Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
I truly don't dislike Hillary Clinton. At least not to the extent I dislike, say, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or President Obama himself. And by dislike I do not mean "hate", but simply "vehemently disagree with and detest their worldview." Hillary Clinton, perhaps by the default of being surrounded by such far-Left progressives in the current administration, has struck me as increasingly pragmatic and even-keeled. Maybe Madame Secretary was weening herself off the progressive ledge, I thought?
I was wrong.
This speech she gave in Geneva last week at the International Human Rights Day is, in my opinion, everything that is wrong with secular-progressive-liberal thinking. Here's a short clip from that speech.
Now I have to say that I stand side-by-side with anyone who vocalizes what all reasonable people believe: gay people are human beings with inalienable rights and are to be treated with respect and dignity, same as all Creator-endowed peoples. In other countries, specifically Muslim ones, gay people are routinely mistreated and in some cases murdered for their "crimes." This is disgusting and deplorable.
But in the speech, what riled me most were three specific points Clinton made.
1) That religious objections to homosexuality shouldn't play a part in the discussion of something like gay marriage's legality. Why I choose to vote or not vote for something (or some one) is entirely my business. The Left quotes Scripture to us when they want "social justice" implemented, but let a God-fearing conservative voice any dissent on any social issue and get ready for an overwhelming flood of "We don't live in a theocracy" and "Separation of church/state" comments. Obama goes to a radical church for 20 years? Who cares, say the media. George W. Bush says Jesus was his favorite philosopher and that he prays every day for the country/troops, and you would've thought a Methodist caliphate had been ushered in.
Some might say, "But she only directed that at Muslim countries where religious zealots believe homosexuality is a sin punishable by death." Thomas Sowell would call you a stage-one thinker should you say something like that. The real aim here of progressives isn't just to help suffering gays in Sharia-run countries - a noble and indeed important task. The real aim is to fundamentally transform Western society by removing gender distinctions and "normalizing" gay marriage. My evidence for this is point #2...
2) Hillary apologized for "my own country's" flaws when it comes to the treatment of LGBT's. Phwaaaa? The freest, most prosperous, most tolerant nation on the face of the earth? That country? She doesn't care as much about the murderous regimes in, again, mostly Muslim countries, but chooses to critique America on the world stage. What else could she possibly be talking about other than the fact that in every state gay marriage has been put on the ballot, the American people have said, "Thanks, but no thanks"??? We have NOTHING to apologize for. If liberals want to know what drives sensible conservatives most batty about their general demeanor, rhetoric, and worldview, this is Exhibit A. Self-flagellation for the sake of self-flagellation (and for the sake of not-so-subtly attacking Red State voters).
3) Clinton's entire argument in the speech was grounded in some convoluted, politically correct "rights belong to humans and gay people are humans so gay people have rights." There is SOOOO much that could be said here, but let me finish my post by simply saying that it is not enough to say that humans deserve rights because humans deserve rights. There is no depth to that claim. There is no accountability. There is no anchor to ground an gird those rights. Rights either come from God, or they are human constructions that can be taken away, replaced, or removed (like in those countries where secular-progressive ideology won out in the 20th century and more than 100 million people perished from the face of the earth from all of those "workers' rights" they were promised).
Thanks for indulging me. Look forward to your responses!
- Comment (34)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Sep '11
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
Writing from the UK, I understand your irritation when this administration apologises to the world for America's misdeeds. Better just to plough on doing your best. Important you understand, however, that the world does look to the US to give a lead and do the right thing. It comes with the territory, it's what the world looks to you for: leadership. Religious objections: as I understand it, no one is trying to oblige US churches to extend Christian marriage to same-sex couples. What is at stake is civil rights and civil marriage. Federal benefits and many employer benefits depend upon marital status, right? Gay people are citizens, who pay their taxes. They should have the right to marry in a city hall or wherever (I confess I don't know how marriage works in the US), receive federal benefits, and for that matter serve their country in the armed forces. More and more Republicans get this; it shouldn't be a party political issue. Are we trying to transform society? We're certainly trying to make society less cruel towards gay people.
May '10
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
Gaby, you say "no one is trying to oblige US churches to extend Christian marriage to same-sex couples" - but that is, of course, precisely the fear. The test case is California, where the state had legally enshrined civil union available which offered all of the benefits of marriage, but was did not give this union the name marriage. As I understand it (and I'm very ready to be corrected), the controversial Prop 8 did nothing to undermine this existing legislation. The phrasing, rather, was to prevent this settlement being set aside, and a re-definition of "marriage" being made in law. If that understanding is right, then the opposition to Prop 8 was precisely to ensure that the re-definition of marriage as encompassing same-sex unions was legally enforceable, and that can only be to ensure that those who don't accept the definition can be legally compelled to do so. And yes, that means that churches in the end will be compelled to conduct same-sex marriages, or no marriages at all.
Sep '11
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
Sep '11
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
Sep '11
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
Robert, I can't really follow this; I can only speak for the position in the UK. Here, we have civil partnership, modelled on civil marriage. Soon, same-sex couples will be able to register a register office (i.e. civil) marriage; and churches, too, will be free to celebrate same-sex marriages, but they will not be obliged to do so, and the Church of England has already said that it will not do so. There is almost no one in the UK who favours forcing churches to celebrate same-sex marriages, and I'm genuinely surprised if that is what US equality campaigners are seeking. What we were very clear we wanted, and were entitled to, was the right to enjoy the legal consequences of marrage, such as next-of-kin status, married person tax status, and so on (and, in the US, federal and employer benefits). In the UK, that is pretty generally accepted, and uncontroversial. It is now the policy of all the main political parties. The issue has ceased to be toxic. I hope that will soon be the case in the US.
Dec '10
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
Clinton's academic records are reasonably accessible, certainly more than Obama's. As for where she really stands with respect to human rights, I would think actions speak louder than words!
Dec '10
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
Michael Labeit
...They may have appealed to the Creator, but it was they who provoked and pioneered the political/military campaign through which our rights were secured. What does it mean to say that we receive our rights from God? The cop on the street who prevents hoodlums from robbing you - your rights derive from him; without him, your right to private property would be kaput. I don't understand what it means to say our rights derive from the Creator. · Dec 12 at 11:19pm
I would simply have stopped you at "They may have appealed to a Creator." That's all I'm saying. Jefferson, a lawyer, had at the heart of his defense of the American colonies' claims to liberty the notion that their rights came from a Higher Authority than the King. That's all. I stand with that sentiment.
Now what we do to maintain and protect that freedom is certainly a matter of human action and vigilance. I don't think we disagree much here. Romans 13 lays out the vision for human authority that you're referring to (i.e. police, military, governing authorities, etc.).
Thanks for engaging me! Appreciate it!
Sep '11
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
The UK has an established church, but political dialogue is by and large conducted with little or no reference to religious authority. The USA has separation of church and state, yet your public discourse around politics is permeated with religious references and meanings. From this side of the ocean, it's all very rum. Surely, the freedom to practise your religion, which I know to be a keystone of your public life, must involve some recognition that each religion must accept there is a public sphere in which religious neutrality is appropriate? Wouldn't your politics be calmer and more genuinely a democratic dialogue if religion played a less prominent role? It upsets me to see how polarised your politics has become, and how strident. Cool it a bit? This is said in the friendliest possible way. I'm a massive admirer of the USA, and believe you have a lot to teach us, about free speech especially.
Dec '10
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
Michael Labeit
What does it mean to say that we receive our rights from God? The cop on the street who prevents hoodlums from robbing you - your rights derive from him; without him, your right to private property would be kaput. I don't understand what it means to say our rights derive from the Creator. · Dec 12 at 11:19pm
It means that our rights are inviolate and cannot be created or destroyed by man. This is vitally important. God is a legal concept independent of faith. Call them "natural rights" if you wish.
As human beings, we have the right to speak freely, even if there is no mechanism to guarantee that right. In fact, the right is all the more important if such a mechanism does not exist.
If you don't recognize that, you might as well put out the welcome mat for the next dictator.
Dec '10
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
The anti-religious certainly do want to force churches to practice it and our ever-expanding discrimination laws (not actually laws but judges and their endless "interpreting") will eventually lead to it because they have given up persuading the electorate and are much more interested in getting judges to rule on it.
You may also be misreading even the situation in the UK but one difference is that in the US it just takes one judge and a supportive elite legal establishment to overturn laws. You don't have the "judge problem" over there.
You'll note that in the US, civil unions passed in most jurisdictions without much effort.
But when you start talking about it in the context of "rights" then you end up at polygamy. No good argument has been made to have same-sex marriage that cannot be made in defense of polygamy. (Well, except the psychological validation argument, which is rather condescending in my view.)
May '10
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
R.J. Moeller
Michael Labeit
I would simply have stopped you at "They may have appealed to a Creator." That's all I'm saying. Jefferson, a lawyer, had at the heart of his defense of the American colonies' claims to liberty the notion that their rights came from a Higher Authority than the King. That's all. I stand with that sentiment.
Well, where's the grandeur in merely appealing to a "Higher Authority"? Only a proof of the claim that "rights come from God" is significant. As long as a demonstration is not undertaken to prove this, then appealing to God is as sound as appealing to silly putty.
May '10
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
AmishDude
It means that our rights are inviolate and cannot be created or destroyed by man. This is vitally important. God is a legal concept independent of faith. Call them "natural rights" if you wish.
This goes back to what I've told to R.J. Without demonstrating/proving that rights, or the justification thereof, come from God, this is idle chatter.
Edited on December 14, 2011 at 12:23amSep '11
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
@AmishDude: The right to equality is just that. We're asking for what the law does permit, not what it doesn't. It doesn't permit polygamy. And we are not talking about church marriage. Gay Christians can and do campaign for that within their churches. I agree with you about judicial activism. We too rely too much on the judges. We have more of a problem in that regard than you think. Our Sex Discrimination Act passed in 1975. It expressly excluded ministers of religion so that the churches would not be required to ordain women. That principle has been maintained in all our subsequent anti-discrimination law, including laws aginst sexual orientation discrimination. There has been some noisy argument about the exact scope of the exemption, but the principle that the law should not interfere in matters of doctrine has not been seriously questioned.
Sep '11
Re: Hillary On Gay/Human "Rights"
@AmishDude: A further point, if I may, on civil unions. As I have posted above, we are campaigning for equality in relation to civil marriage. I myself am not too bothered about terminology, and indeed I know Christians who believe that what is celebrated in a register office between a man and a woman should not be called marriage but something else, e.g. civil partnership or civil union. What is really important is that the legal consequences of same-sex civil unions should be the same as for opposite-sex civil unions. You will correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it a civil union in a US state does not entitle the parties to the federal or employee benefits that a civil marriage does. That is why there is such a strong campaign for same-sex marriage, and for it to be recognised at the federal level.