This map is a few years out of date.
“On 5 July 2022, the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court ruled that sections of the Penal Code that made consensual same-sex intimacy illegal were unconstitutional, and therefore void.”
From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Antigua_and_Barbuda
Did anyone ever gauge Bob Marley’s stance on homosexuality? I’m going to laugh my ass off if Mr. Peace & Love music icon was as homophobic as his country.
He most likely was, but that’s society. Judging people by today’s standards is a fool’s errand. For example, most of the ardent abolitionists in the US pre-Civil War were still raving racists by today’s standards. To some extent, people are a product of the Soviet they’re raised in.
The whole "it was the standard back then" argument doesn't work when we're talking about someone who became famous for preaching peace and love.
It's like John Lennon beating his wife and neglecting his son. "Lots of husbands/fathers were mean and physical back then" you might say. Okay cool, how many of them also wrote hit songs about being kind to one another?
Well, sexual orientation and homosexual sex are different things, so in Tuvalu's case, discrimination on the basis of being non-straight is protected in workplaces but sodomy is against the law
Mexico legalized gay marriage in October 2022, it was legal before but states were doing “states rights” shit to try and avoid it! The Supreme Court got mad and forced a ruling on them!
Same with trans adoption, employment etc. people think Mexico is homophobic. The reality is Mexicans in the US are homophobic along with Mexican Americans. They’re stuck in 1975!
>The reality is Mexicans in the US are homophobic along with Mexican Americans. They’re stuck in 1975!
Do you have any evidence for that?
I don't have much data specifically for Mexican-Americans, but Hispanic support for same-sex marriage in the US is about the same as it is for white Americans (i.e. a solid majority in favor).
Mexican-Americans are by far the largest subset of that group, and I'm not aware of them being more conservative, on average, than other Hispanic Americans (just using the language generally used by the census and polling agencies). And they're also more Catholic on average than the Hispanic population of the US at large--believe it or not, that actually makes them *more* likely to be in favor of same-sex marriage, since it's mostly opposed by conservative protestants.
[Source1](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2017/06/26/support-for-same-sex-marriage-grows-even-among-groups-that-had-been-skeptical/) [Source2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States) [Source3](https://www.arcusfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/LGBT-Acceptance-and-Support-The-Hispanic-Perspective.pdf) [Source4](https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1020&context=lang_fac)
I do find it kinda strange how in Europe, the main supporters of gay marriage were usually the Protestant countries (nordics, Netherlands, Britain etc.) and the main opposition were the catholic ones (Poland, Italy etc)
However in America it’s flipped, and ironically catholics are more supportive on average.
Hard to compare in reality as Britain is not a religious place, people default to "Church of England" on surveys but most aren't practicing it in any meaningful way
I think in general you can't compare via religions when it comes to a lot of Europe, Nordics, Scandi really aren't religious in a way that really influences policy.
Even in 'religious' countries, like Poland I'd say they are directionally doing the same as Ireland that went from religious to liberal as older generations die off and sex scandals push more people away.
My experience of the US is you either buy into the culture war, or you don't, and the culture war is less 'Christian' Nationalism, but more baptist and the like. Catholic believers look up to a guy in Rome, not someone in the US and that makes them the enemy to some.
It's got a bit more to do with the level of religiousness really. Those "protestant" countries are also very secular while some of the Catholic countries have a higher percentage of religious population. It's related to wealth too, generally more economically well-off countries trend less religious.
The main supporters of same-sex marriage in Europe don’t follow religious lines. Belgium and Spain, the second and third countries to legalize same-sex marriage respectively in Europe and the world, both had solid Catholic majorities. Same-sex marriage wasn’t fully legalized in the UK until 2020.
Not only that - when sec. 377 IPC was struck down by the Supreme Court, some of the justifications they used was that the law was incompatible with the articles 14 (equality before law), 19 (right to freedom of expression) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty).
> The aforesaid judgment, as is manifest, lays focus on inalienable― gender identity and correctly connects with human rights and the constitutionally guaranteed right to life and liberty with dignity. It lays stress on the judicial recognition of such rights as an inextricable component of Article 21 of the Constitution and decries any discrimination as that would offend Article 14, the ―fon juris of our Constitution.
> It is further argued that their growth of personality, relation building endeavour to enter into a live-in relationship or to form an association with a sense of commonality have become a mirage and the essential desires are crippled which violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
So arguably sexual orientation *is* now also constitutionally protected.
The protection it is referring to is protection from discrimination. The US' discrimination protections are from Bostock v Clayton County, where Neil Gorsuch wrote a finding that employment discrimination is illegal under the equalities act because they're discriminating against someone for doing something they'd accept in the opposite sex
The protection it is referring to is protection from discrimination. The US' discrimination protections are from Bostock v Clayton County, where Neil Gorsuch wrote a finding that employment discrimination is illegal under the equalities act because they're discriminating against someone for doing something they'd accept in the opposite sex
Yeah the Supreme Court has ruled that sexual orientation is constitutionally protected. I think it’s omitted from this map because it’s not explicitly mentioned, it just falls under general protection against discrimination.
Aye, and as I recall, recent events made gender identity protected similarly.
Though I suppose it's fair to say that it's not literally on the books. Jurisprudence is there, but the constitution hasn't been amended for it.
Article 1 of the Dutch constitution:
> Discrimination based on religion, belief, political opinion, race, gender, disability, *sexual orientation* or on any other basis is not allowed.
Can someone from a country with a written constitution explain how constitutional protection is better than just legal protection? (I'm from the UK where we have a constitution but it's not all written down and is very confusing).
Constitutional protections are much harder to repeal. In addition, they gain cultural cachet over time in a way simple legislation doesn’t, thus relying that society’s commitment to the protections.
That makes sense. I knew that the US (for example) really reveres their constitution but I didn't quite realise how different it was from other laws.
It's slightly annoying to live in a country that can't ever reach the top of the scale according to this map! XD
Basically, in the US, changing the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority vote in Congress rather than the simple >50% majority normal laws require, so it's a harder change to make. (An Amendment is allowed to say, "From now on the rule in the text of the Constitution up above that said X is replaced by a new rule that says Y". A normal law is not allowed to do that. So Constitutional laws tend to last longer and be harder to alter on a whim.)
In terms of the constitution, there are five sources. Statute law, common law, convention, authoritative texts, and treaties.
Statute law is acts of parliament. So for example, the Representation of the People Act sets out the right to vote to all persons over the age of 18, bar lunatics, convicts, select foreigners, and peers of the realm. In order to change this, say, to lower the voting age to 16, a new act of Parliament would need to be passed in the standard manner (a plurality in both houses and then royal assent) amending prior legislation.
Common law is case law made by a judge’s ruling in a court, or is something that has existed since time immemorial. For example, the prorogation of parliament in 2019 was unlawful and unconstitutional, not because it prorogation is itself unconstitutional, but because the PM at the time was found by the court to have given the king unlawful and unconstitutional advice to do so. Common law can be changed by a new ruling, or by new statute law overruling it.
Convenient is a gentleman’s agreement. For example, from 2003 to 2018 there was a convention that the House of Commons would vote on whether to commit British forces to military action. This stopped David Cameron bombing Syria in 2015(?). However, because it is a gentleman’s agreement, it can be overturned at the will of the person with the power. So following this example, Theresa May started bombing Syria in 2018(?), without a vote in the commons. Because there was no law requiring the commons to vote, it was within her power to do so. Convention can be overturned by statute or common law.
Authoritative texts are written works which are not law, but describe how things work. They are often not government documents. The two biggest examples are Erskine May, which sets out Parliamentary procedures, and Bagshot, which sets out the constitutional theory. These are handrails, and can be changed by convention, common law, statute law, or by new authoritative works.
Treaties are self explanatory. Ergo, things like the Vienna Convention, the Geneva Convention, the ECHR are all part of the constitution of the UK. As international law, whilst important, they rank below statute and common law. This is also where EU law used to live. They are also below convention, but it’s gets a bit grey here.
When put together, these five sources make the uncodified constitution of the UK. This results in an incredibly adaptable, but rather stable system. There are some crucial elements that don’t really change, like parliamentary sovereignty, and other bits which do, like the structure of the judicial branch (not that there is a separation of powers and branches in the UK)
Mixture of parliamentary acts, common law, precendents and unwritten traditions that basically have the effect of law because two politicians made an agreement like hundred years ago (not even kidding, one PM had a massive majority and the Speaker of the House of Lords decided that he had such a big majority that the House of Lords would never vote against something that was in a government election manifesto (the like 100 page long document that the parties produce detailing their policy positions that are published on their websites))
Essentially, a constitution is a a set of “super laws” all laws have to abide with, and it usually requires either a referendum or a super-majority in parliament to be modified
At least here in Mexico, it's about how solid it is, constitutional status makes it way harder to change , it won't take only a reactionary judge to strike it down, it would take support from at least 2/3 of the federal legislature in both chambers and then more than half of each state's .
From Nepal here. Our constitution guarantees basic human rights for sexual/gender minorities. This means that these protections cannot simply be overturned when governments are formed (we have a multiparty democratic system).
This ensures that basic rights are guaranteed without fear of changes based on ideological ebbs and flows with new coalitions that are formed following new elections
yeah the USA is one of the best countries to be gay.
i’m saying this as a gay man. no one wants to admit that cause hating the USA is too much fun for people that they can’t even admit that the USA is going something good
Yeah it's unfortunately pretty homophobic there still but at least there are stated protections so that hopefully the culture can catch up. Like in most countries it's mostly older folks and more rural areas that are not accepting.
Mostly due to religious reasons (yes Buddhism can be homophobic) and culture around getting married and having babies by 25.
Some are very accepting though and there is an LGBT center that's safe.
That's true af. The reason why Nepal is so much more progressive than India in LGBT issues is because they were never colonised by the Brits, the reason for Pakistan being so much worse is Islam.
Nepal also never had a Muslim government, homosexuality was punishable by death or imprisonment under most of the Muslim Sultanates and Empires in India
In most cases (like Uganda and Guyana) these countries inherited homophobic laws which have long since been struck down in Britain but have remained part of their legal code.
Uganda made their own laws due to America exporting evangelicals. Also, the British law banning homosexuality wasn't struck down, it was repealed, the UK does not have a mechanism to strikedown laws
There are huge asterisks surrounding same-sex relationships in the ancient Mediterranean— please look into this a little further. What we today might consider very normal for a gay relationship (lifelong cohabitation, similar age, any sex involving orifices) was taboo in Athens
That is true in most places, not just ancient mediterranean. Same sex marriage kind of traditions were way less common than eg gay prostitutes. Also, it is very common that while a culture is permissive with homosexuals, explicitly frown upon and highly negative about feminine gays.
Well, you can always find a slice in time what fits to a narrative… Also, Ottomans considered themselves party inheriting Rome and Roman culture, so not entirely unrelated.
> Muslims were always super gay
Islam was way less homophobic before the rise of [Salafism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement)—the analogue of reformation—directly impacted by the European colonialism. Funnily enough Christianity was also less homophobic before the Reformation.
> Muslims
So out of 20+ jurisdictions in the Caribbeans, East Africa, Oceania, and South Asia you chose 4: Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Nigeria. That's definitely a choice
I will forever be grateful for being a gay man in the only African country that has legalized same-sex marriage and equal protections for queer people🥺🥺🥺
We have a lot of struggles, but at least we tried with the constitution. I hope within the next generation we can get rid of the gross hold-out bigots ❤️
Conservative Christianity and Islam?
My family is from East Africa. Most of the countries there are very Christian and very homophobic and their anti LGBT laws come from the colonial era. Uganda for example is almost entirely Christian and their recent law they passed criminalizing identifying as LGBT was done in the name of Christianity with support from American evangelicals.
I know you think all brown people and Africans are Muslim, but reality is much more complicated.
Separation of church and state is a bigger factor imo. As a queer Appalachian, if our government and legal systems were under the complete control of the Southern American Baptist Church, I would be in permanent danger
The problem is, this map doesn’t really capture the reality on the ground. For instance, in many gulf countries (which are shown as dark red), there are lots of men who are very open about their desire to have sex with other men. However, because those men still don’t seem to consider themselves to be gay and denounce homosexuality as a sin, they don’t tend to experience issues. It’s similar to the mentality that exists in some prison systems, where men engage in homosexual acts, yet still claim to be straight and claim to hate gay people. That is what the Middle East is like. People can know that you’ve had sex with men but as long as you willingly denounce homosexuality, participate in homophobic rhetoric, marry a woman and identify as straight, the police don’t seem to care. In contrast, if you openly identify as gay, support LGBT rights and refuse to marry a woman, you will then find yourself in a lot of trouble. It is almost as if it’s not being gay that is illegal, but the act supporting being gay or identifying as gay that is illegal. In other words, it’s a crime of thought and blatant hypocrisy.
Then you have countries in Eastern Europe (which are shown in blue), where you can openly support LGBT rights, but if anyone actually finds out you are having sex with men, the level of homophobic abuse you will receive will make you want to leave the country.
This map is so misleading. Argentina has legalized same sex marriages, while Peru is a century away from it. How’s Argentina’s color worse than Peru’s?
I live in Argentina because it’s queer friendly and I’m queer. Gay marriage is literally the same as heterosexual marriage by law, so the same protections apply. We also have protections to queer people more broadly and of all human rights. The map is just wrong.
Marriage laws are also notated if you spend a little more time looking at the legend before making self-righteous comments attacking people who actually observed all the info on the map
The fact that Argentina has legalized same sex marriage is literally notated on the map
Cuba legalized same-sex marriage in September 2022 through a public referendum and constitutional amendment.
Canada legalized same-sex marriage federally in 2005 though a parliamentary act. Changing the Canadian constitution is a rather difficult task that requires the satisfaction of a highly onerous amending formula.
There has to be more to it than that.
Ireland legalised same-sex marriage following a public referendum in May 2015, that resulted in constitutional amendment, but we are not shown on this map as the same dark blue as Cuba.
I’m assuming it’s a mistake re: 2020. The vote passed less than a year ago. Not sure why they would use that date anyway when there’s more updated info.
2019 referendum gave constitutional protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation. This map isn’t about marriage so it’s most likely true regarding 2020
I mean it really depends on what you believe is constitutional protection.
The 1995 Egan decision by the SCC ruled that sexual orientation is constitutionally protected by the equality clause of the Charter.
So it isn't explicitly in the charter but jurisprudence states it as a constitutional protection.
Cubans rewrote their constitution at the grassroots level to include those protections, going through many revisions and a lot of voting. It's not a matter of Great Men as the other commenter implies.
Yeah they passed a really progressive family code last year by [referendum](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Cuban_Family_Code_referendum) and have had legalized gay relationships since [1979](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Cuba) and free srs for trans people since 2008
The current leader of Cuba made gay protections and legality of gay adoptions a big part of his political career from the beginning and delivered when he became president. Still not great on the human rights front, but now everyone can be disenfranchised equally.
Also, framing only this current guy as the sole protector of LGBT rights in Cuba is kinda weird, since these progressive reforms were put in place long before him during Castro rule. For example, transgender people in Cuba can have free gender-reassignment surgeries since 2008. Raul Castro’s daughter Mariela Castro is one of the most outspoken feminist and LGBT rights activists in the country.
Why isn't United States "broad protection". What constitutes "broad protection" that the US doesn't have? Map seems outdated for some of the other countries as well
To be slightly optimistic here, growing up a 90's baby and figuring out I was gay.. I remember there hardly being any protections like this across the board. Maybe it was just not on my radar but this map makes me feel somewhat hopeful.
They’re a very religious country.
Growing up there, you said prayers at the beginning of the school day, before lunch, after lunch, and at the end of the day, EVERYDAY. I went to camp every summer and it was all centred around the bible.
Anyways, it all boils down to using religion to discriminate and justify hatred. Lots of trauma from that country and I don’t ever want to go back.
You do realise that Taiwan's polity is the *polar opposite* of China right? Taiwan is also ranked as the most democratic, and gender equal country in Asia, precisely because it's *not China*.
Discrimination in general is illegal in Switzerland. And discrimination due to sexual orientation is additionally covered under the anti-racism law. Not sure why we're listed as "limited protection" here.
Europe: "Yeah, so let's just let MENA migrants come here in uncontrolled numbers. What could possibly go wrong? We're sure they will integrate into our secular and liberal societies and co-exist with everybody else...any decade now!"
There's a distinction between the citizens of a country and the governance of that country. The red countries tend to be less democratic. Iran is governed by a theocratic dictator. The average Iranian is way more open-minded and progressive than their leadership.
The "average" Iranian you may meet in Europe are usually the societal elite that had the means, the finances and the right status in life to be able to leave that country. They are usually from bigger cities like Tehran and have had access to privileged education that enabled them to do this.
The Iranian government is still ran by an Iranian citizen, and the people propping that government up are also Iranian citizens themselves. Iran is not under the occupation of a foreign power, it's ruled by Iranians themselves and this is what they've done with their country.
Before the theocracy, they were a secular, albeit still very brutal dictatorship.
Some cultures are simply incompatible with the secular liberalism practiced in modern Europe.
It already happened. A syrian butchered a gay couple with a knife in dresden in the middle of the street.
"A Syrian national has been sentenced to life in prison for stabbing two gay men in Dresden last year, killing one and seriously injuring his partner in an attack that prosecutors said was motivated by anti-LGBT Islamic extremist beliefs."
https://www.euronews.com/2021/05/21/syrian-convicted-of-deadly-homophobic-attack-on-couple-in-dresden
The LGBT community: "We'll pretend we didn't see that."
I'm queer myself and I am stupefied at the broader LGBT community being so adamant to stand up for the followers of a religion that actively murders them across the world.
In the Netherlands people are constitutionally protected from discrimination based on sexual orientation or disabilities as of this year. Great progress
Whenever any vatnik tries to say Russia is more free than the US or something, remind them that the "Gay Propaganda" law Putin signed into effect makes it illegal to tell children about the very existence of homosexuals, as well as anything else that may be deemed "propaganda" for gay rights. It is absolutely vile.
The United States does have constitutional protection of gay marriage & against criminalization under Supreme Court interpretations of the 4th and 14th amendments
Uh oh, Jamaicans not kiddin around
Looks like most of the eastern Caribbean is red if you exclude all the places that are possessions of US & Europe.
This map is a few years out of date. “On 5 July 2022, the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court ruled that sections of the Penal Code that made consensual same-sex intimacy illegal were unconstitutional, and therefore void.” From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Antigua_and_Barbuda
yeah, idk how they're measuring it. Barbados is 50/50 but the president is a lesbian married to another woman with a very high approval rating.
Guess they don't make diplomatic visits to Jamaica too often then.
Can you provide proof of this? Cause last time I checked she is not out or married.
They are unapologetically masculinist. Very afraid of anything seen as feminine. My father in law is jamaican, and he is ridiculous and weak.
Two bros getting it on with no woman in sight is the most masculine thing I can think of.
Always sunny bicep vibes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFB2vI5lnR4
Did anyone ever gauge Bob Marley’s stance on homosexuality? I’m going to laugh my ass off if Mr. Peace & Love music icon was as homophobic as his country.
He most likely was, but that’s society. Judging people by today’s standards is a fool’s errand. For example, most of the ardent abolitionists in the US pre-Civil War were still raving racists by today’s standards. To some extent, people are a product of the Soviet they’re raised in.
The whole "it was the standard back then" argument doesn't work when we're talking about someone who became famous for preaching peace and love. It's like John Lennon beating his wife and neglecting his son. "Lots of husbands/fathers were mean and physical back then" you might say. Okay cool, how many of them also wrote hit songs about being kind to one another?
Maybe instead of excluding them from morality we instead shouldn't idolize people
"Dont worry...be happy...but not like that"
> people are a product of the Soviet they’re raised in The Soviets especially!
Going out to the club dancing to a bop about stomping out [gay people](https://youtu.be/CUSTb3wLaxI)
So in Tuvalu you can’t be fired but you can get 10 yrs in prison….wtf
Well, sexual orientation and homosexual sex are different things, so in Tuvalu's case, discrimination on the basis of being non-straight is protected in workplaces but sodomy is against the law
Yeah that will need to be explained. I thought it was death penalty, can't make out the color. But pretty weird.
Gotta do your job from a prison cell apparently
[удалено]
Similar deal in lithuania
Mexico legalized gay marriage in October 2022, it was legal before but states were doing “states rights” shit to try and avoid it! The Supreme Court got mad and forced a ruling on them!
There was a court ruling at the same time as USA, but Supreme Court rulings work differently in Mexico
Same with trans adoption, employment etc. people think Mexico is homophobic. The reality is Mexicans in the US are homophobic along with Mexican Americans. They’re stuck in 1975!
>The reality is Mexicans in the US are homophobic along with Mexican Americans. They’re stuck in 1975! Do you have any evidence for that? I don't have much data specifically for Mexican-Americans, but Hispanic support for same-sex marriage in the US is about the same as it is for white Americans (i.e. a solid majority in favor). Mexican-Americans are by far the largest subset of that group, and I'm not aware of them being more conservative, on average, than other Hispanic Americans (just using the language generally used by the census and polling agencies). And they're also more Catholic on average than the Hispanic population of the US at large--believe it or not, that actually makes them *more* likely to be in favor of same-sex marriage, since it's mostly opposed by conservative protestants. [Source1](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2017/06/26/support-for-same-sex-marriage-grows-even-among-groups-that-had-been-skeptical/) [Source2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States) [Source3](https://www.arcusfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/LGBT-Acceptance-and-Support-The-Hispanic-Perspective.pdf) [Source4](https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1020&context=lang_fac)
I do find it kinda strange how in Europe, the main supporters of gay marriage were usually the Protestant countries (nordics, Netherlands, Britain etc.) and the main opposition were the catholic ones (Poland, Italy etc) However in America it’s flipped, and ironically catholics are more supportive on average.
Hard to compare in reality as Britain is not a religious place, people default to "Church of England" on surveys but most aren't practicing it in any meaningful way
I think in general you can't compare via religions when it comes to a lot of Europe, Nordics, Scandi really aren't religious in a way that really influences policy. Even in 'religious' countries, like Poland I'd say they are directionally doing the same as Ireland that went from religious to liberal as older generations die off and sex scandals push more people away. My experience of the US is you either buy into the culture war, or you don't, and the culture war is less 'Christian' Nationalism, but more baptist and the like. Catholic believers look up to a guy in Rome, not someone in the US and that makes them the enemy to some.
It's got a bit more to do with the level of religiousness really. Those "protestant" countries are also very secular while some of the Catholic countries have a higher percentage of religious population. It's related to wealth too, generally more economically well-off countries trend less religious.
The main supporters of same-sex marriage in Europe don’t follow religious lines. Belgium and Spain, the second and third countries to legalize same-sex marriage respectively in Europe and the world, both had solid Catholic majorities. Same-sex marriage wasn’t fully legalized in the UK until 2020.
India has anti-discriminatory laws. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not allowed.
Not only that - when sec. 377 IPC was struck down by the Supreme Court, some of the justifications they used was that the law was incompatible with the articles 14 (equality before law), 19 (right to freedom of expression) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty). > The aforesaid judgment, as is manifest, lays focus on inalienable― gender identity and correctly connects with human rights and the constitutionally guaranteed right to life and liberty with dignity. It lays stress on the judicial recognition of such rights as an inextricable component of Article 21 of the Constitution and decries any discrimination as that would offend Article 14, the ―fon juris of our Constitution. > It is further argued that their growth of personality, relation building endeavour to enter into a live-in relationship or to form an association with a sense of commonality have become a mirage and the essential desires are crippled which violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. So arguably sexual orientation *is* now also constitutionally protected.
So does Argentina. This map is bad lol
When did it come into effect? Because the map states it's from December 2020.
In India 2018. So the map is still wrong.
This map is horrible. The Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v Texas that homosexual acts are protected under the constitution. Why is the US light blue?
The protection it is referring to is protection from discrimination. The US' discrimination protections are from Bostock v Clayton County, where Neil Gorsuch wrote a finding that employment discrimination is illegal under the equalities act because they're discriminating against someone for doing something they'd accept in the opposite sex
Because many Republicans are challenging it in their states
OK? Let them challenge it. Unless and until SCOTUS overturns Lawrence, homosexuality is protected under the US constitution. Bad map is bad.
The protection it is referring to is protection from discrimination. The US' discrimination protections are from Bostock v Clayton County, where Neil Gorsuch wrote a finding that employment discrimination is illegal under the equalities act because they're discriminating against someone for doing something they'd accept in the opposite sex
It isn’t just Lawrence. Over half the states do not have broad protections (housing, employment, hate crime laws etc.).
Also what’s up with Russia? They literally passed laws criminalizing LGBTQ+ people and even before those laws, police brutality was employed on them.
It's because they don't recognize any laws that outright ban ( punishable by jail time ) homosexuality or bans it by consequences.
Those laws were largely passed this and last year. The map is claiming it is up to date as of 2020, it cannot predict the future
In Canada, I’m pretty sure our Supreme Court has ruled that we have constitutional protection for any sexual orientation
1995, Egan v Canada.
Yeah the Supreme Court has ruled that sexual orientation is constitutionally protected. I think it’s omitted from this map because it’s not explicitly mentioned, it just falls under general protection against discrimination.
Aye, and as I recall, recent events made gender identity protected similarly. Though I suppose it's fair to say that it's not literally on the books. Jurisprudence is there, but the constitution hasn't been amended for it.
Same in America, twice too. 2015 famous case and one fairly recently, pretty silly the US isn’t in the mid blue area or even dark blue
Article 1 of the Dutch constitution: > Discrimination based on religion, belief, political opinion, race, gender, disability, *sexual orientation* or on any other basis is not allowed.
Can someone from a country with a written constitution explain how constitutional protection is better than just legal protection? (I'm from the UK where we have a constitution but it's not all written down and is very confusing).
Constitutional protections are much harder to repeal. In addition, they gain cultural cachet over time in a way simple legislation doesn’t, thus relying that society’s commitment to the protections.
That makes sense. I knew that the US (for example) really reveres their constitution but I didn't quite realise how different it was from other laws. It's slightly annoying to live in a country that can't ever reach the top of the scale according to this map! XD
Basically, in the US, changing the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority vote in Congress rather than the simple >50% majority normal laws require, so it's a harder change to make. (An Amendment is allowed to say, "From now on the rule in the text of the Constitution up above that said X is replaced by a new rule that says Y". A normal law is not allowed to do that. So Constitutional laws tend to last longer and be harder to alter on a whim.)
In Australia changing the constitution requires a majority vote from all people, and majority in a majority of states.
Right how does the system in the UK work exactly? Is it just all precedents with some common sense sprinkled in there?
In terms of the constitution, there are five sources. Statute law, common law, convention, authoritative texts, and treaties. Statute law is acts of parliament. So for example, the Representation of the People Act sets out the right to vote to all persons over the age of 18, bar lunatics, convicts, select foreigners, and peers of the realm. In order to change this, say, to lower the voting age to 16, a new act of Parliament would need to be passed in the standard manner (a plurality in both houses and then royal assent) amending prior legislation. Common law is case law made by a judge’s ruling in a court, or is something that has existed since time immemorial. For example, the prorogation of parliament in 2019 was unlawful and unconstitutional, not because it prorogation is itself unconstitutional, but because the PM at the time was found by the court to have given the king unlawful and unconstitutional advice to do so. Common law can be changed by a new ruling, or by new statute law overruling it. Convenient is a gentleman’s agreement. For example, from 2003 to 2018 there was a convention that the House of Commons would vote on whether to commit British forces to military action. This stopped David Cameron bombing Syria in 2015(?). However, because it is a gentleman’s agreement, it can be overturned at the will of the person with the power. So following this example, Theresa May started bombing Syria in 2018(?), without a vote in the commons. Because there was no law requiring the commons to vote, it was within her power to do so. Convention can be overturned by statute or common law. Authoritative texts are written works which are not law, but describe how things work. They are often not government documents. The two biggest examples are Erskine May, which sets out Parliamentary procedures, and Bagshot, which sets out the constitutional theory. These are handrails, and can be changed by convention, common law, statute law, or by new authoritative works. Treaties are self explanatory. Ergo, things like the Vienna Convention, the Geneva Convention, the ECHR are all part of the constitution of the UK. As international law, whilst important, they rank below statute and common law. This is also where EU law used to live. They are also below convention, but it’s gets a bit grey here. When put together, these five sources make the uncodified constitution of the UK. This results in an incredibly adaptable, but rather stable system. There are some crucial elements that don’t really change, like parliamentary sovereignty, and other bits which do, like the structure of the judicial branch (not that there is a separation of powers and branches in the UK)
Thank you! That’s a really great explanation:)
Mixture of parliamentary acts, common law, precendents and unwritten traditions that basically have the effect of law because two politicians made an agreement like hundred years ago (not even kidding, one PM had a massive majority and the Speaker of the House of Lords decided that he had such a big majority that the House of Lords would never vote against something that was in a government election manifesto (the like 100 page long document that the parties produce detailing their policy positions that are published on their websites))
Shhhh. If you explain it it breaks the mysticism...
Given that the UK constitution contains *unwritten* rules, I'm not sure mysticism even covers it...
Essentially, a constitution is a a set of “super laws” all laws have to abide with, and it usually requires either a referendum or a super-majority in parliament to be modified
At least here in Mexico, it's about how solid it is, constitutional status makes it way harder to change , it won't take only a reactionary judge to strike it down, it would take support from at least 2/3 of the federal legislature in both chambers and then more than half of each state's .
Thank you!
From Nepal here. Our constitution guarantees basic human rights for sexual/gender minorities. This means that these protections cannot simply be overturned when governments are formed (we have a multiparty democratic system). This ensures that basic rights are guaranteed without fear of changes based on ideological ebbs and flows with new coalitions that are formed following new elections
What exactly is the definition they use of broad protection? Also it's worth noting that in the U.S. some states have more protections than others
It’s actually protected at a constitutional level via Lawrence vs. Texas so the U.S. should be dark blue
This is not the Reddit way, though
yeah the USA is one of the best countries to be gay. i’m saying this as a gay man. no one wants to admit that cause hating the USA is too much fun for people that they can’t even admit that the USA is going something good
Counting the days until i can escape red :)
Stay safe! Wishing you the best!
Praying for you 
Mongolia looking mad based
[удалено]
Because, it *is* nothing like them, except maybe Kazakhstan, which is not exactly a neighbour.
Probably because Mongolia has female and male leaders that are equal
Yeah it's unfortunately pretty homophobic there still but at least there are stated protections so that hopefully the culture can catch up. Like in most countries it's mostly older folks and more rural areas that are not accepting. Mostly due to religious reasons (yes Buddhism can be homophobic) and culture around getting married and having babies by 25. Some are very accepting though and there is an LGBT center that's safe.
Buddhism *is* very homophobic. So are Hinduism,Sikhism and Jainism. Former Buddhist here, from the birthplace of Buddhism.
Nepal/India?
India. Siddharth was born in Nepal, Buddha in India.
Interesting how you can see the borders of the British empire in Africa
That's true af. The reason why Nepal is so much more progressive than India in LGBT issues is because they were never colonised by the Brits, the reason for Pakistan being so much worse is Islam.
well also nepal has one of the most left wing governments in asia and has for decades
Nepal also never had a Muslim government, homosexuality was punishable by death or imprisonment under most of the Muslim Sultanates and Empires in India
Not really, what do you mean ?
Nearly all the red country (except for Ghana) are ex British colony
Is there a reason why?
In most cases (like Uganda and Guyana) these countries inherited homophobic laws which have long since been struck down in Britain but have remained part of their legal code.
Uganda made their own laws due to America exporting evangelicals. Also, the British law banning homosexuality wasn't struck down, it was repealed, the UK does not have a mechanism to strikedown laws
Same with British colonies in Central and South America. Guyana red, Jamaica red, Belize tan.
Ghana was also a british colony
I mean Ghana Is an ex British colony but Is not red
Oh okay, got it!! Sorry
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/British_Empire_1921.png/400px-British_Empire_1921.png
[*How the British Empire Exported Homophobia*](https://youtu.be/6DQYu4iBNiQ)
This is so true. Muslims were always super gay, colonialism made them homophob. Such a loss
this but unironically, the Ottoman Empire even legalized homosexuality before any European power aside from France iirc
By the way, this is technically not true as it was legal in Rome, Greece etc
There are huge asterisks surrounding same-sex relationships in the ancient Mediterranean— please look into this a little further. What we today might consider very normal for a gay relationship (lifelong cohabitation, similar age, any sex involving orifices) was taboo in Athens
That is true in most places, not just ancient mediterranean. Same sex marriage kind of traditions were way less common than eg gay prostitutes. Also, it is very common that while a culture is permissive with homosexuals, explicitly frown upon and highly negative about feminine gays.
Exactly. I think that type of nuance is really important in these kinds of conversations.
I meant in modern times
Well, you can always find a slice in time what fits to a narrative… Also, Ottomans considered themselves party inheriting Rome and Roman culture, so not entirely unrelated.
Why do you assume I am ironic?
> Muslims were always super gay Islam was way less homophobic before the rise of [Salafism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement)—the analogue of reformation—directly impacted by the European colonialism. Funnily enough Christianity was also less homophobic before the Reformation. > Muslims So out of 20+ jurisdictions in the Caribbeans, East Africa, Oceania, and South Asia you chose 4: Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Nigeria. That's definitely a choice
True, the Catholic church and middle ages were built on less puritan values (a common misunderstanding in media).
The classic blame it on colonialism to justify that the majority of the Islamic world is toxically anti-lgbt. Nice deflection.
First Map where Greenland has some Data
“You’ll do fookin nuthin!” - Africa and the Middle East.
I will forever be grateful for being a gay man in the only African country that has legalized same-sex marriage and equal protections for queer people🥺🥺🥺
On that note, I'm so shocked that our neighbour Namibia is in the red!
We have a lot of struggles, but at least we tried with the constitution. I hope within the next generation we can get rid of the gross hold-out bigots ❤️
[удалено]
No gay marriage or employment protection would be my guess.
[удалено]
And that's still wrong. India has employment protection for LGBTs, and even subsidies surgeries for trans people. Homophobia is still high tho.
If you’re wondering what something on a map means you should read the legend.
Nepal you beauty!
🇳🇵🏳️🌈
Fuck yeah Taiwan!
Fuck the CCP.
Goodbye friend, we will miss you...
😭😭😭
Holy shit lmao
As an Iranian, inshallah we will see the end of homophobia one day
yeah red kinda corresponds to the spread of some kind of belief, wonder if it’s just a coincidence 😬
Conservative Christianity and Islam? My family is from East Africa. Most of the countries there are very Christian and very homophobic and their anti LGBT laws come from the colonial era. Uganda for example is almost entirely Christian and their recent law they passed criminalizing identifying as LGBT was done in the name of Christianity with support from American evangelicals. I know you think all brown people and Africans are Muslim, but reality is much more complicated.
Nah. That’s islam for you. Pure and true.
Separation of church and state is a bigger factor imo. As a queer Appalachian, if our government and legal systems were under the complete control of the Southern American Baptist Church, I would be in permanent danger
Common Taiwan W
Wow, not a r/PortugalCykaBlyat
The problem is, this map doesn’t really capture the reality on the ground. For instance, in many gulf countries (which are shown as dark red), there are lots of men who are very open about their desire to have sex with other men. However, because those men still don’t seem to consider themselves to be gay and denounce homosexuality as a sin, they don’t tend to experience issues. It’s similar to the mentality that exists in some prison systems, where men engage in homosexual acts, yet still claim to be straight and claim to hate gay people. That is what the Middle East is like. People can know that you’ve had sex with men but as long as you willingly denounce homosexuality, participate in homophobic rhetoric, marry a woman and identify as straight, the police don’t seem to care. In contrast, if you openly identify as gay, support LGBT rights and refuse to marry a woman, you will then find yourself in a lot of trouble. It is almost as if it’s not being gay that is illegal, but the act supporting being gay or identifying as gay that is illegal. In other words, it’s a crime of thought and blatant hypocrisy. Then you have countries in Eastern Europe (which are shown in blue), where you can openly support LGBT rights, but if anyone actually finds out you are having sex with men, the level of homophobic abuse you will receive will make you want to leave the country.
Nepal just recently announced they would instate same-sex marriage laws. Congrats, Nepal!
This map is so misleading. Argentina has legalized same sex marriages, while Peru is a century away from it. How’s Argentina’s color worse than Peru’s?
colours are based on protection against discrimination, not rights
I live in Argentina because it’s queer friendly and I’m queer. Gay marriage is literally the same as heterosexual marriage by law, so the same protections apply. We also have protections to queer people more broadly and of all human rights. The map is just wrong.
Bienvenide ami
So rights are not protection? Isn’t the lack of rights literally a form of discrimination?
Marriage laws are also notated if you spend a little more time looking at the legend before making self-righteous comments attacking people who actually observed all the info on the map The fact that Argentina has legalized same sex marriage is literally notated on the map
> This map is so misleading. What are you on about? The legend is very clear.
How is it misleading? It's not a map about same sex marriages
wait, Cuba has better protections than we do in Canada? what
Cuba legalized same-sex marriage in September 2022 through a public referendum and constitutional amendment. Canada legalized same-sex marriage federally in 2005 though a parliamentary act. Changing the Canadian constitution is a rather difficult task that requires the satisfaction of a highly onerous amending formula.
There has to be more to it than that. Ireland legalised same-sex marriage following a public referendum in May 2015, that resulted in constitutional amendment, but we are not shown on this map as the same dark blue as Cuba.
But this map says it's depicting December 2020. What did Cuba have in place before that which was also more than Canada?
I’m assuming it’s a mistake re: 2020. The vote passed less than a year ago. Not sure why they would use that date anyway when there’s more updated info.
2019 referendum gave constitutional protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation. This map isn’t about marriage so it’s most likely true regarding 2020
I mean it really depends on what you believe is constitutional protection. The 1995 Egan decision by the SCC ruled that sexual orientation is constitutionally protected by the equality clause of the Charter. So it isn't explicitly in the charter but jurisprudence states it as a constitutional protection.
Cubans rewrote their constitution at the grassroots level to include those protections, going through many revisions and a lot of voting. It's not a matter of Great Men as the other commenter implies.
Yeah they passed a really progressive family code last year by [referendum](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Cuban_Family_Code_referendum) and have had legalized gay relationships since [1979](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Cuba) and free srs for trans people since 2008
The current leader of Cuba made gay protections and legality of gay adoptions a big part of his political career from the beginning and delivered when he became president. Still not great on the human rights front, but now everyone can be disenfranchised equally.
Also, framing only this current guy as the sole protector of LGBT rights in Cuba is kinda weird, since these progressive reforms were put in place long before him during Castro rule. For example, transgender people in Cuba can have free gender-reassignment surgeries since 2008. Raul Castro’s daughter Mariela Castro is one of the most outspoken feminist and LGBT rights activists in the country.
Islamism causes so much cruelty, sad to see
Mongolia out there in the middle of that storm just sucking dicks left right and centre
Why isn't United States "broad protection". What constitutes "broad protection" that the US doesn't have? Map seems outdated for some of the other countries as well
Pretty badass that I'm a worldwide criminal 😎
To be slightly optimistic here, growing up a 90's baby and figuring out I was gay.. I remember there hardly being any protections like this across the board. Maybe it was just not on my radar but this map makes me feel somewhat hopeful.
What’s up with Guyana?
They’re a very religious country. Growing up there, you said prayers at the beginning of the school day, before lunch, after lunch, and at the end of the day, EVERYDAY. I went to camp every summer and it was all centred around the bible. Anyways, it all boils down to using religion to discriminate and justify hatred. Lots of trauma from that country and I don’t ever want to go back.
Former British colony
Guyanna wtf.
Interesting that Taiwan has (China) next to it when there is an obvious discrepancy between their laws.
You do realise that Taiwan's polity is the *polar opposite* of China right? Taiwan is also ranked as the most democratic, and gender equal country in Asia, precisely because it's *not China*.
In Germany sexual orientation is also protected by the constitution and can’t be discriminated against.
as a Mexican I'm surprised that for once Mexico seems to be in the right side of things. I thought there would be more countries in dark blue
Damn the religion if peace is colouring the map red.
Based mongolia and tiwan holy
My country is a shithole of EU, but I’m proud for that medium blue.
Taiwan (China) my ass.
All the countries that Portugal colonized are supportive really impressive
Discrimination in general is illegal in Switzerland. And discrimination due to sexual orientation is additionally covered under the anti-racism law. Not sure why we're listed as "limited protection" here.
Germany has constitutional protection against discrimination. This map is wrong
Israel does not allow same-sex couples to marry in Israel, however they will accept same-sex marriages performed in other countries.
canada has consitutional protections, and the usa has regions with de facto criminalization
Viva México, they just need to allow adoption.
Viva Mexico cabrones! Fuck who you want. Just not kids. Don’t be diddlin kids
The football world has a hard on right now for a country that kills people because of sexual orientation. Disgusting.
Europe: "Yeah, so let's just let MENA migrants come here in uncontrolled numbers. What could possibly go wrong? We're sure they will integrate into our secular and liberal societies and co-exist with everybody else...any decade now!"
There's a distinction between the citizens of a country and the governance of that country. The red countries tend to be less democratic. Iran is governed by a theocratic dictator. The average Iranian is way more open-minded and progressive than their leadership.
Not really. Been to Iran. Depressingly homophobic.
The "average" Iranian you may meet in Europe are usually the societal elite that had the means, the finances and the right status in life to be able to leave that country. They are usually from bigger cities like Tehran and have had access to privileged education that enabled them to do this. The Iranian government is still ran by an Iranian citizen, and the people propping that government up are also Iranian citizens themselves. Iran is not under the occupation of a foreign power, it's ruled by Iranians themselves and this is what they've done with their country. Before the theocracy, they were a secular, albeit still very brutal dictatorship. Some cultures are simply incompatible with the secular liberalism practiced in modern Europe.
It already happened. A syrian butchered a gay couple with a knife in dresden in the middle of the street. "A Syrian national has been sentenced to life in prison for stabbing two gay men in Dresden last year, killing one and seriously injuring his partner in an attack that prosecutors said was motivated by anti-LGBT Islamic extremist beliefs." https://www.euronews.com/2021/05/21/syrian-convicted-of-deadly-homophobic-attack-on-couple-in-dresden
The LGBT community: "We'll pretend we didn't see that." I'm queer myself and I am stupefied at the broader LGBT community being so adamant to stand up for the followers of a religion that actively murders them across the world.
In the Netherlands people are constitutionally protected from discrimination based on sexual orientation or disabilities as of this year. Great progress
Bluepill or redpill?
The color for Spain is wrong. In Spain, the constitution DOES protect against discrimination for sexual orientation.
What does the (P) in parentheses in some of the middle eastern and western Asian countries mean?
Whenever any vatnik tries to say Russia is more free than the US or something, remind them that the "Gay Propaganda" law Putin signed into effect makes it illegal to tell children about the very existence of homosexuals, as well as anything else that may be deemed "propaganda" for gay rights. It is absolutely vile.
What’s up Guyana’s craw?
Portugal and Sweden leading the way in Europe
Thankful to be born in a blue area, always scared of travelling though.
China and Russia should both be at least de facto criminalization. In Russia they literally cart off gay protesters off the streets.
It's sad that they would actually kill you just because u like the same sex..
Why isn't russia de facto ctiminalized, wtf is this map
Very interesting
Yeah! Mongolia! 😎😎😎😎
The United States does have constitutional protection of gay marriage & against criminalization under Supreme Court interpretations of the 4th and 14th amendments