<div dir="ltr"><h2>
Obama Team Tries to Scrap Parts of Universal Declaration of Human Rights </h2>
<dl><dd>
By Stefano Gennarini, J.D. </dd><dt><br></dt><dt><a href="http://c-fam.org/en/issues/marriage-and-family/7749-obama-team-tries-to-scrap-parts-of-universal-declaration-of-human-rights" target="_blank">http://c-fam.org/en/issues/marriage-and-family/7749-obama-team-tries-to-scrap-parts-of-universal-declaration-of-human-rights</a><br>
</dt></dl>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt">NEW YORK, February 28 (C-FAM) <u><b><span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)">Angry
over </span><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">not getting a same-sex-friendly definition of the family into a new
UN document,</span> <span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)">the Obama Administration tried to delete language agreed
upon by the founders of the UN and repeated in documents since then.</span></b></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt">Regularly contentious in recent
decades, the family has been a diplomatic football with one side eager
to recognize “diverse forms of the family” while the other holds on to
the understanding that <u style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)"><b>the family is the “natural and fundamental group
unit of society”</b></u> taken directly <u style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)"><b>from the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.</b></u></span></p>
<p style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)"><span style="font-size:10pt">Behind closed doors, <u><b>US negotiators
asked to replace the definition of family </b></u>from the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights <b>with a lengthy new description of families</b> that have<u><b>
“diverse forms and functions” and express “diversity of individual
preferences.”</b></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt"><u style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)"><b>The proposed definition excluded the
notion of the natural family, based on the union of a man and woman, </b></u><span style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)">as
the norm for the procreation and upbringing of children.</span> <u style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)"><b>The US effort
was ultimately rejected by UN member states.</b></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt">The move puts the United States in an odd position.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt">The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights has almost sacred status at the United Nations. It is regarded,
together with the UN Charter, as a founding document of the new world
order set in place after World War II.</span></p>
<p style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)"><u><b><span style="font-size:10pt">What’s more, the UN definition of the family is reflected in the constitutions of nearly 120 countries.<span></span></span></b></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt">US diplomats argued that extended
families and single parent households are not included in the classic UN
definition. Delegates from traditional countries understood the US
argument as pretext to gain recognition for same sex unions because
extended families and single parent households were always included in
the UN definition.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt">Similar proposals from the United
States, albeit never excluding language from the Declaration, were
routinely included in UN documents until recently. But<u style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)"><b> the General
Assembly rejected the notion of “various forms of the family” at its
last two sessions</b></u> <u style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)"><b>despite </b></u><u style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)"><b>insistence from the European countries and the
United States. </b></u>Once thought to be inoffensive, the phrase has become
embroiled in controversy because of western insistence on same-sex
issues.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt"><u style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)"><b>UN Member States are not taking kindly
to the</b></u> <u style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)"><b>new focus on lesbian, gay, bisexual or transsexual (LGBT) issues
from the United States and European countries.</b></u> Western countries have
still to table a substantive resolution that addresses sexual
orientation and gender identity and <u style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)"><b>outspoken countries have limited
themselves to campaigns to publicize LGBT issues internationally.</b></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt">LGBT supporters are not the only ones
frustrated with the United Nations. There is a trend of rolling back UN
terminology that was uncontested until recently not only on LGBT issues
but also related to sexual and reproductive health. <u style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)"><b>Abortion groups are
frustrated that they have lost ground at the UN. They are worried they
will not be able to carry out their agenda into future UN policies.</b></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt"><u style="background-color:rgb(234,209,220)"><b>US diplomats stirred controversy last
year when they rejected </b></u><u style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)"><b>language from the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights</b></u>. During negotiations over a resolution about women’s policies,
US diplomats asked to delete a reference to the “inherent right to life,
liberty, and security of person” of every human being, also from the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.</span></p></div>