UN resolution

[keito_f]

I do not know how much actual impact this UN resolution will have, but still it is a bit of positive news to savor before the anarchy caused by same sex marriage. And I needed it after reading about the riders that Fabfemmeboy mentioned in the DADT post.

Comments

[tko_ak]

In real terms, it doesn't mean anything of consequence. It's symbolic. It's a step forward and furthers recognition, providing a rational for protections.

UN member states that stone us or hang us will still do that. But it's nice to have on paper.

[subluxate]

It's cool that it's on paper, but I'm uncomfortable with crediting the Obama administration so heavily. Pelosi and Reid did a lot more to get DADT overturned, including keeping the Senate in session until the vote happened, and it's taken the administration a long time to realize public opinion is beginning to turn against DOMA.

I mean, yeah, they've done some. He signed the DADT repeal. The administration hasn't pushed to get all the necessary signatures to put it in place, though. The Justice Department isn't fighting DOMA suits anymore, sure. But maybe they could do more, like push congresspeople to introduce bills to repeal DOMA.

I'm especially uncomfortable with it given that Obama said during his campaign that he was against same-sex marriage because of his beliefs. I feel that religion should, you know, not influence people's rights, considering this whole "separation of church and state" thing we (very theoretically) have going on.

[keito_f]

I understand what you are saying with regard to domestically, but I think with regard to the UN resolution itself and internationally, President Obama's administration played more of a role than did Senator Reid or Representative Pelosi.

The wording may be a bit off, but when you look at the details of the article it clearly credits Congress, not President Obama, with the overturn of DADT.
"In addition, Congress recently repealed the ban on gays openly serving in the military,"

The point of including DADT in that section seemed to me to simply be to indicate that the U.S. as a whole has been moving forward on LGBT rights.

[subluxate]

It does say that about Congress, yes, but it also says, "The Obama administration has been pushing for gay rights both domestically and internationally." I fundamentally disagree with the domestic aspect. (I am, admittedly, not as up on foreign policy when it comes to gay rights as I should be.) I will willingly credit Clinton for her work internationally; she's always been an advocate for civil rights. I'm just less comfortable attributing domestic progress to the administration because I feel they could have done a lot more than they have.

[fabfemmeboy]

When asking what this will do, I think the article sums it up best:

Asked what good the U.N. resolution would do for gays and lesbians in countries that opposed the resolution, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary Daniel Baer said it was a signal "that there are many people in the international community who stand with them and who support them, and that change will come."

In other words...nothing. But if you hang in there and don't die from stoning or beheading, maybe in like a century you'll be able to have sex without spending a decade in jail! Thanks to the internet it's a lot easier to know people aren't alone, and that's great, but in terms of actual help it's pretty much an empty gesture unfortunately. Until or unless enforceability or sanctionability or international court jurisdiction are somehow added, it won't fix anything. But Obama gets to wink and nod at the community in the US, and it's obscure enough that the Tea Partiers won't flip out on him, so hey we all win, right?

[keito_f]

Well it is better than actually voting against because you think it would infringe on state's rights as was done under the previous administration.