California may remove the words "between a man and a woman" with an amended bill

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A bill that would strike the traditional definition of marriage from California law was approved by the state Senate on Thursday after the U.S. and state supreme courts allowed same-sex unions to resume last year.

SB1306 would remove from the state Family Code language that marriage must be "between a man and a woman." It would substitute gender-neutral language, define marriage as a personal relation arising from a civil contract between two persons, and remove limits on the state recognizing the validity of same-sex marriages performed outside of California.

The bill removes "discriminatory language" from the Family Code and brings state law into compliance with federal and state court decisions allowing same-sex marriages, said Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco.

The Bill's text in part reads in part:

An act to amend Sections 300, 301, 302, 420, 500, 720, 721, 750, 751, 752, 754, 761, 1102, 1500, 1620, 1839, 2200, 2201, 2210, 2211, 2322, 2400, 2401, 3120, 3450, 3551, 3580, 3585, 3600, 4323, and 4930 of, to amend the heading of Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 720) of Part 1 of Division 4 of, to amend the heading of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 1620) of Part 5 of Division 4 of, to repeal Section 308.5 of, and to repeal and add Section 308 of, the Family Code, relating to marriage.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 1306, as amended, Leno. Marriage.

An existing provision of the California Constitution, which has been held unenforceable, states that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in this state. An existing statutory provision likewise provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in this state.

This bill would repeal that statutory provision.

Existing statutory law provides that marriage is a personal relationship arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman. Under existing law, a marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state, except that a marriage between 2 persons of the same sex contracted outside this state is valid in this state only if the marriage was contracted prior to November 5, 2008.

This bill would instead provide that marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between 2 persons, and would make conforming changes with regard to the consent to, and solemnization of, marriage. The bill would also delete the limitation on the validity of marriages contracted outside this state between 2 persons of the same sex.

Under existing law, a reference to “husband” and “wife,” “spouses,” or “married persons,” or a comparable term, includes persons who are lawfully married to each other and persons who were previously lawfully married to each other, as is appropriate under the circumstances of the particular case.

The bill would delete references to “husband” or “wife” in the Family Code and would instead refer to a “spouse,” and would make other related changes.

Existing law establishes, except as specified, a rebuttable presumption of decreased need for spousal support if the supported party is cohabiting with a person of the opposite sex.

This bill would make that rebuttable presumption of decreased need for spousal support applicable if the supported party is cohabitating with a “nonmarital partner.”

This bill would declare that the purpose of the act is to clarify that laws relating to marriage and the rights and responsibilities of spouses apply equally to opposite-sex and same-sex spouses and that the changes are not intended to affect existing decisional law otherwise interpreting the laws amended in the act.

DIGEST KEY

Vote: majority   Appropriation: no   Fiscal Committee: no   Local Program: no  

---

BILL TEXT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

 The Legislature finds and declares that the purpose of this act is to clarify that all laws relating to marriage and the rights and responsibilities of spouses apply equally to opposite-sex and same-sex spouses. These changes are not intended to affect any existing decisional law otherwise interpreting the statutes amended in this act.

SECTION 1.SEC. 2.

 Section 300 of the Family Code is amended to read:

300.

 (a) Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute marriage. Consent must be followed by the issuance of a license and solemnization as authorized by this division, except as provided by Section 425 and Part 4 (commencing with Section 500).

(b) For purposes of this part, the document issued by the county clerk is a marriage license until it is registered with the county recorder, at which time the license becomes a marriage certificate.

SEC. 2.SEC. 3.

 Section 301 of the Family Code is amended to read:

301.

 Two unmarried persons 18 years of age or older, who are not otherwise disqualified, are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.

SEC. 3.SEC. 4.

 Section 302 of the Family Code is amended to read:

302.

 (a) An unmarried person under 18 years of age is capable of consenting to and consummating marriage upon obtaining a court order granting permission to the underage person or persons to marry.

(b) The court order and written consent of the parents of each underage person, or of one of the parents or the guardian of each underage person shall be filed with the clerk of the court, and a certified copy of the order shall be presented to the county clerk at the time the marriage license is issued.

SEC. 4.SEC. 5.

 Section 308 of the Family Code is repealed.

SEC. 5.SEC. 6.

 Section 308 is added to the Family Code, to read:

308.

 A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state.

SEC. 6.SEC. 7.

 Section 308.5 of the Family Code is repealed.

SEC. 7.SEC. 8.

 Section 420 of the Family Code is amended to read:

420.

 (a) No particular form for the ceremony of marriage is required for solemnization of the marriage, but the parties shall declare, in the physical presence of the person solemnizing the marriage and necessary witnesses, that they take each other as spouses.

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a member of the Armed Forces of the United States who is stationed overseas and serving in a conflict or a war and is unable to appear for the licensure and solemnization of the marriage may enter into that marriage by the appearance of an attorney in fact, commissioned and empowered in writing for that purpose through a power of attorney. The attorney in fact must personally appear at the county clerk’s office with the party who is not stationed overseas, and present the original power of attorney duly signed by the party stationed overseas and acknowledged by a notary or witnessed by two officers of the United States Armed Forces. Copies in any form, including by facsimile, are not acceptable. The power of attorney shall state the full given names at birth, or by court order, of the parties to be married, and that the power of attorney is solely for the purpose of authorizing the attorney in fact to obtain a marriage license on the person’s behalf and participate in the solemnization of the marriage. The original power of attorney shall be a part of the marriage certificate upon registration.

(c) No contract of marriage, if otherwise duly made, shall be invalidated for want of conformity to the requirements of any religious sect.

SEC. 8.SEC. 9.

 Section 500 of the Family Code is amended to read:

500.

 When two unmarried people, not minors, have been living together as spouses, they may be married pursuant to this chapter by a person authorized to solemnize a marriage under Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 400) of Part 3, without the necessity of first obtaining health certificates.

SEC. 9.SEC. 10.

 The heading of Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 720) of Part 1 of Division 4 of the Family Code is amended to read:

CHAPTER  2. Relation of Spouses

SEC. 10.SEC. 11.

 Section 720 of the Family Code is amended to read:

720.

 Spouses contract toward each other obligations of mutual respect, fidelity, and support.

SEC. 11.SEC. 12.

 Section 721 of the Family Code is amended to read:

721.

 (a) Subject to subdivision (b), either spouse may enter into any transaction with the other, or with any other person, respecting property, which either might if unmarried.

(b) Except as provided in Sections 143, 144, 146, 16040, and 16047 of the Probate Code, in transactions between themselves, spouses are subject to the general rules governing fiduciary relationships that control the actions of persons occupying confidential relations with each other. This confidential relationship imposes a duty of the highest good faith and fair dealing on each spouse, and neither shall take any unfair advantage of the other. This confidential relationship is a fiduciary relationship subject to the same rights and duties of nonmarital business partners, as provided in Sections 16403, 16404, and 16503 of the Corporations Code, including, but not limited to, the following:

(1) Providing each spouse access at all times to any books kept regarding a transaction for the purposes of inspection and copying.

(2) Rendering upon request, true and full information of all things affecting any transaction that concerns the community property. Nothing in this section is intended to impose a duty for either spouse to keep detailed books and records of community property transactions.

(3) Accounting to the spouse, and holding as a trustee, any benefit or profit derived from any transaction by one spouse without the consent of the other spouse that concerns the community property.

SEC. 12.SEC. 13.

 Section 750 of the Family Code is amended to read:

750.

 Spouses may hold property as joint tenants or tenants in common, or as community property, or as community property with a right of survivorship.

SEC. 13.SEC. 14.

 Section 751 of the Family Code is amended to read:

751.

 The respective interests of each spouse in community property during continuance of the marriage relation are present, existing, and equal interests.

SEC. 14.SEC. 15.

 Section 752 of the Family Code is amended to read:

752.

 Except as otherwise provided by statute, neither spouse has any interest in the separate property of the other.

SEC. 15.SEC. 16.

 Section 754 of the Family Code is amended to read:

754.

 If notice of the pendency of a proceeding for dissolution of the marriage, for nullity of the marriage, or for legal separation of the parties is recorded in any county in which either spouse resides on real property that is the separate property of the other, the real property shall not for a period of three months thereafter be transferred, encumbered, or otherwise disposed of voluntarily or involuntarily without the joinder of both spouses, unless the court otherwise orders.

SEC. 16.SEC. 17.

 Section 761 of the Family Code is amended to read:

761.

 (a) Unless the trust instrument or the instrument of transfer expressly provides otherwise, community property that is transferred in trust remains community property during the marriage, regardless of the identity of the trustee, if the trust, originally or as amended before or after the transfer, provides that the trust is revocable as to that property during the marriage and the power, if any, to modify the trust as to the rights and interests in that property during the marriage may be exercised only with the joinder or consent of both spouses.

(b) Unless the trust instrument expressly provides otherwise, a power to revoke as to community property may be exercised by either spouse acting alone. Community property, including any income or appreciation, that is distributed or withdrawn from a trust by revocation, power of withdrawal, or otherwise, remains community property unless there is a valid transmutation of the property at the time of distribution or withdrawal.

(c) The trustee may convey and otherwise manage and control the trust property in accordance with the provisions of the trust without the joinder or consent of either spouse unless the trust expressly requires the joinder or consent of one or both spouses.

(d) This section applies to a transfer made before, on, or after July 1, 1987.

(e) Nothing in this section affects the community character of property that is transferred before, on, or after July 1, 1987, in any manner or to a trust other than described in this section.

SEC. 17.SEC. 18.

 Section 1102 of the Family Code is amended to read:

1102.

 (a) Except as provided in Sections 761 and 1103, either spouse has the management and control of the community real property, whether acquired prior to or on or after January 1, 1975, but both spouses, either personally or by a duly authorized agent, must join in executing any instrument by which that community real property or any interest therein is leased for a longer period than one year, or is sold, conveyed, or encumbered.

(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to a lease, mortgage, conveyance, or transfer of real property or of any interest in real property between spouses.

(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b):

(1) The sole lease, contract, mortgage, or deed of the husband, holding the record title to community real property, to a lessee, purchaser, or encumbrancer, in good faith without knowledge of the marriage relation, shall be presumed to be valid if executed prior to January 1, 1975.

(2) The sole lease, contract, mortgage, or deed of either spouse, holding the record title to community real property to a lessee, purchaser, or encumbrancer, in good faith without knowledge of the marriage relation, shall be presumed to be valid if executed on or after January 1, 1975.

(d) No action to avoid any instrument mentioned in this section, affecting any property standing of record in the name of either spouse alone, executed by the spouse alone, shall be commenced after the expiration of one year from the filing for record of that instrument in the recorder’s office in the county in which the land is situated.

(e) Nothing in this section precludes either spouse from encumbering his or her interest in community real property, as provided in Section 2033, to pay reasonable attorney’s fees in order to retain or maintain legal counsel in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, for nullity of marriage, or for legal separation of the parties.

SEC. 18.SEC. 19.

 Section 1500 of the Family Code is amended to read:

1500.

 The property rights of spouses prescribed by statute may be altered by a premarital agreement or other marital property agreement.

SEC. 19.SEC. 20.

 The heading of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 1620) of Part 5 of Division 4 of the Family Code is amended to read:

CHAPTER  3. Agreements Between Spouses

SEC. 20.SEC. 21.

 Section 1620 of the Family Code is amended to read:

1620.

 Except as otherwise provided by law, spouses cannot, by a contract with each other, alter their legal relations, except as to property.

SEC. 21.SEC. 22.

 Section 1839 of the Family Code is amended to read:

1839.

 (a) At or after the hearing, the court may make orders in respect to the conduct of the spouses or parents and the subject matter of the controversy that the court deems necessary to preserve the marriage or to implement the reconciliation of the spouses. No such order shall be effective for more than 30 days from the hearing of the petition unless the parties mutually consent to a continuation of the time the order remains effective.

(b) A reconciliation agreement between the parties may be reduced to writing and, with the consent of the parties, a court order may be made requiring the parties to comply fully with the agreement.

(c) During the pendency of a proceeding under this part, the superior court may order a spouse or parent, as the case may be, to pay an amount necessary for the support and maintenance of the other spouse and for the support, maintenance, and education of the minor children, as the case may be. In determining the amount, the superior court may take into consideration the recommendations of a financial referee if one is available to the court. An order made pursuant to this subdivision shall not prejudice the rights of the parties or children with respect to any subsequent order that may be made. An order made pursuant to this subdivision may be modified or terminated at any time except as to an amount that accrued before the date of filing of the notice of motion or order to show cause to modify or terminate.

SEC. 22.SEC. 23.

 Section 2200 of the Family Code is amended to read:

2200.

 Marriages between parents and children, ancestors and descendants of every degree, and between siblings of the half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles or aunts and nieces or nephews, are incestuous, and void from the beginning, whether the relationship is legitimate or illegitimate.

SEC. 23.SEC. 24.

 Section 2201 of the Family Code is amended to read:

2201.

 (a) A subsequent marriage contracted by a person during the life of his or her former spouse, with a person other than the former spouse, is illegal and void, unless:

(1) The former marriage has been dissolved or adjudged a nullity before the date of the subsequent marriage.

(2) The former spouse (A) is absent, and not known to the person to be living for the period of five successive years immediately preceding the subsequent marriage, or (B) is generally reputed or believed by the person to be dead at the time the subsequent marriage was contracted.

(b) In either of the cases described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), the subsequent marriage is valid until its nullity is adjudged pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 2210.

SEC. 24.SEC. 25.

 Section 2210 of the Family Code is amended to read:

2210.

 A marriage is voidable and may be adjudged a nullity if any of the following conditions existed at the time of the marriage:

(a) The party who commences the proceeding or on whose behalf the proceeding is commenced was without the capability of consenting to the marriage as provided in Section 301 or 302, unless, after attaining the age of consent, the party for any time freely cohabited with the other as his or her spouse.

(b) The spouse of either party was living and the marriage with that spouse was then in force and that spouse (1) was absent and not known to the party commencing the proceeding to be living for a period of five successive years immediately preceding the subsequent marriage for which the judgment of nullity is sought or (2) was generally reputed or believed by the party commencing the proceeding to be dead at the time the subsequent marriage was contracted.

(c) Either party was of unsound mind, unless the party of unsound mind, after coming to reason, freely cohabited with the other as his or her spouse.

(d) The consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless the party whose consent was obtained by fraud afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as his or her spouse.

(e) The consent of either party was obtained by force, unless the party whose consent was obtained by force afterwards freely cohabited with the other as his or her spouse.

(f) Either party was, at the time of marriage, physically incapable of entering into the marriage state, and that incapacity continues, and appears to be incurable.

SEC. 25.SEC. 26.

 Section 2211 of the Family Code is amended to read:

2211.

 A proceeding to obtain a judgment of nullity of marriage, for causes set forth in Section 2210, must be commenced within the periods and by the parties, as follows:

(a) For causes mentioned in subdivision (a) of Section 2210, by any of the following:

(1) The party to the marriage who was married under the age of legal consent, within four years after arriving at the age of consent.

(2) A parent, guardian, conservator, or other person having charge of the minor, at any time before the married minor has arrived at the age of legal consent.

(b) For causes mentioned in subdivision (b) of Section 2210, by either of the following:

(1) Either party during the life of the other.

(2) The former spouse.

(c) For causes mentioned in subdivision (c) of Section 2210, by the party injured, or by a relative or conservator of the party of unsound mind, at any time before the death of either party.

(d) For causes mentioned in subdivision (d) of Section 2210, by the party whose consent was obtained by fraud, within four years after the discovery of the facts constituting the fraud.

(e) For causes mentioned in subdivision (e) of Section 2210, by the party whose consent was obtained by force, within four years after the marriage.

(f) For causes mentioned in subdivision (f) of Section 2210, by the injured party, within four years after the marriage.

SEC. 26.SEC. 27.

 Section 2322 of the Family Code is amended to read:

2322.

 For the purpose of a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, each spouse may have a separate domicile or residence depending upon proof of the fact and not upon legal presumptions.

MORE HERE

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court left in place a lower court judge's order striking down as unconstitutional a ballot measure known as Proposition 8, the 2008 voter initiative that outlawed same-sex marriages in California. A 5-4 court majority ruled that the ban's sponsors lacked authority to defend the measure on appeal, though the justices did not directly address the ban's constitutionality.

Marriages resumed in late June after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a stay it had imposed on the lower court ruling. The state Supreme Court dismissed a final challenge by the ban's backers in August.

"I cannot bring myself, though, to diminish the words 'husband and wife,' and this clearly does that. Throughout history those words have been widely used and accepted," said Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber, the only senator to speak in opposition. "They're kind of sacred terms, I would argue, and by this bill we are diminishing those very important words."

The bill was sent to the Assembly on a 25-10 vote, with only Republicans in opposition. Two Republicans, Anthony Cannella of Ceres and Ted Gaines of Roseville, voted in favor.

"All this bill does is bring our Family Code section up to date to comply with those two court decisions," Leno said. He added later: "The sky did not fall, civilization as we know it did not end" when gay marriages began.

Meanwhile our legislators in Jamaica went and are still going the opposite direction, case in point the present Prime Minister when she was in opposition sided with Bruce "Not in my Cabinet" Golding (audio below) in an invented diversionary tactic when no such rights under the then charter of rights debate have been demanded; she said on October 20, 2009 "Mr Speaker when we accepted the final report from the joint select committee that were looking at the bill we were completely satisfied with their recommendation of a provision to restrict marriage and like relationships to one man and one woman within Jamaica and that the provision should be specifically spelt out so that there could be no ambiguity ………. yes one man one woman (laughter in the house) and if you are Jamaican and go overseas the same applies ……….."

Now we see the ever shifting goal post of the suggested conscience vote on buggery and the response from the opposition on a referendum on the issue as clearly the election positioning has begun. Of course this is also alongside the antigay voices in the religious community who are opposed to gay marriage when we can't even get passed just basic tolerance, for e.g. Lawyers' Christian Fellowship's Shirley Richards says lesbian sex should be criminalized as buggery ..........

the present PNP administration seems to want us to forget their own record on buggery and the sideshow to reinforce anti gay sentiments by opposing gay marriage in that statement over the signature of the then justice minister A. J. Nicholson as captured in that cartoon above originally published January 19, 2007 in the Gleaner newspaper, also see "No To Same Sex Marriage" now fast forward to February 2014 here is the man now in his capacity as Foreign Affairs Minister: Foreign Affairs Minister says Govt should be cautious on gay rights issues in Jamaica


Promised (I mean suggested) Conscience vote on Buggery law not a priority right now (yet again) says PM

Non Governmental Organization Consultant says JLP suggested Referendum on Buggery is not a good idea

Opposition Leader sides with antigay groups on Referendum on The Buggery Law

Jamaican Opposition Leader says he would allow homosexuals in his cabinet ...

German Tourist Allegedly Fondles Teen Boy, Charged

I found this story a bit strange as in how in God's name did this youngster found himself in a room and in bed with an older man outside of familiarity with the tour group?

The article in the Gleaner seems innocuous at first but bearing in mind the power differentials involved with abuse I wonder. 

Janet Silvera, Senior Gleaner Writer penned the following on April 22nd

WESTERN BUREAU:
A 47-year-old male German tourists is now in custody, after allegedly fondling a 17-year-old boy at a popular resort in Montego Bay Monday night.

Reports are that the young man who went to bed in the same room as his accused, was awaken by the fondling of his body parts.

He alerted his parents who were in another room.

A report was made to the police who arrested and charged the accused with indecent assault.

The two are among a group of persons visiting the island from Germany.

ENDS

Some questions come to mind:

How did the young man reach in the man's room?

How come his parents did not miss him until the infraction took place?

Was the "victim" a aware of this man's intent and if so was the advance too overwhelming?

Experimentation on the boy's part and advantage taken by this older man?

Why was the accused only charged with indecent assault what about gross indecency?

This one looks too vague and up in the air as other reports in years gone by have been, has the matter been heard in front of a judge since and has the man or the group returned to Germany?

I don't just take these matters lightly, these short reports tend to leave persons with an implied paedophilia imperative when applied to the general discourse of male homosexuality.

More is needed to determine whether this is abuse of something else.

Peace and tolerance

H

On Eugenic Abortion of the Intersex

Prepared by Dr Cary Gabriel Costello

A century ago, eugenics, the science of breeding "better" humans, was considered the "queen of the sciences." Then came the Holocaust, in which millions of Jews, LGBT+ people, people with disabilities, "Gypsies" and others were murdered by the Germans in the name of purifying the Aryan race.

The first to be sent to the gas chambers were those deemed "lives not worth living": people with disabilities and "deformities."

Germany lost WW II, and afterwards, eugenics was abandoned in the polite sciences, and replaced with genetics. No longer was it considered ethical to speak of breeding better humans by eliminating "undesirables;" instead, genetics was to improve life by addressing itself to pure science or to curing medical suffering.

But eugenics never really went away, and it's operating today through various reproductive technologies such as selective implantation of embryos, and, quite commonly, through prenatal screening for "disorders," which are then "treated" via "therapeutic abortion." Among those characteristics that can been screened for and eliminated are those forms of intersexuality with a genetic origin.

Our medical ethicists today state that selective abortion of female embryos is unacceptable, because there is no medical condition, simply a social preference. Yet termination of pregnancies involving intersex fetuses is deemed ethical, because we are deemed disordered. In essence, this "ethical" position is that it's ok for doctors to select fetuses with disabilities for termination, as it's rational for us to be considered "lives not worth living."

OII Australia has submitted the following comment on guidelines for the use of assisted reproductive technologies in Australia, which you can find here. It argues that intersexuality is not a "disorder," but rather a natural variation. It further argues that medically selecting against intersex pregnancies is akin to selecting against female pregnancies, being based on social biases, and should be considered unethical.

I'm all for that, but I'd go further. I'm pro choice, and believe a pregnant individual should have the ability to terminate an early pregnancy at will, based on her assessment of her readiness and ability to carry a pregnancy to term. But I have grave moral reservations about eugenic abortion--a termination of a pregnancy based on the characteristics of the fetus as determined by doctors. Elective abortion at will relates to people's reproductive autonomy, but eugenic abortion focuses on what types of people are considered valuable or disposible. 

And, as someone who is Jewish, LGBT+, and intersex, I see a clear continuity between my being a candidate for the gas chamber were I living in Nazi Germany, and my being a candidate for selective abortion were I conceived today. I cannot countenance eugenics.

A most uneasy discussion on Transgenderism in Jamaica......stigmatizing terms repeatedly used

Listen To Lifestyle Internet Radio Stations with Talk Jamaica on BlogTalkRadio

A BIG thanks to the co-founder of Aphrodite's PRIDE Jamaica of which I am part for saving this shaky attempt to have a discussion on transgenderism in Jamaica as Satiba from her first words in the interview helped the obviously nervous folks involved.

Dangerous words such as "She-male" as recently used on Rupaul's drag race and that landed her in some backlash from fans, transgender activists and sexual health experts as well and the erroneous adding of the "ed" at the end of transgender. While I appreciate the attempt it was clear the research was not done by the hosts and the discussion seems to commodify the issue, at one point one of the host described the matter as a lifestyle. Even the guest described as some doctor made the error repeatedly through the discussion.

see: 5 Things It's Important To Consider Regarding Transphobia and 'RuPaul's Drag Race'

Then also the clear lack of understanding of sex and sexuality issues but I won't fault them altogether I do wish though that Satiba and Tiana must insist the the word "transgender" is an adjective and NOT a verb hence no need 

Tiana Miller 

Other guests were a student from some university and Tiana Miller who was also involved with APJ's recent project on Entrepreneurship Training.

The rest of the lengthy exchange however was ok in some sense although the theological intervention did not make much sense to me as the speaker was not having a full grasp of what transgenderism is and thought it was an anomaly towards sex change against God's word. The speaker representing the Christian perspective obviously conflates cosmetic surgery or ses change as fun more so than a needed activity for transgender persons to fulfill their cisgender imperative.

I was pleased at the point where the host wanted to get the gender description correct for Satiba in asking is she should be addressed as "she" which was a good pointer in the show.

The learning curve on this is happening but late as when the visibility issue was a cause for concern it was not addressed by the likes JFLAG and now when it matters in terms on public knowledge especially owing to the legal matters of a buggery review/conscience vote suggested or promised by the Prime Minister person ought to have been on the up and up on these issues.

also hear Satiba on her recent appearance on BBC where she spoke to the Indian Supreme Court decision to name transgender as a third sex. CLICK HERE and also on a radio program Everywoman on Nationwide Radio 90FM March 20th 2014 with Dr Karen Carpenter as stand-in host with a transgender activist and co-founder of Aphrodite's P.R.I.D.E Jamaica and a gender non conforming/lesbian guest as well on the matters of identity, sex reassignment surgery and transexuality.

CLICK HERE for a recording of the show.

also see previous contributed posts and appearances by Satiba/Laura:

A WARNING FOR THOSE CONSIDERING Male to Female SRS

Transgender/transexual discourse ...... Open Mic Open Soul 22.06.11

Radio program "Love & Sex" on Sexual Identities & Transgenderism (Were you born in the wrong body?) 2010

Transgender: What does it mean revisited

Coming Out for a Transgender person

Share the information folks.

Peace and tolerance

H

Archbishop of Kingston Denies Claims That Clergy Members Abusing Alpha Boys

So it seems this issue has no end any time soon as more voices throw their hats in the ring over the Alpha Boys fiasco as I call it since the youth Minister's faux pas on babbling her mouth on a most sensitive issue that ought to have been handled more delicately than allowed over the past few weeks, 

I was not aware that it was the clergy that was accused of sexually abusing the boys but the boys on each other as so crassly put by the Minister Lisa Hanna in driving home her point in trying to make herself look productive when it is her ministry that ought to have picked up on this eons ago.

see: SITUATIONAL HOMOSEXUALITY AND OR “PREDATORY BEHAVIOUR” REASONS FOR THE CLOSURE OF ALPHA BOYS’ HOME RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS?

today the Gleaner carried this piece adding to the furore:

Jermaine Francis, Staff Reporter: 

Reece Denies Claims That Clergy Members Abusing Alpha Boys

Archbishop Emeritus of Kingston Donald Reece has flatly denied allegations that senior members of the Catholic Church have been preying on the wards of the Alpha Boys Home.

Reece told The Gleaner yesterday that these allegations could not be true, as senior members of the clergy were never working at the home.

"There is no high person in the Church at Alpha. It's lay people who are working with the boys. There are no high-church person there! So I think somebody is way off base here," Reece stated.

He said the claims of abuse were simply playing into a sort of anti-Catholic hysteria.

"There is a certain anti-Catholic sentiment in our society and, therefore, they jump into that and probably project from that what has been published in papers abroad regarding paedophilia and apply (it) to Alpha," Reece said, adamantly reiterating that there are no priests at Alpha.

FULSOME INVESTIGATION

Reece was speaking in relation to recent letters to the editor that demand a fulsome investigation into allegations of rampant sexual abuse being carried out at Alpha, both by caregivers and some wards.

In a letter titled 'Don't Cover Up Alpha Sex Horrors' published last Friday, noted attorney-at-law, Jacqueline Samuels-Brown, said she was aware of a case in which "former residents of Alpha, now grown men, will speak privately of employees (including persons holding high positions in the Church) who would ritualistically enter the dorm in the nights and select the boy(s) of their choice who would be forced into inappropriate relationships".

Samuels-Brown said the situation may be more pervasive than Youth Minister Lisa Hanna has intimated to the public.

Shirley Richards, former president of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship, said based on the minister's revelations and Samuels-Brown's letter, a probe should be launched into the happenings at the place of safety.

Reece said while he agreed a probe should be launched, care must be taken to not make this investigation "flamboyant", and efforts should be taken to ensure that the welfare of the children is at the forefront.

He added that Alpha should not be singled out for any such probe, as abuse may also be taking place in other children's homes.

jermaine.francis@gleanerjm.com

ENDS

In case you missed any discourse on the issue here are twp recordings of the matter from Nationwide radio Jamaica:

Nationwide @ 5 Youth Minister responds to Alpha Press release 16.04.14

Nationwide Cover Story Alpha Boys residency closure 08.04.14 

also see:

Youth Minister Lisa Hanna's conflation of same gender sex & abuse responded to part 2

Alpha Boys' Nuns say Youth Minister homosexual abuse/grooming comments hurting their image/

No Reported cases of Paedophilia say local Catholic Diocese Representative Reece from a 2010 interview 

Youth Minister Lisa Hanna's conflation of same gender sex & abuse responded to (Yvonne McCallah Sobers responds to a recent announcement that homeless LGBT youth may get help)

I am sure this is not the end of this by a long shot

Peace and tolerance

H

Homosexuality in Africa (Part 2)

also see: Homosexuality in Africa - (Part 1)

A very exceptional case was provided by the Nkund¢, a Mongo people of what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo. Their tradition of homosexuality among men included the requirement that the younger men assume the top position. That tradition had died out by the time it was reported, but had been replaced by several others. One replacement was a game called yembankongo wherein younger boys pretend to be monkeys. Another replacement was the game of "playing parents," which is very commonly reported. Among the youngest children the game is merely imitative of adult sexual positions, but as the young people mature the game becomes perfectly conscious sex. And in the game not much attention is paid to whether the partners are of the same or opposite sexes. Among the older boys, when they lay together, one would say to the other, "This is what I do to your sister." The missionary who made this report then suggests that the boys are not really doing anything homosexual because they say that stuff about each other's sisters. Female homosexuality was well known and was called ya¡kya bons ngo which can be translated very roughly as "bumping pussies." The missionary writes, "Homosexuality has been known among the Nkund¢ since time immemorial, among men as well as women." But then he tries to explain it away, saying it is difficult for the young people to get married (Hulstaert). This kind of doublethink is found over and over in the literature whether the writers are missionaries, colonialists, historians, or anthropologists. A tradition is something that the average person in society knows about and reports. Since the average person in any society is non-gay, traditions of homosexuality are filtered through non-gay perceptions. Then when the traditions are reported, they are filtered again through the prejudices of the anthropologist or the colonial civil servant or whoever. Finally, before the report is printed, it is often is edited or censored. Sometimes we end up with a few sentences in bad Latin, if we are lucky. Often we find only a reference to "unspeakable acts" or "reprehensible scenes." We have a good idea what is meant. But the details are lost. Then we may find a later report that is more candid. We just have to suppose that the later report explains what the "unspeakable acts" were.

Here, however, is an example in which the earlier investigator gave the better account. The Fang live in the forest on the border between Gabon and Cameroon. The Fang were so called Bantus who replaced the original Pygmy inhabitants of this area three or four hundred years ago. One writer (Trezenem) reported: "Neither homosexuality or bestiality have ever been recorded, to our knowledge, among the Fang." That writer did his fieldwork around 1935. Writers who treat homosexuality and bestiality in the same sentence do not merit our trust. The Fang deserve a closer look. Sure enough, a writer who did his fieldwork around 1905 recorded traditions of homosexuality among the Fang. First Gunther Tessmann gives the usual reports of younger people playing parents. He reports a game played by older boys among the neighbouring Pangwe: one boy plays the wife of another and presents the play-husband with a mud pie. If the husband accepts, he pretends to eat the mud pie. They do not, however, pretend to have sex, but have sex in fact. Adult Fang excuse this sort of thing by saying the children do not know what they are doing and that children have no sense of shame. Adult Fang imply that such things never happen between adults. Tessmann then writes: We have spoken of homosexual relations among 'children.' In adults such conduct is regarded as something immoral and unnatural, simply as unheard of. In reality, however, it is frequently 'heard of' that young people carry on homosexual relations with each other and even of older people who take boys, who, as is well known, 'have neither understanding nor shame'. And they readily console them by saying: [we are playing a game]. The children are excused with the well-known assertion, which in its deeper sense can rarely be defended: [they don't know what they are doing]. Adults are excused with the corresponding assertions: [he has the heart of boys], which is, of course, by no means flattering to them.

Publicly, of course, homosexuals are treated with the greatest contempt, and they were therefore forced, as a matter of course, to cast about for a protective covering to shield themselves from the attacks of those who are different, just as a porcupine is protected by its covering of quills, a covering on which the attackers would cut their mouths and their caustic tongues. Such a covering was supplied by medicine, it was said that homosexuality is 'wealth medicine.'

Well, do you think that homosexuality among the Fang had completely disappeared by the Thirties, so that the writer who denied it was being completely honest? Or do you think it more likely that he was not sufficiently interested to ask the right questions of the right people. Certainly he made no great effort to survey the literature on the point. Clearly the Fang are as capable of being hypocritical as anyone. Perhaps by the Thirties they had learned to be more careful about what they said to Europeans. The Fang were not proud of their traditions of homosexuality. Adult male homosexuality was not generally accepted by the Fang. Fang homosexuals had to have a cover story. They told the other Fang: we are not really homosexual; we are just making money. Perhaps the Fang, as much as any of us, realised it was just an excuse, but at least it was an acceptable excuse. This is an example of a homosexual tradition and also an example of a tradition that not everyone in society thinks well of. According to Fang belief, the bottom man has the wealth medicine and the top man acquires it. Tessmann writes: "In actual fact it might turn out the effect of the medicine consists in the mutual support the 'friends' render each other, based chiefly on the consciousness of common guilt and the endeavour not to let this guilt be known." The wealth medicine is called bian nkuma which is generally used as an euphemism for anal sex between men. There is also a down side to this. Fang think homosexuality causes diseases such as leprosy and yaws.

The Fang are great story tellers and you are likely to find some of their stories in any anthology of African folktales. One of the stories involves four suitors who arrive at Bongo's house to court his beautiful daughter. The suitors were Schok I, Schok II, Schok III, and Schok IV. The daughter liked Schok IV. The mother liked Schok III. The brother liked Schok II. Bongo, the father, liked Schok I. Night fell and when they laid down, Schok IV laid with the daughter, Schok III laid with the mother, Schok II laid with the brother, and Schok I laid with Bongo. Schok IV tried to get romantic with the daughter, but since they were all in the same hut, the others made remarks to discourage him. Instead, he and the daughter planned to run away together, and the next day that is what they did. When it became apparent what had happened, Schok III flew into a rage, killed the mother, and fled. But Schok II decided to stay with the brother and be the brother's lover. Bongo wanted to make it up to Schok I, so he offered Schok I money and a wife. But Schok I refused, saying: "No, I don't want it. Rather, let it be that we shall always be together; when you urinate I shall urinate; when you defecate, I shall defecate; when you sleep, I shall also sleep with you in the same bed." Those Fang! Such romantics! Anyway, that is the Fang pledge of eternal love. So Schok I stayed with Bongo and was his lover. They became quite rich. But this is, after all, a Fang story, and the Fang do not approve of homosexuality, so eventually one of the lovers died of leprosy and the other died of yaws, while the Schok who had murdered the mother got away scot-free. In stories, disease awaits all those whom the Fang consider to be sexual deviants, such as anyone who has sex in the daytime.

Continued oversight or deliberate overlooking of Jamaican SGL Women in HIV Prevention?

Given what we now know of the recently concluded ‘Justice for All” campaign that is supposedly designed to address HIV/AIDS issues, dignity for persons living with the disease, addressing stigma and discrimination and the all important vulnerable populations, although we know that that means MSM for the most part and one is aware of the thirty year history of the epidemic which started in the gay community in the US predominantly but after seeing the expansion of the problem into heterosexual populations and women in particular why hasn’t the prevention strategies both nationally or at the none state actor level improve to include same gender loving women? Why has the regimes over the years seem to have fostered and maintained a culture of almost with normalcy ignore SGL women as if they do not exist in the scheme of things? 

Bisexual, Lesbian and some trans-invisibility still is present.

Knowing that bisexuality is a bridge for the disease especially owing to our multiple partnering culture steeped in misogynistic imperatives.

The recently hyped lesbian transmission story in the United States brought the matter back to some mainstream prominence, I remember my days in the national system where a few voices were asking similar questions as posed above but were met with a deafening silence and as for the NGO community they were not interested in moving on it as the general feeling is that their concentration was and is more on MSM getting testing up, condom distribution with very little psycho social/sexual supportive interventions. Local studies as early as 2003 from memory have suggested that there is a problem in continuing to ignore this group when they also are a main part of the bridge although mother to child transmission work is exemplary the specific identification and targeted work of same gender loving women to include polyamorous practices that do exist locally is yet to be strengthened; yet I am left thinking it seems to be a cat and mouse game that is at work where professionals are more about keeping their jobs with the holy grail of Global Fund money more so than anything else. The concluded Justice for All conference here in Jamaica and the platitudinous announcements of increased funding for HIV prevention and the Prime Minister with a flowery speech on protecting marginalized groups albeit the smoke has not settled from her dodgery yet again on a suggested conscience vote on buggery how is anyone to take her word on such groups even also as homeless LGBTQ population numbers increase with all kinds of challenges with arrests yet again of two only last week.

Dr Karen Carpenter in a 2000/1 study published a set of phenomenology papers in the Social & Economic Studies Journal ISSN 0037-7657 Vol. 60 #1 March 2011 Sexualities in the Caribbean a study sub titled “Love on a Continuum” that took a look at MSM and WSW (women who have sex with women) and HIV. The publication also had as subject matters:

Christopher A, D. Charles: Representations of Homosexuality in Jamaica

Noel M. Cowell: Public Disclosure and Popular Attitudes towards Homosexuality in Jamaica

Annecka Marshall: Reclaiming the Power of Black Women

In 2003 the Ministry of Health had commissioned the study on MSM/WSW populations for to find mapping of the risks in those groups, it found that a continuum of descriptions among male homosexuals however hence it was reasonable to also assume that a similar diversity was at hand in the same gender loving female group as well then in 2006 another study was conducted specific to the women who have sex with women grouping and Mckenzie conducted a further MSM study replicating the phenomenological approach of Carpenter’s WSW research. The data was collected through audio recordings of 24 in depth interviews via email, face to face, phone and internet messaging. Previous studies only looked at MSM, there were no known efforts prior in the Caribbean overall as WSW have been overlooked and indeed ignored for some time so no consideration was taken into account in as far as HIV prevention or mapping was concerned.

The constructs of sexual identity are still larger defined by behaviour and sexual practice on all sides (anti gay groups included hence the HIV is a gay disease construct in their public advocacy) without taking into account psychological and internal desires of the individual as we also see this gap in the lack of response to the homeless issues for e.g. the haste in the premature closure of the 2009 Safe House Pilot project by Jamaica AIDS Support’s then board citing “bad behaviour” as the reason yet no psychological courses that were written in the project rationale’s were executed to see their effectiveness or lack thereof. Much of the theoretical underpinnings of tend to encourage a view of sexuality as a dichotomy and this is largely restricted in many instances to a notion of exclusive homosexuality and heterosexuality. This narrowed focus therefore works on the premise that MSM or WSW do not have sex with opposite sex partners and that women who have sex with men do not see themselves as lesbians or MSM do not see themselves as gay if they engage women sexually. The Center for Disease Control, CDC in the US reported “ ....... Through December 2004 a total of 246,461 women were reported as HIV infected, of these some 3,461 were reported to have se with women .......” (Center for disease Control 2006, 2),

This raises other issues as well in terms of unprotected sex involving WSW who actually self identify as lesbian, then the biphobic nature of the exclusively gay individuals towards, bisexuals, pan polyandrous, polyamorous or polygamists for that matter as they are considered confused and disease carries hence the untrustworthiness quotients and deep mistrust that surfaces every now and again. Gay men for example who do not endorse the notion of bisexuality as an identity believe that over time a collection of experiences strengthens this preference towards what may be considered a more solid homosexual identity although some have had past experiences with women as response to societal demands and not an expression of identities. This belief is at the heart of the negative sentiments to the idea of bisexuality as a solid identity. It is at this cross over juncture in a bid to meet those societal demands proof of manhood via offspring is crucial hence higher HIV risk is eminent.

Sex as identity is restricted to a definition based on a biological concept (as anti gay group JCHS repeatedly does in their sometimes belligerent advocacy) which highlights the anatomical distinctions between males and females thus sexual relationship’s social underpinnings is grounded in genitalia (Cesso & Shirley 1984) ways however in which persons define themselves is also important. 

Power and control also play a key role in HIV risk I feel especially owing to the personality dynamics involved or assumed hetero-normative gender roles with sexual positions as a major factor. Material gain is crucial as well linked to power differentials understood in social labels for, e.g. butch, fems, lipstick lesbian, jeans lesbians, stud (most problematic of the group in terms of rejection and stigmatization from within the WSW community); it determines the “how” of sex, roles, when and has implications for abuse leading to HIV risk, another example of high risk is tribadism practised by exclusively lesbian women or women who get into gay sex for money or the sex industry (porn, strip clubs, massage parlours by request of male clients, or substitutional sex in same sex environments such as prisons, places of safety etc.) the actual meeting of both vaginas to create friction while pleasurable is highly risky as passing of infections such as yeasts, dermatophites as tinea curis is critical one can therefore assume that if the labia minora or lips of the vagina has been compromised and blood is exposed then transmission is possible even if the other party does not have broken skin but simply as the vagina is a receptive organ the opening allows for the orifice acting as a gateway.

Dr Carpenter also spoke to “Sexual Health Issues in Women who Have Sex with Women” at the Ena Thomas Memorial public lecture & Symposium on the 24th November 2013 where the matter of overlooking the WSW population came up for mention she referenced the 2003 study where she went further into the findings outlining some seminal data though dated but it appears not much has changed, for e.g Kingsley report says that vaginal penetration with sex toys serving as substitutes for the penis had been quite rare in WSW history that is of course exclusive lesbian women, another overlay that we need to also grapple with is pornography as hinted to above; while porn is meant to be a fantasy WSW scenes is a glamorised view catering to a man’s ideal concept of a lesbian not a lesbians’ lesbian as men think they will have more fun with more women hence the massage parlour phenomenon and lesbian entertainment on stage in strip clubs with all kinds of risky behaviour to include penetration with toys, drink bottles (Heineken or other typed pouring of beer in a dancer’s vagina to create the volcano effect) and fingering (orgasms on stage at times) and anal play. During her attempts to collect the data the “what about dildos and transmission?” question came up and it was clear that the response had not been taking into account these issues on a large scale. For those who do use toys however there is a concern I have had for years about simultaneous use of toys in a single sexual episode without a condom, an issue from memory that was discussed at the now defunct Couture Elements weekly forum at the Oasis bar and as far back as 2000 when Women for Women had Friday night lymes with guest speakers. The rapid passing of the toys is the issue as persons either do not wait for a time before use in fear of losing the “high” of the moment nor do they do not cleanse the device/object prior to use nor employ any barriers as it is assumed once the vagina is not offensive looking or smelling then all is well.

She also went into a polyamory forum (persons with more than one consenting partner who are aware of each other) that she conducted out of which came the continuum hence the Love on a Continuum caption. Some of the agencies seem to be guilty of not getting more background information on women who come in for HIV testing (apart from refusal to disclose) as the culture seems to suggest they do not want to hear about lesbians testing for HIV, one main NGO was named as having this misnomer as evidenced in their customer experience, the nurses when questioned by Dr Carpenter they had two formally registered cases of lesbians who tested yet the cohort when interviewed had been tested for the most part, so it is safe to say that it is assumed that if you’re female then you must be having sex with a man and you couldn’t be having sex with a woman and coming in for testing.

Sadly also some in the cohort do not disclose to their lesbian partners that they are having sex with men now we see how infection can occur as here is another bridge for the virus’ transmission.

There must be a concerted effort by the powers that be to include and not only include for a short time but onwards for specific populations with tailored interventions, we have had conference after conference after conference yet they seem to be nothing more than a meeting place for polite society than actually formulating and enacting better and specific responses to so called marginalized groups. It is interesting the ease at which the call letters LGBTQI are used at these conferences, human rights meetings by “experts” to sound good and have an inclusive image in the name of public advocacy but take a look at understanding the specific needs on the ground especially and you’re left thinking something else. One wonders if the slow march to dealing with these challenges with the cop out excuse that funding is not available is deliberate, is it that there must be a reservoir of victims all the time so agencies and bureaucratic systems can be around forever, was it ever about addressing the issues as they become apparent, why does the older agencies especially have to wait until issues get out of hand before they act, where is the needed pro-activity?

Hmph

Peace and tolerance

H