This case study explores the strategies deployed by the gay rights movement in the course of campaigning for same-sex marriage – and in particular, the position that gay rights organisations have taken on whether sexual orientation is biologically determined. Accepting that sexual orientation is biologically determined may increase public support for same-sex marriage, but risks incurring other costs– in particular, reinforcing the perception that human rights issues only properly apply to biologically predetermined factors (and not, for example, political beliefs).
There are instances where tensions have emerged within the gay rights movement over the extent to which the tactical advantages of particular campaign strategies should be embraced, even where these may lead to more systemic problems. One such example is the debate over whether sexual orientation is biologically predetermined or chosen.
Some in the gay rights movement choose to stress the imperative to extend the legal rights of heterosexuals to include a hitherto excluded minority (of lesbian, gay and bisexual people) who currently encounter discrimination. Others view the issue of gay rights as an instance of the wider imperative to extend everyone’s right to express his or her sexual identity, however this may be orientated. This debate cuts to the heart of gay identities, and raises important existential questions: are sexual identities malleable, as many gay people would themselves attest, or is sexual identity essentially ‘fixed’ (in which case, reinforcing perceptions of discrimination against a minority group becomes an important basis for arguing for equal rights)?
Often, the gay movement has deployed the idea of fixed sexual identity – providing a basis for arguing that the gay minority should be accorded the same rights as those enjoyed by the straight majority. There may be good reasons for this. Haider-Markel and Joslyn (2008) find that if the cause of homosexuality is perceived as controllable – for example, through learning or through personal choice – straight people tend to be more prejudiced towards gay people and less supportive of gay rights policies. If, on the other hand, homosexuality is attributed to biological factors, support for gay civil rights, civil unions, and same-sex marriage are stronger.
Some academics suggest that many in the gay rights movement have promoted the idea of fixed identity for tactical reasons, rather than because gay activists themselves hold the view that sexual identity is fixed – clearly many do not (Jeffrey Weeks, personal communication). This position has led to disagreements within the gay rights movement. Peter Tatchell writes about theories that sexuality is genetically determined:
“It’s almost as if those pushing these theories believe we don’t deserve humanrights unless we can prove that we are born gay and that our homosexuality is beyond our control. […] Surely we merit human rights because we are human beings? The cause of our homosexuality is irrelevant to our quest for justice. We are entitled to dignity and respect, regardless of whether we are born queer or made queer, and irrespective of whether our homosexuality is something beyond our control or something freely chosen” (Tatchell, 2008:2).
In critiquing the gay rights movement’s willingness to accept arguments forbiological predetermination towards a gay orientation, Peter Tatchell is clearly arguing from the perspective of someone who sees the gay rights movement as being properly situated within the wider arena of human rights. The argument from‘predetermination’, effective as it may be within the scope of concerns about gay rights, does appear to risk creating (or otherwise reinforcing) a view that human rights issues only properly apply to biologically predetermined factors (e.g. race,arguably gender, genetically-based disability, and – here – sexual orientation) and not to ‘chosen’ factors (such as religious or political conviction).
If the ‘war’ here is taken to be the struggle to achieve legal provision for same sex marriage, then tactical acceptance that homosexuality may be genetically determined seems sensible, as it is likely to strengthen the argument that laws against same-sex marriage represent discrimination against a minority group.
But as the ‘war’ is construed more widely, it becomes more difficult to argue thecase for accepting the trade-off that this position seems to imply: if the ‘war’ is taken to be the struggle for widespread public acceptance that people’s sexual orientations lie on a spectrum, and that social institutions should operate to support people in the expression of these orientations, whatever these may be, then the Civil Partnerships Act may represent a retreat (because it can be seen as serving to further embed discrimination between gay and heterosexual people).
This case study was originally published in Common Cause.
