• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

US foreign policy becomes fabulous

Peephole

Master Poster
Peephole
Joined
Aug 21, 2006
Messages
2,584
Obama Elevates Gay Rights as a Foreign Policy Priority

President Barack Obama on Tuesday issued a directive elevating the the rights and treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people abroad as a priority in U.S. foreign policy.

A memorandum Mr. Obama sent to government agencies directs them to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, or LGBT persons.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news...s-as-a-Foreign-Policy-Priority-135136743.html
Click to expand...
Does this mean Obama is going to have a stern talking to with himself?
 
To be fair:

He cited foreign laws criminalizing LGBT status, the beating of LGBT citizens for joining peaceful celebrations, and the killing of men, women and children for their perceived sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, it isn't illegal in the US to be LGBT.
 
Apparently being opposed to physical violence against LGBT people is a "war on traditional American values."

Rick Perry: Support For Gay Rights Abroad Is A ‘War With People Of Faith’

The memo in question did not concern gay rights issues that are typically debated in mainstream American politics — ie. marriage and military service — but instead directed State Department officials to help pursue greater equality in countries where homosexuals’ very lives are threatened.

“I am deeply concerned by the violence and discrimination targeting LGBT persons around the world,” President Obama said in the memo. “Whether it is passing laws that criminalize LGBT status, beating citizens simply for joining peaceful LGBT pride celebrations, or killing men, women, and children for their perceived sexual orientation.”

Perry nonetheless accused Obama of denigrating religious Americans’ faith by considering gay rights at all in a foreign policy context.
Click to expand...
 
Rick Perry's also implying that Obama isn't a "person of faith".

I guess if you're religious but don't subscribe to his version of Christianity, you don't count as a "person of faith."
 
Puppycow said:
Rick Perry's also implying that Obama isn't a "person of faith".

I guess if you're religious but don't subscribe to his version of Christianity, you don't count as a "person of faith."
Click to expand...

It's a good thing.
 
Peephole said:
Does this mean Obama is going to have a stern talking to with himself?
Click to expand...

Because he drove the removal of DADT?
or maybe because he instructed the DoJ to not defend the DOMA anymore?
I'm confused here. What is Obama deserving a stern talking for?
 
Because LGBTs are still treated as second-class citizens in the US? Even Obama is still opposed to gay marriage. Sure, Obama is pushing the envelope a little further, but it's still not enough.
 
Peephole said:
Because LGBTs are still treated as second-class citizens in the US? Even Obama is still opposed to gay marriage. Sure, Obama is pushing the envelope a little further, but it's still not enough.
Click to expand...

You know, I never thought of that. I mean, I can see that Obama has done a lot. But he surely has no opposition to his policies being made into law. None whatsoever. He should have completely liberated the LBGT community overnight. And I mean the night of his inauguration.

And because of that, I'm going to vote for Romney or Gingrich or maybe Paul in the next elections. That'll show Obama!
 
Virus said:
How are they second-class citizens?[/URL]
Click to expand...

Can't get married.
Can't adopt children (in a lot of states).
Are overtly demonized by wide-swaths of the population.

Are you being serious?
 
Peephole said:
Because LGBTs are still treated as second-class citizens in the US? Even Obama is still opposed to gay marriage. Sure, Obama is pushing the envelope a little further, but it's still not enough.
Click to expand...

Even calling it "pushing the envelope" is pretty generous.

Yes, gay rights in the US have gradually gotten slightly better under Obama, but he only does as much as he feels is politically safe, and it's not been at the top of his agenda. Clinton was actually more out in front for his time than Obama has been for his time. Back then, allowing gays in the military at all was radical and controversial. Now it's widely accepted by the public.
 
Puppycow said:
Even calling it "pushing the envelope" is pretty generous.

Yes, gay rights in the US have gradually gotten slightly better under Obama, but he only does as much as he feels is politically safe, and it's not been at the top of his agenda. Clinton was actually more out in front for his time than Obama has been for his time. Back then, allowing gays in the military at all was radical and controversial. Now it's widely accepted by the public.
Click to expand...

Go here.
 
Great move.

If I were a cynical person, a lesser person, a bitter and hollow shell of a person, I might ask the question "Why now?" Even if it is an olive branch to gay supporters, I'll take it. I'm just afraid that Republicans will simply reverse course when they get in control.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
You know, I never thought of that. I mean, I can see that Obama has done a lot. But he surely has no opposition to his policies being made into law. None whatsoever. He should have completely liberated the LBGT community overnight. And I mean the night of his inauguration.

And because of that, I'm going to vote for Romney or Gingrich or maybe Paul in the next elections. That'll show Obama!
Click to expand...
If your point is that even if Obama is bad on gay rights, there's even worse out there, that's pretty much the point I was making in that the US is still an awful country to be gay in.
 
Peephole said:
I was making in that the US is still an awful country to be gay in.
Click to expand...
If your definition of "awful" is "anything less than ideal".

But for most people there's quite a gulf between "ideal" and "awful".
 
WildCat said:
If your definition of "awful" is "anything less than ideal".

But for most people there's quite a gulf between "ideal" and "awful".
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I cannot marry the person I choose.
It is difficult for me to adopt children.
A large minority of my countrymen vocally demonize me.
I am not restricted on where I can live and work
I enjoy equal civil protections regarding my person and my property.
I hold a decent middle class job and get to spend my leisure time pursuing activities that interest me.

While the first three clearly prevent my situation from being 'ideal' the last three show that it is a far cry from 'awful'
 
Peephole said:
No, being a second-class citizen is pretty awful.
Click to expand...

Please!! Get off your sanctimonious high horse! I am not a second class citizen. As I stated above, there is still work to do to get true equality, but we are moving in the right direction, and things are not as dire as you imagine.

Yes, there is bigotry in the US, but by and large the law is on our side, and when a bigot crosses it, they get slapped down by the legal system with either a criminal prosecution (such as the murderers of Andrew Shepherd) or a civil lawsuit (like that school district that prevented a lesbian from attending her prom)

The fact that we can successfully receive redress in the courts shows that we are not second class citizens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom