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?
Advertisement
This is an old and ongoing fight about a distinction the Left has long been uninterested in making, but Clinton’s speech presented some novel problems, as well. For instance, in making her case, Clinton allowed that “my own country’s record on civil rights for gay people is far from perfect,” citing pre-2003 state laws that formally prohibited homosexual conduct (often without enforcement) as cases of human-rights violation. In the future, a secretary of state who thinks like Clinton could cite the United States of 2011 as similarly culpable, since we do not universally recognize same-sex marriage or mandate “gay history” education, or push other countries to join our newfound enlightenment. Meanwhile, Clinton’s speech was scant on talk of freedom of conscience as a human right, as the administration by its actions and inactions seems to be downplaying religious freedom as relevant to foreign policy. It has done nothing, for example, to fortify the Commission on International Religious Freedom. Dwelling on the supposed moral backwardness of America in the 1990s while ignoring the fact that in a great many parts of the world — notably the Islamic ones — members of religious minorities are regularly persecuted, imprisoned, and killed for their beliefs shows a certain lack of proportion. Whether this curious emphasis is attributable to domestic political concerns — President Obama is not long out of the doghouse among the gay-rights crowd — or merely a reflection of the distorted vision of liberal ideology, we cannot say.
You have to examine their psyche, and accept that most profound and simplest of answers: There can be no entity superior to humans, lest it destroy their God Complex. Without religion they are truely Gods among Men; or more precisely above Men.
Another thing to mention is they are generally non-believers and dis-believers. Why would they fight for something they care nothing for? Religion is also an obstruction for them, long-term. The GLBTABC123 groups are also proactive and will generally reciprocate (pun intended) towards those that assist them. Similar to the many left-wing groups who have a singular aim but reciprocate for any interest that allies with them.
Hillary Clinton will also be running in 2016, I give it about a 95% chance. Runner-up in my eyes would be UN Sec-Gen.
It's also notable that Natural Rights are never said, as with LONAONG. Human Rights sounds more like positive liberties, or something bestowed by humans upon the collective humans once it becomes popular enough such as internet (UN recently).
In 2016 she will be 69 years old. I know Reagan was that age, too. But she's not Reagan. I have trouble believing enough people will be enthusiastic about her by then. How sad it is that neither she nor her husband can bring themselves to retire to quiet lives and stop inflicting themselves on those of us who have endured them far too long.
It's an election season and the D's wouldn't get credit for just Human Rights, but by explicitly saying Homosexual Human Rights, they get to check off a little box in their demographic score card.
The distinction between 'natural rights' and 'human rights' lies at the crux of the matter, as John states. The former are granted by God and are thus unchanging and inviolate; the latter are defined by society (specifically, society's political elites) and subject to change, redefinition, and arbitrary enforcement.
The choice of religion is a personal one, which includes your right to accept what you 'believe' to be so about what applies to fellow believers. Fortunately, we live in a Country - the USA - which does not force anyone's religious choice upon us, nor any of the 1000's of gods believed in. There is nothing 'natural' about anything that is unchanging and inviolate - as change is coming at us in each moment, in fact this claim defies reality. Social evolution is also life, changing and expanding, every moment of every day. But, then - the entire concept of 'evolution' is no doubt beyond ability to 'reason' or even think about. So many humans - so sure they've got it right as they freely condemn our diversity - with their God as their master.
The choice of religion is a personal one, which includes your right to accept what you 'believe' to be so about what applies to fellow believers. Fortunately, we live in a Country - the USA - which does not force anyone's religious choice upon us, nor any of the 1000's of gods believed in. There is nothing 'natural' about anything that is unchanging and inviolate - as change is coming at us in each moment, in fact this claim defies reality. Social evolution is also life, changing and expanding, every moment of every day. But, then - the entire concept of 'evolution' is no doubt beyond ability to 'reason' or even think about. So many humans - so sure they've got it right as they freely condemn our diversity - with their God as their master.
To be sure, one of the problems with the Left is their inability to see people as people, but instead as a series of hyphenated interest groups. This gets in the way of their efforts to help as they must always follow a strict group hierarchy, even if the problems these groups face are the same.
Also, I'm getting tired of answering multiple CAPTCHAs because they refuse to accept a correct response. One accepted "Chevy Voly", but not "Chevy Volt". Anyone else experiencing this problem?
"To be sure, one of the problems with the Left is their inability to see people as people,"
And the Left self-congratulatingly projects this inability of theirs onto the Right. Remember Hillary of the 90's schooling the rest of us that "after all, janitors are people, too"?
I think that tendency to divide people into interest groups for political gain is a problem among all political partisans (kinda by definition). This is a problem that democracies have to deal with. Madison called it the danger of faction.
There's a clear problem with this article in that it doesn't mention that the republican field (with the notable exception of Jon Huntsman) does the same thing with sentences like "I want to protect marriage in this country" or "I believe in the importance of a two parent household". This is not limited to one class of people.
If there is one president, however, who didn't truck with this, it was the first republican president (see his second inaugural address). If anything the failure's of the republican party to overcome the problem of faction is all the worse in that it betrays its far prouder history. And its worth remembering that the difference between a republic and a democracy is that a republic is a government by the many, but for all.
One of the more laughable absurdities of conservatism is the insistence that liberals never notice the discrimination that conservatives are glorifying. Every time a conservative cheers when a gay couple is denied any of the 1,138 federal rights or hundreds of state rights that attach to civil marriage--many incapable of creation through contract or any other legal mechanism--the conservative is, of course, refusing to view gay people as people instead of as an inferior caste in a "strict group hierarchy." When you are utterly wallowing in discrimination, subordination, and rank bigotry, you are in no position to criticize anyone else for noticing it.
And one of the problems of the Right is your inability to recognize people as OTHER people and for you to stay our of their business. It is no business of yours if a man wishes to marry another man.
First of all, if I were gay (and I am) I wouldn't want to be represented by a letter (G) lumped together with a bunch of other letters, which stand for various sexual identities about which I am completely unfamiliar and unconcerned. It's depersonalizing and demeaning. What other "minority" is relegated to a single letter in a series of other letters in an unpronounceable pseudo-acronym? I am an individual and not just part of an alphabet soup of what should be individual private matters. I suppose that all the "sexual minorities" have now united for the purpose of lobbying for more political clout, but I remember when the "girls" used to throw beer bottles at the "boys" and dump ashtrays on their newly shined shoes, such being the relationship between lesbians and gays in the dance clubs of the 50s. Now to create safety in numbers we are reduced to one or more capital letters in an ever-expanding and ever more finely-tuned anagram of sexual "preferences" including, believe it or not, asexuality. Look up LGBTQIA and tell me where it stops.
Secondly, Hillary's latest divide-and-conquer strategery to create global gay rights is an expansion and globalization of the societal cancer known as hate crime legislation, which now infects the United States. It's just a hop, skip and a jump from hate crimes to thought crimes, and that, of course, is where we're headed. Instead of a penny for your thoughts you may be facing an arrest warrant.
The criticism of Clinton's wording is valid, but the notion that the administration is at fault for failing to defend freedom of religion with the same energy is fairly humorous.
Clinton in her speech rightly notes that when religious convictions mandate violations of human rights, then those convictions should not have legal primacy.
It is interesting to note that the greatest onslaughts against the religious liberty ofindividuals around the world are not carried out by secularists or speech-making Secretsries of State, but by adherents to antagonistic faiths.
Just as the greatest onslaughts against the sexual liberty of individuals around the world are not carried out by asesxualists, but by adherents to antagonistic sexual identities. What an idiotic point. So all religions are bad. Yeah, got it, that makes it not worthy of protection. So, ergo, all sexual identities are bad. All clothing choices are bad (hoodie reference). All soccer allegiances are bad (soccer violence reference).
The Obama/Clinton proclamations which arrogantly boasted their will be no more "meddling" from the USA?
Even recently, Russians who have made a mockery of Hillary Rodham Clinton over the past two years, with her tired "reset" nonsense, cited the Clinton State Department's 9 Million dollar meddling in their country.
Hillary's first foray publicly as Secretary of State was to announce to the world in China, the Obama Administration would not make human rights a "priority".
How quickly the sophistry changes. The still vilify the Bush Administration for cheap domestic political exploitation, but the Obama/Clinton failure has adopted and vindicated all of the Bush Administration's sound policies - including promoting liberty and democracy.
Anyone could have predicted how disastrous a Hillary Clinton tenure at the State Department was destined to become. Now it is just another Clintonian joke amongst many.
What a huge waste of taxpayer funds, flying Mrs. Clinton around the globe, treating the 'sniper dodger' like royalty, while failure is created in every attempt. Iran, Syria, Russia, North Korea, Yemen, Egypt, Pakistan, etc., have been so ineptly encouraged towards the worst. Strong Allies like Britain, Israel, Poland, the Czech Republic, etc., have been repeatedly debased. Even the new Allies who were essential for a better potential in the ME arena, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., have been foolishly alienated by the disastrous Clinton/Obama foreign policy mess.
The Obama/Clinton failure, only reminds one of the former Clinton Administration malfeasance, which actually chose to lie as a policy in addressing the Rwandan Genocide.
The silence of Hillary and Barack, appeasing the horrific as they slaughter their own around the globe in Iran, Syria, etc., is merely a continuation of this pathetic offering.
This is the same foolishness, which forced someone like the Dali Lama to use the rear exit of the Obama White House, after repeated refusals to meet with the Tibetan leader. It was truly an insult to all, an embarrassment for everyone, and a sick placation of the very worst.
This will be the Clinton-Obama legacy forever, following the Carter failure of the past, the weak appeasement of the monstrous.
Honesty in posting: I think Hillary Clinton is the most incompetent, inept Secretary of State in this country's history. That she is the abused wife of a former President who hangs on in spite of the indignities suffered either speaks to her solid sense of family, her extreme sense of commitment to her husband - OR - to an unquenchable desire for access to power, regardless of whatever inidignities she may have to suffer. You take your pick.
Given what we have as a President however, someone of her background and competencies is not surprising.
With that as context, one can only expect that she would not say anything about Christians being killed and slaughtered throughout the Middle East. That she and her boss have been fairly mum on Syria. That she has torched Israel and completely deceived the public with a vitriolic lie regarding Israelis treatment of women (this when Saudis don't even let women drive, this from a women who is treated by her own husband as a floormat!).
And that she now steps boldly up to advocate homosexual freedom is utterly unbelievable. THIS again is the "voice" of the United States of America. And that voice is saying something as utterly stupid as "let gayness be"?
Pathetic, simply pathetic. I can only imagine how the other powers of the world perceive her and us. I'm sure the Chinese, Russians, and Iranians are just laughing like hyenas about this one. Maybe we can create a new UN program and fund a $100M or so to push things along.
Whada ya' know...a new and castrati-like way to condemn the "sensibilities" of the "middle east"...a global push for GLT rights, that'll fix 'em. But to get their heads to really pop off Hil you should have included the rights of NAMBLA, zoophiliacs, and polygamists (oops polygamy not so much).
The fact that the region (and some outside including the USA) is infected with fierce anti-semitism-christianity and anything not of Islam is apparently no reason for condemnation. That Hitler's Mein Kampf is a best seller in the region is no cause for concern...Holocaust??? What Holocaust...no such thing in the "region"...misogyny??? What misogyny, c'mon, their women.
If her and the current administration's intent was not not so transparent and sad it would be funny.
