Because the churches rule the White House.

1) "A U.N. declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity goes "well beyond" the intent of condemning violence against homosexuals, says the Holy See. This was affirmed in a statement from the Holy See delegation, delivered at the 63rd session of the U.N. general assembly, in response to the U.N. declaration presented today. "The Holy See appreciates the attempts made in the declaration on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity […] to condemn all forms of violence against homosexual persons as well as urge states to take necessary measures to put an end to all criminal penalties against them," the Holy See statement affirmed. But, it cautioned that "the wording of this declaration goes well beyond the abovementioned and shared intent." The delegation explained, "In particular, the categories 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity,' used in the text, find no recognition or clear and agreed definition in international law. If they had to be taken into consideration in the proclaiming and implementing of fundamental rights, these would create serious uncertainty in the law as well as undermine the ability of states to enter into and enforce new and existing human rights conventions and standards." Sixty-six of the 192 U.N. member states signed the declaration, including all the nations of the European Union. The United States did not sign, indicating a reservation similar to that voiced by the Holy See: a lack of legal clarity in the declaration's wording. Muslim nations were also opposed to the declaration." Source and further information: http://www.zenit.org/article-24609?l=english 2) "Liberty and freedom for all—just not the gays. The United States becomes the lone major western nation to refuse to sign an historic United Nations declaration that affirms gay rights and seeks to decriminalize homosexuality. The unprecedented declaration won the support of 66 countries in the United Nations General Assembly. The United States—represented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and UN Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, seen above—"refused to support the non-binding measure, as did Russia, China, the Roman Catholic Church and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The Holy See’s observer mission issued a statement saying that the declaration “challenges existing human rights norms." The declaration, sponsored by France with broad support in Europe and Latin America, condemned human rights violations based on homophobia, saying such measures run counter to the universal declaration of human rights. “How can we tolerate the fact that people are stoned, hanged, decapitated and tortured only because of their sexual orientation?” said Rama Yade, the French state secretary for human rights, noting that homosexuality is banned in nearly 80 countries and subject to the death penalty in at least six. The United States delegation could not sign the declaration for a very simple reason: There are currently no federal protections for gays, lesbians and transgenders. Same sex marriage is legal only in two states, Connecticut and Massachusetts. In more than half of the states, employers and landlords are free to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Add this to the growing list of reasons why we need to pass ENDA and federal hate crime protections. Our neighbors to the north and south—Canada and Mexico—signed this declaration. It's a sad day when the world's largest democracy chooses sides with rabidly, anti-gay human rights violators—such as Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, China and Russia—who claimed the resolution threatened to "normalize" pedophilia and other "deplorable acts. Shameful" Source and further information: http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2008/12/us-refuses-to-sign-united-nations-gay-rights-resolution.html Further information: http://www.unmultimedia.org/radio/english/detail/65172.html http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/unifeed/detail/10605.html http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2008/12/black-gay-french-activist-louisgeorges-tin-behind-un-declaration.html ------ OLD ANSWER ------ 1) Are you talking about the 2003 Brazilian resolution? The US seems to have been taken by surprize... Anyway, there was also a strong opposition from some right wings groups. The US did not fight this resolution either, though. "The April Surprise, 2003 In April, 2003, with no advance warning, Brazil introduced a resolution “Human Rights and Sexual Orientation” in the Commission on Human Rights." "The resolution gained 27 co-sponsors, including Australia, Canada and the countries of the European Union. Pakistan moved a “no action” motion. That procedural move was defeated, permitting consideration of the resolution itself. A number of countries had been caught off guard, and they sought direction from their home governments. No consultations had occurred with other states before the resolution was presented, a breach of standard practice. The United States delegation received instructions from Washington to abstain in any vote on the resolution. Amnesty International issued a statement of support." "Some countries that had supported GLBT rights in votes in the past did not support the Brazilian motion in 2003, notably Argentina, Cameroon, Chile, Cuba, Peru, South Africa, the United States, Uruguay and Venezuela." "The following states have voted in favour of lesbian and gay rights. “A” means the state supported the original accreditation of ILGA at the United Nations either in the NGO Committee of the Economic and Social Council or in the Council itself. “B” means that the state supported wording on lesbian rights at the Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing in 1995. “C” indicates the state supported lesbian and gay rights in meetings of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. “D” means the state supported the accreditation of ILGA to the World Conference on Racism in 2001. “E” means the state supported the motion in the UN Economic and Social Council for reconsideration of ILGAs application for accreditation in April, 2002. “F” means the state supported the inclusion of “sexual orientation” in the resolution on the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions at the Commission on Human Rights in April, 2002. “G” means that the state supported Brazil’s draft resolution in the Commission on Human Rights in April, 2003 (though the resolution never went to a vote). “H” means that they supported the New Zealand statement in the Commission on Human Rights in April, 2005 (made after it was clear that the Brazilian resolution would not be debated). Andorra (E, H), Argentina (A, H), Armenia (F,G), Australia (A,B,C,D,E,G), Austria (A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H), Barbados (B), Belarus (A), Belgium (A,B,D,F,G,H), Bolivia (B), Brazil (A,B,D,F,G), Bulgaria (A,D), Burundi (F), Cameroon (F), Canada (A,B,C,D,F,G,H), Chile (A,B,D,F,H), Colombia (B,D), Cook Islands (B), Costa Rica (A,F,G), Croatia (D,E,F), Cuba (A,B), Cyprus (H), Czech Republic (D,F,G,H), Denmark (A,B,C,D,G,H), Ecuador (F), El Salvador (D), Estonia (D), Finland (B,C,D,E,G,H), France (A,B,D,E,F,G,H), Georgia (E), Germany (A,B,D,E,F,G,H), Greece (A,B,D,G,H), Guatemala (D,F,G,H), Hungary (D,E), Iceland (H), Ireland (A,B,D,G,H), Israel (B,D), Italy (A,B,D,E,F), Jamaica (B), Japan (A,D,E,F,G), Latvia (B,D), Liechtenstein (D,G), Lithuania (D), Luxembourg (B,D,G,H), Macedonia (D), Malta (E), Mexico (A,F,G,H), Monaco (D), Netherlands (B,C,D,E,G), New Zealand (B,D,H), Norway (A,B,C,D,G,H), Peru (A,F), Poland (D,F,G), Portugal (B,D,F,G,H), Republic of Korea (F,G,H), Romania (D,E,H), Russian Federation (A,G), San Marino (D), Slovakia (D), Slovenia (B,D,H), South Africa (B), Spain (A,B,D,F,G,H), Sweden (A,B,C,E,F,G,H), Switzerland (B,D,H), Thailand (F,G), Ukraine (A,B,C,D,G), United Kingdom (A,B,D,E,F,G,H), United States (A,B,C,D,E), Uruguay (F,H), Venezuela (F,H)." Source and further information: http://www.ilga.org/news_results.asp?LanguageID=1&FileCategory=44&FileID=577 2) "The vote on the resolution is expected on 2003-APR-25. The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, (IGLHRC), an international homosexual-rights group, 3 reports that it has the support of Canada, New Zealand and several European Union countries. They have urged people to lobby five key countries in order to get the resolution approved: Argentina, Australia, India, South Africa and the United States. The vote is expected to be close, because the resolution is co-sponsored by at least 21 countries in the 53 member body. 4 There is speculation that the United States may abstain from this vote. Several Fundamentalist Christian groups have opposed the resolution: 5 Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the Eagle Forum, said: "We don't need to get a moral instruction from Libya and Brazil. It's another reason for us to get out of the U.N." A. Scott Loveless, associate professor of law at the World Family Policy Center at the Mormon Brigham Young University" said: "It is highly likely that gay-rights advocates will use this resolution, if it passes, to advance their agenda to legalize gay marriage and to create hate-crimes legislation. In their quest to legitimize homosexuality, many of these countries have actually limited some of our most fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech." He may have been referring to the decisions by two Canadian courts. A court fined one person who sponsored an advertisement which cited a biblical reference which advocated genocide of gays and lesbians. Another court fined a printer who refused to print letterhead for a homosexual-positive group. Jane Adolphe, assistant professor of law at Ave Maria School of Law asserts that the proposed U.N. resolution "opens the door for further attacks" on the policies of the Catholic Church. She said that: "Individuals could presumably use this discrimination language to bring complaints against the church with regard to hiring, employment, even the doctrines of the church itself." The Church currently discriminates in employment and ordination of lesbians, women, and sometimes against gays. Other groups support the resolution: Amnesty International wrote in a statement: "This is the first time that a resolution specifically focusing on sexual orientation has been brought to the Commission. Its adoption is the only way to end the intolerable exclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people from the full protection of the UN system. A vote in favour of the resolution is not a leap into uncharted territory, but a necessary reaffirmation of rights firmly established in international standards. Governments who vote against will be signalling that they no longer believe in the fundamental premise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: that all human beings are equal in dignity and rights, without distinction of any kind." " Source and further information: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_unchr.htm

Stupid Flanders! The christians are really just as bad as the muslims. Cheerist on a crutch!

Since when has the US ever cooperated with the UN?

"According to some of the declaration's backers, U.S. officials expressed concern in private talks that some parts of the declaration might be problematic in committing the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In numerous states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military. In all, 66 of the U.N.'s 192 member countries signed the nonbinding declaration — which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with any-gay discrimination. More than 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality, and in several of them homosexual acts can be punished by execution. Co-sponsored by France and the Netherlands, the declaration was signed by all 27 European Union members, as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries. There was broad opposition from Muslim nations, and the United States refused to sign, indicating that some parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review." -- Excerpts from AP article, Fri Dec 19, 12:08 am ET http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081219/ap_on_re_us/un_gay_rights

Because the United States has become a disgusting theocratic, religious-fundamentalist nation. Such nations do not feel that their gods want them to respect human rights. You can't build Zion on equal liberties. According to UN Dispatch, the point of the motion was "to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention." Sounds pretty humanitarian, yeah? Well, according to the same post, "Opposing the resolution, were the United States, the Holy See, and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference" Do we see a trend there? The Vatican, Islamic regimes organized for global power, and...The U.S.? Huh.

simple, raw answer that will probably get DR'd America has a lot of Christians. A fair amount of those Christians are opposed to homosexuality. The USA is comprised of these people who are in the majority. Hence, these people did not back this UN motion, and subsequently the US did not.

De-penalize. Interesting choice of words.

you guys are having a good time