RSS
Home
Obama to sign UN gay rights declaration; Opponents parrot Santorum and Rick Warren
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
(AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
In what is truly a breath of fresh air in the realm of global human rights, the Associated Press is reporting that the Obama administration intends to sign on to a United Nations Declaration calling for the decriminalization of homosexuality around the world.
The non-binding declaration, echoing the first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights," affirms that "human rights apply equally to every human being regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity." It denounces violence, harassment, and exclusion, and calls upon the nations of the world "and relevant international human rights mechanisms to commit to promote and protect human rights of all persons, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity."
Originally introduced by France in December of 2008, the Bush administration refused to add the U.S. to the declaration, despite all 27 European Union states plus 39 others joining in support. American apologists for the previous administration's snubbing of the declaration based their reticence on technical legal matters, and in a troubling echo of past defenses of racial segregation, worried that the federal government would be compelled to overturn state-based discrimination of LGBT Americans, which of course would have been unthinkable.
But to put the Bush team's concerns into perspective, per the New York Times in December:
“How can we tolerate the fact that people are stoned, hanged, decapitated and tortured only because of their sexual orientation?” said Rama Yade, the French state secretary for human rights, noting that homosexuality is banned in nearly 80 countries and subject to the death penalty in at least six.
Richard Grenell, a gay Republican and former spokesman for the U.S.'s mission to the U.N., told the Washington Times last year that the administration's concerns were "a huge stretch" and "ignore[d] the purpose of the resolution, which is to make sure that people are not killed or oppressed just because they are gay. . . Common sense says that we should be the leader in making sure other governments grant more freedoms to their people."
Who else was opposed -- and remains opposed -- to the idea of the decriminalization of homosexuality and differences in gender identity? Many of the usual suspects; such forward-looking governments as those of Russia, China, Rwanda, North Korea, Libya, and Iran, among many others, as 70 nations today astoundingly consider homosexuality a criminal offense.
And not surprisingly, there is particular resistance from the U.N.'s Organization of the Islamic Conference. Per the AP:
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 was also opposed by the Vatican.
Not to paint too broad a brush, but these concerns about homosexuality do ring somewhat familiar to American ears, do they not?
. . . if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. . . . It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.
That golden oldie is from former senator Rick Santorum in 2003. (Did you know that it was national Awkward Moment Day? Seems fitting to bring up Santorum's quote today, doesn't it?) But something else about this line of critique feels more recent. If only I could remember...
I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.
That would be the 2009 inaugural invocation speaker, Rick Warren, just last year. In these instances the case of marriage is the focus (though Sen. Santorum also spoke more broadly in the aforementioned interview about the state's right to curb private "passions" in the bedroom), but my point is simply that the same line of argument that conservatives have used to marginalize the LGBT community (equating it with incest, pedophelia and other crimes) are now being used by the OIC to excuse their outright criminalization. I don't think that folks like Santorum and Warren want to put people in jail for being gay, but their weird logic is being applied to that very goal, and much, much worse.
And this OIC is the same OIC that is responsible for the reprehensible "anti-blasphemy law," the U.N. resolution that is supposed to crack down on "defamation of religion" worldwide, giving cover to governments that would criminalize criticism of religion and religious tenets. I have covered this issue more thoroughly in my other column.
But as I said at the outset, the Obama administration's embrace of this new declaration is important, and helps to lessen the sting of knowing that the U.S. sat the declaration out when originally introduced. The administration has also wisely refused to sign on to the "anti-blasphemy" resolution, and is skipping a sham conference in Geneva, purportedly about combating racism, but which is really another theatrical exercise in cracking down on heresy by theocrats.
Today, I am proud that the United States joins the enlightened world in calling for the decriminalization of the planet's LGBT citizens. I hope it is a sign of better days to come.
Special Report: Obama's First 100 DaysExclusive examiner.com coverage of the Obama administration's promise to bring about change.
Related Articles:
Comments
