The Study of LGBT Politics and Its Contributions to Political Science Gary Mucciaroni, Temple University ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... A lthough the study of LGBT ( lesbian, gay, bisex- ual, transgender) politics appears to be widely accepted within political science, a recent sur- vey of political scientists reported some skep- ticism about its legitimacy and scholarly worth (Novkov and Barclay 2010). This article examines potential concerns about LGBT studies and draws attention to the field’s scholarly importance. The first part briefly addresses three objections to the study of LGBT politics that echo criticisms of the study and practice of identity politics. I argue that these objections do not withstand scrutiny, and that the case for studying the intersection of politics and sexuality within the discipline of political science is compelling. Sexuality and gender are fundamental aspects of human societies that reflect power relations and increasingly have become the object of public policy. The second part of the article examines the burgeoning literature on the politics of sexual orientation and identity. Beyond its intrinsic importance, LGBT politics contributes to a broader understanding of politics, power, social movements, public opinion, policymaking institu- tions, urban politics, and the relationship between science and public policy. Though not exhaustive, this review addresses many of the principal empirical and theoretical works in this area. POTENTIAL OBJECTIONS TO THE STUDY OF LGBT POLITICS The case for studying the LGBT rights movement in political science would seem obvious. The movement has grown from a small group of counter-culture activists operating outside of mainstream politics to a mature movement with extensive political organization. Sex and gender distinctions are perva- sive in our laws—for example, they affect determinations of who is eligible to marry and adopt children, serve in the armed forces, collect welfare state benefits, and avoid paying taxes. In particular, same-sex marriage and the ban on gays serving in the military have produced widespread media attention, resulting in growing numbers of court decisions, legislative measures, and constitutional amendments. Self-identified LGBT voters and candidates are increasingly visible and engage in patterns of political behavior that are somewhat different from that of their straight peers (Hertzog 1996; Haider-Markel 2010). Political scientists are obliged to study LGBT groups and their claims, because to ignore them is to overlook an important aspect of political reality. Nevertheless, skepticism about the wisdom of studying LGBT politics lingers, perhaps reflecting criticisms of multi- culturalism and identity politics from the left and right (on the latter, see, e.g., Gitlin 1995; Bloom 1987). Critics argue that identity politics (politics based upon issues such as race, gen- der, and sexual orientation) reduces politics to a disparate set of parochial group struggles at the expense of transcendent, “universal” values. This criticism overlooks the close link between identity politics and universal values. At the center of decades-long struggles for civil rights and liberties, social welfare provision, and family law reform lie universal values such as freedom, equality, dignity, and respect. Second, the criticism suggests a false dichotomy. Simply because many conflicts transcend group identities does not mean that identity-based interests are unimportant, or that if we pay attention to identity politics, we ignore citizens’ broader inter- ests. LGBT claims are part of a larger category of issues about sexual behavior, identity, and orientation that have become controversial during recent decades and include abortion and birth control, teenage and unwed pregnancy, sexual harass- ment, and pornography (Wald 2000, 4). Third, LGBT studies are not only about the struggles of a single identity group. Rather, they lie at the intersection of sexuality and politics. Inevitably, they are about the politics of heterosexuality and gay-straight relations, just as the study of race is about the white majority and black-white relations, and the study of women is about relations between men and women (Phelan 1994, xv). The story of sexual politics is both a narrative about a heterosexist majority that has used religion and ideology to maintain its cultural and legal privileges and a story of social learning in which disproportionately younger, more educated citizens have come to know openly gay people and have responded with greater tolerance and support for LGBT equal- ity. Same-sex relationships also elucidate and challenge the cultural and moral status of traditional gender roles based on patriarchy among heterosexual couples. Increasing numbers of open same-sex spousal and parental relationships, as well as other alternatives to the traditional nuclear family, have expanded the definition of what counts as a “family” and reshaped public policies regulating divorce, child adoption, custody, and visitation. Skeptics of LGBT political studies may also suspect that the study of identity groups is political advocacy masquerad- ing as scholarship, or that identity politics generates passions that induce scholars to color their analyses. The perception that mainly LGBT individuals study LGBT politics may also fuel suspicions of bias. All decisions that we make about what to study are political because they reveal the topics that we consider most legitimate and important to warrant examina- tion. If our decision to study LGBT politics is a political one, so too was our neglect of it for many years. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SYMPOSIUM ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... doi:10.1017/S1049096510001782 PS • January 2011 17