Post-1967

[john francis]

At least we've got the Law off our backs since 1967 - or have we?

[Cardiganwearer]

I expect you know the answer to your own question. Some of the law is off our backs, there are aspects of the law under which we still do not enjoy equality.

I remember as a student, some years after it reached the statute book, reading the Hansard accounts of the debates that led to the passage of the Abse bill. The amusing bit was, Sir Cyril Black (Rises), Hon. Members (Oh no!). The less amusing bit was that the bill was passed as an act of pity for those poor unfortunate people, destined to live out their lives touring from cottage to cottage in constant fear of blackmailers. I remember at the time thinking that I'd rather take my chances without a bill.

Older people at the time used to tell me it was better before the bill. None of them had been in prison and I suspect many had become addicted to danger.

The struggle is far from over, but we've never had it better in terms of the law.

[lontok11]

I think more importantly is the complete lack of legal protection in many countries throughout the world. This month and next month LGBT people and their friends will parade through the streets of London, Madrid, Sydney, San Francisco and so on, countries where freedom from discrimination is enshrined in law (even if not always in practice), partying away as if no more work had to be done, and largely ignoring the plight of so many persecuted people in Iran, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia (to give examples of three countries that still maintain the death penalty for homosexuality). Compared to before 1967 in the UK, the law is certainly off our backs, but I think the more urgent comparison is not with the time before the Sexual Offenses Act, but with what is going on right now, every day, in many corners of the globe.

[marshlander]

I don't think we can afford to be complacent. Somehow I don't trust that what has been achieved can't be "unachieved" given the wrong combination of circumstances. The rise in reported homophobically-motivated crime is merely one indication that in some parts of the UK our rights are fragile.

I haven't been to many pride events, but every one I have attended has included a march and a rally with speakers reminding us of the plight of our brothers and sisters around the world. Yes, we have much to celebrate, but we should never forget those who fought on behalf of future generations. I feel it incumbent on us to continue to speak up for those who don't have a voice and to stay vigilent to make sure that we are never returned to those dark days before the Wolfenden Report and, eventually, the 1967 Sexual Offences Act.

[lontok11]

I agree. We mustn't be complacent, and the freedoms we have could be revoked, but as it stands at the moment I think our legal freedoms are pretty solid, and the more visible gay men and women become in society and the more people take it for granted that gays deserve equal rights, the harder it will become for those freedoms to unravel - at least in the UK (maybe not so in the USA, where it still stirs up enormous controversy). One day hopefully we will reach the stage where inequality for gays will be as unthinkable as inequality for women or the reintroduction of child labour.

What we still need to do is tackle the homophobia that continues to blight the lives of men and women in many parts of society. In many ways, changing attitudes is much harder than changing laws. This means tackling institutional homophobia in everything from the police force to the world of football, and also in sections of society, such as the Muslim community, where cultural intolerance of homosexuality is still extremely prevalent, but also in the church, the synagogue and the temple as well. It means tackling homophobic bullying in schools. It means working to ensure that there are positive gay role models, and ordinary gay couples, depicted on TV, not just token characters and common stereotypes. It means working towards a day when bookshops don't have a gay and lesbian fiction section, but put all novels together regardless of the author's sexuality or the content of the story. And I think that in our own lives it means coming out (hard though this might be). The closet is no place to fight for fairness. And yes, you're right, it means speaking up for those who don't have a voice, or who do have a voice but are too afraid to speak.

[marshlander]

... One day hopefully we will reach the stage where inequality for gays will be as unthinkable as inequality for women or the reintroduction of child labour ...

There is an argument that while women may have equality in law, they also have yet to achieve it in cultural terms ... :frown:

[East]

In my opinion equality under the law should be our collective goal.

I part ways with the faction of the GBLT community who insist on acceptance and approval. Puh-leeese...STOP IT! If you are on of the rare few humans..straight, gay or in between... who give other people approval and acceptance 100% of the time then it is a reasonable request I suppose but if you are one of the rest of us who generally has prejudices whether hidden from others and/or yourself...or not...it is completely unreasonable to ask for something you cannot give to others.

Besides..the day Glen Beck or George Bush "approves" of me I KNOW I am going to hell. :biggrin:

[marshlander]

... Besides..the day Glen Beck or George Bush "approves" of me I KNOW I am going to hell. :biggrin:

[lontok11]

There is an argument that while women may have equality in law, they also have yet to achieve it in cultural terms ... :frown:

I was talking about equality in law. Yes, sadly, in cultural terms women do in many ways have yet to achieve equality. I often think that one of the reasons gay men are more visible than gay women is because sexism, ironically, has worked in our favour. With more men in positions of power and influence, is it any wonder that gay men have become more accepted than gay women? How many more openly gay male public figures can you name than gay female ones? (And this is simplifying matters by not addressing any of the other permeations of sexual identity).

@East: I think these things overlap. There's an important difference and a divide between acceptance and approval. I think we have to insist, legally, on the former, because without it personal disapproval can lead to legally acceptable discrimination.

[fredv3b]

In my opinion equality under the law should be our collective goal.

I part ways with the faction of the GBLT community who insist on acceptance and approval. Puh-leeese...STOP IT! If you are on of the rare few humans..straight, gay or in between... who give other people approval and acceptance 100% of the time then it is a reasonable request I suppose but if you are one of the rest of us who generally has prejudices whether hidden from others and/or yourself...or not...it is completely unreasonable to ask for something you cannot give to others.

East, as I have pointed out to you before, for everywhere in the world that does not enjoy the sort of Supreme Court that might suddenly discover that gay equality always was mandated by law (as in the US), legal equality simply will not be enacted without general acceptance. I agree that 100% acceptance is an unreasonable request, but general acceptance is not.