnership recognition, from simple registration of domestic partnerships, to strong unions which are "marriage in everything but name". On the other hand, the political push against equality appears to have run out of steam: in Iowa, the NOM made highly visible donations to promote the primary elections campaigns of marriage foes - and lost badly. In this year's mid-terms, there are no new states with anti-marriage ballot initiatives, while it's a fair bet that in 2010 California will be the first state to have a ballot question to remove restrictions on marriage - which is likely to be successful. Other states will follow.

It is also arguable that the fight for marriage equality, while i has been slow, has been a catalyst for many other, lower profile moves which have been finding it easier to gain public acceptance, and which are now bearing fruit in national, state and local government, and in private businesses. 

All big movements build gradually, with small incremental gains increasing over time. However, there are also major landmarks along the way to add impetus and momentum. Stonewall was one of the major landmarks on the route to LGBT equality. Vermont's civil union legislation was another. Let us all join in congratulations, and thanks, to the small state of Vermont for the giant contribution of their vision and foresight.

Marriage Equality & European "Human Rights"

When two Austrian men, Mr Schalk and Mr Kopf, took their pursuit of the right to marry to the European Court of Human Rights, there were some hopes that this could mark a turning point for marriage equality across Europe. When the court turned down their application, the obvious response was one of disappointment. However, that would be too simplistic. The verdict was narrow, and not even necessarily final. Although the court left decisions on marriage equality to national governments, they did emphasize the importance of recognizing al families, including queer families, on an equal basis. As the Guardian explains, this may not have been the final decision on marriage equality for Europe, but it is an important landmark along the way:

"The right to marry remains subject primarily to national and not European law, but an Austrian couple have nudged the Council of Europe's 47 states closer to a consensus"

         Last week, the European court of human rights ruled unanimously that there was no obligation on states to recognise same-sex marriage. At least, not yet. Because hidden within the ruling are two significant findings that make it almost certain that one day the court will rule in favour of a right to have same-sex relationships – including marriages – recognised in law. The case is also notable for a bizarre intervention by the UK government, arguing against a right – to recognition of civil partnerships – that it had itself introduced at home.

Two Austrians, a Mr Schalk and a Mr Kopf, argued that the right to marry, set out in the European convention on human rights, requires states to recognise same-sex marriage. The court rejected that argument unanimously, stating instead that the right of men and women to marry is subject to national laws. The court relied on the fact that only six of the 47 European states recognise same-sex marriage (in fact, seven countries now do, with Iceland the latest). In this approach the court showed once more that on issues it calls "morality" it normally follows states, rather than leads them, an approach which those who accuse the court of "interfering" too much would do well to consider.

However, the court did state clearly that the right to marry does not apply only to persons of the opposite sex. The EU charter of fundamental rights – accepted by all EU states — guarantees the right to marry, deliberately excluding any reference to gender. This should mean that in those countries that grant access to marriage for all couples, any distinction between same-sex and heterosexual marriage would be arguable discrimination under the convention.   

(Read the full report at the Guardian)

Iceland's Gay Wedding for PM Sigurdardottir

In Iceland, legall recognition for same sex marriage has taken effect. I wonderful symbolism,
Johanna Sigurdardottir,the country's PM, was one of the first to tie the knot. She is now not only the world's first lesbian or gay PM, but also the first to have experienced for herself a gay wedding.

From the BBC:

Johanna Sigurdardottir, named as Iceland's prime minister on Sunday, is the first openly lesbian head of government in Europe, if not the world - at least in modern times.

The 66-year-old's appointment as an interim leader, until elections in May, is seen by many as a milestone for the gay and lesbian movement.

Up until now, if a gay man or woman has been prime minister, they have done their best to conceal the fact.

Iceland, however, has different standards for equality. When Sigurdardottir became PM, her sexuality passed almost unnoticed. When the gay marriage legislations was passed by parliament, it was accepted unanimously. 

What is really historic about this new cabinet, says Skuli Helgeson, the general secretary of Ms Sigurardottir's Social Democratic Alliance, is not the fact that its leader is a lesbian, but that for the first time in Icelandic history it boasts an equal number of men and women.

In Wisconsin, Not All Parents Are Equal

In Wisconsin, adoption by same sex couples is not recognised. Gay men and lesbians may adopt, but only as individuals. So when lesbian couple "Liz" and "Wendy" adopted two Guatemalan children, only one of them could be legally recognised. The couple decided that Liz, who went out to work as the breadwinner, would be named as legal parent, while Wendy stayed at home to provide child care. Years later, when the couple split up, Wendy wanted to have her status as parent legally recognised.

Now, she is the one who stayed at home, and provided the bulk of day to day care. In most divorces, judges are more likely to grant child custody to the mother, on the reasonable grounds that she is the one (usually) who has provided greater day to day care, and is likely to have a stronger emotional bond with the kids. Other things being equal, similar reasoning in this case would have led to a preference for custody going to Wendy. Other things though. are not equal in queer families, and an appeals court in Wisconsin has rejected Wendy's claim. Not only does she not get legal custody, in Wisconsin, she has no legal status as parent at all.

The high profile political battles for equality are over marriage equality (and in the US,  DADT, and ENDA). It is important that state by state in the US, and country by country elsewhere, we continue to push also for legal recognition of adoption rights, as single people or as couples.

From Examiner.com:

A Wisconsin appeals court has ruled that despite being a stay at home mom for years a wisconsin woman is not considered a parent to the two adopted children she has been raising for years.

The court ruled that only the woman's former partner is their parent since the adoption was done in her name. Court records only refer to the women as Wendy and Liz. Wendy and Liz had been together for 7 years when they decided to adopt their first child. They adopted a second in 2004. Wendy quit her job to stay at home with the children. Liz was named as their legal parent so the children would be covered under her health care plan. Under Wisconsin law same-sex couple cannot adopt children together.

The couple ended their relationship in 2008 and agreed  to an informal co-parenting agreement. Wendy petitioned for legal guardianship to protect her rights to make legal and medical decisions for the children. After originally agreeing to the guardianship, Liz changed her mind and objected.

Louisana State Rep Proposes a Path to Gay Adoption.

In Louisiana, as in many other states, adoption by same sex couples is not possible, but is not prohibited by state constitutional ban.  Rather, the regulations simply prohibit adoption by any couples not legally married - which thereby excludes gay and lesbian couples as prospective parents, but also excludes unmarried heterosexual couples. (Single people oddly may adopt  -so a gay man qualifies, as long as he applies as a single person). Now, a state rep, Juan La Fonta, has proposed relaxing this restriction.  This will open up a path to gay adoption, but also open up opportunities for other prospective parents. Mr    hopes that by refusing to couch this move purely in terms of "gay" adoption, he will avoid the emotional excesses that have surrounded other moves around marriage and adoption equality. I have no idea what are his chances of success - we can but wait and see.  

  From Nola.com:

Gay couples, others could adopt under Rep. Juan LaFonta's proposed changes

Rep. Juan LaFonta, D-New Orleans, is proposing to expand Louisiana adoption laws with language to recognize as parents both persons in a gay couple. 

But LaFonta is not going directly after the provision of Louisiana law that restricts adoption to married couples or single individuals but not unmarried couples. Instead, House Bill 738 would expand the list of eligible persons to petition for "intrafamily" adoptions, those that involve a second adult becoming a legal parent to a child who already has a legal parent in the same family or household.

He plans to bring the bill to the House Civil Law & Procedure Committee next week.

Current law already allows a step-parent, step-grandparent, great-grandparent, grandparent, aunt, great aunt, uncle, great uncle, sibling, or first, second or third cousin to adopt a child under certain circumstances. LaFonta would add "second parent" to that list, provided "the petitioner is the sole legal parent and agrees to the adoption of the child by a second parent."

As with the rest of Louisiana adoption law, the bill does not mention sexual orientation. Gay residents in Louisiana already adopt, but a gay couple -- or an unmarried heterosexual couple -- must choose just one of the pair to become the legal parent, with the second adult having no legal relationship with the child.

 (Read the full report)