Well if I'm going to rant, it might as well be to a crowd that don't actually like me in the first place. Mind you, I think this particular case in point might ring a nerve or strike a bell.

Less than a month ago, PN reported "Indonesian province introduces severe penalties for homosexuality" - I move that had even the staunchest homophobes maybe wondering if some people just take things a bit too far. "OK, he shags men. Stone the dirty sod." Seems a bit extreme even for the BNP.

Well, those that know me will know I am about as unspiritual a person as you are ever likely to find. However, I think there are good lessons to be learned in the Bible, and probably other religious tomes as well, but I really can't be arsed to read. Unfortunately, all these honest and decent messages get confused and mangled amongst all the other theological mumbo-jumbo and personal opinions of ficticious dieties. Shame really.

Anyway, as Ronnie Corbett would say, "I digress..."
My point is, less than a month after these heathen morons deemed being gay worthy of being pelted with rocks until the person is reduced to a bloody pulp on the pavement, they are now asking for help: Indonesia awaits world quake aid

I'm not sure which religion expouses Karma, (I think it's Hindu), but I think they might know something us athiests don't, because next time some tin-rattling do-gooder comes up to you in the street asking for a donation towards the Indonesian earthquake, why not hand them a nice bit of granite, or maybe some Portland stone?

Many believe that what Elton has sought to do, and what Madonna and Angelina Jolie have both done; taking children from disadvantaged countries to lives of untold luxury, is wrong. These mega-millionaires, billionaires even, should instead invest their time and money improving the lot of as many children in these poor countries as they can; by building new and better orphanages, providing access to medical care, clean water and healthy food.

Perhaps singling one child out for a life of opportunity whilst leaving others in a state of despair is utterly outrageous, perhaps it is a noble and loving act of giving love and a family to someone who would otherwise have none.

But these are not the things the Ukrainian Government considered when it rejected Elton Johns’ proposed adoption of little Lev. It is because, as Minister Yuriy Pavlenko has said, the mega star is too old and not married. The age gap is certainly wide. Elton is 62, much more than the 45 years the Ukrainian Government says is the maximum age difference for adoptive parents. However his civil partner, David Furnish, at 46 would be within the age limit, and it could be argued in any court or to an adoption official that the wealth and opportunity that Elton John and his partner could offer an adopted child would far outweigh the possibly reduced length of time that Elton John would have with the child due to his age.

The fact that the Ukrainian Government has rejected Elton John because he is not married is worrying, but true. However it can hardly be the fault of Ukraine, a generally conservative Eastern European nation heading into what will be a turbulent election period, to refuse to recognise a civil partnership between a gay couple as the same as marriage. Yes it shows the Ukrainian Government has having an unenlightened view on gay rights, but no one could reasonably expect anything else from this badly divided nation struggling to pull free of its Communist past and menacing Russian neighbour.

This instead exposes a fundamental flaw in the very concept of the British civil partnership scheme. Whenever UK citizens ask their Governments about the full right to marry their same sex partner, the responses that have been received from both Scottish and UK Governments, and in fact from Stonewall UK has been thus: ‘civil partnerships are fine, you get practically the same rights as married couples, you can even get dressed up and have a ceremony down at registry office, so stop bothering us and don’t push your luck.’

Although many people who believe in same sex marriage view this argument as deeply offensive and plain discrimination, it isn’t technically wrong. We DO get virtually the same rights as married couples, which is good, but without a doubt we need to go further and have full marriage equality across the UK. This aside, we then encounter the problem of international recognition of UK same sex couples. Whereas a married same sex couple can move from Canada to Belgium to Spain to Iowa and still be married, the minute they step onto British shores they are relegated to civil partnership status. Therefore when a British ‘civilly partnered’ (what is the actual verb?) couple moves to a jurisdiction that has taken the bold step to allow same sex marriage, it leaves the British couple in a legal limbo, it may even force them to have ANOTHER ceremony to ensure they get the rights they are entitled to as a couple.

The fact is that civil partnership is not a marriage, the British Government never wanted it to be classed as marriage, but our culture has somewhat embraced this as our own British style of same sex marriage, without the protests and court cases, and of course without the name or ancient traditions. So when Elton and David had their civil partnership ceremony, the media celebrated this as a ‘marriage’. Sometimes with inverted commas and a hint of tongue in cheek; other times genuinely inferring that they considered the partnership to as good as a wedding and refered to it as such. This widespread embracing of civil partnerships by society as ‘gay marriage’ has perhaps contributed to the apathetic feeling to real same sex marriage in the UK.

But the case of Elton John proves that for all the similarities, it allows all those who have well entrenched disdain for gay partnerships and the LGBT community to easily sneer at these ‘pretend weddings’ and ‘so called marriages’, and continue to view and treat same sex couples and LGBT people as less then equals, as different from ‘normal’ society and therefore deny them the right to family, security and full citizenship.

The reason same sex marriage is so contentious and civil partnerships, civil unions and domestic partnerships are by comparison not is partly because same sex marriage forces those with less than inclusive views to confront their prejudices and stereotypes. When they have to consider these people they dislike as equals, it puts them on the defensive. In the same way the male elite opposed votes for women, segregationists fought against sharing schools with African-Americans, and racists today claim President Obama is trying to destroy the American way of life; to accept that someone has the same rights as you have, to vote, go to school or become President, is to invariably accept them as the same as you.

Had Elton and David been legally allowed a real marriage, whether they would have wanted it or not, would perhaps not have let them give 14 month old Lev a new life, but it would have forced Ukrainian Government officials to consider the fact Britain believes two husbands can do just as good a job raising a child as can a husband and wife. You don’t change people’s minds by playing to their preconceived beliefs, you do it by forcing them to confront the prejudices they hold. That is why same sex marriage is so important, not just as a matter of equality, but as a way of proving to those who hide behind stereotypes that two wives or two husbands can do just as good a job as loving each other, raising children and contributing to society as anyone else.

                                             
                                              
                                               FRAR
My hart gos out to moTyli’a 'NaNa Boo' Macks mother  Beverlyn

And to all the parents of transsexuals that have been KILLED.

WHY,,,,,, WHY have we been  shot, stabbed, bludgeon, bunt ,drowned,  beaten to death with baseball bats or anything these  men can lay there hands on..

Going back to the man,,, issue  ,,,,well not even men these,,,, do not even deserve to be called men ,,, they are just ,,,,, they have no category, and they should not have one they are just,,, evil….

What have we ever done to them, to deserve this much hatred?  Nothing that is what we have done.

We live our life’s,, well we try to live them,

We life in fear,

Fear that we will be picked in the street and called vile names, like pervert nonce freaks,, we are not

Fear that we will be called Mr. or sir, laughed at in shops when we go shopping

Or just hold the line while I look at your account, and just before you are put on hold you hear them laughing

Fear when walking down a road and a group of teenagers start calling you vile names

Spiting at you, throwing things at you,

Fear when we are in our own homes and our houses get stoned or what ever they can throw  at your windows , putting things through a letter box  like petrol and a match(I do not have a letter box for this reason )   burning down your shed in the garden (I have had this done 2 times)

Fear that when you are out in your car and some yobs smash it up,(  I was still in my car when this happened .)

Fear that when you answer your door that some yobs are there to mock you and throw stuff at you,  (I now have a doorbell camera so I can see who is at my door be for I open it )

Fear that when yobs are outside your house throwing bricks at it and saying that they will brake in to my house rape me and then burn the house down with me in it. (I have had this said to me) 

Fear when Iam walking down the street and I hear footsteps behind me.

I live in fear.

Some people ask WHY live this way, why not go back to being a man

When will that  lot get it there  heads WE ARE NOT MEN

What man would do this the themselves?????? None

When I have had to call the police out a few times,

And when the local beat bobby calls to get a statement, and I tell him what happened, he asks about my feelings about the whole thing. The first couple times he asked me how I felt about the incidents I told him that I was hurt in side.

The time he came out when they were shouting  that they were going to rape me and burn me, he asked me how did it make me feel, I broke down and cried saying that I was scared, freighted, some times I would stay in and not go out .

 Paranoid, I am for ever checking that my doors and windows  are locked and the keys are not in the doors, sleeping on the sofa and with every little noise I am up checking, if I am going  out my front door and I hear voices in the street like kids I go back in to my house and wait till they are gone. This is no way to live. How do I feel      sick to my stomach, that in this day age we hurt people because they are different? 

When I walk out of my house to go anywhere, even  up to my corner shop I have a pepper spray in my hand, when I shop in town and iam walking round the shops I have my pepper spray in my hands.

And if ( touch wood I hope it never happens) I was attacked and I used  my pepper spray, it would be me in the dock and not the yobs that kicked shit out of me or if I was killed I would still be one who was in the wrong 

  WHY DO WE HAVE TO LIVE IN FEAR WHEN WILL ALL THIS HATRED STOP 

Our evidence we presented to parliament is available here http://www.lgbtnetwork.eu/?page_id=1024  and you can see for yourself how a change in the criteria is best to keep blood products safe.

Unlike Stonewall and others, this ban cannot just be seen as discrimination. No one has a right to be a blood donor, but those who are allowed to donate blood have a responsibility to practice safe sex. We know many many gay and bi men do, and many, many straight men do not.

Therefore to make blood as safe as possible, the donor eligibility should be based on factors such as when was the last time a person had unprotected sex or sex with a new partner and when did the person last have an HIV test. An HIV negative man who is having safe sex with another man is prevented from donating, yet a straight man who had unprotected sex with a woman he KNEW to be HIV + can donate after a year.

This is part of a larger need for us to look again at HIV. As we showed in our evidence to parliament, the majority of new infections are from heterosexual people. HIV is something we all must think about, we all must protect ourselves and we all must get tested, regularly.

Reviewing the donor eligibility criteria for blood donations is an important first step in creating a new attitude to HIV that is based on facts not fear, and this review is a good move towards that.

New jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, even the Mormon ruled state of Utah, are all grappling with this issue, well over a half century since Separate but Equal was ruled unconstitutional. Today it is still the dominant feature of the civil rights question, as it has been in days gone by.

 Martin Luther King, told us over and over he had been to the mountain top; that he had seen the Promised Land, and it was going to be built in the deepest, racist and most violent part of the south – that out of segregation, a nation of equality could be built.

Well we have seen it too. We know what our promised land looks like because we have lived it; in Massachusetts, in Connecticut, in Spain and South Africa, and for too little time we lived it in California.

It is time it comes here.

Tuesday 17^th March, the Scottish Parliament will step into that ever growing line of legislatures who have been held accountable before their citizens as we ask for the rights we have been promised. The Prime Minister has called this inequality in Marriage unacceptable, he is right. There are couples clamouring at the gates of churches who will gladly marry them before the eyes of God but right now the law says no.

The law says no, we cannot have what others take for granted. The law says no, we cannot tell the world about our husbands or our wives and no, we cannot be equal in our own land.

As the law says no, we can respond only with yes. Yes, we can live as if we are married, we have done it. Yes, we can build a family, we are doing it; and yes, we deserve equality from a government we elect, and that we equally pay for.

We don’t yet live in the Promised Land, but by God we’ve seen it. We can move that mountain and we can have what is ours and it can start in the Scottish Parliament on Tuesday, 17^th March. Let us not come back from the brink of equality as other places fall to separate but equal, let us not be scared or cynical as we listen to those who only hate, but let us say yes, yes we can have our Promised Land and yes we can have it here.

what’s going on? The question is obviously rhetorical but moreover a statement of discontent.

Linda Perry became a songwriter mostly after her band split up and she was the person behind Christina Aguilera’s hit song ‘Beautiful’ which in its music video had the theme of self-acceptance and portrayed the two gay men kissing and the transvestite. The conclusion is obvious – acceptance of the fringe, acceptance of the ‘other’.

I fear that in terms of acceptance we are starting to take one giant leap backwards. And by ‘we’ I mean the so-called men’s movement.

There seems to be a phenomenon rearing its evil head. All around the world men lead by other self-appointed preachers and moral leaders are revolting against feminism and claiming back their god ordained place in society as head of the house et cetera all under the auspices of religious dogma. They call this the so-called men’s movement. Amongst these self-appointed moral leaders are James Dobson in the

USA and Angus Buchan in South Africa.

This resurgence and revolt against feminism is proliferating at a rapid speed and I fear that in terms of human rights we will be back in the dark Middle Ages.

The patriarchy thinks in terms of binary oppositions or dichotomies depending on which nomenclature you prefer: Male versus female or the ‘one’ versus the ‘other’.

I was always flabbergasted when heterosexual people always wanted to know the butch and femme in homosexual relationships. It is just a manifestation of the obsession with dichotomies and the patriarchy’s utter disregard for equality and the notion of the subservience of the female. Certain heterosexuals and of course the patriarchy par excellence continue to impose these constructs upon everyone else to

simplify their lives. This is also known as old-fashioned stereotyping.

As James Dobson was quoted in the New York Times “tolerance and its first cousin diversity is almost always code for homosexual advocacy.” It seems the patriarchy has a huge gripe with tolerance and diversity. It just doesn’t quite fit into their strict dichotomies.

Now more about James Dobson, he is the founder of the Focus on the Family Foundation and has been spitting out conservative drivel since 1977. Note that James Dobson is no reverend/priest/minister or religious scholar but a psychologist with a very clear ulterior motive. Note also that the Focus on the Family Foundation produces ready-to-play radio programmes an almost prêt-à-porter of the broadcast

industry. And also note that the vast majority of South African community radio stations naively broadcast these conservative drivel much to the astonishment of the liberal community.

Our nation is built on tolerance and diversity; our coat of arms says ‘unity in diversity’ after all. Now why do these radio stations propagate division?

James Dobson also went on the most illogical tirade about the innocent and very likable cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants. He was widely quoted that said character was a product of the pink agenda (inferring gay mafia connotations) and maintains that SpongeBob SquarePants will pollute the minds of the young and feed them pro-homosexual messages.

***

The feminists and the LGBT community had a common enemy in the patriarchy and its utter disregard for the rights of the 'other', this 'other' being everyone except the heterosexual male.

I did a simple Google search on 'the evils of the patriarchy' and to my astonishment most results lead to websites that proclaim the evil of feminism and the foundation of their dislike is 'the bible tells us so'.

Ever since the advent of the modern constitutional democracy there has been the vital and clear separation between church and state. Otherwise politically we would be back in the Middle Ages.

The problem with the patriarchy is that it is the basis of many cultures and it is sanctioned by religious texts hence it still being in practice today. The Patriarchy imposes their strict dichotomies on everyone else thus subverting the rights of everyone but the heterosexual male. The Patriarchy also has no tolerance for equality and firmly believes in the subservience of the 'other' (historically the female); they thus also regard women and the LGBT community as lesser persons and would not grant them equal rights.

Then came 20 July 2008 and the Sunday Sun, a Media24 publication, with the now infamous article by Jon Qwelane called ‘Call me names, but Gay is NOT okay...’ In an instant not only the LGBT community was utterly insulted and disgusted but also women in general. The article is the most ignorant factually incorrect drivel that was

printed in a long time. It seems that Jon Qwelane had no respect for historical fact, as he couldn’t even get his facts straight regarding King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn.

The article is just another manifestation of the patriarchal notions of inequality since in that same article he called for the constitution to be amended so that gay rights would be taken away. That article prompted a massive flood of letters as have never seen before to the Press Ombudsman and the South African Human Rights Commission and countless people are now boycotting Media24 and cancelling subscriptions, and not all of them are gay.

Then there are also the tragic stories of Sizakele Sigasa, Salome Masooa, Zoliswa Nkonyana and Eudy Simelane. They all were brutally murdered, some raped and tortured for no other reason but their sexual orientation. What they have in common is that they were all female homosexuals, thus a double NO from the patriarchy.

Here we have the dichotomy of the ‘one’ versus the ‘other’ again, and obviously the rights of the ‘other’ have fallen by the wayside; moreover the ‘other’ has been the victims of attack as exemplified by the xenophobic attacks of 2008 and the brutal murders of these four women.

I was fortunate enough to be introduced to Eudy Simelane’s mother at Joburg Pride 2008 at the wall of remembrance. When I tried to console her she said: ‘what can we do?’ Powerful question in itself, and I think also a statement of discontent.

Louise Reardon, activist, writes the following:

“Adam and Eve. Two of our oldest and most intertwined human roots are organised religion and patriarchy. The most evident and convenient way to ensure a man's position in the patriarchal family image was to dictate and confine a woman's sexual behaviour. Thus, man fulfilled his basic biological need – to “invest” in his own children. This control was justified by the suggestion women were inferior, not to mention, sexual temptations designed to corrupt men.

This ‘moral justification’ was – and is – masked and enforced in organised religion, disguising it as sacred and divine laws, stating a woman's proper place is quietly at home, hidden from the “man's world,” out there. These patriarchal, religious structures inevitably spill over into how our societies function today. What has been created is a male-dominant culture biased in its thinking and actions. Thus, such an environment restricts and inhibits the equally important beliefs, roles and contributions of women.

‘Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.’ – 1 Tim. 2:11-14

Should we blame Eve entirely for stepping out in a search for truth, independence, knowledge and free will? And, should Adam be absolved of all wrongdoing because he was a mindless and submissive follower?”

Marilyn Twink, a devout LGBTIQ rights activist writes:

“Isn’t that how religion has always worked? Read the book, obey the book, believe the book, and hit other people over the head with the book if they don’t believe it too? If they don’t believe it, hate them and even kill them? Life by the book, death by the book. Very intelligent indeed.”

Rosemarie Putnam Tong, author of Feminist Thought, writes the following: “Simone de Beauvoir provided an ontological-existential explanation for women’s oppression. In The Second Sex, one of the key theoretical texts of the twentieth century feminism, she argued that woman is oppressed by virtue of her otherness. Woman is the other because she is not-man.”

Tong also further states that: “They claim woman’s otherness enables individual women to stand back and criticise the norms, values, and practices that the dominant male culture (patriarchy) seeks to impose on everyone, particularly those who live on its periphery”

Amelia Jones, author of Feminism, Incorporated. Reading “postfeminism” in an antifeminism age, has the following to say: “The recent resuscitation of this patriarchal fantasy by the right – under the guise of ‘family values’ – is a symptom of the massive anxiety of the patriarchal system, a reaction formation against the threatening incursion of women into the work force and, more recently, the political arena.”

Jones continues: “With the cultural authority of anglo masculinity becoming increasingly bankrupt as gay, feminist, and non-white cultures insistently articulate counter-identities to this imaginary norm, the patriarchal commodity system urgently seeks to reinforce predictable stereotypes of femininity... The properly postfeminist

woman shores up the crumbling infrastructure of conservative American ideology during a time of economic crisis and confirms the ‘rightness’ of Republicanism, with its moralizing intervention in personal relations and the destruction of the civil rights of women, lesbians, gays, blacks, and others.”

Jones then explores the heart of this topic: “The other side of the postfeminist coin is the so-called ‘men’s movement.’ Inspired by Robert Bly’s book Iron John (1990) the men’s movement appropriates and perverts the rhetoric of feminism to urge the contemporary American male to ‘find a voice of [his] own’ as a ‘Wild Man.’ Bly laments the feminization of the American male at the hands of his female caretakers, and calls for the extirpation of this spineless femininity through primitivist histrionics and rituals of male bonding. The “Wild Man” immerses himself in mother nature and beats the appropriated drums of his “primitive” brothers with big sticks to prove to himself that, while he may be a ‘minority’ – as one xenophobic Time article argues, referring to competition for jobs from non-white, non-male workers in ‘Get Set: Here They Come!... White, U.S.-born males are a minority’ – his ability to dominate is intact. As with the frantic declarations of the supposed death of the feminist subject, the fact that masculinity (again, aggressively heterosexual and almost exclusively anglo and upper middle-class) needs to be shored up proves again how intense is the threat the vast numbers of working women of all sexual, racial, and class identities currently pose to the patriarchal system (not to mention the threat posed by the

increasingly powerful identity politics of the non-heterosexual male).”

Just as these excerpts explain the situation in the USA, so these notions have shown up here in South Africa as well. Think of the “Mighty Men” conferences. Sad and immensely frightening and utterly detrimental to the egalitarian society we want to build here.

And lastly, now I want to ask that anthem of a question that Linda Perry asked about fifteen years ago: what’s going on?

References:

Jones, A. (Ed). 2003. The Feminism and Visual Culture Reader. Routledge

Tong, R. P. 1998. Feminist Thought. A more comprehensive introduction. Westview Press

The Civil Partnership Act of 2004[2] was passed by Westminster for the whole of the UK. The Scottish Executive consented to Westminster legislating a Scottish section within the Act. When a Civil Partnership is registered, the law mandates that it is performed in a secular manner. Therefore gay people of faith whose religion may wish to celebrate their marriage are not allowed to have that done. Nor does the Act offer any provision for a ceremony to be held when the partnership is signed, as opposed to marriage where words have to be spoken as well as the register signed.

The Scottish Parliament was founded on the value of equality; that every citizen is entitled to the same rights as all others, and to be respected and protected by the government we elect. Although the Civil Partnership Act was and is groundbreaking, the status quo remains that there is one law for straight couples and another law for gay couples. The fact that they have equal status does not detract from the fact that they are separate and different.

If we truly believe in equality; if we actually want to live in a society where citizens are treated the same no matter what their sexuality, then allowing separate but equal to remain the law of the land simply cannot stand. The era of discrimination and segregation based on the colour of a persons’ skin began to be dismantled with the US Supreme Court ruling that “separate but equal is inherently unequal.”[3]

Yet more than 50 years later, we are still denied access to the basic institution of marriage in the UK. Instead we have been given something that although is considered equal under the law, is also considered separate. A gay couple that is legally married in Spain or South Africa has thier marriage changed to a civil partnership when they come to the UK. A Canadian couple went to the High Court in 2006, seeking to have their legally valid Canadian marriage recognised as such under UK law, just as heterosexual marriages are recognised no matter where they are performed in the world. Sir Mark Potter, the High Court Judge rejected their plea in Wilkinson v. Kitzinger[4]. In his judgement he stated how civil partnerships were indeed different from marriage, and that the government, in denying gay couples the right to marry, was engaging in a legitimate attempt to protect marriage and family life. He also effectively fined the couple £25,000 by making them pay the governments legal costs.

More recently in October 2008, Lord Bach, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Ministry of Justice reaffirmed the British governments opposition to same sex marriage. He states that when the government passed the bill “we made a distinction in it and did not call single-sex partnerships marriage… it did not call those partnerships marriage, and that remains the Government’s policy.”[5]

That blatant inequality is incompatible with the values of the Scottish Parliament. It conflicts with the principles of Scottish law, and is contradictory to the inalienable rights of every citizen.

The definition of marriage is not static; it changes as our society does. For many centuries, marriage was a mere contract to better the position of one family or to remove rivalry with another. Our interpretation of what constitutes a relationship has progressed from a wife being considered little more than the property of her husband to a partnership of equals; and our society now stands at the point where it affords equal protection to couples regardless of gender. So what then are the reasons for allowing only marriage for straight couples and civil partnership for gay couples? If they are really the same, why are there two different laws and two different forms to fill in at the registrar’s office?

The word marriage evokes timeless values of love and commitment, and it radiates a clarity of status in society as well as a subtle collection of personal, social and spiritual meanings that two people are united in all aspects of their life. Marriage is the strongest word we have for a declaration of total love and commitment to one another; and to deny any person that opportunity is to deny the full measure of dignity and humanity that we are all endowed with.

Can our society not be one where two people decide what status is best for them? Straight couples who wish to get married already get the choice between having a religious or civil ceremony. But of course there are some straight couples who would balk at the thought of even entering into a civil marriage, and would perhaps prefer a civil partnership, free of some of the associations and imagery that marriage brings. Just as how there are gay couples, who embrace the concept of marriage, and wish to celebrate their love by entering into this ancient institution, be that as a civil ceremony or one conducted by a progressive religion.

By denying same sex couples the right to marry on the grounds that some religious groups are opposed to it, enshrines that particular religious dogma into law, and ignores the diversity of faith groups that exist who would willingly marry two people of the same sex. In terms of performing religious marriage, it must be up to that particular faith to decide who to marry, not any government or parliament. Our 21st century state must respect the pluralism of belief and the diversity of faith that exists in Britain.

This petition is but one small step in the road to full equality and participation in every aspect of society. As we have seen from the battles over same sex marriage in the United States, there are those who will spend all they can and will fight to the very last to prevent gay couples being married. This does not mean we should run from the fight. We should not be afraid of standing up for what we believe in just because someone else is preparing to knock us down. And we should never be willing to compromise on our fundamental values, on our basic human rights or on our belief in the morality of equality.

This makes it incumbent on all of us who wish to live in a more equal world that we do not let someone else fight for a right we wish to enjoy. This is not the LGBT Networks campaign for marriage equality, this is simply a petition we thought was a good idea.

The campaign must come from all of us; from the group of friends who debate amongst themselves whether they would really be happy with a civil partnership; from the young person who isn’t happy to accept she is growing up in a country that wont afford her the same rights enjoyed by others; and from the happy couple who go down to the registry office, and instead of asking for civil partnership documents, demand that they be allowed to marry.

Some will say that there are more important things to do, and in some ways that’s true. But we can do more than one thing at a time. Putting your name to a petition or starting a conversation doesn’t detract from anything else that needs done.

But change doesn’t just happen. If we want it, we have to act like it. We have to stand up to those that say marriage should only be for straight people, or that civil partnerships are enough for us or don’t rock the boat to much in case some people don’t agree. Of course there are going to be people who are against this, but we should never shrink from the fight just because we might get hit.

In 2009, the 40^th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, I think about those courageous individuals who fought hand to hand with the police, to assert their right to exist, to be themselves openly and to be with the people they love, free from intimidation and harassment. Their legacy is not the laws that favour us, but our desire, our passion, and our right to be equal.

Nick Henderson

Director, LGBT Network
9/1/09

It seems to take a bandwagon as big as Russell Brand and Jonathan for the BBC to acknowledge that has done anything wrong.

But this ignores the bigger issue. I think that with the multitude of programmes that are broadcast over a sprawling network as large as the BBC that is so closely related to British society, there are bound to be incidents where we as a community are offended or attacked, still so pervasive in British society.

But within a network as sprawling and as diverse as the BBC, there is no space for the gay community to defend itself against such attacks, or use the media as a way to educate people about the LGBT community and reinforce that such attacks are not acceptable.

If there was a racial slur made against an Asian person on a mainstream BBC programme, there would rightly be indignation within the Asian community, with space for debate provided by the Asian media, such as the BBC Asian Network.

I think it’s a great thing to have such diversity on the BBC. It is funded by pretty much everyone in the UK, and therefore communities within Britain deserve space and time on our national broadcaster to discuss and debate issues important to the community, to develop the communities’ culture and promote new trends and different ideas.

How much do you think the BBC spends on programmes directed at the LGBT community? Well, they wouldn’t tell me when I asked, but they were more than happy to tell me that they were “determined to portray fully-rounded gay & lesbian ‘normalised’ characters in our television output.”[3]

I might have been also interested, according to this freedom of information response, to know that there are gay people on Doctors, Dog Borstal, and there was an entire documentary on BBC Three one time, called. The Trouble With Gay Men.[4]

It is to the BBC’s credit that they include openly gay characters (although there is less good to be said about the inclusion of Lesbian, Bisexual or Transgender people) on a few of their mainstream shows, but I fail to see how that significantly benefits the gay community, when it’s still just a token gay in a programme that is overwhelmingly heterosexist. It can even be detrimental in trying to build a gay culture that LGBT characters are portrayed with everyone around them being so cool with their sexuality that to the casual straight viewer, it appears that there are no real problems facing the community anymore.

One must only glance a few times a week at websites such as pinknews.co.uk to see that there are dozens of stories every day that are of supreme interest to gay people, but maybe not to anyone else.

What we lack in Britain is the space to discuss them, to debate and to challenge British society and our own community.

There is not the time on mainstream BBC to look at the range of issues that affect us in depth, and to give our culture and our history the proper investigations and debate that it so sorely deserves.

There lacks the opportunities for LGBT people to have programmes that deal with LGBT issues or are really only of interest to the LGBT community to have that reach the target audience through the mass media.

When a homophobic slur is made on a mainstream programme, there is nowhere for us to talk about it as a community; to look at the issues behind what was said, or to debate our place in British society.

According to research carried out by Stonewall, LGBT people provide around £200 million[5] of the license fee, and in return we are subject to homophobic abuse on a weekly basis, and confronted by a wall of silence when we complain to the BBC.

To start with, there needs to be LGBT dedicated programming across the vast array of the BBC network. Programmes that are aimed at the gay community and deal with issues important to us, and that should encourage LGBT people themselves to be involved in the programme at all stages of development. For example, a daily radio talk shows that discusses LGBT news and current events, that can ask the tough questions to politicians and public figures on issues that are important to us. Or a weekly TV show that gives a roundup of gay entertainment, music, movies and books, and space for up and coming LGBT stars to make their name.

Now I am not a TV producer, but there are plenty of LGBT people who are or who have better ideas than this, and we are entitled to have the BBC listen to us. Eventually I want to see a digital TV and radio station that provides the broad range of programming that our community deserves. This is not about segregation of news or entertainment, but it is about providing a space in British society for LGBT people to have their say, a say that is long overdue.

Nick Henderson
Director, LGBT Network
6/1/09

One of my friends went to Las Vegas .after returning he showed me the videos and pictures of Las Vegas. I got impressed by Las Vegas that I decided to go to Las Vegas. Then I decided to go to Las Vegas and now I am going to Las Vegas. I went to Las Vegas by plane. It was an interesting journey as I am afraid of traveling in the plane. For staying I had already booked a hotel room. That hotel I searched from the internet as cheap hotels in las vegas. The very first day I reached to the hotel I was little bit tired. So I rested and after resting I took a nice coffee and wake up fully with no laziness. After that I decided to go outside and to travel some interesting places.

Firstly I went to see Treasure Island. Treasure Island Hotel and Casino (sometimes just called the TI) is an energetic, sophisticated resort replete with elite amenities, including "Mystère" by Cirque du Soleil. Treasure Island also offers the beautiful, tempting Sirens of TI in a battle of the sexes with a band of renegade pirates at Sirens' Cove. VIP Viewing is exclusive to TI hotel guests at these FREE live performances each night. "Mystère" has an international cast of 72 performers. Then I went in Caesars Palace Hotel Casino. Perhaps the most well known casino and hotel on the Vegas Strip is Caesars Palace. Owners really work hard to offer newest and hottest trends to the customers. You can shop from here. You can relax here with Roman pillars, marble statues, manicured gardens, and refreshing whirlpools. Then I went to Venetian Resort & Casino. It is five-diamond rated resort that spoils you with romance and charm. Casino area includes a variety of table games, slots, and a sports lounge, you can shop. The most charming part of the hotel is the canal, on the second floor, that peacefully flows around the hotel. You can hire a gondola ride and you can have dinner there with your loved one.

The second day I went to see sunset park. One of Las Vegas largest parks, located just south of town next to the McCarran Airport. Picnics to festivals are the activities which go on there. There is a large lake between which a replica of Easter Island presents. "Ren Fair" held here throughout the year where people dress up in their medieval attire and enjoy a range of things to do such as sword fighting, dog races, and concerts.

The third day I went to paris las vegas. Eiffel towers replica is present here above the 20 stories but this replica is small in size due to airspace restrictions near the airport. you will find you in front of the neon sign resembling the Montgolfier balloon, and be awed by the spectacular array of lights that brighten up the night sky.

The forth day I went for shopping. I purchased some of the goods which were cheap in the city. I bought a pair of shoes and a t-shirt for me. I ate some food in the local city and I returned back with my luggage with me and with sweet memories.

Dewey Beach is in the US state of Delaware. I went to see the city and I am presenting the brief overview of the city. I stayed in one of the cheap hotels in dewey beach. This hotel provides me a great discount on the cheap prices. Facilities and services they were offering were of world class. Dewey beach is popular as a party town in the summer, and is particularly popular in the Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Wilmington areas. Its one side is ocean and one side is bay. It is a small town which is one mile long and only two blocks wide. Numerous bars and rock clubs line Coastal Highway. In summer coastal highway is choked with bar goers hopping from one nightspot to other. Dewey beach is a famous family resort as it has a very wide beach. Dewey Beach Music Conference and grey hound reach the beach festival are the two popular events which happen in the town. This area is popular for water sports such as skim boarding, windsurfing, and catamaran sailing. Sunsets over the bay provide a romantic atmosphere and enhance the nightlife. A popular activity is treasure hunting on the beach with metal detectors. I suggest to all readers that don’t waste your money too much on the hotel you are staying. You just chill outside and visit approximately every famous place. Stay in cheap hotels. I enjoyed a lot there and want to go again there. Then I returned home back with sweet memories.

I recommend it.

Oh and to those who are in the UK and want to see it here is an online link for you xD

Here is the link, its in two parts

http://fundovideos.com/ViewAdDetails.aspx?bid=445

Hope it works!

Instead, South Africa chose to side with despotic disrespectors of human rights such as the Vatican and numerous Muslim theocracies who follow policies which victimize GLBTIQ people and condemn them to death by execution - as well as those blatantly homophobic and fascist African countries such as Uganda - who have taken to outlawing homosexuality and persecuting diversity and the diverse as criminals.

It is rather disconcerting that the only country in Africa to so far show support for equality and human rights for GLBTIQ chose to ignore calls by GLBTIQ groups and the weight of conscience applied by voices from around the civilized world - simply ignored the issue as if it never existed. In fact, aside from some mentions on exclusively non-heterosexual news websites, almost no mention of this event and the SA governments unpardonable lapse in judgment was made in the mainstream media.

It is an affront to South Africans with a clear understanding of issues surrounding equal civil rights in SA that the representatives of the SA Government could in a radio interview today attempt to transfer their complicity in this matter by pointing fingers at other countries and claiming that human rights activists should rather tackle "bigger issues" like the USA's Guatanamo Bay human rights violation allegations, than criticizing SA for "having principles". Such a brass faced statement should make fair minded South Africans wonder what exactly these "principles" are that were being referred to and whether they should start applying for a passport.

While this UN declaration carries no legally binding implications for the governments who ratified it, this choice to not support the international initiative simply adds to the repugnance of the SA government's emerging disdain for its own non-heterosexual citizens. Here they had an ideal opportunity to stand up for justice, equality and all the things that make SA a beacon of light in the dark mass of ignorance and unjust persecution on the continent and to speak as a voice of reason in the face of institutionalized bigotry and despotism. Instead they chose to stand with the human rights abusers and deliver a resounding slap in the face of not only every GLBTIQ citizen of South Africa - but to every GLBTIQ person in the world.

It is therefore a major concern to us which path South Africa will be following after the 2009 elections. Considering the homophobic utterences of Mr Zuma and his cronies, the concerns of GLBTIQ citizens in SA now seem validated, even compounded by this disgrace. The government of the day has therefore - very publicly - shown where its interests lie; and following this incident it certainly does not seem to share our interests as GLBTIQ citizens of South Africa.

We therefore urge all SA voters to ensure they vote according to their consciences in the coming 2009 General Election - and above all not to vote for parties who show no interest in GLBTIQ equality - (or to be precise, those who clearly ignore and even trivialize issues surrounding homophobia, hate crime, heterosexism and persecution) - but instead to vote for any other party who does. Contrary to popular belief there are still a few of those left in SA. - SA GLAAD 2008