Obama supports U.N. Resolution to Decriminalize Gays

Gone unnoticed was a non- binding U.N. resolution last month which would have advocated decriminalizing homosexuality in the member countries. Now, comes news that Obama plans to support the resolution:

http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/01/dr-s usan-rice-lends-support-to-condemning-lg bt-discrimination-among-un-member-countr ies.html

This resolution was particularly important because 6 countries in the world still engage in state based execution of gays.

WARNING (The following is an image of two gay teens being executed in Iran):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/50087332@N0 0/298265577

In other words, in countries like Iran, gays can still be executed for being gay. These executions also occur in Iraq:

http://iraqilgbtuk.blogspot.com/2007/04/ iraq-more-gay-executions.html

This is nothing unique to gay history including this kind of violence at the state level.  Indeed, gays were the only victims of the Holocaust not to be protected as a class after the end of Nazi rule in Germany. In the U.S., although no de jure, there are thousands of cases of gay bashing a year. Many of these abuses go unreported.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ gay_men_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaus t

The U.S., itself, did not decriminalize homosexuality until the Lawrence decision earlier in this decade overturned Bowers v. Hardwick. As a result of Lawrence, people who were imprisoned essentially for being gay (and yes there were  a few) were released. However, across the planet while death may not be end result of homsexuality, inprisonment is.

You can see this is African countries like Nigeria, heavily influenced by evangelicals like Rich Warren.

Therefore, it was wonderful to read that the Obama administration under U.N. Represenative Susan Rice will be supporting the resolution. This is in stark constrast to the Bush administration, which uses the rather lame excuse of state's right to justify remaining neutral on the resolution. The state argument they made was that they did not want to affect the ability of state laws regarding employment and housing.

Translation: They wanted employers and landlords to have the right to fire gays and throw us out of our homes. Hopefully, this is something that will be addressed this year with ENDA.

As I have said before, we should praise Obama when he does something right. We should critique him when he does something wrong. But, here he is most certainly doing something for the betterment of human rights everywhere.

Tags: gays, obama, Rice, UN (all tags)

Comments

86 Comments

Re: Obama supports U.N.

You can see this is African countries like Nigeria, heavily influenced by evangelicals like Rich Warren.

That's a bit disingenuous.  Nigeria's abysmal treatment of gays has little to do with Rick Warren.

by DaveOinSF 2009-01-27 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

Here are the links, and here's why you are ignorant:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/24 /191631/90/324/677000

It's only disingenious if we relief ourselves of all context and meaning.

Thus, we would have to not use basic reasoning skills to apprecite that his support of the anti gay bishop in Nigeria only months after the bishop lead the movement for the Proposition 175 like law were not at all connected in terms of basic beliefs.

That the same guy who called gays pedophilles in America, but who months after a bishop lead the movement to criminalize us in Nigeria, has no common cause with that Bishop on these issues.

Some times many of you in your need to be deluded stretch the basics of reasonable thought.

by bruh3 2009-01-27 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

Prickishness is no sign of intelligence.  Your arguments would be more persuasive without it.

by Strummerson 2009-01-27 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

This will be my only comment to you.

You only come into diaries involving gay issues to troll them.

I have seen you do it too many times at this site to believe it's coincidence.

I will be ignoring you here on out and letting others read the diary for themselves.

I also ask others to not engage you in your attempts to hijack through manipulation.

by bruh3 2009-01-27 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

You couldn't substantiate that claim if you tried.

Anyone care to weigh in on how often I troll diaries, those "involving gay issues" and those involving any others?

by Strummerson 2009-01-27 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

Let's see I'm looking . . .  hold on I'm still looking.

Ok I've got the number: 0

Bruh, you really need to stop thinking you are the smartest person in the room.  You wrote a good diary and then proceeded to bring down about ten notches because other people had opinions and you basically called them idiots.

This is a habit you should really try and break.

by jsfox 2009-01-27 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

Please stop hijacking the diary

by bruh3 2009-01-27 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

Either substantiate your claim or apologize.  Then I will desist from answering your smear.

by Strummerson 2009-01-27 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

bruh has to get another user handle for his ego to use.

by spacemanspiff 2009-01-27 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

I actually think bruh has a lot to offer.  Just gotta learn some communication skills.

by Strummerson 2009-01-27 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

I rec'd the diary as soon as I read it. But I knew what the tone of the comments would be.

by spacemanspiff 2009-01-27 07:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

You're making a false syllogism.

Statement A:  He disagrees with you a lot in diaries.
Statement B:  You talk about gay topics.  False Syllogism: Therefore he's an anti-gay troll.

That doesn't hold water.  He's disagreeing with you, not with gay stuff in general.

by Dreorg 2009-01-27 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

no- I am making the observation that each of you can be counted on to come into a diary on gay issues to try to troll the diary with the same sorts of approaches. There is no falsity to the fact that I am calling you out for behaviro that is easily veriable by readers checking your comments on gay issues.

by bruh3 2009-01-27 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

Please produce ONE trollish comment I have made in any diary on gay issues.

by Strummerson 2009-01-27 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

Define "each of you".

by Dreorg 2009-01-27 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

Actually I agree with almost everything in this diary and strongly believe in the importance of the topic.  My dispute here only regards the anti-ethical tone of some comments.  If you look downthread, you'll see I mojo'd a different comment from this diarist, as it's an important comment.

by Strummerson 2009-01-27 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

How old are you?

Why don't you check your recs.  I'm at the top of your list, for freaks sake.  You post a mostly solid diary on an important subject and then proceed to insult anyone who raises any concern.  I recommend you tone it down and leave out the prickishness, and you troll rate me.  How impressively small of you.

And I'm leaving the diary rec up.

by Strummerson 2009-01-27 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: You do realize

read the links

by bruh3 2009-01-27 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: You do realize

I thought that after Bush, we had decided that trying to remake other nations in our image was an absolute nono.

Or does that only apply to things with which we disagree?

That sounds like something Bush would say.

I'm consistent.  We should leave those nations alone, and let them make their own laws, whether we're talking about democracy or homosexuality.

by graz 2009-01-28 02:04AM | 0 recs
Re: You do realize

I think it applies to remaking other nations in our image with a gun to their head.  Capiche?

by Jess81 2009-01-28 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: You do realize

exactly why I responded to the poster below who start this. basicaly he's saying we are  no all tha tbad becaue look at iraq while ignoring we did that by gun point.

by bruh3 2009-01-28 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: You do realize

And the UN won't enforce this at gunpoint?

by graz 2009-01-29 04:04AM | 0 recs
Re: You do realize

No.

by Jess81 2009-02-01 09:16PM | 0 recs
Re: You do realize

lol

by graz 2009-02-02 02:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

You do realize that the sections of Nigeria controlled by Sharia law have mroe draconian anti-gay laws penalties than the Christian ones.

by DaveOinSF 2009-01-27 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

How does that negate Warren's support of the Christian bishop who also pushed for anti gay laws equivalent to Para 175?

by bruh3 2009-01-27 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

All, I'm saying is that Nigerian bigots are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves.

by DaveOinSF 2009-01-27 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

That does not negate the point I made that began this thread.

by bruh3 2009-01-27 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

What is the point?  that Rick Warren is a bad guy?  We get that.

My point is that homosexuality would be criminalized in Nigeria with or without Rick Warren.

by DaveOinSF 2009-01-27 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

the point was that warren heavily influences christians in nigeria that pushed for a law that jailed gays.

whether or not he has influence over some parts of nigeria but not others does not negate his influence over those parts that are chrisitan with the christian leadership in those parts.

as i keep saying, you arguments do not negate minds. you are changing gthe subject by pretending one things negates the other. i am not sure why you don't seem to get that.

by bruh3 2009-01-27 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

follow up point, and then I am going to leave it alone because you are arguing unimportant points to be quite frank.

the point also is to link domestic with international to let people know that these things are often interrelated despite appearances.

warren is not just influencing domestic leaders, but also those involved in some heinous acts abroad.

ie, your comment about warren just being a 'bad guy" misses the point of how he and other evangelicals are spreading their views of christianity abroad in solidiarity and often times influencing foreign religious leaders who then are engaged  in efforts to pass and have passed laws to criminalize homosexuality rather than simply, for example, ban gay marriage.

by bruh3 2009-01-27 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

Nigerians - both Christian and Muslim - created their country's homosexuality laws.  Rick Warren had nothing to do with it.

by DaveOinSF 2009-01-27 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

Read the links. I am not going back and forth with you. Saying Warren had nothing to do with it is simly not factually true.

by bruh3 2009-01-27 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

Of course I read the links.  I have been aware of Archbishop Akinola for some time.  You seem to imply that this man would not exist save for Rick Warren.  It is you who is naive.

by DaveOinSF 2009-01-27 02:45PM | 0 recs
of for goodness sake

is there anything or anyone you will NOT defend to fall in lock step with Obama's friends?

by Teacher1956 2009-01-27 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: of for goodness sake

pssst!  You're crazy is showing.

by fogiv 2009-01-27 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: of for goodness sake

I don't even know what this means.

by DaveOinSF 2009-01-27 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: of for goodness sake

Hi Dave...

You probably weren't around in Teacher's hayday around here, so let me translate:

AGHGGGGHGHGH-OBAMA-BAD-EGHGEGJHGGHGHG-MY GAL-ROBBED--AGRRHGHGHGHGHG-MEAN-NASTY_OB AMABOTS---grufwoofwoofwooof--OHMYHEADHUR TS-AGHGHGH!!!!!!!!

Then that's about it. Not much stamina, just a fly in, ignores the subject, complains about obama-bots, then splits....

by WashStateBlue 2009-01-27 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

No, you seem to add that because I point out that he influences them and that he's connected to them that means what you think it implies. I said what I said. No more than that. He is influencial to these African christian leaders, and was influential to this bishop in particularly. Not just on this issue but also issues like HIV spreading abroad. Including condom burnings etc. Now thankfully Obama is pushing against these things, but to suggest that Warren in particular and evangelicals from American more generally are not a part of a larger int'l effort seems false to me based on what we know. They are clearly influencing and pushing for these things abroad. Would they happen? Perhaps. but would they happen as effectively if we were not here in the last few years with a right wing pushing for these things abroad? I have to think not. Even the UN resolution issue demonstrates this point. The right lobbied against this for their ability to discriminate domestically. I simply think the parsing is a mistake given the fact that these men are working together. To pretend otherwise is not the truth.

by bruh3 2009-01-27 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

But the Muslim regions are even worse.  You going to blame those on the Western Christian evangelicals too?

by DaveOinSF 2009-01-27 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

Your argument is not logical. It's essentially a distraction from the point I made rather than refuting it.  The muslim regions are willing to murder gays, but the christian regions are willing to sometimes murder, but often imprison gays. Thus the christian areas are "better" It's true as far as the standard you are applying goes, but it's not a standard that most Americans would consider to be the standard for human rights. At this point, if you still don't get it, I think I have tried to explain it several times, including providing links and other corraborating information regarding my position. Your position in a nutshell is that 's not as bad. That's not the standard for human rights as Americans see it.

by bruh3 2009-01-27 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

You seem to be trying to argue that criminalization of homosexuality around the world is, in part, caused by Western Christian evangelicals such as Rick Warren.  I am saying that the areas of the world where the laws against homosexuals are the absolute worst correlate with areas of the world where Christian evangelicals have zero influence.  In those areas where Christian evangelicals do have influence, draconian laws against homosexuals came about less because of the influence of those western Christian evangelicals than because of the cultural attitudes already present in those areas.

by DaveOinSF 2009-01-27 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

I am saying what I said in the diary. that warren's influence is a part of this mix. You keep arguing that there only needs to be one influence and only one. That's not my argument. My argument is how all these things link together from a domestic perspective rather than thinking these things are unlinked. Ia m really not clear about how you can despute this.

by bruh3 2009-01-27 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

by the way - did you read the link regarding Uganda? It seems like to me you are trying to go out of your way to say that there is no influence by Americans, including warren (yes i mentiond him but he's representational), on what occurs in these countries. That's just not reality. Check out the link regarding uganda, and how bush's faith based initiaitve supported the preacher abroad

by bruh3 2009-01-27 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

You're wrong.  Get over it.

by graz 2009-01-28 02:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

No, but i will ignore whoever you are.

by bruh3 2009-01-28 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

You're still wrong.

by graz 2009-01-29 04:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Um that's not what he's saying

I like how you and the other poster keep telling  me what my post means by implications rather than by what it says.

by bruh3 2009-01-27 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Um that's not what he's saying

i don't ignore anything. what i did was focus on one aspect that americans locally have power over. if you want to pretend that power is not there, that's up to you. but its not an honest assessemnt to focus solely on islam. and your comment is exceptionally bizare since i do mention islam's influence in the form of iran.

by bruh3 2009-01-27 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

by the way to give you a concrete reason why i say this:

http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2 008/09/ugandan-ministe.html

This goes into how ugandan preacher received money under bush's faith base innitative.

So when you say these people aren't supporting them abroad. I ahve no idea what you mean. It's simply not factually true although we have ignored the polinating of human rights abuse being  indirectly supported by us abroad.

by bruh3 2009-01-27 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N.

here is a separate post on Uganda and the influence that american black conservatives have been having abroad:

http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2 009/01/ugandan-newspaper-blasts-obama-fo r-supporting-gay-rights.html#comments

The point is that religious conservatives, including Warren, are more dangerous that we believe because of what they are willing to endorse and fund abroad.

by bruh3 2009-01-27 03:18PM | 0 recs
yup
and Obama says that bush's faith based initiatives did not go far enough because they were under funded. I dread finding out exactly what initiatives Obama is thinking of funding.
I don't want any of them funded.
by Teacher1956 2009-01-27 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: yup

He obviously does not mean what bush means.

by bruh3 2009-01-27 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: yup

Don't worry, it's all going to ACORN, rappers, and the Black Panther party.  And of course to bury his real birth certificate.

by Jess81 2009-01-27 03:24PM | 0 recs
Iraq

And while certainly there are militants still active in Iraq that include gays among their targets, violence has quelled significantly since the 2007 report you linked to, and, following the toppling of Saddam Hussein, Iraq is actually one of the few Arab states in which homosexuality is NOT illegal.

by DaveOinSF 2009-01-27 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Iraq

I am not interested in playing this game of parsing the facts. I provided the link so I must have thought that my audience could read and understand I was provided you with information and background rather than what you are doing with that information.

That link was to discuss violence in general, and not how much it is occurring in Iraq now.

If this is your sole contribution to this diary, I am going to ignore you here on out.

by bruh3 2009-01-27 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Iraq

Prickishness is no sign of intelligence.  Your arguments would be more persuasive without it.

by Strummerson 2009-01-27 10:17AM | 0 recs
facts

I just find it odd that, of all the countries in the world, you chose Iraq as an example.  The lawlessness and violence of 2003-2007 certainly made life difficult for gays and all Iraqis, but it is beside the point of the UN resolution.

It would be more relevant to your diary if, as in the Iran example, you highlighted those areas where homosexuality is, in fact, illegal, a capital crime, and which the UN resolution is specifically targeting.

by DaveOinSF 2009-01-27 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: facts

I randomly picked it because I thought of it. that's about as deep as it went. Rather than assigning deeper meaning take it at face value.

by bruh3 2009-01-27 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: facts

Your diary is about the proposed UN resolution calling for decriminalization of homosexuality.  If you are going to write a diary on the subject, it is relevant that you actually learn where homosexuality is a crime.

by DaveOinSF 2009-01-27 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: facts

so the part about the holocaust also should not be mentioned because its not presently happening too?

afterall germany does not presently criminalize homosexuality. maybe you shold waste time on that oen too. the audience is apparently too stupid in your book to read the post and understand its meaning.

by bruh3 2009-01-27 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: facts

No.  That provides meaningful context as it establishes how the plight of homosexuals has been uniquely obscured.  It's a pretty powerful point that most readers may not know and can use from here on out debating those who minimize this subject.

by Strummerson 2009-01-27 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: facts

both provide meaningful context in the same light as each other. One is no less useful as context as any other. it could even be argued that the iraqi one being closer in time is more meaningful, but i would not argue that because to me this is about world history patterns that crosses the planet.  Not sure why we are suppose to single out one above the other. as i said, they were just quick examples to provide readers with knowledge of something they did  not know on the subject. often times (a la warren or huckabee - this violence and the history of this violence is ignored and unknown).

by bruh3 2009-01-27 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: facts

Look, this could be easily remedied.  The issue here is that someone asked you to maintain the distinction between state sanctioned violence and state tolerated violence.  Militias operating in Iraq are executing gays, but the Iraqi state does not criminalize homosexuality.  It's not that one is worse than the other.  It's a simple point of clarification that you might incorporate to the benefit of your argument.  

It's not my quibble, though.  I simply pointed out that I think the fact that homosexuals are the only group persecuted by the NAZIs that have not yet received official protection is compelling context.

And if you still cannot produce any evidence of my habitual trolling of diaries on this subject, or for that matter any other, you would do well to retract the accusation for the sake of your credibility.  My concern regarding the latter is not personal.  But it affects your ability to promote issues that I care about.

by Strummerson 2009-01-27 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: facts

I am not sure if you are the person to whom I have had previous run in since its been over a month and half since I had the last run in. I admit I am a little sensitive to issues of people trolling diaries on gay issues or writing trollish comments, bu thtat's not your problem, it's mine. Therefore, iw ill apologize for that comment.

I am not changing the diary because I think the gradation of difference is very thin and difficult regarding the point mentioned (de jure v de facto especially as it was provided as a quick historical context. If someone wants to dig further they can)

My main thrust of the diary is about the resolution, and how this is a postive sign because its not about denying the violence, which is what I want to see from Obama.

by bruh3 2009-01-27 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: facts

Thank you and apology accepted.  I again stress I think this diary is important.  Change it or don't change it, that's up to you.  But please accept the following in the spirit in which I intend it, which I assure you is a constructive one: a little more precision and civil engagement of your critics will help you promote those things your care about.  I think the main thrust of your piece is hurt by the rancor and resistance to valid points in the comments section.  The upshot is that only CG and I rec'ed it.  And now it's falling off the list.

by Strummerson 2009-01-27 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: facts

I understand the criticism, but you must also understand from where I am coming. When you are attacked a lot ont hese things its sometimes hard to tell who is doing it for the right reason. Unfortunately motivation does matter here.

by bruh3 2009-01-27 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: facts

Sure.  It can be rough.  But it works better to assume good will until the converse is clearly demonstrated.  If you do not insult those who are behaving badly, you loose no points.  If you insult someone who doesn't deserve it, you turn everyone off.  And trust others to come to your aid if you are being unfairly attacked.  And not all criticism are attacks.

I think you are clearly both smart and passionate about things that I also care about.  I would like your contributions to reach more people.

by Strummerson 2009-01-27 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: facts

Good points. Once again I apologize for the overreaction to the criticism. I see now it was coming from a good place.

by bruh3 2009-01-27 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: facts

It does move your argument closer to Godwin's Law, but I'll let it slide for the time being.

As to a point you make elsewhere, that America's domestic policies influence our foreign policies, you missed a wonderful opportunity with your Iraq example, by failing to mention America's role in Iraq's decriminalization of homosexuality in 2003.

by DaveOinSF 2009-01-27 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: facts

I disagree about godwin.  I think it's quite relevant that all other groups have received official protection excepting homosexuals.  It's not the same as trying to discredit someone with analogy to NAZIism.  

As for your point regarding Iraq, I think you two are talking past one another.

1. There is indeed a meaningful distinction between state sanctioned and state tolerated violence.  Sometimes the latter is worse.

2. If America indeed had a role in Iraq's decriminalization of homosexuality, this cuts both ways.  It both displays the kind of leadership we should be undertaking on human rights, and shows that ratifying resolutions and changing laws is not enough.

by Strummerson 2009-01-27 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: facts

You imply that the Iraqi government in 2007 was in any position to tolerate or not tolerate roving militants targeting gays.  While it's tragic that it did take place, remember that levels of violence in Iraq were very high in general.  What is the situation today?

by DaveOinSF 2009-01-27 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: facts

Not exactly a selling point to say that we can obtain the rights of others by killing a lot of other people.

by bruh3 2009-01-27 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: facts

my point regarding the US changing the policies there is how we went about doing it was through our invasion. That's not a good thing regarding disucssing how to change the situation for gays abroad by saying that well america produced change through war in Iraq.

by bruh3 2009-01-27 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N. Resolution

Wow, that's a great development.  It really puts things in perspective to think about how our political fights focus on issues like gay marriage while in other countries around the world, gay rights are basically at the point of fighting for your right not to be executed.

The U.S. sends a powerful message whenever we stand up for equality, but it means that we need to keep our own house in order by passing laws like ENDA and showing that we fully uphold the principle of full legal equality for GLBT individuals.  It's nice to feel that we're headed in the right direction again.

by Steve M 2009-01-27 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N. Resolution

This is why public pressure is important and also education. Many people due to the manipulations of conservatives who seek to deny harm that has occured to gays and many gay groups (because of who leads them) do not fully discuss these harms. Thus, we have two forces both of which ignoring the harm factor for their own purposes. Public pressure and education provides the context for Obama's actions so that when he does what he does we have given him tools to do so. I believe BTD had a post up about FDR told a group to do the same. I see this conversation as no different.

by bruh3 2009-01-27 10:17AM | 0 recs
so freaking what?

I would be impressed if this were 1962.  As it is, who cares?  Is he for gay marriage?  Did he refuse to shake the hand of Gavin Newsom because it might be seen as too gay friendly?  Did he have a sexist homophobic fundamentalist give the invocation at his inauguration?  Did he have a homophobic gospel tour of the south during the primaries where jackasses like Donnie McClurkin, a noted "pray away your gay" loony was prominently featured and allowed to speak on the topic?

by Teacher1956 2009-01-27 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: so freaking what?

Lots of questions, but you forgot all the ones about "the birth certificate".  AMIRITE?!?!?

by fogiv 2009-01-27 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: so freaking what?

He could have simply ignored the resolution,a nd yes, the first such international resolution of its kind, even non bidding matters. It says we are being recognized, and that recognition over time is how we start to be "out" in the international stage. It's the same strategy that gays have always used. It's the denial of our existence that allowed the world after ww2 to continue to not admit to our suffering. By placing light on that suffering it is far more than others are willing to do. Is it enough? No. But don't pretend like its not a big deal. That's also false.

by bruh3 2009-01-27 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: so freaking what?

I'm thinking 1962 was the last time you had a calm rational thought....

by WashStateBlue 2009-01-27 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N. Resolution to Decriminaliz

I hadn't heard about this so I'm happy you took the time to post this dairy. Rec

by Politicalslave 2009-01-27 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N. Resolution to Decriminaliz

Thank you for the rec. These are issues that are not generally discussed by either the American main stream media or the gay (mostly white upper income) press. Thus, people do not know the full range of gay issues out there that people are facing. I try to, when I get the chance, to bring this up because everyone sort of sees gay issues like will and grace rather than deeper than that. There is this whole world out there behind it. If you get a chance google human rights abuses across the world and gays to check it out. A lot of it is pretty sad and crazy. But mostly it works off of denial such as the kind that Mike Huckabee, for example, engages in.

by bruh3 2009-01-27 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports

This is great news!

Did you read this diary at Kos about gays and lesbians and the holocaust?  It's worth a read.

by psychodrew 2009-01-27 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports

Yes. I read it when she linked me to it over at kos. I thought it was particularly well done.

by bruh3 2009-01-27 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports

I bookmarked that diary and I read it sometimes when I'm feeling sorry for myself.  It helps me put my current difficulties into some perspective.

by psychodrew 2009-01-27 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supports U.N. Resolution to Decriminaliz

by brit 2009-01-28 03:35AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads