Bi The Way

Retired US General John Sheehan, a former Nato commander, has caused outrage by suggesting that Dutch Peacekeepers failure to act and prevent the massacre of Bosniaks at Srebrenica was due to low morale caused by the presence of gay soldiers within the Dutch ranks.

General Sheehan was speaking to a US Senate hearing on allowing openly  gay people to serve  in the US military.

Dutch defence ministry spokesman Roger van de Wetering rebutted the General saying, “It is astonishing that a man of his stature can utter such complete nonsense.”

Full Story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8575717.stm

In 1995 Srebrenica was a UN safe-haven under the protection of 400 Dutch peacekeepers, when Bosian-Serb Forces overran the town killing more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys. To suggest that the presence of gay servicemen in the Dutch contingent contributed to the massacre, is not only wrong and insulting, it also completely ignores the facts.

The Serb forces had been laying siege to the town for weeks. They numbered almost 2,000 and were equipped with tanks, armoured vehicles, heavily artillery and mortars. Once they took the decision to overrun the town, the Dutch troops were largely powerless to prevent it and became little more than hostages. This prevented UN forces from carrying out air-strikes on Serb positions surrounding the town and forcing the invading troops out of the safe-haven.

Dutch morale was indeed low, but it had nothing to do with homosexuals it had far more to do with conditions on the ground, which were dire. Srebrenica has been under siege conditions for weeks, there was little running water and basic sanitation was virtually non-existent. Meanwhile the Dutch camps sheltering refugees were over-crowded and short of supplies, Dutch troops were turning away a large stream of refugees claiming their camps were full.

Now when you are faced with that level of human suffering and you have to turn away needy people,  on the orders of your superiors, yet feel that human urge to help, this is going to  damage your morale.

Of course its far easier to blame it on the gays than it is to understand the situation and suffering on the ground. General Sheehan was never at Srebrenica.

Catholic adoption agency Catholic Care has won a high a court ruling granting them an exception to the Sexual Orientations Regulations, under the United Kingdom Equality Act, which forced adoption agencies to consider homosexual couples as potential adoptive parents.

Catholic adoption agencies were given 18 months to comply with the legislation or close, many threatened to close and some did, others complied it the law whilst Catholic Care sought and exception, threatening to close if one was not granted.

The exception has been granted under the fine print of the law which allows for the exemption could apply “to any charity subject to it being in the public interest”.

There is no doubt the good work that Catholic Care does in adoption cases, its been established for over 100 years and works in some of the most deprived parts of my home region of Yorkshire in the north of England. They just don’t offer adoption services to same sex couples, which clearly is not so good.

Gay rights groups are up in arms about this ruling.

“It’s unthinkable that anyone engaged in delivering any kind of public or publicly funded service should be given licence to pick and choose service users on the basis of individual prejudice. It’s clearly in the best interests of children in care to encourage as wide a pool of potential adopters as possible.” Jonathan Finney of Stonewall told BBC News.

No-one wants to see established adoption agencies close, certainly not those with good track records for supporting adopted children with their new parents. However Catholic Care have sucessfully held the government to ransom over this legislation by threatening to back up shop unless they were allowed to continue to discriminate against homosexual couples.

It would seem however, that the high court has decided that some forms of bigotry are too good to lose.

The Daily Mail hit a new low this week with Jan Moir’s piece on the death of Boyzone singer Stephen Gately. Not only did she manage to trample all over his soon to be dug grave, she made Gately’s tragic death the centre-peice of over 900 words of unapologetic gay-bashing.

The article published on the 16 October, in which Jan Moir describes Gately’s death as striking a blow to the “happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships” has seen a record 21,000 complaints lodged with the Press Complaints Commission.

Moir described Gately’s death “strange, lonely and troubling”. Though I hasten to add if you read the coroners report, it is not particularly strange, it was hardly lonely with his husband in the next room and to anyone outside his immediate circle of family and friends, the only troubling thing about Gately’s death is the response it provoked from a Daily Mail columnist.

Inspite of having no medical training and no background in forensic medicine Moir went on to say “Whatever the cause of death is, it is not, by any yardstick, a natural one. Let us be absolutely clear about this.” – Though one would hasten to add that the coroner who, unlike Jan Moir, possesses a degree in forensic medicine and actually examined Stephen Gately’s body, declared the death to be due to a pulmony oedema (fluid on the lungs) caused by a previously undiagnosed heart condition.

Moir herself denied there were any homophobic undertones to her article. However, one can only conclude that she hasn’t bothered to read her own work before sending it print. The article is rife with slurs, smears, assumptions and mis-information, which if not consciously meant to be anti-gay, reveals a deep-rooted homophobia in Jan Moir’s subconscious.

Insensitively Moir suggests that Gately and husband Cowles had invited 25 year-old Bulgarian Georgi Dochev back to their apartment that night for the purpose of an extra-marital shagging session. Whilst the facts seem to be that Cowles and Dochev retired to the bedroom whilst Gately stayed on the sofa. Whatever the truth of the truth of the circumstances, its none of Moir’s business or anyone else’s for that matter. What’s more Gately clearly wasn’t upset by the arrangement otherwise he would have hardly nodded off on the sofa.

Aside from the disgusting manner in which she slates a talented young entertainer, the most troubling part of Moir’s article for the wider gay and non-heterosexual community is the way she equated Gately’s [gay] lifestyle with been “dangerous” and “troubling”, bizarrely linked it with the death of another gay celebrity Kevin McGee, the late former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas.

Thankfully Moir’s article hasn’t gone unchallenged.

Charlie Brooker led the calls for people to stand up to this kind of wantant gay-bashing in a witty piece for the Guardian and the Daily Mail made some effort to redeem itself with a sterling contribution by Janet Street-Porter.

Though without wanting to diminish Ms Street-Porter’s rebuttal, one cannot help but think that the Mail published this piece so they could claim to be fair and balanced. Screw that! They shouldn’t have published Moir’s piece in the first place.

Some of your may be aware of a Downing Street E-petition that called on the UK government to stop deporting gays and lesbians to countries where they may be imprisoned, tortured or executed because of their sexuality.

The Prime Minister’s Office have issued a response to this e-petition which has been published today:

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20418

Effectively, the response states that whilst individual cases will be assessed on their merits the UK government will not stop deporting gays, lesbians or bisexuals to countries like Iran where they can still be executed because of their sexuality.

Clearly they fear a flood of LGBT asylum seekers from countries who still punish homosexuality. But, not only is this unlikely, this is not in the spirit of the UN Refugee Convention or the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) either. If we want to espouse our values of human rights and human dignity. Britain needs to be a beacon of hope for anyone facing persecution.

We would not refuse an applicant because they faced persecution because of their ethnicity. Why wouldn’t we accept someone facing persecution because of their sexuality?

This is a late call for signatures for a “10 Downing Street” web site petition to call on the British government to stop deporting LGBT asylum seekers to countries where they may be imprisioned, tortured or executed because of their sexuality.

The petition reads:

“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to stop deporting gays and lesbians to countries where they may be imprisoned, tortured or executed because of their sexuality.”

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Stopdeportinggay/

It would have been nice if the petition had included bisexuals, but the point is still well made.

The petition is open to British Citizen, including expatriates as well people of any Nationality who are resident in the UK. The petition closes on March 7th. There are over 4,500 signatures so far.

So please do follow this link and sign the petition on-line.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Stopdeportinggay/

The election of Barack Obama as the 44th US President sent a clear signal to the world that America’s racially divided past is now history. The sense of hope is palpable. We can feel it on the opposite side of the Atlantic, America is energised, optimistic and hungry for change. The around the world people breath a sigh of relief, knowing that the hawkish tenure of George W. Bush and his Neo-Con allies is now at an end.

“If an African American can become President of the United States then clearly anything is possible,” they say. “America can change,” they say. The chants of “Yes we can!” echo in the streets. But if you are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgender, you could be forgiven for thinking that some things will never change.

Whilst America voted for hope, California, Florida and Arizona voted for intolerance, with each state passing amendments to explicitly ban gay marriage. This is the 21st Century, yet heterophile bigotry is still dominant in US politics.

40 years ago, would we have thought that a black man could become President of the United States? Perhaps not… yet equally today, do we dare to dream that gay, lesbian, bisexual or even a transgender person might attain the highest office and become the leader of the most powerful nation on earth?

An openly bisexual president? A queer commander in chief? A lesbian in the oval office? Surely its unthinkable?

I’ll admit its difficult to conceive America voting for an LGBT President. A straight black man has one clear advantage. He can be a “good Christian”. He’s not a sodomite, the bible doesn’t frown on his very existence, quite the opposite. The apostle Paul took Christianity to the masses and (against the will of his peers) extended it to become more than a Jewish schism and it was allowed to become a multi-racial faith.

Yet still, anyone engaging in a homosexual act, the bible condemns as a sinner and advocates their execution (Leviticus 20:13). The source of this bigotry is the so called “Christian-Right”, they are the ones standing in the way of Gay Rights in the U.S. non-one else.

But equally, whilst LGBT people in America still face discrimination and bigotry, we are not starting from the same position that the Black civil rights leaders of the 1960′s. Men in white cloaks don’t bomb our houses or burn crosses on our lawns. We have a safe, largely intimidation free platform from which to campaign. Though whilst its easier to campaign without death threats and letter bombs arriving at your house each day, its difficult to mobilise a public sense of outrage from political centrists and independent voters, when they can’t see the harm been done to you and those you love by the religious right.

This was clearly the case in California, where a few short weeks ago Proposition 8 (the ban on Gay Marriage) looked set to fail. But at the ballot box enough uninformed independent voters plumbed for it, unconscious of the prejudice it entails and destruction it does to committed LGBT couples.

The LGBT community will clearly fight on, Obama’s “Yes we can!” Message is still ringing in our ears, but America needs to have a dialogue with itself and recognise that with the election of Barrack Obama its gotten over one prejudice, but it still has others to overcome.

In these politically charged times, particularly with the US presidential elections just a few weeks away. I thought I’d write something explaining my take on the differences between gay and bisexual politics and possibly add some insights into why the gay community exists as a political movement, whereas bisexuals don’t even seem to have a community, much less an organised political movement.

I’m a liberal and I personally find my sexuality is very much aligned with my politics. However, I can’t help but notice that gay activism is very much rooted in the socialist movement. The UK Labour Party has the largest gay membership of any UK Political party and the TUC (Trade Union Congress) works very hard supporting LGBT workers, however their remit only included bisexual and transsexual workers from 1998.

For the benefit of US readers who confuse socialism with liberalism, I can split the difference very suscintly: Socialism emphasises collectivism, whereas liberalism emphasises individuality.

Herein, is the main distinction between being gay and bisexual. When you come out as Gay, you instantly belong to a community. The Gay Community. References to “the LGBT community” which I frequently make myself, are little more than an acknowledgement that politically, we occasionally share common ground (EG: Gay marriage), but bisexuals frequently don’t exist within or as part of a wider gay, lesbian or transsexual community.

I know I don’t. I move in very straight circles. Which frustrates me to a certain extent because it makes it rather hard to meet men. But can I cross-over to the gay community? Not really. It feels very alien to me, there’s too much emphasis in gay circles and the gay media on fitting a stereotype, on conformity within the community. Are you a bear or are you a twink? If you are a twink what’s your twink code? Do you like Disco or Pop Musicals? Theatre goer or drag act fan?

Whichever way you look, the gay media is projecting an image of how the ideal gay ought to be. This shared identity, although not universal, gives the gay community power as a political force. Just as the socialist movement emphasises the shared values of worker rights, and your duty as a worker to stand together under the banner of the proletariat, the gay media emphasises the “right way to be gay”.

There seems to be little room for individuality and self-expression in either movement. Homosexuality doesn’t naturally celebrate diversity, its the lesbian, bisexual and transsexual folk who’ve allowed the gay community to claim that distinction under the LGBT banner. Equally socialism and trade unionism doesn’t celebrate diversity, instead preferring to lump us together as the proletariat. “The masses against the classes,” (to quote the Manic Street Preachers.) Where is my identity celebrated within all that?

I’m the son of a working class parents made good, my parents ran their own businesses for as long as I’ve been alive and although I no longer speak to my father, its never occurred to me that I would ever work for anyone other than myself. I cannot identify with the socialist mentality of being entitled to a “job for life” any more than I can identify with the gay media ideal that I should shave my (light) body hair and start watching musicals or dance to Disco.

I want a place where I can celebrate my individuality and feel accepted for being different without anyone else judging me. That I think in essence is why most bisexuals feel more comfortable identifying with liberal politics. Especially when you consider that after 11 years in power the Labour Government in the UK is now suffering from the plight of a party that’s been in power too long, namely that you can’t admit anything is wrong without laying the blame at your own feet. Worst they are giving out a lot of signals which seem to be saying, “We accept your views as long as *we* share your opinion.” The Conservative opposition, also seems quite happy to back the majority consensus. Hence they now support gay-rights having long opposed them.

But only liberals stand-up for the real minorities. Its only liberals who say “I don’t care what you are or what you do, as long you don’t hurt anyone else.” (Or as I once articulated at a party where I’d had a little too much to drink: “Do what you like, just don’t be a cunt!”)

This belief, known as the harm-principal, is the cornerstone of Liberalism. It gives everyone the space to be themselves, without fear of prejudice, or requirement to conform to society’s expectations. And this I think is its appeal to bisexuals, who like me don’t really fit into the gay community and find the straight world uncomfortably homophobic and sexually unfulfilling.

Liberalism is the natural home for anyone who values their own identity above conformity to someone else’s ideals. This is not to say that all bisexuals are liberals, or all gays are socialists, but the gay community has been built on solidarity, as was the socialism movement. Whereas bisexuality revolves around the individuals own, often private, form of self-identification. This emphasis on oneself, on our own personal and individual right to be ourselves rather than the need or responsibility to be part of a wider community is what distinguishes liberals from both socialists and conservatives.

It also explains why an organised bisexual movement hasn’t developed in the same way as it has for the gay community. We’re frankly far to diverse to come together under a single banner

With the US presidential elections just weeks away, has anything changed in the political landscape that allows, lesbian, gay or bisexual people to feel comfortable voting Republican? With the economy and foreign policy dominating the issues in this year’s campaign, social issues such as abortion and gay-marriage have slid down the agenda.

The fact that these rather emotive issues are not headline news, probably benefits the Democrats as there are no sound-bites about Obama being a ‘child-killer’ or wanting to ‘destroy the institution of marriage’. Equally though whilst social issues haven’t dominating the headlines its easy for a casual voter to forget who they are voting for.

The GOP (Republican Party) is inherently anti-gay rights, it always has been. Whilst its main funding comes from Oil and Big Business, its main voter block comes from conservative evangelical Christian groups.

Whilst Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain I think is inherently more moderate than many of his GOP colleages, he is forced to appease the Christian Right to carry his campaign. Hence the selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate.

We’ll come ot Sarah Palin shortly. Let’s focus for a second on McCain’s record on Gay Rights.

• He admirably opposed a proposed federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, that was promoted by George W. Bush in 2004.
• On California’s attempt to ban gay-marriage he said: “I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona.”

My interpretation of this is that Senator McCain is a Federalist, believing that the legalisation or baning of gay-marriage (and all the rights that come with it) is something that each state should decide for itself. His own position seems largely governed by appeasing his voter base. This gives gay, lesbian and bisexual people two reasons not to vote for McCain.

The first obvious, his position on same-sex marriage is going to be swayed by the people that make up a large chunk of his voting block, the Christian right.

The second is that he is determined to let the majority decide on its legality. On the face of it, this seems democratic, but it leaves the gates wide open for gay, lesbian and bisexual people to fall victim to the tyranny of the majority. This is why the US has federal and state constitutions. To protect the rights of minority groups from a majority keen to oppress them.

As a minority group to secure equal rights, the LGBT community, must either gain support from the masses or where it is unable to do this, requires protection from the courts as happened in California. Too many people use their ‘democratic rights’ to oppress minorities, this is neither fair nor right. America does not need a president who will allow this to happen. And McCain will allow this to happen because he doesn’t like “activist judges” which is his code for judges who uphold the constitution in the face of popular biggotry.

On to the vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin. OK how did she get the job again? She was mayor of a small town (9,000 residents) and then became governor of Alaska, which with all due respect is the most remote state in the Union after Hawaii. So not exactly a fertile political proving ground. And get this, before her selection to the VP ticket she even said that “Obama’s message resonates well” and that Senator Obama was “dynamic and charismatic”. Don’t believe me? Watch here.

Truth be told she got the job because she’s a social conservative and has influential friends in upper echelons of the Christian right. She believes the world is 6,000 years old for Pete’s sake! What kind of deluded moron thinks that? Well Palin believes in the bible above all else and that’s what got her the job. This should be a major cause for concern amongst lesbian, gay and bisexual people, even before we look at her one great foray into legislating against gay-rights.

From Wikipedia:

Palin supported a non-binding referendum for an Alaskan constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples; however, as governor she was forced to veto such a bill, as it is currently unconstitutional.

That’s laughable. It’s effectively saying: “It’ll be nice deny health benefits to same-sex couples, I’d really like to do it, but you know… the constitution says I can’t.” I bet there was a tear in her eye when she signed the veto on that bill. I bet she pretended her pen wasn’t working a few times before her closet gay aid finally passed her his ballpoint.

The truth is whilst Sarah Palin first dazzeled us all with her pefect complexion and sexy-boss look, she is quickly becoming the joke of the Presidential Campaign. Its one gaff or sleazy revelation after another. The VP candidate has to be the attack dog of any campaign, the one to deal the vicious blows at the rival camp. For the democrats Biden can do this, just as Cheny could for Bush. But when a woman does it, (especially one who hardly looks whiter than white herself,) she just comes across as a bitch.

So in conclusion is it safe for lesbian, gay or bisexual people to vote republican? I think the answer is a resounding “NO!” Though to behonest, with Palin on the Republican ticket, I’m not sure its safe for anyone to vote Republican.

Just when we thought California had asserted itself as the “Gay-Friendly” State in the US. I was disappointed to learn that there has been an amendment tabled, with Republican Support, aimed at striking down California’s liberal and tolerant attitude towards gay marriage.

Proposition 8 is an initiative measure on the 2008 California General Election ballot. Which if passed would amend the State Constitution with a new section that would effectively outlaw marriage between same sex partners.

The purpose of this post is to call on all readers in California to VOTE NO to Proposition 8.

California is well known within the US and abroad, for being a progressive and tolerant state. It ought to uphold its historic and long established defence of equal freedoms and rights for all citizens, including the right to marry whoever they wish. This amendment threatens California’s reputation for tolerance and equality and must be defeated.

Now you may ask yourself, what right has a Brit to medal in the affairs of a US State? Well when it comes to US affairs I think we all have a right to voice our opinion as the United States is the world’s last super-power, and in recent times has been rather keen to exert its values on the rest of the world. As a non-US citizen, I don’t get a vote, but I do get a voice. And as long as the US is keen to export its values, I think the rest of the world deserves the right to help influence what those values might be.

Granted California is just one state, but if California leads the way on Gay Marriage and LGBT tolerance, other states will follow. Whilst Europe may still be streets ahead when it comes to LGBT rights, once the US follows suit, exporting equality for LGBT people worldwide will be so much easier.

The most recent opinion polls show that California is split on Proposition 8 with 40% in favour 56% against and 6% undecided. (The sample has an approx 3% margin of error.) There is thankfully a small majority against proposition 8, but this can all change on election day and its no time to be complacent.

So please do all that you can to vote down Proposition 8.

For more information please see:

• Lesbian Mommy – LGBT Call to Action
• No on Proposition 8 (campaign Web site)

Well we are two weeks into the Lambeth conference and the bishops in attendance finally have the opportunity to debate the burning issue of the day, namely the Church’s stance on homosexuality. The Lambeth conference, held once every 10 years, gathers the bishops of the Anglican Communion around the world. However, notable in his absence is the openly Gay bishop of New Hampshire Gene Robinson who was ordained in the Episcopal Church 5 years ago. He wasn’t invited to the conference, yet has been present in the public galleries and been running his own ‘fringe’ events.

Meanwhile the traditionalists, not satisfied with Gene Robinson’s exclusion from the conference, have this time boycotted the Lambeth conference because the Bishop’s who ordained Gene Robinson, were invited. Instead they held a rival conference in Jerusalem called GAFCON, or as I like to call it “Gaff-Con”.

The head of the Anglican Communion the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has been desperately trying to hold the Anglican Church together over this divisive issue. He known to be fairly ambivalent towards homosexuality but has been unwilling to exclude traditionalists, by coming out on the side of the liberals. In effect he’s doing the annoying job of walking a tight-rope and pleasing no-one. He’s keen to get Anglican’s to recognise that the values they share outweighs their differences of opinion on homosexuality.

However, the conservatives are angry that the bible’s very specific ban on homosexuality is been ignored, and to a point I can understand why. Christianity as a religion, survives based on the teaching of the bible and the gospels, once you choose to disregard one passage of the bible, you throw the rest of it into question. The bible holds no authority as we are allowed to “cherry pick” our beliefs.

What traditionalists fail to realise is that most Christians already do just this, as contrary to the directions of the Old Testament, we no longer put children to death for cursing their parents, stone adulterers or execute homosexuals as is mandated by the Book of Leviticus. (We leave that to hard-line Islamists in Saudi Arabia and Iran.)

The Conservatives within the Anglican Communion singularly fail to realise that they have already lost the argument. To prove this lets examine the logic of the debate:

The biblical prohibition of homosexuality is immediately followed by the penalty for homosexual acts.

“If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.”

Leviticus 20:13 (New King James Version)

Now if the Conservatives within the Anglican Church are advocating a return to more literal biblical teachings then I suggest we lock them up quick, as such a view would constitute a hate-crime! However, when mentioning the bible’s prohibition of homosexuality, they rather conveniently ignore any mention of the penalty. Hmm, well either they are trying to  disguise their ill intentions towards homosexuals or it means they have already abandoned biblical literalism themselves.

You’ve got to admit, its hypocritical of conservative Christians to say liberals are abandoning the original teachings of the bible, unless the conservatives are prepared to be literal themselves. So I’d say liberal Anglicans have already won the argument, wouldn’t you?