Should support for gay rights around the world be part of U.S. foreign policy?
Posted at 5:00 AM on December 8, 2011
by Eric Ringham
(27 Comments)
Filed under: International affairs, Politics/Government
The Obama administration has announced that a focus of U.S. foreign policy will be to promote the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people abroad. Today's Question: Should support for gay rights around the world be part of U.S. foreign policy?
Comments (27)
Nice satire, Jack! LOL. You should write for SNL.
Yes. And what about protection for people who are oppressed by racism and terrorism by the racist, terrorist, failed state of Israel should have all welfare stopped for their abuses of human rights that caused America to be attacked on 9/11/2001. Why should America have foreign policy that promotes counter attacks on America? Why should Americans fund racism, terrorism, and human rights abuses by fanatical militant Zionists in Israel? We have to end funding racism, terrorism, and human rights oppression by the evil failed state of Zionists in Israel. If we can't do that who cares about homosexuals. First things first.
Yes.
The president should also take a stronger stance at home. He is kind of annoying on his political positions. Although I do support him over the other losers, he needs to lead and not worry about how many people will get upset with being on the right side of history.
I don't think our president Obama has any idea of what he is doing for foreign policy. As other readers have shared, how can the GLBT policy be serious when the President has yet to have the Attorney General, Mr. Eric Holder seek any charges against the Fannie Mae executives for defrauding the public with worthless mortgage securities? Or even worse is former NJ Governor Corzine, a huge Democrat Obama supporter, saying to Congress today that he has no idea where the fund's missing $1.2 billion went? Is it any wonder that this money will show up in accounts of Obama for 2012 campaign coffers?
I think the administration should focus on dealing with their failure to safe guard our top drone plane, lost in Iran, because those things are way more important to our country security than some unwritten GLBT policy.
Obviously, we should. If Americans stand for civil rights and equality, and promote these as part of our foreign policy, we should include all people.
Please take some time to read or view Clinton's speech. She absolutely framed this in the historical context of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and immediately (very next sentence) admitted "my own country's record on human rights for gay people is far from perfect." She consistently argues the issue as basic human rights for GLBT people.
So, somewhat ironic that the wording of Today's Question reflects the mindset that somehow these rights are special rights. They are not, unless you believe that GLBT people are not human.
To answer the question, yes absolutely - because this is a question of basic human rights, and as a strong member of the international community we should use our influence to advance basic human rights.
Which legal rights are not allowed here in the USA for gay people? Marriage? That isn't a legal right, but they have legal unions for tax deductions in some states? Gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't say Merry Christmas or have Christmas trees or Christmas plays in schools any more???
This is an dumb question since our pres has NO foreign policy anyone can go read. Heck, he has no economic policy either so how can they talk about supporting Gay rights in other countries?
Did Oba speak up when Iran protested against the dictator? Nope_ Did he speak out about women being stoned to death in Pakistan or gays being shot in that Muslim country? Nope. And he was silent against Syria as well yet, he can get invalid UN approval for military action in Libya while ignoring Congress...that dear friend is a dictator style of poor leadership. His use of class warfare tactics to campaign on is disgusting and his last speech yesterday, was an abomination of facts..his arrogance allows him to lie to the public to garner campaign support because he has failed on all accounts and that he has no foreign or economic policy is further proof of his lack of leadership.
Anyone here need proof of this?
Yes. As a gay man living in Minneapolis with my partner of 19 years, I realize that we have it pretty good here. There are many countries where simply stating that you are gay would result in imprisonment or worse. The U.S. was once seen as the world leader in promoting human rights. That is hardly the case now. It is time for us to re-assert our leadership position not only by our foreign policy positions but also by our actions both within our own borders and throughout the world. Let's take real actions against countries that practice any form of discrimination, including that based on sexual orientation.
It is a cleverly staked out position designed to discourage post Arab Spring fundamentalism. And because of the Republican position on homosexuality, it is a lever only the Democrats are allowed to pull.
Yes.
No special rights, just basic human rights - like everyone should have.
"Why should gay people have any more rights than anyone else?"
Why should they have any less?
Yes. Hillary put it quite eloquently in her speech. The rights of GLBT people are Human Rights and they are not necessarily honored as such, both here and in many starker cases abroad.
Wow, DTOM James. If they only reported on things that affect 99.99% of Minnesotans, we'd be listening to a lot of nothing. Maybe some coverage of national political stuff (although apparently that may not be appropriate - talk of a payroll tax holiday, for example, only affects those of us who pay that tax, and that wouldn't meet the 99.99% threshold), and a little bit of state level info (but not anything about the Viking's stadium, because a large majority of us don't care about football). And weather, I guess, but that can vary across the state, so maybe they shouldn't cover it too specifically (e.g., if there's snow in Ely, it doesn't affect most of us). There's barely anything that would meet your suggested criteria.
Also, please name the specific "extra" rights that GLBT groups are asking for.
Is this the MPR weekly GAY update?
As a monetary contributor to MPR I would like to voice my opinion.
STOP reporting on insignificant issues and focus on things that affect 99.99% of Minnesotans.
I don’t care about U.S. foreign policy on gay rights! It is a HUGE waste of tax payers’ money.
Why should gay people have any more rights than anyone else?
∑
DTOM
Of course we should be standing up for the rights of all people, the last line of the Pledge of Allegiance is: "with liberty and justice for all" Hillary Clinton's recent speech at the United Nations is a must see as it explains the reasoning beyond religion or ideology.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/12/watch-hillary-clintons-speech-declaring-gay-rights-are-human-rights/45842/
Yes, but if we expect them to listen to us, we should listen to them, too. Don't complain when they call us out on our failure to address greenhouse gases, for instance, or for our failure to make sure all our children have access to health care, or for the more imperialistic aspects of our foreign policy, or for our general arrogance... er, excuse me, "exceptionalism."
Only as part of an overall human rights agenda that should also include equal rights for women, racial equality, protection of children, and religious freedom.
Of course. But the US should get its own house in order before lecturing neighbors about civil rights.
"It's only that they're persecuted there and that is why you are less aware of them."
No I haven't been to the Middle East. And yes, I know that, that's the point of post.
If gay rights becomes a major criteria for giving out foreign aid, then we can save a whole lot of money being wasted in Pakistan. Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yeman, etc.
How about adding women's rights to that criteria too?
Human rights should always be in the forefront of all of America's policies. The fact that there's a large portion of the US that see's fit to make discriminatory laws part of the state's (and federal) constitution is absolutely ridiculous. It's quite hypocritical too. Such political ploys are a subterfuge to get simpletons to vote for a party that actually doesn't have the person's best interest in mind.
Gay people live everywhere. A good place for us to start making sure that they have equal civil rights is right here at home.
Let's set a good example for all of the rest of the world and make sure that all of our people have equal rights and equal protections.
Yes, but shouldn't we solve the gay Rights Question at home first? If we are having political battle at home and writing marriage restrictions into our Constitutions ..it sends a mixed message.
Have you ever been in the Middle East GaryF?
There are gays in the Middle East and North Africa and pretty much all around the world. It's only that they're persecuted there and that is why you are less aware of them.
Sure. But let's give speeches and leave the threats and weapons at home.
If that is one of the criteria for giving foreign aid, then that answers the Pakistan question posed a week or so ago.
We wouldn't be giving money to any Muslim country. No Egypt, no Libya, no Yemen, etc.....
There are no homosexual people in Muslim countries. At least not ones living.
Human rights should be part of our foreign policy.
Yes. It should be the policy in our own government as well. The speech given by Hilary Clinton in Geneva tied GLBT rights to human rights for the first time. And it's true. EVERY person, no matter their make up, racially, gendered or sexually, is endowed with the right to dignity, equality and as Americans, we should be proud to stand up for all people, including GLBT. I'm proud to live in a time when an American was the first to stand in front of the Human Rights Commission and talk about this in Geneva. I hope I live in a time when our own government listens.
| December 2011 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock