Category: Gay News Outside USA

David Kato, Gay Rights Activist, Is Killed in Uganda – NYTimes.com

David Kato, Gay Rights Activist, Is Killed in Uganda – NYTimes.com.

NAIROBI, Kenya — David Kato knew he was a marked man.

As the most outspoken gay rights advocate in Uganda, a country where homophobia is so severe that Parliament is considering a bill to execute gay people, Mr. Kato had received a stream of death threats, his friends said. A few months ago, a Ugandan newspaper ran an antigay diatribe with Mr. Kato’s picture on the front page under a banner urging, “Hang Them.”

On Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Kato was beaten to death with a hammer in his rough-and-tumble neighborhood. Police officials were quick to chalk up the motive to robbery, but members of the small and increasingly besieged gay community in Uganda suspect otherwise.

“David’s death is a result of the hatred planted in Uganda by U.S. evangelicals in 2009,” Val Kalende, the chairwoman of one of Uganda’s gay rights groups, said in a statement. “The Ugandan government and the so-called U.S. evangelicals must take responsibility for David’s blood.”

Ms. Kalende was referring to visits in March 2009 by a group of American evangelicals, who held rallies and workshops in Uganda discussing how to turn gay people straight, how gay men sodomized teenage boys and how “the gay movement is an evil institution” intended to “defeat the marriage-based society.”

The Americans involved said they had no intention of stoking a violent reaction. But the antigay bill was drafted shortly thereafter. Some of the Ugandan politicians and preachers who wrote it had attended those sessions and said that they had discussed the legislation with the Americans.

After growing international pressure and threats from a few European countries to cut assistance — Uganda relies on hundreds of millions of dollars of aid — Uganda’s president, Yoweri Museveni, indicated that the bill would be scrapped.

But more than a year later, that has not happened, and the legislation remains a simmering issue in Parliament. Some political analysts say the bill could be passed in the coming months, after a general election in February that is expected to return Mr. Museveni, who has been in office for 25 years, to power.

On Thursday, Don Schmierer, one of the American evangelicals who visited Uganda in 2009, said Mr. Kato’s death was “horrible.”

“Naturally, I don’t want anyone killed, but I don’t feel I had anything to do with that,” said Mr. Schmierer, who added that in Uganda he had focused on parenting skills. He also said that he had been a target of threats himself, recently receiving more than 600 messages of hate mail related to his visit.

“I spoke to help people,” he said, “and I’m getting bludgeoned from one end to the other.”

Many Africans view homosexuality as an immoral Western import, and the continent is full of harsh homophobic laws. In northern Nigeria, gay men can face death by stoning. In Kenya, which is considered one of the more Westernized nations in Africa, gay people can be sentenced to years in prison.

But Uganda seems to be on the front lines of this battle. Conservative Christian groups that espouse antigay beliefs have made great headway in this country and wield considerable influence. Uganda’s minister of ethics and integrity, James Nsaba Buturo, who describes himself as a devout Christian, has said, “Homosexuals can forget about human rights.”

At the same time, American groups that defend gay rights have also poured money into Uganda to help the beleaguered gay community.

In October, a Ugandan newspaper called Rolling Stone (with a circulation of roughly 2,000 and no connection to the American magazine) published an article that included photos and the whereabouts of gay men and lesbians, including several well-known activists like Mr. Kato.

The paper said homosexuals were raiding schools and recruiting children, a belief that is quite widespread in Uganda and has helped drive the homophobia.

Mr. Kato and a few other activists sued the paper and won. This month, Uganda’s High Court ordered Rolling Stone to pay hundreds of dollars in damages and to cease publishing the names of people it said were gay.

But the danger remained.

“I had to move houses,” said Stosh Mugisha, a woman who is going through a transition to become a man. “People tried to stone me. It’s so scary. And it’s getting worse.”

On Thursday, Giles Muhame, Rolling Stone’s managing editor, said he did not think that Mr. Kato’s killing had anything to do with what his paper had published.

“There is no need for anxiety or for hype,” he said. “We should not overblow the death of one.”

But that one man was considered a founding father of Uganda’s nascent gay rights movement. In an interview in 2009, Mr. Kato shared his life story, how he was raised in a conservative family where “we grew up brainwashed that it was wrong to be in love with a man.”

He was a high school teacher who had graduated from some of Uganda’s best schools, and he moved to South Africa in the mid-1990s, where he came out. A few years ago, he organized what he claimed was Uganda’s first gay rights news conference in Kampala, the capital, and said he was punched in the face and cracked in the nose by police officers soon afterward.

Friends said that Mr. Kato had recently put an alarm system in his house and was killed by an acquaintance, someone who had been inside several times before and was seen by neighbors on Wednesday. Mr. Kato’s neighborhood on the outskirts of Kampala is known as a rough one, where several people have recently been beaten to death with iron bars.

Judith Nabakooba, a police spokeswoman, said Mr. Kato’s death did not appear to be a hate crime, though the investigation had just started. “It looks like theft, as some things were stolen,” Ms. Nabakooba said.

But Nikki Mawanda, a friend who was born female and lives as a man, said: “This is a clear signal. You don’t know who’s going to do it to you.”

Mr. Kato was in his mid-40s, his friends said. He was a fast talker, fidgety, bespectacled, slightly built and constantly checking over his shoulder, even in the envelope of darkness of an empty lot near a disco, where he was interviewed in 2009.

He said then that he wanted to be a “good human rights defender, not a dead one, but an alive one.”

Josh Kron contributed reporting from Juba, Sudan.

 

Gay couples hotel battle

Gay couples hotel battle is latest case of religion clashing with human rights | World news | The Observer.

Gay couple’s hotel battle is latest case of religion clashing with human rights

Stephen Preddy and Martyn Hall’s legal victory against a Christian hotel that refused them a double room is part of a growing trend of cases that pit faith against discrimination

Gay couple hotel room battle

Steven Preddy, left, and Martyn Hall celebrate their victory against the owners of a Christian hotel. Photograph: Matt Cardy/Getty Images

If there is one clear trend in contentious litigation in recent months, it is the increase in cases that pit the rights of religious communities against the prohibition on discrimination.

“Religitigation”, as it is becoming known, is manifest in increasingly diverse ways. Last year Christian registrar Lillian Ladele failed to exempt herself from the duty of conducting civil partnerships, Christian counsellor Gary McFarlane lost his attempt to be exempt from giving same-sex couples relationship therapy and Christian British Airways employee Nadia Eweida lost her claim to have the right to wear a crucifix at work

It is not only Christians in the dock. Also last year north London’s Jewish Free School lost its supreme court bid to refuse admission to a pupil on the basis of his mother’s background, after the court found the policy amounted to race discrimination.

In much the same vein, Christian hoteliers Peter and Hazel Bull last week lost their claim to be entitled to refuse double-bed hotel rooms to civil partners Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy. Judge Andrew Rutherford, sitting at Bristol county court, found it was “clear that homosexuals as a group are disadvantaged by the practice adopted by [Peter and Hazel Bull].”

The case appears to be the first to try the distinct legal question of whether a civil partnership is the legal equivalent of marriage, as far as discrimination is concerned. The Bulls’ case was that they openly discriminated on marital status – unmarried heterosexual couples were also denied rooms with double beds – but that this policy was based on sex outside wedlock, not sexual orientation. As their counsel memorably stated, the policy “has nothing to do with sexual orientation but everything to do with sex”.

That argument might have been successful if it were legally accurate to compare an unmarried couple with same-sex civil partners. But anticipating arguments such as these, the law faces the issue head on. The regulations that ban discrimination against sexual orientation state explicitly that “the fact that one of the persons is a civil partner while the other is married shall not be treated as a material difference”.

This exact issue is the subject of a separate legal campaign. Campaigner Peter Tatchell has announced that eight couples will apply to the European court of human rights to overturn the law, on the basis that it “creates a system that segregates couples into two separate legal institutions, with different names but identical rights and responsibilities… based on their sexual orientations”.

His gripe is that same-sex couples are denied the right to marry, while heterosexuals are denied the right to civil partnerships – and that both are violations of their rights.

So while some are fighting for gay marriage, the Bulls’ case confirms that, in the meantime, Christians will have to accept that civil partnerships are intended to be its equivalent as far as the law is concerned. But the interesting issue in this case lurks in the judge’s commentary. “It is no longer the case that our laws must, or should, automatically reflect the Judaeo-Christian position,” said Rutherford, that is in regarding marriage as the only form of legally recognised binding relationship.

It is this issue that concerns religious groups – the ability of the law to move on from its religious roots to a more equitable formula of guaranteeing fundamental rights, including the right against discrimination. Of course where those rights come into conflict, a more nuanced exercise of balancing takes place – one that the judiciary has so far approached with the utmost seriousness. Rutherford confessed he found the Bulls’ case “very difficult”, and Lord Phillips – president of the supreme court and the UK’s most senior judge – said earlier this year that the Jewish school decision had been the hardest of his judicial life.

That has been of little consolation to religitigants, however. What they seem to want is a trump card that puts them above the subtle considerations of fairness. And that, the courts have repeatedly said, is not going to happen.

 

In France, Civil Unions Gain Favor Over Marriage – NYTimes.com

In France, Civil Unions Gain Favor Over Marriage – NYTimes.com.

PARIS — Some are divorced and disenchanted with marriage; others are young couples ideologically opposed to marriage, but eager to lighten their tax burdens. Many are lovers not quite ready for old-fashioned matrimony.

Whatever their reasons, and they vary widely, French couples are increasingly shunning traditional marriages and opting instead for civil unions, to the point that there are now two civil unions for every three marriages.

When France created its system of civil unions in 1999, it was heralded as a revolution in gay rights, a relationship almost like marriage, but not quite. No one, though, anticipated how many couples would make use of the new law. Nor was it predicted that by 2009, the overwhelming majority of civil unions would be between straight couples.

It remains unclear whether the idea of a civil union, called a pacte civil de solidarité, or PACS, has responded to a shift in social attitudes or caused one. But it has proved remarkably well suited to France and its particularities about marriage, divorce, religion and taxes — and it can be dissolved with just a registered letter.

“We’re the generation of divorced parents,” explained Maud Hugot, 32, an aide at the Health Ministry who signed a PACS with her girlfriend, Nathalie Mondot, 33, this year. Expressing a view that researchers say is becoming commonplace among same-sex couples and heterosexuals alike, she added, “The notion of eternal marriage has grown obsolete.”

France recognizes only “citizens,” and the country’s legal principles hold that special rights should not be accorded to particular groups or ethnicities. So civil unions, which confer most of the tax benefits and legal protections of marriage, were made available to everyone. (Marriage, on the other hand, remains restricted to heterosexuals.) But the attractiveness of civil unions to heterosexual couples was evident from the start. In 2000, just one year after the passage of the law, more than 75 percent of civil unions were signed between heterosexual couples. That trend has only strengthened since then: of the 173,045 civil unions signed in 2009, 95 percent were between heterosexual couples.

“It’s becoming more and more commonplace,” said Laura Anicet, 24, a student who signed a PACS last month with her 29-year-old boyfriend, Cyril Reich. “For me, before, the PACS was for homosexual couples.”

As with traditional marriages, civil unions allow couples to file joint tax returns, exempt spouses from inheritance taxes, permit partners to share insurance policies, ease access to residency permits for foreigners and make partners responsible for each other’s debts. Concluding a civil union requires little more than a single appearance before a judicial official, and ending one is even easier.

It long ago became common here to speak of “getting PACSed” (se pacser, in French). More recently, wedding fairs have been renamed to include the PACS, department stores now offer PACS gift registries and travel agencies offer PACS honeymoon packages.

Even the Roman Catholic Church, which initially condemned the partnerships as a threat to the institution of marriage, has relented; the National Confederation of Catholic Family Associations now says civil unions do not pose “a real threat.”

While the partnerships have exploded in popularity, marriage numbers have continued a long decline in France, as across Europe. Just 250,000 French couples married in 2009, with fewer than four marriages per 1,000 residents; in 1970, almost 400,000 French couples wed.

Germany, too, has seen a similar plunge in marriage rates. In 2009, there were just over four marriages per 1,000 residents compared with more than seven per 1,000 in 1970. In the United States, the current rate is 6.8 per 1,000 residents, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

France is not the only European nation to allow civil unions between straight couples, but in the few countries that do — Luxembourg, Andorra, the Netherlands — they are not as popular. In the Netherlands in 2009, for example, there was just one civil union for every eight marriages.

If current trends continue in France, new civil unions could soon outnumber marriages, as they already do in Paris’s youthful 11th Arrondissement.

François Lambert, 28, and his girlfriend, Maud Moulin, 27, signed a civil union in 2007 for what he described as logistical reasons. Both public schoolteachers, they would be assured of postings to the same district only if they filed joint tax returns, which civil unions allow.

Sophie Lazzaro, 48, an event planner in Paris, signed a civil union in 2006 with her longtime companion, Thierry Galissant, who is 50. (She said she was drawn to a civil union largely for the legal protections and stability it offered.)

“I have two daughters, and if something happens to me, I want us to stay together as a family,” she said. “But without getting married.”

In addition to their practical advantages, she said, civil unions are ideologically suited to her generation, which came of age after the social rebellions of the 1960s. “We were very free,” she said. “AIDS didn’t exist, we had the pill, we didn’t have to fight. We were the first generation to enjoy all of this.” She added, “Marriage has a side that’s very institutional and very square and religious, which didn’t fit for us.”

Though French marriages are officially concluded in civil ceremonies held in town halls, not in churches, marriage is still viewed here as a “heavy and invasive” institution with deep ties to Christianity, said Wilfried Rault, a sociologist at the National Institute for Demographic Studies.

“Marriage bears the traces of a religious imprint,” he said, often anathema in a country where secularism has long been treated as a sacred principle. “It’s really an ideological slant, saying, ‘No one is going to tell me what I have to do.’ ”

For some, civil unions are simply a form of premarital engagement. Ms. Anicet, the student, said she and her boyfriend would probably be married were they not of different religions. She is Catholic, he is Jewish, and his mother disapproves of marrying outside the faith, Ms. Anicet said.

“We’re realizing that this is a test,” she said, “a way to get our families used to it.”

Though the two had considered a civil union for tax reasons, now “it’s a jumping-off point to getting married, later,” she said, adding after a pause, “I hope.”

 

Yermi Brenner: Gay Couples in Israel Bypassing Conservative Marriage Laws

Lonely Planet has recently labeled Tel-Aviv as the “San-Francisco of the Middle East“, for its thriving gay community.

While the nightlife and street atmosphere in Tel-Aviv are indeed (very) gay friendly, the Israeli marriage laws are conservative.

Legally recognized marriages can be conducted only by religious authorities, and none of the religious authorities — Jewish, Muslim or Christian — are willing to take part in same-sex weddings.

For more on this story, click the link below:

Yermi Brenner: Gay Couples Bypassing Conservative Marriage Laws.

 

YouTube – Ellen DeGeneres Slams Sarah Palin On Gay Marriage–Vote NO on Prop. 8

 

Argentina Passes Game-Sex Marriage

Associated Content

Thursday marked another giant step forward in the global fight for gay rights as Argentina’s Senate voted and passed a law to allow same-sex marriages. Passed by a narrow margin of

6 votes (33-to-27), the new law surpasses what has become a more common allowance of civil unions for same-sex couples in the region, granting gay couples all the same rights shared by married couples of the opposite sex.

While the Roman Catholic Church has historically been deeply involved in Argentina’s affairs of state, this vote looks past the pulpit and toward broadening the arena of human rights.

Other countries have led the way for Argentina on the path to allowing same-sex marriage, and a list of those that have previously approved gay marriage includes Canada, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, Spain and South Africa. The vote puts increased pressure on nations that have not made allowance for same-sex marriage in their legislation to re-examine their stance, and it is expected that more countries will follow suit.

Here in the United States, where the gay rights movement has been a point of debate at all local, state and national levels, voters will surely use Argentina’s decision as a major talking point in upcoming campaigns. While the national government has not yet enacted legislation to allow equal rights for gay couples to those currently enjoyed by straight couples, several states have independently voted to allow gay marriage rights. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont, as well as Washington D.C., all have begun licensing same-sex marriages. As the debate of marital equality continues, it is likely that more states will be added to that list in the future.

As a country that has worked slowly to allow all of its citizens equal rights over the last 150 years, it will undoubtedly take some time for the United States to finalize a decision in favor of the right to marry for gays. However, that timeframe will likely diminish as more countries make this ground-breaking decision and as fresh faces enter the political scene.

Canada’s decision in 2005 to become the fourth country in the world to recognize a legal marriage bond between same-sex couples and the continuation of those rights without revocation over the last five years, has helped to dispel many of the fears shared by conservatives in the United States and other developed countries. The decision by Canada in 2005, and this week in Argentina, has spurred a debate on an international level as to what really makes a marriage, and, in a broader scope, has forced us to re-evaluate what constitutes a happy and healthy family unit.

While globally the practice of same-sex marriage is not yet widely accepted, Argentina’s decision to align itself with the ideals of acceptance and equality brings the issue of gay rights back into the forefront of voters’ minds as we prepare to decide on future leaders and law-makers. It is difficult to predict how soon these principles will be adopted on a global scale, but we are surely one step closer to that end than we were prior to the Argentinean Senate’s decision.

 

Social, religious issues shouldn’t dominate

Commentary: Even Christians cannot agree on biblical interpretations of whether God has ruled on gay rights or abortion rights.

This week I have more rhetorical questions than answers. My first question is, why are we spending so much time arguing over social issues? It’s impossible to tally the time, money and energy put into fights about gay rights and abortion rights for example. But the cost of protests and lawsuits and ad campaigns and lobbying must be fierce. It might even amount to a small chunk of the gross national product. Even if it’s 1 percent of GDP or less, that money could be spent on much better things such as educating people, job creation, proper nutrition, a stronger military and so on.

My second question is, why is it that the Europeans seem to have made peace or perhaps never even fought over these issues? Look at what happened in Iceland this week and nary a whisper was heard ’round the world. If anything like this happened in the U.S., there would be bloody street battles:

“Iceland’s prime minister was among the first gay people to marry in her country as its marriage equality law went into effect Sunday. Johanna Sigurdardottir married her longtime partner, Jonina Leosdottir, when the couple requested that their seven-year-old civil union be transferred into a marriage, according to London’s Telegraph. The Icelandic parliament unanimously passed a marriage equality bill June 12. Sigurdardottir took office in February 2009.”

Back here in the supposedly forward-thinking, modern United States we are tying up our already overburdened court systems with legal battles over gay and abortion rights. A huge fight in federal court in California is brewing in which a federal judge is weighing the question whether the U.S. Constitution prevents states from banning gay marriage. The Wall Street Journal reports:

“If U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker decides for gay marriage advocates, that would invalidate an amendment to California’s constitution, and by extension cast doubt on similar laws and amendments in more than 40 other states as well as the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars the federal government from recognizing gay marriages … Judge Walker, who according to the San Francisco Chronicle is himself gay, is the chief judge of the northern California district.”

He is expected to issue his decision by the fall, well before the November election.

If this decision is handed down as expected, it will be followed by a flurry of lobbying, agitation by the Christian right and battles such as we have not yet witnessed on this most controversial of issues. It could energize the Christian right to go to the polls in November. Master manipulators of wedge issues, Karl Rove included, are predicting, indeed hoping for a re-run of the 1994 elections when Republicans reclaimed control of the House of Representatives for the first time in four decades.

Even Christians cannot agree on biblical interpretations of whether God has ruled on gay rights or abortion rights. Conservative Christians cite chapter and verse to make their case that the Bible bans homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 says, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” But plenty of Christians interpret that phrase as meaning that women should not be treated equally with men because in the Bible women are chattel. And moderate or liberal Christians just don’t care what the Bible says or doesn’t say on this or other social wedge issues, because they know anything in the Bible can be spun to one side’s advantage or the other.

I remember a bumper sticker that reads, “Against abortion? Don’t have one.” There should be a subsequent bumper sticker that reads, “Against gay marriage? Don’t have one.” The sooner we stop letting religion dominate politics, the happier most of us will be. Will that ever happen? Not in my lifetime.

Bonnie Erbe is a TV host and writes this column for Scripps Howard News Service. E-mail bonnieerbe@CompuServe.com

 

Queer, Christian and proud

Queer, Christian and proud
Ultra-conservative anti-gay Christians are a just a noisy minority. That’s why this coming Pride, the rest of us should raise the roof

Symon Hill
guardian.co.uk,
Thursday 1 July 2010 16.30 BST

Pride will be an opportunity for gay Christians to celebrate their sexuality.

Listening to certain Christians, you would think that opposition to homosexuality is one of the most basic principles of the Christian faith. But on Saturday, as a small group of Christians turn up to protest against the Pride festival in central London, they will be easily outnumbered by the Christians who are participating in Pride, celebrating diverse sexuality as a gift from God.

This has been the case for several years, but it’s always the homophobes who get the most attention. The media cannot take all the blame for this – pro-equality Christians have often been unprepared and unprofessional when it comes to media engagement. But this year, a wide spectrum of Christians – from Catholics to Quakers to evangelicals – will be united in marching as “Christians Together at Pride”, seeking to make the reality of inclusive Christianity more visible. Similar collections of Christians are appearing, to a greater or lesser extent, at other Pride festivals around the country.

It will be understandable if most Pride participants find the image surprising. Having often written in favour of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) equality, I sometimes receive emails from non-religious LGBT people delighted that a Christian is backing them. It’s always great to receive these messages, but it’s very frustrating that pro-equality Christians are seen as such an unusual exception. We are not. In a good many churches, support for LGBT inclusion is now the norm, or at least an acceptable position to hold. If the world outside does not realise this, it is largely because we so often fail to speak up, while the anti-equality lobby take every opportunity to speak – or shout – loudly and clearly.

But in doing so, they are becoming increasingly ridiculous. Lisa Nolland of the ultra-conservative group Anglican Mainstream (surely a contender in any contest for the most inaccurately named organisation) recently suggested that parents will be putting their children at risk if they take them to the Greenbelt Christian festival this year – because the speakers include the gay human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.

While lots of Christians still find homosexuality and bisexuality difficult to understand or accept, many are clearly alienated by this sort of extremist rhetoric. They respect that other Christians have come to different conclusions and are happy to work and worship alongside them. In addition, the popular image of the sexuality debate as “evangelicals versus liberals” is breaking down, with increasing numbers of evangelical groups promoting LGBT equality.

Nonetheless, some Christians remain cautious of the equality agenda, fearing that those who support it are simply buying into the dominant culture around them. This is one reason why we need to be more open and vocal about the biblical, ethical and theological reasons for accepting same-sex relationships. Usually it’s the most homophobic Christians who are quickest to use religious language and quote the Bible, while the words of pro-equality Christians are at times largely indistinguishable from the language of secular liberals.

To remedy this, we can turn to the life of Jesus. In Christian debates about sexuality, Jesus rarely gets mentioned. The anti-gay side rely on biblical lines taken out of context while the inclusive groups tends to turn to more general ethical arguments. But if we look at Jesus, we find a man who consistently broke the sexual conventions of his time. This point, which is nearly always overlooked, cannot be emphasised too strongly.

Jesus repeatedly allowed women to make physical contact with him in a society that found this utterly shocking. Luke’s Gospel describes a religious man reacting with alarm when Jesus allows a “sinful woman” to wash his feet. The New Testament quotes Jesus’s opponents accusing him of socialising with prostitutes, an allegation that appears to have been true. Jesus redefined family, insisting that “whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother”.

In the light of this reality, it becomes clear that “traditional family values” are no part of Jesus’s message. Indeed, they are explicitly contrary to it.

The problem with secular liberalism is not that it is too radical. It is not radical enough. Not in the context of a messiah who promoted a vision of a world in which the poor are rich, the sick are healed, the despised rejoice, the mighty are cast down from their thrones and the lowly are exalted.

When Christians join the Pride festival on Saturday – and other Pride festivals across Britain and around the world – we must do more than simply say that we have found faith to be compatible with our sexuality. Challenging distortions of the gospel and declaring repentance for Christian homophobia, we can promote equality as part of a radically progressive agenda.

Pride is for everyone. Heterosexuals who welcome equality should feel as free to participate as anyone else. Words such as “gay”, “bisexual” and “straight” are understandably important to many people’s identity, but they can also be restrictive, confining the diversity of human sexuality within narrow labels. Thankfully, words such as “queer” have developed to include a broad range of sexualities – perhaps even to include straight people who reject the prejudicial notion that only their own orientation is acceptable.

Whatever your faith or sexuality, I hope to see you at Pride on Saturday. Look out for an increasingly visible and confident group of people – queer, Christian and proud.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jul/01/queer-christian-proud/print