Recently, the Supreme Court of California overturned a ban on gay marriage in its state. What's interesting is that California already has laws that give domestic partners all the same rights as married, heterosexual couples. To many religious and social conservative groups, this appears to be another attack on the institution of marriage. It is a fact that social change facilitates and can be facilitated by laws; often it is the case that the society demands a change, and the laws change to reflect and protect these changes. The civil rights movement of the 1970's was a prime example of this.
However, unlike the civil rights movement, the current bid for social acceptance and protection of the homosexual population seeks not only to correct a social wrong, but it also clashes with fundamental cornerstones of our tradition; namely, our definition of marriage.
So the question gets more complicated. Does our legal system have the right to define marriage? To what extent can political or legal decisions be allowed to facilitate social change?
Whatever the answer, it is clear that the upcoming election and storm of political readjustments will have a big impact on gay rights in America, as the people revisit this issue.
May 26, 2008
Apr 29, 2008
On China
" The wave of repression and intimidation of human rights activists and dissidents in China in advance of the Beijing Olympics has also targeted homosexuals, according to China's best-known gay and AIDS activist.
In an email, Dr. Wan Yanhai reported that the month of March saw numerous police raids on gay gathering spots in Beijing and Shanghai, and he said that the evidence of a new pre-Olympic crackdown on gays is so widespread it is clear it is being orchestrated "at the national level." "
~A recent news article on Gay Rights in China
With the 2008 Beijing Olympics fast approaching, China really needs to clean up its act. It doesn't look like the added scrutiny of the west has helped the cause for civil rights in China as much as we hoped. Perhaps some gains for gay rights could have been made, but the recent waves of protest over Tibet seems to have stolen all the thunder; the government's renewed determination to silence all dissenters and nurse its wounded pride may well force gay rights activists back underground for many years.
In an email, Dr. Wan Yanhai reported that the month of March saw numerous police raids on gay gathering spots in Beijing and Shanghai, and he said that the evidence of a new pre-Olympic crackdown on gays is so widespread it is clear it is being orchestrated "at the national level." "
~A recent news article on Gay Rights in China
With the 2008 Beijing Olympics fast approaching, China really needs to clean up its act. It doesn't look like the added scrutiny of the west has helped the cause for civil rights in China as much as we hoped. Perhaps some gains for gay rights could have been made, but the recent waves of protest over Tibet seems to have stolen all the thunder; the government's renewed determination to silence all dissenters and nurse its wounded pride may well force gay rights activists back underground for many years.
Jan 20, 2008
East and West Confusions
No one links "Eastern countries" (China, Japan, Pakistan, etc.) with "homosexuals" in their minds. It just seems absurd. Yet, in China, homosexuals make up 3-4% of the population; that's at least 50 million people! (See the Rubin Article) Traditionally, it was accepted in the elite classes of China and Japan for the rich to take young boy lovers; homosexuality was even institutionalized among the Samuari and Monks of feudal Japan. Also, in Pakistan, rich Pashtuns often kept young boys as lovers, even when they're married, and it has a lucrative nightlife in its major cities involving male prostitutes that is causing some concern for human rights activists.
Maybe part of the reason why westerners have trouble imagining homosexuality flourishing anywhere else but in the western hemisphere is that most homosexuals in the East do not (or at least did not) consider themselves gay.
When westerners say gay, they are refering to an entirely separate race of people who for some strange biological reason, or by the corrupt influence of the Devil (which ever you believe), are solely attracted to the same sex as themselves. They can all be identified by a set of common behaviors (gay men are effeminate, fashionable, gay women are butch, etc.), organize gay pride parades, and are overall strange, alien, and can never be fully accepted by common folks like the rest of us.
Well, Eastern homosexuals don't consider themselves different. Traditionally, homosexuality in the East has been viewed as just another type of human sexuality, perhaps a less desired one, as they produce no children, but is nothing that deviant that would result in the forming of entire homosexual communities.
More often then not, the Western stereotype of gays do not apply in the East, although this is changing, and has been changing for the last 150 years as the West - especially the United States - established its dominance and influence overseas.
I find this sad; if the western cultural takeover had not occured, then Eastern societies could have eventually developed a much more tolerant and gay-friendly society, given the history there of tolerance. It could have, perhaps, even served as a model of lasting cultural acceptance for the United States. Unfortunately, this is not the case. And changes in the East are unlikely any time soon, because even if their culture becomes more open to homosexuals (as indicated by the growing popularity of gay parings in Japanese anime), their governments still remain strictly conservative, so political progress seems unlikely.
Maybe part of the reason why westerners have trouble imagining homosexuality flourishing anywhere else but in the western hemisphere is that most homosexuals in the East do not (or at least did not) consider themselves gay.
When westerners say gay, they are refering to an entirely separate race of people who for some strange biological reason, or by the corrupt influence of the Devil (which ever you believe), are solely attracted to the same sex as themselves. They can all be identified by a set of common behaviors (gay men are effeminate, fashionable, gay women are butch, etc.), organize gay pride parades, and are overall strange, alien, and can never be fully accepted by common folks like the rest of us.
Well, Eastern homosexuals don't consider themselves different. Traditionally, homosexuality in the East has been viewed as just another type of human sexuality, perhaps a less desired one, as they produce no children, but is nothing that deviant that would result in the forming of entire homosexual communities.
More often then not, the Western stereotype of gays do not apply in the East, although this is changing, and has been changing for the last 150 years as the West - especially the United States - established its dominance and influence overseas.
I find this sad; if the western cultural takeover had not occured, then Eastern societies could have eventually developed a much more tolerant and gay-friendly society, given the history there of tolerance. It could have, perhaps, even served as a model of lasting cultural acceptance for the United States. Unfortunately, this is not the case. And changes in the East are unlikely any time soon, because even if their culture becomes more open to homosexuals (as indicated by the growing popularity of gay parings in Japanese anime), their governments still remain strictly conservative, so political progress seems unlikely.
Jan 8, 2008
True or False?
I found this particularly wonderful religions website (yes, really) that lays out the two major viewpoints on the definition of homosexuality, one generally taken by religious conservatives and the other one by the liberal parts of the population, such as most scientists, religious liberals, and homosexuals themselves. Basically, it said that religious conservatives considered homosexuality a lifestyle choice, and the liberals considered homosexuality to be an essential part of their being. Which of these two view points sounds more like the US to you (generally)?
Jan 6, 2008
Here's the thing...
“Many countries grant same-sex couples greater rights, benefits and protections than those available to GLBT families in the United States. In 2001, the Netherlands became the first country to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. Since then, marriage equality has become the law in Belgium, Canada, Spain and South Africa. Domestic partnership registration is also an option in a growing number of countries, and some governments recognize same-sex partnerships for immigration purposes.” – The Human Rights Campaign(http://www.hrc.org/index.htm)
Homosexuality had become the moral dilemma of the new century. As liberalism and democracy spread throughout the world, so did the cries for change. Everywhere, governments have begun recognizing and reclassifying their homosexual population, some just acknowledging their existence, others have already established full partnership rights for them. The United States, the self proclaimed poster child of freedom and liberty, has been out paced by much of Europe when it comes to gay rights. What accounts for this change? Why do some countries accept the changing status of homosexuals more readily than others? How much do differences in culture and religious affiliation account for these differences? And more importantly, how will this new trend of liberalism change the world society?
Homosexuality had become the moral dilemma of the new century. As liberalism and democracy spread throughout the world, so did the cries for change. Everywhere, governments have begun recognizing and reclassifying their homosexual population, some just acknowledging their existence, others have already established full partnership rights for them. The United States, the self proclaimed poster child of freedom and liberty, has been out paced by much of Europe when it comes to gay rights. What accounts for this change? Why do some countries accept the changing status of homosexuals more readily than others? How much do differences in culture and religious affiliation account for these differences? And more importantly, how will this new trend of liberalism change the world society?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
