Edited by Audrey Agot
In the Closet: Santos and Gay Couples
In light of Obama’s statements in favor of gay marriage, I wondered: What does President Santos think about this issue? What has he said about LGBT rights? Has he encouraged his party in Congress to protect the families of same-sex couples as the Constitutional Court demands?
After examining Santos’ path and what his administration has done (and stopped doing), it is evident that, when dealing with gay rights, he has lacked the liberal spirit that he’s brought to other issues. During his presidential campaign, he opposed same-sex marriage. Now that he is in power, he has artfully avoided any discussion about gay and lesbian rights. He has also maintained a prudent silence in the face of four bills on homosexual unions circulating in Congress, including that of the Social Party of National Union, which would make gay marriage illegal.
I will say that Santos is a liberal at heart, but above all, he is a politician in a very homophobic country and he realizes that speaking sincerely about this issue would be electoral suicide, just as Obama did in the United States until last week.
It very well could be electoral suicide, but the problem is that the president’s silence has gone beyond electoral caution and borders on an implicit endorsement of discrimination. For example, neither the head of state nor his defense minister took action against the Navy commander who, despite laws and rulings that protect the right to equality, stated that gays would be removed from the military because “honor forbids what the law permits.” * The silence of his superiors allows the Armada commander and other leaders in the Armed Forces carte blanche to illegally discriminate, just as U.S. armed forces did until Obama did away with the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the beginning of his term.
Government stealth extends to other debates on LGBT rights, in which the Constitutional Court has been left to stand alone. Santos and his ministers, who have been so eloquent when speaking about other complex issues, have not voiced an opinion on adoption for same-sex couples, or on the non-compliance with the Court’s sentencing of notaries and social security companies that refuse to recognize the unions and pensions of these couples.
But Santos, like Obama, understands political logic. Just as the U.S. president took a stand for gay rights as a result of years of mobilizing the LGBT population — which made their influence in the elections known and changed the majority opinion on gay marriage — here the movement and its allies have to strengthen their political voice. Just as churches organize every Sunday to preach a message against gay rights, egalitarian groups (young people, the LGBT population, liberals) must organize themselves in social networks and campaigns to remind politicians that they are organized and influential voters. As the government has understood in its electoral calculations, courts do not replace political motivation.
But more should be expected from a government that has taken risks on other controversial issues, such as the penalization of drug use and trafficking. At the least, one would hope that the president — although he may not go out of his way to defend LGBT rights — won’t promote discrimination either. In the short term, the proof will be in his choice for the inspector general candidate short list. If he doesn’t nominate Ordóñez for inspector general, the government will have helped remove the main obstacle for equal rights, and will have cleared the way for a Colombian president to one day publicly state that same-sex couples have the same rights as all other citizens.
*Editor’s note: The original quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.
After examining Santos’ path and what his administration has done (and stopped doing), it is evident that, when dealing with gay rights, he has lacked the liberal spirit that he’s brought to other issues. During his presidential campaign, he opposed same-sex marriage. Now that he is in power, he has artfully avoided any discussion about gay and lesbian rights. He has also maintained a prudent silence in the face of four bills on homosexual unions circulating in Congress, including that of the Social Party of National Union, which would make gay marriage illegal.
I will say that Santos is a liberal at heart, but above all, he is a politician in a very homophobic country and he realizes that speaking sincerely about this issue would be electoral suicide, just as Obama did in the United States until last week.
It very well could be electoral suicide, but the problem is that the president’s silence has gone beyond electoral caution and borders on an implicit endorsement of discrimination. For example, neither the head of state nor his defense minister took action against the Navy commander who, despite laws and rulings that protect the right to equality, stated that gays would be removed from the military because “honor forbids what the law permits.” * The silence of his superiors allows the Armada commander and other leaders in the Armed Forces carte blanche to illegally discriminate, just as U.S. armed forces did until Obama did away with the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the beginning of his term.
Government stealth extends to other debates on LGBT rights, in which the Constitutional Court has been left to stand alone. Santos and his ministers, who have been so eloquent when speaking about other complex issues, have not voiced an opinion on adoption for same-sex couples, or on the non-compliance with the Court’s sentencing of notaries and social security companies that refuse to recognize the unions and pensions of these couples.
But Santos, like Obama, understands political logic. Just as the U.S. president took a stand for gay rights as a result of years of mobilizing the LGBT population — which made their influence in the elections known and changed the majority opinion on gay marriage — here the movement and its allies have to strengthen their political voice. Just as churches organize every Sunday to preach a message against gay rights, egalitarian groups (young people, the LGBT population, liberals) must organize themselves in social networks and campaigns to remind politicians that they are organized and influential voters. As the government has understood in its electoral calculations, courts do not replace political motivation.
But more should be expected from a government that has taken risks on other controversial issues, such as the penalization of drug use and trafficking. At the least, one would hope that the president — although he may not go out of his way to defend LGBT rights — won’t promote discrimination either. In the short term, the proof will be in his choice for the inspector general candidate short list. If he doesn’t nominate Ordóñez for inspector general, the government will have helped remove the main obstacle for equal rights, and will have cleared the way for a Colombian president to one day publicly state that same-sex couples have the same rights as all other citizens.
*Editor’s note: The original quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.