Marriage, Family, and Their Advocacy at the United Nations

The family is a natural union consisting of a husband and a wife, a father and a mother, a man and a woman together with their natural offspring or adopted children. The family, rooted in the marriage of a man and a woman, historically has been protected because it is a personal relationship with public implications, unique and essential to the common good. Similar conceptions have existed since time immemorial, within a diverse variety of cultures and religious beliefs which have protected and promoted the family as the fundamental group unit of society.

This essay explores the definitions, meaning, and discrepancies surrounding various terms relating to marriage and the family. The LGBTI agenda and “gender ideology” have evolved throughout the history of the United Nations, and some of their dangers and objectives will be unveiled.

The aim of this essay is to provide readers with public and insider knowledge stemming from discussions, negotiations, and meetings within the UN and its various bodies, in order to elucidate the initiatives in favor of and against marriage and the family.

Family in International Law: Where We Stand Now

The United Nations was originally based on sound principles, including the prevention of a third World War. The functioning of the UN is guided by the principles of sovereignty and of the independence of member states; each state determines by which political, cultural, social, economic, and/or religious conditions and peculiarities it will abide. The principle of subsidiarity is also applied, so that the actions are taken by the authorities closest to their citizens.

Another fundamental principle of the UN is the importance of achieving consensus or unanimous adoption, which implies a guarantee of the independence of states and respect for their sovereignty. If all states participate in a given negotiation, the negotiation is free and open, all parties are heard, and a result is reached by consensus; this is considered a win-win situation. Regrettably, not all states or UN bodies seek consensus; sometimes they even attempt to impose their agenda and ideology at any costs.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) has been considered a milestone in human rights law. It was drafted by representatives with different legal, social, religious, and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, and in its Article 16.3 it recognizes that: “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”[1]

The 169 nations that have signed and ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognize the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society, and also recognize the importance of protecting and assisting the family, particularly at its establishment and while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children.

Additionally, the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child declared the importance of the family to society, particularly for children.[2] Other similar recognition of the importance of the family can be found in the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The first reads: “States Parties, recognizing that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State, shall take appropriate measures to ensure the protection of the unity of the families of migrant workers.” The Preamble to the CRPD continues such phrasing: “Convinced that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State, and that persons with disabilities and their family members should receive the necessary protection and assistance to enable families to contribute towards the full and equal enjoyment of the rights of persons with disabilities . . . ”[3]

The Yogyakarta Principles: The Great Deception

Marriage and family have been protected for good reason; notably, for the public good which stems from them: As the Vatican itself has observed,

The marital union also provides the best conditions for raising children: namely, the stable, indissoluble loving relationship of a mother and a father present only in marriage. The State rightly recognizes this relationship as a public institution in its laws because the relationship makes a unique and essential contribution to the common good.[4]

To the contrary, the Yogyakarta Principles[5] aim for the application of human rights concerning “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” But contrary to what many legislators, diplomats, treaty monitoring bodies, and others think (or perhaps want the public to think), these principles have no binding authority in international law. The Yogyakarta Principles do not come from an agreement of the states, but rather from a November 2006 declaration made following a three-day meeting in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, of a self-proclaimed “distinguished group of human rights experts.”[6]

The Yogyakarta Principles define the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” (SOGI) in a blurry way, through understanding the existence of a plurality of emotions, affections, and sexual attractions as an implicit denial of sexual differences and even of the very existence of male and female.

In a mere decade following the Indonesia meeting, the UN has seen the proliferation of the use of terms such as “gender,” “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” “assigned gender,” and “sexual minorities.” Despite the promotion of those terms by powerful states, UN institutions, and UN employees and lobbies, there remains an evident opposition to them at the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council, and other UN institutions by both states and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

In 2017, another meeting was held, this time in Geneva, in which the participants adopted the so-called “Yogyakarta Principles plus 10.” The new principles involved more transsexual and intersex defenders to create a

document emerged from the intersection of the developments in international human rights law with the emerging understanding of violations suffered by persons on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity and the recognition of the distinct and intersectional grounds of gender expression and sex characteristics.[7]

Pro-life and pro-family advocates are concerned with attempts to erode national sovereignty and religious, cultural, social, and moral values. The nature and definition of marriage and the family, the limitations on the right of individuals to fully exercise their freedom of conscience and expression, the rights of parents regarding their children, and other important issues are under threat. The methods of challenge vary but include the establishment and appointment of controversial mandate holders, divisive resolutions, unsupported reports, unrequested studies, and other initiatives.

The LGBTI Agenda and Gender Ideology

Despite no clear recognition of their aims under international law, the LGBTI agenda and the gender ideology lobbies have over the past several decades tended to focus on the individual and his wishes and desires alone. Some of the goals of this movement include redefining and de-naturalizing marriage, as well as creating new rights. Expanding or creating new rights when the natural conditions are not possessed affects the essence of human rights and prevents their universality.[8] Marriage should meet some conditions, among them being a heterosexual, lifelong union which welcomes children.

Marriage is not the only field wherein conditions must be met. To be considered a medical doctor, at a minimum, one needs to enroll in a university, pass a certain number of exams, and obtain a degree. A carpenter can become a medical doctor if he goes to a university and fulfills those requisites. Likewise, a man with a same-sex attraction could enter a marriage, provided he joins a heterosexual, lifelong union which welcomes children.[9] Such unions are not unheard of.

How did the switch to emphasis on personal desire come about? Shifts in perceptions of sexual morality, the promotion of abortion, and the popularization and improving efficacy of contraceptive methods in the second half of the 20th century, combined with the sexual revolution, were a start. One of the most important implications of these developments was that sexual relationships were separated from marriage, family, and offspring. The place and role of marriage in society began to be questioned, and other de facto or legal structures were created. These new substitutes had some of the elements of marriage, but not all. Promoters of gender ideology and the LGBTI agenda want to change the understanding of marriage and the family, as these represent cultural, religious, and traditional values that oppose their goals.

But these efforts lack legal authority. The only legally binding definition of the word gender in the UN system is the one provided by the Statute of the International Criminal Court, which appears in Article 7.3: “For the purposes of this Statute, it is understood that the term ‘gender’ refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society. The term ‘gender’ does not indicate any meaning different from the above.”

Judith Butler, one of the ideologues of the “gender ideology” movement, stated that “gender is neither the causal result of sex nor as seemingly fixed as sex.” Butler also argues that “when the constructed status of gender is theorized as radically independent of sex, gender itself becomes a free-floating artifice, with the consequence that man and masculine might just as easily signify a female body as a male one, and woman and feminine a male body as easily as a female one.”[10]

The American College of Pediatricians states that “Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: ‘XY’ and ‘XX’ are genetic markers of male and female, respectively—not genetic markers of a disorder. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex.”[11] 

Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh explain as clearly as possible the frequently confused terms sex and gender in an article in The New Atlantis:

The concept of biological sex is well defined, based on the binary roles that males and females play in reproduction. By contrast, the concept of gender is not well defined. It is generally taken to refer to behaviors and psychological attributes that tend to be typical of a given sex. Some individuals identify as a gender that does not correspond to their biological sex.[12]

Mayer and McHugh continue, explaining the consequences of gender dysphoria, how it is treated in adults and children, and the lack of scientific evidence on the psychological benefits of hormonal or surgical interventions:

Gender dysphoria—a sense of incongruence between one’s biological sex and one’s gender, accompanied by clinically significant distress or impairment—is sometimes treated in adults by hormones or surgery, but there is little scientific evidence that these therapeutic interventions have psychological benefits. Science has shown that gender identity issues in children usually do not persist into adolescence or adulthood, and there is little scientific evidence for the therapeutic value of puberty-delaying treatments. We are concerned by the increasing tendency toward encouraging children with gender identity issues to transition to their preferred gender through medical and then surgical procedures.[13]

In consequence, and to avoid confusing terms, the use of the word sex to refer to masculine and feminine should be preferred to the word gender. Many experts—the American College of Pediatricians among them—have concluded that “gender ideology” harms children.[14] There are several examples of how the promotion of a fluid or changing gender creates problems for children and adults.[15] Walt Heyer states, from his own experience living socially and legally as a woman for eight years before transitioning back to living as a man, that in spite of cross-gender hormones and genital surgery, a biological change from male to female or the opposite is impossible: “Underneath all the cosmetic procedures, vocal training, and hair growth or hair removal lies a physical reality. Biologically, the person has not changed from a man into a woman or vice versa.”[16]

On the other hand, social science consistently demonstrates that children who grow up connected with and jointly raised by both of their biological parents experience better outcomes overall than children who grow up in single-parent or step-parent households:

In the case of children, we find the same situation: living in a family led by the biological father and mother multiplies the benefits received due to the solidarity of both parents, which, in turn, stabilizes the relationships and increases the resources available to take care of daily needs, which may be emotional, educational, economic, or related to physical or mental health.[17]

The cost of family breakdown is socially and economically high.[18] Member states should therefore, in search of the common good, refrain from enacting policies which directly encourage the increased formation of alternative family units and parenting arrangements, and instead endorse and promote policies which incentivize the maximum proportion of children being born and raised to adulthood in stable, permanent, and natural families.

The slippery slope that begins with changing definitions, and which continues with the promotion of gender ideology and the LGBTI agenda, is usually followed by legislation which supposedly aims to fight discrimination and so-called “hate speech.” Unfortunately, such legislation typically ends in a limitation of fundamental rights and freedoms. 

Adina Portaru analyzed a draft Spanish Equality Bill proposed by the far-left party Unidos Podemos which pretended to be fighting against discrimination based on sexual orientation, identity, gender expression, and sexual characteristics, in favor of the social equality of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, transgender people, and intersex people.[19] Some of the concerns surrounding that law and similar laws are the subjectivity and ambiguity latent in them, as well as their limitations on the practice of freedom of speech, opinion, and expression. As the infractions are assessed based on the offended subject and his or her feelings, many people may decide to self-censor their opinions and expressions in order to avoid being denounced. Hate-speech laws affect the presumption of innocence by requiring a defendant to prove that an offense did not take place. A derived consequence would be the multiplication of proceedings and the proliferation of opportunist litigation. Similar laws could spread all around the world.

Equality bills usually include compulsory “comprehensive sexuality education,” as well as medical dictates that limit the rights of parents over their children. Quite frequently parents will not be able to help children who are dealing with gender dysphoria in a way they see fit. Governments will provide them with hormone blockers and hormonal cross-treatment, making decisions on behalf of the children without involving the affected parents—and without the evaluation of a specialist, pediatrician, or psychologist.

The application of so-called “equality” and hate-speech legislation could render fundamental freedoms obsolete. Additionally, they might even criminalize religious beliefs and practices. Certain Western judicial systems and national human rights institutions have already decided cases based on national anti-discrimination or hate-speech laws, which have severely restricted individuals’ freedom of religion, conscience, and expression.[20] Accordingly, it is not unforeseeable that adoption of these categories into the lexicon of international human rights law could eventually lead to the investigation and prosecution of individuals and institutions for violations against the precepts of the LGBTI agenda and gender ideology.

Initiatives at the United Nations

Through the years, and especially during the 21st century, there have been various initiatives within the UN to promote the SOGI agenda. Some of the most important efforts, and the subsequent reactions from pro-marriage and pro-family advocates, are summarized below.

In 2003, Brazil and the European Union proposed a resolution at the Human Rights Commission in Geneva entitled “Human Rights and Sexual Orientation.” The resolution did not find enough support to be approved, but it was the first step in the strategy. The Yogyakarta Principles, despite not being legally binding and having a weak legal basis, nonetheless had an effect, and were used as justification by those advocating for gender ideology and the LGBTI agenda.

At the 2008 UN General Assembly in New York, some states presented a proposal to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories of non-discrimination in the resolution on “Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.” During the same session, a second statement was presented by member states from the Sub-Saharan African, Oceania, and Middle East regions, warning that the aforementioned categories “have no legal foundation,” that they “focus on certain persons on the grounds of their sexual interests and behavior,” and that they create “new rights” or “new standards” by “misinterpreting” the non-discrimination clauses of human rights instruments.[21]

The first proposal, to name sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories, based its arguments on the “principle of the universality of human rights, as established by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” stating that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” The text continued:

We reaffirm that everyone has the right to enjoy their human rights without any distinction with regard to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, as established by article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 2 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and article 2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Up to that point, the proponents of the proposal were just quoting internationally agreed-upon documents. Then they included a deliberate misrepresentation: “We reaffirm the principle of non-discrimination, which requires that human rights be equally applied to all human beings regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.” This was a fallacious argument, one which uses a “half-truth” and pretends that everything follows. In this case, internationally agreed-upon documents and protected categories were treated with the same authority as SOGI concepts which had never found consensus.

In June 2011, South Africa introduced a resolution before the Human Rights Council entitled “Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.”[22] Inter alia, the resolution expressed “grave concern at acts of violence and discrimination, in all regions of the world, committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation and gender identity” and requested the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to commission a study documenting discriminatory laws and practices, and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, in all regions of the world. After the study, there would be a panel discussion and a follow-up on the recommendations of the study. The resolution was not adopted by unanimity, but rather by a vote with 23 in favor, 19 against, and 3 abstentions. Those in favor of the resolution stated that it did not seek to impose values on member states, but rather to initiate a fact-based, genuine, and constructive dialogue with the aim of preventing violence and discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The states opposing such a resolution stressed that those controversial notions imposed on other countries had no basis in international law or international human rights standards. The resolution was accused of ignoring respect for cultural and social diversity, as well as religious freedom. Some states highlighted that personal sexual interests and decisions (unlike characteristics such as age, religion, nationality, or sex) do not constitute human rights obligations or protected characteristics. During the debates, it was also noted that while violence can never be justified, its occurrence should not be transformed into the promotion or justification of specific forms of sexual behavior. (No one doubts that in this case, then-President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and their policies, were vital in advancing gender ideology and the LGBTI agenda at the UN and other international institutions—as well as in applying political, diplomatic and economic pressure to those states which did not comply with those ideas.[23])

The next SOGI resolution at the UN Human Rights Council was number 27/32 of September 2014 and entitled “Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,” adopted by a recorded vote (25 to 14, with 7 abstentions). The most controversial SOGI resolution, number 32/2, was proposed in June 2016 by a group of Latin American nations. The draft resolution proposed the condemnation of all violence and discrimination against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and the establishment of an independent expert to monitor instances of violence and discrimination on those grounds. This resolution was adopted by a recorded vote (23 to 18, with 6 abstentions).

As in previous resolutions and statements on the topic, criticism of this resolution focused on its inclusion of categories of protection based neither on binding UN documents nor on consensus reached by member states. Some stated that the 32/2 resolution failed to consider the sovereign rights of each country with respect to their religious, ethical, and cultural values. Many of the opposers noted the fact that the resolution promoted not a clear but rather a broad interpretation of the term “discrimination,” which could be used to create a so-called “fundamental human right to same-sex marriage and adoption,” as well as limitations on freedom of religion and freedom of association. Several member nations of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the African Union underlined that they would never cooperate with the establishment of a SOGI independent expert, and that if one were appointed, they would not recognize his legitimacy or take any notice of his reports.

The first independent expert on “sexual orientation and gender identity” nominated was Dr. Vitit Muntarbhorn, who unveiled at a meeting organized by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA) the five linchpins (decriminalization, depathologization, status recognition, gender-diverse cultural inclusion, and empathization) that would direct future actions, based on the totality of human rights and calling for global partnership.[24]

In some cases, diplomatic, economic, and political pressure exists and has an evident influence on the outcome of the negotiations or work done at the United Nations. Even South Africa, which was the main initiator of the “sexual orientation and gender identity” resolution in 2011, criticized the proponents of the resolution in 2016 for such an “arrogant and confrontational approach” and eventually abstained from voting on the resolution.[25]

From 2014 to 2017, resolutions on the protection of the family at the Human Rights Council have also been essential cornerstones in recognizing the importance of the family, its contributions, and its rights and duties, as well as some of the challenges it faces and the policies that would help increase its well-being.[26] Those resolutions, based on Article 16.3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, highlighted the family as the fundamental group unit of society while recognizing the family as a potent force for social cohesion and integration, intergenerational solidarity, and social development. Those resolutions also supported the truth that the family has the primary responsibility for the nurture and protection of children.

Unfortunately, many Western and Latin American countries opposed resolutions on the protection of the family, mostly due to a lack of explicit recognition of so-called “diverse forms of the family” (despite the fact that no specific family model was enshrined in the resolutions).

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a participative process at the Human Rights Council that includes an examination of the performance in the area of human rights for all UN member states, with a full cycle taking approximately four years. The state under review presents the situation, making commitments and revealing both the challenges it faces and the initiatives taken to solve them. Afterward, the state receives comments and recommendations from the other states. Although UPR recommendations are not legally binding, the states under review will be publicly criticized and come under pressure to conform.

Quite frequently, Western states have used the UPR disrespectfully regarding national sovereignty, culture, values, and religion, and have made recommendations based on the assumption that abortion and same-sex unions are international rights. If the UPR is meant to evaluate a state’s human rights record, then calls for a nation to decriminalize abortion or same-sex behavior assume that these practices are international human rights—which they are not. As such, the UPR currently seems to be a mechanism for imposing certain political or social agendas of the secular West on the rest of the world.[27]

There are other actors around the UN, such as working groups, committees of experts, treaty monitoring bodies, independent experts, special rapporteurs, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the different UN organizations, as well as the UN Secretariat. Some or many of them are embracing and promoting the LGBTI agenda, mostly without an officially approved mandate.[28]

Moving Forward

In spite of such movements, it is still possible to defend marriage and family at the UN. There are still many ways to address these anti-family movements. NGOs can present oral and written statements, reports, speak against situations or policies, or prepare so-called “shadow reports,” both for treaty monitoring bodies and the Universal Periodic Review. Other forms of participation include public campaigns, encouraging citizens to contact the representatives of States, ministries of foreign affairs, and political representatives, in order to keep them accountable. Those who promote the LGBTI agenda and gender ideology have had victories not because of the merits of their legal or moral arguments, but unfortunately because of the inaction of those who should have been defending marriage and the family.

Citizens are no longer willing to have an agenda that goes against their profound convictions dictated to them. Parents do not accept being pushed away from being the primary educators of their children; they want to give them love and education, not aggressive and inappropriate sex education and contraception. People want institutions to respect democracy and the boundaries of international law.

Oftentimes, representatives of countries that have strong social, cultural, and religious values promoting the family have nevertheless taken the lead in the opposite direction. Unfortunately, sometimes certain diplomatic representatives defend an agenda contrary to that of their country or their society. Ignorance in the capital, the congress, or the general population concerning the actions of their representatives in Geneva or New York can have catastrophic effects. Accountability is necessary.

States should promote the family, which is rooted in marriage. Ultimately, the stability and improvement of society are dependent on healthy family life. If not because of conviction or because of international law, states should protect and promote the family because of its benefits to society, thus avoiding the major costs resulting from the breakdown of the family.

The main reason for writing this essay is to help raise awareness of the importance of the UN, its intricacies, debates, and resolutions in the General Assembly in New York, the Human Rights Council in Geneva, and the myriad other UN entities and organs. An objective was to shed a little light, because to the “untrained eye” the situation may seem obscure, confusing, and complicated.

If we have a clear understanding of both the importance of the UN and what is happening in the UN’s institutions, denouncing abuses and defending marriage and the family become much more feasible. The decisions of the UN affect us much more than we realize, but less than those who seek to impose gender ideology and the LGBTI agenda above consensus and without respecting the sovereignty or independence of states would like. There is hope and much work to do to protect and promote the family.

Rubén Navarro is an attorney and advocacy expert on religious freedom, sanctity of life, and marriage and family. He can be reached at [email protected]

[1]     The United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, December 10, 1948, available at Article 23.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has the same wording as art. 16.3 of the UDHR. See

[2]     Preamble of the CRC: “Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community . . . ”; “Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love, and understanding.”

[3]     The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Familes (adopted 2003), Art. 44.1, available at The Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (adopted 2008), available at

[4]     Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See in Geneva, Preserving the Universality of Human Rights in the context of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2012).

[5]     Full text available at

[6]     For an in-depth analysis of the Yogyakarta Principles, see: Carmen Marsal, “Los principios de Yogyakarta: derechos humanos al servicio de la ideología de género,” Dikaíon 21.1 (June 2011): 119-30, available at; see also, Piero A. Tozzi, “Six Problems with the Yogyakarta Principles,” New York, International Organizations Research Group, 2008 BRIEFING PAPER Number 1 (2007), available at; and Jakob Cornides, “A Brief Commentary on The Yogyakarta Principles,” Selected Works (Brussels: 2009).

[7]     Yogyakarta Principles Plus 10, adopted November 10, 2017, available at

[8]     Rubén Navarro, “El matrimonio, la familia, la ‘ideología de género’ y la ‘Agenda LGBT’ en la Organización de las Naciones Unidas” inside the collective work “La batalla por la familia en Europa,” coordinated by Prof. Francisco José Contreras, Sekotia, Spain, 2016.

[9]     Richard Cohen, “Coming Out Straight: Understanding and Healing Homosexuality” (Oakhill Press, 2005). Richard Cohen, a former homosexual, now married with three children, struggled for most of his life with unwanted same-sex attractions. His book, although controversial, explains his personal journey out of homosexuality and is intended to help and heal many lives.

[10]   Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 1990).

[11]   American College of Pediatricians, “Gender Ideology Harms Children,” updated September 2017, available at

[12]   Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh, “Part Three: Gender Identity,” Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences, The New Atlantis 50 (Fall 2016): 86-113. 

[13]   Ibid., 11. 

[14]   Ibid., 10.

[15]   Paul W. Hruz, Lawrence S. Mayer, and Paul R. McHugh, “Growing Pains: Problems with Puberty Suppression in Treating Gender Dysphoria,” The New Atlantis 52 (Spring 2017): 3-36.

[16]   Walt Heyer, “My ‘Sex Change’ Was a Myth. Why Trying to Change One’s Sex Will Always Fail,” The Daily Signal, August 23, 2017, available at More information can be found at Heyer’s website,, and his blog,

[17]   Fernando Pliego Carrasco, “Families and well-being in democratic societies,” presentation at the 19th International Family Congress of the International Federation for Family Development (IFFD), 2018, available at

[18]   Marriage Foundation, press release, “Government under pressure to back marriage as cost of family breakdown hits £51 Billion, more than the defence budget,” January 29, 2018, available at Data based on the ongoing study “Counting the Cost of Family Failure” by the Relationships Foundation.

[19]   Adina Portaru, “Memorandum on the Spanish Equality Bill,” prepared for ADF International, August 14, 2017, available at

[20]   Cases include Swedish pastor Ake Green (see; fire chief Kelvin Cochran in Atlanta, Georgia (see Sarah Kramer, “Chief Cochran Won His Case! Here’s What His Victory Accomplished,” Alliance Defending Freedom, October 16, 2018, available at; the florist Barronelle Stutzman, as well as the baker Jack Phillips (see Barronnelle Stutzman, letter to the editor, “All We Ask Is For the Freedom to Live Out Our Beliefs,” USA Today, February 25, 2018, available at

[21]   UN General Assembly, 63rd Session, 70th Plenary Meeting, Dec. 18, 2008 A/63/PV.70, available at

[22]   Resolution A/HRC/RES/17/19, available at

[23]   The White House, Presidential Memorandum—International Initiatives to Advance the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Persons,  December 6, 2011, “Sec. 5. Engaging International Organizations in the Fight Against LGBT Discrimination. Multilateral fora and international organizations are key vehicles to promote respect for the human rights of LGBT persons and to bring global attention to LGBT issues.” Of high influence was the speech from the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, titled “Gay rights are human rights.” For further information, see: Chris Johnson, “Four Years Later, Clinton’s LGBT Geneva Speech Hailed for Impact,” Washington Blade, December 6, 2015, available at 

[24]   Dr. Vitit Muntarbhorn, 2016 ILGA (International Lesbian and Gay Association) World Conference, available at

[25]   UN Web TV, Min. 03:00:35, available at 

[26]   Resolutions Human Rights Council 26/11 (June 2014), 29/22 (June 2015), 32/23 (June 2016), and 35/13 (June 2017). 

[27]   Some countries have privately recognized that up to 90% of their international advocacy and efforts go to the promotion of women’s “rights,” sexual minorities, the LGBTI agenda, sexual and reproductive “rights,” and “safe” abortion.

[28]   As an example, we can cite the promotion of the LGBTI agenda and the Yogyakarta Principles at the “Free and Equal” UN campaign—according to its own definition, “an unprecedented global UN public information campaign aimed at promoting equal rights and fair treatment of LGBTI people”; see “About UN Free and Equal,” available at