It will solidify Thailand’s status as a comparatively safe place for LGBTQ+ couples in an area where acceptance of such relationships is uncommon.
Tag: LGBTQ
-
The long-march to same-sex marriage equality
By Online Desk
“The Times They Are a-Changin.” For the LGBTQ community in India, Bob Dylan’s song holds little hope following the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (October 17, 2023) refusing to give legal sanctity to the concept of same-sex marriage.
The LGBTQ community’s fight for equal rights is an ongoing process. The road ahead looks bumpy and hard in India following the jolt received in the form of the apex court verdict.
But author and “constitutional law scholar” Gautam Bhatia had this is to say in a message he posted on platform X: “Solidarity to everyone on a very difficult way. No legal setback is foever. We’ll all need to study the judgment(s) very carefully, and find spaces in the interstices to rebuld, going forward.”
“And you better start swimmin’/Or you’ll sink like a stone/For the times they are a-changin’,” sings Dylan.
Even as the LGBTQ community has received a setback in India, a look at the progress that has been made and the global scenario of marriage equality is indeed encouraging.
Early Days
In the 1970s, LGBTQ activists began staging protests and raising awareness about the need for equal rights and marriage equality.
The 1987 March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights marked a key moment, bringing national attention to these issues. Activists demanded an end to discrimination against LGBTQ individuals, including in areas like employment, housing and healthcare.
Many early activists saw marriage equality as an important part of securing full civil rights protections for lesbian and gay couples. Partners faced difficulties around hospital visitation rights, inheritance, child adoption, and a lack of spousal benefits. Without marriage rights, same-sex couples faced significant legal and financial obstacles.
Progress emerged slowly at first. In the 1990s, several countries including Norway, Sweden and Iceland passed registered partnership laws to provide some spousal rights to same-sex couples. But most denied full marriage equality.
Court Battles
A major breakthrough came in 2001 in the Netherlands, which became the first country to legalize same-sex marriage. Over the next two years Belgium, Ontario and British Columbia followed.
In the landmark 2003 Goodridge v. Department of Public Health ruling, Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage after their highest court ruled that barring same-sex couples from marriage violated the state constitution.
This ignited a wave of court battles across the U.S. as other states’ bans were challenged. The California Supreme Court struck down the state’s ban in 2008, representing a huge victory for same-sex marriage activists.
But opposition also mounted. In the 2008 election cycle, California, Arizona and Florida all passed ballot measures to ban same-sex marriage in their state constitutions. This revealed the persisting deep social divides around the issue.
The Tide Turns
Despite the state-level bans, momentum was shifting. Younger generations overwhelmingly supported marriage equality and acceptance of LGBTQ rights was growing.
Several other nations including Portugal, Argentina and Denmark legalized same-sex marriage between 2008-2010. Political leaders such as Barack Obama began voicing support.
In 2011 New York passed legislation making it the largest U.S. state at the time to allow same-sex marriage. In 2012 Washington, Maine and Maryland all passed ballot initiatives in favor of legalization.
US Supreme Court
On June 26, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court issued their historic ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide in a 5-4 decision. The Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment required states to license marriages between same-sex partners and recognize such marriages performed out-of-state.
Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights…Without the recognition, stability and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser.”
With this landmark decision, same-sex marriage was legalized across all 50 states. The ruling cemented marriage equality as a fundamental civil right in the U.S. The White House showed its support by illuminating the building in rainbow colors.
In the years since, same-sex marriage rights have continued expanding to more regions globally:
– Australia legalized it after a postal vote in 2017- Taiwan’s legislature passed Asia’s first same-sex marriage law in 2019- Ecuador legalized it in 2019 after a ruling by their Constitutional Court- Northern Ireland legalized it in 2020- Costa Rica legalized it in 2020 after a Supreme Court ruling- Chile passed a law allowing it in 2021 after years of activism
Meanwhile, same-sex marriage remains banned in most of Africa, parts of Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia. But public opinion in many countries remains divided, signaling that the legal battles around same-sex marriage are likely to persist.
Follow The New Indian Express channel on WhatsApp
“The Times They Are a-Changin.” For the LGBTQ community in India, Bob Dylan’s song holds little hope following the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (October 17, 2023) refusing to give legal sanctity to the concept of same-sex marriage.
The LGBTQ community’s fight for equal rights is an ongoing process. The road ahead looks bumpy and hard in India following the jolt received in the form of the apex court verdict.
But author and “constitutional law scholar” Gautam Bhatia had this is to say in a message he posted on platform X: “Solidarity to everyone on a very difficult way. No legal setback is foever. We’ll all need to study the judgment(s) very carefully, and find spaces in the interstices to rebuld, going forward.”googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2′); });
“And you better start swimmin’/Or you’ll sink like a stone/For the times they are a-changin’,” sings Dylan.
Even as the LGBTQ community has received a setback in India, a look at the progress that has been made and the global scenario of marriage equality is indeed encouraging.
Early Days
In the 1970s, LGBTQ activists began staging protests and raising awareness about the need for equal rights and marriage equality.
The 1987 March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights marked a key moment, bringing national attention to these issues. Activists demanded an end to discrimination against LGBTQ individuals, including in areas like employment, housing and healthcare.
Many early activists saw marriage equality as an important part of securing full civil rights protections for lesbian and gay couples. Partners faced difficulties around hospital visitation rights, inheritance, child adoption, and a lack of spousal benefits. Without marriage rights, same-sex couples faced significant legal and financial obstacles.
Progress emerged slowly at first. In the 1990s, several countries including Norway, Sweden and Iceland passed registered partnership laws to provide some spousal rights to same-sex couples. But most denied full marriage equality.
Court Battles
A major breakthrough came in 2001 in the Netherlands, which became the first country to legalize same-sex marriage. Over the next two years Belgium, Ontario and British Columbia followed.
In the landmark 2003 Goodridge v. Department of Public Health ruling, Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage after their highest court ruled that barring same-sex couples from marriage violated the state constitution.
This ignited a wave of court battles across the U.S. as other states’ bans were challenged. The California Supreme Court struck down the state’s ban in 2008, representing a huge victory for same-sex marriage activists.
But opposition also mounted. In the 2008 election cycle, California, Arizona and Florida all passed ballot measures to ban same-sex marriage in their state constitutions. This revealed the persisting deep social divides around the issue.
The Tide Turns
Despite the state-level bans, momentum was shifting. Younger generations overwhelmingly supported marriage equality and acceptance of LGBTQ rights was growing.
Several other nations including Portugal, Argentina and Denmark legalized same-sex marriage between 2008-2010. Political leaders such as Barack Obama began voicing support.
In 2011 New York passed legislation making it the largest U.S. state at the time to allow same-sex marriage. In 2012 Washington, Maine and Maryland all passed ballot initiatives in favor of legalization.
US Supreme Court
On June 26, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court issued their historic ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide in a 5-4 decision. The Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment required states to license marriages between same-sex partners and recognize such marriages performed out-of-state.
Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights…Without the recognition, stability and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser.”
With this landmark decision, same-sex marriage was legalized across all 50 states. The ruling cemented marriage equality as a fundamental civil right in the U.S. The White House showed its support by illuminating the building in rainbow colors.
In the years since, same-sex marriage rights have continued expanding to more regions globally:
– Australia legalized it after a postal vote in 2017
– Taiwan’s legislature passed Asia’s first same-sex marriage law in 2019
– Ecuador legalized it in 2019 after a ruling by their Constitutional Court
– Northern Ireland legalized it in 2020
– Costa Rica legalized it in 2020 after a Supreme Court ruling
– Chile passed a law allowing it in 2021 after years of activismMeanwhile, same-sex marriage remains banned in most of Africa, parts of Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia. But public opinion in many countries remains divided, signaling that the legal battles around same-sex marriage are likely to persist.
Follow The New Indian Express channel on WhatsApp
-
RSS body survey on same-sex marriage: Dangerous and misleading, say LGBTQ activists
By PTI
NEW DELHI: Several LGBTQ rights activists have called the survey on same-sex marriage by an RSS body “dangerous and misleading” and accused the organisation of “spreading disinformation”.
According to the survey by Samwardhini Nyas, an affiliate of the Rashtra Sevika Samiti (a women’s organisation which parallels the RSS), many doctors and allied medical professionals believe that homosexuality is “a disorder” and it will increase further in society if same-sex marriage is legalised.
“Such a study is dangerous and misleading for a society that is unaware. It goes against basic dignity and amounts to defamation. Who are these doctors who have respondents in the survey? Their licences should be cancelled.
“Be it The Yoga Institute which was founded in 1918 or the Indian Psychiatric Society, both have maintained that homosexuality is legitimate and normal, it is natural, inborn and choiceless,” said author and advocate for equal rights, Sharif Rangnekar, who also points out how Hinduism is replete with references to homosexuality.
Activist Harish Iyer said that psychiatric bodies from across the world and India have maintained that homosexuality is not an “aberration but a variation”.
It is beyond any reasonable doubt, he said. “No religion that claims to be a protector of humanity can also support this labelling of LGBTQIA+ individuals as deviants. It is against the ethos of our nation and also against the very grain of the belief of every religion that is based on the principle of love and acceptance.”
“If you believe that your God created all of humankind. Then God made me too. And standing up against LGBTQIA+ individuals is akin to working against the intent of your God. God made me this way,” he said.
Iyer also appealed to the government to raise awareness on the issue.
“In keeping with the ruling on the Section 377, the government’s responsibility is to create awareness to ensure more acceptance and no misinformation. I would appeal to the government of the day to step in and stand against such blatant disinformation,” he said.
Q Manivannan, a queer scholar and PhD candidate, University of St Andrews, too refers to ancient mythology in debunking the results of the survey.
“The RSS forgets, when convenient, that homosexuality is rife in mythology too. Same-sex unions of many kinds, companionships and homoeroticism, much like transgender themes, feature in the Ramayana, in the Mahabharata, and the Upanishads,” he said.
Activist and CPI-M leader Subhashini Ali also attacked the survey.
“It was “idiotic unscientific, inhuman,” she tweeted.
The survey has been conducted by the Samwardhini Nyas against the backdrop of a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, hearing arguments on a batch of pleas seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriage.
A senior functionary of the Rashtra Sevika Samiti had said the findings of the survey are based on 318 responses collected across the country covering medical practitioners from eight different pathies of treatment from modern science to Ayurveda.
In their response to the survey, according to Samwardhini Nyas, nearly 70 per cent of the doctors and allied medical professionals stated that “homosexuality is a disorder” while 83 per cent of them “confirmed transmission of sexual disease in homosexual relations.”
NEW DELHI: Several LGBTQ rights activists have called the survey on same-sex marriage by an RSS body “dangerous and misleading” and accused the organisation of “spreading disinformation”.
According to the survey by Samwardhini Nyas, an affiliate of the Rashtra Sevika Samiti (a women’s organisation which parallels the RSS), many doctors and allied medical professionals believe that homosexuality is “a disorder” and it will increase further in society if same-sex marriage is legalised.
“Such a study is dangerous and misleading for a society that is unaware. It goes against basic dignity and amounts to defamation. Who are these doctors who have respondents in the survey? Their licences should be cancelled.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
“Be it The Yoga Institute which was founded in 1918 or the Indian Psychiatric Society, both have maintained that homosexuality is legitimate and normal, it is natural, inborn and choiceless,” said author and advocate for equal rights, Sharif Rangnekar, who also points out how Hinduism is replete with references to homosexuality.
Activist Harish Iyer said that psychiatric bodies from across the world and India have maintained that homosexuality is not an “aberration but a variation”.
It is beyond any reasonable doubt, he said. “No religion that claims to be a protector of humanity can also support this labelling of LGBTQIA+ individuals as deviants. It is against the ethos of our nation and also against the very grain of the belief of every religion that is based on the principle of love and acceptance.”
“If you believe that your God created all of humankind. Then God made me too. And standing up against LGBTQIA+ individuals is akin to working against the intent of your God. God made me this way,” he said.
Iyer also appealed to the government to raise awareness on the issue.
“In keeping with the ruling on the Section 377, the government’s responsibility is to create awareness to ensure more acceptance and no misinformation. I would appeal to the government of the day to step in and stand against such blatant disinformation,” he said.
Q Manivannan, a queer scholar and PhD candidate, University of St Andrews, too refers to ancient mythology in debunking the results of the survey.
“The RSS forgets, when convenient, that homosexuality is rife in mythology too. Same-sex unions of many kinds, companionships and homoeroticism, much like transgender themes, feature in the Ramayana, in the Mahabharata, and the Upanishads,” he said.
Activist and CPI-M leader Subhashini Ali also attacked the survey.
“It was “idiotic unscientific, inhuman,” she tweeted.
The survey has been conducted by the Samwardhini Nyas against the backdrop of a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, hearing arguments on a batch of pleas seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriage.
A senior functionary of the Rashtra Sevika Samiti had said the findings of the survey are based on 318 responses collected across the country covering medical practitioners from eight different pathies of treatment from modern science to Ayurveda.
In their response to the survey, according to Samwardhini Nyas, nearly 70 per cent of the doctors and allied medical professionals stated that “homosexuality is a disorder” while 83 per cent of them “confirmed transmission of sexual disease in homosexual relations.”
-
LGBTQ+ community denounces Centre’s opposition to legal validation of same-sex marriage
By PTI
NEW DELHI: Activists and members of the LGBTQ+ community have criticised the Centre’s opposition to granting recognition to same-sex marriage, saying despite India’s plurality and diversity the government still believes that marriage rights can only be given to heterosexuals.
In an affidavit before the Supreme Court which is scheduled to hear the matter on Monday, the Centre has said legal validation of same-sex marriage would cause complete havoc with the delicate balance of personal laws and accepted societal values.
It, however, added that non-heterosexual forms of marriages or unions between individuals though not recognised are not unlawful.
Reacting to the Centre’s affidavit, equal rights activist Harish Iyer and a member of the community said India is a nation of plurality, not homogeneity.
“Unity in diversity is a lesson we learn in our schools. Everyone is equal in the eyes of law. Yet we afford marriage rights only to the majority and not us minorities. The state in its stance has confirmed that they believe that marriage is only between a biological man and a biological woman and their offspring,” Iyer told PTI.
Iyer further slammed the language used by the Centre in the affidavit.
“The very language reveals that the state needs a crash course on sex, sexuality and gender. The correct terms are cis man and cis woman. Now that the Supreme Court has written down Section 377, I would like to know from the state how they define LGBT families,” Iyer said.
In its affidavit, the government submitted that despite the decriminalisation of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners cannot claim a fundamental right for same-sex marriage to be recognised under the laws of the country.
A queer scholar and PhD candidate at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, who prefers to be identified as Q, said queer intimacies predate the Indian State by many centuries and the State has always been fundamentally heterosexual.
“The Centre stated that the traditional heterosexual family unit is foundational to the existence and continuance of the State. This is partly correct. The State has always been fundamentally heterosexual; its institutions, its laws, its capitalist structures, even its borders veered toward the cis-heterosexual upper-caste male. The State is also drenched in its masculinity. That being said the Centre hides within these truths one distinct untruth – that the continuance of the State has never been in question,” Q said.
Q further rued that the State will persist regardless of whether or not gay marriage exists, simply because the State exists now.
“Gay marriage is an institutionalisation of existing relationships. What the Centre perhaps meant by that affidavit is that heterosexual marriage is foundational to the continuance of the present regime…,” Q said.
The Supreme Court had struck down the draconian Article 377 that criminalised gay sex and since then many petitions have been filed in the apex court to legalise same-sex marriage too.
Shubhankar Chakravorty, a Bengaluru-based consultant who identifies as a gay man, said rights and freedoms have seldom been provided in advance of a mass struggle or in anticipation of a sizeable demand and especially when it’s a matter as complex as marriage law that involves a host of related laws, there needs to be a solid case of favourable public impact.
“India has an LGBT+ population of at least 50 million (less than 5 per cent of 1.4 billion) and still you’d struggle to find a few thousand same-sex couples in present need of marriage rights. While it’s a very real need for many people currently in long-term relationships/civil partnerships, same-sex parenting, etc., the number isn’t high enough to put pressure on the government.”
“So, much like the movements preceding the amendment of Section 377, there need to be large-scale activities and campaigns to relay the importance of marriage equality and how it impacts hundreds of thousands of real people,” he told PTI.
“Till then, as unfair as the government’s stand is, there isn’t much to counter it with. The LGBT+ community, which is still trying to make sense of what it means to have rights and freedom around gender, sex, and sexuality post the Section 377 ruling, needs to do more to assert the real-life outcomes of those rights and freedoms,” he added.
NEW DELHI: Activists and members of the LGBTQ+ community have criticised the Centre’s opposition to granting recognition to same-sex marriage, saying despite India’s plurality and diversity the government still believes that marriage rights can only be given to heterosexuals.
In an affidavit before the Supreme Court which is scheduled to hear the matter on Monday, the Centre has said legal validation of same-sex marriage would cause complete havoc with the delicate balance of personal laws and accepted societal values.
It, however, added that non-heterosexual forms of marriages or unions between individuals though not recognised are not unlawful.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
Reacting to the Centre’s affidavit, equal rights activist Harish Iyer and a member of the community said India is a nation of plurality, not homogeneity.
“Unity in diversity is a lesson we learn in our schools. Everyone is equal in the eyes of law. Yet we afford marriage rights only to the majority and not us minorities. The state in its stance has confirmed that they believe that marriage is only between a biological man and a biological woman and their offspring,” Iyer told PTI.
Iyer further slammed the language used by the Centre in the affidavit.
“The very language reveals that the state needs a crash course on sex, sexuality and gender. The correct terms are cis man and cis woman. Now that the Supreme Court has written down Section 377, I would like to know from the state how they define LGBT families,” Iyer said.
In its affidavit, the government submitted that despite the decriminalisation of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners cannot claim a fundamental right for same-sex marriage to be recognised under the laws of the country.
A queer scholar and PhD candidate at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, who prefers to be identified as Q, said queer intimacies predate the Indian State by many centuries and the State has always been fundamentally heterosexual.
“The Centre stated that the traditional heterosexual family unit is foundational to the existence and continuance of the State. This is partly correct. The State has always been fundamentally heterosexual; its institutions, its laws, its capitalist structures, even its borders veered toward the cis-heterosexual upper-caste male. The State is also drenched in its masculinity. That being said the Centre hides within these truths one distinct untruth – that the continuance of the State has never been in question,” Q said.
Q further rued that the State will persist regardless of whether or not gay marriage exists, simply because the State exists now.
“Gay marriage is an institutionalisation of existing relationships. What the Centre perhaps meant by that affidavit is that heterosexual marriage is foundational to the continuance of the present regime…,” Q said.
The Supreme Court had struck down the draconian Article 377 that criminalised gay sex and since then many petitions have been filed in the apex court to legalise same-sex marriage too.
Shubhankar Chakravorty, a Bengaluru-based consultant who identifies as a gay man, said rights and freedoms have seldom been provided in advance of a mass struggle or in anticipation of a sizeable demand and especially when it’s a matter as complex as marriage law that involves a host of related laws, there needs to be a solid case of favourable public impact.
“India has an LGBT+ population of at least 50 million (less than 5 per cent of 1.4 billion) and still you’d struggle to find a few thousand same-sex couples in present need of marriage rights. While it’s a very real need for many people currently in long-term relationships/civil partnerships, same-sex parenting, etc., the number isn’t high enough to put pressure on the government.”
“So, much like the movements preceding the amendment of Section 377, there need to be large-scale activities and campaigns to relay the importance of marriage equality and how it impacts hundreds of thousands of real people,” he told PTI.
“Till then, as unfair as the government’s stand is, there isn’t much to counter it with. The LGBT+ community, which is still trying to make sense of what it means to have rights and freedom around gender, sex, and sexuality post the Section 377 ruling, needs to do more to assert the real-life outcomes of those rights and freedoms,” he added.
-
Judges shouldn’t decide: Sushil Modi against legal sanction to gay marriage
Express News Service
NEW DELHI: With just four days to go for the Centre to file its affidavit on the question of same-sex marriage, former Bihar deputy chief minister and BJP’s Rajya Sabha member Sushil Kumar Modi on Monday urged the government not to accord legal sanction to it.
Raising the matter during Zero House, he claimed the same-sex marriage was against the cultural and social ethos of the country and if allowed, it will “play havoc with the delicate balance of personal laws”.
On November 25, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud issued notice to the Centre to respond in four weeks on two petitions filed by gay couples seeking recognition to same-sex marriage. They had cited an SC verdict in the Puttaswamy case, which held that LGBTQ+ persons enjoy the right to equality, dignity and privacy guaranteed by the Constitution on the same footing as all other citizens.
However, Sushil Modi said, “Within India same-sex marriage is neither recognised nor accepted by any uncodified personal laws and codified statutes governing the institution of marriage. It would cause complete havoc, upsetting the delicate balance of personal laws in the country.”
Blaming certain Left-liberal people and activists for making efforts to get legal sanctity for same-sex marriage, he argued that the matter ought to be deliberated in Parliament and in society instead of allowing the judiciary take the call.
NEW DELHI: With just four days to go for the Centre to file its affidavit on the question of same-sex marriage, former Bihar deputy chief minister and BJP’s Rajya Sabha member Sushil Kumar Modi on Monday urged the government not to accord legal sanction to it.
Raising the matter during Zero House, he claimed the same-sex marriage was against the cultural and social ethos of the country and if allowed, it will “play havoc with the delicate balance of personal laws”.
On November 25, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud issued notice to the Centre to respond in four weeks on two petitions filed by gay couples seeking recognition to same-sex marriage. They had cited an SC verdict in the Puttaswamy case, which held that LGBTQ+ persons enjoy the right to equality, dignity and privacy guaranteed by the Constitution on the same footing as all other citizens.
However, Sushil Modi said, “Within India same-sex marriage is neither recognised nor accepted by any uncodified personal laws and codified statutes governing the institution of marriage. It would cause complete havoc, upsetting the delicate balance of personal laws in the country.”
Blaming certain Left-liberal people and activists for making efforts to get legal sanctity for same-sex marriage, he argued that the matter ought to be deliberated in Parliament and in society instead of allowing the judiciary take the call.
-
Singapore to ban LGBTQ+ content despite decriminalisation of same-sex relationships
By IANS
LOS ANGELES: The law and its application seem to be on different tangents in Singapore as the country’s government has notified that it will continue to restrict and classify media content with LGBTQ themes, even after its planned decriminalisation of same-sex relationships.The move to repeal a colonial-era law that criminalised sex between men was announced by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.The law, Section 377A of the Penal Code, was introduced in 1938 and established a two-year jail term for “any act of gross indecency” between two men, either in public or in private, reports ‘Variety’.London-based Singaporean filmmaker Anthony Chen commended the planned repeal. “Long overdue but well done Singapore,” he wrote on Twitter.Until about a decade ago, the law was used as justification for police raids of gay-owned businesses and street arrests.According to ‘Variety’, since 2010, the law has been rarely enforced, but it continues to inform tough anti-LGBTQ policy in media and entertainment.In June, Disney’s animated Pixar film ‘Lightyear’ was limited to those aged 16 and above by the country’s rating board, citing its depiction of a kiss between two female characters.Previously, the National Library Board had withdrawn a children’s book that included a same-sex penguin couple, though the ban was later reversed and the title instead placed on the adult list.’Variety’ further states that LGBTQ media content will continue to warrant higher age ratings, even after the repeal of 377A, as per the directive of the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) stated.”We will continue to take reference from prevailing norms. LGBTQ media content will continue to warrant higher age ratings,” the MCI said in a statement of clarification.The country’s Films Act does not permit content which is deemed “promotion of homosexuality” or content with “excessive depiction of sexual activity between individuals of the same gender”.The country’s InfoComm Media Development Authority (IMDA), which oversees the sector, operates a content code that targets films that depict “alternative sexualities”, such as homosexuality, as to “be sensitive to community values”.”Films that centre on alternative sexualities may be classified at (the) highest rating of R21. Non-explicit depictions of sexual activity between persons of the same gender may be featured at R21 rating,” the code says.That would restrict viewing to adults older than 21.A lower rating of M18 (allowing viewing by people older than 18) may be applied where the homosexual themes or content are a subplot, “if discreet in treatment and not gratuitous”, says the IMDA code.
LOS ANGELES: The law and its application seem to be on different tangents in Singapore as the country’s government has notified that it will continue to restrict and classify media content with LGBTQ themes, even after its planned decriminalisation of same-sex relationships.
The move to repeal a colonial-era law that criminalised sex between men was announced by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
The law, Section 377A of the Penal Code, was introduced in 1938 and established a two-year jail term for “any act of gross indecency” between two men, either in public or in private, reports ‘Variety’.
London-based Singaporean filmmaker Anthony Chen commended the planned repeal. “Long overdue but well done Singapore,” he wrote on Twitter.
Until about a decade ago, the law was used as justification for police raids of gay-owned businesses and street arrests.
According to ‘Variety’, since 2010, the law has been rarely enforced, but it continues to inform tough anti-LGBTQ policy in media and entertainment.
In June, Disney’s animated Pixar film ‘Lightyear’ was limited to those aged 16 and above by the country’s rating board, citing its depiction of a kiss between two female characters.
Previously, the National Library Board had withdrawn a children’s book that included a same-sex penguin couple, though the ban was later reversed and the title instead placed on the adult list.
‘Variety’ further states that LGBTQ media content will continue to warrant higher age ratings, even after the repeal of 377A, as per the directive of the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) stated.
“We will continue to take reference from prevailing norms. LGBTQ media content will continue to warrant higher age ratings,” the MCI said in a statement of clarification.
The country’s Films Act does not permit content which is deemed “promotion of homosexuality” or content with “excessive depiction of sexual activity between individuals of the same gender”.
The country’s InfoComm Media Development Authority (IMDA), which oversees the sector, operates a content code that targets films that depict “alternative sexualities”, such as homosexuality, as to “be sensitive to community values”.
“Films that centre on alternative sexualities may be classified at (the) highest rating of R21. Non-explicit depictions of sexual activity between persons of the same gender may be featured at R21 rating,” the code says.
That would restrict viewing to adults older than 21.
A lower rating of M18 (allowing viewing by people older than 18) may be applied where the homosexual themes or content are a subplot, “if discreet in treatment and not gratuitous”, says the IMDA code. -
‘Not a religious person’: Chris Pratt on allegations of attending anti-LGBTQ church
By PTI
LOS ANGELES: Hollywood star Chris Pratt has opened up about the accusations of him attending an anti-LGBTQ church as he stressed that he has never been a “religious person”. Pratt was criticised in 2019 for attending Hillsong Church, which some argued is anti-LGBTQ. At the time, the actor denied the allegations and said, “Nothing could be further from the truth.”
During a profile piece interview with Men’s Health, Pratt said he never attended the church. “I never went to Hillsong. I’ve never actually been to Hillsong. I don’t know anyone from that church,” he said, adding that he decided not to say that at the time because he didn’t want to “throw a church under the bus”.
The “Guardians of the Galaxy” star stressed that he is not a “religious person”.” Religion has been oppressive as f**k for a long time. I didn’t know that I would kind of become the face of religion when really I’m not a religious person. I think there’s a distinction between being religious – adhering to the customs created by man, oftentimes appropriating the awe reserved for who I believe is a very real God – and using it to control people, to take money from people, to abuse children, to steal land, to justify hatred,” Pratt said.
The Hollywood star revealed that he sometimes attends the Zoe Church, as well as a Catholic church his wife Katherine Schwarzenegger grew up going to. It was in 2018 when Pratt accepted an honour at the MTV Movie & TV Awards and during his speech, the actor said “God is real. God loves you, God wants the best for you. Believe that. I do.”
Looking back at the infamous moment, Pratt said, “Maybe it was hubris. For me to stand up on the stage and say the things that I said, I’m not sure I touched anybody.” The actor said while he tries to stay away from online negativity, sometimes it can be hurtful, like the criticism he received last November where he was mocked for sharing a post praising wife Schwarzenegger.
In the post, he thanked Schwarzenegger for giving him “an amazing life” and a “gorgeous healthy daughter,” which many assumed as a dig at ex-wife Anna Faris and their son Jack, 9, who was born prematurely and faced health issues.
Pratt told Men’s Health, “A bunch of articles came out and said, ‘That’s so cringeworthy. I can’t believe Chris Pratt would thank her for a healthy daughter when his first child was born premature. That’s such a dig at his ex-wife’,” he said, calling the response “f****d up”.
“My son’s gonna read that one day. He’s 9. And it’s etched in digital stone. It really f***ing bothered me, dude. I cried about it. I was like, ‘I hate that these blessings in my life are – to the people close to me – a real burden’,” he said.
-
No straight man would accept role as gay man in modern times, says Tom Hanks
By ANI
WASHINGTON: Veteran star Tom Hanks, who essayed the role of a gay man with HIV in Jonathan Demme’s 1993 legal drama ‘Philadelphia’, feels straight actors would no longer be able to play the openly gay character today.
Hanks opened up on straight performers playing LGBTQ characters in an interview with The New York Times Magazine recently, Variety reported.
“Let’s address ‘could a straight man do what I did in ‘Philadelphia’ now?’ No, and rightly so. The whole point of ‘Philadelphia’ was don’t be afraid. One of the reasons people weren’t afraid of that movie is that I was playing a gay man. We’re beyond that now, and I don’t think people would accept the inauthenticity of a straight guy playing a gay guy,” he said.
He added, “It’s not a crime, it’s not boohoo, that someone would say we are going to demand more of a movie in the modern realm of authenticity.”
Hanks won the Oscar and a Golden Globe for his performance in ‘Philadelphia.’
Hanks will be next seen in a polarising role in Baz Luhrmann’s ‘Elvis’, in which he plays Elvis Presley’s conniving manager Colonel Tom Parker. ‘Elvis’ will be out in theatres on June 24.
-
People today may not accept straight actors playing gay men: Tom Hanks
American actor Tom Hanks played an LGBTQ character in Jonathan Demme's 1993 legal drama 'Philadelphia' and won the Oscar and a Golden Globe for his performance.