Kumbayah, My Lord . . .

Mixed news on the "fierce advocacy" front comes from Foreign Policy's Turtle Bay. While the Obama administration is pursuing such actions as fulfilling the Justice Dept.'s responsibility to defend DOMA in court, and allowing the Pentagon to inquire how presumed-to-be-straight-until-being-outed service members feel about sharing barracks with, you know — them, before finally parting with the DADT policy which has served so well to squander highly trained personnel while we've been fighting two wars, somebody — the initiative apparently comes from within the State Dept., given that it is being conducted by the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. and because, well, that does seem to be the one enclave within the Obama administration where the advocacy has been more than rhetorical — I say, somebody in the administration has engaged the U.S. government in actively supporting a bid by a U.S. gay rights group, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), to be awarded "consultative status" by the U.N. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

This would allow the IGLHRC to participate in U.N. meetings on human rights and health issues, among others, as do numerous other international non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Normally, accreditation of U.N. NGOs is done by a U.N. committee "dominated by socially conservative Islamic governments". This committee has prevented action on the IGLHRC's certification application for over three years. The U.S. government, therefore, is conducting an initiative to get the 54 member states of the ECOSOC as a whole to proceed to grant the IGLHRC's application.

So naturally, patriotic U.S. Congressmen Christopher H. Smith and Trent Franks (both R-uh-roh!) have stepped forward to support our government's action in opposing this potential Muslim menace to freedom, one assumes? Why, of course they have. Er, stepped forward, that is.

By lobbying U.N. members to oppose the U.S. government's initiative. "I respectfully urge you", wrote the two, apparently speaking as one, in a letter to U.N. members, "to refuse attempts to circumvent UN procedure and secure a premature approval of the IGLHRC in the ECOSOC. Preservation of the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of religion require that IGLRHC undergo further review in the standard review process."

That would be the standard review process which has been holding up IGLHRC's application for years now. But what are these "rights of freedom of expression and freedom of religion" which so concern Reps. Smith and Franks? These gentlemen share the concerns of the governments of Egypt and other nations not generally known for their concern for freedom of expression, about principles the IGLHCR has endorsed which urge governments to "ensure that the exercise of freedom of opinion and expression does not violate the rights and freedoms of persons of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities."

Well, it's pretty obvious where that would lead. Wael Attiya, speaking for the Egyptian government in June, was troubled by the possibility that such principles would lead to the persecution of religious leaders who condemn homosexual behavior.

If a "preacher says that a relationship between same sex [couples] is wrong, will the preacher be hunted?"

That's what Wael Attiya wants to know, and apparently Reps. Smith and Franks share his concern.

To sum up: While it remains vital to God's plan for ConservoChristians to continue to bomb the shit out of Muslims in as many countries simultaneously as possible, this should not prevent us from uniting with our soon-to-be-consigned-to-Hellfire-for-all-eternity conservative Muslim brothers and sisters in the equally important task of keeping teh gays in their place, while pretending that it is they who are persecuting us (because, let's face it, that gag just never gets old).

Via