Queer Quote: Indian Supreme Court Invalidates Sodomy Law (Finally)

In a victory for tens of millions of LGBT individuals, the Supreme Court of India has finally invalidated India's colonial-era sodomy law, decriminalizing homosexuality and ruling that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal in a near 500-page decision.

The battle to have Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code struck down has taken decades. In 2009, the Delhi High Court ruled the nation's sodomy law unconstitutional but the ruling was appealed to the highest court in the land even though the Indian Government agreed to abide by the decision in 2012. Then in 2013 that Court upheld the law in a shocking ruling that maintained the ban on "carnal intercourse against the order of nature." However, the Court agreed to re-hear that decision in 2014 and today's result follows that litigation.

The opinion is quite comprehensive and ends with some stunning conclusions:

(i) Section 377 of the Penal Code, in so far as it criminalises consensual
sexual conduct between adults of the same sex, is unconstitutional;
(ii) Members of the LGBT community are entitled, as all other citizens, to
the full range of constitutional rights including the liberties protected by
the Constitution;
(iii) The choice of whom to partner, the ability to find fulfilment in sexual
intimacies and the right not to be subjected to discriminatory behaviour
are intrinsic to the constitutional protection of sexual orientation;
(iv) Members of the LGBT community are entitled to the benefit of an equal
citizenship, without discrimination, and to the equal protection of law;
and
(v) The decision in Koushal stands overruled.

This an amazing victory for sexual minorities! Note the highlighted section which indicates that the ruling goes far beyond just striking down sodomy laws (like 2003's Lawrence vs Texas).

Today's Queer Quote is from Jessica Stern of OutRight Action International (formerly the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission), who reacted to the ruling by saying, "The sodomy law that became the model everywhere, from Uganda to Singapore to the U.K. itself, premiered in India, becoming the confusing and dehumanizing standard replicated around the world [and] today’s historic outcome will reverberate across India and the world."

Woo hoo!

Queer Quote: Tilda Swinton Shows Support For LGBT Rights in Russia

Tilda  Swinton, Oscar-winning actress (for Michael Clayton), showed support for LGBT equality while in Moscow today by appearing with a rainbow flag near the Kremlin. Just this week, President Vladimir Putin signed into law a measure which basically puts the state's seal of approval on official homophobia in Russia.

Via her agent Christian Hodell on Twitter, Tilda gives our Queer Quote for today:

"In solidarity. From Russia with love."

Hat/tip to TowleRoad

Queer Quote: IL, MN Govs Support Marriage Equality

Pat Quinn (D-IL)	Mark Dayton (D-MN)

Marriage equality legislation is expected to make its way through the legislatures of Minnesota and Illinois (and other states like Rhode Island) in the near future. This is what the respective governors of thos estates, Democrat Pat Quinn of Illinois and Democrat Mark Dayton of Minnesota have to say:

MINNESOTA 

"I believe that every Minnesotan should have the freedom to marry legally the person she or he loves, whether of the same or other sex. Last year, Minnesotans began a conversation about why marriage matters, and we found our common belief that it is about love, commitment, and responsibility. I want Minnesota to be a state which affirms that freedom for one means freedom for everyone, and where no one is told it is illegal to marry the person you love." Governor Mark Dayton (D-MN) 

ILLINOIS 

"Marriage equality is coming to Illinois.Now, it's time to take the next step in achieving full equality.  Let's pass this bill for marriage equality and let's do it now.  Our Illinois is not a land of discrimination." Governor Pat Quinn (D-IL)

These two quotes signify the significant movement towards enacting marriage equality at the state level in 2013.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Queer Quote: GOP Brief Claims Gays Are Powerful

In their opening 60-page brief to the United States Supreme Court defending the odious Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the U.S. v. Windsor case, the Republican U.S. House majority claims, in a brief written under the name of conservative superlawyer Paul Clement (who has billed federal taxpayers nearly $3 million to date for his services), that gays and lesbians do not deserve the "equal protection of the laws" found in the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution because they are too "powerful."

And that, dear reader, leads to today's Queer Quote:

In short, gays and lesbians are one of the most influential, best-connected, best-funded, and best organized interest groups in modern politics, and have attained more legislative victories, political power, and popular favor in less time than virtually any other group in American history.  Characterizing such a group as politically powerless would be wholly inconsistent with this Court’s admonition that a class should not be regarded as suspect when the group has some “ability to attract the attention of the lawmakers.” Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 445. 

Gays and lesbians not only have the attention of lawmakers, they are winning many legislative battles.  And the importance of this factor in the analysis cannot be gainsaid.  This Court has never definitively determined which of the four factors is necessary or sufficient, but given that the ultimate inquiry focuses on whether a group needs the special intervention of the courts or whether issues should be left for the democratic process, the political strength of gays and lesbians in the political process should be outcome determinative here.

LGBT Think Progress demolishes this argument pretty convincingly by placing its content in context with the Civil Rights struggles of the 1960s:

One can only wonder what Paul Clement might have written if Virginia had hired him to defend their practice of racial marriage discrimination when it was before the justices in 1967. “Negro leaders meet often with the President and with Congressional leaders, and indeed, President Johnson himself signed two major laws pushed by the Negro lobby. Negro groups not only led a widely attended rally on the National Mall, but they routinely organize well-attended sit-ins, marches and other events that garner press attention and national sympathy. Recently, a Negro march at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Alabama even sparked the President of the United States to give a speech endorsing the Negro lobby’s agenda before a joint session of Congress.

So if a minority group is actually able to organize and win battles in legislatures and at the ballot box Clement (on behalf of the House Republicans, using our tax money) is arguing that the Courts do not need to intervene to strike down an act by the federal legislature which explicitly discriminates against that same group. "Orwellian" or "Catch-22" only begins to describe the logic at play here.

And it is completely historically inaccurate. Congress passed landmark legislation to protect racial minorities in 1964 and 1965 prior to the United States Supreme Court ruling in Loving v Virginia in 1967 that 16 states' ban on interracial marriage violated the United States constitution.

I am waiting with bated breath to see what our side, represented by Mary Bonauto of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) will say in the reply brief about this and other specious arguments invented to try and defend the indefensible discrimination inherent in DOMA. The good guys have won before the last 10 federal courts to consider DOMA and there's good reason to suspect that the Supremes will rule similarly.

Queer Quote: Aaron Swartz

Lots of people around the world are mourning the news today of the death of Aaron Swartz at age 26 (by suicide). Swartz was well-known around internet freedom as a pioneer and prodigy. He was one of the co-founders of the reddit social networking site as well as instrumental in promoting RSS feeds and stopping the "Stop Online Privacy Act" last year in the U.S. Congress.

Interestingly, Swartz was part of a generation of young people who see sexuality as more fluid and a different construct than older people (like yours truly). In 2009, in  an article he wrote an article titled "Why I am Not Gay" explaining this belief, which I am excerpting here as today's Queer Quote:

Having sex with other people of your gender isn’t an identity, it’s an act. And, like sex in general among consenting adults, people should be able to do it if they want to. Having sex with someone shouldn’t require an identity crisis. (Nobody sees having-sex-with-white-people as part of their identity, even if that’s primarily who they’re attracted to.)

People shouldn’t be forced to categorize themselves as “gay,” “straight,” or “bi.” People are just people. Maybe you’re mostly attracted to men. Maybe you’re mostly attracted to women. Maybe you’re attracted to everyone. These are historical claims — not future predictions. If we truly want to expand the scope of human freedom, we should encourage people to date who they want; not just provide more categorical boxes for them to slot themselves into.

Interesting ideas. I don't disagree with his hope, but I think it discounts the power and historical echoes of the heterosexist society that we currently live in. Thoughts, anyone? If so, please add your responses in the comments.

 Hat/tip to TowleRoad

California State Supreme Court Agrees To Decide Marriage Equality Case

Although not really a surprise, the California Supreme Court made it official Wednesday by unaninmously agreeing to decide whether the state's current marriage laws which do not allow same-sex couples to be issued marriage licences are unconstitutional or not.

The court agreed to hear the appeal of an October 2006 appellate level split decision which had overturned a lower court decision (pdf) by Judge Richard Kramer on March 14, 2005 which had declared that California's marriage laws discriminate unlawfully against same-sex couples in violation of the state and federal constitutions.

"The same-sex marriage case" is really six consolidated cases, known as In re Marriage Cases (S147999).

On September 6, 2005 the California legislature became the first state legislative body to pass a bill to open marriage to same-sex couples. The very next day Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his intention to veto the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act (AB 849 by Leno), which he did on September 29, 2005. On December 4, 2006, Assemblymember Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) reintroduced the legislation to the California Assembly, as AB 43.

Queer of the Year Poll out now

Now that *yawn* we know who won Time magazine's Person of the Year the more intersting race for Queer of the Year can begin. Initiated by blogger Joe.My.God, here are the choices

Who Is The Queer Of The Year 2006?
	Laurel Hester
	Lane Hudson
	Kim Coco Iwamoto
	Mike Jones
	Rosie O'Donnell
	Soulforce
pollcode.com

Queer of the Year Poll

A blog I discovered recently and quite admire, Joe. My. God, is conducting a poll for Queer of the Year. There are a lot of blogs participating, like Pam's House Blend, Queer Beacon and Page One Q, among others. Similar to Time magazine's Person of the Year, except this person answers the question:

"Which queer person most advanced the state of the gay rights movement in 2006?"

I'd like to hear from people (in the comments) about suggestions. My own response to the initial post is Mike Jones, the guy who was responsible for outing evangelist Ted Haggard right before the November 2006 midterm elections where the Democrats were able to re-establish majorities in both houses of Congress.

On another note, voting for the 2006 Weblog Awards in all categories, but most importantly, Best LGBT Blog, is now open. Go vote! (I did. You can do it every 24 hours until polls close on December 15, 2006.)