US declines signing UN bill meant to discourage anti-gay discrimination

[CCRunner]

A few EU countries got together and sponsored a bill in the UN to make it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. The US was the only major western nation to not sign the bill.
Some Key points of the article:

66 of the U.N.'s 192 member countries signed the nonbinding declaration

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.

Although the declaration's backers were pleased that nations on six continents had signed it, there were only two from Asia and four from Africa.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28302371/

What exactly does this bill do and what does everybody think of the refusal of the US?

Title changed after criticism, formerly: U.S. balks at decriminalizing homosexuality Still not great I know

 

[LucyDuke]

Decriminalizing? Talk about loaded language.

 

[Alpine Trooper]

Well the United States would have to re evaluate its trading relationships with certain countries if it signed this.

So its funny that it still condemns any human rights violation related to sexual orientation.

 

[JollyRoger]

So I guess we are with the Islamofascists and not against them on this one?

 

[Mise]

More than 50 countries opposed to the declaration, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, issued a joint statement Thursday criticizing the initiative as an unwarranted attempt to give special prominence to gays and lesbians. The statement suggested that protecting sexual orientation could lead to "the social normalization and possibly the legalization of deplorable acts" such as pedophilia and incest.

Ooh it's a slippery slope!

 

[Zarn]

A Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the Roman Catholic Church opposed the death penalty and other harsh repression of gays and lesbians, but he expressed concern that the declaration would be used as pressure against those who believe marriage rights should not be extended to gays.

A new Vatican statement, issued Thursday, endorsed the call to end criminal penalties against gays, but said that overall the declaration "gives rise to uncertainty in the law and challenges existing human norms."

I think I like the newer Vatican stance better than the American one.

I'm not saying I'm agreeing with the Vatican stance, though. It's just that many Americans accuse the Vatican of being too slow to adjust (in general).

 

[Adrogans]

I would need to read the actual declaration and see what it actually says to understand if I feel the US was right not to sign.

 

[Azale]

I'm seeing this misleading title all over the internets now. Ugh, it basically broadcasts this message to the civilized world about the US:

Shucks guys, we just is too durn backwards to be understantin 'em gays, don't be oppressin our rites ands soverenstys wit ur darn UN resurlutions



Even though the truth of the matter is probably a tad more complicated. Hopefully it isn't all about gay marriage.

 

[amadeus]

I'm writing a resolution so that everyone in the world can be happy all the time.

Who wants to sign it?

 

[emzie]

I think I like the newer Vatican stance better than the American one.

I'm not saying I'm agreeing with the Vatican stance, though. It's just that many Americans accuse the Vatican of being too slow to adjust (in general).

The Vatican "opposes the death penalty and other harsh repression of gays and lesbians" That is good to know. What's their stance on soft-to-general repression?

I'm writing a resolution so that everyone in the world can be happy all the time.

Who wants to sign it?

Am I forced to be happy or do I retain the freedom to mope?

 

[Loki130]

I'm writing a resolution so that everyone in the world can be happy all the time.

Who wants to sign it?

nah-i have enemies

 

[Lockesdonkey]

UN resolutions are important acts of international political will. They frame very real and important debates about the nature of human rights and thus the degree to which State A can interfere in State B's affairs. They seem toothless, but really, they're not. They have an effect on the legitimacy of state actions, up to and including armed intervention. Not that anyone is going to attack Iran in the name of gay rights, but they might be able to get away with "well, they have nukes and by the way, they stone gay people," which (if this resolution had passed) would be more legitimate than "well, they have nukes." (The reaction from many countries to the latter would be "They do? Good job, Iran!")

 

[Zarn]

The Vatican "opposes the death penalty and other harsh repression of gays and lesbians" That is good to know. What's their stance on soft-to-general repression?

Seeing as the quote I made stated they were against criminalization, and that is what the legislation is about, you fail to make any point.

Also, the Roman Catholic church has spoken against violence against homosexuals, stating that they are just as much children of the Father as anyone else.

 

[Pannonius]

Next stop: more rights for pedophiles. European position on sodomy is unchristian and against God (but it's no surprise, it's obvious who runs the show).

 

[Agent Valentine]

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

You left out that part, which is important. They're not being anti-gay, they're just sticking to their constitution because this matter is assigned to state governments. It's the responsibility of individual states, not the federal government. Refusing to overstep your jurisdictional boundaries does not mean that they're anti-gay.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

That's Bush Administration claptrap. The agreement is nonbinding even on the federal government (it's a General Assembly resolution). Nobody bothered to argue with them because American constitutional law, by international standards, is just plain weird. Not bad, but weird.

 

[theskald]

It sounds more like they're trying to criminalize hate/fear/bigotry/personal-disagreement/whatever, not "decriminalize homosexuality." You can only decriminalize something that was a crime to begin with.

I really don't see why governments need an official stance on anyone's sexuality.

I'm not saying I'm agreeing with the Vatican stance, though. It's just that many Americans accuse the Vatican of being too slow to adjust (in general).

They've been getting better about keeping up, to be sure. I think the many efforts to make the faith more appealing to newer generations in Europe may finally be reaching the upper echelons.

[...] it's obvious who runs the show).

The French?

 

[really]

Decriminalising suggests that it is currently illegal to be gay / do gay things in the US. Is this the case?

 

[amadeus]

Am I forced to be happy or do I retain the freedom to mope?

You can still mope, it's a non-binding resolution that has only superficial value.

 

[Agent Valentine]

That's Bush Administration claptrap. The agreement is nonbinding even on the federal government (it's a General Assembly resolution). Nobody bothered to argue with them because American constitutional law, by international standards, is just plain weird. Not bad, but weird.

Maybe, but signing the agreement could be interpreted as the federal government attempting to overstep their jurisdictional boundaries by legislating from a position that can't be touched. After all, the states (AFAIK) have no say in appointing the UN Ambassador. And we all know what happened last time a lot of people in America thought the federal government was trying to exceed its mandate...