Figures:

The United States [made a] deplorable decision last week to vote against a historic UN resolution to decriminalize homosexuality. The resolution was a non-binding declaration "to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention." The Bush administration opposed the measure on the grounds that it could overturn states' decisions on issues like gay marriage. One wonders if they need a refresher on what "non-binding" means. Joining the United States in opposition were Russia, China, the Vatican, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The latter group claimed that the resolution would lead to the legalization of pedophilia and also tried last week to have sexual orientation removed from a list of unacceptable reasons for summary execution.

Minor quibbles: this post is slightly inaccurate in one respect and a little too glib in another. It's inaccurate to say that the US "voted against" the resolution since we just abstained (I think Joshua Keating just misread the NYT writeup he linked to - the article reads "refused to support"). And that "refresher" course stuff really is too glib: "non-binding" resolutions are a common nudge-wink trick for setting up diplomatic bait-and-switches. I assume that the State Department recognized the tactic instantly since they routinely use it to secure Israeli participation in "informal" summits and "hypothetical" scenarios. International resolutions have a way of getting enforced whether or not they're supposed to. So it's not entirely fair to say "the administration is so stupid that they don't even know what 'non-binding' means."

But you know what is an entirely sound argument? Something like "we shouldn't be scratching the OIC's itch for dropping walls on gays." And then maybe a follow up like "because that's fucked up." For emphasis. Because not torturing and killing homosexuals - that's something I think we should be pro.

Incidentally - can you guess which progressive Western-style democracy went out its way to support the resolution when it was first proposed? No really, guess:

Israel has joined a group of United Nations member states calling for the institution's first gay rights declaration, an initiative which has met with resistance by an Arab-backed opposition. The declaration that was presented Thursday at the UN General Assembly calls for decriminalization of homosexuality. A Syrian representative read out a statement drafted by the opposition, arguing that the declaration would result in more sex crimes against children.

Anti-Israel gay identity groups really are blessed with discernment aren't they?

References:
* The shameful U.S. gay rights vote
* In a First, Gay Rights Are Pressed at the U.N. [NYT]
* Annapolis As A Rosetta Stone For How Anti-Israel Bait And Switch Diplomacy Works [MR]
* Safeguards in International Law - Yeah, We Were Just Kidding About That [MR]
* Israel, Arab states at odds over first UN gay rights declaration [Ha'aretz]
* Just A Reminder: Progressive Anti-Israel Activist Groups Are Kind Of Incoherent, Suspiciously Unseemly [MR]

Previously:
* Egyptian Persecution, Torture Of AIDS Victims Proceeding On Schedule - 5 Men Sentenced To Prison For Homosexuality
* Anti-Israel Progressives Underwhelmed As Vicious Murder, Insane Bigotry Totally Absent From Jerusalem Gay Pride Parade
* Gay Anti-Israel Movements Very Sophisticated Indeed