UN Votes for Suppressing Free Speech and Against Condemning Killing Gays

Two UN votes in the past two weeks demonstrate yet again why the UN represents no source of moral leadership whatsoever, and is worthy of no respect. Last week the General Assembly passed its regular condemnation of "extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions," which is pretty funny in and of itself, since many of the countries doing the condemning are the same ones carrying out the executions. But this meaningless resolution went too far for some nations, who successfully removed language condemning killing based on sexual orientation.

Morocco and Mali introduced an amendment on behalf of African and Islamic nations that called for deleting the words "sexual orientation" and replacing them with "discriminatory reasons on any basis."

They are willing to condemn other killings even while continuing to carry them out, but they can't even give lip service to the idea that people shouldn't be murdered over their sexual orientation.

And today there was another UN vote. This time it voted for a resolution calling on states to provide "protection" against "vilification" of religion. Morocco once again took the lead. Reuters notes that support for the resolution was lower this year, but it still passed. There's your UN General Assembly: taking action to remove any condemnation of killing people for being gay, while trying to suppress well-deserved criticism of Islam. Oh yes, and there was this noteworthy passage, just in case anyone was wondering if Islamic states even grasp the concept of free speech. 

Islamic states say such resolutions do not aim to limit free speech but to stop publications like those of the Danish cartoons showing the Prophet Mohammed

Deporting Gays to Iran

The Obama administration has been bending over backwards to avoid deporting Guantanamo prisoners to countries where they might be mistreated.  That's why we didn't sent the Uighurs to China, even though the Chinese wanted them and it would have been to the U.S. advantage diplomatically. But for some reason, that same administration is scheduled to deport a gay Iranian illegal immigrant back to Iran -- where openly gay people are killed. You'd think this would be a clear case for asylum. There's no question that Iran persecutes homosexuals. But that's not how our bureaucracy operates. 

Abdollahi's case for asylum is not cut and dry: As an undocumented U.S. resident for twenty years, he missed the one-year window of opportunity by law to proactively apply for protected status. He now faces the more difficult task of appealing defensively before an immigration judge.

This man, aside from being gay, has been in the U.S. for twenty years. His parents brought him here when he was four years old. Why is this someone who needs to be deported, let alone to a country that might kill him for his sexual orientation? Is there any better example of the insanity of our immigration laws and bureaucracy? Rather than fighting deportation, Abdollahi should be on a fast-track to U.S. citizenship

I'll Second That

From Politico:

A group of leading military bloggers has issued a joint statement urging Congress to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

In my opinion it is past time to allow gay people to serve openly in the military. Will there be problems? Yes. Will it cripple the military and destroy readiness as opponents suggest? No. There is no reasonable justification for throwing otherwise qualified and capable members of the military out of the service, simply because of their sexual orientation. Kicking people out for being gay is both stupid and unjust. It's time for our official policies to stop catering to bigotry against homosexuals.

Air Force Sergeant Thrown Out for Being Gay

Staff Sergeant Jene Newsome was forced out of the military today after nine years of service, apparently because some police officers, upset over her lack of cooperation in a case involving her wife, notified the Air Force that she was gay.

Last November, police went to staff sergeant Jene' Newsome's Rapid City home to serve an out of state warrant on her wife, Cheryl Hutson. In the process, they noticed an Iowa marriage certificate lying on a table, showing the two women were married.

Despite the fact the marriage had nothing to do with the arrest, officer Jeremy Stauffacher and detective Tom Garinger sent that information to the Air Force, causing the service to discharge Newsome for violating the don't ask-don't tell policy on gay military people.

Regardless of what you think about the impact of permitting open homosexuality in the military, in my opinion there is absolutely no reasonable justification for this action. It is simply wrong. Newsome didn't flout the ban. She served for nine years, and in all that time her sexual orientation was apparently not an issue. But because of this situation, the Air Force throws her out, ends her career and completely disrupts her entire life. That's quite a punishment for doing nothing wrong.

Pope Not a Big Fan of Equality

The Pope is planning a visit to Britain and published a message to Catholic bishops in the UK. In it he made some interesting statements. He's not happy about equal rights for gay people, because that violates what he sees as the Church's right to discriminate against them.

Your country is well known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. Yet as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed.

Here we see one of the biggest problems of natural law arguments. Because natural law doesn't actually exist as anything other than a philosophical concept, it can mean whatever the person citing it wants it to mean. The Christian demonization of homosexuality as a sin, and their desire to discriminate against gay people isn't based on ancient texts and bigotry, it's rooted in natural law. Treating homosexuals equally is the wrong thing to do, because it's a violation of natural law -- a natural law that gives Christians the right to discriminate purely on the basis of their religious beliefs. This is prime example of religious "reasoning." And there's more.

Fidelity to the Gospel in no way restricts the freedom of others – on the contrary, it serves their freedom by offering them the truth.

According to the Pope, discriminating against people based on the words of ancient religious texts somehow doesn't restrict their freedom. The freedom of Christians to inflict their superstitions on everyone else is the only freedom that actually matters. And if you dispute that, it's because you don't understand the TRUTH. 

Gay Marriage Defeated in New Jersey

The New Jersey State Senate voted against a bill legalizing gay marriage. The vote was 20-14 with 3 abstentions. New Jersey has been suffering under Democratic government for quite awhile. As a gay marriage supporter, I was hoping that outgoing governor John Corzine, who has been terrible for the state, might be able to leave on a positive note by signing a gay marriage bill into law. Unfortunately he won't get the chance.

The failure to get a gay marriage bill passed in a liberal state such as New Jersey, demonstrates again that complete equality for gays has still not won majority public support. Attitudes are changing, but the change is incremental. I'm not sure how long it will take until a majority shifts in favor of gay marriage. I have no doubt that gays wanting to marry here in New Jersey will feel -- and rightly so -- that they shouldn't have to wait for equal rights. Some will probably attempt to utilize the court system to get gay marriage legalized by judicial fiat, against the wishes of the majority. While I sympathize, I think that's a bad strategy which can lead to an anti-gay backlash. Unfortunately, I think gay people in most states are just going to have to wait, and work to change attitudes.

Hate Crimes Legislation

Yesterday I read a post about a vicious gay-bashing incident that happened earlier this month. (More about the incident here.) The Human Rights Campaign is using the incident to promote the current hate crimes bill. Although I strongly support gay rights, I oppose hate crimes legislation because in my opinion it is useless, unnecessary, and potentially harmful.

Labeling certain crimes as "hate" is useless. It does nothing in particular to protect victims. It is classic "feel-good" legislation, promoted to make people feel as if they are doing something. Feel-good legislation not only satisfies the political need to "do something," it also serves as a good way to avoid considering measures that might actually have an effect.

Hate crimes legislation provides harsher punishment, but even that appears to be unnecessary. If you look at convictions for people who committed hate crimes, such as the murder of Matthew Shepard, you find that they already got maximum sentences. I find it interesting that the left, which mostly supports hate crimes legislation, usually opposes mandatory sentencing and anything which limits judicial discretion. But for some reason, restricting judicial sentencing options is just fine when it comes to hate crimes.

How can you tell if someone has committed a hate crime? Sometimes it is obvious. But much more often it is not. What is to stop overzealous prosecutors from adding hate crimes charges to otherwise ordinary offenses? Let's say I'm out and I get into an altercation with someone. I overreact, get into a fight, and end up charged with assault & battery. The prosecutor discovers that I'm an atheist, and that the victim was a Catholic.  They go through this blog and cherry-pick out all the articles I've written that criticize the Pope and the church, and decide that I attacked the victim because I'm an anti-religious bigot. Suddenly I'm facing hate crime charges. Think this couldn't happen? Then you have a lot more blind faith in our legal system and prosecutors than I.

We don't need hate crimes legislation. What we do need is strict enforcement and harsh punishment of actual crimes, not the thoughts behind them. If you attempt to beat someone to death, it shouldn't matter whether or not it's because he's gay, or because you just felt like killing a random stranger. In either case you had no mitigating reason for your crime. One shouldn't receive any different punishment than the other.

Gay Rights in India

With all the attention to gay rights and gay marriage in the U.S., it's sometimes easy to lose sight of the fact that homosexuals face far worse discrimination and even outright persecution in many other areas of the world. But there was a major advance for gay rights today in India.

In a landmark ruling, the Delhi high court scrapped parts of Section 377, a colonial law that criminalised gay sex – and indeed anything other than heterosexual vaginal intercourse – in India. Hence, consensual sex involving two adults of the same sex can no longer be a criminal offence.

As the above source points out,

This is the first time that an Indian court has gone on record to say that sexual minorities are not second-class citizens, and that they cannot be discriminated against. Granted, the anti-gay law was seldom used to secure convictions. However, for decades, the police and sometimes society at large used the law as an excuse to persecute gay men and women

Guess who opposes the ruling? That's right, pretty much every major religious organization in India.

Gays Cost Too Much Money

Today, Republican Committee Chairman Michael Steele unveiled the latest really bad argument against gay marriage: it's going to cost small businesses money.

"Now all of a sudden I've got someone who wasn't a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for," Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. "So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money."

Steele claims that this kind of message can reach a "broader base." If this is an example of Steele's new innovative ideas for Republican renewal, we might as well forget about it.  It completely ignores the primary questions about gay marriage and takes a purely cynical approach. Let's just forget about whether gay people deserve equal treatment with regard to marriage and focus on possible monetary costs. It's almost an admission that standard arguments against gay marriage are so weak that opponents need to find a new tactic.

Even if you set aside the cynical nature of Steele's argument and consider it purely on its merits, it still falls flat. Gays are a small minority of the population. Gay people who want to get married are apparently a minority of a minority. The impact is hardly going to devastate small business. Then there is the fact that married gay couples, or those who wish to marry, are not exactly in the closet. A small business with such employees will probably be well aware of their situation. It's not going to be a big surprise as Steele seems to think. Many corporations already offer benefits to the partners of gay employees. Small businesses which offer benefits do so in order to retain good workers. If they have a married gay employee, offering benefits serves exactly the same purpose as with married straight employees.

Steele's argument boils down to: we need to discriminate against gays because not doing so will cost small business money. That's not exactly a good message for the GOP.

Gay Marriage Bill Signed in Connecticut

Gay marriage was legalized in Connecticut back in the Fall of 2008, but only by judicial decision. Today the other branches formalized that decision in law, as the governor signed a bill removing gender references from state law and transforming civil unions into legal marriages.

Anyone who opposed gay marriage in Connecticut on the basis of opposing judicial activism should be happy. Now all three branches of government are in agreement, and the will of the people of Connecticut has been written into law.

h/t Forever In Hell

Good News for Gay Rights

Vermont has legalized gay marriage without the need for court intervention. Support was strong enough that the legislature was able to override the governor's veto.

Also today, the Washington D.C. Council unanimously voted to recognize gay marriages from other states. Hopefully other states that haven't legalized gay marriage yet will follow suit.

Fired for Being Gay

Being fired because you are gay, an outrage, right? No, the military did it, so it's just fine and legal. CBS News reports that eleven soldiers were discharged from the military in January because they failed to keep their homosexuality secret. Here's one example:

Kansan National Guard member Amy Brian was discharged after nine years of service - including a tour in Iraq where she survived an IED attack - when a co-worker spotted the off-duty and out-of-uniform Brian kissing her girlfriend

This woman manages to serve our country for nine years, including service in a war zone, but we have to kick her out for kissing someone when she was off-duty. It sounds unbelievable, but unfortunately it's true.