Gay Rights are Human Rights: Argumentative Essay

Introduction

Whether or not populations that identify as the Lesbians, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, or Queer (LGBTQ) ought to be granted legal recognition and enjoy the same freedoms and rights as the rest of the American population has for a long time remained a rather contentious issue. The United Nations Charter, to which the United States is a signatory, states that the principle of Human Rights applies to all humans regardless of their age, sex, gender or sexual orientation and this includes LGBTQ persons. Moreover, human rights cannot be denied by the state or by others and therefore, no human right is more important than others. Therefore, gay rights are human rights just like other kinds of rights and must be treated as such regardless of whether some states have acknowledged and implemented them and notwithstanding the general population's perception of the matter because it is the right things to do

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The ultimate rights to freedom of expression, association and speech have always been at the heart of law in the United States. The first gay relationship was cemented in a gay marriage when the mayor of San Francisco issues an order to city hall to grant a marriage licence to the same-sex couple, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon in 2004. In the same year, the state of Massachusetts became the first US jurisdiction to legalize gay marriages (Russell, 2018). Gay people in the United States have been persecuted and mistreated for their sexual orientation by the majority of the American population that happens to be heterosexual. This does not, however, justify their mistreatment and denial of equal treatment from the rest of the population. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees people from all races, nationalities and backgrounds fundamental rights and freedoms without discrimination for their gender or sexual orientation.

The world is experiencing increased attention towards violent acts of persecution that are normally inflicted on people from the LGBTQ Community. This scenario poses a crucial question regarding whether gay rights are normally included as part of basic human rights. The question is slowly taking centre stage at the United Nations (Giami, 2015). However, it is unclear concerning the type of outcome the UN will yield from its deliberations concerning the connection between gay and human rights. The 1945 Charter for the United Nations, for instance, stresses on the need for freedoms for all persons without distinction. On the other hand, the Universal Declaration of Human rights asserts that everyone is entitled to all rights and freedoms as set out on the declaration without any type of distinction (Millera, Kismodi, Cottingham, & Gruskind, 2015). Despite the many member states that have pledged to protect human rights, relations among same-sex remain illegal.

In the 1986 US Supreme Court case of Bowers v. Hardwick, the jury found that the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow any particular state from criminalizing private sexual conduct that comprises same-sex couples. In doing so, therefore, the President of the Supreme Court voided the idea of incriminating LGBTQ couples from consensual sexual behaviour understanding that gay rights are human rights just as much as any other types of rights (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986). The respondent to the case, Hardwick, was charged with sodomy for committing the act with another adult in his bedroom. After appealing the case at the Supreme Court, the court reversed it and held that the statute of Georgia violated his fundamental rights thereby enhancing the fact that gay rights are human rights and must be respected.

In 2003, the US Supreme Court ruled that law by the Texas state government that banned adult homosexual intercourse is unconstitutional because it violates the clause of Due Process found in the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003). The defence attorneys to the case argued that the Texas law was unconstitutional since it banned the action of anal sexual intercourse between homosexual men while allowing the same action among heterosexual men and this is biased since the same act cannot be legal for one group of people and illegal for another group of people based on their sexual orientation (Miller & Roseman, 2011). The attorneys argued for the right to privacy and said that officers of law enforcement cannot be allowed into an individual's bedroom. The case further enhances the fact that gay rights are human rights and must be respected like any other rights.

The Supreme Court of the United States asserted the principle that no state is allowed to amend its constitution denying homosexuals the same fundamental legal protections that heterosexuals receive. This is a firm affirmation of the fact that gay rights are just as important as other human rights. In a 1996 Romer v. Evans Supreme Court case, the majority in the case argued that the Fourteenth Amendment failed the rational basis clause following amendment 2 of the Colorado state constitution that was passed into law via a voter initiative in the year 1992 (Romer v. Evans, 1996). Although the case did not find homosexuals to be a special class of people as it were in the lower courts, the case determined that they had the right to engage in the due political process that they would otherwise have been denied. Therefore, this case strengthens the notion that gay rights are human rights just as much as any other rights.

In 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favour of gay rights and marriages when it decided that the ban on the union between two people of the same sex constitutes a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and should, therefore, be reversed to allow gay people to enjoy the same rights as heterosexual people (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015). According to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States, every state is supposed to recognize and licence a marriage between two people of the same sex and such people are supposed to enjoy the same constitutional provisions as heterosexual people. In recognition of the fundamentals of gay rights, the Supreme Court stated that marriage is an essential centrepiece of the social fabric of the United States and of any other free society in the world. Therefore, the court once again ascertained the fact that gay rights are fundamental rights and must be respected as any other rights.

In a bid to re-affirm the commitment of the United States towards protecting the rights and freedoms of gay marriages and in proper alignment with the rest of heterosexual marriages, the US Supreme Court ruled that denial of federal recognition of same-sex marriages is a violation of the constitution and specifically the clause of Due Process of the Fifth Amendment (Mykitiuk & Lee, 2015). The case came about when upon the death of Spyier, who happened to be the same-sex partner to Windsor their home state of New York refused to recognise their marriage. This was due to the fact that the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) defined the terms "marriage" and "spouse" to mean heterosexual relations. The judges ruled that the principle of DOMA was inconsistent with the fact that marriage laws are bound to change from one state to the other.

In the year 1990 when the words "we are here and we are queer" were shouted and put out in the open by the activist group called Queer Nation, they sounded revolutionary and no one could ever have imagined of a time when gay marriages would be legalized in all the 50 states of the United States (Mattingly, 2019). People from the LGBTQ community have been vocal and about their existence and their need for equal treatment to the extent that the country has had no choice but to take notice of them. The years that followed the riots saw LGBTQ communities become more prominent and ceased to whisper their sentiments behind closed doors. Although high levels of intolerance have been experienced at the wake of the fight for gay rights, for instance, the killing of 17-year-old Dwayne Johnson in the Caribbean, there have been tremendous milestones that have been achieved that would never initially have been anticipated.

Gay couples across states in the US and the rest of the world are featured on popular television shows as well as other forms of media. According to Camacho, Reinka, & Quinn, (2019) members of the LGBTQ community experience, the worst forms of stigmatization for their sexual orientation due to the communities in which they live and the moral perspectives people from such communities have towards them. The American Association of health recognised the fact that the deliberate exclusion of minority groups from essential rights like that of marriage generally contribute to the deterioration of their mental health (Levya & Levy, 2017). Further evidence suggests that discrimination and stigma from sexual orientation are normally connected to a decrease in the quality of life among gay and lesbian men as well as an increase in psychological distress.

Conclusion

Overall, Lesbians, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, or Queer (LGBTQ) communities deserve the full advantage of rights and freedoms as accorded to other sections of the populations. Invasion into the business of any private citizen and incrimination of what they choose to do behind closed doors amounts to an invasion of privacy. If personal information can be protected by law, then a personal decision about sexual orientation ought to be protected even more. This is because homosexual persons deserve respects and rights just as much as heterosexual persons who are duly covered by the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, the International Convention of Human rights as well as other international conventions the laws of natural justice. Granting such persons the full rights and freedoms as provided for in the constitution is in line with the fundamental of the founding fathers and is the right and sensible to do.

References

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) (Supreme Court June 30, 1986).

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (Supreme Court 1996).

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (Supreme Court 2003).

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015) (Supreme Court 2015).

Camacho, G., Reinka, M., & Quinn, D. (2019). Disclosure and Concealment of Stigmatized Identities. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1(2), 121-132. doi. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.09.024.

Giami, A. (2015). Sexuality, health and human rights: The invention of sexual rights. Sexologies, 24(3), e45-e53.doi. 10.1016/j.sexol.2015.07.002.

Levya, B., & Levy, D. (2017). When love meets hate: The relationship between state policies on gay and lesbian rights and hate crime incidence. Social Science Research, 61(1), 142-159. doi. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.06.008.

Mattingly, D. (2019). Jimmy Carter and women's rights: From the White House to Islamic feminism. Women's Studies International Forum, 73(1), 35-41. doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2019.01.006

Miller, A., & Roseman, M. (2011). Sexual and reproductive rights at the United Nations: frustration or fulfilment? Reproductive Health Matters, 19(38), 102-118. doi: 10.1016/S0968-8080(11)38585-0

Millera, A., Kismodi, E., Cottingham, J., & Gruskind, S. (2015). Sexual rights as human rights: a guide to authoritative sources and principles for applying human rights to sexuality and sexual health. Reproductive Health Matters, 23(46), 16-30. doi: 10.1016/j.rhm.2015.11.007.

Mykitiuk, R., & Lee, R. (2015). Reproductive Rights in Affluent Nations. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition), 2(3), 468-476.doi. 10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.86143-7.

Russell, C. (2018). Rights-holders or refugees? Do gay men need reproductive justice? Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 7(1), 131-140. doi: 10.1016/j.rbms.2018.07....