Bending History

It’s that time of year again: baubles and lights, snowflakes hanging from ceilings, the smell of frankincense, cinnamon, and myrrh everywhere, peppermint mochas in red cups, and meme’s arguing that America is a Christian nation, and store clerks should say ‘Merry Christmas’ and not ‘Happy Holidays,’ and those aforementioned red cups should have snowflakes on them. Except, America isn’t… a Christian nation.

That sound you just heard? That’s the screams of thousands demanding my head on a pike. History, it seems, has been altered to fit this image of American as a haven for Christianity and intolerant of everything else. Except, America is not a Christian nation.

Every schoolchild learns about the Pilgrims, and their voyage to escape the religion persecution of mother England. Except, that’s not really what happened. First of all, the Pilgrims were not the first European settlers in what would become known as the 13 colonies, which would eventually grow to become the United States of America that we know today. In actuality, the first successful English settlement was in Virginia in 1607… 13 years before the Pilgrims landed in Massachusetts. Secondly, the whole ‘they fled religious prosecution and landed on the shores of a brand new safe haven’ is nothing but fantastical history.

The Pilgrims (who were Brownist English Dissenters) did have issues with the Church of England, and in the late-15th and early-16th century some fled England (which was in the midst of a volatile political period completely surrounding the Church of England vs. Catholic argument) and landed in Holland. There was a group, however, that felt they would lose their English identity and culture if they emigrated to the Netherlands, and so they separated and struck out on their own. That group got together some English financial backers, a charter, purchased some ships and supplies, and decided to establish a new colony in North America. The men, fearing for the safety of their women and children, left behind all but a handful of women and children in England (because, although the climate was volatile and dangerous, they weren’t actually in anymore danger than anyone else who wasn’t Church of England… and felt comfortable enough leaving women and children behind believing them safer in England than on board a ship crossing the Atlantic).

When they landed in Plymouth in November 1620, they quickly established an English rule of law, and expected all to adhere to their religious beliefs. After all, they left to gain religious freedom, so of course it would be their religion that would rule.

The Pilgrims in Plymouth, however, only had about a decade before the Puritans (who were called such because they wanted to purify the Church of England of Catholicism) landed in their happy little bubble. In 1630, the Massachusetts Bay Colony, of which Plymouth and the remaining Pilgrim population was apart. By the end of the American Revolution there were over 700,000 Puritans in New England, who had kept hold of the religious and cultural hegemony for over a century, and in the various other colonies there were Quakers, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists, and two different sects of Anabaptists, along with the various religions that existed amongst African slaves.

Noting that there were various religions (as not all could agree that the various denominations were all, indeed, Christian…and the religion of the slaves of course excluded from consideration) the very first line of the the very first amendment proposed as part of the Bill of Rights was “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Thomas Jefferson* (a man who’d written his own bible) vehemently argued that the only way that the newly formed America could ever save itself from the tyranny of a monarchy was to make sure that there was no state religion; thus was created the separation of church and state.

Very recently the current front runner for the Republican nomination for President of the United States has argued that an entire religion (Islam) should be banned from the shores of America because of zealots and radicals who’ve used the peaceful religion of Islam as a reasoning for their hate, in much the same way the Pope argued for the Crusades (and we all know well that went). His argument is based on the fact that America is a Christian nation, and that a religion that doesn’t adhere to such a way of life, as evidenced by the terrorists, shouldn’t be allowed safe haven in a country that was very literally founded on the idea of religious tolerance.

Except, see, America isn’t a Christian nation and no amount of internet memes, or protests of lack of snowflakes on red cups, or even presidential candidates screaming it from rooftops will change that. America, as a country, was founded on the backs of slaves, criminals, homosexuals, thieves, women, Christians, Jews, atheists, Native Americans, adulterers, businessmen and merchants…and it has always welcomed those less fortunate, those who need a place to begin again, and those who are simply searching for safety…regardless of what name they give their god.

---

*Jefferson’s actual words regarding religion in the new United States:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Pilgrim Misconceptions: The Pilgrims and the Puritans were two distinctive religious groups…although both shared similar Calvinistic beliefs, they were not the same.

Made By Secret Handshakes

This just in: the Cold War isn’t over.

The above sentence is pretty controversial amongst historians, politicians, and on the international stage as a whole. However, this week has shown that international tensions involving Russia and her foreign policy decisions are certainly not a thing of the past. See, very recently Russia decided to enter the foreign stage i.e. ISIS. Unfortunately for Russia, her entry was contentious and caused some serious backlash by both ISIS (well, obviously) and the United States.

The main problem with US-Russia relations is history. It can be argued that history is the main issue in foreign policy regardless of the nations, but the US and Russia have this deeply ingrained history that affects every conversation the US and Russia have had since 1919.  The problem with such a deep, long, and often tension fraught, history is that everything has meaning. Anything Russia does creates a US response, as it has since 1946… including Russia joining the fight against ISIS.

Today’s students are taught, at pretty much every level of education, that the Cold War ended in December 1991 when the USSR dissolved into 15 separate, sovereign, nations. Except, that’s false history. It’s the history Western countries want to believe, and it’s the history the US has tried very hard to make true. Unfortunately, you can’t make wrong history the truth… it’s false no matter how you look at it. See, when the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, it didn’t do so because the PowersThatBe honestly believed the soviet political system was wrong, it did so because it was practically broke. A space race with the United States that was carried out mostly in secret (which means its budget was never made public, either, and historians can only guess how much it actually cost), an arms race, and a fruitless war in Afghanistan (which, something the US should have thought about 14 years ago… but that’s another post) all combined to essentially bankrupt the Soviet Union. Gorbachev’s glasnost and perestroika attempted to fix both the stagnant politics and economy, but too little too late. It wasn’t Ronald Reagan standing on the Berlin Wall demanding “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” that caused the USSR to fall, it was money. That doesn’t change the political facts of what is now the Russian Federation and 15 ‘post-soviet spaces.’ All it did was create a period of unstable turmoil.

Russia’s economic woes weren’t ended with the fall of the Soviet Union. Yeltsin’s policies couldn’t stem the money bleeding, nor could he deal with the political infighting of rebels in various areas, including Chechnya, which became violent. When Yeltsin resigned in 1999, handing the reigns to then Prime Minister Putin, the world breathed a collective sigh of relief. Unfortunately for the world, they were too soon to breathe easy. Putin’s policies, beginning in 2000 when he was officially elected President, were congruent with setting Russia back on a path toward Soviet power. The political structure might be called something different, but Putin’s never been shy about what he wanted: complete control over the area. He managed to squelch the majority of Chechen insurgency, enacted sweeping reforms which returned stability to Russia, and manage to win hearts and minds. His popularity in Russia is almost unheard of, and the moment he began reforms within Russia, Western nations began questioning their definitive responses that the Cold War was over. The problem is that ‘Cold War’ has such a detrimental impact on the morale of a nation’s citizen that no country will admit the Cold War never ended. In 2008, Putin’s constitutional term limits were reached, and his former Prime Minister became President… well, PINO (President In Name Only). In 2011 Putin had the constitution amended, and in 2012 resumed his official role as President-for-real.

Putin’s never been shy about his foreign policy motivations: he constantly refers to former Soviet states as the ‘post-soviet space’ and claims absolute rights and influence in the area. In 2008 he attempted to reclaim Georgia under the guise of an oil war, and in 2014 he annexed a piece of Ukraine. Putin is very transparent in his foreign policy goals, and such goals bring him into conflict with Western nations on very frequent occasions… the arguments against Putin, his government, his reforms, and his foreign policy decisions use exactly the same language that was used when the Cold War was ‘official.’ The Cold War hasn’t ended, it’s just called something different in the halls of nations foreign offices, NATO and the UN. As NATO’s influence expand into Eastern Europe, Russia’s fury at the meddling of Western powers grows.

Just last month, Russia joined the fight against ISIS… Putin has always supported al-Assad, something the US and EU nations vehemently oppose, and ISIS has started encroaching into territories previously held by the Syrian government. Russian military actions in Syria are entirely in support of the current regime. The problem is that the US can’t be happy with Russian help, especially when they’re on opposite sides of the al-Assad issue, and the US argues that all Russia has done is bomb ‘moderate’ rebels and civilians, but hasn’t actually done anything against ISIS forces in Syria. The US state department has, in fact, accused Russia of making the situation worse.* The Russian entry into the war on ISIS has actually allowed the US to use Cold War rhetoric, and has accused Russian intervention in ’emboldening’ the al-Assad regime to continue to attack its own citizens (a claim that the US has little proof of… but it’s ok, because propaganda!).

The thing is, is doesn’t matter to ISIS if the US and Russia hate each other, or if US-Russian relations are what led Russia to start bombing ISIS in the first place, all it knows is that a military entity is dropping bombs with the intention to eradicate them, and they aren’t so happy.

ISIS’ reaction to Russian intervention in Syria was to send a message. On Halloween, a Russian passenger plane was blown out of the sky about 25 minutes into its flight from an Egyptian resort.The debris fell in Sinai, inside Egyptian territory. Most of the passengers and crew were Russian, with a few Ukrainians on board. ISIS immediately claimed responsibility, but both Egypt and Russia dismissed this. Unfortunately, their dismissal was political, rather than fact based. See, Egypt admitting that it can’t guarantee the security of tourists would be detrimental to the economy, and it would also result in the world questioning why Egypt hasn’t taken a stronger military role against ISIS. Russia admitting that ISIS fought back would be detrimental to its own propaganda machine, and cause panic and unrest at home. Putin immediately took political cover, deferred all questions to Egyptian authorities, and cautioned jumping to conclusions.

A couple days later, the US and UK both suspended flights from  Sharm el-Sheikh claiming intelligence suggested an ISIS bomb brought down the plane. Yesterday, Russia too suspended all flights from  Sharm el-Sheikh, essentially admitting that it acknowledged US, UK and French intelligence that the crash was the result of ISIS intervention. Although Russia hasn’t made an official statement, a country doesn’t suspend flights to a very popular tourist destination without good reason. ISIS bombing a plane is good reason. Only Egypt seems reluctant to admit what the facts show… that ISIS has found a way to attack passenger jets, and has brought the fight onto home soil.

The knowledge that ISIS has moved beyond simply gaining territory in the middle east, and has become an actual terrorist threat to civilians outside their current territory, poses a serious problem. The world seems to agree that ISIS is a dangerous militant force, they just can’t seem to agree what to do. Russia has learned the hard way, as the first mass casualty, that there are bigger things to worry about than Cold War rhetoric and Russian-US relations. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia’s stance on the world stage has always been questionable… and on Halloween they learned the lesson that Jimmy Carter learned in 1979: in a globalised world, no one is safe, and retaliation will come in the form of attacks on civilians of other nations if that’s what it takes to make a point. Russia has to decide if it will continue its quest to reclaim Eastern Europe, and create allies in the middle east which are the anti-thesis of US desires, or if it’ll return to the international isolation of the early Yeltsin years. Either way, Russia just experienced a massive loss….one more for the Cold War that the world says is over.

---

*: this is the same United States that allied itself with Syrian rebels, giving training, guns, ammunition, and other weapons. The same Syrian rebels who are either funded by Al Qaeda, or have joined ISIS… but US hatred of al-Assad is so deeply ingrained that they ignore the facts and reality of what the Syrian rebels are, argue that they’re only assisting the ‘vetted moderates’ (which don’t actually exist), and have sent 50 special forces into the area… but the US insists it won’t engage in ‘boots on the ground’ warfare. In reality, the US understanding of the situation in Syria isn’t that great, and they probably shouldn’t be commenting on what does, or does not, constitute helping.

Enacted Upon The Theatre Of Time

Countries like to practice revisionist history. The old adage that the winner writes the history books is absolutely true. The Director of the FBI, James Comey, learned that lesson recently when he caused an international incident whilst speaking at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC. In his speech, which was about the need for Holocaust education, Comey said “In their minds, the murderers and accomplices of Germany, and Poland, and Hungary, and so many, many other places didn’t do something evil. They convinced themselves it was the right thing to do, the thing they had to do.” Poland took particular offence to this statement, demanding the US Ambassador present himself for a thorough scolding followed by an apology.

Ewa Kopacz, the Prime Minister of Poland, told the US that “those who are incapable of presenting the historic truth in an honest way, I want to say that Poland was not a perpetrator but a victim of world war two. I would expect full historical knowledge from officials who speak on the matter.” Now the State Department and US ambassador to Poland are doing everything they can to reassure the Prime Minister that US position on the Holocaust is that it was entirely, and solely, the fault and responsibility of Nazi Germany. The US ambassador said that it would take ‘time and work’ to get the US back in the good graces of the Polish PM.

Except, see, the thing is, Comey isn’t wrong. Holocaust history has always been a touchy subject. While it was happening the world ignored its existence. When Allied troops pushed deep into Germany and Belgium and Poland and walked right into the camps, it couldn’t be ignored any longer. So then the arguments started over how many, who, why. It wasn’t until 1985 that the world finally acknowledge that homosexuals were sent to concentration camps and officially considered them a group of people who were persecuted during the Holocaust. There are still many unanswered questions, questions that will probably never be answered. The point being this: the history of the Holocaust, the facts which make up what we know, changes frequently. And really, that’s true of history in general. We find new things, we discovered kings buried in car parks, we learn something new every time an school boy stumbles over an abandoned Bronze Age village. But there are things we do know to be true of the Holocaust, and Nazi Germany’s occupation in general: there were collaborators and sympathisers and those who believed Hitler was going to save the world in EVERY. SINGLE. COUNTRY. The impact of collaborators and sympathisers is easier to see in occupied nations than it is in Allied nations, and part of that is implicit assistance in the Holocaust.

After WWII, the idea that ‘he was just following orders’ was an excuse for war crimes was blown out of the water. Hundreds of Nazi officers and officials were prosecuted for war crimes. Those who weren’t, fled. There are still former Nazi officers with INTERPOL warrants out for their arrest, and there are still those being found and prosecuted even though old age often results in very bad PR shots. However, civilian sympathisers, those who helped the Nazis in a more informal capacity? They were just civilians… victims if you will. Sure, a few who had direct ties to Nazi officials or specific camps have found themselves in front of a tribunal. But for the most part, after the war, they went back to the lives they’d lived before. Poland is no different.

Yes, the Nazi occupation of Poland was horrifically brutal. Hundreds of thousands of Poles were killed in ghettos and death camps, and by disease and starvation and brutality. But that doesn’t mean that Poland was immune from sympathisers and collaborators.

Poland had the same anti-Semitic views as Nazi Germany (as did every other country in the 1930s) and there were many Nazi collaborators in Poland both before, and after, the invasion in 1939. There were many who agreed with Nazi philosophy… including those in positions of power. For the Polish PM to categorically deny any Polish assistance to the Nazi regime, in particular the death camps, would be like saying HUAC never found an actual communist, or that every single German person agreed with Hitler’s regime. Categorical statements like that ignore historical fact (or create a ‘falsification of history,’ which is what the US ambassador to Poland accused the FBI director of).

Politicians use, and abuse, history all the time. Historians have complained about it for millennia. And unfortunately, there’s no way to stop history being used for politics sake. But let’s be real: when a man stands up in front of a crowd and uses facts that you may not like, but they are facts (and thus, inarguable), lets accept for a moment the point he’s trying to make. There absolutely is a lack of education surrounding the Holocaust. It’s something you learn in secondary school happened, and that’s it. The facts are something most people never take the time to learn (much like Japanese internment in the US during the war). Instead of scolding a man for making a point, let’s instead educate our kids about the parts of history that are touchy in an attempt to prevent it happening again. And instead of letting the PM of Poland’s obviously oversensitivity result in revisionist history for politics sake, let’s acknowledge that every country was complacent and allowed it to happen. The suffer of those who endured the death camps, occupation, internment camps, and ghettos needs to be remembered, and not become international incidents when that truth is hard to hear.

A Sunless Garden When The Flowers Are Dead

We live in a world where Hollywood makes blockbusters based on books that confuses rape and abuse with soul deep forever love; but real love, because the gender of the couple is the same, is a political fight.

Today, Valentines Day, the wildly popular book Fifty Shades of Grey is being released on film. The book trilogy has sold over 100 million copies, and the movie is expected to bring in about the same number of dollars. It’s billed as a love story born from misunderstanding and a tragic main character. In reality, it’s a tale of manipulation, possessiveness, and abuse.

In EL James’ world, the books started out as an older BDSM wannabe fan fiction of Twilight. What they really are, however, is the depiction of an unhealthy relationship that in no way resembles BDSM culture.  When Christian and Ana meet, Ana has no idea of the type of sexual world Christian lives in, and he gets a thrill out of knowing that he gets to be the one to show manipulate her. He stalks her, manipulates her into bed, and then rapes her (because, I don’t care what planet you live on, not know what you’re getting into means you did not, and could not, give consent). Over the next several weeks he proceeds to bully, control, dominate, and abuse her— he controls her diet, her medications (telling her she has to get birth control shots, even though she doesn’t want them, stating her body is actually his), her friends, her job (she gets a job at a company he doesn’t own, so he buys it), how/when/where they have sex. He uses sexual methods she doesn’t understand and doesn’t like (crying tears of pain during sex, not cool), and then proceeds to ‘punish’ her in ways she has no consent over (including, at one point in book one, begging him not hit her). For Ana’s part, her innocence and naivety translate Christian’s attention, and abuse, into love, and when by the time she realises the relationship might not be healthy she does what most victims do: she convinces herself she has to deal with it in order to keep him. Six weeks from the day they met, he proposes and she accepts, cementing his lifetime ability to control her.

The above reads like a bad based-on-a-true-story Lifetime movie, which always ends with either the main female character in witness protection, or dead. And yet, the world thinks this is acceptable entertainment. Since its publication, friends have convinced friends, family has convinced family, coworkers have passed it around. A book that promotes abuse, gives incorrect perceptions of an entire culture, and makes domestic violence look like “love” has been lauded, and now turned into a Hollywood production that, by all predictions, will be a blockbuster.

So then, if the world can call an unhealthy, abusive, relationship love and walk around looking for their “Christian,” why has this past week been fraught with judicial and political fighting over the right for LGBT persons to marry? If Fifty Shades of Grey had been two male characters, or two female characters, would it have been so popular? No. It would have been called an ‘abomination,’ ‘disgusting,’ ‘horrible,’ and probably even ‘abusive’ by the exact same people who read it and declared it a great love story. Why is it acceptable for the world to turn a fictional trilogy which glorifies domestic abuse into a sought after love story, but it’s not acceptable for two people who share actual love to marry? When did the world become so turn on its axis that physical and emotional manipulation and abuse are more acceptable then two men kissing?

Once upon a time, the world was smaller; that world was accepting of a lot of things, and turned a blind eye to others. After population booms, the Industrial Revolution, wars that raged across three continents for a hundred years, two world wars, and man walking on the moon it seems that the world may have gotten larger in size, but smaller in acceptance.

One day, future generations will look back on today and shake their heads over the ridiculousness of a movie which makes abuse a fairytale premiering at the same time judges and officials in several US states fight to deny true love the right to marry. Because in today’s world, the fantasy of a relationship that promotes abuse is far more acceptable than the fantasy of two same-sex souls uniting in marriage, of having children, of creating a family. One day Valentines Day will be a day to show and share love, regardless of gender or gender identity; sadly that day is not today. Today, a movie about a domineering, manipulative, psychotic abuser will make $10 million on its first full day in theatre, whilst men and women in Alabama will wait by the phone hoping that Lady Justice will provide the words necessary to allow them to spend Valentines Day 2016 as a married couple.

---

[DISCLAIMER: It’s not just me, by the way. Fifty Shades of Grey has been condemned by BDSM, women’s rights, and domestic violence groups since its publication.]

If you, or someone you know, is living in a dangerous situation, please get help. Abuse is not love, and no one deserves to live a life of false love.

Domestic Violence Hotlines:

US: 1-800-799-SAFE (7233)

Gay Domestic Violence Hotline (US): 1-800-832-1901

UK: 0808 2000 247

Canada: 1.866.863.0511

Look up your country

…Straight On Till Morning

In early 2010, Pope Benedict XVI condemned equality legislation in various nations, arguing that it was contrary to “natural law.” On 2 February, the United States Tax Court decided, in O’Donnabhain v. Commissioner, that medical associated with gender identity disorder are tax deductible. On 1 March, Fiji became the first Pacific Island nation to decriminalise homosexuality with the Crime Decree 2009.

On 2 March, the European Court of Human Rights ruled, in Kozak v. Poland, that homosexual couples can not be excluded from tenancy. On 31 March, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recommended a measure to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. Also on 31 March, in Fields v. Smith, the United States District Court in Wisconsin declared the 2005 Inmate Sex Change Prevention act, which prohibited doctors in Wisconsin prisoners from prescribing hormone treatments or performing sex reassignment surgery, unconstitutional because it constituted cure and unusual punishment.

On 16 April, a state court declares Arkansas Proposed Initiative Act No. 1, which banned adoption by same-sex couples, unconstitutional because it violated the privacy clause of the 14th Amendment. On 29 April, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council on Europe adopted a resolution which called “on member states to address issues related to the rights of LGBT persons.”

On 10 May, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom heard arguments in HJ and HT v. Secretary of State for the Home Department. In June, they ruled that the ‘discretion test,’ which had been used by a lower court to deny an asylum claim of two men, one from Iran and one from Cameroon, arguing that the men would not be persecuted if they concealed their orientation, was contradictory to the Convention on Human Rights and could not be used in the future to determine asylum claims. Lord Hope, Chief Justice, stated “To compel a homosexual person to pretend that his sexuality does not exist or suppress the behaviour by which to manifest itself is to deny him the fundamental right to be who he is.” The asylum requests were remitted back to the Home Office for reconsideration based on the Court’s ruling.

On 18 May, Malawi found itself on the front page of international news. Two persons, Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steven Monjeza (who identify as female and male respectively) were sentenced to 14 years hard labour for committing “unnatural offences” and “indecent practices between males” under section 153 and 156 of the Malawi criminal code for participating in an engagement ceremony. They were pardoned by President Bingu wa Mutharika after international pressure and a personal appeal from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. The laws which created the arrest and sentencing, however, are not altered.

On 24 June, the European Court of Human Rights ruled, in Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, that a State not legislating for or recognising same-sex marriage does not violate Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights. On 28 June, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled, in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, that public universities (ones which receive state and federal funding) may refuse to recognise student organisations that refuse admittance to members based on gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation. The ruling does not apply do private or for-profit universities.

On 8 July 2010, the downfall of the Defence of Marriage Act begun. A United States district court judge ruled in two cases. declaring DOMA unconstitutional: Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services and Gill v. Office of Personnel Management. The ruling stated that any definition of marriage enacted by the federal government was a violation of the Tenth Amendment* of the Constitution of the United States, and the equal protection section of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment*.

On 19 July, the UN Economic and Social Council accredited the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission the status consultant, which allowed the IGLHRC to attend UN meetings, and contribute to various UN official statements and collaborations. On 22 July, the European Court of Human Rights ruled, in P.B. and J.S. v. Austria, that denied access to insurance for same-sex couples on equal terms as heterosexual marriages was in violation to European Court of Human Rights laws.

On 4 August, a district court judge ruled, in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, that California’s Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment, and that the state of California had no basis to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses. On 16 August the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay, without explanation, preventing any marriage licenses to be issued. On 10 August, the Supreme Court of Mexico rule that the Mexico City same-sex marriage law was constitution, that any marriages issued in Mexico City had to be recognised throughout all of Mexico, and that it was unconstitutional to ban married same-sex couples from adopting. On 31 August, an appeals court in Dallas, Texas reversed a 2009 ruling in a same-sex divorce case arguing that since Texas had a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages and therefore does not recognise them, district courts in Texas don’t have the jurisdiction to hear same-sex divorce cases.

On 9 September, a judge for the United States District Court for the Central District of California ruled, in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America, that the US Defence Department policy of don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue violated both the First and Fifth Amendments of the US Constitution. On 10 October, an anti-gay group in Belgrade, Serbia attempted to disrupt a Pride parade. Although the parade wasn’t prevented, the rioting caused serious damage to businesses and some city infrastructure. On 2 November, voters in El Paso, Texas passed a law which stripped health insurance from unmarried partners of city employees in an attempt to target the partners of homosexual city workers. On 22 December, President Barack Obama signed the Don’t Ask, Don’t tell Repeal Act of 2010, which officially struck down the ban on openly gay serving members of the US military.

On 18 January 2011, a county court judge in Bristol, England ruled that the owners of a bed and breakfast in Cornwall violated the right of a homosexual couple when they were refused a room based on the owners’ Christian beliefs. On 28 January, the Constitutional Council of France ruled that the French definition of marriage as between one man and one woman does not violate the French constitution. On 1 February, the US State Department amends its passport applications to be non-gender specific.

On 21 March, a jail in Chicago began a new policy which allowed for the housing of prisoners based on their gender identity and not based on birth sex. On 26 April, the Charity Tribunal of the UK stated that Catholic Care adoption agency may not deny same-sex couple the right to adopt. In May, the Nepal census recognised a third identity. On 5 May, the Presbyterian Church of the US approved the ordination of homosexual clergy members in same-sex relationships. On 2 September, California passed Seth’s Law, which required primary and secondary schools in California to implement an anti-harassment and anti-dscimination policy for perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. On 8 October, the British Secretary of State for International Development outlined financial aid cuts to African countries that persecute homosexuals.

On 7 February 2012, the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. A stay is issued. On 22 February, a US District Judge ruled that the Defence of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. On 29 February, Russia’s Saint Petersburg Legislative Assembly passed an anti-LGBT rights bill, which included fines up to $17,000 USD. On 1 March, the High Court of Malaysia ruled that police have the constitutional right to ban gay arts festivals. On 12 April, Transport for London banned an advertising campaign proposed to run on the side of city busses which suggested that homosexuality can be cured by therapy. On 31 May the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in the United States declared the Defence of Marriage Act unconstitutional. On election day 2012, US President Barack Obama is re-election, partially on his campaign promises from the 2008 on equal rights. Voters in Maine approve Question 1 which overturned same-sex marriage ban in the state, Maryland approved Question 6 which allowed for same-sex civil unions, Washington state approved Referendum 74 which legalised same-sex marriage, and Minnesota voters rejected Amendment 1 which would have defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

On June 19 2013, Exodus International, an organisation which proclaimed the ability to turn homosexuals strait, shut down. On 25 June, the Russian Parliament approved a ban on “gay propaganda” and education of homosexuality and homosexual rights to minors, and offending religious believers. The law included definitive jail time, based on offence. On 26 June, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled, in United States v. Windsor, that Section 3 of the Defence of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. The ruling required the federal government to recognise any and all same-sex marriages performed within the United States. SCOTUS also dismissed Hollingsworth v. Perry, which was an appeal to validate the constitutionality of Proposition 8 in California. The two rulings combined laid the groundwork for the legislative cases that would come in the next two years, essentially invalidating state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. On 28 June, same-sex marriages became legal in California.

On 30 June, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law the homosexual propaganda act. On 17 December, the Parliament of Uganda passed the Uganda Ant-homosexuality bill, which punished homosexual acts with life in prison. On 19 December the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the state must issue marriage licences regardless of gender. On 20 December, a US District Judge in Utah ruled, in Kitchen v. Herbert, that Utah’s ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional because it violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

On 13 January 2014, Nigeria passed a law making same-sex marriage, displays of same-sex relationships and belonging to a homosexual group illegal. The law included a prison term of 14 years for those in a same-sex marriage or civil union; and a 10 year prison term for those who register, operate or participate in homosexual clubs, societies and organisation, and those who directly or indirectly make public displays of affection toward a same-sex person. On 14 January the judicial trend of 2014 began when, in Bishop v. Oklahoma, a US District Court Judge ruled that Oklahoma’s ban on gay marriage violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. The decision was immediately stayed, and was appealed by the government of Oklahoma. On 27 January, North Cyprus repealed the criminal code provision that made sexual acts between adult men illegal.

On 1 August, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of Uganda was invalidated by the Constitutional Court because a quorum was not met. On 6 October, The US Supreme Court denied appeal requests from five states which sought to prohibit same-sex marriage. This action effectively legalised same-sex marriage in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming. By the end of 2014, marriage equality was the law of the land in 33 US states, and the US Supreme Court had agreed to hear a case which would involve the constitutionality of marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, although the Court’s ruling would create precedent for the remaining 14 states that prohibit same-sex marriages. The Court will hear the case in April 2015, a decision is expected in June.

As with all social progress, ambivalence cannot happen. Although the trend for equality has been established, and legislation and courts are making legal precedent in favour of equality, assuming that the trend will continue is dangerous. History shows that social movements, and acceptance of social movements, are a roller coaster. Perseverance until full equality is both legally and socially achieved is the only way to continue. All it takes, particularly in countries with strong moral and religious foundations, is one election, one ambivalently fought campaign season, and those rights could be taken away far easier than they were achieved. The second half of the second decade of the 3rd millennium C.E. should be a time where social acceptance of equality, a time where hatred of who you love falls into past consciousness, a story we tell our children and our children’s children, a time that history looks back on and grimaces. But for that to happen, the world has to stay vigilant. Hate breeds hate, but love breeds love. One day, in the not so distant future, there will be no closet doors because love in all forms will be accepted. But for that to happen, the world must remember the journey it took to get where it is today, and not become complacent. One day, when closet doors are gone forever, and no one feels persecuted because of love, the world will look back on this time and see the foolishness in the social atmosphere that evolved to create this journey. On that day, our children and our children’s children will understand the fight that resulted in society understanding that gender and identity and orientation do not matter. They will grow up in a world that only sees one thing: love is love.

---

Civil Unions/Domestic Partnership/Marriage:

2010: Portugal (marriage), Iceland (marriage), Ireland (limited civil union), Argentina (marriage), Tasmania (recognise marriages and registered unions performed outside jurisdiction)

2011: Illinois (civil unions), Hawaii (civil unions), Isle of Man (civil partnerships), Brazil (civil unions), Delaware (civil unions), Liechtenstein (registered partnerships), New York (marriage), Rhode Island (civil unions), UK island of Jersey (civil partnership), Colombia (marriage), Queensland Australia (civil partnerships), Brazil state of Alagoas (marriage)

2012: Washington (marriage), Maryland (marriage), Denmark (marriage), Brazil state of Sergipe (marriage), Brazil state of Espírito Santo (marriage), Brazil state of Bahia (marriage), Caribbean Netherlands (marriage), Maine (marriage), Brazilian Federal District (marriage), Brasil state of Piauí (marriage), Brazil state of São Paulo (marriage)

2013: Brazil state of Ceará (marriage), Colorado (civil unions), Germany (marriage). Uruguay (marriage), New Zealand (marriage), Brazil state of Rondonia (marriage), Brazil (marriage), Rhode Island (marriage), Delaware (marriage), Minnesota (marriage), France (marriage), California (marriage), England (marriage), Wales (marriage), Hawaii (marriage), Illinois (marriage, New Mexico (marriage)

2014: Scotland (marriage), Gibraltar (civil partnerships), Malta (civil unions), Oregon (marriage), Pennsylvania (marriage), Luxembourg (marriage), Mexican state of Coahuila (marriage), Virginia (marriage), Indiana (marriage), Wisconsin (marriage), Oklahoma (marriage), Utah (marriage), Colorado (marriage), Kansas (marriage), North Carolina (marriage), South Carolina (marriage), West Virginia (marriage), Wyoming (marriage), Estonia (cvil partnership), Alaska (marriage), Arizona (marriage), Montana (marriage), Finland (marriage), Estonia (civil unions)

---

[DISCLAIMER: yes, I know, I glossed over the court cases which forced marriage equality in about 20 US states… mostly because this post was already 2500 words and I didn’t want it to be ridiculous.]

[The Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution says that any power not specifically given to the Federal government in the Constitution and its amendments is reserved to the states. Since marriage isn’t specifically stated as something the Federal government can regulate, any law making a definition of marriage is therefore unconstitutional.]

[Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment says that all legal rights owed to a person must be respected. In this case, the Justice argued that refusing to recognise and defining marriage at the federal level violated Gill’s legal rights.]

Second Star To The Right…

The thing about social change is that, once it starts it’s like dominoes…you can’t stop it even if you wanted to. And when those dominoes are a path toward equal rights, there’s a not insubstantial amount of people who want to see it stopped. On 1 January 2006, the first domino that would define the next 8 years in gay rights was pushed.

In January 2006, a report recommending same-sex civil unions was accepted by the Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland. On  26 January, the Czech Republic approved registered partnership legislation….and the state of Illinois banned discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. In March, the Chamber of Deputies overrode a veto by Czech president Václav Kalus, making registered partnerships legal…the first nation in the former Communist bloc to do so. Also in March, the city council of Washington, DC banned discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. On 11 April, the governor of Kentucky rescinded an executive order which had banned discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. In May, the gay rights movement in Russia is dealt its first blow…one which would define Russian acceptability for the rest of the decade. A Moscow pride parade ended in violence and mass arrests after activists defied the ban on pride parades set by Moscow’s mayor.

On election day 2006, America continued its trend of opposing legislative agendas in regards to marriage equality: eight states voted on state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, seven of which passed.

On 17 March 2007, Soulforce Equality Ride, an American LGBT advocacy group, visited 32 schools which banned enrolment of openly-gay students. On 30 April, the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations became law in the UK. Catholic Archbishop Vincent Nichols declared his opposition stating contradiction to the moral values of the Catholic Church. Nichols’ public opposition was not the first, and such opposition to gay rights legislation by Church leaders would continue. In September, the Maryland Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling in Deane & Polyak v Conway which decided that the Maryland constitution required the states to recognise same-sex marriage.   In November, the Supervisor of the town of Salina, New York proposed human rights legislation which would have included a domestic partnership registry. The proposal was defeated.

In early 2008, the UK passed the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 2008, which allowed lesbians and their partner equal access to IVF or assisted insemination. On 15 May 2008, the California Supreme Court declared Proposition 22, a state statute which banned same-sex marriage, unconstitutional in In re Marriage Cases. Opponents to same-sex marriage proposed Proposition 8, which contained the exact same wording as Proposition 22, as an amendment to the state constitution in order to circumvent the Supreme Court decision in In re Marriage Cases. Although the proposed state constitutional amendment did not effect domestic partnerships in California, it would constitutionally declare marriage as between one man and one woman.

On 21 May 2008, the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, in Witt v Department of the Air Force, that the Defence Department policy of don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue was unconstitutional. On 9 July, the US First Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the constitutionality of don’t ask, don’t tell in Thomas Cook v. Robert Gates. 

In June, the UK Parliament passed the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act which included new punishments for hate crimes, including offences of incitement to homophobic hatred.

On 4 November 2008, the United States presidential election elected Barack Obama over John McCain, establishing a democratic White House. In California, Proposition 8 was passed, which goes into effect on 5 Nov, banning same-sex marriages. In Arkansas, Act 1 is passed, which bans adoption by same-sex couples. In Arizona and Florida, state constitutional amendments are passed which ban same-sex marriages. On 5 November, Strauss v. Horton is filed, challenging to the constitutionality of Proposition 8. On 20 November, the Supreme Court of California agreed to hear arguments in Strauss v. Horton. On 24 November, a court in Florida declared a state ban on adoption by same-sex couples unconstitutional. On 26 November, the Constitutional Court of South Africa ruled, in Geldenhuys v. National Director of Public Prosecution, that different age of consents for heterosexual and homosexual sex unconstitutional. Although South Africa’s parliament equalised the age of consent in 2007, the court’s ruling was applied retroactively to the adoption of the Interim Constitution in 1994.

On 15 December, the Constitutional Court of Hungary declared the registered partnership law passed the previous year as unconstitutional because it duplicated the institution of marriage for heterosexual couples. The court further ruled that a law which specifically stated registered partnerships were solely for for same-sex couples would be constitutional. On 23 December, the Hungarian government announced a new registered partnership law would be introduced to parliament the follow year. On 30 December, the AClU filed suit against the constitutionality of the state of Arkansas’ same-sex adoption ban.

On 18 February 2009, a series of bills in Utah, which would have extended LGBT rights including civil unions, referred to as the Common Ground Initiative is killed in the Utah state legislature. In March, Argentina, Uruguay, and the Philippines ended bans on openly serving homosexuals in the military. On 5 March, the California Supreme Court heard arguments on Proposition 8. On 10 March, the Court of Appeals for England and Wales, in HJ and HT v Home Secretary, denied an asylum claim of two men, one from Iran and one from Cameroon, arguing that the men would not be persecuted if they concealed their orientation.

On 3 May, the Obama administration allowed the deadline to appeal Witt v. Department of the Air Force which essentially created a binding precedent per the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and effectively ending the US military policy of don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue. On 26 May, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 in its ruling of Strauss v. Horton. Although the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was upheld, the ruling also declared that the marriages performed between June and November 2008 would remain valid.

On 3 June, the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary held hearings on the Uniting American Families Act, which  would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to allow same-sex partners legalised immigration rights. The bill was introduced by Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy. In July, the council of the District of Columbia agreed to recognise same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

On 11 September, Prime Minister Gordon Brown issued an official public apology for the castration of Alan Turin in 1952. On 13 October, a bill is passed in Uganda which broadened the criminalisation of homosexual relations, and established the death penalty for HIV persons engaging in same-sex intercourse with minors. On 28 October, President Barack Obama signed the Matthew Shepard Act, which expanded federal hate crime legislation to include gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or disability. On 3 November, voters in the state of Maine repealed the marriage equality law, banning same-sex marriage. On 19 November, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that officials have the right to recognise same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, but did not rule on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. On 1 December, the Treaty of Lisbon issues the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Article 21 protected sexual orientation.

The first decade of the 3rd millennium C.E. saw huge advancements in LGBT rights, but also region of those rights by voters in many areas of the United States. While Europe moved forward in its quest for equal rights, many areas of the United States remained stagnant and burdened by the religious traditions and state governmental actions. This trend would lay the foundation for the first half of the second decade of the 3rd millennium.

---

Gender Identity/Sexual Orientation Discrimination Legislation: 

2006: Washington, New Jersey, Northern Ireland

2007: Oregon, Ohio, Vermont, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan

2009: North Dakota, Delaware (orientation, not identity)

Equal Marriage/Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships:

2006: New Jersey (Civil Unions..after NJ Supreme Court ruling which stated that state constitution guarantees same sex couples legal benefits of marriage, but not marriage), South Africa (same-sex marriage), Czech Republic (registered partnerships), Slovenia (registered partnerships), Mexico City (civil unions)

2007: Switzerland (registered partnerships),  Coahuila (civl unions), Washington (domestic partnership), New Hampshire (civil unions), South Australia (registered partnerships), Uruguay (civil union), Hungary (registered partnership-effective 1 Jan 2009)

2008: Victoria Australia (registered partnerships), Australian Capital Territory (civil partnerships), California (overturned by Proposition 8 in November), Norway (marriage), Coquille Indian Tribe (although same-sex marriage is not legal in Oregon, Native American tribes are sovereign nations under the SCOTUS decision in the Marshall Trilogy 1823-1832, and thus not bound by state constitutions), Ecuador (civil unions), Connecticut (marriage)

2009: Arizona (domestic partnership), Hawaii (civil unions), Japan (recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other nations), Sweden (marriage), Iowa (marriage), Vermont (marriage), Colombia (civil unions), Nevada (domestic partnerships), Colorado (domestic partnership), Hungary (re-written per Constitutional Court ruling), Wisconsin (limited domestic partnership), DC (marriage)

Political History Blog Series Explanation

[DISCLAIMER: This post is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like any other post on this blog. It’ll use the word ‘I,’ it will include political opinions, and it will use very little to support them..it’s an explanation, and that’s all. ALSO: Language alert.]

Two things happened today which has resulted in me writing this: 1) a person whom I consider a good friend asked me today, and I quote, “why the bloody hell are you writing a blog series about gay history? Who the fuck cares. You’re not gay. Why are you wasting your time on something no one will read?” (this, by the way, was over text…for the record, starting arguments over text message not the best plan); and 2) George Takei posted about the celebratory kiss when Michael Sam was drafted, and the reactions to it. So, this post is my answer to the former, tipped by the latter.

Let’s start with this: why are LGBT rights something anyone should care about. Well, because inequality is definitely something you should care about. And, in the case of LGBT rights, it’s not a bunch of old white men sitting around being denied their right to play Parcheesi. It’s not just adults who want to get married. It’s kids. There is, at this moment, a 14 year old boy or girl sitting in their room hoping someone cares enough to ask what’s wrong…hoping, that when they say ‘mom, dad, I’m gay’ it doesn’t destroy their life forever. And right now, there is a 4 year old listening to their parents talk about that gay football player, and learning that it’s ok to hate. If you don’t care because it’s right, if you don’t care because inequality is stupid, if you don’t care because it doesn’t affect you… then kids are the reason you should care… because that’s the future. And I’m pretty sure the future of society does affect you.

Here’s the thing about gay rights: the history is what influences the today (which, in reality, is the truth about anything). See, all civil rights are a combination of social hangups, politics, and religion… especially in America, although it’s definitely not just an American thing. There are approximately 3 billion people who live in the 82 countries where it’s illegal to be homosexual…not just unsupported, or railed again, or considered immoral by a portion of the population, or containing unenforceable laws against; illegal. Most of those countries have anti-homosexuality laws based on perceived unacceptability by religious laws… parts of Asia, most of the Middle East, about 90% of Africa, parts of Oceania, and a not insubstantial section of the Caribbean (which is considered part of the Americas). The only continent free of anti-homosexuality laws is Europe (because, well, the EU…let’s face it, the EU is the reason for a lot of things… although, Russia, Ukraine and Moldova have strange propaganda laws… but not the same thing, and they aren’t EU, so my point still stands).

So the question was, why would I bother…considering my blog readership is tiny, why go to all this trouble? Because history is important. It’s impossible for a society to overcome prejudices without understanding why they exist. In this case, the history of the gay rights movement is directly related the history of religion in society… places that have a relationship between religion and rule of law all legislated against homosexuality a very, very, long time ago….we’re talking like the 2nd century CE. Let me list some of the things that have happened since then: the earth is round, there’s land between Europe and China (an entire contingent, in fact), a few wars, man learned to fly, man created weapons that could destroy the world 10x over, and man walked on the moon. If you were an observer watching Earth from Venus, you’d think that would mean that said Venusian could land on Earth tomorrow and man would accept Venusian as is. Yeah, not so much.

See, because we as a society live in a world where love is treated differently. We live in a world where a man celebrating a huge milestone in his life is belittled, racked over coals, and called names because of who he loves. But here’s the thing: love is love, it’s genderless, colourless, raceless. So then, why no equal marriage? Why no equal partner benefits? Why are there partners who are denied the fundamental rights of medical decision…of being able to bury the person they love? Why, in 82 countries, is being gay illegal? Because God said so. No, really, that’s why. See, before Christianity became the basis of ‘moral laws,’ no one cared who you loved… ok that’s a rather large blanket statement, but the basis of it is true (read the rest here). But see, the thing is, moral laws (which shaped a HUGE part of early history of Western Civilisation) are almost entirely…no scratch that, absolutely entirely based on religion.

So, history + religion= society. Almost all cultural, and legal, decisions come from that formula. In the case of LGBT rights, this meant that, historically, it was legislated as illegal. But why do people care who you love? Oh, that’s a question for the ages. Because it shouldn’t matter, right? It didn’t used to…although it’s been so long since society was open and accepting of differences than only a very few places still have the footprints of those who remember.

So then, why the inequality? Why the distaste? Why, in the 21st Century, when we have people who live above the earth in a floating station, is love treated differently? Because politics and religion are still married. And that’s where history comes in. You cannot, absolutely impossibly cannot, understand how politics works, or why it works (or doesn’t), or where the basis of laws come from without understanding history. Politicians try to do it all the time, and every single time it backfires. It’s not just politicians.. it’s also activists (which is a word I abhor… it’s like labelling someone a rabble rouser… ‘movement’ is far less harsh of a word and usually encompasses everyone, including the non-‘activists’). And the thing is, ignoring the past whilst trying to shape the future is just stupid. You can’t do it. And in American politics, it seems to be a thing… except understanding the history of American politics is almost more important than understanding the now.

See, here’s the thing about American politics… due to the nature of the way the United States set up its legislative and judicial system in 1789, and the paranoia that created the 10th Amendment to the Constitution (which says that any powers not explicitly given to the federal government in the Constitution is reserved to the States)…each state in the US has the power to create their own marriage definition laws. Although the US government also has ability to designate spousal benefits, etc, for same-sex couples, the only way for there to be a FEDERAL law allowing same-sex marriage is to add an equal marriage amendment to the US Constitution (as Christian conservatives have attempted to do in an effort to ban gay marriage with the Federal Marriage Amendment). There has recently been a rash of court decisions on marriage equality, following on the heels of United States v. Windsor, which invalidated DOMA.

Unfortunately, in the United States, court decisions are often landmark, and highly cited, and create precedent..but for the most part are unenforceable… also, they allow for an infinite number of holds and appeals until it hits SCOTUS, and even then SCOTUS can send it back down to a lower court and the process starts all over again (because, let’s be honest…the current court isn’t going to rule in favour of ignoring state’s rights…it’s just not). After Chief Justice John Marshall’s decision in Worcester v. Georgia (which basically created the idea of tribal sovereignty in the US) then President Andrew Jackson purportedly said “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!”

President Jackson had a point then, and that point is still entirely applicable today: court cases are NOT going to solve the issue of marriage equality in the United States…the only thing that will end the seemly endless fight is a constitutional amendment, a definitely statement by the federal government amending the legal foundation that exists in the US that discrimination of any kind is not tolerated, and that in the United States love is love. Unfortunately, the US federal government is run by a bunch of political cowards who have no intention of standing up for equal rights unless it benefits them, so that’s unlikely to happen. Marriage equality in the United States is a fight that will continue until the US finally is able to separate politics and religion.

Actually, it’s not just the US. Separating religion and politics is the key to a lot of things… but in this case, removing inane, inaccurate, antiquated ideas about love and family are the only thing that’s going change the landscape of gay rights. Yes, there’s been tremendous progress… but there’s still so much more to do. So why did I write this blog series? Because knowledge is power… if you don’t understand the history of why, you’ll never understand they why of now.

---

[Aside: See, look, I am capable of writing opinion pieces… although, it was more history supported than I intended.. blame that on academic training..it’s pretty much impossible to not.]

[Note: If you don’t understand what I just wrote above, or are unfamiliar how the US court system works, email me and I’ll explain.  In reality, the fight for gay rights in America has pretty much centred on marriage equality, and equal rights for partners and spouses, and that fight will be held in federal court. The structure of the US court system, along with the politics of SCOTUS, will all influence how that fight plays out. So please, ask!]

Too Great A Burden To Bear

In America, political whims are what dictate the cultural current of the nation. After the 1980 Presidential election, America went through a period of conservative revitalisation…which was briefly interrupted in the 90s during the Clinton administration, but reasserted itself in 2000 with the election of George W. Bush. Except the Christian conservative nature of the United States isn’t that new. There has always existed in the US a misconstrued belief that America was founded on conservative, Christian, puritanical ideals. It wasn’t. In reality, America wasn’t ‘founded’ on any principles…it was ‘founded’ as a colony of Britain during the time of Elizabeth I.

The first successful, long standing, colony in America was ‘founded’ in 1607… that’d be 13 years before the Pilgrims ever stepped foot on Plymouth rock. There were colonists already in America before the Pilgrims had a pique and sailed away from Holland fearing that they’d lose their identity… they didn’t flee England because of religious persecution and sail across an ocean to establish a religiously tolerant country…that’s nice and romantic, but it’s just not true. Unfortunately for equal rights in America, the romantic idea that the Pilgrims fled religious persecution and sailed to a new land literally created American social and political culture.

Religion and American culture are, and shown above, indistinguishable. Although the Founding Fathers insisted on protecting religious freedom (the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution prevents Congress from establishing a national religion), politics in America is almost entirely built on religious foundations…or at least for one party. In the United States, there are, in reality, only two political parties.

The US has been a two party system since the 1780s, although they often deny this. Because there are only two parties, there is a sliding scale from moderate to extreme… although, compared to European political parties, extreme liberal and extreme conservative aren’t actually. However, having said that, the political scale in the US sliding right is, ostensibly, a hay day for Christian ideology… but then, so is sliding left. See, in America, politics and culture influence each other…and American culture is almost as heavily influenced by religion as any Middle Eastern country. In America, political justification for hate and discrimination has always been God. When it comes to gay rights, particularly marriage equality, religion is the defining reason for the entire anti-campaign.

The years 2004 and 2005 became defining years in the equal marriage campaign in America… 2004 started off well, but by the end of 2005 it was quite clear that that Christian right was both louder, and better funded, than the equal marriage advocates. In January 2004, the New Jersey legislature passed a bill which created domestic partnerships for same-sex couples. Governor James McGreevy signed the bill into law on 5 January, making NJ the fifth US states to offer marriage status to same-sex couples. On 6 February, however, the tone for the next several years was set when the governor of Ohio signed its own version of DOMA.

San Francisco has always been a bastion of light for the gay community, and on 12 February it proved that once more. On National Freedom To Marry Day (a holiday created by LAMBDA legal in 1999) the city of San Francisco began issuing marriage licences in direct violation of state law. Between 12 and 16 February, the city of San Francisco estimated they’d issued 2,000 marriage licenses. On 13 February, the Campaign for California Families and the Proposition 22 Legal Defence and Education fund filed action in San Francisco Superior Court demanding an immediate stay prohibiting the City from issuing same-sex marriage licences. The Court refused to grant the stay.

On 18 February, the California agency which records marriage informs San Francisco that since the marriage forms had been altered, the same-sex marriages performed would not be registered. On 19 February, San Francisco sued the state of California in an attempt to force the state to accept same-sex marriage licences. In an attempt to distance itself from the issue, California Democratic party leaders extricated themselves from the marriage debate. On 22 February, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer stated he would defend the California law limiting marriage, and petitioned the Supreme Court of California for an immediate ruling on the constitutionality of the California same-sex marriage ban. On 24 February, President George W. Bush (who was campaigning for re-election) announced his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment. On 26 February, taking inspiration from San Francisco, the Mayor of New Paltz, NY, began performing civil marriages for same-sex couples.  On 27 February, the Supreme Court of California refused AG Lockyer’s petition.

On 2 March, the mayor of New Paltz, NY was charged with 19 criminal counts of performing marriages without a licence. On 3 March, Multnomah County, OR began issuing same-sex marriage licenses after four county commissioners decide that the current Oregon law banning same-sex marriages violated the Oregon state constitution. On 5 March, the Wisconsin State Assembly passed a constitutional amendment which banned same-sex marriage and civil unions; and Kansas passed a similar constitutional amendment.

On 11 March, the Supreme Court of California ordered San Francisco to stop performing same-sex marriages. San Francisco complied, and the City Attorney sued the state of California on the grounds that prohibiting same-sex marriage violated the California state constitution. On 12 March, the Attorney General of Oregon concluded that state law prohibited issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but issued no order preventing Multnomah County from continuing to do so. On 15 March, Multnomah County declared their intent to continue to issue same-sex marriage licences.

On 16 March, in Rhea County Tennessee, all eight county commissioners voted in favour of a resolution which requested state law be changed to allow county officials to, ostensibly, ban homosexuality by allowing the county to charge them with crimes against nature. Political uproar ensued, and the resolution was withdrawn two days later. On 20 April, an Oregon Circuit Court Judge ruled that the state must register same-sex marriage licences. He ordered a temporary stop to the licences and gave the Oregon state legislature 90 days to write a law giving equal marriage rights to same-sex couples. If the legislature did not comply, licences for same-sex couples would resume. On 9 July, the Court of Appeals of Oregon lifted the marriage license ban, and Multnomah County resumed issuing same-sex marriage licenses. On 21 May, Defence of Marriage Coalition began circulating a petition to put Measure 36, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, on the November ballot.

On 17 May, Massachusetts became the first US state to issue marriage licenses, legally, to same-sex couples. On 22 July, the US House of Representatives passed legislation that prevented federal courts from ordering states to recognise same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. On 30 July, Maine began legally recognising same-sex domestic partners. On 12 August the Supreme Court of California declared void the 4000 same-sex marriages performed in San Francisco in February and March, arguing the City officials overstepped their rights in ignoring state law.

On Election Day 2004, George W. Bush was re-elected president, and 11 states passed amendments to state constitutions which banned same-sex marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships…including the state of Oregon. Those states would join with 15 other states that had already enacted constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.

On 1 January 2005, California law AB 205 went into effect. AB 205 extended marriage rights to domestic partners, including registered same-sex partners. On 4 February, a State Supreme Court judge in New York ruled that the state ban on same-sex marriages violated the state constitution. On 14 March, a San Francisco Superior County court judge issued a ruling which stated that the California ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional. On 5 April, Kansas amended its state constitution to ban same-sex marriages and civil unions. On 20 April, Connecticut legalised same-sex civil unions. On 1 July, the Attorney General of California, requested that the California Supreme Court officially decide whether same-sex marriages are legal in California. On 6 September, the California state legislature passed a which legalised same-sex marriage. On 29 September, the governor of California vetoed the same-sex marriage bill. On 21 October, the Kansas Supreme Court struck down, in State v. Limon, a Romeo and Juliet law which punished underage sex (statutory rape) more severely if it involved homosexual sex.

Although the United States saw some equalisation, or more equalisation, of gay rights between 2004 and 2005, it also saw the political gulf between supporters and opponents widen. As the world moved into the second half of the first decade of the second millennium, that gulf would become more pronounced, and more divisive.

---

Whilst the United States was muddling through cultural upheaval over same-sex marriage, the rest of the world moved forward. On 1 January 2004, a Tasmanian law which recognised same-sex civil unions came into effect. On 15 March, the Alteration of Sex Description and Sex Status Act allowed transexual and interest persons to legally change their gender in South Africa. On 19 March, Quebec legalised same-sex marriage after the Quebec Court of Appeals upholds Hendricks and Leboeuf v. Quebec. On 31 March, the British government announced the details of the Civil Partnerships Bill, which gave legal recognition to same-sex couples. On 3 June, the first civil union is recognised in Brazil. On 30 June the minister of justice of Spain announced several bills to be introduced to the Spanish parliament, including one which would have legalised same-sex marriage, and one that would have allowed transgendered persons to legally change their gender and name without sexual reassignment surgery. On 1 July, the Gender Reorganisation Act of 2004 received Royal Assent in the UK…the act allowed transexual people to legally change their name and gender. On 14 July, the Yukon became the world’s first territory to legalise same-sex marriage. 

There were still some areas of the world where homosexuality was still prosecutable. On 9 August, Nepalese authorities raided various clubs and bars, which resulted in the arrest of 39 members of the Blue Diamond Society, a gay rights organisation, and charged them with spreading perversion.

On 16 August, the Canadian justice minister announced that the federal government would no longer resist orders requiring provincial governments to issue same-sex marriage licenses. On 17 August, UNAIDS and Human Rights Watch requested the release of the 39 members of the Blue Diamond Society.On 16 September, Manitoba legalised same-sex marriages. On 1 October, Spain approved a bill legalising same-sex marriages… it passed parliament on 30 June 2005 and Spain began issuing marriage licenses on 3 July 2005. On 29 October, Germany expanded it’s adoption laws to allow registered, same-sex, domestic partners to adopt.

On 5 November, a judge in Saskatchewan ruled that same-sex couples have the legal right to marry. On 18 November, the Civil Partnership Act received Royal Consent in the United Kingdom. On 9 December, the Parliament of New Zealand passed the Civil Union bill, establishing civil unions in the country which included same-sex couples. On 21 November, Newfoundland and Labrador legalised same-sex marriages.

On 1 February 2005, Canada introduced the Civil Marriage Act, which legalised same-sex marriage in all of Canada. On 5 May,  voters in Switzerland approved a measure which extended marriage rights for registered civil-unions of same-sex couples. On 5 July, Uganda amended its constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. on 20 July, a bill which legalised same-sex marriage in all of Canada received Royal Assent. On 26 August, the high court of Fiji declared, in Thomas McCosker v The State that sodomy laws violated the constitutional guarantee prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In December, Latvia amended its constitution to ban same-sex marriage. On 1 December, in Minister of Home Affairs v. Fourie, the Constitutional Court of South Africa declared that it is unconstitutional for the government to allow opposite-sex couples to marry but prevent same-sex couples marrying. The Court gives Parliament one year to rectify the discrimination. On 5 December, same-sex civil partnerships began in the United Kingdom.

Part XXVIII- Homosexuality, Politics, and the late Noughties 

---

[Disclaimer: I admit, this post is by FAR the most opinionated of all of them. But hey, I’ve made it through 26 with nary a side commentary, so I think I deserve a little slack. Or, feel free to disparage me in the comments, I’m down with that too.]

Laugh At Gilded Butterflies

The start of the new millennium brought political, social, and violent change to the world. By the end of the first decade of the 2nd millennium, the landscape of gay rights was almost unrecognisable.

In 2000, three landmark things happened: in January, the UK lifted the ban on openly gay serving members of the military; in March, the US state of California passed Proposition 22 which stated that California would not recognise same-sex marriages, even those marriages which were legally recognised in another state; and in July, the US state of Vermont passed a civil unions bill, which granted registered same-sex couples most marriage rights afforded to heterosexual couples.

On 14 February 2000, Congressman Jerrold Nadler introduced a bill on the House floor which would have allowed Visas for registered same-sex partners in the same manner that the State Department issued Visas for spouses of heterosexual couples. The bill, Permanent Partners Immigration Act, was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where it died. From 28-30 April, the Millennium March on Washington was held. The march, part of the Millennium Pride Festival, was a political statement on LGBT rights (or in this case, lack of them).

In June, Scotland became the first part of the UK to rescind Section 28, which prohibited local authorities from promoting homosexuality. In July, at the same time Vermont passed a civil union bill, Mississippi became the third US state to ban same-sex adoption. In November, the governor of Montana issues an executive order banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation in the private sector, and on 15 December the governor of Delaware did the same. In terms of LGBT rights in the United States, 2000 was a political launching point.

The United States, starting in 2000, would go through a conservative resurgence. The 2000 Presidential Election pitted then-Vice President Al Gore against Texas governor George W. Bush. The campaign was dirty, politically violent and full of mudslinging. Bush was backed by several conservative PACs, and had the support of the Christian right. On election night, the results were to close for the pundits to call. Over the next several days, as various issues and recounts arose, the decision of who was the next President hung in the air. On 12 December, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in Bush v. Gore which gave the state of Florida and it’s 27 electoral votes, to George W. Bush, giving him the electoral college win, although Gore had won the popular vote. The contentious and controversial decision of SCOTUS, resulted in a very polarised political environment for the incoming President. The decision, and subsequent administration, created a conservative resurgence in American politics.

In April 2001, the Netherlands legalised same-sex marriage, making it the first country to allow for equal marriage, not just civil unions. On 16 April, film director Steven Spielberg stepped down from his role on the advisory board of the Boy Scouts of America, citing discriminatory practices toward gay troop leads based on the organisation’s religious beliefs. The controversy over the Boy Scouts of America was just beginning. On 17 April, the Alaska Supreme Court dismissed the case of Brause v. Alaska, in which a same-sex couple sought equal marriage rights, even though the Alaska constitution banned same-sex marriage. The Court argued their case was invalid because of the constitutional ban.

In June 2001, the first Pride march in Belgrade, Yugoslavia (now Serbia) was stormed by clerics, neo-nazis, and ultranationalist youths. The attack injured several, and the march was scrubbed. Police were ill equipped to deal with the sudden riots, and were unable to suppress the violence. Some have argued that the police were unwilling to intercede. In July, eight same-sex couple petitioned the Supreme Court of British Columbia to declare the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman as unconstitutional. In September, the Greater London Authority allowed same-sex couple registration. In November, British Columbia resident Aaron Webster was beaten to death in what many argue was a hate crime. The court, however, refused to prosecute the perpetrators with a hate crime arguing it’s impossible to prove hateful intent. Four teenagers were later prosecuted for manslaughter.

In April 2002, the People’s Republic of China officially decriminalised sodomy (although in actuality it was never illegal) when the amendments to the Marriage Law ignore homosexuality as a specific sexual intercourse class. In May, Canadian teen Marc Hall petitioned the Canadian courts to allow his boyfriend to attend prom. The Durham Catholic School Board had argued that Hall’s choice of prom date was incompatible with Roman Catholic teachings, and prohibited him from attending. In Hall v. Durham Catholic School Board, the Court granted an injunction which allowed Hall’s boyfriend to attend. On 17 May, the German legislature passed an amendment to the Nazi-era Act of Abolition of National Socialism which annulled all Nazi era convictions against homosexuals. In July, the Constitutional Court of South Africa declared, in Satchwell v President of the Republic of South Africa, that the same-sex partner of a High Court judge was entitled to the same benefits as the spouse of a heterosexual judge. In September, voters in Zurich to give same-sex couples the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples, but only in the canton of Zurich.

In January 2003, Belgium passed legislation which allowed same-sex couples to marry….in America, however, the story was vastly different. In March, the governor of the US state of New Mexico signed the New Mexico Hate Crimes Act which allows for the prosecution of anti-gay hate crimes.

The case against equal marriage in the United States had entered the public consciousness during the 2000 presidential election, but entered main stream American politics in 2003. In May, US Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) which would have limited marriage in the US to one natural born man and one natural born woman. The legislation had 108 cosponsors of the total 435 members of the US Congress. The Amendment didn’t pass, but the conservatives in Congress had made their point: marriage equality was not something they supported. Seven days after Musgrave floated the FMA, the governor of Texas, Rick Perry, signed the Texas DOMA. The Texas DOMA allowed the state of Texas to deny recognition of same-sex marriages from out states, as well as prevented same-sex marriages in Texas.

In June 2003, the US Department of Justice reversed an earlier decision which banned an annual employee pride event. In June, the first same-sex marriage was performed in Ontario, Canada. On 26 June, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Lawrence v. Texas declared that the enforcement of anti-sodomy laws violated the privacy clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, overturning the court’s 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick. On 30 July, US President George W. Bush propagated the anti-equal marriage opinions of the conservatives and neo-conservatives when he declared that he supported “codifying marriage in the United States as being between one man and one woman.” In September, England, Wales and Northern Ireland receive Royal Assent to repeal Section 28. 

In October 2003, the FBI released statistics showing that 16.7 percent of the hate crimes committed in the US in 2002 were due to the victim’s sexual orientation…this was the highest rate so far recorded in the 12 years the FBI had been keeping records. On 18 November, in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared that the ban on same-sex marriages in Massachusetts was unconstitutional. On 26 November, the Queen’s Speech, which outlined the government programme of legislation for the following year, included a bill which would allow for same-sex Civil Partnerships… on the same day, five conservative US senators introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment on the floor of the US Senate. On 1 December the UK introduced the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, which made employment discrimination against LGBT persons unlawful…although the new regulations did not apply to pensions or religious organisations.

By the end of 2003, most of the world had hit its stride in the continuing equality of gay rights. In the United States, however, the political situation was much different…

Part XXVII: The US, Politics, and the Fight for Marriage Equality

---

[Note: Although, technically, the new millennium didn’t ACTUALLY begin until 2001 (see West Wing argument in In Excelsis Deo S1E10) I’m using 2000 as the start of the new millennium ’cause it makes for better prose.]

[Political Note: So, Lawrence v. Texas didn’t declare sodomy laws THEMSELVES unconstitutional… it declared that sodomy law enforcement is unconstitutional because it violates the privacy clause of the 14th Amendment. As such, there are still 16 US states that have sodomy laws….those laws are unenforceable, but it shows the nature of the politics of gay rights in the US.]

[Political Note 2: As of 14 February 2013, the Permanent Partners Immigration Act has been introduced on 14 February every year since 2000. It’s also been renamed the Uniting American Families Act. It still has not managed to pass either the House or Senate Judiciary Committees, and so had never come before either house for a full vote. ALSO: in case you missed it, Proposition 22 was the precursor to Proposition 8.]

[Irony: On 20 November 2003, US Congress passed a resolution condemning all violations of internationally-recognised human rights norms based on real or perceived sexual orientation. In the US: there are TODAY 26 states in which you can be fired for being homosexual, 16 states where sodomy is still illegal, 33 states with ban equal marriage, 15 states that allow employment discrimination based on sexual orientation (although, technically, the US government has passed anti-discrimination laws which are applicable to the states…although rarely enforced) and a federal government which does nothing about any of the above. AND Department of Justice which refuses to prosecute gay violence as a hate crime.]

Be Drunk To Spend Time With Fools

For gay rights, the 90s marked a distinctive period of change…some good, and some bad. The second half of the 90s set the scene for the political victories, and tragedies, that would define the new millennium.

In 1993, Norway enacted a civil partnership law which allowed same-sex couples to register in civil unions; in 1995 so did Sweden; in 1996 Iceland; and in 1999 France. In 1994, Israel passed unregistered cohabitation recognition, which afforded the same rights as heterosexual unregistered cohabitation and in 1997, the UK passed a bill allowing same-sex couples the same immigration rights as heterosexual couples. In the United States, however, the federal government enacted Pub.L 104-199, commonly referred to as the Defence of Marriage Act. DOMA, along with several other statutes passed at during the same Congress, prevented the United States federal government from recognising same-sex marriages, even though legally recognised by various states. Under federal law, same-sex couples could not gain recognition as spouses, preventing same-sex couples from receiving any marriage benefits. DOMA also restricted the ability of same-sex spouses from other nations from entering the United States on a spousal Visa. Although DOMA did not prevent states from legally recognising same-sex marriage, it did allow for the rights of states which banned same-sex marriage from recognising same-sex marriages performed in other states. DOMA’s restrictions wouldn’t be felt until April 2000, when Vermont became the first US state to recognise same-sex marriage.

On 12 January 1998, in the UK town of Bolton, 7 men were convicted of gross indecency under the Sexual Offences Act of 1956 which still criminalised sex with more than one person, videotaping of acts of sodomy (even consensually), and one of the 7 was under 18 at the time of arrest, which violated sodomy age of consent (which was 18). Activist group OutRage! staged a high profile campaign against the convictions, which resulted in 3 of the men being listed on the sexual offences registry. OutRage, along with Amnesty International, led a successful publicity campaign, which was arguably, the only reason none of the 7 were imprisoned. In 2000, 6 of the men appealed to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that their prosecution violated their right to privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights. They were awarded compensation, which was paid out by the Home Office, and their records expunged. In 2003 a massive overhaul of the UK sexual offences legislation repealed all mentions of gross indecency and buggery, repealed a provision which stated that sex between more than two men was illegal, and equalised heterosexual and homosexual age of consent at 16.

During the second half of the 90s, sodomy was decimalised in Albania and Moldova (1995); Romania, Macedonia, Macau (1996); Ecuador, Venezuela, Tasmania (1997), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chile, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, South Africa, South Cyprus and Tajikistan (1998)… in the United States, however, no state decriminalised sodomy…and sodomy laws were Constitutionally upheld by the SCOTUS decision in Bowers v. Hardwick.

On 30 April 1999, a gay pub in the Soho neighbourhood of London was bombed by Neo-Nazi David Copeland. The bombing of the Admiral Duncan resulted in 3 dead and over 70 wounded, the worst direct gay violence the UK had seen. The attack on the Admiral Duncan was Copeland’s third in an attempt to create homophobic tensions throughout the City. He failed, and in June 2000 he was conviction of murder and domestic terrorism and sentence to 6 concurrent life sentences.

American politics are interesting. The Christian conservative nature of the creation of America, and traditional political factions, created a nation not adept to change. In particular, the United States has a love-hate relationship with civil rights. Every single piece of civil rights legislation ever passed in the US has done so after great struggle, and the impact of the struggle still exists today. While most of the world moved forward in terms of gay rights, the United States remained stagnant or moved backward. The second half of the 1990s was, in actuality, the beginning of a defining period in the new American struggle for civil rights.

Part XXVI- Homosexuality, Politics and the New Millennium

---