An Analysis of the International Treatment of Homosexuality
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE FIRST DAYS OF SPRING: AN ANALYSIS OF THE INTERNATIONAL TREATMENT OF HOMOSEXUALITY Michael R. Galvan, B.A. Thesis Prepared for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS December 2013 APPROVED: Michael Greig, Major Professor Elizabeth Oldmixon, Committee Member Jacqueline DeMeritt, Committee Member Richard Ruderman, Chair of the Department of Political Science Mark Wardell, Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School Galvan, Michael R. The first days of spring: An analysis of the international treatment of homosexuality. Master of Science (Political Science), December 2013, 176 pp., 16 tables, bibliography, 110 titles. In recent history, the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) persons have been in constant fluctuation. Many states criminalize homosexual behavior while other states legally recognize same-sex marriages and same-sex adoptions. There are also irregular patterns where LGBT interest groups form across the globe. With this research project, I begin to explain why these discrepancies in the treatment of homosexuality and the formation of LGBT interest groups occur. I develop a theory that the most obvious contrast across the globe occurs when analyzing the treatment of homosexuals in OECD member states versus non-OECD countries. OECD nations tend to see the gay community struggle for more advanced civil rights and government protections, while non-OECD states have to worry about fundamental human rights to life and liberty. I find that this specific dichotomization is what causes the irregular LGBT interest group formation pattern across the globe; non- OECD nations tend to have fewer LGBT interest groups than their OECD counterparts. When looking at why non-OECD nations and OECD nations suppress the rights of their gay citizens, I find that religion plays a critical role in the suppression of the gay community. In this analysis, I measure religion several different ways, including the institution of an official state religion as well as the levels of religiosity within a nation. Regardless of how this variable is manipulated and measured, statistical analysis continuously shows that religion’s influence is the single most significant factor in leading to a decrease in both human and civil rights for gays and lesbians across the globe. Further analysis indicates that Judaism plays the most significant role out the three major world religions in the suppression of civil rights for homosexuals in OECD nations. Copyright 2013 by Michael R. Galvan ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Special thanks goes to Dr. Michael Greig, Dr. Elizabeth Oldmixon and Dr. Jaqueline DeMeritt for their guidance with the following project. Further thanks goes to Dr. Victor Asal for his guidance on the development of Chapter 2 of this thesis. I would also like to acknowledge the help of Dr. John Ishiyama, Dr. Idean Salehyan and Dr. Phil Paolino for reviewing various chapters of this research project in its earliest stages of development. Fellow graduate students in the Political Science Department at the University of North Texas also played a critical role in the development of theories and methods related to this thesis. Special thanks goes to Keighan Gunther for constantly providing the emotional support needed for me to complete the following research. Finally, I would like to thank Lady Gaga for being a voice for the LGBT youth across the country. Your vocal support of a critical community gave me the courage to conduct this rigorous research project. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: THE FIRST DAYS OF SPRING .................................... 1 CHAPTER 2 NO MATTER GAY, STRAIGHT OR BI: QUANTIFYING LGBT RIGHTS IN NON-OECD NATIONS .................................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 3 SHORT OF THEIR IDENTITY: INTERNATIONAL VARIATIONS IN LGBT GROUP FORMATION ................................................................................................... 55 CHAPTER 4 UNDERNEATH, IT’S ALL THE SAME LOVE: DISCREPANCIES IN CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES FOR THE LGBT COMMUNITY IN OECD NATIONS 89 CHAPTER 5 IT’S THE UNKNOWN WE FEAR: RELIGION’S IMPACT ON THE GAY COMMUNITY IN OECD NATIONS ............................................................................. 128 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION: A HUNDRED OF MY BROTHERS ARE READY FOR THIS JOURNEY TO BEGIN ........................................................................................ 153 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 161 iv CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: THE FIRST DAYS OF SPRING During his 2nd Inauguration ceremony on January 21st, 2013, President Barack Obama spoke the following words: “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law. For if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.” While these words were pronounced by the executive head of the United States, they reflect a continuing struggle in the international community. The legal status of homosexuals across the globe has severe variations ranging from death sentences to full equality under the law. Little research has been conducted which empirically analyzes the causes of these discrepancies, yet a brief overview of the globe allows one to see that there are two distinct categories in which states exist regarding the treatment of homosexual individuals. These two categories are: states which violate basic human rights to life and security and states which have established a fundamental right to life, yet have discrepancies in civil rights and civil liberties for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) individuals. Even more striking is how this dichotomization of LGBT tolerance and equality is divided so that OECD states are more likely to uphold fundamental human rights for homosexuals while non-OECD nations continuously violate basic human rights for this portion of their population. I argue in the following analyses that these two categories of states cannot be analyzed within the same model. It is unfair to analyze the treatment of LGBT persons within the United States in an empirical model with states such as Uganda (which 1 recently approved a controversial bill commonly known as the “Kill the Gays” bill). Homosexuals within the United States do not have to fear state led imprisonment, torture or the death penalty for participating in same-sex relations. Instead, gays and lesbians in the United States have frequently faced a denial of civil rights, civil liberties and legal protections granted to the rest of the population. The mechanisms for discrimination between these two types of countries are unique to the two distinct categories which exist in the international community. If one were to test all the states in the international system with the various mechanisms which lead to their discriminatory practices, we would not be able to properly discern which of these causes is related to a specific state or category of states. While there is a dichotomization between the treatments of homosexuals at the international level, the two subunits which an LGBT individual finds themselves placed in also have variations within themselves. Most notably, the African continent has shown a dramatic range amongst the numerous nations regarding the treatment of those individuals who self-identify as LGBT. For example, 2012 gave witness to the first time the “Mr. Gay World” contest was held on African soil (South Africa to be more precise) (Kelto, 2012). However, despite the presence of this contest in Africa, only two black, African men competed in this event, one from Namibia, the other from Ethiopia. Both men stated that they feared for their safety once they returned home because homosexuality is illegal in their home states. These discrepancies also exist between OECD member countries. In 2013, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments for its first time on the legality of controversial laws out of California (Proposition 8) and the federal government (the 2 Defense of Marriage Act) which restricted marriage rights and benefits to only heterosexual couples. Yet, other OECD nations, such as Denmark, had already fully recognized same-sex marriage rights, as well as adoption rights by the year 2010. Various LGBT interest groups have been formed locally, regionally and internationally to address issues which specifically impact the gay community. They specialize in areas of focus ranging from HIV and AIDS awareness to equal employment opportunities for homosexuals. While these groups are numerous and vast in scope, they are unequally distributed across the globe. Naturally, one would simply assume that these groups would form where homosexuality as an identity is criminalized in order to protect the fundamental right to life that has been established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The struggle to exist free from persecution arguable should be prioritized over added rights and liberties like same-sex marriage. Despite these astounding puzzles, little attention has been given to these topics. In the analyses that follow I will attempt to answer the following three questions: First, what explains the discrepancies in the criminalization of homosexual activity in non-OECD nations? Second, what causes the disparity in LGBT interest group formation? And finally, what leads to the inconsistency in civil rights law for gays