Tue, Nov 18 02:15 AM
LESS THAN a year ago, Omer and Yonathan Gher dropped a rose in to the Arabian Sea with a silent prayer, just as a fortune teller had told them to do. The Israeli gay couple's prayers were answered on Monday as they boarded a flight home with a son in their arms - a month after he was born to a surrogate mother at Mumbai's Hiranandani Hospital.
"I couldn't believe my luck when the doctor called from India announcing that we were pregnant," said Yonathan, 30, a social activist. The gay couple had been living together for seven years and desperately wanted a child, but the laws in Israel did not allow them to adopt or beget one through a surrogate mother. more
Showing posts with label gay lesbian rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay lesbian rights. Show all posts
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Gay marriage gets court nod in Nepal
Kathmandu, November 18, 2008
First Published: 21:55 IST(18/11/2008)
Last Updated: 01:55 IST(19/11/2008)
| ||||||||||
Close on the heels of an international furore over the state of California’s decision to ban same-sex marriages, the apex court of nascent Himalayan republic Nepal has given its nod to such unions.
“My eyes were filled with tears when I read the Supreme Court decision,” said Sunil Babu Pant, Nepal’s first publicly gay lawmaker and a gay rights icon in South Asia.
Pant’s exultation came after the Supreme Court on Monday delivered full judgement regarding a ground-breaking verdict it had announced last year, recognising sexual minorities, who were among the most oppressed in conservative, patriarchal Nepali society, as being born such and entitled to all the rights and remedies all other Nepali citizens enjoyed.
Now, following up on the judgement, the top court has asked the Maoist government to form a seven-member committee to study same sex partnership/marriage acts in other countries and recommend a similar act to the Nepal government.
The court has also asked the government — that is scheduled to promulgate a new constitution by 2010 — to ensure that the language of the new statute does not discriminate against the sexual minorities.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Gay Rights: Ramadoss's views disowned by Govt.
30 Sep 2008, 0337 hrs IST,TNN |
NEW DELHI: Stung by criticism of its casual approach to the sensitive issue of gay rights, the Central government on Monday distanced itself from NACO's affidavit and even went to the extent of asking Delhi high court to "ignore" health minister Anbumani Ramadoss's statement favouring scrapping of Section 377. "No act of Parliament can be struck down due to an affidavit or a minister's statement," additional solicitor general P P Malhotra told HC, saying since Parliament passed a law criminalizing homosexuality, it represented the "will of the people of this country." "It doesn't matter what the minister says. It is also not important what the affidavit says. It is for the court to decide the issue," Malhotra said before a bench headed by Chief Justice A P Shah adding that the Centre is against decriminalization of gay sex. more |
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Gay rights in India
While many countries have moved forward to recognise same-sex marriages, India is still groping in the narrow alleys of public morality and social good.
In this notion of public morality — which is enforced by the state — lies the rationale for Section 377, which dates back to 1860. This archaic law from the days of the Raj criminalises homosexuality by prohibiting "carnal intercourse against the order of nature", and goes on to punish such acts with imprisonment for life, or a term that may extend up to 10 years, and fine.
Union Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss has raised expectations that the government may repeal the 148-year-old law criminalising sex between men. His declaration, at an international conference on AIDS in Mexico earlier this month, that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code should be scrapped, had its desired impact back home, with gay rights groups welcoming the proactive stand.
Section 377, which does not prohibit lesbian sexuality or conduct in India, has been used by the police to threaten women, too. In 1992, two women police officers of Madhya Pradesh, who were ‘married’, were charged with ‘obscene conduct’ and forced to resign from their jobs. In 1999-2000, a Malayalam newspaper reported seven suicides by lesbians in Kerala. In the same year, a lesbian couple from Orissa was separated forcibly following police intervention, forcing the two to attempt suicide leading to the death of one of them.
On June 29 this year, Delhi, Bangalore, Kolkata and Puducherry celebrated their first-ever gay pride parades, with over 2000 persons turning up for the assertion of their rights.
Many prominent men openly admitting their sexual preferences have further strengthened the cause of gay rights. Prince Manavendra Gohil from a conservative principality in Gujarat risked family criticism and public ostracism by openly declaring his gay preference. Famous fashion designer Wendell Rodericks formalised his union with his French partner in Goa. The two got married under the French law to skirt Section 377.
But not all homosexual men have the courage shown by Rodericks. Close to 10 million Indians pay a heavy price for their chosen sexual preferences by subsisting on the margins. As the state denies them the right to interact openly in society, they cruise in public spaces, under the prying eyes of the police. The encounters often turn devastating, thanks to a law that victimises more than it shields.
Read more
In this notion of public morality — which is enforced by the state — lies the rationale for Section 377, which dates back to 1860. This archaic law from the days of the Raj criminalises homosexuality by prohibiting "carnal intercourse against the order of nature", and goes on to punish such acts with imprisonment for life, or a term that may extend up to 10 years, and fine.
Union Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss has raised expectations that the government may repeal the 148-year-old law criminalising sex between men. His declaration, at an international conference on AIDS in Mexico earlier this month, that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code should be scrapped, had its desired impact back home, with gay rights groups welcoming the proactive stand.
Section 377, which does not prohibit lesbian sexuality or conduct in India, has been used by the police to threaten women, too. In 1992, two women police officers of Madhya Pradesh, who were ‘married’, were charged with ‘obscene conduct’ and forced to resign from their jobs. In 1999-2000, a Malayalam newspaper reported seven suicides by lesbians in Kerala. In the same year, a lesbian couple from Orissa was separated forcibly following police intervention, forcing the two to attempt suicide leading to the death of one of them.
On June 29 this year, Delhi, Bangalore, Kolkata and Puducherry celebrated their first-ever gay pride parades, with over 2000 persons turning up for the assertion of their rights.
Many prominent men openly admitting their sexual preferences have further strengthened the cause of gay rights. Prince Manavendra Gohil from a conservative principality in Gujarat risked family criticism and public ostracism by openly declaring his gay preference. Famous fashion designer Wendell Rodericks formalised his union with his French partner in Goa. The two got married under the French law to skirt Section 377.
But not all homosexual men have the courage shown by Rodericks. Close to 10 million Indians pay a heavy price for their chosen sexual preferences by subsisting on the margins. As the state denies them the right to interact openly in society, they cruise in public spaces, under the prying eyes of the police. The encounters often turn devastating, thanks to a law that victimises more than it shields.
Read more
Monday, August 18, 2008
Doctors Can't Deny Lesbians Care on Religious Grounds
Ruling Was Unamimous, Unlike Legalization of Gay Marriage Case
By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES
Aug. 18, 2008
The California Supreme Court today ruled unanimously that doctors cannot cite their religious beliefs as grounds to deny gay and lesbian patients medical care.
Guadalupe Benitez sued two doctors for refusing to artificially inseminate her for religious reasons and won.
Justice Joyce Kennard ruled that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple cannot claim a free speech or religious exemption from California's anti-discrimination law.
The ruling extends a state law barring sexual orientation-based discrimination to the medical profession.
Guadalupe Benitez, now 36, had maintained that the California medical clinic that was treating her polycystic ovary syndrome had "dumped" her when she asked for artificial insemination.
In 1999, after a year of surgeries and hormone treatments — all covered by insurance — Benitez was finally ready to get pregnant. But at the crucial moment, her doctor refused to do the procedure for "religious" reasons.
Benitez is a lesbian and sued her doctors under California's civil rights laws, charging that they discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation.
"For me this is a case about doing the right thing and being fair," Benitez told ABCNEWS.com. "Not discriminating against people and doctors not playing the role of God, saying because you are gay, you are not worthy of having a child or a family.
The doctors received support from the American Civil Rights Union and anti-abortion groups, according to the Associated Press.
The California Medical Association initially supported the Christian doctors, until they received criticism from gay rights groups and joined the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to oppose them.
The American Civil Liberties Union, California Attorney General Jerry Brown, the National Health Law Program and the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association backed Benitez.
Benitez sued The North Coast Women's Care Medical Group of San Diego, which had an exclusive contract with her health insurance plan. Also named in the suit were two of the clinic's doctors — Dr. Doug Fenton and Dr. Christine Brody — who lawyers say had a constitutional right to refuse a procedure that violated their religious beliefs.
Read the full story
By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES
Aug. 18, 2008
The California Supreme Court today ruled unanimously that doctors cannot cite their religious beliefs as grounds to deny gay and lesbian patients medical care.
Guadalupe Benitez sued two doctors for refusing to artificially inseminate her for religious reasons and won.
Justice Joyce Kennard ruled that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple cannot claim a free speech or religious exemption from California's anti-discrimination law.
The ruling extends a state law barring sexual orientation-based discrimination to the medical profession.
Guadalupe Benitez, now 36, had maintained that the California medical clinic that was treating her polycystic ovary syndrome had "dumped" her when she asked for artificial insemination.
In 1999, after a year of surgeries and hormone treatments — all covered by insurance — Benitez was finally ready to get pregnant. But at the crucial moment, her doctor refused to do the procedure for "religious" reasons.
Benitez is a lesbian and sued her doctors under California's civil rights laws, charging that they discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation.
"For me this is a case about doing the right thing and being fair," Benitez told ABCNEWS.com. "Not discriminating against people and doctors not playing the role of God, saying because you are gay, you are not worthy of having a child or a family.
The doctors received support from the American Civil Rights Union and anti-abortion groups, according to the Associated Press.
The California Medical Association initially supported the Christian doctors, until they received criticism from gay rights groups and joined the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to oppose them.
The American Civil Liberties Union, California Attorney General Jerry Brown, the National Health Law Program and the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association backed Benitez.
Benitez sued The North Coast Women's Care Medical Group of San Diego, which had an exclusive contract with her health insurance plan. Also named in the suit were two of the clinic's doctors — Dr. Doug Fenton and Dr. Christine Brody — who lawyers say had a constitutional right to refuse a procedure that violated their religious beliefs.
Read the full story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Sex Workers
