Nice bedfollows you've got going there Bush

[Homebrew]

The Bush Administration has joined several repressive nations to vote against onsultative status to organizations working to protect the gay rights worldwide.

In voting against the applications to the NGO committee, the U.S. was joined by Cameroon, China, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, Senegal, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. Votes in favor of consultative status came from Chile, France, Germany, Peru, and Romania. Colombia, India, and Turkey abstained, while Côte d’Ivoire was absent.

Nice company to keep you mutherfucker. My rage right now is so extreme that I can’t comment more without someone reporting me to the Secret Service.

I invite any Log Cabin Republicans to now tell me how the Bush Administration isn’t homophobic. Every person who continues to support this administration can eat my shit and die. I despise every one of you now. I don’t care what fucking rationalization you care to make.

[Seven]

From the article

As the U.S. government acknowledged in its 2004 country report on Iran, Iranian law punishes homosexual conduct between men with the death penalty. Human Rights Watch has documented four cases of arrests, flogging, or execution of gay men in Iran since 2003. In its 2004 country report on Zimbabwe, the U.S. government noted President Robert Mugabe’s public denouncement of homosexuals, blaming them for “Africa’s ills.” In the past, Mugabe has called gays and lesbians “people without rights” and “worse than dogs and pigs.” The U.S. has reversed position since 2002, when it voted to support the International Lesbian and Gay Association’s request to have its status reviewed. Officials gave no explanation for the change.

I can see the White House drooling over the chance to flog a gay man.

Wait. What?

[rjung]

@Seven

I can see the White House drooling over the chance to flog a gay man.

So that’s why Jeff Gannon made all those visits to the White House! :eek:

[Lama_Pacos]

Spreading democracy and liberty my fucking ass.

[Lama_Pacos]

Uh…I just realized that bookending a sentence with ‘spreading’ and ‘ass’ may produce a comical effect. Nonetheless, the intent was not such.

[Bricker]

I realize you’re upset.

And I am not too hip on precisely what considerations motivated the administration’s position here. Were the groups opposed merely because they sought to advance gay rights, or were there other reasons? Does the group seek to advance same-sex marriage in some sort of binding capacity at the UN – that is, is one of the groups’ goals to bind UN members to acceptance of a document or charter that requires the member nation to recognize same-sex marriage?

Obviously, you’d be happy with a president that said, “I don’t care what 98% of the states, or the people, say – I support same-sex marriage.” But can you really say that a president who does NOT take such a stand is utterly shirking his responsibilities as chief executive?

Obviously, this is an example, based on a hypo that I do not know to be true. If these organizations’ only “sins” are generic support for gay rights, or efforts to sanction Iran for killing men simply for being gay, then I cannot discern any good reason for the US’s position.

[Otto]

@Bricker

I realize you’re upset.

Damn son, no flies on you.

@Bricker

And I am not too hip on precisely what considerations motivated the administration’s position here. Were the groups opposed merely because they sought to advance gay rights, or were there other reasons? Does the group seek to advance same-sex marriage in some sort of binding capacity at the UN – that is, is one of the groups’ goals to bind UN members to acceptance of a document or charter that requires the member nation to recognize same-sex marriage?

Oh piss off. Here are the goals of LGA as laid out in its Constitution:

@ILGA

1.    The Aims and Objectives of ILGA are
   

(i) To work for the equality of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people and liberation from all forms of discrimination;

(ii) To promote the universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the elimination of all forms of discrimination and also including the realisation of the specific provisions of the following international human rights instruments:

•    The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
  

•    The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;
  

•    The International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination;
  

•    The Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women;
  

•    The Convention on the Rights of the Child
  

2.    To work towards these goals, ILGA shall:
   

(i) create a platform for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people internationally, in their quest for recognition, equality and liberation, in particular through the world and regional conferences;

(ii) work towards equal representation in all regions for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people in our quest for recognition, equality and liberation;

(iii) give locally initiated and determined support for our organisations in all parts of the world;

(iv) collect information, conduct research, publish material and organise seminars, training, briefings and specialised conferences;

(v) offer facilities for co-ordination of activities and actions.

I am unable to find much in English on the Landsforeningen for Bøsser og Lesbiske (Danish National Association for Gays and Lesbians) other than that it was founded in 1948. So alas, if they are engaged in some nefarious Danish skullduggery, I’ll have to remain at least temporarily ignorant.

But really, are you aware of what a consulting NGO actually does at the UN? Do you think they have some actual power to “bind” UN members to anything? Even if ILGA and LBL are both foursquare behind the notion of same-sex marriage, their attention has as near as I can tell generally been more caught up in opposing the acts of governments who, you know, chop our heads of with swords for being gay. Even if Bush and that batshit crazy asshole he’s recess appointed into the UN ambassadorship because he couldn’t get the crazy fuck through his own Senate are opposed to same-sex marriage, is it reall so much to ask for an administration a little more advanced on the right of gay people to be alive than Iran?

[Hamlet]

@Homebrew

I invite any Log Cabin Republicans to now tell me how the Bush Administration isn’t homophobic.

This administration’s actions come as a surprise to you?

[John_Mace]

From the article:

The U.S. has reversed position since 2002, when it voted to support the International Lesbian and Gay Association’s request to have its status reviewed. Officials gave no explanation for the change.

I wonder what changed…? This just seems mean-spirited, but I doubt we’ll ever hear what the reasons were.

Maybe this is part of our stratgy to get Iran to stop development of nulcear weapons. :dubious:

[Kimstu]

What a deal, John—“You stop trying to enrich uranium, and we’ll stand up for your right to decaptitate queers!” Pass, thanks.

[John_Mace]

@Kimstu

What a deal, John—“You stop trying to enrich uranium, and we’ll stand up for your right to decaptitate queers!” Pass, thanks.

I hope you realize I was being facetious. I probably should have put a smiling smiley after my post instead of the dubious smiley.

Keep in mind that not accepting these groups as NGO status is not the same as sactioning Iran’s actions. Does anyone know if these are the only gay-rights oriented groups petitioning for NGO status? In a quick review of the UN ECOSOC NGO list (warning: PDF), I didn’t see any obvious ones that are already included.

[Bricker]

@Otto

Damn son, no flies on you.
Even if Bush and that batshit crazy asshole he’s recess appointed into the UN ambassadorship because he couldn’t get the crazy fuck through his own Senate are opposed to same-sex marriage, is it reall so much to ask for an administration a little more advanced on the right of gay people to be alive than Iran?

As I said:

@Bricker

If these organizations’ only “sins” are generic support for gay rights, or efforts to sanction Iran for killing men simply for being gay, then I cannot discern any good reason for the US’s position.

[SteveG1]

It’s just one more item on my personal list of Why I Hate Bush.

[Steve_MB]

@Bricker

And I am not too hip on precisely what considerations motivated the administration’s position here. Were the groups opposed merely because they sought to advance gay rights, or were there other reasons? Does the group seek to advance same-sex marriage in some sort of binding capacity at the UN – that is, is one of the groups’ goals to bind UN members to acceptance of a document or charter that requires the member nation to recognize same-sex marriage?

Oh, puh-leeze. Even if one assumes that these groups advocate a Radical Gay Agenda[tm], the fact remains that the words “binding capacity at the UN” do not parse into any concept that corresponds to any real-world phenomenon.

Besides the sheer idiocy of this action, the administration has gratuitously endorsed Iran as a country deserving a place at the table (even at a useless blathering table such as the UN), which is the last thing that should be done under the present circumstances.

[Homebrew]

Your ability to rationalize is astounding Bricker. Fuck you.

[LavenderBlue]

George Bush is now pandering to the right wing at home AND abroad.

Yet another reason to despise him.

[kaylasdad99]

You know, as far as I could see, Bricker was asking if information was available. Not, in itself, a bad thing to be doing around here. The speculative hypothetical, while ill-considered, IMHO, was still merely a speculative hypothetical.

But honestly, Bricker, come on. Now, ISTM that your gay-rights-supporting credentials are solid enough to merit you, if not a toaster oven, at least the mail-in warranty registration card to a toaster oven. But if you could at least explicitly acknowledge at the beginning of your post that, on the face of it, the Administration’s new position appears reprehensible, then construct the speculative (read: far-fetched) hypothetical that might make it acceptable to you on the basis of consistency, or something, you’d probably get far fewer accusations of “homophobic Bush-apologist” thrown your way (historically, not in this thread, although the thread is still pretty young).

But beginning with “I realize you’re upset” (which can be taken as condescending and/or patronizing), following with a close facsimile of “Was she dressed chastely or provocatively?”, continuing with an admonishing reminder that the president would be shirking his responsibilities as chief executive were to ignore or flout public opinion on the matter of more speculative hypotheticals, and adding, [in the absence of mitigating factors], “I cannot discern any good reason for the US’s (not the Bush administration’s, I notice, but the US’s - kd99) position” at the end, so it looks like an afterthought, well, it tends to make you look like your first priority is to deflect criticism away from the Bush White House; to defend this president, if you will, and if matters of social justice need to be soft-pedaled in the service of that end, well, that’s regrettable but acceptable.

If that’s the mantle you want, you can certainly have it, I guess. It’s a little disappointing, but when the national plebiscite on gay marriage is held, your vote in favor will still be gratefully accepted, I’m sure.

[sleestak]

I am sort of surprised by the vote but after a little research I think I can point to what the Administration probably had issues with:

Article 10
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that:

1. The widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly for its establishment and while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children. Marriage must be entered into with the free consent of the intending spouses.

From this.

I don’t know for sure that this is what caused the Administration to vote against the measure I can certainly believe it could be the cause. Voting for the measure that could give gay marriage advocates a powerful argument for legalizing gay marriage in the US*. I am not a lawyer or a law maker (obviously) but I could see the argument put forth that the US has to legalize gay marriage because the US already signed a Covenant at the UN that recognizes gay marriage**.

I am really interested in hearing why the Administration did no sign this.

Slee

*Personally I think gay marriage is fine, I have no problems with it.

** The argument would be something along the lines of “The U.S. explicitly recognized the rights of gays to marry by voting for/signing the Covenant that recognizes the right at the U.N”. Of course, as I said earlier, I could be totally wrong as I am not a lawyer.

[Kimstu]

@John Mace

I hope you realize I was being facetious.

Yes, of course. I should have put in a “facetious-recognition-of-your-facetiousness” smiley. (just to make sure)

@sleestak

I am sort of surprised by the vote but after a little research I think I can point to what the Administration probably had issues with:

As John pointed out, though, the Administration’s recent decision to oppose the organizations’ application for consultative status represents a reversal of policy since 2002. I somehow doubt that this policy reversal happened because they just recently got around to reading to UN High Commissioner for Human Right’s International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which has been in force since freaking 1976, if you’ll pardon my French.

In any case, I can’t see what bearing the terms of the UN Covenant have on the mere question of whether the gay-rights organizations in question ought to be accorded UN ECOSOC consultative status. For Pete’s sake, even the pacifist Quakers’ Friends’ World Committee for Consultation has UN consultative status, despite the fact that the United States is neither Quaker nor pacifist.

IANAL either, but it seems pretty clear to me that according an NGO UN consultative status doesn’t imply that every UN member has agreed to every one of the NGO’s stated goals or principles. So just because the US may not be on-board with allowing gay marriage constitutes absolutely no reason to deny gay-rights organizations formal affiliation with the UN in their efforts to keep countries like Iran from decapitating homosexuals.

[Merijeek]

@Homebrew

Your ability to rationalize is astounding Bricker. Fuck you.

Anything to stick it to the fags.

I find it amazing, years after he comes out of the homo-hating closet, that people are still surprised every time he tries to justify the anti-gay adgenda.

-Joe