Reader comments · Hillary Clinton: UN resolution on LGBT people is a ‘historic moment’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Hillary Clinton: UN resolution on LGBT people is a ‘historic moment’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. dave wainwright 17 Jun 2011, 11:55pm

    There is something deeply disturbing about Ms Clintons eyes recently , the last few months they are popping out of her head , what drugs is she on?

    1. Paddyswurds 18 Jun 2011, 10:04am

      @dave wainwright…
      …there’s something deeply disturbing about people who can do nothing but criticise. Mrs Clinton has been a champion of GLB rights all of her life and particularly so since she entered politics. If Hilary is on drugs i’m sure they have been prescribed for her and are hardly anyone else’s bussiness, especially some whingeing w*nker on a gay web site. Are you so intellectually bereft that you cant comment on the story rather than Mrs Clintons looks. Are you so perfect you can make such nasty comment??

      1. Well put Paddyswurds. Thank you.

      2. agreed..

      3. Well said Paddyswurds

    2. jamestoronto 19 Jun 2011, 3:14am

      There is something very disturbing about this comment. The condition her eyes can very likely be symptomatic of one of many ailments or afflictions, some of them quite serious. This is being very trivial.

  2. Thank you for calling it as it is, Hillary, and for the continued support.

  3. This is a great step forward. I am horrified that African nations think that raping women is fine!
    Who were the 19 countries that voted against the bill?
    I think we can thank Bishop Tutu, at least in part for this bill. He has been a wonderful voice for love and freedom in the world. It is incredible that when he comes to Sydney the Anglican Archbishop will not even meet with him, nor allow him to preach in the Cathedral. This is shameful.

    1. Jock S. Trap 18 Jun 2011, 8:16am

      Indeed Demond Tutu is a inspiration because he has never been afraid to stand up and openly call for a stop to bigotry and homophobia.
      He is one person that does give me a bit of confidence in knowing not all religious people are nasty, ignorant bigots.
      A truely remarkable man.

    2. The countries that voted against were:
      Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Djibouti, Gabon, Ghana, Jordan, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Moldova, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Uganda.
      The countries that abstained were:
      Burkina Faso, China, Zambia
      The countries that voted in favour were:
      Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Hungary, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, Thailand, UK, USA, Uruguay

      Certainly I agree Desmond Tutu has had a principled and honest stance about true equality in all its forms and been a great influence on equality in South Africa.

      1. concerned resident of E3 18 Jun 2011, 9:29am

        I’m surprised at several of these:
        1. Russia usually abstains on treaties like this – I wonder why they have decided to oppose this.
        2. Moldova has EU aspirations and should not be on the “wrong” side on such a litmus issue for the EU
        3. Homosexuality is not illegal in Gabon signed the non-binding UN declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity calling for the global decriminalization of homosexuality, one of only six African countries to do so.

        1. I was also pleasantly surprised at Mauritius – they have not been strident in their support of LGBT issues and usually abstain

      2. Absent from the vote were Libya (suspended) and Kyrgystan
        The co sponsors of the resolution were:
        Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Timor-Leste, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, and Uruguay

    3. martyn notman 18 Jun 2011, 11:00am

      mm- resolutions all well and good, its whether they actually DO anything to back it up. Actions speak louder than words.

      1. Sometimes words are needed to encourage those who are oppressed in regimes where homosexuality is illegal … if we say nothing they feel abandoned …

        1. I went to a talk the other week about IDAHO. One of the points made was that, unlike organised marches or demonstrations which may be illegal and place people in jeopardy, IDAHO gives people all over the world a sense that they are not alone. When people over here are complaining about how “commercial and shallow” the “gay scene” is, it pays to think of those people living in fear of their very lives simply because they don’t fit in.

          1. Dan Filson 18 Jun 2011, 4:25pm

            Well said, David G (I suspect you refer to the talk by Louis-Georges Tin that I also attended)

          2. Dan – yes, that was the talk. Louis-Georges put forward a couple ideas that hadn’t occurred to me before. I was particularly impressed by the bravery of some people out there in the world.

          3. Sounds like that would have been a very interesting talk to attend.
            Any idea if a pod cast was made?

    4. Dan Filson 18 Jun 2011, 4:49pm

      Is that right – that when Archbishop Tutu went to Sydney the Anglican Archbishop would not even meet with him, nor allow him to preach in the Cathedral. The guy should be retired.

      1. Not sure about Sydney Cathedral.

        Tutu has been banned from Israel and the University of St Thomas in Minnesota

      2. On his several visits to Sydney, Tutu, an Anglican Archbishop, has preached in the Uniting Church.
        Here is a quote from one of the Sydney Diocese news items:
        I have no doubt but that Tutu’s concern for the Have Nots is very close to the heart of God. However, I have huge doubt that he is correct in his sexual ethic and its impact on church and culture or in his evaluation of the present Anglican crisis.

        No Sydney archbishop has met with him.

        1. Thanks for clearing that up, Peter.

  4. The following countries voted against the resolution:

    Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Djibouti, Gabon, Ghana, Jordan, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Moldova, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Uganda.

    Yes, I agree that this would not have been possible without Desmond Tutu.

    1. Jock S. Trap 18 Jun 2011, 8:17am

      It sad to say that it’s comes as no surprise those countries voted against humanity.

    2. Sorry Jonpol, hadnt seen your post and I have duplicated above.

      1. @Stu:

        Your post is much more complete. Thanks.

    3. Paddyswurds 18 Jun 2011, 10:22am

      ………..”Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Djibouti, Gabon, Ghana, Jordan, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Moldova, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Uganda.” mostly all depend on western largess and aid. It is now time to let these ignorant dinosaurs know which side their bread is buttered. The Maldives ffs….think of all the western tourists go there, some of them to be murdered on their honeymoon. Bangaladesh simply wouldn’t exist but for western help when 90% of their wretched country is washed away every year. All of the African countries line up with the begging bowl yearly while Ghana also depends on western tourism. No surprise about two faced Pakistan who harbours terrorists who kill innocent thousands and who wish to see all westerners dead. Then we have the dictatorships like Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal and Malaysia who use religious fiction to control their own people especially women, and finally….cont

      1. Paddyswurds 18 Jun 2011, 10:29am

        cont….and finally Russia aand Moldova. The former a country riven by corruption and state thuggery and the latter… well whats to say ….an ex commie country also good with the begging bowl now clamoring to join the EU. I think we will have a long wait for any of these Neandertals to drag themselves into the twenty first century.

    4. Looking at that list, I see quite a few countries who get substantial amounts of overseas aid. So my taxes are going to pay for homophobic regimes. That’s unacceptable.

    5. Well, I’m not surprised to see so many African and Muslim nations on the list of countries that opposed this. It seems like intolerance and ignorance go hand in hand. Robert Mugabe of Rawanda didn’t believe that HIV causes AIDS and some Africans believe you can rape the Lesbianism out of someone or cure AIDS by raping a virgin. Homophobia and ignorance, political corruption, religious fanaticism is so pervasive in those countries, which explains their intolerant views globally. I’m not sure why Russia has a problem but I know there is a lot of homophobia there. I suppose it is historical and cultural rather than religious based. I think all of these countries should be ashamed and hopefully they will take a good long look at themselves and ask why they are so out of touch with the rest of the civilized world. People will not change if they do not recognize that they have a problem.

      1. Paddyswurds 18 Jun 2011, 3:07pm

        @Nicole H…
        ….sorry Nicole, but the vile Mugabe is president of the wretched Zimbabwe.

        1. There certainly is a religious aspect to some of the homophobia in Africa especially in Uganda and Nigeria.

          There certainly is a cultural aspect to it across the continent.

          However, the actions of South Africa, Mozambique, Cape Verde and to a lesser extent other countries and groups within some of these and other countries demonstrates that there are real living LGBT communities across Africa – some very much hidden (similar to pre legalised UK??? – and these communities deserve our encouragement and are yearning for our support. That said, change in Africa should be led by Africans.

      2. Dan Filson 18 Jun 2011, 4:29pm

        “Robert Mugabe of Rawanda didn’t believe that HIV causes AIDS” not only is Mugabe from Zimbabwe but I also suspect you intended to refer to the expressed view of the last President of South Africa, though it would not surprise me if Mugabe thought the same.

        1. Dan you are correct when you talk about that being the publically expressed view of Mbeke but Mugabe also made similar statements.

  5. What gets me more than any of the African countries is the Russian Federation. An utter disgrace!

  6. johnny33308 18 Jun 2011, 4:19am

    Sadly, my county, America is once again being a complete hypocrite, sponsoring this resolution while we gay people are denied our full and equal Constitutional Civil Rights, as blacks once were. They hate us here, blacks and whites and especially the lovely christians whose hearts are NOT filled with love of any sort. I am so sick of America-do as I say, not as I do is what our government says all the time. WE ARE NOT FREE IN THE LEAST! They do nothing for our human rights and yet they wish for other couyntries to stop persecuting gays-start here at home, butt heads! Religion is used to injure others, nothing more. The Islamic countries can go to hell, and Russia, too. Bigots should all be
    “re-educated” in the N. Korean and Chinese way!

    1. de Villiers 18 Jun 2011, 8:25am



      1. Legally things in S Africa are much better than most (if not all) African countries for LGBT rights. There is a gay scene which is absent through most of the rest of Africa. There is equal marriage. Ok there is homophobia – but that is not due to a lack of equality on legal grounds and the reality that gay people can and do meet in public demonstrates it is better than Uganda, Kenya, Algeria, Benin, Malawi, Botswana, Swaziland etc.

    2. You are right johnny33308, there’s no such thing as partial freedom nor partial equality, you are either free and equal or you are not.

      1. @Pavlos

        I am not saying everything is perfect in S Africa but it is a hell of a lot better than all other African states

        Sometimes we have to also make our own freedoms and not belittle those in power who try to support us

        1. There are degrees of oppression, obviously the anti-gay oppression in some countries is much worse than it is in US.
          The UN resolution is important.

      2. de Villiers 21 Jun 2011, 12:45am

        > you are either free and equal or you are not.
        That sounds a bit black and white for me. I am sure the world is more complex than that.

  7. This is amazing progress and step forward in the right direction.

    But it looks like it is going to take time to get all of the countries to the table to recognise us and equality for all citizens of this world.

    That inequality has no place in today’s world for anyone.

  8. Does it actually mean anything? The countries where homosexuality is illegal aren’t going to change anything in response to this. No nation’s going to impose sanctions or go to war over gay rights. Yes it’s nice to have a public statement, but given the number of countries who voted against it or abstained, and compare the total number of countries who were involved in the voting with the total number in the world, and it seems completely meaningless.

    1. johnny33308 18 Jun 2011, 7:04am

      Matt, your assessment is spot on. Sadly people, we are on our own in every way that is meaningful.

      1. A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. This is a good thing, give it time. I understand your depth of feeling but I think your being a bit bleak and overlooking the positives. Ok its not the holy grail but we’re not alone and were not without support or hope.

    2. @Matt

      I totally disagree that this is meaningless. The UN had now recognised that there is a fundamental human right in relation to orientation and gender. There will always be people globally who disagree – but then there are racist regimes, sexist regimes and regimes that do not support more fundamental human rights. This is not about creating a utopia whereby suddenly the entire world is totally accepting and homophobia no longer exists – it is about levelling the playing field and being one more step along the road to equality (its a hugely symbolic message to the world about acceptable standards). Its easy to sit in the UK where we have reasonable (not complete) standards of equality to say that a UN declaration is meaningless but what if you live in Bangladesh, Djibouti, Botswana, Kenya etc – its a positive message to LGBT people in those nations that the UN seeks to support them.

      1. Bill (Scotland) 18 Jun 2011, 10:06am

        I did live in Djibouti for a couple of years, many years ago, and things were very different then – of course it was still a French Overseas Territory then (a TOM) so French/European standards applied. It’s only since independence that ‘traditional’ African values have reared their ugliness – probably also the large dose of aid money it receives from Middle Eastern autocracies, principally Saudi Arabia (where I also lived for a number of years). Having said all this I have never lived in a country where homosexuality did not exist, even if strictly-speaking it was illegal – as it was indeed when I first lived in Hong Kong, long after it had been decriminalised in the UK.

        Even if the law sometimes turns a blind eye to homosexuality, it’s social pressures within the families of LGBT people which often cause far more difficulty in practical terms.

        1. Absolutely, Bill – and those social pressures aren’t ever going to change unless encouraged by the trickle-down effect of equality legislation.

    3. What’s also interesting Matt, is that I searched through the UN website and couldn’t find any big mention of it, it’s hardly big news at the UN – one of many blurbs they come out with. I hope that it does change things in the world. But you’re right the UN doesn’t go to war or impose sanctions over gay rights, EVER. And when you consider the countries on the board of the UN human rights, it’s laughable. Saudi arabia, and the other muslim nations in that list still class homosexuality as a crime punishable by death and imprisonment, as well as their gross human rights for women – so quite how they should vote on human rights, I’ve no idea at all. So you’re right to question its validity rather than waiting in hope. Because things don’t change without people like you complaining that it is meaningless. Action speak louder than empty words. Let’s see if in the next five or ten of fifteen years the middle east makes homosexuality legal because of this. I’m not holding my breath.

      1. @Eddy Two

        I do get what you are saying and share your frustration at the lack and speed of progress globally. That said, the UN could not have gone to war on LGBT rights if LGBT rights were not enshrined in its Human Rights approaches. I suspect if a genocide had or does occur in Uganda of gay people (for example) the justification for UN involvement would not be LGBT related but humanitarian purely on grounds of stopping genocide (not for the underlying reason) – although now with this new human rights vote there may be more willingness to include orientation as a reason to act. However, if you look at other issues of equality then the UN does not act to support women in Saudi Arabia or children being forced to work in some South Asian countries etc

      2. I received this UN Dispatch today, June 19:

        1. Interesting that the most vociferous nations against the resolution were Nigeria and Mauritania

    4. Jock S. Trap 18 Jun 2011, 10:34am

      It may not seen like it’s change anything but it does give hope to the many brave LGBTQI out there in these countries that things do change and for some a move to more tolerant countries are acceptable.

      1. Absolutely and it is by encouraging those who feel as though there is no hope for LGBTQ equality that we can inspire them to move ahead and support them

    5. Matt – although it’s likely that countries who oppress human rights are unlikely to change, the UK signing up to this means that gay people who claim asylum in the UK should be less likely to be deported back to a country where they will be imprisoned or murdered.
      As for imposing sanctions or going to war – that is unlikely. However, perhaps we should look at the amount of aid sent to countries who refuse to acknowledge human rights. I object to my taxes, as a gay person, being used to fund governments that oppress other gay people.

  9. Jock S. Trap 18 Jun 2011, 8:13am

    It is indeed a ‘historic moment’ and now prehaps Mrs Clinton could do more for Human and Gay Rights Within the US too.

    I’m glad she is so supportive and this resolution is much needed, very much needed!

    1. Dan Filson 18 Jun 2011, 4:36pm

      The Secretary of State is the USDA equivalent of the British Foreign Secretary and has next to no remit for internal affairs within the USA. Except that she sits at the President’s cabinet table (but their cabinet has a far less important role as a collective body than ours in Britain, and hardly ever meets)

      1. Dan Filson 18 Jun 2011, 4:37pm

        I meant USA not USDA which sounds more like a supermarket. Hillary Clinton’s influence within the USA stems more from her personality than her post

  10. I don’t wish to sound too critical nor too cynical, – (accenting the word TOO), – but one now has to take into account, the “historic moment” being behind us, of the rip-roaring success of the UN Convention on “Rights of the Child”. And point out that the real war has not yet even begun.

    Only a true politician could ignore the World’s and the UN’s own failures in implementing the Rights of the Child, however much there is slight progress here and there, every now and then.

    But how long has that Convention been extant ? Close on 25 years ?

    Old-timers at least are not going to hold their collective breath in the expectancy of normalcy in the World’s attitude towards them.

    The 20 year-old Gays of today may live to see some true change.

    Still, as correctly mentioned, – it can be seen as that first single step……

    Be strong and of Good Courage !

    1. I do accept what you say, but without the actual declaration of the rights of the child it would not be possible for you to say that individual nations and the UN had failed – at least you have a measure whereby you can campaign further for the rights to be respected.

  11. I guess the resolution is aimed at the worst offenders but you know , some countries which think they have great LGBT rights can be seen by other countries as being quite defective. Earlier this yr Australia appeared before the UN to answer questions about its human rights record and this included a question from the Netherlands about the failure of the Australian Government to allow same-sex marriages or recognise them from overseas. I really hope that countries like the UK , the States and Australia etc don’t sit on their laurels becuase quite often they do get on their high horse and yet for these countries full equality should be second nature yet they dither in bringing it in and are themselves seen as bad examples. We’re still don’t have equal rights in our countries and for countries like Holland we can also be seen to fall into a resolution like this…

  12. This is what Hilary thinks about gay marriage,

    ” Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman. ”

    Maybe she’s changed her mind in the last few months? But it doesn’t sound like she thinks we are equal to me. And her husband did bring in DOMA. I know she’s good on other gay rights issues, but we’re still second class citizens in her eyes.

    1. She also said “I believe in full equality of benefits with nothing left out … I have said this before and if that means marriage …”

      In terms of voting on issues of significance for the LGBT population, every two years the US human rights campaign issues a scorecard for senators on their performance in supporting LGBT people – Clinton in 2006 (last time she was scored when a senator) scored 89% which was one of the higher scores.

      Clinton voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

      Clinton actively supports the repeal of DODT.

      Clinton has actively worked to pass federal law which outlaws employment discrimination on grounds of orientation and has sought to extend benefits to same sex partners of federal employees.

      Clinton has actively supported gay adoption.

      To suggest she is not supportive of gay rights is wrong. She has waivered on gay marriage in the past and is not 100% rock solid on side but is positive.

  13. Rich (original) 18 Jun 2011, 11:58am

    Very idiotic female….

    1. Did someone say something?

      Troll alert

      1. Troll indeed!!!
        Can some one ring for the Troll Task force

        1. I see the troll has gone back to its “bad English” phase. The English get better when its gets annoyed. How amusing.

          1. Jock S. Trap 18 Jun 2011, 3:49pm

            Someone really should tell him he’s on the wrong site to pick up the guys he wants.

    2. Waiter for Trolls 18 Jun 2011, 1:11pm

      Hi Richie,

      How’s it going matey? Hope you’re well. Been a long time no see.

      Since we’re not supposed to feed trolls, I’ll give you a menu and I’ll be your Servertoday.

      Do you want sarcastic derision, false sympathy and smiles or the most delicious responding to hate with love that would make god herself grin from ear to ear?

      Hope you manage to get out from under that bridge sometime and live in the real world. It’s a nice place to live. It’s better than sitting behind your keyboard grinning and rocking while going madder and madder and the people from the loony bin get nearer and nearer.

      Have a nice day Richie. Lots of love and big kisses. xxxxxx

        1. Waiter for Trolls 18 Jun 2011, 1:22pm

          I think this is what happened to Rich:

  14. Hillary Clinton believes that civil unions at the federal level are sufficient, echoing her boss’ beliefs. She has no objection to individual states in America passing marriage equality laws, but doesn’t seem bothered that gay married couples in her country aren’t entitled to the 1138 rights which come form the federal government via marriage.

    1. That is something that I think we need to persuade Hilary Clinton on – however presenting her as anti-gay is wrong.

      She has been on the record in supporting equal marriage, including her vote to stop federal law stating that marriage was purely between a male and female.

      She’s not perfect but she’s a hell of a lot better than some of her predecessors and some other eminent politicians internationally.

  15. …come from….sorry.

  16. Clinton’s statement that the UN resolution “affirms that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms … without distinction of any kind” is somewhat hollow when you consider that she has stated this equality shouldn’t extend to marriage for gay people.

    1. @David

      Her position on equalisation of marriage is grey not black and white.

      Her value of gay rights is tremendous and evidenced (only in part) above in one of my posts.

      Yes, we need to work on Ms Clinton to come totally on side but she is in power and is supportive of LGBT rights – lets not castigate her when she is clearly not anti equal marriage – just needs a little pushing to get to real equality.

      I know some will see my stance as naive – but if you consider how she has voted in the senate when a Senator and how that matches some of her comments, I am enthused that Ms Clinton can be persuaded.

      1. I haven’t done any research on Ms Clinton’s voting record, so I can’t comment on that. I do know that she made a statement shortly before her daughter’s wedding saying that she was in favour of civil unions for gay people, but not marriage. People like Clinton give rise to mixed feeling within me. On the one hand, I don’t want to dismiss or alienate allies. On the other – and this is what really gets me – I feel it’s condescending for them to claim they support equality for gay people, but not so far as to give us actual equality. OK, so we get more rights, more protection. But I don’t feel that I should be grateful for the inequality being reduced to a point at which someone else feels comfortable. I demand actual equality. I think that’s only right.

        1. @DavidG

          I do have empathy with your view but I think Clintons greyness on this issue is political. She votes very much in favour of LGBT rights including where marriage is concerned (from the votes I have been able to access). She has made comments that suggests she prefers civil unions (in my view as a middle ground to try and appease both sides and make some progress) but her voting record in my opinion belies her true conviction.
          I too demand true equality. I too do not want to lose real and genuine allies.

  17. Once Clinton leaves her job as Foreign Secretary, she may change her mind just as her husband did. She’s apparently looking at heading the World Bank as a possible career move. We might see a 360 degree change on marriage equality. No American would dare to run for the presidency supporting marriage equality, its political suicide given the religious fervour and power of the major cults among voters in America., sadly. Odd for a country that boasts separation of church and state yet nobody is prepared to draw a line in the sand to keep the cults in their place, out of politics. They don’t even pay any taxes and in my view should be prohibited in meddling in politics and lobbying for discrimination against one group of people. They get full representation without taxation and gays get the shaft, full taxation without full representation. There’s something intrinsically wrong with that equation.

    1. I agree wholeheartedly about the double standards in terms of separation of church and state.

      I suspect Clinton may become much more obviously liberal if not in role of Secretary of State (a role which I perceive she has handled well).

      I suspect we are on the cusp of a sea change in attitudes in the US – but it needs to be grasped and seized.

    2. The situation is changing pretty quickly for Democrats, though. The reason they’ve been so incoherent on marriage is because their base supports it, but the independent voters they need to win national office don’t. Once a solid majority of independents support it you’ll start to see more ‘evolution’ on the issue from Democrats, and in fact the latest Gallup shows 59% of independents supporting marriage equality, up from 49% last year. If you want to see where this is headed, look at Cuomo – he has his eye on the White House, and he’s going all out to pass marriage equality in NY. He’s done the math. I think Hillary’s still eyeing 2016 too, so look for her to ‘evolve’ between now and then if the numbers keep shifting our way among independents.

      Republicans on the other hand are hopeless, at least at the national level, and will be for the foreseeable future. All we can do is look to Britain for inspiration and hope that the GOP eventually goes the route of the Tories.

  18. Bravo! I wish Hilary would run for President! The UN nations that did not support this should be ashamed but, of course, their prejudice is rooted in religious bigotry.

  19. International Service for Human Rights website includes a link to the actual Resolution

    Newsround Blog

  20. Clinton is arguably the best Foreign Secretary the U.S. has ever produced in my view, brilliant diplomacy and well liked around the world.

    Once New York, the international nerve center of the world’s financial markets, enacts marraige equality, its impact will be felt across the country and in some parts of the world. Its going to make it increasingly for others in the EU (UK, France and Germany especially),Australia, and New Zealand to ignore it, to their own detriment. A win in New York is huge, very huge indeed. Is it no coincidence the recent United Nations ruling took place in New York?

    1. @Robert
      I wholeheartedly agree. Clinton has been instrumental in improving the relations of the USA with New Zealand, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Turkey, The Latin American states, China and Japan to name a few. She has also not been afraid to draw lines in the sand when necessary.
      I think the nations you name and others will be forced to sit up and take notice when New York gets equalisation of marriage.

  21. …”its going to make it increasingly difficult for others”… I meant to have stated in my last post.

  22. Thank God for this good news, we Christian gays have been praying for this for a long time to come.

  23. Stu, quite! I do wish the UK would hurry up and get on board and follow New York’s example. All of this dithering and keeping quiet about it is annoying. Cameron should take some leadership and get it done.

  24. George Broadhead 19 Jun 2011, 2:20pm

    This marks a major step forward in the worldwide campaign for LGBT rights. Congratulations are due to South Africa for proposing it and the twenty three nations who voted for it. It is highly significant, however, that the main opposition to the resolution came from African counties like Nigeria and Uganda in which religious-based homophobia is rife and Muslim countries like Bangladesh, Bahrain, Djibouti, Jordan, Maldives, Malaysia, Mauritania, Pakistan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.This is reminiscent of the staunch opposition of Muslim states to the repeated attempts made by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA) to be granted NGO consultative status at the UN, and clearly demonstrates the serious obstacle that Islam puts in the way of LGBT rights.

    1. Also, whether we know it or not, this entire democratic process has given all of us a clear vision of the world we are living in at the outset of the 21st century.

      This in unprecedented good news.

  25. Anyone who believes that Hillary Clinton supports transsexual rights, needs there head looked at. That is equivalent to a turkey, voting for xmas.

    Hillary Clinton will present in a couple of years to the United Nations, the DSM V, as revised by Kenneth Zucker and Raymond Blanchard, for inclusion into the ICD 11 revision. That revision will be an excuse for any transphobic government to round up transsexual people and do there worst.

    Also in the US transsexual people can only change there birth certificate in some states and in no state gets medicare to cover the cost of sex reasignment surgery.

    As for her support of gay rights, her husband Bill Clinton signed into law the Defence of Marriage act, defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

    I smell a serious hint of hypocrisy from Clinton on this one.

    1. I can not comment on Clintons record on transexual issues in particular – but to speculate what she might do in a few years sound like fantasy

      1. It is part of her present job, to present to the ICD review the revised DSM V for inclusion into the ICD 11 revision.

        I suggest you find out about things before making an idiot of yourself.

      2. Regardless of what she may or may not have views on regarding trans issues – and there is evidence that she is generally supportive of LGBT issues from an umbrella perspective – to speculate what she may o in two or more years is merely using a crystal ball … and I think its you who makes yourself look idiotic by making such predictions,. I will look at these issues later today and make comment.

    2. @ Andrea:
      mmm.. that odor may be political diplomacy, and everyone, including you and me, are capable of forging the future in our favor.

      Neither one of you are idiots..we so rarely hear about your issues, that’s all.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.