The folks at UGA Liberal posted today an item about a United Nations resolution condemning the criminalization of homosexuality. The bog links to an article at PinkNews.co.uk reporting that the resolution will be presented to General Assembly in January, although UGA Liberal suggests the matter will be addressed this coming week.
While not immediately relevant to the issue of same-sex marriage, the Christian Science Monitor reported Dec. 9 that the resolution is feared by the Vatican as a way to further open the door to wider acceptance of marriage equality. Not surprisingly, the U.S. remains silent on the resolution.
The Monitor article is very telling, particularly with this passage: “(T)he Association of Catholic Jurists issued a statement trying to clarify the position of the Church. According to the group's president, Francesco D'Agostino, ‘The Vatican endorses the decriminalization of homosexuality, but opposes the equality between different sexual orientation.’” The epitome of doublespeak. How can you rationalize support for decriminalizing as sexual orientation while opposing equality? Criminalizing a human state of being, such as homosexuality, creates inequality. By decriminalizing, does that not then suggest equality in terms of just merely being? It’s just the Vatican trying to ensnare folks into its duplicitous position via manipulation of language. And amazingly, despite the Vatican having a nonvoting seat in the General Assembly, the Monitor reports that it carries great influence among the assembly, particularly on matters of human rights.
How does an entity with one of the worst histories in terms of human rights and respect for other cultural norms manage to hold such sway over this topic?
A comment, also, by the blogger at UGA, points once again to the challenge we face in obtaining marriage equality. “I can accept a lot of disagreements as valid when it comes to issues like same-sex marriage,” he writes. I would really like to hear his rationalization how the disagreements can be accepted as “valid.” Does he mean valid in that these disagreements are legitimate points of view on their own merits? Or valid because he is showing respect for an individual’s perspective, regardless of the merits?