by Mark Silva
Chalk up another reversal of Bush foreign policy for the Obama White House:
The Obama administration today endorsed a Unite Nations statement calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality - which would seem, on the face of it, a justice-minded stance to take - yet something that former President George W. Bush had refused to sign.
The United States had been the only western nation not to sign the declaration at the U.N. General Assembly in December.
"The United States supports the U.N.'s statement on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity and is pleased to join the other 66 U.N. member states who have declared their support of the statement," State Department spokesman Robert Wood said today.
"The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world," Wood said. "As such, we join with other supporters of this statement, and we will continue to remind countries of the importance of respecting the human rights of all people in all appropriate international fora."
Gay rights groups hailed the shift.
""The administration's leadership on this issue will be a powerful rebuke of an earlier Bush administration position that sought to deny the universal application of human rights protections to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals," said Mark Bromley of the Council for Global Equality.
"This is long past overdue and we are encouraged by the signal it sends that the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people will now be considered human rights," said Rea Carey, director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
U.S. officials in December had said that the U.S. opposed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but that parts of the U.N. declaration raised legal questions that needed further review. According to negotiators, the Bush team had concerns that those sections could commit the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction.
In some states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; and gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military.
But "a careful interagency review" by the Obama administration has concluded that "supporting this statement commits us to no legal obligations,'' Wood reports.
In December, 66 of the U.N.'s 192 member nations signed the nonbinding declaration. It drew the support of all 27 European Union members as well as Japan, Australia and Mexico. But 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality -- and in several, homosexual acts can be punished by execution. More than 50 nations, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, opposed the declaration.
Some Islamic countries said at the time 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 was opposed by the Vatican.
The Associated Press provided this report.
Comments
GREAT JOB, President Obama!
It's going to take a lot of hard work and we're going to have to overcome the Wingnut/Corporate media talking point lie of "doing to much" but we will reverse the knuckle-dragging agenda that the Bush Republicans have ruined our country with all in good time.
Posted by: Bill/Jeff | March 18, 2009 5:18 PM
But "a careful interagency review" by the Obama administration has concluded that "supporting this statement commits us to no legal obligations,'' Wood reports.
Hardly a profile in courage by team obama.
Posted by: Bemused | March 18, 2009 6:04 PM
Once again the Secular Humanist / Moralist battle takes concrete form. Those who do not believe in a higher power that imparts moral authority (i.e. atheists) wish to impose their pragmatic morality on those who harbor a belief in the Divinity. This is nothing more than a battle skirmish between these two world views. I rue the day when the small skirmish becomes an all out war.
I find it easy to imagine the future scenario where the Secularists establish another "Gulag" to imprison those who do not bow to the atheist God of Secularism.
Will this happen in my lifetime - perhaps, but the inevitable day of reckoning is coming. And when it arrives, you can kiss the Constitution bye bye.
(P.S. I have attended CFR and Bilderberg meetings - specifically dealing with Capitol allocation for the improvement of global farminfg productivity, and can tell you that what I say above is not said in jest, or to be taken lightly)
Posted by: Bonzo | March 18, 2009 6:12 PM
This will fire up the hate filled Republican base.
Posted by: Judy | March 18, 2009 6:29 PM
Must be copying From Gov. Blago of Illinois.
Posted by: Inky | March 18, 2009 6:42 PM
I'm a staunch Republican and just for the record, I don't care is someone's Gay or not. I do wish that those on the left would stop with the labeling.
Posted by: Kathy | March 18, 2009 6:53 PM
Well if the UN is behind, then we all know it will have plenty of teeth
Posted by: Terry | March 18, 2009 10:01 PM
Wait a minute this article doesn't even contain the wording that Obee agreed with.
This artilce is again so vague and underwritten. Purely from the "reporter's" thought process, not real information.
Posted by: Usual release | March 18, 2009 10:50 PM
"This will fire up the hate filled Republican base."
.
Posted by: Judy | March 18, 2009 6:29 PM
.
Wow. What a fabulously ignorant thing to say, Judy.
Posted by: John W. | March 19, 2009 12:02 AM
Once again the Secular Humanist / Moralist battle takes concrete form. Those who do not believe in a higher power that imparts moral authority (i.e. atheists) wish to impose their pragmatic morality on those who harbor a belief in the Divinity. This is nothing more than a battle skirmish between these two world views. I rue the day when the small skirmish becomes an all out war.
I find it easy to imagine the future scenario where the Secularists establish another "Gulag" to imprison those who do not bow to the atheist God of Secularism.
Will this happen in my lifetime - perhaps, but the inevitable day of reckoning is coming. And when it arrives, you can kiss the Constitution bye bye.
(P.S. I have attended CFR and Bilderberg meetings - specifically dealing with Capitol allocation for the improvement of global farminfg productivity, and can tell you that what I say above is not said in jest, or to be taken lightly)
Posted by: Bonzo | March 18, 2009 6:12 PM
"This will fire up the hate filled Republican base."
.
Posted by: Judy | March 18, 2009 6:29 PM
.
Wow. What a fabulously ignorant thing to say, Judy.
Posted by: John W. | March 19, 2009 12:02 AM
And, just for the record, John W., will we be seeing your response to BONZO's ignorance any time soon? Or doesn't ignorance from the right bother you quite as much?
Posted by: Op109 | March 19, 2009 7:39 AM
"This will fire up the hate filled Republican base."
.
Posted by: Judy | March 18, 2009 6:29 PM
.
Wow. What a fabulously ignorant thing to say, Judy.
Posted by: John W. | March 19, 2009 12:02 AM
It is amazing what a few lost elections can do.........they have become "conservative" AND they love gays. Amazing transformation.
Posted by: bill r. | March 19, 2009 9:30 AM
* * * * * *
Posted by: bill r. | March 19, 2009 9:30 AM
.
I never said I embraced the gay rights agendum wholeheartedly. I am no hypocrite on that account, bill. However, I have never "hated" gays or lesbians either. I once had a roommate who was a lesbian, and she was my best friend. Only our different pursuits in life have managed to put time and distance between us. When we lived together she always had her gay and lesbian friends over. I enjoyed their company. I have also had gay and lesbian clients, and have always given them my very best efforts. Whatever you can call my attitude toward gays and lesbians, it certainly isn’t “hate.” And I haven’t changed my attitude toward them because of any election.
.
That’s why the comment about the measure firing up “the hate filled Republican base” raised my hackles. Such broad, sweeping generalizations are just plainly ignorant. It annoys me to be accused of “hate” by ideologues who don’t think for themselves. Admittedly, SOME Republicans hate and/or are hostile toward gays and lesbians. Then again, there are significant numbers of gays and lesbians who ARE Republicans.
Posted by: John W. | March 19, 2009 10:41 AM
* * * * *
Posted by: Op109 | March 19, 2009 7:39 AM
.
It bothers me to see offensive and ignorant spiel from anyone. However, I simply can’t take enough of Bonzo’s post seriously to comment upon it.
.
The United States has already decriminalized same-sex sexual activity. The Justice of the Supreme Court who wrote the opinion requiring decriminalization (Anthony Kennedy) is a Republican-appointed conservative. Moreover, I also know that a number of fundamentalist ministers are against prosecuting people for same-sex sex, believing tolerance toward the person and reaching out to them is the God-given way. If they don’t believe decriminalization is an attack against God or God-fearing people, then neither do I. Therefore, the fact the United Nations is ready to do the same thing and nothing more is hardly a blow struck against those who believe in a “higher being.” (That last phrase sounds more like something a Mason or an AA 12-stepper might say.) The rest of Bonzo’s bit reads like a sci-fi Illuminati plot, rather than any position I have heard from those on “the right.”
Posted by: John W. | March 19, 2009 10:59 AM
Ignorant people are to be pitied, specifically those dupes who responded to my previous post. Let me explain:
There are those who believe in the Divinity, and whose morality precludes participation in homosexual activity, they actively teach their children and others this. A law such as that proposed by the UN would make such a confession illegal, and as such punishable by incarceration. Given that there are large numbers of individuals who confess such a belief, a Gulag may well be required to incarcerate them (and such a system of incarceration HAS been discussed at Bilderberg meetings – not necessarily for individuals who transgress the above law, more for those that pose a threat to national security, but such a system could easily be employed for other purposes).
By the way, please be courteous enough to not extrapolate from my above post, that myself, or others such as myself, would ever wish to change the laws of the US to criminalize homosexual activity, this is not the case, we are more concerned with having a “confession of faith” made illegal by such UN laws. To not see the truth in what I say is merely being ignorant:- Q.E.D.
PS Most of those who post here are so out of touch with Global political reality, that it is beyond sad, such ignorance is rather, very dangerous. A good place to see this struggle is Russia: the secular humanists want to throw the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church and everyone in it into prison, precisely because they are so vocal in their opposition to many secular humanist positions w.r.t. sexuality. Please wake up and see the real battles that loom on our political horizons.
Posted by: Bonzo | March 19, 2009 12:24 PM
It bothers me to see offensive and ignorant spiel from anyone. However, I simply can’t take enough of Bonzo’s post seriously to comment upon it.
.
Posted by: John W. | March 19, 2009 10:59 AM
.
And "Judy's" comment was so serious that it merited your sage wisdom and attention?
.
I'd agree with you that much of "Bonzo's" post reads Illuminati/Science Fiction/12-Step, but a significant part of the Christian Right (or Social Conservatives, as they sometimes like to be called) DO INDEED have opinions and fears much like "Bonzo's" and depend on a power base that thinks much like they do for their support. I've known of several fundamentalist ministers who are or were markedly intolerant about homosexuality, so knowing that some tolerate gays isn't exactly an overwhelming argument.
.
Yet he didn't deserve your attention but "Judy" did. Well, as opinions go, you're certainly entitled to feeling that way. "Ignorant" "Judy" (who may be quite incorrect as to whether the Republican base is "hate filled" -- or may perhaps be right on the money, depending on the individual) actually managed to be CORRECT that the article got at least one person from the Right "fired up." Still, you're certainly free to comment as you feel proper. Perhaps speculation from the left that the right is likely to comment IS a much more pressing problem than (paranoid?) ranting from the right. I'm sure you'd know better. Thanks for clearing all that up.
Posted by: Op109 | March 19, 2009 12:43 PM
John W. is exactly correct (not unusual). Our Supreme Court has already decided that homosexual conduct cannot be criminalized, so Obama's recognizing this internationally is not all that remarkable.
The more interesting part was nitwit Bush, who in typical, petulant fashion, wouldn't acknowledge something that was, indeed, the "law of the land." So glad to have that drunken clown in the rear view mirror.
Posted by: a blinkin | March 19, 2009 12:55 PM
John W, ignorant is the narrow minded Republican base telling other grown adults that they can't have the same basic rights as they can. Sorry ir you don't like beiing called on your ignorance intolerance, and yes, hate, but I really could care less. If you believe that your so called "Lesbian friend" shouldn't be allowed to marry whoever she wants, then you really aren't any friend of hers. Whydon't you make her sit in the back of the bus, and only drink from the "fags only" water fountain, while you are at it? Equal rights, for ALL, anything less is unacceptable. I'm not going to worry to much about hurting the feelings of people like you who defend discrimination of any kind. Frankly I find you as contemptible as any racist, and I have a feeling your friend would too if you told her that you think she doesn't deserve every single right that you have.
Posted by: Judy | March 19, 2009 3:19 PM
The longer Obama waits the harder it will be to bring legal equality to about 10 % who were born with a little different genome from the rest.
They do vote.
As do the 66% of the Hispanics who voted for him last time.
They in these little groups who are still waiting to see some action.
Posted by: ornery | March 19, 2009 4:00 PM