Council chairman Abdul Shukor Husin told Bernama [Malaysia's news agency] many young women admired the way men dress, behave and socialise, violating human nature and denying their femininity.

It is unacceptable to see women who love the male lifestyle including dressing in the clothes men wear," Abdul Shukor was quoted as saying.

(Masculine behaviour) becomes clearer when they start to have sex with someone of the same gender, that is woman and woman," he said.

In view of this, the National Fatwa Council which met today have decided and taken the stand that such acts are forbidden and banned," he said.

-- AFP, 24 Oct 2008, Malaysian religious council
issues ban on lesbian sex

It's not clear what prompted this new ruling, but last year, a well-known Malaysian Muslim actress caused an uproar when she shaved her head bald for a film called Muallaf (The Convert). Islamic clerics had warned Muslims against watching the movie, saying that the actress had violated Islam by making herself look like a man.

Technically, a fatwa does not have legal force; neither were any penalties prescribed in the announcement. However, observers have suggested that this was an attempt by clerics to push legislators into action.

I came across a few blogs from Malaysian women upset over this. One, from Kuching, the state capital of Sarawak, pointed out how blind religious authorities can be to cultural relativism. She wrote:

When I was a 12-year old studying in an all-girls' school in good old Kuching, I was sometimes made to listen to moral lectures (more like moral diatribes) from teachers bemoaning how dunia sudah terbalik (the world has turned upside down). Men were acting like women, and women were acting like men. What dangerously gender-bending behaviour were people involved in back in 1994? Why, sometimes you had men who dressed like women and sometimes women dressed like men: for an example, women were wearing jeans.

-- Catalina's Life Journal, entry dated 25 Oct 2008, link. 

Continuing, she wrote:

But this is not about homosexuality. Not yet. This is about attire. This is about behaviour. This is about attire and behaviour dictated upon an entire group of women in the country. This is about the absolute ignorance and the absolute lack of acknowledgment that there can be middle grounds, that clothes and how they shape identity is not always a fixed matter, and for that matter, neither is behaviour.

-- ibid

She later corrected herself, acknowledging that fatwas only applied to Muslims. But as anyone familiar with Malaysia would know, the country's politics is heavily influenced by its mosques.

* * * * *

 
The Delhi High Court castigated India's Additional Solicitor-General P P Malhotra for relying on religious texts to justify the country's ban on homosex, according to press reports mid October. The court asked him to use scientific reports in order to make his case.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday slammed the Centre for relying on views of religious books and scholars worldwide to justify the prohibition on gay sex when it was asked to come up with solid scientific material to bolster their case.

The court’s remarks came when Additional Solicitor General P.P. Malhotra referred to articles written by religious scholars and even went to the extent of quoting the Bible.

The Centre was asked to explain how decriminalisation of homosexual acts between consenting adults would result in spread of AIDS as contended by it.

We should not accept religious literature instead of scientific report," a Bench of Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justice S. Muralidhar said.

These are not scientific reports. These are articles quoting Bible, which is propaganda. Your arguments should be based on scientific reports. Show us scientific reports which justify criminalisation of such acts (gay sex)," the Bench observed.

The Bench asked the government to place before it the reports of the World Health Organisation on the issue of health hazards arising out of criminalisation of gay sex.

 -- Hindustan Times, 15 Oct 2008, Religious texts
can’t justify prohibition of gay sex: court

The case before the court was brought by Aids groups, asking the court to rule that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which imposes a life sentence for "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" should be narrowed such that it does not apply to consensual relationships between 2 adults of the same sex. The plaintiffs argue that the law drives male homosexuals underground, out of reach of public health agencies. It is therefore against the public interest; it is also discriminatory, in that it effectively deprives men who have sex with men the right to health assistance.

The federal government (referred to as "the Centre" in Indian press-speak) is split on the issue. The National Aids Control Organisation (NACO) and the Health Ministry take the position that gay sex among consenting adults should be decriminalised. But the Home Ministry argues otherwise. Its position is that scrapping the law would spread Aids. The High Court questioned that thesis.

"We won't be first country to decriminalise in case we do. Show us AIDS has spread where homosexuality has been decriminalised. Place some authentic study like one backed by UN," HC said.

[snip]

"We should not accept religious literature instead of scientific report. In a secular country how can a government rely on a report which says that certain races contribute more to homosexuality?," the bench remarked.

-- The Times of India, 16 Oct 2008, HC: Can't rely on religious texts to criminalize gay sex

It is hard to say what significance these remarks by judges will have on the final decision, nor is it clear when the decision will be reached.

* * * * *

 
California voters will be asked on Election Day, November 4th, to approve a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In May this year, the state's Supreme Court had ruled that denying marriage to same-sex couples violated their right to equality. Same-sex marriages began to be officiated a month after that.

Proposition 8, as the bottom-up ballot initiative is called, asks voters to affirm that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". It would carry the explanation that the proposed measure "eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry."

Geoffrey Farrow. Photo: Francine Orr / Los Angeles Times

A furious campaign is ongoing between both sides of the issue, with the "Yes on 8" side mostly driven by religious groups.

In his "Pastoral," the bishop states: "Marriage is much more than simply two persons loving each other. Marriage is naturally, socially, and biologically, directed to bringing forth life."

Actually, there are TWO ends to marriage: 1) Unitive and 2) Procreative. The unitive end of marriage is simply a union of love and life. The Procreative end is, of course, to create new life. It is important to understand that the unitive end of marriage is sufficient for a valid marriage. The Church sanctions, and considers a sacrament, the marriage of elderly heterosexual couples who are biologically incapable of reproduction. So, if two people of different genders who are incapable of reproduction can enter into a valid marriage, then why is that two people of the same gender, who are incapable of reproduction, cannot enter into a valid marriage.

[snip]

In effect, the bishops are asking gay and lesbian people to live their lives alone. Why? Who does this benefit? How exactly is society helped by singling out a minority and excluding them from the union of love and life, which is marriage? How is marriage protected by intimidating gay and lesbian people into loveless and lonely lives? What is accomplished by this? Worse still, is to intimidate a gay or lesbian person into a heterosexual marriage, which is doomed from its inception, and makes two victims instead of one by this hurtful "theology." This "theology," which is parroted by clerics in polished tones from pulpits, produces the very prejudice and hatred in our society which they claim to abhor.

Farrow told the congregation that in directing the faithful to vote "Yes" on Proposition 8, the California bishops were "entering the political arena."

He said that on seeing the faxed letter, he had to ask himself, "At what point do you cease to be an agent for healing and growth and become an accomplice of injustice?"

Farrow, 50, foresaw what would come next. He was removed by Fresno Bishop John T. Steinbock as pastor of the St. Paul Newman Center, which primarily serves students and faculty at Cal State Fresno. "Your statement contradicted the teaching of the Catholic Church and has brought scandal to your parish community as well as the whole Church," Steinbock wrote in a disciplinary letter.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the priest also was stripped of his salary and benefits, and ordered to stay away from all church communities he had served. He was being silenced. [1]

No one can predict how Proposition 8 will fare, except that it will likely be narrowly decided. Opinion polls are all over the place. Some indicate that it will be approved (and thus, gay marriage will end in California) and others say it will be defeated.

One irony is that African-American voters who will be going to the polls enthusiastically this year in support of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, may tip the vote in favour of Prop 8. African-Americans tend to be significantly more homophobic than other ethnic groups.

Other observers suggest that one reason the polls seem so difficult to pin down may be that on this issue, people keep changing their minds. It won't be long, however, before we know what that last change of mind leads to.

© Yawning Bread