U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley to the United Nations

Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, cast a vote against a key resolution supported by most other countries.


Human rights groups are furious after the United States voted against a U.N. resolution condemning the death penalty and the way it is used to target LGBTQ people around the world.

27 nations voted in favor of the seemingly-uncontroversial resolution, but in a surprise decision, the U.S. was among 13 countries to oppose it. Joining them were governments with such stellar human-rights records as China, Iraq, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia.   

Resolutions urging countries to abolish the death penalty are hardly new to the U.N. However, as opposed to past resolutions, this one specifically highlighted the unjust use of capital punishment against the LGBTQ community and other marginalized groups. Given the nature of the message, many expected the U.S. to vote in favor – or at the very least abstain from voting. Instead, Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, voted against it.

Immediate Blowback

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), America’s most prominent LGBTQ group, was quick to blast the current administration and Ambassador Haley. After the votes were counted, the group released a scathing statement:

“Ambassador Haley has failed the LGBTQ community by not standing up against the barbaric use of the death penalty to punish individuals in same-sex relationships. While the U.N. Human Rights Council took this crucially important step, the Trump/Pence administration failed to show leadership on the world stage by not championing this critical measure. This administration’s blatant disregard for human rights and LGBTQ lives around the world is beyond disgraceful.”

A rainbow flag on fire

The Crime of Homosexuality

It seems crazy to think that being gay can get you killed in some places, but that’s the startling reality. In as many as 10 countries around the world, homosexuality is a crime punishable by death.

“It is unconscionable to think that there are hundreds of millions of people living in States where somebody may be executed simply because of whom they love,” said Renato Sabbadini, executive director of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA).

He called the vote a “monumental moment” which showed broad international support for protecting LGBTQ rights. However, America’s decision to vote against created an unavoidable blemish on an otherwise encouraging outcome.

Is the White House Anti-LGBTQ?

A spokesman for the U.S. State Department insists that the vote had nothing to do with LGBTQ rights, and that the news reports were “misleading.” Officials claim that “the United States is disappointed to have to vote against this resolution,” and that the decision was due to “broader concerns with the resolution’s approach in condemning the death penalty in all circumstances and calling for its abolition”

That very well may be true, but the optics certainly aren’t good. The timing isn’t ideal either, as the White House is currently pushing for “religious freedom” legislation – a move that critics argue will provide a legal pathway to discriminate against LGBTQ folks.  

Is the Death Penalty Ethical?

All that aside, the vote also forces the U.S. to confront a tough question: why do we still use the death penalty? Most European countries have long since abolished the practice, on the grounds that it is inhumane. In fact, the U.S. is among only a handful of developed countries that still sentence criminals to die in a court of law. This interactive map breaks it down in detail:

Here in the U.S., the death penalty is given for only the most heinous crimes. The logic is that if a criminal is violent enough, they should meet violent ends. However, justice isn’t always just; over the years, there have been numerous people put to death who were later determined to be falsely convicted.

For their part, opponents of capital punishment argue that killing another humane is immoral, no matter their crime. Plus, they point out, the death penalty gives the individual the quick way out. Why not force criminals to spend life behind bars reflecting on their crimes?

Both sides make clear arguments, but unless we see significant public pressure to abolish the death penalty, things are unlikely to change. In the meantime, the United States appears determined to continue defending its use on the world stage.

Where do you stand? Is the death penalty a morally defensible form of punishment?

 

110 comments

  1. Joe Stutler says:

    I’m not a fan of capital punishment. It diminishes us as a society.
    As for the death penalty for LGBTQ, that’s no different than a death penalty for race, height, eye color, etc.

    1. JOHN MAHER says:

      WELL STATED JOE STUTLER.

      1. Sandra Lent says:

        Yes, well said Joe Stutler.

    2. Rjr says:

      Just curious if you think Gods going to apologize to Sodom and Gamora?

      1. Guairdean says:

        No, He won’t, but it’s because the sin of Sodom has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Ezekiel 16:49 King James Version (KJV) Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

        1. Priscilla Ann Rutherford says:

          Finally! Someone who truly understands the reason for the destruction of Sodom! It had nothing to do with sexual orientation!!@

          1. Fer Guin says:

            People are stupidly uninformed…they just repeat things like a beaten parrot.

        2. truebluebethy says:

          Thanks for keeping us straight!

      2. Michael Nason says:

        We are no God. We have no right for any reason to take life we can not give. And to support the death penalty for homosexuals Is disgusting.

        1. dotwilson@comcast.net says:

          Amen!

      3. Anita Rogers says:

        The Story of Sodom and Gamora was more than about sexual morality. It was about SIN not just sexual sin. Sex outside of marriage then was considered sinful in that context. Since this is a time when we denied homosexuals to marry then yes they were guilty of this sin. We were complicit with this sin by not allowing people who love each other to marry. This might also be thought as sinful when we deny people a chance to be redeemed. Nothing Jesus said makes homosexuality a top priority item to God. You can find old law’s of man that calls for the death of homosexuals. You can find some references from Peter about homosexuality, but he isn’t Christ and we aren’t Peter-ians.

        Somehow some Christians think Jesus got forgetful and just didn’t mention it. Maybe he was giving us a message that not allowing all to marry is sexual immorality?

        There were more sins that sexual sins going on in Sodom and Gomorrah. We just like to give greater weight to sexual sin.

        1. Daniel says:

          Anita Rogers,

          The story about Sodom and Gomorra was about sexual immorality. The people in the city demanded Lot to turn over the stranger so that they could get to “know him” To “Know” a person biblically is to have sex with them. The people of the city wanted Lot to give them the stranger so they could gang rape him. Lot refused to turn the stranger over to the people of the city so they knew him not. That is they did not get to gang rape and Sodomize the stranger against his will. For this God spared Lot and his daughters’ but not the stranger. Yet later in the story God allowed Lot’s daughters to get their father drunk and then they knew him. That is had sex with him. Was this willingly on Lots part since he was drunk or was it a rape of the father by the daughters? It was however incest to say the least.

          Morality and immorality as LBGTQ and non-LBGTQ’s go has nothing to do with that story. The Bible all kinds of sexual perversions and even a rape now and then. But the question one needs to determine is, ” who decided what is rape and what is the sexual perversions?” The bible provides details on this subject. That is why I am glad I am not a female! God instructs the unclean on how to become clean again. So short of the LBGTQ community banding together to rape a stranger I would say God gave them free will to chose how they live their life and the Death Sentence like that executed upon Sodom and Gomorra would not be rendered upon the LBGTQ people by God. Ergo nor should such a judgment be adjudicated nor carried out by any Nation upon said group. The Lot of them should be free to do as they please behind closed doors(consenting of course)

        2. JD says:

          Remember that Yashua taught the word of the father Yaweah.Which would mean he taught all of his laws,safe to say he would have taught about the sin of homosexuality.Then to continue he said to follow the laws of man as well as the father.Which he also taught that just because you follow mans law does not mean it is right when it is in direct conflict with Yaweahs law.IE being gay and marriring another gay man may be manly legal but still scripturely sinfull.When we are grafted into the house of Israel ,saved, we are to put away those sinfull things..

          1. Carl Elfstrom says:

            My God doesn’t like your God,and doesn’t care much for Israel either.

          2. Carlton Doug says:

            Blah, Blah, Blah… more pathetic ignorance by one of the Sheeple.

      4. Dan Anderson says:

        Rjr – The fable of Sodom & Gomorrah was NOT about homosexuality, but of inhospitality and rape. Homosexuality is NOT about either.

        1. Carl Elfstrom says:

          Amen,Brother! I was first told the same thing by Rev. Lou Wiggs who started out being a Methodist minister and retired from being a Baptist minister, then founded both the MCC Church( not affiliated with MCCR) and the AIDS Coalition Of Coastal Texas,Inc. in Galveston.

    3. Rev paul collins says:

      Your so very right I’m not a fan of the death penalty next they will want to kill you because your not white it’s stupid

      1. Terry Satterthwaite says:

        I’m not a fan of the death penalty either. Next they’ll want to kill the un-born…oh, wait.

        1. Barney McComas says:

          Abortion, while terrible (whether or not one agrees it should be legal), is not punishment against the unborn. Please save your arguments on the issue for an appropriate article.

          1. Fer Guin says:

            See my comment above,…to which I will add: Ignorance in not only loud (especially in anonymity), but also abundant.

        2. John Owens says:

          LOL, Terry! Don’t you like how they try to regulate your speech so their contradictions are not so noticeable?

    4. Jared Sellers says:

      Finally someone with sense.

    5. Mark Ward says:

      Or for merely being an unwanted “tissue mass”!

      Frankly, there should be NO DIFFERENCE in outrage over some countries killing LGBTQwtf individuals, and countries which condone (or support/promote) abortion (especially past the point where medical science allows for the baby to survive outside of the womb!

      1. Carlton Doug says:

        Another ignorant Male thinking he has the right to tell women what to do with their bodies. LOL. Laughable! Step into the 21st century!!

    6. JD says:

      I don’t see where or how it diminishes us as a society.I am only for the death penalty IF there is 100% proof evedince the person is guilty not circumstantial evidence.Like other resolutions,which really mean nothing from U.N.,a dictator in Venezuela can continue to murder his country men.If and when he is taken down for his crimes his only punishment will be a vacation stay in a prison.All he has to do is claim homosexuality and he faces nothing for his crimes..Loop holes loop holes loop holes.

      1. Raul Aviles says:

        Good point

    7. J says:

      Thank you good person.

    8. Stevie says:

      I totally agree. It becomes a slippery slope.
      You may be for Capital Punishment for LGBTQ, but then when Capital Punishment is considered for something that you are – I guarantee you won’t be for it any longer.
      Wait for it…..wait for it….

  2. Guairdean says:

    The Whitehouse response was to an all out ban on the death penalty. It had nothing to do with sexual orientation. There are times, as a society, when the only choice is to permanently remove a violent influence. Society must be protected, and if ending a life is the best way to achieve that protection, then that is what must be done. Incarcerating someone for life is no less cruel than ending that life. Prisons must be used as instruments of correction, not places of exile, and most assuredly not the places of training for offenders that they have become. If a violent offender can be rehabilitated, then every effort must be made to help them re-enter society as a functional human being. If no rehabilitation is possible, then society must be protected.

    1. Trav says:

      Thank you for pointing out what this story and so many others in the media have failed to do. I’m disappointed that the headline for this story is as misleading as the headlines in many of the mainstream media outlets. This was not a vote “against” homosexuals or their rights. The US vote had absolutely nothing to do with the gay community. The US voted against it because a yes vote for this UN resolution supported a ban on ALL capital punishment. Meantime, it is still a legal sentence in our country for those convicted of first degree murder. There’s no way to resolve those two positions, so it was not a resolution the United States COULD vote for. We can argue the merits or the horrors of capital punishment until one side changes the other side’s opinion. (don’t hold your breath.) But to cherry-pick small aspects of a much larger resolution as a way to beat on the administration is dishonest at best.

    2. Roger says:

      A life sentence can be reversed if new evidence proves false conviction. Death penalty is irreversible.

      1. Trav says:

        Fair enough. And this is why the death sentence is not actually carried out very frequently. But when you have someone like Dylan Roof, who clearly did what he did and admits it, I see no reason we should be burdened with caring for him for the rest of his natural life. A person like him is dangerous and beyond redemption. We don’t do enough to save the lives of so many others in this world but we should be concerned about taking his?

        But I digress. My point is that the US vote resolution was not an anti-gay vote. But with headlines like this in the way that the mainstream media is reporting it, most people wouldn’t know that.

        1. truebluebethy says:

          I liked your post 8:49 am above. In this current post 2:49 pm, the words, “beyond redemption,” strike me, because it is our “job” as an evolved society to not judge. No one here on this earth has the authority to judge if another is or isn’t beyond redemption, only the very person is able to find, create, enter, become redeemed. Ours is an aggressive and arrogant society who produces people like Dylan Roof and then can not take responsibility for it, but instead places the blame of his actions on him. While he may have come into this life with a propensity toward violence, all life is is a dance, with our society propogating the behavior.

  3. Chuck says:

    My sources tell me there is more to this than most people realize. California just very recently legalized the spreading of HIV Aids and donating HIV blood… In other words, they made it just a misdemeanor, even if infecting others was fully intentional. So, what will happen next is a 200% rise in HIV/AIDS in California and any other state that adopts this insanity. The legal defense would be discrimination against the LGBTQ community, and that is why the UN bill was not signed as it would lead down a slippery slope.

    The UN cares NOTHING about anyone. They are in the business of normalizing insanity, and causing international degredation. The UN is also working to make pedophilia “normal”. Great people they are.

    As far as other countries executing homosexuals, that is outright wrong! However, Id like to see the UN do something about Christians being executed in these countries as well.

    http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-gov-brown-downgrades-from-felony-to-1507331544-htmlstory.html

    1. Sara says:

      The state of California, counter to whatever cockamamie news you hear or see, is not spreading the HIV/AIDS virus or donating blood infected with the HIV virus. What are you smoking?????

      1. Beth says:

        Didn’t California just make it a misdemeanor instead of a felony to knowingly infect someone with AIDS? That’s like pointing a gun at someone and shooting. It may or may not kill you but the intent is to cause harm.

    2. Rick Knight says:

      You need to check your news sources so you don’t sound like a moron. California is not spreading aids to anyone. Learn the facts before posting.

      1. AKConiferious says:

        learn the facts before posting?? you must be new around here..

        1. Heather says:

          Sadly, AK, you appear to be correct. Evidently sensationalism, falsehoods and intentional misdirection are the only things that fly here. I had hoped for better and was left quite disappointed in the writer, the editor, and a good portion of the citizen comments. Sad.

      2. John Owens says:

        Right. It’s Hepatitis A.

    3. Carlton Doug says:

      Seriously? Put the Koolaid down and pull your head out.

  4. paulg78 says:

    This opinion says “… the United States voted against a U.N. resolution condemning the death penalty …”. It would be hypocritical to vote otherwise since the U.S. allows the death penalty. The opinion also says the State Department explanation “very well may be true, but the optics certainly aren’t good”. If it is true, then the title of this opinion (U.S. Refuses to Condemn Death Penalty for LGBTQ People) is false. And the optics aren’t good only if the truth is distorted. As to whether the U.S. should allow the death penalty, I say yes … but only when guilt is certain, e.g. when a person is caught in the act, e.g. for a mass killing. That’s my answer until someone comes up with a way to “cure” a sociopath.

    1. JOHN MAHER says:

      YEAH WE got ONE in the W H, ORANGUtRUMP DOTAR !!!

    2. Heather says:

      I agree Paulg78. This article was so incredibly slanted that it is very difficult to even take seriously. I have a gay daughter. I’m not a hater. That said, our laws need to be consistent and equal. If you commit a crime for which the current laws demand the death penalty, then your sexual orientation is not even remotely relevant. Making special laws that only apply to a percentage of the population is it’s own kind of discrimination. It is wrong no matter how you look at it.

  5. Tom says:

    The only basis for capital punishment that i seriously consider is for treason…but that still begs the question as to education, parents, rehab, etc…Tom

    1. JOHN MAHER says:

      the ONLY BASIS for CAPITAL PUNISHMENT is 100% GUILT and that is IMPOSSIBLE !!!

      1. Paul Gilbert says:

        I agree with your basis. But we know who did the killings in Colorado Springs, Chattanooga, and Charleston to mention few incidents where the killer survived. Yes, 100% is impossible but isn’t 99.99% enough?

      2. Tom says:

        I do not know what everyone means by “100% guilt”…and what actions to apply it to…Tom

        1. paulg78 says:

          I was referring to how certain it is that a person committed the crime, not to any concept of moral responsibility.

          1. Tom says:

            Paul…perhaps because i am a lawyer, i see “guilt” as a multi-faceted issue…while the actual act is important, the context is also very important…as far as responsibility is concerned, i believe everyone is 100% responsible for his or her acts…but, on point, consider euthanasia, where there is an act to cease another person’s life…yes, the act took place, but is there guilt?…Tom

      3. JD says:

        How is 100% impossible?Its been proven In S.C. And in other states.S.C. Some years back young man walked into a convienyent store shoots cashier looks at camera flips off camera goes home bragged to friends what he did.Sounds like 100% to me.I am not for the death Penalty in circumstantial evidence cases.But when you shoot and kill someone and people wrestle you down that’s 100%.

  6. Pastor BStevens says:

    Mr Pence certainly praises this ideal believe
    me if he had two choice mr Pence would line up every gay person and execute every one that’s his a Godly ideal . We know what’s coming that’s a reality check watch this Religous rights act become a act of hatred tword any person not praising his satanic Jesus .

  7. Miranda Allison Young says:

    There are dozens of reasons why the death penalty should be abolished, but I will not go into that now. However, two reasons stand out above all others. It is inhumane and it unjustly targets minorities. I have been against it all my life (I am 79) and always will be.

    1. Wendy says:

      At a federal level, since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 815 white people have been executed, 503 black people have been executed, 120 Latino people have been executed, and 23 others. Not really targeting. At a state level the numbers get interesting. California has a huge number of people on death row because the last execution was in 2006 and because a lot of the crimes are gang-related. If you read through the crimes, there’s really no difference in the types of crimes that white people and minorities committed. They’re all heinous. http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-death-row/

      1. Paul Gilbert says:

        Interesting link to the 747 people on California death row. I would like to see the death penalty limited to mass killings where the perpetrator is known (not just proved beyond a “reasonable doubt”). I wonder how many of the people on death row would meet those criteria. The link you provided had a link to the few who have actually been excecuted. http://graphics.latimes.com/towergraphic-see-13-men-executed-california-1978/. It says the last guy on the list organized more murders while in prison. I guess the possibility of committing another crime while in prison is an argument for the death penalty.

    2. Paul Gilbert says:

      I agree that there are many reasons to oppose the death penalty. What if the death penalty were limited to mass shootings when there is certainty about who committed the crime? This would eliminate many of the problems with the death penalty as currently administered. Mass shootings cause extreme harm and we don’t know how to “fix” the sociopaths who commit these crimes. Would you be willing to accept such a compromise?

  8. Wendy says:

    The official statement from the State Department was:
    “The United States unequivocally condemns the application of the death penalty for conduct such as homosexuality, blasphemy, adultery, and apostasy. We do not consider such conduct appropriate for criminalization. We would absolutely oppose the use of the death penalty in those cases. As Americans, we promote democracy and human rights and those are a part of our values that we share in our hearts as Americans. We voted against that resolution because of broader concerns about the resolution’s approach to condemning the death penalty in all circumstances; and, it called for the abolition of the death penalty altogether. We had hoped for a balanced and inclusive resolution that would better reflect the positions of states that continue to apply the death penalty lawfully, as the United States does.” http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/state-department-defends-us-vote-against-death-penalty-ban-at-the-un/article/2636429

    So the people who are protesting the government’s position are protesting the fact that the US unequivocally condemns the death penalty for homosexuality and doesn’t use it to do things like silence people with troublesome political views. Odd things to protest.

    1. Paul Gilbert says:

      Good point, Wendy. As far as I can tell you are right. And, if so, the title of this post (U.S. Refuses to Condemn Death Penalty for LGBTQ People) is false. I call on the author to change the title to avoid violation of the church’s tenet to “do that which is right”.

      1. John Owens says:

        Yep. More fake news. Not what I expected from ULC. I could get this from NPR.

        1. Harry Waters Jr. says:

          Please refrain in this newly sacred space of calling in phrases such as these. Tbere are other fiirums that support such views. I am a newbie here and feel quite a lot of discomfort with entitled vitriol. Peaceful observation and procession.

          1. Heather says:

            Nothing inappropriate was stated Harry. Calm down.

          2. John Owens says:

            Harry considers that vitriol? He needs a safe space.

    2. Heather says:

      Yes, this has happened before. You are absolutely correct Wendy. The UN periodically tries to force the USA to follow blindly but the reality is that they are no different. They tack all these little extra rules on their blanket rules and expect us to just fall in line. That’s a flat no. If we wanted to be under their rule, we would live there. In this country, the people make decisions. This “ruling” is ridiculous and trying to shame America when they are really trying to force us into a law the majority of America does not agree with is ridiculous. It doesn’t matter if the UN does not approve. It matters if Americans approve. If Americans do not approve, they need to say it at the polls themselves rather than allow the UN to dictate our laws to us. I personally have no use for Trump, because I think he’s an idiot, but I overwhelmingly support the decision, whoever made it, to tell the UN–NO WAY.

  9. Bro. James the Apostate, OSHSF says:

    #BadDayforDemocracy

    Today, any resemblance of Lincoln’s ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people’ is fading fast.

    While we’ve conveniently been divided, and diverted from discussing systemic racial injustice, to passionately debating the NFL and Flag Idolatry, the real threats to The People are taking place under the deceitful guise of “Religious Liberties” under the direction of AG Jeffrey Sessions and those Religious Right advisers who conspired with foreign governments and colluded to get #Fake45 elected.

    This stance to NOT condemn criminality of LGBTQ persons was just the beginning for the actual intentions of the radicalized religious right and neo-fascists controlling this vassal president.

    In the recent post by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, New Trump Administration Policies Are A Blueprint For Using Religion To Discriminate (http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/new-trump-administration-policies-are-a-blueprint-for-using-religion-to) the troublesome executive orders clearly reveal the malicious intentions of those behind it, and those who are being targeted by such unconstitutional discrimination. (https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1001886/download)

    If one day, when one minority faction/sect of any religion is exalted to supreme authority by the government, and given special rights and exemptions over any other laws/religion(s)/people, you’ve woken up in a Theocracy.

    If one day you realize, all separate branches of government have been hijacked by radicalized neo-Fascists and religious zealots, who refuse to respect the human decency and inalienable rights of any others, and when those with any moral compass or conscience acquiesce to the radicalized religious and neo-fascist authorities, you’ve probably woken up in a Theocracy.

    Now, we all see exactly who/what was elected. Trump is nothing but a vassal puppet for the Radicalized Right and their treasonous intent to subvert our secular Government.

    Today, Abraham Lincoln’s own party is destroying his higher vision and any hopes he described as he said:

    “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

    Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

    But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

    For today, all resemblance of Lincoln’s government is fading fast.

    #PerilousTimes #EndofDemocracy #AmericanTheocracy #SadDayForAmerica #VassalDotard

    1. Wendy says:

      They did unequivocally condemn criminality of LGBTQ persons, as stated in the official statement by the State Department. What they did not do was vote for a complete death penalty ban. That was also part of the resolution. The American people have repeatedly voted to keep the death penalty, so the only way to maintain a government of the people, by the people, and for the people was to vote against the resolution and release this statement: “The United States unequivocally condemns the application of the death penalty for conduct such as homosexuality, blasphemy, adultery, and apostasy. We do not consider such conduct appropriate for criminalization. We would absolutely oppose the use of the death penalty in those cases. As Americans, we promote democracy and human rights and those are a part of our values that we share in our hearts as Americans.”

    2. JOHN MAHER says:

      DUMP the ORANGUtRUMP DOTAR, I M P E A C H !!!

    3. Carlton Doug says:

      Finally! An enlightened opinion!!
      Thank you, Bro. James!

  10. Sara says:

    I am grieving for our country and counting the days until this foul administration has run its’ course. I’m also doing everything I can to democratically and maturely fight the monstrous, bigoted and just plain stupid things that are passing for federal government these days.

  11. Paul Gilbert says:

    To the author of this post: It seems that Wendy has shown the title of this post (U.S. Refuses to Condemn Death Penalty for LGBTQ People) to be false. Assuming her information is correct, please change the title. It seems to me that putting out false information is not in keeping with the church’s tenet to “do that which is right” … would you agree?

  12. Dr. Keith Bridges says:

    The U.N. resolution should have targeted abolishing the death penalty for any crime, including being Christian, not specifically LBGTQ.

    1. Wendy says:

      The UN is always voting on resolutions to completely abolish the death penalty. The US always votes against them. This particular resolution called on any states who have “not yet abolished the death penalty to ensure that it is not imposed as a sanction for specific forms of conduct such as apostasy, blasphemy, adultery and consensual same-sex relations.” That implies that any state that votes in favor of the resolution will at some point abolish the death penalty. That’s why the US voted against it.

      1. John Owens says:

        You are a voice of reason. Thank you.

  13. Miguel Capelo says:

    100% For the death penalty for pre-meditated murder… On one condition… If ever new evidence appears that exonerates the person put to death, then everyone in the JURY and the JUDGE must be put to death. Cool? As for being gay – even if being gay was a “choice” I would support it, because what consenting adults agree to in the privacy of their homes IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS WHATSOEVER. Don’t like gays, leave them alone… don’t like porn. don’t watch it… don’t like drugs, don’t do them… don’t like your rights being taken away, leave mine alone too…

  14. Rev James Gibb says:

    Well I can only assume the wider issue that Nikki Haley is talking about is the death penalty in general which is non discriminatory. What I mean is the only sane explanation for her to vote against this ruling as I understand it is to avoid any misunderstanding in the states where gay people can be sentenced to death for crimes committed, not for just being gay.
    As the law in the states is so easy to manipulate it is not beyond reason that some clever lawyer could get a gay murderer off by some very clever interpretation of this ruling, has Nikki merely been thinking along these lines and not communicated the US policy very clearly.
    Without debating the actual death penalty I can only say in my opinion that the death penalty as I understand it is for heinous crimes and not for sexuality, race or beliefs and I believe Nikki and the US government know this, never in my wildest nightmare could I imagine the president condemning a person for anything other than a crime, unfortunately she has not communicated well and as everyone knows it is very hard to quantify what you mean after you have said it and it comes out in this way.
    It would be a good time for the president or his team to publicise the exact way in which they are thinking, there must be gay people in the Whitehouse, senate and in lots of places within the government, stand up and explain what the policy is, you can only get reprimanded for not communicating properly and next week people will be tearing a strip off someone else.
    I personally know someone in Scotland who worked for the president in Scotland and she says, yes I said she says he was a perfect gentleman, approachable and really quite down to earth. That does not sound to me like the kind of person who would discriminate in this manner.

  15. Léo Torres says:

    I’m having some concerns with the presented map. Brazil’s placed in the “except in extreme cases” category. Actually, the law over here says there’s no death penalty.

    Unfortunately, what occurs is a real state persecution of poor black people (specifically poor black young men). Our police kills these young men but it’s not in an official basis. Actually that can be proved when we see the number of so-called “acts of resistance”, the official way of pretending the policemen were only protecting themselves, even when the “menace” was a 12 year old boy going to school.

    1. Paul Gilbert says:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Brazil says the death penalty “… is still possible during wartime, according to the Article 5, XLVII, “a”, of the Federal Constitution.” You could correct it in Wikipedia if it is wrong.

  16. Léo Torres says:

    And regarding the death penlty as a whole: I’m 100% against it for the simple fact that if there is a chance of one single innocent being killed by mistake, that makes the death penalty unusable and unethical.

    Prision for life would be semi-accepted, given that the innocent should have his whole life to try and come up with new evidence of his/her innocence. But even about that I’m not completely sure.

    1. Daniel says:

      “For the wages of sin is death” How many times has God issued a death sentence in the bible? Destroyed man and beast? It is best served that the death penalty remains and that it is delivered swiftly even if an innocent be put to death as God so rightly demands as a deterrent to others! “Sins of the father punished 10 generations?” “God & Genocide” Jesus, the most innocent was given a death sentence so all could be saved! Did Jesus have doubts? Did he want’ to Die and suffer for humanity? The answer lays in a question Jesus asked of God “Father, why has thou forsaken me?” Jesus states he will return, he states death will come to those sinners along with eternal damnation. Jesus, demands that mankind acknowledge he is the Son of God and that mankind worship God thru Jesus or death shall surely come along with eternal damnation to hell. Most all religions have Gods that dish-out Death and Suffering in this life or the next if you fall short of the required total submission to the ways of that religion.

      So there you have it in a nut shell. The Death sentence is a tool that when rendered, should be carried out swiftly and publicly as to hold the greatest effect of deterrence and compliance with the rule of law even if it means an innocent life is taken as with Jesus of the children of generations of war and genocide. Conform, Submit, or face the Consequences’. “Thou Shalt not “Murder” Murder being the true and correct translation of that commandment and in the proper context. To kill (not murder) and killing is duly authorized, demanded of and justified by most all God’s and Jesus throughout the bible and other religious text as a deterrent, as a punishment, and for survival of mankind.

  17. Chaplain Bill says:

    I see a lot of comments here based only or for the most part on your display of the question. That is par for the course here in America, we read a short news blurb and go off tilting windmills. If you really wanted an informed discussion you would have attached a link to the original resolution so we could all be better informed before commenting.

    1. Wendy says:

      The problem is that the full text of the resolution is almost impossible to track down online. Security Council and General Assembly resolutions I can find because the UN website keeps those current. The Economic and Social Council resolutions are current only through July 25th of this year. If you search by subject and search Human Rights, you don’t get resolutions. I finally managed to find it by searching on a short little direct quote that I found in an article online. As you can see, voting in favor of the resolution requires agreement with a lot of things the US does not agree with, and there is a built-in understanding that the death penalty will be abolished. And the LGBTQ issue is just a tiny part of the whole thing.
      https://gallery.mailchimp.com/67191046cd42cbb7c7d4196b0/files/c6713f88-7192-4a3b-9da5-bafc1ac04a90/The_question_of_the_death_penalty.pdf

  18. Debra says:

    The article does not make it clear (probably intentionally) whether this was a vote to abolish the death penalty in all cases or just the cases where the only charge was homosexuality. It could well be that the issue was death for things like murder in which homosexuals would not be excluded, and twisted to make it sound otherwise. Seeing how things are reported and distorted nowadays, I wouldn’t get my panties in a wad unless I had read the actual text of the resolution that they were voting on.

  19. Mike says:

    Before we act as if the United States is condoning the death penalty for gays, we should do a little reading and research. The author of this article should be ashamed of themselves for this misleading false article. As well as this website. I don’t mind you publishing touchy articles but this is propaganda. You may fool me and a lot of these people with this, but you are not fooling God. You will stand in judgement one day. You have a platform to spread Christ’s love or the devils hate. Be careful with what you post!

  20. Ezekiel says:

    When the death penalty was first decided on people at the time based it on the old testament ( eye for a eye) mentality under the law that’s why God destroyed sodom and gamora. But now we live under the Gospel of grace ( the new testament) and our lord and saviour payed the price for all mans sins. So with that being under stood the penalty of execution needs to be changed. America has more people incarcerated then any other country, why is that? There are certain members of our society that are capitalizing on human flesh (privatize prison) which in my opinion the worst thing possible ,let’s just open the door for satan to take over!

    Instead of prison officials taking head counts, they should be more concerned about rehabilitation. Not to say that if someone commits murder and then claims he asked God for forgiveness that he should be set free. But he should be able to live out the remainder of his life incarcerated and help other people on the inside discover Yeshua Hamasheiah as their saviour and allowed to spread the Gospel of grace to others that have no knowledge of Christ.

  21. PT,krystiona McCulloh says:

    Truth sets us free. Homosexuality, is a sin condemned by God, however it is also a sin to physically harm those who practice it so as to cause death and or by any other act of cruelty. I will not stand for homosexuality in that unless the homosexuals start working for what they want and think they should have I feel no obligation to incorporate and or give them what they spend no time laboring for but disdaining. Instead of critising Christians, lets understand that God condemns all sin. Homosexuals openly not only are disdainful of marriage and the log standing excepted sexuality of men and women, they have completely disrespected men women, children and families for their causes. Men taking what belongs to women, wearing dresses, and makeup looking at our husbands and sons, to commit acts appalling even to the natural mind. The truth is, is that a law does not change commerce, hair care and clothing, and perfume, made for women style and who, what, where, when, why, how were not made for a man and or homosexuality. I am a human being not just a sex my feelings are personal to me, Clothing made for the bodies of women, as well as skin care and healthcare, as well as for emotions and feelings and spirits and hearts never having to be substituted or replaced by and or for sin.
    My desire for the male members in my family is my business, no I will not allow a man just because he wants to have sex with a man accessibility to my family members, what they work for they’re wives children, peace love and joy to be be subjugated, coveted, demanded of by some man because of his lust. Yet the lack of acknowledgment and respect for the women and men, that work for their families, and clothing, and style, and hearts desire, by blatant acts of hatred and disdain for the order that heterosexuals choose to live is enough. Saying something in an effeminate way does not make less cruel, so the “oh honey never’s” and the ribald vulgar declarations about heterosexual relations, and marriage are still slanderous and hateful and rude. We all should mind your own business. We are allowed to condemn sin, but being cruel to someone for doing right, is never acceptable. God is love, have a blessed day, everyone.

    1. Dan Anderson says:

      PT – Why do you think that homosexuals use make-up and dress in women’s clothing? That is NOT homosexuality.

      If one of your children admits to being homosexual, what are you going to do? Remove them from the household and banish them?

      How is the fact that two people of the same gender who love each other harming anyone? How do you think they will die because of that homosexuality?

  22. John R says:

    It would be nice if articles like this provided the text of the UN resolution (or a link to it – see web site below) so that those of us who would like to have an informed opinion can read the resolution and come to our own conclusions about its reasonableness (or lack there of). All I really know from reading this article is that the LGBTQ community objected to voting against the resolution. Having researched the resolution, which drones on extensively in bureaucratic babel, I would take it to be generally against the death penalty, with a highlighted concerned for those in disadvantages circumstances (which included apostasy, intellectual disabilities, ethnic and sexual orientation). Sexual orientation was not the focus of the resolution, and there is nothing that addresses “targeting”, but rather that the death penalty was disproportionately applied to the disadvantaged individuals (where sexual orientation is listed as but one example). I would concur that a country which still uses the death penalty could not vote for the resolution (obtaining would have been a better choice in my book).

  23. Austin Lineback says:

    Listen, I’m an Apostle of Yeshua and of the father Yehweh, and I am gay. I’ve healed the sick, casted out demons, performed miracles and father God has blest and ordained me as his gay apostle. Watch my YouTube channel and subscribe please feel free to contact me. I demonstrated the power of God in Jesus’s name. If he hates gays then he has to hate me and Adam in Genesis as well. He made both of us in his image, male and female.
    Watch my YouTube channel and subscribe please.

  24. Tigerz says:

    God didn’t say if a man is with another man MAYBE he’ll die. It states surely they will die. And what do you think ‘send them back to me’ means? Only one way to go back to God. Death. Homosexuality is against nature. Make all the excuses you want but queer acts are NOT acceptable to God and if we send the offenders back to God, as we’re supposed to, then the filth will cease. Humans consistently think they’re smarter than their Creator but I’m sure they’ll wish they’d obeyed when the time arrives.

    1. Dan Anderson says:

      Tigerz – are you going to also kill those unruly children as prescribed in the Bible? How about those who wear polyester blend clothing? If you happen to think a person is a witch, are you going to kill them as well?

      How is homosexuality AGAINST nature, when it is found, just in the mammalian populations, in over 1500 different species of mammal? You do realize that it is heterosexual parents who produce homosexual children, right?

    2. Carl Elfstrom says:

      Let’s hold down Tigers and sodomize him. He’ll be doing drag shows in no time!

    3. Carl Elfstrom says:

      Tigers,don’t forget,there’s also such a thing as straight bashing. Come to my neighborhood sometime and maybe you’ll get a chance to find out exactly what I’m talking about. And bring your god with you. My God is much more powerful than your god and doesn’t like your god at all!

  25. Ronald Ward says:

    Thou shall not kill. God made us the way we are. God will always love us Nothing can separate us from the love of God. NOTHING.
    SO it shouldn’t matter your race or sexual preference. Love your neighbor as you love yourself.

    1. Daniel says:

      Thou Shalt not Murder is the correct context. You kill to eat. You kill to protect. You kill in war as ordered. You kill as a deterrent. You kill as punishments. You murder for envy, opportunity, malice, and evil motives. God is Love. God gave mankind free will. But is it free will if there are conditions and consequences? Is Gods love given unconditionally? Can one love a child a demand they submit to your authority or suffer the wrath of God (death, pain, suffering) a good beating in the name of Love? Free will and love given with fear of XYZ is a nothing more than a power play and need to control.

      Now if the bible stated God is Love and God Love’s you unconditionally but dose not condone your actions and will not support those actions then I would say Gods love is blind.

      Gods love is nothing to the sinner and the sinner is nothing to God without Jesus Christ. So it is Jesus that separates us from Gods love and it is the sins of man that separate mankind from the savior.

      “For God so loved the world he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him shall not parish but have everlasting life.”

      Do you see the condition of Gods love. When God is done with you he is done with you. God is also a Vengeful God. God will as he has in the past rain his wrath through plagues, pestilence, famine death, destruction eternal damnation of those whom do not submit their will unconditional to Gods will.

      That is how it is. To hell with you if you can’t live how God demands! That is free will and love proffered at the end of a gun!

      That is similar in a majority of religions. God loves so much he allowed aids and other ills. Allows the sins of the Father to curse 10 generation. Condones and demanded Genocide of so called nonbelievers.

      The list goes on. Do not just read Gods word. Study it, research it, and put it all in to context.

      God will pass judgment and there will be no love lost in that Judgment.

  26. Austin Lineback says:

    The straight people are infected as well. And they are infected because they play both sides of the sexual nature and sometimes more than a real gay person. They just hide behind the straight nature.

  27. LtBil Drat says:

    Either you’re for the death penalty for certain crimes or against the death penalty for certain crimes. It applies the same to everyone. Nobody is exempt. Nobody is favored. I’m for the death penalty across the board no matter who you are. Crimes include premeditated murder, murder involving another felony like robbery etc, gang rapes.

    1. Dan Anderson says:

      LtBil – how about the killing of unruly or intoxicated children? The Bible demands that.

  28. John Mathews says:

    This story does not contain all the facts. The resolution banned the death penalty in all cases, everywhere in the world. The death penalty is legal in the United States in many states. Had this resolution only banned the death penalty for being a homosexual, the Ambassador to the United States, Nikki Haley, would have voted for it. As with many bills in the U.S. Congress, many are voted down because of riders added to the legislation. This is what happened concerning this vote.

    Discrimination against homosexuals is heinous in every circumstance but, please, let us get the whole story before passing ill-informed judgments. And reporting stories without pertinent facts is irresponsible.

  29. Bill Fox says:

    It is unlikely that capital punishment will be banned. If it isn’t banned, it can be applied to any crime.

  30. John Owens says:

    Just another example of Trump-bashing and leftist propaganda through distortion of the facts. If this administration were so evil the left would not have to lie and distort to make it seem so. Get a grip.

    1. Dan Anderson says:

      John – what lies do you believe have been told by “the left”? Please be specific.

      1. John Owens says:

        Dan, don’t be obtuse. The whole premise of the article discussed here is a distortion of the facts. But, since you think asking for specifics is so intellectual, let’s see… “You like your doctor, keep your doctor,” “We were under sniper fire at the airport (paraphrased)”, “The death penalty does not deter murder,” “poverty causes crime,” then there is the whole “collusion” fiasco, which is going to hurt democrats much more than Trump, “We discussed our grandchildren on the tarmac,”(EVERYBODY on the planet knows that was a huge lie)… it goes on and on, um, Tea Party being racist, Trump being racist, an overhaul of Obamacare amounts to genocide, the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill debacle, “I did not have sex with that woman,” …, Planned Parenthood provides mammograms and doesn’t sell baby parts…

        Suffice it to say, if the left is saying it, it is totally false or so twisted as to be deceptive.

  31. Austin Lineback says:

    Watch my YouTube on God’s verified homosexuality

  32. BC says:

    Lgbtq is a sin. They should be killed. Amen

    1. Austin Lineback says:

      BC needs someone to love him and help him find acceptance for who he truly is and quit hiding behind God who doesn’t promote his hatred or fears.

      1. Carl Elfstrom says:

        Maybe BC is just projecting something he’s scared to see in himself. I hope it doesn’t cause him to commit suicide. Or has he not thought of that yet? Is it no wonder that one of my all-time favorite movies is Silence Of The Lambs.l?

    2. Dan Anderson says:

      BC – You are trolling, aren’t you. They said the same thing about those who were left-handed. Do you think all “lefties” should be killed as well? How about those men who sit on a chair or sleep in a bed which has been inhabited by a woman who happened to be having her menstrual cycle? I take it you also believe that if anyone teases a bald-headed man, they should be mauled to death by bears, too?

      Please post where in the Bible you think that it is a sin. Hint: It is not Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, 1Cor 6:9 (Unless you are using a modern bible and not a KJV1611, nor is it in Romans 1:26.

  33. Henry smith says:

    Male 53 pastor Assemblies Of God pentecostal church Manchester England.
    I am also a practicing gay male and proud to be openly gay all my congregation are so accepting with myself and my husband.
    So many homophobic in here as the saying goes.
    Let those without sin cast the first stone.

  34. Carl Elfstrom says:

    Male 54 ULC Minister in Galveston, Texas. I have a close friend and relative who has been happily married to another man for 21 years. One of my great-grandfàthers was from Manchester. He was known as Sir Ernest Grave. My hat’s off to you sir. Congratulations!

  35. deneige Roland says:

    It’s wrong in so many ways to put somebody on the death penalty for what gender they love I wish people would be a little bit more civil and not act like a bunch of apes smashing everything that they don’t understand. We say we are all equal has humans but when are we going to show it this isn’t the first issue that came up. I’m more afraid to ask the police for help than coming out about what gender I like. do people need a another reason to be afraid of the police than they do already. I say we should deal with the real problem we have already rather than something that is not a problem at all some of my best friends are gay or lesbian or even bi like me.

Leave a Comment