2016 JPHMUN

1  

Social,  Cultural  and  Humanitarian  :  LGBTQ+      

  JPHMUN  2016  Background  Guide  

The Social, Cultural and Humanitarian Council concerns itself with issues pertaining to social, humanitarian and human rights that are relevant to people all over the world. Some issues discussed within SOCHUM include,

but are not limited to: human rights, global

literacy, women’s rights, children’s rights, the treatment of refugees and displaced persons, international drug control, crime prevention, and the elimination of racism and discrimination. SOCHUM works closely with many other UN bodies to effectively address its mandated issues. On the committee’s agenda is the question of LGBTQ+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer+) rights. Over the past decade, this has become an extremely controversial topic and has been discussed in many international political forums. The ubiquity of the topic is an effect of the rise of the LGBTQ+ community in the western world. The advance of LGBTQ+ rights is due to the general advancement of civil rights in the West. However, members of this community continue to be the targets of violence and discrimination all over the world. The intensity of injustice faced by LGBTQ people varies across countries. Each country has its own specific set of laws regarding issues related to this community. Some nations have extremely religiously and culturally conservative approaches and laws pertaining to sexual orientation. These laws and practices most often constitute serious acts of discrimination

2016 JPHMUN

2  

against people on the basis of their sexual identities. In many countries, the law seems to contradict the country’s stated commitments to fundamental rights. An example is section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which states: “whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with man, woman or animal shall be punished with (imprisonment for life), or with imprisonment …for a term which may extend to 10 years, and also shall be liable to a fine.” (Indian Penal Code, 1860). This law was put in place in 1860. Nations like Pakistan, China, Iran and Bhutan have or had similar laws. These are classic examples of how the laws of many nations deny the LGBTQ community the basic right of sexual expression. By enforcing such laws, many of these nations

violate

their

own

stated

constitutional freedoms to privacy, free speech and many other protected rights. On the other hand, progress in the LGBTQ agenda has been evident in many nations. For example, nations like Canada and Nepal have legalized gay marriage. Canada also recognizes a Gay Pride Day in order to celebrate the community. SOCHUM was motivated to examine this topic because of the diversity of international perspectives on the question of LGBTQ+ rights. The delegates for this committee are required to reach a coherent, comprehensive and well discussed resolution by the end of this Model United Nations. The resolution should deal with the issue of LGBTQ+ rights and link these to the issues of economic and social development. The failure to protect the human rights of LGBTQ+ individuals has a harmful effect on the economic and social progress of the affected states.

2016 JPHMUN

3  

Different positions held on LGBTQ+ rights. 1. Religious views. The LGBTQ

extension rights

of

been

continuously opposed by most religious sects and leaders. This rejection is due to genuine religious conviction and the desire of established faiths to resist the effects of social and political change. Religion plays a major role whenever the rights and freedoms of citizens/people are being discussed, especially the LGBTQ+ community. Many religious people believe that same sex marriage or carnal relations are against the law of nature, as described in various religious texts (Harvey, 2009)1. Many states’ penal codes and legal documents have their foundations in holy scripture. For example, the laws of Qatar are based on a version of the Islamic Sharia law and do not recognize the LGBTQ+ community. However, some churches and religious leaders claim that gay marriage and same sex relationships are not condemned in scriptures. Gene Robinson, a former bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire, came out as gay in 2012. Despite being gay, he was allow to continue to serve as Church’s bishop. In the past two decades, several other religious groups have moved to allow same-sex couples to marry within their traditions. This includes the Reform and Conservative Jewish movements, the Unitarian Universalist Association and                                                                                                                        

 

2016 JPHMUN

4  

the United Church of Christ. (Macsi and Lipka,

2015.)2

Robinson

stated

that "Scripture says where love is, there is God also. And they [religious people] see that love in our families, and I think people can't help but be supportive.” (Stewart and Robison,

2012). These

disagreements

the

over

correct

interpretation of religious texts illustrate the complex nature of religious debates around sexual rights. Religious and other cultural values are fundamental to the identities and practices of many cultures and peoples, including many in the West. But it is not clear how to reconcile these more traditional values and ideas with the growing values of human rights. The table provides a summary of how different religions view same-sex relationships.

2. Social Views Many countries are divided on whether or not the LGBTQ+ community deserves the right to marriage. Most states that oppose gay marriage do so on the basis of “natural law.” Supposedly, this natural law states that gay marriages should not be permitted because an essential part of the institution of marriage is the role it plays in the production and raising of children. Thus, gay marriage would violate a basic principle of marriage which is to continue human life. Moreover, even if adoption, test tube babies, etc. are used or taken into                                                                                                                        

 

2016 JPHMUN

5  

consideration, homosexual couples would fail to provide the child with parents of both sexes. Supposedly, this deprives a child of the family support that is required for proper childhood development. However, there is little evidence to support this position.

A case study

conducted by University of Melbourne in June 2014 demonstrated that same-sex couples’ children scored better than the children of heterosexual couples on the measures of happiness as they felt more integrated in their families and were generally healthier. (Gartrell, 2010). A July 2010 study found that children of gay fathers were "as well-adjusted as those adopted by heterosexual parents."3 (Farr, Forsell et al, 2010) As former Washington Postcolumnist Ezra Klein wrote, "We should be begging gay couples to adopt children. We should see this as a great boon that gay marriage could bring to kids who need nothing more than two loving parents."(Klien, 2013) Moreover, because most same sex couples would adopt, it would provide shelter to the 115,000 children that are longing for a home in the United States (as an example) at the current moment. (Tavernise, 2011).4 Orphaned and unwanted children are a problem on an international scale. Allowing gay couples to adopt such children would make a meaningful contribution towards addressing this problem. In addition, arguments about the need to provide children with two parents of opposite gender or that centre around the idea that marriage is meant to nurture the support of children fail to account for the reality of divorce in the modern Western world, the ubiquity of single-parent households, and the fact that many couples marry without the desire to have children. Denying gay people marriage rights, under these conditions, would be clearly and unjustifiably discriminatory.

                                                                                                                       

   

2016 JPHMUN

6  

3. Economic Views: Many observers people believe that granting the LGBTQ+ community certain rights will be economically beneficial. One of the main objections that opponents of LGBTQ+ rights raise is that permitting gay marriage or protecting the community’s rights will cause harmful demographic change in a given state. The chances of LGBTQ+ couples having a child is extremely low as compared to heterosexual couples. In an interview, former US Senator Rick Santorum stated that ““When we continue to see a decline in marriage and a redefinition of marriage, you get less marriage,” he said. “You get families that aren’t as strong, and as a result, society generally, the economy suffers.” (Santorum, 2014.) However, Santorum’s argument

seems

contradictory: gay

people

allowing to

marry

would, presumably, mean more people are getting married

and

would

strengthen the institution. Opponents of gay marriage argue that taxpayers should not have their tax dollars used to support something that they believe is wrong. On Dec. 17, 2009 the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to the federal government of extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending between 2010 and 2019. (Marcellino, 2009). However, allowing same sex couples to enter in civil unions would also have notable positive effects. It is noted

2016 JPHMUN

7  

that legalization and acceptance of same-sex marriages have a positive correlation with a decline in divorce rates. “Massachusetts, which became the first US state to legalize gay marriage in 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008. Its divorce rate declined 21% between 2003 and 2008. Alaska, which altered its constitution to prohibit gay marriage in 1998, saw a 17.2% increase in its divorce rate over the same period. The seven states with the highest divorce rates between 2003 and 2008 all had constitutional prohibitions to gay marriage.” (Silver, 2010.) This suggests that gay marriage means that more people in a given state get married, reducing the overall divorce rate. 4. Medical Views: Many world leaders have claimed that by allowing same-sex relationships, the world would see the emergence of new diseases and disorders that may have significant effects on public health. (Buffie, 2011.) Moreover, if a same sex couple adopts a child, they argue that this would have a significant impact on the child’s mental health: A 2012 study by Mark Regnerus, PhD, Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, found that children raised by parents who had same-sex relationships suffered more difficulties in life (including sexual abuse and unemployment in later life) than children raised by "intact biological famil[ies]." (Regnerus, 2012) This research is suspect, however ,and contradicts the other studies cited earlier. The counterargument to these positions is that ostracizing the LGBTQ+ community causes greater harm to the overall society. The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and others wrote in a Sep. 2007 amicus brief, "...allowing same-sex couples to marry would give them access to the social support that already facilitates and strengthens heterosexual marriages, with all of the psychological and physical health benefits associated with that support. (Chaudary, 2007). Moreover, a study done by the University of

2016 JPHMUN

8  

California Los Angeles (UCLA) in 2012 showed that people who are in same-sex marriages in states where it is legalized tend to be happier and live a healthier lifestyle. The reverse is true as well. The American Journal of Public health found that “after their states had banned gay marriage, gay, lesbian and bisexual people suffered a 37% increase in mood disorders, a 42% increase in alcohol-use disorders, and a 248% increase in generalized anxiety disorders” (Vednatum, 2013). The evidence supports the idea that greater tolerance can lead to healthier societies.

Theories/Resolutions: 1. Social Contract Theory: Social contract theory was developed by a number of Western political philosophers. Most prominent was John Locke. Locke compared the formation of society to signing a contract. Social contract theory argues that by agreeing to enter society, human beings give up certain freedoms in order to ensure basic necessities like security, property rights etc. Because society/the state offers people the basic necessities for survival, it is the citizen’s duty to obey the laws of the state. Thus, if a country prohibits same-sex marriage, the citizens must not challenge or disobey the law.. It can be argued that the laws in today’s world need to be dynamic in order to ensure that society progresses and adapts to changing economic, technological and political developments and the associated social changes. However, because every nation has different laws it is difficult to gauge what social contract should be followed. 2. Queer Theory: Queer theory is a set of ideas based around the belief that sexual identities are not fixed and do not determine who we are. It argues that it is meaningless to talk in general terms about 'women' or any other group because identities consist of so many elements that people cannot

2016 JPHMUN

9  

be defined collectively on the basis of one shared characteristic. It proposes that we deliberately challenge all notions of fixed identity, in varied and non-predictable ways. (Butler, 1990). This theory states that all gender norms are built by society. Note: The delegates must ensure that they address all the sects of the LGBTQ+ community.

3. United Nation Resolutions:

In 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) passed the first resolution that called for an end to sexuality discrimination worldwide. The “Human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity” (resolution number: HRC/RES/17/19) resolution passed with a vote of 23-19 and 3 abstentions. Although the resolution is "binding" on member nations of the UNHRC, it does not impose any penalties for violating the resolution The resolution "express(es) grave concern at acts of violence and discrimination, in all regions of the world, committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation and gender identity." It also requests a study and panel to investigate international violence against homosexuals and transpeople. In a jurist report passed in 2010, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called for countries worldwide to abolish laws discriminating against gay and lesbian individuals. In 2009, the Gay Rights Declaration was passed in Geneva which was signed and sponsored by the United States. The Declaration was debated in the UNHRC, a subsidiary of the General Assembly, and passed with 23-19 votes. The Declaration, a nonbinding measure that does not have the full force of a resolution, called on states to end criminalization and persecution of homosexuals. Although 85 countries signed the Declaration [US Ambassador statement] when it was voted on the GA, 57 countries, primarily in Africa and the Middle East, signed an

2016 JPHMUN 10   opposing statement. As of the Dec 3rd, 2015, the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association claimed that there are still 79 states wherein homosexuality is illegal. The last resolution that the UN Human Rights Council proposed was in 2014. This resolution “Requested(s) the High Commissioner to update the report (A/HRC/19/41) with a view to sharing good practices and ways to overcome violence and discrimination, in application of existing international human rights law and standards” and the United Nations decided to remain seized on the matter. This resolution passed in the UNHCR with a majority of 25-14 with 7 abstentions. (United Nations, 2014.)

Conclusion In conclusion, in order to come to a cohesive, comprehensive and well-discussed resolution on whether this committee should pass a law to legalize same-sex marriage universally or not, the committee must also discuss what kind of rights the LGBTQ+ community should be granted. It is imperative to understand and consider the social and economic impact of LGBTQ+ rights on the affected societies. While reaching a resolution, the UN also needs to keep cultural relativism in mind: this is the ideology that there is no universal standard against which to compare different cultural values and practices. This position asserts that everyone’s views reflect their environment and history, and so are relevant to them and potentially valid. This entire issue is an extremely challenging one for the UN to address, given the complex and divergent social, religious, historical and political perspectives that exist on questions of human sexuality. Today, this committee and the global political community as a whole are faced with the difficulty of finding ways to accommodate the rights of all people regardless of their sexual orientation while allowing for different cultural and religious values.

2016 JPHMUN 11  

End note on Decorum. All committee delegates should use the issues raised in this guide as a starting point for their research. Delegates should adopt the perspective of the nation they are representing and defend their nation’s stance while also trying to use diplomacy to bridge the gaps between their positions and those of other states. The delegates must, at all times, keep their state’s foreign policy in mind. Special rapporteur reports can be helpful in finding compromise solutions. The delegates in the committee need to be well versed in the power of the committee and make sure that their resolutions and suggested options do not fall outside the committee’s mandate. The secretariat will make sure that the committee functions in the appropriate manner. The delegates also need to ensure that they are fully conversant with the facts and arguments of the case at hand. The Executive Board will consider state websites, Reuters and official UN documents as viable resources that can be used to establish facts and political positions. With this we wish you the best of luck and hope that the committee is able to tackle this pressing issue in the best way possible!

2016 JPHMUN 12  

Bibliography 1. Amber G. Marcellino, et al., "Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate H.R. 2517", www.cbo.gov, Dec. 17, 2009 2. Anjan Choudhury, JD, "Application for Leave to File Brief Amici Curiae in Support of the Parties Challenging the Marriage Exclusion, and Brief Amici Curiae of the American Psychological Association, California Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, and National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter in Support of the Parties Challenging the Marriage Exclusion" (277 KB) , www.courtinfo.ca.gov, Sep. 26, 2007 3. Blake Ellis, "Gay Marriage Boosts NYC's Economy by $259 Million in First Year," Money.cnn.com, July 24, 2012. 4. David Masci and Michael Lipka, “Where Christian churches, other religions stand on gay marriage,” pewresearch.org, Dec. 21, 2015. 5. "France Gay Marriage: Hollande Signs Bill into Law," BBC website, May 18, 2013 6. Jackie Calmes and Peter Baker, "Obama Says Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal," New York Times, May 9, 2012 7. Joanne Sammer and Stephen Miller, "The Future of Domestic Partner Benefits," Society for Human Resource Management website, Oct. 21, 2013 8.

1

 John  F.  Harvey,  "Regarding  'Gay  Marriage,'  "  patheos.com,  July  7,  2009  

  9. Mark Regnerus, "How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have SameSex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,"Social Science Research, 2012

2016 JPHMUN 13   10. Meredith Clark, "Arizona Points to Procreation to Defend Gay Marriage Ban," msnbc.com, July 25, 2014 11. Nanette Gartrell, MD, and Henny Bos, PhD, "US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents,"Pediatrics, July 7, 2010 12. Nate Silver, "Divorce Rates Higher in States with Gay Marriage Bans," www.fivethirtyeight.com, Jan. 12, 2010. 13. Pew Research Center, "Gay Marriage around the World," pewforum.org, Feb. 5, 2014 14. Rachel H. Farr, Stephen L. Forsell, and Charlotte J. Patterson, "Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter?," Applied Developmental Science, July 19, 2010 15. Rick Santorum, “Gay marriage is bad for the economy,” patheos.com, Jun 23, 2014. 16. Sabrina Tavernise, "Adoptions by Gay Couples Rise, Despite Barriers," nytimes.com, June 13, 2011 17. Shankar Vedantam, "Bans of Same-Sex Marriage Can Take a Psychological Toll," NPR.org, May 20, 2013 18. William C. Buffie, “Public Health Implications of Same-Sex Marriage,” Am J Public Health. June, 2011.