Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Bush administration refused to vote for a UN resolution urging nations to decriminalize homosexuality.
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.
This is absolutely appalling. Backing a federal marriage amendment to ban same-sex marriage is bad enough; refusing to support not throwing gay people in prison - or worse, stoning them to death in some nations - is infinitely worse. And their arguments in defending their position are patently absurd:
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.
Incredible. One can only hope that Obama will reverse that position if and when this resolution comes up for a vote next year, as it likely will.
Politics
Comments
First you give them human rights, and next thing you know, you'll have to treat them as humans... It's the Bushist version of "a slippery slope" argument.
Posted by: MarkusR | December 22, 2008 10:01 AM
The really pathetic thing is that this will be used by the hysterical Christianist sites as further "proof" of the vast UN conspiracy against Christianity.
Posted by: schism | December 22, 2008 10:33 AM
Yawn.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | December 22, 2008 11:20 AM
Well! I'll bet one young man is just too happy for words with this early Christmas present. Hatred dresses up as caution, is that some sort of "legal drag"?
Posted by: democommie | December 22, 2008 11:33 AM
I fail to see how a nonbinding resolution that merely ASKS nation-states to decriminalize something interferes with our individual states' rights to disagree. A transparent sophistry.
Posted by: BobApril | December 22, 2008 11:50 AM
Carolyn Vadino's statement at the end got my attention. "We support human rights... What's that? Put it in writing? Lets not get crazy here."
Of course getting the Bush administration to sign something condemning human right's violations is a bit like getting a boa to condemn the use of constriction. So I can't say I'm surprised.
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 22, 2008 12:02 PM
I think that any UN resolution that our government wants to agree to should be put on a ballet and voted on by the people of this country. But then again, if liberals don't get the vote they wanted they will just take it to a court and let a handful of judges decided what they think the people meant. So may as well let a single person, the President, decide what is best for the country...sounds more and more like a dictatorship everyday.
Posted by: Mike_C | December 22, 2008 12:06 PM
Extremely embarrassing. We can only hope that Obama will act differently.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 22, 2008 12:07 PM
Mike_C, the majority doesn't get to decide whether a given minority gets equal protection under the law. That is simply not how things are supposed to work. Gay people are entitled to equal legal protection even if 99.9% of the country is still vehemently bigoted against them. The same is true for black people, women, etc.
Posted by: Tercel | December 22, 2008 1:12 PM
I assume you meant "ballot", although the idea of illustrating U.N. resolutions through interpretive dance is certainly an amusing proposal. The reason we don't do this is essentially the same reason we don't have a pure democracy where every specific matter is voted on by the general electorate: it just isn't logistically feasible. In this case there are just too many U.N. resolutions and their legal import is virtually nil. The expense cannot be justified.
The purpose of judges is not to decide what the people mean. It is to decide what the law means, and with good reason. There are rights guaranteed in our most basic laws that cannot be abrogated by simple Acts of Congress or Executive Orders. Look up Marbury v. Madison. When laws are at odds with the Constitution, either we hold those laws invalid or we hold the Constitution to be void.
This is a principle that ought to be supported by any person, liberal or conservative, with an ounce of sense. No matter who you are, there is always some way to slice the pie that puts you in a minority position.
I agree, that is perhaps the signature sentiment for describing the Bush administration.
Posted by: DaveL | December 22, 2008 1:17 PM
apparently, the us isn't feeling conciliatory towards basic human rights at the moment.
and
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gashc3941.doc.htm
Posted by: arin | December 22, 2008 1:17 PM
How do they get from decriminalization to "this could cause problems for our desire to discriminate"? Is there a reading comprehension problem?! Some are free to descriminate gays under current federal laws -- but they are not free to arrest gays! This is sickening. How is it my country can keep ending up on the same side of these signings as those we declare as being "uncivilized". *sigh*
Posted by: Kelly | December 22, 2008 1:26 PM
"But then again, if liberals don't get the vote they wanted they will just take it to a court and let a handful of judges decided what they think the people meant."
So you think CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS should be voted on? Are you kidding me? The majority shouldn't be able to vote on the rights of the minority. CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS should be a given. Because they aren't, the court has to intervene. Period.
Posted by: marilove | December 22, 2008 1:41 PM
Are you suggesting that conservatives don't use the courts to overturn laws they don't like? Sorry, but judicial review is used by both sides in equal measure. It's probably just that when the argument is one you agree with you're likely to think of it as seeking justice and when you disagree it's activism.
As one point of evidence, here's a breakdown by Supreme Court Justice of how often they voted to strike down an existing law. It's from 2005.
Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O'Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %
As you can see, the Justices usually thought of as conservative were significantly more likely to vote to overrule the will of the people than the liberals. Personally I think that's fine. Judicial review is an important check against tyranny.
(Sorry to belabor a point made by others. Those posts came up while I was searching for my numbers and after doing the homework I'm certainly going to turn it in. ;-) )
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 22, 2008 1:48 PM
In regard to the de-criminalization of homosexuality and numerous other issues, I hope the world realizes that the U.S.A. and George W. Bush are not the same thing, and his attitudes don't represent the majority of Americans.Once the new administration comes in, we can begin the long-awaited process of De-Bushification.
Posted by: Raymond Minton | December 22, 2008 2:53 PM
Does this "declaration" really mean anything? Are we going to see UN troops in Iran saving men from being hanged for having sex with each other?
Yea - didn't think so. While I agree that the Bush administration is being complete morons on the issue - I find it hard to get worked up about a non-binding "declaration" - especially coming from the UN.
Posted by: yoshi | December 22, 2008 2:55 PM
Tercel: you can not compare a sexual preference to the color of your skin or to the sex (male or female) of a person, if you don't believe me google Alveda Kind :
"GEORGE TIBBITS
The Columbian
09-11-1997
SEATTLE -- Gay rights cannot be equated with black civil rights, the niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said as she spoke out against a ballot initiative to ban employment discrimination against homosexuals.
Alveda Celeste King of Atlanta appeared along with about two dozen other leaders and members of black fundamentalist churches to oppose Initiative 677, which will be on the November ballot in Washington.
Human sexuality is a moral and not a civil rights issue, she said."
I would also like to point out that she is in favor of gays being allowed to have civil unions, but she rightly points out that you can not equate "gay rights" with the rights of blacks or women.
Posted by: Mike_C | December 22, 2008 3:54 PM
yoshi: Fair point, but it's the principle of the thing. It doesn't have any particularly notable actionable effects, true, but there's absolutely no reason to vote against it, wouldn't you agree?
Posted by: Sean | December 22, 2008 4:05 PM
:"Tercel: you can not compare a sexual preference to the color of your skin or to the sex (male or female) of a person, if you don't believe me google Alveda Kind"
Sure you can. Shockingly enough, merely being related to a famous figure in the civil rights movement does not give you any more expertise than the average man. Alveda Celeste King is spouting off her nonsense and anyone citing her as a useful source is engaged a rank appeal to authority where none exists.
Posted by: I am so wise | December 22, 2008 4:40 PM
Just because someone said it, Mike_C, does not make it true. Being gay is not a choice. Period. Just like being black or a woman is not a choice.
And if she is for civil unions, why is she against gay MARRIAGE? Don't say "moral and religious reasons!" because, last time I checked, the GOVERNMENT is the one that issued MARRIAGE LICENSES, and not a church.
It offends me greatly that RELIGION is more protected than being gay. Ridiculous and unacceptable.
Posted by: marilove | December 22, 2008 4:40 PM
It's like Dinesh D'Souza's dream come true ... "Patriarchal" Muslim fundamentalits joining forces with Christian nationalists to fight the evil forces of liberals and their dastardly notion of "human rights."
This is from 2002
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/ci_unite.htm
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | December 22, 2008 4:49 PM
The UN's first problem is it thinks it's someone's government. It is not and never will be.
Another problem is that even if countries think that they have some sort of authority, one size fits all never works for every country where customs are different.
If you truly believe in live and let live, you would disband the UN and tell them to get the hell out of the USA and leave us alone.
No one is bothering gays here, just don't make more government because of them. You don't get your rights from government, only phony rights that give you financial benefits. I think that is what most people are opposed to when governments make rules regarding SEXUAL relationships!!!!!!
Those of you who are so quick to use the UN for your 'rights' are going to someday wake up and find out just how the UN is taking them away as well. Read the UDHR and pay special attention to #29.
Good grief. Someone needs to outlaw the UN.
Posted by: NH | December 22, 2008 4:56 PM
So, NH, your logic is this:
National governments banning gay people = not too much government.
International government objecting to above = OH NOES! THE UN! TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT!
Is that right?
Posted by: Ben | December 22, 2008 5:05 PM
NH,
Your tinfoil hat is starting to slip already. You should back away from you computer and keep watch for the UN black helicopters that will soon be coming for you.
Posted by: Paul Snyder | December 22, 2008 5:11 PM
Really? So what you're saying is that we don't even need a Constitution? The fact that you think rights exist in principal should just... be enough? Legal recognition is just a bunch of "phony" made-up stuff that no one cares about?
Do you mean like how the 14th Amendment was just a bunch of phony stuff that did nothing but give African-Americans a few helpful but unnecessary financial gains?
Absolutely unbelievable. How old are you?
It's a non-binding resolution, Eintein. And it isn't about the government giving us rights, it's about the government respecting them. In practical terms, it ain't phony. If you think it is, try living somewhere like Saudi Arabia or Darfur.
And if it's all just a bunch of phony crap that no one needs the government to recognize anyway, what exactly could the UN take away? With a non-binding resolution, of all things?
Posted by: Leni | December 22, 2008 7:42 PM
Dammit. I misspelled my insult. I should have just stuck with "asshole", lol.
Posted by: Leni | December 22, 2008 7:44 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-27-hatecrimes_N.htm
Nope, no "bothering" going on here. Move along, folks...
So why do heterosexual couples get to have these "phony rights that give you financial benefits", but not gay couples? No matter what you think about government recognition of marriage, you have to admit there is a fundamental inequality here.
So, you would be in favour of dropping government recognition for all marriages, then?
Posted by: DaveL | December 22, 2008 8:32 PM
"...you can not compare a sexual preference to the color of your skin or to the sex (male or female) of a person..."
I don't. They are different, and nobody argues that. However, this makes no difference regarding what rights may be chosen by popular vote. It is wrong to discriminate against anybody based on anything, unless their choices infringe on the same freedoms as applied to others. Period.
Some have mentioned that homosexuality is not a choice. I happen to agree with this, but it doesn't make a bit of difference. Lets assume homosexuality is a choice; it is still not up to the majority to decide how the law applies specifically to gays.
Need I point out that religion is most certainly a choice, yet I assume you'd be outraged if some religious groups were not allowed to marry?
Posted by: Tercel | December 22, 2008 9:29 PM
I should clarify my above statement. Sexual orientation is different from race -- in the same way that race is different from gender, or that gender is different from religion, in terms of their use as a basis for discrimination. They are different in that well, obviously, they are different aspects of a person. That is the full extent to which they are different. All are completely unacceptable as a basis for discrimination, just like any other aspect of a person or the life he/she has chosen.
Posted by: Tercel | December 22, 2008 9:33 PM
Makes the US look pretty bad siding with nosebleed nations of the middle east and africa along with the communist nations. Even Cuba (a communist nation) signed up. At least Bush will be gone soon and human rights will be able to continue to progress in the US which has generally been a slacker in human rights progress compared to places like the UK and Canada
Posted by: Adam | December 23, 2008 2:54 AM
I'm sure the Bush administration is surprised to find that they still have a mission to the UN.
Posted by: Ex-drone | December 23, 2008 7:52 AM
Need money? Go to Saudi Arabia and sell your daughters.
What the hell is the U.N. doing speaking out against such things? Women are our property, we can do what we want with them.
Posted by: Joel | December 23, 2008 8:34 AM
Mike C -
Are you sure you want to bring the King family into this discussion?
Posted by: DuWayne | December 23, 2008 9:02 AM
I think it's safe to conclude that Mike_C's comments fit the conditions described by the "mroberts corollary" and just let it go at that.
Posted by: democommie | December 23, 2008 9:54 AM
@DaveL:
Actually, maybe Mike DID mean "ballet"--maybe he feels that a travelling dance company could raise awareness of gay rights much better than a non-binding UN resolution.
I can see it now: O Noes Gays! Teh Musakal Someone page Lloyd-Webber!
Of course, you'd have to make it a travelling company. They're short of good choreographers, dancers, and decorators in many of the nations that most need to hear the message, for some reason.
Posted by: Metro | December 23, 2008 12:37 PM
First my typing skills should be blatantly obvious, spell check does its best but every program has it's limits.
marilove: homosexual relationship is a choice, how is it not?
I mentioned the quote from Alveda King because she has spent a good portion of her life fighting against discrimination, and yes so has Correta, but Correta has notably taken her cause beyond civil rights to include homosexual rights. As for Dr Martin Luther Kind Jr, he never talked directly about gay rights, to the best of my understanding and I am hopeful that if I am wrong someone can point me to the proof. But historically black rights activists have not viewed gay rights as a civil rights issue. An article about Correta also documented:
"more than two dozen black pastors rallied against gay marriage at a church in Atlanta, attempting to distance the civil rights struggle from the gay rights movement. They signed a declaration outlining their beliefs that marriage should remain a union between a man and a woman.
"To equate a lifestyle choice to racism demeans the work of the entire civil rights movement," the statement said. "People are free in our nation to pursue relationships as they choose. To redefine marriage, however, to suit the preference of those choosing alternative lifestyles is wrong."
Posted by: Mike_C | December 23, 2008 2:39 PM
Did you think someone who agitates for civil rights for one group could not be bigoted against another? I'm sorry to burst your bubble.
Homosexual rights is not beyond or in any way separate from civil rights. The fight for homosexual rights is simply the fight for the civil rights of homosexual people. All distinctions between the two are necessarily artificial.
Some black homophobes have attempted to justify their hypocrisy by claiming homosexuality is a choice while race is not. This is at best a red herring, and at worst ignores the very reason racism is morally wrong. Let me illustrate:
Imagine that I were to invent a pill that would turn black people white. This pill would not only change a person's physiological characteristics, but also replace their speech mannerisms and cultural memories with a suitably white-bread background. This pill would essentially offer black people the choice to be white.
Now, would the introduction of this pill make it morally right to discriminate against black people? Could we bring back the "Whites Only" sign without further moral qualms? For any right-thinking person, not only would it not justify racism, this pill would be an abomination in itself.
Why? Because the reason racism is wrong is not that race isn't a choice. Being black is not some kind of offence which we excuse because the offender can't control it. No, discrimination against black people is wrong because there is nothing wrong with being black, because being black is equal in dignity and human worth to being white.
It then follows that attempts to distinguish between civil rights for black and civil rights for homosexuals based on "choice" are based on a false premise and are therefore unsound.
Posted by: DaveL | December 23, 2008 3:00 PM
Mike C -
I mentioned the quote from Alveda King because she has spent a good portion of her life fighting against discrimination, and yes so has Correta, but Correta has notably taken her cause beyond civil rights to include homosexual rights.
I mention Coretta because she was just as strong a civil rights leader as her daughter. And she didn't just support gay rights, she made the comparison that you wish we wouldn't. Honestly, I could care less what either of them feel/felt about the issue. You're the one who started the name dropping. My point is that Alveda doesn't speak for the whole anti-discrimination movement.
And while I hesitate to mention them, because I'm not a big fan, both Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are proponents of gay rights, who have also made the same equation that Coretta did.
But lets talk about the choice to be gay. Tell me Mike C, when did you decide you would prefer women over men? What exactly made you decide to be straight? You mention that you were once an atheist. Were you into dick when you were an atheist? Or did you decide you would rather be attracted to women before that?
I can tell you this much, I don't know a single gay person who just up and decided to be gay. And let me tell you, I know a lot of fucking queers. A lot, lot. On top of that, I never decided to not be attracted to men - I'm just not. Not only did I not try not to, when I discovered that the one generalized group of people who accepted me as fucking weird as I was, were gays - I thought I might try it. It just didn't work. Why? Because as wonderful and accepting of me as most gays were and are, I'm not a homosexual.
There are plenty of questions about why homosexuals are homosexuals, but there is no serious academic questioning of whether it's a choice or not. There are in fact, mountains of evidence that it's not.
As for it not being natural, that too is a load of bullshit. Strange as it may sound, there are literally thousands of species of animals that engage in bi-sexual behaviors. Even stranger, there are also species that include entirely homosexual individuals in their ranks. That's right, there are animals out there that not only will have sexual relations with members of the same sex, there are animals that won't have sexual relations with members of the opposite sex.
So again, when did you decide not to be gay?
Posted by: DuWayne | December 23, 2008 3:57 PM
Well DaveL and DuWayne did a much better job of making the argument I was trying to make, so I'm not going to step on their toes, except to make one addition.
The whole argument for gay civil rights works equally as well even if we allow, for the purpose of this discussion, that homosexuality were a choice.
Think about it; what major personal choice is always well protected by law? Religion.
Can you imagine if somebody suggested that Jews were not allowed to marry? Or Muslims? or even... Christians? There would be outrage of a magnitude not before seen in this country. Yet clearly, religion is a choice.
Even better, all the arguments against homosexuality are based on religion.
Sorry to overuse italics.
Posted by: Tercel | December 24, 2008 4:26 AM
homosexual relationship is a choice, how is it not?
Inter-racial relationship is a choice, how is it not?
"To equate a lifestyle choice to racism demeans the work of the entire civil rights movement," the statement said. "People are free in our nation to pursue relationships as they choose. To redefine marriage, however, to suit the preference of those choosing alternative lifestyles is wrong."
So, these people opposed Loving vs Virginia?
Posted by: Donalbain | December 24, 2008 9:23 AM