Obama Admin supports gay foreign aid

[FaxModem1]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/0 ... 31564.html

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is announcing a wide-ranging effort to use U.S. foreign aid to promote rights for gays and lesbians abroad, including combating attempts by foreign governments to criminalize homosexuality.

In a memorandum issued Tuesday, President Barack Obama directed U.S. agencies working abroad, including the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, to use foreign aid to assist gays and lesbians who are facing human rights violations. And he ordered U.S. agencies to protect vulnerable gay and lesbian refugees and asylum seekers.

"The struggle to end discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons is a global challenge, and one that is central to the United States' commitment to promoting human rights," Obama said in a statement.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is also expected to speak about the announcements in Geneva later Tuesday.

The White House said Tuesday's announcement marked the first U.S. government strategy to combat human rights abuses against gays and lesbians abroad.

The order also directs U.S. government agencies to use foreign assistance to protect human rights and advance non-discrimination, and work with international organizations to fight discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Obama's announcement is part of the White House's outreach to gays and lesbians, a core Democratic constituency. Since taking office, Obama has advocated for the repeal of the military's ban on openly gay service members and ordered the administration to stop enforcing a law defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

However, Obama has stopped short of backing gay marriage, saying only that his personal views on the matter are evolving.

Gay rights groups praised the order as a significant step for ensuring that gays and lesbians are treated equally around the world.

"Today's actions by President Obama make clear that the United States will not turn a blind eye when governments commit or allow abuses to the human rights of LGBT people," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy organization.

The presidential directive applies to all U.S. agencies involved in foreign aid, assistance and development, including the Departments of States, the Treasury, Defense and Homeland Security.

This seems like a good thing, but the cynic in me says that this is trying to build up support for his base for the 2012 election.

[Thanas]

Maybe that foreign aid would be bettter used at home to educate the US populace, seeing as how they are easily the most homophobic one in developed countries (well, maybe Ireland).

[The Romulan Republic]

Maybe that foreign aid would be bettter used at home to educate the US populace, seeing as how they are easily the most homophobic one in developed countries (well, maybe Ireland).

Most homophobic in developed countries maybe, but there are places in the world this aid could go that are much, much worse.

It seems like you're straining to find something to criticize Obama for, even when he's giving fucking foreign aid in defence of minority rights. Give the man credit when he does something right.

[Thanas]

It seems like you're straining to find something to criticize Obama for, even when he's giving fucking foreign aid in defence of minority rights. Give the man credit when he does something right.

If the US tries to lecture other societies on how to reform their ways when you got people on national TV that actively discriminate against that and legislation being passed that does the same I fail to see how this can be perceived as anything productive.

[fgalkin]

Maybe that foreign aid would be bettter used at home to educate the US populace, seeing as how they are easily the most homophobic one in developed countries (well, maybe Ireland).

I think it's a good thing to counteract the efforts of US missionaries to make homosexuality punishable by death in Africa.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Connor MacLeod]

If the US tries to lecture other societies on how to reform their ways when you got people on national TV that actively discriminate against that and legislation being passed that does the same I fail to see how this can be perceived as anything productive.

I suspect trying to use it 'at home' would provoke outrage for various reasons (the usual conservative ones, but I also suspect people refuse to believe America still has any prejudice in it, despite the massive evidence to the contrary.)

I agree its stupid and would be better used at home, but can you honestly say you're surprised that something like this would happen given the messed up way America handles politics and issues like this?

[The Romulan Republic]

It seems like you're straining to find something to criticize Obama for, even when he's giving fucking foreign aid in defence of minority rights. Give the man credit when he does something right.

If the US tries to lecture other societies on how to reform their ways when you got people on national TV that actively discriminate against that and legislation being passed that does the same I fail to see how this can be perceived as anything productive.

The US is still far better than a lot of places when it comes to gay rights. I suspect the US can easily criticize a lot of places on this issue without the slightest hypocrisy. And it is their moral responsibility to do so.

Moreover, most of the worst anti-gay garbage comes from the GOP and the Red states, right? So how exactly is it in any way inconsistent of the Obama Administration to oppose such behaviour abroad?

But hey, let's here you keep trying to explain how opposing the mistreatment of homosexuals is a bad thing. I'm sure it'll be very entertaining.

[Connor MacLeod]

I'm not sure saying "yeah but I'm still not <this place>' is any sort of excuse. The US still has a shit-ton of problems when it comes to discrimination, and to be honest it seems like the majority either don't care, can't care, or actively oppose it in at least some places.

This action comes off as being the outcome of some other sort of deal making and this was some sort of compromise. "doing it abroad" has at least the benefit of being condescending (because some other country not the US needs our moeny and aid to get things straight." While spending it in the US not only looks like "big guvermint liberal commie spending" but it carries the implication that the US is somehow not a bastion of freedom and independence by daring to suggest it has flaws.

The poitn is, and I think what Thanas is getting at, is that its hypocrtical for the US to be doing this when it can't even get a unified outcome on things like gay marriage.

[Thanas]

But hey, let's here you keep trying to explain how opposing the mistreatment of homosexuals is a bad thing.

Get lost if you think that is my position.

This action comes off as being the outcome of some other sort of deal making and this was some sort of compromise. "doing it abroad" has at least the benefit of being condescending (because some other country not the US needs our moeny and aid to get things straight." While spending it in the US not only looks like "big guvermint liberal commie spending" but it carries the implication that the US is somehow not a bastion of freedom and independence by daring to suggest it has flaws.

The poitn is, and I think what Thanas is getting at, is that its hypocrtical for the US to be doing this when it can't even get a unified outcome on things like gay marriage.

This. And the added point that it probably would not look that convincing to anybody with even a cursory knowledge of US domestic policies.


EDIT: It is doubly hilarious considering Obama has always been against gay marriage.

[Darth Fanboy]

Hypocritical yes, but if it does some good then it does some good and i'm for it.

Now does this make me support Obama more? No because I recognize said hypocrisy and I see this move as trying to solidify his base while at the same time trying not to offend Joey and Jane Bumblefuck in the upcoming election who don't know what's going on outside of their own county line much less the rest of the nation.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not sure saying "yeah but I'm still not <this place>' is any sort of excuse. The US still has a shit-ton of problems when it comes to discrimination, and to be honest it seems like the majority either don't care, can't care, or actively oppose it in at least some places.

This action comes off as being the outcome of some other sort of deal making and this was some sort of compromise. "doing it abroad" has at least the benefit of being condescending (because some other country not the US needs our moeny and aid to get things straight." While spending it in the US not only looks like "big guvermint liberal commie spending" but it carries the implication that the US is somehow not a bastion of freedom and independence by daring to suggest it has flaws.

The poitn is, and I think what Thanas is getting at, is that its hypocrtical for the US to be doing this when it can't even get a unified outcome on things like gay marriage.

Because the US has problems it has no right to criticize places that are far, far worse? I would say we have an obligation to oppose such things, where ever they occur.

Okay, so maybe it wasn't politically feasible to do this at home for some reason. You have no evidence that there was some sort of compromise of that sort, but let's accept the hypothesis for now. That would be bad, but that doesn't mean its a bad idea to do this. This is something that needs to be done.

You know, I really do wonder how much of this thread is opposition to any American involvement in other countries (however justified) and how much is simply obstinate, bitter refusal to credit Obama with any positive action.

Thanas, let me rephrase that: you apparently think it is wrong for the US to try to improve things for gays elsewhere in the world while it has problems at home. I, however, feel that any progress on gay rights is a good thing, and I am not going to condemn efforts to help homosexuals at risk of being imprisoned or murdered in other countries because I think doing so is hypocritical.

[Connor MacLeod]

Because the US has problems it has no right to criticize places that are far, far worse? I would say we have an obligation to oppose such things, where ever they occur.

Who says it does have a right? There are people here who think - and that is the point - that being consistent in your position and policies matters on the global stage. The best you can say about the US is that it is not consistent. the worst, as some say, is that it's hypocritical. The (lack of) consistency is the point either way.

Okay, so maybe it wasn't politically feasible to do this at home for some reason. You have no evidence that there was some sort of compromise of that sort, but let's accept the hypothesis for now. That would be bad, but that doesn't mean its a bad idea to do this. This is something that needs to be done.

How does 'its not politically feasible' make it less hypocrtiical? Stating the reason does not suddenly reverse the position and make it LESS hypocrtiical.

You know, I really do wonder how much of this thread is opposition to any American involvement in other countries (however justified) and how much is simply obstinate, bitter refusal to credit Obama with any positive action.

So you're argument is now to scream 'bias' because peopel criticize America? Oh boy, you're going to deserve the flaming you get for this.

[Kanastrous]

Seems to me that where the rubber meets the road is more along the lines of 'if you wish to continue receiving our $$$, we require that you alter your policies toward your gay citizens.' Hey, any government deciding that they're content to lose the aid if it means they get to continue making life miserable for their gay citizens is within its rights to do so, although from the outside that looks like poor policy.

Any nation that's sending us -their- $$$ in the form of aid, is welcome to attach whatever strings -they- feel inspired, to attach. Were we to find the strings unacceptable, I expect that we'd turn down the money, on our end.

As far as 'hypocrisy' goes...I suspect that any given random gay person in, say, Central Africa would be unequivocally pleased that the US is attempting to use its influence make them a bit safer and more free, even with its own imperfect record, to date.

[Kanastrous]

...aaaaaaaand, right on cue...

By Igor Volsky on Dec 6, 2011 at 2:40 pm

Rick Perry has condemned the Obama administration’s announcement that it will prioritize LGBT rights in its foreign policy, writing, “Just when you thought Barack Obama couldn’t get any more out of touch with America’s values, AP reports his administration wants to make foreign aid decisions based on gay rights“:

“This administration’s war on traditional American values must stop.

“I have proposed a foreign aid budget that starts at zero. From that zero baseline, we will consider aid requests based solely on America’s national security interests.

“But there is a troubling trend here beyond the national security nonsense inherent in this silly idea. This is just the most recent example of an administration at war with people of faith in this country. Investing tax dollars promoting a lifestyle many Americas of faith find so deeply objectionable is wrong.

“President Obama has again mistaken America’s tolerance for different lifestyles with an endorsement of those lifestyles. I will not make that mistake.”

Of course, the United States isn’t attacking people of faith. Rather, it is promising to pursue and protect universal human rights — which, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pointed out in a speech today, include the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender peoples. “[R]eligious belief and practice is a vital source of meaning and identity and fundamental to who we are as people and likewise for most of us the bonds of love and family that we forge are also vital sources of meaning and identity and caring for others is an expression of what it means to be fully human,” she said. “It is because the human experience is universal that Human Rights are universal and cut across all religions and cultures.”

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/12/0 ... an-rights/

Domestic politics, indeed.

[open_sketchbook]

“President Obama has again mistaken America’s tolerance for different lifestyles with an endorsement of those lifestyles. I will not make that mistake.”

That's all I need to hear to know to consider this guy a total shitlicker. I'm really fucking sorry you can't handle other people living differently from you, but we all have our burdens, some more retarded than others. It's just your stupid, bigoted cross to bear.

[The Romulan Republic]

Who says it does have a right? There are people here who think - and that is the point - that being consistent in your position and policies matters on the global stage. The best you can say about the US is that it is not consistent. the worst, as some say, is that it's hypocritical. The (lack of) consistency is the point either way.

Of course consistency matters. But I can't help but feel it is better to be inconsistently pro-gay rights than to be consistently anti-gay rights.

How does 'its not politically feasible' make it less hypocrtiical? Stating the reason does not suddenly reverse the position and make it LESS hypocrtiical.

I would argue its a good policy even if there is hypocrisy going on.

So you're argument is now to scream 'bias' because peopel criticize America? Oh boy, you're going to deserve the flaming you get for this.

No, that's not my argument. And if you're trying to straw man my argument, you'll be deserving of a flaming yourself. I am quite open to criticism of America, provided that criticism is justified. I simply don't feel that it is in this case.

[Thanas]

It is quite ironic that you yell strawman when your entire position is depending upon a convenient strawman of my position yourself.

[The Romulan Republic]

It is quite ironic that you yell strawman when your entire position is depending upon a convenient strawman of my position yourself.

I admit I initially misrepresented your position, for which I already posted a retraction, and will do so again. However, you are criticizing this policy based on the fact that America has an imperfect gay rights record itself, and I find that illogical. Isn't it good that they're trying to help gay people now, even if they haven't always in the past?

My position is more or less that it is a good idea to defend gay rights in this way regardless of America or Obama's failings in other areas, and that we should at least give some credit for doing the right thing this once. How that is in any way a straw man of your position I do not know.

In any case, even if I did strawman someone, it would not excuse Connor doing it.

[open_sketchbook]

Strawception.

I think that while it is a bit off to be supporting gay rights abroad while being stagnent on them at home, I can't fault a pro-gay rights act either way. Also, the tactic in question will be used to save lives and keep people out of jail by putting pressure for decriminalizing homosexuality and protecting gay people against violence, which is pretty fundamental.

It would be hugely screwed up if they looked at Canada or Europe and told them they needed to be nicer to gays. However, the countries we're talking about here are the sort of places that executes or imprisons gay folks, which for all the many faults, horrifying excesses, terrible decedence, staggering ignorence, murderous disregard for the lives of others and rampant bigotry in the United States, doesn't happen so much in the US. So I'm not really seeing massive hypocrisy here. Some hypocrisy, but not game-breaking amounts.

I'd rather they do this than do nothing.

[The Romulan Republic]

Strawception.

I think that while it is a bit off to be supporting gay rights abroad while being stagnent on them at home, I can't fault a pro-gay rights act either way. Also, the tactic in question will be used to save lives and keep people out of jail by putting pressure for decriminalizing homosexuality and protecting gay people against violence, which is pretty fundamental.

It would be hugely screwed up if they looked at Canada or Europe and told them they needed to be nicer to gays. However, the countries we're talking about here are the sort of places that executes or imprisons gay folks, which for all the many faults, horrifying excesses, terrible decedence, staggering ignorence, murderous disregard for the lives of others and rampant bigotry in the United States, doesn't happen so much in the US. So I'm not really seeing massive hypocrisy here. Some hypocrisy, but not game-breaking amounts.

I'd rather they do this than do nothing.

Pretty close to what I've been saying.

Apparently that makes me a strawmanning jingoist who can't accept any criticism of America.

[open_sketchbook]

You just need to preface any nice things you say about America with a bunch of comments regarding their mad military misadventurism, proud pandering to plutocratic policy, and rampant respect for the religious right.

[whackadoodle]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/0 ... 31564.html

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is announcing a wide-ranging effort to use U.S. foreign aid to promote rights for gays and lesbians abroad, including combating attempts by foreign governments to criminalize homosexuality.

In a memorandum issued Tuesday, President Barack Obama directed U.S. agencies working abroad, including the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, to use foreign aid to assist gays and lesbians who are facing human rights violations. And he ordered U.S. agencies to protect vulnerable gay and lesbian refugees and asylum seekers.

"The struggle to end discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons is a global challenge, and one that is central to the United States' commitment to promoting human rights," Obama said in a statement.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is also expected to speak about the announcements in Geneva later Tuesday.

The White House said Tuesday's announcement marked the first U.S. government strategy to combat human rights abuses against gays and lesbians abroad.

The order also directs U.S. government agencies to use foreign assistance to protect human rights and advance non-discrimination, and work with international organizations to fight discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Obama's announcement is part of the White House's outreach to gays and lesbians, a core Democratic constituency. Since taking office, Obama has advocated for the repeal of the military's ban on openly gay service members and ordered the administration to stop enforcing a law defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

However, Obama has stopped short of backing gay marriage, saying only that his personal views on the matter are evolving.

Gay rights groups praised the order as a significant step for ensuring that gays and lesbians are treated equally around the world.

"Today's actions by President Obama make clear that the United States will not turn a blind eye when governments commit or allow abuses to the human rights of LGBT people," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy organization.

The presidential directive applies to all U.S. agencies involved in foreign aid, assistance and development, including the Departments of States, the Treasury, Defense and Homeland Security.

This seems like a good thing, but the cynic in me says that this is trying to build up support for his base for the 2012 election.

Ding-Ding-Ding - We have a winner!
This way, he can (hopefully) ingratiate himself with the LGBT voting block, without pissing off the African-American vote.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

The speech by Clinton in full: http://news.advocate.com/post/138442173 ... aiting-for

Whether or not this is motivated purely by political reasons or not, it's hard to deny that is still a good move. The alternative is otherwise simply a frightening non-option for me.

[open_sketchbook]

Holy jebus is that ad seriously for reals? There is some serious Poe's Law going on because that is more or less exactly how I'd make a parody of a right-wing campaign ad. The fact that republican politicians have become such characatures is both amusing and terrifying.