Right - we're talking about countries where you can be thrown in jail for life or KILLED for being gay. This differs greatly from what is stated above as being OK in the US. Granted, it's still despicable that states are free to sponsor discrimination, and that the Federal branch continues to openly sponsor it in the military. But you'd think we'd be able to sign a document that essentially says "Hey, let's not kill or imprison a dude just for liking other dudes, OKAY THANKS GUYS."
But you'd think we'd be able to sign a document that essentially says "Hey, let's not kill or imprison a dude just for liking other dudes, OKAY THANKS GUYS."
It took a while, but I finally found what the document actually says; it was remarkably resistant to Googling (or maybe I just suck). I found it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_declaration_on_LGBT_rights. I couldn't find an official source for the declaration. I did find a second source that matches what's on WP, so what's there is probably the real deal.
The best reference I've seen to the reason that the U.S. did not sighn the declaration is from http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/19/america/gays.php : The official U.S. position was based on highly technical legal grounds. The text, by using terminology like "without distinction of any kind," was too broad because it might be interpreted as an
( ... )
Truly your Google-fu is mighty - I couldn't find the dang thing on the UN site or anywhere. Reading it over now (and echoing your "I'm no big-city lawyer" disclaimer), I see little to no impact on the US. Even if there is, I find the fact that I live in a country where such a declaration can be rejected because it violates our own beliefs appalling.
Re: Diabolical AdvocacytonyvilaDecember 19 2008, 19:46:05 UTC
Come on, Greenman. Nobody is talking about enforcing tolerance. Nobody is asking for International Hug a Homo Day. The resolution (as astutely found by servingdonuts above - I couldn't find it) is pretty clearly against violations of human rights. We have, as a nation, stepped up and spoken out against violations of human rights consistently. I will refrain from the easy, Godwin-compelling argument here, but there are many examples.
My point is not that this resolution should be globally accepted. My point is that a nation that is ostensibly for freedom, equality and democracy should have no problem asking other nations to maybe stop killing queers. Just sayin'.
Comments 8
Reply
Right - we're talking about countries where you can be thrown in jail for life or KILLED for being gay. This differs greatly from what is stated above as being OK in the US. Granted, it's still despicable that states are free to sponsor discrimination, and that the Federal branch continues to openly sponsor it in the military. But you'd think we'd be able to sign a document that essentially says "Hey, let's not kill or imprison a dude just for liking other dudes, OKAY THANKS GUYS."
Reply
It took a while, but I finally found what the document actually says; it was remarkably resistant to Googling (or maybe I just suck). I found it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_declaration_on_LGBT_rights. I couldn't find an official source for the declaration. I did find a second source that matches what's on WP, so what's there is probably the real deal.
The best reference I've seen to the reason that the U.S. did not sighn the declaration is from http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/19/america/gays.php :
The official U.S. position was based on highly technical legal grounds. The text, by using terminology like "without distinction of any kind," was too broad because it might be interpreted as an ( ... )
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Come on, Greenman. Nobody is talking about enforcing tolerance. Nobody is asking for International Hug a Homo Day. The resolution (as astutely found by servingdonuts above - I couldn't find it) is pretty clearly against violations of human rights. We have, as a nation, stepped up and spoken out against violations of human rights consistently. I will refrain from the easy, Godwin-compelling argument here, but there are many examples.
My point is not that this resolution should be globally accepted. My point is that a nation that is ostensibly for freedom, equality and democracy should have no problem asking other nations to maybe stop killing queers. Just sayin'.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment