Queer Activism and the Taksim Gezi Riots: What You Didn’t Know

You’ve probably already heard of the protests in Istanbul’s Taksim Gezi Park. For a few weeks in early June, an anti-government movement from across Turkish society occupied the park until the police used tear gas and water cannons to clear it on June 15th. The worldwide media was all over it, comparing the protest both to the U.S. Occupy movement and to the Arab Spring revolutions last year. So you probably know how central women’s issues were to the cause, and you probably know how diverse and yet egalitarian the protest became.

But what you probably did not know – because the mainstream media didn’t cover it much at all – is how queer the movement was! Taksim Gezi was the place for gay men to cruise, as well as a meeting place for queers of all kinds; it’s like a combination of Dolores Park in San Francisco and the Ramble in Central Park in New York. The park is situated in the heart of the gay neighborhood, called Beyoglu. In a country and city where homosexuality is still strongly taboo, Beyoglu holds special significance to queer Turks, because it is one of the only places where they can safely be queer. So while Taksim became a symbol for a whole social movement, it also carried a personal weight for the queer community. As the protest took shape and grew, queer people were on the front lines, and both women’s and LGBT rights became central issues.

I was in Istanbul during the protest, so I ignored the warnings of the U.S. Embassy and visited the park to investigate the events first-hand. Honestly, it felt like a big street fair, with grinning young people talking excitedly and colorful banners everywhere – except for the ominous threat of hundreds of policemen surrounding the perimeter three blocks deep in each direction, their riot shields lying nearby ready for use and their fingers resting casually on the safeties of their semi-automatic assault rifles. The air smelled faintly of smoke from fire bombs thrown a few days earlier, and everyone sat on colorful blankets or little seats of cardboard; they told me not to touch the ground because tear gas had been sprayed a few days earlier and it was still potent. “Sure, of course,” I said, not fully believing them. But when I sat on the ground a little while later and then unthinkingly rubbed my eyes, they immediately began to sting; my throat started to swell up and my face started to itch, and I ran to a Starbucks down the street and scrubbed my face in a panic.

Policemen surrounding the square. Note the buses behind them full of riot supplies, and their fingers resting on the safety catches of their guns.

All that notwithstanding, smack in the center of the park was a large and popular LGBT tent where young and hip-looking queers of all shades stood snacking on pretzels and soy milk. While I hyperventilated about all the guns around, they leaned against the fence, chatting in English about queer theory and the democratic process. Surrounding the central tent were countless little tents staked so closely together that you could barely walk between them. Amongst them people rested, read or talked together casually. If I didn’t know better I would have thought it was a week-long Pride camp out.

The tent city around the LGBT tent

At the front of the tent stood Irem Guven, a 24-year-old tall and assertive-looking woman with short blonde hair and a white tank top. She is getting a master’s degree in philosophy and had been involved in the protest since its inception. “We’re here to demand our democratic rights,” she said, before I could even finish formulating a question. The LGBT contingent of the protest was made up of multiple different organizations from across the city, she said, but when plans to destroy the park were made public, they all rallied together. Now, they form a foundational part of the movement.

Their involvement is particularly important because LGBT rights are hit-or-miss in Turkey. Homosexual activity is legal, but sexuality is not protected under civil rights laws. And while it’s not as extreme as neighboring states like Syria or Iran, significant anti-gay discrimination is still common. Even in Beyoglu, gay bars are hard to find; you have to spot a rainbow flag flying at the top of a building, then scour the signs below for the one you’re looking for. Locations move frequently and they often exist only in small rooms on the top floors of buildings. In most of the city, being gay is tolerated at best; the few blocks around the park are the only place where same-sex couples will dare to be seen holding hands and even this has a somewhat furtive feeling about it. “This, Beyoglu – this is all we have,” Irem said. “Without this area, we have nowhere else to go. Them coming in here felt like they attacked us ourselves.”

The LGBT tent itself; there are no people pictures because they didn’t want to risk being outed publicly.

This personal connection to the area, as well as the ideas that the park came to symbolize, is why queer people were so deeply engaged in the movement. Irem explained how they were literally on the front lines of the struggle, climbing the barricades and fighting police from the beginning.

Over the long term, it is perhaps their open and articulate commitment to the struggle that will do the most for gay rights in Istanbul. Apart from any concrete legislative or social gains that may stem from the protest, the centrality and steadfastness of the queer population greatly improved perceptions of queerness in the larger population. It’s hard to tell from afar, but Taksim Gezi is not a big place. By the very nature of the protest and its setting, people were forced to interact in new and different ways; for instance, the LGBT tent was set up right next to the AntiKapitalist Muslumanlar camp, a conservative Islamic anti-capitalist group. As police violence increased and survival became more and more difficult, fighting for a common cause forged bonds between queer people and other Turks that might never have existed otherwise. As Irem said, “Fighting side by side, people previously homophobic are now opening their minds.”

This open-minded sharing of ideas was a hallmark of the protest and probably its longest-lasting legacy. It galvanized people from all walks of life into political action, threw them all in a pot together and stirred. Fulya Dagli, a 20-year-old law student, stopped to talk while her friend, Zelal Pelin, stenciled a poem she’d written onto the cement with black spray paint. Fulya stressed that the past few weeks had been an incredible chance for people from opposite corners of Turkish society to talk and actually be heard by each other: she listed nationalists, Kurds, men, women, anarchists and socialists. It gave Turks who would otherwise never have interacted with queers the opportunity to do so, and realize that they’re actually people too – and that they have more in common than they originally thought .

Fulya Dagli and Zelal Pelin, 20, law students at Istanbul University. They just finished spray painting the poem below, about solidarity between different groups of people, between “all the colors in the world.”

This mingling of peoples is something that can’t be erased, regardless of what happens to the park or its protestors themselves, and it has positive implications for queer rights and activism. Simply by being themselves – the multi-faceted people that they are – the LGBT contingent changed the minds of many of their fellow protestors, if not larger groups across the country as well. This is not a new concept. It’s old news that simply knowing a gay person tends to make people much more tolerant. But it’s important to remember, especially when the problems in the world seem too great and too heavy, when there are too many deserving causes and not enough time or energy in your life, when legislation seems hard to pass and hate crimes still run rampant across the world. A conversation, a friendship or a new work relationship can be a catalyst for more gay acceptance. It feels small, but just being you, queer and proud of it and living your life, is something big. And on the large scale – like in Taksim Park – it is huge. It is the way things get changed, one mind, one protest, one country at a time.

Popularity, Misogyny Oust Australia’s First Female Prime Minister

In the most dramatic political comeback in recent Australian history, Kevin Rudd regained his job as prime minister of Australia nearly three years to the day after losing it to Julia Gillard. Rudd is now the first Australian prime minister since the 1960s to lose his job and then regain it. He is also, notably, the first Australian prime minister to lose leadership to a woman.

In 2010, with Rudd’s popularity waning, Gillard took over the Australian Labor Party in a bid to secure the next election. Rudd has used this same justification for his takeover; making this one of the most surprising and anticipated political backstabbings in Australian politics. Many Australians, including myself, did not expect history to repeat itself so soon, despite the media coverage which eagerly foretold the demise of Gillard’s leadership from the very start.

Gillard’s career as Prime Minister was nothing short of historical. At elections in 2010, Gillard faced the first hung parliament in Australia since the 1940s, and afterwards formed the first minority parliament since – yet again – the 1940s. She was the first female deputy prime minister of Australia,and then the first female prime minister of Australia. The unfortunate price for being the first female leader in a parliament dominated by “men in blue ties” was the constant belittling and mocking of her abilities, usually through thinly-veiled misogyny. The reaction of the Australian media to an atheist, unmarried, childless woman with ambition was ruthless.

From the beginning, Gillard was decried as lacking empathy and understanding by remaining “deliberately barren,” a personal choice her opponents felt kept her out of touch with Australian families. Her political background as Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations demonstrably gave her at a good amount understanding of what mattered to Australian parents; she spearheaded one of the largest reviews into the Australian educational system in recent years, suggested a A$16 billion program to combat the woeful underfunding of that system and used her industrial law background to replace the unpopular WorkChoices Act with the Fair Work Bill before even becoming prime minister. As prime minister she established a health funding deal with the states, lifted the tax-free threshold to A$18 000 and enacted a national disability care scheme in addition to reworking and passing the unsuccessful carbon and mining taxes from Rudd’s government.

Despite her obvious achievements, the loudest criticism was simply that she was incompetent and her government did nothing. In the words of Christopher Pyne, a member of the opposition, Gillard’s government was “…incapable of addressing the daily challenges facing the Australian people, and secondly, for the culture of evasion and deceit and sheer incompetence that characterises her prime ministership.” Despite these accusations, Gillard’s government passed over 500 acts of legislation and Gillard has been viewed by some to be Australia’s most productive prime minister. Looking much of her prime ministership from outside of Australia, I was always confused by Australian media coverage of Gillard. Without the constant vitriolic claims of her uselessness in my ears, it was quite clear to me that she was, in fact, doing quite a lot.

The media frequently criticised Gillard for playing “the gender card.” When she made the observation that “men in blue ties” dominated Australian politics, she was considered unnecessarily aggressive and potentially misandrist. Yet Rudd accessorised his first speech as prime minister with a blue tie. When Gillard observed, in the same speech, that only the Labor Party would keep women’s rights like abortion safe, she was criticised for making irrelevant statements. Yet opposition leader Tony Abbott – who has a long history of anti-abortion sentiments – was a vocal opponent of RU486 (abortion pill) and famously champions the virginity of his teenage daughters. The opposition is not currently running on an anti-abortion platform for the next election (preferring to stick with the “boat problem” and destroying the carbon tax), but it is highly probable that only with a Labor government would this right remain uncontested. In other words, Gillard noted the importance of women in parliament – from her position within parliament – and the impact this has long-term on policy making, and was criticised for playing the “gender card” in a desperate bid to keep female voters.

All politicians are made fun of, but Gillard’s treatment typically exceeded the norm and often centred on her body or femininity rather than her policies. This year alone, Gillard was criticised for showing too much cleavage, asked if her long-term boyfriend was gay because he was a hairdresser and described quite literally as meat with “small breasts, huge thighs and a big, red box” in a leaked dinner menu from an opposition party function. In many ways, her treatment cast a light on the inherent sexism of Australian politics and media; her respect abroad only served to underscor the unreasonable hatred she suffered at home. You might remember how Gillard’s misogyny smackdown of the opposition leader in 2012 (previously covered on Autostraddle) was hailed by Jezebel as showing Gillard to be “one badass motherfucker.” Gillard’s debating skills and strength of character were, in the words of CNN “Admired Abroad, Vilified at Home,” and considered a hopeful example for women in political arenas.

Gillard was not perfect: she made public statements against gay marriage rights and continued Australia’s embarrassingly racist treatment of asylum seekers. For a Welsh immigrant who made it to the highest echelon of Australian politics, she seemed remarkably unsympathetic to asylum seekers and even immigrants. In some ways, Rudd – who was historically more humane towards asylum seekers and is now the self-proclaimed “first Prime Minister of Australia who is a full signed up member to gay marriage reform” – is more left-leaning than Gillard. Perhaps, as is his justification for ousting Gillard, this will charm voters and keep Labor in power.

Yet, it is sad to see the first female prime minister gone and it is even sadder to realise that her legacy will be tainted by the misogyny which simultaneously caused and decried her lack of respect. The failure of a female prime minister is seen to reflect the failure of women in positions of power. Gillard had to be better than any politician before, and even when she was just as problematic, divisive and changeable as her opponents and Rudd, she was attacked more viciously than they ever were. She passed some good policies and, admittedly, some bad ones. She did all of this with a minority government, vocal lack of support from within her own party and incredible vilification from the media. Gillard, in her graceful final speech claimed gender “…doesn’t explain everything. It doesn’t explain nothing. It does explain some things. And it’s for the nation to think in a sophisticated way about those shades of grey. What I am absolutely confident of is that it will be easier for the next woman… and I’m proud of that.”

Also.Also.Also: Anti-Gay Workplace Discrimination Is Still Happening and Other Stories We Missed This Week

Here’s the news we missed while I was listening to Yeezus.

The SCOTUS on Gay Marriage: “Nope, Nothin’ Yet”

When it comes to two critical gay rights cases being decided upon soon in the Supreme Court, I’m gonna get my Rafiki on and dramatically say it is time.

Except oh, oops, no, nevermind. Not today. It’s not time yet. What the fuck is taking so long? Is it the gears grinding in Anthony Kennedy’s head? Is it the Ghost of Lack of Gay Friends Past? Is it getting the files in order? Are the robes being dry-cleaned? CAN A SISTA GET A RULING ON HER FUTURE OVER HERE?

Maybe on Thursday.

Total Dick Move

This shit is the worst.

MP Robert Biedron of Poland

+ Poland’s first openly gay lawmaker was attacked Saturday in Warsaw following the Gay Pride parade.

+ According to Focus on the Family, trans* people don’t exist.

+ Should anyone really be protecting “gay marriage critics?”

+ Grace University expelled a student for being gay – and then demanded she pay back her scholarship.

Hey, This Is A Cool Thing

I wouldn’t lie to you. We’ve been over this before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NlCSfM4kKUw

Ending Discrimination in the Workplace Apparently Not A Universal Goal for Us as Humans

Obama wants to end discrimination against LGBT folks in the workplace… OR DOES HE? We may never know. That’s politics.

preach

What we do know is this: Marco Rubio does not support gays in the workplace. But he’s totally not a shitty human being or anything.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who is touted as a top GOP presidential prospect in 2016, thinks it should be legal to fire someone for their sexual orientation.
ThinkProgress spoke with the Florida Senator at the opening luncheon of the annual Faith and Freedom Forum on Thursday and asked him about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill to make discrimination against LGBT individuals illegal across the country.
Though Rubio bristles at the notion of being called a “bigot,” he showed no willingness to help protect LGBT workers from discrimination. “I’m not for any special protections based on orientation,” Rubio told ThinkProgress.

You Should Give

Be Here Now is “a comedy web show about two sexually progressive NY gals who ditch their down-and-out lives for LA in search of a spiritual awakening.” Fund that shit.

Movin’ On Up

Obama named three more gay ambassadors this week (spoiler alert: they’re gay men) and the Supreme Court Thursday confirmed the first openly gay Latina to serve on the federal bench. Also, THE NEXT DALAI LAMA COULD BE A WOMAN JUST SAYING.

This is good news considering we could use some more women in government so that people can stop stereotyping women in government differently than women as a whole. Or at all. Whichever works.

Three Words: “Starring Ellen Page”

Ellen Page is in a new film called Touchy Feely. I hear it’s chart-toppingly Indie or something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zu6qd1QngqQ

Will The Canadian Supreme Court De-Criminalize Sex Work?

It’s not every day that a group of current and former sex workers sue the government of Canada, but that’s exactly what’s happening with Bedford v. The Government of Canada, which is now being discussed in the Supreme Court. Amy Lebovitch, Terri-Jean Bedford and Valerie Scott first challenged three laws that criminalize various aspects of sex work in an Ontario court back in 2007. In Canada, the buying and selling of sexual services itself isn’t illegal, but Bedford, Scott, and Lebovitch argued that the laws criminalizing the activities surrounding sex make it very difficult to legally and safely participate in sex work, and that these laws violate their rights to security of the person as outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Ontario court agreed and tried to erase all three laws, but not before the government of Canada basically said, “Hey! Hey! Not so fast, Ontario. We’re pretty committed to the criminalization of these activities surrounding sex work.” The federal government appealed the verdict and it was brought to the Supreme Court, where the case was heard yesterday. This past week, sex workers have voiced their support for Bedford, with marches being held in big cities across the country.

via http://www.cbc.ca

So what are these three laws that the Bedford case, if successful, could erase?

1. The law prohibiting public communication: This law prevents sex workers from publicly, openly (and therefore more safely) discussing how much they charge and negotiating things like consent and boundaries. According to the advocates supporting Bedford, “this law unfairly forces sex workers to choose between their liberty from imprisonment and charges, and the safety/security of their person from violence.” Unable to openly engage in necessary communication, sex workers have been driven out of safer, public areas, and also have to often work alone rather than in pairs or groups so as to “stay under the radar.” Because this law accounts for approximately 95 percent of prostitution charges, sex workers are forced to spend their energy on avoiding getting caught instead of openly communicating about important things like boundaries, money, and safety, and Bedford argues that this makes them more susceptible to abuse and exploitation.

2. The “bawdy house” law: Previously used to condemn gay male bathhouses, the “bawdy house” or brothel-restriction law prevents sex workers from using a specific location (either indoors or outdoors) for their work. Advocates for decriminalization stress that this law “attacks the ability of sex workers to have a safe and secure work location, where they are in control of the space, can limit the possible dangers, and employ safety protocols.” The law also puts sex workers’ housing at risk. Landlords, if they know what the location is being used for, have to evict the workers or face penalties themselves. Like the law prohibiting public communication, the “bawdy house” law isolates sex workers by creating legal incentives to work alone. If they work in a brothel or other communal work location, they are vulnerable to attacks from clients, who can call police about the whereabouts of the space once they’ve left.

3. The law preventing “living off the avails of prostitution:” This law is supposed to prevent exploitative and forced labor, but de-criminalization advocates argue that there are already laws dealing with extortion, forced labor, and rape; and that this additional one is paternalistic and treats sex-workers-by-choice as though they are unable to take care of themselves. Additionally, it puts their relationships with everyone from bodyguards to accountants at risk.

Bedford argues that together, the three laws work to hide and shame sex workers, which is detrimental to their health and safety:

“Sex workers’ rights advocates say all three of these laws serve to drive sex work more underground, where the exploitation of sex workers is more easy and likely to occur. They also feel that the laws put sex workers at risk of predatory violence because predators know that sex workers are less likely to report to the police, and that it is less likely sex workers will be believed or that they will have the violence against them taken seriously.”

The Bedford case isn’t just causing conflict between different Canadian court systems, but within feminist spheres. You only need to google Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon to see that feminism’s relationship to sex-work has not been one of rose petals and love notes. Anti-prostitution feminists argue that all sex-work is inherently exploitative of women, especially poor women and women of color, and must be abolished. The pro-legalization community doesn’t deny that reality, but they do not agree that criminalization is the best way to make work and life safer and easier for poor women and women of color who are involved in sex work nor is it helpful when combatting sex trafficking. In Canada, the Women’s Coalition for the Abolition of Prostitution is, as you can tell from their name, for the abolition of prostitution as a whole, and not just its de-criminalization. The Coalition represents multiple women’s groups that fight to protect women from violence, abuse, and exploitation. It has been around for decades and represents The Native Women’s Association of Canada, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, The Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres, Vancouver Rape Relief Society, and the French groups Action ontarienne contre la violence faite aux femmes (Ontario Action Against Violence Against Women), Concertation des luttes contre l’exploitation sexuelle (Coalition Against Sexual Exploitation), and Regroupement québécois des centres d’aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel (Quebec Group Against Sexual Aggressions).

According to the Coalition and the many groups it represents, prostitution itself is a danger to women that must be abolished:

“Prostitution itself is harmful to women. Women in prostitution in all locations endure verbal abuse and humiliation, loss of their children to adoption or state care, physical pain from repeated intercourse, mental trauma, health problems and homelessness.”

Though it is against all forms of sex work, the Coalition is in favour of certain parts of the Bedford case, mainly the idea of decriminalizing (mostly female) sex-workers while punishing (mostly males) involved in paying for or profiting from sex work. Legally, the Women’s Coalition recognizes that criminalizing public communication surrounding sex work is unconstitutional and unsafe for sex workers, but it wants to keep the provisions that criminalize living on the profits of prostitution and running a “bawdy house” to remain. What the Coalition wants pretty much already exists in Sweden where buyers of sexual services, and not the sex workers themselves, are criminalized. Decriminalization advocates argue that this is not the model to follow because it “serves to lessen the ability to clearly communicate around consent and boundaries or to screen clients. And it takes away income opportunities for those making their livelihood from sex work, forcing them to work longer hours and lower their standards for safety and satisfaction.”

It can’t be ignored that sex work in Canada is extremely racialized. A study of sex workers in Vancouver found that 50% of those interviewed were First Nations, which is not at all representative of overall population demographics. Furthermore, the same study reported that ninety-five percent of sex-workers interviewed said they wanted to leave prostitution. The Coalition stresses that, as shown by studies such as this one, sex work oppresses low-income women and First Nations’ women, and therefore should be abolished. Of course, those who support decriminalizing sex work aren’t advocating for the oppression of low income and/or First Nations’ women who have been forced into their line of work by their circumstances. They argue that, in light of the fact that the majority of sex workers want to leave sex work, it would be easier for someone to leave sex-work and find another job if they did’t have a criminal record, and that even those sex workers who want to leave may not be able to do so immediately, and up until that day comes their safety should be paramount. Furthermore, decriminalizing sex work could make it easier for oppressed women to report rape, assault, kidnapping and other crimes committed against them while working — these crimes (which are already illegal, regardless of context) often go unreported because reporting them puts the woman at risk of arrest as well.

In “Sex Work: a feminist legal perspective,” lawyer Leslie Robertson discusses the case to de-criminalize sex-work and her relationship with sex-worker-led advocacy groups such as POWER (Prostitutes of Ottawa Work Educate and Resist) and Maggie’s: The Toronto Sex Workers Action Project. Just like the Women’s Coalition for the Abolition of Prostitution, POWER and Maggie’s recognize that sex-work disproportionately affects First Nations and low-income women who already face economic and racism-related disadvantages. But unlike the Coalition, sex-worker-led groups such as Maggie’s and POWER want it to be legal to work in a brothel and profit from prostitution:

“POWER and Maggie’s told the Court that this model does not actually make their work safer. When clients are criminalized, workers will still have difficulty screening customers, clearly communicating about their transactions, and working with others or indoors. Criminalizing the clients perpetuates the stigmatization and keeps this labour underground and unsafe.”

Instead of following Sweden’s model, many decriminalization activists look to New Zealand, where there has been full decriminalization since 2003. A 2008 study of the effect of this decriminalization found that while sex workers still faced the threat of violence, abuse, and exploitation, in the five years between the decriminalization and the study, there was improvement in working conditions, though it wasn’t universal. To make environments safer, the government is moving towards written employment contracts for sex workers in brothels and says it will continue to recognize that decriminalizing sex work “has empowered [all kinds of] sex workers by removing the taint of criminality from their occupation, and part of that empowerment is to take control of their employment relationships.”

The Supreme Court of Canada will make a decision on whether or not to criminalize sex work in the coming months, but the debates around this kind of work are likely to go on for much longer. It’s a unique opportunity for a public conversation about a topic that’s usually avoided, and hopefully to improve women’s safety and wellbeing in the long run.

Russia Poised to Pass Nationwide “Don’t Say Gay” Bill

This past Tuesday, June 11th, the lower chamber of the Russian Parliament unanimously passed a bill that bans the dissemination of information about “non-traditional sexuality” to minors. The proposed law, which is also expected to survive the upper chamber and President Putin’s pen, would make it illegal to disseminate information that promotes “non-traditional sexual relationships” or provides “a distorted notion of social equivalence of traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships.” Citizens found guilty would be subject to fines between 4,000 and 5,000 rubles (~$130), with higher penalties if they’re government officials or spread information via mass media, including the internet. Corporations or organizations would owe up to 1 million rubles ($31,000) and could be shut down for up to 90 days, and foreigners would be jailed and/or deported. The law could come into effect as soon as the end of this month.

As with its regional counterparts, the wording of the national law makes it scarily vague. “The loose language of the law suggests that even services such as counselling for gay teenagers, or safe-sex advice, could theoretically be deemed illegal,” reports The Independent. Conservative Russian groups are already starting to call for bans on clothing that “glamorizes” the homosexual lifestyle (they went after Elton John specifically). And regardless of what specific acts it ends up criminalizing, the idea behind the law is crippling. Even in countries with some protections in place, gay kids are subject to ridicule, bullying, psychological damage, self-doubt, and all kinds of other not-so-fun things. They need access to role models, support, and information, not a nationwide, governmentally-sanctioned denial of their existence.

As American expat and Autostraddle contributor Rachel R. has described, Russia has never been the most fun place to be gay. Although homosexuality was decriminalized in 1993 and depathologized in 1999, most laws since then have increased discrimination rather than fighting it. “Propaganda” laws like this one have already passed in nearly a dozen local legislatures—St. Petersburg’s version causes dozens of arrests per month. Thanks to a law passed last year, Moscow can’t have a gay pride parade until 2112. And polling has shown very low public support for gay rights—a recent survey found that only 17% of Russians think that homosexuality should be “accepted by society,” and Russia is one of the few countries where acceptance has slipped since 2007. Other polls indicate that 47% of Russians think gays don’t deserve equal rights, and 88% support the proposed law.

Vladimir Putin cites these numbers when explaining why he’s ready to sign this law. In an interview this April, the Russian president said that although he thinks it’s “necessary to defend the rights of sexual minorities,” public opinion is such that if those rights were actually defended, all hell would break loose. “I can hardly imagine same-sex marriage being allowed in Chechnya,” he told an Amsterdam newspaper. “It would have resulted in human casualties.”

Many think that this law — which is following a slew of similar restrictions, including a Pussy Riot-inspired law that can get you jailed for a year for “public actions… committed with the goal of offending religious feelings” — is part of a long effort by Putin to stall the “corruption” of Russian youth in order to make sure future generations continue voting for him and his political party (as we all know, the best way to prevent that kind of “corruption” is by keeping young people away from the sort of ideas and diversity that might encourage them to think for themselves). This is a familiar attempt, bolstered by familiar rhetoric: equating discrimination with nationalism (misrepresenting gay rights as a “Western idea”) and using flawed, pulpy logic purported to protect impressionable kids. When the Russian Orthodox Church called for a national version of the St. Petersburg law six months ago, its youth representative cited its “timeliness,” as Russia’s gay people were constantly “rallying outside children’s establishments,” and Putin also likes comparing homosexuality with pedophilia. “[These bills] represent a sorry attempt by the government to bolster its popularity by pandering to the most reactionary elements of Russian society,” said Amnesty International’s John Dalhuisen. Human Rights Watch’s Graeme Reid agreed, saying “Russia is trying very hard to make discrimination look respectable by calling it ‘tradition.””

Condemnation from inside is equally virulent. “This fits in perfectly with the course towards repressive politics that has been openly taken by our president and our parliament,” veteran Russian rights activist Lyudmila Alexeyeva told Agence France-Presse. “[This law is] a step toward the Middle Ages… In normal countries, no one persecutes representatives of sexual minorities… a modern person knows that these people are different from the rest just like a brunette is different from a blonde. All these repressive draconian laws are passed by the new [parliament] in order to use them selectively against those who are undesirable to the authorities.” Activists held a kissing rally denouncing the law outside the the parliamentary building on Tuesday, until they were attacked by hundreds of anti-gay protesters, who threw eggs and yelled homophobic slurs. About twenty of the anti-bill protesters were detained by police, and several others were beaten up by “masked men” on an adjacent street. Meanwhile, the bill’s authors sat inside arguing that their new bill “would shield the LGBT community from harassment.” This kind of forced blindness is tragic enough for one generation. There’s no need to mandate it for the next.

Also.Also.Also: Dolores Huerta Stands Up for Gay Marriage and Other Stories We Missed This Week

Hi, happy campers! Does anyone know the cure for workaholism? No? OK. Well. Here’s the stories we missed this week while I was willfully chained to a desk.

The Gay Marriage Diaries

+ Love is love to Dolores Huerta, and familia es familia. Check out her PSA for Freedom to Marry’s new campaign targeted at Latino/a homos and their allies:

+ Gay marriage took a much queerer turn in Argentina. Why not in the United States?

Although politics are highly centralized in Buenos Aires, the Federation attempts to include the needs of all queers in its agenda (with questionable success). On its formation in 2006, the Federation held a meeting to set a legislative agenda. Those gathered agreed that gay marriage should be the first step, but committed to focusing on issues affecting trans Argentines second. They reasoned that gay marriage was a bigger fight, and would gain queer Argentines the visibility they needed in order to easily pass administrative changes later.

Whether or not we agree with the rationale, it worked, and it could work in the states if not for rampant transphobia and short-sightedness…

Some queer activists in the States already want us to follow suit.

+ The Advocate is preparing for this week’s expected Supreme Court decision on DOMA by collecting stories of gay partnerships in need of a smart choice from the judges’ bench. This binational lesbian couple responded to the call.

In August of this year, I will have to return to the U.S. for work and to settle a home in Florida. My partner will be permitted to visit me for 90 days, the same time allotted a tourist. Whenever my partner is asked by U.S. immigration why she’s coming into the country, she tells them she’s visiting a friend. Certainly, if she were to say she’s coming to see her “wife,” it would raise a red flag, and she could be denied entry.

We have fought too hard and long to slip back into the closet.

photo by Stephanie Berger for The New York Times

+ In Kentucky, the unlikely source for a request for gay marriage recognition is a murder trial.

+ A majority of Americans want marriage equality, and a majority also want it to be decided by the states. Excuse me while I rip all of my really nice hair out imagining a world in which things continue to be decided state-by-state prior to a successful national dialogue on an issue! (A majority of older Americans support the existence of homolove as well!)

+ In the UK, the House of Lords approved a marriage equality bill. In other news, House of Lords sounds so much better than Congress. Could just be that I’m always #Lording, though.

+ Surprise! Gay couples are poorer than straight ones.

Gay and lesbian Americans are often portrayed and stereotyped as disproportionately affluent, but it’s more likely that relatively affluent gay people are simply more visible. A new report by V. Lee Badgett, Laura E. Durso, and Alyssa Schneebaum for the Williams Institute at UCLA shows that in many respects LGBT couples are actually more economically stressed than their straight counterparts.

There’s a little bit of an apples and oranges comparison here because they’re comparing all same-sex couples to married opposite-sex couples and among heterosexuals the married are more affluent than the unmarried. But then again, with LGBT couples legally barred from marrying in most of the country it’s hard to know what else you would do.

+ Jane Lynch is getting divorced.

+ People in 1932 said the darndest things about gay marriage that probably had long-lasting implications for our place in the world today!

+ You’re having a lesbian. So um, time to get on the gay marriage train already.

LGBT In The South

Have question about LGBT organizing in the south, get answer.

From the recent spike in hate crimes against queer and transgender folks to the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on the Defense of Marriage Act, LGBT rights have been in the news a lot lately. For generations the South has been fertile ground for innovative organizing strategies, and that’s certainly the case in today’s world of working toward equity in LGBT communities. This week Colorlines.com’s publisher, the Applied Research Center, released our latest briefing paper on LGBT and racial justice organiainzg. “Better Together in the South: Building Movements Accross Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation” is an important look at those working at the intersection of rights and racial justice. More directly, it showcases the work of an engaged cohort of groups who work on issue areas that range from employment, religion, immigration, and police reform — just to name a few.

Starting next week, we want you — yes, you — to be part of the conversation.

“We’re A Movement, Not a Market”

Chicken Soup for Your Radical, Anti-Capitalist Soul.

You don’t have to have radical politics to see how Pride’s corporate sponsorships hurt LGBTQ people of all ages. We as queer people suffer disproportionately from addiction and substance abuse. Drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes are deeply embedded in the culture of gay bars and social events, and are also frequently used as a coping mechanism for the discrimination and violence LGBTQ people face. Naturally, booze and cigarette companies sponsor every city’s Pride celebrations, guaranteeing many queers’ lifelong dependency on their products. How do we expect queer youth who face bullying, family rejection, job discrimination, and violence to rise up against these factors to live long, healthy lives if we celebrate companies who don’t give a fuck about them?  …

Our values aren’t defined by those with wealth. Our pride isn’t legitimized by corporate sponsorships. This isn’t a parade for straight people or white culture, even though we elected Mayor Menino to honor as Grand Marshal. So what does Pride look like without these corporations and politicians’ stamp of approval? What does it look like when it’s all the beauty and messiness of all LGBTQ people?

Get Into It

+ The Postwoman needs your help:

A single mom develops the courage to confront her ex-husband, dysfunctional family, and teenage daughter about her secret life with another woman.

+ This Kickstarter for all-women miniatures, though, does not.

There are plenty of shitty Kickstarter projects (depending on your tolerance for New Jersey, Zach Braff’s Garden State follow up is among them), but there are also plenty of great Kickstarter projects. Take the “Raging Heroes” Kickstarter, which was initially looking to cobble together $12,000 in order to produce 150 extremely detailed female warrior miniatures. The miniatures were to be divided into three separate armies, making for a pretty grand role-playing game of total galactic warfare. The project caught on quickly, reaching its $12K goal in a mere 30 seconds (!) before going on to rake in over $300,000 from 1,400 backers.

+ Nikki Lane, a PhD student in Cultural and Linguistic Anthropology at American University, is seeking Black women who partner with women* in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area (DMV) to share their stories and experiences about the city, the “scene,” and/or living in the DMV for her dissertation. Help her out.

+ The Capturing Fire queer poetry slam is setting DC a-flame this week.

+ Spread ’em for a cause, only not really, that’s just me trying to make the name a sexual innuendo. There is a cause, though. Called Spread.

Butter. Jam. Legs. Rumors. What do you want to spread? On this walk, participants will investigate the language and actions of spreading. The group will spread itself like a virus, disseminating secrets and offering our desires to each other and passersby. All are welcome. Spread the word.

This walk holds 12 people and is presented in partnership with Visual AIDS. Visual AIDS utilizes art to fight AIDS by provoking dialogue, supporting HIV+ artists, and preserving a legacy, because AIDS is not over.

+ For those of us who are Straight Up Gay:

Getting Schooled

This week in Taking The Good with the Bad: revisions put forward for No Child Left Behind include protections for gay and lesbian students.

This Week In Gender

+ As if you weren’t obsessed enough: some analysis of gender in Game of Thrones.

“Beautiful” girls can do whatever they want, and “ugly” girls are ridiculous for daring to want anything. The binary can be further complicated if you are a person of color. Forget it if you deviate from that rigid binary and are LGBTQ. Arya is a petite, adorable girl, expected to blossom into a beautiful noble woman. Brienne is larger, regularly derided for her lack of femininity, and mocked for even desiring to have a husband and a family. The juxtaposition of Arya Stark and Brienne of Tarth highlights the two-headed coin of societal beauty standards and the objectification of women used as a tool to disempower.

However, ending the analysis there, writing them off as simple “tomboy” and “butch” stereotypes, does the depths of their characters no justice. Arya and Brienne do have a lot in common in that they defy gender-roles, are fierce warriors, and are women. However, the path they took to those similarities has been quite different, marked by a disparity in privilege and appearance.

+ The Bureau of Prisons keeps a list of 61 inmates with “Gender Identity Disorder.”

+ Meet Kristin Beck, the transgender Navy SEAL.

+ In New York City, police are failing to keep LGBTQ people safe – and are consistently hostile towards transgender women of color.

“We receive reports and work with survivors all the time who tell us they were profiled–generally these are transgender women–by the NYPD as sex workers, stopped because of profiling, and searched,” Sharon Stapel, AVP’s executive director, tells the Voice. “If a condom is found on them, that condom is taken as evidence as intent to engage in prostitution. Many survivors of violence tell us that makes them hesitant to carry condoms.”

Kerri, an African-American transgender woman who did not want to reveal her real name, says that in the two years she’s lived in New York, she’s been stopped 15 times.

“It happens a lot,” she says. “Especially with black or Latina transgenders–it’s like you have a sticker on your head without even knowing it’s there.”

Queer-Ass Zombies

Inside “a suicidal, gay, post-zombie story.”

F*ck This Shit

+ The Salvation Army thinks gay parents should die. Wait, what?

The Salvation Army has been outspoken in the past, but Andrew Craibe, a Salvation Army Media Relations Director, might have taken things a step too far. Appearing on radio show hosted by journalist Serena Ryan, Craibe expressed the company’s views on the LGBT community and gay parents and when asked whether gays should be put to death, his response was shocking.

+ In Louisiana, where marriage and civil unions are not options for LGB folks, you must now be married to be eligible for surrogacy. Someone’s baby parent pool just got boring real quick.

+ An all-male panel on a BBC talk show tried to think up ways to turn lesbian presenter Clare Balding straight. Turns out they fail to be able to complete rational thought, though.

+ Lauryn Hill wasn’t talking about gay people, you guys. She was talking about neurotic people. Being negative about Lauryn Hill breaks my heart so this is the end of this segment.

We Sorta Won a Thing: Taxation and the Long Fight for Marriage Equality in Germany

By Lina and Maria

When I heard the news about a new kind of civil union for same-sex couples being written into law back in 2001, I was a newly out 14-year-old kid. I’d  just come home from school and up to this point had been blissfully unaware of the legal implications of being a queer person in a heterosexist world. Ever since that day I have belonged to a privileged generation of LGBT-folks that grew up knowing that their country acknowledges their relationships  at least to some degree.

As it turns out though, the original law wasn’t really something to get all that excited about; though it permits civil unions (which go by one of the most unromantic names in the history of holy matrimony – registered life-partnerships) it’s still very discriminatory. For example, it isn’t possible for same-sex couples to adopt children together, insemination for non-married women is not legal and until a few months ago people couldn’t adopt their same-sex partners’ adopted children. Basically, the existing law for same-sex unions has been a huge, flawed compromise for the past 12 years. But now it’s going to change, one big chunk at a time.

The fight for marriage equality in Germany started much earlier than 2001:

Since then, almost every important German party has changed their stance on marriage equality. Abolishing two separate institutions in favor of marriage for everyone would be even closer if it wasn’t for the now again ruling Christian Democratic Union and our chancellor Merkel, who has time and again chosen to take the side of her more conservative party-members. Change is especially hard to come by when the constitution states that “marriage and family” – whatever that is – are to be especially protected under the law. And – big surprise – a lot of people still interpret the “marriage and family” part as two straight people making their own biological babies. So what’s a queer to do? File an exhausting lot of lawsuits against their own country!

Which takes us to our current situation: ruling after ruling by a kick-ass Federal Constitutional Court is slowly forcing our very resistant government to take action. This is much-needed progress because even though our minister of foreign affairs, Guido Westerwelle, is gay, this government has done little for LGBT people that it wasn’t forced to do – and even then it has a tendency to drag things out. Surprisingly though, even in the more conservative German parties, there are people like our Federal Minister of Labour and Social Affairs, Ursula von der Leyen, who are now speaking out in favor of marriage equality.

guido westerwelle: I’d be more happy for him if he wouldn’t be such a ignorant DB

In February the court ruled that the existing ban on gay couples adopting each other’s children is unconstitutional. But the bigger decision was yet to come. This ruling would finally pave the way for a more thorough redefinition of marriage and family in Germany and it was on everyone’s favorite topic: taxation.

German family law is still rather patriarchal and tax law, especially  is an antifeminist shitshow. It was once designed for married couples with one breadwinner (the man) and someone who works little to not at all (the woman). Spouses can split the taxes equally between them – both incomes are added, then split in half and then taxed – so that the spouse with the higher wage pays a lot less in taxes than if the whole original wage was to be taxed. This system benefits married couples with or without children, but leaves out people who raise children together but are not married, single-parents and – until last week – same-sex couples. This type of income taxation was held up as a sort of holy grail by opponents of marriage equality who liked to argue that only “real” families with children should benefit from tax cuts.

Last Thursday, this issue was put aside once and for all. 12 years after I listened to the news on the radio after school and my baby-dyke heart jumped with naïve joy, it was announced that tax cuts are for same-sex couples are effective immediately.

we really love our taxes and each other

The previous law was one of the biggest and most incomprehensible differences between civil marriages and registered partnerships: Same-sex couples had to support each other financially –for example, in the case of unemployment – but didn’t get the same financial benefits from being in a legally acknowledged relationship as different-sex couples. A major divider and a big part of the existing inequality in family law will now seize to exist. And because I am an optimist my first thought that morning was that this is it, that with this landmark the fight for marriage equality is as good as won. Maybe this biggest step of all will take another couple of years, but there’s next to nothing in its way now. The tone of the media coverage, like the opinions of our political parties, has changed and German mainstream media tend to depict the changes that are currently happening as something self-evident.

And yet, it’s a bittersweet victory. We are still catering to the patriarchal standards and our tax system still is the same old joke it’s always been. Some people even argue that this is nothing to be happy about because the system itself is so flawed. I have never believed that two wrongs make a right and so as long as these family laws and tax system exist – even if it takes another couple of decades to change them – I want same-sex couples to benefit from our weirdo laws like different-sex couples do. Not all LGBT-people want to overthrow the patriarchy, some really do want to get married. To them I’d say let ’em have it; Marriage equality is an exclusively gay issue, while overthrowing the whole system isn’t. And the most important upside of having full on marriage equality is that changes in family law will automatically include same-sex couples, too.

I so hope that the fight for marriage equality finally opens up other dialogues that are really needed in our society: What defines a family? Why is biological parenthood so important to us? What about single-parents, and what about children with more than two parents? And why tax benefits for two breadwinners with no kids?

chancellor angela merkel

In September we have a federal election, which puts a lot of pressure on the current government. The Christian Democratic Union’s unwillingness to change their mind on this issue could turn out badly for them. The consequences of 12 years of a bad compromise are only now showing; people are fed up with the existing inequality and their government constantly chickening out. Even though Germany has once again only won a partial battle , a sense of change is in the air.

About the author: Maria is a queer femme from Germany and an A-Camp alumnus. She’s always looking for straddlers to meet up in Berlin.

Also.Also.Also: Black Muslim Lesbians in Gay Mecca and Other Stories We Missed This Week

Hello, queermos and gentlefolk! HAPPY HUMP DAY! How are you holding up in this summer heat? My air conditioner is broken so please don’t ask the same question of me, even if you’re just trying to be polite.

Here’s the stories we missed this week while I was opening my windows just a liiiiittle bit more.

F*ck You Very Much

Let me see if I can get this over with fast.

+ F*ck Exxon:

For the 14th consecutive year, shareholders of petroleum giant ExxonMobil have rejected an antidiscrimination resolution that would have protected employees from being fired or harassed simply because they are LGBT.

The vote at today’s annual shareholder meeting in Dallas was not unexpected, but 81% of shareholders voted in opposition to the protection, with just 19% in favor — the lowest support ever recorded, reports the Dallas Voice. 

+ F*ck the Pentagon:

The Pentagon will be celebrating LGBT Pride Month again this year, but the memorandum announcing the designation has caused a stir with an organization that supports LGBT service members and veterans and their families…Although the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” ended the ban on out gay, lesbian or bisexual service members, the military continues to consider a service member being transgender grounds for a discharge from the military.

+ F*ck Hate Crimes:

Twenty five year-old Kevin Kiadii, who in April became the fifth man to accuse Elmo voice actor Kevin Clash of sexual abuse, was allegedly targeted in an anti-gay hate crime, continuing a disturbing trend of recent anti-gay attacks in New York City.

+ F*ck Exclusion:

Even though the first national DYKE March was twenty years ago, lesbians are still struggling to get attention in the LGBT rights movement. Flip through the next gay magazine that you find and take a look at the advertisements. Most of them will feature and target gay men because the writers and advertisers assume that, just like straight women, lesbians will have a higher tolerance for being left out and still remain interested and active. Lesbians all over the Salt Lake valley read Q and The Advocate, but when was the last time you saw a gay man flipping through a copy of Curve? And if there isn’t a strong lesbian presence in LGBT literature, the transgender community has been almost entirely left out.

But this isn’t about a bunch of magazines or where we spend Saturday afternoon. Regularly pushing aside the LBT to let the G take center stage has serious ramifications for the communities being overlooked.

+ And for the last time: IT’S YES FUCKING HOMO, OK.

Gimme Gimme Moar

I’m flying high, defying gay gravity….

Defying Gay Gravity was initially written as my own personal response to fulfilling on a childhood regret: coming out as a kid in middle school. Instead, I waited until years later when I felt safe and self-assured that it was a step I was willing to take. The book however transformed into the personal journey of Gordi and how he comes to accept himself for who he is: a gay boy looking to find a place for himself in the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vmxov8qXOcw

Putting Sexism on the Map

When Laura Bates took on the Everyday Sexism Project, she intended to compile stories of discrimination – not a tome. But now, the project has a website where it compiles the hundreds of stories it receives on the regular via Twitter, and they’re becoming part of a larger feminist movement overseas.

The police plan to use the Everyday Sexism site to enhance their intelligence on where and when harassment happens, said Inspector Ricky Twyford of the British Transport Police, the project manager for the move to curb sexual harassment on London’s buses and trains.

They also want Ms. Bates to repeat what Inspector Twyford called a powerful talk she delivered to police officials, in which she read posts from women describing being harassed or assaulted. The police plan to record it to use in workshops for officers who patrol the transit network, he said.

Stella Creasy, a Labour Party lawmaker who exchanges Twitter postings with Everyday Sexism, said these stories demonstrated that women remained unequal.

“This is real life, this is happening every single day to women in our country,” Ms. Creasy said. “There is a resurgence of feminist activism, and I say bring it on. That is amazing, that is going to make Britain a better place for everyone.”

YSG: Phresh Cutz

It’s baaaaaaaaack. Be there Saturday, June 8 from 8PM to 2AM or be totally rectangular and perfectly even on each side.

hair force one

WHAT

A dope-ass, queer-as-fuck nighttime pop-up barbershop and party for you and your frands featuring:

Fresh cuts (of all styles, lengths, genders, and feelings)
Fresh tracks (four DJ sets)
Dranks (beer and wine)
Drinks (coffee and tea)
Snacks (vegans and non-vegans, we got ya covered)
…and sexyphresh queers

Cover: $5 (sliding scale, no one will be turned away), all ages

Black Muslim Lesbians in Mecca

You have to read this for yourself to understand.

S: That’s what we are looking for ourselves, that we don’t have to negotiate any parts of ourselves, its tiring and exhausting. It’s amazing that you created this space alongside these women.

RS: And I even— like when they say “Red Summer created this space.” I didn’t. I just asked you to come to the house. There would be no spaces if women didn’t show up.”

S: It would be just be yourself. [laughs]

So Atlanta is known as the “Gay Mecca” and I’ve heard that from non-Muslims, and I think it is interesting to take Mecca and take it as this place as a pilgrimage to go to Atlanta. Anyone who is black and gay wants to go to Atlanta to feel safe and to embrace themselves. Do you think that for Muslim women there is an attraction to live in Atlanta and to be in a space where they can kind of reconcile their sexuality with their faith?

RS: I don’t think if Muslim women in Atlanta had confronted that with space [living in Atlanta]. Even though there is the term of “Gay Mecca” nobody has said it as a religious term, even though there is much Muslim community in Atlanta. And I live in a community where there are restaurants, you see women in hijab walking down the streets, its not like it was far away from me. But I didn’t still feel welcome. And I didn’t, its not that anyone had a chance to ostracize, I was already prepared to not be welcomed into that space, because of my sexuality. I had enough at home, I didn’t need to recreate that experience here, but I think because its so okay to be lesbian in Atlanta, that kind of trumps it in a way. Okay I am okay with myself in this way, and now I can look at the other part of myself. Does that make sense? Like once we establish we are in safe space we are not going to be bashed or whatever, then we wanted to make it a complete safe space, not a partial safe space not a space for some of us, but a complete safe space. And what that looks like.

Have Another Drink, On Me

Do women drink too much? I am definitely the wrong person to ask.

The recommended limit for alcoholic consumption established by the National Institutes of Alcoholic Abuse and Alcoholism for women is three drinks on a given day and no more than 7 beverages a week. The study also states that men should not drink more than four drinks on a single day and no more than 14 a week.

Drinking beyond these limits can put women in serious risk for breast cancer or liver disease, as well as long-term memory loss. Despite these scary risks, a new study from the Massachusetts General Hospital’s Center for Addiction Medicine found that college women are 5o percent more likely to exceed these limits than men. While women might not be pounding more than three drinks a day, they are most definitely consuming more than seven drinks a week.

Dr. Who?

Dr. Who should be a woman so that I can be interested in popular, contemporary television again.

Gay Marriage Goes Global

+ Nigeria’s House of Representatives banned gay marriage – and set a sentence of upwards of 10 years in prison for a bunch of random acts of homosexuality!

Under the proposed law, Nigeria would ban any same-sex marriage from being conducted in either a church or a mosque. Gay or lesbian 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. Anyone taking part in a group advocating for gay rights or anyone caught in a “public show” of affection also would face 10 years in prison if convicted by a criminal court.

In its voice vote, the House simply adopted all the clauses previously passed by the Senate without any discussion. The bill now sits before Jonathan for his approval or veto. Presidential spokesman Reuben Abati did not respond to a request for comment Thursday night regarding the president’s position on the measure.

+ Another week, yet another conversation surrounding gay marriage in France.

+ As of Monday, the Peace Corps is interested in seeing same-sex couples work together within the program.

Queer is Like…

Lezbreal. Queer is, like, everything.

Also.Also.Also: The IRS Targeted LGBT Groups And Other Stories We Missed This Week

This week I’ll be bringing you all the news that’s fit to publish while Carmen’s in the woods with the rest of the intrepid Autostraddle team making each other cry tears of love and drawing pictures of bears pole dancing and just generally prepping for camp.

Hate Crimes Happen, Even in Greenwich Village

This week, Mark Carson was shot in the face after the shooter and the two men with him shouted anti-gay slurs at the victim and his friend. Carson, a 32-year-old gay black man, later died at the hospital. He is the 5th gay man to be attacked in New York in the past 3 weeks. A vigil in his remembrance and a rally against hate crimes were held a few days later.

The Care And Keeping of Queers

Andrea Gibson and Kelsey Gibb are launching their new site, Stay Here With Me, this week; a project to let LGBTQ kids know they’re not alone. It’s currently password-protected, but will be running soon!

Studies show that banning gay marriage is bad for your health. In the 13 states that approved constitutional amendments in 2004, there was a 37 percent increase in mood disorders, a 42 percent increase in alcoholism and a 248 percent increase in generalized anxiety disorders among LGB people.

This isn’t great news for the large number of queer people with kids who live in Salt Lake City. Or any of other families in states with LGBTQ-hostile laws. It turns out, many of these places tend to have  the largest percentage of queer people with children.

Homos & Co. Around The World

In what Rachel accurately described as “something that sounds like a scene out of Amelie but is actually real life,” a French waitress stood on a table and came out to her restaurant.

This week, Brazil became the 15th country (and the 3rd in South America) to legalize gay marriage.

We’ve still got a long way to go in most of the world, though. As a small step in the right direction, the UN put out a PSA about the dangers of homophobia.

The IRS Scandal and You

So it turns out that before the IRS screened Tea Party and Patriot-centered groups, they used to routinely discriminate against LGBT organizations. In one case from 1996, the IRS refused tax exemption status to a a LGBT youth group because the IRS screener said that the group could be seen as “tending to encourage or facilitate homosexual practice and propensities by the young and impressionable.”

And thought NOM wasn’t one of the organizations found to have been targeted by the IRS recently, they’re trying to get their piece of the pie by suing the IRS for leaking documents that show that Mitt Romney donated $10,000 to the group. Sounds like someone’s hurting for cash.

This Week In “Conservatives Successfully Conserve Stupidity”

Let’s get this over with fast. First off, people are pissed that AARP likes us. The a judge in Texas ordered a lesbian couple to either live apart or give up their children. And Marco Rubio, everyone’s favorite anti-LGBTQ gang of 8 member, was interrupted during a speech on Saturday by activists who shouted, “Include our families in immigration reform!” Go activists!

Queer Art

Annie Mok and Anna Bongiovanni are teaming up to put on a show called “Body Talk.” Annie will be reading “recent comics from Frank Santoro’s online magazine ‘Comics Workbook’ and elsewhere, that center around the body, memory, sexuality, and trans identity” and Anna will reading some of her work that focuses on “body, rape, and uncomfortable feelings.” If you’re be in or near Minneapolis at 7pm tonight, head to Boneshaker Books to check out their work!

“Bronx-born, Puerto Rican photographer Elle Pérez explores queer identity in rural Tennessee.” What more could you want? I mean really? How about a peek at Radical Transgenderism?

“I arrived at the queer “Faerie” sanctuaries of rural Tennessee two and a half years ago in the midst of an intense gender identity crisis. I was in awe of the residents, as wild and free as the land they inhabited. Barriers between inside and outside space were trespassed in both directions; spectacles usually reserved for early morning hours at queer bars echoed throughout the hollow. It was here that I met Tripp—the first transgender person I knew who rejected the idea that to be transgender was also to be transsexual by default—an encounter that marked a seismic shift in my life and art practice.”

Also.Also.Also: Queer Leadership Lives On and Other Stories We Missed This Week

Happy Hump Day! Ba Dun Chaaaaa.

Oh, and here are the stories we missed this week.

The Gay Marriage Diaries

+ I heard you like gay marriage, so I went to a gay marriage and found a couple that got gay married after their first gay marriage after their first gay marriage after their first gay marriage…

While there are many ways to show commitment and love, Kacey Frierson and Chwanda Nixon decided to do something more creative than the average couple — an “I Do Marathon” around the country. They completed the task of getting married nine times in eight cities within 10 days last week.

The idea came after their civil union in Illinois, where they were legally recognized as a couple for the first time. While their relationship was legally effective after their civil union, they still hoped that one day they would have an actual wedding in New York City.

“But then I was like, ‘If we’re going to New York, those other states are right there, and then we could go to Canada, too! If we drive and take this route, we could hit all these places in a week,'” Frierson said in an interview with Out magazine.

+ Samantha and Kally Mabe, a South African lesbian couple, were told they had to get a divorce – or else their son will be removed from school.

+ The Gay Marriage Fever hit China, too.

In late February, Beijing residents Ma Yuyu and her partner Elsie went to the Civil Affairs Bureau in the city’s Dongcheng district to try to register as a married couple. They had contacted local media ahead of their visit and a gaggle of journalists accompanied them. To no one’s surprise, their application was flatly rejected. “We knew we would fail, but we still wanted to do it anyway,” Ma tells TIME. The rejection of their marriage bid made headlines across the country.

I Don’t Give A Fuck If You’re Queer, But The World Does

Brittney Griner never said she wanted to be a role model. Well, ’til now I guess.

I’ve had moments when I questioned my place in the world. At times, especially in seventh grade, life was lonely and I’d often feel sad. I never wanted to deny who I was, but dealing with the sadness and the anger that came from people constantly making fun of me wore me down at times. I relied heavily on my mom, family and friends to lift my spirits and help me through it — and still do.

It’s taken me a long time to figure out exactly where I fit. During that journey, I realized that everyone has a unique place in this world. I also discovered that the more open I was with my family and friends, the more I embraced others, and the more committed I became to doing the things I love, like basketball, skating and, of course, eating bacon (the greatest food of all time), the more love and confidence I received in return.

I just had to hang in there and be myself.

Long Story Short: Keynes was gay. Harvard Professor Niall Ferguson thinks it makes his economic philosophy flawed because Keynes was smart enough to know your sexuality doesn’t affect your capacity to think critically, and he isn’t. Other people smarter than most if not all homophobes include Dr. John Fryer, who proved that homosexuality is indeed not a mental illness, although Lil Wayne best summarized this theory when he rapped “motherfucker I’m ill, not sick,” so let’s also give credit where it’s due.

Antoine Dodson is “no longer into homosexuality.” Because religion. Duh.

Jenna Talackova, a trans* Canadian model, is about to light up the screen in her own reality series. Meanwhile, in Cleveland City, what is likely a hate crime took trans* woman Cemia Dove’s life.

Google Gays Up Mother’s Day

Happy mama’s day, queermos and gaybies!

We Are America

Obama wants LGBT families included in immigration reform. So do some Democrats. (And obviously, the homos and their allies are invested.) So… what the fuck is the deal. Like. I don’t get it.

A Loss

West Hollywood’s only lesbian bar will soon see its last Pride.

Out With The Old, In With New: Queer Leadership Lives On

As Iceland’s Johanna Sigurdardottir leaves office, so ends the reign of the world’s first out lesbian Prime Minister. But cheer up, emo kid! In the UK, lesbian Rianna Humble is gunning to be the first trans* MP.

The Terrible People Diaries

Fox News sucks,

When Bard College students recently held anti-bullying workshops at a middle school on topics like gender identity and consent, instructors split boys and girls into two groups to practice “saying no” in a comfortable setting. Cut to: Fox News claiming that the girls’ class promoted “lesbian role play” while boys were taught to “decipher” whether girls are sluts. Next: the National Organization for Marriage sent out three very concerned emails calling the class a “terrible example” of the consequences of marriage equality. The school has asked Fox to correct its story, but the “lesbian indoctrination” lies keep keeping on via conservative outlets. This is how your conservative hysteria/total crock of shit sausage gets made.

John Ragan and his supporters suck,

In response to a recent report that Michelle Rhee’s controversial nonprofit StudentsFirst named anti-gay Tennessee state Rep. John Ragan “reformer of the year,” the group is standing by him — responding with dubious claims about his record and scrubbing its website of a blog post hailing him for always voting “to do right by kids when it comes to education.”

Paul Ryan still sucks,

Ryan voted in 1999 against allowing gay adoption in the District of Columbia, but now he says he’s sorry…

Mighty big of him. Of course, it would have meant a lot more 14 years ago when Ryan could have been ahead of the curve instead of way behind it. And we’re sure that the demographic tsunami about to annihilate the GOP had nothing to do with his change of heart.

and anti-LGBT activists suck just as much in real life as they do in front of the journos.

Pictures of Eli

In case things got too heavy.

Girl-On-World: Traveling While Gay in Georgia

I spent half of last year in Georgia-the-country, in a tiny village half an hour from the Black Sea, surrounded by chickens and cows and abandoned tea plantations. It’s the land of Colchis, where Jason found the Golden Fleece, and Prometheus is said to be chained to either Mt Kazbek or Mt Elbrus. As any Georgian loves to tell you, they invented wine, and the Georgian Orthodox church is one of the oldest in the world. Most Georgians avoid mentioning that Tbilisi has been destroyed over twenty times in its 1500 year history, and that Stalin was a Georgian. In more modern times, Georgia has been a land of nationalism and political instability. The recent election last October was the first time since its independence in 1991 that Georgia changed government without a revolution.

This makes Georgia a fascinating place to visit, but living in a rural village I felt like I’d gone back in time. It’s very conservative, for one thing, but also remnants of Georgian history turn up in the most unexpected of places. My host-mother’s childhood home had a lovingly executed fresco of Stalin on the living room wall. Walking through the streets of Tbilisi I came across a pile of Soviet propaganda posters builders had piled up in the street during a renovation. I explained my home town to villagers using USSR world maps, and my friends hiked for two weeks in the Caucasus mountains using military topographical maps from the seventies. Even visually it looks like a vestige of a former world, because the country’s economy crumbled so completely after becoming independent, and the old Soviet infrastructure falls apart more and more every year but the government can’t always afford to replace what is falling or long fallen apart (except in the major cities, which have some very fancy architecture).

I loved living in Georgia, but the people I met, particularly in my village, seemed so old-fashioned I was always too scared to come out and lose the love and affection I’d gained. After leaving I was curious about the experience of gay people in Georgia outside of my tiny village. The legislation isn’t openly homophobic; homosexuality was decriminalised in 2000, and since 2006, the Labor Code says that a Georgian cannot be fired for their sexual orientation. In March 2012 the Criminal Code was amended to include sexual orientation as aggravating circumstances for criminal assault. However, legislation about gay marriage, civil partnership, adoption or trans* issues is completely absent, and probably a long way away.

Yet the people of Georgia more than make up for a lack of homophobia in the legislation. An estimated 90 percent of Georgians think that homosexuality can never be justified according to 2009 & 2011 studies by The Caucasus Research Resource Centers. This is partly because of Georgia’s Soviet heritage, as official Soviet doctrine described homosexuality as a sickness. Georgia’s homeboy Stalin himself was the original creator of the infamous Article 121.1 in the Soviet Union criminal code, which made myzhelozhestvo, or male homosexuality, a crime punishable by up to five years imprisonment. Sadly, many Georgians believe that homosexuality should be recriminalised (however, almost every Georgian in my village also believed wholeheartedly in the likelihood of the Mayan apocalypse late last year, to keep it all in perspective).

Add to this the power of the Georgian Orthodox Church, a conservative institution passionately against any LGBTI rights. The church in Georgia is inextricably intertwined with the Georgian sense of self. The Soviet Union was an atheist state, and regaining national identity on independence was linked to reconnecting to traditional Georgian Christian ways and values. This means that for many Georgians the identities of being Georgian and Orthodox Christian are connected.

Last year Identoba, an LGBTI organisation founded in 2010, organised a peaceful march for the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia in the capital Tbilisi. The Orthodox Parents Union turned up to counter-protest the relatively small event (participants were actually outnumbered by journalists). The situation rapidly escalated into violence, and one of the activists was later diagnosed with a brain concussion. Although police were present at the march, they failed to intervene. Natia Gvianishvili of Identoba says of the experience: “It was the first time that I looked into somebody’s eyes and realized that this person I’ve never met before, and hopefully never will again, hates me for my sexuality and for supporting this cause. It was really stressful, and we were really scared, and in shock.”

However, the media response to the event was relatively neutral. Many of the major Georgian TV channels reported the event without significant bias. This was surprising to Natia and other LGBTI community members, because even two or three years ago LGBTI issues weren’t in the public discourse at all, or only negatively. Through the work of organisations like Identoba, Women’s Initiative Supporting Group which works specifically with lesbian, bisexual and trans* women, and LGBT Georgia which collaborates with healthcare organisations, these issues have been brought to the attention of Georgians. In the lead-up to the election late last year, candidates were asked about their stance on LGBTI rights, a first for Georgia.

Yet outside of the capital, Tbilisi (which has 1.5 million of the total 4.5 million population of the country), and some of the other smaller cities, the situation for LGBTI people is mostly dire. Tbilisi is where most of the organisations are located, so it’s hard to access LGBTI resources in other regions. This is partly because many people in Georgia live in some degree of poverty, but also because of the dismal state of the roads in rural areas (from my village, it took approximately the same amount of time to walk into a nearby town as taking the marshrutka, or local bus, because the roads were so terrible).

This means that organisations like Identoba have trouble accessing people in regions outside of Tbilisi, which is a problem because it’s the people in these areas who need the most help. Whilst many Georgians in Tbilisi are modern and metropolitan, most in rural areas are not. The gender rules in my rural village were right out of the fifties, but a hyperversion of the fifties that I don’t think even my own grandparents experienced in the actual fifties. Men didn’t cook or clean, and married women were simultaneously the breadwinner of the family and responsible for all domestic work. Chastity in young girls was of vital importance, yet I often saw home-delivery prostitute vans openly visit the houses of married men. Rural areas in Georgia seem very disconnected from Tbilisi, let alone the rest of the world.

It’s a huge challenge for organisations like Identoba to reach anybody outside of the capital.

None of these groups really know how to start working in the regions in a way that will be effective, because mindsets in these regions are so entrenched. “It’s a hazard, it’s very conservative, so we’re both concerned for our own safety, and for the safety of the cause and the work itself, because you don’t really want things to go wrong,” says Natia. Most of the contact that groups like Identoba have with the regions is from people who move to the capital from the regions, or go back and forth between the two, rather than programs run in the regions themselves.

In both the major cities and rural areas, family expectations have a huge impact on the lives of gay Georgians. Natia is involved in a study of the obstacles to coming out for Georgians on the LGBT spectrum. The results of the two-part survey are not yet public, but one of the main obstacles reported in the sample of lesbian, bisexual and trans* women surveyed was the fear of losing loved ones. Family is extraordinarily important in Georgia, and many families are more close, and often more overbearing than my experience in anglophone countries. Independence from family is not valued as highly in Georgian culture as, say, American, and traditionally most young men continue to live with their family even after marriage (like my host father). The fear of rejection from family and friends is a significant obstacle to most gay Georgians, usually more so than the threat of physical violence.

Organisations like Identoba work hard to change this. Identoba is vocal about reprimanding homophobic slurs in the media to try and raise awareness for the hurt that it causes to gay Georgians. They’re also holding the Georgian government to task for the lack of protection during the peaceful march last year, charging them with violations of 3, 5, 8, 10, 11 and 13 articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. A new organisation is being created to respond to the community’s need for a space dedicated to trans* issues, as trans* people have a particularly difficult time in Georgia.

Identoba, and the other organisations working in Georgia are hopeful examples of the sorts of change happening right now. Identoba’s educational programs for university students on homophobia, and education within the LGB community on trans* specific issues have had positive results. Lesbian, gay and bisexual issues have gained awareness in the Georgian media. Natia and I talked about young gay and lesbian Georgians, and how the next generation seems to be much more confident and aware. For Georgians in their twenties and older, there were no books or films with gay people available, but now young Georgians have the internet, and seem freer and more comfortable with their sexual identities than the generations before. The climate in Georgia is improving.

LGBTI organisations in Georgia:

Women’s Initatives Supporting Group

Identoba

We Won Another Thing! New Zealand Passes Same-Sex Marriage!

After last Tuesday’s reading in France and Thursday’s vote in Uruguay, it seemed the world was going crazy for marriage equality. But as it turns out, the world wasn’t finished! Gay marriage passes in New Zealand today! We won yet another thing you guys!

On Wednesday evening, New Zealand’s Parliament sat through its third reading on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. Unlike other bills, it was presented to MPs as a conscience vote — they were encouraged to vote with their hearts regardless of their parties’ views. By the end of the evening they bill passed 77 to 44, causing the packed gallery to erupt into a Traditional Maori song.

Via One News

The evening started with a heartfelt speech by Louisa Wall, the member that introduced the bill. Clad in a rainbow blazer, the Labour MP for Manurewa addressed her fellow MPs and audience members on the motivations behind Bill 39-2. Taking note of the changing international climate towards same-sex couples and families, she addressed the concerns raised by the nay-sayers and the supporters. She reiterated that religious institutions would be respected by not forcing them to wed those they disagreed with, but at the same time same-sex couples deserved a modicum of the respect that’s afforded to their heterosexual brothers and sisters. Remembering a woman that had the shocking realization that she may have no legal ties to the daughter she raised for eighteen years, Wall re-introduced the bill not as a way to push heterosexual families apart, but as a way to bring all families together.

The US President has declared his support unequivocally. The Queen has recently signed a Commonwealth Charter that explicitly opposes all form of discrimination which she describes as emphasising inclusiveness. The UK, led by their Prime Minister, has introduced legislation.

Excluding a group in society from marriage is oppressive and unacceptable. Today we’re embarrassed and appalled by these examples. And in every instance it was action by the state. This is not about church teachings or philosophy. It never has been. It’s about the State excluding people from the institution of marriage because of their sex, sexual orientation or gender identity. And that’s no different from the actions taken in these historical examples.

Law that allows all people to enjoy that state is the right thing to do. Law that prohibits people from enjoying that state is just wrong.  Those who celebrate religious or cultural marriage are absolutely unaffected by this Bill. That has never been part of the State’s marriage law.  And it never should be.

In our society the meaning of marriage is universal – it’s a declaration of love and commitment to a special person.

Presenting 1100+ signatures via @nzlabour

The bill ammends the Marriage Act of 1955 to broaden the definition of marriage to “the union of two people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.” It’ll allow same-sex couples to adopt children and more importantly, their partner’s children. Wall got the ball rolling last May when she delivered over a thousand messages to Prime Minister John Key supporting marriage equality. Wall’s bill was drawn from the ballot July 26th and made it through its first reading by a margin of 80 to 40 the following month. They accepted submissions until late October, publishing the Select Committee’s report in February of this year. The bill survived the second reading on March 13th, passing 77 to 44.

Even though Wall was at the forefront, plenty of people worked towards this day. The Campaign for Marriage Equality included over 29 groups working together to garner support on a local and national level. LegaliseLove broadened their role from an event planning group tackling homophobia and transphobia to a national group supporting marriage and adoption equality. Additionally, Wall thanked Prime Minister John Key, Labour leader David Shearer, Act leader John Banks, United Future leader Peter Dunne, Mana leader Hone Harawira and Maori Party co-leaders Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia for their efforts.  Kevin Hague, the Green Party MP in charge of Rainbow Issues was equally elated with Bill 39-2’s passing.

New Zealand has just joined a growing group of countries that are embracing love and acceptance over fear and exclusion. The passing of marriage equality today brings a huge benefit to many people, and no harm to anyone at all. Marriage equality extends religious freedoms, it doesn’t restrict them. When I first got together with my partner, 29 years ago, the message sent by the law could not have been clearer; we were outsiders and did not belong. Today Parliament has sent a message to the rainbow community that we do belong without having to compromise who we are.

Auckland Pride via Jackson Perry

New Zealanders need to wait for Governor-General Lieutenant General The Right Honourable Sir Jerry Mateparae’s  rubber stamp (aka Royal Assent) before turning their eyes to the Department of Internal Affairs. Jeff Montgomery, the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages says that if everything goes well,  gay August weddings are in the cards. Their four month timeline includes amending the current forms and certificates (while keeping the designations bride and bridegroom), updating the computer registry to accomodate same-sex couples and creating informative guidelines for the public.

Once all of the red tape is cleared, getting a marriage license will be a piece of wedding cake regardless of your orientation. Montgomery explains that, “A couple would apply for a marriage licence using the new form to be available on the day the Act comes into force. Three days after the completed form is received by the Department,  a marriage licence would be ready for collection and a marriage can take place.” Couples already in civil unions can wed their partners without dissolving their partnerships. They’ll submit a change of relationship notice with the corresponding fees before visiting a marriage celebrant or the Registry Office.

Although Wall has successfully cleared the way for her LGBTI brothers and sisters, she has yet to plan her own nuptials with partner Prue Kapua. Back in 2011, a civil union satisfied her needs for formality, so she is no rush to change her relationship. But if they do decide to celebrate her hard work, she won’t be the only one there as several celebrities and over a thousand Australians have promised to fully celebrate New Zealand’s win.

Two-thirds of parliament have endorsed marriage equality. It shows that we are building on our human rights as a country. – Louisa Wall

Femen vs. Muslimah Pride: Fighting for the Voices (and Bodies) of Muslim Women

It starts on October 2011. Egyptian blogger Alia Magda Elmahdy pohsts a photo of herself nude, along with a barrage of nude artwork and a message:

“Put on trial the artists’ models who posed nude for art schools until the early 70s, hide the art books and destroy the nude statues of antiquity, then undress and stand before a mirror and burn your bodies that you despise to forever rid yourselves of your sexual hangups before you direct your humiliation and chauvinism and dare to try to deny me my freedom UPof expression.”

At the time, street harassment was at a fever pitch, the military was forcing “virginity tests” on female dissidents, and there was no organizing around it.

What she did was comparable to the actions of Mohamed Bouazizi, the man whose self-immolation in Tunisia a year earlier started Arab Spring. Both used their bodies to shock society out of complacency and towards change. After Elmahdy’s statement, Egyptians began holding rallies against sexual violence, and demanding greater accountability. Virginity tests are now over.

However, while Bouazizi has been lionized across the Muslim and Arab world, Elmahdy was vilified (even by liberal secularists), received death threats, and was forced to leave the country. Egypt still has a long way to go with women’s rights.

Let me be frank: I’m a first generation Egyptian-American. My entire extended family lives in Egypt, including aunts, cousins, nieces, and in-laws. The issue of how women in Egypt are treated is a very personal one. Because of this, I supported Aliaa Elmahdy, and hated the craven way Egyptian liberals disavowed her in a cheap bid for votes. I may never live to see her get her due in Egypt, and that’s shameful.

The following year, she joined Femen, a Ukraine-based feminist organization, which specializes in “sextremism” as a means of political action. And, earlier this year, Amina Tyler, a Femen activist in Tunisia, posted a nude photo of herself online, with the message “My body belongs to me, and is not a source of anyone’s honor,” on her chest.

There’s been growing anxiety about the rise of (often violent) jihadism in Tunisia, as well as the increasing censorship of the Islamist government. Like Elmahdy, Tyler also received death threats, while a leading cleric called for her to be flogged and stoned.

A solidarity protest was called for April 4. Femen declared it Topless Jihad Day. Activists posted topless pictures of themselves from around the world to Femen’s facebook, and held topless rallies across Europe.

In response to Femen, Muslim women created a Facebook page called Muslimah Pride Day, and Muslim women sent pictures of themselves holding up index cards with a simple message.

“Femen does not represent me. I don’t need liberating.”

The page was covered by al Jazeera. Pamela Geller denounced it. And it was supported by countless Muslims, including many queer and progressive Muslims.

Including me.

Unpacking this issue relies on understanding one thing: Muslims are not monolithic. Muslims in the West (Europe, Canada, America) face a different set of challenges than those in the Middle East. And hence, they’re going to react differently to those circumstances. You know, just like everyone else.

In the West, neither Muslim nor non-Muslim women would face what Amina Tyler has. Nudity is, at most, considered a misdemeanor.

However, there’s also a strain of Western culture which sexualizes Islam and Muslim women. It dates back centuries, with exotic (and often fictional) accounts of the ‘sensuous Orient’.

In modern times, it revolves around the Muslim clothing, specifically, the hijab, nikab and burqa. Wearing any exposes one to harassment, even by law enforcement. Bans on burqas and hijabs have been proposed – and enacted – by Western and Western backed governments in the Middle East. And where there aren’t laws, there’s culture. The “naked burqa” trope (where traditionally Muslim women’s clothing is sexualized), is very

very,

very,

very,

common in the West.

And you can add Femen’s recent topless activism to that list. Context matters. You can’t disconnect actions from the longstanding cultural environment it came from. When Elmahdy and Tyler went naked, they were protesting specific groups dictating policy in their home countries. Activists in the West don’t have that context. Railing against Islamists here means attacking an immigrant group while reinforcing centuries’ old prejudices. And when you use Islamic symbols as part of your protest art, you put them out of reach for non-traditional Muslims.

The adoption of Islamic symbols in non-traditional contexts is an integral part of queer Muslim activism. Last year, I painted a crescent moon on a rainbow flag: a way of asserting both my faith and queerness. However, as proud as I am of that flag, I’m reluctant to bring it in public anymore. I’m worried it would be too associated with Femen. That’s what happens when your activism gets co-opted: you lose a means of expressing yourself.

And it’s not just queer Muslims. Femen’s activism fails to understand Western Muslims as distinct from their Middle Eastern counterparts. And the result is that Western Muslim women found themselves silenced. Muslimah Pride was a means of re-asserting that voice, if only in a cursory way.

Yet, for all of my vitriol at Femen, my initial enthusiasm for Muslimah Pride has faded.

Muslimah Pride was a Western Muslim women response to a Western protest. Fair enough, but their back and forth with Femen offered, at best, a cursory mention of the circumstances that led Elmahdy and Tyler to do what they did. It’s wrong to imply that Alia Elmahdy somehow went wrong by joining Femen. Femen’s tactics are absolutely necessary in the Middle East, and its support there is growing

And no, I don’t need liberating. But Amina Tyler does. She’s currently begging for political asylum, and worried about her safety. What is Muslimah Pride doing to organize on her behalf? What Muslim organization is? If Muslims can’t protect one of their own, how can we have indignant pride?

The sad truth is that the people sidelined are the ones putting their bodies, and lives, on the line. I’d hoped the Arab Spring would bring more attention to Middle Eastern voices. Instead, Western voices have appropriated that identity as their own, and continued to ignore them. Elmahdy’s blog is still active, and it’s amazing trove of information and artwork. And no one, either in the press or the dozens of opinion pieces about this, has linked to it.

Well I am, as well as the Facebook page for Femen Egypt & Femen Tunisia. Go to these sites and hear the voices of these women for yourself.

After all, it’s what we’re fighting for.

UPDATE: At the time this article was written, Amina Tyler was being forcibly held by members of her family, in relation to her pictures. Since then, she has managed to escape, and is, by all accounts, safe. You can hear about her ordeal here.

About the author: Miriam lives and works in Texas, and currently blogs for I Am Not Haraam. She’s not very good with bios.

We Win Another Thing: Uruguay Legalizes Gay Marriage

Right on the heels of France making it legal for gays to tie the knot, another country decides to follow suit. Yesterday, Uruguay became the latest country to eliminate laws against same-sex marriages, with 71 of the 92 members of its Chamber of Deputies supporting it.

The decision makes Uruguay only the third country in the Americas to legalize same-sex marriage across the land, after Canada and Argentina. It continues a pattern of progressive social politics in Uruguay that started with the country’s decision to legalize first-trimester abortions in October, which The New York Times called “one of the most sweeping abortion-rights laws in Latin America.” In terms of social progress specifically affected LGBT Uruguayans, the country previously had allowed same-sex civil unions, and had also moved to allow same-sex couples adoption rights and to open up its armed forces to gay people.

Along with the sweeping support – two thirds! – in the aforementioned Chamber of Deputies, the country’s lower chamber, the same-sex marriage bill has already been backed by the upper house. According to the BBC, it “is expected to be signed into law within two weeks.”

via AFP

As usual, it hasn’t passed without strong opposition from religious authorities – in Uruguay’s case, from the Catholic Church, which supposedly urged lawmakers to “vote their conscience,” and called marriage equality “not justice but an inconsistent assimilation that will only further weaken marriage.”

Weakening is in the eye of the beholder, of course, but the law is definitely changing marriage. What’s possibly most interesting about Uruguay’s law in particular are some of the changes that will also affect heterosexual couples. According to First Post World:

While some countries have carved out new territory for gay and lesbian couples without affecting heterosexual marrieds, Uruguay is creating a single set of rules for all people, gay or straight. Instead of the words “husband and wife” in marriage contracts, it refers to the gender-neutral “contracting parties.” All couples will get to decide which parent’s surname comes first when they have children. All couples can adopt, or undergo in-vitro fertilization procedures. The legislation also updates divorce laws in Uruguay, which in 1912 gave women only the right to unilaterally renounce their wedding vows as a sort of equalizer to male power. Now either spouse will be able to unilaterally request a divorce and get one. The law also raises the age when people can legally marry from 12 years old for girls and 14 for boys to 16 for both genders.

In many ways, much of what advocates of “traditional” marriage fear from LGBT acceptance is that it will cause a gradual weakening of gender roles in general, since same-sex couples, by their very existence, dispute the idea that there are natural “male” and “female” roles in romantic relationship models such as marriage. And it’s well-known that sexism and misogyny, and homophobia, often go hand-in-hand. So perhaps when marriage equality opponents urge that it will change “traditional marriage” they’re right – but of course, for feminists and liberals and hopefully anyone who believes in people choosing what they want out of a relationship, that’s a good thing. Because it means that it will likely result in those in opposite-sex relationships being able to define their own roles in relationships, rather than being beholden to society’s gender roles – as well as same-sex couples being able to choose marriage if they want. (Let’s not forget that we still live in a society where, for example, over half of Americans say women should be required to take their husband’s name, at least according to one study.)

via AP

Yet, Uruguay’s law may be the most explicit rendering of how acceptance of same-sex couples is changing the world of heterosexual marriages, too. Some of the changes are a bit hard to explain in this context (why was the minimum age for marriage not only made the same, but raised, and why was it so low in the first place?) but others are not – such as the changes in terms of who can take which name, and in divorce laws. Obviously, changing a law that allows only women to call for divorce is only practical if allowing two men to marry each other, but perhaps the change in the law also reflects a larger shift in society in terms of the roles of men and women in heterosexual relationships. It certainly sounds long overdue.

So perhaps Uruguay’s marriage equality law passed this month is one of the best examples of how allowing same-sex marriage benefits the whole of society. While the LGBT rights movement shouldn’t have to focus on how their goals affect straight people, it certainly is a plus if gay marriage ends up making relationships better for everyone: marriage equality in every sense of the word.

France Wins A Thing: Gay Marriage for All for Real!

Last night France’s Senate voted in gay marriage 179 to 157! After ten hours of deliberations and arguments, they approved Section 1 which redefines marriage as a union between “two individuals of different sex or of the same sex.” Now needing little more than a rubber stamp when Senate approves the entire Mariage pour Tous bill, France is well on its way to claim the twelfth spot in the exclusive club of Countries That Respect Their Citizens.

The official Yay We’re Gay date has yet to be announced, but it’s likely queer couples can line up for cheesy Eiffel Tower proposals this summer. In the meantime, France is working to make society match its soon-to-be laws. During the debate Larousse agreed to redefine marriage for their 2014 edition and l’Académie française indicated that they’ll investigate evolving their definition. Even though actions by these two organizations speak volumes, it’s truly the queer citizens that achieved the greatest change. They burdened the brunt of this battle, from marching in the streets to attempting to show tolerance to their anti-gay fellow countrymen. Now with one late meeting on a Tuesday night, their trials and tribulations are about to be worth it.

Les Straddlers are great at protesting! Front Lucie, Marie, Tara, Amy and Marie-France. Middle: Laetitia, Ashley and Marianne. Back: Hannah, Nataly and Hannah

Some thoughts from those who are in the midst of the issue in France:

Camille, a born and raised French citizen working in Paris. (Proudly voted for Hollande!)

These past months have also been a wild parade of cluelessness, obscurantism and bigotry from family, colleagues, elected representatives of the State and complete strangers. It was a reality check. After the violent PaCS debate of 1999 (Pacte Civil de Solidarité, civil unions including same-sex couples), France mostly stayed in stasis: for a while, very little was said in the public space about homosexuality, family, equality and gender.

François Hollande put marriage equality on the agenda when he got elected. The government seemed hesitant to actually go for it, but when they did, it felt like all hell broke loose. It is healthy, as a nation, as a society, as a democracy, to have this conversation about how we see ourselves and what we want for the future.  Even when it turns into a screaming match. I heard a lot of people saying that they were tired of this issue, especially among the in between (never really against or for this bill). I think it made them uncomfortable, all of these serious thoughts about Big Social Issues.

This country, more often than not, seems to be running on habit, inertia and probably a lot of duct tape. So I am actually glad the debates took so long, were so strident and that so many got involved. All those hot button issues where the Right has been dominating the debate — citizenship, multiculturalism and even morality — I want them to be put wide open on the public forum, discussed and argued! All the pyrotechnics! We could use some ambition!

Marianne, living in France

Marianne with a poster by Camille

I can’t believe we’re nearly there; we’ll soon be able to get married here in our own country, and maybe (probably?) adopt! Of course, it hasn’t been a painless process. In the past few months, I’ve heard every possible cliché about our identities, every possible variation of “this just isn’t right,” based on every possible flawed justification — from the biological to the religious. I’ve heard it on the street, I’ve heard it from acquaintances and I’ve heard it on TV during the Assemblée Nationale debates. Before all this, I hadn’t realized how prevalent this way of thinking still was.

I guess I’d rather know what people think than live in blissful ignorance, but it was exhausting. And just when we thought we had heard it all, this happened. And then this. We may be getting some of the rights, but the fight is far from over.

Madeline, living in Paris

Sometimes I think we unwittingly made a Faustian bargain with the anti-gay forces when the PaCS passed. We wouldn’t ask for anything else, they’d leave us alone and the hardline conservatives didn’t preach about us as a menace to the traditional family. Many anti-gay conservatives didn’t truly care who we fucked, so long as the door to our bedrooms was kept firmly shut.

Then President François Hollande and his brave and eloquent Minister of Justice, Christiane Taubira opened up the Pandora’s box we thought was nailed shut and all the hatred lurking beneath the surface of our polite public dialogue burst forth. I wasn’t used to hearing that kind of poison here and expected more indifference than hatred. And then 300,000 people marched below my window, and down the street where I live, against my civil rights! And again last month.

Many of my friends and I realized we’d never fully grasped the extent of anti-gay hatred in France. For so long it had remained muffled – and we had chosen not to go looking for it. And we never realized how much of that hatred was focused on opposition to gay people having children. Although adoption will soon be possible, lesbian couples’ right to fertility treatments – including artificial insemination – remains illegal, and given the tone of the debates, is likely to remain so for the near future. Even for many on the left, “natural” methods of procreation must not be toyed with. With François Hollande’s popularity is falling, and I just can’t see him spending any more political capital on this issue.

There’s been a frightening increase in the number of anti-gay hate crimes and homophobic incidents. Supporters of the bill have received death threats, one senator had her car vandalized, and the bill’s main sponsor had to cancel speaking engagements because of security issues. The number of people supporting marriage equality, adoption equality, and artificial insemination for lesbian or single women has markedly decreased since the bill was first introduced in the fall. But at least now we know where we really are as a culture, what we are up against and how far we still have to go.

Nataly, living in France

I remember the day we sat around at home waiting for news announcing the number of people that were marching all over our oh-so-open idolized city to deny us our basic human rights. Shuttles and trains from all over the country, busses full of people coming to protest AGAINST equality. “Let’s all get together and spend the weekend in Paris protesting not to fight for equality or to acquire rights, but so that other people don’t get any.” It felt heinous. It meant so many people are still prejudiced, still ignorant and evil-intentioned.

We were almost positive the leftist majority was going to make sure the bill passes. But the thought of all these people still considering us second class citizens who should be kept at arm’s length, at the margin of society, outside of the family, was awful and made me want to cry, because it made me realize this was basically just a formality. I’m happy the bill passed because after all we need a formality, this formality, I just wish the persecution and intimidation would stop so we can have a decent society in which we feel safe to enjoy these rights.

Ashley, Hannah and Marie

The words from the Senate floor will reach far beyond l’Hexagone. When marriage equality is approved, it isn’t just making it easier for citizen that dream of being Mme and Mme. It’s also paving the way for all queers on a global scale. If non-residents aren’t subjected to homophobic hatred, dual citizens, ex-pats and travelers alike can return, feeling comfortable and wanted within France’s borders.

Malaika, a former French exchange student living in Edmonton.

Even though it has been two years since I did an exchange term in France, I still think about it all the time. I miss the one Euro wine, the pain-au-chocolat, the million different kinds of cheese, the baguettes I bought fresh and still warm from the bakeries that lined every street, the croissants that were a perfect balance of butter and crust, the strong Belgian beer. But most of all, I miss all the people who introduced me to this food, the French friends I got to eat it with while they helped me with my grammar homework. The first few weeks of translation class, there was a bet among the French queer students on whether I was gay or not; and once I got past the awkwardness of being bet on, and the awkwardness of speaking French all the time, we all became friends and spent lots of time laying around in the park talking, eating and napping. When I heard that same-sex marriage is now a thing in France, I thought of my little French queer gang I wished I’d been able to spend more time with. I’m so happy they can get married if they want to, and hey, I’m happy for myself too. Who knows? Maybe one day I’ll have a great, big, gay French wedding with baguettes, pain-au-chocolat, croissants and wine!

Justine. A French student with dual citizenship, living in Montréal.

I voted for Hollande because he talked about gay rights; because he was going to allow Mariage pour Tous, adoption, and more. I have never felt more French than the day he was elected; I could finally get married in my country of birth.

Being Canadian as well made it extremely hard for me to have the freedom to be whoever I wanted to be here in Canada, whereas in France, the president still did not feel like gay rights were about citizen rights. I’ve been deceived more than once this past year about how the French wider population was reacting to this. Their slogans did not make sense and was based on pure homophobia. No statistics were added to any of their messages and it was just bothering me that these people could stop the movement from the majority of people that had voted for these citizen rights in electing Holland.

I am just happy that everything turned out alright and that France is slowly moving towards being a gay-friendly country.

Tara, a year abroad student from the University of Sheffield.

Tara and Marie-France

I’m thrilled that the bill has been passed. Finally some legislation to reflect a progression in attitudes! We have to remember that the fight is far from over though; a marriage equality bill being passed doesn’t mean we’re equal. The hatred and homophobia that remain prevalent and oppressive forces just serve to prove that, and we still have a long way to go.

Anna, a Montrealer with dual citizenship, splitting her time between Canada and France.

When the debate first started, it was a stark reminder that I am still unequal; that the lovely country wedding my brother had had in my parents’ village was something I would be denied. So yesterday my first feeling was one of relief: relief that my citizenship is not second rate anymore, relief for my cousin and his boyfriend who after 15 years are still head over heels in love, and relief that this country I am so proud of belonging to for so many reasons, I can be even prouder of still. Of course there is still a lot of work to be done, and still many other rights to be wronged, but I can’t help but feel elated that one step among many steps in the right direction has finally been taken.

Laetitia, Marianne, Hannah and Tara

The typical French family will have a decidedly different portrait by the end of this. Although Senate has made it over its first hurdle, there are still plenty of measures to be addressed on the Mariage pour Tous bill.  Although IVF was already stricken from the final proposal, gay adoption is still a possibility a reality! Conservatives are sure to raise another stink, but if yesterday’s vote taught us anything, stamping your feet can only do so much.

“This law is going to extend to all families the protections guaranteed by the institution of marriage. Contrary to what those who vociferate against it say — fortunately they’re in the minority — this law is going to strengthen the institution of marriage.” — Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault

A Few Anti-Gay Apples Ruin the Bunch in Manitoba, Help Make the Case for Bill 18

In a fast-paced industry where flavour is supposed to be the thing that matters, clashing personalities can take up just as much counter space as the mis en place. Although Food Network specials would have you believe that queer cooks are on equal footing with their cheftestants and frequently trounce them, sometimes talent doesn’t make a lick of difference in the real world. That’s what chef Dave Claringbould and his partner are discovering as their restaurant is being run out of their Manitoba town.

Dave Claringbould via the Canadian Press

The couple set up shop late last year in Morris, a city 50km south of Winnipeg. With fifteen years of restaurant experience behind him in the UK and Canada, Pots n Hands’ British home-cooked fare should have taken off. Unlike other restauranteurs that are being taken to task for gentrifying and diluting existing cultures, Claringbould had actually added to the community by teaching cooking lessons before he broke into the restaurant business. But instead of focusing on their food or philanthropy, a few patrons focused on what was in their bedroom. Although the restaurant was hardly an over-the-top gay smorgasboard, some townsfolk still discovered they were gay and wouldn’t stand for it. A few regulars just stopped coming, but others made a point of teaching the couple why.

“We were asked if somebody was going to catch something off of the plate because we had prepared the food on it,” Claringbould told the Winnipeg Press. Even though that comment is ludicrous since homosexuality is hardly a foodborne ilness, other citizens toute similarly outdated thoughts. George Ifantis, a fellow restaurant owner with no ill will towards the men, said, “A lot of people don’t like it. You don’t know what they’re doing in the kitchen.” Aaron Kleinsasser spoke to the Press after he left another restaurant, “They should get the hell out of here. I don’t really like them — the service and who they are. I agree (they should leave). It makes you feel uncomfortable. I’ve been in there twice, I believe, and I regret it. I’m never going to go back there again.”

Sadly, similar viewpoints are being echoed elsewhere in the province. Even though Canada is supposed to be a gay-friendly country (after all, gay marriage has been legal since 2004!), tolerance isn’t always apparent. On Easter Sunday, Chris McNally woke up to find his Winnipeg house defaced with homophobic slurs. The openly gay man had never been attacked before.”[I was] just sick to my stomach that someone or some people can be like that still.” Both of these incidents underline the need for change by emphasizing how outdated and close-minded citizens can be.

via CBC

But all of that intolerance starts somewhere, so the NDP can hopefully curtail it by influencing the next generation. Last December, Education Minister Nancy Allen proposed Bill 18 or the Public Schools Amendment Act (Safe and Inclusive Schools) to take a serious approach to bullying and intolerance. The bill looks to codify a firm stance against all forms of bullying by students, teachers and volunteers alike, whether online or offline, at school or at home and whether it’s based on gender, race, ability or sexual orientation. The bill includes a clause ensuring that students can establish a GSA at any learning institution and provide a safe haven to all bullying victims.

Although the bill is meant to “promote the acceptance of and respect for others in a safe, caring and inclusive school environment,” most critics are focusing on the the GSA clause. A large number of Manitobans have blasted the bill from religious institutions that don’t want GSAs in their schools to Christian groups that believe gay bullying isn’t that big of a problem to political opponents that believe that religious students are the ones that need protection.But although they’re louder, gay-friendly citizens are managing to make their voice heard. In a rally last week, parents and children thanked the government for supporting the otherwise voiceless students. Evan Wiens, a student who has become a lightning rod in his hometown after attempting to start a GSA, sums up the problem, “They should not have to feel ashamed, and they should not have to feel like they have to hide themselves.” As it stands, bullying in all of its forms shouldn’t exist for students or adults.

Today, it’s clear that the work Bill 18 intends to accomplish is very necessary. Even though Morris’ mayor and several citizens have come out in favour of the Pot n Hands and shamed the intolerance, the bigots’ words cut a bit too deep for Claringbould and his partner. “Both of us understand this small group of individuals don’t represent the community of Morris and surrounding communities as a whole. But by no means are we ashamed of who we are and how we live.” For now, the couple is taking the disappointment in stride choosing to cut their losses and move on. Pot n Hands will serve its final meal on April 14th before the owners relocate to a different city. Meanwhile, McNally doesn’t have the option to leave, and has no choice but to stick around and paint over the slurs at his own expense. At a time when discussion of gay marriage is at an all-time high in North America, these incidents remind us that there’s plenty of hard work still to be done, and plenty of cultural and legislative hurdles for queer people to navigate when it comes to experiencing basic safety and respect in their communities. But hopefully when the legislature resumes on April 16th, Bill 18 will pass, helping to create a new batch of accepting and supportive citizens graduating from Manitoba’s school system.

More Than Words: Mexican Supreme Court Calls A Homophobic Slur A Homophobic Slur

Welcome to the ninth installment of More Than Words, where I take queer words of all sorts and smash them apart and see what makes them tick. Every week I’ll be dissecting a different word, trying to figure out where it came from, how it has evolved, where it might be going, and what it all means. It’s like reading the dictionary through a prism. Feel free to send word suggestions to cara@autostraddle.com.

Header by Rory Midhani

One of the dangers of publishing a newspaper called Intolerancia: you might get sued for intolerancia. Enrique Núñez Quiroz, who holds that job, found this out the hard way after he published an editorial in 2009 calling Prida Huerta, the publisher of rival Puebla paper Sintesis, puñal and all of Huerta’s writers maricones. In 2010, Huerta sued Quiroz for moral damage” (the Mexican equivalent of defamation); Huerta won and Quiroz appealed, enough times that the case made it all the way to the Mexican Supreme Court. Earlier this month, after deliberating hard and long over “the complex conflict between freedom of expression and discriminatory demonstrations — a first for Mexican jurisprudence,” the First Chamber of the Court ruled 3-2 in favor of Huerta, finding that since these words are homophobic, they don’t count as protected speech. What are these words? What’s going to happen to them now? Where did they come from, and what more do they mean now that they’ve been set apart?

The word maricón might ring a bell. I don’t speak Spanish at all and yet it still sets off alarms for me. University of Colorado linguist Sara Balder translates it approximately as “big Mary” and casts it as “by far the most frequently used heterosexist address term” in Spanish-speaking countries. Like most slang, it means different things depending on where it’s said and who’s saying it. In Mexico, it can be roughly pinpointed at the intersection between “gay person,” “bad person,” and “coward.” Like much slang, its potential to wound or incite falls on a wide spectrum — it’s bandied about jokingly (of course, not at all harmlessly) on school playgrounds, “that’s-so-gay”-style, but it’s also the slur that drove closeted boxer Emile Griffith to beat his taunter and opponent Benny Paret to death in 1962. It was supposedly Fidel Castro’s ultimate insult: legend has it he sent Gabriel García Márquez to leaders in Panama and Spain with the short message “Dice Fidel que usted es un maricón” (“Fidel says you are a maricón” — the ugliest sentence Márquez was ever involved with, I’d guess).

NO, ESCOBAR, NOT FOUR FOR YOU {VIA NY DAILY NEWS}

It’s a thoroughly modern slur in that it’s even caused famous people to give emergency press conferences: namely former Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Richardson, who drew flack for saying it on Don Imus’s show in 2007, and Toronto Blue Jay shortstop Yunel Escobar, who was suspended for three games last fall after he wrote it on his eyeblack. Both later “apologized” by saying that they considered the word to simply mean “effeminate,” not bad-and-gay (because, you know, that’s not problematic! As Jay Michaelson of the Daily Beast says, “Maybe maricón’s real target isn’t gays, but women”). Puñal means “dagger,” and is slang for, roughly, a deceitful gay man.

But now, if a newspaper in Mexico calls you either of these things you can sue and you’ll probably win. Although this ruling will not inspire any hard and fast laws — because of how the Mexican judicial system is set up, the same issue has to arise several times, in several states, before a binding precedent is set — it will, at least, set the tone for future cases. And there may be a lot of those; Two attorneys predicted “a cascade” of similar lawsuits now that the ruling has hit the books.

THE FIRST CHAMBERS {VIA CUARTOSCURO}

Others hope that their decision will have further-reaching effects. According to the Associated Press, “the resolution was praised by the Mexican gay and lesbian community and anti-discrimination activists as a step forward in the fight for equality in this conservative country rife with machismo.” Alejandro Brito, the head of a gay rights group called Letter S, thinks it will have a positive effect on the media, and CONAPRED (Conseja Nacional para Prevenir la Discriminacion, or the National Council to Prevent Discrimination) thinks it will set, at the very least, a social precedent, and “clarify the public discussion of the validity of sending messages based on hate speech.” Fernando del Collado, a journalist and homophobia expert, was pleasantly surprised by the ruling, but says that detailed and far-reaching legislation will be required to actually combat a discriminatory tradition that, as in most countries, appears everywhere from “football stadiums to church pulpits and political discourse.” Critics in the opposite direction call the decision “ridiculous” and say it sets up a slippery slope of censorship that will lead to a long blacklist of words.

THIS IS WHAT GAY CENSORSHIP LOOKS LIKE

I’m a U.S. citizen, which makes me incredibly skeptical of any limitations on freedom of speech. But it also makes me crush pretty hard on government entities (especially judicial branches, especially right now) that appear to prioritize speeding along social progress rather than riding its coattails and dragging their gavels. I was very interested to see what the justices themselves hoped to accomplish with their decision. In a press release (translated in full by Andrés Duque at Blabbeando), the Chamber explained its reasoning, and in doing so revealed a decision-making process that seems inspiringly proactive. After acknowledging “the strong influence language has on people’s perception of reality,” and how that influence can lead to prejudice when the language used “takes for granted the marginalization of certain individuals or groups,” the court went on to state that:

“Homophobic expressions – in other words, the frequent allegations that homosexuality is not a valid option but an inferior condition – constitute discriminatory statements even if they are expressed jokingly, since they can be used to encourage, promote, and justify intolerance against gays [. . .] the words “maricones” and “puñal” . . . are expressions which are certainly deeply rooted in the language of Mexican society, but the truth is that the practices of a majority of participants in a society cannot trump violations of basic rights.”

GAY RIGHTS PROTESTERS OUTSIDE THE MEXICAN SUPREME COURT

In an editorial for the New York Times last year, Stanley Fish writes about two different governmental responses to hate speech.  In the first, as practiced in Canada, “hate speech is a virus” that “produces enduring injuries to self-worth and undermines social cohesion.” It must be squashed at all costs.  In the second, the modus operandi of the United States, “hate speech is an opportunity” to allow the ills of society to air themselves out, so that we can address the causes of the problem rather than band-aiding the symptoms. Those affected by the speech are seen not as victims but as “resolute individuals . . . made stronger by the encounter.”

Both of these methods have clear flaws. One seems to suggest that silencing ideas will make them go away. The other means that the Westboro Baptist Church can continue to picket military funerals. In this light, the Mexican Supreme Court’s method of dealing with hate speech — acknowledging the ill affects it can have on individuals and society, diagnosing certain words as intrinsically hateful in whatever context, and making a firm statement against them without censoring them outright — seems like a fantastic middle ground. If you officially question and invite your country to question why people use maricón, you end up questioning why the word exists in the first place. You treat it as more than just a word, and then you can treat — not just diagnose — the ills it arose from.

Russia Wants to Ban Same-Sex Foreign Adoptions to Protect Children From “Trauma”

On Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave orders to the Supreme Court to make changes to Russian adoption laws in order to prevent same-sex foreign couples from adopting Russian children. Since same-sex marriage isn’t legal in Russia, it’s already impossible for same-sex couples to adopt within the country; but because a gay marriage bill may soon be passed by the French Senate and France recently voted to legalize same-sex adoptions, the Russian President is afraid that if he doesn’t do something, it’ll only be a matter of time before there’ll be lots of gay French couples lining up to adopt Russian children. And this, he believes, will be nothing short of psychologically traumatizing for Russian children.

Russian President Vladimir Putin via nserbia.info

Of course, there have been multiple studies showing that (surprise, surprise!) there is absolutely nothing inherently traumatizing about being raised by two moms or two dads. Unfortunately, I don’t think President Vladmir Putin has read about how children raised by lesbian couples are just fine and you’re not going to be psychologically damaged simply because your family doesn’t adhere to the one mother, one father, two-and-a-half kids, etc. model.

As evidence that same-sex families are bad for kids, President Putin is citing the case of Yegor Shabatalov, a Russian orphan who was adopted by an American lesbian couple who divorced and are now fighting over Shabatalov. Obviously, this situation hasn’t been good for Yegor Shabatalov; but if anything, it just shows that like heterosexual couples, homosexual couples are far from perfect. Yego Shabatalov’s adoptive parents didn’t split up and fight over him because they’re *gasp* two women; they divorced because sometimes relationships don’t work. It’s unfortunate and sad that poor Yegor was caught in the middle of it, but it is by no means evidence that being adopted by a same-sex couple isn’t good for a child.

Over the past twenty years, there have been around 60,000 Russian children adopted by American families, and at least twenty have died because of mistreatment or accidents. Because of these statistics and many Russian diplomats’ beliefs that the U.S justice system isn’t adequately protecting Russian children in American homes, come January 2014, all American families (gay and straight) will no longer be able to adopt Russian children. While it’s understandable to prioritize the safety of children, since the majority of adoptive parents (and Americans in general) are heterosexual, I’m guessing most of the American couples who adopted those 60,000 children were heterosexual. Again, there is no link between between a child’s safety or well-being and the sexual orientation of his or her parents. It really doesn’t make sense to implement legislation that will ban French and other European same-sex couples from adopting Russian orphans.

via queerty

The Russian government has made it clear that it will not recognize French or British same-sex couples as legitimate, and the head of the ‘All-Russian Parents’ Assembly wants to take legislation a step further and ban all foreign adoptions because it is “technically difficult to verify the adoptive parents’ sexual orientation and their legal status can be marriage of convenience.”

Though President Vladimir Putin wants the ban on foreign same-sex adoption to come into effect by July 1st of this year, it may take longer to be decided if it will only be same-sex couples or all foreign couples who’ll be banned from adopting Russian children.

It’s Hard To Simply Dismiss The “Simple” New Pope

World, say hello to Pope Francis. After Pope Benedict XVI announced his resignation in February, Catholics and non-Catholics alike have been waiting to hear who the Cardinals would chose as the next Bishop of Rome. While speculation pointed to Angelo Scola of Milan and Odilo Scherer of São Paulo as frontrunners, after only two days and five votes Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio was elected Pope.

Quo nomine vis vocari?

After accepting his election, the new pope took the name Francis. Unlike John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the new pontiff’s name will carry no numerals; He will be the first Pope Francis in the nearly 2000-year history of the Church. His choice to invoke the name of St. Francis of Asissi has been called “stunning” and “precedent shattering.” Though St. Francis was modest in his own life, his legacy is anything but. Often associated with nature, St. Francis was committed to poverty and worked to rebuild the Catholic church. In many ways Pope Francis has lived up to his new namesake. He refused a room in the archbishop’s palace in Buenos Aires in favor of living in his own downtown apartment and took public transportation to work rather than the limousine that was available to him. After his appointment to cardinalship in 2001, he discouraged Argentinians from travelling to Rome for his celebration and instead asked them to donate the money from plane tickets to the poor.

via twitter

However, his name pays homage to more than one man. St. Francis Xavier was a follower of Ignatius of Loyola and one of the seven original Jesuits. Pope Francis himself is a Jesuit, the first of the order to be elected to the Holy See. Though Jesuits are typically discouraged from taking positions of power in the church, the pontiff was named Auxiliary Bishop of Buenos Aires in 1992 and became Archbishop on 1998.

Power isn’t the only way in which Pope Francis differs from many Jesuits; his order has been instrumental in spreading liberation theology – a controversial belief that one’s faith is best expressed through political and social support for the poor and oppressed – in Latin America, yet even during times when many priests were making progressive moves Bergoglio “insisted on a more traditional reading of Ignatian spirituality.” His actions during the murderous 1976 -1983 Argentine Junta are inscrutable at best and have been called cowardly by his detractors. When Orlando Yorio and Francisco Jalics – two Jesuit priests who practiced liberation theology and were working in slums – were kidnapped and tortured, Bergoglio was accused of handing them over to the dictatorship by refusing to publicly support their work. Through a series of quiet moves, he managed to free both men and has told his biographer that he “regularly hid people on church property during the dictatorship, and once gave his identity papers to a man with similar features, enabling him to escape across the border.”

Fratelli e sorelle, buona sera

In his first address as pope, the pontiff told the crowd at St. Peter’s Basilica that “It seems that my brother Cardinals have come almost to the ends of the Earth to get him.”  From the perspective of the Vatican, Argentina might as well be the end of the World. Pope Francis is the first non-European pope since Pope Gregory III, a Syrian who served from 731-741. The son of an Italian immigrant and railway worker, Bergoglio is known as a reserved but compassionate man with a talent for evangelism. Though media-shy, he doesn’t struggle to communicate his orthodox; he simply prefers the pulpit to the TV. In 2010, one month before Argentina legalized gay marriage and full adoption rights, the then-Archbiship sent out a missive to monasteries telling them that adoption by gay people is “discrimination against children” and that they were being lied to by the government and other groups pushing for equality. “Let’s not be naive,” he said, “We’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.” He’s also expressed views on abortion and contraception that fall in line with traditional Catholic teachings.

Though his name suggests that big changes are in store for the Church, Pope Francis’s history suggests that he’s far from progressive. True, he’s visited an HIV/AIDS hospice to wash and kiss the feet of 12 AIDS patients and has condemned the practice of refusing baptism for children born out of wedlock as “rigorous and hypocritical neo-clericalism.” But these actions, along with those during Argentina’s Dirty War point to what the National Catholic Register aptly calls a penchant for “growth in personal holiness over efforts for structural reform.” While his compassion is admirable, it leaves room to wonder what impact his legacy will have. No amount of modesty will change the fact that this man is now responsible for an institution of enormous power. It may not be the change we would ask for, but we can at least hope that for LGBT Catholics of LGBT people with Catholic families and communities, a Pope who preaches quiet love might make a little room for those close to them to find their own truth.

The Queen’s Commonwealth Charter and What It Really Means for the LGBTQI Population

Feature Image Photograph Copyright Philip Toscano, 2013, AP

Last Monday (March 11th) was Commonwealth Day! The Queen, as head of the Commonwealth, did some stuff to celebrate: most notably, she signed an equal rights charter, which is the first time in her 61-year reign that she’s publicly supported gay rights. Fantastic!

The Commonwealth Charter represents the first time that the 54 constituent nations of the Commonwealth have created a document detailing their core principles. It consists of 16 articles which the countries adopted in December, and among them is a pledge for equal rights. The charter states, “We are implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds.”

“Or other grounds.” As you may have noticed, there isn’t actually a direct reference to the LGBT community there, but according to The Daily Telegraph, “the words “other grounds” are said to refer to sexuality.” Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of gay rights charity Stonewall, said, “This is the first time that the Queen has publicly acknowledged the importance of the six per cent of her subjects who are gay. Some of the worst persecution of gay people in the world takes place in Commonwealth countries as a result of the British Empire.” But if gender, race, colour, creed and political belief all get a specific mention, why not sexual orientation?

The Commonwealth stretches over 54 countries, and encompasses 30% of the world’s population. Out of those 54 countries, same-sex relationships are only recognised in 5: the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. More worryingly, in 41 countries, homosexuality is illegal: it carries a sentence of life imprisonment in Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Bangladesh and Guyana. In fact, Uganda is in the Commonwealth, a nation forever on the edges of our collective consciousness due to the infamous ‘Kill The Gays’ bill – and the death penalty already a reality in some parts of Nigeria and Pakistan. It seems that the specific wording of the Commonwealth Charter was changed in deference to the more conservative countries in the intergovernmental organisation.

Photograph Copyright Michael Key via Washington Blade

So it’s not as sunny as it may first appear. The Queen might be supporting gay rights, but implicitly rather than blazingly – we’re probably not going to see her decked out in rainbow flags any time soon, much to my dismay. Furthermore, it’s unlikely that the charter will actually change opinions or attitudes. In the UK, it’s pretty much taken for granted that you will not be discriminated against for loving who you love; there are no provisions being set out to help those who really need it, in nations where their sexual orientation puts them in a position of danger. It’s all very well for Commonwealth countries to sign a piece of paper to claim they will treat all people equally, but while persecution persists, it’s just that – empty claims.

However, there is a small consolation to be had here, as the charter specifically mentions equal rights for women:

We recognise that gender equality and women’s empowerment are essential components of human development and basic human rights. The advancement of women’s rights and the education of girls are critical preconditions for effective and sustainable development.

Considering the fact that Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge (married to Prince William, second in line to the throne), is currently pregnant – and rumoured to be giving birth to a girl – this charter comes in the wake of a change of legislation which will give any first-born child the right to ascend the throne. The old system male-preference cognatic primogeniture was not only a mouthful, but is due to be replaced by the Succession To The Crown Bill 2012-3, which is currently in the House of Lords report stage (and will probably be signed into law later this year).

Photograph Copyright Zoran Karapancev / Shutterstock.com

The Queen’s support for women’s rights is not something that’s ever been questioned though, and it feels like perhaps she missed and opportunity to really get behind the queer community with this charter. It may not change much, but the act of signing it does send a certain statement: that the Commonwealth ought to be all about fairness and equality, and perhaps the nations will take steps towards more progressive treatment. Till then, we can placate ourselves with the knowledge that the head of the Commonwealth supports us, even if some of the constituent nations don’t.