Analysis on the Current Issues surrounding LGBT Rights

The issue of gay rights, varying over multiple topics, is debated highly in the current political arena, by Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike. These issues are nothing new in the United States, as activism for sexual equality can be seen as beginning around the 60’s (more on the history of gay civil rights can be found here). Though many years have passed by since the Stonewall Riots and the foundation of the Mattachine society, the fight for equality and the main arguments among gay supporters and anti-gay activists still remain. The foremost subjects being contested in America’s political realm in regard to homosexual equality are marriage, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in the military, and adoption, all of which have somewhat partisan divisions and will be the main themes that I discuss throughout this blog.

Debatably the most controversial issue dealing with LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) rights is that of marriage. Since the 1969 Stonewall Riots, gay men, lesbian women, and bisexuals have come out of the closet and demanded equal treatment, especially with marriage. More recently, in 1996, Hawaii became the first state to allow for same sex marriage, as prohibiting it qualified as “sex discrimination.” Though all states have not followed Hawaii’s example, the ability of same sex couples to be wed is on the rise.  What defines marriage? Who has the power to decide who can and who cannot get married? These questions and more are intensely argued in relation to this topic, which is mainly split down partisan lines. More conservative people, who interpret texts such as the Bible literally, feel as though the sanctity of marriage would deteriorate if LGBT people were allowed to marry. To them, the “traditional marriage” is the foundation of society. Some even believe that the permission of same sex marriage could lead to the allowance polygamous and other nontraditional marriages. At the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, it was said that, " 'Sexual orientation' does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc., in respect to nondiscrimination. Therefore, it is not unjust, for example, to limit the bond of marriage to the union of a woman and a man. It is not unjust to oppose granting to homosexual couples benefits that in justice should belong to marriage alone. When marriage is redefined so as to make other relationships equivalent to it, the institution of marriage is devalued and further weakened. The weakening of this basic institution at all levels and by various forces has already exacted too high a social cost," summarizing the conservative thoughts on homosexual marriage wholly. On the contrary, liberals see marriage inequality as a violation of civil rights. They see many occurrences today that devalue the sanctity of marriage, such as divorce, yet do not believe that the union of two men or two women to be something which weakens marriage. If a committed, stable, same-sex couple wishes to profess their love in a union, they should have the right to do so. For many who are in favor of same-sex marriage, it is difficult to comprehend why a group of people could be so ardently against homosexual marriage, when it would not take any effect on their personal lives. Here is a video in which Marc Lamont Hill and Ann Coulter argue about same sex marriage. While this issue is predominantly divided by political parties, as was mentioned before, there are evident exceptions to this idea. For instance, the group Log Cabin Republicans is a gay and lesbian organization, advocating for the equality of homosexuals. Throughout America, though, 29 states have established official bans of same sex marriage as of 2008. Although these bans are fighting against same-sex marriage, the generational views have evolved into becoming more accepting of same sex marriage, providing LGBT supporters hope for future equality.

Don’t Ask, Don’t tell, or DADT, is currently one of the most debated matters relating to gay rights in the American political sphere. Before it came into being, Reagan’s Defense Directive was in place, making homosexual or bisexual acts a basis for discharge, citing that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service.” DADT, established in 1993, became a compromise of Clinton’s plan to lift the ban on homosexual participation in the military and Reagan’s Defense Directive, allowing gay people to enlist without being solicited about their sexuality.  The law was on the path to being repealed earlier this year, yet failed in a recent vote on September 21^st. The law was on the path to being repealed earlier this year, yet failed in a recent vote on September 21st. The plan was a compromise that allowed military leaders to review and possibly accept it, yet, attached to the House’s version of the legislation was a $500 million expense on a F-35 Joint Strike Fighter engine that neither the Pentagon nor the White House wanted (the article about the repeal can be found here). Supporters of the repeal, mainly Democrats, pressured the legislation to be enacted quickly for fear that when the November elections were to come around, and the congressional majority were to switch to the Republican side, the repeal would not have been able to be passed. Before the elections even occurred though, the bill failed, as it was unable to gather the 60 votes to defeat the GOP filibuster. Even pop star Lady Gaga’s plea for the repeal and description of how unjust the law is did not sway the votes in Congress. Though the legislation failed, it does not reflect the overall attitude of Americans, with many polls indicating that the majority of people believe that the law should be repealed (here and here are two polls that prove this). Those congressional members in support of the repeal explain that adults should be free to express themselves as they are and their sexuality should not interfere with their involvement in the military. They believe that this policy is both a transgression of our Constitution and national values. As the epitaph of Leonard P. Matlovich said, “When I was in the military they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one.” Those who oppose the repeal, primarily Republicans, believe that it was principally a way to gain backing of LGBT people for upcoming elections, authorize abortion in Military hospitals, and evade avenues of legal immigration. In their opinions, both homosexual and heterosexual people are not allowed to perform sexual acts while on duty, so both groups should receive the same punishment when found to be breaking such rules (13). Some even say it depreciates combat training and morale . This issue takes on a lighter note in these liberal parodies, mocking conservative views of the DADT issue (the links to the videos are here and here).

Adoption by homosexual people, though not the most publicly and highly contested issue is still prevalent in some states.  Many LGBT people began combating laws that prevented them from adopting children starting in the 1970’s, especially laws that prohibited one partner from adopting the biological child of the other partner. Although individual LGBT people are, in most states, permitted to adopt a child, a homosexual couple jointly appealing for adoption and a partner petitioning to adopt the child of his or her partner is most often unclear or not overtly forbade. In some states, such as Mississippi, North Carolina, and Utah, a gay or lesbian couple is not allowed to adopt together and in other states, like Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin, one partner is not allowed to adopt the child of the other. All state laws regarding adoption by LGBT people can be found here. This issue received a myriad of media attention when Florida, previously encompassing all of these aforementioned regulations, recently overturned its 33-year-old ban on gay adoption . Those who oppose the adoption of children by gay or lesbian couples (usually people who are religiously conservative) cite that children need to be raised by both a mother and a father, as they benefit more from being raised by a member from both sexes, though this is not scientifically proven. The supporters of gay adoption, on the contrary, say that whether or not a child is raised by two males and two females is irrelevant; if the home is loving, nurturing, stable, and stimulating, it makes no difference whether or not the child has a parent from both sexes. Additionally, with the shortage of adoptive parents, supporters question how people can deprive children of a loving home based on the adopter’s sexuality. Supporters also point out that what those opposed to gay adoption say, in regard to it being wrong to raise a child by parents from one sex, inadvertently condemns raising children by a single parent, even if that parent is heterosexual.

All of the arguments surrounding the overall civil rights of homosexuals, including marriage, DADT, and adoption are highly contended in the American political realm. They are all connected to one another, as they fall under the larger spectrum of homosexual civil rights. Since the beginning of LGBT civil rights advocacy, predominantly around the 1960’s, the arguments for equal treatment have developed into the fight for marriage equality, which then developed into the allowance of gay individuals and couples to adopt, which all ties into the capability of homosexuals to openly express themselves and the restriction of that by DADT. In the movement for homosexual civil rights, there are a plethora of issues that are being promoted and fought for, yet the three topics which I discussed (marriage, adoption, and don’t ask, don’t tell) are all current issues that are very important in today’s politics, and will inevitably have major significance in our society.

*All of the hyperlinks lead to the websites from which I received the information in the post.