U.S. Signs U.N. Gay Human Rights Document

[True_Avery]

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE52H5CK20090318?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=10112

 

66 of the 168 UN Members have signed, but 70 Members still have homosexuality outlawed, and in many it can be punished via execution. America is the last western country to sign after the Bush administration refused to sign back in December due to fears that it would force American States to reconsider same-sex marriage.

 

With this and the Bill of Rights, I may actually be allowed to marry in this lifetime.

[EnderWiggin]

*applause*

 

Well done, Mr. President.

 

_EW_

[mimartin]

I hope this is a step forward in making all Americans and all the people of the world equal.

 

Shame on us for being the last western nation to sign it.

[Rogue Nine]

America is the last western country to sign after the Bush administration refused to sign back in December due to fears that it would force the US to give homosexuals equal rights.

The fact that this is true is really quite pathetic and speaks volumes about how awful we were doing back then with regards to basic civil rights and liberties.

 

Good to see that President Obama is taking big strides in the right direction. I'm still hoping and praying that he'll shoot down DOMA at some point and give gay couples a chance at all the federal benefits that have been taken away from them.

 

With this and the Bill of Rights, I may actually be allowed to marry in this lifetime.

omg can I be the flower girl at your wedding, Avery? plz plz plz <3

[Tommycat]

Not that I disagree with giving equal rights to the GLBT community, but your characterization of opposition being that it would "force the US to give homosexuals equal rights" is somewhat misleading. The opposition would be that it would again step on states rights as it is the states' right to determine marital standards.

 

Of course either way, it is a step in the right direction. I mean that to say that we do not allow different treatment of minorities. Why should sexual orientation be different.

[True_Avery]

Not that I disagree with giving equal rights to the GLBT community, but your characterization of opposition being that it would "force the US to give homosexuals equal rights" is somewhat misleading. The opposition would be that it would again step on states rights as it is the states' right to determine marital standards.

Not so much misleading as a matter of opinion I'd think. Some think of it as an equal privilege to be shared, and some don't.

[Tommycat]

Not so much misleading as a matter of opinion I'd think. Some think of it as an equal privilege to be shared, and some don't.

 

Yes, but when you're describing the reasoning behind something you have to use the reason given by the person. Which in the case of Bush and the Republican party, the official reason was states rights(at least according to the RNC newsletter I received at the time).

[True_Avery]

Yes, but when you're describing the reasoning behind something you have to use the reason given by the person. Which in the case of Bush and the Republican party, the official reason was states rights(at least according to the RNC newsletter I received at the time).

Which is why I said "US" to give rights. Regardless of if it was the states so called right to create and oppress a minority, those states still answer and are apart of the USA, Bill of Rights, and now this treaty.

 

Even if we let one state do this, I argue it is still the entire country backing that state up. They are not separate countries and should not be treated as such, and every state has its part in the oppression seeing as only 2 American States allow it thus far.

 

So, thus, "force the US to give homosexuals equal rights". That could be chopped into "force American States to give homosexuals equal rights" but that seems redundant.

[Tommycat]

Again, not that I disagree with the improper actions of states that suppress the rights(see the second part of my first post). Just that phrasing it the way you did is not correct. The initial concerns were of stepping on states' sovereignty(10th Amendment). I'm not arguing that it should not be done. Just that the justification for it as you claimed is not what the RNC claimed. And since you were claiming that was the reason Bush decided against signing it, I felt that your relabeling of it was incorrect.

 

Actually I do somewhat agree with not signing it. I feel this is something that SHOULD have been handled by the Supreme Court, as it comes down to an issue of equal treatment under the law. But I agree with it in that this will force the SC to make that judgement when one of the states challenges it.

[True_Avery]

Again, not that I disagree with the improper actions of states that suppress the rights(see the second part of my first post). Just that phrasing it the way you did is not correct. The initial concerns were of stepping on states' sovereignty(10th Amendment). I'm not arguing that it should not be done. Just that the justification for it as you claimed is not what the RNC claimed. And since you were claiming that was the reason Bush decided against signing it, I felt that your relabeling of it was incorrect.

I'm not attacking you directly or anything. Just defending my wording. Sorry if I went off on any tangents not directed at you.

 

Either way works for me though, so I'll change the OP to better fit the justification.

 

Actually I do somewhat agree with not signing it. I feel this is something that SHOULD have been handled by the Supreme Court, as it comes down to an issue of equal treatment under the law. But I agree with it in that this will force the SC to make that judgement when one of the states challenges it.

Yeah, agreed. Hopefully this will not cause anything to happen too quickly, as that could be just as damaging.

 

However, I also feel the SC and State courts have had more than enough time to decide. On the other hand, California's courts overruled it but put it up for vote and it is now banned by the California constitution, so the courts can't always fix the problem either.

 

I'd like to have enough hope in the voters that their minds will change over time, but maybe we need a push in a direction first. I've had the feeling for awhile that the courts have been trying to be hush about this, but this at least, as you said, opens up new opportunities for states to talk amongst themselves and the SC.

 

Maybe something will come of it, maybe nothing will. Still nice to see that we have promised to treat a group of people humanly though, which is still a nice step in a direction.

 

No promise on marriage anyway, as many of the members who have signed do not allow marriage themselves. The treaty is more against hate crimes and inhumane treatment, which marriage isn't high on either of those lists at the moment.

[Tommycat]

No wories, I just don't like when people put words into other people's mouths to make them seem worse. (as if people need another reason to dislike Bush).

 

That's the beauty of it. It may force the SC to HAVE to deal with the fact that in some states homosexuals are treated differently under the law. States that challenge it run the risk of appearing the bigoted jerks they are.

 

If I may make a suggestion on that last sentence:

...Bush administration refused to sign back in December due to fears that it would step on states rights to oppress homosexuals.

 

I know it essentially means the same thing, but it is a more accurate portrayal of the reasoning.