The Historical Speech That Supports Gay Rights as Human Rights - Essay Example

17 November The Historical Speech that Supports Gay Rights as Human Rights: Clinton’s UN Speech On Thursday, Dec 6, 2011, United States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered a momentous speech in Geneva, Switzerland, a speech that marks the celebration of International Human Rights Day. The speech centered on the promotion of the rights of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender people (LGBT) all over the world. This speech has been chosen because of the significance of Hillary’s message to the world, in the context of the celebration of human rights. The reason that the speech is given is because of the celebration of International Human Rights Day. The framework of International Human Rights establishes the basic rights of all people, whatever their race, age, gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, religion, and physical and mental characteristics are. These rights erase the perceived physical and social differences among people and assert that all people are equal because they are all people. Several actions on the part of the U.S. administration preceded the speech and set its content and tone. President Obama has provided specific directives to U.S. government agencies regarding the administration’s support for gay rights and their protection from sexuality prejudice and discrimination. His administration passed key federal legislation and policies that supported the welfare of the LGBT people. He signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which broadened federal hate crime law to integrate crimes that have been influenced by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. This law embodies “the first positive federal LGBT legislation in the nation's history” (Tobias). Obama also repealed “Don't Ask/Don't Tell” that affected Army personnel. As for LGBT policies, Obama reversed the U.S. refusal to sign the UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (Tobias). Furthermore, he extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees in 2009 and added more benefits in 2010 (Tobias). Clinton, through her speech, aligns the international public image of the U.S. from one that is against broader gay rights to one that treats gay rights as human rights too. To understand the history of Clinton’s speech, it came after widespread changes in the policies and climate toward the LGBT community in the world and in the U.S. The 1993 UN World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna was the initial “coming out” party for governments (Sanders). Five countries stepped out to openly support gay and lesbian rights Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany and the Netherlands (Sanders). In 2003, Brazil proposed a “resolution in the UN Commission on Human Rights supporting equal rights” (Sanders). Twenty-seven countries acted as co-sponsors, but the strong opposition from several Black African and Muslim states prodded the resolution to postponement, and then death (Sanders). Brazil continued to apply a comprehensive national policy, “Brazil without Homophobia” (Sanders). A number of Western European countries supported gay marriage and equal gay rights, specifically Netherlands and Sweden. South Africa, which once opposed gay rights, now wants to be a leader in the region of the LGBT community (Sanders). The federal and several state governments in the U.S. are showing increasing support in responding to the issues of the LGBT population. The U.S. government expands support for LGBT rights under Obama’s presidency. Before Clinton’s speech, the White House Press Office released a statement announcing that President Barack Obama signed a memorandum directing the State Department to become the leader of an interagency group that will provide a “swift and meaningful response” from the U.S. government to “serious incidents that threaten the human rights of LGBT persons abroad” (Keen). The memorandum depicts the intense support of Obama administration’s for the human rights and dignified treatment of LGBT (Keen). President Obama’s memorandum instructs federal agencies that are concerned with providing aid and assistance to foreign countries to “enhance their ongoing efforts to ensure regular federal government engagement with governments, citizens, civil society and the private sector in order to build respect for the human rights of LGBT persons” (Keen). Furthermore, several states already allow gay marriage or civil union (“LGBT Voters”). Marriage is one of the central issues for gay people, which the speech corresponds to (“LGBT Voters”). Thus, the Human Rights speech followed the growing international and national trend toward equal rights for gay people. For the context of the speech, it was delivered at a political convention, webstreamed live, and delivered to around 500 people. The convention is a political one because several members of the UN, if not all, want to expand the rights of gays and equalize them with the rights provided to heterosexual citizens. Opposition exists within the UN and outside it. Muslim states, Russia, and other Eastern European nations are against the legalization of gay practices and gay rights. Their arguments are based on their religious and other conservative views about sexuality, family, and marriage. In the U.S., the opposition comes from Republicans and conservative people who argue that same-sex marriage dilutes the sanctity of marriage and will result to the breakdown of traditional families. The LGBT community, on the other hand, asserts that they have the rights to get married too and have families. They stress that they are entitled to marriage’s social approval and benefits that can be attained because of marriage from the state/federal levels (“LGBT Voters”). The issue of the legalization of same-sex marriage is a hot topic that affected the run for presidency of Obama, whose policy on this point is evolving to support equal rights between gays and heterosexuals. Despite these contending positions, the UN desires to promote equal rights for all, which is what is being celebrated in the first place. In 1947, delegates from six continents drafted a declaration that would preserve the basic rights and freedoms of people in the world. Because of the mortality rate and succeeding issues of World War II, numerous nations called for a declaration that would stop future atrocities and preserve the intrinsic humanity and dignity of every person (Clinton). After several revisions that lasted for two years, they presented the final draft for voting on December 10, 1948. Forty-eight nations voted in favor; eight abstained; none of them disagreed (Clinton). Because of the overwhelming support in the UN, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted. Its central claim is simple, but powerful: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. International human rights assert that because people are human, they have inherent rights and that governments have the primary role of promoting these rights. To describe the setting of the event, language, and audience helps understand the direct conditions of the speech. Clinton’s speech was conveyed at the Palais at United Nations headquarters in Geneva to an audience of invited members, including ministers, ambassadors, excellencies, UN partners, and various nonprofit organizations, such as those serving the interests of the LGBT people. The setting evidently promotes and protects human rights for all. Clinton commemorated the 63rd anniversary of Human Rights Day. The week celebrates December 10, 1948, when the United Nations adopted a “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” The language is English because it remains to be the lingua franca of the world. In giving the speech, Clinton understood that her audience did not only include the LGBT community and their supporters in the U.S., but also those who oppose it and those who are neutral to it, so she also responds to their opposition to LGBT issues (Sanders). One of the Republican candidates for president, Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, criticizes these efforts of Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama (Sanders). He blamed Obama of providing “special rights” for homosexuals and staging a “war on religion” (Sanders). Sanders notes in his article that a “bipartisan consensus on gay rights in US politics” is nonexistent, so it is possible that Obama and Clinton’s positions can be “reversed.” Clinton reaches out to the dissidents of LGBT concerns and aims to change their prejudiced attitudes against gays. The structure of the speech is as follows: 1) commemoration of the formation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; 2) assertion that gay rights are human rights; 3) explanation of four LGBT issues and dismantling of unfair and biased beliefs about LGBT and their identities, commonalities, attitudes, and practices; 4) exploration and celebration of the gains made all over the world for the LGBT community; 5) specific illustration of the Obama’s administrations to the promotion of LGBT rights; and 6) the call for all key stakeholders in fighting for gay rights in their own individual and collective ways. The speech aims to explore the meaning and urgency of LGBT rights. After describing the setting, context, and backbone of Clinton’s speech, the analysis of the structure will be conducted, where Clinton’s style is described as using plain and general words, images, and events to convey the urgency of supporting gay interests in a straightforward and somewhat emotional manner. The goals of the speech are: to gain support for gay rights by altering how society and opposition view gay people and to shake the status quo boat on this issue of equal rights for gay people. Clinton progressed in making her point by starting from the general and going to specific points. In the introduction of her speech, she began with the larger framework of the Universal Declaration of human rights, before she proceeded to the connection of gay rights to human rights. In doing so, she is able to forcefully argue that gays are human beings, and so they inherently have the same rights as heterosexual human beings. Furthermore, Clinton compares the struggles of the LGBT people with the struggles of minorities and women, during the development of the civil rights movements all over the world. This connection shows her straightforward style in stressing that the rights of the disempowered are the same rights for the LGBT because they both suffer the same prejudice and discrimination. Clinton underlines these commonalities: “Like being a woman, like being a racial, religious, tribal, or ethnic minority, being LGBT does not make you less human. And that is why gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.” If the former groups had their rights enshrined through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there is no reason why gays cannot attain the same entitlements. Furthermore, Clinton’s style does not use many metaphors and similes because she focuses on the alignment among diverse rights and issues, and her seriousness in tone and demeanor makes her points sincere and straightforward. For her, the main image of her argument is that if women and minorities had won their struggles, gays who are facing similar discriminatory obstacles should also deserve the same rights. The essence of the image is the humanity that binds them. Many times, Clinton underlines that people should not forget that human rights are for all humans, and humanity most certainly includes, not excludes, the LGBT. Moreover, Clinton has a serious demeanor to ascertain that the LGBT issues are serious matters. Her language strategy is to use simple words that laypeople can understand, but under the assumption that they are logical enough to think that gays are human beings too, and by the virtue for their humanity, they deserve acceptance, equality, and acceptance. She avoids using flowery words to emphasize her sincerity and belief that simple words are enough to describe the urgency of gay rights. The influence of the speech intends to change how people think and act toward the LGBT and to impact lawmaking. The primary audiences of the speech are governments, LGBT community, and societies all over the world. The individuals who were primarily affected are LGBT people, including the youth who are discovering their gender, and LGBT’s family and community members. The secondary audiences are people from the minorities who have equal rights as the majority. Clinton reminds them to support the rights of the oppressed too, who are, this time around, the LGBT. Clinton has the main objectives: 1) to inform; 2) to change views and practices; 3) to ask for support and legislative changes; and 4) to describe developments in the U.S. First, Clinton informs people about LGBT issues that arise from ignorance, culture-centricism, and prejudice. Second, Clinton explains how the Obama Administration defends the human rights of LGBT people as part of their comprehensive human rights policy and as a priority of their foreign policy. Third, Clinton asks for leaders, governments, LGBT, and the entire society in general to unite in promoting gay rights as human rights through social changes and policymaking. Fourth, Clinton describes how Obama’s administration used legislation to change laws regarding gay rights. Finally, Clinton asks for other states to follow suit. The outcome of this speech is equally momentous because Obama recently approved gay marriage in his personal opinion, and he won his second terms for presidency, which some pundits claimed to come from the LGBT vote (“LGBT”). The succeeding events showed that the support provided for the LGBT community resounded in the U.S. Indeed, Americans, even if polls showed that they are split on the same-sex marriage issue, have changing attitudes regarding gay marriage. Many more are supporting it through ballots and other measures. For the evaluation of the results of the speech, the event is assessed as successful because of the succeeding highlight on the urgency of the issues of gay people and the power of the LGBT in affecting electoral results. Reporter Keen, for the Dallas Voice, a media source for LGBT news, stated: “The memorandum and speech represent a dramatic escalation in the Obama administration’s support for the human rights and respectful treatment of LGBT people worldwide.” Because of this respectful treatment, the LGBT community is getting more support and acceptance in society and the government. The greatest evidence of this is in the recent election outcomes. Huffington Post reports in “LGBT Voters Critical To President Obama's 2012 Victory,” that: “According to the Human Rights Campaign, results of a new poll suggest that 45.7 percent of the President’s total popular vote margin came from LGB voters as 76 percent of all LGBT votes went for the President.” The LGBT community’s concerns, when supported and discussed, resulted to their greater turnout during the 2012 elections. They are part of the minority, but because of the close fight between Obama and Romney, the LGBT vote made a stark difference in the presidential elections. The support for gay candidates are felt in the state elections too: “The LGBT community had other major wins this election season, including same-sex marriage victories in Maryland, Maine and Washington, the election of the first openly gay senator, and the election of Washington's openly gay Senate majority leader.” Clearly, even the states are changing their minds and hearts, as Clinton said it. Analyzing the rhetorical strategies of Clinton reveals that her three strategies are ethos, pathos, and logos, with focus on logos and pathos because of the emotional content that the debates on gay issues tend to have and the need to bring back logic to the debate for gay rights. First, Clinton shows ethos, where she admits that she has had a change of heart and mind regarding gay people’s issues. She says: “Many people, including myself, have experienced a deepening of our own convictions…over the years, as we have devoted more thought to it, engaged in dialogues and debates, and established …relationships with people who are gay.” She confesses that she has changed her attitudes regarding gay issues because she has established relationships with gays and interacted with them. Through ethos, she establishes that she has changed as a person and she has realized that gays are humans with equal dignities, and with equal dignities come equal rights and freedoms. Furthermore, Clinton uses pathos to trigger emotional effects. She describes the human links between gays and non-gays: “Well, in reality, gay people are born into and belong to every society in the world,” because “[t]hey are all ages, all races, all faiths; they are doctors and teachers…soldiers and athletes; and whether we know it, or whether we acknowledge it, they are our family, our friends, and our neighbors.” She underlines that gays are human beings too. They have the same emotions and minds as heterosexuals, and they deserve the same respect and love. Finally, Clinton effectively uses logos without relying on statistics and studies. Her main strategy is using simple logic in how human rights are automatically granted to human beings: “No matter what we look like, where we come from, or who we are, we are all equally entitled to our human rights and dignity.” Clinton underscores that inside is what matters and inside, every person is a human being. She focuses on logic and avoids emotionalizing the matter too much, as what the opposition to gay interests commonly do. The results of the speech deserve further analysis and a year after the speech is given, the fight for LGBT rights continue at state levels and through elections, which means that Clinton attained the goal of shaking the status quo and asking LGBT and their supporters to support LGBT rights. First, as mentioned, at state levels, lawmakers who are gays and/or who have gay supporters are winning. Second, the presidential elections showed that the LGBT vote counts. They can decide who the next president can be, and they have chosen someone who openly supported gay marriage. Romney does not support gay marriage because he thinks that it should be between men and women only. Obama recently expressed that he thinks that gays should have the right to get married. If the president supports gay marriage, other states can argue for it too. Courts can also support gay marriage and equal gay rights, where they can love and marry who they want without laws that bar them from doing so. The media covers more LGBT issues, which highlight their importance. The overarching effects of Clinton’s speech are to ask people to see LGBT issues as important issues and to gain greater support for LGBT rights, which the speech attained. Definitely, the LGBT community in the U.S. and around the world has a long way to go. Not all states allow civil union of gays or gay marriage, while many Americans still see gay marriage as sinful or irrelevant to their lives. Clinton is prepared for the long road ahead: “I come before you with great hope and confidence that no matter how long the road ahead, we will travel it successfully together.” She knows the process of legislative changes depends on deeper processes of changing mindsets, and for that, she sees nothing impossible when people work together. The context of the UN International Human Rights day celebration fits the need of putting LGBT issues at the forefront of international human rights campaigns. For the evaluation of the results of the speech, it is successful in attaining its goal of putting LGBT rights at the forefront of elections and issues of the world. The evidences are the results of the elections, where the LGBT vote and candidates mattered, and gay issues are more discussed in the media too. Clinton wants people to mull over human rights, and based on the news and what is happening in the elections, the people have listened. They have voted for those who supported LGBT rights, even when polls showed that LGBT issues are not priorities for them. Perhaps, even in the hearts of those against gays, they are beginning to see the logic behind equal rights for gays. Prejudice and discrimination against gay people are no different from prejudice and discrimination against women and the minority racial groups. They are prejudice that focus on differences. They are prejudice that lead to discriminatory laws and practices that violate human rights. They must be removed because society does not need more forms of prejudice, but tolerance and respect for all. The lasting message of Clinton’s message is clearer now more than ever. Gays are human beings, and as human beings, they are entitled to human rights. To see them differently should be illegal, because it is immoral and inhumane to see gays as less than human beings with less than basic rights. As human beings, people should respect each other because they are human beings. Works Cited Clinton, Hillary. “International Human Rights Day.” United Nations Human Rights Programs Headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland, 6 Dec. 2012. Human Rights Address. Keen, Lisa. “Clinton Makes History with Speech to the U.N.” Dallas Voice, 8 Dec. 2011. Web. 15 Nov. 2012. < http://www.dallasvoice.com/clinton-history-speech-u-n-1096370.html>. “LGBT Voters Critical To President Obama's 2012 Victory.” Huffington Post, 15 Nov. 2012. Web. 15 Nov. 2012. . Sanders, Douglas. “What Preceded Hillary Clinton's UN Speech?” LGBT Asylum News, 17 Dec. 2011. Web. 15 Nov. 2012. . Tobias, Andrew. “Accomplishments by the Administration and Congress on LGBT Equality.” eQualitygiving, org, no date. Web. 15 Nov. 2012. < http://www.equalitygiving.org/Accomplishments-by-the-Administration-and-Congress-on-LGBT-Equality>. Read More