Gay Rights and Reproductive Rights: Why Don't People Get the Connection?

Supporters of New York City's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center gathered on the evening of November 4 to watch history unfold as the nation, inspired by a powerful vision for change, elected Senator Barack Obama as its next president. The room shook as the audience erupted in applause, whistles, foot-stomping and cheers, as President-elect Obama told us, "It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled. [...] We are, and always will be, the United States of America."

And yet, change is a long and difficult process and one measured not by one person, one election, one presidency. As critical a marker as this election is, true change depends upon a collective vision and movement towards peace and equity for all. And, as a nation, that night we also voted, on state ballots, on what we consider to be our rights and who deserves them.

Three states banned same-sex marriage, bringing the total number to 40 of states with explicit bans on same-sex marriage and other forms of partner recognition, such as domestic partnerships and civil unions. At the same time, voters in three states approved reproductive justice measures, a move that preserved components of women and girl's rights to decide when and if to create families (in this case, via pregnancy), to safely engage in sex for reasons other than procreation and to reproductive and sexual health.

The interesting thing is that the constitutional amendments and legislation banning same-sex marriage effectively withhold elements of the above rights - to family, reproduction and sexuality - from lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. Banning marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships and even, as in the case of Virginia, contractual agreements that are deemed to replicate marriage rights, by definition limits our abilities to form families, as we cannot legally provide for and protect each other. For example, we are denied the legal rights of married couples to jointly parent, adopt or provide foster care; purchase joint home, auto or life insurance policies; pass Social Security or pension plan benefits to each other; make medical decisions on each other's behalf; inherit from each other in the absence of a will; and use sick leave to care for a partner or child. There are 1,138 such rights automatically conferred to married couples, designed in large part to protect the couple and their families, which are denied to LGBT couples.

Control over and choice about our family/reproductive and sexual rights and health is critical for women, girls and LGBT people. In recognition of this, and as further commitment to our official position as a pro-choice organization, the Center created a national organizing initiative, Causes in Common, as a working alliance between LGBT and reproductive rights activists. We must, of course, continue the work towards full recognition and rights of LGBT persons and the work of protecting and expanding the reproductive rights of women and girls. But the impetus to create Causes in Common is that these rights are not mutually exclusive - rights for LGBT people include the rights to create family, rights for women and girls include the rights to create families if and when they choose, and rights for all of these individuals include the right to adult consensual sex. Similarly, as we reflect upon the words of President-Elect Obama, we are called upon not only to recognize, but also nurture, the fact that we are infinitely diverse and intimately linked. And so our rights - the rights of all of us, not simply of LGBT people - include the rights to autonomy in gender expression, the rights of individuals to have control over their own bodies, the right to engage in consensual intimate behavior with partners of one's choosing regardless of sex or gender, the right of all women to safe and affordable abortions and the right of all people to access safe and affordable reproductive technologies and assistance. Many communities across the country acted upon this ideal on November 4 and codified some of the rights just listed. The call is to each of us to now take responsibility for the conferring of all rights to all people.

Comments

[the third rail]

The public policy team at Burns' GLBT Center in NYC has been pushing this exact issue for some time, and it seems apparent that a lot of us in the community just don't agree. Its not that we don't see some connection between the agenda of gay rights opponents and abortion opponents, its that the support for abortion is a little too full-throated for many of us to stomach. I generally support a woman's right to choose, but I abhor abortion, think it is wrong, and and deeply resent being lectured about the subject and the equation and conflation of these two issues. They are different issues, and gay opinion leaders lose credibility when they insist we must all be on the same page on this one...

[robert11225]

Gay rights are not ONLY about reproductive and family choice rights but ALSO about the right to be free from the terror of discrimination related to one's gender. The connection between misogeny, masculinity, and homophobia is obvious. Let's keep talking about it, and join together on these common issues.

[jstephenclark]

When the going gets tough, EMILY's List tosses the queers overboard. They will endorse an antigay candidate, as long as she is supports abortion rights. (E.g. Inez Tannenbaum in South Carolina.) And they will even collaborate with a homophobic whisper campaign against a liberal male incumbent. (E.g. Congressman Steve Cohen in Tennessee.)

I will never tell pro-life lesbians and gay men that they are unwelcome in their own movement in some vain effort at currying favor with the fanatics at EMILY's List who don't give a flying flip about gay rights.

This is all about pro-choice activists trying their best to co-opt the gay rights movement for their own benefit. We have enough controversial issues to address with having our scarce resources diverted to abortion rights, which is about the least gay-relevant issue imaginable. No way. No how. No co-option.

[lunchlady]

I think all churches should be restricted from endorsing and supporting political causes, and should lose their tax-exempt status if they insist on trying to legislate their version of morality. I know that that means that the Unitarians and the Quakers and other non-far-right groups also can't act as a politcal group but I'm okay with that. Everyone can do as they like individually or they can split off a PAC group which is not tax-exempt. That's why your donations to any PAC group or candidate don't qualify for a tax deduction, which I think is also okay. Allowing tax-deductible donations to a church to then be used for political action could be seen as a form of tax evasion, or even money laundering in regards to the IRS.
Non-involvement in politics is an official position of the Seventh Day Adventists, but I don't know how many of them adhere to that.
The Mormons are definitely violating the principle of separation of church and state, and they probably consider the entire gay rights movement to be a moral emergency of Biblical proportions.
I agree that reproductive rights are connected to gay rights. I pointed this out years ago to a gay man who was complaining about women getting abortions and it changed his position to pro-choice immediately. Compassion and tolerance go hand in hand, and have to be for everyone.

[tbone99]

In the 60's Illinois sodomy rights were abolished as a trade to withold abortion rights. Gays did not demand that both be legitimized.

There seems to be a history where women are told to wait your turn while others step ahead- your time ll come and then the door bangs shut.( reconstruction being anther such time)

I think there's a much bigger argument to be made in challenging the Mormon church'sinvolvement as a direct conflict with seperation of church and state. They'll be using that same argument for their own "creative" marriage arrangements some day.

[JackNasty]

"In the 60's Illinois sodomy rights were abolished as a trade to withold abortion rights. Gays did not demand that both be legitimized." --tbone99

Do you always make stuff up or do you only do it when you want to defame gay people?

[newpotusplease]

I think you have to include a commitment to fighting for pay equity for women in this effort.

It is part of why women choose to or not to have children, and stay in sometimes dangerous relationships.

If the LGBT community is committed to pay equity for women and not just a woman's right to abortion and contraception -- only then will I believe that there is real and intentional goodwill being directed toward women.

Pay equity for women=that is my litmus test for deciding what groups are getting my support.

[SunDriedTomato]

My spouse and I are one of the 18,000 couples married in California who are now in legal limbo. I've had a couple days to adjust to the idea, but I'm still battling waves of despair and anger... even though I knew it was likely Prop 8 was going to pass. Obama will have many things to deal with, and I don't begrudge gay marriage being low on the list. Frankly, I'd rather have my brother home from Iraq than have my equal rights first.

[mlaiuppa]

Boycott Utah.

No more ski vacations. No Sundance Film Festival

Shun the state.

And if ANY church wants to get involved in politcs they LOSE their tax exempt status. Separation of church and state.

[queeraz]

If we have to be acceptive of the diversity of religion, not to mention the number of versions of the bible, it's high time to separate church and hate/state! Fundamentelism of any kind only prevents a mind to think. If you want religion in government, move to Iran...our "other" next door neighbor.

[PhDiva]

Boycotts are always effective. People have forgotten how to use them.

[jke2008]

As an adult of queer parents, my joy of seeing the first black president elected in the US was made complicated by the passing of proposition 8 in my home state of California.

Upon hearing this news my 16 year old brother remarked "Wow! I guess you can't have more than one groundbreaking event in an election!" I was saddened by the truth of his words. I thought of how tired everyone in the US must have been as they were campaigning for Obama or the other propositions that would not allow discrimination against LGBTQ people. However, we are more than that. Our identities are not singular and our communties are not either. I am both queer and deeply interested in seeing power shift away from the paradigm of white privilege to a person of color with politics I care about.

We are tired, but until we form coalitions and seek out the solidarity and support of other people and other groups of people we will never have all of our identities and interests represented.

[JamisonGreen]

Another very important element underlying the rights that Richard Burns mentions is accurate SEX EDUCATION. We cannot exercise our rights responsibly without knowledge, and this is best supported by awareness of both the foundations and the consequences of our actions. A functional democracy depends on an educated citizenry, and the philosophy behind "abstinence-only" sex education--as well as the blatant lies and misinformation spread in this election cycle by those who would limit the rights of others in order to frighten people into thinking some people don't deserve equality--irresponsibly counters the fundamental rights and freedoms upon which this country is built.
I'm grateful to Mr. Burns for articulating the crucial relationship between LGBT rights and reproductive rights for all, and I hope more people will be willing to stand up for equality in the months and years to come.

[PerryBrass]

I have been saying for many years that gay relationships at one point will be seen simply (and valued) as a non-reproductive sexual relationships. In the Middle Ages, being non-child producing was considered grounds for annulling any marriage. We no longer have these attitudes, except in the US (obviously). In much of Europe, gay and lesbian marriage is a no-brainer: it's not only allowed, in many places its even encouraged"gay weddings are considered profitable. Simple as that. So why can't America catch up to even Catholic Spain?

[itmaybetoolate]

Gay couples are not necessarily non-reproductive sexual relationships. Gay couples could be treated as any other "infertile" couple - i.e., they need to use technological advances to conceive a child. Technology allows these couples to exercise their reproductive rights.

[M1]

Obama screwed gay people....he had an opportunity to say something thoughtful about our losses at election night today but he spent the time talking about the White house dog instead. I would stop quoting Obama's words because as of today they are not holding up to scrutiny.

Come 2012 I won't be pulling the lever for him if he does not speak to our issues.

[brooklyncitizen]

Eyes rolling. He didn't screw anyone; LGBT needs a better lobbyist.

[MexDiva]

M1, please think in a more positive and broader terms. I am sure Obama concerns a lot about gay rights as much as we do. But he ran himself as a unifier, his acceptance speech was not the right moment to address this -but he mentioned LGBT people as part of our community-. This is a very polarizing topic and I am confident of a better future for this community.

Don't give up hope.

[Yojani]

This article is a call to action and a call to organize. Organizations like the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center (The Center) in New York City create a space that recognizes our need to actively advocate and organize our community. With the hope and optimism brought on by the election of Senator Barack Obama I am hopeful that the current bigotry and prejudice that stand in the way of our civil rights will not prevail. I believe that these current setbacks are temporary. I also know that in the spirit of Causes in Common we have to move forward and continue to galvanize our communities to activism.

[Kerris]

Laws that make marital and contractual arrangements between gay and transgender people illegal are going to be proven unconstitutional one day (now that we don't have to face a future of a loaded court appointed by right wing religious nutters).

A mixed of fair court *must* look to their own precedent of the 1967 Loving case. If Loving was correct, and no state could legally ban interracial marriage, then there are no grounds on which to ban married between people of the same gender. If the court decides Loving was wrong and, thereby, gay marriage is wrong -- then they will have to reverse Loving.

If Loving is reversed simply to accommodate anti-gay prejudice, the nation would implode with the amount of people who are intermarried or interracial being suddenly declared illegal and illegitimate -- including our new President.

This needs to be removed from the arena of state referrenda (did states have a referrendum on ending segregation?! interracial marriage?! if so, we'd be nowhere today, I tell ya). This is a human and civil rights issue, not one to be left to the religious bigotry of the masses.

[Romulus]

I really don't think the SC Justices had any thoughts of gay marriage back in 1967 when they ruled that marriage was a basic civil right. What they said was "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...". They almost certainly meant "survival of the species." I believe that for gay marriage to be recognized as a basic civil right, there will have to be a new ruling by the US Supreme Court.

[ThinkCreeps]

All the more reason to stick to the BIll of Rights for ideas. It doesn't stretch the imagination very far to make the leap. Negative rights: who does gay marriage hurt? No-one. End of story. Not true for polygamy, not true for incest. Simple. ThinkCreeps.

[newpotusplease]

The case of Loving v. raises another question for each person:

do you think that being LGBT is equivalent to being Black, Brown etc.?