On "pinkwashing"

"One of the most remarkable features of the Brand cultured campaign is the marketing of the modern nation-state as gay-friendly. One of the organisations has been quoted ... as saying: "We decided to improve the country's image through its gay community." This "pinkwashing", as it is now commonly termed in activist circles, has currency beyond specific gay groups. Within global gay and lesbian organising circuits, to be gay friendly is to be modern, cosmopolitan, developed, first-world, global north, and, most significantly, democratic."

J. Puar on "pinkwashing" and politics. Full article: guardian.co.uk/july01

Note: Original words have been replaced with words in italics in order to remove "pinkwashing" from its embedding in specific geographical space, and treating it as a "thing in itself ... a relational system."

365 w/o 377

Photo source: lighttripper

"365 without 377" - India celebrated gay rights anniversary on July 2. A year ago, the Delhi HC revoked Section 377 of the IPC (a 149-year-old British colonial law), decriminalizing homosexuality. The event also included protests against petitions that could possibly make homosexuality illegal again. Full story: change.org/july04

Bigotry is Unnatural

Cover: Halperin, D.M. (2009). Gay shame. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

A professor of the AMU (India) was recently fired for alleged homosexuality. While both student and teacher community stood divided on this decision, there were some who clearly stood out from the rest not because of their intelligence but inspite of it. One of the professor's argued, "(Homosexuality) is something that is not accepted by any religion and is rejected by 99% people in the world," while yet another added, "The objective of the teacher community is to teach moral values along with other subjects. So no one should be allowed to devalue that." The most ridiculous question, however, came from none other than the vice-chancellor himself. Defending the institution's decision he asked, "Would you ever like your child to be gay or lesbian?"

Jug Suraiya, the noted Indian journalist, author, and columnist, takes it from there. In his excellent article in the Times of India (dt. March 02, 2010), he situates this debate in the context of a primitive worldview - one, which defines homosexuality as unnatural, and "an affront to nature and the so called natural law." He says, "In sexual matters, the distinction between the 'natural' and the 'unnatural' is particularly problematic. In some major religions such as Roman Catholicism, for instance even heterosexual relationships are permissible only between man and wife, and for the sole purpose of procreation. On an already dangerous over-populated planet, such a proposition is not just morally but also environmentally dubious. Equally harmful in a world threatened by AIDS is the corollary injunction against the use of condoms." What more, "From vaccination, to migration, to the use of prophylactics, it is often the so-called 'unnatural' that has expanded and enhanced the human situation. There is one malady, however, that has over the millennia proved to be beyond the scope of either prevention or cure. It is bane so deeply rooted in our nature that it might be called the original and perhaps the only sin: it is the bane of bigotry."

(Continue reading).

This post also links to "Born Free - Born Natural I."

On Stability

Hetero-normative claims such as, "Society is more stable when marriage is defined as between one man and one woman," make me wonder if stability implies resistance to change or an enduring state of mindlessness or both.

On a related note, I just added this book to my list of must-reads: Vanita, R. (2005). Love's rite: same sex marriage in India and the West. Array New York: Palgrave Macmillan. A slight peek: When a Shaiva priest from India was asked to perform a wedding for two women in 2002, he hesitated at first but then agreed. Vanita: "He told me that when the women requested him to officiate at their wedding he thought about it and, though he realized that other priests in his lineage might disagree with him, he concluded, on the basis of Hindu scriptures, that, 'marriage is a union of spirits, and the spirit is not male or female" (p. 147).

On Work

Too many developments on this front. Where do I start? What do I include? Let me attempt:

1. A-Team Year 2: Yes, folks! I decided to serve on the Student Advisory Board, now in its second year. The experience from previous academic year was just so wonderful. Besides, projects started and conversations shared over the last one year in part, needed to be carried over, discussed and given a direction with members, both continuing and new. The new board is brimming with energy from undergraduate and graduate students alike. As with last year, this time too we were successful in identifying several interesting issues in our very first meeting. More on that later.

2. Global village dinner + talk: As a member of the Advisory Board, I was invited to be part of Tuesday dinner + talk at the international resident house on campus. As is the tradition at the House, a community dinner is served every Tuesday evening during the School year. Housemates take turns preparing meals for the larger group, and a free dinner is planned with invited speaker/s. The talk this past Tuesday was entitled, "Understanding homosexuality and learning to be allies." Joining me, were representatives each from the SC and the International Center.

Our talk generated great discussion. The members of the House were patient, they heard our stories, shared their experiences, and were extremely encouraging of our spirits. I spoke about my experiences on campus, my volunteer work and my understanding of the complexity in and around human sexuality in India. From Sec 377 and ancient texts to archaic morality and its role and meaning vis-a-vis constitutional morality, I presented a spectrum of issues centering on what it means to be gay. The end note was one of a just and more tolerant tomorrow, and most memorable was the concluding question, "How would Gandhi have reacted to this struggle?"

3. Meeting with the VP, Division of Student Affairs: Brilliant! The Advisory Board met with Ms. Harper yesterday to understand the institutional framework, and how best to approach our current concerns for an all inclusive climate on campus. As always, she was extremely supportive of our thoughts and ideas. She even connected them to some of her own experiences, both personal and professional. Words of wisdom included thoughts such as, "move slow but keep pushing and continue making progress," "there are always many gifts out of struggle, but if you look only at struggle then you miss out on gifts," and "it is important to understand what your 'calling' is. This defines work and sets it apart from job." For people like her and Jackie, this world is ever so bright and wonderful.

Cheers!

The Continuing Debate

The meticulous crafting of Delhi HC's verdict on decriminalization of consensual gay sex makes this ruling one of the most beautiful and powerful reads in recent times. Despite the hypocritical backlash from an otherwise disjointed majority of whoever and whatever, the High Court's message is loud and clear: in a democracy, constitutional morality should never be confused with popular morality.

But again, democracy is seldom without drama. Now all eyes are set on July 20 when the Supreme Court will hear a fast-track petition against this ruling, thanks to an appeal by some astologer. Yes, I am gobsmacked! While the story unfolds, G. Mistry shares with us her observations on this debate in her post entitled, "Despatch from Bombay: Naz Foundation v. Union of India," Gender & Sexuality Law Blog, The Columbia Law School.

She writes, "... in a country that lives in different centuries all at once, the role of the courts is brought sharply into focus. What should the courts do when confronted with an intellectual and moral chasm that divides the public as it does in such a case? Is it a dilemma at all? For the Delhi High Court, it does not seem to be" (Emphasis added).

The italized comment clearly explains the ongoing hysteria over Delhi HC’s reading down of Section 377. In fact, it is times and discussions such as these that make me imagine India as a giant Collage Country, quite in the tradition of Rowe's Collage City. India has not just different histories coexisiting but also different perceptions of what is moral and hence, both legal and rightful. Now whether the difference in this case aligns itself more closely to the concept of différance (Derrida) or the notion of differential (HL), remains to be seen.

And so the debate continues.

Historic Judgment

"Indian Constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive by the popular misconceptions of who the LGBTs are" (Chief Justice, Delhi High Court).

In a historic judgment today, the Delhi High Court ruled Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code unconstitutional in so far as it criminalizes consensual sex between adults in private. With the HC verdict being applicable throughout the country, India became the 127th country in the world to legalize gay sex. Hurrah!

It might have taken the world's largest democracy this long to review and revisit an old archaic law enacted during the British colonial rule, but as they say, better late than never. There were many who said this day would never come, but it did and how. The legal bench attacked prejudices against homosexuality and said, "Moral indignation, howsoever strong, is not a valid basis for overriding individuals’ fundamental rights of dignity and privacy. Constitutional morality must outweigh the argument of public morality, even if it be the majoritarian view." It also added, that "(T)here is almost unanimous medical and psychiatric opinion that homosexuality is not a disease or disorder (...) Homosexuality was removed from the diagnostic manual of mental disorders in 1973 after reviewing evidence (and) In 1992, the WHO removed homosexuality from its list of mental illness (...)."

Read the full text of the Delhi HC judgment (pdf.) here. Also, the debate which until now was doing rounds in select circles only, is now picking up pan-India on whether or not a legal provision can change societal perspective. The question being asked is, "can the HC verdict change social attitude towards gays?" I think this question is hugely misplaced for three reasons:
1. It is hasty, seemingly looking for quick overnight solutions.
2. It positions society at the receiving end of law and forgets, that social and legal are in fact, dialectically related.
3. It assumes change as some one time Aha! moment and forgets that it is procedural and already taking place, however slow and/or subtle.

A progressive law empowers not just once, but over and over again by:
1. Safeguarding the rights of LGBT identified/questioning individuals. This further allows them to put a face to alternate sexuality and challenge any ignorant imagination of it as immoral or sin.
2. Making outreach for HIV/AIDS prevention/protection/safe practices education possible. This is huge in a country like India where limited health care and social stigmatization have ruined the lives of many.
Let us view the revised law as a start and a step in the right direction. Let us believe that it will act as a catalyst for change at all levels: a change whose pace might ultimately be determined only by increased visibility.

Cheers!

The Debate Diagrammed

Timeline to the changes in Same-Sex Marriage Laws in the US [source: Good Magazine]



"Patrick Farley, one of the great webcomics creators, has a sharp editorial cartoon up -- a flowchart explaining the gay marriage debate" [source].

The Argument

India's social and physical landscape continues to weave cultures and sub-cultures. It is the world's largest democracy and quite remarkably, a world within a world - always in a state of flux. In this land of changing perceptions, the social understanding of human sexuality too has seen marked shifts from pre-colonial era to the present. During the pre-colonial times, homosexual acts and relationships were not just tolerated but also tastefully depicted and discussed. Today, they are being frowned upon and tagged as illegal thanks to a Victorian piece of legislation: the Sec. 377 of the IPC.

I have always wondered how long before the country once again recognizes, acknowledges and legalizes same-sex bonding between consenting adults. While the Delhi HC is currently deliberating the appeal for the "reading down" of this draconian law, V. Doctor, a noted journalist and gay rights activist, shares his knowledge of the legal tangle and the implications of either/or verdict for queer individuals in the country.

Here's the excerpt.

"1. When should we expect the verdict of the High Court (HC)?

Any day now. We don’t know for sure because the HC will only let us know the day before that they are posting a decision. So it depends on how long the judges take to do their decision. The arguments have been thorough, this is quite a high profile case and the judges are known to be independent and conscientious, so a decision should be due soon. But we don’t know when.

2. If it is positive and welcomes the requests of the associations what effects will it have?

Strictly speaking the decision, whatever it is, will be a limited one - it will be limited to the state of Delhi, and will probably also be limited in time too, because it will almost definitely be appealed to the Supreme Court (SC) for a final decision. If it is positive then our opponents who include an AIDS denial group and a right wing nationalist, possibly supported by Home Ministry, will almost definitely appeal it to the SC, which could apply a stay order. If it is negative, the queer rights groups could appeal it (but we haven’t really got a firm strategy for this yet).

But this is technical. If we win it will be a really big symbolic win, because it will be the first time a really high court in India is pronouncing on the subject of homosexuality. Also, among the HCs in India, the decisions of the Delhi, Bombay and Chennai HCs are often given particular importance because they are particularly well respected courts. The decision will probably not be binding on other courts, but it will send a strong signal to the legal community on the direction that queer rights in India should take.

We already have evidence of how this case is affecting the law, even before it is decided. About a year or two ago, a young man called D. Hope was accused of violating this law in Goa. The HC of Goa gave him bail on the grounds that the fact that this case was being fought showed that attitudes towards homosexuality are changing in India.

3. Will the crime of homosexuality as stated in article 377 be abolished in all of India?

As I stated, no. The decision will be limited to Delhi, but its effect will be felt across India. Also, I should make it clear we are not asking for Sec. 377 to go, but are only asking for a very narrow change - we are asking to courts to declare that it does not apply to consenting adults. This is because the law still has use in cases of child sex abuse and male rape. Ideally there should be a new law to deal with these, but in its absence we hope the courts will use their power to exclude consenting adults from this law.

4. How do you think the majority of the Indian population feels about lgbt people’s civil rights?

I don’t think the majority of India’s population feels anything about LGBT people, positive or negative. I think there is less overt homophobia here than in Europe and certainly the US, though that doesn’t necessarily translate into automatic acceptance.

Part of the homophobia is simply due to less visibility and understanding of homosexuality - so once that increases, there will be more homophobia. There is awareness of forms of alternate sexuality that have long been part of Indian society, like the hijra community. There is acceptance of this, but it comes with very definite prejudices some of which are extended to the gay community.

In some cases we have leapfrogged a bit, so elite groups, for example, like those in Bollywood or the media, are often gay friendly because they’ve picked it up from abroad. But its a form of acceptance that comes with its own stereotypes that can be a problem. Also, there is a general fear of people being too open - you often hear parents telling their kids that they are OK with them being gay, but they don’t want them to march on the streets for it.

I think there is some truth in that Indian society tends to be fairly tolerant, though its easy to make too much of this. But homophobia in its formalized form is a Western imposition on Indian society in the form of Sec. 377, and I do think, optimistically, that once it goes, progress in India will be rapid."

(...)

[via Puta: visit the website to read the complete interview. Interview by M. Cecconi and Translations by M. Cioni and T. Kutinjac]. Emphasis added by the author.

Although V. Doctor provides a valuable insight, I am not convinced by his claim that increased visibility increases homophobia in society. His is an overly simplistic argument and one that describes visibility as a monolithic representation of sexuality, negative enough to induce fear and disgust in society (More on this to follow).

Inclusive

It's great to see Merriam-Webster, one of the oldest dictionaries, carry an inclusive definition of "marriage." It reads, "mar.riage 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: (...)"

Not just this, Boston based Houghton-Mifflin, publisher of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, had made changes to its definition of marriage way back in the year 2000. This month, the editors of the Oxford Dictionary too proposed to update the meaning of the word marriage to "the condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony" (via NYdaily news).

Are people reading enough these days?

Touching and Emotional

Dustin Lance Black's touching and emotional speech at the 2009 Oscars:
“
Oh my God. This was, um, this was not an easy film to make. First off, I have to thank Cleve Jones and Anne Kronenberg and all the real-life people who shared their stories with me. And, um, Gus Van Sant, Sean Penn, Emile Hirsch, Josh Brolin, James Franco and our entire cast, my producers Dan Jinks and Bruce Cohen, everyone at Groundswell and Focus for taking on the challenge of telling this life-saving story. When I was 13 years old, my beautiful mother and my father moved me from a conservative Mormon home in San Antonio, Texas to California, and I heard the story of Harvey Milk. And it gave me hope. It gave me the hope to live my life. It gave me the hope one day I could live my life openly as who I am and then maybe even I could even fall in love and one day get married.

I want to thank my mom, who has always loved me for who I am even when there was pressure not to. But most of all, if Harvey had not been taken from us 30 years ago, I think he’d want me to say to all of the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight who have been told that they are less than by their churches, by the government or by their families, that you are beautiful, wonderful creatures of value and that no matter what anyone tells you, God does love you and that very soon, I promise you, you will have equal rights federally, across this great nation of ours. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you, God, for giving us Harvey Milk.
”
Emphasis added.
[via UCLA School of Theatre, Film and Television Accolade] Click the embedded link to read the post-award interview with Dustin Lance Black in the Oscar Pressroom. Black won the Best Original Screenplay award for MILK at the 81st Annual Academy Awards, 2009.

And the Movement Continues...

"I have always considered myself part of a movement, part of a candidacy..." - Harvey Milk

I am proud to have pledged my support for Harvey Milk. This was November 27, 2008 and there were 1,935 co-supporters then. Today, the group has become bigger. The total number of supporters equal 6,471. This is not just about numbers. It is about strength, about solidarity and most importantly about the vision of Harvey Bernard Milk, which has empowered and given me yet another reason to continue the fight.

Speaking of vision and empowerment, Alex Hillman, in his popular blog, has brilliantly put-together Milk's technique for effective community organization and action. His post entitled, "A Roadmap for Community Organization and Mobilization - Harvey Milk" (2008) enlists the 4 step-process, in cycles, to initiate and make things happen.
“
1 - Inspire
Harvey’s first step was to take a step at all. Given his groundbreaking goals, making any forward motion was inspiring in itself. He failed at being elected to office, and he failed more than once. His persistence and attitude attracted like-minded movers and shakers. Some of those movers and shakers came with momentum of their own. Others were movers and shakers with potential. Harvey wasn’t discriminating towards either. Anne Kronenberg had prior campaign experience, and was an organizer herself. Others, like Cleve Jones, had less experience with formal community mobilization but Harvey knew that he had potential, and more importantly, knew how and when to put Cleve in opportunities to show that potential.

As a community organizer, your first move to action is to not be alone. Inspire those around you, and gain some critical mass. From that critical mass, identify new blood to continue recruitment and spreading of the message.
”

The continuing steps are Motivate, Organize and Mobilize. To read the entire story, click "A Roadmap for Community Organization and Mobilization - Harvey Milk" by A. Hillman. Alex is an entrepreneur with interest in technology and its interactive use. To read more: Alex Hillman writes here.

Additional links:
1. Time 100 Hereos Profile: Harvey Milk.
2. Award-winning Documentary on Hulu: The Times of Harvey Milk (1984).
3. My previous stories on the 2008 film, MILK: a. MILK is good for you b. Invitation and c. Bravo.

Act Now!

"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

This video, entitled "Fidelity" is created by Courage Campaign with the permission of musician Regina Spektor. It puts a face to those 18,000 couples and all loving, committed couples seeking full equality under the law.

On December 19, 2008, Ken Starr and the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund filed legal briefs defending the constitutionality of Prop 8 and seeking to nullify the marriages of 18,000 devoted same-sex couples solemnized before Prop 8 passed. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in this case on March 5, with a decision expected within 90 days.

Kindly watch the video and join over 300,000 people who have signed a letter to the state Supreme Court, asking them to invalidate Prop 8 and reject Starr's case. The more people who see this video, the more people will understand the painful implications of this legal proceeding. To sign the letter, click here.

This message is coming via my friend Greg. Please help spread the word by sharing it with friends and family ASAP.

Bravo!

A standing ovation to a legendary actor for a legendary performance. Sean Penn won the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG) 2009 best-actor award for his touching portrayal of gay-rights leader Harvey Milk in "Milk." For more on the film, click here.

In his words, "As actors, we don't play gay, straight. We don't play any of these kinds of people. We play human beings, and this movie is something that we're, all of us involved, are so proud of (...) This is a story about equal rights for all human beings."

Bravo!

The Beginning

The year 2008 ended on a rather sad note. India and the US, among several other nations, chose not to sign a non-binding French-Netherlands drafted UN declaration that decriminalizes homosexuality. For more on the Statement itself and additional links, read my previous blogpost titled "Universal means Universal." What's perplexing is that both these countries are world's foremost democracies, yet they chose to be non-committal when it came to calling for an end to discrimination and abuse based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Sadly, this also put them behind 66 other states from five continents, including six African nations that collectively formed the signatories to the General Assembly Statement.

The signatories:
Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Montenegro, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Venezuela (Source: IGLHRC).

What's reassuring however is the fact that for the first time a statement, condemning discrimination and abuses against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people drew such huge support from large parts of the world, some of which may still be reeling under draconian laws. Seen from this perspective, it is definitely the beginning of a new era. To visit the French website and watch the United Nations webcast, click here. For more information and full text of the French Statement, visit IGLHRC site or click here.

Invitation

[Before]

Finally, the opportunity to watch MILK at the local theater. What's more? Well, I have been invited for the Special Sneak Preview. Revisit this space for my thoughts on the film. If you are impatient, click here to read my previous post on why the critics says, MILK is good for you.

[After]

Dramatic as this may read, but there was indeed a minute of pin-drop silence when the film ended. People seemed glued to their seats and there was very little activity. This is what MILK did to most of us. It made us think. It made us cry. And above all, it made us realize that the battle for gay rights is far from over.

A lot has already been said about the film, its performances, the cinematography and its direction. But in this space I wish to put together key ideas from this film, relevant to different degrees in both thought and action today.
Never Blend In * Make the invisible visible * Out of the Closet, Into the streets * Unite, for the battle has just begun.

"Universal means Universal," says HRW

Source: Pride Gallery 06 [bbc.co.uk]

December 10 marked the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Universal Declaration expresses “a fundamental political and moral consensus about the value of being human, and the respect and dignity each of us is entitled to receive from our governments. The Declaration itself is not a binding legal document, but rather a statement of values cherished by most: the rights to liberty and equality for all people; the aspiration of all to live in a world of peace and security; the agreement that torturing and arresting another human being simply because of who they are or what they believe is repulsive, and incompatible with the Declaration's promotion of respect for human dignity as a mandate for all” (op.cit. IGLHRC).

But what’s extra special this year is that the UN General Assembly will be addressing a statement for the very first time - endorsed by more than 50 countries and calling for an end to rights abuses based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The draft statement condemns -
Violence,
Harassment,
Discrimination,
Exclusion,
Stigmatization, and
Prejudice based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It also condemns
Killings and executions,
Torture,
Arbitrary arrest, and
Deprivation of economic, social, and cultural rights on those grounds.

Already, the Latin American governments and pan-African LGBT groups are leading the way as supporters of this move. To learn more on what countries have already signed this Statement and to keep up to date with developments on its reading, visit IGLHRC website (link to the left) or click here. As Boris Dittrich of the Netherlands, advocacy director of Human Rights Watch’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights program says,
“Universal means universal, and there are no exceptions.”

Wonder, when the erstwhile colonial countries in Asia will wake-up to this fact?

MILK is good for You

Gus van Sant's MILK is one film I've been waiting to watch since I first read about it during summer. I had seen the trailer, watched the tele-interviews and browsed a few film commentaries. Now when the film finally released this past Wednesday, I can't help but pray it comes to theatres in my town soon. What's encouraging is the film's extra positive review from both the popular and critical groups. Particularly noteworthy are the reviews by Peter Travers (RollingStone) and A. Scott (NY Times).

Travers (RollingStones, 112508) writes, "(...) To those who say it's ancient history since Harvey's battle is no long­er an issue, I say wake up and smell the hate crimes, and the bill banning gay marriage that passed on Election Day. To those who say its focus limits its audience, I say Harvey's focus was human rights and therefore limitless. To those who say Milk is hagiography, I say Harvey is my kind of saint: a New York Jew with a screwed-up past, a lively sex life and a goal to bring the gay movement out of the shadows even if he had to be a media whore to do it. " To read the complete review, click here.

The film reviewers of NY Times have designated the film "critics pick". A. Scott in his review writes, "(...) The strength of Mr. Black’s script is that it grasps both the radicalism of Milk’s political ambition and the pragmatism of his methods. “Milk” understands that modern politics thrive at the messy, sometimes glorious intersection of grubby interests and noble ideals (...) Harvey Milk was an intriguing, inspiring figure. “Milk” is a marvel." To read the complete review and more about the film in NY Times, click here.

Additional links - To watch Campaign Revisited and see how Gus van Sant and his art department recreated the look of the 1970s for the film (NYTimes, 112608) click here. To do your bit, pledge your support and join the movement (official site), click here.

So the next time, my mum tells me, "Boy! Milk is good for you," I will not complain.

Born Free-Born Natural I

"(So) hug a gay today. Because you believe in gay rights. Or because you believe in democracy. Or, best of all, if you believe that the two should be part and parcel of each other." - "Gays and democracy" - Jug Suraiya, writer and columnist extraordinaire, TOI (Aug.2008).

Jug makes a compelling argument for the need of homosexuality to be sanitized off the legal and social taints from within the Indian society. From referencing health minister Ramadoss’s proposition in favor of legalizing homosexuality to defining homophobia as a “jurassic park of prejudice,” he argues that its time Indians recognized and embraced their changing social mores. What more, he goes on to claim that “gays are good for democracy” just like the “anti-globalization activists, vegans, poets, and others who belong to often misunderstood and misrepresented minorities”; and that their rainbow is an apt metaphor for describing a pluralistic society founded on the conviction that “freedom of choice is the cornerstone of democracy.” It is also here that he goes grossly wrong and overboard with comparing homosexuality to a lifestyle choice. I think every time we hear of irrational slurs such as “being gay is a choice”, we should ask back the borndifferent.org question, “when did you choose to be straight?”

Peace!
[To read the source article, click here].

Non-discrimination

My recent web-browsing led me to this (acronyms instead of complete names of institutions have been used here):
Non-discrimination policy
The DT [India], D USA, Inc., and The IIGS affirm diversity of people, talents, and viewpoints.
None of these entities discriminate against anyone on the basis of gender, age, physical attributes/disability, health status (including HIV) , sexual orientation, caste, religion, creed, nationality, place of origin, or race.

Bliss.

Everytime I read of a clearly stated non-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation in any part of the world, I feel elated and hopeful of a more equal and tolerant tomorrow. The Equality Forum recently reported that 94.2% of the 2008 FORTUNE 500 companies have voluntarily included sexual orientation in their employment non-discrimination policies. In fact, this year marks the 5th anniversary of Equality Forum-FORTUNE500 project - a collaboration with Professor L. Thomas, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and I. Ayres, William K. Townsend Professor, Yale Law School. To learn more about this project and view the entire list of Fortune 500 companies that protect their employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation, click here.
Additional resources (click on each): Fair Employment Mark; Human Rights Campaign; PFLAG. Also, to read the Obama-Biden support plan for LGBT Community, visit the original source here or read about it in the HRC Back Story, here.