This should add fuel to the fires of the wingnuts. I am glad to see this too.

Good to see the U.S. helping set a positive example. I’d like to say “again” but I’m not sure that would have been the case in any previous administration with regard to this issue.

the wingnuts opposition again is not consistent with their right to life so called believe…… it is kind of like their protect the fetus but hug the death penalty.

As well as the conservative Catholics. The Vatican has opposed this at the UN, and was pleased to have Bush on their side for once.

(There was that little disagreement over invading Iraq, you know, as well as Bush’s propensity for delighting in the death penalty — neither of which went over well with Benedict. But I digress . . . )

Yet another reason for the bishops to be angry with Obama. Not that they need another one, mind you, since some of them seem to be able to invent reasons at will.

So who didn’t support the resolution? Other than the Holy See, of course.

So before it was us and the medieval world.

not exactly pro-life womb-to-tomb are they?

I think Catholic Bishops are losing their moral compasses to doctrinnaire compasses that make the current Pope, and the last one, feel in control. The last humble pope in my mind was John the XXlll.

They are pro-birth not pro-life. Once you’re born they don’t care.

By local accounts of his years as the bishop in Venice, John Paul I would qualify on that score — and his refusal to use the three tiered papal crown at his installation as pope in 1978 underscored his humility. Sadly, he was pope for just a month, and had little lasting impact.

We’ll have to invade all those homophobic countries. Can we start with a GLBT voulenteers? And all those black burkas – they really need to get some fashion sense…

It’s a first step but somehow I don’t see the US bringing up the French resolution again in the General Assembly, at least on its own. Might be nice if the French did though.

From Jane’s link:

Opposing the resolution [in December] were the United States, the Holy See, and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

now, the church has adopted a womb-to-tomb pro l;ife posituion. which is fine. but you hardly hear anyhting except the anti-abortion part of it and this empowers (I hate that word) the yahoos. and they work with te yahoos of other denominations. church needs to be more vocal abouyt the other stuff. i heard tbe priest at my church starting to do this. but not ebough.

I used to play the xenophone, because the marimba sounded so… foreign.

Truthfully, I don’t think they care about the unborn either. It’s a control fetish, they feel compelled to tell others what they can and cannot do.

Careful, that might not resonate well.

Great, thanks for posting this and your unwavering support on LGBT rights.

I’m pleased about Obama’s new openness, but perhaps we shouldn’t celebrate so fast. The UK has introduced problematic new language which maintains “gender identity” protection but doesn’t really condemn discrimination. So this may all be steps along the way to considerably watered-down language, as a result of Durban II.

See this UN blog, food for thought: http://blog.unwatch.org/?p=262

it might reap percussions.

With mallets aforethought.

To read that the Holy See voted, even in a symbolic vote, is eye opening considering their UN status.

AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen punaise and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

Hey there Brother punaise, boy do I miss yer cazy assed creative vocals…but maybe you ken preserve that old xenophone if ya wrap it in cellophone and then call me.

Perhaps you’re TOO concerned with watered-down language.
Passing a UN vote on decriminalizing homosexuality is a fine idea and a good start.
Countries such as Saudi Areabia define homosexual acts as crimes punishable by death. Iran actually executes people for same.

I agree this is progress, but it is also slightly ironic that a country where gays are regularly and systmetically discriminated against and gay rights are typically ignored gets to sign a statement endorsing those same rights… kind of like ratifying torture protocols when you torture, or voicing support for measures to decrease poverty when you have one of the world’s widest gini coefficients. At least we’re back to that old, Clintonian, mode of behavior now. I guess that is a bit of a relief.

if you hold a holy see shell to your ear, you can hear echoes of the dark ages.

To read that the Holy See voted, even in a symbolic vote, is eye opening considering their UN status.

Yes, this surprises me as well. This is how the UN itself defines the Vatican’s (called the Holy See) status.

Non-member State having received a standing invitation to participate as observer in the sessions and the work of the General Assembly and maintaining permanent observer mission at Headquarters

http://www.un.org/members/nonmembers.shtml

I cry “uncle” – I’m positively syncopated. :~)

Yep.

I realize there have been movements in both directions since 2000 to petition for voting status as a nation-state and for groups globally who have requested denial of observer status and be given the same status as groups like the LWF (Lutheran World Federation) – NGO status.

I also realize that Bush gave the Holy See full diplomatic immunity in their role as UN observer which I found quite interesting. The Holy See should have denied that immunity if in fact “Holy” means holy.

Here is more about that immunity status Bush handed out.

Is there something unusual or troubling about granting diplomatic immunity to the Vatican staff?

And here is why that happened:

ROME — The U.S. Justice Department has told a Texas court that a lawsuit accusing Pope Benedict XVI of conspiring to cover up the sexual molestation of three boys by a seminarian should be dismissed because the pontiff enjoys immunity as head of state of the Holy See.

Assistant U.S. Attorney General Peter Keisler said in a Sept. 19 filing that allowing the lawsuit to proceed would be “incompatible with the United States’ foreign policy interests.”

…something unusual or troubling about granting diplomatic immunity to the Vatican staff

Hopefully, my link at 32 gives a view into a response to your question.

Thanks. I understand what you’re saying, but I’m unsure why the lawsuit naming the Pope would be linked to the Vatican observers to the UN.