Gender identity and sexual orientation are very sensitive issues that have been a major bone of contention among scholars and in many regions of the world. More so, the issue of allowing marriage between lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender (LGBT) people is a complicated concept primarily made thus by cultural differences that characterize people across the world. It is these differences that make the LGBT marriage idea acceptable to some and totally unacceptable to others. Notably, the global media is increasingly paying attention to the violence and persecution that is continually being meted out on the LGBT community all over the world. Despite the universality and egalitarianism of human rights, the extent to which these rights apply is not so egalitarian when it comes to the LGBT people who are continually singled out and put on the receiving end for being different. This makes one wonder whether the LGBT rights are in any way included in and as part of the universal basic human rights (Psyd& Rubin 2012). For this reason, this paper seeks to find answers to the question “Should LGBT marriage rights be universal while the rights are not being protected in many regions?” The argument here, therefore, is that in as much as society may want to ensure human rights to all people including the LGBT, cultural diversity should also be considered especially in regards to societies whose moral fabric does not allow LGBT marriage rights or lifestyle. In other words, culture which is a central pillar of the society may hinder the universality of this rights, and it (culture) cannot be overlooked. It is therefore not sufficient enough to say or rather advocate for universal LGBT marriage rights on whatever cause since it is unrealistic and impractical In other words, given the inhuman acts directed to people who hold different sexual identities and orientations, it makes it seem like their rights are not protected under the human rights. At this point one must measure which of the two carries more weight between LGBT rights and cultural practices. It may be easy for one to suggest that cultural norms and practices can be changed, but then this would be impractical because it is clear that the hardest to change is the entire society’s way of life in order to benefit a smaller faction of the larger whole. In other words, it is the LGBT community that would be expected to change and conform to societal and cultural values and practices and not the other way around. With this in mind, it, therefore, seems that human rights are not as egalitarian or universal as they ought, or are said to be. This is proven by the fact that same-sex relations still remain illegal in many parts of the world despite increased calls from various human rights activists, the United Nations, and other LGBT ambassadors to bring an end to the decriminalization of homosexuality and call for the inclusion and respect of LGBT rights as universal human rights (Ohchr.org, 2016; Psyd& Rubin, 2012). After all, they are human too and therefore ought to receive the equal and comprehensive protection of their rights. This implies that the ambassadors are of the opinion that LGBT people are just like their straight counterparts and should therefore not be subjected to different rights or be persecuted for holding differing opinions. Understanding 5Human Rights Human rights are the moral norms or principles that describe certain standards of human behavior. They are regularly protected as inalienable fundamentals legal rights that each person is fully entitled to by the simple virtue that he/she is a human being. They compass a wide variety of rights such as right to fair trial, free speech and expression, right to life among many others. This means that one has the right to enjoy them regardless of their nation, language, religions, ethnicity, gender or any other differentiating aspects. This, therefore, means that their fundamentality as well legality are upheld in both international and municipal law. These human rights are universal in the sense that they are applicable everywhere, to everyone, and at any one time. At the same time, they are egalitarian based on the fact that they are same for all people. Their existence requires the rule of law and empathy, and impose an obligation on individuals to respect the human rights of other people and cannot be taken away unless it is as a result of proper due process. However, the precise meaning of “right” is quite controversial and has been a subject of continued philosophical debate 10for a long time now. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, addressing the Human Rights Council meeting of 7th March 2012, argued it is the duty 3of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Charter, and by extension every individual’s duty to protect the rights of everyone, every day, and everywhere because the lives of human beings are at stake (Ki-Moon, 2012). This means that each person regardless of their gender or sexual orientation ought to be protected at all times. When this happens peace, happiness, and universal coexistence will be achieved. However, it is apparent that there exist deeply- embedded transphobic and homophobic tendencies that are, more often than not, combined with a significant or total lack of 9protection against discrimination based on the grounds of gender identity and sexual orientation. These have in turn exposed many 2LGBT people of all ages and in various regions of the world to immeasurable and egregious violations of the rights as human being. The UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (OHCHR) observes that the LGBT community is discriminated against in nearly all facets of their lives. These includes, the labor market, the schools, hospitals, and some even face rejection at the family level (Ohchr.org, 2016). The national and international community has not been lenient on them either and has in more than one occasion overlooked the suffering that the LGBT people have been subjected to. This has to as far as denying them the right to choose and marry partners of their choice. As it is known to all, gay marriages are yet to be accepted in nearly all parts of the world. From the way things are currently, this may be a very long shot away. It is estimated that over 77 countries have put in place 2discriminatory laws that criminalize private consensual same-sex relationships (Ohchr.org, 2016). This means that under such laws LGBT people are at a constant risk of getting arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned, in some countries the penalty is a death sentence. Protecting LGBT human rights including the marriage rights should not be questioned. According to the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, protecting all of LGBT rights does not require a new set of rights that are specific to the LGBT people to be established. Neither does it require new international human rights standards to be established. This is because each state has a legal 3obligation to safeguard the human rights of all LGBT people, as established in the international human rights law that is based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various universal human rights treaties (Ohchr.org, 2016). This 4Universal Declaration of Human Rights holds that all individuals irrespective of their gender orientation, identity, or sex are entitles 4to enjoy the rights and protection provided by the international human rights law. This includes, but is not limited to, 8security of person and privacy, right to be free from all forms of discrimination, right to freedom of expression, 2right to be free and protected from arbitrary arrest, detention, and torture, and to add on to this list, the right to marry the person of their choice, among others. Therefore, each state is mandated with the legal obligation of protecting LGBT people from transphobic and monophonic violence. This phobia is primarily the one that allows the discrimination and disregard of LGBT marriage rights. If each state in the world took it upon itself to create awareness in its citizenry and in turn, reduce the homophobic and transphobic tendencies, then accepting LGBT marriage rights as a universal human right will become easier and perhaps even possible. But then, the problem is in ensuring that states comply to this goal. The Right To Marry As A Universal Human Right It is believed that everyone has an express right to marry. However, in regards to the issue of LGBT people, the question is who to marry. In other words, although as human beings they have a right to marry, as LGBT people they are not always allowed to marry members of the same sex as them. 1Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights contains an express right for individuals to marry. However, it does not stipulate whether this provision applies to LGBT people or rather marriage between members of the same sex. Gerber, Tay, and Sifris (2014) not that in an interpretation 1to determine whether Article 23 applies to same sex-couples, the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) in the case of Joslin v New Zealand authoritatively declared that the provisions of this article only apply to straight people – thereby excluding the LGBT community. However, the scholars further note that this interpretive declaration was made twelve years ago and therefore may not stand ground in a current case or in the future. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has a clear opening that categorically states “All humans 6beings are born equal and free in dignity and rights” (Born Equal and Free, 2012. P.7). Perhaps this is the reason that makes Gerber, Tay, and Sifris (2014) argue that “the right to marry 1should not be restricted to just opposite sex couples and neither should it be interpreted in a discriminatory manner. This is to say that if the straight people have exclusive rights to marry whoever they want, then the same should apply to the LGBT people. Otherwise, if the human right to marry remains to be viewed as encompassing only same-sex couples, then the concept will continue to be a subject of conjecture and unending debate. With this idea in mind, it is only proper to advocate for the universality of LGBT marriage rights as global and fundamental human rights. But then again, one must acknowledge that the reasons for the existence of debates and contentions in regards to LGBT marriage rights are deeply founded on complex political and cultural origins that may to a large extent not be purely grounded on a legal interpretation but rather a moral interpretation. This is where a society believes that the LGBT marriage and generally way of life are in contravention with the norms that guide that particular society. At the same time the ideologies that prefer straight to LGBT people make it even harder to spread the campaign for LGBT marriage rights. This is why Psyd and Rubin (2012) maintain that unless the criminalizing laws against LGBT people are done away with; then this community will continue to suffer in the hands of cultures, state laws, and ideologies that discriminate against them and view them as different or queer or in other words, social deviants for not conforming to societal expectation and way of life. But according to Reid (2013), there are times when values trample over a person’s human rights. This is undoubtedly the case with LGBT people who are deprived the right to marry among other human rights just because the traditional values are not in support of such marriage institutions. It is, therefore, a serious battle advocating for these rights to be accepted universally – it is not for the faint-hearted. In other words, achieving a global community that is open and welcoming to individuals who are either gay, bisexual, transgender or lesbians may be next to impossible. Accepting their marriage rights as a universal and fundamental human right becomes even harder to achieve in societies that strongly hold on to their traditional practices and beliefs. It is crucial to understand that there is a very thin line between human rights and cultural or traditional values. On this not, in a resolution that was passed in September 2012 by the United Nations and spearheaded by Russia, the Human Rights Council (HRC) called for the promotion of 6human rights and fundamental human freedoms through creating a better understanding of the traditional/cultural values of human kind (Reid, 2013). This automatically means that promoting human rights calls for people to put into consideration the cultural values that have sustained the human population for all this time. This, therefore, creates confusion in the sense that when an individual’s right seems to be in contrast with the traditional values, choosing between which one is paramount of the two creates friction. By respecting and upholding one of the factions, one automatically tramples over the other. I other words, when one argues that societies needs to embrace diversity and accept human nature and needs as diverse, he/she will not be wrong but then doing so steamrolls over the fact that the world is culturally different and each culture out to be respected. Therefore, advocating for the supremacy or universality of one over the other, one steps on toes of the opposing group and the two groups cannot practically come to an amiable balance. Fears And Consequence Of Making Lgbt Marriage Rights Universal For every action, there is a reaction. This simply means that universalizing the marriage rights of LGBT persons while their rights are not being protected in many parts of the world will have its consequences. At the same time, the decision not to universalize these rights has its foundations as discussed in this section of the paper. Homophobia which is the fear of relations between people of the same sex is a primary fear that has deterred the universalization of LGBT marriage rights. According to Jackson Wakefield (2012), religious campaigners rally against marriage reforms and universalization of LGTB marriage rights claiming that their contention is based on reason and common sense. However, the author refutes this and claims that instead, the clergy does so because they are homophobic. There are others who argue that these rights cannot be made universal human rights because Consequently, it will ruin the marriage institution as established under natural law which is over and above all other laws. Again, others refute these rights because according to them doing so contravened the traditional marriage system and traditional values of life that have existed and held the society in its rightful place since time immemorial (Reid, 2013; Wakefield, 2012). These are traditions that have always seen marriage as a sacred bond between a male and a female of legal age. Therefore, it seems that the very definition of marriage seems to be a huge barrier to the universalization of LGBT marriage rights because they marry members of the same sex. It is common for people to claim that when these rights are made universal, they will cause confusion between mother and father, as well as husband and wife. Therefore, if one looks closely, they will realize that that the fear of universalizing the LGBT marriage rights are based on the idea that as a doing so will consequently cause a shift in the order of things as they have always existed. However, supporters of the marriage reforms argue that LGBT marriage rights should be made universal because it will not dismantle the structure of gender in every marriage. Attorney Tom Stoddard, a staunch ambassador for the universalization of LGBT marriage rights aggressively asserts that allowing and making LGBT marriage Universal will not dismantle the legal marriage system but rather will potentially 7“transform marriage into a state divested of its sexist base” (Stoddard, Cited in Polikoff, 1993. P.1535). This means that universalizing LGBT marriage rights will, in fact, have a positive impact on the entire marriage system that exists today. Conclusion It is therefore not easy to have the marriage rights of LGBT made universal to all people especially because the discrimination against LGBT people is profoundly founded on various state and cultural institutions. It would be very important to have the human rights of LGBT people respected in every sense, but there is a big difference between what we want and what actually exists. Therefore, put differently, in as much as we mean to ensure human rights and on this note, marriage rights are enjoyed and universal to all including LGBT people, we should also appreciate cultural diversity and respect societies whose moral fabric is against LGBT marriage rights and even lifestyle. As already mentioned, therefore, it is not sufficient enough to advocate for universalization of LGBT marriage rights on whatever cause because it is unlikely possible to achieve it while at the same time upholding cultural values and dignity.