"In a major reversal from an earlier position, the political website of the New York Sun will report tomorrow that former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani now opposes civil unions between same sex partners.

An advanced copy of an article sent to RAW STORY shows that the New York Republican has backed off his earlier support for civil unions, prompted by the passage of a law in New Hampshire's State Senate."

"Throwing a curveball into speculation about both his - and Al Gore’s - political future, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg made a provocative comment today about a possible Gore presidential run.

“I hope Al Gore enters the race; I think it would be good for the country,” the mayor said."

>If he hangs out in gay bars.
>If he enjoys watching gay porn movies and surfing gay porn Web sites."

Paid for by Sen. McCain's (R-Ariz.) presidential exploratory committee, the handout compares and contrasts McCain's positions on hot-button social issues like abortion, gay marriage and gun control with those of his two main rivals for the presidential nomination -- former Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

It is difficult to identify a more morally repellent act -- outside of violence -- than 'outing' a gay person for political gain. Yet, those who 'out' gay conservatives defend their actions -- and they do so by blaming their victims. The victims deserve it, the outers contend.

And why do gay Republicans and conservatives deserve to have the most private part of themselves revealed to the world?

Because, the activists argue, conservative gays are hypocrites, and hypocrites deserve no mercy.

But this argument is nonsensical. If the activists believe this argument, they do not think clearly. If they don't believe it, then they 'out' gay conservatives for another reason: They wish to punish gays who do not follow the leftist party line on same-sex marriage and other gay-related issues, and they wish to intimidate other non-outed gays from adopting conservative values on such matters.

March 30, 2007

To the Editor:

Jeffrey Johnson's article proclaiming IGLHRC's silence on the annual US State Department human rights report is misleading and in need of a broader human rights perspective.

IGLHRC has not been silent about the report, as evidenced by my published comments to Mr. Johnson who contacted us. It seems that the problem was simply that we did not issue a press release on the report. Although I am perplexed as to why a group's decision not to send a press release on any particular topic would be headline news, the answer is simple enough.

IGLHRC has long worked with State Department personnel to include documentation of human rights violations in the annual report. In fact, a number of the incidents listed from around the world came directly from our documentation. However, the global credibility of the State Department report has diminished substantially because of the blatant disregard that the US administration has shown toward human rights in our country and around the world. To stand in judgment of other countries' human rights records, while resisting any responsibility for our own, is hypocritical The US Senate has refused to ratify the treaty to eliminate discrimination against women. The US stands with Somalia as the only countries not to have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The US regularly ignores findings and resolutions of international bodies like the UN Committee Against Torture, the Human Rights Committee, and the International Court of Justice. The US is the only state still actively opposed to the International Criminal Court - set up to prosecute war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. The US stands as one of the few countries in the world to bar entry for people with HIV/AIDS and ban same-sex marriage. We bar LGBT people from serving in the military and allow the death penalty. The US level of resistance to basic human rights issues puts it at odds with its self-appointed role of reporting on certain human rights violations. As a result, using the State Department report to advocate for change in most countries around the world would probably be a dreadfully ineffective strategy.

In addition, Mr. Petrelis' "grief" that IGLHRC staff are somehow not providing "quality gay (sic) advocacy on crucial global gay rights abuses" is wrong. Around the time that the State Department report was issued, IGLHRC's one-person global communications staff was busy launching our own groundbreaking report on how HIV/AIDS programming is failing same-sex practicing people in Africa. Yet, I have not yet seen Mr. Petrelis report on this important report, nor about how the world has ignored the ravages of this disease among people in Africa who face so much stigma, harassment and violence related to their sexuality that seeking treatment and services for HIV is impossible. In fact, on the very day that the State Department report came out, IGLHRC's Africa Regional Specialist was in Washington meeting with the State Department desk officers for Rwanda, Congo, and Burundi. In addition, we and a Rwandan gay activist met with the Rwandan Embassy to speak against the plan to introduce a sodomy law. Rwanda has not had a sodomy law, and to introduce one now clearly goes against the established human rights law.

The role of IGLHRC is not to simply issue press releases on the obvious, but to draw attention to that which is ignored and work to change it.

Sincerely,

Paula L. Ettelbrick
Executive Director
International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission

"Went to the market and were just really warmly welcomed, I bought five rugs for five bucks."