Sexual Orientation and the Government: An Examination of Denmark, the United States of America, and Uganda

Sarah Colegrove POS 200W Comparative Government 11/29/2012

Sexual Orientation and the Government

Sexual Orientation and the Government: An Examination of Denmark, the United States of America, and Uganda Differences in sexual orientation have existed throughout human history. There is evidence of same-sex relations in ancient Greece and during the Ming dynasty in China, there is evidence of same-sex marriage. Despite this, the heterosexual orientation has been traditionally the only sexual orientation that is accepted on a wide scale. Over the past 100 years, this has started to change across the globe. Government has been an important institution in society that has paved the way for this acceptance to be more permanent and more widely accepted by the people. The shape of government and the policies that the government has varied widely across the globe; it can range from a complete democracy to a partial democracy to communism to fascism to socialism, etc. Some countries are much more restrictive, and even violent, towards those who are homosexual, while other countries offer equality for everyone regardless of what their sexual orientation is. Denmark, the United States, and Uganda have made policies and laws regarding sexual orientation. What are these differences between the three countries? What has prompted these differences to emerge? Governments Denmarks form of government is a constitutional monarchy that is centralized with a parliament. The monarch, Queen Margrethe II, is for the most part the head of state in Denmark while the prime minister functions as the head of government. The small size of Denmark along with the centralization of government, allows for laws to be passed that have the ability to effect the entire nation rather than just a small portion of the nation. The United States form of government is republic that has a federal system. The federal

Sexual Orientation and the Government

system divides the government there is the U.S. Supreme Court, President, and Congress at the national level. The Constitution gives the states a lot of power to determine the laws within their state boundaries. While the federal government can intervene in many different areas, much (such as sexual orientation laws) has been left up to the states to decide for themselves. Ugandas form of government is a republic that is represented by a parliament and a president. Since independence from the United Kingdom in 1962, Uganda has experienced a significant amount of conflict and struggle. There have been coups, rebels, and infighting that have resulted in power changing hands. More recently Uganda has had to deal with the Lords Resistance Army (LRA) which is led by Joseph Kony. President Yoweri Museveni has been the president since 1996 and helped to lead a rebel group that seized power in 1986. Struggle for power and the subsequent grasping hold on it, makes it difficult to know how much power lies outside of the president in the hands of the people and parliament. It also makes it difficult to compare the government to other nations when the information provided is not completely adequate to understanding the government and how it is actually run rather than how it appears to be set up. What Impact Does this Have? Denmark is able to have laws that apply to the entire nation because Denmark is a unitary form of government. The decisions made on the national level are the decisions that apply to the entire nation. The local governments do not have much power which means less variation to the law. It is much easier for Denmark to have the government pass laws to protect sexual orientation because Denmark is a very small nation that does not have many significant (statistically in terms of population speaking) compared with several other nations. The

Sexual Orientation and the Government

centralization of the government helps to decrease the variety of forms that laws take around the country.

The United States, as a result of the federal system it has, varies in the laws that shape the nation. Individual states are able to determine many of their own practices. In the United States horrific hate crimes (such as outright killing someone who is homosexual or by bulling someone who is homosexual until they feel forced to commit suicide so they can escape) still occurs in several states on a rather consistent basis and the prosecution these cases are not equal (Human Rights Campaign). It appears as if the federal government in the United States is taking a much more hands off approach to this issue of public policy and letting the states figure it out for themselves. It is as if the U.S. government does not recognize freedom to express sexual orientation preferences without threat of persecution as human right (Lupia et al, 2010). This hands off approach approach by the federal government has caused and will continue to cause significant harm to many of citizens in the United States as they are persecuted because they have not been granted the same rights as everyone else in the United States. Families have been torn apart from this lack of intervention as same-sex couples, in states that do not allow or recognize either same-sex marriage or civil unions, are not granted the same rights as a married couple when it comes to inheritance, hospital visitation, custody rights, and many other similar areas (Human Rights Campaign; Pitas).

A problem that the proponents of equality for all sexual orientations face in the United States is the way the government is set up. The United States has a federal government and gives a lot of power to the states to decide on laws. This is the case for sexual orientation which so far the federal government has not gotten very involved in (with the most notable exceptions being

Sexual Orientation and the Government

U.S. Supreme Court cases). Individual states are given the choice on the laws that they want to make in regards to sexual orientation such as protecting from hate speech (Draper & Ramsay, 2012). This can allow for Vermont to be a very accepting state while Texas and fourteen other states did not recognize same-sex sexual activities as being non-criminal until 2003 (when the U.S. Supreme Court finally intervened). However, some of the states have not repealed their anti-sodomy laws and some enforcement officers still use this to harass individuals who appear to fall outside of the heterosexual norm (Pitas).

These differences between state laws can allow for someone to be given unequal treatment in the workplace because of their sexual orientation in one state while having full equality under the law in another state all within the same nation. Another problem that has arisen because of the differences between states is that if a same-sex couple were to be married in one state and moves to state where same-sex marriage is not allowed, their marriage would not be recognized. Several marriages have been terminated in the eyes of the law because the couple moved across state boundaries (Pitas; Lipia et al, 2010). Several LGBT advocacy groups in the United States are pushing for the federal government to become more involved in LGBT rights like they did in the Civil Rights Movement or in the Women's Rights Movement. They believe that the LGBT community needs protection from the government and equal rights given to them, otherwise their human rights are being violated (Human Rights Campaign) Uganda, as a parliamentary republic, has a president who functions as both the head of state and head of government and has a parliament for the legislature. Because of the precarious and oftentimes violent nature of politics and power in and around Uganda, it can be hard to tell the impact the type of government has over the decisions made.

Sexual Orientation and the Government

Sexual Orientation and the Law in Denmark Until 1933, it was illegal to engage in same-sex relations. In 1989, Denmark was the first nation to allow same-sex couples to be formally recognized by the government as registered partnerships. In 2012, this changed to allow same-sex marriage. Homosexuals are allowed to serve openly in the military; there has never been a ban in place to keep homosexuals out of the military. Laws were added in 1981 so that anyone harassing or discriminating homosexuals in the military because of their sexual orientation, could be dismissed from the military. These antidiscrimination laws also apply to the whole of society in Denmark. Same-sex adoption is also allowed. Sexual Orientation and the Law in the United States The United States is very split on the laws pertaining to sexual orientation. Illinois, in 1964, became the first state to allow same-sex sexual activities between consenting partners. But it was not until 2003, through the Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas, that same-sex sexual activity became legal throughout the entirety of the United States (at that time fourteen states still outlawed some or all same-sex sexual activities). There are only nine states and D.C. that recognize same-sex marriage (Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia). The majority of states have laws in place that ban civil unions, domestic partnerships, or same-sex marriages. It varies by state whether same-sex couples can adopt but in most states, single homosexuals can adopt. The Matthew Sheppard Act, provides for protection against discrimination and under the definition of hate crimes, it includes any crime someone commits because of the supposed gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim.

Sexual Orientation and the Government

Sexual Orientation and the Law in Uganda Uganda does not allow legalize same-sex sexual relations. People who are found in samesex relations can be imprisoned for life. Recently, Uganda has tried to pass a law that could allow for those found in same-sex relations to be put to death. In addition, if someone knew that another person was homosexual and did not report that person to the government, they could be put in jail. There has been a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage since 2005. Same-sex adoption (whether by couples or individuals), allowing homosexuals in the military, and antidiscrimination laws are unheard of in Ugandas government and policy makers. Liberalism or Conservatism? Liberalism in comparative political science has been described as a movement towards evolutionary change while conservatism has been described as a desire to change, preserve the status quo, or even moves back to policies and positions that country used to have. Denmark seems to have taken a liberal approach to sexual orientation. Areas within the United States have taken a liberal approach while other areas have taken a conservative approach. Uganda has maintained a conservative approach. Freedom or Equality?

There is a debate on whether freedom or equality is more important to have in a nation. The emphasis that a country puts on either freedom or equality can shape the laws that are made (Draper & Ramsay, 2012). Denmark seems to have taken the approach that equality is more important. There are many laws in the Denmark to ensure equality for all, such as not discriminating against those with differing sexual orientations and allowing for same-sex marriage. More restrictions are put on such things as limiting speech by increasing what can be

Sexual Orientation and the Government

considered a hate crime or hate speech (Jeppesen De Boer, 2011). The United States, on the other hand, seems to value freedom more. Each state is given significant amount of power to shape the laws in their state to what they want. There are few limitations on what laws a state can and cannot have. It allows for much more freedom of law while much more equality for all is forsaken (Human Rights Campaign). Uganda appears to value freedom over equality through the very strict laws regarding sexual orientation and the rights of sexual minorities. However, there do appear to be more restrictions on both than what we might find in the West. Conclusion The idea that America (that is, the United States of America) is exceptional in some way has cause many to believe (falsely) that the United States is the best, most progressive nation in the world and that the United States protects individual liberties like no other nation does (or could dream of doing). The United States is not on top when it comes to laws dealing with sexual orientation. If fact, while the United States has made more advancements than Uganda in protecting sexual minorities, it is still significantly behind many other countries around the world. Denmark has a much better approach to the United States and Uganda and has helped to pave the way for equal rights for all regardless of orientation. Hopefully the United States, Uganda, and the world as a whole will be able to follow the path of Denmark. It is my hope that one day all countries will be able to reach a point where governments can provide equal protection for all regardless of sexual orientation and that everyone will be free to truly be themselves and to love without risking their lives and livelihood.

Sexual Orientation and the Government

Works Cited

Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. (June 15, 2012). U.S. relations with Denmark. Retrieved 10/31, 2012, from www.state.gov

Bureau of African Affairs. (April 6, 2012). Background note: Uganda. Retrieved 11/28/2012, from www.state.gov

Civil union. (2002). Funk & wagnalss new world encyclopedia World Almanac Education Group. Donnelly, J. (2003). Universal human rights: In theory & practice (2nd ed.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press

Draper, A., & Ramsay, A. (2012). The good society: An introduction to comparative politics (2nd ed ed.). Glenview, IL: Pearson Education, Inc. Goodman, A., & Gonzlez, J. (2012). International uproar over Uganda anti-gay bill, study finds American evangelicals encouraging homophobia. Retrieved November 20, 2012, from http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/25/international_uproar_over_uganda_anti_ gay?gclid=COPfkJvj3LMCFa59Ogod9GgAEQ

Human rights campaign. Retrieved 10/30, 2012, from www.hrc.org Itaborahy, L. P. (2012). State-sponsored homophobia: A world survey of laws criminalising same-sex sexual acts between consenting adults. International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association.

Sexual Orientation and the Government

10

Jeppesen De Boer, Christina G., & Kronborg, A. (2011). National report: Denmark. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law.

Konigsberg, E. (1992). Gays in arms. Washington Monthly,24(11)

Lupia, A., Krupnikov, Y., Levine, A. S., Piston, S., & Von Hagen-Jamar, A. (2010). Why state constitutions differ in their treatment of same-sex marriage. Journal of Politics.

Pitas, J. History of the gay rights movement in the US. Retrieved 10/31, 2012, from www.lifeintheusa.com/people/gaypeople