Nude Norms: The Curious Case of the Castro

One aspect to my role at the University is to lead research for the law team.  It's often the case that beyond teaching, students rarely see what we do.  I've been keen to change that by introducing student research internships, in which students apply to work with academics on small discrete research activities, and in the course of which students get to see how we spend their not insignificant fees.

Anyway, I worked on a little project with a student intern last year, kicking around some ideas for a potential project, which ultimately led to this little piece which appeared on the Freedom in a Puritan Age webzine earlier this week.

It examines the controversial nudity ban in San Francisco.  Take a look at what I hope will be the first of many publications for my wonderful student intern, Sara Mohammadzadeh.

2013: Marriage Equality Part Two

Matt Baume on the excellent Prop 8 Trial Tracker Blog recently looked back at 2012 through the (US) prism of marriage equality and transformative legal change.  As I look to the year ahead, I can't help thinking that we are simply entering the year of the sequel.  Not just for The Hobbit or Star Trek, but also for the question of marriage.

In the US, the Supreme Court will now seek to resolve the two questions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and the ongoing Perry/Proposition 8 legal action.  Both will have significant ramifications for marriage equality across the United States, and the outcome of those cases is far from clear.  Expectations and nerves are equally in evidence.

In the UK, the Christmas period saw the question of same-sex marriage continuing to dominate the media.  The Catholic Church (who you might have thought would have had other things on their minds at Christmas) seem to have a pre-occupation with homosexuality which verges on the obsessive.  First, Britain's most senior Catholic, the Archbishop of Westminster, took another brave step into irrelevance, using his Christmas Eve mass to declare the government had no mandate for legal change (likening David Cameron to the Nazis and Communists), described the plans for legal reform as a 'shambles', and also declared that most people were against the reforms.

Now now, I hear you say, you're just singling out one man and he's not representative of the whole Catholic Church (even though he leads it in England).  Well, it seems the Archbishop of Birmingham (for it is he) agrees with you.  Not wanting the Catholic Church to be painted as led by an unrepresentative bigot, he made sure that such bigoted views are representative of the Church as a whole.  He decided to spend Christmas writing a letter to churches and chapels in his diocese (and to be read to worshippers on New Years Eve), telling them:

'Government policy cannot foresee the full consequences, for the children involved or for wider society, of being brought up by two mothers without a father’s influence or by two fathers without a mother’s influence. 'We first learn about diversity and acquire a respect for difference through the complementarity of our parents.' He describes the 'complementary love of father and mother' as a 'precious gift that we should wish for every child'.

So, the Government do look likely to have a bit more of a hoo-ha over their same-sex marriage plans.  Although the Archbishop of Westminster is wrong in describing the plans as 'shambolic', it would be fair to describe them as not yet fully thought through.  The Government do need resolve the issues of consummation and the issue of the status of Civil Partnerships far better than the sticking plasters on offer in their current formal response.

Perhaps feeling left out, High Court Judge Sir Paul Coleridge decided to embroil the judiciary in the mess of same-sex marriage. According to the Telegraph:

Sir Paul Coleridge questioned the decision to concentrate on an issue that affects "0.1%" of the population at a time when break-ups were leaving millions of children caught up in the family justice system. The comments by the judge - who started a charity to try to stem the "destructive scourge" of divorce - come after plans for gay marriage were criticised by the leader of the Catholic church in England and Wales as undemocratic and totalitarian. Sir Paul said that his charity, the Marriage Foundation, did not take a stance on same-sex marriage. But he told a newspaper: "So much energy and time has been put into this debate for 0.1 per cent of the population, when we have a crisis of family breakdown. "It's gratifying that marriage in any context is centre stage... but it [gay marriage] is a minority issue. We need a much more focused position by the Government on the importance of marriage."

Daniel Isenberg noted on the excellent UK Human Rights Blog, that Sir Paul had recently agreed to take a lower profile in his Marriage Foundation.  Indeed, the Office for Judicial Complaints concluded in November of 2012 that:

“The OJC has concluded its investigation into the conduct of the Honourable Mr Justice Coleridge in relation to the judge’s participation in the Marriage Foundation. Having considered all of the facts the Lord Chancellor and the President of the Queen’s Bench Division (on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice) do not consider Mr Justice Coleridge’s involvement with the Marriage Foundation to be incompatible with his judicial responsibilities and therefore does not amount to judicial misconduct. Mr Justice Coleridge has agreed that a lower profile role within the organisation would be more appropriate for a serving judicial office holder.”

I'm not sure that agreement is going entirely to plan.  Where does this leave us?  Well, for those wondering where the radical law and sexuality agenda will lead next, it seems determinedly stuck the conservative groove of marriage for now. 2013, the year of the sequel.

Activate SCOTUS!

For Brit tweeters, SCOTUS sounds like some other mystery character from the West Wing (POTUS has had a bike accident, SCOTUS was riding on the back).  The explosion of tweets on Friday made clear firstly that it stood for Supreme Court of the Untied States, and secondly that something ground-breaking may be about to happen.

Certainly the political shows over the weekend whipped themselves into a frenzy.  I was struck when Meet the Press discussed this as a potential Roe v Wade watershed (the case which legalised abortion).  Others have made the comparison to Brown v Board of Education (the landmark race case).

The news is (if you've been living on the moon) is that the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases - of critical importance for those interested in law and sexuality.  One addresses the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and other addressing Proposition 8.  Put simply, DOMA is a federal law (originally backed by Obama, now rejected) which means that even if individual States allow same-sex marriage, those marriages are not recognised at a federal level.

Proposition 8 was essentially a referendum back in 2008 (the same year Obama was elected to his first term) in the State of California.  California had same-sex marriage but Prop 8 defined marriage in the constitution as being between a man and woman.  In doing so, it rendered same-sex marriages unconstitutional and thus verboten.  As such, the legal challenge to Prop 8 has taken on the air of the black civil rights cases that have gone before.

I've been lucky in recent years to make it over to the States for the LGBT Bar Association Annual Conference, enabling me to meet with, and hear from, lawyers, judges, jurists and state and federal officials.  Over several intense days, I could get a feel for the currents sweeping through the US legal world, but I wasn't able to get over this year, and it's only now that I realise how out of touch I am as a result.  I'm left with digesting the US media and going with my gut - but it's not the same.

My hunch is that the DOMA case will succeed.  By which I mean, DOMA will be overturned.  Even those who are hardly gay rights activists will - I'm guessing - be swayed by the power of individual States arguments (but it's far from a given).

When it comes to Perry, the proposition 8 case, I confess I have no idea.  I'm less optimistic it will succeed but that could well just be my default pessimism.

Anyway, for following every twist and turn in what will be landmark and gripping legal history, check out the brilliant Prop 8 trial tracker website.  I've recommended it before and it remains a wonderful resource. Check it out here.

We Need to talk about your accidental paedophilia...

Thank heavens I'm not a parent.  The world seems an increasingly dangerous place and like those packets of peanuts with the notice: 'Warning, May Contain Nuts', parents perhaps feel increasingly obliged to warn their children of the perils they might face.  We live, or so it seems, in the age of warnings.

Technology is probably on that list, but what of mobile devices and their cameras?  This little story reports on a recent incident in the US suggests that despite the permeation of warnings about the use of technology, young people act in such a way as to seemingly ignore such caution.

A 21 year old male is accused of distributing paedophile images via Facebook.  The photos were taken at a rave and feature a 16 year old girl having sex with a 'young' man.  According to the story, 'the young man and young women were having sex in a field in open view of the crowd at the rave. Multiple bystanders, upon seeing them in flagrante delicto, rushed over to take pictures, as one witness testified, with such frequency that camera flashes were popping “like lightning.”

The images were arguably not intended to sexually arouse, but rather were part of a joke, but the ease with which child pornography can today be produced is astonishing, and transforms young people - and unwitting viewers (such as this guys friends on Facebook) into paedophiles as far as the law is concerned.

In doing so, this also serves to deconstruct our collective concept of what a paedophile is - and should legally, culturally, politically - be.  Instead, this seems to feed into what seems to be a growing moral panic surrounding the sexting phenomenon (although, see some interesting socio-legal news coming out of Australia today on this).

A conservative night for America?

It's a question I found myself pondering as the markets and world digest the results from last night.  By which I mean, four more years for Obama as President, a Republican House and a Democrat Senate.  Several billion dollars later, and we're seemingly back where we started.  Obama teased supporters with claims of 'the best is still to come', but unlike the Parliamentary system of government, he is limited by a legislature which was seemingly broken before the election, and is likely to remain broken when the new Congress take up their seats in January.

Moreover, America is still staring down the barrel of a gun at a budget crisis which needs resolving before the year is out.

I made clear yesterday my support for Obama, and my expectation that he would indeed win.  Yet, four years on from his first victory, warm words and promises are not enough for this observer.  His promise to LGBT voters (seen on this page of his website) was just one commitment - to not be Mitt Romney.  Beyond that, he made not one pledge on LGBT rights.  Yes, he's better than Romney.  Yes, Romney would have been bad news for LGBT rights, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to keep poking Obama with a stick.

The Supreme Court

So what's coming up?  Perry and the issue of constitutionality and same-sex marriage is heading to the Supreme Court.  Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Ginsberg, has indicated she's considering standing down (she's 79) and that means a moderate Democrat could replace her in this Presidential term.  The question is whether to risk waiting until the mid-terms and the hope of Democrats re-taking the House.  Of course, they could end up losing the Senate so I'd expect a new Supreme Court Justice appointment sooner rather than later.  This offers an opportunity to renew the status quo.  Scalia will be 80 in four years time and a Democrat Presidential victory in 2016 could offer an opportunity to re-balance the Court, but it's unlikely - it seems to me - to happen before then.  All of which matters, when deciding issues such as same-sex rights, and the continued debates around abortion.  Better preserve the status quo than end up having a clear Republican-controlled Supreme Court (as would have been likely with a Romney victory).

The Result

The American electoral college system means that Obama won convincingly, and also won measured by the popular vote.  However, the votes in individual States were very close and if anything served to illustrate just how divided socially, politically, and economically America is in 2012.  It's going to take more than fine oratory to fix it.

Nonetheless, as this campaign advanced (and with some gentle prodding from the Vice President), Obama seems to have increasingly found a voice on LGBT issues as he recognised the need to energise his base and re-create the coalition of voters that elected him back in 2008.   Hopefully, this will continue in office, combining hard-policy with cultural leadership.

Coupled with the ticking bomb of a demography shift between now and 2016, and no election will ever be the same again.  Some Republicans- notably Jeb Bush - understand this and have spoken eloquently of the need to change, but the dominant Tea Party tendency does not.  Just as with the British Conservative Party, they have established themselves as 'the nasty party' in the minds of many and will need to modernise and re-cast themselves in 2016.  If they want to be in with a shot in 2016, they need to take some quantum leaps on social issues -such as same-sex marriage, and also on race.  If they fail to do so, they will never hold the Presidency again.

A Representative Breakthrough?

We can rejoice in some truly wonderful results.  Tammy Baldwin (who I mentioned in my post yesterday) made history by becoming the first out Senator-elect.  Well done Wisconsin!  She is replaced in her House seat by openly gay man Mark Pocan.  They are among a number of openly gay men and women who were elected at a Federal and State level.   This is important not only for having strong LGBT voices in elected politics, not only for having people in office who 'get it', but also for providing visible role-models to LGBT youth and for creating visible community leaders who happen to identify as LGBT.  They are creating change legally, and also socially.

However, we shouldn't get carried away.  Michele Bachmann, former candidate for the Republican nomination - and someone who seems bat shit crazy to many European eyes - narrowly won in Minnesota.

Ballot Measures:  Marriage

Beyond the national race a series of ballot measures took place which are likely to deliver transformative change to millions.   Maine, Maryland and Washington have all voted in favour of introducing same-sex marriage in state ballots.  Minnesota (the same state that re-elected Bachmann) faced a vote on amending the constitution to effectively ban same-sex marriage and the amendment was rejected.  A clean sweep for LGBT campaigners.  Add in two states - Washington and Colorado - legalising the recreational use of marijuana, and you could be forgiven for thinking that America had suddenly swerved towards a liberal future.

Ballot Measures:  Sex Trafficking

However, take a look at what might be called a Democrat state - California - and you  see a different picture.  A measure to finally remove the death penalty was rejected whilst a new measure to toughen the law on sex trafficking (and arguably creating more problems than it solves in relation to sex work) was passed.

The official (and impartial) advice set out the implications of passing the measure on trafficking:

This measure makes several changes to state law related to human trafficking. Specifically, it (1) expands the definition of human trafficking, (2) increases the punishment for human trafficking offenses, (3) imposes new fines to fund services for human trafficking victims, (4) changes how evidence can be used against human trafficking victims, and (5) requires additional law enforcement training on handling human trafficking cases. The measure also places additional requirements on sex offender registrants.

Expanded Definition of Human Trafficking. This measure amends the definition of human trafficking under state law. Specifically, the measure defines more crimes related to the creation and distribution of obscene materials depicting minors as a form of human trafficking. For example, duplicating or selling these obscene materials could be considered human trafficking even if the offender had no contact with the minor depicted. In addition, with regard to sex trafficking cases involving minors, prosecutors would not have to show that force or coercion occurred. (This would make state law similar to federal law.)

More Severe Criminal Penalties for Human Trafficking. This measure increases the current criminal penalties for human trafficking under state law. For example, the measure increases the prison sentence for labor trafficking crimes to a maximum of 12 years per offense, and for sex trafficking of adults to up to 20 years per offense. Sex trafficking of minors that involved force or fraud would be punishable by up to a life term in prison. In addition, the measure specifies that offenders convicted of human trafficking with previous convictions for human trafficking receive additional five-year prison terms for each of those prior convictions. Under the measure, offenders convicted of human trafficking that resulted in great bodily injury to the victim could be punished with additional terms of up to ten years. The measure also permits criminal courts to impose fines of up to $1.5 million for human trafficking offenses.

Programs for Human Trafficking Victims. The measure requires that the funds collected from the above fines support services for victims of human trafficking. Specifically, 70 percent of funds would be allocated to public agencies and nonprofit organizations that provide direct services to such victims. The measure requires that the remaining 30 percent be provided to law enforcement and prosecution agencies in the jurisdiction where the charges were filed and used for human trafficking prevention, witness protection, and rescue operations.

Changes Affecting Court Proceedings. The measure also affects the trial of criminal cases involving charges of human trafficking. Specifically, the measure prohibits the use of evidence that a person was involved in criminal sexual conduct (such as prostitution) to prosecute that person for that crime if the conduct was a result of being a victim of human trafficking. The measure also makes evidence of sexual conduct by a victim of human trafficking inadmissible for the purposes of attacking the victim’s credibility or character in court. In addition, this measure disallows certain defenses in human trafficking cases involving minors. For example, a defendant could not claim as a defense being unaware of the minor’s age.

Law Enforcement Training. This measure requires all peace officers employed by police and sheriff’s departments and the California Highway Patrol (CHP) who perform field or investigative work to undergo at least two hours of training on how to handle human trafficking complaints. This training would have to be completed by July 1, 2014 or within six months of the officer being assigned to the field or investigative work.

 Expanded Requirements for Sex Offender Registration. This measure requires registered sex offenders to provide the names of their internet providers and identifiers to local police or sheriff’s departments. Such identifiers include e-mail addresses, user names, screen names, or other personal identifiers for internet communication and activity. If a registrant changes his or her internet service account or changes or adds an internet identifier, the individual must notify law enforcement within 24 hours of such changes.

Although undoubtedly well meaning, the measure has the effect of extending the definition of 'trafficking' to extend those acts which people would not ordinarily consider to be part of the same legal problem.  Consensual sex work arguably falls within the ambit of the measure and anyone receiving financial benefit from this activity could be prosecuted and forced to register as a sex offender.  It's badly drafted and could have a series of unintended consequences.

Ballot Measures: Condoms in Porn

In LA County, the much-discussed 'condom measure' was passed.  With 55.85% in favour, Measure B.  Here's what the 'official' advice stated on this measure:

The proposed amendment would require producers of adult films to obtain a public health permit from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (the "Department") in order to engage in the production of adult films for commercial purposes, and to pay a permit fee set by the Department to offset the cost of enforcement. The measure would require the use of condoms for all acts of anal or vaginal sex during the production of adult films, as well as the posting of both the public health permit and a notice to performers regarding condom use. Producers are required to provide a written exposure control plan describing how the ordinance will be implemented. A "producer" means any person or entity that produces, finances or directs adult films for commercial purposes. 

Violation of the ordinance would be subject to both civil fines and criminal misdemeanor charges. The Department would be authorized to enforce the provisions of the ordinance, including suspending or revoking the public health permit due to violations of the ordinance, or any other law including applicable provisions of the Health and Safety Code, blood borne pathogen standard, California Code of Regulations, or the exposure plan of the producer. Suspension or revocation of the public health permit requires notice and an opportunity for an administrative review, unless the Department found or reasonably suspected immediate danger to the public health and safety, in which case the Department could immediately suspend or revoke the public health permit, initiate a criminal complaint, or issue a fine, pending an administrative hearing. 

The measure, if approved by the voters, may only be repealed by a subsequent vote of the electors or by an amendment of the Los Angeles County Charter superseding the ordinance. The Board of Supervisors is authorized to amend the ordinance by a majority vote in order to further the purposes of the measure.

As I've previously speculated, where LA goes, other may follow.  It is not a California-wide ban, and it will be interesting to see how it operates in practice.  Presumably, some stimulation will be provided to the local economy as the County looks to hire condom inspectors who can monitor the new law.  Unfortunately, any such economic stimulus is likely to be off-set by the exodus of studios as they look elsewhere to film there porn.  Consumers continue to have a clear preference for condomless porn, and so this measure will simply relocate the production of porn, rather than change it.

I'm particularly curious to see if anywhere else seeks to replicate the law.

A conservative settlement?

For Brit observers, you might want to reflect on that powerful speech line deployed by Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron - "So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative" - as a reminder that the marriage issue can be re-defined not as an issue of the left, but as a very conservative institution.  I've explored this previously in a HuffPo piece you can check out here.

As much as the same-sex marriage ballot results are victories for the LGBT community, they should also indicate the need for a debate and recognition of plurality when it comes to the expression of identity.  The embrace of domesticity and a very heteronormative concept of marriage holds less appeal to all those queer sluts out there - their identity apparently cast as increasingly embarrassing and a source of discomfort more generally (take the moves to ban nudity in the Castro as but one illustrative example).

Last night and the results that continued to filter through today were truly great for the LGBT community - rightly a source of celebration.  However, let us not lose sight of the battles ahead and the debates the LGBT 'community' must face up to as legal reforms create new social - and indeed legal - pressures and questions that we must all respond to.   We live in an age of increased acceptance of the homosexual identity, but increased silence about homosexual sex.  A curious division of the homo and the sexual, and one that some are starting to debate, discuss and consider (see here)

America Decides

Excitement is building as we count down the final hours to America deciding the next President of the United States.  Like many liberals, my preference for Obama is perhaps to be expected.  I have however - as I've often noted on this blog - found him to be something of a disappointment.  On national issues, he has been far too slow in taking the lead on key issues.  He used his political capital on healthcare reform but could have implemented better, clearer, more thought-through proposals than those he did.  LGBT campaigners are now rallying to his cause, but I've not forgotten the number of American LGBT lawyers and activists who  have repeatedly grumbled about his inaction over the last four years.  Yes, DADT has gone (and that took long enough), but there the Defense of Marriage still sits, and Obama has done little to stick his neck out on LGBT issues.

Of course, this view is not shared by all.  The Human Rights Campaign describes him as 'the most pro-LGBT President in American history' which is probably true, but he wasn't up against much competition.

Anyway, the late polls suggest he will squeak on in, and I suspect they're right, although it's been a while since I was over there to get a sense of the mood.   I would expect the Senate and House to end up more or less as they are now, with no change in control.  All of which means 'more of the same' for the next four years.

Beyond the Presidency

Whilst it is this national race which attracts most of the attention outside of the US, we should also consider a number of other races and votes that are taking place.  The first openly LGBT member of the Senate could be elected on Tuesday night with Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin.  The Democrat candidate has served in the House since 1999 so fingers crossed she has the profile to make the move to the Senate.

Questions of marriage equality will be on the ballot in Maryland, Maine and Washington and a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage is up for the vote in Minnesota.

These ballot measures (kind of like several referenda at once) are an alien concept to Brits, but they involve significant amounts of money.  Take the State of California where the subject of ending the death penalty is up (Proposition 34).   $7,635,861 (around £4,700,000) has been raised by supporters of the repeal and $416,555 by opponents (we can therefore perhaps guess which way the vote will go).    To put that in some perspective, the Labour Party spent a total of just over £8 million at the last General election (and the Conservatives double that).

Another measure on the ballot in California (at least for those in LA County) is an additional measure (Measure B).  This measure will require that porn performers have to wear condoms in LA County during a shoot (and inevitably lead to the creation of 'condom Police' to inspect sets to make sure the law is being adhered to).  Here's the full wording:

'Shall an ordinance be adopted requiring producers of adult films to obtain a County public health permit, to require adult film performers to use condoms while engaged in sex acts, to provide proof of blood borne pathogen training course, to post permit and notices to performers, and making violations of the ordinance subject to civil fines and criminal charges?'

You can read more about the measure here.  The LA Times has been giving a lot of publicity to this measure, and seemingly seems to support the law-reform, at least based on their coverage and commentaries.  However, they've also recommended that people vote 'no' - suggesting that the reform is well meaning but ultimately un-enforcable (read their full explanation here).

The National Record:  Obama

Nonetheless, it's the national record that remains the focus.  As much as I might find Obama's record disappointing, his campaign website details a pretty comprehensive list of achievements during his four years:

STANDING UP FOR ALL FAMILIES

Affirmed his personal support for same-sex marriage
Opposed the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act and endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act, a legislative effort to repeal DOMA

EDUCATION AND YOUTH

Hosted the first-ever White House conference on bullying in schools to provide information from various government agencies on how kids, teens, young adults, parents, educators, and others in the community can prevent or stop bullying
Created the Inter-Agency Task Force on Bullying to tackle bullying in our schools, including bullying of LGBT youth
Recorded an “It Gets Better” video in support of LGBT youth facing bullying at school

HEALTH CARE

Signed the Affordable Care Act into law, expanding access to health care and critical preventive services
Extended hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights to LGBT patients and their partners Awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal to Janice Langbehn, a lesbian mother and activist whose story paved the way for the extending hospital visitation rights
Affirmed the administration’s commitment to creating an AIDS-free generation Included specific data on health needs of lesbian and bisexual women in the Health Resources and Services Administration’s “Women’s Health USA 2011” report for the first time Promoted equal access to quality health care by enabling searches for health plans with same-sex partner benefits on Healthcare.gov
Included proposals to improve LGBT Americans’ access to health care and provisions to continue the fight against HIV/AIDS in the administration’s 2013 federal budget proposal
Created a National Resource Center for LGBT seniors and awarded a grant to SAGE (Services and Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender Elders), supporting the first community center for LGBT seniors

JOBS AND THE ECONOMY

The administration worked to protect federal LGBT employees from workplace discrimination by adopting an equal-opportunity employment policy that includes both sexual orientation and gender identity
Ordered the federal government to extend key benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees Clarified the Family and Medical Leave Act to ensure family leave for LGBT employees who need to care for their children.
Set a precedent in hiring LGBT employees by appointing more openly LGBT administration officials than any other president in U.S. history Continues to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act

TRANS EQUALITY

Ended the Social Security Administration’s gender “no-match” letters and ensured that transgender Americans can receive passports that accurately reflect their gender identity
Established guidelines to help protect transgender federal employees from discrimination in the workplace
Established policy regarding the respectful delivery of health care to transgender veterans

HOUSING

Announced HUD’s new rule protecting against housing discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity
Released America’s first comprehensive plan to prevent homelessness, including homelessness among LGBT youth Awarded a grant to the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Community Center to work with LGBT foster youth

NATIONAL SECURITY

Ended “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” so gay and lesbian Americans can serve the country they love without hiding who they are Permitted military chaplains to officiate same-sex marriages where legal

INTERNATIONAL AND LGBT CITIZENS ABROAD

Ended the ban that prohibited people with HIV/AIDS from entering the United States Created the first-ever U.S. government strategy dedicated to combating human rights abuses against LGBT persons abroad
Made it clear the United States will use all the tools of American diplomacy to promote LGBT rights abroad
Fought for the rights of LGBT persons worldwide by co-sponsoring the first UN resolution focused solely on LGBT rights
Directed agencies working abroad to combat the criminalization of LGBT status
Directed the Departments of State and Homeland Security to ensure LGBT refugees and asylum-seekers have equal access to protection and assistance
Prevented the removal of sexual orientation from a UN resolution condemning extrajudicial killings Implemented a U.S. Agency for International Development policy to encourage contractors to implement and enforce non-discrimination policies for sexual orientation and gender identity 

So, that pretty much puts me in my place - but he's not holding anything back from this list -recording a  video message, saying overseas agencies should 'work' against LGBT criminalisation are not 'big' policies (would a British national leader feel the need to record he'd made such a video?), but nor can they be dismissed.

The National Record:  Romney

I also took a look at the Romney campaign website.  He has a grid of all his 'sub-groups'.  In the interests of fairness, here they are:

AMERICANS OF FAITH FOR ROMNEY
ASIAN AMERICANS & PACIFIC ISLANDERS FOR ROMNEY
BLACK LEADERSHIP COUNCIL
CATHOLICS FOR ROMNEY
EDUCATORS FOR ROMNEY
ENERGY VOTERS FOR ROMNEY
FARMERS & RANCHERS FOR ROMNEY
FORMER OBAMA SUPPORTERS FOR ROMNEY
HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS FOR ROMNEY
JEWISH AMERICANS FOR ROMNEY
JUNTOS CON ROMNEY LAWYERS FOR ROMNEY
POLISH AMERICANS FOR ROMNEY
PUBLIC SAFETY PROFESSIONALS FOR ROMNEY ROMNEY
VOTERS FOR FREE ENTERPRISE SPORTSMEN FOR ROMNEY
VETERANS & MILITARY FAMILIES FOR ROMNEY
WOMEN FOR MITT
YOUNG AMERICANS FOR ROMNEY

Yep, I'm afraid there's no LGBT group for Romney.  So, I took a look at the sight to make sure there wasn't a section outlining some specific policies targeted at the LGBT population.  Nope, not one.

I'll be live tweeting my way through the election results.  If you're not already following me, you can find me at @lawandsexuality

Vacancy: University of Iowa

The Department of Gender, Women’s and Sexuality Studies (GWSS) and the Division of World Languages, Literatures and Cultures (DWLLC) at the University of Iowa invite applications for a tenure-track joint position at the rank of Assistant Professor in Transnational Sexuality Studies. Desired areas of additional expertise include gender studies, literary and cultural studies, and interdisciplinary approaches to the study of topics such as diaspora, translation, migration, and global flows. Candidates must have native or near-native fluency in one of the foreign languages taught in the DWLLC (for a complete listing of these languages see http://clas.uiowa.edu/dwllc) and be willing and able to deliver instruction at all levels of the graduate and undergraduate curriculum. Candidates should apply by submitting a curriculum vitae and cover letter clearly describing their research and teaching interests in Transnational Sexuality Studies.

 The Department of Gender, Women’s and Sexuality Studies, The Division of World Languages, Literatures, and Cultures, the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, and the University of Iowa are strongly committed to gender and ethnic diversity; the strategic plans of the University and College reflect this commitment. Women and minorities are strongly encouraged to apply. The University of Iowa is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. For more information, see: http://jobs.uiowa.edu/faculty/view/61381

The Uncivil Division

I continue to work through Some Dance to Remember (see my previous post).  I've encountered several other passages that I want to share, but I'll limit myself to just one.  This section (page 309) is a really interesting insight on the impact of AIDS.  There's a temptation to talk of the 'gay community' (I too am guilty of sometimes using this shorthand phrase) but this section is a reminder not only of the 'otherness' of homosexuality, but then the sub-cultures within that identity and then the division of sexual practice based identity within those subcultures.  Nonetheless, in the face of a holocaust, it was their homosexuality that re-formed and bound together a community, however momentarily.

'Straight San Francisco treated the Castro like a leper colony as subtly as some has tacitly approved the gun in Dan White's hand.  Almost overnight, fewer and fewer straights dared to come to the Castro for a chic supper and a movie at the Castro theatre.  In downtown offices, straight people gathered around Xerox machines and wondered if they could still go to lunch with the amusing gay men with whom they worked.

'The uncivil tension between the Pacific Heights gays and Castro gays and Folsom gays widened momentarily.  Cocksuckes blamed the fuckers who blamed the piss drinkers who blamed the fist fuckers who blamed the scatmen; and everyone blamed the shooters and their needles.  Finally, even while the panic - and it was real panic - rose in those first months, they all knew they had no choice but to band together to save themselves, because no one else would save them.  Their history had taught them that.'

Unexplained Discrepancies: The Implementation of the LA Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Ordinance

"we're gonna need a bigger packet..."

I've previously blogged on the hard-line approach of the City of LA to condomless pornography.  They took the extraordinary step of passing the Los Angeles Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act (Ordinance) which you can read here.   It requires any anal or vaginal sex to include the use of condoms.  The Ordinance does not (helpfully) define 'vaginal or anal sex' and thus one could reasonably conclude that it is not merely restricted to a penis.  What of a dildo?  A finger? A fist? Should an esteemed lady of the adult porn film scene be filmed bobbing up and down on a LA City Police cone, is she likely to find herself in bother with some newly appointed 'condom cop'?  Confusingly (someone needs sending to drafting school), a definition is offered of an 'adult film' adn that makes it quite clear that anything can be included:

(1) An "adult film" is defined as any film, video, multimedia or other representation of sexual intercourse in which performers actually engage in oral, vaginal, or anal penetration, including but not limited to penetration by a penis, finger, or inanimate object; oral contact with the anus or genitals of another performer; and/or any other activity that may result in the transmission of blood and/or any other potentially infectious materials as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 5193(b).

Our hypothetical cone is indeed included.

Having passed this ordinance, city officials - as the San Francisco Chronicle reported this week - were then tasked with making the whole thing work.  They've now published a report which you can read in full here.  The report is merely a set of recommendations so it's now for the city mayor to decide whether to follow them (and whether the city can find the dollars to fund the whole thing).

If you search for the full report, you'll probably come to this link - which you'll note defines on page two anal or vaginal sex as penetrative with a penis, and notes that this is the language of the ordinance.  It isn't as I note above.

A clanger has been dropped you might conclude; some calamitous mistake occurred?  Well, move over to the LA office and search the official records and you are presented with a similar report but with some significant differences.  The incorrect assertion about the law has vanished, possibly suggesting that city officials thought the law was more narrowly drafted than it is.  Something rather interesting has occurred here - and I've not seen a single report that notes or explains this discrepancy between the two versions.  An explanation from city officials would surely draw the enthusiastic attentiveness of many who will be affected by this law.

The report makes a number of recommendations, and here are those listed in the LA County website version (which I'm taking as the 'final' 'official' version):

1. Revise the Film Permit Application Section (5) of the Ordinance requires the City to add the following language to all adult film permits: "If this production is an adult film, Permittee must abide by all applicable workplace health and safety regulations, including California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 5193, which mandates barrier protection, including condoms, to shield performers from contact with blood or other potentially infectious material during the production of films."

2. Require Licensed Medical Inspections Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking to contract with a licensed medical professional to conduct the periodic inspections of adult film productions involving "Activities Carrying Risk  of Transmission of Blood or Infectious Materials." If this recommendation is adopted, more information would need to be gathered to determine City enforcement parameters and the CAO should be directed to report back to the Mayor and Council within 90 days with a draft RFP for further action.


3. Contract with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health If voters in Los Angeles County approve in the Statewide General Election scheduled for November 6,2012, the measure (County Measure) to require adult film producers to obtain a health permit as a condition of producing a film that involves non-simulated sexual intercourse, then the City should adopt the County Measure and put a measure on the Citywide primary election in March of 2013 to reconcile the Ordinance in LAMC Section 12.22.1 with the County Measure to rely exclusively on the County health permit requirements and inspections to ensure the safety of performers in the AFI from the risk of transmission of bloodbome pathogens. If this recommendation is adopted, the City Attorney should be requested to report back with an amending Ordinance to reconcile LAMC Section 12.22.1 with the County Measure. 

4. Develop a Fee Structure Direct the CAO to develop a fee structure to contract for the services identified in Recommendations 2 and/or 3 above, and direct the CAO to report back to the Mayor and Council within 90 days with a draft fee proposal for adult film inspections.

Media sites are repeating an assertion in the SF Chronicle that quotes a reference in the report to a study by the Los Angeles Fire Department indicates that more than 100 condom cops might be needed to adequately enforce the law, at a cost of $1.7 million or more a year.

My reading of the report is less clear.  Any figure is dependant upon what options the city chooses, and also varies dependant upon the rate at which licenses are set (and the number then issued).  There is also a degree of guess work about those films which currently fall through the licensing regime and thus would contribute towards the need for policing to stop such films.  The report makes clear this extends to 'student films' in the largest category - Miscellaneous.  

The films don't need to be for profit and so it's quite conceivable that the new 'condom police' could be sweeping into the homes of couples performing on live chat/broadcast sites or a couple of college guys who uploaded a video of some penetrative hazing.   Don't forget, penetration with a police cone could count - it doesn't need to be a penis but it does make reference to 'sexual intercourse', so perhaps our College jocks are safe for now.  If the English CPS were involved, I'd be less certain.

So, we have a crazy law, an intense policing regime and a State that is already financially broke.  This shambles still has some way to go.

RIP Jack Fertig, aka, Sister Boom Boom

Really sad to hear of the premature death of the wonderful Jack Fertig, better know as Sister Boom Boom.  The Bay Area Reporter carried a detailed obituary which can be read here.

2012 Frank Kameny Award Goes to Stephen Whittle

The US LGBT Bar Association announced this week that the 2012 Frank Kameny Award was been given to Prof. Stephen Whittle, OBE, Ph.D.

Stephen Whittle is a Professor of Equalities Law at Manchester Metropolitan University where he has taught for almost 20 years. He transitioned from female to male in 1975 at age 19 and began decades of activism on behalf of the transgender community. Prof. Whittle set up the Manchester TV/TS group, the first local and mixed trans group in England. He also co-founded Press For Change, the UK’s transgender lobbying group which fought numerous cases through the national and European Courts. In 2005, he was made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire in the Queen’s New Year’s Honours list. He has also received the Sylvia Rivera Award in 2002 for ‘Respect and Equality: Transsexual and Transgender Rights.’ The Frank Kameny Award is presented to a member of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community who has paved the way for important legal victories. The recipient need not be an attorney. The award was created to honor the memory of Frank Kameny, a tireless advocate for the LGBT community and the only recipient of the LGBT Bar’s Dan Bradley Award who did not have a law degree.

 Before there were lawyers representing LGBT clients, there was Frank Kameny. Kameny submitted the first gay rights legal brief to the Supreme Court in 1961, demanding legal recognition for gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals. He tirelessly petitioned on behalf of the gay community, using the law to his advantage despite having no formal training in the field. Stephen Whittle followed in Kameny's footsteps, tirelessly working on behalf of the transgender community. Prof. Whittle adopted Frank Kameny and the Mattachine Society as his unnamed heroes when he was just 14 years old. He began corresponding with experts on the LGBT community, including Kameny, renting a post office box and sending plain, brown envelopes from the UK to America to further his education. Prof. Whittle was shaped by his early correspondence with Kameny, becoming an advocate for transgender equality and the leader of a worldwide community.

 Prof. Whittle has used the court of law to file amicus briefs and lobby for transgender rights. He stood before the European Court of Human Rights in 1996, demanding to be recognized as the father of his two children. Like Kameny before him, Prof. Whittle has remained undaunted and continued his fight for equality no matter the obstacles that stood in his way. The National LGBT Bar Association is proud to present Stephen Whittle with the Frank Kameny Award in recognition of his unprecedented advances for the transgender community.

The award will be presented on August 24th at the ever-excellent Annual Lavender Law Conference, which this year is being held in Washington DC.  Congratulations Stephen  - a very well deserved award.

Birthday Blog: From the Archive Pt2

2008 was the year of the US Presidential Election and the 'coming' of Obama.  In February of that year I once again commented that I thought Democrats should choose Obama over Clinton, but, as you'll see in this post, I predicted that Clinton would still clinch it.  Yep, sometimes I get it badly wrong!

By April I was despairing that she was doing well, but noted that she had started to reach out to LGBT audiences more (something Obama had done from early on).  Re-reading my November post on the Obama victory brings back those feelings of dizzying hope, the amazing sweep of his rhetoric.  Yet, I also pointed to the Proposition 8 victory  - a  historic event which would lead to the Perry case, expected before the US Supreme Court later this year - and I also cautioned that Obama would have to change his rhetoric into action.  As Obama bids for a second term, we need a lot more action.

Perry Presses on to Supreme Court

The Perry/Proposition 8 same-sex marriage constitutionality case looks on course to finally make it to the US Supreme Court this Autumn with a decision next June.   The LA Times reports that:  'In a brief order Tuesday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said a majority of the court's active judges voted against reconsidering a three-judge panel's decision to overturn the voter-approved 2008 state constitutional amendment. Three dissenting 9th Circuit judges who favored review called the panel's ruling a "gross misapplication" of the law that "roundly trumped California's democratic process." The two judges who voted to overturn the ban last February reiterated Tuesday that their decision was limited to the situation in California.'

I've long been unconvinced that a decision from the US Supreme Court is necessarily a good outcome for those opposed to Proposition 8 (and in favour of same-sex marriage).   Although the outcome is far from certain, the court remains weighted in favour of a conservative outcome and that would then 'lock-in' a potentially unfortunate outcome.

Read the full LA Times story here.

DOMA Unconstitutional (Again)

Thursday saw another fascinating case which declared DOMA unconstitutional.  The ruling by Claudia Wilken of the US District Court for Northern California is the third by district level judges that have declared the 1996 law known as the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, to be unconstitutional.

Wilken ruled that the federal law that prohibits recognition of same-sex unions is unconstitutional because it denies long-term health insurance benefits to legal spouses of state employees and retirees. She also concluded Thursday that a section of the federal tax code that made the domestic partners of state workers ineligible for long-term care insurance similarly violates the civil rights of people in gay and lesbian relationships. Both laws were based on what she called “moral condemnation” of same-sex couples.

It's another nail in the coffin of a law which Obama has said his White House will not defend (although nor is he seeking to be the one to repeal it).  A showdown in the Supreme Court looks increasingly likely, but this 1996 law has been on quite a journey.

Read the full story here.

You can access the judgment here.

LA Condoms in Porn Ballot Measure

Later today, the  pro-condoms in porn bandwagon moves a little bit forward in the legislative battle.

AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) and members of FAIR (‘For Adult Industry Responsibility’), a group that has been shepherding signature gathering and support for a Los Angeles County ballot initiative process, will host a press conference at 10:30 AM Pacific in Los Angeles to announce the collection and filing of over 360,000 signatures of Los Angeles County residents in support of a County of Los Angeles ballot initiative that allows Los Angeles voters to directly weigh in on a measure that would, “…require producers of adult films to obtain a public health permit from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (“the Department”) and pay a permit fee set by the Department in an amount sufficient for necessary enforcement.”

Members of AHF and FAIR launched the County ballot measure drive in early January of this year on the heels of successfully qualifying a similar City of Los Angeles ballot initiative tying distribution of adult film permits to condom use. The groups have until June 5th to gather the signatures needed for the County measure. 232,153 valid signatures of Los Angeles County residents are required to qualify the measure and make the Nov 2012 ballot (a number based on a percentage of total votes cast in the last County-wide election); 255,368 to qualify by the random sample (30 day check). In a precautionary measure, AHF and FAIR have collected and will submit well over that number as a cushion: approximately 360,000 signatures total.

After validation of the signatures by County officials, the measure will go before Los Angeles County voters on the November 2012 ballot—the presidential election ballot. This ordinance will be known as the ‘County of Los Angeles Safer Sex In The Adult Film Industry Act.’ Advocates need to collect over 200,000 signatures of voters by June 5, 2012, and if successful, would place the measure on the November 2012 election—the same ballot as the presidential election.

County of Los Angeles Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act 

The measure would enact an ordinance to add Chapter 11.39, entitled ‘Adult Films,” to Title 11, Health and Safety, of the Los Angeles County Code. 


The purpose of the measure is intended to minimize the spread of sexually transmitted infections by regulating the adult film industry. 


The measure would require producers of adult films to obtain a public health permit from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (“the Department”) and pay a permit fee set by the Department in an amount sufficient for necessary enforcement. 


The measure would provide for a permitting process that requires application submission and proof of completion of a blood borne pathogen training course, after which a permit shall be issued. 


The measure also requires submission of an exposure control plan. The measure would require use of condoms for all acts of anal or vaginal sex during the production of adult films, as well as the posting of the public health permit and notice to performers regarding condom use. 


The measure would authorize the Department to enforce the provisions of the ordinance, including suspending or revoking the public health permit for violating the ordinance, or any other law, following notice and an opportunity for an administrative review. Prior notice would not be required if any immediate danger to the public and safety is found or reasonably suspected. Violation of the ordinance would be subject to civil fines and/or criminal misdemeanor charges. 

The measure would provide that in the event another ballot measure relating to the permits for the adult film industry appears on the same ballot, that this measure shall prevail if it receives the greater number of affirmative votes, and the competing measure shall be null and void. 


The measure authorizes the Board of Supervisors to amend the chapter by ordinance, passed by a majority vote, in order to further its purposes. The chapter may only be repealed by ordinance adopted by a vote of the electors or by an amendment of the Los Angeles County Charter superseding the ordinance. 


The measure provides that if any part of the ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional, then remaining provisions shall be severable and remain in full force and effect.

The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage

On both sides of the Atlantic, politics seems to have been dominated in recent days by the subject of same-sex marriage (or 'gay marriage' as the British media insist upon calling it).  In the US, the decision to opt for Mitt Romney as the Republican contender in the 2012 Presidential race, rather than his more Conservative (and frankly a wee bit bonkers) contenders meant that the social-issues test (which Santorum had mined in the final weeks of his campaign for the nomination) has now moved back to the Democrats. As Obama toured US College campuses this week (prior to a doubling in interest rates on student loans in the fall), the issue continued to rumble on in the background.  It exploded via NBC's Meet the Press earlier today - a morning show in the US and British viewers can catch it via CNBC at 3pm each Sunday.

The main guest in a pre-recorded interview was the current Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden.  Biden had been in the global press this week following the release (by the US administration) of the so-called 'Osama Papers'.  These represent a small number of the documents seized as part of the bin Laden assassination raid last year.  They revealed that the terrorist leader was keen that Biden should not be killed, as if he became President he would be incompetent and thus lead America astray.  Osama bin Laden instead advocated an assassination attempt on the President and a high-profile military General (thus elevating Biden to the Presidency).  This is important in understanding that Biden needed to demonstrate that he was a serious powerful political figure in his own right when he appeared on Meet the Press today.  That he undoubtedly did with what I considered an assured performance.  Yet it was his comments on the subject of same-sex marriage which caught the attention of the media and social networks.

You can see the key section of his interview in the clip below:



Biden indicated that he was 'comfortable with same-sex marriage', but he did walk something of a tightrope in the interview.  He talked about people obtaining the same civil rights as heterosexuals - that doesn't necessarily equate to same-sex marriage but the overall positive tone of the interview gave the strong impression that he personally would support same-sex marriage, that his views on the subject had evolved, and that the focus of the debate should be on 'love'.  He seemed a guy genuinely moved by encountering people and learning of their lived experiences.  It seemed a judgement based on a human calculation rather than one arrived at after careful constitutional and legal consideration.

Obama has not been able to convey this to date - a man who is despite the rantings of some on the far right, is a centrist political figure.  Obama campaign chief David Axelrod tweeted that it was the same-position as the President of the United States (thanks to Kate Sheill for alerting me to this).  The tweet was aimed at NBC political correspondent Chuck Todd who can be seen on NBC's Nightly News and who took to Meet the Press to comment on the significance of the announcement.  The Advocate also immediately ran a new lead story that the VP supports same-sex marriage.  In truth, both sides are kinda right.  The media ran with the impression that Biden - a canny operator - gave in his interview.  He did not however commit the Obama regime to moving any further forward on the same-sex marriage issue. Instead, he re-iterated the focus upon 'rights' (as opposed to the institution of marriage), a legal divide that Obama has clung to.  

This is to take the view that marriage is about acquiring rights and responsibilities, rather than about joining an 'institution' (i.e marriage) per se.  The Obama position is that it's OK to have the rights, but not to join the institution (irrespective of whether the institution would like you).

So where does this leave us?  The answer is 'we'll have to see'.  The ball is now in the court of the media and Republicans.  Romney could use the issue to assure Republicans that he's Conservative enough by attacking the VP.  Yet he also wants to position himself in the political centre in time for the general election in the fall. He could challenge Obama: "what's the President's position on this?  The American people have a right to know", although any journalist will ask him his position (thus potentially back-firing on Romney).

Obama would then come under pressure, and doesn't want to be the guy defending same-sex marriage at this time (it would alienate some in the centre) or be the guy advocating his current half baked position (civil unions, don't like same-sex marriage but OK if States want to do, but oops we still have DOMA which prevents that being federally recognised)  as this is a position which de-motivates core Democrats.  In other words, it's a lose-lose issue for Obama but one the media may be keen to peruse.  As things stand, we've had some interesting verbal comments, but no change in substance.

Meanwhile, back on this side of the Atlantic, this week saw local elections take place up and down the country.  Liberal Democrats took another hammering and the Tories also received a pounding.  Ed Milliband's Labour party did well in the polls.  Talk on election night quickly moved to stories of another 'Rose Garden Moment' between Nick Clegg and David Cameron as they caught to re-cement the coalition.   David Cameron - it seemed to be briefed -would refocus on issues of the family, and the economy.  In other words, he would throw his own supporters a bit of red meat.  Nick Clegg on the other hand offered nothing to his increasingly jittery followers who must surely be questioning whether they want this man to lead them over a cliff at the next general election.

The Sunday Times led with the headline (£ link) 'PM in retreat over gay marriage', and the issue was raised with Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne on the Andrew Marr show this morning.  Joe Biden he ain't, and although I suspect he's actually very sympathetic on the issue - more so than Cameron despite his public persona.  Osborne ducked the issue in initial questioning and later added that measures wouldn't be in the forthcoming Queen's Speech (which sets out the legislative agenda for the next 12 months).  A number of social media folks commented that this was hardly surprising given the consultation doesn't end until June.  I confess that my brain had short-circuited and I had (I turn red as I admit this) forgotten that the Queen's Speech is now always in the Spring.  This means that any measure on same-sex marriage won't occur until after May 2013.  We knew this before Osborne's interview this morning and we know exactly as much afterwards.

This means that any slowing down is a misleading message to Tory back-benchers.  In reality, it's at least 12 months off and always has been.  However, Osborne did have an opportunity to say that he was personally in favour, or that the government hoped that the consultation was positive, and anticipated bringing forward legislation in Spring 2012.  He didn't.  Politically, he had absolutely no need to.  I would have been pleased, and so would many other activists but in all probability we won't vote for him or his party.  Party groups which support same-sex marriage can equally be assured from the ST story that slowing down does not mean the ultimate destination has changed.  It is in fact Cameron's right-wing back-benchers and his Conservative Association's across the country who will be most annoyed.  An attempt to re-assure them was cynical and misleading in the extreme.

All of which probably explains why Nadine - you wouldn't like me when I'm angry - Dorries, the one-woman machine of an MP - went on the attack this afternoon by saying that gay marriage is a policy of the 'elite', and once again slammed same-sex marriage proposals.  Dorries - divorced, and now on the rebound from a relationship with a married man - perhaps understandably seems to have something against marriage.  I too am something of a sceptic, yet I don't seek to deny rights and freedoms to a section of society because of a heady mixture of political dogma, mumbo-jumbo religion and a series of unfortunate experiences with men.

I remain of the view that same-sex marriage will be a reality during the term of this government.  The question is whether it will be in 2013 or 2014.  Liberal Democrats have an opportunity to offer a firmer position on this issue - to indicate that 'all being well with the consultation', they 'expect' legislation to be brought forward in 2013, because it's 'the right thing to do'.  Their failure to do so this weekend is yet another disappointment from a leadership which seems to have lost its way.

Obama and Gay Rights: Funny if it Wasn't so Tragic

Barack Obama issued a reminder to the American LGBT populace this last week as to why they should vote for him in the Presidential race later this year.  Often criticised as a let-down on gay rights (as on so many other issues) his campaign have knocked together a graphic to remind everyone what he has done.

You can check out the full timeline here.

Obama will of course - barring accidents - win a second term in November but he needs to convince his own supporters to go out and vote.  The current strategy seems to be "have you seen the other guy?  Aren't the Republican's scary?"  Well yes, they are and yes Obama will be a better President than them.  yet, his goal should not be to be slightly better than a bunch of Republican nuts.  The American people deserve better than that.  A terrific campaigner, it's hard not to accept the criticism that he's a less talented office holder.

Let's look at the timeline covering the last four years.  He starts with extending key-benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.  He could do this without legislation so it was easy to achieve but note the language - 'key-benefits' not all.

The following week - and I'm not making this up - they had an LGBT party at the White House.  Please tell me that LGBT activists in the States expect more than a Whitehouse shindig? He then awards honours Billie Jean King and Harvey Milk.  Nice, and welcome for sure but I feel underwhelmed.  On and on we go.  Federal law which apply to everyone are included (which seems patronising) and in the case of care costs for seniors is insulting given the massive issues that face LGBT seniors.  The list largely comprises of making speeches, saying he doesn't like things, and making the occasional video.  These are not achievements, they are sound-bites.  Judged by actions rather than words, with the exception of repealing DADT, Obama has been a massive let down for the LGBT community.  What does he offer for the next term? Nothing according to this.  Quite astonishing.  He also has the brass neck to state that DOMA is unconstitutional and they won't defend it in the courts.  That doesn't mean it won't be found constitutional in the court, and nor does it stop the law being in force right now, affecting millions of Americans this very day.

The LGBT movement fear playing into the hands of the right by calling out Obama to put forward more positive LGBT measures.  Republicans will - they argue - then be able to point to the terrifyingly lefty/socialist/communist things he would do if elected for another term.  Keep your mouth shut and you'll be looked after when we win is the implicit message.  I'm unconvinced.  The US desperately needs some LGBT out-riders who effectively take the administration to task on a  shoddy record and a lack of future promise.  Four more years of this might be better than the Republican alternative, but it's simply not good enough for America.

GLAAD Awards Live

Gay Star News reports that the 23rd Annual GLAAD Media Awards in New York City will be available to watch online on Saturday 24 March 2012 at 4.30pm EST.  I make that as being 8.30pm for Brit viewers. GLAAD, which stands for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, is one of the most prominent LGBTI organisations in the US, and describes its role as 'holding the media accountable for the words and images they present as well as promoting and amplify an array LGBTI voices and groups.'

You can watch the awards here.

Read the full story on Gay Star News here.

Flagrant Conduct: The Story of Lawrence v. Texas

Many thanks to Mark Simpson for flagging this story up.  The New Yorker magazine carries a book review piece on some new work due to be published by Dale Carpenter, a Law Professor at Minnesota Law School.  His book can be pre-ordered on Amazon here.

The book seeks to explore the story behind the story of the landmark case of Lawrence v Texas - a US case that resulted in 2003 in anti-sodomy laws being ruled unconstitutional.

Read the full New Yorker piece here.

Brave New World? LA Condom Law In Force

Did you notice it?  Yesterday, a new Los Angeles city ordinance (law) come into force requiring porn performers to wear condoms when filming.  The full title of the Act is the: CITY OF LOS ANGELES SAFER SEX IN THE ADULT FILM INDUSTRY ACT.  A PDF of the full act is available from the Office of the LA City Clerk and can be viewed directly here.  I was slightly amused to discover via this ordinance that nudity or sexual activity shouldn't be visible or audible to other members of the public when being filmed, which seems vaguely farcical given the amount of bonking that can be heard in many a hotel room at the best of times. 

The key sections of the Ordinance can be viewed below:

(1) An "adult film" is defined as any film, video, multimedia or other representation of sexual intercourse in which performers actually engage in oral, vaginal, or anal penetration, including but not limited to penetration by a penis, finger, or inanimate object; oral contact with the anus or genitals of another performer; and/or any other activity that may result in the transmission of blood and/or any other potentially infectious materials as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 5193(b).

This seems deliberately designed to encompass all sexual activity but how does that equate to risk?

(2) "Producer of adult film" is defined as any person or entity directly engaged in the creation of adult films.

So stand down horny boyfriend with an iPhone, you should be safe under this provision.  You need to be 'directly' engaged, not indirectly (much dancing on that pin head to come).

(3) "Filmed" and "filming" refer to the recording of any adult film, regardless of media.

So, should you be a horny boyfriend filming with an iPhone deliberately to make an adult film, the phone counts - it doesn't need to be super duper filming technology.  Presumably, it also relates to audio only recording which is intriguing (and another potential exploratory case).

(4) All producers of adult films issued permits under the authority of the City of Los Angeles or the Los Angeles Police Department pursuant to Section 12.22(A)(13) of this Code or any other law authorizing the issuance of permits for commercial filming are required to maintain engineering and work practice controls sufficient to protect employees from exposure to blood and/or any other potentially infectious materials controls consistent with California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 5193. Engineering and work practice controls include, but are not limited to: (a) Simulation of sex acts using acting, production and post- production techniques; (b) Ejaculation outside workers' bodies; (c) Provision of and required use of condoms whenever acts of vaginal or anal sex are performed during the production of an adult film; and (d) The provision of condom-safe water-based or silicone-based lubricants to facilitate the use of condoms.

So if the State controlled sex, that's what you'd get  Bye bye Boy Butter.   Interestingly, you don't even have to be having sex, just pretending to have sex evokes the requirements to have a permit.  Yes, the mind does boggle.  It also doesn't require condoms for oral sex - which is interesting.

(5) Any film permit issued under the authority of the City of Los Angeles or the Los Angeles Police Department pursuant to Section 12.22(A)(13) of this Code or any other law authorizing the issuance of permits for commercial filming for the production of an adult film must expressly condition said permit on compliance with subsection (4) of this section. Any such permit shall contain the following language: "Permittee must abide by all applicable workplace health and safety regulations, including California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 5193, which mandates barrier protection, including condoms, to shield performers from contact with blood or other potentially infectious material during the production of films."

(6) The City shall charge, or shall direct any other person or entity contracting with the City to administer the film permitting process, to charge, entertainment industry customers seeking permits for the production of adult films a fee sufficient to allow periodic inspections to ensure compliance with the conditions setforth in Section 12.22.1 (B)(4).

Now, I should say that I am not trained in US law (big big caveat!) but given the wording of the provision, I read California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 5193.  According to the ordinance, this requires barrier protection (condoms) and is being ignored.  I would welcome some input from US academics/activists on this point as I've had a quick read of the regulations and can't see it.  Where is this requirement?  Moreover, the regulations were quite clearly not intended (I would suggest) to extend so widely as to encompass such activity.  I must be missing something!