UNITED NATIONS – 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. Continue >>
RSS
ifeelfine, I haven't even been responding lately because of the hypocrisy you just pointed out. Its sickening. Many, many Christians need to spend more time truly examining their beliefs and why they hold them. It makes no sense to me that someone could be so vehemently against gay marriage, then turn their heads when it comes to divorce.
HAWK: Are you married now? The reason I asked the question is it seems hypocritical to be for the criminalization of homosexuality but not for the criminalization of divorce.
iff72,
The answer is no, I don't believe in the criminalization of divorce. However, I do believe our no-fualt divorce laws need to be repelled and divorce made much harder to achieve. I am party to the no-fualt divorce during my humanist days and I can look back now and realize that the system we have needs changing, just as DP has noted.
What does your question have to do about the UN? Are there proposals to criminalize divorce within that odious body?
I do believe we need to dismantle the UN
Article 29 from the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 29
1. Everyone has duties to the community [at the expense of personal liberty protected by the community] in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible [God has no place for full development???].
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect [ie: the PC version of tolerance, speech codes and hate crime] for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality [whose morality?], public order and the general welfare in a democratic [read Marxist] one big happy society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. [In other words, freedom of speech against actions and proposals of the state is criminal].
"Do you support the criminalization of divorce? "
If it was my ex would be in jail. I think it's wrong to turn your back on your vows (not to mention your spouse and children) and walk away. It turned out the only reason she was seeking custody was because she didn't want to pay child support.
When people know there is no way off the ship they tend to help bail....
ifeelfine, here we go again, but tell me have you ever heard of alimony, child support, lawyer fees, and court costs. Plus, if that's what makes your boat float why not contact the civil authorities in your area and have them consider doing that.
blue,
I agree . . .
Hawk: Do you support the criminalization of divorce?
Hillary Clinton tried to make all children in the world the wards of the UN so they would be under UN control back in the 90's. That action resulted in a news story some may remember where the White House switchboard equipment burned out and had to be replaced. The phone ringing off the hook all day for 2 weeks will do that to the old equipment they had!
In short, Americans as a rule do not trust the UN.
Wow, the gravity of this proposed legislation. Forcing other nations to accept sinful behaviors. The UN is pushing the Youth Manifesto encouraging pedophilia and breakup of the family. The UN is also pushing to make prostitution globally legal and respectable, not to mention the murder of unborn babies in the name of womens health. This is reminds me of the pre-flood days about sin and violence throughout the world. All this to glorify the vanity of the creature????
The ultimate height of hypocrisy...the intolerance & hate spewed from homosexual activists.
Either everyone approves your behavior or way of thinking or take the highway.
The status of the homosexual community in the USA seems more of an issue. I am reminded of a commercial I had seen recently. In it, a group of teen-age boys are ridiculing a goofy-looking figurine by saying "That's so gay!" Thereupon, a sensible young lady berates the group for insensitivity and questioned whether statements about 16-year old boys with cheesy moustaches would make decent targets for slurs.
While I appreciate the fair, sensitive treatment of people, I couldn't keep from thinking of how the use of the term "gay" by the homosexual-lesbian movement was a time of transition. How often I would read E. B. White to my class (The Trumpet of the Swan) andthe class would sniker at the author's innocent use of the g-word? Now the term has an added negative connotation. Such is the way of semantics, and sin.
I feel that the whole question of human rights, is it based on tolerance (as in Constantine's Edict of Milan that gave Christians legal status in the later Roman Empire) or acceptance? An enforced acceptance is the highpoint of insensitivity. Tolerance is the key.
I possess probably one of the more liberal minds among my friends and family and especially on this thread, but I think this was absolutely a right decision for the U.S to take. Instead of 'jumping' to some ideological stand - protection of gays and human rights as a general, precious, protected issue - like the European nations, the U.S actually took time to review the legality and other important ethics of making such broad claims. I don't even care what the claim was; I'm happier that our country takes steps like that. We are the most powerful, caring country in the world, but it is not right to jump in as the pressure czar to the rest of the world.
Good points, DP. If MIke wants to see what the Dark Ages are like he should do some global traveling, although I would warn him that armed bodyguards would be needed!
America is so far out of the Dark Ages it's not even funny anymore.
BTW, which group was it that brought most of the world out of the Dark Ages in the first place? Oh yeah, it was the Bible-believing Christians!
Mike: Why don't you try living in a Middle Eastern (Muslim-ruled) nation and see how much your sinful lifestyle is accepted? I think you would find you are much more accepted and loved here in the U.S.A. - God bless us, in spite of our accommodating ways.
DP, the issue at hand is that in some countries I could be killed just because of who I love. I could be refused a job or a place to live in some states IN MY OWN COUNTRY. That is an atrocity that needs to end.
"Why do leftists always twist and play semantic games in order to further their position - why not be open in the language and intent?"
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance....
Americas official position is this is up to local legislation. Isn't it amazing that gays argue about forcing "our" values on other people and then argue we are in the dark ages when we don't?
Why do leftists always twist and play semantic games in order to further their position - why not be open in the language and intent? This obviously has little to do with "decriminalization" which I suspect most Americans and Christians have no problem with - laws criminalizing this behavior have been either off the books or not enforced for a long time. What this declaration is obviously about - if you read closely, is assigning special protection and rights to homosexuals - such that they would be treated as a protected "group" and would "criminalize" anything deemed to discriminate. In other words, churches could not preach about homosexuality as being wrong, landlords could not discriminate based on their own beliefs and in general, once again, on the basis of "liberty" what they are actually doing is actually stripping individual liberty.
Yes, let's "decriminalize" homosexuality. In fact, let's also decriminalize polygamy. What consenting adults want to do is their own business and none of the government's, especially the "world" government's business. On the same token, my individual moral code is my right. I'm not forcing my code on anyone, and I am not forcing church attendance on anyone.
We as Christian's have to learn that using the government to further our agenda is a very bad idea - this is a great example of how it WILL turn. Separation of Church and State, in the right context of its original intent, is much more in the interest of the Church than it is the State.
Once again this administration has made me PROUD to be an American. Only God can change that filthy immoral sicko perverted lifestyle into a "non" sin.
Once again this administration makes me ashamed to be an American! The dark ages are almost over, and the enlightenment is finally in sight.
JUST THIRTY MORE DAYS OF THIS MADNESS!