Suchergebnisse

Why do some Christian colleges and universities approve lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) groups and inclusive nondiscrimination policies while others resist them? Scholars are beginning to develop models to explain LGBT inclusion in schools, but they have undertheorized the role of religion in facilitating or impeding LGBT inclusion. In this article, I draw from the literature on religion and the "culture wars," especially insights into religions' theological orientations, to explain Christian colleges and universities' inclusion of LGBT students. I show that communal orientations—theological emphases on social justice—strongly predict the adoption of LGBT groups and inclusive nondiscrimination policies at Christian colleges and universities. By contrast, individualist orientations—theological emphases on personal piety—impede the adoption of such groups and policies. Importantly, I find little support for alternative explanations of Christian colleges and universities' inclusion of LGBT students that focus on liberal or conservative teachings on same-sex relationships. Beyond bridging literatures on the political sociology of LGBT rights and religion and the culture wars, the article supports an emerging theoretical framework for understanding the role of religion in a wide range of social justice debates.

At the time of writing, all three elements that are evoked in the title – emancipation and social inclusion of sexual minorities, labour and labour activism, and the idea and substance of "Europe" – are being invested by deep, long-term, and – to varied degrees – radical processes of social transformation. The meaning of words like "equality", "rights", "inclusion", and even "democracy" is as precarious and uncertain as are the lives of those European citizens who are marginalised by intersecting conditions of gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and class – in a constellation of precarities that is both unifying and fragmented (fragmenting). Conflicts are played, in hidden or explicit ways, over material processes of redistribution as well as discursive practices that revolve around these words. Against this backdrop, and roughly ten years after the European Union provided an input for institutional commitment to the protection of LGBT* workers' rights with the Council Directive 2000/78/EC, the dissertation contrasts discourses on workplace equality for LGBT* persons produced by a plurality of actors, seeking to identify values, semantics, and agendas framing and informing organisations' views and showing how each actor has incorporated LGBT* rights into its own discourse, each time in a way that is functional to the construction and/or confirmation of its organisational identity: transnational union networks, by presenting LGBT* rights as a natural, neutral commitment within the framework of universal human rights protection; left-wing organisations, by collocating activism for LGBT* rights within a wider project of social emancipation that is for all the marginalised, yet is not neutral, but attached to specific values and opposed to specific political adversaries (the right-wing, the nationalists); business networks, by acknowledging diversity as a path to better performance and profits, thus encouraging inclusion and non-discrimination of "deserving" LGBT* workers.

"Legislative and Judicial Politics of LGBT Rights in the European Union" published on by Oxford University Press.

This article discusses the case of refugees who are LGBT, and the possible grounds for using LGBT status as a basis for prioritizing LGBT persons in refugee admissions. I argue that those states most willing and able to protect LGBT persons against a variety of (also) non-asylum-grounding injustices have strong moral reasons to admit and prioritize refugees with LGBT status over non-LGBT refugees in refugee admissions. These states – typically, Western liberal democracies – are uniquely positioned to provide effective protection for refugees who are LGBT, owing to the failures of other, also refugee receiving, states to do so. The case for prioritizing refugees with LGBT status is built upon two interrelated factors. First, on the specific vulnerability of LGBT persons to a variety of (also) non-asylum-grounding injustices, and second, on the relatively low number of countries that are both willing and able to protect LGBT persons against such injustices.

AbstractThis paper examines the history of the LGBT + movement in Chile, the opposition to LGBT + rights, and the general state of public opinion. This should set us up to see how strong of an actor these social movement organizations, what their desires are, and how well equipped they are to take on the opposition. Second, we will consider the legal status quo of same‐sex unions. Does the Constitution take a stand on it or must we look elsewhere in the law to see how marriage is defined? Moreover, this should also tell us if we can use all three branches of government to change the law. The next section of the paper will methodically examine the power and preferences of actors in all three branches of government. Who has the power to change the law for same‐sex partnership recognition? Finally, this paper explains why the presidency played a key role in passing civil union legislation, but there is still reason to be skeptical that marriage or adoption rights will be recognized anytime soon.

What novel political spaces emerge at the intersections of global HIV/AIDS interventions and LGBT rights movements? As discrimination and stigma become the targets of global health initiatives, how do communities affected by HIV/AIDS position themselves towards notions of rights? And what is the social and political afterlife of rights-based initiatives after they are defunded or cease to exist? These are the central research questions posed in the dissertation. To address them, I conducted six months of preliminary fieldwork and fifteen months of ethnographic fieldwork in 2012-2015 among gay and transgender communities in the upper Amazonian state of San Martín in Peru. Through data collection techniques that included participant observation and interviews, I examined the social and political effects of a rights-based HIV/AIDS intervention for gay and transgender communities in the region. Among these communities, I found the peche concept to be particularly meaningful. The peche referred to the small gifts that gay and transgender people exchanged for the company, affection, and sex with heterosexual men. While sometimes construed as either a risky sexual practice in HIV/AIDS-related research or considered disempowering by LGBT activists, I found that the peche had historical depth and social extension. I problematize these narratives by developing the concept of peche politics to analyze the political practices that emerged in San Martín among the communities I studied. I situate these practices, such as addressing discrimination and homophobia through formal grievances or recounting and transmitting stories of the internal armed conflict, at the confluence of local myths about sexuality, national histories of violence and human rights, and global health initiatives. In my conclusion, I rethink the local, national, and global scales of this research and propose a hemispheric imaginary to open new analytical possibilities, especially in the moments when global structures of HIV/AIDS initiatives and LGBT rights recede.

Under what conditions do states protect minority rights in a context of domestic resistance? Recent decades have seen rapid divergence on LGBT rights worldwide, with Africa presented as "norms antipreneur" in the face of international pressure. Yet, in 1996, South Africa was the first country in the world to provide constitutional protection on grounds of sexual orientation. This article develops an original theory on LGBT rights protection using a conflict-to-rights framework. Employing process tracing, elite interviews and archival sources, I show how a situation of insurgency allows LGBT activists to build networks and increase egalitarian attitudes to attain in-group status. Continued violence also works to block public participation in policy-making while dividing opposition forces, allowing a tiny group of activists to effectively lobby for change.