ECPR

Install the app

Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.

Just tap Share then “Add to Home Screen”

LGBTQ+ Rights in the Caribbean

Comparative Politics
Human Rights
Activism
LGBTQI
Jane Perez
University College London
Jane Perez
University College London

To access full paper downloads, participants are encouraged to install the official Event App, available on the App Store.


Abstract

Neighboring islands Cuba and Jamaica exemplify the vast differences in LGBTQ+ rights that occur in the Caribbean, with Cuba being lauded as a “gay paradise” (Verdugo 2016) and Time Magazine calling Jamaica “The Most Homophobic Place On Earth” (Padgett 2006). Cuba has passed legislation criminalizing discrimination and hate crimes while holding a referendum that legalized same-sex marriage, unions, and adoptions. In contrast, Jamaica still has colonial anti-sodomy laws, and has resisted legal change in the face of international scrutiny and local mobilization. Equally striking is that the Dominican Republic, which constitutionally banned marriage equality in 2012 had already enacted anti-discrimination legislation based on sexual orientation for two groups, people with HIV (2000) and youths between 11 and 25 (2011). Yet the law targeting same-sex marriage did not distract from future legal changes in favor of LGBTQ+ rights as the Dominican Republic has now passed broader sexual orientation-based anti-discrimination legislation (2025) and had a judicial ruling removing the anti-sodomy law that targets members of the military and law enforcement (2025). This illustrates that LGBTQ+ rights do not necessarily move in a singular direction, but that mixed change can occur in the face of competing forces. By examining the policy and discussions within six sovereign countries--Barbados, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago--I seek to understand what competing factors push for change and halt legal progress. In this paper, I theorize that sovereignty sensitivity, public anxieties about foreign influence, and religious nationalism work in congruence to influence how the public and political elites support or reject LGBTQ+ rights.