The shameful U.S. gay rights vote
As Becky wrote, the fact that Obama picked Rick Warren, America’s most popular preacher, to speak at his innauguration shouldn’t be all that surprising and probably doesn’t say much about his stance on any issues. That said, the anger of gay rights groups at the pick means that Obama is now under more pressure to ...
As Becky wrote, the fact that Obama picked Rick Warren, America's most popular preacher, to speak at his innauguration shouldn't be all that surprising and probably doesn't say much about his stance on any issues. That said, the anger of gay rights groups at the pick means that Obama is now under more pressure to actually do something meaningful for gay rights as president. One place he could start would be reversing the United States' deplorable decision last week to vote against a historic UN resolution to decriminalize homosexuality.
The resolution was a non-binding declaration "to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention." The Bush administration opposed the measure on the grounds that it could overturn states' decisions on issues like gay marriage. One wonders if they need a refresher on what "non-binding" means.
Joining the United States in opposition were Russia, China, the Vatican, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The latter group claimed that the resolution would lead to the legalization of pedophilia and also tried last week to have sexual orientation removed from a list of unacceptable reasons for summary execution.
As Becky wrote, the fact that Obama picked Rick Warren, America’s most popular preacher, to speak at his innauguration shouldn’t be all that surprising and probably doesn’t say much about his stance on any issues. That said, the anger of gay rights groups at the pick means that Obama is now under more pressure to actually do something meaningful for gay rights as president. One place he could start would be reversing the United States’ deplorable decision last week to vote against a historic UN resolution to decriminalize homosexuality.
The resolution was a non-binding declaration “to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention.” The Bush administration opposed the measure on the grounds that it could overturn states’ decisions on issues like gay marriage. One wonders if they need a refresher on what “non-binding” means.
Joining the United States in opposition were Russia, China, the Vatican, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The latter group claimed that the resolution would lead to the legalization of pedophilia and also tried last week to have sexual orientation removed from a list of unacceptable reasons for summary execution.
The resolution doesn’t have the force of law anywhere, but as UN Dispatch’s Mark Leon Goldberg writes, previous agreements on women’s rights show that “in the long run these kinds of resolutions do help to foster the genesis of new legal norms and new human rights.”
If Obama wants to do something to assure his gay and lesbian supporters that he doesn’t plan to sell them out, this is an easy one.
Photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images
Joshua Keating was an associate editor at Foreign Policy. Twitter: @joshuakeating
More from Foreign Policy


Is Cold War Inevitable?
A new biography of George Kennan, the father of containment, raises questions about whether the old Cold War—and the emerging one with China—could have been avoided.


So You Want to Buy an Ambassadorship
The United States is the only Western government that routinely rewards mega-donors with top diplomatic posts.


Can China Pull Off Its Charm Offensive?
Why Beijing’s foreign-policy reset will—or won’t—work out.


Turkey’s Problem Isn’t Sweden. It’s the United States.
Erdogan has focused on Stockholm’s stance toward Kurdish exile groups, but Ankara’s real demand is the end of U.S. support for Kurds in Syria.