How I define an LGBT issue

by: Adam Bink

Fri Dec 25, 2009 at 16:00

In response, commenter filler wrote two comments (I condense here to summarize filler's argument and the points I want to look at, but feel free to go here and here to read both comments and responses):

It seems to me that the points you list don't actually help LGBT people--they help immigrants, some of whom just happen to be LGBT...

It's the equivalent of saying that food stamps are pro-LGBT because some poor people are LGBT.

It's like saying that military spending is pro-LGBT, because LGBT people are defended by the military too, all while ignoring the fact that LGBT individuals aren't allowed to serve in the military.

I think that's an entirely fair point, but there's another aspect to this, and it got me thinking a little bit about how I classify legislation as significant towards the LGBT community or not.

Details in the extended entry.

Why is that? I think it's because with the exception of HIV/AIDS, all of those policies specifically discriminate against LGBT people. Federal employment non-discrimination laws, for example, protect lots of categories of people- race, religion, sex, and so forth. Sexual orientation and gender identity are specifically excluded, so this is an "LGBT" issue.

Contrast that with immigration reform. After the Uniting American Families Act provision wasn't included in the bill as introduced (which would allow same-sex binational couples to have the same access to immigration benefits that heterosexual couples do), I can't tell you how many people commented to me that this bill was now "worthless" and "why should LGBT activists be there for immigration folks if they aren't there for us?"

This raises the question for me of what is an "LGBT issue". What is HIV/AIDS but a disease that affects all people, a disproportionate percentage of whom "happen" to be LGBT? HIV/AIDS came about as an issue for the LGBT community because it was known as a "gay disease" originally. But it affects everyone, and populations like African-American males, at least in DC, also have a high level of infection.

What about hate crimes? The spotlight on LGBT hate crimes was shown upon Matthew Shepard's murder. In 2007, there were 7,624 hate crimes incidents. 1,265 of those were based on sexual orientation, e.g., people who "happen" to be gay. Leaving aside gender and gender identity, if sexual orientation were always included in the federal definition and there was no discrimination, would hate crimes be an "LGBT issue" because some of those crimes were against people who "happen" to be LGBT?

If the answer is yes, then why is hate crimes, or HIV/AIDS, any different than immigration? If the numbers in immigration cases- for example, the number of LGBT people who are harrassed, raped or beaten in detention; or those who are deported back to countries where they could be beaten, imprisoned, or worse just for being LGBT- are insignificant, then there is a case to be made that this is no different than food stamps or military spending or other issues. I don't have the statistics on me, and would welcome some. On the other hand, I trust that groups like Immigration Equality list detention as a serious issue, and that U.S. law provides for being gay as grounds to apply for asylum, for a good reason.

So the belief that an "LGBT issue" is only an LGBT issue when there is a certain aspect- like the binational couples sponsorship provision- which applies exclusively to LGBT people, just doesn't seem right. I have a more expansive view of what affects my community, and I would hope LGBT activists and straight allies would, too.