Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Balks at Backing Condemnation of Anti-Gay Laws
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.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual associations rally for the global decriminalization of homosexual relationships, in Seville December 15, 2008. The banner reads, "The Vatican kills us, Global decriminalization of homosexuality".(Reuters/Marcelo del Pozo/Spain)
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.
- Posted in
22 Comments so far
Show AllWhat can you expect from the bush extreme christian right wing controlled group of criminals. Anything that has to do with Civil Rights will not be tolorated by that bunch. Destroy the planet, rape the environment, use up our natural resources, kill non-christians and anyone else that is not part of their 'group-think' mentality is the destructive course that they put the US on.
The bush probably thinks "What the Hell, those are just homosexuals and they should not be allowed to co-exist with us normal folks, after all, they're non-people, and we have to keep watch on everybodies bedroom activities."
'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."'
I think it's high time "existing human norms" were challenged, and if there is uncertainty in the law, then it needs to be challenged as well!
Conservatives rule, unfortunately.
A better explanation would be the Federal government can't sign that because it is each states right to decide. They don't have the power to do it.
Thomas you just love to have it both ways don't you?
I remember when I was a child, segregation, against people who had a dark skin, whether Negro (old term now) Native American, or others, was the norm, especially in your beloved Texas.
The Federal Government made it against the Law to discriminate on those conditions.
The same should apply for Gays and Lesbians, as it does with race.
For one important reason.
No one chooses their race.
If you are one of those who insists that Homosexuality is a choice; then that opens the question : When did "Thomas Moore" choose to be a heterosexual?
List the date below your response.
Have heart, your lack of factual information can be alleviated with "facts",
perhaps you need to seek some new sources for information.
The choice vs genetics issue is a red herring. A red herring used by those who oppose full and equal rights for GLBT people. It doesn't matter. Utterly meaningless.
The key issue is: are GLBT fully equal human citizens?
If yes, why should not GLBT have the same, not similar, but the same, human rights as other humans?
The people who oppose full equal human rights for GLBT people, no matter the pretty rhetoric they use, no matter the legal principles they hide behind, basically do not believe that GLBT are fully equal human citizens.
"...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."
In other words, we can't condemn anti-gay laws and discriminatory actions on a global scale because we already have so many of them back at home. And they're not ashamed to say this? Why don't they just come out and say what they really mean: "We don't believe gay people should enjoy equal human rights."
Action is powerful-- but so is non-action. We are sending a clear message to the rest of the world. Shame on us...again. Shame on the Vatican...again.
Though it's abominable that the U.S. opposed the statement, the statement itself is a grand historic victory - the first time the U.N. has spoken out for LGBT rights. We can celebrate this moment, even as we deplore official U.S. homophobia.
There is no reason to discriminate against any person who is God's creation. We are all human beings and the gay and lesbian members of my family and everyone else's deserve no less than complete human rights. Shame on the US.
No surprise here, none whatsoever, sad to say....
Sadly, the people most against gays are so out of fear of being outed.
"The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors." Thomas Jefferson
Edward, you're right about Bush, but what about Obama? Sure, he said some nice things about gays during the campaign, but he's invited Rick Warren to instruct the Almighty to be nice to Obama and America--of course without expecting us to change our warmongering ways. I think Obama wants so much to be liked that he's trying to be all things to all people, so he'll shy away from anything too controversial which, in America alone amongst developed countries, includes gay rights.
Alex
What I don't understand is, if this resolution is supposed to oppose the criminalization of homosexuality, how exactly does that contradict the lack of non-discrimination laws in some states and the ban against gays in the military? As far as my understanding of decriminalization is concerned - and I believe most are familiar with the term in relationship to drugs or prostitution - it doesn't even mean the laws come off the books. It simply means there is nominal or no penalty. Nowhere in the meaning of decriminalization is there the requirement for the passage of a non-discrimination law - it's as if to say passage of marijuana decriminalization would mean states would be forced to pass laws banning drug tests for pilots or the military would need to make it freely available to servicemen/women. Common sense and current practice would indicate otherwise.
If the United States can't get behind the basic idea that someone does not deserve to be put to death or imprisoned for life for being gay, what does that mean to this American? The government has just told me it feels, under the right circumstances, it is justified in killing me where I stand. That is to say, yes we can? And has there been any sort of condemnation of this insinuation from the incoming administration? Oh I just feel *so* optimistic about the next 4 years, you know, they might even let us keep our jobs if we're good.
I wonder how how Evangelicals and Catholics would enjoy second class citizenship for a few centuries.
VERY TRUE - The theocrats who use the power of gov to restrict, control, and limit the freedoms and rights of ALL Americans are clearly a highly organized movement.
THEY won't stop until we realize these people want to control the freedoms and bedroom lives of all Americans - this isn't only about gays or women and their right to control their bodies - it's about all of us being able to live our lives as WE SEE FIT, rather than being lectured and controlled by the evangelical VICE AND VIRTURE brigades...as if we lived in SAUDI ARABI or IRAN
WE ALL have to face up to the fact that there are segments of our society who are highly religious and dogmatically intolerant of those who don't share their narrow, small-minded beliefs.
They aren't satisfied w/ living their lives according to their ultra-orthodox religious beliefs, but want to use the power and force of government to control the rest of us.
At first these people look like reasonable, as they dress in suits and speak of god's love, but we must understand their agenda - THEOCRACY [which is the very definition of using the gov to impose you're religious beliefs on others]
Wake up to the presence of the AMERICAN TALIBAN
I have always tried to question conventional wisdom. It is 99% impossible because it's like the air you breath; it's all around, there is never a single minute when it is not being reinforced.
I remember clearly the few times when I did pull it off, just because they are so few. And then too those little diamonds in the sand prove to me that I am not-at least not fully 100% a member of the herd.
When I was in graduate school the science and psychology textbooks said homosexuality was a mental disorder. I didn't believe it then, but some of the queers who read the same books believed it.
It is unbelievable how much extreme nonsense we will accept as factual just because somebody says so. All experts are frauds. They don't know anything (except what they have been told) but they wicked enough to ruin the lives of others just to spout their pet theories, witness Milton the financial wizard.
What we have to realize is that, for the most part, politicians seeking power are all to glad to pander to one side of the issue or other. The republicans have successfully used gay marriage as a wedge issue to win elections, and abandoned the majority of their base after winning, catering mainly to elitist interests. Karl Rove was/is a genius as exploiting wedge mentality. Gays, for their part, see elections as an opportunity to get attention for their cause, and play right into the hands of this strategy. On both sides, spears are held high, and polarization is extreme. Extremists (on the left and right) hurl vicious labels at one another, and relegate each other (in their own way) to the fires of perdition, meaning condemnation. Within the present battling climate there can be no meaningful dialog, no compromise--it's all or nothing. We live in a very violent and aggressive culture, where every issue, every movement is framed as a 'fight' or 'battle' for this or against that. Politicians are all too glad to exploit those on both sides of the issue; it's a divide and conquer mentality on just about every issue. Additionally, the self-righteous (on both sides) do not see themselves as 'aggressive,' and feeding the negativity of the other. No, they are the righteous warriors of a worthy cause.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,"
-- Martin Luther King Jnr, Letter from a Birmingham Jail
"Justice too long delayed, is justice denied"
-- Martin Luther King Jnr, Letter from a Birmingham Jail, quoting William Gladstone
Man, what a self-righteous extremist MLK was.
We are so grateful every day that we have emigrated to Spain from USAmerica! My partner and I of 18 years (homosexuals) now have complete civil, social and human rights, including marriage - not "partnership" or "union" etc., but equal marriage rights. We can sit anywhere we want to on this wonderful, progressive Spanish bus thanks to our wonderful and humane Socialist president and his party. In the US, our country of birth, we were never allowed on the bus (although they have always been happy to take our money!) Now Obama has said he wants to allow us on the USAmerican bus, just kindly take any available seat in the back please, it appears so far.
Fortunately, the world looks more and more to the European Union for leadership in human/civil rights, the fight against global climate change and more sensible and humane economic policies. In a worldwide poll not long ago, when asked, the vast majority of people polled said the USAmerica was the biggest hindrance to peace and stability in the world, while a majority said that the European Union was a force for good in the world. That says it all. All EU countries voted for this UN resolution. All Eu countries do not have the death penalty, provide health care to all their citizens, must provide veterinarians in all slaughter houses to monitor cruelty, must adopt strict regulations for the humane treatment of farm animals, just to name a few things it surpasses the US on in the progressive field.
The USAmerica leads the world in military spending and agression and the spread of state-sponsored terrorism for decades (Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Congo, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Panama, and many other places on the globe with the assassination of elected leaders and the installation/support of rightwing dictators. It even has backed NATO in funding/directing rightwing paramilitary squads operating all over Europe since the end of WWII to assassinate, intimidate and destabilize leftwing governments and leaders, and force into power more conservative governments and policies. All the while blaming leftist groups for the bloodshed and chaos. Google "Gladio" for the one operating in Italy. They have been operating in most EU countries. Shame!) The US has sided with the worst of the world's countries on other occasions too, in the opposition of UN resolutions to ban land mines, to protect children from exploitation, to ban child-killing cluster bombs and others. Since when was the US ever a leader for good in the world? Oh, would that it were. Maybe Obama really will make a change. We'll wait to see before we jump on the bandwagon.
In the meantime, we pray that the European Union will become the world's only super power and that this really is the century of Europe, as many say it is. The EU is not perfect but it really is trying to make the world a better place, not just giving lip-service. It has renounced its colonial past and has attempted to make reparations, while the US continues with its agressive neo-colonialism. With the EU in the lead there is truly hope for a better world after all these centuries of darkness and war and suffering in the world. (PS: It is interesting to note that the USA could not even qualify to be a member of the EU because it allows the death penalty, does not prohibit discrimination against gay and lesbian people, doesn't provide health care to all its citizens and has such a horrendous national debt etc.)
I am glad you found what you percieve as home. I am sorry if you were persecuted for your beliefs and actions.
I ask, what is marriage to you? What does it mean, and what does being Gay and Married do for Gay people? You cannot have children together naturally, so you cannot continue your lineage.
I do not know what marriage means to a Gay person because I am not Gay. I can only guess. My guess would be acceptance.
There are many people in the US, and those that have already left that are not happy with what the US is doing, and few of these believe Obama will be any different. However to use these things to justify discrimination against Gay people is silly. One has nothing to do with the other.
I am not a person basher. I believe everyone should have equal rights to some extent. Some extent because I do not think a women would make a good soldier. Good because she is more likely to be captured and raped for the rest of her life than a male soldier. I do not think children should become soldiers. There are many things that need limitations for good reasons. We should not allow children to marry, cousins to marry, etc.
I am interested in hearing back your reply, as I continue to learn more about others.
FreeThinker from Spain: thanks for the compliment, but I would rather not see the EU become the new super-power, we've seen what happened to the US when it happened to that country. I would rather see the EU become an example to the rest of the world if we keep up the good work, and not just with regards to homosexuality.
When I picked up my boy-friend at Amsterdam airport he hugged and kissed me for the first time in public, and he lives in the UK where more people seem to have a problem with guys kissing then they do over here in Holland, but we have our share of bigots, too.