Let's Talk About Bareback

Apologies for the lack of posts recently.  I'd like to say I'll be back posting regularly, but until I get back on track with various writing commitments, I'm afraid I will probably continue to be a little sporadic with my posting.  Let's begin then with a topic that continues to fascinate me, and which I regard as a key issue concerning contemporary gay identity, and the regulation of identity, bareback sex.

I finally for around to watching the How to Survive a Plague documentary.  I'd been really excited about watching it and found it a very emotionally draining documentary.   That said, I think it would have been a little shorter, and it did seem at times to lack the energy that was suggested in the trailer.  The "plague" moment from Kramer - which seems to dramatic in the trailer - actually sent a shiver down my spine when shown in context.  The descent into chaos, argument, and division will be familiar to anyone involved in gay politics and campaigning. Kramer's eruption, and genuine passion - shown in that context - is all the more powerful and underlines the importance of that unifying voice.  The documentary also helped to clarify in my mind the role of TAG in relation to Act Up!  A post on the Petrelis Files blog in recent days reveals how TAG continue to be a controversial group, and this documentary again helps younger gay men like myself to understand those historical tensions.

The documentary also left me wondering whether in the long run, it was worth it.  The trials that people pushed for, didn't work, and the documentary seemed to suggest that actually we would have got to the same destination whether there had been any intervention by the LGBT community or not.  Potentially incendiary stuff.   On a personal level, the documentary persuaded me to order a HIV home testing kit.   If it does nothing else, but inspire many viewers to do that, I suspect the film-makers will be pleased.

A really interesting post on BuzzFeed also caught my attention.  It's a blog by Kyle Bella who wonders why it's so hard to talk about bareback sex.  After all, we know more and more men who have sex with men, are having that sex without condoms.  Bareback is - I would argue - already normative in gay pornography, and will - if it isn't already - become normative in sexual practice.  We also see HIV rates continuing to rise, creating ever more socio-legal pressure for responses, health-policy responses such as we've seen in LA regarding pornography, and also specific campaigns such as that currently being waged against bareback company Treasure Island Media (albeit a particularly botched effort).

The puzzlement of Bella is - I suspect - shared by some, but I think most people know the reasons.  The trouble is the reasons are inconvenient, both politically and in policy terms.   If for example, we accept that bareback sex feels better - that it is a much more sensory engaging experience, then the arguments of safer sex campaigners over recent years will be seen as being less than completely honest.  It is also an emotionally different experience, and this again is not truly engaged with by many campaigners.

Our continued socio-legal pre-occupation with bareback sex, also furthers any fetishisation of bareback sex, whilst - and I can't emphasis this enough - the failure of large sections of 'our' community to be dropping dead from bareback sex, or popping up on a Friday night in a club looking like hell, dying from AIDS makes any 'HIV is a bad thing' message difficult to deliver.  Not that anyone has been trying to.  Recent years have seen campaigns focus on testing, and HIV campaigners seem more focused on discrimination than health needs (all of which fuels silence about being positive, or knowing if one is positive).

Then we have direct attempts to silence debates around bareback. This has taken the form of attempts to snuff out companies like Treasure Island Media (which I would suggest reflect back the reality of our sexual play) and, as this Queerty story revealed last month, Facebook banning a page about bareback (after it hit 20,000 likes).

Can we all honestly state whether we engage in bareback sex, and why?  I don't think our culture currently allows for that.  If we can't even be honest about our own behaviours, we are not going to get to grips with this subject.

All-Party Parliamentary Group on Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade

The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade are gathering written evidence through the form of a questionnaire which can be accessed through their website: www.appgprostitution.org The deadline for submissions is Monday 4th February at 4pm.

This is part of an inquiry to assess the current UK legal settlement surrounding prostitution, and to identify how legislation to tackle demand could safeguard those in danger of sexual exploitation and abuse.

Civil Servants in Lack of Political Nous Shock

Who would have thunk it?  The British Civil Service do not - so the Daily Mail suggested this week - have much by the way of political nous.  They do however have an ability to examine issues and reach conclusions based on evidence rather than the rip tides of media presentation and response.

The Mail reported on Friday that as part of an attempt to reduce state involvement in individuals lives (is this linked to the Your Freedom project launched back in 2010 which didn't seem to deliver?) civil servants had suggested the lowering of the age of consent to 14, not in response to a headline, but in response to detailed consideration of evidence and time-consuming analysis.  Politicians on the other hand have different agendas, and in the wake of the Savile scandal, it's not the best of timing for such a proposal.  Consequently, the Government can appear the voice of common sense by kicking the proposal into the long grass.  I think the proposal (as described in the Mail) has merit but even I wouldn't have suggested it at the moment.  Indeed, I am rather grateful that Jimmy Savile did not find the cure for cancer in his dying days, as it would surely now be blasphemy to want to use it.  Toxic doesn't come close (see the rather wonderful Martin Rowson cartoon from the Guardian today).

However, discussion about some modification of the law relating to nudity (with a view to creating a more 'enlightened' law) appear to still be on the cards.  Promising stuff, and one to watch (as it were).

The broader question is whether these reforms will lead to a Bill which seeks to re-orinetate some sexual freedoms and revises some areas of law which are not currently working.  The Lib Dems are apparently leading on these proposals so we shall have to see.

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.

UK Government Responds to Same-Sex Marriage Consultation

A busy day has meant I'm somewhat late to the party on the Government's Response to same-sex marriage.  Twitter and the blogs are awash with some really thoughtful and interesting responses.  That said, you didn't think I'd let today go by without comment did you?

Well, let's firstly be clear what we've not seen today.  We haven't seen draft legislation.  We don't know what the bill will look like.  We don't know how these measures will be drafted and the potential problems/issues that will be raised or solved by such legislation.

What we do have is a Government response to a consultation.  That consultation - the Government reports - received the largest ever response to any consultation by the UK Government.  They received 228,000 responses (I was one) and 19 petitions (I signed one).  So, some folks may count multiple times within these stats but it's nonetheless impressive going.

Let's get down to the substance of the response.  The aspect that's grabbing the attention of the media is the so-called 'quadruple lock'.  The BBC reports that:

• No religious organisation or individual minister being compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises 
• Making it unlawful for religious organisations or their ministers to marry same-sex couples unless their organisation's governing body has expressly opted in to provisions for doing so 
• Amending the 2010 Equality Act to ensure no discrimination claim can be brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple 
• The legislation explicitly stating that it will be illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry same-sex couples and that Canon Law, which bans same-sex weddings, will continue to apply

These seems pretty solid and certainly addresses the worries of the religious lobby.  Well, so you might have thought until the Church of Wales helpfully waded in after the announcement to say "sorry chaps, we're not so sure about this" (or words to that effect).

Civil Partnerships

Others have raised the issue of Civil Partnerships (see for example) and these proposals.  The Government seems to have made a bit of a fudge of this aspect of reform, and to my mind clearly set up  a legal challenge.   At page 21, the Government states:

'5.6 Having taken the range of views into account, we intend to proceed with the proposals in the consultation document to retain civil partnerships for same-sex couples only, including continuing to allow civil partnerships on religious premises. This is because we acknowledge the important role that these unions play in the lives of many couples. Civil partnerships are a well understood union, which have been become part of people’s everyday lives and society in general. We see little benefit from removing them.

5.7 Civil partnership formation will continue with exactly the same administrative processes and rules as currently exist. This includes current rules around notice periods, parental consent, age and witnesses.

5.8 We have always been clear that the aim of this consultation and subsequent legislation is to enable same-sex couples to get married, rather than wider reform, and therefore there is no need to remove civil partnerships to fulfil this aim.

5.9 While we will recognise marriages between same-sex couples formed abroad as marriages, the retention of civil partnerships will enable us to recognise same-sex civil unions (that are not marriages) to be recognised as civil partnerships in the UK.'

So, Civil Partnerships stay for same-sex couples alongside new rights of same-sex marriage but different-sex couples who already (obviously) can enter into marriage will not be able to enter into Civil partnerships.  The careful logic for such obvious discrimination? They didn't intend wider reform in this legislation.  Well, they might not have intended it but that' surely the inevitable consequence.

I'm genuinely at a loss that the Government have chosen at this point to not extend Civil Partnerships to different-sex couples.  There is however an opportunity for Labour (or indeed someone else) to introduce an amendment introducing such a measure as part of the legislative process, and then campaign to secure cross-bench support.   I hope they show some real leadership on this.

Whether they do or not, the stage looks set for a legal challenge on this - and I'm sure that at some point such a case will succeed.  The Government can't even be bothered rationalising the discrimination.

They state at 7.10 (page 26):  'This consultation was not aimed at being a wider process of reform of marriage and civil partnership legislation and therefore we do not consider that it is necessary to open up civil partnerships to opposite sex couples in order to enable same-sex couples to get married.'  This is also arguably further fuels the Equal Love Campaign.

Gender

A welcome aspect of the report is an apparent understanding of the complexities that arise with the intersection of the current Civil Partnership Act and Gender Recognition Act.

The Government states (page 28) that:  '8.12 The Government remains committed to enabling someone to change their legal gender while remaining in their marriage. Those in a civil partnership registered in England or Wales would have the option to convert their civil partnership without being seen as legally ending that union and rights accrued within the civil partnership would remain.'

So, if you are in a marriage and become legally defined as same-sex, you will have a choice of continuing to be married or entering into a Civil Partnership (although the document doesn't seem to specify, so you could potentially have an action from someone saying they should have the same choice as someone entering into a partnership contract for the first time) .  If you are different-sex, you have no choice, you must be married.  Thus, a same-sex couple in a Civil Partnership becoming a different-sex couple for the purposes of the GRA must convert their same-sex Civil Partnership to a marriage or dissolve the CP in order to achieve a Gender Recognition Certificate.

If that doesn't have legal challenge written all over it, I don't know what does. The Equal Love Campaign could therefore be plausibly joined/extended by a challenge to the Civil Partnership law via a Trans case.

Let's not talk about sex

The issue that first emerged from this report (or rather, first leaked) was the idea that the Civil Servants were rather baffled as to what to do about consummation (see my previous post here).  What, one was therefore left wondering, would the Government's response offer by way of resolution.  Here's what they say on page 31:  '9.10 Therefore, in respect of non-consummation, we are proposing to create an exception for same-sex couples in a marriage, meaning that they would not be able cite non-consummation as a basis for annulling their marriage. Same-sex couples cannot currently annul their civil partnership on the basis of non-consummation. Opposite sex couples will continue to be able to annul their marriage on the grounds of non-consummation. By maintaining this position, we are not altering the legal position unnecessarily.'

To put it another way:  Crikey, this one stumped us.  We've therefore decided to pretend it doesn't matter for the purposes of gay people.  Now, can I stop thinking about gay sex?  Thanks.

Far better to have gone further and stripped out the requirement for all marriages but the Government seem keen to only change the minimal possible sections of legislation to introduce same-sex marriage.  However, given the fudge on consummation, these poor Civil Servants then faced the question of adultery, which does involve the 'S' word.  Yes, more bewildering bonking and a legal question of what amounts to adultery.  The report comments:

'9.11 We are proposing to maintain the current position with regards to adultery in marriage. This means that anyone, including same-sex couples, will be able to cite adultery to end their marriage if the behaviours currently defined in case law are exhibited. '

This statement has the following footnote:

Adultery is currently defined as follows: there must be at least partial penetration of the female by the male for the act of adultery to be proved. The attempt to commit adultery must not be confused with the act itself, and if there is no such penetration, some lesser act of sexual gratification does not amount to adultery (c.f. Dennis v Dennis [1955] 2 ALL ER 51 2WLR 817).


So, funnily enough we're back at the question of penetration and how gay people have sex.  The Government try and resolve things a different way this time (page 31-32):

'In practice this would mean for a same-sex married couple that, where one partner had sexual intercourse (within the meaning of the law for these purposes) with someone of the opposite sex, the other partner could cite adultery as grounds for divorce. If the behaviour exhibited fell short of the current legal definition of adultery, it would remain the case that this could be cited as unreasonable behaviour, as is the case with civil partnerships. In this way we believe that the current legal position on the meaning of adultery need not be changed. It will remain the case that a same-sex couple in a civil partnership will not be able to cite adultery to end their civil partnership.'

So, we're not sure what would be adultery in these circumstances but it doesn't matter anyway as you could use unreasonable behaviour in these circumstances anyway.

It's a fudge but it works.

Education

One of the issues that has seemingly pre-occupied some Tory backbenchers is what teachers will be forced to teach.  Worry ye not bigoted Tory.  Help is on hand via page 34:

'9.27 Every school is required to ensure pupils are not taught anything that is inappropriate to their age, religious or cultural background. This will not change and pupils will continue to receive broad and balanced advice on marriage.

9.28 In addition, teachers, particularly in a faith school, will be able to continue to describe their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman whilst acknowledging and acting within the new legislative position which enables same-sex couples to get married. They must continue to act within the current parameters of legislation on hate speech and discrimination law.'

Yes folks, it's still perfectly possible for a gay kid attending a Church of England School to be told that marriage means marriage between a man and a woman.  This truly breaks my heart.  It's a back way in for prejudice, and raises serious questions about the continued freedom that religious schools have in England and Wales.

So, there we go.  Lots of issues for further exploration and in need of resolution.  Bring on the Bill.

Key Links

The Parliamentary Statement can be watched in full via the Parliament website here.

Hansard (a transcript of the Commons Statement) can be read here.

The full Government Response can be viewed/downloaded here.

A pretty PowerPoint presentation on the reforms produced by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport can be viewed here (looks like someone was let loose on work experience).

"Attack" Seemingly Cries Cameron in Same-Sex Marriage Battle

General Allenby - the late British General - was one of the great military innovators.  He would pound an enemy into submission with extensive use of artillery, mobile cavalry and later, aircraft.  This 'softening up' would make the job of troops easier when they were sent in.

David Cameron seemed to be inspired by Allenby's tactics as he launched a volley against his own backbenchers at the weekend.   It was announced (well, leaked!) that the Government would be bringing forth their plans on same-sex marriage in response to their consultation from earlier in the year.  Cameron waded in with a surprise announcement that he supported religious same-sex marriage and that would be provided for in the proposed legislation (despite assurances he'd apparently given previously that he wouldn't do this).  Cheers from same-sex marriage campaigners and Tory reformers.  Grumps from the likes of Tory malcontents like Peter Bone (of Mrs Bone fame).  It was almost as if Cameron could be heard yelling "pound them" as a group of Tories then emerged arguing for same-sex marriage led by Michael Gove, BoJo and others.

Then Cameron called for their very own big bertha, and former Prime Minister, Sir John Major.  A man of rare but thoughtful contributions, he lent his support to the Cameronite view that same-sex marriage should be supported.

It's certainly going to be landmark legislation and even with the Tories being given a free vote, a coalition of Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem MPs will ensure it makes it through the Commons and I would expect a bumpy but ultimately successful passing through the House of Lords with implementation around 2014.

Why all the fuss then?  Well, in politics nothing is certain and so we can't be assured that it's passed until it really is passed.  More so however, this is a story about Conservative politics, Cameron's leadership, and the 2015 general election.  That's what I suggested back in March, and so far - in the words of Emperor Palpatine - everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.

Same Sex Marriage and the De-sexing of the Homosexual

The Home Office, the Sunday Times (£) reported this week, have got themselves into a bit of a pickle when it comes to their same-sex marriage proposals.   They report that:

'Civil servants have been considering the intricacies of gay sex for months and have taken evidence from sex experts and gay rights organisations in an attempt to define consummation between two women and between two men.'

Gay Star News picked up the story later in the week, and reproduces much of the story for those who don't have access via the ST paywall.  Both pieces report that 'ministers have opted to leave the matter to judges to define'.  Which sounds like some decision, until you go back to the original proposals.

Speaking of which,  back in March of this year - when the Government published their initial proposals - I raised the issue of consummation as a potential difficulty.

The original proposals stated that: 'Specifically, non-consummation and adultery are currently concepts that are defined in case law and apply only to marriage law, not civil partnership law. However, with the removal of the ban on same-sex couples having a civil marriage, these concepts will apply equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples and case law may need to develop, over time, a definition as to what constitutes same-sex consummation and same-sex adultery.'

Nine months ago I commented that:  'This is a polite way of saying that the law tends to think of consummation in terms of penile/vaginal penetration (although no orgasm or ejaculation is needed). This paragraph in the consultation is the equivalent of lifting a giant rug, shoving half-baked proposals under it, and hoping that nobody will notice. We did. This could have significant implications for different-sex marriage and the Government knows that but doesn't want to get into that debate. We should.'

I'm rather puzzled what those civil servants have been doing for the last few months as we seem back to precisely the same position.  The rug remains on standby, the law likely to be fudged.  The only winners of such a fudge will be the lawyers able to now spin-out cases of annulment.  Academics will have a nice new exam or coursework question, and topic for tutorial discussions.

As I've argued before, recent decades have witnessed the careful de-sexing of the homosexual, as a right-based narrative has come to dominate legal discourse over one of sexual liberation.  This marriage proposals carry a real risk of reminding people that people choosing to enter into same-sex marriage may also want to have sex.  The idea that "I don't care what people do, so long as it's behind closed doors" (a position first heard in public policy terms via the Parliamentary debates in the wake of the 1967 Sexual Offences Act) is directly challenged by the necessity to understand what people do.

This necessitates a benchmarking of sexual identity against sexual acts.  It seeks to establish a homonormative understanding of sex.  For 'gay' men, presumably this means buggery.  Anal penetration by one, by the other.  What of a couple of that prefer sex toys?  Would that be enough.  What of - shock horror - the gay male couple who actually don't enjoy anal sex, and don't engage in it.  Would oral sex be enough?  Would frottage?  Presumably not, as the government rationale is to put 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual' marriage on the same footing.  So buggery it is.  Well, if the courts decide.

The problem is it turns out that some homosexuals are rather inconveniently women.   They don't have a penis.  Civil Service brain can not compute.  Do we therefore have different definitions for lesbians to men.  Does there need to be some form of penetration?  Will our illustrious judges find themselves pondering how far a tongue must penetrate a vagina in order for it to amount to penetration?  Will it count if a dental dam is deployed?

Ah, the legal joys to come thanks to a failure to take a decision now.  The law can not avoid this debate.  The Government is simply kicking the can down the road in a hope that nobody will notice.  They are failing us, and we shouldn't let them get away with it.

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