(reality check of sorts - if you think the Republicans are backwards on social issues (and they certainly are), the GOP looks like a bunch of bleeding heart liberals compared to the UN General Assembly...Republicans oppose gay marriage but generally support or would accept domestic partnerships, and I don't believe that Ashcroft has called for the stoning of gays in public yet...)

U.N. rejects benefits for same-sex couples

Los Angeles Times

UNITED NATIONS -- The General Assembly rejected a policy change Thursday that would have allowed same-sex partners of U.N. staffers to receive family benefits and asked Secretary-General Kofi Annan to review it.

Representatives of dozens of Islamic and African nations, as well as the Vatican, led the revolt against Annan's recent directive to offer medical, pension and other benefits for same-sex partners whose home governments have recognized their domestic partnerships. The new policy took effect Feb. 1.

Under most U.N. regulations, marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman -- or between a man and up to four women for countries where polygamy is legal. U.N. legal experts relied in part on that elastic definition to include gay and lesbian staffers' partners. But many diplomats complained that Annan was pushing a definition that the majority of the international community did not accept.

Iranian representative Mehdi Danesh-Yazdi argued that the General Assembly -- not Annan alone -- should decide what constitutes a family. Saudi Arabian delegate Fawzi Shobokshi said that same-sex marriage is a taboo in all religions and a "great evil" that threatened family unity.

The effect of the assembly's action goes beyond the dispute over definitions and benefits, challenging the secretary-general's authority to make policy for the world body. That makes Annan's office even more reluctant to alter its position.

Rosemary McCreery, the assistant secretary-general for human resources, said after the vote that Annan would reissue the benefits plan after reviewing members' concerns, but would not change the policy's substance.

U.N. officials are looking for ways to modify the language in a way that satisfies some of its critics.