The Official LGBTQ Thread

.. meanwhile in Nigeria

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/nigeria-lawmakers-pass-anti-gay-marriage-bill


ABUJA, Nigeria (AP) — Lawmakers in Nigeria passed a bill Thursday banning gay marriage and outlawing anyone from forming organizations supporting gay rights, setting prison terms of up to 14 years for offenders.
Nigeria's House of Representatives approved the bill in a voice vote, likely sending it immediately to President Goodluck Jonathan for him to potentially sign into law in Africa's most populous nation. Whether he will approve it remains unclear, and both the United States and the United Kingdom raised concerns over a measure that could put foreign funding for AIDS and HIV outreach programs in jeopardy.
Nigeria's Senate previously passed the bill in November 2011 and the measure quietly disappeared for some time before coming up in Thursday's session of the House. Under previous versions of the proposed law, couples who marry could face up to 14 years each in prison. Witnesses or anyone who helps couples marry could be sentenced to 10 years behind bars.
Other additions to the bill include making it illegal to register gay clubs or organizations, as well as criminalizing the "public show of same-sex amorous relationships directly or indirectly." Those who violate those laws would face 10-year imprisonment as well.
While the bill read Thursday during the House session appeared to be similar, The Associated Press could not immediately obtain a copy of the version lawmakers passed. If there are differences between the House and Senate versions, a joint committee of lawmakers will have to first iron out those differences before sending it to the president.
Presidential spokesman Reuben Abati did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday.
Gay sex has been banned in Nigeria, a nation of more than 160 million people, since colonial rule by the British. Gays face open discrimination and abuse in a country divided by Christians and Muslims who almost uniformly oppose homosexuality. Across the African continent, many countries already have made homosexuality punishable by jail sentences.
Nigeria's proposed law has drawn the interest of European Union countries, some of which already offer Nigeria's sexual minorities asylum based on gender identity. The British government recently threatened to cut aid to African countries that violate the rights of gay and lesbian citizens. However, British aid remains quite small in oil-rich Nigeria, one of the top crude suppliers to the U.S.
A spokesman for the British High Commission in Abuja, Nigeria's capital, could not be immediately reached for comment.
The measure also could affect HIV and AIDS outreach programs funding by USAID, an arm of the U.S. government. Nigeria has the world's third-largest population of people living with HIV and AIDS. A spokesman at the U.S. Embassy could not be immediately reached.
Click to expand...

 
This has been the direction in several African countries recently, hasn't it?
And Britain is talking about cutting aid to a lot of places, regardless of human rights issues.
 
I am not really sure why aid in Nigeria is even needed. With the oil they have, they should be self sufficient.
 
Probably, as with several 'developing' nations, almost all the wealth is in the hands of a few private and politically influential individuals, and they have no intention whatsoever of sharing it. The cascade effect doesn't happen.
 
It can do, yes, but that depends on effective international or charitable involvement in overseeing the distribution of aid, as well as the honesty of any government.
 
bearfan said:
we have one person in the office that had a gender changing operation ..
Click to expand...



Ok, I blogged about this a while back, here is the short version: TRANS 101

Transvestites: dress up like the opposite sex... Not all of them homosexual

Trans gender: While having the anatomy of one particular sex, they identify with the opposite gender. THEY ARE NOT HOMOSEXUAL, though they can be. A trans-gendered woman, attracted to women would be considered a lesbian.

Transexual: Post-op trans gender. They go the full 9 yards to have their body reflect their gender. One of the most famous cases would be Cher's once daughter, now son, "Chaz."

off topic and out of context, but felt it important to note. Carry on.
 
479 years after King Henry VIII created the Church of England so that he could separate from his wife Catherine of Aragorn in order to pursue the much younger and hotter Anne Boleyn, the religious organization has issued a statement that it will no longer fight same-sex marriage.

The same institution that allowed Henry VIII to go on a six-wife rampage between 1509 and 1547 in which two were beheaded on his orders has responded to clear votes by both Houses of Parliament by reversing its hitherto hesitant stance on allowing two men to marry.
Click to expand...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...land-gives-up-fight-against-gay-marriage.html

.. or to summarize Religion created to let King bang whoever he wanted no longer against gay marriage
 
^Pretty much, yeah;)
Or at least not opposing the bill outright as it now stands. One of the C of E's concerns is about the legal definition of marriage. The definition of marriage in the Same Sex Marriage Bill doesn't seem to address adultery, which could create legal loophole in heterosexual marriage law or result in discrimination claims.
I don't think The Telegraph is very happy with the Church...
 
Lengthy article, but really the first few lines are key ..

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/20/us/exodus-international-shutdown/index.html?iref=allsearch



Exodus International, a large Christian ministry that claimed to offer a "cure" for homosexuality, plans to shut down. But not before issuing an apology.

"We're not negating the ways God used Exodus to positively affect thousands of people, but a new generation of Christians is looking for change -- and they want to be heard," Tony Moore, an Exodus board member, said Wednesday.

The announcement comes less than a day after Exodus issued a wide-ranging apology to the gay community for "years of undue judgment by the organization and the Christian Church as a whole," a statement from the group says
Click to expand...
 
Looks like the US Supreme Court decision will be tomorrow ... from what I am reading most people expect a fairly narrow decision, which in the short term is not great, but it is probably best in the long term.
 
The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a federal law that restricts the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples in a major victory for the gay rights movement.
The ruling, on a 5-4 vote, means that legally married gay men and women are entitled to claim the same federal benefits that are available to opposite-sex married couples.

The court was due to decide within minutes a second case concerning a California law that bans same-sex marriage in the state.
 
Looks like gay marriage is now legal in California .. the Court did not make a wide ruling, they pretty much dismissed the case based on standing ... so the lower court that overturned the voter based prop 8 in 2008 (which outlawed gay marriage) stands. My preference would have been for the voters to overturn this.
 
I know a bit of a delayed response but I've got my hands full at the moment with thesis work and guillemot chick ringing on Stora Karlsö. But while I have a moment I would just like to share how happy I am that the courts essentially overturned both of these things. I think overturning the California ban had perhaps more 'legal' justification than the one provided for DOMA (which might be an issue in the future), but the decision in the case of DOMA was absolutely the correct one. That law was discriminatory, extremely so. And there was a time when that law could have greatly affected my life and the decisions I made...and it might still in the future, but at least the possibility exists to marry an American lady, even if only a handful of states are options (and to be honest, who wants to live in Alabama, no offense).

Now one thing I would like to clarify about my position here is that while I'm happy that justice and equality and inclusiveness are triumphing, I'm not actually a fan of gay marriage per se. I would much rather that marriage in and of itself be abolished and everyone (gay, straight, everything in between) gets a civil union that has the same rights and whatnot as marriage. This is because marriage carries so much religious baggage with it. A marriage is essentially a contract between two people and as such should just be carried through by the state first and foremost. If the persons getting married want to some religious institution can get involved as a sort of icing on the cake but with no legal or any other kind of power. But the world doesn't quite work that way and since marriage is becoming more and more of a state affair anyway (as churches lose power, at least in the West) perhaps the same ends will be achieved just through different means.

But anyway, yay for no more DOMA and Prop Hate. And now for some shameless "yay gay" links and photos.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-gay-marriage.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130627
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court-doma-decision_n_3454811.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court-doma-decision_n_3454811.html

130626110754-02-supreme-court-doma-0626-horizontal-gallery.jpg



130626105842-01-supreme-court-doma-0626-story-top.jpg
 
I do not like the way the Prop 8 case went down ... I like the result. But it came about because the State of California did not do it's duty and defend the law and the court essentially said that no one but the state can sue to defend a state law.

This is a problem for a few reasons

1) It makes it easy for any future administration of any state to have an easy way to overturn a law going through the court process by just saying they will not defend it. While in this case, the outcome was good ... it could not be so good in future cases

2) The Court overturned DOMA, there was a chance with Prop 8 that they could have made a far reaching decision allowing gay marriage everywhere .. probably not, but it does seem that they would have at least delcared it legal in CA, which would have made a court precedent in favor of gay marriage which would help other states make it legal.

3) This was not some archaic law from the 1800s, it was passed by the voters in 2008, there were 4 major CA elections since then and another 2 coming soon. The state could have legally defended prop 8 while putting a repeal on the ballot at the same time and give the voters a chance to undo prop 8
 
Bad and good news. A gay activist was tortured and murdered in Cameroon.

Gay marriage in England and Wales.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top