Will Gay Leaders Press Obama on Iran’s Treatment of Gays?
Sometimes, it takes reading a conservative blog to wonder about the the implications for gay people of what President Obama said about our relations with the Arab and Islamic world.
In his interview Monday with Al-Arabiya television Monday, the president said he favors a return to “the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago.“A generation ago, we didn’t challenge those autocratic regimes’ despotism and human rights’ violations.
So, as the president seeks high-level talks with Iran, will he prod that nation on human rights, notably its persecution of gay people?
Commenting on the president’s desire to reach out to Islamic regimes, Mark Steyn observes:
Well, you don’t have to be gay, an oppressed homosexual about to be executed. You don’t have to be a woman who’s being sold to an arranged child marriage. You just have to be a moderate, centrist Arab intellectual in, say, Cairo or Amman, and you listen to Obama sucking up to these creeps, and there’s nothing for you in it. What he’s doing is he says, he’s saying to hell with the Bush freedom agenda. We just want to get back to schmoozing the feted Arab dictatorships and the mullahs in Tehran all over again. And so if you’re a gay or a woman, you’re out of there.
I found that quote on Hugh Hewitt’s blog, you know, Hugh the conservative, friend to evangelical Christians. At least they’re raising the issue of the persecution of gays in this Islamic world which is a far sight than our gay leaders.
To be sure, a number of left-of-center gay blogs, notably Michael Petrelis and Towleroad, have done a good job of blogging such persecution. The point here is some conservatives do a better job of reminding us of the plight of our gay peers under Islamofascism than do the heads of leading gay organizations.
16 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Which led to 9-11. What an awesome point. It says alot.
Let’s see. 20 or 30 years ago, would be 1979-1989. What was going on then?
- Iran’s theo-fascists were holding our people hostage.
- Iraq had one of the world’s most vicious, evil dicators; a man that Jimmuh Carter had helped (on some level) gain power. And was chemical-bombing its own people.
- Iran and Iraq were slaughtering each other’s kids in a war that we did little to discourage.
- It is true, we were helping vicious mujahadeen (what later became the Taliban) in Afghanistan.
- We tried to help in Lebanon, but did it wrong (arguably), suffered a disaster and withdrew, throwing Lebanon to the wolves.
Yup. Some “respect and partnership”. The very things that bred 9-11. Maybe Obama meaning is that we should go back to being on the side of the mujahedeen / Taliban / al Qaeda.
Also weird that Obama would cite, as an ideal time of partnership, a time that Carter helped create BUT that chiefly consisted of Reagan’s years. Obama must like Reagan after all.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 30, 2009 @ 7:26 pm - January 30, 2009
I remember the take-over of Iran by the mad mullah Khomeini extremely well. I knew at the that time something seriously had gone wrong. It is hard to believe that it has been 30 years this year. Over the years it has become obvious to myself that presidency of Jimmy Carter was probably the worst of the 20th century.
Comment by Swampfox — January 30, 2009 @ 9:04 pm - January 30, 2009
Obama has already thrown gays under the bus (DADT). Why is anyone surprised that he is selling out gays in the muslim world? Obama is going to be an even bigger foreign relations disaster than Jimmah Carta. One term, but a very long one term.
Comment by John in Dublin Ca — January 31, 2009 @ 12:01 am - January 31, 2009
The GayLeftBorg didn’t seem to give a crap that they were constantly given the finger by Chairman Obama during the campaign. Why would they care now?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 31, 2009 @ 2:24 am - January 31, 2009
Could somebody please explain to me how, exactly, we’re the ones who are “self-hating”?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 31, 2009 @ 2:40 am - January 31, 2009
Which is to be expected.
The leading gay organizations function as organs of the Democratic Party. They will take their lead from the Dems’ new leader.
Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — January 31, 2009 @ 3:03 am - January 31, 2009
I’m a big fan of Hugh Hewitt, just a few days ago, on the radio he was talking about the marriage issue. He is in favor of traditional marriage simply because it is the foundation of society. A gay couple can never naturally produce children – which is what society needs to continue to exist.
At the same time, gay couples should have protections in the law – it shouldn’t be called marriage. To me, that is quite a statement from a very strong evangelical Christian.
Much stronger than our president who won’t stand up to the Muslims and say: we must find a way to work together without us, the West giving up on our sacred principals of liberty and freedom for all – gays, women, minorities.
Comment by Leah — January 31, 2009 @ 11:44 am - January 31, 2009
This is not about Iran, silly! The Community Organizer’s planning committee has selected gays for special treatment in the reorganization of the community. The Community Organizer is fully aware of how to bait gays with “hope” and “change” and pit them against the resisters.
Iran and Radical Islam are a useful tool for The Community Organizer. He understands that there is no there there in terms of diplomacy. He only has to make people “feel” there is a there there. That is the substance of “hope” and “change.”
Iran is a process. There is no goal. There is no outline. There is no strategy. You meet, you talk, you ask for patience, you say soothing words, you meet, you talk, you ask for patience, you say soothing words, you meet, you talk, you ask for patience, you say soothing words, ……
Comment by heliotrope — January 31, 2009 @ 11:50 am - January 31, 2009
[...] on this topic.Powered by WP Greet BoxStoplight: Judgment to Rush – … interesting …Will Gay Leaders Press Obama on Iran’s Treatment of Gays? CONFIDENCE: The feeling you experience – Puppy go ouch …Have Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore [...]
Pingback by Thought Cloud For January 31, 2009 : ETC: Everyday Thoughts Collected — January 31, 2009 @ 1:01 pm - January 31, 2009
I seriously doubt it. They have been wedded to the left since Stonewall that they´re willing to let the Democrat Party crap all over them. And they have the ¨cajones¨ to call us self-loathing gays.
Comment by Roberto — January 31, 2009 @ 2:55 pm - January 31, 2009
This issue is a pre-condition. Were Obama in electoral trouble, perhaps the issue of genital mutilation and American feminists might force a statement from him at the very least (due to sheer numbers of voters and lobbyists), but our sisters aren’t sobbing, i.e. they’re interested in power just as much as any other pressure group and don’t care about foreign girls if it distracts from the important work of seizing power. Gays are no different.
Gays are less than 5% of the world’s population. No one cares about these issues. (Mohammed Atta was widely suspected of being a homesexual and we all know how that turned out.) My advice to homos in theocracies is the same as my advice to the sperm donor to the woman who had the octuplets and can be summed up in one word:
“RUN!!”
Comment by Ignatius — January 31, 2009 @ 3:56 pm - January 31, 2009
Dan the Man…
Having a fairly busy weekend. So – after reading a basketful of good posts over at my friend Dan Blatt’s blog, Gay Patriot, I’m going to let Dan do some of the heavy lifting! Michael Steele for RNC chair. Yes!……
Trackback by what if? — January 31, 2009 @ 4:02 pm - January 31, 2009
You think the “Bush freedom agenda” is about gays? Eat some French fries and grow up.
Comment by jimmy — February 1, 2009 @ 9:09 pm - February 1, 2009
jimmy,
try replying to the post. The question is, are the democrats going to to anything besides complain “Bush didn’t do anything!”
I think we see the answer, and it’s a damn shame.
Comment by The Livewire — February 1, 2009 @ 9:45 pm - February 1, 2009
Leah: “[Hewitt] is in favor of traditional marriage simply because it is the foundation of society. A gay couple can never naturally produce children – which is what society needs to continue to exist.”
Not the place to discuss this but sheesh! Like every couple that ever gets married from now on will be gay and unable to raise a child (because they don’t have sperm or eggs and it’s physically impossible for them to adopt children). Gee, that’s not ridiculously insulting, is it?
Does he advocate every straight couple be FORCED to have children “naturally” (no more in-vitro, no more adoption, no more fertilization clinics, no more surrogacy, etc.)? Or that couples without children for any reason whatsoever should have their marriages annulled?
I don’t think I’ve ever listened to the guy but if this is an example of one of his arguments that ARE persuasive, I’m not missing a darn thing.
—–
“Will Gay Leaders Press Obama on Iran’s Treatment of Gays?”
In a word, no. It’s good to point out the hypocrisy, but challenges to Obama’s policies are one type of “change” we’re not likely to see within the next four years.
Comment by DoorHold — February 2, 2009 @ 11:36 am - February 2, 2009
How can Obama and the left decry the execution of gays and the treatment of women as slaves without conflicting with one of their religion’s central tennants: multiculturalism? No culture is any better, more valuable or more advanced than any other.
So although feminists in the states scream about the slightest real, imagined or flat out made up discomfort from reality’s clash with their latest doctoral thesis at Marxist U, they can’t stand up for woman who are KILLED for having the NERVE to not be able to stop their own gang rape.
That would disparage another’s culture, and we can’t have that!
Comment by 23eagle — February 2, 2009 @ 5:05 pm - February 2, 2009