NationStates Jolt Archive

*shrugs*. I like to assume my fellow posters also have a shred of decency and actually care about other people. Naive of course, but hey - it is Christmas. The time to be that.


Unless you are mr Starr of course.

I usually assume that as well. Of course, the posters Im refering to have already shown that is simply not the case. One of them, in fact, started a thread post Prop 8 simply to laugh at all the gays in California and America bash. When asked why he found their plight funny, he said, because since he isnt in the US, it doesnt effect him.

Really cares about others, huh?

I usually assume that as well. Of course, the posters Im refering to have already shown that is simply not the case. One of them, in fact, started a thread post Prop 8 simply to laugh at all the gays in California and America bash. When asked why he found their plight funny, he said, because since he isnt in the US, it doesnt effect him.

Really cares about others, huh?

Well, your post was directed towards all non-Americans.

But meh, if you are actually concerned only about "America bashing", whatever...

If you're actually on someone's property and they ask you to leave, you are trespassing.

Not so sure about picketing someone's home from the sidewalk, though. That's public space.
which is why I find it hard to see anyone picketting a private residence (Suberbia) if you're not on their land, they you are on City/State property (the road) or someone elses property.

not saying it doesn't happen, just hard for me to imagine.

Ah, yes. The anti-miscegenation holdover.

Isn't it good to know that the people trying to black same-sex marriage not only use the same arguments, but also the same tools as those who tried to block interracial marriage?except Mass retired that law. ;)

I voted "No" as to my surprise at not signing this UN resolution.

Why? Because it is clear why the US did not sign it. A little thing I like to call the Constitution. Read the article:

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.

This is clearly a state's rights issue. Period. Why would the US sign something that stands against the Constitution? The UN is not a governing body and has no say to how we are to run our country.

All legality aside: of what use is this piece of paper? This strongly worded letter? This body of corrupt officials has lost all license to dictate morality since they freely allow genocide and promote tyranny. Anything produced by the UN is tainted with the fact that dictatorships are allowed a place at the table with democracies. The critique of the US is laughable.

This is clearly a state's rights issue. Period. Why would the US sign something that stands against the Constitution? The UN is not a governing body and has no say to how we are to run our country.

All legality aside: of what use is this piece of paper? This strongly worded letter?

It is funny how you completely destroy the argument of the first quoted paragraph with the second one ;)

except Mass retired that law. ;)

Indeed, but it took them a while.

I voted "No" as to my surprise at not signing this UN resolution.

Why? Because it is clear why the US did not sign it. A little thing I like to call the Constitution. Read the article:

This has been discussed. Their "concern" is bullshit. Anything that this resolution would change regarding such matters would already be covered by the Constitution as it stands. So they either have to admit that the current legal landscape is infringing upon the Constitutionally protected rights of homosexuals, or they have to admit that this resolution poses no threat whatsoever to state authority.

'It's against the Constitution' covers all manner of crimes, the Constitution has always been highly open to interpretation when deemed necessary but it's always the first line of defense against anything that has no other reason for support other than pigheadedness.

What?

It's the only way to explain how Guyana and Suriname suddenly became "Islamic" :p

Talking about Islamic countries:


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/world/19nations.html?ref=world

:rolleyes:

Typical from the Muslim coutries, that didnt surprise me. Even EU candidate "secular" Turkey went Islamic:

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/domestic/10617078.asp?gid=244
Strange how the arguments of conservative Muslims and the arguments of conservative Christians are the same...

Well, your post was directed towards all non-Americans.

But meh, if you are actually concerned only about "America bashing", whatever...

Youre persecution complex is cute. It was not directed towards all non-Americans. It was very clearly directed towards certian posters. Not all non-Americans on this board get a woody from America bashing. Some actually say valid things and are legitemitally concerned about people. Others just like to scream and point, and have no real concern for human life.

Anyway, am I suprised? No, not at all, its perfectly consistant with the current administration. Am I upset? Slightly. Considering it was symbolic and non-binding, I can only be so upset. I never cared much for symbolic gestures

I think if the UN really cared, they would try and get an actual binding resolution passed. If America didnt sign that one, then Id be genuinely upset.

This has been discussed. Their "concern" is bullshit. Anything that this resolution would change regarding such matters would already be covered by the Constitution as it stands. So they either have to admit that the current legal landscape is infringing upon the Constitutionally protected rights of homosexuals, or they have to admit that this resolution poses no threat whatsoever to state authority.

Well gee, if y'all discussed it and declared it "bullshit" then it must be so.

But back to reality: This is a policy stance that would be contrary to our Constitution. The actual declaration has no power to change anything at all so that is not the issue. The issue is the Federal government stating that it supports a stance that is contrary to the Constitution.

Well gee, if y'all discussed it and declared it "bullshit" then it must be so.

But back to reality: This is a policy stance that would be contrary to our Constitution. The actual declaration has no power to change anything at all so that is not the issue. The issue is the Federal government stating that it supports a stance that is contrary to the Constitution.

It wouldnt be against the Constitution though. By your logic, every federal law is unconstitutional.


We all declared it "bullshit" because we all apperantly understand this better than you.

Well gee, if y'all discussed it and declared it "bullshit" then it must be so.

But back to reality: This is a policy stance that would be contrary to our Constitution. The actual declaration has no power to change anything at all so that is not the issue. The issue is the Federal government stating that it supports a stance that is contrary to the Constitution.

In this reality of yours, what provision of the U.S. Constitution would be violated by signing this non-binding UN Declaration?

Or are you blowing smoke?

It is funny how you completely destroy the argument of the first quoted paragraph with the second one ;)

If that were the case it would be quite funny. What is actually humorous is the case of being unable to distinguish the Constitution from a feel good scrap of paper written by a corrupt body of totalitarians. Now that is comedy gold!

But back to reality: This is a policy stance that would be contrary to our Constitution.

How is decriminalization of homosexuality contrary to our Constitution?

How is non-discrimination contrary to our Constitution?

Youre persecution complex is cute. It was not directed towards all non-Americans. It was very clearly directed towards certian posters.


Not really. When you make generalized comments, people will wonder who exactly you mean. And at first you werent that clear until you made it clear that you had meant Fassitude.

Or are you blowing smoke?

Oooh! Oooh! Pick me! Pick me! *waves hand in the air*

Not really. When you make generalized comments, people will wonder who exactly you mean. And at first you werent that clear until you made it clear that you had meant Fassitude.

Not just Fass.

And it was clear to most other posters.

It wouldnt be against the Constitution though. By your logic, every federal law is unconstitutional.

A great many are if you actually understood the Constitution.

We all declared it "bullshit" because we all apperantly understand this better than you.

Really? You have yet to prove this. In today's world loudness of voice is often mistaken for truth.

a great many are if you actually understood the constitution.

rotflastc

A great many are if you actually understood the Constitution.


Oh how cute. Like what? Tell me, this ought to be good for a laugh. Forgive me if I trust the judgement of our courts over some guy on the internet, especially some guy on the internet who has a history of saying totally wrong and ignorant things.


Really? You have yet to prove this.

I dont need to prove anything. Your comments do that for me.

If that were the case it would be quite funny. What is actually humorous is the case of being unable to distinguish the Constitution from a feel good scrap of paper written by a corrupt body of totalitarians. Now that is comedy gold!

Nah. What is funny is that you KNOW the document is nonbinding, and as such can in no way cause any trouble for the states - and yet cite trouble for the states as a reason to not sign it.
Doublethink at its best ;)

In this reality of yours, what provision of the U.S. Constitution would be violated by signing this non-binding UN Declaration?

Or are you blowing smoke?

While many would rush foward without thinking of the consequences, the federal government decided to consider the UN declaration seriously. Why be on record agreeing with something that might be contrary to the laws of your nation?

The federal government has to operate according to the Constitution. Not UN declarations.

rotflastc

:eek2: ;)


The Battle is over, the fighting is done.
yet 10 of us made it, we figure we won.
for we count the survivors and count them by
one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine... many.

and it's March, March,
April, May, June, July, Augest, September
We fight every day and it's Fare thee well
all semblance of comedy, all of the Dorsai are Counting...

While many would rush foward without thinking of the consequences, the federal government decided to consider the UN declaration seriously. Why be on record agreeing with something that might be contrary to the laws of your nation?

Except it wouldnt have been unconstitutional.


The federal government has to operate according to the Constitution

The past 8 years call this into question.

While many would rush foward without thinking of the consequences, the federal government decided to consider the UN declaration seriously. Why be on record agreeing with something that might be contrary to the laws of your nation?

The federal government has to operate according to the Constitution. Not UN declarations.

Non-responsive. I repeat the question:

In this reality of yours, what provision of the U.S. Constitution would be violated by signing this non-binding UN Declaration?

Or are you blowing smoke?

Can you answer the first question or are you admitting the truth of the second?

A great many are if you actually understood the Constitution.

So you can definitely name them, right?

You can tell us exactly how this resolution would contradict the Constitution?

Nah. What is funny is that you KNOW the document is nonbinding, and as such can in no way cause any trouble for the states - and yet cite trouble for the states as a reason to not sign it.
Doublethink at its best ;)

I do not "cite trouble for the states". I merely point out where this declaration and the Constitution are at odds. Once again, why sign something that contradicts your country's law when it doesn't mean anything to anyone?

While many maintain this is a symbol of solidarity it can also be a symbol of the federal government's abandonment of state's rights. Not that the federal government hasn't stomped all over them already but at least this time they stood back and at least considered them.

Nah. What is funny is that you KNOW the document is nonbinding, and as such can in no way cause any trouble for the states - and yet cite trouble for the states as a reason to not sign it.
Doublethink at its best ;)
So is it being 'non-binding' a good reason to sign something?

considering the US delegate is treating it seriously means they are considering the fact that it is non-binding to be a very trivial point.

I do not "cite trouble for the states". I merely point out where this declaration and the Constitution are at odds. *snip*

You have? Where?

I do not "cite trouble for the states". I merely point out where this declaration and the Constitution are at odds.

...except you haven't. You haven't pointed to a single such issue.

Do you have one to point out?

I do not "cite trouble for the states". I merely point out where this declaration and the Constitution are at odds. Once again, why sign something that contradicts your country's law when it doesn't mean anything to anyone?

Once again, how is it against the Constitution and violating states rights?

Are you saying that states aught to be allowed to make Homosexuality a crime? Thats why the Federal Government shouldnt have signed it?

I do not "cite trouble for the states". I merely point out where this declaration and the Constitution are at odds. Once again, why sign something that contradicts your country's law when it doesn't mean anything to anyone?

While many maintain this is a symbol of solidarity it can also be a symbol of the federal government's abandonment of state's rights. Not that the federal government hasn't stomped all over them already but at least this time they stood back and at least considered them.

maybe the point you are trying to say is that because Marriage is left to be defined by each state, the US Delegate is wary of signing something that may be seen as the Federal Government overstepping it's legal boundaries when it comes to States rights (not saying it will or won't.)

So is it being 'non-binding' a good reason to sign something?

considering the US delegate is treating it seriously means they are not considering the fact that it is non-binding to be a very trivial point.

Why did Australia sign it then? It's a federation and the gov is against gay marriage. There are more similar examples (anti gay marriage govs of federal countries) like Germany.

maybe the point you are trying to say is that because Marriage is left to be defined by each state, the US Delegate is wary of signing something that may be seen as the Federal Government overstepping it's legal boundaries when it comes to States rights (not saying it will or won't.)

Except this resolution has nothing to do with marriage, and if that is his point, it shows he doesnt understand anything about this issue, bringing me back to my original point.

So is it being 'non-binding' a good reason to sign something?

Nope. It just means that "it could cause legal trouble" is not a valid reason to NOT sign it.

Which returns us to the question "why did the USA not sign ?"
One could optimistaically assume that the USA does not truly hold the position that being homosexual is sufficient reason to imprison or kill people - however "the world" is now of course interpreting this non willingness as an endorsement of such behaviour.

Which the US representatives knew perfectly well.

Why did Australia sign it then? It's a federation and the gov is against gay marriage. There are more similar examples (anti gay marriage govs of federal countries) like Germany.

dunno. maybe they are holding the fact that it is Non-Binding to be a very important point. such as a child promising something but having their fingers crossed behind their back.

So you can definitely name them, right?

You can tell us exactly how this resolution would contradict the Constitution?

Since common sense seems to not be enough I would point you to the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution which states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The issue of creating a protected class for homosexuals or allowing them to be married is a state right.

Once again, why is it that the federal government should sign a UN document that counters the Constitution?

Except this resolution has nothing to do with marriage, and if that is his point, it shows he doesnt understand anything about this issue, bringing me back to my original point. it doesn't? Not at all?

so if states vote to not allow Same Sex marriage is not discriminating and criminalizing an aspect of Homosexual lifestyles?

BTW, just trying to understand The Smiling Frogs point.

Nope. It just means that "it could cause legal trouble" is not a valid reason to NOT sign it.

Which returns us to the question "why did the USA not sign ?"
One could optimistaically assume that the USA does not truly hold the position that being homosexual is sufficient reason to imprison or kill people - however "the world" is no interpreting this non willingness as an endorsement of such behaviour.

Which the US representatives knew perfectly well.

It stated why the US Rep didn't sign in the Article. they had Legal concerns that could not be satisfactorily answered. what those questions are is best asked of the US rep and not here.

The issue of creating a protected class for homosexuals or allowing them to be married is a state right.

Last time I checked, saying "we think it bad to imprison or kill people for reason X" is not that big a deal.

Does "We think it bad to imprison or kill people for owning spoons" for instance violate the constitution ?

As for marriage - this document has nothing to do with that.

It stated why the US Rep didn't sign in the Article. they had Legal concerns that could not be satisfactorily answered. what those questions are is best asked of the US rep and not here.

Why not here ? Very few people actually believe that claim - and instead see it as a sign that the USA wishes gays to die.
Again: US representatives knew that. If the legal issues were truly paramount, they could have explicitly mentioned them or signed a slightly amended document. It is not like the text of this document was a highly kept secret.

They did not. They opted to not sign at all - being fully aware what message that sends to the world.

Since common sense seems to not be enough I would point you to the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution which states:



The issue of creating a protected class for homosexuals or allowing them to be married is a state right.

Once again, why is it that the federal government should sign a UN document that counters the Constitution?

First, this UN document neither creates a protected class for homosexuals or requires their right to marry be recognized.

Second, you seem to conveniently ignore the existence of the 14th Amendment. As I said earlier in this thread, it is not up to individual states whether or not to criminalize homosexuality or homosexual behavior. Rather, such laws violate the U.S. Constitution as it applies to all the states. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-102.html), 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (holding that Texas "Homosexual Conduct" laws violate vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment); Romer v. Evans (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=u10179), 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (holding that Amendment 2 of Colorado's State Constitution, forbidding the extension of official protections to those who suffer discrimination due to their sexual orientation, violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause).

I'd love to see you explain how policies that violate the Constitution are protected by the Constitution.

it doesn't? Not at all?

so if states vote to not allow Same Sex marriage is not discriminating and criminalizing an aspect of Homosexual lifestyles?

BTW, just trying to understand The Smiling Frogs point.


No. As has been pointed out to you before, nothing in the resolution addresses same-sex marriage.

maybe the point you are trying to say is that because Marriage is left to be defined by each state, the US Delegate is wary of signing something that may be seen as the Federal Government overstepping it's legal boundaries when it comes to States rights (not saying it will or won't.)

Someone gets it.

I guess it is far easier to believe the US government is supporting homophobia rather than understand why US officials would rather not make statements of policy contrary to the Constitution.

Anywho. Have a nice day everyone.

I guess it is far easier to believe the US government is supporting homophobia rather than understand why US officials would rather not make statements of policy contrary to the Constitution.

Note that the US representatives are not imbeciles, contrary to what you keep implying. They knew full well what the consequences of their action (or lack of) would be.

Anywho. Have a nice day everyone.

And as soon someone mentions what the constitution actually states, froggy leaps awayyyyyy ;)

Since common sense seems to not be enough I would point you to the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution which states:

.....and that applies....how, exactly?

The issue of creating a protected class for homosexuals or allowing them to be married is a state right.

There is no need for a "protected class". Homosexuals are human beings and therefore entitled, under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, to equal protection under the law.

Meanwhile, marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the resolution. The fact that you think it applies to marriage tells me quite clearly that you think homosexuals are already being denied their rights when they are not extended equal marriage protections. If that is the case, the 14th Amendment already applies.

And the 14th Amendment does apply to the states.

Once again, why is it that the federal government should sign a UN document that counters the Constitution?

You haven't shown that it counters the Constitution. Try again.


so if states vote to not allow Same Sex marriage is not discriminating and criminalizing an aspect of Homosexual lifestyles?

Not according to the current administration. According to them, homosexuals already have equal protection under the law and are not being discriminated against by such moves. Hence the reason that they claim the 14th Amendment doesn't apply.

In order to oppose this resolution on the grounds that they claim, they would have to first admit that homosexuals are being discriminated against by such laws. Of course, if they admit that, the 14th Amendment could be used to strike down all such laws.

So the "states' rights" argument is pretty clearly a red herring.

It stated why the US Rep didn't sign in the Article. they had Legal concerns that could not be satisfactorily answered. what those questions are is best asked of the US rep and not here.

They make that claim. But the "legal concerns" they claim to have would also mean that they must already have "legal concerns" as these things relate to the 14th Amendment. Except, they claim they don't....

Why not here ? Very few people actually believe that claim - and instead see it as a sign that the USA wishes gays to die. We don't have all the information. you SEE it as a sign that the USA wishes gays to die. even tho killing Gays are against hate crime laws currently enforced.

Again: US representatives knew that. If the legal issues were truly paramount, they could have explicitly mentioned them or signed a slightly amended document. It is not like the text of this document was a highly kept secret. show me the Slightly Amended Document that was created because the US had legal concerns. there must be, because the article states the Rep had legal concerns so therefore the UN must have amended their resolution to meet the USA's approval. unless there is NO SLIGHTLY AMENDED DOCUMENT.

and the OP doesn't say the issues were paramount, just that they had legal concerns.

They did not. They opted to not sign at all - being fully aware what message that sends to the world.
again, show me this supposed Slightly Amended Document that was created because the USA raised these legal questions.

We don't have all the information. you SEE it as a sign that the USA wishes gays to die. even tho killing Gays are against hate crime laws currently enforced.

(a) We're talking about governments killing homosexuals, not regular citizens.

(b) Hate crime laws only exist in reference to sexual orientation in some parts of the country.

show me the Slightly Amended Document that was created because the US had legal concerns. there must be, because the article states the Rep had legal concerns so therefore the UN must have amended their resolution to meet the USA's approval. unless there is NO SLIGHTLY AMENDED DOCUMENT.

You know, usually, if someone has concerns, they create the amended document that they would be ok with.

We don't have all the information. you SEE it as a sign that the USA wishes gays to die.

Yes, that is the POINT. It is SEEN that way. The USA knew it was going to be SEEN that away, regardless of how it truly IS.

We are talking about international politics here. The USA knows how it works.

show me the Slightly Amended Document that was created because the US had legal concerns.

You seem to have missed the point again. The USA could have made a slightly amended document that they could have presented as an alternative for the "legally tricky" one all the other countries were signing. It would have been a gesture saying "we cannot sign this, but we agree with the spirit"

They did not and hence I cannot show it. Which was the point - they decided to do nothing.
And that doing nothing is a very negative message.

But back to reality: This is a policy stance that would be contrary to our Constitution.

How's this contrary to the Constitution?

* We urge States to take all the necessary measures, in particular legislative or administrative, to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention.

* We urge States to ensure that human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity are investigated and perpetrators held accountable and brought to justice;

I would rather claim that it's in the spirit of the Constitution.

Someone gets it.
Actually, many here get it. You're not one of them.

I guess it is far easier to believe the US government is supporting homophobia rather than understand why US officials would rather not make statements of policy contrary to the Constitution.
In what way is it contrary to the Constitution? You have yet to explain.


Anywho. Have a nice day everyone.
...and you're off without bothering to even trying to explain or justify your claim. No surprise there, really - since you wouldn't be able to do so.

I think if the UN really cared, they would try and get an actual binding resolution passed. If America didnt sign that one, then Id be genuinely upset.
None of the UN's resolutions are really binding, there is no enforcement of International Law.

None of the UN's resolutions are really binding, there is no enforcement of International Law.

There is. It's just selective.

None of the UN's resolutions are really binding, there is no enforcement of International Law.

Ofcourse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_I) not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_War)...

No. As has been pointed out to you before, nothing in the resolution addresses same-sex marriage. doesn't the resolution mention discrimination?

From Gravlen's post.
* We reaffirm the principle of universality of human rights, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights whose 60th anniversary is celebrated this year, Article 1 of which proclaims that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights";

* We reaffirm that everyone is entitled to the enjoyment of human rights without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, as set out in Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 2 of the International Covenants on Civil and Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as in article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

* We reaffirm the principle of non-discrimination which requires that human rights apply equally to every human being regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity;

* We are deeply concerned by violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms based on sexual orientation or gender identity;

* We are also disturbed that violence, harassment, discrimination, exclusion, stigmatisation and prejudice are directed against persons in all countries in the world because of sexual orientation or gender identity, and that these practices undermine the integrity and dignity of those subjected to these abuses;

* We condemn the human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity wherever they occur, in particular the use of the death penalty on this ground, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the practice of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, arbitrary arrest or detention and deprivation of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to health;

* We recall the statement in 2006 before the Human Rights Council by fifty four countries requesting the President of the Council to provide an opportunity, at an appropriate future session of the Council, for discussing these violations;

* We commend the attention paid to these issues by special procedures of the Human Rights Council and treaty bodies and encourage them to continue to integrate consideration of human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity within their relevant mandates;

* We welcome the adoption of Resolution AG/RES. 2435 (XXXVIII-O/08) on "Human Rights, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity" by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States during its 38th session in 3 June 2008;

* We call upon all States and relevant international human rights mechanisms to commit to promote and protect human rights of all persons, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity;

* We urge States to take all the necessary measures, in particular legislative or administrative, to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention.

* We urge States to ensure that human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity are investigated and perpetrators held accountable and brought to justice;

* We urge States to ensure adequate protection of human rights defenders, and remove obstacles which prevent them from carrying out their work on issues of human rights and sexual orientation and gender identity.
Bolding mine. all those parts that state Discrimination. not just ciminalizing nor just lost of life and property but Discrimination in General.

Someone gets it.

I guess it is far easier to believe the US government is supporting homophobia rather than understand why US officials would rather not make statements of policy contrary to the Constitution.

Anywho. Have a nice day everyone. Many people jump to conclusions baised on their beliefs, viewpoints, and facts given (even if those facts are incomplete.)

BTW, it's not a conflict in the Consitiution, but the legal relationship between Federal and State Governments. (EDIT: Wether such a conflict exists is a different story.)

There is no need for a "protected class". Homosexuals are human beings and therefore entitled, under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, to equal protection under the law. yet criminals and lawbreakers are forced to have their location reported and displayed for everyone to see. so where is the former cimininal's equal protection under the law or are those that broke the law not human?

Meanwhile, marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the resolution. The fact that you think it applies to marriage tells me quite clearly that you think homosexuals are already being denied their rights when they are not extended equal marriage protections. If that is the case, the 14th Amendment already applies. nope, but "Discrimination" is mentioned in Gravlen's post.

And the 14th Amendment does apply to the states. yet Minnesota Supreme Court made this ruling in Baker v Nelson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson)

On appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling, and specifically ruled that Minnesota's limiting of marriage to opposite-sex unions "does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution".

Followed by SCotUS ruling when appealed to them,

Upon losing their case before the Minnesota Supreme Court, Baker and McConnell appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court dismissed the case "for want of a substantial federal question."

Unlike a denial of certiorari, a dismissal for want of a substantial federal question constitutes a decision on the merits of the case, and as such, is binding precedent on all lower Federal Courts.

"[U]ntil the Supreme Court should instruct otherwise, inferior federal courts had best adhere to the view that the Court has branded a question as unsubstantial". Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975) "[D]ismissals for want of a substantial federal question without doubt reject the specific challenges presented in the statement of jurisdiction". Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977). Lower Federal Courts are expressly prohibited from ruling in a way inconsistent with binding precedent. "[Summary decisions] prevent lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)

So untill SCotUS makes a change, those under the Minnesota Supreme Court Jurisdiction abides by the ruling that Minnesota's limiting of marriage to opposite-sex unions "does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution".

that is to my understanding. I'm sure Neo Art and TCT will be more than happy to explain Baker v Nelson to me. (please? :hail:)

They make that claim. But the "legal concerns" they claim to have would also mean that they must already have "legal concerns" as these things relate to the 14th Amendment. Except, they claim they don't.... however, the US Rep did not mention Legal Concerns in relation to the 14th amendment (unless someone posted a source...) Mine is just speculation and simple musings.

(a) We're talking about governments killing homosexuals, not regular citizens.

(b) Hate crime laws only exist in reference to sexual orientation in some parts of the country.



You know, usually, if someone has concerns, they create the amended document that they would be ok with.

Yes, that is the POINT. It is SEEN that way. The USA knew it was going to be SEEN that away, regardless of how it truly IS.

We are talking about international politics here. The USA knows how it works.



You seem to have missed the point again. The USA could have made a slightly amended document that they could have presented as an alternative for the "legally tricky" one all the other countries were signing. It would have been a gesture saying "we cannot sign this, but we agree with the spirit"

They did not and hence I cannot show it. Which was the point - they decided to do nothing.
And that doing nothing is a very negative message.

I like the Idea you two put forth. the USA has legal concerns about the resolution, so a committee that drew up the resolution will then alter it to the USA's whims because of ONE country's concerns no matter what those concerns are or how it could change the resolution.

"Sorry, Members of the UN. while 51% of you agree with this Resolution, since the USA has some legal concerns, we have to alter the Resolution. we'll be back when those alterations are made."

U.S. officials said the United States had not signed either document. They said the broad framing of the language in the statement supporting decriminalization created conflicts with U.S. law, but gave no further details.

So the US signed neither the document Supporting Decriminalization and the OPPOSING DOCUMENT that some said But the opposing document said the statement "delves into matters which fall essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of states" and could lead to "the social normalization, and possibly the legitimization, of many deplorable acts including pedophilia."

note the US did not support either document.

I would really rather bash my head against a brick wall until my eyes bleed than read one more illogical, ill-informed, willfully ignorant interpretation of "what the Constitution says". I can not even begin to imagine how TCT has held it together for this long, but I applaud him. I would urge those of you without legal background to go a little further than reading the Bill of Rights on Wikipedia before you proclaim yourselves experts--to save yourselves embarrassment and the rest of us a headache.

I would really rather bash my head against a brick wall until my eyes bleed than read one more illogical, ill-informed, willfully ignorant interpretation of "what the Constitution says". I can not even begin to imagine how TCT has held it together for this long, but I applaud him. I would urge those of you without legal background to go a little further than reading the Bill of Rights on Wikipedia before you proclaim yourselves experts--to save yourselves embarrassment and the rest of us a headache.

Hmmm... where do you point out the "illogical, ill-informed, willfully ignorant interpretation"? I suppose the Tenth amendment doesn't actually say what it says.

I would really rather bash my head against a brick wall until my eyes bleed than read one more illogical, ill-informed, willfully ignorant interpretation of "what the Constitution says". I can not even begin to imagine how TCT has held it together for this long, but I applaud him. I would urge those of you without legal background to go a little further than reading the Bill of Rights on Wikipedia before you proclaim yourselves experts--to save yourselves embarrassment and the rest of us a headache.

what the hell, what am I, chopped liver?

Hmmm... where do you point out the "illogical, ill-informed, willfully ignorant interpretation"? I suppose the Tenth amendment doesn't actually say what it says.

I'm not entirely sure you realize that the number 14 comes after the number 10.

"It's disappointing," said Rama Yade, France's human rights minister, of the U.S. position — which she described as in contradiction with America's long tradition as a defender of human rights."
She's wrong - USA defend human rights, but gays are not human beings.

"It's disappointing," said Rama Yade, France's human rights minister, of the U.S. position — which she described as in contradiction with America's long tradition as a defender of human rights."
She's wrong - USA defend human rights, but gays are not human beings.

Lol.

"It's disappointing," said Rama Yade, France's human rights minister, of the U.S. position — which she described as in contradiction with America's long tradition as a defender of human rights."
She's wrong - USA defend human rights, but gays are not human beings.

Pft, way to blow your load too early. Amateur.

"It's disappointing," said Rama Yade, France's human rights minister, of the U.S. position — which she described as in contradiction with America's long tradition as a defender of human rights."
She's wrong - USA defend human rights, but gays are not human beings.

But in all seriousness - you're a plonker.

what a good feel of sarcasm...

doesn't the resolution mention discrimination?

From Gravlen's post.

Bolding mine. all those parts that state Discrimination. not just ciminalizing nor just lost of life and property but Discrimination in General.
Yes. So? The action clauses in the document talk about human rights and violence. Marriage rights aren't mentioned, and the statement can easily be interpreted to not in any way include marriage. This would be unproblematic under current international law as well.


I like the Idea you two put forth. the USA has legal concerns about the resolution, so a committee that drew up the resolution will then alter it to the USA's whims because of ONE country's concerns no matter what those concerns are or how it could change the resolution.

"Sorry, Members of the UN. while 51% of you agree with this Resolution, since the USA has some legal concerns, we have to alter the Resolution. we'll be back when those alterations are made."

Wherein lies the problem here?

what the hell, what am I, chopped liver?
With onions...

Mmmm... Chopped liver with onions

what a good feel of sarcasm...

your whole 10 posts on this forum do not give you enough credence or reputation to discern your position or motivations. In short, it's winter break, and the kiddies are out to play, I have no reason to assume you're anything but a poor troll.

Hmmm... where do you point out the "illogical, ill-informed, willfully ignorant interpretation"? I suppose the Tenth amendment doesn't actually say what it says.

Care to try to back up your statements above, btw? At least try to respond to the questions you've dodged so far?

Bolding mine. all those parts that state Discrimination. not just ciminalizing nor just lost of life and property but Discrimination in General.

Indeed - which the people who are opposed to same-sex marriage claim their position does not fall under.

yet criminals and lawbreakers are forced to have their location reported and displayed for everyone to see. so where is the former cimininal's equal protection under the law or are those that broke the law not human?

Ah, and this is where a concept called due process comes in.

yet Minnesota Supreme Court made this ruling in Baker v Nelson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson)

(a) I believe they were wrong.

(b) It doesn't really matter, because anyone taking this position should have no problem with the UN resolution. By the same logic used in that case, the resolution also poses no problems for the denial of same-sex marriage.

however, the US Rep did not mention Legal Concerns in relation to the 14th amendment (unless someone posted a source...) Mine is just speculation and simple musings.

No, but the US Rep did mention legal concerns that, if they really were concerns under this resolution, would also be concerns under the 14th amendment.

Either these issues are discrimination that infringes upon the rights of homosexuals or they are not. If they are not, then the resolution poses no risk to the laws within the states. If they are, the Constitution as is already sufficient to cover them.

The problem here is the mental disconnect necessary to have a problem with the resolution and still argue that the Constitution doesn't already cover these issues. You can't have it both ways. Either the Constitution already invalidates such laws, or the resolution would not.

Either way, there's no Constitutional conflict with the resolution itself.

I like the Idea you two put forth. the USA has legal concerns about the resolution, so a committee that drew up the resolution will then alter it to the USA's whims because of ONE country's concerns no matter what those concerns are or how it could change the resolution.

"Sorry, Members of the UN. while 51% of you agree with this Resolution, since the USA has some legal concerns, we have to alter the Resolution. we'll be back when those alterations are made."

Cute strawman! Can I give him a hat?

It would actually be more like this. "Due to certain legal concerns, we do not feel comfortable signing the resolution as-is. However, we would sign off on the following resolution which we would like to introduce for consideration...."

This is how these things work. It's called diplomacy.

You are talking about gay marriages, but there is a ban for gay-parades in Russia and full-scale gay discrimination - a contrast I may say. So for me it is quiet funny to read Western forums about civil rights and then go out in the streets and look for almost absence of civil rights in my country

You are talking about gay marriages, but there is a ban for gay-parades in Russia and full-scale gay discrimination - a contrast I may say. So for me it is quiet funny to read Western forums about civil rights and then go out in the streets and look for almost absence of civil rights in my country

Funny indeed!..
:p

/e shakes head and walks away

You are talking about gay marriages, but there is a ban for gay-parades in Russia and full-scale gay discrimination - a contrast I may say. So for me it is quiet funny to read Western forums about civil rights and then go out in the streets and look for almost absence of civil rights in my country

It must be hilarious to realise you live in a backwards country.

Maybe he's the Ghost of Stalin?.. Also - everytime I read the name 'Corporation Sectors' I keep thinking 'Corporation Sex' and what exactly this could entail...

...prolly just me though in all likelihood
Ahem!

Yep, especially after really free 90's. Now it looks like "USSR -Lite"

What will gays gain from permission of gay marriages?
a. Stamp in passport.
b. Common property.
c. What else?

What will gays gain from permission of gay marriages?
a. Stamp in passport.
b. Common property.
c. What else?

Authority over medical treatment of their partner.
Pensions and tax benefits.
Equal rights with the rest of the population.

Pensions and tax benefits.
I think this is connected with ability of child-bearing so I see no reasons to give it to gay couples. Although adoption....
And equal rights? Well, hetherosexual families have children and consequently they ensure future of nation and consequently they should have more rights than those who don't do this. IMHO

I think this is connected with ability of child-bearing so I see no reasons to give it to gay couples. Although adoption....
And equal rights? Well, hetherosexual families have children and consequently they ensure future of nation and consequently they should have more rights than those who don't do this. IMHO

How about married heterosexuals who don't have children?

I think this is connected with ability of child-bearing so I see no reasons to give it to gay couples. Although adoption....
And equal rights? Well, hetherosexual families have children and consequently they ensure future of nation and consequently they should have more rights than those who don't do this. IMHO

Ah, so heterosexual families who don't have children should have less rights too then?

I kinda doubt your ability to understand what the term "rights" entails...

Gravlen: may be you want say "equal rights"?

IMHO all privileges giving to family (tax benefits, pensions, etc.) are connected with children. And families that don't have children are just "by-products" of this policy.

So gays should have equal rights with other population in everything except family economic benefits. And equal economic benefits from marriage only in case of adoption.

What will gays gain from permission of gay marriages?
a. Stamp in passport.
b. Common property.
c. What else?

The signicance is more abstract; can you provide a valid reason to withhold the right to civil partership.

Actually, are you discussing gay marriage as a religious entity, or civil entity?

Yes. So? The action clauses in the document talk about human rights and violence. Marriage rights aren't mentioned, and the statement can easily be interpreted to not in any way include marriage. This would be unproblematic under current international law as well.
so unless the legal document specifically states it, it's not concerned with it?

it mentions discrimination. so are you also saying that a ban on Same Sex Marriage is NOT discrimination?

Wherein lies the problem here? Reality does not work that way, no matter how much you wish it.

Indeed - which the people who are opposed to same-sex marriage claim their position does not fall under. and those for same sex marriage claims it does.

Ah, and this is where a concept called due process comes in. so is the Sexual Offender's regestry unconsititutional?

(a) I believe they were wrong. thank you Supreme Court Justice Dem. alot of people think they're right. alot of people think Prop 8 should stay. too bad you don't have the say of who is right and wrong.

(b) It doesn't really matter, because anyone taking this position should have no problem with the UN resolution. By the same logic used in that case, the resolution also poses no problems for the denial of same-sex marriage. so denying same sex couples marriage and the legal status that goes with it is NOT discrimination? nice to hear you say that.

No, but the US Rep did mention legal concerns that, if they really were concerns under this resolution, would also be concerns under the 14th amendment. which one lower supreme court stated does NOT fall under the 14th amendment. SCotUS did not overturn (and to be fair, did not uphold) the ruling.

Either these issues are discrimination that infringes upon the rights of homosexuals or they are not. If they are not, then the resolution poses no risk to the laws within the states. If they are, the Constitution as is already sufficient to cover them. hence the legal issues. since you too are not sure due to your inclusion of both possiblities.

The problem here is the mental disconnect necessary to have a problem with the resolution and still argue that the Constitution doesn't already cover these issues. You can't have it both ways. Either the Constitution already invalidates such laws, or the resolution would not. so does the Consitution cover a Same Sex Marriage ban that many states already have in place?

Either way, there's no Constitutional conflict with the resolution itself. Too bad we don't know if those legal issues are actually consititutional conflicts.

Cute strawman! Can I give him a hat? yet that is what you suggested when you said
You know, usually, if someone has concerns, they create the amended document that they would be ok with.

It would actually be more like this. "Due to certain legal concerns, we do not feel comfortable signing the resolution as-is. However, we would sign off on the following resolution which we would like to introduce for consideration...."

This is how these things work. It's called diplomacy.wrong. Diplomacy is "Majority Rules".

yet who wrote the resolution and counter proposals? Let's take a look.
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. General Assembly split over the issue of gay rights on Thursday after a European-drafted statement calling for decriminalization of homosexuality prompted an Arab-backed one opposing it.
so which would bow and allow the US to make changes? in fact, since the US didn't support either, then it must be that both should've made the necessary changes at the USA's whim.

economic expenses and economic result are the only valid reason for government(and re-election, of course).
So there is no moral, religious and other reasons, pure economics: majority of hetherosexual families have children, who later will provide their parents' tax benefits, consequently it's profitable to stimulate child-bearing by stimulating families.
Homosexual couples very rarely have children)) So the only reason to give them equal economic privileges is adopting children. But how much gay couples adopt children?
I bet that it's far lesser percent than percent of hetherosexual couples that have children.
So there is no reason for giving equal economic privileges to gay couples, although they should acquire all other rights

Oh, and forgot political aspect)
If the majority of people don't support gay marriages gays won't be permitted to this at least until next elections will be held

Oh, and forgot political aspect)
If the majority of people don't support gay marriages gays won't be permitted to this at least until next elections will be held

That's immaterial in discussining the legitimacy of gay marriage.

That's immaterial in discussining the legitimacy of gay marriage.

That's one of the key factors!

Government passing the laws elected by majority, so if the majority doesn't support this it won't be

That's one of the key factors!

Government passing the laws elected by majority, so if the majority doesn't support this it won't be

It's not. Rights exist to prevent a tyranny by the majority.

so unless the legal document specifically states it, it's not concerned with it?
This particular document is clearly not concerned with marriage rights, as that's a bigger and more complex issue. When it's not mentioned, while the main focus is on violence and violations of human rights, the interpretation shouldn't be too difficult. The "legal difficulties" issues is but a weak excuse from the US delegation in an attempt to save face while not supporting this document.

it mentions discrimination. so are you also saying that a ban on Same Sex Marriage is NOT discrimination?
I'm saying that it's not a type of discrimination that this document concerns itself with. See, there are different types of discrimination, some acceptable, some unacceptable, and some gray areas. In the context of this document, with regards to the action clauses, it clearly the more gross cases of discrimination that's the focus of the resolution -i.e. the clearly unacceptable forms of discrimination.

As to the ban on gay marriage, where it lies... Well, that's in the more gray areas, because nothing is indicated on where the line is drawn. Is civil unions OK, for example? Is it really discrimination if you get all the corresponding rights that heterosexuals get, but only under a different name? Is it a form of unacceptable discrimination to deny gay couples government-sponsored in vitro fertilization or adoption rights? It's unclear. But, again, in the context of this document, not the issue at hand.


Reality does not work that way, no matter how much you wish it.
It has happened before, and it will again.

economic expenses and economic result are the only valid reason for government(and re-election, of course).
So there is no moral, religious and other reasons, pure economics: majority of hetherosexual families have children, who later will provide their parents' tax benefits, consequently it's profitable to stimulate child-bearing by stimulating families.
Homosexual couples very rarely have children)) So the only reason to give them equal economic privileges is adopting children. But how much gay couples adopt children?
I bet that it's far lesser percent than percent of hetherosexual couples that have children.
So there is no reason for giving equal economic privileges to gay couples, although they should acquire all other rights

So you would be in favour of granting homosexuals adoption rights first, and then all corresponding rights that heterosexual couples with children get?

That's one of the key factors!

Government passing the laws elected by majority, so if the majority doesn't support this it won't be

No, it isn't, and don't use exclamation points. It's immature.

There is no rational, abstract reason to withold from Gays the right to civil union; this is immutable, unaltered by any backward electorate.

It's not. Rights exist to prevent a tyranny by the majority.
Wow...so, they really works?:eek2:
I thought that phrases like "Rights exist to prevent a tyranny by the majority" remains in later 18 century...

don't use exclamation points. It's immature.

*raises eyebrow*

So you would be in favour of granting homosexuals adoption rights first, and then all corresponding rights that heterosexual couples with children get?

Not exactly: adoption rights and "all corresponding rights" except economic privileges, and economic privileges only in case of adoption

This particular document is clearly not concerned with marriage rights, as that's a bigger and more complex issue. When it's not mentioned, while the main focus is on violence and violations of human rights, the interpretation shouldn't be too difficult. The "legal difficulties" issues is but a weak excuse from the US delegation in an attempt to save face while not supporting this document.

I'm saying that it's not a type of discrimination that this document concerns itself with. See, there are different types of discrimination, some acceptable, some unacceptable, and some gray areas. In the context of this document, with regards to the action clauses, it clearly the more gross cases of discrimination that's the focus of the resolution -i.e. the clearly unacceptable forms of discrimination. it's your opinion that they only meant SOME forms of Discrimination. that makes the UN Declaration itself a waste of paper. WE are for TOTAL EQUALITY and the end for ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION. but only for these 'groups' listed at the bottom and the others only get the items under table 1.A and Sub catagory C halted.

As to the ban on gay marriage, where it lies... Well, that's in the more gray areas, because nothing is indicated on where the line is drawn. Is civil unions OK, for example? Is it really discrimination if you get all the corresponding rights that heterosexuals get, but only under a different name? Is it a form of unacceptable discrimination to deny gay couples government-sponsored in vitro fertilization or adoption rights? It's unclear. But, again, in the context of this document, not the issue at hand. ah, so this grey area could be another legal concern maybe? remember, the US Rep's issues could be concerning the US only.

It has happened before, and it will again.
but it hasn't happened for this. ;)

*raises eyebrow*

It is. You wouldn't find it in a creditable broadsheet.

66 out of 192 nations sign this stupid piece of legislation, but it is the United States, and only the United States that gets attacked here. Biased much?

66 out of 192 nations sign this stupid piece of legislation, but it is the United States, and only the United States that gets attacked here. Biased much?

I already know Saudi Arabia is a shit hole, however Saudi Arabia doesn't bill itself as "the Land of the Free"

66 out of 192 nations sign this stupid piece of legislation, but it is the United States, and only the United States that gets attacked here. Biased much?

Not necessarily; consider the map that was posted previously, and you might understand why the company this places you in reflects badly on you.

In any case, why is it a "stupid piece of legislation"?

Neo, you're certainly not comparing the Saudis to the Americans, are you?

Not exactly: adoption rights and "all corresponding rights" except economic privileges, and economic privileges only in case of adoption

Well, there's not a whole lot left then, is there?

Neo, you're certainly not comparing the Saudis to the Americans, are you?

Why saudis worse than americans?

In any case, why is it a "stupid piece of legislation"?

well, according to some here...
1) it's non-binding, so it's not changing anything
2) it's concerning only certain forms of discrimination, not all types
2a) it does not specify which forms of discrimination it's helplessly decrying.

Not necessarily; consider the map that was posted previously, and you might understand why the company this places you in reflects badly on you.

In any case, why is it a "stupid piece of legislation"?

It is considered to be a stupid piece of trivial legislation. What right does the UN have to determine what happens in any free and/or sovereign nation? How would the UN enforce any of its proposed "rights"? If I were President, the UN would be packing up and getting the hell out of New York, and the US would be out of the UN as well.

Neo, you're certainly not comparing the Saudis to the Americans, are you?

you should check the company America finds itself in, amongst the nations that refused to sign. If we find the comparison between America and Saudi Arabia particularly offensive, we should stop acting like them.

If I were President

heaven forbid.

Why saudis worse than americans?


Never met one, but comparisons of this sort aren't accurate anyway.

Well, there's not a whole lot left then, is there?

yes, some inequalty would be, but there would be a good reasons for it

It is considered to be a stupid piece of trivial legislation. What right does the UN have to determine what happens in any free and/or sovereign nation? How would the UN enforce any of its proposed "rights"? If I were President, the UN would be packing up and getting the hell out of New York, and the US would be out of the UN as well.

*yawn*

"UN is at fault"

The US is a key member of the UN. Get your head around that when assigning 'fault'.

heaven forbid.

C'mon, Neo! I need your vote!!

doesn't the resolution mention discrimination?

From Gravlen's post.

Bolding mine. all those parts that state Discrimination. not just ciminalizing nor just lost of life and property but Discrimination in General.

nope, but "Discrimination" is mentioned in Gravlen's post.

1. As I already noted, the parts you highlight "reaffirm" existing International law prohibitions against violations of human rights and discrimination. The action statements specifically added by this resolution are related to criminal penalties for homosexuality or other violations of human rights based on sexual orientation.

2. You misunderstand the point Dem1 is making. According to the Bush Administration, denying same-sex marriage is not discrimination. The only way to read the resolution to have any impact on same-sex marriage is to admit that denying same sex marriage is discrimination based on sexual orientation.

yet Minnesota Supreme Court made this ruling in Baker v Nelson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson)

Followed by SCotUS ruling when appealed to them,

So untill SCotUS makes a change, those under the Minnesota Supreme Court Jurisdiction abides by the ruling that Minnesota's limiting of marriage to opposite-sex unions "does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution".

that is to my understanding. I'm sure Neo Art and TCT will be more than happy to explain Baker v Nelson to me. (please? :hail:)

First, good work on finding Baker v. Nelson (http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm), 291 Minn. 310 (Minn. 1971), 409 U.S. 810 (1972). I was unaware of it. :hail:

Second, Baker v. Nelson is a Minnesota Supreme Court case and I don't buy Wikipedia's argument that SCOTUS's decision not to hear the case is ruling precedent on the matter--especially without any published opinion. The stray mentions of Baker in the cases cited by Wikipedia seem to be exceptions that prove the rule. Thus, I believe at most Baker is precedent in Minnesota -- not elsewhere.

Third, Baker is a cursory opinion from 1971. It provides very little analysis and basically doesn't take the issue of same-sex marriage seriously.

It is considered to be a stupid piece of trivial legislation.


Do you know what 'legislation' is?


What right does the UN have to determine what happens in any free and/or sovereign nation?


The 'right' as acceded by those free and/or sovereign nations?

Which has nothing to do with the issue of a non-binding piece.


How would the UN enforce any of its proposed "rights"?


As decided by a non-binding text?

Which part of 'non-binding' is it that's confusing you?


If I were President, the UN would be packing up and getting the hell out of New York, and the US would be out of the UN as well.

If I were President, the US would actually start acting like an ally within the UN, rather than like it's enemy. Isn't that funny?

66 out of 192 nations sign this stupid piece of legislation, but it is the United States, and only the United States that gets attacked here. Biased much?
"1/3 of all trees in the orchard voted to grow apples. They were all apple trees. Only one apple tree thought we should grow blue berries instead."

It is considered to be a stupid piece of trivial legislation. What right does the UN have to determine what happens in any free and/or sovereign nation? How would the UN enforce any of its proposed "rights"? If I were President, the UN would be packing up and getting the hell out of New York, and the US would be out of the UN as well.

Wonderful. How are things in the swamp then?

"1/3 of all trees in the orchard voted to grow apples. They were all apple trees. Only one apple tree thought we should grow blue berries instead."

....and the dog ran, and the rabbit hopped, and the cat....

that is to my understanding. I'm sure Neo Art and TCT will be more than happy to explain Baker v Nelson to me. (please? :hail:)

Maybe it's just the pain in my jaw from my root canal or the vicoden haze but...

. The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), dismissed the appeal "for want of [a] substantial federal question". That dismissal by the Supreme Court of the United States constituted a decision on the merits, and established Baker v. Nelson as the controlling precedent as a matter of federal constitutional law on the issue of same-sex marriage.

This...this paragraph makes no sense. A dismissal for lack of a federal question is a subject matter jurisdictional problem. It means the court lacks the power to hear the case. Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is, by definition, not a ruling on the merits since it means, essentially, that the court has no power to rule on those merits.

This is contradictory

it's your opinion that they only meant SOME forms of Discrimination. that makes the UN Declaration itself a waste of paper. WE are for TOTAL EQUALITY and the end for ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION. but only for these 'groups' listed at the bottom and the others only get the items under table 1.A and Sub catagory C halted.
What makes you think the UN would have a problem with so-called positive discrimination, for example?

And do you see the term "total equality" used anywhere? I don't...


ah, so this grey area could be another legal concern maybe? remember, the US Rep's issues could be concerning the US only.
No, the "gray area" cannot be the basis for a legal concern.

As I said, a ban on homosexual marriage is not a blatant and clearly unacceptable form of discrimination (because the state in question might have a suitable remedy, for example) and it is clear that the topic of homosexual marriage isn't the focus of the non-binding document. You could, in bad faith, construct an interpretation that could make the basis of a legal concern, but it wouldn't hold water. (Indeed, some say that the reasoning used to arrive at such a conclusion would smack of “total idiocy and madness.")

To drive the point home I will again refer you to the action clauses which doesn't touch upon gay marriage or civil unions at all.

1. As I already noted, the parts you highlight "reaffirm" existing International law prohibitions against violations of human rights and discrimination. The action statements specifically added by this resolution are related to criminal penalties for homosexuality or other violations of human rights based on sexual orientation. yet the point i'm trying to make is that Gavlen's quote of Wiki doesn't just specify the penalties but uses the word 'discrimination' without any qualifiers. unless it is in agreement that Marriage isn't a human right (i've never argued that it wasn't.)

2. You misunderstand the point Dem1 is making. According to the Bush Administration, denying same-sex marriage is not discrimination. The only way to read the resolution to have any impact on same-sex marriage is to admit that denying same sex marriage is discrimination based on sexual orientation.but this isn't a document created by the Bush Administration. but a document created by the UN. Does the UN follow the Bush Administration's ruling and definition of what is and isn't discrimination? And could one of those legal issues be the classification of Same-Sex Marriage as discrimination?

First, good work on finding Baker v. Nelson (http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm), 291 Minn. 310 (Minn. 1971), 409 U.S. 810 (1972). I was unaware of it. :hail: Gaaaa! I was hoping you could put in easy for me to understand words! puweeese... I want to make sure I (or wiki) am not mis-interpreting their ruling that the 14th Amendment does NOT cover Same Sex Marriage (or however Minn defined it.)

Second, Baker v. Nelson is a Minnesota Supreme Court case and I don't buy Wikipedia's argument that SCOTUS's decision not to hear the case is ruling precedent on the matter--especially without any published opinion. The stray mentions of Baker in the cases cited by Wikipedia seem to be exceptions that prove the rule. Thus, I believe at most Baker is precedent in Minnesota -- not elsewhere. true, but doesn't the ruling in Minnesota (and the Min Supreme court ruling) set a precident that could be followed by other courts in other areas? (and note, I did make mention that SCotUS neither upheld nor overturned it, but dismissed the case. but dismissing it does not invalidate the rulings of the State Supreme court.)

Third, Baker is a cursory opinion from 1971. It provides very little analysis and basically doesn't take the issue of same-sex marriage seriously.but that doesn't invalidate the ruling. can SCotUS still review the case after it's been dismissed or does it have to look somewhere else like California's (assuming California's one reaches them.) and will SCotUS be 'forced' or will it be an 'Option' to take the Minnesota ruling into account?

well, according to some here...
1) it's non-binding, so it's not changing anything
But it's a start and it would be a diplomatic tool to put pressure on governments not living up to it.

2) it's concerning only certain forms of discrimination, not all types
2a) it does not specify which forms of discrimination it's helplessly decrying.
...which is a silly argument as it clearly targets the worst forms of discrimination - and more importantly, very clearly targets arrests, detention, and punishment - including execution - on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

It is considered to be a stupid piece of trivial legislation.
What "legislation"? This isn't a piece of legislation...

What right does the UN have to determine what happens in any free and/or sovereign nation?
By the authority bestowed upon the UN by the free and/or sovereign nation itself.

How would the UN enforce any of its proposed "rights"?
Same way it does today.

If I were President...
...you would hopefully understand how the UN works, or at least have aides that could explain it to you.

What makes you think the UN would have a problem with so-called positive discrimination, for example? is this a 'So it's not discrimination if it's against...' argument?

To drive the point home I will again refer you to the action clauses which doesn't touch upon gay marriage or civil unions at all. I think the problem might be you're focusing on the punishments, the executions and what not because of homosexuality, yet I'm looking at what those penalties are being applied to. not just to any crime but the definition of Discriminate and it's general, broadest meaning.

yet the point i'm trying to make is that Gavlen's quote of Wiki doesn't just specify the penalties but uses the word 'discrimination' without any qualifiers. unless it is in agreement that Marriage isn't a human right (i've never argued that it wasn't.)
Again you ignore the context of the term "discrimination", from the preamble (Notice how it refers to Article 1 of the UDoHR, and not to article 16, btw.) to the action clauses.

is this a 'So it's not discrimination if it's against...' argument?
It's a "What does the term 'discrimination' mean in the context of this particular document" argument.

I think the problem might be you're focusing on the punishments, the executions and what not because of homosexuality, yet I'm looking at what those penalties are being applied to. not just to any crime but the definition of Discriminate and it's general, broadest meaning.
And there's the rub, I think, you're looking at the definition of "Discriminate" way beyond the term used in this document. And that gets you nowhere.

It's the punishments etc. that's the key. That's why they're mentioned especially in the action clauses.

Maybe it's just the pain in my jaw from my root canal or the vicoden haze but... ouch. :(

This...this paragraph makes no sense. A dismissal for lack of a federal question is a subject matter jurisdictional problem. It means the court lacks the power to hear the case. Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is, by definition, not a ruling on the merits since it means, essentially, that the court has no power to rule on those merits.

This is contradictory I took it to mean when it was submitted to SCotUS, they dismissed it as having no reason to be considered a SCotUS case (Saying it's out of it's jurisdiction for example.) but even in the act of dismissal, the lower supreme court's ruling still stands and thus had to be held by the lower courts (of that controlling area) and thus setting the precident like any other upheld ruling would.

Take asprin... advil might do the trick. :)

EDIT: take it when the Doc/Dentist says it's ok to take it. always listen to the Real Docs and not those who only work in care centers. :p

It's a "What does the term 'discrimination' mean in the context of this particular document" argument.


And there's the rub, I think, you're looking at the definition of "Discriminate" way beyond the term used in this document. And that gets you nowhere.

It's the punishments etc. that's the key. That's why they're mentioned especially in the action clauses.

one of the main reasons why I tend to hate lawyerspeak. :rolleyes: :p

but that doesn't invalidate the ruling. can SCotUS still review the case after it's been dismissed or does it have to look somewhere else like California's (assuming California's one reaches them.) and will SCotUS be 'forced' or will it be an 'Option' to take the Minnesota ruling into account?

1) California's decision can't reach them, it's a state law matter involving state parties. SCOTUS has no jurisdiction

2) SCOTUS is bound by no precedent, even their own. It can consider, or ignore, any case law it chooses.

yet the point i'm trying to make is that Gavlen's quote of Wiki doesn't just specify the penalties but any acts of discrimination. unless it is in agreement that Marriage isn't a human right (i've never argued that it wasn't.)

Where do you find this language that says discrimination not already contrary to international law is verboten under this resolution (ignoring the fact that it is non-binding and merely "urges" and "calls upon" in the action statements)?

Here is the resolution again (emphasis added):

We have the honour to make this statement on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity on behalf of [.]
1 - We reaffirm the principle of universality of human rights, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights whose 60th anniversary is celebrated this year, Article 1 of which proclaims that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights";

2 - We reaffirm that everyone is entitled to the enjoyment of human rights without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, as set out in Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 2 of the International Covenants on Civil and Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as in article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

3 - We reaffirm the principle of non-discrimination which requires that human rights apply equally to every human being regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity;

4 - We are deeply concerned by violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms based on sexual orientation or gender identity;

5 - We are also disturbed that violence, harassment, discrimination, exclusion, stigmatisation and prejudice are directed against persons in all countries in the world because of sexual orientation or gender identity, and that these practices undermine the integrity and dignity of those subjected to these abuses;

6 - We condemn the human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity wherever they occur, in particular the use of the death penalty on this ground, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the practice of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, arbitrary arrest or detention and deprivation of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to health;

7 - We recall the statement in 2006 before the Human Rights Council by fifty four countries requesting the President of the Council to provide an opportunity, at an appropriate future session of the Council, for discussing these violations;

8 - We commend the attention paid to these issues by special procedures of the Human Rights Council and treaty bodies and encourage them to continue to integrate consideration of human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity within their relevant mandates;

9 - We welcome the adoption of Resolution AG/RES. 2435 (XXXVIII-O/08) on "Human Rights, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity" by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States during its 38th session in 3 June 2008;

10 - We call upon all States and relevant international human rights mechanisms to commit to promote and protect human rights of all persons, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity;

11 - We urge States to take all the necessary measures, in particular legislative or administrative, to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention.

12 - We urge States to ensure that human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity are investigated and perpetrators held accountable and brought to justice;

13 - We urge States to ensure adequate protection of human rights defenders, and remove obstacles which prevent them from carrying out their work on issues of human rights and sexual orientation and gender identity.


Paragraphs 10-13 are the action statements. They say nothing about general discrimination, nor do they define human rights violations.

but this isn't a document created by the Bush Administration. but a document created by the UN. Does the UN follow the Bush Administration's ruling and definition of what is and isn't discrimination?

*sigh*

The problem is you are positing a position that is self-contradictory. If banning same-sex marriage is not discrimination or a violation of human rights, then this resolution cannot possibly be interpreted to address the issue of same-sex marriage. If you are going to insist that same-sex marriage is addressed by this resolution, you have to be admitting that bans on same-sex marriage are discriminatory and/or violate existing human rights.

Gaaaa! I was hoping you could put in easy for me to understand words! puweeese... I want to make sure I (or wiki) am not mis-interpreting their ruling that the 14th Amendment does NOT cover Same Sex Marriage (or however Minn defined it.)

true, but doesn't the ruling in Minnesota (and the Min Supreme court ruling) set a precident that could be followed by other courts in other areas? (and note, I did make mention that SCotUS neither upheld nor overturned it, but dismissed the case. but dismissing it does not invalidate the rulings of the State Supreme court.)

but that doesn't invalidate the ruling. can SCotUS still review the case after it's been dismissed or does it have to look somewhere else like California's (assuming California's one reaches them.) and will SCotUS be 'forced' or will it be an 'Option' to take the Minnesota ruling into account?

First, Wikipedia's analysis of the SCOTUS "ruling" depends on Hicks v. Miranda (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/332.html), 422 U.S. 332 (1975), and Mandel v. Bradley (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/432/173.html), 432 U.S. 173 (1977). Having read those cases, I don't believe that SCOTUS dismissal for want of a substantial federal question in Baker v. Nelson has any significance beyond the question of whether those two people were entitled to relief in that specific case. Contrary, to Wiki's argument, the Court in Mandel and Hicks scolds lower courts for overreading summary dismissals or affirmances, although noting that a summary dismissal or affirmance is a final binding decision for that specific case.

Second, assuming Baker is still good law in Minnesota (which I assume but don't know), the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision is binding precedent only in Minnesota. Other jurisdictions (e.g., other state courts) can look to such precedent for its persuasive value, but are free to adopt or reject its arguments or conclusions.

Third, regardless of whether Baker is binding on lower courts, SCOTUS is free to decide the issues presented in that case and/or the issue of same-sex marriage however it wishes. Especially where the Court issued no opinion, the "decision" in Baker is of little value regarding precedent.

I hope this clarifies things. If not, ask more questions and I'll try to answer.

1) California's decision can't reach them, it's a state law matter involving state parties. SCOTUS has no jurisdiction

2) SCOTUS is bound by no precedent, even their own. It can consider, or ignore, any case law it chooses.

Didn't know that.

so the State's Supreme Court is as High as it will go?

First, Wikipedia's analysis of the SCOTUS "ruling" depends on Hicks v. Miranda (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/332.html), 422 U.S. 332 (1975), and Mandel v. Bradley (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/432/173.html), 432 U.S. 173 (1977). Having read those cases, I don't believe that SCOTUS dismissal for want of a substantial federal question in Baker v. Nelson has any significance beyond the question of whether those two people were entitled to relief in that specific case. Contrary, to Wiki's argument, the Court in Mandel and Hicks scolds lower courts for overreading summary dismissals or affirmances, although noting that a summary dismissal or affirmance is a final binding decision for that specific case.

Second, assuming Baker is still good law in Minnesota (which I assume but don't know), the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision is binding precedent only in Minnesota. Other jurisdictions (e.g., other state courts) can look to such precedent for its persuasive value, but are free to adopt or reject its arguments or conclusions.

Third, regardless of whether Baker is binding on lower courts, SCOTUS is free to decide the issues presented in that case and/or the issue of same-sex marriage however it wishes. Especially where the Court issued no opinion, the "decision" in Baker is of little value regarding precedent.

I hope this clarifies things. If not, ask more questions and I'll try to answer.
ALOT. Thanks. :hail:

So just to make sure I got it. while other states can look to Minn's Baker v Nelson only Minn is obligated to follow that rulling (provided it wasn't overturned.)

ALOT. Thanks. :hail:

So just to make sure I got it. while other states can look to Minn's Baker v Nelson only Minn is obligated to follow that rulling (provided it wasn't overturned.)

Yep. That's my opinion (and only the SCOTUS dismissal for want of federal question raises any issue whatsoever -- state court rulings are never binding on another state).

one of the main reasons why I tend to hate lawyerspeak. :rolleyes: :p

It's not a bad way to make a living ;)

economic expenses and economic result are the only valid reason for government(and re-election, of course).
So there is no moral, religious and other reasons, pure economics: majority of hetherosexual families have children, who later will provide their parents' tax benefits, consequently it's profitable to stimulate child-bearing by stimulating families.
Homosexual couples very rarely have children)) So the only reason to give them equal economic privileges is adopting children. But how much gay couples adopt children?
I bet that it's far lesser percent than percent of hetherosexual couples that have children.
So there is no reason for giving equal economic privileges to gay couples, although they should acquire all other rights

Umm this is quite silly.

First of all not all gay and lesbians with children adopt. Some have kids with str8 people when they were in the closet. Some kids have biological gay fathers and biological lesbian mothers. Many gays have really good lesbian friends. Some lesbians have kids from sperm donations.

Similarly not every heterosexual who has children are in a relationship. There are many single str8 parents. It may be due to divorce or loss of spouse due to a traffic accident or something. Some str8 women, like lesbians, have kids from sperm donations.

And finally it's silly to offer same economic support to a heterosexual couple with 1 child and to another heterosexual couple with 5 children just because they are both heterosexual couples.

So economic support shouldnt be on the basis of sexuality but on the basis of per children, perhaps with a limit (5 children maybe?), so that every couple with more than 5 children should get the same support while a couple with 3 children gets 3 times the economic support a couple with 1 child gets, provided these couples arent rich enuff that they dont need support from the government.

A bit of trivia about this statement though:

It is co-sponsored by France, a country which has civil unions but does not allow gay marriage. Indeed, Stephane Charpin and Bertrang Charpentier are the only same-sex couple in France to have married. That happened back in 2004, and was without the governments blessing. So the French government claimed that the marriage was illegal and invalid, and a court case ensued, culminating in the decision by the Court of Cassation, France's highest appeals court, in 2007. The court found in favour of the government and annuled the marriage.

The court ruled Tuesday that "under French law, marriage is a union between a man and a woman."
Link (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-03/2007-03-13-voa69.cfm)

This case has been brought before the European Court of Human Rights, but it has not yet been heard.

But what's relevant here: How likely is it that the center-right government of Sarkozy, who won't institute gay marriage in France, would co-sponsor a resolution that could be used actively to force France to establish gay marriage?

A bit of trivia about this statement though:

It is co-sponsored by France, a country which has civil unions but does not allow gay marriage. Indeed, Stephane Charpin and Bertrang Charpentier are the only same-sex couple in France to have married. That happened back in 2004, and was without the governments blessing. So the French government claimed that the marriage was illegal and invalid, and a court case ensued, culminating in the decision by the Court of Cassation, France's highest appeals court, in 2007. The court found in favour of the government and annuled the marriage.


Link (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-03/2007-03-13-voa69.cfm)

This case has been brought before the European Court of Human Rights, but it has not yet been heard.

But what's relevant here: How likely is it that the center-right government of Sarkozy, who won't institute gay marriage in France, would co-sponsor a resolution that could be used actively to force France to establish gay marriage?

dunno, but it would be interesting to watch.

Wait... wait... I thought that the US has been criticized these many years for telling Muslim countries what their laws should be, what their religious views should be, and how they should live their lives...

now you want us to criticize them, tell them what their laws should be, what their religious views should be, and how they should live their lives?

Wait... wait... I thought that the US has been criticized these many years for telling Muslim countries what their laws should be, what their religious views should be, and how they should live their lives...

now you want us to criticize them, tell them what their laws should be, what their religious views should be, and how they should live their lives?

The US is only critized when its tells other countries how to function by bombing them. But that was a rather pretty strawman.

now you want us to criticize them, tell them what their laws should be, what their religious views should be, and how they should live their lives?

No, we want them to make a statement on that.
You know, like all the allies of the USA did.

what the hell, what am I, chopped liver?

...some people really like liver? :p

Hmmm... where do you point out the "illogical, ill-informed, willfully ignorant interpretation"? I suppose the Tenth amendment doesn't actually say what it says.

I suppose you don't realize there were one or two amendments after the 10th. Which is where my previous statement comes into play.

It is considered to be a stupid piece of trivial legislation. What right does the UN have to determine what happens in any free and/or sovereign nation? How would the UN enforce any of its proposed "rights"? If I were President, the UN would be packing up and getting the hell out of New York, and the US would be out of the UN as well.

...

You know what the letters "UN" stand for here, right?

Wow. This is surprising and bad, even for US standards. Can Americans at least drop "Land of Free" and those kinda stuff or at least amend them so it's like "Land of Free except for gays"

No wait. It's already "Land of Free except for godless atheists and socialists", and it used to be even worse ("Land of Free except for atheists, socialists, anarchists, niggers, catholics, injuns, faggots"), so, to sum it up: in other news, water is wet.

If I were President, the UN would be packing up and getting the hell out of New York, and the US would be out of the UN as well.

That would be the case where the UN had no say in local legislation. The UN has no say on the affairs of non-member countries.
By signing the UN treaty, however, member countries do practically resign a small part of own sovereignity.

and those for same sex marriage claims it does.

And those who are for same sex marriage have no problem with the resolution.

So what is your point? It is those opposed to both who are contradicting themselves.

so is the Sexual Offender's regestry unconsititutional?

I'm not sure on that one. My first instinct is to say no - that due process has been met and that there is a compelling interest in doing so. Of course, I do believe that some of the restrictions placed upon sex offenders represent far too high a burden and are thus outside of that framework.

thank you Supreme Court Justice Dem. alot of people think they're right. alot of people think Prop 8 should stay. too bad you don't have the say of who is right and wrong.

Yeah, too bad. We might actually have equal rights in this country if it were just up to me.

so denying same sex couples marriage and the legal status that goes with it is NOT discrimination? nice to hear you say that.

I didn't say that. What I did say is that those who believe it is not discrimination (ie. those who agree with state laws banning same sex marriage) shouldn't have a problem with this resolution. They only way they can legitimately have the problem they claim with it is by first admitting that denying same sex couples marriage is discrimination.

What I am doing is pointing out a contradiction in their position.

which one lower supreme court stated does NOT fall under the 14th amendment. SCotUS did not overturn (and to be fair, did not uphold) the ruling.

And judges are never wrong?

hence the legal issues. since you too are not sure due to your inclusion of both possiblities.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

so does the Consitution cover a Same Sex Marriage ban that many states already have in place?

In my opinion? Yes.

In the opinion of those opposed to the resolution? No. And if the Constitution doesn't already cover it, neither does the resolution. So they should have no issue with it.

Too bad we don't know if those legal issues are actually consititutional conflicts.

No, but one cannot logically believe that they are constitutional conflicts without already believing that the laws themselves are in conflict with the Constitution.

Thus, the resolution is a moot point. There are two possibilities here:

(a) The Constitution already covers these issues, and thus the resolution adds nothing new.

(b) Neither the Constitution nor the resolution cover these issues, and thus there is no problem with the resolution.

Personally, I would go with (a). Those who think that the Constitution doesn't cover these issues already, would fall under (b).

Anyone going with (c) - The Constitution doesn't cover these issues but the resolution would cause a problem with them - is demonstrating a contradiction in their own position.

wrong. Diplomacy is "Majority Rules".

Hardly. Diplomacy is where the leaders of two or more nations engage in a give and take on what they are or are not willing to do.

yet who wrote the resolution and counter proposals? Let's take a look.

That's who actually did it. Nothing stopped the US delegation from writing their own.

so which would bow and allow the US to make changes? in fact, since the US didn't support either, then it must be that both should've made the necessary changes at the USA's whim.

No, the USA could have put forth their own proposal - one that they would actually be comfortable signing. Others may or may not have agreed to it, but it would have shown some effort on the part of the USA to at least agree with the decriminalization of homosexuality.

Instead, they opposed all efforts in that direction, sending a message that they actually support policies in which homosexuals are arrested and even killed for their sexuality.

That would be the case where the UN had no say in local legislation. The UN has no say on the affairs of non-member countries.
By signing the UN treaty, however, member countries do practically resign a small part of own sovereignity.

"Small part"? I don't see it that way.

Tell me, will you help me in getting together some signatures on a petition to get the United States out of the United Nations once and for all?

And those who are for same sex marriage have no problem with the resolution.

So what is your point? It is those opposed to both who are contradicting themselves. more to the point of both sides can claim their viewpoints are right.

I'm not sure on that one. My first instinct is to say no - that due process has been met and that there is a compelling interest in doing so. Of course, I do believe that some of the restrictions placed upon sex offenders represent far too high a burden and are thus outside of that framework. it's iffy for me to. Sure it's nice to know if a sexual predator lives nearby, but don't they have the right to privacy as well?

I didn't say that. What I did say is that those who believe it is not discrimination (ie. those who agree with state laws banning same sex marriage) shouldn't have a problem with this resolution. They only way they can legitimately have the problem they claim with it is by first admitting that denying same sex couples marriage is discrimination.

What I am doing is pointing out a contradiction in their position. and because of that confict (the fact that some do believe it's discrimination while others don't) to have the US sign declaration would seem that the US Fed Gov is taking a side with the issue that was left to each state.

And judges are never wrong? if we think they are wrong, does that automatically invalidate their rulings?

Hardly. Diplomacy is where the leaders of two or more nations engage in a give and take on what they are or are not willing to do. mistake on my part. I was up over 24 hrs. I thought that said Democracy. :p

diplomacy does NOT mean all parties MUST accomidate anyone's changes.

and how do you know that no leader said "Due to certain legal concerns, we do not feel comfortable signing the resolution as-is. However, we would sign off on the following resolution which we would like to introduce for consideration...." so didn't each country write up their own declaration and sign their own.

heck, things would go so smoothly if each nation wrote up their own agenda/resolution in the UN and only signed their own.

funny that this was missed.
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. In numerous states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military.


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. and if the Resolution is non-binding then this should be just as acceptable.

That's who actually did it. Nothing stopped the US delegation from writing their own.

No, the USA could have put forth their own proposal - one that they would actually be comfortable signing. Others may or may not have agreed to it, but it would have shown some effort on the part of the USA to at least agree with the decriminalization of homosexuality.

so each nation should write their own resolution and submit it?

gee, all those committees and councils then are there for what purpose?

Instead, they opposed all efforts in that direction, sending a message that they actually support policies in which homosexuals are arrested and even killed for their sexuality.all efforts? I only saw 2 diametrically opposed declarations mentioned Neither was signed by the US. so it's not like the US opposed anything, Abstained, maybe, but not opposed.

and this is not taking into account the verbal condmenation the US rep gave.

so each nation should write their own resolution and submit it?

Only those nations that disagree with the text of the common resolution, but do not wish to spit in the faces of their allies or would accept a slightly rephrased one.

It all boils down to: "do you care about what the rest of the world thinks".

Now, over to you. Do you truly believe that the US representatives do not know how the world works ?

Paragraphs 10-13 are the action statements. They say nothing about general discrimination, nor do they define human rights violations.
hmmm... studied what was written. and I'm kinda wondering why you say it states nothing about Discrimination and the fact that they do NOT define Human rights violation should not be an assumption of what they are focusing on (for those who say it's only on the penalties.)

Here is the resolution again (emphasis added):

1 - We reaffirm the principle of universality of human rights, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights whose 60th anniversary is celebrated this year, Article 1 of which proclaims that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights";
that would be nice cat, if all it said was 'we affirm.' but it doesn't. the rest of each the section talks about what they affirm, urge, call upon, etc... let's continue.

4 - We are deeply concerned by violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms based on sexual orientation or gender identity;
Fundamental freedoms.
let's take a look at the UDoHR. article 16
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
ok, now Article 16 is worded as such that it can be saying marriage between a man and women. and note the limitations stated. "due to race, nationality, or religion." yet 4 adds on two more conditions not stated in the UDoHR.

5 - We are also disturbed that violence, harassment, discrimination, exclusion, stigmatisation and prejudice are directed against persons in all countries in the world because of sexual orientation or gender identity, and that these practices undermine the integrity and dignity of those subjected to these abuses; again, disturbed by what? just violence? just punishment? or does state more than "we are disturbed"?

does it break down what kind of discrimination? harrassment?

6 - We condemn the human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity wherever they occur, in particular the use of the death penalty on this ground, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the practice of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, arbitrary arrest or detention and deprivation of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to health; this can be defined as focusing on the DP and torture.

8 - We commend the attention paid to these issues by special procedures of the Human Rights Council and treaty bodies and encourage them to continue to integrate consideration of human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity within their relevant mandates; now what did Article 16 of the UDoHR state? and wouldn't this declaration subtly narrow the interpretation of artilcle 16?

10 - We call upon all States and relevant international human rights mechanisms to commit to promote and protect human rights of all persons, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity; now here, it's calling upon the Federal Government to take what it considers a state matter and make a ruling on it.

11 - We urge States to take all the necessary measures, in particular legislative or administrative, to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention. so if the declaration is indeed focused on the "penalties" given such as the punishments itself, why this? unless section 10 is not focused on the penalties or punishments but something broader.

12 - We urge States to ensure that human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity are investigated and perpetrators held accountable and brought to justice; now this again can be interpreted as urging the Federal Government to rule on what it considers a state matter.

13 - We urge States to ensure adequate protection of human rights defenders, and remove obstacles which prevent them from carrying out their work on issues of human rights and sexual orientation and gender identity. protection for Human Right defenders? why are they allowed special treatment? remove obstacles which prevents them? so if they are fighting for a bill to be passed, does that give the Federal Government the right to remove anyone opposing it since they would be an 'obstical'? Some Religions fight against homosexualilty and trans gender. is this urging the Fed Gov to shut them up? isn't that a violation of freedom of religion?

if this is a Non Binding Resolution, then it shouldn't matter who signs it or not.

if this is a Non Binding Resolution, then it shouldn't matter who signs it or not.

Actually, if you're not prepared to enforce a resolution by force, including overthrowing a government, occupying a country, and enacting forcible re-education to ensure compliance, you're just farting in the wind.

I believe the quote is "it is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism when the wolves are of a different mind".

Only those nations that disagree with the text of the common resolution, but do not wish to spit in the faces of their allies or would accept a slightly rephrased one.

It all boils down to: "do you care about what the rest of the world thinks".

Now, over to you. Do you truly believe that the US representatives do not know how the world works ?

err... by writing a new resolution, even ones containing 'minor changes', they are 'spitting in the faces of their allies'. I suggest you watch the play 1776. It gives a great example of what would happen if everyone is allowed a say in how a resolution is written. they bickered over everything on the Declaration, including fishing rights, Slave ownership, and even spelling.

yes, I do believe the US Representative does know how the world works. now do you believe the US Representative should put 'what the rest of the world thinks' over his duty of representing the USA at the UN?

err... by writing a new resolution, even ones containing 'minor changes', they are 'spitting in the faces of their allies'.
But far less so than now. At least, that is how it is perceived.

Again: this isn't about how things should be. It is not about how things truly are. It is all about how they are perceived.

And currently, US PR sucks monkey balls.

now do you believe the US Representative should put 'what the rest of the world thinks' over his duty of representing the USA at the UN?

Nope. Just that they should make more of an effort to suggest they even give a damn.

But far less so than now. At least, that is how it is perceived.

Again: this isn't about how things should be. It is not about how things truly are. It is all about how they are perceived. it's more on HOW it was reported.

instead of focusing on WHY the US didn't sign, it focused on the fact that the US DIDN'T SIGN.

the news don't cover what was said during the main assembly so we don't know how many versions were presented. the News also mentioned like an off hand comment that the US also DIDN'T sign the counter proposal and nor did it say how many countried signed that counter proposal.

And currently, US PR sucks monkey balls.[/QUOTE=] I blame the media. :p

[QUOTE=The Alma Mater;14330302]Nope. Just that they should make more of an effort to suggest they even give a damn. how? by signing things even if they have concerns? or by stating verbally that they agree with most of it?

how come it's not reported on those resolutions that the US does sign.

more to the point of both sides can claim their viewpoints are right.

Anyone can claim their viewpoint is right. But if their viewpoint is inherently contradictory, we know one or the other of the contradicting viewpoints must be wrong.

and because of that confict (the fact that some do believe it's discrimination while others don't) to have the US sign declaration would seem that the US Fed Gov is taking a side with the issue that was left to each state.

...except the US Fed Gov has already taken the position that these state laws do not violate the rights of homosexuals. Thus, that same position would still be upheld in reference to this document - where the fed gov would say these things do not count.

The only way to have a problem with this document as it might apply to state laws is to first admit that homosexuals' rights are currently being infringed upon.

if we think they are wrong, does that automatically invalidate their rulings?

No, their rulings are legally binding until overturned.

But that doesn't make them right.

diplomacy does NOT mean all parties MUST accomidate anyone's changes.

No, but it does mean that both/all parties negotiate on such things.

and how do you know that no leader said so didn't each country write up their own declaration and sign their own.

If the US delegation had brought a resolution forward that they did find acceptable, this would be known.

heck, things would go so smoothly if each nation wrote up their own agenda/resolution in the UN and only signed their own.

Willing to sign != actually signed.

Once again, I must ask, are you being intentionally obtuse?

Once again, I must ask, are you being intentionally obtuse?

Sadly, I don't think so. :(

Here, have a cookie. They're spiked with analgesics, so after a couple you just won't feel the pain anymore.

it's more on HOW it was reported.

instead of focusing on WHY the US didn't sign, it focused on the fact that the US DIDN'T SIGN.

Correct. As I said: The US PR sucks. The above response from the press should have been expected and anticipated on.

the news don't cover what was said during the main assembly so we don't know how many versions were presented. the News also mentioned like an off hand comment that the US also DIDN'T sign the counter proposal and nor did it say how many countried signed that counter proposal.

Yep. Completely as expected.


how? by signing things even if they have concerns? or by stating verbally that they agree with most of it?

The second one seems a viable option. Making sure the world knows WHY you did not sign and made an effort to make it sign-able would also be nice.

how come it's not reported on those resolutions that the US does sign.

Welcome to the wonderful world of the media. It is not fair and balanced.
Up to politicians to use that knowledge.

hmmm... studied what was written. *snip*

From your comments I can only conclude that your attempt to play devil's advocate has reduced you either to disingenuousness or a complete lack of understanding?

For example, the U.S. is already a signatory on the other Human Rights documents referred to in the new resolution and they already say things like "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

How does "reaffirm[ing]" existing international law possibly suddenly change those documents to now refer to same-sex marriage?

Just because the resolution places new emphasis on sexual orientation -- particularly the decriminalization thereof -- doesn't change the whole landscape.

Nor is your "it's calling upon the Federal Government to take what it considers a state matter and make a ruling on it" hold any water. What exactly is a state matter -- whether to criminalize homosexuality? Setting aside the fact that there is SCOTUS precedent exactly on point saying states can't do any such thing, where do you get that such a thing is necessarily a "state matter." B/c the Bush Administration conveniently says so?

From your comments I can only conclude that your attempt to play devil's advocate has reduced you either to disingenuousness or a complete lack of understanding?

For example, the U.S. is already a signatory on the other Human Rights documents referred to in the new resolution and they already say things like "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

How does "reaffirm[ing]" existing international law possibly suddenly change those documents to now refer to same-sex marriage?

Just because the resolution places new emphasis on sexual orientation -- particularly the decriminalization thereof -- doesn't change the whole landscape.

Nor is your "it's calling upon the Federal Government to take what it considers a state matter and make a ruling on it" hold any water. What exactly is a state matter -- whether to criminalize homosexuality? Setting aside the fact that there is SCOTUS precedent exactly on point saying states can't do any such thing, where do you get that such a thing is necessarily a "state matter." B/c the Bush Administration conveniently says so?

Because Obama has said explicitly that same-sex marriage should be resolved at the state level

Because Obama has said explicitly that same-sex marriage should be resolved at the state level

To the extent that is true, how is it relevant?

We aren't talking about same-sex marriage, but rather decriminalization of homosexuality.

We also aren't talking about the Obama Administration.

:confused:

To the extent that is true, how is it relevant?

We aren't talking about same-sex marriage, but rather decriminalization of homosexuality.

We also aren't talking about the Obama Administration.

:confused:

Sorry - thought we were going down the gay marriage route, which is actually in another thread.

But you brought up Bush, so...

From your comments I can only conclude that your attempt to play devil's advocate has reduced you either to disingenuousness or a complete lack of understanding?my comments were more aimed at the idea that the Resolution is only concerned with the decriminalization of homosexuality that was brought up.

For example, the U.S. is already a signatory on the other Human Rights documents referred to in the new resolution and they already say things like "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

How does "reaffirm[ing]" existing international law possibly suddenly change those documents to now refer to same-sex marriage? because Marriage is one of those human rights discribed in those other documents (UDoHR). however, how it's worded in those documents can be interpreted as between one man and one woman.

Just because the resolution places new emphasis on sexual orientation -- particularly the decriminalization thereof -- doesn't change the whole landscape. correct, not the whole landscape, but there is a change.

Nor is your "it's calling upon the Federal Government to take what it considers a state matter and make a ruling on it" hold any water. What exactly is a state matter -- whether to criminalize homosexuality? you're focusing on the criminalization of homosexuality. What I am trying to say is that the declaration isn't ONLY just on the decriminalization of Homosexuality but also includes discrimination, harrasement and other actions that are not part of the criminalizing of anything. if you looked at the comments you snipped out, I focused on those areas that mention not just the criminalization and capital punishment/torture of homosexuals, but also harassment, discrimination, exclusion, stigmatisation and prejudice. I mention Same Sex because the UDoHR mentions Marriage. since the declaration is taking it's definition of Human Rights from the UDoHR, Same Sex Marriage becomes an issue since this declaration is focusing it's attention on Homosexuality.
Setting aside the fact that there is SCOTUS precedent exactly on point saying states can't do any such thing, where do you get that such a thing is necessarily a "state matter." B/c the Bush Administration conveniently says so? any such thing as what... criminalize homosexuality or discriminate against homosexuality.

as for my claim on marriage as a State issue? (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/federalism.htm)

Exclusive Powers of the National Government
Under the Constitution, powers reserved to the national government include:


Print money (bills and coins)
Declare war
Establish an army and navy
Enter into treaties with foreign governments
Regulate commerce between states and international trade
Establish post offices and issue postage
Make laws necessary to enforce the Constitution


Exclusive Powers of State Governments
Powers reserved to state governments include:

Establish local governments
Issue licenses (driver, hunting, marriage, etc.)
Regulate intrastate (within the state) commerce
Conduct elections
Ratify amendments to the U.S. Constitution
Provide for public health and safety
Exercise powers neither delegated to the national government or prohibited from the states by the U.S.
Constitution (For example, setting legal drinking and smoking ages.)


Powers Shared by National and State Government
Shared, or "concurrent" powers include:

Setting up courts
Creating and collecting taxes
Building highways
Borrowing money
Making and enforcing laws
Chartering banks and corporations
Spending money for the betterment of the general welfare
Taking (condemning) private property with just compensation


now the UDoHR lists marriage as a right. but does not mention Sexual Orientation as one of the limiting factors it's prohibiting.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
so add all that together.

a declaration that not only is against the decriminalization of Homosexuality but mentions frequently, harassment, discrimination, exclusion, stigmatisation and prejudice (all don't just happen to criminals) t
The rights it mentions is located in three other documents, one being the UDoHR which mentions Marriage cannot be limited by race, nationality or religion.
the fact that issuing marriage licences is a STATE responsiblity. meaning the State can decide in accordance to the State's consitution as well as laws how to administrate marrage licences

you have a potential for a legal conflict in the area of Same Sex Marriage. considering the US rep also states that Discrimination against homosexuals Legal in some states (where and how outside of marriage I didn't know,) would probably seem like another area of conflict between state and federal responsiblities.

and while I am still playing devil's advocate on a point TSF was trying to get across, it's not necessarily my stand on the matter of the US Rep not signing the consititution. this is only speculation since it wasn't reported in detail WHY the US rep felt a legal conflict might exist.

now rejoice. I might be away for a few days... Happy Holidays. and Neo Art, TCT, Dem, Gravlen, and those others I've conversed with here... it's been a pleasure.

Sorry - thought we were going down the gay marriage route, which is actually in another thread.

But you brought up Bush, so...

my fault actually. Marriage is the only issue I could think of where states can legally discriminate against homosexuals. if there are others areas... I don't know what they are. :$

"Small part"? I don't see it that way.

Why not?

Woah, the US agreeing with the most evil and regressive elements of the Muslim world? Nothing causes strange bedfellows like hatred of freedom and human rights among the powerful.