Lesbian And Gay Relationships And Families example essay topic

The past two decades have seen fierce battles, still continuing over such issues as gender equality in the workplace; family policy; the crisis of marriage; divorce; abortion; contraceptive and reproductive rights; gay and lesbian sexuality; rape and sexual abuse; sex education, AIDS and issues of sexual health. Through it all, the state and its institutions, police, judiciary, education system, legislature, have all intervened actively seeking to define the limits of what David Evans (1993) calls 'Sexual Citizenship' (Dunphy; 2000: 5). It is in this context that the essay will first give a brief overview to the social construction of homosexuality by considering the work of Foucault. From this it can then explore some aspects of state regulation with regards to sexual behaviour, and examine how state policy has sought to encourage and promote certain forms of behaviour, and discourage, penalize and repress others. The essay will discuss how the heterosexist state has, in recent decades, sought to promote discrimination and cast non-heterosexuals in the role of second-class citizens.

The essay will conclude by evaluating some of New Labour's policies to show that at present state policies still promote the heterosexual and family way of life. According to Foucault, sexuality was shaped by a certain way of thinking, discourses and binary oppositions such as the forbidden / allowed, normal / abnormal, acceptable / unacceptable (1984: 90,159 & 184). Normal sexuality was reproductive and other forms were abnormal and perversions. These discourses constructed the norms of modern Western sexuality, what was acceptable and what was not (1984: 53). In this view then it is not surprising that up until 1967 the relationships of homosexual men were completely criminalized (Bamforth; 1997: 31), and gay and lesbians faced fierce discrimination within society and the state. In light of this then perhaps an obvious place to begin any discussion of the role of the British state in promoting heterosexuality and enforcing discrimination in recent decades is with a brief overview of state responses to the arrival of HIV and AIDS in the early 80's.

Various writers have noted how, in the 1980's, the British media promoted the view that AIDS was a 'gay plague', which sexual deviants had brought upon themselves (Dunphy; 2000: 172, Saraga; 1998: 143, Coleman; 1998: 193). Dunphy (2000: 180) argues that the panic engendered by the spread of HIV and AIDS was used to justify a 'Christian-heterosexual' approach to morality and an attack on gay 'lifestyles'. Nevertheless it was against the background of media hysteria over gay 'promiscuity' and 'disease' that the Conservative government introduced Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. This ideologically-loaded legislation was designed to fend off the alleged evils of homosexuality.

It was Thatcher herself who complained that children 'are being taught they have an inalienable right to be gay. ' As such, Section 28 prohibits local authorities from 'promoting homosexuality' and prohibiting the 'teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship'. This was the first legislative move in nearly twenty years aimed at actually reinforcing discrimination against non-heterosexuals (Dunphy; 2000: 174). When the Tory MP David Wiltshire introduced Section 28 in Parliament he claimed that he was 'motivated wholly by the principle of supporting normality (Guardian, 12/12/87 cited in Charles; 2000: 189). According to O'Donnell (1999: 79) the predominant significance of section 28 lies not so much in its legal meaning but in what it symbolizes. The view that lesbians and gay men are inferior, and its expression of the view of parliament at that time that homosexuality must not be 'promoted' because it is 'wrong', and that lesbian and gay relationships and families are not as valid as heterosexual relationships and families.

Arguably the Act can be seen as an attempt to reinstate the dominance of the heterosexual family and to define lesbian and gay partnerships as deviant and as not entitled to the same social rights, as are heterosexual couples. Evidence points to the family values campaign introduced during the Thatcher era (Jagger & Wright; 1999: 119-135). It could be argued that this political rhetoric about family values was an attack on anyone who did not fit the so-called 'norm'. 'Family values' therefore meant anti-lone parents, anti-abortion as well as anti-gay Interestingly enough Section 28 is still in place, and therefore can be seen as epitomizing the privileged nature of the heterosexual family unit still. However this isn't / wasn 't the only policy aimed at discriminating against gay lifestyles. Until 1994, relationships continued to be criminalized where one or both partners was under the age of twenty-one.

In no other area of the law was the age of majority still fixed at this age. However, with the passage of the Criminal Justice Act of 1994, the age of consent for gay men was lowered to eighteen. The age of consent for heterosexuals however, is sixteen and there was no age of consent for lesbians (Dunphy; 2000: 175). At the start of 2000, consensual sex between men over eighteen remained a criminal offence if it took place in a hotel, or if another person was staying overnight in the dwelling place. (Grey; 1997: 181).

In criticism, this aspect of the law must have been impossible to enforce, the fact that it existed could be seen as reinforcing the social and legal inferiority of same-sex relationships. Even within the armed forces you were subjected to dishonourable discharge. Between 1991 and 1994 around 260 servicemen and women were discharged for homosexuality (Dunphy; 2000: 175). However, following a European ruling, Labour has since removed the ban on lesbian, gay and bisexuals serving in the armed forced. They have now also equalized the age of consent for gay men (web). Nevertheless, quite apart from these measures, the state enforces heterosexist discrimination in numerous other ways, which touch directly on the social construction of heterosexuality and the social construction of the family.

Some of these measures are so commonplace that many people don't stop to think about how they affect and inform heterosexuality as the only form of state sanctioned and institutionalised sexuality in our society. The law does not recognise long-term lesbian or gay relationships. Lesbian and gay couples do not have any rights of inheritance, taxation benefits, insurance or pension rights. Nor in a gay or lesbian death, does his or her partner have the legal right to bury them (web). It can be argued then that all the above policies can be seen as reinforcing the heterosexual way of life, more still they can be seen as based around the traditional ideologies of the family. It seems they fail to recognise the diversity of family structures, particularly those based around homosexual relationships.

In this view, family status is being denied on the grounds of sexual orientation, yet same-sex couples can now jointly adopt children and become a family, a policy that was exclusive to the married heterosexual couple (Jagger & Wright; 1999: 93). This in it self shows support for the non-traditional family. In contrast, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (1990) can be seen as another policy that discriminates on grounds of sexuality. Although not overtly discriminatory, it has given doctors the power to discriminate against lesbians. The Act stipulates that a women: Should not have access to certain treatments including donor insemination, unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of treatment (including the need of that child for a father) (Cited in Charles; 2000: 190) Interestingly enough, Labour introduced the Human Rights Act, which gives protection in the domestic courts from discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation (web). Article 12 of the European Court of Human Rights states that 'men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to national laws governing the exercise of this right' (web).

The right to 'found a family' under Article 12 has been interpreted to include a wider notion of 'family' than only the natural biological children of a family. Case law has shown that adoption falls within article 12 but fertility treatment however, does not (Charles; 2000: 197). Many people expected New Labour to blaze a trail to redress the balance of government action in favour of working class people and to counter the years of bigotry and reactionary ideology from the Tory era. Certainly their acceptance of openly gay MPs and ministers represents a major change in government attitude. As such, one of the many things on the agenda of the New Labour government of Tony Blair when it was elected in 1997 was a pledge to repeal Section 28.

It has already abolished the Married Couples Allowance on the grounds that it is not the business of the state to use fiscal policy to encourage one family type over another, yet according to Wise (2000), New Labour's proposals to repeal Section 28, has caused a 'moral panic'. This may suggest there still exists homogenous views about the moral wrongness of homosexuality. One of the arguments in support of Section 28 is that the repeal of this discriminatory legislation would lead to teachers trying to 'convert' children to homosexuality, and that schools would suddenly be flooded by gay pornography (web). If this were the case, you would expect to see gay and lesbian teenagers being converted to heterosexuality considering it is heterosexual lifestyles that are being promoted within education. Yet it was in this moral panic that prompted education ministers to produce new guidelines on sex education that would promote marriage and traditional family life (Wise; 2000). A government that wouldn't use fiscal policy to encourage one family type over another was now apparently saying that it would use educational policy to do so instead.

In light of all this it appears that New Labour's policies are still centred round the family. Other areas focus on policies designed to push heterosexual couples to stay together at all costs. The governments 1998 'family' policy makes divorce harder. If children are involved it could take up to three years. They have also ignored calls to scrap the Child Support Act, which forces lone parents into financial dependence on their child's father. At the same time, they attack lone parents benefits (web).

The focus on the traditional heterosexual family as the 'salvation' of society is a strong factor in staying their hand towards conceding full equality to the gay and lesbian community. Some on the liberal establishment argue that the government should avoid continued alienation of the gay population by allowing gay marriage or equivalent partnership agreements and equality in terms of housing, parenting, pension rights etc, others recognise the central value of the traditional family and marriage (web). On an individual level, policies need to take account of the social reality and should therefore take account of both arguments. However, in contrast, should policies firstly be written in a manner that stipulates exactly what and who they are intended for.

To eliminate the many loopholes they contain that others appear to use as a way of discriminating against certain people. Equality can never be achieved otherwise. This essay has attempted to explore and discuss the notion that state policies promote a particular way of life. In doing so it has found that in many areas of state policy discrimination is evident towards the homosexual community. For example, the essay has shown that the problems encountered by this minority group lie within their struggle for equal citizenship with those of heterosexuals.

The right to live and be regarded as a family unit, to be entitled to the same benefits that have always been available to the heterosexual population but yet are exempt to homosexuals. Yet it appears that at present policies are still centred round the traditional heterosexual family. Sex education stresses the importance of the married unit. Fertility treatment is only available to the heterosexual couple, and Section 28, a piece of discriminatory legislation that was introduced during the Thatcher reign is still in place. This Act in it self can be seen as contributing to the normative processes whereby homosexuality is still seen as an unnatural behaviour. The claims for equal basis with heterosexuals can never be achieved whilst this Act still exists.

Although some changes in the legal perspective can be identified, such as an increased willingness to recognise parenting existing outside of heterosexual marriage, policies still tend to emphasise traditional concepts in its construction of the family and thus adopts an exclusive approach to its construction of the family, denying recognition and validity to what are perceived to be 'abnormal' forms.

Bibliography

Bamforth, N. (1997).
Sexuality, Morals and Justice. London: Cassell. Coleman, J.W. (1998).
Social Problems. UK & USA: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc. Charles, N. (2000).
Feminism, the State and Social policy. London: St Martins Press. Dunphy, R. (2000).
Sexual Politics: an Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Evans, D. (1993) Sexual Citizenship: the Material Construction of Sexualities in Dunphy (2000) Sexual Politics: an Introduction.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 5. Foucault, M. (1984).
The History of Sexuality. London: Penguin Books Ltd. Grey, A. (1997).
Speaking Out: writings on sex, law, politics and society 1954-95.
London: Cassell. Jagger, G. and Wright, C. (1999).
Changing Family Values. London & USA: Routledge. O'Donnell, K. (1999).
Lesbian and gay families - Legal perspectives in Jagger, G. and Wright, C. eds. Changing Family Values. London & USA: Routledge. Saraga, E. (1998).
Embodying the Social: Constructions of Difference. London & New York: Open University Press. Wise (2000).
New Right or Backlash? Section 28, Moral Panic and Promoting Homosexuality at web The Local Government Bill 6th April [HL]: the Section 28 debate Bill 87 of 1999-2000 at web web web web.