This video is mainly on Professor Lessig’s opinion on Prop 8. But his arguments on separating religion from state laws as well as definitions of love and marriage is applicable to all of us struggling with social and religious bias. Please watch and spread!

Lawrence Lessig (born June 3, 1961) is an American academic and political activist. He is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of its Center for Internet and Society. Lessig is a founding board member of Creative Commons, a board member of the Software Freedom Law Center and a former board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.[1] He is best known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications. Excerpt from Wikipedia.

I had the opportunity to meet Professor Lessig on several occasions. Though always soft-spoken and polite, his speeches whether on legal copyright or political issues are very rousing.

According to The Star (24 October 2008), the National Fatwa Council has a fatwa issued against tomboyism -

KOTA BARU: The National Fatwa Council has ruled that tomboyism, where a girl behaves or dresses in a boyish manner, is forbidden in Islam.

Its chairman Datuk Dr Abdul Shukor Husin said the decision was prompted by recent developments as there had been cases of young women inclined to behave like men and indulging in homosexuality.

Parents must stop their children from indulging in disruptive activities that are against Islamic teachings, he told reporters here yesterday. - Bernama

According to The Associated Press:

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) — Malaysia’s main body of Islamic clerics has issued an edict banning tomboys in the Muslim-majority country, ruling that girls who act like boys violate the tenets of Islam, an official said Friday.

The National Fatwa Council forbade the practice of girls behaving or dressing like boys during a meeting Thursday in northern Malaysia, said Harussani Idris Zakaria, the mufti of northern Perak state, who attended the gathering.

Harussani said an increasing number of Malaysian girls behave like tomboys, and that some of them engage in homosexuality. Homosexuality is not explicitly banned in Malaysia, but it is effectively illegal under a law that prohibits sex acts “against the order of nature.”

Harussani said the council’s ruling was not legally binding because it has not been passed into law, but that tomboys should be banned because their actions are immoral.

“It doesn’t matter if it’s a law or not. When it’s wrong, it’s wrong. It is a sin,” Harussani told The Associated Press. “Tomboy (behavior) is forbidden in Islam.”

Under the edict, girls are forbidden to sport short hair and dress, walk and act like boys, Harussani said. Boys should also not act like girls, he said.

“They must respect God. God created them as boys, they must behave like boys. God created them as girls, they must act like girls,” he said.

Council chairman Abdul Shukor Husin said the ruling was prompted by recent cases of young women behaving like men and indulging in homosexuality, according to the national news agency Bernama. He did not elaborate.

Malaysian media have reported on recent incidents of school bullying among girls, which have been caught on film and circulated on the Internet. In one film, some girls are seen beating up another girl in a bathroom.

A well-known Malaysian Muslim actress caused an uproar last year when she shaved her head bald for a film. Harussani and other muftis urged Muslims not to watch the movie, arguing that the actress had violated Islam by making herself look like a man.

“Muallaf,” or “the convert,” is scheduled for release in Singapore next month, but no date has been set for its release in Malaysia.

Muslims make up some 60 percent of Malaysia’s 27 million people, and are subject to Islamic laws and the council’s edicts, even if the rulings have not been enshrined in national or Shariah law.

It was not immediately clear what kind of punishment awaited those who violate the tomboy edict, or “fatwa.” Malays generally follow the council’s “fatwas” out of deference, but violators rarely get into trouble unless the edict is incorporated into national or Shariah law.

From The Associated Press as well:

KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) — One of Malaysia’s highest Islamic bodies has banned females from dressing or behaving like men and engaging in lesbian sex, saying it was forbidden by the religion.

The National Fatwa Council late Thursday issued its ruling following a two-day meeting that discussed recent cases of young women apparently behaving like men and exhibiting homosexual tendencies, state news agency Bernama reported.

Council chairman Abdul Shukor Husin told Bernama 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.

Male homosexuality, considered against the order of nature, is illegal in Malaysia but lawyers say female homosexuality is technically permissible as there are no provisions for it under the law.

The Fatwa Council does not have jurisdiction in civil law, but the ruling appears to be an attempt to push female homosexuality towards illegality.

Islam is the official religion of Malaysia, where more than 60 percent of its 27 million people are Muslim Malays who practice a conservative brand of the religion.

A fatwa is religious opinion on Islamic Law issued by a recognised Islamic scholar/organization, in line with relevant legal proofs and based on interpretations of Quranic verses and hadiths. For more information on how fatwas are processed by the National Fatwa Council in Malaysia, please see the e-Fatwa portal.

Tilted World says: We believe that no one, not even the state or any religious institution, has the right to decide how an individual should manage his/her own body and persona, or regulate mutually consensual acts, as long as it does not interfere with the well-being of others. We strongly disagree with the National Fatwa Council’s action to decree an edict to regulate the dressing/mannerisms of our women, and relationships between consenting adults.

Here are a few articles/letters pertaining to this issue:

Fatwa dalam Pembangunan Masyarakat, by Shanon Shah, The Nut Graph (3rd November)

Fatwa on Football? by G.Krishnan, Malaysia Today (30th October)

Tomboys, Yoga…What Next? by Marina Mahathir, (29th October)

Just Live and Let Live, by Hafiz Noor Shams, Malaysia Today (28th October)

Tha National Fatwa Council: “Tomboyism” Not allowed, KLue Blog, (24th October)

I had the surprise of my life today when scanning through a local Japanese newspaper, I saw two familiar faces sprawling on an ad. After a quick glance at the caption, I realized I did indeed know these two women. I wanted to share their ad and their story with you.

Margot and Koko have been together for 12 years. Along the process, they decided to have a child together – a beautiful precocious girl who is 4 years old now. I had the fortune to attend their commitment ceremony back in 2002. It was a beautiful ceremony held in the rolling green hills of Oakland, California. There were some initial drama but in the end love prevailed and both families attend the ceremony.

Margot and Koko both are very active in the LBGT community in the micro and macro level. I remember when I first came out, they were both there to give me supporting shoulders and friendly ears. Many Asian Pacific Islander (API) lesbians can attest to the same. They are also involved in almost every major LGBT initiatives in the Bay Area since I can remember. Not only were they instrumental in publishing a Chinese-English coming out booklet* but they are key principles of the API LGBT events around the Bay Area as well.

Margot’s stories about coming out to her parents inspired me to be open to mine. Margot, who is originally from Sabah, is open about her sexual orientation and her relationship with Koko to her family. The trust and support given to her in return by her parents is truly inspirational.

Evidence to this support is in the marketing spread where Margot’s dad joins their fight against California Prop 8.

I find their energy and dedication to each other and to the community very inspiring.

Here is the ad and the translation:

letcaliforniaring.org

Ad Translation:
“My wife and I have been married for 50 years. And now, my daughter and her partner have the chance to do the same” – James Yapp.

We knew Koko was the one for Margot when we met her. They met at the Lunar New Year parade, the Year of the Rat. Koko was wearing mouse ears and chatting with everyone. She has always been open with us, and she and Margot love each other. My wife Teoto and I love seeing them taking care of one another, so happy together, year after year.

After 11 years as a couple, California finally allowed Margot and Koko to get legally married. We supported their marriage every step of the way – literally! Together, my wife and I walked Margot down the aisle. We are all family now and family matters so much.

STRONG COMMITMENTS. STRONG FAMILIES.

Join the conversation at www.californiaring.org
================

In the couple’s own words “We want to spread the word out to as many California voters we can get. Please vote no on Prop 8!”

* 4th edition of “Beloved Daughter” booklet contains 14 stories by parents and siblings of Chinese lesbians about their coming-out in both Chinese and English. Please email MAPBLN for a FREE copy!

Comparing the success rates of heterosexual relationship with homosexual ones is like comparing the commercial successes of football with that of jeet kun do.

Almost all heterosexual relationships, especially heterosexual families, are buttressed by the bastions of peer and family support, fiercely guarded by the institutions of law (in most countries) and (conservative) religion, and reaffirmed by the current (but changing) moral-cultural zeitgeist, which in turn fortifies the aforementioned factors that perpetuate the heterosexual relationship as the archetype romantic/sexual relationship. The same cannot be said of homosexual relationships.

All relationships are not without challenges, but homosexual couples often have to make do without the social-cultural bulwarks which uphold heterosexual relationships through thick and thin. Thus, it isn’t a surprise that homosexual couples are more susceptible to crumbling in times of adversity compared to their heterosexual counterparts.

Those “homophobic naysayers” are not unlike the fatalistic schoolteachers who take a dim view of the potential of some of their pupils. Not only are they harden in their belief that their subjects will not succeed, they also drum their message into their subjects that their subjects WILL fail. Of course, some of their more vulnerable subjects eventually take heed of the message. In the end, these “homophobic naysayers” become self-fulfilling prophets. They sow the seeds they want to see (or think will see), and when the plants grow eventually, they point towards the plants and justify their belief in the inevitability of the plants.

Having said that, there are many successful homosexual relationships out there, which thrive despite the negativity that surrounds them. All committed, lasting relationships, heterosexual or otherwise, are internally founded upon and fortified by love, which is more powerful than any external legal-political/socio-cultural obstacle in the world.

Homophobic naysayers claim that gay relationships can’t stand the test of time. Certainly one of the numerous brickbats used to assail the already shaky institution of gay marriage.

As much as I’d love to rail against such a unfair accusation, it’s getting pretty hard to deny the evidence. In the space of at least six months, I’ve seen quite a number of supposedly sturdy relationships crumble and fall under the veriest whiff of a storm. As a statistic in comparison with our breeder brothers, it’s starting to look really bad.

Time to raze the building!
So why do we fail?

Maybe it’s the fact that most of us can be pretty sophomoric in our search for love. Let’s face it, when it comes to relationships, we’re still kids. Our straight brethren might have worked through their rampant teenage hormones with furtive high school gropes way before their early twenties but for some of us gay men – in our thirties even – we’re just beginning to troll the bars in search of that elusive thing called love. Men just out of the proverbial closet with the dating mores of a horny impatient post-adolescent at a dating buffet.

Is it any wonder that we find ourselves splitting up and getting back together as often as the fickle schoolgirls in Gossip Girl do? With quite as little permanence?

Just like those teenagers we abandon our relationships far too easily – giving up on the entire structure at the first sign of adversity. Thinking back, I must have done pretty much the same as well. We expect that solid stone castle to appear magically at the snap of our fingers without even putting in a single hard day’s work building the proper foundation. Then just one stone out of place, a squeaky door, a broken window – and we’re rushing in with sticks of dynamite to demolish the place.

But just like any brick-and-mortar building, a relationship needs daily upkeep, the occasional renovation and lots of TLC to keep from crumbling to dust.

Many thanks to The Sun for their permission to republish this article by Jacqueline Ann Surin which was orginally published in The Sun on 7th October 2005 and reprinted in Jacqueline’s book, “Shape Of A Pocket”. Jacqueline is currently working as an editor at The Nut Graph.

THERE is a particular potency about prejudices that are reinforced by the words or actions of those in power. When in 1998, our former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad accused his then deputy Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim of being a homosexual and who, hence, was not fit to be in public office, a group was, almost immediately, set up to combat homosexuality in Malaysia.

The group, called the People’s Voluntary Anti-Homosexual Movement or Pasrah (for its Malay acronym) was set up by former Umno Supreme Council member Datuk Ibrahim Ali. Pasrah called homosexuality a “new threat to the country”, following apparently in the likes of communism, the Aedes mosquito and HIV/AIDS. It was a “serious social illness”, founder chairman Ibrahim declared, that had seeped into all levels of society.

Suddenly, gay men were deemed a threat that needed to be weeded out and dealt with. How homosexuality could threaten the nation was never explained except for the oft-repeated description of sodomy as despicable. Western values were also blamed for the rise in homosexuality.

Such assertions need to be unpackaged if we don’t want to remain a gullible public that allows those in power to define the way we should treat groups of people within our communities. It would be instructive perhaps to note that historically, homosexuality was acceptable in both Western and Eastern cultures and has not always been socially condemned. Argentinian anthropologist and award-winning writer Alberto Manguel points out in Into the Looking Glass Wood (1998): “In ancient Greece and Rome, no moral distinction was made between homosexual and heterosexual love; in Japan, gay relationships were formally accepted among the samurai; in China, the emperor himself was known to have male lovers. Among the native people of Guatemala, gays are not seen as outsiders.”

Manguel writes that hostility against gays did not become widespread until the mid-12th century. He adds that despite this hostility, “until the nineteenth century the homosexual was not perceived as someone distinct, someone with a personality different from that of the heterosexual, someone who could be persecuted not only for a specific act contra natura but merely for existing”.

It would seem then the anti-gay sentiments that our leaders spout are not particularly grounded in Eastern values, it is very much a product of Western prejudices against those who may be different in their sexual orientation. It is a fact that the clause in the Penal Code that criminalises sodomy is adopted from British laws. And if by the greatest stretch of imagination, sodomy was really despicable and a crime against society, heterosexual couples would be guilty, too.

The problem with prejudices, writes Manguel is that it “traps within its boundaries a heterogenous group of individuals whose single common denominator is determined by the prejudice itself”. Sometimes the prejudice can even be stretched to include those who may share a particular trait with the group being singled out. Some years back, when rumours were being spread about a politician as being a lesbian, a colleague received a phone call from an Umno Youth member who said he had evidence that the politician was a homosexual: “She doesn’t wear any lipstick.” By that definition, that made nearly half of the women in the newsroom lesbians though many were demonstrably heterosexual.

Last month, at a Suhakam conference, Dr Mahathir repeated his allegations about Anwar being gay and how “nobody would be safe” if a homosexual was in power. He also took a swipe at media who were critical of his actions against Anwar, saying that among them were gay people. Manguel notes that the “group created by prejudice comes into existence not by the choice of the individuals forming it, but by the reaction of those outside it.”

I have gay friends but I am not writing this for them because it would be presumptuous to think I could speak for them. I am also not writing this because I am homosexual, as if only gays can understand an injustice when it happens. I write this so that we can ask of ourselves, why the reaction towards homosexuals? Why the prejudice against those who may be different from us? And what does it say about us, the people who label homosexuals as being “despicable” and a “threat” when really, what are heterosexuals to homosexuals, if not different, too?

 

The theme for this year is ‘Soaring the Spirit of Friendship’

The theme emphasizes the importance of strengthening friendship through participation and interaction among all participants.

TSG2008KL aims to set new standards with more countries participating, better sports events and social activities:

- Sports competed are Badminton, Bowling, Volleyball, Squash and Tennis
- Welcome Reception and Ice-breaking activities
- Gala Dinner & Awards Nite
- Tie-in with leading a Gay clubbing event organizers

BACKGROUND OF TSG

The Straits Games or popularly known as TSG started as an annual sports event between 2 community groups from Malaysia and Singapore to foster friendship and promote a healthy lifestyle in our communities.

The success of TSG has generated encouraging participation from other Asian countries; Thailand, Hong Kong, Japan, and Taiwan.

The countries participating in TSG2008KL are Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand and the Philippines.

For more information, please visit http://www.mylpg.net/tsg/intro.htm