A Global Gay-Rights Crusade

[Mister D]

There is some that is commendable and much that is pernicious in Secretary Clinton’s speech Tuesday announcing that the United States will be making “LGBT rights” — that is, the rights of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered persons — “a priority of our foreign policy” and a factor in determining the uses of “foreign assistance.”Support for human rights has a place in foreign policy, albeit a subordinate one. Among those rights, certainly, is the right of homosexuals to be free from violent attacks and other draconian punishments. As Clinton rightly notes, if there are fundamental rights at all (and the foundational premise of this republic is that there are) then they “are not conferred by the government,” but ours “because we are human.” The secretary then goes on to claim that human rights and gay rights are “one and the same,” which we suppose is true insofar as the latter collapses into the former. What we don’t understand is how Clinton’s view — that being human vests us with certain rights — entails or even is compatible with a second set of rights that one enjoys by virtue of being homosexual. When Clinton says, “It is a violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation,” no recourse is required to a gay right. The words “because of their sexual orientation” are superfluous. When she says that the horrors of “corrective” rape against women who are suspected of being homosexual are violations of a right, to what right could she be referring besides the right not to be raped, simpliciter?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/285416/global-gay-rights-crusade-editors

[MMC]

I don't get it they say they are for gay rights but that they are against gay marriage. Both Clinton and Obama. But then they are creating laws for specifics groups of people. Which the complaints of the Occupiers is that of going after a specific group of people already citing the laws that protect the rich. Which they are part of.

Humanitarian laws are for any that are human without regard to any sort of specifics. So there shouldnt be a point to make a distinction with attached preconceptions. Good thing that stops when a there no Democrat in the Presidency and when they not running Congress.

My question would be, do they have the right to inject it into our foreign policy?

[Mister D]

They are both for gay marriage. I'm pretty confident about that. They are just cynical pols. Thery will stand for whatever is more palatable to a larger number of likely voters.

I have no problem with human rights being a pat of our foreign policy but there is something strangley specific about this.

[Mister D]

Not to mention poorly defined as the article states.

[MMC]

They are both for gay marriage. I'm pretty confident about that. They are just cynical pols. Thery will stand for whatever is more palatable to a larger number of likely voters.

I have no problem with human rights being a pat of our foreign policy but there is something strangley specific about this.


I thought they both stated that marriage was between a man and a woman. But that they were for civil unions.

[Mister D]

That's what they said. Sure.