(i) Section 377 of the Penal Code, in so far as it criminalises consensualThis an amazing victory for sexual minorities! Note the highlighted section which indicates that the ruling goes far beyond just striking down sodomy laws (like 2003's Lawrence vs Texas).
sexual conduct between adults of the same sex, is unconstitutional;
(ii) Members of the LGBT community are entitled, as all other citizens, to
the full range of constitutional rights including the liberties protected by
the Constitution;
(iii) The choice of whom to partner, the ability to find fulfilment in sexual
intimacies and the right not to be subjected to discriminatory behaviour
are intrinsic to the constitutional protection of sexual orientation;
(iv) Members of the LGBT community are entitled to the benefit of an equal
citizenship, without discrimination, and to the equal protection of law;
and
(v) The decision in Koushal stands overruled.
Mozambique is the latest African country to decriminalize consensual same-sex sexual relations. Sao Tome and Principe and Lesotho legalized homosexuality in 2012. Cape Verde decriminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations in 2004. Consensual same-sex sexual relations remain illegal in Egypt, Gambia, South Sudan, Cameroon, Kenya, Zimbabwe and more than two dozen other African countries. Those found guilty of homosexuality in Mauritania, Sudan and portions of Nigeria and Somalia face the death penalty.Great news!
Recently the India High Court declared that transgender identity is a protected category.This is LGBTI rights advocates last chance to toss out the decision, which was a harsh blow after a 12-year litigation process. In January, a two-judge panel (which included one of the judges who issued the original ruling) rejected their first attempt to have the case reconsidered, what is known as a review petition. The current motion, known as a curative petition, still faces long odds, because the five-judge panel that will consider it includes the two judges who rejected the review petition. The other judges on the panel will be the three most senior judges on the court.But the lawyers in this case got a major boost last week when a different two-judge Supreme Court panel issued a sweeping verdict recognizing broad rights for transgender people. Though the judges in the transgender rights case were careful to explicitly say they were not offering an opinion on the 377 case, their ruling reads almost like a point-by-point rebuttal to the ruling.
Garrett and others pushing the bill said it was needed because a ruling last year by the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond declaring the sodomy statute unconstitutional and unenforceable made it unclear whether prostitution involving oral or anal sex could be prosecuted.
Others, including former Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, argued that the appeals court ruling, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, would prevent the prosecution of adults seeking to have consensual oral sex with minors between the age of 15 and 18.
Virginia’s existing criminal code addressing prostitution and non-forcible sex was linked to the sodomy statute, which for years defined sodomy as a criminal felony regardless of whether the sex was between consenting adults in private.It should be noted that there are several states that still have sodomy laws on the books, more than 11 years after Lawrence struck them all down as unconstitutional: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah.
Application for Oral hearing is rejected.We have gone through the Review Petitions and theconnected papers. We see no reason to interfere with the orderimpugned. The Review Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.The brief order was signed by the same two Justices who wrote the original decision: H. L. Dattu and Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya.
This is excellent news for LGBT people in the military and another victory in the kulturkampf for the champions of equality. Now there is nowhere in society where gay sex is criminalized, although it is still stigmatized socially.In 2011, Democratic legislators tried to repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but the effort was defeated after conservative groups accused them of trying to legalize sexual abuse of animals. This time around, Senate Democrats, including Colorado Senator Mark Udall, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire offered a proposal that would alter the language so as to keep bans on “forcible sodomy” and “bestiality” while decriminalizing consensual sexual activity between gays and lesbians.The new proposal met little resistance, even in the Republican-controlled House, and even among legislators who just three years ago opposed allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
Legislative action dealing with the stigmatization of HIV and HIV-positive people is something that I think will be more common in the near future. Since the "AIDS panic" days of the 1980s and early 1990s there are some horrendous and draconian laws on the books around the country.Additionally, under Section 572, the legislation directs the Pentagon to submit a report to Congress no later than 180 days after the bill is signed into law on personnel policies regarding service members with HIV or Hepatitis B. The bill directs the Pentagon to include a description of the policies as well as related retention, deployment and disciplinary actions as well as an assessment of whether these policies are evidence-based and medically accurate.According to the LGBT military group SPART*A, service members become non-deployable once they’re discovered to have HIV; can’t commission as an officer or warrant officer; can’t fly aircraft or work in any jobs requiring a flight physical; are restricted to stateside duty assignments (with the exception of the Navy); and are not eligible for special schools such as Ranger, Special Forces or other special ops jobs.Thompson said the provision is welcome because it will examine whether the military’s current HIV policy is appropriate or outdated.“This review is welcome and overdue because many of our laws, policies, and regulations regarding HIV were written at a time when we knew far less about the routes and risks of HIV transmission, and prior to the development of effective HIV treatment,” [ACLU Legislative Representative Ian] Thompson said.
I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated November 5, 2013. In your letter, you requested that Barbados, in the person of the Prime Minister, seek at this year's Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka to have included in the agenda of the Meeting in 2015, an item on the rights of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered persons.
Although matters of State did not allow me to attend the 2013 meeting, I wish to assure you that Barbados remains committed to the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and will continue, therefore, to lend its voice to calls both regional and international fora for the elimination of all forms of discrimination including discrimination against persons of differing sexual orientation.This response is reminiscent of the letter the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago wrote last year expressing her "personal" support for LGBT rights.
- Afghanistan
- Algeria
- Angola
- Antigua and Barbuda
- Bangladesh
- Barbados
- Belize
- Bhutan
- Botswana
- Brunei
- Burundi
- Cameroon
- Comoros
- Dominica
- Egypt
- Eritrea
- Ethiopia
- Gambia
- Ghana
- Grenada
- Guinea
- Guyana
- India
- Iran
- Jamaica
- Kenya
- Kiribati
- Kuwait
- Lebanon
- Liberia
- Libya
- Malawi
- Malaysia
- Maldives
- Mauritania
- Mauritius
- Morocco
- Mozambique
- Myanmar
- Namibia
- Nauru
- Nigeria
- Oman
- Pakistan
- Palau
- Papua New Guinea
- Qatar
- Samoa
- São Tomé and Principe
- Saudi Arabia
- Senegal
- Seychelles
- Sierra Leone
- Singapore
- Solomon Islands
- Somalia
- South Sudan
- Sri Lanka
- St Kitts & Nevis
- St Lucia
- St Vincent & the Grenadines
- Sudan
- Swaziland
- Syria
- Tanzania
- Togo
- Tonga
- Trinidad and Tobago
- Tunisia
- Turkmenistan
- Tuvalu
- Uganda
- United Arab Emirates
- Uzbekistan
- Yemen
- Zambia
- Zimbabwe
The top court said the 2009 Delhi High court order decriminalising homosexuality is constitutionally unsustainable as only the government can change a law.
This means gay sex between consenting adults stays a criminal offence under Section 377, a British colonial era law banning "carnal intercourse against the order of nature", which had been struck down by the high court. The Supreme Court said there is "no constitutional infirmity" in that law.
"It is surprising that the court which does judicial review on many issues has put the ball in the court of Parliament to decide on homosexuality," said additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising. "People expect the highest court of the land to protect their rights."
The order is "a step backwards towards barbarism and medievalism," tweeted noted historian Ramachandra Guha.
Gay rights NGO Naz foundation has said it will seek a review of the verdict.
Caroline Gibson, a spokesperson for Cuccinelli, told the Blade in an email that Cuccinelli believes the dissenting judge on the three-judge panel was correct in stating the Lawrence decision applies only to sex between consenting adults in private and doesn’t apply to cases involving a minor. The case in which the three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the Virginia sodomy law involved a man charged with soliciting oral sex from a 17-year-old woman.“We believe the panel decision was erroneous, and that the dissent correctly concludes that the petitioner was not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief, Gibson said, referring to the court’s decision to overturn the man’s conviction under the sodomy law. “So the full court should have the opportunity to decide this matter,” she said.“Like most people, we think the court made the right decision,” said James Parrish, executive director of the LGBT advocacy group Equality Virginia.“We think what needs to happen is the General Assembly needs to remove the current sodomy law that has been declared unconstitutional,” he said.
My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong. They’re intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law based country it’s appropriate to have policies that reflect that. ... They don’t comport with natural law. I happen to think that it represents (to put it politely; I need my thesaurus to be polite) behavior that is not healthy to an individual and in aggregate is not healthy to society.”This is the man who may be elected the next Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia in roughly 7 months.
.jpg)
"This young man said to him, ‘Why do you compare sodomy to murder?’ And he said, ‘Well because I have a right to say if I think something is immoral.’ Well the question wasn’t about his right. The question was, By what morality is expressing your love for someone in a physical way equivalent to killing that person? It makes it clear that the man is an unreconstructed bigot, and given that you have a bigot on the Supreme Court like that, it is useful to know."Other people, such as George Takei have called on Scalia to recuse himself from ruling on the pending gay marriage-related cases, Hollingsworth v Perry and U.S. v Windsor.
"I found myself in handcuffs being treated like a criminal. I spent a week after I was arrested being tortured and insulted every day," explained Roger. "Now, my family says I'm dangerous and they can not live with a homosexual. Cameroonians know who I am now. I don't know how I will even be able to go back to school and get a job."This kind of case absolutely incenses me! Please sign the petition!
"We're seeing more and more young people, like Roger, whose lives are destroyed because they're accused of the ‘crime’ of homosexuality. Because Roger's decided not to hide who he is, he's faced extreme violence and even death threats," said Alice N’kom, a Cameroonian attorney renowned for her support for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in Cameroon. "These homophobic laws must be repealed, as soon as possible."
Two gay men from Eastern Shore Lane in Southern California, Dennis Jay Mayer and John Robert Hart who pleaded guilty to the charge of “Indecent Exposure” were scheduled to live the island on Thursday, after paying a fine of EC$2,400.00 [roughly US$900] each.The court heard that the men were seen on the balcony of the cruise ship, Celebrity X Cruises, naked fondling each other.Hart, a retired police officer and Mayer a personal assistant real estate agent told the court, ”We are sorry for what happened, we regret the incident and humbly apologize to the people of Dominica.”As regular readers of this blog may know, Mad Professah was born on the island of Grenada, and spent 8 years on the island of Barbados going to the equivalent of middle school and high school.
If this decision gets confirmed it will be the single most significant advance in LGBT rights that will positively impact the most number of homosexuals in the world. India has a population which is estimated at 1.2 billion people.NEW DELHI (AP) — The Indian government Tuesday clarified to the Supreme Court that it accepts a recent ruling legalizing gay sex in the country.A lawyer told the Supreme Court that the government would not challenge a 2009 order by the Delhi High Court striking down a colonial-era law that made gay sex a crime.The order was appealed by conservative groups and the Supreme Court is now hearing opinions from those groups as well as gay rights activists.The latest statement comes days after another government lawyer told the court that gay sex was "highly immoral" and should be banned. The government quickly denied that lawyer's statement, prompting confusion about its stance on the law.On Tuesday, a Supreme Court justice asked the government's lawyers to file an affidavit to reconcile the two divergent positions heard in court. Neither lawyer explained Thursday's confusion.The 2009 high court order had said that treating consensual gay sex between adults as a crime was a violation of fundamental rights protected by India's constitution.
This statement demonstrates an astonishing ignorance and misunderstanding of federal law and marriage law, especially for a former United States Senator. Then, again, there's a reason why Santorum has been declared (by a fellow Republican who served as Senator John McCain's top aide for decade) as the dumbest United States Senator of the last twenty years:SANTORUM: I think marriage has to be one thing for everybody. We can’t have 50 different marriage laws in this country, you have to have one marriage law…TODD: What would you do with same-sex couples who got married? Would you make them get divorced?SANTORUM: Well, their marriage would be invalid. I think if the constitution says “marriage is this,” then people whose marriage is not consistent with the constitution… I’d love to think there’s another way of doing it.
Ron Paul may be the wackiest candidate in the GOP field. But for pure, blind stupidity nobody beats Santorum. In my 20 years in the Senate, I never met a dumber member, which he reminded me of today.There are many reasons why Santorum's statement is so stupid but I will just list a few here
