Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 09:38:25 +0100 (MET)
From: steff@inet.uni-c.dk

EURO-LETTER 
No. 46						     December 1996

THE EURO-LETTER IS PUBLISHED ON BEHALF OF ILGA - THE
INTERNATIONAL LESBIAN AND GAY ASSOCIATION - BY THE DANISH
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GAYS AND LESBIANS IN COOPERATION WITH
GAY AND LESBIAN INTERNATIONAL LOBBY. EDITORS: STEFFEN JENSEN,
KEN THOMASSEN, PETER BRYLD AND LISBETH ANDERSEN  Contact to
Euro-Letter: E-mail: steff@inet.uni-c.dk URL:
http://www.inet.uni-c.dk/~steff Fax: +45 2036 7856 Tel: +45 3124
6435 Mobile: +45 2033 0840 Mail: c/o Steffen Jensen, Gl.
Kongevej 31, 4.th, DK-1610 Copenhagen V, Denmark  You can
receive Euro-Letter by e-mail (send a message to the above
adress) and from no 30 onwards the Euro-Letters are avaiable on
the Internet at 
http://fglb.qrd.org:8080/fqrd/assocs/ilga/euroletter.html
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/www/orgs/ILGA/euroletter  You can find a
link to Euro-Letters at http://www.inet.uni-c.dk/~steff 


IN THIS ISSUE

LAW REFORM IN AUSTRIA: PARTIAL VICTORY: BAN ON INFORMATION 
AND ASSOCIATION REPEALED -  AGE OF CONSENT LAW UNCHANGED 

AUSTRIA IN FAVOR OF EU TREATY WITH HUMAN RIGHTS 

BACKLASH IN EU TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

ILGA PRESS RELEASE

PROBLEMS WITH THE PARENTAL LEAVE EU-DIRECTIVE 

REPORT ON ILGA'S ACTIVITIES AT THE OSCE REVIEW CONFERENCE,
VIENNA, NOVEMBER 1996 

SPANISH SOCIALIST PARTY HAS SUBMITTED A PARTNERSHIP LAW TO
SPANISH PARLIAMENT 

SWITZERLAND: GAY AND LESBIANS ARE SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS 

DUTCH SECOND CHAMBER OF PARLIAMENT AGREES ON PARTNERSHIP REGI-
STRATION 

86 COUNTRIES BAN GAY SEX 

An update of the Survey on the Legal Situation for Gays and
Lesbians in Europe and guides to the structure of the European
Union, the Council of Europe and The Organisation for Security
and Cooperation in Europe can be found on this URL: 

http://www.inet.uni-c.dk/~steff/glil.htm


LAW REFORM IN AUSTRIA: 
PARTIAL VICTORY BAN ON INFORMATION AND ASSOCIATION REPEALED AGE
OF CONSENT LAW UNCHANGED 
By Kurt Krickler

On 27 November, the Lower Chamber of Austrian Parliament debated
and voted on repealing the anti-lesbian and anti-gay articles in
the Austrian penal code: Article 209 - higher age of consent of
18 years for male homosexual relations compared to 14 years for
lesbians and heterosexuals; Article 220 - ban on positive
information about homosexuality; Article 221 - ban on the
founding of gay and lesbian organizations.

The most far-reaching bills were introduced by the Social
Democrats, the Greens, and the Liberal Forum who proposed a
total repeal of all three articles. These three parties
constitute the left spectrum in Austrian politics, but do not
have a majority in Parliament. The passage of these bills needed
the pro-active support of at least three MPs from the
conservative Christian Democratic Party or the right-wing
Freedom Party of Joerg Haider or the deliberate absence of six
of them in order to reduce the quorum. The government coalition
partners (Social Democrats and Conservatives) were not able to
agree on a joint bill. They agreed, however, to an open free
vote, with MPs not bound (at least theoretically) to the
party-line - a very uncommon practice in Austria. This was big
step forward because the Conservatives had blocked any vote for
the last ten years.

The Conservatives not only called for keeping the discriminatory
higher age of consent for gay relations, but introduced their
own bills calling for an intensification (!) of articles 220 and
221. At the last minute, the right-wing Freedom Party also
introduced a bill proposing to fix the age of consent for gay
men at 16 as a compromise, to do some cosmetic changes to
article 220 but to keep it, and to repeal article 221.

After a very heated debate, the various bills were voted on each
separately. The vote on repealing the higher age of consent was
a draw: 91 votes for, 91 votes against, and therefore failed.
Only one MP from the Conservatives and one MP of the Freedom
Party dared not to follow party line and to vote for the repeal
of article 209. The other proposals as mentioned above were also
rejected. The existing discriminatory age of consent law for gay
men will, therefore, continue to be in force in Austria.

The bill on completely abolishing article 220 got a bare
majority of one vote: 90 to 89. This, however, was an accident:
two MPs from the right-wing party were not in the plenary and
missed the ballot.

The complete repeal of article 221 (ban on associations) passed
by a large majority (128 to 52) with only the Christian
Democrats opposed.

On 12 December 1996, the Upper Chamber of the Austrian
Parliament passed, as expected, the Bill on some amendments to
the Austrian Penal code, including the total repeal of Articles
220 and 221 (ban on pro-homosexual information and on
lesbian/gay associations), which was voted, as reported, by the
Lower Chamber on 27 November 1996. The reform, therefore, will
come into force on 1 March 1997.

This development is at least a partial victory for Austria's
lesbian and gay movement which has been fighting for this reform
for 17 years. And of course, we will continue to struggle for
total equality in the penal code.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank all individuals,
groups, and organizations abroad who, in all these 17 years,
have been supporting us in our fight against discrimination of
lesbians and gay men in Austria. We also want to thank those who
took part in this year's campaign which we called for last
April. Your support definitely made the difference and was a
great help in our struggle. Thank you all so much for your
solidarity! We will also need it in the future in our fight for
the repeal of Article 209!


AUSTRIA IN FAVOR OF EU TREATY WITH HUMAN RIGHTS 
By Kurt Krickler

On 3 December, the Austrian Parliament agreed and voted upon its
guidelines for the chapter on "Fundamental Rights" in the new EU
Treaty. In its statement, the Austrian Parliament urges the
Federal government to work within the IGC that the prohibition
of discrimation based on a series of grounds be included in the
new EU treaty. The Parliament listed the same non-discrimination
categories as in the Austro-Italian proposal presented in
October 1996 by foreign ministers Schuessel and Dini (see
Euroletter # 45) but replaced "sexual preference" by "sexual
orientation". While the Schuessel-Dini initiative has a rather
soft wording ("The Union shall make sure that no discrimination
... occurs"), the Austrian Parliament, however, formulated
clearly: "The prohibition of discrimination ... be included in
the Treaty".


BACKLASH IN EU TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

The Irish Presidency's draft framework for Treaty revision which
was being discussed in October/ November contained several
useful provisions from our point of view. Most notably, two
revisions, one to Article F of the Treaty on European Union and
another to Article 6 of the Treaty establishing the European
Community contained provisions which would have represented a
significant step in guaranteeing equal rights for gays and
lesbians in the EU:

i) Supplement to article F:

"Within the scope of application of the Treaties on which the
Union is founded and without prejudice to any special provisions
contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of race, sex,
national or ethnic origin, disability, age, sexual orientation,
religion, social origin [...] shall be prohibited."

This is a general provision on non-discrimination, which,
although of limited legal application, would be of immense
symbolic significance, as it would enshrine non-discrimination
against gays and lesbians as one of the common provisions
fundamental to the Union.

ii) New article 6a:

"Within the scope of application of this Treaty and without
prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, the
Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission
and after consulting the European Parliament, shall take the
necessary measures to prohibit any discrimination on grounds of
race, sex, national or ethnic origin, disability, age, sexual
orientation, religion, social origin [...]."

This is the provision which would give teeth to the general
provisions of Article F. Article 6 is that which forbids
discrimination on grounds of nationality - extending this to
other forms of discrimination would have been a major step
forward, and would have given the Community the legal means to
prevent discrimination in the fields of employment, free
movement of people, social policy etc.etc.(although the
unanimity principle could have been a problem). The wording
OBLIGES the Council to adopt measures - which again would have
been important. 

Unfortunately, at some stage during November, the Presidency was
obliged by some member states to go a good way backwards from
this position. The proposal which will come to the European
Council this weekend is much more limited than the October text:

NO general non-discrimination provision is now being proposed
for Article F. Thus, non-discrimina- tion is no longer a common
provision with the nature of a general principle upon which the
Union is founded. There is still a reference to the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms, but, as we know, this is not explicit on the question
of sexual orientation.

As far as the EC Treaty is concerned, some significant changes
have been made to the proposed new article 6a: (changes in
capitals):

"Within the scope of application of this Treaty and without
prejudice to any special provision contained therein, the
Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission
and after consulting the European Parliament, MAY TAKE THE
NECESSARY MEASURES to prohibit any discrimination on grounds of
sex, race, ETHNIC OR SOCIAL ORIGIN, RELIGIOUS BELIEF, HANDI-
CAP, AGE OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION."

Within the context of the subtleties of such negotiations these
changes are quite significant. A footnote, in any case,
indicates that this is not a definitive list of grounds, and
that the Conference will have to have a more detailed discussion
on this and the precise definitions involved. The change from
"shall take..." to "may take.." is important because it removes
from the Council the obligation to take measures - so the
Council has an excuse to do nothing if it wishes. The new order
within the list is also significant, with religious belief
moving up and sexual orientation down. If November's negative
trend in the negotiations continues , then the next step could
be the removal of "sexual orientation" from the list altogether.

On the positive side, the Italo-Austrian proposal seems still to
be on the table - but it is now clear that their main concern is
freedom of religion - they may, therefore, be content with the
current draft. 


ILGA PRESS RELEASE

The Secretaries General of the International Lesbian and Gay
Association (ILGA), Jordi Petit and Inge Wallaert, denounce and
regret the fact that the European Union heads of state at their
weekend meeting in Dublin did not adopt the human rights
proposals for the reform of the E.U. Treaty of Maastrich that
had been presented by the Irish presidency, which ends at the
end of the year. These proposals would prohibit discrimination
based on sex, ideology... and sexual orientation.

ILGA, a worldwide federation of more than three hundred
homosexual organizations and individuals, deplores the fact that
the heads of state did not pay attention to human rights during
their meeting. Nevertheless, ILGA considers it a positive step
that the Irish presidency had included sexual orientation in its
proposals.

ILGA hopes that in the coming months of the new Dutch presidency
of the E.U. that country will also support human rights concerns
- including prohibi- ting discrimination based on sexual
orientation - for inclusion in the Intergovernmental Conference
(IGC) negotiations on the Treaty revision, as has already been
recommended by the European Parliament and Council.

"ILGA will continue in 1997 to campaign for the recognition of
gay and lesbian rights in the European Union," declared Petit.


PROBLEMS WITH THE PARENTAL LEAVE EU-DIRECTIVE 
By Mark Bell, European University Institute, Florence

On 29 March 1996, the Council of Ministers reached political
agreement on the Parental Leave Directive. The Directive has an
unhappy history - it was first proposed in 1983, then
resubmitted by the Commission as an amended proposal in 1984,
but met with deadlock in the Council of Ministers. Progress was
finally facilitated through utilisation of the Agreement on
Social Policy attached to the Treaty on European Union, allowing
the other 14 Member States to proceed without the UK.

On 31 January 1996, the Commission published its new proposal
for the Parental Leave Directive, based on an agreement reached
between European employers and trades unions in November 1993.
(COM (96) 26) The Directive creates two new rights for European
employees: firstly, the right for men and women to take three
months unpaid leave upon the birth or adoption of a child, and
secondly, the right for all workers to take time off from work
on the grounds of "urgent family reasons". The "urgent family
reasons" are cases of "sickness or accident making the immediate
presence of the worker indispensable." However, also significant
was the proposal from the Commission that Article 2(3) of the
Directive should state that "when Member States adopt the
provisions to implement this Directive, these shall prohibit any
discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, colour,
religion or nationality." (emphasis added).

Not only was the anti-discrimination provision of considerable
symbolic importance, it also promised to be influential in
securing a generous interpretation of the provisions of the
Directive. Nowhere does the Directive actually define who
qualifies as a "parent". Thus, would a lesbian be entitled to
parental leave upon the birth of a child to her partner? The
issue of leave for "urgent family reasons" also raises the
questions concerning the recognition of same-sex couples: would
a gay man be entitled to claim the right to leave in the case of
accident or illness affecting his partner and necessitating his
immediate presence? Given the inclusion of the
anti-discrimination provision, the answer to both these
questions would surely have been `yes'.

When the proposal came before the Council of Ministers, the
Council amended the text to delete the anti-discrimination
provision, and instead inserted a clause in the preamble stating
"whereas the Community Charter on the Fundamental Social Rights
of Workers recognises the importance of the fight against all
forms of discrimination, especially based on sex, colour, race,
opinions and creeds". (OJ 1996 L 145/4) Not only is that clause
not binding upon the Member States, but it conspicuously
excludes any reference to sexual orientation. The decision by
the Council to reject the reference to sexual orientation is a
significant set-back for all those campaigning for equal
treatment of gay men and lesbians by the European Union, and
illustrates the weak nature of the Member States' commitment to
combating all forms of discrimination, as stated in the preamble
of the Social Charter. Moreover, for once the decision cannot be
simply blamed on British intransigence - suggesting that the
obstacles to progress m this sphere of social policy extend far
beyond the shores of the British Isles.


REPORT ON ILGA'S ACTIVITIES AT THE OSCE REVIEW CONFERENCE,
VIENNA, NOVEMBER 1996 
By Kurt Krickler

ILGA was represented by John Clark, Tom Lavell and myself. ILGA
submitted a written presentation and gave two oral statements in
Working Group 1c (on 5 and 8 November; see Euroletters # 45 and
46). Human Dimension Issues were discussed in the first two
weeks of the meeting. As far as I am aware of, the lesbian and
gay issue was only referred to in two statements of national
delegations: The Statement of Ireland on behalf of the European
Union on tolerance on 8 November mentioned "homosexuals" and
"sexual orientation" three times. Romania dedicated a statement
on 13 November solely to the issue of Article 200 (Penal Code)
and gave factual information about the law reform process in
Romania.

All working groups had rapporteurs who produced "official"
reports which were presented to the final plenary and annexed to
the plenary's minutes. The Canadian rapporteur of working group
1c included "our issue" in his report - in the section on
"tolerance":

"Many delegations stressed the importance of tolerance, not only
as an issue of human rights, but also as a matter of conflict
prevention. Intolerance existed in all countries. A group of
States noted that the problems of intolerance were not only
those specified in the work programme, but also arose from
discrimination on other grounds, such as gender or sexual
orientation. Delegations and a large number of NGOs mentioned
specific situations in participating States which they viewed as
breaching OSCE commitments to tolerance and non discrimination,
while other delegations raised their own problems and the
programmes put in place to address these."

This inclusion in the report does, of course, not compensate for
the non-mention of "our issue" in the (binding) final document
of this review meeting which at the same time is the Lisbon
Summit Declaration. However, it would have been totally
unrealistic to expect non-discrimination on the grounds of
sexual orientation to be included in the Summit Declaration.
This became already very clear in my first conversations with
several delegations (I talked to delegates from the USA,
Austria, Canada, Denmark, Spain, Ireland, Norway, Netherlands,
and Sweden). Therefore, I did not invest much time and energy in
lobbying the various delegations. The main reason is: Human
Dimension issues have been dealt with extensively both in
Copenhagen in 1990 and in Moscow in 1991 and in the Paris
Charter; these issues will not be revisited in Final Documents
anymore - and that's why "our issue" cannot be taken into
account and added. If the issue would be addressed now in a
binding document, it would be highlighted too prominently - and
that would certainly not be accepted in the context of the OSCE
with its consensus principle. Imagine a three pages declaration
on the future security policies in Europe of which one paragraph
is dedicated to homosexuality! Would be nice but is unrealistic.
The format of the Lisbon Declaration, however, was focussed on
European security politics. The review conference in Budapest
two years ago was already going in this direction and was
probably our last chance (which, unfortunately, did not
materialise) to get our issue in a binding OSCE Document.

Another weak point is that the national OSCE delegations have
not been lobbied beforehand. Usually, they get instructed back
home before leaving for an OSCE meeting; when confronted at a
busy OSCE meeting with a new specific and particular issue for
the first time, delegations tend to be reluctant to take it up
and contact their foreign offices in order to get new
instructions. More concerted lobbying of ILGA members in the
various OSCE countries before the start of any OSCE conference
would be needed to make lobbying at the meetings more effective.

>From this experience, I would, therefore, suggest that the ILGA
working party reformulate its goals and aims towards the OSCE;
we should simply forget getting non-discrimination based on
sexual orientation in a binding OSCE document. ILGA should
rather use the Implementation Meetings and the Review
Conferences for two purposes:

1) lobby the delegations of countries with bad human rights
records for lesbians and gays; this may turn out not to be very
easy because here in Vienna, for instance, no delegation from
the former Soviet republics in Asia (which I would have liked to
talk with about repeal of total bans on homosexuality) attended
the sessions of Working Group 1c;

2) highlight positive and negative developments in the OSCE in
oral statements and bring forward well-documented examples and
cases of human rights violations in OSCE countries; even Romania
felt obliged to reply to the meeting on Article 200!

It is unclear at the moment when and where the next
implementation and review meetings and summits will take place
but it was obvious in Vienna that many delegations pleaded for
longer intervals between them. Turkey, in any case, has offered
to host the next summit in Istanbul. Denmark will take over the
function of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office for the calendar year
1997, unfortunately not up until the next Summit because this
function is crucial in preparing the agenda and the draft
wording of the final document. But maybe Steffen/LBL
nevertheless could intensify his contacts with the Danish OSCE
delegation in order to promote "our issue". Poland will be
Chairman-in-Office in 1998.

The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
(ODIHR) in Warsaw, by the way, is taking lesbian and gay issues
into account in their reports. In October, 1996, ODIHR published
background material for the Vienna Review Conference. In the
document with the title "Respect for Civil Liberties in the OSCE
Region", a sub-chapter is dedicated to "Imprisonment/Detention
on the grounds of homosexuality". It reads as follows:

"There are three countries in the OSCE region, where homosexual
relations are still considered a criminal offence. Most
available data on related cases is dated from before September
1995, it is therefore in our previous report, so it is not
included here. However, it is possible to say that at least in
one of those countries people are actually imprisoned and
detained on the grounds of homosexuality. In one other country,
although decriminalisation of homosexual acts was rejected by
the Parliament together with a draft Penal Code at the end of
1995, a Minister of Justice decision confirming
decriminalisation of homosexual acts put a stop to imprisonment.
Thus, it is possible to say that the situation has improved
since the previous report and there is only one country actually
punishing people for a different sexual orientation."


SPANISH SOCIALIST PARTY HAS SUBMITTED A PARTNERSHIP LAW TO
SPANISH PARLIAMENT 
By Cesar Cleston

On The Socialist Party (PSOE) has submitted to the Spanish
Parliament a draft for a partnership law which would grant
pension, inheritance, fiscal and other similar benefits to
heterosexual as well as to gay /lesbian partnerships.
Nevertheless, the right of adoption for unmarried couples has
been not incluided. On the other hand, at virtually at the same
time, the Party in Office, the conservative MP Bernarda Barrios,
member of the christian-based Popular Party (PP) has made public
that the Government and her party were ready to pass such a law,
though, like the socialist draft, his party stood against the
right of adoption.

Since the beginning of this legislature, at the beginning of
1996, when the socialist lost office after thriteen years, and
when the conservatives gained power, the Fundacion Triangulo has
already held talks with virtually all the parliament groups in
order to have a partnership law passed.

Hereinafter, the summary of such talks Izquierda Unida (mainly
communists and socialists) ERC (catalan leftist independentists,
Bloque Nacionalista GAlego (galician leftists independentists)
PNV (christian-democrat basque nationalists) and PSOE -
socialists formerly in office, were completely in favour.

CiU (liberal and christian democrat liberal catalans) and
Coalicion Canaria (Canary Islands Regionalists) said they were
in favor of having such a bill passed but, since they are a part
of the coalition in Parliament with the PP, the party in office,
said they would not vote such a bill inconditionally if the
government were to submit their own draft. They nevertheless
acknoweledged to representatives of the Fundacion they would be
voting in favor of the socialist bill should the governemt not
submit a bill of their own.

It should be stressed that the current government is in minority
and depends on the votes of CiU and Coalicion Canaria; such
votes added to those of the other parties in the oposition would
be enough to have the bill passed without the party in office
voting in favor.

So far, tne PP -the party in office- has held talks with the
Fundacion Triangulo at different levels: The General Secretary
for Social Affairs, Ms Amalia Gomez and the MP Maria J.
Camilleri. They both stated the Partnership Bill was no priority
to their government. However, on oct. 28, when it was clear the
socialists were to submit their own bill, Ms Barrios, a PP MP
said the media the Government was in favor of providing some
legal solution for partnerships, wether gay or straight. Ms
Barrios also said the Fundacion Triangulo the Partnership Bill
would be passed within this legislature, before year 2000.

Some Spanish lesbigay groups have jeopardized the partnership
bill when stating they would be dismissing any project not
including adoption; this even led the socialist to consider not
presenting their bill in order not to attract criticism from gay
groups. Such is not the position of the Fundacion Triangulo.
>From our point of view, passing such a Law -also without
adoptions- would be such a great step forward; The Fundacion
will increase their very best efforts to have such a law passed,
also trying the party in office not to vote against.

The great risk now is that parliamentary procedures take so long
we might be racing against time and loosing, as it already
happened when the Socialist Party was in office.


SWITZERLAND: GAY AND LESBIANS ARE SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS 
by Marcel Ryser, Pink Cross and HAB

The Swiss Government presented on Thuesday November 21st 1996
its proposal for a new Swiss Constitution which is to be put
into force in 1998 at the earliest.

The proposal incorporates results of a public opinion poll. In
the process of this poll about two dozen organisations and
parties and nearly 400 citizens have requested an extension of
the Anti-Discrimination Article (Article 7 of the new
Constitution) in such a way as to include 'sexual orientation'
together with race, religion, gender, etc.

Unfortunately the government chose to disregard that claim.
Government is not prepared to recognize that g/l/b/t people are
in fact being discriminated as the government's proposal for the
wording of the Anti-Discrimination-Article does not mention
g/l/b/t people.

In a simultaneous press release Pink Cross (the national gay
organisation) and LOS (Lesbian Organisation of Switzerland) have
indignantly taken note of the government's decision. They have
pointed out the inconsistent attitude of the Government if its
'Eidg. Justiz- und Polizeidepartement' (Federal Ministry of
Justice and Police) merely wants to include so-called "real"
dicriminations in the wording of the Anti-Discrimination
Article, while at the same time disapproving of - and thereby
exerting dicrimination against - any constitutional protection
for lesbians and gay people, although it is a recognised fact
that g/l/b/t people are being disadvantaged in Swiss society and
force is being used against some of its members.

The government's proposal is now going to be debated by
parliamentary commissions and then by Parliament in 1997.

Pink Cros and LOS will fight hard on different levels for an
extension of the Anti-Discriminating Article to inlcude sexual
orientation as well.


DUTCH SECOND CHAMBER OF PARLIA- MENT AGREES ON PARTNERSHIP REGI-
STRATION 
By Michiel Odijk

Dutch lesbian and gay couples as well as straight couples will
get the opportuniy of legal registration of their relationship
in city halls. The Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament (the
House) agreed in principle on a bill with this intent.

The Dutch registered partnership will grant the same rights to
couples as matrimony, except for legal consequences towards
children. Delegates from the parties represented in the
coalition government of the social-democrat party (PvdA), the
right-wing liberal party (VVD)and the left-wing liberal party
(D66) welcomed the arrangement as an important step. This was
evident during the debate in parliament on the 4th of December.
"This is the first time that governement acknowledges that
same-sex couples and oppositie-sex couples have the same
rights," PvdA representative Van der Burg said. "This is a
milestone."

She told that their should be no mistake that she would also
strive at opening up civil marriage for gays and lesbians. Van
der Stoel (VVD) and Dittrich (D66) agreed completely about that.
Earlier this year it became evident that there is a majority of
delegates in the Second Chamber of Parliament in favour of
opening up civil marriage. In April the Chamber adopted a motion
by PvdA and D66 that called upon the government to abolish the
legal prohibition of same-sex marriage. 81 delegates were in
favour, 60 against.

Fundamental opponents of opening up civil marriage are to be
found in the christian democrat party and the small christian
(right-wing) parties. The christian democrats are in favour of
partnership registration, but do not think that this regulation
is necessary for couples of opposite sex. Christian democats do
not oppose to living-together, said their representative
Bremmer, but they think that straight couples will either marry
or stay unregistered.

The debate on opening up marriage will take place separately.
The situation is now that a special commission has been
appointed by the government to sort out the legal consequences,
especially for adoption from foreign countries. The commission
will sunmit its advice to the government in about half a year.

If the Second Chamber of Parliament would agree on opening up
marriage, the Senate would also have to approve legal changes
before they would become effective (as in every legal change).
It seems that the Senate is not as progressive as the Second
Chamber of Parliament is.


86 COUNTRIES BAN GAY SEX 
By Rex Wockner

Eighty-six nations (or semi-independent states) ban gay- male
sex and 44 of those countries also prohibit lesbian sex,
according to data accumulated by the International Gay and
Lesbian Human Rights Commission in San Francisco.

Gay-male sex is illegal in Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua
& Barbuda, Armenia, Australia (Tasmania state only), Azerbaijan,
the Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan,
Bosnia-Herzogovina, Botswana, Brunei, Burma, Cameroon, Cape
Verde Islands, Cayman Islands, Chile, Cook Islands, Cyprus,
Ecuador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Georgia, Ghana, Guyana, India, Iran,
Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgystan,
Lebanon, Libya, Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania,
Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua,
Nigeria, Niue, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Puerto Rico,
Qatar, Romania, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles,
Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa (which is also the only
nation in the world with a ban on anti-gay discrimination in its
constitution), Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan,
Tanzania, Togo, Tokelau, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia,
Turkmenistan, Turks and Caicos Islands, Tuvalu, Uganda, United
Arab Emirates, United States of America (21 of 50 states),
Uzbekistan, Western Samoa, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

The states which ban gay-male sex but do not ban lesbian sex are
Antigua & Barbuda, Armenia, Australia (Tasmania), Azerbaijan,
Bahrain, Bosnia-Herzogovina, Botswana, Burma, Cayman Islands,
Chile, Cook Islands, Cyprus, Ecuador, Fiji, Georgia, Ghana,
India, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kyrgystan,
Macedonia, Mozambique, Nigeria, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Solomon
Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Tokelau,
Tonga, Turkmenistan, Turks and Caicos Islands, Tuvalu, Uganda,
Uzbekistan, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

In most instances, lesbian sex is permitted because sexist
legislators didn't think to ban it rather than because of good
will toward lesbians.

Corrections to these lists should be sent to IGLHRC, 1360
Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103. Telephone: (415)
255-8680. Fax: (415) 255-8662. E-mail: iglhrc@iglhrc.org.

-------------------------------------------------------
Steffen Jensen
E-mail: steff@inet.uni-c.dk 
http://inet.uni-c.dk/~steff
Tel. +45 3124 6435 or +45 2033 0840  Fax: +45 2036 7856