The UNHRC Gay Rights Resolution

The UNHRC passed today a South Africa-sponsored resolution supporting equal rights for all without respect to sexual orientation. The vote tally was 23-19, with three abstentions. I'm having trouble finding a precise listing of which countries voted in what way, but the line seems to be that most of the support came from Europe and the Americas (including the USA), while most of the opposition was concentrated in African and Islamic countries.

UN Watch quotes some excerpts from speeches by various UNHRC members -- South Africa apparently received criticism from other African states for its sponsorship of the resolution, which Nigeria asserted "90% of South Africans do not support". Mauritania wondered if this issue was really on par with such important issues as the rights of women, while Saudi Arabia -- currently facing widespread protests by women seeking the right to drive cars -- complained that it "is not acceptable and reasonable to impose views on other countries and that this is not only contrary to Sharia but also to all other monotheistic religions" (of course, many denominations of many monotheistic religions have no problem with gay equality).

As pleased as I am that the normally-repellent UNHRC managed to squeak past a worthwhile resolution, I have to ask why folks even care. In New York, there is a razor-thin vote coming up in the state Senate on whether to legalize gay marriage. That's an important vote, because the consequence will be the enactment of real rights for the gay and lesbian community.

Resolutions at the UNHRC don't do that. They don't have force of law, and they have no impact on anyone's rights or responsibilities. What they provide, at least nominally, is moral force. And moral force is only as powerful as the moral credibility of the body making the statement. This, the UNHRC lacks. And I see no reason to ascribe it any.

Why should the LGBT community hinge the moral credibility of their case on the beliefs of the UNHRC? Why should they care about the perspective of a body in which a significant minority believes their equality constitutes "contempt to human rights" (Nigeria) or that they "jeopardize the entire human rights framework" (Pakistan)? Where tangible rights are on the line, one has to deal with repugnant minorities who have such views (presumably, some of the nay votes in New York have a similar perspective to that forwarded by Nigeria and Pakistan). But if all we're talking about is moral force, what has the UNHRC done to deserve the right to speak on the question?

Don't get me wrong: I'm happy this resolution passed. It's a good thing when any body (however narrowly) can commit itself on the record to supporting the equal rights and human dignity of all persons. But in terms of marking some sort of milestone or important accomplishment -- I don't see it. I don't believe in ascribing to the UNHRC that sort of normative legitimacy -- a legitimacy it has yet to, and I doubt will ever, earn.

Bin Laden is Dead

Not much to say. Obviously, this is a great day for America and all of the victims of Osama Bin Laden's terrorism, inside the United States and abroad. My thanks to the brave soldiers who conducted the operation, as well as all those who have risked their lives fighting the War on Terror.

Primary Editor Roundup

I'm becoming a villain. Not sure how I feel about that.

* * *

Arkansas keeps on trying to ban gay people from adopting children. Their latest effort has been struck down as unconstitutional, and the state attorney general doesn't sound enthused about appealing.

A suicide bomber hit a refugee camp in Pakistan. The attack was apparently retaliation by Sunni terrorists after Shi'ite villagers killed two women for cnverting from Shi'ite to Sunni Islam.

...And now Merrick Garland is extreme, apparently for not wanting to burn the papers of Justice Harry Blackmun.

Two bad tastes which go poorly together: A dude affiliated with the ZOA is trying to convince Jews to go for Palin. Good luck.

Well, this is one way to get folks to read their contract language.

You may have come across a story claiming that former IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said in an interview that "the Israeli occupation only understands the language of violence" and endorsing terrorism. The piece, which was purportedly sourced to the UPI, is almost definitely fake; the source is actually Iran's Press TV and Hamas' website.