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).

Social Justice and Social Media

Indian film director, writer and producer, Onir has taken the power and pervasiveness of social media to a different level. Along with actor-producer Sanjay Suri, he is currently filming a series of 4 short films on the theme of fear and identity. Collectively entitled, "I AM," this project uses social media to not just promote each of the shorts, but also invite individuals to help shape their stories, raise funds and most importantly, become their proud co-owners.

Onir's initiative is remarkable. Integrating independent content-oriented cinema with popular web-based technologies, it aims to spread awareness on sensitive issues such as sexuality and religion by involving people at various levels of film-making, and transforming them from "content consumers to content producers."

"Four stories...One film: I AM," as the tagline reads, is a film about four identities.

(From the website):

I AM Abhimanyu is a film based on the survivors of abuse, G. Nalari and H. Iyer.

I AM Omar is inspired from stories by gay individuals in Bombay. It is a film dealing with homosexuality and its complex interplay with fear, social acceptance and the desire to love freely.

I AM Afia is based on the true story of R. Kohli and her quest to bring to light the corruption in the NGO sector in India.

I AM Megha is a story of a Kashmiri Pandit woman and her confrontation with a horrific past, one centering on the displacement of her community and the search for freedom and place in democracy.

Already more than 250 volunteers from over 20 cities around the world have contributed in various ways to make this film. To become a co-owner and learn more about this initiative, visit the website: I AM Films. To keep track of ongoing developments, visit the blog: I am Abhimanyu.

Patriarchy Revisited

From the film: Mirch Masala (1985) by Ketan Mehta

The Bell Bajao (Ring the Bell!) Campaign is Breakthrough's new and growing campaign to help bring to our attention the grossness of domestic violence in India. It encourages people, especially men and young boys to become involved in this project, and to help bring any form of ongoing physical, psychological, sexual or financial violence within families to halt. The campaign blog is currently carrying a heart wrenching story on an otherwise archaic yet enduring evil practice in Indian society - the marriage of the girl-child. Entitled, "Without a Whimper," and penned ever so thoughtfully by dear friend Aham, it hits us exactly where we live - between the head and the heart.

The abuse of the girl-child in the name of marriage is infuriating and unpardonable. The practice needs to be condemned, but more importantly, it needs to be examined in the context of patriarchy - what it produces and who it privileges. Here is my provocation: patriarchy has its roots in the concept of man as the provider, and woman as the producer. This binary has traditionally privileged man who impregnates and provides the seed for the growth of family, and the male-child, who upon growing up is expected to then provide for the family, in economic terms, even if that means trading his own girl-child. Sadly, as a producer, the girl is considered nothing but a commodity - interchangeable in the market controlled by men.

What we need is to challenge our binary thinking, go beyond the dichotomies of provider-producer, and think of the body as one doing both irrespective of gender and/or sex. Quite in the humanist Marxist sense, production needs to be looked at as both mental (creative) and material (bodily), and their constant interactions in real time-space. Both men and women contribute to this in unique ways. It is in this context that they are also both different and equal. Notwithstanding the tensions between them, this perspective at least offers them the much desired equal footing, for presently even the founding plane has little room for the girl-child growing-up.

India, bell bajao!

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).

Sexuality and Scholarship

It was extremely encouraging to be part of a workshop entitled, "Queer in the Academy" this afternoon. It centered on an interesting discussion with a panel of distinguished faculty willing to share their personal stories on intersections of their LGBT identities and their identities as scholars/faculty in the academy. The panel comprised four academics, one each from Classics and Law Studies, Astronomy, Sociology and Public Health.

The workshop asked the following questions: Will your chosen academic field afford you the opportunity to be “out?” Does your scholarly work intersect with one or more of your own identities? How do you manage tenure-track work while establishing an LGBT community? Understandably, none of these questions had "straight" answers. They arguably raised more questions and provided each one of us with additional food for thought. Nevertheless, here is the (near) survival mantra:

When applying for academic jobs or post-doc research positions, it may help to familiarize oneself with the non-discrimination policies of the University around sexual orientation and gender identity. Additionally, guidance from your academic mentor in your specific field/program/department can prove to be extremely helpful when searching for available peer support in academic institutions of interest. As for the cover letter and/or CV, if your work is not directly linked with research on gender identity, gender expression and/or sexual orientation, then observe some restraint in writing without necessarily censoring language and/or use of proper-nouns. This is tricky! It needs to weigh in both personal choice and the specifics of the academic job that you are applying for. If you wish to be "out" at the onset, you may craft your cover letter to include details that add to the breadth of your teaching and learning experience. If not, you may wish to speak with academic friends or faculty who have known you in different capacities and can guide you through the process. On a different note, individuals with partners may also want to consider same-sex partnership benefits and in some cases, adoption rules in that particular State before applying.

Once you get the job, the next challenge is whether or not to be "out" to your students. Again, this depends on your area of research and your own choice and self-formed rules of navigation. There are those who prefer to make no direct references to sexual orientation during their discussions with students. This is to primarily avoid making students uncomfortable in unanticipated ways. And then there are those, for whom the need may be to put their sexual orientation on the back-burner, just because their research scholarship speaks volumes of their sexual and/or gender identity. At the end of the day, as an academic if the decision is taken on the side of the students, it may go a long way in easing the painful dilemma. As for peer faculty - again, you have to self-select. If you are not comfortable being "out" at the onset, then take your time and win their confidence with your work and investment in the academic program first.

It may be helpful to know that academic institutions may not be hostile, but then they might not be completely transparent either. Hence, think of this challenge in this way: Do we necessarily discuss our political orientation with students in class? If yes, then how? If no, then why? It is a tough battle, and as one of the panellists said, "acts of translation is an ongoing process and in part, the objective of education is to learn how to deal with discomfort."

Good-luck!

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!

Hope Is Back In News!

Yes! Before this day comes to an end, I must record the historic moment that was today: the Presidential Inauguration. I witnessed it with many others in my School, all cheering and rejoicing. The new President and his speech were spectacular as always and so was the First Lady - absolutely beautiful in her gorgeous lemongrass-yellow coat and matching dress.

All I can now hope for is a worthy Gay President somewhere in the world. That would be another historic moment and I wish to live to witness it as well. As for the title of the First Lady, well by then we would have gotten rid of gender-binaries too. What say you?

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.

From Surrogacy to Parenthood

The US and India are the only two countries that offer surrogacy to same-sex couples as found out recently by an Isreali gay couple who hired a surrogate mother to deliver their child in India. Today, both of them are proud fathers of a baby boy born October 12 this year in Mumbai. For more on the story, click here.

An interesting paradox. On the one hand, India is still reeling under the draconian law, the Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that criminalizes homosexual act if not homosexuality itself. On the other hand, the country has a law that allows gay couples to become fathers through surrogacy, thanks to the guidelines laid down by the Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) in 2002. This law allows Indian clinics to treat same-sex couples with donor egg IVF and surrogacy. In fact, India’s surrogacy program is a huge hit internationally what with less cumbersome paperwork, cheap costs and easy availability of surrogate mothers.

The only concern that medical experts have had over the years is whether children raised by gay and lesbian couples are disadvantaged by that fact alone. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine has repeatedly stated that there is no persuasive evidence to suggest any such disadvantage. Phew! Gay couples can now seek hot spots such as India to avail joys of parenthood. Interesting.