Last month’s United Nations High Level Meeting on AIDS drew government officials and members of

civil society from around the world to UN headquarters. During the meeting, individuals came together and caucused around

particular issue areas, including the seemingly-innocuous concept of "family rights," at the Family Rights Caucus. But "family rights" is often a blind used to usher

in a host of right wing biases.

This caucus was convened by the

Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), Family Watch

International (FWI), National Association for Research and Therapy of

Homosexuality (NARTH) and Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality

(JONAH). Lynn Allred, Communications

Director for Family Watch International, framed the purpose of the

discussion in her opening statements: to uphold religious freedom and parental

rights and to defend the beliefs that marriage can only exist between a man and a

woman and that "the family is the foundational unit of society." After Allred’s introduction, we knew

what was in store: good old-fashioned

right wing propaganda. But the Right

has learned a thing or two in recent years that has greatly influenced their

advocacy approach. Old-fashioned propaganda comes with a very new spin.

First, the Right has learned the importance of

tailoring messages to a specific audience. Sensationalized defamation and

name-calling may play well when preaching to supporters, but doing so in a

setting such as the High Level Meeting undermines their legitimacy. Using human rights language and

creating arguments which can stand up to some logical inquiry, however, is less

likely to alienate those who find sensational rhetoric

offensive or unreasonable. When Sharon

Slater, President of Family Watch International asked, "Is stigmatizing high

risk behavior the same as stigmatizing an individual with HIV?" this was not an

innocent question, but a careful calculation on how to undermine sexual rights

while seeming to appear fair-minded.

Later in the discussion, Slater told the audience that

she has a very good friend who smokes and that she frequently talks to this

friend about how she can get help. She stressed that in these conversations, she

addressed the behavior not the

individual. This is classic homosexual

conversion rhetoric, which came as no surprise given the presence of Arthur A.

Goldberg, Board member of NARTH, Co-Director of JONAH, and President of

Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality (PATH).

He argued that many people experience unwanted same-sex attraction for which treatment is available,

stressing that the focus is on the rooting out the behavior and not attacking

the person. I was unconvinced. He

followed this statement with a discussion of a scientific study conducted by

homosexual researchers (he made sure we took note of this fact) that

demonstrated that no homosexual relationship is 100% monogamous. Goldberg argued that the conclusion to take

away from this study was that all homosexual relationships were promiscuous and high risk. He emphasized

the fact that these researchers were homosexuals

who conducted this study of their own

people so they had no ulterior motive. He concluded that "we’re not promoting religious values — we’re staying in the secular, scientific

and evidence based." Can those of us

advocating for sexual and reproductive health and rights can count that as a

win — that the "evidence-based" argument has been so

successful that it has been co-opted by the right? It’s a bittersweet victory.

Sex. Abortion. Parenthood. Power. The latest news, delivered straight to your inbox. SUBSCRIBE

Another key lesson learned by right-wing advocates is to

have a seat at the table, or at least close to the table. The mandates of organizations like C-FAM and

Family Watch International include participating in proceedings and meetings at the

international level. C-FAM’s mission is “[t]o defend life and family at international institutions and to

publicize the debate,” carried out through their vision, which is

“[t]he preservation of international law by discrediting

socially radical policies at the United Nations and other international

institutions.”

Austin Ruse, President and Founder of C-FAM had this to say

at the 1999 World Congress of Families meeting in Geneva:

We have arrived at a perilous moment in the life of the

family. Long under attack by her enemies, the family seems now to be

disintegrating all around us. In every country of the developed world, families

are breaking up under a plethora of pernicious pathologies. The roots of the

attack, and their result are easily enumerated by most of the current social

science data. But I will focus on one institution

with which I am most familiar, the United Nations, an institution that is

increasingly at the forefront of the attack on the family.

Piero A. Tozzi, Executive Vice President and General Counsel

of C-FAM, stated in the caucus meeting that organizations like C-FAM are

present to support countries who believe that families play an important role in

society. They do so by convening small, closed meetings with country delegates

as well as calling open meetings such as the Family Rights Caucus which can draw

anyone present. In the June 25 edition of the Family

Watch International newsletter, Slater reported that "caucus meeting allowed [them] to identify new allies in

several countries, including an official UN delegate representing Kenya, who pleaded with [them] to come to Kenya as soon

as possible to launch an African movement for the family." Their successes come

not only in influencing language and content of negotiated documents, but in

the relationships forged to further spread their messages. The organizations

represented in this caucus meeting are increasingly committed to their mission

of engaging in international advocacy. It will serve us well to continue

to keep watch on where they go and how they get there.