Global Gaze: Courting Equality
Note: Starting this week, Global Gaze is switching from a biweekly to a weekly column. Yay! This will probably mean slightly shorter, but hopefully more current, posts. As always, continue to send tips, post ideas, words of encouragement and brownies to jolly@thenewgay.net!
There are lots of ways to enact change and pursue equality. Many LGBTs feel that the only way to truly change attitudes is to do so on a one-on-one basis, while other feel that marches, protests and parades are the most effective methods. Sometimes, however, the quickest and most effective way to gain at least official equality is to work within the system and take the matter to court.
As I’ve mentioned previously, there fails to exist a universal standard in international law in terms of equality and non-discrimination when it comes to sexual minorities. However, it’s becoming more and more acknowledged that domestic laws truly help to shape international law and vice versa, so gains for LGBT peoples in one country can eventually lead to better lives for everyone around the world. Within our own country, Massachusetts’ challenging of the DOMA in court has been getting a lot of headlines, and there have been some major successes and landmarks occurring right now in courthouses around the world, which run the gamut of pursuing the most basic of rights to struggling for complete equality in countries which are more accepting of LGBT peoples to begin with.
Probably the biggest story in the international community regarding legal victories for LGBT peoples comes out of one country that I mentioned briefly in last week’s State of Pride post: India. After an eight-year-long struggle, a Delhi High Court ruled that gay sex in the South Asian country must be decriminalized. In a lengthy ruling, the court decided that by prohibiting consensual homosexual sex, the country was infringing on the dignity of LGBT individuals, something that is prohibited in the constitution.
While the decision was a landmark one, the fight continues. Already, the Indian Supreme Court is stepping in and has agreed to hear arguments regarding petitions filed by a Hindu astrologer, Suresh Kumar Kaushal, and a yoga guru named Swami Baba Ramdev, who has previously stated that homosexuality is a disease which can be cured by practicing yoga. (Clearly, he hasn’t been to my yoga studio, which definitely supports, and may actually spread, homosexuality.) While the ruling has been fairly well-received by most of society, many other conservative religious leaders have vowed to oppose it. Luckily, the court is allowing LGBT groups such as the Naz Foundation to present their own arguments and they are being kept involved with the process. This case will be an interesting one to watch as it develops.
Another, less publicized legal victory came last week in Australia. The Law and Justice Committee in the state of New South Wales ruled last week that its laws should be altered to allow same-sex couples to adopt children (gay and lesbians could previously adopt children individually, but not as couples). While this decision wasn’t technically handed down by a court of law, it was part of parliamentary inquiry, which recommended a change to the state’s Adoption Act. The changes would revise the requirements to make adoption based on the couple’s suitability, not their genders. While the recommendation does allow faith-based adoption agencies the right to deny same-sex couples, it also provides that they must refer them to another agency that will work with them.
While these stories, and others like them, are encouraging, there are drawbacks to taking the fight to domestic legal systems. First, in many of the countries where queer communities suffer the most, the judicial system is not always properly developed or effective at creating real change. Also, it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that in the most homophobic countries it’s likely that individual judges may hold some of these prejudices that are so prevalent in society as a whole. Finally, just because a justice has issued a ruling does not mean the country’s government or everyday citizens will accept it, so it is important to remember that work on the individual and societal level for tolerance and equality is vital and complementary to any legal strategy.
There are of course other legal dramas playing out across the globe, like the one in Russia that has been discussed in previous columns, but the two mentioned above stand out as recent and diverse examples. I guess the real question is: are you buying that victories in the courthouse can really change things “on the ground?” Do you agree that a favorable decision in one particular country may be a good thing for the entire international queer community? Leave your thoughts in the comments below!
First time here? See what we're all about... Get involved... Send us a tip!...
Leave your response!