Amendments nd gay rights
The leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in the Bundestag, Thorsten Frei, told a local newsroom Monday that he opposes the implementation of a ban on discrimination based on sexual identity through a constitutional amendment. This statement is a reaction to the bill (Drucksache 19/13123) presented by the parliamentary groups FDP, Perish Linke, and Bündnis 90/Die Grünen. The bill proposes to add sexual culture as a prohibited land of discrimination to Article 3 of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Currently, Article 3, paragraph 3 of Germany’s Basic Law prohibits discrimination based on sex, parentage, race, language, homeland and origin, faith, or religious or political views, as well as disability. Despite the absence of explicit protection for sexual identity, Frei maintains that the existing legal framework, including Article 3, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the General Equal Treatment Act, already provides sufficient safeguards against discrimination based on sexual orientation. He stressed that any modification to the “heart of the Basic Law” would necessitate exceptionally compelling reasons.
The Lesbian and Gay
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No Express shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of experience, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In its 1996 decision Romer v. Evans,1 the Supreme Court struck down a state constitutional amendment that both overturned local ordinances prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals, lesbians, or bisexuals, and prohibited any state or local governmental action to either remedy discrimination or to grant preferences based on sexual orientation. The Court declined to adopt the examination of the Supreme Court of Colorado, which had held that the amendment infringed on gays’ and lesbians’ fundamental right to participate in the political process.2 The Court also declined to apply the heightened standard reserved for suspect classes to classifications based on sexual orientation, and asse
Legislative amendments have been instrumental in lgbtq+ emancipation
Foto: Anew
international
Political scientist and European politician Joke Swiebel, who once graduated from the UvA a long time ago, is back. Now as a PhD student. This week she will get her doctorate for a study of Dutch gay politics over the past 60 years.
One of the important moments in the post-war gay movement is undoubtedly the first gay demonstration in the Netherlands (and even in Europe), which took place exactly fifty-five years ago this month in the Binnenhof. The main require of the demonstrators then was the abolition of the 1911 article 248bis of the penal code that prohibited sexual acts between adults and minors of the alike sex, a prohibition that did not apply to heterosexuals. Lesbian student Joke Swiebel attended this “peaceful demonstration of gay people,” as reported by newspaper De Telegraaf. The demonstration of “the nearly 100 cheerful gays” was successful: the contested article of the regulation was scrapped two years later.
But with that, the strife for equal same-sex attracted rights was far from over. In fact, the battle only really began then, according to
Pliny Soocoormanee of the PTF speaks with Andrew Lumsden about the man who intensified the repression of gay and attracted to both genders men in 1885
London, UK − 22 February 2019
Pliny Soocoormanee (PS):Tell us a tiny about yourself, Andrew.
Andrew Lumsden (AL): I took for granted that I was unbent and thought for a while that I would acquire a wife and children and a house. I managed to combine that with falling in love with another boy in my school. I was 16 and he was 15. I never told him, and we never did anything.
I was told a lot of people travel through a lgbtq+ phase, and I thought that was it.
I realised for sure at the age of 25 that it wasn’t a phase and that I was queer. The pos gay at the time was barely used. I was furious at the deception. I felt that in effect I’d let down my friends, my family and people who knew me at work. As we say now, I’d internalised the homophobia. So, when I heard about the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) in 1970 at the age of 28, I went there with rage in the heart at what I’d missing for years and had cost others, especially women I’d unintentionally deceived.
PS: You were part of the GLF (Gay Liberation Front) at the first Long before substantive due process and equal protection extended constitutional rights to homosexuals under the Fourteenth Amendment, in three landmark decisions by the Supreme Court of the Merged States, First Amendment commandment was both a weapon and shield in the expansion of LGBT rights. This Article examines constitutional law and “gaylaw” from the perspective of its beginning, through case studies of One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958), Sunshine Guide Co. v. Summerfield (1958), and Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day (1962). In protecting free press rights of sexual minorities to use the U.S. mail for mass communications, the Warren Court’s liberalization of obscenity law and protections of free press rights for homosexuals allowed LGBT Americans to develop culture, build communities, and try social justice during a particularly oppressive time in U.S. history.
William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice
Abstract
Repository Citation
Jason M. Shepard, The First Amendment and the Roots of LGBT Rights Law: Censorship in the First Homophile Era, 1958-1962, 26 Wm. & Mary J. Race, Gender, & Soc. Just. 599 (2020), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmjowl/vo