US balks at backing condemnation of anti-gay laws

[CptSternn]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...RIGHTS?SITE=AP

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- Alone among major Western nations, the United States has refused to sign a declaration presented Thursday at the United Nations calling for worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality.

In all, 66 of the U.N.'s 192 member countries signed the nonbinding declaration - which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with any-gay discrimination. More than 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality, and in several of them homosexual acts can be punished by execution.

Co-sponsored by France and the Netherlands, the declaration was signed by all 27 European Union members, as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries. There was broad opposition from Muslim nations, and the United States refused to sign, indicating that some parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review.

"It's disappointing," said Rama Yade, France's human rights minister, of the U.S. position - which she described as in contradiction with America's long tradition as a defender of human rights.

According to some of the declaration's backers, U.S. officials expressed concern in private talks that some parts of the declaration might be problematic in committing the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In numerous states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military.

Carolyn Vadino, a spokeswoman for the U.S. mission to the U.N., stressed that the United States - despite its unwillingness to sign - condemned any human rights violations related to sexual orientation.

Gay rights activists nonetheless were angered by the U.S. position.

"It's an appalling stance - to not join with other countries that are standing up and calling for decriminalization of homosexuality," said Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.

She expressed hope that the U.S. position might change after President-elect Barack Obama takes office in January.

Also denouncing the U.S. stance was Richard Grenell, who until two months ago had been the chief spokesman for the U.S. mission to the U.N.

"It is ridiculous to suggest that there are legal reasons why we can't support this resolution - common sense says we should be the leader in making sure other governments are granting more freedoms for their people, not less," said Grenell, who described himself as a gay Republican. "The U.S. lack of support on this issue only dims our once bright beacon of hope and freedom for those who are persecuted and oppressed."

More than 50 countries opposed to the declaration, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, issued a joint statement Thursday criticizing the initiative as an unwarranted attempt to give special prominence to gays and lesbians. The statement suggested that protecting sexual orientation could lead to "the social normalization and possibly the legalization of deplorable acts" such as pedophilia and incest.

The declaration also has been opposed by the Vatican, a stance which prompted a protest in Rome earlier this month.

A Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the Roman Catholic Church opposed the death penalty and other harsh repression of gays and lesbians, but he expressed concern that the declaration would be used as pressure against those who believe marriage rights should not be extended to gays.

A new Vatican statement, issued Thursday, endorsed the call to end criminal penalties against gays, but said that overall the declaration "gives rise to uncertainty in the law and challenges existing human norms."

The European nations backing the declaration waged their campaign in conjunction with the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Dutch foreign affairs minister, Maxime Verhagen, said countries that endorsed that 1948 document had no right to carve out exceptions based on religion or culture that allowed discrimination against gays.

"Human rights apply to all people in all places at all times," he said. "I will not accept any excuse."

He acknowledged that the new declaration had only symbolic import, but said it marked the first time such a large number of nations had raised the cause of gay rights in the context of General Assembly proceedings.

"This statement aims to make debate commonplace," he said. "It is not meant to be a source of division, but to eliminate the taboo that surrounds the issue."

Although the declaration's backers were pleased that nations on six continents had signed it, there were only two from Asia and four from Africa.

[schoolsucksletsanarky]

Punishable by execution... The world is so cruel. GAY RIGHTS

[Beneath the Shadows]

So, the federal government is staying out of it? Good. That's how it should be. It should be left to the voters, not the politicians.

Unfortunately, most of the voters are seemingly anti-gay, but that's a different topic.

[VXTip]

although im for gay rights, im glad the US doesn't just jump on the U.N. band wagon every time they have a "good" idea. whatever good intentions they may have as far as im concerned this stuff is just a step towards world government, and bamn! 1984 all over our asses

[CptSternn]

We are not talking about rights, we are talking about worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality.

As per the article says, many countries execute you for being openly gay.

The bush administration obviously doesn't see a problem with that (or landmines or clusterbombs either).

[Beneath the Shadows]

Right, because land mines and cluster bombs are so related to buttsecks.

[Despanan]

I really don't think you can make a case for the US being for the execution of gay people for the crime of being gay, since it's not a crime to be gay in the US. Let alone a crime punishable by death.

I mean, wouldn't the fact that we have hate-crime legislation which punishes people more for attacking other people just because they're gay kinda point you in the other direction on that one Sternn?

[Drake Dun]

I suspect the U.S. position on this has more to do with politics than with concerns about federalism. Laws against homosexual sex have been considered unconstitutional in the U.S. since 1986, but we're still buddy buddy with backward regimes like Saudi Arabia, which literally execute people for witchcraft. You can probably guess what happens to gay people there.

If you guys really want to take Sternn down a peg, this is your chance. You'll never get him to say anything bad about Muslim culture, or criticize a Muslim country for doing things to gay people which would make any but the worst of American homophobes cringe.

[Mr. Filth]

Look, bro. We learned from what happened at Sodom and Gomorrah.

You want to become a pillar of salt that's fine but count us out.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

If you guys really want to take Sternn down a peg, this is your chance. You'll never get him to say anything bad about Muslim culture, or criticize a Muslim country for doing things to gay people which would make any but the worst of American homophobes cringe.

I don't think it's possible to knock Sternn down a peg. He's got an aura of Rhetoric and Stubborn Irrationality that protects him from most conventional intellectual weapons like logic and reason.

[Drake Dun]

These days, He seems to prefer earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor.

[bleedingheart344]

We have to fucking accept minorities getting free government handouts, why not give the gays full and equal rights?

[Lolly PopMuzik]

Originally Posted by bleedingheart344

We have to fucking accept minorities getting free government handouts, why not give the gays full and equal rights?

Christ, you're actually serious?

[bleedingheart344]

Alright, now that we have that out of the way. Seriously, we have people being executed for going on killing sprees, ****** people, countless horrible things... yet we equate homosexuality with all of them?

[Lolly PopMuzik]

Originally Posted by bleedingheart344

Alright, now that we have that out of the way. Seriously, we have people being executed for going on killing sprees, ****** people, countless horrible things... yet we equate homosexuality with all of them?

Heavens no, not in a homophobic sense. But to say:

"We have to fucking accept minorities getting free government handouts..."

Especially when I know damn well half of us don't see them. Maybe you should pick your words a bit better?

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Despanan

I don't think it's possible to knock Sternn down a peg. He's got an aura of Rhetoric and Stubborn Irrationality that protects him from most conventional intellectual weapons like logic and reason.

Rhetoric can only be cast three times per day, and Stubborn Irrationality is negated by any magic weapon with a to-hit bonus of at least +3.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

Right, because land mines and cluster bombs are so related to buttsecks.

They are in the sense that they all are resolutions that the bush administration has fought against in the UN.

The US is the only first world country to try and argue for keeping landmines and clusterbombs.

Now, the US is the only first world country to go against the decriminalisation of gays.

Not gay rights, we are talking about just making being gay NOT illegal or a crime.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Despanan

I really don't think you can make a case for the US being for the execution of gay people for the crime of being gay, since it's not a crime to be gay in the US. Let alone a crime punishable by death.

I mean, wouldn't the fact that we have hate-crime legislation which punishes people more for attacking other people just because they're gay kinda point you in the other direction on that one Sternn?

America does not have any hate crime legislation that deals with being gay. The bush administration fought against it, multiple times, backed by the republicans.

The fact they would openly oppose a non-binding measure which was intended to help stop the criminalisation and subsequent murder of people who are openly gay worldwide really speaks volumes.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

They are in the sense that they all are resolutions that the bush administration has fought against in the UN.

The US is the only first world country to try and argue for keeping landmines and clusterbombs.

So what?

Now, the US is the only first world country to go against the decriminalisation of gays.

Well, good. We don't belong in other counties' politics. Unfortunately we are (sticking our nose in other peoples' business) most of the time, but for once we are staying out of it.

And of course you still bitch about it. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Not gay rights, we are talking about just making being gay NOT illegal or a crime.

See above. Also, since being gay isn't illegal or a crime in the US, shouldn't that say something in itself?

[Saya]

I think all the states got rid of their anti-sodomy laws a few years ago, but you still can't be open and be in the army, right?

[Drake Dun]

Correct. It's "don't ask, don't tell", but taddling is OK.

[ThreeEyesOni]

Actually there are many states with anti-sodomy laws still on the books, but by and large they are trumped by a federal court case the name of which escapes me.

I've been discussing this topic to death elsewhere, but I'll sum it up: if you go "hooray, good job" to the 'land of the free' disagreeing that jail or death simply for being homosexual is bad, then you have issues. I've used many, many topics on this matter but it really just boils down to this. If you don't see a problem with the US not thinking that laws for executions of homosexuals is a bad thing, then you really do likely have some mental or emotional troubles that you might want to get worked on.

This isn't even a matter of gay marriage, this is countries saying "it's not ok to lynch gay people".

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by ThreeEyesOni

Actually there are many states with anti-sodomy laws still on the books, but by and large they are trumped by a federal court case the name of which escapes me.

Hardwick v. Bowers

[ThreeEyesOni]

Ah, thankie. I'm sleepy and don't feel like googleing to double check.

At any rate: the laws are still on the books. If the state/local cops want to then they can use them to give you a hard time. In most regions nowadays this would be a bad thing to try, but there are plenty of places where it can be managed. Do you really think that being raided by armed and armored cops in the middle of the night, with you and your naked boyfriend pinned to the ground and house ransacked is "decriminalized"? Because I've found more than a few accounts (legally verified) of just that.

What this non-binding and non-legal document was saying was that criminalization of homosexuality is wrong, corporal punishment for homosexuality is damn near insane, and that's about it. No marriage, no extra rights; just a document about wrongful imprisonment and outright murder. The headline might as well read "World votes universal freedom of religion, USA responsds 'not so fast'."

[Malice In Wonderland]

I don't see why straight people are allowed to vote for whether gay people should get rights etc etc.

It ONLY affects gay people, so they should be the ONLY people to vote on it.