The Rejection of Human Rights Framings: The Case of LGBT Advocacy in the US

Abstract

This article explores why many advocates concerned with lesbian, gay, and transgendered (LGBT) rights in the US have not chosen to frame their struggles in human rights terms. The article recognizes that framing a cause in human rights terms can be an effective way of claiming the moral high ground and of asserting affinity with others throughout the world who seek to condemn human wrongs and promote human dignity. However, this is not always the case. This article uses a historical review of LGBT organizing in the US to explain why human rights framings also may be viewed as unduly restrictive and even detrimental when identity is the central organizing factor.

Developing an affirmative position statement on sexual and gender diversity for psychology professionals in South Africa

“…Identity politics often rely on self-identified categories of sexual orientation and gender identity to raise consciousness around experiences of oppression related to particular identities (Mertus, 2007). In the United States, identity politics has provided a valuable frame for the development of affirmative practice guidelines in that LGB rights advocates within the APA had to assume an activist role to motivate why, despite homosexuality being declassified as a disorder in 1973, there remained a need for the discipline to formulate an affirmative stance on LGB concerns.…”

Gatekeeper persuasion and issue adoption: Amnesty International and the transnational LGBTQ network

“…This division among gay male and lesbian activists would repeat itself at the international level. The two movements would converge in the United States during the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s and 1990s, and a shared queer identity was forged, aided in part by the opposition campaigns that were waged against them collectively by groups such as Save Our Children, the Eagle Forum, and Focus on the Family, as well as other transnational anti-gay organizations (Faderman, 1991;Mertus, 2007Mertus, : 1054Weiss, 2013: 164).…”

“…IGLHRC would form an effective working relationship with HRW, even using its New York office as a "satellite office" (Thoreson, 2014: 36). By 2003, HRW had its own LGBTQ program, and had even hired the New York Director of IGLHRC, Scott Long, to run the program (Mertus, 2007(Mertus, : 1046. IGLHRC's work at the United Nations would extend beyond shadow reports over the years to include lobbying the UN General Assembly to protect LGBTQ individuals from extrajudicial and arbitrary executions and to gain consultative status with ECOSOC Stern, 2014;Thoreson, 2014: 50).…”

“Gay Rights are Human Rights”: the Framing of New Interpretations of International Human Rights Norms

“…However, the author notes that by the 1990s, this form of social movement "repertoire" (Tarrow, 1994(Tarrow, , 2006 …the traditional human rights techniques of monitoring and reporting to apply existing human rights norms to LGBT lives, noting in particular the right to privacy, the right to freedom from torture (used in cases of "forcible cures" for homosexuality), the right to equality and nondiscrimination, the right to family, and the right of transsexuals to recognition of their new gender. (Mertus, 2007(Mertus, , p. 1038 Second, activists have tapped into traditional monitoring techniques and "human rights culture-building" efforts to promote new international human rights understandings that are important to the lives of LGBT persons, including the "right to sexuality". Mertus asserts that these two types of activism occurred in two distinct time periods, with the tipping point being when LGBT issues became a concern to the main "gatekeeper" human rights organizations, in particular Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.…”