We see it all the time, but do we ever think about its origins or what it means.

The Rainbow flag or Pride flag of the LGBT community is a symbol of LGBT pride and LGBT social movements in use since the 1970s. The colors reflect the diversity of the LGBT community, and the flag is often used as a symbol of gay pride in LGBT rights marches. It originated in the United States, but is now used worldwide. Designed by San Francisco artist Gilbert Baker in 1978, the design has undergone several revisions.

Sewn by thirty volunteers, the original gay-pride flag flew in the San Francisco Gay Freedom Day Parade on June 25, 1978. It has been suggested that Baker was inspired by Judy Garland’s singing “Over The Rainbow.” The flag consisted of eight stripes; Baker assigned specific meaning to each of the colors as follows:

• hot pink: sexuality
• red: life
• orange: healing
• yellow: sunlight
• green: nature
• turquoise: magic/art
• indigo: serenity/harmony
• violet: spirit

After the assassination of openly gay San Francisco City Supervisor Harvey Milk, demand for the rainbow flag greatly increased. To meet demand, the Paramount Flag Company began selling a version of the flag using stock rainbow fabric consisting of seven stripes of red, orange, yellow, green, turquoise, blue, and violet. As Baker ramped up production of his version of the flag, he too dropped the hot pink stripe because of the unavailability of hot-pink fabric. Also, San Francisco-based Paramount Flag Co. began selling a surplus stock of Rainbow Girls flags from its Polk Street retail store.

As of 2008, the most common variant consists of six stripes, with the colors red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet. The flag is commonly flown horizontally, with the red stripe on top, as the colors would appear in a natural rainbow.

SOURCES

• The National Museum and Archive of Lesbian and Gay History (1996). The Gay Almanac. New York City, Berkeley Books.
• Witt, Lynn, Sherry Thomas, and Eric Marcus (1995). Out in All Directions: The Almanac of Gay and Lesbian America. New York, Warner Books.
• Gilbert Baker (18 October 2007). “Pride-Flyin’ Flag: Rainbow-flag founder marks 30-years anniversary”. Metro Weekly. http://metroweekly.com/feature/?ak=3031.
• The Rainbow Flag http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/rainbow-flag.html
• Gay History Project

Thank you for all of your responses to my post “I’d Like to Hear Your Opinion on This.”  I still tend to think that a Christmas play is by its nature not secular, but the particular play that was being put on is called “The Reindeer Rebellion” and is supposed to be a secular production involving Santa’s reindeer going on strike. It happened to include the song “Silent Night.”  An update to the story is that after consulting with their attorney, the school system decided to allow the students to perform the traditional Christmas carol.  I had found this interesting because it was in Alabama, which is my home state.  I also have a particular love for the song “Silent Night,” and I would like to tell you why and how to me, the song embodies the Christmas Spirit.

During World War I, on and around Christmas Day 1914, the sounds of rifles firing and shells exploding faded in a number of places along the Western Front in favor of holiday celebrations in the trenches and gestures of goodwill between enemies. On December 7, 1914, Pope Benedict XV suggested a temporary hiatus of the war for the celebration of Christmas. Though Germany readily agreed, the other powers refused.

Even without a cessation of war for Christmas, family and friends of the soldiers wanted to make their loved ones’ Christmas special. They sent packages filled with letters, warm clothing, food, cigarettes, and medications. Yet what especially made Christmas at the front seem like Christmas were the troves of small Christmas trees.

On Christmas Eve, many German soldiers put up Christmas trees, decorated with candles, on the parapets of their trenches. Hundreds of Christmas trees lighted the German trenches and although British soldiers could see the lights, it took them a few minutes to figure out what they were from. Could this be a trick? British soldiers were ordered not to fire but to watch them closely. Instead of trickery, the British soldiers heard many of the Germans celebrating.  They heard songs that were very familiar being sung in the other trenches:

The British responded with the song in their own language:

Starting on Christmas Eve, many German and British troops sang Christmas carols to each other across the lines, and at certain points the Allied soldiers even heard brass bands joining the Germans in their joyous singing.

At the first light of dawn on Christmas Day, some German soldiers emerged from their trenches and approached the Allied lines across no-man’s-land, calling out “Merry Christmas” in their enemies’ native tongues. At first, the Allied soldiers feared it was a trick, but seeing the Germans unarmed they climbed out of their trenches and shook hands with the enemy soldiers. The men exchanged presents of cigarettes and plum puddings and sang carols and songs. There was even a documented case of soldiers from opposing sides playing a good-natured game of soccer.

Some soldiers used this short-lived ceasefire for a more somber task: the retrieval of the bodies of fellow combatants who had fallen within the no-man’s land between the lines.

The so-called Christmas Truce of 1914 came only five months after the outbreak of war in Europe and was one of the last examples of the outdated notion of chivalry between enemies in warfare. It was never repeated—future attempts at holiday ceasefires were quashed by officers’ threats of disciplinary action—but it served as heartening proof, however brief, that beneath the brutal clash of weapons, the soldiers’ essential humanity endured.

During World War I, the soldiers on the Western Front did not expect to celebrate on the battlefield, but even a world war could not destory the Christmas spirit.

The First World War is one of my favorite topics of study. It is so important for much of the history of the twentieth century, even though it is often overlooked. We, the GLBT community, also owe a great deal to the Great War. The First World War traumatised millions of men and challenged hegemonic conceptions of masculinity. In the post-war era, battles raged between competing socio-political groups over masculinity and the war experience. The homosexual movement posed one of the most significant challenges to pre-war gender norms. The war galvanised homosexuals to challenge social and cultural perceptions of gays as degenerate ‘enemies of the nation’. The movement was fragmented by rivalries and theoretical differences, but the memory of the war served as a central reference point for defining homosexual identity, masculinity and political rights in the Weimar Republic. The First World War was a turning point for Germany’s homosexual movement, as the war provided a central ideal – comradeship – that became a cornerstone for defining homosexual identity and justifying emancipation. An intensely militarised rhetoric permeated the language of gay rights organisations in the 1920s and, despite the differences among those organisations, the war gave homosexuals similar visions of a spiritually and politically liberated gay man who could use his training at the front to fight legal oppression and cultural prejudice.

It began as an ordinary December day. People were gathered around the radio listening to a football game or planning holiday parties, not girding for battle. But on Dec. 7, 1941, when the first Associated Press report came over the radio at 2:22 p.m. Eastern Standard Time of a “bombing in Hawaii,” the news was electrifying. Seventy years later, every American living now who heard it then can still tell you exactly what he was doing when he learned of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

My grandmother will never forget that day seventy years ago. Her first child died of pneumonia on that day. She came home from the hospital to turn on the radio just as they were announcing the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Not only had she just lost her baby, but also, she realized that she would soon lose her husband to the war as well. My grandfather fought in WWII and luckily he safely returned, and they had two more children, my father and my aunt.

Pearl Harbor marked a watershed in the nation’s history and we knew it. What came after would be very different from what came before. It was the war that changed the world. “The Day of Infamy” thrust us into a conflict more than four years long that altered nearly every aspect of American life, large and small – from rationing gas and sugar to the harnessing of atomic power to the new role of women in the workplace. We united to defend our democracy. For more than 400,000, it would be the ultimate sacrifice.

That is why it is so important to remember the 70th anniversary of Pearl Harbor and all the 70th anniversaries of World War II events that follow.

The Wizard of Oz had its first premiere screening August 12, 1939 and has been a beloved classic since that day. This movie has been a iconic movie for gay men since it was released. Other connections between Garland and LGBT people include the slang term friend of Dorothy, which likely derives from Garland’s portrayal of Dorothy Gale in The Wizard of Oz and became a code phrase gay people used to identify each other. Dorothy’s journey from Kansas to Oz “mirrored many gay men’s desires to escape the black-and-white limitations of small town life…for big, colorful cities filled with quirky, gender-bending characters who would welcome them.” In the film, Dorothy immediately accepts those who are different, including the Cowardly Lion. The Lion identifies himself through song as a “sissy” and exhibits stereotypically “gay” (or at least effeminate) mannerisms. The Lion offers a coded example of Garland meeting and accepting a gay man without question.In the film, Dorothy is accepting of those who are different. For example the “gentle lion” living a lie, “I’m afraid there’s no denyin’, I’m just a dandy lion.”

I find this little fact hilarious, though it is also quite tragic in terms of understanding the American military attitudes and understanding of gay men.  In the early 1980s, the Naval Investigative Service was investigating homosexuality in the Chicago area. Agents discovered that gay men sometimes referred to themselves as “friends of Dorothy.” Unaware of the historical meaning of the term, the NIS believed that a woman named Dorothy was at the center of a massive ring of homosexual military personnel. The NIS launched an enormous hunt for Dorothy, hoping to find her and convince her to reveal the names of gay servicemembers.

Conventional wisdom is that Garland’s death and funeral, in June 1969, helped inspire the Stonewall riots, the flashpoint of the modern Gay Liberation movement. However, some observers of the riots contend that most of those involved “were not the type to moon over Judy Garland records or attend her concerts at Carnegie Hall. They were more preoccupied with where they were going to sleep and where their next meal would come from.” There was certainly an awareness and appreciation of Garland among Stonewall Inn patrons. Because the bar had no liquor license, it was passed off as a bottle club and patrons were required to sign in. Many used pseudonyms and “Judy Garland” was among the most popular. Regardless of the truth of the matter, the Garland/Stonewall connection has persisted and has been fictionalized in Stonewall, Nigel Finch’s feature film about the events leading up to the riots. Lead character Bostonia is shown watching Garland’s funeral on television and mourning, and later refusing to silence a jukebox playing a Garland song during a police raid, declaring “Judy stays.”

Time magazine would summarize decades later:

The uprising was inspirited by a potent cocktail of pent-up rage (raids of gay bars were brutal and routine), overwrought emotions (hours earlier, thousands had wept at the funeral of Judy Garland) and drugs. As a 17-year-old cross-dresser was being led into the paddy wagon and got a shove from a cop, she fought back. [She] hit the cop and was so stoned, she didn’t know what she was doing—or didn’t care.

Garland’s daughter Lorna Luft points to the connection with pride, saying that her mother was a “huge, huge advocate of human rights” and that Garland would have found the rioting appropriate.

Another connection is the rainbow flag, symbol of the LGBT communities which may have been inspired, in part, by Garland’s song “Over the Rainbow.” Garland’s performance of this song has been described as “the sound of the closet,” speaking to gay men whose image “they presented in their own public lives was often at odds with a truer sense of self that mainstream society would not condone.”

1924 

The Society for Human Rights in Chicago becomes the country’s earliest known gay rights organization.

1948

Alfred Kinsey publishes Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, revealing to the public that homosexuality is far more widespread than was commonly believed.

1951

The Mattachine Society, the first national gay rights organization, is formed by Harry Hay, considered by many to be the founder of the gay rights movement.

1956

The Daughters of Bilitis, a pioneering national lesbian organization, is founded.

1962

Illinois becomes the first state in the U.S. to decriminalize homosexual acts between consenting adults in private.

1969

The Stonewall riots transform the gay rights movement from one limited to a small number of activists into a widespread protest for equal rights and acceptance. Patrons of a gay bar in New York’s Greenwich Village, the Stonewall Inn, fight back during a police raid on June 27, sparking three days of riots.

1973

The American Psychiatric Association removes homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders.

Harvey Milk runs for city supervisor in San Francisco. He runs on a socially liberal platform and opposes government involvement in personal sexual matters. Milk comes in 10th out of 32 candidates, earning 16,900 votes, winning the Castro District and other liberal neighborhoods. He receives a lot of media attention for his passionate speeches, brave political stance, and media skills.

1976

San Francisco Mayor George Moscone appoints Harvey Milk to the Board of Permit Appeals, making Milk the first openly gay city commissioner in the United States. Milk decides to run for the California State Assembly and Moscone is forced to fire him from the Board of Permit Appeals after just five weeks. Milk loses the State Assembly race by fewer than 4,000 votes. Believing the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club will never support him politically, Milk co-founds the San Francisco Gay Democratic Club after his election loss.

1978

On January 8, Harvey Milk makes national news when he is sworn in as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Running against 16 other candidates, he wins the election by 30 percent. Milk begins his term by sponsoring a civil rights bill that outlaws sexual orientation discrimination. Only one supervisor votes against it and Mayor Moscone signs it into law.

John Briggs drops out of the California governor’s race, but receives support for Proposition 6, also known as the Briggs Initiative, a proposal to fire any teacher or school employee who publicly supports gay rights. Harvey Milk campaigns against the bill and attends every event hosted by Briggs. In the summer, attendance greatly increases at Gay Pride marches in San Francisco and Los Angeles, partly in response to Briggs. President Jimmy Carter, former Governor Ronald Reagan, and Governor Jerry Brown speak out against the proposition. On November 7, voters reject the proposition by more than a million votes.

1982

Wisconsin becomes the first state to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

1993

The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is instituted for the U.S. military, permitting gays to serve in the military but banning homosexual activity. President Clinton’s original intention to revoke the prohibition against gays in the military was met with stiff opposition; this compromise, which has led to the discharge of thousands of men and women in the armed forces, was the result.

1996

In Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court strikes down Colorado’s Amendment 2, which denied gays and lesbians protections against discrimination, calling them “special rights.” According to Justice Anthony Kennedy, “We find nothing special in the protections Amendment 2 withholds. These protections . . . constitute ordinary civil life in a free society.”

2000

Vermont becomes the first state in the country to legally recognize civil unions between gay or lesbian couples. The law states that these “couples would be entitled to the same benefits, privileges, and responsibilities as spouses.” It stops short of referring to same-sex unions as marriage, which the state defines as heterosexual.

2003

The U.S. Supreme Court rules in Lawrence v. Texas that sodomy laws in the U.S. are unconstitutional. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.”

 

In November, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that barring gays and lesbians from marrying violates the state constitution. The Massachusetts Chief Justice concluded that to “deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage” to gay couples was unconstitutional because it denied “the dignity and equality of all individuals” and made them “second-class citizens.” Strong opposition followed the ruling.

2004

On May 17, same-sex marriages become legal in Massachusetts.

2005

Civil unions become legal in Connecticut in October.

2006

Civil unions become legal in New Jersey in December.

2007

In November, the House of Representatives approves a bill ensuring equal rights in the workplace for gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals.

2008

In February, a New York State appeals court unanimously votes that valid same-sex marriages performed in other states must be recognized by employers in New York, granting same-sex couples the same rights as other couples.

In February, the state of Oregon passes a law that allows same-sex couples to register as domestic partners allowing them some spousal rights of married couples.

On May 15, the California Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. By November 3rd, more than 18,000 same-sex couples have married. On November 4, California voters approved a ban on same-sex marriage called Proposition 8. The attorney general of California, Jerry Brown, asked the state’s Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of Proposition 8. The ban throws into question the validity of the more than 18,000 marriages already performed, but Attorney General Brown reiterated in a news release that he believed the same-sex marriages performed in California before November 4 should remain valid, and the California Supreme Court, which upheld the ban in May 2009, agreed, allowing those couples married under the old law to remain that way.

On October 10, the Supreme Court of Connecticut rules that same-sex couples have the right to marry. This makes Connecticut the second state, after Massachusetts, to legalize civil marriage for same-sex couples. The court rules that the state cannot deny gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry under Connecticut’s constitution, and that the state’s civil union law does not provide same-sex couples with the same rights as heterosexual couples.

On November 12, same-sex marriages begin to be officially performed in Connecticut.

2009

On April 3, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously rejects the state law banning same-sex marriage. Twenty-one days later, county recorders are required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

On April 7, the Vermont Legislature votes to override Gov. Jim Douglas’s veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry, legalizing same-sex marriage. It is the first state to legalize gay marriage through the legislature; the courts of the other states in which the marriage is legal—Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa—gave approval.

On June 3, New Hampshire governor John Lynch signs legislation allowing same-sex marriage. The law stipulates that religious organizations and their employees will not be required to participate in the ceremonies. New Hampshire is the sixth state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage.

On June 17, President Obama signs a referendum allowing the same-sex partners of federal employees to receive benefits. They will not be allowed full health coverage, however. This is Obama’s first major initiative in his campaign promise to improve gay rights.

On August 12, President Obama posthumously awards Harvey Milk the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

2010

March 3, Congress approves a law signed in December 2009 that legalizes same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia.

August 4, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8, the 2008 referendum that banned same-sex marriage in California, violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. “Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment,” Vaughn wrote in his opinion. “Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents.”

December 18, the U.S. Senate voted 65 to 31 in favor of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the Clinton-era military policy that forbids openly gay men and women from serving in the military. Eight Republicans sided with the Democrats to strike down the ban. The ban will not be lifted officially until President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, agree that the military is ready to enact the change and that it won’t affect military readiness. On Dec. 18, President Obama officially repealed the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy.

2011

June 24, New York passes a law to allow same-sex marriage. New York is now the largest state that allows gay and lesbian couples to marry. The vote comes on the eve of the city’s annual Gay Pride Parade and gives new momentum to the national gay-rights movement. The marriage bill is approved with a 33 to 29 vote. Cheering supporters greet Gov. Andrew Cuomo as he arrives on the Senate floor to sign the measure at 11:55pm, just moments after the vote. After making same-sax marriage one of his top priorities, Cuomo emerges as a true champion of gay rights.

Read more: The American Gay Rights Movement: A Timeline — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0761909.html#ixzz1ePbgH9Js

At the beginning of the 1950s, homosexual acts were still considered by British law to be criminal offences. The number of convictions rose rapidly in the immediate post-war period as the Home Office pursued prosecution more rigorously. At that time, homosexuality was also the subject of sensationalist reporting in the popular press, and there were a number of high profile cases involving public figures, such as the one mentioned in the film A Very British Sex Scandal. Also, in 1951, the Russian spies Donald MacLean and Guy Burgess, both known to be homosexual, defected to the USSR.

In 1954 the Home Secretary of the U.K. responded to prior requests to investigate the law relating to homosexuality (after a number of high profile arrests, including Sir John Gielgud, sensational trials, and a significant increase in the number of prosecutions for sodomy, indecent assault and gross indecency) by appointing a committee of 14 persons to investigate the law relating to homosexual offences and prostitution. The committee was headed by Sir John Wolfenden, then Vice Chancellor of the University of Reading.

A history of repression

Britain in general had a long tradition of very oppressive legislation against homosexuals, particularly sharpened towards the end of the 19th century. Very famous of course was the trial against Oscar Wilde, which was specifically a trial against offences under an act from 1885.

The Wolfenden Report was set up in an atmosphere of great hostility towards homosexuality in the 1950s. There was a great hoo-hah in the press against gay men, in particular – gay women did not figure into this, and it was not actually even illegal to be a lesbian.

Sir David Maxwell Fyfe (center) at the Nuremberg trials

David Maxwell-Fife, who was the Home Secretary in the second Churchill government, set up a committee to examine homosexuality presumably because he actually wanted to tighten legislation against homosexuality. He probably wanted to make things more repressive, which is quite interesting, because Maxwell-Fife actually has another background. He was very instrumental in drawing up the European Convention on Human Rights. That was part of his background. He came out of that Churchillian background of trying to impose greater human rights on a Europe which had so clearly infringed human rights. In the 1950s, there was not a great deal of awareness that some of the main victims of Nazi persecutions were actually gay men.

A surprising result

Sir John Wolfenden

Maxwell-Fife was probably surprised when the Wolfenden Report came out, because looking at the composition of the committee, you would not have expected that outcome. The committee included, among others, two judges, a Foreign Office official, a Scottish Presbyterian minister, a Conservative MP, a consulting psychiatrist, the vice-president of the City of Glasgow Girl Guides, and a professor of moral theology.

So when the report came out recommending that homosexual acts between adults in private should be legalized, and the same rules should be applied to define what was private in the same way it was for heterosexual relationships.

The report was, in effect, set aside, because it was far too radical. But it came out in an atmosphere of great interest. It was in fact a best-seller; it had to be reprinted, which is very unusual for a government report. It had to be reprinted several times, and sold out.

Cases in the public eye

But it also came out in an environment where there was a growing awareness that perhaps, in certain parts of society, this was actually quite awkward. Some very well known people had been affected by the legislation against homosexuality, for instance Alan Turing, the chief code breaker at Bletchley, who basically designed and built the computer which enabled the country to break the German Enigma code. He was gay, and he was found out, and he was blackmailed into resigning and taking hormone treatment.  He killed himself in 1954.

Sir John Gielgud

This did not receive a great level of publicity, but there were other great famous names involved. A very famous example was Sir John Gielgud, who again in 1954 was involved in a trial where he and fellow peers and relatives of his were convicted for having had sex with working-class men.  Also, the sensational 1954 trial of the Montagu/Pitt-Rivers/Wildeblood case in which a peer (Lord Montagu of Beaulieu), his cousin (Michael Pitt-Rivers), and a journalist (Peter Wildeblood) were convicted of having sexual relations with young working class men and received sentences ranging from twelve to eighteen months imprisonment. In 1952, there had been 670 prosecutions in England for sodomy; 3,087 prosecutions for attempted sodomy or indecent assault; and 1,686 prosecutions for gross indecency.

The fact that they were working class was probably something that was as worrying as the fact that they were men; this trangression both of gender and of class was of course also one of the aspects of the trial of Oscar Wilde. And there probably was a realization in certain parts of society that homosexuality was, in practice, not something you could legislate against. Indeed, the Wolfenden Report found that it could not be considered a disease, despite some of the most established medical advice.

Interestingly, despite the testimony of numerous psychiatrists and psychoanalysts, the committee refused to classify homosexuality as a mental illness requiring psychiatric intervention. It found that “homosexuality cannot legitimately be regarded as a disease, because in many cases it is the only symptom and is compatible with full mental health in other respects.” It did, however, urge continued research into the causes and potential cures of homosexuality, such as hormone treatments and psychiatric therapy.

Aftermath of the Report

So there was this complex background, both a strong hostility to homosexuality, particularly in the popular press, and a growing awareness that actually it is not something you can just stop by legislation, which led up to the Sexual Offences Act 1967 under the government of Harold Wilson , and promoted by Roy Jenkins, which finally legalized sexual acts between adult males in private.

It is also interesting when you read the report that the members of the committee decided to do this because they thought it was in conformity with standard application of decent human behaviour as expressed in other human rights legislation. They could see that the state had no role in deciding what people did in private – because that was infringing general principles of human rights, as expressed for instance in the European Convention of Human Rights. They did not actually approve of homosexuality; the Report is quite explicit about that. Most of them quite clearly thought it was repugnant and repusive.

The Wolfenden Report recommended that “homosexual behaviour between consenting adults in private should no longer be a criminal offence”, and it recommended that prostitution not be made a criminal offence. As it said:

“there must remain a realm of private morality and immorality which is, in brief and crude terms, not the law’s business. To say this is not to condone or encourage private immorality.”

“the function of the criminal law… is to preserve public order and decency, to protect the citizen from what is offensive or injurious, and to provide sufficient safeguards against exploitation and corruption of others, particularly those who are specially vulnerable because they are young, weak in body or mind, inexperienced, or in a state of special physical, official or economic dependence. It is not, in our view, the function of the law to intervene in the private lives of citizens, or to seek to enforce any particular pattern of behaviour, further than is necessary to carry out the purposes of we have outlined.”

The important lesson

I think that perhaps the most important aspect of the Report is that of privacy and the call for government not to impose one person or group’s morality on another. Here we have a group of people who say: We do not like this; but we recognize that rights apply even to people who we do not like.

And that is perhaps the main test for how good we are at applying human rights: are we able to give human rights to those people whom we like the least? So this last point is one of the reasons that I really think the Wolfenden Report is very important. Obviously as a gay man I have a private interest in it as well; but I think it is the general ability to say that people whom we do not like have the same rights as us which is really important.  It takes courage to do this, but it is what we should do: treat others as we would like to be treated.

SOURCES: 

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenden_report
• http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/takingliberties/staritems/619wolfendenreportaudio.html
• http://home.wlu.edu/~mahonj/PhilLawLecture4.htm
• http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/wolfenden_report.html
• http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/before-after-wolfenden-report.htm
• http://philosopedia.org/index.php/Wolfenden_Report