GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

GayPatriot Critic Defends W’s Advocacy for Gays in Islamic Lands

by

Taking issue with critiques that Bruce and I leveled against President Obama for his silence on the plight of gays living under Islam in his celebrated (by his acolytes) Cairo speech to the Muslim world and the failure of the gay groups to fault that silence, one of our critics contended the President did speak out on behalf of gays in Islamic nations in his general defense of the ideals of Western society (even if that Democrat did not define them as such):

[The President said:] ‘But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.’

[And our critic pointed out:] Yeah, its not a big fanfare, but homosexual lifestyles fall underneath that category. if you’re mad at obama for being diplomatic instead of combative in his language, then so be it.

By that very argument, George W. Bush was a regular defender of the rights of gay people.  While he did not identify us as group, he did frequently point out the benefits of democracy to nations suffering under radical Islamic and other totalitarian ideologies, in terms stronger than his successor used in the speech cited above.

In a subsequent comment, reader ILoveCapitalism quoted several examples of such rhetoric.  If it weren’t for our reader, I would not have realized to what extent George W. Bush had spoken out in favor of rights for gays living in Islamic nations.  Now, that we’re aware of his advocacy on behalf of our fellows, let’s hope gay groups acknowledge his efforts.

Comments

  1. I don’t appreciate it when foreign visitors arrive on our shores and proceed to criticize how we choose to live, whether through the United Nations, news articles, speeches, or flying planes into buildings. It isn’t Obama’s job to advocate for homosexuals in foreign lands, particularly as a visitor. As President, he only indirectly advocates for the lawful tolerance of homosexuals in his own unless he makes explicit statements otherwise. As to his statements, I disagree with some aspects of the Obama statement you’ve quoted — particularly the invocation of ‘human rights’ — but I generally agree with lazarus: expecting him to lecture his hosts is unreasonable and unproductive; to do so might in fact be counterproductive and dangerous to the very victims whose only connection to you that has earned your advocacy is sexual orientation.

    Is an implied advocacy enough? Some minds and cultures are very slow to change, but I think it can be safely assumed without any undue generosity (political or otherwise) that neither Bush nor Obama are at all in agreement with the treatment of these victims. While I consider the Cairo speech a mostly vague potboiler, requiring the recitation of a laundry list of subcultures particularly during such an anticipated address is highly strange.

  2. That kind of parsing and innuendo only work if the person is question is a Democrat. Then we can infer that he actually was standing up for gay rights.

    No matter how many times a Republican says the same things, it can never be considered in any way pro gay, or pro any minority. It is simply meaningless words. Even if those words were followed up by real action, like freeing the people of Iraq and allowing democracy to take root there.

    Unfortunately in Iraq gays are being treated the same as everywhere else in the Arab world, they are being tortured and murdered in vile ways. Liberating the Iraqis from tyranny did not change that at all.

  5. Huh??? I am supposed to believe that the quote has anything do with advocating for gay rights? I suppose that I need someone to “translate” all that the Democratic President says to what it actually means. Humm…we probably need another government department to accomplish that in my lifetime.

  6. By that very argument, George W. Bush was a regular defender of the rights of gay people.

    I missed the exchange, but I would have said pretty much the same thing.

    Further, am I to understand that Chairman Obama proclaims that we can’t insist our values on other countries and then he does it anyway?

  8. #7 – DDGR, if the previous administration had ever tried using the “he might have meant this” argument with GWB, we would have never heard the end of it. But the State-Run Media gives The Snob benefit of the doubt.

    Bias? What liberal state-run emasculated media bias?

    Regards,
    Peter H.