Comments on: U.S. Joins Most of Earth in Condemning Gay Discrimination

By: RichardR

RichardR — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:16:01 +0000

@petted: Right, Petted, thanks, got it – the voting in Geneva was on would have been a sort of pre-resolution. My point was I’m pleased because of what the vote implies about internal US policy. Can’t even imagine how far away the UN (all or enough member nations) is from fully supporting gay rights. Religion, I fear.

By: petted

petted — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:14:40 +0000

@petted: Granted not necessarily a stance we agree with but that leaves 65 nations that could be persuaded to endorse the affirmative statement.

By: petted

petted — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:13:15 +0000

@RichardR: The main problem is the UN security council because any security council member can veto any binding resolution and without the support of all members on the security council a bill is dead regardless that’s why they went with a non-binding resolution as it doesn’t require security council approval. Besides which as a non-binding statement its not subject to an up or down vote – either you endorse it or you don’t however there was another statement which objected to the LGBT rights statement by linking LGBT to pedophilia. With the US endorsement the total is 67 for the affirmative resolution and 60 for the other resolution for a total of 127, out of 192 nations, taking a stance on gay rights.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:18:57 +0000

From the wikipedia entry on United Nations.

“In addition to the member states listed above, there is one non-member observer state, the Holy See (which holds sovereignty over the state of Vatican City). It has been a permanent observer state since 6 April 1964,[13] and gained all the rights of full membership except voting on 1 July 2004″

With this in mind .. how the heck did the Vatican manage to “object” when they have no voting rights?

By: RichardR

RichardR — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:58:05 +0000

Regret above typo – not “UD” but “US”

By: Chitown Kev

Chitown Kev — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:47:07 +0000

Yep.

This was one of my barometers for the Obama Administration’s first 100 days.

By: RichardR

RichardR — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:10:43 +0000

@ChicagoJimmy: Absolutely, CJ. If it upsets the vatican and the religious right, whatever it is, it’s a good thing!

By: RichardR

RichardR — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:09:43 +0000

It’s splendid that in the UN, the US now joins the western world in calling for an end to discrimination based on sexual orientation. It may be a harbinger of US policy in numerous other matters in which the UD discriminates against its gay citizens.

But read the original post — because of lack of support from the non-western world, the UN resolution did not pass. These resolutions may be only symbolic, but symbols are important.

By: Alan

Alan — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:51:03 +0000

@Sebbe:

Here here!

By: Sebbe

Sebbe — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:42:24 +0000

That is change I can believe in!!!

By: ChicagoJimmy

ChicagoJimmy — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:41:16 +0000

If the Vatican opposes it, then it must be good.