Category: LGBT

The Constitutional protection to equal rights under the law has been invoked over and over again to try and afford homosexuals equal right to the social institution of marriage and to social security when one legal spouse dies.

This paper argues that the majority of the American people refuse to countenance homosexual marriage, that this moral stand has held steady against the specious propaganda of the liberal press, and that legal statutes define marriage as between one man and one woman.

America cannot afford to give credence and legal standing to a fringe element of society.

What seems fashionable and progressive thinking cannot be equated with ethical behavior. During the Vietnam War, the actions of Jane Fonda and draft dodgers roiled the nation. Every generation of teenagers like to rebel by smoking, binge drinking, and risking life and limb in drag racing and contests of chicken but the least that be said is that all these are bad for their health. Parents shrug that their children in middle school will indulge their curiosity about sex no matter what but the sorry wrecks of teenage pregnancies, single motherhood, and underage abortions are all around for us to see. Today, those who like to indulge in marijuana, other illicit drugs, and prostitution say they harm no one but themselves so why not break the law?

Illicit and perverted licentiousness cannot be given the legal sanction of marriage.

The courts and legislature cannot legalize homosexuality and protect it from moral condemnation and social scorn (Gallagher 1). In the same way, the right of consenting adolescents and adults to engage in premarital sex, adultery, incest, statutory rape, child assault, domestic violence, sadomasochistic acts, and child pornography all confront widespread disapproval and legal sanction.

Homosexuals began to agitate for equal rights to marriage in the post-Vietnam era.

By the mid-1990s, the backlash became so great that Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. The nations law forbids the federal government from granting the civil rights and protections of marriage to any couple except one man and one woman.

It is a myth that America is moving towards a consensus of approval. The well-respected series of annual NORC General Social Surveys reveal a clear majority across the nation oppose (59%) homosexual marriages versus only one-third who favor these. Those who disapprove do so on explicit moral and religious grounds. Other opinion surveys compiled by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (1) reveal the extent of public opposition to homosexual marriage.

The protections extended to men and women who marry, reinforced by the Defense of Marriage Act (Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419) of 1996, can be rationalized as safeguarding women who may not have the ability or financial capacity to rear natural offspring if abandoned by husbands (The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life 1).

In 2006 voting, a total of seven states  Colorado, Idaho, South Dakota, South Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Tennessee  added to the 20 around the union that, like California, now boasted constitutional amendments defining marriage as, legally speaking, between one man and a woman (Anonymous 14). In contrast, the tally of states where performing homosexual marriage is legal as of 2009 has held steady at four: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont.

Religious beliefs and community ethics are sound foundations for the protections society afford real families and their offspring. One must therefore conclude that the larger interests of society take precedence over homosexuals who provide no benefit to the nation or future generations with their cohabiting liaisons. Theirs is an illicit love that will never have natural offspring, a union that cannot rear children in proper gender roles, or secures them against the breakup of the family.

References

Anonymous. Gay Marriage Ban: Who Wins? Religious Conservatives. The Christian Century, 123 (2006) 14.

Gallagher, Maggie. Marriage Matters: Why? 2004. Web.

Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, The. Surveys Part 2: Gay Marriage. 2009. Web. Public Law 104199, 110 Stat. 2419, H.R. 3396.

Yang, Allan S. The Polls-Trends: Attitudes Toward Homosexuality. Public Opinion Quarterly. 61:33, (1997) 477-507.

On the night of New Year’s Eve in 1967, a tragic occurrence, plotted by diabolical policemen, took place at the Black Cat Tavern on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles, California. Knowing that this particular bar was considered a welcoming safe space for queer individuals, policemen went undercover to ‘catch them in the act’ and have the opportunity to brutalize these innocent beings when the clock struck midnight, after they naturally exchanged their New Year’s kisses. This raid triggered movements against the social injustices and governmental brutalities including “an organized a protest of police brutality outside the Black Cat bar. Four hundred demonstrators… protested police brutality at six locations” (Armstrong). The topic of homosexuality has always been considered taboo and immoral in the eyes of society due to the influence of religious beliefs. Christians deemed homosexuality as sinful and a ‘crime against nature’ (Slovenko). With these beliefs being held up to the highest standard in Europe, it was difficult for individuals to identify as a homosexual years prior, during, and after World War II, especially in Germany and Britain. With strict laws in order, and the ubiquitous eyes of government officials, queer individuals were forced to contain their sexuality to the fullest extent possible whilst in fear of being persecuted. With similar belief systems regarding the immorality of homosexuality being concurrent in America, queer individuals started to fight back during post-war years. They fought against communist stereotypes that were placed onto them by President Truman which resulted in job losses, unjust investigations and prosecutions, and a damaged reputation as a community. Additionally, and most importantly, they fought for their individual and fundamental rights as a queer community. Despite the inevitable homophobic attitudes and biases that were omnipresent in the 1950’s, queer individuals lionized Los Angeles as a progressive community due to civil rights protests, gay representation in the entertainment industry and publications, and access to queer affiliated associations.

One of the primary reasons why Los Angeles was recognized as a welcoming region for queer individuals was due to the protests that fought against the intolerances of their being. With a more liberal environment starting to form within the area, the appearance of queer individuals didn’t seem to be as eccentric, which helped contribute to the emigration of queer aliens to the city. Although the public started to have a more liberal perspective of things, the police continued to have a steadfast image and prejudice against queer individuals. In the eyes of government officials, homosexuality was seen as an illness alongside intentional immoral living. Looking for any excuse to detain queer individuals, “the LAPD continued to raid gay and lesbian bars throughout the 1960s” (LGBT Historic Context Statement). Despite these unfortunate incidents, Los Angeles was still sanctioned as a safe space because of the aftermath of these incidents. With occurrences like these leaving the LGBT community distraught, they decided to use the circumstances in their favor by bringing light to these dark moments and fight against the inhumane actions towards them. Events like these helped give them a platform to speak their truth and to help show the harsh reality of being queer. Overall, no matter how much society tried to belittle and intimidate the queer community, unlike other places in the world, they didn’t abide to these attempts in Los Angeles, they fought back.

Apart from the revolts against the inequalities of queer individuals, Los Angeles was perceived as a safe space for queer individuals because of queer representation and acceptance in the entertainment industry. “The changes in American society emboldened many LGBT people to live completely openly, including many in Hollywood” (LGBT Historic Context Statement). The LGBT community had a huge impact on the image that Hollywood is known for. With Hollywood being the ‘home’ of television and filmmaking, queer individuals migrated to Hollywood in search of opportunities. Because of the welcoming and accepting atmosphere that Hollywood offered to the LGBT community, queer individuals were able to find success and comfort in the industry. In addition to queer acceptance and representation in Hollywood, queer individuals were drawn to queer publications within newspapers and magazines. The first openly gay magazine in America was ONE magazine. ONE was known for publishing various forms of “queer related content such as poems, news, fiction, and even essays written to the magazine” (Loftin). Queer individuals used ONE as an outlet to express their gratitude for publicizing queer content, as well as to ask questions and to be informed about queer lifestyles. Alongside ONE, another source of queer related subject matter was The Advocate newspaper. Founded in 1967, The Advocate provided “non-fiction material, including news stories, editorials, and columns” (Streitmatter). “The Advocate sought to give voice to a segment of the population that had been denied access to standard mass communication outlets. Likewise, the early Advocate’s goal of ending discriminatory treatment of gay men and lesbians was comparable to the central goals of other advocacy presses” (Streitmatter).

Lastly, in addition to the protests and queer liberation presses that flourished in Los Angeles, the city was admired by queer individuals due to its availability of queer affiliated associations. Two well-known associations include those who fought against the prosecutions of the Lavender Scare, as well as the Mattachine Society. During the early years of the Cold War, the ‘Lavender Scare’, which infiltrated the idea that all homosexuals should be under suspicion due to their ‘deviant status’ was influenced by the ‘Red Scare’, the suspicion of anyone different due to the fear of communism being spread throughout America. Queers were seen as threats to the government “because they were susceptible to blackmail and because they were already morally debased” (Troops). These attempts to paint the queer community as criminals “would eventually be instrumental in the later movement for equal rights for homosexuals” (Troops). The Lavender Scare took a huge negative toll on the queer community, such as job losses and a diminished reputation as a group. However, this helped build a pedestal for them to band together and fight against these allegations. In addition to the gay rights advocacy that took place due to the Lavender Scare, a group called the Mattachine Society formed to fight against homophobia. The Mattachine Society argued that “homosexuality was not merely a sexual orientation. Rather, collectively homosexuals were a minority group with a unique culture” (LGBT Historic Context Statement). Their goals as a group were to unify the gay community to “educate both homosexuals and heterosexuals” and “to lead forward into the realm of political action” (Meeker). They wanted to change the perception of the public eye to what the LGBT community was really about.

In conclusion, queer individuals lionized Los Angeles as a progressive community due to civil rights protests, gay representation in the entertainment industry and publications, and access to queer affiliated associations. All of these factors are relevant today because they all helped contribute to the more open-minded and liberal society that we live in. The LGBTQ community has more of a safe space to live in because ideals have and still are slowly changing and becoming more accepting.

Introduction: The Overwatch Phenomenon

What is Overwatch? Overwatch is an online multiplayer first-person shooter that’s usually made up of teams of 6v6 created by Blizzard Entertainment back in 2016. Blizzard has also created other games, such as World of Warcraft, StarCraft, and Diablo. When Blizzard created Overwatch, it also created a huge stepping stone into a more diverse and opened-minded gaming industry. Diversity in games is incredibly important because while games are usually fictional and fantasy, representation in media is always important in reflecting real life.

The Power of Representation in Gaming

According to a Huffington Post article on representation in media, in a study about television’s effect on children’s self-esteem, Nicole Martins and Kristen Harrison of the University of Michigan found that children of color often had lower self-esteem after watching shows compared to white children — who often felt good afterward. Martins also brings up “symbolic annihilation,” which was coined by ____ in ____, and it is the idea that if you don’t see people like you in the media you consume, you begin to believe you must somehow be unimportant. This idea is why it’s so important for there to be diversity in gaming, which is something often consumed by a wide range of people of any age. Gaming is a very accessible media right now, and with so many different people playing games, it’s really important for people to be able to see themselves within these games.

This topic is important to me as someone who’s been playing Overwatch for almost two years now and still actively taking part in its community. The topics discussed are just a handful of reasons why this game is so important to me and why I continued and even started playing it.

LGBT Representation and Advancements in Overwatch

As of right now, Overwatch has 28 playable heroes. [Picture of the cast] Of these 28, 13 of them are female or female-presenting; 11 of them are people of color, and 1 of them is confirmed LGBT, with others being hinted at being confirmed in the future. An article from Polygon compares these numbers to Street Fighter 2 from 1991, which, in a cast of 14, only had one woman and one African-American.

The same article quotes Jeff Kaplan, a lead designer on Overwatch, in saying that they wanted to create a universe where people could expect anyone from anywhere to be the next hero. They want to normalize the idea that anyone could be seen instead of it always being a shocking surprise when someone from a marginalized group is revealed in a game. Blizzard showed this type of normalization when they presented their hero Tracer as gay in a 2016 holiday comic where she’s seen kissing her girlfriend.

She was later confirmed by Michael Chu, senior designer on Overwatch, to indeed be a lesbian. This was such a monumental moment for LGBT people in gaming, as according to another Polygon article, Tracer has been known as the face of Overwatch even before the game was officially launched for play, and once it was out, she’s the first hero you ever see before you play the game. Many games include LGBT characters and stories nowadays, and most games are more open-minded with your romancing options, but it’s so significant for the main face of a game like Overwatch to be a part of the LGBT community.

The Push for Gender Equality in Gaming through Overwatch

Alongside that, though, she’s also a woman, and Overwatch has taken many steps to change the gaming industry for women, whether intentionally or not. Overwatch currently has 13 female characters, but one of them, in particular, has stood out since the beginning. Their Korean hero named Hana Song, also known as D.VA is a 19-year-old pro gamer in the Overwatch universe. South Korea is known for its huge place in professional gaming, but it’s a very male-dominated industry everywhere, including South Korea, so making the one professional gamer hero a woman was a huge step all on its own.

D.VA has gone on to inspire many, though, and she’s even the face of a South Korean Women’s Rights movement known as the National D.VA Association. They were seen holding flags of her symbol in a peaceful protest earlier this year. They’ve been quoted as saying, “The reason [D. Va] became our mascot because we thought that in a country like ours, it would be impossible for a person like her to appear, especially after the case of Geguri.”

Well, you’re probably asking, who’s Geguri? Geguri is a 19-year-old Korean woman who was part of a huge scandal in 2017 of people claiming she was too good of a player to be a girl and that she must be cheating. These claims were disproven by Blizzard themselves, but she still went on a live stream to prove she did not cheat. She has moved passed this now and moved on to become the first woman signed into the official Overwatch League.

Geguri herself does not want to be known for being the best woman tank but instead just the best tank. She doesn’t want to be known as the woman part of her identity, but in a society still just starting to become more open-minded, it’s hard not to focus on her being the name of such a big step forward. She and other women alike look forward to the day when we no longer have to label people as “the first woman of” anything. Blizzard’s game Overwatch has helped push the gaming industry in the right direction for something like that.

References:

1. Blizzard Entertainment. (2016). Overwatch. https://playoverwatch.com/
2. Martins, N., & Harrison, K. (2012). Racial and Gender Differences in the Relationship between Children’s Television Use and Self-Esteem: A Longitudinal Panel Study. Communication Research, 41(3), 338-357.
3. Polygon. (2018). Diversity and Inclusion in Overwatch and Beyond. https://www.polygon.com/2018/6/28/17512952/overwatch-diversity-inclusion-lgbtq-blizzard
4. Kaplan, J. (2017). Overwatch Community Q&A – March 9, 2017. Blizzard Entertainment. https://playoverwatch.com/en-us/news/20464895
5. Michael Chu. (2016). Reflections: An Overwatch Comic. Blizzard Entertainment. https://comic.playoverwatch.com/en-us/tracer-reflections
6. Blizzard Entertainment. (2016). Overwatch: Tracer – London Calling. https://comic.playoverwatch.com/en-us/tracer-london-calling

Jussie Smollett’s Tangled Controversy

The star of Empire, Jussie Smollett, is currently facing a disturbing controversy that has the feeling of an actual Empire show. The recent rumors and allegations are creating a link between a potential hate crime attack and Smollett’s current occupation (Veneable). This controversy has had a huge impact on Empire’s storyline and reignited the discussion about hate crimes in America. Although Chicago Police are questioning whether the crime committed against Smollett was real, people following the story are left with the question of whether the attack is fact or fiction.

Changes to Empire’s Storyline

TMZ reports Empire is currently in production of its fifth season, and the series’ staff has been said to be busier than ever due to rewrites eliminating Jussie Smollett’s character, Jamal Lyon, from several of the main scenes. There have been claims which stated that Smollett was a part of nine scenes in one of the episodes while also being included in a big musical performance of some kind. After the recent controversy, fans can expect to see him in only half of the scenes he was set to originally star in Venable.

Rumors from Empire fans also claim that of the four of the nine scenes Smollett was originally set to star in, his character will no longer possess the lead role. Rather, he will “blend” in with other lesser-known characters Venable. Executives of the show undoubtedly have taken precautions in the event that one of their main stars is creating a false controversy, even though they have made public claims that they believe Smollett’s story.

The LGBT and Black Communities Perspective

Another reason this story is so controversial is that Jussie Smollett has claimed that the attacks on him were hate crimes. Smollett affiliates himself with both the Black and LGBT community, both of which have been subject to unnecessary hatred. People in America hear about police brutality towards the Black community along with stories of discrimination towards members of the LGBT all the time. Many individuals of both discourses have even been killed for being a part of those societies, such as Trayvon Martin and the many people killed in the mass shooting at the gay Orlando nightclub. Smollett being a member of both societies doubles his chances of being targeted by individuals who hate either community.

The Ongoing Investigation

Currently, Chicago police are investigating whether Smollett had staged his attack and paid co-workers to “jump” him. If the investigation finds Smollett guilty, then it will be truly disappointing to the communities he claims to represent. Police believe he may have pulled this stunt to gain PR, and if so, then Smollett would have failed to recognize that brutality and hatred towards the Black and LGBT communities is no joke. In fact, it is very serious, and his story may affect future victims who are subject to such crimes.

As of February 21, 2019, Smollett has been arrested and faces felony charges for a false police report. The Chicago police are now identifying him as a suspect after the “alleged” two men who attacked Smollett claim that he paid them to stage an attack. Police also believe that they have evidence which answers all the questions for this investigation.

References:

1. Venable, N. (2019, February 22). How Empire Is Handling Jussie Smollett In The Wake Of The Alleged Attack. CinemaBlend. https://www.cinemablend.com/television/2467179/how-empire-is-handling-jussie-smollett-in-the-wake-of-the-alleged-attack
2. Burch, A. (2019, February 21). Jussie Smollett, Once a Dismissed Defendant, Is Indicted on 16 Counts. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/arts/television/jussie-smollett-charges.html
3. Gooden, T. (2016). Jussie Smollett: Proud and black, gay and talented. Ebony, 71(3), 52-58.
4. Asmelash, L., & McLaughlin, E. C. (2019, February 21). Jussie Smollett is now a suspect in criminal investigation for filing false police report, police say. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/20/entertainment/jussie-smollett-attack/index.html
5. Gray, L., & Khazan, O. (2019, February 21). What Jussie Smollett’s Alleged Hoax Reveals. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/02/jussie-smollett-case-shows-limits-progress/583356/

LGBT History in America

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) people have remained silent and unnoticed in the United States until after World War 2. Before the war, many gay and lesbian Americans hid their sexual orientation out of fear and shame. Gay men who lived in cities used to form close social networks with other gay men and managed to remain a part of a hidden subculture.

During 1940-1950, LGBT Americans were able to practice their sexual orientation more freely, something that they were not able to do so previously. The LGBT community’s existence was a little bit more “tolerated” but was not widely accepted. Discrimination against LGBT individuals started to grow during the mid-1950s. Both LGBT men and women were fired from their jobs or dismissed from the military because of their sexual orientation.  American society became less tolerant of homosexuality in the 1950s and 1960s.

The homosexual “lifestyle” was portrayed as a threat to American security, and police began to harass gay and lesbian individuals by raiding their bars and nightclubs. On June 28, 1969, there were a series of violent actions by the gay community against a police raid at The Stonewall. It was known as the Stonewall Riots. This riot was a turning point in the gay rights movement. The LGBT community had gotten inspired by the women’s movement and the civil rights movement, so LGBT Americans began to put their rights into motion politically. The LGBT community has gained much more acceptance in American culture since the 1970s, but they continue to struggle.

Recent Advances and Challenges

In recent years the lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community have gained visibility and have had some remarkable successes. The number of countries that prohibited same-sex acts, including marriages, is significantly decreasing.  Also, we cannot forget how the number of recognizing same-sex marriages and adoptions, prohibiting employment discrimination, and punishing hate crimes are increasing. In the United States, hate crimes against LGBTQ people can be prosecuted under federal law. Many states have added sexuality to anti-discrimination laws that protect fundamental civil rights such as equal housing, public accommodation, and employment.

Although it looks like things are looking up, things haven’t been very progressive in recent years. On June 2016, there was a killing of forty-nine people in a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. There was an immediate response from mayors, police and FBI authorities, local and national politicians, and the President of the United States, who reached out to express outrage and concern. This demonstrates the enormous shift toward acceptance and public support for the LGBT community. This event has dramatically shown that violence against the LGBTQ community continues today despite the legal and political agendas. It’s clear that the struggle for gender and diversity is far from over.

Legal Landmarks for LGBTQ Rights

According to Mary Bernstein, the Hollingsworth v. Perry case had a significant impact on LGBTQ activism. She used the multi-institutional politics (MIP) approach to assess the effects of Perry on the LGBTQ movement. Bernstein believes that this approach acknowledges that society is comprised of multiple institutions that exert power in different ways. As an example, Bernstein states that the institution of psychiatry has been historically important in providing a reason to deny LGBTQ rights.

‘Until 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) defined homosexuality as a mental disorder, which had limited the progress the LGBTQ movement could make.’ He claims that once the APA removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), the movement was able to make progress in areas such as immigration policy and public health regulations. Bernstein believes that psychiatry is one of the multiple institutions that exert power and influence over the lives of the LGBTQ community.

Another critical case that leads the LGBTQ community further to their rights is the Lawrence v. Texas case. In this specific case, the Supreme Court overturned Texas’ consensual sodomy law in a prosecution that involved two men who were having sex in their own homes. The Supreme Court held that Texas did not have the constitutional power to criminalize consensual homosexual sodomy that takes place in a home.

Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas insisted that lesbian and gay Americans are ordinary citizens and deserve to be treated with respect. Justice Kennedy’s opinion demanded that states defending laws that govern sexual conduct with evidence would be causing harm to other people. Publicly showcasing distaste and moral criticism isn’t enough to justify regulation.

The Virginia Supreme Court also applied Lawrence to take down a state law making it a crime for consenting men and women to have intercourse outside of marriage. (Schwartz, 2002) Lawrence v. Texas has made the country more tolerant of the LGBTQ community. Justice Kennedy’s opinion stated that lesbian and gay Americans productively participate in their communities, join in committed relationships, and raise children.

Since Lawrence, school districts have prevented from discriminating against gay teachers and students, more employers allow gay, lesbian, and queer employees, more states allow two people of the same gender to have parental rights to the children they are bringing up together, and lastly, more police departments are protecting gay and transgender citizens against hate crimes rather than harassing them.

The most massive anti-gay campaign in the United States was Proposition 8, which was a ballot initiative in California that only recognized marriage between a man and a woman in 2008. This sparked outrage across the United States among the LGBTQ community and activists. The LGBTQ movement assembled almost 50,000 volunteers and raised over $38 million. LGBTQ organizations became less mobilized around marriage when the fate of same-sex marriage was in the hands of the court in California.

Bernstein states that this is not the same thing as entirely demobilizing. She believes that the socio-legal literature has paid little attention to the fact that social movements, such as the LGBTQ movement, can remain active even while a case is going slowly through its way through the courts.

The LGBTQ movement is an example of legal support strategies in action. During the Perry trial, some LGBTQ activists showed up outside the courthouse in large groups to showcase their support for the movement and ensure the media were seeing them. Also, LGBTQ organizations have adopted several other legal support tactics by playing a pivotal role in analyzing what is happening with the case. They are also keeping people notified of new advancements. These events required LGBTQ activists to always stay updated and administer information to their allies. LGBTQ activists have also issued press releases related to the Perry case. Finally, LGBTQ organizations have helped frame how the media portrays the case.

Not only did the Perry case create opportunities for the LGBTQ movement to engage in legal support tactics, but it also provided a time of reflection for the movement on the issue of getting their message sent across. It has always been an essential aspect of LGBTQ politics. Until 2012, the LGBTQ movement didn’t know how to persuade voters to support same-sex marriage at the ballot box positively. Despite successfully convincing voters to defeat measures that secured the legal protection of LGBTQ people from bigotry.

Activists were able to establish new and updated ways of framing marriage so that they don’t repeat the casualties of Proposition 8 and other anti-same-sex marriage votes. Mobilization of the LGBTQ movement declined after Perry was filed, and the litigation did not create attempts to create social change. Instead, LGBTQ activists got involved in a number of legal support tactics.

Ongoing Struggles and the Future

The controversy which surrounds gay marriage is complicated because of everybody’s beliefs and how they express the topic. Some people’s opinion is that gay marriage should not have been legalized nationally, while others feel that gay marriage should not have been sanctioned. The different views that are expressed by society’s attitudes toward gay marriage continue to cause considerable controversy throughout the nation and should come to a halt when gay marriage is legalized.

Marriage is all about sharing vows with the person that you love so that it is eternal. Surprisingly, many individuals feel that those vows should only be shared between a man and a woman. Those individuals believe that if homosexuals are allowed to exchange vows with each other, then it will take away the true meaning and importance of marriage. Recognition of same-sex marriage has been an explicit goal of many in the gay rights movement for at least twenty-five years.

Advocates have filed more than a dozen lawsuits claiming a right to marry; however, there was a lawsuit in 1990 presented in Hawaii that caused a national outrage because it was becoming clear that the Hawaii Supreme Court was on the verge of sanctioning same-sex marriage. In response to this possibility, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The Defense of Marriage Act became law in 1996, which declared that marriages between gay or lesbian couples would not be recognized by the federal government. This meant that those couples would not receive basic things that straight married couples receive, such as legal benefits like Social Security and health insurance.

However, in 2013 the Supreme Court administered DOMA to be unconstitutional, which meant same-sex couples married in their states could receive those federal benefits. The Supreme Court decided that Congress would be interfering with the rights of states which define what marriage is and ultimately would be violating the rights of Windsor and other couples to Equal Protection if DOMA gets passed.

DOMA contains a definition of “marriage” and “spouse” for purposes of federal law, affirming that both apply exclusively to relationships between persons of the opposite sex. It states that “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife”

On June 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges, which I believe to be the most important case, that the Constitution guaranteed all same-sex couples the right to marry, making marriage equality available throughout the country. It’s secured by both the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the United States Constitution. There’s a ruling called the 5-4, which requires all fifty states to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples the same way we recognize the marriage of opposite-sex couples.

The legal and social climate that has to do with marriage equality in the United States has changed dramatically. The US Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that Windsor v. United States federal government was obligated to recognize states sanctioned marriages of same-sex couples. There was national recognition that provided access to some significant advantages even if married same-sex couples lived in states that did not recognize their marriage.

There was research conducted that analyzed data from the American Community Survey (ACS) and the Gallup Daily Tracking survey to show the effect that the Windsor and Obergefell rulings had on the number of marriages among couples of the same sex. It stated that in 2013, there was an estimated 230,000 same-sex couples were married, 21% of all same-sex couples. This all occurred the same year that the Windsor ruling was issued. When June 2015 came around, this is when Obergefell was decided. An estimated 390,000 same-sex couples were married, and 38% of all same-sex couples. As of October 2015, 486,000 same-sex couples were married, or 45% of all same-sex couples.

The LGBTQ movement in the United States has made several gains in political equality in recent years. Gay and Lesbians are allowed to marry, LGBTQ people can serve in the military, and anti-sodomy laws are no longer constitutional. Violent acts against the LGBTQ community could now be classified as a hate crime under federal law. The most profound effect of this cultural shift is on LGBTQ youth. Although there is a significant push for change in our modernized American society, there are still people who do not want to accept a more progressive way of thinking. With the controversial issue of gay marriage, there are always going to be people and organizations that are opposed to supporting it.

Reference Page

1. Bonnie J. Morris, “American Psychological Association”
2. Bernstein, Mary “Same-Sex Marriage and the Assimilationist Dilemma.” Same-Sex Marriage and the Assimilationist Dilemma
3. Brettschneider, Marla, “LGBTQ Politics a Critical Reader.” New York University Press, 2017
4. Brown, Taylor N.T and Gates, Gary J. “Marriage and Same-Sex Couples after Obergefell”
5. Freeman, Pamela A. Clarkson “The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA): Its Impact on Those Seeking Same-Sex Marriages.”
6. Schwartz, and Martin A. “Lawrence v. Texas: The Decision and Its Implications for the Future.” 2 May 2014
7. Eskridge Jr, William N. “The Marriage Equality Cases and Constitutional Theory”
8. Wolf, Sherry “Issues.” Stonewall: The Birth of Gay Power | International Socialist Review
   References:
9. “6 Pros and Cons of Freedom of Religion.” Bible Study, 8 Jan. 2016, biblestudyfoundation.org/6-pros-and-cons-of-freedom-of-religion.
10. Brooks, Chad. “The Second Amendment & the Right to Bear Arms.” LiveScience, Purch, 28 June 2017, www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html.

The Ethiopian government has always been in essence, a religiously backed government. With 62.8 of the population being of Ethiopian Orthodox Christian faith, The country’s community is fairly conservative. This in itself isn’t wrong, but it does inadvertently cause damage to Ethiopian human rights, especially concerning LGBTQ+ communities. This majority in the country gives religious organizations a lot of power in the area, especially concerning the ability to sway opinion, in turn impacting lawmakers decisions of controversial topics. For example, in 2014, religious leader Patriarch Abune Mathias posted on Facebook that “homosexuality is not natural and we in Ethiopia must not accept this ungodly behaviour.” and urged Ethiopian political leaders to add harsher laws against LGBTQ+ acts and individuals.

Also in 2014, the Council of Ministers proposed a bill that would bar LQBTQ+ individuals to accesses basic human rights. The bill, which was rejected in March of 2014, put homosexuality on a list of offences labels “Un-Pardonable”, alongside crimes such as terrorism. These requests, if they were to be passed, would have been added to Ethiopia’s already extensive list of anti-LGBTQ+ laws. These laws give a minimum of 25 years in prison to anyone who was found out to identify as homosexual and a ban of non-government organizations and international organizations that were Pro LGBTQ+. This means that there are no health centres that focus on LGBTQ+ specific health and that there is limited Aids and HIV education accessible to the public, though Dr.Kesetebirhan Admasu, the Ethiopian Minister of Health, says that “any person can access any type of services regardless of their sexual orientation.’, to which many LGBTQ+ individuals in Ethiopia say is a sick joke.

Despite all of the obstacles, there is still an underground lgbtq+ community in Ethiopia. This group thrives on the internet, and with the safety that private Facebook groups provide, they can share their experiences, questions, funny videos, and most importantly, information about having safe sex. This can be seen with a group called “the facebookers”, a group of 20-something gay Ethiopian men who have formed a small, intimate group where they share their struggles and express themselves. This means that the men have two accounts, one “straight account” for family and old friends, and their “gay account”, fit with eccentric names and their connection to their private groups. Movies are also important to groups like the Facebookers. Beki, a man that’s part of the Facebook group, says that the movie boat trip, a comedy about two straight men getting trapped on a gay cruise, changed his life.

Flims like these are typically considered offensive in western culture, but to groups like the Facebookers, its representation like no other. There is one fear that looms over many of the men’s heads. Outing, the act of exposing someones sexual orientation without their consent, is a constant concern for the group. This came true for a few men when a documentary named No Silence – About the 666 Satanic Act of Homosexuality in Ethiopia, made headlines. The movie itself wasn’t explicit and did not live up to its outrageous title, the most “satanic” and “egregious” moments being just a few men in women’s clothing going to a bar, but the men who were filmed partying by an undercover cameraman had to go into hiding to avoid prosecution.

Recently, amendments to the law permitting Same-sex marriage are spreading all over the world. Then I thought ”Why it is not acceptable in Japan?’ So I chose the topic of Same-sex Marriage.

Do you agree with Same-sex marriage? I agree. Because I think that people should value the diversity of people.

Miho thinks Same-sex marriage is good. The reason is that we should respect homosexual freedom. On the other hand, My mother thinks Same-sex marriage is not good. The reason is because of the declining birth rate. I felt that opinions were split among generations.

First, I searched what kind of opinion the Japanese have on same-sex marriage. Because I wanted to know not only my personal belongings but also the opinions of Japan as a whole. This is the result of a questionnaire about Do you agree with Same-sex marriage? For 2,600 men and women between 20 and 79 years old. 51% said agree, 49% said disagree. 71% who said “agree” were people in their twenties, It was a very high percentage. But The dissenting opinion increased as the age increased, and in the 70s only 24% of people responded that they agreed.

In the younger generation, there were many opinions that “I think that it is good if you love each other” and “I think that everyone has the right to marry equally”. But People in their 50s and older had many opinions that ‘traditional families are lost’. The difference in recognition among generations was highlighted.

Second, I’ll introduce countries where homosexuality is recognized. There are 24 countries. It was recognized for the first time in the Netherlands in 2001 and has continued to increase the number one after another, such as in Belgium, Spain Canada, and so on. Next year, Austria and Taiwan which is the first in Asia will be accepted.

However, in some countries, homosexuals are in violation of the law as opposed to these countries. There are 80 countries. For example, For example, Myanmar, Jamaica, Brunei, Pakistan, Bhutan, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Singapore, and so on. are mainly found in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. In some cases, the death penalty is carried out in some countries.

For example Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Mauritania, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, Chechen Republic, North Korea, and so on. The reason is that it is frequent in countries such as Islam, but the laws of the countries where homosexuality is death are related to sodomy. In Iran, more than 4,000 homosexuals were sentenced to death in 1979 when the Islamic Revolution occurred.

Third, I’ll introduce the “Partnership System”. Same-sex marriage is not acceptable in Japan. But It has a Partnership System in Japan. Partnership System is the ordinance stipulating to issue of a certificate that recognizes same-sex couples as ‘relationships equivalent to marriage’ and makes each other a “partner”.

It started in Shibuya Ward and Setagaya Ward in 2005. Currently, This system is established by 9 municipalities such as Naha City, Sapporo City, and Osaka City. Also, Currently, Chiba City and Minato-ku are trying to introduce this system.

Fourth, I’ll introduce the advantages and disadvantages. Advantages are Spouse deduction, heritage inheritance, the adoption of the adoption system, property distribution, and so on.

Disadvantages are declining birthrate progress, exploitation of the Marriage System Impact on children’s development, and so on.

Fifth, “Tokyo Rainbow Pride”. This is A group aimed at “a society where LGBT, a so-called sexual minority is not exposed to discrimination and prejudice and can live positively,” and a general term for the event. In major cities around the world including Western countries, sexual minority parade events called ‘pride’ are held annually as annual events. Some of them have a huge scale to record mobilization of 1 million to 3 million people, such as New York and Sao Paulo. In Japan, A parade was held at Yoyogi Park in May this year. This year, the largest number of participants, 150,000 people participated in the event. More than 200 booths including companies, NPOs, embassies, community associations, and restaurants were exhibited. Also, Ayumi Hamasaki’s life was held. It was a very exciting event.

Finally, I thought that opinions on Same-sex marriage differed by the country and people. I introduced some advantages. But, I thought that the advantage of No. 1 was to reduce the burden on homosexual minds. Also, I thought that introducing the same-sex marriage system would deepen our understanding of homosexuality among people. So I pray that it will be introduced.

The recognition of Gay Rights began to emerge from the darkness in the dim dark ages of 1960 when gays were once ostracised by society and plagued with discrimination. At the federal level, in 2008 and 2009, a wide-ranging suite of reforms to provide equal rights for same-sex couples in areas such as employment, taxation, superannuation, etc. were generated. However, there remained a significant area of difference in the rights and entitlements between same-sex and heterosexual relationships, and that was in relation to same-sex marriage. Following the $122 million same-sex marriage postal survey, hosted by Malcolm Turnbull, the results of this survey displayed positive results for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex community (LGBTI) community. 61.6 percent yes, 38.4 percent no out of 12.7 million voters. (3)These results have emphasized a societal shift in attitude toward the LGBTI community. Ultimately, this catalyzed the change in the legal system. From the 9th of December 2017, the Marriage Act of 2004 was amended, and sex or gender no longer affected the right to marry under Australian law. (1)Whilst gay supporters recognized this change as being true equality, and freedom and welcomed the new statute, inevitably, there were also members of society who believed that same-sex marriage raised many social, religious, moral, and political questions. In this respect, the introduction of the same-sex marriage law impacted members of the Australian community in different ways.

Impact on LGBTI community

The recently developed statute has the largest direct influence on the LGBTI community in Australia. This updated act grants homosexual couples the right to marriage. The same-sex marriage act not only allows for this community to have access to a package of benefits such as financial, tax, family, legal, employment, and health benefits, it also allows for same-sex couples to be recognized, nationally. (4) Through the reformed law, gay couples can legally enjoy the comfort of marriage, cultivate a sense of belonging and equality, and be recognized as a family. The new law was evidently popular amongst the LGBTI community, as within a year of the legal redefinition of marriage, almost 55000 same-sex couples wed. Thus, over 55000 lives changed because of this redefinition. (1)

If the vote had not incurred enough “yes” votes, and same-sex marriage was not legalized, things would have been different. We can draw this example from the older population of the LGBTI community, who have withstood many storms in the past in an openly hostile society. Due to the lack of advocates in the past to address the concerns of the LGBTI community at the time, the elder generation (known as “gen silent”) has had to face the daily challenges of aging in isolation from their family and the community. Studies show that LGBTI elders are more likely to be single, live alone, become estranged from their family of origin, and are less likely to have children than their non-LGBTI peers. To this end, social isolation is more prevalent in the “Gen Silent” generation. Ultimately, if the amendment failed to occur, the current LGBTI community could potentially follow in the footsteps of “Gen Silent”, descending into social isolation and oppression. (7) The inclusion of gay couples in the act of marriage has not only improved their health and well-being, sense of security, and quality of relationships but most importantly, it has granted them access to a sense of belonging in Australian society. The inclusion of such a community allows this group to have more freedom in starting a family, as well as gain recognition that society is becoming more accepting of them, in turn building the confidence of many homosexual individuals. The increased confidence and stability of their relationship, compounded with a higher level of belonging in society prevents LGBTI couples from loneliness. (10)

Impact on Australian society

By allowing same-sex couples to wed, gender roles within the family become blurred in society. In Australia, gender expectations have always been normalized. This is likely due to gender socialization, which refers to how the social construct of gender is formed through daily interactions. To most Australians, a conventional family includes a mother, whose responsibilities typically consist of cooking and cleaning. She would also be submissive and financially dependent. Contrastingly, the role of a father was to be dominant and economically wealthy, to earn money to maintain the household. As such, the notion that a “functional family” can only be satisfied with a woman playing an “expressive role”, and fulfilling emotional needs, and a man playing an “instrumental role” by displaying leadership. This notion will gradually dissipate with the introduction of same-sex marriage. (5) The marriage of two homosexual individuals does not follow traditional gender constructs. (7) Bell and Weinberg suggest that relationships in the LGBTI community tend to focus on “task sharing” rather than following stereotypical roles. Research has shown that while masculine and effeminate men and women do exist within the gay community, they are far from the majority. Given that same-sex couples do not follow gender typecasts and do not submit to gender socialization and performativity, they develop their relationships on their own terms rather than copying that of a straight couple. (8) Thus, they do not assign tasks, jobs, chores, or even beliefs and aspirations to one another according to one’s masculinity or femininity. Instead, they share these tasks, aspirations ideas, etc., depending on the skills or preferences of the individual rather than the gender they identify themselves with. Though the lack of gender constructs could potentially sound like mayhem to some, studies have shown that standards of conforming to one’s respective gender are not necessary for a functional relationship or family. Instead, things such as one another’s well-being, and how well they parent, nurture, and stimulate their children at home seem to play a more vital role than the sex of a child’s parents. (6)

Along with the legalization of gay marriages, normalization occurs, whereby, society’s views of homosexuality will be developed and same-sex couples will be considered more and more functional, and conventional. Eventually, as society progresses with this law, Australians will find themselves becoming more accepting of homosexual parents and couples. In this respect, the reform of same-sex marriage displays that Australian society has taken a step closer to the acceptance of differences (7).

Impact on “no” voters

The lack of masculinity or femininity within a gay couple has the corollary of negative connotations towards such relationships. Homosexuality has been deemed by some individuals as deviant or unnatural behavior for humans. To this end, the introduction of Gay marriage negatively affected and sparked fierce disagreement with those who were against gay marriage. These people believed that gay couples were unproductive or aberrant. They believe that gay couples must mimic straight couples to be practical, with each partner in the relationship either taking on a feminine or masculine role.

People who feel that their lives would be threatened by sexual promiscuity tend to be socially conservative and strongly believe in traditional gender roles. According to The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia, they are typically religious and are in the older demographic (over the age of 60), usually born in a non-English speaking country. Those who are raised in more traditional environments, (e.g. earlier in time or in countries that are less developed than Australia), their views tend to be more conservative – reflecting on the prevailing norms in which they were socialized with. In addition to this, those who are fierce believers in many religions, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, evangelical protestants, etc. (5), tend to disagree with same-sex marriage, likely due to the negative associations of such practices involved in these religions. This translates to resistance amongst older or non-English-born and religious individuals, who have been conditioned to believe the marriage of same-sex couples is unnatural. (12)

The introduction of the statute would infuriate certain members of society who disagree and are oblivious to how the LGBTI community functions as a family. These people fear that same-sex marriage would interrupt and have a negative influence on their way of life. (8)

Impact on “yes” voters

LGBTI supporters are likely to be positively impacted by such a change. Those behind the “yes” campaign are likely to value human rights and equality and strive for equal rights in the country. Ultimately, the outcome of the amendment would have allowed these voters to develop a larger feeling of pride for their country. (7)

Studies of the Household, Income, and Labour Dynamics in Australia portray that women tend to be more supportive of gay rights. Gender has always played a large determinant in attitudes towards social issues. This could be due to the oppression that women had to face over men in the past, leading to higher sensitivity and passion within women rather than men in such topics. Another factor could potentially be gender socialisation which leads women in general tend to be more empathetic than men. Furthermore, these studies have also evinced that highly educated individuals express more interest and support toward same-sex marriages. Education exposes humans to humanism and meritocracy, and as a result, educated individuals tend to have more progressive, egalitarian views on social topics.

The legalization of same-sex marriage aligns with the view of individuals who tend to be more empathetic and have developed more contemporary views of social issues. As such, this group of people will be positively impacted and feel satisfied with the results of the vote. (3)

Ultimately, the amendment has both positive and negative influences on the two parties as well. All in all, such a change in the law is likely to influence society to become more accepting, gender constructs are likely to become more flexible.

Today, one of the most penetrating global issues talks about gender equality. Majority knows that gender equality is human right, but why is it that our world still faces a persistent gap in accessing opportunities and decision making for men and women? We can’t disagree that there are still few people who cannot really accept the fact that they truly exist in our community, for the reason that we all have our own belief and different way of thinking and understanding. Most lesbian gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) members are struggling due to this barrier. Some of them couldn’t find jobs easily or experience discrimination wherever they go. Our country has an overwhelming numbers of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) members.

Hence, it is not uncommon for us to hear issues of a LGBTQ+ member that is being discriminated. Here in the Philippines, the most latest and trending issue related to a LGBTQ+ member being discriminated is the issue of a transgender woman named Gretchen Diez who was arrested after being forbidden from using the women’s restroom in a Cubao mall in Quezon City. It is not common to see transgender woman in public restrooms for women. Transgender women are women. They are not like some men who want access to women’s public restrooms to sexually assault women, though many people still hold the belief that transgender women are threat to women’s public restrooms, a belief that is a product of a baseless fear around sexual victimization. It is a bit complicated and unfair to think that a transgender woman should be forbidden from using women’s restroom just because they are men who would go as far as wearing dresses, high heels and make up only to sexually assault woman. It sounds so illiberal and unfair, right?

A number of people had already stated their opinions for the construction of gender-neutral restrooms in public spaces to provide a safe haven for transgender and gender nonconforming people. Legions of people had agreed to the construction of gender-neutral restrooms. For them it would help prevent members of LGBTQ+ community from running into “unnecessary risks”. They believe that gender-neutral restrooms would be a progressive step towards gender equality because this would (1) solve the problem of space equity between men and women’s restrooms, which is the cause of women waiting in longer restrooms lines that men; (2) regularize gender as a non-binary concept and insist that public spaces should not be gendered; and (3) give the inclusion of people of all SOGIESCs (sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics). LGBTQ+ member can also experience taunting, threats, and even violence for using the wrong restroom, but if gender-neutral restrooms were to become the norm, this would no longer be a problem.

Having gender-neutral restrooms will create a space that does not discriminate, but is rather inclusive of its entire user. They also think that having gender-neutral restrooms would be fair for both liberals and conservatives. On the other hand, there are still some people who oppose to gender-neutral restrooms construction. They have lots reason in their minds, one is that it may result to an increase of sexual assault cases. Having gender-neutral restrooms would mean that if a man sees a pretty girl walk in a restroom, he can easily follow her inside without anyone stopping him. Having restrooms where anyone can walk in would defeat the purpose of helping women feel more safe and comfortable. Indeed, it would really be a big help to the members of LGBTQ+ community to feel safer and comfortable but you have to look at the cost. The cost would be that lots of people would not feel safe from danger or harm using gender-neutral restrooms.

The gender neutral restrooms could potentially cause two things. Either people will begin holding in their waste, which can cause harm to their health, or will begin to refuse to enter. They think that LGBTQ+ community has nice intentions, but it is very important to remember to be realistic and realize that not all of us have good thoughts. For those people who oppose to the construction of gender-neutral restroom, it is always way better to feel safe, rather than sorry. As a senior high school student, I stand tall in strong and loyal support for all the members of LGBTQ+ community and for the construction of gender-neutral restrooms. The experience of Gretchen Diez is a sign that the SOGIE equality bill in the country should be passed now. The purpose of SOGIE bill is to prevent several economic and public accommodation that is an act related with the discrimination against people based on their gender identity, sexual orientation, or expression. I’m sure that majority had already realized how vulnerable LGBTQ+ community members are to commit suicide and violence simply for living their truths.

We should all admit that we all share the moral responsibility of allowing members of LGBTQ+ community to use the public restrooms that matches their gender identity, because this is part of protecting them from violence. Having gender-neutral restrooms is really a great idea, because why build restrooms with different categories when our restrooms at home are not even categorized according to gender identity? We should all help to make the world a better place and we can do it by simply treating each other like our own family and by accepting other’s peculiarity. Majority of us knows the cold hard fact that not all of us have a good thought, but shouldn’t human rights take precedence in all situations? And everyone deserves a second chance to be a better one. Think of what Mahatma Gandhi had once stated, ‘You must be the change you want to see in the world.’ In other words, although life changes are inevitable, we can also establish an authentic personal change so we can accelerate to the challenge and become a bigger and better person as a result.

To sum it up, the experience of Miss Gretchen Diez is a call for the member of LCBTQ+ communities and our allies to be more vigilant and proactive in advocating the SOGIE equality bill because the LGBTQIA+ individuals do not need tolerance, they need acceptance. They need civil rights. Put in mind that the transgenders’ rights are human rights and human rights are transgenders’ rights! THE SOGIE EQUALITY BILL SHOULD BE PASS NOW!

Introduction

The opening words of the United Nations Charter, Universal Declaration of Human Rights are that: “All human beings are born equal and free in terms of dignity and rights.” The equality and non-discrimination guaranteed to each and every person by international human rights law applies regardless of their sex, sexual 0rientation and gender identity or “other status.” There no hidden exemption clause or fine print, in any of the human rights treaties that allow a State to guarantee full rights to some but withhold the same rights from others on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

In the recent few years, the failure to uphold the basic human rights of LGBTQ people and to protect them against abuses such as violence and discrimination has been acknowledged. Evidently, the matter has always been on the table and can no longer be considered as a privileged issue associated with advanced democracies but now needs to be discussed throughout the world.

Evolution of sexuality as a concept

The significance of LGBTQ rights in the sphere of International Relations has always been met with an abrasive animadversion which can be attributed to the fact that sexuality as a concept has always been considered as a private affair that has relegated it outside the sphere of global politics. As Mark Blasius pointed out,

“viewed in the light of liberalism, sexuality has usually been perceived beyond the scope of state action in a domain of “privacy”. The focus of LGBT/queer study on the “politics of sexuality” has illustrated how sexual relations are one of the many dimensions through which power relations function and, as such a dimension that ensnares both practical concerns of the public interest seemingly embodied in “the state” and the analytical concerns which are vested in political science, which has conventionally also focused on power relations in “civil society”. Through this challenge to the limits of liberal conceptions of the political, LGBT/queer political study has expanded what politics is conceived to be for both the discipline of political science and the liberal theory. ”

The first attempt to broaden the traditional definition of sexuality to bring it under the purview of public domain and to stimulate research on its diverse expressions, was made by Magnus Hirschfield, founder of the Scientific Humanitarian Committee in Germany in the year 1897, which had ultimately met its end due to the rise of fascism .

Moving beyond a conventional definition of IR: Morphing of Sexuality and Gender into ‘Human Rights’

In the past few years years, a remarkable number of international as well as the transnational actors have contended that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights are covered under the broad umbrella of human rights . Major world leaders have started speaking extensively on this issue, questioning challenging the policies of a number of states which impose severe criminal penalties (including the death penalty) for individuals who engage in n0n-heterosexual behaviours. Landmark court cases have actively started referring to the principles of universal human rights and international law when making judgments against such discriminatory statutes which target LGBT individuals . The expansion of these rights has been a truly remarkable global phenomenon; same-sex marriage has now been legalized in countries across the globe.

And the visible political contestation that has emerged surrounding this issue has raised a number of intriguing questions. Foremost among these is how sexualities that were declared by the United States Supreme Court as an outrage to the Western values as recently as 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick, have come to be enunciated in terms of fundamental and universal human rights. The Supreme Court of South Africa thus, argued that the people of this community experience “love that was once forced to be clandestine, but one may now dare openly to take its name within a society which has travelled a long way from rejecting the expressions of their desire to accepting the reality of their presence, and the integrity that lies in their intimate life” .

In this light, the recent unfolding of LGBT rights is only the beginning of a relentless march towards attainment of human freedom. In the words of the Kentucky Supreme Court opinion in the judgement of Kentucky v. Wasson (1992), Individuals tend to see themselves as the current in the stream of progress in the direction of obtainment of sexual rights. If we are to go by the constructivist writings on the issue of human rights, we might say that these steps are the beginning of a norm cascade which will ultimately result in the normalisation and realisation of sexual identities as protected categories within human rights norms.

Global Homophobia: States, Social movements and p0litics of 0ppressi0n

‘Global Homophobia’, the 2013 edited volume authored by Meredith Weiss and Michael Bosia delineates the point that the bitterness and resentment reserved against individuals of LGBTQ community is not just a direct product of the pre-existing cultural, heteronormative orientations, but are also largely politically charged. This is because political homophobia is factored in as purposeful, especially by the state actors; as implanted in the scapegoating of an “other” that have always been the driving forces of state building and retrenchment. And this has been a direct result of transnational alliances and influence peddling and also what has been left behind by the complicated legacies of colonialism. In this disposition, homophobia is views as an elite State strategy where a differential treatment of a minority is being used in order to construct a national image and to extract political support from the supposed “majority”.

In some States, sexuality is micromanaged through various agencies such as Singapore where homosexuality still remains illegal under Section 377A of the Penal Code which had been colonially inherited from Macauley’s Indian Penal Code. In this country, State has been exceedingly trying to curb the LGBTQ movement by not just law but also various other apparatuses and agencies by regulating, surveilling and repressing any kind of activism.

It has been largely evident that the study of homophobia and to some extent, transphobia is often neglected in hopes that the modernizing progress will help to uproot it, or in some cases, it is politically orchestrated (even by some of the LGBT advocates themselves) so as to falsely advocate assumptions of LGBT rights with (homo)nationalism as well as Islamophobia. Homophobia is therefore, overtly modular and transnational and is applied varyingly across the world with similar intentions, Pivotal for this scheme is the maintenance of a particular order in the society, entangled with sexuality and gender ever prepared for battle against the mythical foreign dangers known as “LGBT activists”, who have allegedly forced upon us, a social transformation and also, ended up limiting the regulatory power of the state by filling in as surrogates for the financial capital and international institutions. Thus, Homophobia and Transphobia still continue to be mobilised as powerful tools of statescraft .

Although, the queers are not always made into pawns by the power mongers as the relationship between the State and the gay movement in Netherlands has drastically changed after the advent of the sexual revolution where the timid homophiles of the 1950s have metamorphosised into proud homosexuals of the 70s, and identify themselves as a victorious minority which has made an immeasurable success.

Conclusion: Avenues that lie ahead

The work presented above has made it clear that it is need of the hour to interrogate more rigorously on the impact of LGBTQ issues in international politics. There exist multiple factors to consider in terms of future LGBT politics and research. Many hurdles still exist as far as attainment of sexual justice is concerned. The progress of LGBT advocacy politics is mainly limited to the West, and evokes a strong colonialist contention. And as far as political progress in Western countries is concerned, if fundamental rights such as gay and lesbian marriage and equality in adoption are achieved while the transgender groups still struggle to get access to workplace protection or health-care, can we really speak of true equality? And would it really prove to be a long-lasting empowerment if the ‘normalization’ and assimilation of non-traditional sexualities into our society, as well as the resulting co-option of LGBT advocacy groups leads to ultimately eroding a true alternative such as a critical queer model of socio-political diversity and coexistence?

And a more complex issue at hand, in the international sphere, is the backlashes that are caused as a result of the advancement of LGBT rights by countries that feel that there exists a neo- or ‘homo’-colonial interference from the minorities by Western governments. And an apprehension is created towards the intergovernmental organizations, which are now seen as an instrument of curtailment of their cultural and political sovereignty. This becomes especially apparent when Inter Governmental Organisations such as the UN, the World Bank and the EU or transnational NGOs, such as ILGA (the international lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex association), push for reforms in reticent countries while not realizing that they are playing a major role in accentuating the politicization of those minorities and as a result, being detrimental in the long run. And to counter this deleterious tendency, the advocacy groups have come to realise that by linking their collective identity strongly to the international human rights regime, they could evoke universally valid human rights considerations even under difficult domestic circumstances, and to appropriate such considerations for themselves as well. The tendency to universalise human experience by exclusively and completely relying on the West is highly detrimental for a truly global initiative for example questioning the universalist activist ‘desire for visibility’ which is a Western construct linked to the idea of politicisation of sexual identity but for activism in Asia or non-Western countries where soft identity politics exist, this may not always be the primary goal .

This attempt has been further nurtured by the debate surrounding intimate citizenship that aims to locate the concrete laws from sometimes-abstract notion of human rights for ensuring protection and safeguarding the rights of citizens.

This is nothing short of a wakeup call, emphasising on the need to find more nuanced and truly ‘glocal’ solutions to the complex global debate about sexual rights all across the world, keeping the specific domestic needs of every nation in mind. This could occur through the advocacy of privacy rights, separation of state from religion and the highlighting of democracy, rule of law and human right.