Posts made by leatherbear

moving this topic back to front page

moving this topic back to front page

moving this topic back to front page

moving this topic back to front page

moving this topic back to front page

moving this topic back to front page

moving this topic back to front page

moving this topic back to front page

moving this topic back to front page

moving this topic back to front page

moving it back to front page

2 nd one actually !!! But are you sure this is the same guy? If it is he has been on a health kick indeed!!!! WOOF!!!

:cheesy2:

:cheesy2:

:cheesy2:

:lovp:

I am a little late with this news but just found out today so…..

Sydney Herald News

Indian media hail gay sex ruling
July 3, 2009

Indian media have hailed a court ruling to decriminalise gay sex and are urging the government to respond by striking a colonial-era ban on homosexuality from the statute books.

"Gay and finally legal" ran the headline of the Mail Today paper on Friday which like other dailies was awash with articles and pictures of India's largely ostracised gay and transgender communities celebrating Thursday's Delhi High Court ruling.

"Its ok to be gay" read the banner headline of the Hindustan Times while the Asian Age welcomed what it called a "Sexual Revolution in India".

Homosexuality had been illegal in India since 1860 under a statute introduced by British colonial rulers that banned "carnal intercourse against the order of nature."

Conviction carried a fine and maximum 10-year jail sentence.

The High Court ruled that the statute violated basic individual rights guaranteed by the constitution.

The Times of India, which titled its main piece "India's Gay Day", declared in its editorial that by legalising same-sex relations, the court had "restored the personal freedom and rights of homosexuals".

Often harassed by the police, India's gay community has largely remained in the closet.

The ruling should "act as a catalyst, encouraging our legislators to shed their blinkers and take a more progressive view on the issue", the Times said in its editorial.

"In 21st century India, it is perverse to penalise adults for their sexual choices," it added.

Applauding the ruling, an editorial in the Indian Express urged the government to read the decision and learn from its "enlightened constitutionalism".

"Liberty is an incremental accomplishment and a grand step has just been taken," the Express said.

The Hindustan Times argued that, prior to the introduction of the 1860 statute, India had a traditionally "non-intrusive and blase" attitude towards homosexuality.

"It took 150 years for us in India ... to figure out that we didn't have a problem with same-sex relationships," it said.

"Not only does homophobia run counter to Indian mores but more importantly nobody cares much about it."

Asian Tribune

New Delhi, 03 July, (Asiantribune.com Celebration time for gay activists in India. The Delhi High Court Wednesday declared the Victorian era ban on gay sex in India is a violation of fundamental rights. So it has stuck down Section 377 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) as far as it criminalizes gay sex among consenting adults. Homosexuality will therefore remain a crime for non-consensual and non-vaginal sex.

The ruling comes as a shock to conservatives among the three main religions – Hinduism, Islam and Christianity, who are planning to come on a common platform to tell the government not to concede to the demand of gay activists. The plans were a sequel to moves within the government to scrap Section 377, which was drafted by Lord Macaulay during the British Raj.

The Law Minister Veerappa Moily, who appeared inclined to take the call on the Section 377, was pushed to the back foot by objections from particularly Christian and Muslim groups. .

Now in the light of the Delhi High Court ruling, the government will find itself on the horns of a dilemma. It cannot knock at the Supreme Court lest it dent its liberal image. It cannot go along with the judgement either due to vote bank politics.

The government will make its next move after public opinion crystallizes and the religious groups study the court ruling, which propelled India as the 127th country to legalize consensual homosexuality.

Denmark became the first country in 1989 when it placed same sex partners at par with married couples.

A bench of Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Justice S Muralidhar, in a 105-page judgement, said ‘Any kind of discrimination is anti-thesis of right to equality.

“In our view Indian Constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive by the popular misconception of who the lesbian gay bisexual transgender are.

The Court said that this judgement will hold till Parliament chooses to amend the law.

The Judgement, reportedly, observed, ‘The notion of equality in the Indian Constitution flows from the ‘Objective Resolution’ moved by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru on December 13, 1946. Nehru, in his speech, moving this Resolution wished that the House should consider the Resolution not in a spirit of narrow legal wording, but rather look at the spirit behind that Resolution. He said, “Words are magic things often enough, but even the magic of words sometimes cannot convey the magic of the human spirit and of a Nation’s passion…….. (The Resolution) seeks very feebly to tell the world of what we have thought or dreamt of so long, and what we now hope to achieve in the near future. If there is one constitutional tenet that can be said to be underlying theme of the Indian Constitution, it is that of ‘inclusiveness’. This Court believes that Indian Constitution reflects this value deeply ingrained in Indian society, nurtured over several generations.

The inclusiveness that Indian society traditionally displayed, literally in every aspect of life, is manifest in recognizing a role in society for everyone. Those perceived by the majority as “deviants’ or ‘different’ are not on that score excluded or ostracised. Where society can display inclusiveness and understanding, such persons can be assured of a life of dignity and nondiscrimination. This was the ’spirit behind the Resolution’ of which Nehru spoke so passionately. In our view, Indian Constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive by the popular misconceptions of who the LGBTs are. It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will foster the dignity of every individual. We declare that Section 377 IPC, insofar it criminalizes consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The provisions of Section 377 IPC will continue to govern non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex and penile non-vaginal sex involving minors.

By ‘adult’ we mean everyone who is 18 years of age and above. A person below 18 would be presumed not to be able to consent to a sexual act. This clarification will hold till, of course, Parliament chooses to amend the law to effectuate the recommendation of the Law Commission of India in its 172nd Report which we believe removes a great deal of confusion. Secondly, we clarify that our judgment will not result in the re-opening of criminal cases involving – Section 377 IPC that have already attained finality.’