The US policy on Gay Rights

If you order your research paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on The US policy on Gay Rights. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality The US policy on Gay Rights paper right on time.

Our staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in The US policy on Gay Rights, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your The US policy on Gay Rights paper at

Our affordable prices!

Chris Tayler

The United States claims to be the greatest democracy in the world. The nation-state purports to the world community a belief that all its citizens are free and suffer no constraints on such ideals as life and liberty.

Since the United States is such a large nation, it has great influence in the international community. One of the mediums through which this can be viewed is the United Nations. Through the United Nations, other nation-states become aware of governmental action within the United States.

Purchase your paper on The US policy on Gay Rights

This is only natural. The United States government is very vocal in its belief that the only form of government, which should be utilized, and the only form of government, which is good for all peoples, is that of a democracy.

One need only look to the news to see this concept. As the United States continues its war on 'terror' it destroys governments of other states and then proceeds to replace those destroyed governments with a new democratic form. Debate surfaces around weather or not this action by the United States is beneficial for other countries. The debate however, should focus first on weather or not the United States is truly in a position to under take such an action.

As the United States brings democracy to other states and the world scene, It needs to evaluate weather or not it truly follows its idea of democracy. There is more to a democracy than life, liberty and free and open elections. The people must truly be free - free from governmental restraints on their liberties liberties that do not fundamentally hurt the society.

As the United States continues promoting itself to the world community as the greatest democracy in the world, giving its citizens great freedom, it persists in its efforts to establish democracies in other states. In order to do this, it looks to the United Nations for assistance. The United Nations is a body consisting of representatives from most nations of the world. It is an international organization designed to promote world peace and secure human rights for all people (citation). This is a forum where each state can gain credibility in the eyes of the world.

One might think in order for a nation-state to gain and retain credibility, it must act in a consistent manner with the beliefs it purports. This however, may not be true. The United States asserts the international community must follow policies and laws made by the United Nations. That would only lead to equality among nation-states. By virtue of being a member and as a signatory of the United Nations charter, one would believe the United States must follow all United Nations policy. It would only make sense. The action of being a signatory of the United Nations charter is equivalent to the action of being a signatory on a treaty.

The United States Constitution authorizes the President (Article II, Section ) to make treaties, the Senate to ratify (Article II, Section ) and the Judicial branch to uphold the United States' obligations under any treaty ratified (Article III, section ). Given the Constitution provides for the making and enforcement of treaties, the United States must follow the responsibilities it concedes to. Likewise, the United States holds a belief in equality of all peoples. Naturally, it would follow, if it holds equality as such a fundamental idea, then it would believe nation-states must all be equal in their application of treaties. Since the United States must follow its concessions in any treaty and its purported belief in equality, It would follow then, the United States would not only uphold its end, but also require the world community to do so.

Such a consistent concept is not necessarily the case. The United States in practice does not always follow United Nations policy. At the same time however, it does require other states to do so.

This paper will work to show the inconsistency of the United States in following United Nations policy. I will provide reasons, which necessitate the United Nations. Having linked the United States obligations to the United Nations as being equivalent to signing a treaty, I will show how the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees rights to homosexuals within the United States. Next, I will review the actions of other nation-states and how they relate to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and lastly, United States policy and its hostility towards the Declaration.

Background

After World War I, the international community realized a need for an international organization that worked to promote world peace and help the world community interact with each other. The result was the League of Nations. This body existed until the beginning of World War II. At that point, the international community desired an organization, which would possess more force than the League of Nations. The League was deemed unsuccessful when it was unable to stop Italy from taking over Ethiopia and Hitler's invasion of the Rhineland (Morsink 1).

At the end of World War II, the international community felt the need for an effective international organization. An organization, which could create international law, for all states to follow. The result of their desire is the United Nations. This organization, commonly referred to as the UN, was erected with a charter. States who became members of the organization agreed to "Fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present charter" (Article , section ). The term present, as taken directly from the charter, specifically refers to the United Nations Charter. Once states gain membership, they are required to follow United Nations' laws. One might ask however, weather or not there is a need for international law or just an organization, which works to promote world peace. The truth of the matter is, world peace cannot be attained without the use of international law.

What is international law? In order to make international law, one must understand what it is. International law can be defined in many different forms. Gerhard Von Glahn offers several different definitions in his book Law Among Nations, An Introduction To Public International Law

"International law is a body of principles, customs, and rules recognized as effectively binding obligations by sovereign states and such other entities as have been granted international personality" (Von Glahn).

"The Law of Nations, or International Law, may be defined as the body of rules and principles of action which are binding upon civilized states in their relations with one another" (Brierly).

"International law consists in certain rules of conduct which modern civilized states regard as being binding on them in their relations with one another with a force comparable in nature and degree to that binding the conscientious person to obey the law of his country, and which they also regard as being enforceable by appropriate means in case of infringement" (Hall).

"International Law is the law which the wicked do not obey and which the righteous do not enforce" (Eban).

Regardless of the different definitions of international law, there is one common thread. Each of them understands the need for an international community in which the interactions of different states are in some manner regulated.

The United Nations' Charter continues stating, Members "Shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present charter and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement actions" (Article , section 5). This brings an additional requirement of member states. Not only must they enforce United Nations policy within their own territories, but they must also assist other member states in doing so. Likewise, member states must assist the United Nations in making member states follow United Nations law if they choose not to. Further in Article two, section six, the charter dictates "The organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security " (citation). As such, not only do member states agree by being a member, to follow United Nations' dictates. Further, they agree to make non-member states follow the law in areas where their actions would disrupt international peace and/or world security. The term Organization here must be interpreted as the member-states and their representatives as the member-states compose the organization.

The United Nations' Charter continues in setting out the manner in which the organization will operate. It is understood by each member state, under this document, any policy established is intended to be international law and thus affect every member state.

Purpose

One of the United Nation's main goals is to have universal and international policies. One can find this idea in the Charter under articles 55 and 56. Article 55 requires the "creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples." It continues stating "the United Nations shall promote Higher standards of living…solutions of international economic, social, health and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedom for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion." Article 56 is the enforcement clause relative to article 55, which I just spelled out above. It states "All members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in co-operation with the organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55."

As I have asserted previously, states who become signatotories to the United Nations' Charter act in the same manner as signing a treaty. As such, they have an obligation to abide by the concessions they agree to when becoming a party to the Charter. When a state becomes a signatory however, it must understand what it is agreeing to and in this case, what the purpose of the organization is. These two articles spell out the purpose very well. Additionally, one can see, the articles further the idea of having some form of universal law working to create a better situation for all peoples of the world.

ACCOUNTABLITIY OF MEMBER-STATES

States do not necessarily abide by the concessions they agree to when signing the United Nations Charter. As such, the United Nations, must undertake additional steps in its effort to create a better situation for all the peoples of the world. When member states fail to abide by their end of an agreement, the United Nations finds itself in a difficult situation. The United Nations does not have an international military force or an ability to tax any citizens. The result is an inability to enforce its policies without the assistance of its member states. It depends on the membership fee each state pays for its revenue. Likewise, it depends on the contribution of military forces from each of its member states in order to carry out its policy when needed. Many members, including the United States, fail to pay their membership fee or fall very far behind. Additionally, there is an issue of the content of United Nations policy. While each member state agrees to follow United Nations policy, they do not always do so. One possible reason for their inaction is the content of United Nations policy or one policy n general. If a member-state does not like a policy, they may refuse to contribute funds to the United Nations based on that premise. While each member state does have a voice in creating the policy, the final policy established may be unsatisfactory to a member-state. Given there is little coercive power to make states pay their pledged funds; they may use this as a reason not to pay. This puts the UN it a situation where it has little capitol to work with. Additionally, many member states are unwilling to contribute their own military forces to assist in the international community. The result is the UN having little to no coercive power to enforce its policies.

While member states have a duty to contribute, by virtue of being a member, there is no manner in which they can be compelled to do so. It is merely their choice when and how to act. As such, states have failed to follow and enforce UN policies. When there is little coercive ability or action, states generally have little reason to create policy on their own. The result is, any policy made by the UN may not truly affect the world community and population.

Since UN policy may not always be enforced, the member states do not always follow it. One example of a member state not following international law is the issue of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. In February of 00, the UN General Assembly, its main legislative body, passed Resolution 57/14. It calls for a special committee to "Investigate Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people and other Arabs of the Occupied Territories."

The motivation for this resolution was a belief that Israel had violated the human rights of civilians during times of war. This specific action, as outlined in the Geneva Convention and international humanitarian law, specifically the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, violates international UN policies and treaties (UN Resolution 5/14). The violation states Israel is specifically in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One must understand what this document is, before looking for some possible violations.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was passed as United Nations' resolution 00 A [XXI]. It was created in148 shortly after the UN's erection. Most legislation surrounding human rights enacted by the United Nations looks to this document for guidance.

One need only look to a few of the Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to see where Israel is in violation of the Declaration. Article three, "Everyone has the rights to life, liberty and security of person." By Israel's' actions of occupying the Palestinian territory, Israel violates, at the very least, many Palestinian's liberty and security. Article five, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." From reading the United Nations' Resolution stated above, one can find a concern regarding thousand of deaths and injuries of the Palestinian people, by the Israelis. This is an example of the Israelis subjecting Palestinian people to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Such an action is in clear violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These are at least two areas where the actions of one member-state violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

One may ask, should the member-states be required to follow the Universal Declaration of Human Rights given that it is only a resolution and not International Law? The response to this is simply logical. The Declaration was passed by the United Nations General Assembly; its main legislative body, as a Resolution. While resolutions are not law, they are an act of the United Nations. Each member state has a representative in the General Assembly to voice that state's position. Likewise, the Declaration was passed under the authority of the United Nations Charter. Each member states agrees when becoming a signatory to the Charter, to abide by its dictates. As such, member-states must abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

While member states do continue in there hostilities towards the Declaration, there is some progress being made. A report by the International Law Association indicates, "There would seem to be little argument that many provisions of the Declaration today do reflect customary international law." This shows an idea that while United Nation's member-states do not always abide by the Declaration, there is some progress towards its ideals (Hannum 15). The next question is, how does the Declaration purport to protect homosexual persons?

The document does not specifically provide for the protection of gay peoples. As in many areas of law however, interpretation of a clause or clauses is of vital importance. The Encyclopedia of Human Rights Issues since 145, asserts, at least eight of the 0 articles in the declaration can be interpreted to protect gay peoples. The clauses of those articles are

Article three, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

Article five, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Article 1, "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 1, "(1) Everyone has a right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each states. () Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and return to his country.

Article 14, "(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."

One must understand why these articles are important. Article three, in some countries; it is illegal to be homosexual. It may be difficult for the policing authorities to arrest one for being homosexual. It is easy however, to arrest one for acting in a homosexual manner. Arresting one for acting in a homosexual manner, violates one's right to liberty and security of person. They are being targeted specifically for who they are and not for any action, which truly tends to harm a society. The punishment can be death. Putting one to death simply for being who they are violates one's right to life. There is truly no manner of due process where by one should have their life taken for some horrific action.

Article five, Governments punish people for being homosexual, as I have stated above. Some of the methods used for punishment are cruel, such as hanging, burning and being shot in a public square. Such actions are cruel and torturous. Further, is the issue of degrading punishment or treatment. This sections applies to the United States. Homosexual persons in the United States are subjected to degrading treatment and punishment. Later I will explain the Bowers case which swill show how to men were arrested for engaging in sexual intercourse in the state of Georgia. The United States Supreme Court upheld Georgia's law. This is an example of the United States treating homosexual persons in a degrading manner.

Article 1, Being or acting homosexual is a private matter. One in which the government should not intrude into. Given governments do not prosecute people for being heterosexual or acting in a heterosexual manner, then it follows as an arbitrary act for a government to interfere with one who is homosexual.

Article 1, One must remember the discussion in this paper is the protection of homosexual persons. It is very likely that if a homosexual person left their country, they would not be allowed to return, depending on the government. While this may not seem like a possible situation, it is. It is easier for a nation-state to expel one from their territory, rather than prosecute them for being homosexual.

Lastly, article 14, If one lives in a nation-state such as Egypt, where they will be prosecuted for being gay, this is important. In 001, over 40 Egyptian men were arrested for allegedly practicing homosexuality. men were acquitted, and 1 were jailed. Facing criticism from human rights organizations, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, ordered new trails for all 1 men. The new trials resulted in harsher sentences for those men (Planet Out News). This article allows homosexual people, within the nation-state of Egypt for example, to leave their country for another where they can gain asylum from being prosecuted for their lifestyle.

One can see, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights can work to protect the rights of homosexual people. Although the Declaration does not specifically mention this group, it does offer them assistance. Such assistance comes through the interpretation of the articles in an effort to prevent governments from harming homosexuals. Interpretations come through many different mediums. One of which is Non-governmental Organizations.

Non-Governmental Organizations

In the international community, non-governmental organizations play a key role. They present injustices, research injustices and offer solutions to governmental bodies. The UN looks to these organizations for assistance. In 18, the United Nations Department of Public Affairs and several Non-Governmental Organizations meet at the fifty-first annual conference. At this conference, the participants, such as Amnesty International, The Human Rights Office of the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute and the Human Rights Watch joined members of the United Nations to discuss the further implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The assistance of non-governmental organizations is of vital importance. These organizations specialize in these areas of concern and gain valuable information. They collect statistical data, which governments can utilize. These actions reduce the costs, which governments might otherwise have to incur. The dynamics of the relationship between non-governmental organizations and governments is interesting. Non-Governmental organizations, in addition to presenting facts which help governments, also seek new policies. As such, the work of the two bodies is not always reciprocal. Many times the non-governmental organizations undertake more work and action than governmental bodies (NGO/07/PI/1080).

International Policy Action

Governmental bodies make the ultimate and final decisions, which are binding on their respective citizens. With the existence of Non-Governmental Organizations, comes pressure on governments to take action. Although slow to come, there is some progression in parts of the world toward equality.

In 15 The Council of Europe designed a court as a result of The Convention For The Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This Court, The European Court of Human Rights, is charged with hearing cases and enforcing dictates relative to those nation-states, who agreed to the contract, which resulted from the convention listed above (www.echr.coe.int).

In 181, the European Court of Human Rights heard the case of Dungeon v. The United Kingdom. The case brought under scrutiny the United Kingdom's laws banning homosexual activity in Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom had decriminalized male homosexual activity in England and Wales in 167. However, the laws were left in tact in Northern Ireland. Mr. Dungeon was a gay activist who challenged the law. The Court vacated the laws of the United Kingdom, indicating they went against privacy rights and subsequently the European Convention on Human Rights. Mr. Dungeon brought the case before the court, citing The European Convention For The Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. While there was no specific reference to homosexual people in the documents of the convention, it was felt other areas could be interpreted to defend gay rights (Sanders ).

His aspirations proved fruitful and the court ruled in his favor. Its ruling stemmed from an interpretation of the privacy clause erected at the convention. Likewise, it related to Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As stated before, this article protects from arbitrary interference on one's privacy. Again I assert, homosexuality is a private manner. Additionally, the United Kingdom's actions were arbitrary. They were arbitrary as the laws only affected homosexual persons living in Northern Ireland. Thye law targeted a specific group of people.

The ruling of the European Court of Human Rights is binding across Europe. This case broke the ground for the world scene. IT showed how parts of the world were starting to deal with the issue and understanding the need for equality and protection from government. The decision of the European Court of Human Rights forced the United Nations Human Rights Committee to initiate work in this area (Sanders )..

In 14, the United Nations Human Rights Committee heard and decided the case of Toonen v. Australia. This was one of the first cases brought before the United Nations dealing with homosexuality. The case possessed the same characteristics as the Dungeon case. The Committee stated above, concluded in their decision.

"discrimination on the basis of 'sexual orientation' was a form of discrimination on the basis of sex" (Sanders, 1).

Here again the issue of interpretation comes into play. The results of this decision could potentially have a far-reaching impact on anti-gay laws. Many documents, in law, offer protection based on sex. The United States is no exception. There are protections based on sex in many United States federal laws down through state and local municipal laws.

In a world where nation-states act in a legalistically consistent manner, following treaties they concede to, these decisions would not be necessary. There would not be a need for courts of this nature. Nation-states would vacate their anti-gay laws. The reality proves otherwise. In fact, very few nation-states have changed their positions to the extent these cases call for.

While laws worldwide have not changed to the extent as they have in the United Kingdom, they are changing gradually in some nation-states. In 14, the European Parliament passed a resolution calling on member states to make certain changes. The resolution calls for equality in consent age to apply universally, decriminalization of sexual activities between persons of the same sex, equality in government run social programs, laws protecting against discrimination based on orientation and access to national funds for social organizations (Langley, 186-187).

There is no binding requirement for members of the European Union to pass laws of this nature, but the resolution indicates some manner of progress. Progress however, must be measured by actions.

United States Action

From here on this paper will look at different actions by the United States (US) federal government. At current, the United States has made less progress than the European Union. There has not been any call for ending national discrimination or equality in governmental run programs. The most prevalent area of actions is at the local level as opposed to the federal level.

Only twelve States and the District of Columbia have laws in which

purport to protect gay people. Only states include sexual orientation as protected in their hate crime statues. Thirty states actively prohibit same sex marriage. Eighteen states continue to have sodomy laws. Only four states protect gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students. Sixty counties or cities offer domestic partner health benefits (Swan, Mazur ). These however, are at the more local level. As of yet, has been no great federal action towards achieving full equality. However, there are currently several different issues in the area of gay rights being confronted.

Laws made at the federal level offer protection to the entire nation. While in some areas, the federal government may not intrude; they may require states to enact legislation in order for them to be eligible to receive federal funds. Since the purse is key to the operations of a state, more often than not, the states heed to the requests of the federal government so that they can obtain the funds. The result is a semi-national policy.

SMALL SCALE ACTION

On March 11, 00, the House of Representatives began debate on a day of silence for homosexual/transgender students throughout the country. The idea behind this legislation is that many students have been victims of antagonization based solely on who they are regarding their sex or sexual orientation. This resolution is currently in the United States Senate.

ARMED FORCES

The United States military is another area of concern. The US, unlike the United Kingdom, is primitive in its interactions with the ideas of homosexuals and the military. Currently, the US has a "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy. The manner in which this policy operates is very straightforward. One does not ask if one is homosexual or not and one does not tell if they are homosexual or not.

The United Kingdom however, vacated its laws banning homosexuals from serving in the military in 1 (Sanders ). Unlike other decisions, which have in the past had their interpretations based on sex, not sexual orientation, this case, was interpreted on privacy and the ideals of democracy. According to the decision in Smith v. Lustig-Prean, . the "Hallmarks of a democratic society include pluralism, tolerance and broadmindnesses…The military concerns with operational effectiveness were based solely upon the negative attitudes of heterosexual personnel" (Sanders, ). This decision was a first in this area.

POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF SMITH V. LUSTIG-PREAN

The decision presents two new areas for operation in the United States. One, the idea of democracy and what a democratic society should be and how it should act. Maybe more importantly, is the concept of privacy. This is an issue, which has in the past been twisted and perked in the United States. For example, The United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade (17) based in part its decision on legalizing abortion under the privacy clause of the US Constitution.

Interpreting the clause in such a manner could potentially set a precedent. The results of which could cause this part to be consulted again for additional rights of the US citizenry. Idealistically this can be a model for future manners of consulting the constitution.

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

The United States Supreme Court has offered little visibility in this area. The largest case it has decided is that of Romer v. Evans (16). In this case, the state of Colorado had amended its constitution to prohibit the state government or any government bellow it from erecting policies, which were or could be construed to protect homosexual people.

The Supreme Court held the Amendment to the Colorado constitution invalid. However, they did not do so to create what one might term a great victory for all homosexual people in the United States. They held it invalid as the felt the amendment, which targeted a specific group of people, was in conflict with the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution (Sullivan 700-.704).

At the current term of the Supreme Court, the justices have concluded to hear a case of Lawrence v. Texas. The case involves sodomy laws, which the state still has in effect and are enforced. The case has not yet been decided.

MARRIAGE AND CIVIL-UNIONS

In 16, the Supreme Court in the state of Hawaii heard a case involving a lesbian couple's right to marry. Believing that if a decision from this state allowed gay marriage, other states would also be required to, some members of congress acted. Senator Don Nichols introduced bill S1740 and Representative Bob Barr introduced bill HR 6. The title of the bill was the 'Defense of Marriage Act" (Idelson 1).

The bill endured heated debate. Mr. Barney Frank, a gay representative, attempted to amend the bill, unsuccefully, many times. Opponents of the bill stated there was no need for it. It was in their belief if Hawaii legalized gay marriage, other states would not have to given the regulation of marriages is relegated to the states. Additionally, since Hawaii had not acted as of that date, there was no need for the bill (Idelson 1).

The bill, not only dictated that states would not be required to recognize homosexual marriages, but it also clarified for federal law, that the federal government only recognizes a marriage where both parties are of the opposite sex. On June 1, 16, the bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 4 to 67. It passed the Senate on September 10 by a vote of 85 to 14. President Clinton signed the bill into law on September 10, 16. He stated there was really no true need for a federal law in this area, however, he did sign in into law (Congressional Digest, v75 65).

EMPLOYMENT NONDISCRIMINATION ACT

At the same time the Defense of Marriage act was moving through the congress, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act surfaced. The bill was introduced as S056 in 16 by Senator Edward Kennedy and co-sponsored by Senator James Jeffords and 0 other Senators. The bill followed the same procedures and remedies as Title VII of the 164 Civil Rights Act (Congressional Digest, v75 5,64).

The act would prohibit discrimination of employees based on sexual orientation. Much like the Civil Rights Act of 164 prohibits discrimination based on race, religion and gender. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act would not apply to employers or unions with less than 15 people, the armed forces or religious organizations or colleges that were religious in nature or operated by religious organizations. It would have however; require religious organizations, when working in a for-profit environment to follow the law.

The bill went through heated debate. Senator Orin Hatch criticized the bill stating it would put a heavy burden on the federal courts and employers. His comments suggested the bill, although it specifically says the opposite, would require statistics collection. According to Senator Hatch, by granting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) the same authority under this bill as it has under the Civil Rights Act of 164, it will be required to collect statistical data. Senator Hatch continued saying the courts will become over burdened with cases as the bill gives the federal courts the same jurisdiction as it has under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 164. Hatch indicated, that part of title VII, allows the courts to order affirmative action if it finds an employer intentionally discriminated (Congressional Digest, v75 6).

Senator James Jeffords responds to this by presenting information on the state he represents, Vermont. This state has sexual orientation anti-discrimination laws. According to Senator Jeffords, in the five years since the law was enacted, there have been only 14 investigations initiated. He continued, stating there has been no large litigation and there has been no additional burden placed on their state courts or their state. He reported there had not been one employer complaint about the law and rather, thousands or Vermont's citizens now do not have to work hiding their true identity.

Senator Jeffords, reminded the Senate, that one's success at work must be based on their ability to do a job and no other factors. He continued stating the bill protects a right to be free of discrimination at work due to personal uniqueness independent of one's ability to do their job. Additionally, he remarked passing the Federal Nondiscrimination Act could potentially be the most important thing the Senate did in that year (Congressional Digest, v75 76).

Senator Jon Kerrey presented what amounted to an almost emotional reprimand of the Senate. Kerrey informed the Senate of his belief that one does not decide their sexual orientation. Rather he suggested, sexual orientation is innate and one is born either homosexual or heterosexual. According to Kerry " You don't wake up one morning and say I think I will be homosexual or heterosexual, for that matter." Senator Kerrey continued saying he does not believe employers are calling it a threat (Congressional Digest, v75 80).

Senator Ashcroft contributed to the dialogue stating that understands there could be a genetic base for this activity in some instances. However, he continued, the activity itself is a choice in other areas and that choice can be "made and unmade." Additionally, he stated his belief that the Senate ought to be careful of elevating one group of citizens over another. His belief was one that it would be more difficult to fire homosexuals and termination of a job, if this law was passed, was likely to lead to more lawsuits (Congressional Digest, v75 85).

The Federal Nondiscrimination act failed in the Senate on September 10, 16. However, the vote totals show a divided Senate on this particular issue. The vote totals were 4 in favor to 50 against. This was another defeat for the homosexual community.

Equal Rights and Equal Dignity for Americans Act of 00/Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 00

Currently, The United States House or Representatives is working on the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 00. Likewise, the US Senate is working on the Equal Rights and Equal Dignity for Americans Act of 00. These two Acts are mostly identical. They are currently being worked on and if passed, will need to go to a committee of the whole for reconciliation between the two Houses.

The purpose of the bills is to enhance federal enforcement of hate crimes. The main substantive measure allows for the Attorney General of the United States to provide additional assistance to local law enforcement. The purpose of the additional assistance is to assist with the enforcement of violent crimes, especially those committed out of a hatred motivation.

The Senate version has, at present, been read twice and been referred to the finance committee. The House version has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary and subsequently reassigned to the subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security (Thomas.loc.gov).

CONCLUSION

Understanding other countries, such as in Europe have protections afforded to them that we in the United States do not, is important. It shows what the United States government means when they say the US is the greatest democracy in the world. The world community knows the actions of the US government, and they see what we consider to be democracy. The information presented in this paper, displays the actions of other nation-states, the actions of the United Nations and a list of actions by the United States Federal Government. After reviewing the information presented, one should walk away understanding, the US is behind other states in its treatment of homosexual persons. While progress has been made, it does not compare to that of some other nations. Maybe in the future, the US will realize where it stands and how hypocritical it looks in the international community.

We are all too willing to support a UN mandate, which states Iraq must disarm. In fact, we are so willing to support such a mandate; we commit our armed forces to an all out assault and destruction of another country. At the same time however, the US is unwilling to follow the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which allows for the equal treatment of homosexual persons. In fact, the US does not even need to look at the UN to create policy in this area. The Federal Constitution specifically guarantees that all people must be treated equally. Yet with two compelling documents, we are, still unequal.

Please note that this sample paper on The US policy on Gay Rights is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on The US policy on Gay Rights, we are here to assist you. Your persuasive essay on The US policy on Gay Rights will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality. Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!