The LGBT: Equality, International Politics and Free Speech on the Line.

An opinion piece on the recent appointment of gay athletes to the Winter Olympics Delegation. The controversy surrounding same sex marriage and it's social and political context.

On December 17th 2013 President Barack Obama named former athletes Billie Jean King, Caitlin Cahow and Brian Boitano to the US Delegation that would be attending the Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, Russia, after President Obama stated that he wouldn't be attending the winter games. The announcement came as no surprise due to the troubled relationship between the US and Rusia as well as Putin's recent anti-gay laws that contrast with Obama's support for gay rights. The inclusion of King and Boitano in the delegation, both publicly gay, would seem as a clear message that Obama won't stand for discrimination in any country, or simply a defiance of Russia's laws to establish dominance. The event however is also considered by Billie Jean King as a possible defining moment in the history of gay rights.

 

King stated that this will be a great opportunity to "...stand and speak for those who don't have a voice". As a known advocate for LGBT and women rights, King a former tennis star and US Olympian was proud to be part of the delegation and talked about the need for a figure that can make a stand for gay rights in the international stage. "We need a John Carlos moment." This in reference to the African American runner  who during the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City, protested during the medal ceremony by lifting his fist in the air while wearing a black glove as a stand against discrimination towards African Americans.

 

When comparing the LGBT movement and the American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968), I believe King made a very dangerous statement. The Civil Rights movement lasted 13 years and it came as a result of more than a century of discrimination against African Americans. Since the days of Slavery, we are talking about a whole sector of the population, which was enslaved, discriminated, segregated, not allowed to vote, attacked, killed and looked down upon for years. A movement that brought us figures of the likes of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X.

 

On the other hand Homosexuality, has been a difficult subject for societies over the years, and indeed the Inquisition along with the Catholic Church and other religious institutions did punish people suspected of Homosexual acts. However in the modern era it’s hard to see gay rights under the same light as the Civil Rights Movement. Discrimination against Homosexuals in the US has been associated mostly with the Army and legality of marriage for same sex couples. This is not to understate the amount of bullying that gay teenagers have had to suffer and the discrimination that there has been towards gay HIV positive patients.

 

Having said this, LGBT have never been assigned different bathrooms, schools, districts, have had to seat on the back of the bus, have been denied the right to vote, have been beaten to death by police, have been segregated to ghettos and most important, their condition as human beings has never been denied by the law. Furthermore African Americans are the group that suffers the most discrimination in the US even today they have a disadvantage in living situations, education, and job opportunities, not to mention the percentage of imprisonment and death due to violence and drugs. Why then is the Civil Rights movement today mostly associated with gay rights? And what effect will President Obama’s actions have in the movement?

 

In my opinion there is a simple reason why gay rights have become the flag for civil rights today. It is the problem with the easiest solution. This is not to say that acceptance of gay marriage with the conservative sector of society is easy, however in the United States and most of the world same sex marriage laws are being instituted since the beginning of the 21^st century. Seventeen countries today allow same sex marriage including some states in the US and Mexico (freedomtomarry.org). Most governments across the world can address gay rights by allowing same sex marriage.  

 

President Obama has made the legality of marriage for same sex couples, one of the main legacies of his presidency. However sending gay athletes to represent the US abroad at an Olympic event seems to be the wrong place and time for the leader of a country to establish a political agenda. This action can’t help but be taken as some sort of retribution for Russia for giving asylum to Edward Snowden and as Obama’s way of gaining the LGBT vote for the Democratic Party in the future. LGBT has welcomed Obama’s approach to same sex marriage and his decision to send gay athletes as part of the US delegation to Russia. This “in your face” approach has actually been adopted by LGBT and supporters against those who speak against same sex marriage and the LGBT.

 

In 2012 Chik-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy spoke against same sex marriage by referring to God’s definition of marriage and “the arrogant attitude that thinks we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.” This resulted in LGBT and certain sectors of the population boycotting the fast food chain and staging shows of affection between same sex couples inside some of the franchises. More recently, in December of this year reality star Phil Robertson star of the A&E show Duck Dynasty spoke against gay marriage in an interview with GQ Magazine “Everything is blurred between what’s right and what’s wrong…Sin becomes fine. Start with Homosexual behavior and just morph out from there.” Robertson and A&E suffered a lot of backlash from GLAAD to the point where he was suspended from the show and its most recent season premiere ratings went down compared to previous seasons.

 

Beside the comments by Cathy and Robertson being poor business decisions, they seem to have been punished for expressing their own opinion about gay marriage and LGBT in general. There seems to be something very wrong with two people being publicly chastised and demonized for speaking their mind. Today if an artist where to speak in favor of LGBT there would likely be no negative consequences or feedback, however if he were to speak against LGBT the reaction would most likely be similar to Cathy’s and Robertson’s comments.

 

The issue here seems to be at the core of what freedom of expression represents. When you have one side that is being given all the liberties to speak in favor of their cause, but you’re not allowing any comments from the opposing side, that’s attacking the very values of free speech. Why is the opinion in favor of gay rights given more value that the opinion against? If most of the population in the US and most of the world have had a view on the institution of marriage for many years, and one day the government decides to rewrite the definition. It’s not realistic to force people, to not only accept this new concept, but also to attack their opinion of what they have been taught for years as right and wrong. The more you force the issue on people that are against LGBT marriage, the more you push them to the other side of the argument, the more you radicalize them and the more likely is that you end up with two sides that are so far apart on opinions that there won’t be any common ground for an actual discussion that benefits both sides.

 

It is the approach that LGBT has taken towards acceptance of same sex marriage laws that has polarized both sides. Today anybody that expresses any opposing views about same sex marriage can be bombarded with parades, protests, boycott and general backlash. It seems that LGBT’s way of dealing with anti-gay groups is by being as loud as they can possibly be, and this only creates more opposition and less possibility of the other side respecting LGBT.

 

In summary you have the right to respect same sex marriage laws and to respect and demand equal rights for all citizens. Most of all you have the right to disagree with the concept, as long as you respect the law. In the same manner as a Republican respects the fact that there is a Democratic President, while still  having the right to support, discuss, and uphold Republican views or vice versa. There can be respect towards equal opportunities and laws for gay rights, while still being able to express and uphold your own personal believes in any public or private forum.  In the case of Dan Cathy and Phil Robertson, they might have realized that they need to change their opinions in public to favor their businesses but privately they will most likely develop a grudge against LGBT for publicly chastising them for an opinion they should be allowed to have and express in the media without any negative consequences.

 

 

This brings us to why President Obama’s decision to send gay athletes Billie Jean King and Brian Boitano, is the wrong approach to gay rights, both in the US and the world. Barack Obama, the person, has the right to be a supporter of gay rights if that is indeed his personal opinion. However, Barack Obama the president of the United States has the responsibility of guaranteeing equal rights for American citizens, while maintaining a neutral position on any opinion expressed by the public or other politicians.  It’s very important to understand the difference between respecting the law and agreeing with the law. Respect comes from an individual understanding that even if your personal values or opinions differ from the law you still have the obligation to uphold it. On the other hand agreeing with the law is up to each individual, you can disagree with the law without breaking the law.

 

            President Obama has the responsibility to uphold the right to equality for every citizen under the law. However he doesn’t have the right to try to bend public opinion in favor of same sex marriage or in this case to be disrespectful to another president by trying to push his political and social agenda on foreign territory. The reason why I describe this as an “agenda” is because the only reason that President Obama seems to have for expressing his own personal views on same sex marriage in his social politics. In October 2007 Obama said “I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must work together in the fight for equal rights… and will continue to fight for these rights as the president of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division.” In this statement we must underline two parts. First the mention of African American’s alongside with gay rights, but most importantly, talking about the US as a country that “spreads tolerance instead of division”.

 

What Obama is doing by sending gay athletes as an official delegation is not being tolerant of Russia’s laws and at the same time he is creating division by giving people who oppose LGBT, a reason to be even less tolerant of gay rights in the future. The solution is not to throw the issue in the faces of everybody in the world and try to force them to accept laws that they haven’t accepted in years. The LGBT movement is being dragged under President Obama’s attempt to guarantee a vote from the LGBT community for the Democratic Party and his ill attempt at helping the LGBT globally by disrespecting and challenging Russia is not the right way. It’s also curious that Obama hasn’t been so involved with African American rights since it is a more pressing issue, and one that affects every aspect of American Society on a day to day basis. We don’t see the president talking to other countries about racial inequality, with the enthusiasm that he acts against Russia.

A simple internet search on President Obama’s social policy will show his commitment to LGBT rights. We are either looking at an individual greatly concerned with guaranteeing equality for all, or we are looking at a politician targeting votes for his party. This is up to each person to decide. I want to make it clear that this is not a Republican speech. The Republican side of this argument it’s one that I don’t agree with either, one of complete rejection to any kind of discussion of gay rights and same sex marriage; however I believe President Obama and the LGBT community are responsible for the opposition. Obama is involving gay rights, which as far as the US is concerned is a domestic issue, and International politics which should be of no concern to LGBT because international  politics are bigger and more complex than just one sector of the population.

 

I believe that every country should guarantee equal rights for its citizens regardless of race, religion or sexual preference. Every individual has the right to fight for equality. The problem for me lies in the approach that this “fight” has taken and the use of it now as Obama’s own tool of international politics, to further damage an already fragile relationship with Russia. The demonization of public opinion expressed against same sex marriage is a clear violation of free speech, you can’t force people to accept a change to the institution of marriage without being able to express their opinion. It’s also important for the LGBT community to realize that theirs is not the only plight in American society or the world. Sectors of American society are constantly discriminated under the law and their neighborhoods are constantly threatened by drugs and violence. Labor camps have become regular in China and North Korea, genocide in Africa, military conflicts in the Middle East, to name a few. This issue and this fight belongs to the LGBT community it shouldn't be kidnapped by any government, it shouldn't be punishable to speak against it, but most important it shouldn't be used as one man’s political flag overseas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources:

 

-      

 

-        

 

-      

 

-      

 

-      

Author's Note

This is not a piece in favor of any political government. I'm not implying that gay rights shouldn't be addressed, but only that they have eclipsed other social problems.