and granted, the UN is not the US, but the US falls under the UN, does it not? I've never really understood exactly how that relationship works out, but we're really not supposed to violate the UN declarations of human rights, are we?
This is a very common misconception. The US (and for that matter any other nation) is not 'under' the UN in any way. Sovereign states are just that. Sovereign.
The entire UN is basically a big committee where member governments get together and agree on 'stuff'. How things should be. How things are. etc. Thing is, not everyone agrees on every element of every treaty. Many states are not signatories to certain treaties (while they may be to others) basically saying 'That rule is bunk and we aren't following it'.
Of course, lots of other states push agreements into place or sign them and then have no intention whatsoever of actually following them. Saudi Arabia is a signatory to the treaty on the rights and status of women, for instance.
The UN, by its own charter, has no enforcement arm of any kind, nor is it ever allowed one. The only thing that can happen is a bunch of states get together and do whatever needs doing on their own possibly with the UN's blessing.
This is why 'International Law' is a joke. People think of it like criminal law, a set of rules put out by the government with an enforcement body to make sure they're followed. Really it' has no similarity to this at all.
It's far closer to international treaty law which for all intents and purposes says: "If you're strong enough to break this, the weaker party is humped unless they can get a big enough gang of friends together to do something about you."
It's more schoolyard bully than it is Cop arresting Murderer.
May God stand between you and harm in all the empty places you must walk.
Old Egyptian Blessing
Old Egyptian Blessing
This message last edited by SilverWarder on 10/08/2010 at 05:36:35 AM
Let's ban all Christian Marriage.
- 07/08/2010 06:36:13 AM
1760 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me.
- 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM
1143 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people.
- 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM
1411 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there!
- 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM
1224 Views
Who else should make those decisions?
- 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM
1162 Views
I'd totally...
- 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM
1075 Views
I'd totally...
- 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM
1240 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering.
- 08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM
1178 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged
- 08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM
1076 Views
*Shakes Head*
- 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM
1052 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM*
- 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM
586 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense.
- 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM
1141 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense.
- 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM
1094 Views
Re: *Shakes Head*
- 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM
1088 Views
I still do not see how you think marriage is a "pointless" institution
- 08/08/2010 08:05:45 PM
1201 Views
No, I was referring to same-sex marriage. Real marriage hardly counts as a novelty. *NM*
- 11/08/2010 02:28:43 PM
489 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about.
- 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM
1031 Views
You cannot be that stupid.
- 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM
1320 Views
There's a lot of ridiculous arguments here, but I'll focus on just one of them...
- 11/08/2010 03:38:05 PM
1253 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
- 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM
1063 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad.
- 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM
1128 Views
Is that assumption valid?
- 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM
1049 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid?
- 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM
1045 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid?
- 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM
1154 Views
Not really
- 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM
1018 Views
Re: Not really
- 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM
1142 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives.
- 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM
1182 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
- 09/08/2010 11:25:39 AM
1079 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
- 09/08/2010 11:51:50 AM
1050 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
- 09/08/2010 01:18:35 PM
1138 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
- 09/08/2010 02:54:19 PM
1156 Views
It should be noted again...
- 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM
1166 Views
and how is it not a right?
- 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM
1059 Views
My definition of rights...
- 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM
1160 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right.
- 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM
927 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example
- 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM
1022 Views
- 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM
1022 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis...
- 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM
1170 Views
If we need a more specific resolution...
- 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM
1356 Views
No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
- 10/08/2010 05:25:57 AM
1054 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
- 10/08/2010 03:04:39 PM
1368 Views
That's really a ridiculous stance, you do realize.
- 10/08/2010 03:23:02 PM
972 Views
The point is that marriage IS a right, one which cannot be denied based upon sexual orientation *NM*
- 10/08/2010 07:04:16 PM
774 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
- 10/08/2010 03:46:56 PM
1218 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though.
- 10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM
1036 Views
I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point.
- 10/08/2010 06:09:32 PM
1022 Views
Re: I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point.
- 10/08/2010 06:33:56 PM
953 Views
It's mentioned as a right in some SC decision quoted in that Walker opinion. *NM*
- 10/08/2010 06:51:13 PM
502 Views
To clarify for you
- 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM
1034 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body...
- 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM
1417 Views
I'm not sure that I would call the Security Council the 'Enforcement Body'
- 10/08/2010 08:43:02 PM
1030 Views
The fact that it is capable of authorizing the use of military force makes it an enforcement body
- 10/08/2010 10:33:59 PM
1311 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless....
- 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM
978 Views
Why don't YOU back up your assertion that the right to marry exists? *NM*
- 11/08/2010 03:16:02 PM
540 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right.
- 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM
1147 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction...
- 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM
1207 Views
Note it all you want...
- 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM
904 Views
No, they seek to expand the terms of the partnership. Homosexuals can & do get married normally *NM*
- 11/08/2010 03:14:25 PM
575 Views
The best one yet.
- 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM
1157 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
- 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM
1026 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
- 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM
1134 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
- 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM
1037 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
- 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM
1172 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel
- 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM
1142 Views
Re: Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel
- 11/08/2010 05:09:23 PM
1090 Views
