LGBTQ Families Dealt Major Blow at the United Nations

The United Nations Human Rights Council’s “Protection of the Family” resolution passed Thursday has the potential to become the groundwork for LGBT discrimination under international law. Uganda, Egypt, and Russia are among the countries responsible for the creation of the resolution, many of whom have explicitly anti-LGBT track records. This comes only a few weeks after the U.N. unanimously elected Uganda’s Foreign Minister Sam Kutsea, an ardent opponent of LGBT rights, as president for its 69th session.

Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svgThough the resolution does not limit its definition of a singular family to those consisting of one man and one woman, attempts at re-wording the language to be more inclusive have been blocked despite being supported by France, Ireland, and Chile. In not clearly articulating a recognition of different kinds of families, “Protection of the Family” carries the potential of being used to ignore families headed by same-sex couples, single parents, extended family members, or non-biological legal guardians.

The resolution is being held up as proof that there is global opposition to what is often perceived as a bullishly pro-LGBT rights agenda being led by the bulk of Europe and the United States.

“The defeat of various forms of the family demonstrates that the UN is weary of these kinds of debates,” Said Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. “Most of the member states would like to move on to issues that concern the whole world and not just elites in the [global] North.”

“It is a travesty for the UN to ignore reality,” said Julie de Rivero, director of advocacy for Human Rights Watch with the Human Rights Council. “Insinuating that different type of families don’t exist can do nothing but harm the children and adults around the world who live in those families.”

Read the resolution below:

Resolution on Protection of the Family by jlfeder


  1. Mike says

    I know this may have helped in some countries, but the UN is sadly becoming increasingly irrelevant to a lot of people. Hell, a couple of years ago, way before the NSA/CIA/FBI revelations, former president Jimmy Carter gave several interviews stating that, in his opinion, the US was in violation of over a dozen provisions in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Who knows how many we’re up to now.

  2. Jere says

    The United Nations has become a total waste of time and money. It has LONG ago outlived it’s usefulness.
    The major powers will continue to do what they damn well please. Smaller and poorer countries scrap up the crumbs thrown their way through the UN.
    The mantra from decades ago is still true. “Get the US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US.”

  3. Will says

    I used to defend the UN but I’m increasingly seeing it as a useless organization that’s bending to biogotry instead of promoting rights.

  4. Brian1 says

    Towleroad headline writers going overboard again. The two page resolution says absolutely nothing controversial, things like children should be brought up in a loving caring environment, governments should respect human rights, families should take care of their children. The only actionable item here is that the resolution calls for a panel discussion to convene on the status of the family. The human rights commission has absolutely no power, and this resolution calls for absolutely nothing other than liking children. It is true that a motion to explicitly include same sex families was defeated 22-20, but so was a resolution saying families should be one man one woman only. All in all, exceedingly hard to see this as “being dealt a major blow.”

  5. mike/ says

    “Most of the member states would like to move on to issues that concern the whole world and not just elites in the [global] North.”

    maybe it is time for the “elites in the [global] North” to stop financially supporting this organization and start their own? if this is a ‘human rights’ organization, shouldn’t they be supporting ALL human rights, not just the ones that offend their mythological religious leanings?

  6. Keith says

    Works for me! Does that mean from now on that every church/religion married couple will be will to take a State exception regarding Federal tax status and give up their married status? How about the Federal Gov then making the exception of churches getting a tax free status?

  7. chevytexas says

    Agreed… Somewhere TR credibility requires an editorial hand. Notable news, poorly written however. Volunteers?