Gay Politics
As stated elsewhere I find the Dutch a most fascinating nation. They have tackled problems which we are only just considering. Below are nine articles from Radio Netherlands, devoted in the main part to the inclusion of gays within their society. I believe we have much to learn from this Dutch experience.
Five years of gay marriage
Dutch Gay Marriages Legalised
God, fate and president Bush
Not a gay matter?
Spain says ‘yes’ to same-sex marriage
Pride and Prejudice
"They hate our way of life"
Fight for the right... to party
?? Mention the Kids
See also
It's exactly five years this month since the
first gay and lesbian
weddings were allowed in the Netherlands. At the time, this was the
only country in the world where it was possible for gay couples to
marry. On the day itself, 1 April 2001, the international media flocked
to the event and just after midnight, surrounded by their friends and
families, Amsterdam Mayor Job Cohen conducted the marriage of four
couples, three gay and one lesbian.
"If I had known that the marriage would attract
such an enormous amount
of attention, I would never have agreed to be the first to marry", says
Anne Marie Thus five years later in her home in Amsterdam's Osdorp
district. "When we arrived from our hotel and found this huge number of satellite vans from the international media, I was really shocked. Fortunately, we found our families among the crowd of journalists, which gave us a sense of comfort. It was overwhelming, but also beautiful: the city hall was decorated with roses and Mayor Job Cohen gave a lovely speech."
Registered partnerships
Since the Netherlands made it legal for marriage contracts between homosexual partners, two other European countries have followed suit: Belgium and Spain. Outside of Europe, gay and lesbian couples can marry in Canada and in the US state of Massachusetts.
South Africa will probably introduce same-sex marriage this year. About 30 countries in the world recognise the so-called 'registered partnership', which is different from marriage in that it does not automatically give both partners parental rights over children.
Rush to marry
During the first year, no fewer than 2414 gay and lesbian couples married in the Netherlands. According to Marian Baker of the International Homosexual/Lesbian Information Centre and Archive (IHLIA), there was already a large group of couples that had wanted to marry before the legislation was brought in. After the law was changed, the rate of same-sex marriages stabilised to around 1200 per year.
Gay divorcee
Homosexuals marry less often than heterosexuals, according to Jan Latten of the Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS). This is believed to be because they have children less often than straight couples. The divorce rate, though, is the same as that of heterosexuals, but lesbians divorce more often than gay men.
Anne Marie Thus, one of the first lesbians to marry, has since given birth to two children from an unknown donor father. "The difference with a heterosexual marriage is that my wife does not have the same rights as the father, who can confirm the child as his at the city hall. This is the only remaining part of Dutch family law where women do not have the same rights.
It took three years before my wife could adopt our child, which legally makes her the mother. Homosexuals are also not able to adopt children as a couple; only one of the two can do this individually." Anne Marie Thus has established a website called "more than wanted" in order to get this last remaining distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals removed from the law.
Still not equal
In the past five years, gay marriage has become accepted almost everywhere in the Netherlands. Problems still happen, though, when gay people who married here want to live or work abroad. Because their marriage is not often recognised in other countries, they are sometimes unable to get a residence or work permit. The emancipation of gay people is not yet complete, but recognition of same-sex marriage in the Netherlands has been a giant leap towards it.
Sebastiaan
Gottlieb
Dutch gay couples will soon be allowed to marry. The Netherlands will then be the first country in the world where people of the same sex can have a marriage with the same legal status as heterosexual couples. For gay rights activists, it's their crowning achievement after a long legal struggle for equal rights. But Christian parties in the Netherlands are vehemently opposed to the bill.
The Dutch legal system will soon be rid of any distinction between same-sex couples and traditional different-sex couples. After an historic debate, the Dutch parliament voted in favour of a bill put forward by the cabinet, led by Prime Minister Wim Kok.
Steered through Parliament
The current cabinet is a three-way coalition of Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats. It's the second successive coalition government without the participation of the Christian Democrats, who ruled the country for 80 years. Now the Christian democrats are in opposition, where they failed to muster sufficient support to defeat the bill. Only a number of radical Christian fringe parties are against same-sex marriages. The bill is therefore expected to be endorsed by well over 100 of the 150 seats in Parliament.
Heated Debate
The Netherlands has always taken a leading position in the international arena when it comes to granting equal rights to gays and lesbians. But domestically, the issue has always sparked unusually heated debates. While those supporting the bill see it as the ultimate triumph of equal rights and emancipation, opponents believe that the devil had a hand in it. They predict that the new law will be impossible to uphold internationally, because no other country or culture recognises same-sex marriages. They warn that gay married couples may even be prosecuted abroad. Unimpressed by these arguments, supporters of the bill are counting their blessings. They refer to a recent survey which suggests that in The Netherlands itself, more than 85 per cent of the population have no objection to same-sex marriages.
Symbolic Significance
At present, the bill has only symbolic significance. There are a number of legal complexities to be solved before it becomes Dutch law. These include adoption and the position of children within a gay marriage. Special commissions will be set up to perform case studies and hammer out a legal framework. In anticipation of such a legal basis, Dutch Parliament has endorsed a motion that will allow the adoption of Dutch children by gay couples.
All in all, The Netherlands has taken an unprecedented step towards full equal rights that may soon be copied abroad. Other countries have been following the debate in the Dutch Parliament with great interest. For its part, the government in The Hague says it will actively promote the new bill abroad.
Rutger
van Santen 08-09-2000
Accepting his party's nomination to stand for
re-election on 2
November, President George Bush made the war on terrorism the
cornerstone of his campaign.In his speech to the Republican convention, he echoed earlier speakers who had painted Democrat challenger John Kerry as too weak and indecisive to lead a country fighting an epic struggle against global terror.
On the final day of the four-day Republican National Convention at Madison Square Garden, New York Governor George Pataki was given the honour to introduce President Bush. Like almost all other convention speakers, he evoked the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Towers. Like all other convention speakers, he extravagantly praised the personal courage and moral leadership of his president.
"He is one of those men God and fate somehow lead to the fore in times of challenge. And he is lighting the way to better times, a safer land, and hope. He is my friend, he is our president, President George Bush."
In his acceptance speech, President Bush emphasized to the Republican delegates and the American voters watching him on prime-time television how high the stakes are. The Trade Towers stood less than three miles from Madison Square Garden, which was the only reason that the Bush re-election campaign chose to have the convention in New York: a first in the history of the Republican party.
"I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch."
Domestic issues
President Bush spoke about domestic issues, too. He promised reforms and improvements in education, health care and social security. He carefully mentioned his concern for the rights of unborn children, and stressed that same sex marriages should never be. During the convention, Republicans with moderate views on social issues, such as California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and Governor Pataki, were prominently featured to attract moderate swing voters.
However, at its base and in its election platform, the Republican party advocates strong anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage measures. But these issues, and perhaps even the bread-and-butter issues of stagnating job growth and stagnating incomes for the middle class, may all be overshadowed by the issue of national security at a time of war and terrorist threats. That's the one issue in which President Bush has a clear advantage in the opinion polls over his opponent, Democratic Senator John Kerry. That's the issue the Republicans want this election campaign to be about.
War president
In his speech, Mr Bush repeated his explanations for his decision to wage war in Iraq. It's part of the war on terror, he explained. The US is fighting abroad to prevent having to fight in the streets of American cities, he said. And the president strongly claimed that John Kerry's voting record in the Senate and his view on the ongoing war on terror make him a bad choice for commander-in-chief.
"Again, my opponent takes a different approach. In the midst of war, he has called America's allies, quote, a ‘coalition of the coerced and the bribed.' That would be nations like Great Britain, Poland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, El Salvador, Australia, and others - allies that deserve the respect of all Americans, not the scorn of a politician."
Tough challenge
Security measures were extremely tight in Manhattan. Still, demonstrators managed to interrupt the Bush acceptance speech twice briefly inside Madison Square Garden. But in general, the Republican message that only George Bush is man enough to lead the United States for another four years came across loud and clear.
John Kerry will have a hard time in the next two months to counter the impression the Republicans have cultivated about him: that he is too inconsistent in his positions, too weak on national defence, and too willing to subordinate American interests to the interests of other countries or the United Nations to be a credible war-time leader.
Reinout van Wagtendonk 03-09-2000
"Marriage is important to civil society, because it's the institution which facilitates the reproduction of the human race and the nurture of children in households with both a mother and a father. And that is something that homosexual relationships cannot produce, and therefore they don't serve the public purpose of marriage.
"Why should you make any difference between gay people loving each other and straight people loving each other? They want a contract and they want regulations so that they can take care of each other."
On Thursday 4 March, Radio Netherlands' interactive discussion programme the Amsterdam Forum homed in on US President George W Bush's plan to outlaw gay marriage by changing the constitution. Mr Bush says he's acting to defend what he calls the most fundamental institution of civilisation: marriage between a man and a woman.
Thousands of gay and lesbian couples have been married in California since San Francisco's mayor began issuing wedding licenses there a few weeks ago.
The move has infuriated conservatives and led to the president's call for constitutional change. Activists, though, say the president's stand amounts to trying to enshrine discrimination in the constitution.
Three years ago, the Netherlands became the first country in the world to give full legal recognition to same sex marriage. Campaigners here are backing moves to extend similar rights in the US.
The statements above come from Amsterdam Forum panellists Peter Sprigg, the director of the Centre for Marriage and Family Studies in the US, who backs President Bush's call, and Henk Krol, founder of the Gay Krant magazine, Europe's biggest gay and lesbian publication.
They joined Forum host Andy Clark, who kicked off the discussion with an email from Sherry Buttnor from Victoria in Canada, who wrote:
"Discrimination,
whether it be against people of colour, race, or
sexual orientation, is still discrimination, and it is never the right
path to take. Same-sex couples must have the same rights
vis-à-vis marriage as any opposite-sex couple whether we agree
with their lifestyle or not. They are human beings, and deserve no less
than full equality."
Peter Sprigg detected in the email a "false underlying presumption - that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is like colour or race."
"Now, the reason we have laws against discrimination based on race is because race is a characteristic that is inborn, immutable, involuntary, innocuous and in our constitution. None of those five things apply to a person's chosen sexual behaviour. Although their sexual attractions may fall into the involuntary category, they are really not comparable with innate characteristics, such as race."
Andrew Tezikuba, from Uganda, wrote that he's "also behind President Bush in opposing this. These people are breaking the law of God biblically." It's a point echoed by other emails sent to the Forum. Don Rhodes from Melbourne, Australia, for instance, quotes the Bible as saying ‘man shall not sleep with men'. "End of story as far as I'm concerned," he adds, "but also there is a very practical reason for this, and its called AIDS and the spread of AIDS."
Henk Krol replied that he has some fundamental objections to the notion of gay marriage, too.
"I think it's better if you open up a legal marriage for everyone, and you don't make a separate institution for gay and for straight people. What those people want is to keep their marriage in church, as it is. Again, I'm not against that, because it's very different if you have a marriage in church or in the city hall, where everyone is equal and should be treated equally as a citizen. If you don't have the right to marry in church, you can go to another church."
"I think President Bush, like a lot of other people in the Netherlands years and years ago, is thinking about marriage in church, and we're talking here about civil marriage, legal marriage, and that's something different and should be equal. And I would like to add that sexual behaviour is not something you choose, you're born with that."
Does Peter Sprigg agree that President Bush is failing to make the distinction between civil marriages and those in a church setting?
"Well, I think we are talking about civil marriage and the one thing I find myself agreeing with homosexual activists on is that the debate is not over what churches may or may not do. Churches have a religious right to practise whatever kind of ceremony they want."
"But the point is: if the only reason for recognising marriage is because you have people who love one another and want to make a commitment to one another, why in the world do we involve the government in that?"
"There has to be some larger public purpose to explain why marriage is a public institution and a civil institution at all. And I think the logical answer to that question is that marriage is important to civil society, because it's the institution which facilitates the reproduction of the human race and the nurture of children in households with both a mother and a father. And that is something that homosexual relationships cannot produce, and therefore they don't serve the public purpose of marriage."
Henk Krol replied:
"Why should you make any difference between gay people loving each other and straight people loving each other? They want a contract and they want regulations so that they can take care of each other, and don't forget legal marriage is the only contract where other parties are involved.
If two people go to a notary and they put their signature to a document, two people are involved. The only contract where other people are involved is called civil marriage. If you go to the city hall and two people sign, then suddenly your employer, the city, the tax office, they all are involved, too. And that makes it so important. And that's why gay and lesbian people want to use that institution."
In another email, Joseph Merrill from the US, commented with a pun: "I think this is a very queer move by Mr Bush. Very queer indeed. The constitution is supposed to establish the responsibilities of the government and the rights of the people. The idea of writing discrimination into this most fundamental document of law is sickening. As a heterosexual I am embarrassed."
Henk Krol, though, says he wasn't sickened when he first heard about President Bush's plans:
"I was very pleased. We saw something similar in the Netherlands, when two years ago, an imam, a leader of the Muslim church, spoke out against homosexual behaviour. Because of that, we saw suddenly that there was a big discussion within the Islam in the Netherlands. And that was the start of big progress within that part of society. Now we see everyone talking about gay marriage in the US, and that will help the gay movement."
Peter Sprigg thinks "the homosexual movement has overreached. And you're seeing a backlash now, you're seeing it in the opinion polls in the US that opposition to same sex marriage is overwhelming by about a two to one margin within the public and it's growing, because people think it violates common sense, it violates the order of nature and I think at one point, people didn't really believe that people were seriously considering this."
Henk Krol partially agrees with this assessment. But he adds that when it comes to US public perception, Mr Sprigg "means it's all going too far right now. But in the future, I can predict that every civilised country in the world will accept marriage for gay and lesbian people."
Other comments and questions from Radio Netherlands Web site viewers and listeners came from Brian Landis, Elizabeth Dietrich, Kent Moorlach and Fred Logue from the US, Jasmin Nanda from India, Willer Simandjuntak from Indonesia and Hein de Jong and Tom Burgell from Australia. The above is an extract of the Forum – to hear the entire programme in RealAudio format, click here. To find out when this Amsterdam Forum will be broadcast in your region of the world, check out our frequency quide.
Our panellists were:
Peter Sprigg, the director of the Centre for Marriage and Family Studies in the US, who says:
"No culture at any time or any place in human history has ever treated homosexual relationships as being the equivalent of marriage. Neither gay rights activists nor the New York Times has the right or the power to redefine the institution of marriage."
Henk Krol, founder of the Gay Krant magazine, Europe's biggest gay and lesbian publication:
"Gay marriage is the wrong name. This is about the opening up of civil marriage for everyone including homosexuals. After all we don't talk about ‘Turkish-marriage' or ‘people who wear glasses-marriage'."
Spain’s parliament has given initial backing to a bill which proposes the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. The new law will insert a paragraph into the Civil Code reading ‘marriage will meet the same conditions and will have the same effects be the parties of the same or different sexes.’
Prime Minister José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero introduced the bill as part of a raft of liberal reforms that also include making divorce easier, loosening restrictions on abortion and allowing stem-cell research. The bill was passed by 183 votes to 186, with six abstentions and must now go before the Senate for approval, followed by a second reading in the lower house.
Seventy percent in favour
The bill is expected to be passed with relative ease, however, since only the conservative opposition Popular Party and a Catalonian Christian democrat party have said they will vote against it. The law also has the broad support of the Spanish population: according to a recent poll, some 70 percent are in favour of legal recognition of same-sex relationships.
If successful, Spanish marriage laws will then be amended to give lesbian and gay relationships the same legal status as heterosexual ones, and will encompass pension and inheritance rights as well as allowing couples to adopt.
Gay marriage ‘erodes European identity’
But the reality of gay and lesbian marriage seems likely to spark off fresh battles with the Roman Catholic Church, which fears its influence in Spain is waning. Last year, the Church dubbed homosexual behaviour ‘intrinsically bad,’ and condemnation has come quickly from the Spanish bishops, who say the new bill is “harmful to the common good.” These comments come in the wake of the recent election of conservative Pope Benedict XVI, and follow on from doubts expressed in January by the late John Paul II about the increasing secularisation of Spain. The new pope has already spoken out against same-sex unions, saying that they destroy the very concept of marriage, and also eat away at Europe’s social identity.
Full marriage
If the law is passed in full, it will make Spain part of an elite band of European countries granting full parity in the eyes of the law between gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples. The Netherlands led the way in 2001, followed by Belgium two years later. Several other European nations allow same-sex couples to register partnerships; as far back as 1989, Denmark introduced a law granting recognition to gay and lesbian relationships. Throughout the 1990s, other Scandinavian countries followed suit. A year later, the Constitutional Court in Hungary threw out a law which sought to prevent common-law marriage from applying to couples of the same gender.
In November 2004, the UK introduced the Civil Partnership Act, which grants same-sex couples legal recognition. However, since heterosexual couples cannot register their relationships under the Act - which is describes civil partnerships as ‘distinct from marriage’ - many critics have accused the British government of a two-tier approach. There is no recognition in any form of same-sex relationships in Austria, Ireland, Italy, Greece or Luxembourg.
Comparing
the lives of gay men over two centuries
|
"When we first think about the life of a homosexual in
the Victorian age in the nineteenth century it sounds as though it
would have been living hell because sodomites were punished and
pilloried and put in prison but the reality is that it was more of a
twilight existence. It was a sense of shame they had the fact that they
were leading lives which were a sham and that there was this whole part
of their lives which they couldn't possibly make public or usually
express even in society or in private." |
 |
Life for a homosexual man in the nineteenth century was certainly difficult considering the social constraints of the time and the impossibility of "coming out" to family or friends. It would have been better to remain silent about one's leanings.
This is the accepted, perceived wisdom of a gay man's lot in this period but what is little known is that at the same time there were certain parts of big cities around the world that had large gay communities and where men could be flagrant and flamboyant. And very few men were prosecuted for their sexuality. The statistics actually show that it was in the twentieth century that the openly repressive age began, especially in the United States and Britain, where in the 1950s huge numbers of gay men were rounded up and deliberately persecuted.
Grand clubs
John Leander grew up in Chicago in that period and says that gay bars were often raided by the police and the names and addresses of the men were printed on the front pages of respectable newspapers.
At the same time though, he remembers secret clubs in London which were very popular:
"Some of them were frightfully grand. There was one called the Apollo club that actually had their own notepaper. They had copies of 'Horse and Hounds' and 'Country life'. It was terribly, terribly nice. I'm almost sorry it's not still there."
Such clubs also existed in the nineteenth century. From St Petersburg, to Barcelona, Paris and Amsterdam. And books were published which outwardly gave the impression of moral diatribes against such behaviour but in fact would be pointers for where gays could go to find like-minded men.
Tolerant Dutch capital
Amsterdam continued to be a magnet for
homosexuals throughout the
twentieth century. Guy Duncan, an Englishman who's now in his eighties
says that Amsterdam was the only place he went to abroad for many
years. At a time when homosexuality was illegal in Britain and the
chances of being prosecuted were high, Amsterdam was a haven of
tolerance. It was here you could go to clubs and bars and meet people
of many different nationalities who had also descended upon the city
for the same reason. The Netherlands is still considered to be at the vanguard of tolerance and equality for gay men and lesbians, and in 2001 was the first country in the world to legalise marriage for them.
It's a far cry from the legal position of homosexuals at the turn of the twentieth century and the way in which they were perceived. The medical profession treated them as experimental subjects. Hypnosis, psychoanalysis and electric shock treatment were widely used. And the early medical textbooks based on so-called research were just prejudice dressed up as science.
One such example was by the French doctor Monsieur Tardier who wrote:
"I have encountered some of these ambivalent individuals who not only had shriller voices, weaker muscles and softer, more flaccid flesh but also that greater proportional width of the pelvis which as we have said characterises the bone structure of the female body and consequently they walked like women."
Medical enlightenment
Concurrently though, a degree of medical enlightenment started to appear during this period. Graham Robb says "the big change that happened very gradually in the medical profession in the latter half of the nineteenth century was the discovery of the human being who was gay but also happy and normal. As more detailed investigations of the mental world of these people came in, doctors - at least the more intelligent doctors - were forced to listen to the people they were investigating."
Ironically, the medical profession performed a great service for gay men because by publishing their accounts of life as a gay man they made other gay men who may have thought they were unique, aware that there were other people like themselves. These were the first gay books and the onset of the gay liberation movement.
Certainly, Europe has seen massive changes in the legal and medical arenas. Although there is a caveat to that. Graham Robb says:
"Ideas about homosexuality have certainly changed but I think etiquette has changed more than private attitudes so that people will now behave in public in a different way but they still have some of the same ideas and really a lot of those changes that seem so dramatic to some people are dangerously superficial."
Advancing integration
Many may disagree and would say that rights for homosexuals have been integrated into the very framework of western society. As a consequence any retrograde steps are highly unlikely and social attitudes against homosexuality will gradually erode away through time.
The last word can be left for Guy Duncan, who as someone who's lived through most of the twentieth century is well placed to comment. "There's absolutely no doubt in my mind at all. I have been very, very happy as a gay man," he says.
"On the other hand things can't be taken for granted that it's going to go on like this. Oh, it would be horrifying to go back to the days of the witch-hunts like when I was a kid. Oh, no no no, I would not want that for anyone."
Chris
Chambers 21-02-2005
There's a scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where King Arthur confronts a black knight, who challenges him to a duel. Arthur lops off one of his opponent's arms, but the black knight keeps taunting him. "Snick!" There goes the other arm, then one leg and then another, until the knight is reduced to a mere trunk, with blood spurting in all directions. But still he doesn't give up. "Come on then, you coward, do your worst!" he shouts, or words to that effect. Funny thing, defiance.
After the initial shock at watching the horrific images from London last week, the predominant feeling I had was one of admiration for the way the police and emergency services went about their business. They'd trained for just such a situation, of course, but perhaps without expecting ever having to do it for real. They rose to the grisly task magnificently, as far as I could see. My admiration, though, was as nothing compared with the adulation Londoners - egged on by the media - heaped on themselves. Everything, from the spirit of the Blitz to the inherent strength of the multicultural community, was trotted out, as if to suggest that, far from a city being hit without warning by an invisible enemy we had actually witnessed a major victory over the terrorists.
"London 1 - Al Qaeda 0" said one headline. Huh?
Prime Minister Tony Blair added to the confusion by informing us on the one hand that the sole purpose of these evil men is to maim and kill (in the absence of a serious political agenda) and, on the other, claiming that the terrorists will never succeed. For men who want to maim and kill - and nothing else - they'd just succeeded remarkably well, I thought. Nor could the WTC, Bali and Madrid be classified as dismal failures, from a maiming and killing point of view.
The Blairs and Bushes of this world are in a bit of a cleft stick over terrorism. Unwilling to admit that there are political motives behind the attacks (opposition to American world dominance, to its friendly relations with undemocratic but oil-rich regimes in the Middle East, to its unquestioning support of Israel and, more recently, to the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq) they have no other explanation to offer than the existence of groups of people who kill others - and frequently themselves - for the sheer hell of it. Not very persuasive -and that's why a new reason has been added to the mantra: "they hate our way of life". Oh right.
So that's why I may in the near future be reduced to a mess on the pavement: they hate my way of life. They've never in my 64 years hated my way of life enough to blow me to bits, but now I'm told they do. Pull the other one, boys. It's a con, designed to keep your public on side. A political motive behind terrorism would suggest that there is a political way to deal with it. This Bush and Blair are not prepared to do. Much better, then, to give people the idea that somehow not governments and their actions are the cause but the general public, the men and women in the street themselves. We're guilty, because of our way of life. There's nothing our leaders can or will do to protect us, so we must take it on the chin and raise our fists in defiance. "Come on you cowards! Do your worst! You won't get us down! We'll keep our way of life!" I can see the bombers of trains and buses shaking with helpless laughter already.
So now we wait to see whose way of life will next arouse the anger of evil men. Could it be the Italians, whose taste for extravagant shirts and artichokes alarms even non-Arabs? Or Denmark, where the Danish way of life - including a diet rich in raw eggs - is now being protected by the most draconian immigration policy in Europe? Or could it be the Netherlands, where our hateful predilections include cannabis, free sex, gay marriage, euthanasia and salt-cured herring with onions and pickle? The same Netherlands where Islamic fundamentalism is currently on trial in the person of Mohammed Bouyeri, the killer of Theo van Gogh? I hope not, but if we're due some punishment at least we'll know it's our own fault, not that of our elected leaders. With the blood of innocents running down the gutter there's only one course of action. Be defiant, that'll teach these evil men.
Commentary
by Tim Fisher 06-08-2004
The Dutch capital is about to witness the ninth annual gay weekend
known as Amsterdam Pride. The now traditional August event, where the
colourful canal parade of boats laden with extravagantly dressed
homosexual women and men attracts the greatest attention, bears the
name "pride" in the same way as other more political homosexual marches
and events across the world. However, some within the Dutch gay
community feel the celebrations do not reflect their lives and, in a
time where a decline is taking place in the acceptance of homosexuality
in the Netherlands, do little to help maintain the rights and liberties
the gay community has managed to win since the Second World War.The Amsterdam Pride weekend was launched in the 1990s to help maintain the city's reputation as the "Gay capital of Europe" in the face of increasing commercial competition for the homosexual "pink" dollar from other European cities such as London and Berlin. Almost everyone likes a party, and Amsterdam Pride is very much a celebratory event, with street parties and special club nights on offer to entertain pleasure-minded gays from all over the world.
Pride and protest
One might be forgiven for thinking it well reflects the Dutch acceptance of homosexuality, said to be most in evidence in the country's capital. Yet some in the country's gay community take exception to the "pride" label, which harks back to a time - not so many years ago - when gay men and women took to the streets to show they existed, to demonstrate for their right to live as they chose and to fight intolerance and injustice.
Some would argue that there's a growing need for that kind of political campaigning to come to the forefront again for, despite the rights acquired by Dutch homosexuals over the years, many are noticing a decline in the level of acceptance, and even tolerance, of their sexual orientation.
A newly published survey, commissioned by Dutch gay magazine De GayKrant, shows that the one in five gays in the country experienced some kind of threatening behaviour in the last 12 months, with anti-gay aggression also on the increase in the capital, Amsterdam. Three quarters of the people who took part in the survey think tolerance of homosexuality in the country is dropping.
Changing population, changing attitudes
One factor behind the change is the presence of a large minority population in the country who either follow Islam or have an Islamic background. For example, reports earlier this year about texts being distributed in an Amsterdam mosque, calling for homosexuals to be killed, caused a considerable stir. The presence of large numbers of children of Turkish or Moroccan descent is also said to be a factor behind many schools in the country now choosing to gloss over the subject of same-sex relationships and related issues in their curricula. At one time, many Dutch schools would invite representatives of the gay community to come and talk about the subject, whilst the idea of openly homosexual teachers providing an example for school pupils of all sexual orientations was encouraged in many instances.
A frontrunner
For many decades the Netherlands led the way in the field of gay rights, becoming the first country to officially sanction same-sex marriage in 2001. With many homosexuals in the country now living or growing up in a society where it seems there's little for them to fight for, the political aspect of gay life has become increasingly less important.
The country's long running "Pink Saturday" demonstration, held in June each year and - more recently - in one of the country's smaller towns or cities, began as a truly political march following the example of the Gay Pride demonstrations and events in the United States. These events mark New York's Stonewall riots of June 1969, which were sparked by brutal police harassment of customers at a gay bar of the same name and are regarded by many as the start of the gay community meeting prejudice head on.
From protest to flesh
Pink Saturday once drew headlines in the Dutch media, especially when incidents took place involving anti-gay elements, but it has now been surpassed by media attention for Amsterdam Pride. Although the Amsterdam weekend hosts other events - such as this year's conference of gay police officers from various countries - the media often prefer to focus on just how much flesh is visible on the collection of boats in the canal parade, and whether any of the spectators on dry land take offence.
Perhaps the time has arrived for the homosexual community to think again about taking to the streets in defence of its hard-won recognition, before that disappears and takes the right to party on the Amsterdam canals with it.
An increasing number of homes for the elderly in The Netherlands focus on a specific target group, so that elderly people can choose a place where they will feel at home. One example is the L.A. Ries House in Amsterdam, which accommodates seven elderly gay men.
In The Netherlands there are homes to fit different groups of elderly people. They find a place according to their religion, country of origin or lifestyle. For a long time, homosexuals weren't regarded as a separate target group, even though they certainly felt the need for their own place to spend their old age. Elderly homosexuals often feel lonely in a regular senior people's home.
Children
69-year old Chris Messelaar was one of the first occupants of the L.A. Ries House, a sheltered accommodation complex in the centre of Amsterdam. ‘I wouldn't like to be in a heterosexual environment all the time. Elderly people like to talk about their children and their grandchildren, for instance. A large number of homosexuals do not have children and find it hard to join in. For them talking about kids is awkward.'
Acceptance
In the middle of the nineties it seemed homosexuality had been generally accepted. But a survey by the gay rights organisation COC and the University of Amsterdam revealed that social workers did have a problem with it. Researchers were baffled to find that directors of senior homes said things like: ‘There is no homosexuality here'. The turn came only after 1998, as a result of all the publicity about the new L.A. Ries House. Since that time, other municipalities are paying attention to facilities for elderly gays as well.
Good Contact
Chris has a nice apartment in a quiet street: a large reception room, bathroom and toilet and a separate bedroom. In principle he is self-supporting, but when he does need help or a doctor, staff of next-door's senior people's home De Rietvinck step in. The seven occupants of the L.A. Ries House have a good companionship, he says. ‘We always have time for each other, and when someone is ill we always visit'.
Contact with the regular senior people's home is good as well. Chris often goes there for supper. ‘We are lucky with them. One summer evening, when we had only been here for six months, we were walking past their terrace. Some people were sitting outside and we overheard one of them say: "funny isn't it, they're just like normal people. And they're so nice". That made me chuckle, but it also made me feel good. If at the start we had behaved like a bunch of raving queens, we would have ruined everything. But that would have been the wrong thing to do. After all, we're guests there.'
Seclusion
Chris admits that it is difficult to talk with the heterosexual occupants about his private life or about homosexuality. ‘That's hard to understand for them, and for most other people as well. That's why I'm so happy that we can talk amongst ourselves'.
Despite the obvious advantages of living in the L.A. Ries House, he is also aware of the downside. Because aren't homosexuals closing themselves off too much? ‘In the end I think this is not the right solution. The L.A. Ries House Foundation and a number of branches of the COC are currently realizing mixed projects. And that's better. It may also be because, in the case of the heterosexuals, it is a conscious choice and they don't have problems mixing with homosexuals. And for us it is good to step out of our own little circle. Because the danger of seclusion is always looming'.
Willemien
Groot 17-06-2002
See also
Will the Pope ban gay clergy?
Documentary on gay Muslims will cause a ruckus
Gay cowboys fail to romp home
Islam and gays - common cause?
Homosexuals - Britain, China and the Western Isles