The Catholic Thing
HOME        ARCHIVES        IN THE NEWS        COMMENTARY        NOTABLE        DONATE
Arguing LGBT “rights” Print E-mail
By Austin Ruse   
Saturday, 20 October 2012

Homosexual advocates never want to make the debate about homosexual rights overseas strictly about violence against homosexuals. Oh, they say they do. They insist that they do. But do they really?

They flat out deny that their advocacy for homosexual rights overseas has anything to do with marriage, adoption, or any thing other than violence against homosexuals.

It’s part of the fundamental dishonesty in the debate about homosexuality these days and I watched it first hand yesterday in Washington DC.

At the House of Representatives, Ambassador Tom Farr of Georgetown’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs and I debated James Kirchick, a fellow of the Foundation for Democracies and Ted Stahnke of Human Rights First over the question of homosexual rights overseas.

Kirchick, a widely published writer on foreign policy opened his remarks by talking about the oppressive laws on homosexuality in the nation of Uganda.

He pointed out that a homosexual, David Kato, had been murdered not long after American evangelicals had been to Uganda to rile up the populace against homosexuals. Mr. Kirchick clearly intended to show nasty Evangelical complicity in the murder of Mr. Kato.

Mr. Kirchick forgot to mention that a man later confessed to the murder who was an acquaintance of Kato’s and that the murder was “personal dispute” and not about Kato’s homosexuality. Still, a good martyr is a terrible thing to waste.

Mr. Kirchick repeatedly insisted that he could not understand why anyone could oppose efforts to alleviate such injustice in places like Uganda against people like David Kato.

Like most wedge issues, the proposition is supposed to put opponents in a box. You are against homosexual rights then you support killing them. It’s as simple as that.

But the thing is that most people, even pro-family conservatives, would rally against such violence. What most opponents object to is the dishonesty in the debate, particularly about ends and means, and the worry that such new rights would trump old ones.

Conservative experts who watch these issues know the ends are not simply to stop violence and the means to get there would result in a debasement of international law and basic human rights.

The idea is to elevate “sexual orientation and gender identity” on par with religious freedom and other basic human rights. From that, everything would flow including marriage, adoption, and much else inimical to religious believers. Advocates like Kirchick and Stahnke deny this. A majority of Member States of the United Nations oppose introducing “sexual orientation and gender identity” into any U. N. document because they know this, and they are weary of the way the human rights game is played these days.

   
              Principals in the debate (Ruse and Farr, Kirchick and Stahnke)

And sadly, it has become a game and as such threatens a proper understanding of human rights and undermines the whole human rights regime.

First you start with a study of violence against homosexuals, as happened not long ago in the U.N. Human Rights Council. All they wanted was a study. Nothing more. The vote on the study was controversial, and it passed narrowly.

The vote simply to conduct a study on violence became this enormous human rights victory – a human rights breakthrough. It became a hallmark of LGBT human rights.

Advocates implied that such a breakthrough marked a new understanding of international law, that there are new standards that governments may be legally bound to follow. I exaggerate but only slightly.

Mr. Kirchick himself in his Washington Post column last March provides a prime example of this bootstrapping phenomenon. He refers to a 2008 “U. N. General Assembly resolution calling for decriminalization of homosexuality.”

The problem is, there was no such U.N. General Assembly Resolution. U.N. resolutions are particular things and there was no such thing that came out of the General Assembly.

There was a joint statement signed by sixty-five countries to that effect. But there is a world of difference in international law between a U.N. Resolution and what was little more than a glorified press release.

Yet this is how the game is played these days. A press release becomes international law at the hands of advocates who probably know better.

And this is why there is intense and widespread resistance to such new categories and new standards. Many more countries would support action in defense of homosexuals who are persecuted except they know the inherent dishonesty in the effort and they know where such efforts are really going, no matter the protestations of Mr. Kirchick and others on his side.

The thing is, existing human rights instruments already protect homosexuals. Like all of us, they are protected from arbitrary arrest, torture, violence, and murder.

To assert that “Gay rights are human rights and human rights are Gay rights”  as Hillary Clinton does, undermines the universality and indivisibility of human rights.

They may not know it, but in the process of such slicing and dicing of human rights, homosexuals, along with the rest of us, are being put into further danger.

 
Austin Ruse is the President of the New York and Washington, D.C.-based Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), a research institute that focuses exclusively on international social policy. The opinions expressed here are Mr. Ruse’s alone and do not necessarily reflect the policies or positions of C-FAM.
 
 
The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Rules for Commenting

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments, which should reflect a sense of brevity and a spirit of Christian civility, and which, as discretion indicates, we reserve the right to publish or not. And, please, do not include links to other websites; we simply haven't time to check them all.

Comments (21)Add Comment
0
...
written by G.K. Thursday, October 20, 2012
Thanks for telling the truth about this, Mr. Ruse. If it is said often enough, it will be heard and will win out. Half-truths, partial-lies and spin eventually falter from their own phoniness. Only telling the truth can stymie this mal-intentioned LGBT international rights movement.
0
...
written by Sue, October 20, 2012
It is very true that homosexual activists still seek to mask their real common cause with the globalist eugenicists, which is to debase marriage so much that children can be manufactured in test tubes, gestated by state-picked warm bodies, and raised in factory mode. All the rest of would-be parents can be sterilized roundup-style so as to make world population precision-controlled.

Homosexuals should read Brave New World to get a clue what useful idiocy their activism is leading them into.
0
...
written by Jack,CT, October 20, 2012
"Hate the Sin Love the Sinner",remember friend
the 'minority' group does NOT choose to be hated.
I feel strongly we need to pray for our brothers
and sisters with deviant lives.
I do believe "Hate", is still a problem in the
"LGBT" community.We all are aware of a story of
a hate crime aganst some of our brothers and sisters.
I Love all despite there sin as we are all sinners
and the only judge is our Lord.
Jack
0
...
written by Pat, October 20, 2012
I appreciate the "love talk "Jack but if we just ignore the ultimate goal of lgbt then love goes in the toilet and your love WILL NOT BE TOLERATED,Silence is not always golden and they are counting on the relativism so many people have adopted that if it doesn't involve me than let it all be alright.No Jack Our Lord made Commandments to be obeyed and in my book He's the Boss,Jesus is Lord , not man made rules that have betrayed the Truth !!
..., Low-rated comment [Show]
0
...
written by Graham Combs, October 20, 2012
In today's Daily Telegraph (UK) Damien Thompson writes about the National Council of Civil Liberties 1978 statement before Parliament which said "childhood sexual experiences WILLINGLY ENGAGED IN with adults show no identifiable damage." Couple this statement the invariable denial that homosexuality was a factor in the priest abuse scandal and enormous questions are raised about a 21st century civil rights movement. The comparison has to be made with Dr. Bernard Nathanson's admission of waging a reproductive rights campaign by lies and more lies.

At Vigil Mass a few weeks ago the priest used the word "sick" to describe our culture as he discussed the true nature of men and women and marriage. Two women stood up and walked out. The parish is two miles from a suburb that has been politically and culturally taken over by the Human Rights Campaign adherents. But the more revealing response was the absolute quiet of the congregation.
0
...
written by Walter, October 20, 2012
The author uses one anecdote to suggest that LGBT advocates are fundamentally dishonest. This is quite a bizarre accusation.

Anyone who has read a newspaper or watch TV over the last 5 years knows that the agenda is quite clear and out in the open.
0
...
written by Suzanne, October 20, 2012
Another great piece Mr Ruse, I also realy appreciated "On Killing Baby Girls".
I wonder sometimes what world will my daughter live in... it scares me.
0
...
written by Jack,CT, October 20, 2012
Dear Pat,
thanks for your response,I have to say
you sound rather upset? I just have a couple
of questions.I have no idea what and why Love
goes out of the toilet?Secondly I never mentioned
"silence".Thirdly can you point out "Exactly"
what commandment is broken by your "Boss"
Finally statements laced with pure anger do
nothing to advance the cause,I humbly submit.
God Bless you and thanks again.
Jack
0
...
written by kristinajohannes, October 20, 2012
Walter, it has always been an incremental strategy and it has not always been out in the open. it's not really out in the open yet, even in the US. The end sought is the destruction of any sexual standard by which homosexual activity could be negatively judged.
But this would sound too radical if directly pursued, so other short term goals through which this can systematically be achieved, are sought, one at a time.
0
...
written by tz, October 20, 2012
Blame yourself. Since it seems the Church has constantly wanted to give power to the state - so the state can define marriage (Henry VIII married a woman - after the state but not the church recognized the divorce, and Thomas More lost his head over the issue, but today we recognize such marriages - we give sacred things to dogs and consider divorce acceptable). Since everything you mention becomes a federal issue - poverty, adoption, etc., even freedom of association - cheer for the civil rights act in the 1960s, but then when "protected groups" are what you don't happen to like, the jackboots will be there to enforce the state's definition of the letter of the law, not the Church's recognition of the spirit of righteousness and charity.

A small government that keeps the peace would not have any power to worry about enforcing the rights you find objectionable. And the Church could go about providing medical care, adoption, and every other service as a charity, not from the robbery by proxy that is taxation, though it is more efficient than asking for more in the collection plate. Perhaps we can arm nuns and ushers and remove the middlemen and bureaucracy.

You cannot have religious freedom with a leviathan state. Ask Bob Jones University (25 years ago losing their 501c3 status over religious liberty - but that was a nasty doctrine and we are nice - but do those in power still think us nice and when "public policy" says we are now nasty?).

The agenda of both the right and left - the wars on "terrorism" and "poverty" - gave more and more power to the federal government (against subsidiarity), so ultimately the Devil can corrupt a few people and all that power is his on a silver platter.

And instead of asking to dismantle the Ziggaraut of Bureaus, to defuse the time-bomb of surveillance and force, you want to leave all that in place and make a futile attempt to keep different corrupt people (i.e. other than you and your own corrupt people) from taking this and using it for their own ends.

Power corrupts. Absolute (unitary executive?) power corrupts absolutely. But you want to keep the corruption because you want to keep the power.
0
...
written by Achilles, October 21, 2012
DS- I think you are confused. You have a lot of Catholic doctrine, but unfortunately you seem to be marbling in UN declaration of human rights perversion. YOu are mucking up the waters. One of your unknowable foundational assummptions, that God made homosexuals seems to be your ground for self righteousness. I think it is sand. There is much more evidence that man makes homosexuals than God does. I don't know, but neither do you. You should try to read the article again without that assumption and try to weed out the UN stuff. Good luck.
0
...
written by Ben H, October 21, 2012
The extraordinary thing is how few actual 'hate crimes' there are as opposed to the infinitesimal number of real ones. The ones you hear about are almost always either entirely fake (meaning no actual bad incident happened) or obviously explained by another motive which is often hidden from the public at the beginning (as in the example in Austin's column). I can't believe that people fall for them anymore.

By the way, if the 'hate crime' happens on a university campus there is a 100% chance it is fake.
0
...
written by DS, October 22, 2012
Achilles, this is the Catechism's, not the UN's, position on how homosexual persons should be treated:

"They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."

The Catechism makes this statement, while at the same time clearly condemning homogenital acts and violations of natural law.

The Catechism has the nuance and completeness of Catholic teaching that Mr. Ruse's column lacks.
0
...
written by Austin Ruse, October 22, 2012
DS,

Really? In what way does my column violate the catechetical teaching of the church. Please do be specific.
0
...
written by DS, October 22, 2012
Mr. Ruse,

You didn't violate any catechetical teaching and I did not make that assertion.

My criticism is that your column and previous ones like it conflate homosexual individuals and homogenital acts, while the Catechism, Church tradition, the bishops and moral theologians see important distinctions between them.

Re. human rights, the operative words in the Catechism are "unjust discrimination." Such discrimination and related violence does indeed exist (my examples of Saudi Arabia and Iran, among others), and existing human rights structures do not adequately address it.
0
...
written by Achilles, October 22, 2012
Same sex attraction is disordered DS and to confuse unjust discrimination with acceptance is a very dangerous thing. The catechism says “unjust discrimination” not discrimination. A person who acts on same sex attraction ought to be discriminated against in the same way one ought to wisely discriminate against a heterosexual sex addict or a drug addict. To show approbation for such aberrant behavior is absurd. It is a loving act to tell those who act on their homosexual inclinations that the behavior will not be tolerated. It is self-destructive and damaging to families. Even Freud associated homosexuality with narcissism. I discriminate in the sense that my close friends are not homosexuals and my children don’t have friends that are homosexuals in the same way we don’t have friends that are drug addicts.
0
...
written by Austin Ruse, October 22, 2012
DS, can you show me how I conflate homosexuality with homosexual acts?

Thanks.

0
...
written by DS, October 22, 2012
To Achilles - "Unjust" is an important qualifier and undoubtedly would be a subject for debate on these pages. In the Catholic understanding of justice, does jail or flogging simply for being in the company of a suspected homosexual qualify as unjust discrimination? (...or to use your example, does simply being in the company of a suspected drug user warrant punishment?) It happens in Saudi Arabia and Iran.

To Mr. Ruse - conflating the two is the entire premise of your argument. You argue against codifying additional protections for the legitimate human rights of homosexual persons because it is impossible to separate such protections from a broader agenda, the ultimate objective of which is to normalize immoral sexual behavior.
0
...
written by Austin Ruse, October 22, 2012
DS, I argue against elevating sexual orientation and gender identity to the level of international law. I also argue that violence against homosexual persons is immoral and must be resisted. I also argue that homosexuals are already covered extensively in existing human rights treaties. I guess I just don't follow you...

Perhaps you can explain in greater detail...
0
...
written by Achilles, October 23, 2012
Dear DS, your homosexual friends in Iran and Saudi Arabia have my sympathy, but how does unjust treatments of people in general get boiled down to human rights offenses against homosexuals in muslim lands?

It seems to me that your defense of what you call "unjust" discrimination is really something like special treatment. I think in the case of your thought the tail is wagging the dog. You do no homosexuals any favors by increasing the homosexualist's agenda, lifted from Marx, that he is "persecuted unjustly." In general he is not, in fact, to the contrary, he is treated with deference by the public schools, mass media, lady gaga "born that way" and by our so called 'president' and his ilk.

You are on the wrong side of this issue DS and while I admire your compassion it is unteathered to sound reason and the proper order of the will.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 

Other Articles By This Author

CONTACT US FOR ADVERTISERS ABOUT US
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner