Comments on: International Marriage Update

By: international marriage. i am japanese and how long does it take to … | Colombian Online Dating | Colombian Women,Colombian Dating, Colombia Girls

Sun, 30 May 2010 00:07:48 +0000

[...] Box Turtle Bulletin » International Marriage Update [...]

By: Women for Marriage. What They are Wishing to Get? | Article … | Eastern Angels

Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:14:34 +0000

[...] International Marriage Update [...]

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:50:19 +0000

Jon wrote:
And it’s also true that in other ways the U.S. record on human rights is atrocious.

…or hypocritical, at best. Canada continuously ‘signs’ international agreements that we don’t inact/enforce here at home.

…sigh….

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:49:31 +0000

Jon, as an experiment go find four black americans and tell them that the constitution that condoned slavery and defined them as 3/5ths a person was a great advance in human rights because it provided freedom of religion and freedom of speech to white men. See what kind of reaction you get.

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:06:35 +0000

I think it’s important to recognize that before the mid-20th century, much of what we think of as human rights was a concern of state governments in the U.S., rather than the federal government. Thus, the New England states extended the right to vote to free African-American men shortly after independence. Pennsylvania abolished slavery in 1780, followed by all northern states by 1804. Some western states granted the vote to women as early as 1910. Freedom of religion was assured in Rhode Island by 1640.

Sometimes two contrasting things can both be true. Many of the concepts most important to human rights (freedom of speech, assembly, and religion) were first enacted into law in the U.S., and some parts of the U.S. made positive changes in some human rights issues earlier than most other parts of the world. And it’s also true that in other ways the U.S. record on human rights is atrocious.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:30:47 +0000

Ummm…. the “my country can beat up your country” debate is a bit off topic, don’t you think?

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:12:03 +0000

Fred said “Do you claim that, at the time, any other country had this concept of rights to free speech, free association, free exercise of religion, etc. that the state, even with the support of general laws, should not curtail? Do you deny that these form part of what we now call human rights?”.

Only a privileged white man could hold that twisted perspective. That the U.S. allowed free speech and freedom of religion only for white men is a trivial insignificant improvement compared to the outrage of enslaving part of its population. That the U.S. made a trivial improvement in 1791 and then failed to show any leadership in human rights for over 200 years after that in no way qualifies it as a leader in human rights – the U.S. has never been a leader in human rights.

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:59:20 +0000

Fred,

I find your comments fascinating in that the Abolitionist movement in England began in the 1700s and that England ended slavery before the U.S. Civil War (and also passed “reforms” limiting slavery and the slave trade which were followed by similar moves in the U.S.).

I look fondly to our (the U.S.) North for moral exemplars.

By: Paul in Canada

Paul in Canada — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:59:08 +0000

Fred and Priya – I consider both arguments you make ‘correct’ – the US forged ahead with human rights in the context of a ‘new’ democracy – one which is unequaled and copied by most civilized countries – BUT – interpreting, upholding, protecting and implementing those ‘rights’ in the form of equality for all – the USA is WAY behind most – and with the religious/right-winged bigots foaming at the mouth – will continue to fall even further behind. Canada is proud of legalizing same-sex marriage and enshrining protection based on sexual orientation (2004) – but there are still pockets of discrimination – especially under our current conservative government. It is one thing to ‘institutionalize’ equality measures through legislative practice, and an entirely different thing to culturally embrace them. There is a long way to go for all of us, everywhere.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:51:29 +0000

The Danish parliament now also has before it a proposal to amend the law to allow for same-sex marriage. All the major parties agree with it, and it is likely to be voted through in time to come into force in January 2011. This would also entail same-sex marriages taking place in church, as the Church of Denmark is the state church.