Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Kevin Douglas Grant

GET UPDATES FROM Kevin Douglas Grant
 

Obama Administration Pushes Global LGBT Rights into the Limelight

Posted: 12/06/11 05:33 PM ET

The U.S. took a groundbreaking step on global LGBT rights Tuesday, joining the U.K. in tying foreign aid to governments' protection of sexual minorities and drastically raising the stakes in the increasingly globalized battle over gay rights.

The Obama Administration's sweeping initiative -- which will potentially steer billions of dollars in U.S. aid toward countries and programs that protect rights, while expanding efforts to protect LGBT refugees -- was announced just ahead of Human Rights Day. The timing reinforced a now-common refrain that has been spoken, chanted, and shouted by rights activists around the world for decades: gay rights equal human rights.

President Obama issued an official memorandum "directing all agencies engaged abroad to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons," while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the American position clear to diplomats from around the world gathered at the United Nations in Geneva: "Gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights."

America overwhelmingly remains the world's largest provider of official development assistance, and the U.K. is the fourth-largest. Although the U.S. State Department has worked diligently behind the scenes to promote LGBT rights and cultural awareness via its embassies around the world, the agency has never before made such an overt move. Together, the two powers have created a united front in a battle that has rapidly escalated in the past 10 years.

From the Netherlands' legalization of same-sex marriage in 2001 to India's decriminalization of homosexuality in 2009, many of the world's laws have changed, even if longstanding cultural practices and religious beliefs have not.

For some LGBT rights supporters, the irony of Obama and Clinton's message is that the U.S. is not typically considered one of the most progressive countries for legal protections of LGBT rights. The Defense of Marriage Act has defined marriage as a heterosexual union since 1996, and just six states grant same-sex marriage licenses.

And of course, anti-gay bullying remains a corrosive and sometimes fatal cancer on society, while many communities have saved no place at the table for the gay, the transgender, or the intersex. Not to mention Rick Santorum.

At the same time, public support for gay rights is on the rise and has been tracked at over 50 percent. The U.S. military ended its Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in September, and even anti-gay activists have conceded that American society is moving toward protecting its LGBT population.

In October, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron told a meeting of Commonwealth leaders that future British aid would be contingent on gay rights protections, drawing livid responses from several African leaders seen as targets of Cameron's remarks.

"This is an issue where we are pushing for movement," Cameron said, just weeks after throwing his support behind a new LGBT equality group called The Kaleidoscope Trust. "We are prepared to put some money behind what we believe."

Leaders of countries including Uganda, Nigeria and Zimbabwe -- where homosexuality is widely considered "un-African" and remains illegal -- called Cameron out on his proclamation.

Ugandan presidential adviser John Nagenda said that Ugandans, who have gained a global reputation for creating an anti-gay climate since 2009, were "tired of these lectures" and were not to be treated like "children."

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe called Cameron "satanic," an illustration of the religious undertones of the often hostile international debate. Christian fundamentalist groups from the U.S. have made powerful inroads in Africa in recent years, evangelizing a conservative brand of Christianity with a profoundly anti-gay posture. Meanwhile, conservative Muslim and Jewish groups have led campaigns against LGBT rights in countries ranging from the United States to Saudi Arabia.

As Graeme Reid, director of the LGBT rights program at Human Rights Watch, wrote for GlobalPost's "Rainbow Struggle" series in November, the battle lines are being redrawn on a global scale, tipping societies toward equality in some places while invoking backlash in others.

"Instead of a move toward decriminalization, we see some countries introducing new legislation or tightening up on existing legislation or implementing previously dormant laws," Reid wrote. "Stricter laws are seen as a way of shoring up 'traditional culture.' Of course, the irony that most of the sodomy laws are a vestige of colonialism in the first place is often lost."

As the U.S. and the U.K. grapple with their own past and present imperial legacies, the bilateral commitment of foreign aid to more LGBT-tolerant countries is sure to give momentum to the equality movement. But as in the U.S., where LGBT policy is often contradictory and social attitudes vary widely -- or in Spain, where gay marriage is legal but discrimination persists -- official decisions are only part of the story.

 

Follow Kevin Douglas Grant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kevindgrant

The U.S. took a groundbreaking step on global LGBT rights Tuesday, joining the U.K. in tying foreign aid to governments' protection of sexual minorities and drastically raising the stakes in the incre...
The U.S. took a groundbreaking step on global LGBT rights Tuesday, joining the U.K. in tying foreign aid to governments' protection of sexual minorities and drastically raising the stakes in the incre...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 18
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dinosaur David B
10:36 AM on 12/07/2011
This would ring a lot less hollow if he walked the walk in the US. Unfortunately, he can't get anything done over here.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:24 AM on 12/07/2011
Why do I have this eerie feeling that the lack of basic human rights, such as lack of food, shelter, freedom, health, habitat and free expression are MUCH, MUCH more pressing issues for 99% of the world than the 1% of the world's gay population's existential woes?

In addition, will someone at our wonderfully freedom-inclined State Department please push for the global HETERO rights?
03:36 AM on 12/07/2011
There is no such thing as the 99%... its a NeoSocialist bumper sticker.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:12 AM on 12/07/2011
OK, alright...99.1/2%, then...I stand corrected...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Awake-and-Sing
named after a great play written by Clifford Odets
12:30 PM on 12/07/2011
Maybe all human rights are important and your dismissal of of gays is simply bigtory hiding behind faux concern for the world's poor?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cadawa
01:04 AM on 12/07/2011
Don't hold your breath. It about LGBT rights over there; not over here. He finished the last showdown. Now he wants your vote without walking the talk, again.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Shaun West
11:11 PM on 12/06/2011
Under this plan on the only country who would be legitimately giving aid to would be Israel. Makes sense...
photo
oakspondman
Proud US Veteran
10:38 PM on 12/06/2011
Now, its time to start right here in the USA. As usual we get into other countries affairs, while ignoring our own people.

Equal rights for all Americans first!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Ruiz
06:50 PM on 12/06/2011
Lesbians and Gays should just support Ron Paul

You wouldn't have to worry about whether or not the govt will "grant you rights"

Under a Ron Paul Presidency you would have rights because your a Human Being.

To think we still live in a world where some people get rights and others dont. Tim to come out the 17th century.

Ron Paul 2012
03:44 AM on 12/07/2011
This is not an accurate representation of Ron Paul's views on Gay Marriage. Ron Paul specifically says that this is an issue that should be left to the States. This does not work because some states would accept it while others would not (obvious result of that policy). THat would make a Gay Marriage LESS than a Straight Marriage, which is wrong.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dinosaur David B
10:35 AM on 12/07/2011
Regarding: "Under a Ron Paul Presidency you would have rights because your a Human Being."

Yeah, under Ron Paul, everyone has the right to be subject to social Darwinism because Ron Paul doesn't think the government should do much of anything for anyone. In that sense, he doesn't discriminate.
06:23 PM on 12/06/2011
I am Gay and I'm not buying this for one second. This President still does not support our right to marry. This President waffled for 3 years before finally removing the Military Ban.

If this document has any real teeth, you will no longer see US Aid going to the Middle East or Most African Countries. Anything short of these practical results means this is just more lip service from the master campaigner. Don't be fooled.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:32 PM on 12/06/2011
the right to marry is a hot issue isnt it ? i always thought that a legal union with the same rights as a traditionally married couple should be the way to go. since when does government have the right to interfere with religion ?. not hating on you stephen, what so ever. im not a religious man and when i "married" it was a civil union as neither my wife or i are religious. instead of pushing this agenda forward and raising hell with the evangelicals and one of their long standing beliefs, why not accept a civil union and be happy with it ? you do have the right to be with whome ever you choose, but you dont have the right to force one of the longest standing organizations in history to accept your beliefs and change their often narrow minded view on the subject. just a thought.
12:02 AM on 12/07/2011
I am an Independant Libertarian and trust neither the Republican nor the Democratic Parties on the issue of Gay RIghts. Democrats are leaning closer to accpeting gay rights but, as is evident in California's rejection of Gay Marriage, even the Democrats (and esp Barak Obama) have a long way to go on this issue. For this reason I cannot support any candidate (Dem. Repub, Liberatrian) based on the Gay Rights issue, I have to make my choices based on other issues (Economy/Defense/Ect...)

I completely reject the idea of Civil Unions based on the Board vs Topeka decision. I might have to concede that Civil Unions will be a nessessary first step to ease the country into the idea of Same Sex Marriage. That being said, it is clear that seperate is never equal. Civil Unions are a watered down version of Marriage and, if left to the States, there is nothing to prevent one state from refusing to honor the property rights / medicial decision rights /ect.. that may be granted in the state where my future partner and I are "Unioned".

The Seperation of Church and State precedent set forth in our Constitution means No Religion has the right to force their views on any Citizen, including gays. I think the idea that Gays being married forces anything at all on the Straight community is fundamentally flawed; Their view limits us and forces us, not the other way around.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply,
Stephen
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:43 PM on 12/06/2011
Although this is a good step forwards, I agree that the chances of it actually having much effect is low.

On Obama, he may not being as good as you hoped, but he is certainly doing better than any of the republican candidates would be if in his place.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eliasasm
06:01 PM on 12/06/2011
THANK YOU MR. PRESIDENT!!