Obama Bypasses Congress, Again, with New Special Envoy for Sodomites

Christians are being slaughtered across the world, especially in the Middle East — Christianity’s birthplace — where Christianity is on the verge of going extinct.

The Obama Administration has no envoy to Christians but the POS has seen fit to create out of thin air a new position in the State Department — a first-ever Special Envoy for Sodomites.

Just another of his middle-finger salutes to Congress and the U.S. Constitution. (See “Obama tells Congress he’ll decide what’s constitutional“)

Robert R. Reilly writes for MercatorNet that on Monday, February 23, Secretary of State John Kerry proclaimed, “I could not be more proud to announce Randy Berry as the first-ever Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBT Persons.”

Randy Berry

Until his new appointment, Berry was the U.S. consul general in the Netherlands.

Two Democrats, Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass) and Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif) had introduced legislation in the last Congress to create such a position, but the bill died. The bill was reintroduced in the new Congress, with zero chances of passage.

And so, true to his F-you declaration a year ago that “I’ll act with or without Congress,” Obama simply created the position by executive fiat. This has the added advantage of not requiring Congressional confirmation of the openly-gay Randy Berry in the new position. It simply becomes an executive branch appointment.

But what exactly is Special Envoy Randy Berry supposed to do “for the Human Rights of LGBT Persons” in foreign countries?

The State Department said Berry would push to end laws in dozens of countries around the world that criminalize same-sex relationships. As Kerry put it, “Too often, in too many countries, LGBT persons are threatened, jailed, and prosecuted because of who they are or who [sic] they love.”

Robert Reilly took a look at more than 40 of the laws that purportedly persecute people because of who they are or whom they love. Here is a sample.

Uzbekistan: “voluntary sexual intercourse between two male individuals”
Yemen: “Homosexuality between men is defined as penetration into the anus”
Sudan: “Any man who inserts his penis or its equivalent into a woman’s or a man’s anus or permitted another man to insert his penis or its equivalent in his anus is said to have committed Sodomy”
Brunei: “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman, or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years…”
Myanmar: “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals shall be punished…”
Mauritius: “Any person who is guilty of the crime of sodomy or bestiality shall be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding 5 years.”
Kuwait: “Consensual intercourse between men of full age (from the age of 21) shall be punishable with a term of imprisonment of up to seven years.”
Kenya: “Any male person who, whether in public or private, commits any act of gross indecency with another male person, or procures another male person to commit any act of gross indecency with him, or attempts to procure the commission of any such act by any male person with himself or with another male person, whether in public or private, is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for five years.”

Contrary to what John Kerry said, not one of the laws Reilly looked at punishes anyone because of who they are, but only because of what they do. A homosexual cannot be arrested because he is a homosexual, but only if he sodomizes someone – just as an alcoholic cannot be arrested for being an alcoholic, but only if he is drunk and disorderly in public, or is driving drunk. In other words, these laws reflect the rule of law, not the kind of tyrannies embodied in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. The issue of whom they love is also irrelevant to these laws, but only, once again what they do together. It is a matter of whether the expression of “love” is appropriate to the nature of the relationship. These laws judge sodomy as inappropriate to any relationship. The principal issue here, then, is the act of sodomy itself, and whether or why the United States should be supporting it in its foreign policy.

John Kerry is very firm that it should, because:

“Defending and promoting the human rights of LGBT persons is at the core of our commitment to advancing human rights globally — the heart and conscience of our diplomacy. That’s why we’re working to overturn laws that criminalize consensual same-sex conduct in countries around the world.”

In other words, the Obama Administration is proclaiming to the world that the United States of America “defends” and “promotes” SODOMY. Not just that, but the defense of SODOMY is the core — “the heart and conscience” — of U.S. diplomacy.

When did the American people decide that sodomy is up there with the inalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence or in the Bill of Rights?

As recently as 1986, only 29 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bowers v. Hardwick that:

“Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights. In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws. In fact, until 1961, all 50 states outlawed sodomy, and today, 24 states and the District of Columbia continue to provide criminal penalties for sodomy performed in private in between consenting adults.”

Why did these laws exist for so long? Because our inalienable rights rest firmly upon “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” and sodomy is clearly contrary to those Laws, as it violates the very ends of man’s sexual powers, which are unitive and procreative. Sodomy is an act unfit for either of those ends. Therefore, one cannot claim a natural right to do something that is unnatural. Or as Abraham Lincoln said, one “cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong.”

Reilly explains that, as he stated in his book, Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior is Changing Everything:

But that, of course, is exactly what the rationalization for homosexual behaviour accomplishes…. It transforms wrong into right. For that rationalization to hold, however, everyone must share in it. The rationalization of sodomy requires its universalization. Everyone must agree that the unreal is the real [and evil is good]…. We are in the phase of its domestic enforcement now, and Secretary Kerry is preparing for its global enforcement in our foreign-policy, as proudly announced by the LGBT flags flying on the masts of our embassies overseas last June, just under the American flag. The State Department has become the instrument for the global universalization of the rationalization for sodomy.

The problem with this should be self-evident. The promotion of “gay” rights must come at the expense of the promotion of human rights because the two are immiscible. One is founded on the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and the other on moral relativism, which eviscerates the very idea of natural rights and the natural law on which they are based. If you have one, you cannot have the other. You have your rights by virtue of being a human being, and not by anything else – not ethnicity, not religion, not race, not tribe, not sexual orientation.

The Obama Administration, by its aggressive rationalization and promotion of sodomy across the world, is undermining the very notion of natural law on which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were founded.